Minimum Setback Requirements at Interior Side Yards (as measured from the property line.) Building 5 feet
Drive Aisle and Passenger Car and Truck Parking 5 feet
Screened Loading and Storage Yards 0 feet
Minimum Drive Aisle and Parking Space Separation Requirements Adjacent to building office element 10 feet
Adjacent to solid building wall or screen wall/fence, and not within a screened/enclosed yard. 5 feet
Adjacent to solid building wall or screen wall/fence, and within a screened/enclosed yard. 0 feet
Other Development Standards
Maximum Building Height (Planning Areas 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, & 9) (Measured from the building’s finished floor elevation to the highest point of the building’s roof, parapet, solar arrays, or other architectural projection.)
60 feet plus an additional 10 feet for solar arrays
Maximum Building Height (Planning Areas 2 & 5)
(Measured from the building’s finished floor elevation to the highest point of the building’s roof, parapet, solar arrays, or other architectural projection.)
Planning Area 2 - 60 feet plus an additional 10 feet for solar arrays, or architectural parapet or other solid screening, only when screening industrial refrigeration equipment Planning Area 5 - 80 feet
Maximum Freeway Oriented Freestanding Sign 80 feet
Ground and Roof-Mounted Equipment All ground and roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened or obscured by landscaping when visible from adjacent public roadways.
Signage Signage shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines, Signage Design Guidelines in the Specific Plan, or as approved by the City of Banning.
Outside Storage
If a non-screened outdoor storage area is proposed, the storage area shall be identified on the implementing Design Review and/or Conditional Use Permit and shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the right-of-way.
Loading Areas, Trailer Storage, Overhead Doors
Loading areas, trailer storage, and overhead doors may face toward a public street if either:
(a) Located further than 100’ from the street, measured to the edge of sidewalk or curb, or
(b) Appropriately screened from view with any combination of berms and landscaping or decorative screen walls.
241
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-18
3.4.1 BICYCLE PATHWAYS
1. Each Site Plan shall identify and the Project shall provide safe pathways for bicyclists from public roadways to onsite bicycle storage locations, using signage and/or striping.
3.4.2 TRUCK ROUTE MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS
1. Prior to the issuance of Final Occupancy Permits, each industrial site shall prepare and have approved by the Community Development Director, a Truck Management Plan containing the follow components:
a. Posting of signage clearly showing the designated entry for trucks from the public streets to the designated onsite truck check-in and truck parking areas.
b. Posting of signage indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within the designated onsite areas and not within the surrounding community or on public streets. c. Posting of signage for exiting traffic (other than exempt vehicles1) showing the designated exits and restricting westward travel on Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home Road. d. Lease provisions clearly identifying the required truck routes, including requiring trucks to use Sunset Avenue to access the I-10 Freeway interchange and prohibiting trucks (other than exempt vehicles1) on Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home Road.
e. Consider and include, where feasible, driveway aprons providing egress to SLB Extension that physically direct trucks east on SLB Extension in a manner that does not affect exempt vehicles1. f. Truck route maps provided to all drivers and posted in breakrooms and throughout the Project. g. Designation of a Traffic Coordinator contact for the City to notify in the event of traffic issues. 1Exempt vehicles to include emergency and public safety vehicles, buses, limos and passenger vehicles, vehicles owned by a public utility or public agency and delivery vans serving local routes or using designated detour routes, tow trucks and moving vans.
3.5. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
3.5.1 PLANNING AREA 1 [GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) – 47.9 ACRES] a. DESCRIPTION
Planning Area 1 is designated for 47.9 acres of General Commercial land uses in the northeastern portion of SUNSET CROSSROADS and is designed as a regional draw, providing a leisure and entertainment destination focusing on health and wellness-based retail uses along with a 125-room hotel. A Travel Center is provided within Planning Area 1 to provide retail/convenience sales, drive-through fast food, vehicle fueling stations and commercial fueling stations to accommodate passenger vehicles, recreational vehicles, and multi-axel axle tractor trailers directly off the I-10.
As shown on Figure 3-1, Planning Area 1, the General Commercial uses within Planning Area 1 are located north of Lincoln Street and west of Sunset Avenue. When entering the site from Sunset Avenue, visitors and employees are greeted with a Travel Center, restaurants and a multi-story hotel that initiates their experience at SUNSET CROSSROADS. Upon arrival, visitors and employees can park and continue to the heart of the development via pedestrian friendly walkways or continue into the Main Street District. Within the Main Street District, visitors will find wellness, restaurants, and recreational enterprises and outdoor gathering areas along both sides of A Street with patios, outdoor spaces, sports-oriented uses and retail storefronts.
The Main Street District leads directly to the heart of SUNSET CROSSROADS, terminating in a communal park surrounded by wellness-based retail, recreation and restaurants. Potential activity and wellness-based retail uses may 242
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-19
include stationary wave surfing, indoor skydiving, indoor go-karting, obstacle gyms, and an indoor/outdoor climbing wall that serves as a focal exterior icon to this district. A collection of smaller athletic and dance studio spaces and a green belt for yoga classes, family lawn games, and relaxing lounge seating areas contributes to the energy of this zone by allowing for indoor/outdoor connectivity of their programs into the outdoor gathering areas. It is this collection of unique wellness-based uses, restaurants, outdoor areas, communal and public open spaces, and public focal points that will define the vision of SUNSET CROSSROADS for years to come. b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 1 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for General Commercial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-
1. 2. Planning Area 1 shall comply with the Development Standards for General Commercial land uses provided in Section 3.3.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 1 shall be provided via Lincoln Street from Sunset Avenue, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation, General Commercial Monumentation, Conceptual Tenant Monumentation, and Freeway Oriented Freestanding Signs for Planning Area 1 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation and signage will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and each application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Roadway landscape treatments shall be provided along Sunset Avenue and Lincoln Street, as conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-10, Conceptual Lincoln Street Streetscape, Figure 4-11, Conceptual Sunset Avenue (I-10 to Lincoln Street) Streetscape.
6. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 1 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 1 will be established in conjunction with an application submitted within this Specific Plan for this Planning Area.
7. The transition between Planning Area 1, Planning Area 13, and the Industrial uses located to the west within Planning Area 6, is conceptually illustrated in Figure 4-15, Conceptual Interface #1 – Commercial (Planning Area 1) to Industrial (Planning Area 6).
8. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
9. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 243
CHAPTER 3 I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PA 13
PA 14
Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap (2022), Proactive Engineering Consultants (01-2023), Hunter Landscape (2021), ADS (03-21-2021) 0 ---Feet
50 100 200
PAGE 13-20
SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
Legend
• Conceptual General Commercial Monumentation (Figure 4-6) * Conceptual Freeway Oriented Freestanding Sign {Figure 4-9) Streetscapes
D
D
-
Conceptual Lincoln Street Streetscape {Figure 4-10)
Conceptual Sunset Avenue (1-10 to Lincoln Street) Streetscape (Figure 4-11) Conceptual Sunset Avenue (SLB Extension to Bobcat Road) Streetscape {Figure 4-llA) Interfaces
0 Conceptual Interface #1- Commercial (PA 1) to Open Space and Industrial (PA 6) {Figure 4-15} Notes:
This exhibit identifies the conceptual locations of entry monumentation and signage. The final locations of entry monuments and signs will be determined at the time internal streets, buildings and driveway locations are identified as part of implementing projects(s).
Concei:>tual Sunset Avenue (I- l O to Lincoln Street) Streetscai:>e · o ce t
w
Cl)
z
:::::,
Cl)
FIGURE 3-1
Planning Area 1
244
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-21
3.5.2 PLANNING AREA 2 [Industrial (i) – 33.8 acres]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-2, Planning Areas 2, 5, and 14, Planning Area 2 is located south of Lincoln Street, west of Sunset Avenue, and north of the SLB Extension and is designated for 33.8 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 2 is provided via Lincoln Street and the SLB Extension. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 2 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 2 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees. Planning Area 2 provides decorative landscaping along its frontage with Lincoln Street and Sunset Avenue, as a visual amenity. Additional landscaping, setbacks, and orientation of truck bays will be considered during the design and implementation of this Planning Area to provide a buffer between the Industrial uses and existing residential to the east.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 2 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 2 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Industrial refrigeration equipment in Planning Area 2 may be ground-mounted or roof-mounted. When roofmounted, such equipment shall be surrounded by a 10-foot-high architectural parapet or other solid screening.
4. Primary access to Planning Area 2 shall be provided via Lincoln Street and the SLB Extension, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
5. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 2 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
6. Roadway landscape treatments shall be provided along Sunset Avenue and Lincoln Street, as conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-10, Conceptual Lincoln Street Streetscape, Figure 4-11A, Conceptual Sunset Avenue (Lincoln Street to SLB Extension) Streetscape.
7. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 2 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 2 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
8. A landscaped transition shall be provided between Planning Area 2 and the off-site residential uses located to the east, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 4-16, Conceptual Interface #2 – Industrial (Planning Area 2) to Off-Site Residential (East)
9. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
10. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 245
CHAPTER 3 I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Source(s): ESRI. Nearmap (2022). Proactive Engineering Consultants (01-2023), Hunter Landscape (2021), ADS (03-21-2021) 0 ----Feer
75 150 300
PAGE I 3-22
SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
Legend
Monumentatlon
* Conceptual Primary Monumentation (Figure 4-5)
Streets capes
D Conceptual Lincoln Street Streetscape (Figure 4-10)
D Conceptual Sunset Avenue (1-10 to Lincoln Street) Streetscape (Figure 4-11) 1111 Sunset Avenue (Lincoln Street to SLB Extension) Streetscape (Figure 4-11A) D Conceptual Sunset Avenue (SLB Extension to Bobcat Road) Streetscape (Figure 4-118) Interfaces
f) Conceptual Interface #2 - Industrial (PA 2) to Off-Site Residential (East) (Figure 4-16) l. Future �n Loke-s Boulevard Extension /J ckdicoted public right of way and will be comtrvcted and maintained by the City of Bonnin9.
2. This exhibit i
dentifies the conceptual locations of entry mooumentation and signoge. The final locations of �ntry monum�nts and signs will� rkterm;n�d ot th� ti� int�rnol struts, buildings and driv�way locations or� id�ntified os port of impl�m�nting proj�cts(s).
FIGURE 3-2
Planning Areas 2, 5, 14
246
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-23
3.5.3 PLANNING AREA 3 [Industrial (i) – 7.8 acres]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-3, Planning Areas 3, 4, and 15, Planning Area 3 is located south of the SLB Extension and west of Sunset Avenue and is designated for 7.8 acres of Industrial land uses and may include a site for a Potable Water Reservoir. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1, Permitted Uses.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 3 is provided via Sunset Avenue. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 3 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 3 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees. Planning Area 3 provides decorative landscaping along its frontage with Sunset Avenue as a visual amenity. Additional landscaping, setbacks, and orientation of truck bays will be considered during the design and implementation of this Planning Area to provide a buffer between the Industrial uses and existing/planned residential uses/MSJC Campus to the east. b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 3 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 3 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 3 shall be provided via Sunset Avenue, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 3 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Roadway landscape treatments shall be provided along Sunset Avenue as conceptually illustrated on Figure 4- 11B, Conceptual Sunset Avenue Streetscape (SLB Extension to Bobcat Road).
6. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 3 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 3 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
7. A landscaped transition shall be provided between Planning Area 3 and the off-site residential uses located to the east, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 4-17, Conceptual Interface #3 – Industrial (Planning Area 3) to Off-Site School Site (East).
8. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
9. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 247
CHAPTER 3 I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
0 Possible Potable Water Reservoir Site
Monumentation
Conceptual Industrial Monumentation {Figure 4-7}
Streetscapes
- Conceptual Bobcat Road Streetscape {Figure 4-12)
D Conceptual Sunset Avenue (SLB Extension to Bobcat Road) Streetscape {Figure 4-118) - Conceptual Sunset Avenue (1-10 to Lincoln Street) Streetscape (Figure 4-11) Interfaces
e Conceptual Interface #3 - Industrial (PA 3) to Off-Site School Site (East) {Figure 4-17} 0 Conceptual Interface #4 - Industrial (PA 4) to Off-Site Residential (South) /Figure 4-18) 0 Conceptual Interface #5 - Industrial (PA 4) to Off-Site Open Space {Figure 4-19} Fire Access
Secondary Access Connection /Figure 2-2)
Notes:
1. Future Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension is dedicated public right of way and will be constructed and maintained by the City of Banning.
2. This exhibit identifies the conceptual locations of entry monumentation and signage. The final locations of entry monuments and signs will be determined at the time internal streets, buildings and driveway locations ore identified as part of implementing projects(s).
Source(s): ESRI, Nearmap (2022), Proactive Engineering Consultants (01-2023), Hunter Landscape (2021) 0 ---Feet
87.5 175 350
PAGE 13-24
SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
FIGURE 3-3
Planning Areas 3, 4 and 15
248
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-25
3.5.4 PLANNING AREA 4 [Industrial (I) – 194.3 acres]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-3, Planning Areas 3, 4, and 15, Planning Area 4 is located north of Bobcat Road, south of the SLB Extension and west of Sunset Avenue and is designated for 194.3 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 4 is provided via the SLB Extension and Sunset Avenue. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 4 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 4 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees. Planning Area 4 provides decorative landscaping along its frontage with Sunset Avenue and Bobcat Road as a visual amenity.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 4 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 4 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. In Planning Area 4, 6-foot-high walls shall be constructed around the west, south, and east perimeters of parking lots fronting Bobcat Road across from residential uses. Buildings with parking lots that front Bobcat Road shall be constructed with 10-foot-high and 100-to-175-foot-long “wing walls” to reduce on-site operational noise.
4. Primary access to Planning Area 4 shall be provided via Sunset Avenue and the SLB Extension, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
5. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 4 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
6. Roadway landscape treatments shall be provided along Sunset Avenue as conceptually illustrated on Figure 4- 11B, Conceptual Sunset Avenue Streetscape (SLB Extension to Bobcat Road), and Figure 4-12, Conceptual Bobcat Road Streetscape.
7. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 4 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 4 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
8. A landscaped transition shall be provided between Planning Area 4 and the off-site residential uses located to the south, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 4-18, Conceptual Interface #4 – Industrial (Planning Area 4) to Off-Site Residential (South).
9. A landscaped transition shall be provided between Planning Area 4 and the off-site vacant land located to the west, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 4-19, Conceptual Interface #5 – Industrial (Planning Area 4) to Off-Site Open Space.
10. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
249
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-26
11. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria.
3.5.5 PLANNING AREA 5 [Industrial (I) – 66.3 acres]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-2, Planning Areas 2, 5, and 14, Planning Area 5 is located south of Lincoln Street and north of the SLB Extension, between Planning Areas 14 and 17 and is designated for 66.3 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 5 is provided via Lincoln Street and the SLB Extension. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 5 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 5 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees. Planning Area 5 provides decorative landscaping along its frontage with Lincoln Street as a visual amenity.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 5 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 5 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 5 shall be provided via Sunset Avenue and the SLB Extension, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 5 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 5 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 5 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
6. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
7. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 250
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-27
3.5.6 PLANNING AREA 6 [INDUSTRIAL (I) – 28.1 ACRES]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-4, Planning Areas 6, 7, 13, and 18, Planning Area 6 is located north of Lincoln Street, between Planning Areas 13 and 18 and is designated for 28.1 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 6 is provided via Lincoln Street. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 6 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 6 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees. Planning Area 6 provides decorative landscaping along its frontage with Lincoln Street as a visual amenity.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 6 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 6 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 6 shall be provided via Lincoln Street, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 6 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Roadway landscape treatments shall be provided along Lincoln Street as conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-10, Conceptual Lincoln Street Streetscape.
6. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 6 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 6 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
7. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
8. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 251
252
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-29
3.5.7 PLANNING AREA 7 [INDUSTRIAL (I) – 25.8 ACRES]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-4, Planning Areas 6, 7, 13, and 18, Planning Area 7 is located west of Planning Area 18 and east of Highland Home Road and is designated for 25.8 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 7 is provided via Lincoln Street with additional access provided via the 24’-wide Secondary Access Connection from Highland Home Road. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 7 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 7 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees. Planning Area 7 may include a City-constructed 1.0-acre Electrical Substation Site in the northwest corner of the site, accessible via a paved 24’ access road within Planning Area 7.
Planning Area 7 provides an open space, landscaped buffer along its frontage with Highland Home Road as a visual amenity.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 7 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 7 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 7 shall be provided via Lincoln Street, with secondary access via a 24’ Secondary Access Connection to Highland Home Road, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 7 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Roadway landscape treatments shall be provided along Highland Home Road as conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-13, Conceptual Highland Home Road Streetscape.
6. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 7 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 7 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
7. A landscaped transition, a minimum of 100’ deep along the western boundary shall be provided between industrial parking areas in Planning Area 7 and the off-site uses located to the west, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 4- 21, Conceptual Interface #7 – Industrial (Planning Area 7) to Off-Site Residential (West). With the exception of a potential electrical substation, a minimum 100’ buffer along the western boundary of Planning Area 7 will be provided and considered during the design and implementation of this Planning Area.
8. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 253
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-30
3.5.8 PLANNING AREA 8 [INDUSTRIAL (I) – 16.2 ACRES]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-5, Planning Areas 8, 9, 11, 17, and 19, Planning Area 8 is located south of Lincoln Street and north of the SLB Extension, between Planning Areas 17 and 19 and is designated for 16.2 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 8 is provided via Lincoln Street and the SLB Extension. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 8 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 8 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees. Planning Area 8 provides decorative landscaping along its frontage with Lincoln Street as a visual amenity.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 8 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 8 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 8 shall be provided via Lincoln Street and the SLB Extension via Sunset Avenue, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 8 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Roadway landscape treatments shall be provided along Lincoln Street as conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-10, Conceptual Lincoln Street Streetscape.
6. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 8 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 8 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
7. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
8. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 254
255
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-32
3.5.9 PLANNING AREA 9 [Industrial (i) – 3.3 acres]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-5, Planning Areas 8, 9, 11, 17, and 19, Planning Area 9 is located north of the SLB Extension, between Planning Areas 11 and 19 and is designated for 3.3 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 9 is provided via the SLB Extension. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 9 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 9 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 9 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 9 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 9 shall be provided via the SLB Extension, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 9 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 9 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 9 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
6. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
7. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 256
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-33
3.5.10 PLANNING AREA 10 [INDUSTRIAL (I) – 16.4 ACRES]
a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-6, Planning Areas 10, 12, and 16, Planning Area 10 is located south of the SLB Extension, between Planning Areas 12 and 16 and is designated for 16.4 acres of Industrial land uses. The full list of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for this Planning Area is provided in Table 3-1.
Automobile and heavy commercial truck access to Planning Area 10 is provided via the SLB Extension. Connections to private driveways and drive aisles within Planning Area 10 will be designed and provided, as needed, in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
Planning Area 10 may provide employees with building amenities in proximity to the Industrial uses. Such amenities may include, but are not limited to, shared outdoor patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead structures for use by employees.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Land uses within Planning Area 10 shall comply with the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.2 and shall be consistent with Table 3-1.
2. Planning Area 10 shall comply with the Development Standards for Industrial land uses provided in Section 3.4.
3. Primary access to Planning Area 10 shall be provided via the SLB Extension, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
4. The locations of Primary Entry Monumentation and Industrial Monumentation for Planning Area 10 are conceptually illustrated on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. The final location(s) of all monumentation will be determined in conjunction with development of this Planning Area and an application submitted within this Specific Plan, and such locations shall be consistent with the Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. The Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall provide guidance in determining the final locations of appropriate project, street, building, tenant identification, pedestrian path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses.
5. Walls and fencing along the exterior of Planning Area 10 may be provided. The location(s) and type of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 10 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
6. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
7. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 257
258
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-35
3.5.11 PLANNING AREA 11 [OPEN SPACE – PARKS (OS-P) – 12.6 ACRES] a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-5, Planning Areas 8, 9, 11, 17, and 19, Planning Area 11 consists of 12.6 acres designated as Open Space-Parks in the western portion of SUNSET CROSSROADS. Planning Area 11 is intended to include a publicly-accessible 5.0-acre passive park, natural open space, fuel modification areas, trails, and landscaping. Planning Area 11 may provide recreational amenities such as, but not limited to, a tot lot playground, picnic tables, trails, walking paths, a parking lot, and restrooms. Open field areas are provided next to the playground and picnic tables, along with a looped walking path which winds through the recreational area. The 5.0-acre park portion of Planning Area 11 will be dedicated to and maintained by the City of Banning, and the remaining open space portion will be maintained by the Master Property Owners’ Association or a Public or semi-public Agency.
As shown on Figure 3-5, access to Planning Area 11 is provided from the SLB Extension. Planning Area 11 is bordered by Planning Areas 9 and 19 to the east, the SLB Extension to the south, and Highland Home Road to the west. Planning Area 11 provides a buffer between the Industrial land uses of in Planning Areas 9, and the off-site residential land uses to the west.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Primary access to Planning Area 11 shall be provided via the SLB Extension, as shown on Figure 2-2, Conceptual Circulation Plan.
2. Low-level security lighting may be provided for the park, tot lot playground, trails, parking lot, and restrooms. The trails and parking lot may include bollard lighting while the tot lot playground and restrooms may include security lighting. High intensity sports-field lighting is prohibited.
3. Walls and fencing within Planning Area 11 may be provided as a visual and physical buffer between the off-site residential uses, Industrial Uses, and/or existing natural drainage features. The location(s) of walls/fences interior to Planning Area 11 will be established in conjunction with development of this Planning Area.
4. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
5. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 259
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-36
3.5.12 PLANNING AREA 12 [OPEN SPACE – RESOURCE (OS-R) – 12.5 ACRES] a. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-6, Planning Areas 10, 12, and 16, Planning Area 12 consists of 12.5 acres designated as Open Space-Resource within SUNSET CROSSROADS. Planning Area 12 is intended to serve as a buffer for the Sun Lakes residential community to the west and includes open space areas which may contain trails as well as a City-constructed
2.3-acre site for a Reverse Osmosis Facility Site and a 1.5- acre site for a future Fire Station. The open space portions of Planning Area 12 will be dedicated to the City of Banning and maintained by a Master Property Owners’ Association or Public Agency.
b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
2. A landscaped transition shall be provided between Planning Area 12 and the off-site residential uses located to the south, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 4-20, Interface #6 – Industrial (Planning Area 12) to Off-Site Residential (West).
3. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria 260
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-37
3.5.13 PLANNING AREAS 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, & 19 [OPEN SPACE – RESOURCE (OS-R) – 40.5 ACRES] b. DESCRIPTION
As shown on Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3, Figure 3-4, Figure 3-5, and Figure 3-6, Planning Areas 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 consists of a combined 40.5 acres designated as Open Space-Resource within SUNSET CROSSROADS. Planning Areas 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are intended to preserve the existing natural drainage features of the Specific Plan site. The Property Owners’ Association (POA) will maintain the drainage features consistent with the mitigation requirements, maintain the local interface with the natural drainages and storm drain discharge locations, and maintain access to storm drain outlet structures. Development within Planning Area 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 shall be limited to grading, bridge crossings, and fuel modification areas. b. PLANNING AREA STANDARDS
1. Walls and fencing within Planning Areas 13 through 19 may be provided as a visual and physical buffer between the existing natural drainage features and the General Commercial, Industrial, and Open Space-Park land uses.
The location(s) of walls/fences abutting Planning Areas 13 through 19 will be established in conjunction with the development of adjacent Industrial and General Commercial Planning Areas, respectively.
2. Please refer to Section 3.1, General Development Criteria, for other applicable criteria that apply across the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
3. Please refer to Chapter 4, Design Guidelines, for other applicable design criteria. 261
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-38
3.6. ENERGY EFFICIENCY DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Development within SUNSET CROSSROADS is expected to be Energy Efficient consistent with or exceeding the criteria from the California Building Code, Title 24 standards which the City has adopted by ordinance. The Developer and City of Banning recognize that the technological and methodological specifications in the criteria could become obsolete in the future due to advancement over time. In that event, SUNSET CROSSROADS may implement new technologies and methodologies if they achieve at least as much environmental protection and do not result in new or greater significant environmental impacts than the technologies or methodologies specified in the following criteria:
1. Energy Efficient Structures
a. Enhanced Insulation shall be provided via methods such as rigid wall insulation R-15, roof/attic R-30, etc. b. Greatly Enhanced Window Insulation with 0.28 or less U-factor, 0.22 or less SHGC, etc. shall be provided. c. Modest Cool Roofs with CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance, 0.75 thermal emittance, etc. shall be provided.
d. Building roofs shall be in compliance with solar requirements of the California Building Code, Title 24 standards.
2. Energy Efficient Heating and Cooling (HVAC)
a. Improved Efficiency HVAC (EER 14/78% AFUE or 8 HSPF) shall be provided. b. Office space heating within warehouses must utilize heat pumps.
3. Energy Efficient Potable Water
a. Improved Efficiency Water Heater (0.72 Energy Factor) shall be provided. b. Water Efficient Showerheads (1.8 gpm) shall be provided. c. Water Efficient Toilets/Urinals (1.28 gpm) shall be provided. d. Water Efficient Faucets (0.5 gpm for lavatories; 1.8 gpm for kitchens) shall be provided. e. Water Efficient Dishwasher (20% water savings) shall be provided.
4. Energy Efficient Appliances
a. Energy efficient Lights shall be provided.
b. Occupant sensing lighting that dims to at least 50 percent when unoccupied shall be within the interior areas of warehouses and offices.
c. Energy Star Commercial Refrigerators and Commercial Dishwashers shall be provided.
5. Energy Efficient Landscaping
a. Only low water using plants shall be used.
b. Weather based irrigation control systems combined with drip irrigation (demonstrate 20% reduced water) shall be used.
c. Graywater (purple pipe) irrigation system shall be provided on site.
6. Energy Efficient Transportation
a. A Car/vanpool program with preferred parking shall be provided within SUNSET CROSSROADS. b. Secure bicycle storage racks or bicycle lockers, and employee lockers will be provided within the industrial land uses
262
CHAPTER 3 | DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 3-39
c. Development shall provide reserved preferential parking spaces for car-share, carpool, and ultra-low or zero emission vehicles.
d. Larger parking spaces will be provided that can accommodate vans used for ride-sharing programs and reserve them for vanpools and include adequate passenger waiting/loading areas. e. EV charging stations shall be installed in employee garages/parking areas. f. Adequate areas for on-site parking, on-site queuing, and truck check-in point will be provided. g. Development Project installed traffic signals shall be smart signals that can be synchronized and connected to an ITS system.
h. Post signs clearly showing the designated entry and exit points from the public street to the designated onsite truck check-in and truck parking areas.
i. Post signs indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within the designated onsite areas and not within the surrounding community or public streets. j. Development Project street improvements will include sidewalks. k. Development Project will include a marketing strategy to promote the project site employer’s CTR (Commute Trip Reduction) program. Information sharing and marketing promote and educate employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking, thereby reducing VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled). The following features (or similar alternatives) of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness.
a. Onsite or online commuter information services.
b. Employee transportation coordinators.
c. Onsite or online transit pass sales.
Development Project will provide tenant’s employees material and online resources as a means to promote the commute trip reduction program. With proper implementation and 100 percent of the employees eligible, this design feature is expected to reduce VMT by 4 percent. l. Development Project will provide a ridesharing program and establish a permanent transportation management association with funding requirements for employers. Ridesharing encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips, thereby reducing the number of trips and VMT.
Ridesharing must be promoted through a multifaceted approach. Examples include the following a. Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles. b. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas or ridesharing vehicles. c. Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.
Development Project as designed, will provide carpool/vanpool/EV parking designated spaces in locations of easy and convenient accessibility to the Project building. As calculated for the Project, with proper implementation and 100 percent employees eligible, the Project is expected to reduce VMT by four percent. 263
CHAPTER FOUR establishes the quality and character of the built environment through the design of architecture and landscaping for the master-planned development of SUNSET CROSSROADS.
DESIGN
GUIDELINES
4.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
4.2 DESIGN THEME
4.3 INDUSTRIAL ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
4.4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
4.5 SIGNAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.6 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
4 264
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-2
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES
4.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The Design Guidelines presented in this section establish the quality and character of the built environment for the master-planned development of SUNSET CROSSROADS. While the Design Guidelines provide direction, they are simultaneously intended to provide a certain level of flexibility to allow creative expression during the design of implementing development projects.
The Design Guidelines provide criteria for architecture, landscape design, signage, lighting, and energy efficiency.
SUNSET CROSSROADS’ visual identity will be expressed primarily through building form, colors and materials, along with landscape, hardscape, and signage elements. The Design Guidelines contained herein are presented in a manner that ensures consistent, coherent architectural and landscape architecture expression across the Specific Plan area, while allowing for flexibility in response to the modern-day reality of continuously evolving building design.
The objectives of the Design Guidelines are:
To describe the thematic elements and the construction quality expected for SUNSET CROSSROADS. To provide the City of Banning with assurance that SUNSET CROSSROADS will be developed in accordance with the quality and character described within this Specific Plan. To serve as a guide to developers, builders, engineers, architects, landscape architects, and other professionals involved with implementing development within SUNSET CROSSROADS, in order to achieve and maintain the desired design quality.
To provide an aesthetic benchmark for the City of Banning to use in their review of future applications submitted within this Specific Plan within the Specific Plan. To provide a baseline for SUNSET CROSSROADS to convey a contemporary aesthetic theme and character while allowing flexibility for practical application and creative expression. To encourage the implementation of energy efficiency design features that can be implemented in the site planning, design, and construction phases of the Specific Plan to minimize waste deposited at landfills, decrease energy use and particularly fossil fuel consumption, and reduce water consumption. To ensure that the Specific Plan implements the intent of the City of Banning General Plan and applicable City Ordinances.
The Design Guidelines presented in this section apply to all development within SUNSET CROSSROADS, regardless of the land use category. All photographs, illustrations, and diagrams contained in these Design Guidelines serve as visual aids to convey the overall theme. Exact replication of the examples is neither required nor anticipated. 265
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-3
4.2 DESIGN THEME
The SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan is a contemporary employment and commercial center containing General Commercial, Industrial, Open Space - Parks, and Open Space - Resource land uses. The design goal of SUNSET CROSSROADS is to achieve contemporary interpretations of historical styles rather than exact recreations.
Architectural design creativity, attention to detail, and respect of the building’s scale and massing along public roadways will be expected to be a level equal to or exceeding the General Commercial and Industrial uses within the City of Banning. The property’s location provides the businesses located here with access to the regional transportation network, proximity to a work force, proximity to the Ports of LA and Long Beach, and visibility to passers-by traveling on Interstate 10. A cohesive design theme for SUNSET CROSSROADS is created for the General Commercial and Industrial land uses to maintain design continuity throughout the Specific Plan area.
The SUNSET CROSSROADS SPECIFIC
PLAN establishes 47.9 acres of General
Commercial designated area. Envisioned
as a health and wellness-focused
recreation, restaurant, and hospitality
destination within the City of Banning,
SUNSET CROSSROADS combines
these uses within a carefully designed
and cohesive architectural and landscape
theme. The Specific Plan also
establishes 392.0 acres of Industrial land
uses, featuring a contemporary aesthetic,
which provides architectural styling with
attractive detailing, steel accents, a lighttoned color palette, and timeless features. Design elements are included
to reduce the visibility and intensity of the
industrial activities, including walls, landscaping, and building design. Signs are modern, lighting is focused and directed, landscaping is colorful and drought- tolerant, and design features are applied that lower energy use demands of building operations.
4.3 INDUSTRIAL ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
The architectural style of Industrial uses within SUNSET CROSSROADS emphasizes a contemporary interpretation of the traditional context with building massing over structural articulation. Buildings are characterized by simple and distinct cubic masses with interlocking volumes of wall planes, colors, and materials to create visual appeal, aesthetically pleasing proportions and strong shadow patterns. Colors, materials, and textures can be mixed to create additional visual interest.
Design elements are selected to be compatible in character, massing, and materials to promote a clean and contemporary feel. Individual creativity and identity are encouraged, but design integrity and compatibility must be maintained among all buildings and between Planning Areas, to reinforce a unified image within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the design theme for General Commercial uses within SUNSET CROSSROADS. 266
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-4
4.3.1 BUILDING FORM
Building “form” is one of the primary elements of architecture. Numerous design aspects, including shape, mass (size), scale, proportion, and articulation, are elements of a building’s form. Building forms are especially important for building façades that are visible along the following view corridors:
Building façades in Planning Areas 2, 3, and 4 that are visible from Sunset Avenue. Building façades in Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 that are visible from the SLB Extension. Building façades in Planning Area 4 that are visible from Bobcat Road and the off-site residential to the south. Building façades in Planning Areas 6 and 7 that are visible from Interstate 10. Building façades in Planning Areas 7, 8, 9, and 10 that are visible from Highland Home Road, and the off-site residential community to the west.
The following guidelines are intended to
ensure that structural development is
visually consistent, aesthetically
appealing, and inviting to the site’s
business owners and employees, their
visitors and customers, as well as
passing motorists. Note that building
façades that orient inward to truck courts
or service areas or that are not clearly
visible from abutting public roads, or are
not abutting publicly accessible viewing
areas, are still encouraged to incorporate
these Building Form guidelines.
(1) Use simple geometric shapes as the overall building form. Rectangular forms are encouraged to promote balance and visual interest. Avoid arbitrary, complicated building forms. (2) Long horizontal wall planes visible from a public street should include a combination of periodic changes in exterior building materials, color, decorative accents, and articulated features. (3) Modulation and variation of building masses between adjacent buildings visible from public streets is encouraged. (4) Pedestrian entrances to buildings (with the exception of service doors and emergency exit doors) should be obvious, using changes in massing, color, and/or building materials. (5) Pedestrian and ground-level building entries intended for visitor use should be recessed or covered by architectural projections, roofs, or arcades in order to provide shade and visual relief. (6) Architectural and trim detailing on building façades should be clean, simplistic, and not overly complicated. (7) Materials applied to any elevations should turn the corner of the building and continue to a logical termination point in relation to other architectural features or massing.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the Industrial building form of SUNSET CROSSROADS.
267
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-5
4.3.2 BUILDING MATERIALS, COLORS, AND TEXTURES
Building materials and colors play a key role in developing a clean, contemporary visual environment; therefore, the selected exterior materials, colors, and textures should complement one another throughout SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Slight variations are encouraged to provide visual interest. (1) Appropriate primary exterior building
materials include concrete and similar
materials, as well as tilt-up panels. The
primary materials should be accented by
secondary materials including but not limited
to natural or fabricated stone, fire resistant
wood siding (horizontal or vertical), and
metal.
(2) Trim details may include metal finished in a
consistent color, plaster, or concrete
elements finished consistently with the building treatment. Use of overly extraneous “themed” detailing, like oversized or excessive foam cornice caps, foam molding and window detailing is discouraged. (3) Material changes should occur at intersecting planes, preferably at the inside corners of change of wall planes, or where architectural elements intersect.
(4) Primary exterior building colors should be light and warm tones. Darker and/or more vibrant accent colors should be provided in focal point areas, such as around building entrances and near outdoor gathering spaces. (5) Bright primary colors, garish use of color and arbitrary patterns or stripes that will clash with the color palette are discouraged, except in signage logos.
(6) Exposed downspouts, service doors and mechanical screen colors should be the same color as the adjacent wall.
4.3.3 WINDOWS AND DOORS
The patterns of window and door openings should
correspond with the overall rhythm of the building
and should be consistent in form, pattern, and
color within each Planning Area. Guidelines for
windows and doors within SUNSET
CROSSROADS are as follows:
(1) When possible, the positioning of doors and
windows on individual building façades
should occur in a symmetrical and repetitive
pattern to create continuity.
(2) Window styles and trims should be consistent
in form and color in each Planning Area.
Window trims should be finished in a
consistent color on each building.
(3) Gold or unfinished/untreated metal window or door frames are prohibited. Clear silver anodized frames are allowed.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the Industrial building materials and colors of SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the design of windows and doors for Industrial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
268
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-6
(4) Glass should be clear or colored with subtle reflectiveness. Silver glass is prohibited. (5) Pedestrian entry doors to buildings should be clearly defined by features such as overhangs, awnings, and canopies or embellished with decorative framing treatments – including but not limited to accent trim. Dark and confined entries, flush doorways (except emergency exit and service doors), and tacked-on entry alcoves are discouraged.
(6) When necessary, to meet Riverside County Fire Code Standards, no windows are required.
4.3.4 WALLS AND FENCES
The following guidelines for walls and fencing will ensure that these features complement the overall SUNSET CROSSROADS design theme, and are attractive from public viewing areas, scaled appropriately, durable, and integrated consistently within the Specific Plan area.
(1) Freestanding walls and fences should not exceed a height of fourteen (14’) feet, measured from the base of the wall/fence to the top of wall/fence. For walls and fences that exceed a height of fourteen (14’) feet, modifications up to one (1’) foot are considered a Minor Modification pursuant to Section 5.2.3.7. Modifications of more than one (1’) foot may be approved by the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 5.2.3.9. (2) Landscaped berms may be used in
combination with walls or fences.
When this occurs, the height of the
berm may be in addition to the wall
or fence height.
(3) Landscaping may be used for visual
screening instead of walls and
fences in locations where a solid
physical barrier is not needed.
(4) Walls and fences in public view
should be built with attractive,
durable materials including but not
limited to tubular steel, vinyl, or
coated chain-link.
(5) Along public street frontages, long expanses of wall surfaces should be offset and/or architecturally treated to prevent monotony. Techniques to accomplish this may include, but are not limited to: openings, material changes, pilasters and posts, and staggered sections.
(6) Wall and fencing materials should be compatible with other design elements of SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the design of walls and fences around the perimeter of Industrial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
269
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-7
4.3.5 TRUCK COURTS AND LOADING DOCKS
(1) Loading doors, service docks, and equipment
areas should be oriented or screened to
reduce visibility from public roads within
SUNSET CROSSROADS. Where these
loading areas face toward and are within 100'
of public roads (measured from edge of
pavement to edge of public sidewalk),
screening should be provided. Screening
may be accomplished with any combination
of solid walls, fences, or landscaping that are
compatible with the architectural expression
of the building.
(2) No loading or unloading activity is permitted
to take place from public streets.
(3) Truck and service vehicle entries should be
designed to provide clear and convenient
access to truck courts and loading areas such that passenger vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation is not adversely affected by truck movements.
(4) Loading bays that are utilized by refrigerated trailers should have dock seals and be equipped with plug-in electrical outlets.
(5) Conduit should be installed in truck courts in logical locations that would allow for the future installation of charging stations for electric trucks, in anticipation of this technology becoming available in the lifetime of SUNSET CROSSROADS.
(6) Electrical rooms to hold sufficiently sized electrical panels should be installed to facilitate the future potential installation of electrical connections from the electrical room to dock doors and/or a separate designated location where diesel engine trucks and/or trailers for freezer/refrigerated warehouse space would park and connect to the electrical system.
4.3.6 GROUND OR WALL-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT
(1) Ground-mounted equipment, including but not limited to mechanical or electrical equipment, emergency
generators, boilers, storage tanks, risers, and electrical conduits, should be screened when feasible from public
viewing areas including adjacent public roads. Screening may be accomplished with solid walls, fences, or
landscaping.
(2) Electrical equipment rooms should be located within the building envelope. Pop-outs or shed-like additions are
discouraged.
(3) Wall-mounted items, such as roof ladders or electrical panels, should not be located on the building façade facing abutting public roads. Wall-mounted items should be screened or incorporated into the architectural elements of the building so as not to be visually apparent from the street or other public areas.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image below conceptually shows the design of truck courts and loading docks within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the screening of equipment for Industrial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
270
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-8
4.3.7 ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT
(1) Rooftop equipment, including but limited to mechanical equipment, electrical equipment, storage tanks, cellular telephone facilities, satellite dishes, vents, exhaust fans, smoke hatches, and mechanical ducts, should be screened by rooftop screens or parapet walls so as not to be visible from abutting public roads, and publicly accessible locations within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
(2) Integrate rooftop screens (i.e., parapet walls) into the architecture of the main building. Wood finished rooftop screens are prohibited.
(3) Design the roofs of Industrial buildings to support the future installation of solar panels.
4.3.8 OUTDOOR EMPLOYEE AMENITIES
(1) Bicycle racks, lockers, and/or storage should be provided at each building or in a common area that serves multiple
buildings to encourage non-vehicular circulation.
(2) Industrial buildings may include patio break areas, pedestrian walkways, seating areas, and overhead
structures so that workers do not have to travel off-site for outdoor enjoyment.
4.3.9 OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Outdoor lighting of SUNSET CROSSROADS is an essential
architectural component that provides aesthetic appeal, enhances safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and adds to security. Lighting within the public rights-of-way shall adhere to any applicable City of Banning outdoor lighting standards.
Lighting on private property in the Specific Plan should adhere to the following guidelines.
(1) Minimize glare and “spill over” light onto public streets, open space, Interstate-10, and adjacent properties by using
downward-directed lights and/or cutoff devises on outdoor lighting fixtures, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illumination for structures, parking, loading, unloading, and similar areas.
(2) Select all lighting fixtures used in the Specific Plan area from the same – or complementary – family of fixtures with respect to design, materials, fixture color, and light color.
Use of LED lighting is encouraged.
(3) Lights should be unbreakable plastic, recessed, or otherwise designed to reduce the problems associated with damage and replacement of fixtures.
(4) Neon and similar types of lighting are prohibited except as part of advertising signage within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image to the right conceptually shows the location of bike racks at entrances to Industrial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the design and locations of lighting for Industrial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
271
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-9
(5) Locate all electrical meter pedestals and light switch/control equipment in areas with minimum public visibility or screen them with appropriate plant materials.
(6) Illuminate parking lots, loading dock areas, pedestrian walkways, building entrances, and public sidewalks to the level necessary for building operation and security reasons. Dimmers and motion detectors are permitted. (7) Along sidewalks and walkways, the use of low mounted fixtures (ground or bollard height) is encouraged. (8) Use exterior lights to accent entrances, plazas, activity areas, and special features. (9) To illuminate parking lots or parking structures and their pedestrian links that provide more than five parking spaces for use by the general public, provide a minimum coverage of one foot-candle of light with a maximum of eight foot-candles on the parking or walkway surface, unless otherwise approved by the City of Banning for visibility and security.
(10) To illuminate aisles and passageways within a building complex, provide a maximum of one-half to one foot-candle of maintained lighting.
(11) High Pressure Sodium (HPS) light fixtures are prohibited for site lighting. (12) All sign lighting should be consistent with the Signage Design Guidelines.
4.3.10 REFUSE CONTAINERS AND OTHER OUTDOOR STORAGE
(1) Refuse enclosures and equipment should be easily accessed by service vehicles, with enclosures and equipment located within a building’s facade or within a screened enclosure. (2) The enclosure’s design should reflect the architectural style of adjacent buildings and use similar, high-quality materials.
(3) Landscaping or trellis work should screen enclosures visible from a street or connecting walkway and should be permanently maintained.
(4) Outdoor storage areas should be located away from the street, behind or to the side of buildings. In addition to locating storage areas away from streets, walls or permanent landscaping should be used to screen stored materials.
4.3.11 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR INDUSTRIAL USES
This section sets forth additional guidelines that address the design of building sites and considerations for all uses permitted within the Industrial land uses (Planning Areas 2 through 10).
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the design of Industrial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
272
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-10
(1) Locate the office portion of warehouse buildings at the corner(s) of the building. For buildings taking access from Sunset Avenue, Lincoln Street, and the SLB Extension, orient the office toward these roads to provide visual interest from the public roadway.
(2) Orient and screen elements such as outdoor storage, ancillary fueling, ancillary services, trash enclosure areas in ways that minimize their visibility from Sunset Avenue, the SLB Extension, Highland Home Road, Bobcat Road, and off-site residential uses.
(3) Site design should specifically address the needs of pick-up, delivery, and service vehicles associated with Industrial uses.
a. Design interior driveways and drive aisles to provide adequate stacking and prevent queuing of vehicles on public streets.
b. Locate and design service entrances so they do not interfere with owner/tenant/customer access. c. Design loading areas to provide for tractor trailer backing and maneuvering on-site and not from a public street.
d. Provide appropriate on-site service vehicle parking/turnouts in an efficient, non-obtrusive location appropriate to the scale and needs of the development.
e. Vehicle loading/unloading when parked, should not impede normal traffic flow. (4) Architectural design of Industrial buildings may be utilitarian in form; however, the design should complement the SUNSET CROSSROADS overall design theme.
(5) Textured forms, reveals, or scoring on concrete tilt-up panels is recommended for visual relief and to create a base and cornice expression; however, smooth panels with color variation may be used in lieu of textured finishes. (6) Use primary roof forms that are flat or gently sloping. The ridge line elevation of the primary roof form should not exceed the parapet wall. Change of parapet height is strongly encouraged. (7) Avoid the use of arched gable, hip and shed roof forms as a primary roof form. These roof forms may be used as a secondary/accent roof form.
(8) With the exception of solar panels, screen or obscure all rooftop mounted equipment, where required, from public view using landscaping or materials complementary to those used on the main structure. 273
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-11
4.4 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
The goal of the General Commercial Architectural Guidelines is to promote visual compatibility and individuality within SUNSET CROSSROADS. These guidelines do not require rigid adherence to style descriptions but are intended to assist in establishing the design direction and the quality of the end product. Achieving variety and diversity in the General Commercial architecture is a key objective for SUNSET CROSSROADS. The intent of the
Design Guidelines is to provide a framework for development over time, while maintaining maximum flexibility and thematic consistency to accommodate a wide variety of uses. For
inspiration, SUNSET CROSSROADS has embraced compatible
architectural styles that have historical precedence in Southern California and throughout the world and are capable of
contemporary interpretation and variation in a modern master planned environment. The intent is to avoid monotonous architecture, while encouraging the application of detail and materials authentic to the spirit and character of the Specific Plan.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the design of General Commercial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the images above conceptually show the anticipated recreational and wellness-based uses within the General Commercial areas of SUNSET CROSSROADS. 274
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-12
4.4.1 DESIGN PRINCIPLES
(1) Site planning design principles are not intended to restrict taste or preference but are designed to avoid harsh contrasts and to foster harmony of development. For example, within parking lots, all ingress and egress locations should be designed to reduce impacts on the circulation system. (2) Ground floors of buildings adjacent to internal streets should be placed adjacent to the street edge to encourage pedestrian activity.
(3) Free-standing buildings are encouraged to be grouped around a common focal point or design feature. (4) Open areas should be large enough to be usable, but not so large as to appear empty. (5) Major tenants or individual buildings at key locations should incorporate public plazas at focal points and at activity centers. Use of park areas and water elements in selected areas is encouraged. (6) Plazas and courtyards are encouraged to be used as transition areas between public and private spaces. (7) Continuity should be maintained through the use of unified or complementary pedestrian amenities, landscaping and similar design features.
(8) Alternative paving or other design features should be used to provide for separation of pedestrian and vehicular circulation within the same right-of-way.
4.4.2 BUILDING PLOTTING CONCEPTS
(1) Buildings should be oriented to take best advantage of arterial visibility. (2) When planning the interior vehicular circulation and parking, a hierarchy should be developed to help with traffic flow.
(3) Building masses should be articulated to avoid long straight building façades and create enclosed courtyards and pedestrian spaces where possible.
4.4.3 STREETSCENE
(1) To allow for comfortable pedestrian
spaces, the Specific Plan should provide
adequate separation between parking
and storefronts.
(2) The distance along the face of the
building should be varied to provide
visual interest.
(3) Loading zones should be site planned to
avoid exposure to adjacent public
streets.
(4) Exterior storage areas and trash enclosures should be planned to minimize the exposure of such elements. (5) Parking areas should be planned to allow for landscaping or low, decorative walls or a combination thereof. (6) Entries to service and delivery areas should be separated from parking areas where possible.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the streetscene of General Commercial uses within SUNSET CROSSROADS. 275
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-13
4.4.4 BUILDING DESIGN, MASS, AND SCALE
(1) Architecture should be comprised
of simple and distinct masses.
Masses should be expressed with
clean, sharp edges and corners. A
simple hierarchy should be
established among the various
masses.
(2) Commercial buildings should be
designed as a complementary
addition to the overall theme
established throughout SUNSET
CROSSROADS.
(3) Dramatic departures in form,
scale, and style should not be
permitted.
(4) Buildings should be designed to
create smooth transitions in scale
through the use of low and midrise building forms or through the use of terraced elevations.
(5) Long, uniform façades should be avoided by creating visual interest through the use of courtyards, varied building setbacks, arcades, windows and towers.
(6) Buildings should be designed to locate high activity uses, such as restaurants and entertainment facilities, adjacent to major pedestrian ways.
(7) Outdoor uses are strongly encouraged along pedestrian ways, as well as providing the highest level of detail and interest at ground level.
(8) Canopies, awnings, and trellises are encouraged to define pedestrian ways and to offer protection from the elements.
(9) Architectural elements and accessories should be provided on the building mass, including but not limited to, arcades, balconies, towers, colorful banners, and decorative lighting features. (10) Roof lines should be articulated with shorter elements to reduce building mass. Occasional sloped roof forms should be introduced over special areas and special functions to create visual interest.
4.4.5 BUILDING MATERIALS AND COLORS
(1) The commercial area is an integral part of SUNSET CROSSROADS, and the materials and colors should be compatible with the surrounding development. Color is intended to act as a primary theme-conveying element and will be reflective of the architectural style.
(2) Building materials should be durable and convey a sense of permanence. The textural and material quality of building’s facade is important. Traditional materials including stone, brick, concrete, precast concrete, metal, block, Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image above conceptually shows the building design of General Commercial uses within SUNSET CROSSROADS. 276
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-14
and stucco should be used creatively to provide a sense of permanence. Combined with architectural details, landscape, and hardscape, the buildings can create a sense of connectivity to the pedestrian-oriented streetscene. (3) Exterior building materials should be of natural character that would reflect the rural character of the surrounding environment. Contemporary materials are acceptable if they are compatible with the surroundings and are used for creating interest.
(4) Color is intended as a primary theme element of the community consistent with indigenous elements of the environment. Accents are encouraged which are lighter or darker to highlight the character of the structure. Bright and non-earth tone colors are not encouraged except as accents.
4.4.6 ROOF FORM AND MATERIALS
(1) Principal roof forms should be gable or hip with pitches. (2) All roof material should ensure continuity in texture, color and character to the architectural styles. (3) The design should create interesting building masses by varying rooflines and by maximizing offsets to roof planes where possible. Combining single-story elements with two-story elements is encouraged. (4) Flat roofs with parapet walls are acceptable but should be used in combination with simple pitched gable, hip or shed roof forms.
(5) Mechanical equipment, other than solar panels, on roofs should be screened from view of I-10, public roadways, and adjacent residential homes, to the extent practical, and should consist of materials consistent with those of the building.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image below conceptually shows a mixture of building materials and colors used on the General Commercial buildings within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
Building Material Palette
Building Color Palette
277
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-15
4.4.7 WINDOWS AND DOORS
(1) Recessed doors, windows and wall openings emphasizing massive wall thickness are characteristic elements of the allowed architectural styles. Fully recessed door and window openings are encouraged as well as embellished framing treatments of both to add articulation to the wall surface. (2) Consideration should be taken to relate interior building design to pedestrian spaces through generous use of glazing in doors and windows.
(3) Other enhancements which are encouraged are: recessed windows and doors to create shade and wall articulation, arched windows and doorways, decorative treatments, accent trim or tile at doorways, banded windows to emphasize the horizontal, glazing which follows roof pitch, canvas awnings with complementary accent colors, and wrought iron accents.
(4) Silver or gold window or door frames, reflective glass or awnings, and metal awnings are all discouraged.
4.4.8 PARKING/VEHICULAR CIRCULATION
(1) Parking lots should generally be placed away from the street, preferably behind buildings. (2) Adequate areas for maneuvering, loading, and emergency vehicle access should be accommodated on site. (3) Parking areas should be arranged to minimize conflicts with commercial loading activities (4) Large parking lot areas should be divided into a series of smaller connected lots separated by additional landscaping and buildings.
(5) Commercial loading and parking should generally be located to the side and rear of buildings with the exception of handicap and short-term parking lots which may be sited between the street and building entrances.
4.4.9 SERVICE, LOAD, AND EQUIPMENT AREAS
(1) Storage for supplies, merchandise, and similar materials should be prohibited on the roofs of any buildings. (2) Service, loading, and storage areas should be separated from pedestrian and private automobile circulation whenever practical to do so.
(3) Service areas, loading docks, and equipment areas should be screened from views either by locating these uses within a building or by screening them with landscaping, walls, fences, or other architectural treatments. (4) For screening of loading, service, and/or storage areas to be effective, a minimum treatment height of six (6) feet should be used.
4.4.10 OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Outdoor lighting of SUNSET CROSSROADS is an essential architectural component that provides aesthetic appeal, enhances safe pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and adds to security. Lighting within the public rights-of-way shall adhere to any applicable City of Banning outdoor lighting standards.
Lighting on private property in the Specific Plan shall comply with the Development Standards in this Specific Plan and should adhere to the following guidelines.
(1) All outdoor lighting, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illumination for structures, landscaping, parking, loading, unloading, and similar areas should be focused, directed, and arranged to prevent glare and illumination on streets or adjoining property. 278
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-16
(2) Low intensity, energy conserving night-lighting is preferred. (3) No freestanding lighting fixtures should exceed 30 feet in height. (4) Service area lighting should be contained within the service yard boundaries and enclosure walls. No light spillover should occur outside the service area.
(5) No specific design is prescribed and variations in treatments should be allowed; however, light fixtures and standards should be coordinated along public rights-of-way and within the commercial area. (6) Parking lot lighting should provide adequate illumination for the safety of visitors while minimizing glare into adjacent property and uses. (7) Energy conservation, safety, and security should be emphasized during the designing and siting of project lighting.
(8) Light standards should blend architecturally with buildings, pedestrian areas, other hardscape elements, and street furniture. Non-decorative wall-pacs and light standards should not be permitted.
(9) Parking areas should use lighting standards and fixtures that are consistent with and a continuation of the character of the development and structures.
(10) Exposed neon should not be permitted. All neon tubes should be hidden from view.
4.4.11 REFUSE CONTAINERS AND OTHER OUTDOOR STORAGE
(1) Refuse enclosures and equipment should be easily accessed by service vehicles, with enclosures and equipment located within a building’s facade or within a screened enclosure. (2) The enclosure’s design should reflect the architectural style of adjacent buildings and use similar, high-quality materials.
(3) Landscaping or trellis work should screen enclosures visible from a street or connecting walkway and should be permanently maintained.
(4) Shopping cart storage areas should be integrated within the initial building and site design. Large freestanding enclosures or unscreened “cart corrals” are not encouraged but should be allowed if they are constructed as a permanent structure and architecturally consistent and include landscape treatment such as vines or planters. (5) Outdoor storage areas should be located away from the street, behind or to the side of buildings. In addition to locating storage areas away from streets, walls or permanent landscaping should be used to screen stored materials.
4.4.12 SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL
This section sets forth guidelines that address the design of building sites and considerations unique to the General Commercial uses within SUNSET CROSSROADS (Planning Area 1). (1) Orient buildings to have tenant visibility from internal streets. (2) Free-standing architectural treatment may be used in front of building walls to create layering.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only,
the image above conceptually shows the
design of lighting within the General
Commercial areas of SUNSET
CROSSROADS.
279
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-17
(3) Use simple building forms and maximize the play of light on mass and void to provide strong contrasts. Blank walls should be carefully balanced with glass and wall areas. (4) Position lower building masses, signage, doors, light fixtures, and/or landscape planters adjacent to pedestrian entries, particularly entries that may face internal streets to create human-scaled development at these locations. (5) Orient primary building entrances away from off-street parking areas. (6) Provide well-defined pedestrian connections from parking areas to building entrances.
(7) The use of towers and well-proportioned building elements (arcades, colonnades, recesses, etc.) are encouraged to define entries and create pedestrian scale.
(8) Design architectural details (rafter tails, gabled towers, column detail, stone base, etc.) in a modern contemporary aesthetic.
(9) Locate service entrances such that they do not interfere with owner/tenant/customer access.
(10) Design loading areas to provide for backing and
maneuvering on-site.
(11) Provide appropriate on-site service vehicle
parking/turnouts in an efficient, non-obtrusive location suitable to the scale and needs of the development.
Service and delivery/loading areas should be separated
from customer parking areas and pedestrian circulation
areas (walkways, pathways, etc.).
(12) Where feasible, provide clearly delineated pedestrian paths from the sidewalks on Sunset Avenue and Lincoln
Street to hospitality, restaurant and recreation land uses constructed within the General Commercial areas. (13) Position bicycle parking areas near the main entrances of buildings. (14) Design roofs for functionality and to complement the overall architectural design of the building. Incorporate vertical building plane breaks, through changes in building/ridge height, or other accent roof forms to create visual interest. On flat roofs, the ridge line elevation of the primary roof form should not exceed the parapet wall. (15) When parapet walls are used, incorporate side/rear elevation returns to preclude an unfinished, “false front” appearance.
(16) Screen all rooftop mounted equipment (including solar panels to the extent practical) from public view using materials complementary to those used on the main structure.
4.5 SIGNAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Signage within the Specific Plan area serves a variety of purposes. Signs will identify SUNSET CROSSROADS and its building occupants and ensure the efficient circulation of vehicle traffic within the site by identifying vehicular entry points and directing vehicles to their on-site destinations. Also, signage will enhance the pedestrian experience through the design of way finding components: directories, directional signage and destination identifiers.
Although provided for illustrative purposes only, the image below conceptually shows the design of SUNSET
CROSSROADS.
280
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-18
As such, clear, concise, and easy-to-understand signage that is also visually appealing is vitally important for positive worker and visitor experiences at SUNSET CROSSROADS.
A separate Specific Plan Sign Program including Signage Design Guidelines shall be prepared and approved by the City of Banning prior to the issuance of the first Occupancy Permit within the Specific Plan. Changes to any sign requirements or regulations contained in the Specific Plan following approval of the Specific Plan are subject to a “Minor Modification” and shall be administratively reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.
1. The Monumentation and Signs within Section 4.6.4, Monumentation, are provided as conceptual and illustrative purposes only, and may be modified as part of the Sign Program.
2. The following design considerations in this section should be reflected in the Sign Program:
(a) The Sign Program should provide adequate and appropriate project, pylon, street, building, commercial tenant identification, trail, path, and wayfinding signage for the anticipated variety of building sizes, designs, and uses to ensure that all project signage is designed with a single vision and theme, generally outlined below.
(b) All building signage should be in scale with and in proportion to, the primary building facades so that the signage is not ‘overpowering’ and does not dominate the overall appearance.
(c) The design of the signage should reflect the type of business and/or uses through its design, material, shape and graphic form. Signage is encouraged to use natural materials where possible.
(d) All signs should be so oriented as to preclude hazardous obstructions to person and/or vision of pedestrians and/or vehicle operators.
(e) Building occupant identification signage should be in keeping with the character established for SUNSET CROSSROADS with variations allowed to accommodate individual user identities/corporate branding standards.
(f) The method of attaching the signage to the building should be integrated into the Sign Program. (g) Signs should not cover up windows or important architectural features. (h) All conductors, conduits, tubing, crossovers, transformers, and other equipment for the illumination of signs should be concealed and/or incorporated into the building architecture or within the sign structure. (i) Exposed wiring, raceways, cords, plugs, or the like will not be permitted. (j) Direction signs may be located at any vehicular or pedestrian decision point. (k) Vehicular direction signs should clearly direct to destination anchors within SUNSET CROSSROADS, such as on-site parking areas, and service routes.
(l) Vehicular direction signs should be consistent in size, shape, and design throughout SUNSET CROSSROADS.
(m) Typography on vehicular direction signs should be legible and have enough contrast to be read from an appropriate windshield viewing distance.
Although provided for illustrative
purposes only, the image below
conceptually shows the design of signage
within SUNSET CROSSROADS.
281
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-19
(n) Vehicular direction signs should incorporate reflective vinyl copy for night-time illumination. (o) Freestanding signs, pylon signs, and Freeway Oriented Freestanding Signs are permitted and may consist of the project’s name, project’s logo, tenant logos, and/or tenant text.
4.6 LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES
These Landscape Design Guidelines establish landscape principles and standards that apply to all Planning Areas within SUNSET CROSSROADS to ensure that plant materials, hardscapes, entries, monuments, streetscapes and other amenities are compatible with the overall design theme, and that all implementing development projects are united under a common design theme. These Landscape Design Guidelines, when taken with the companion Architectural Design Guidelines provided herein, establish an identity for SUNSET CROSSROADS that is contemporary and visually appealing and compatible with the adjacent uses.
Although a great deal of detailed design information is presented herein, these Guidelines are not intended to establish a set of rigid landscaping requirements for SUNSET CROSSROADS. It is recognized that, at times, there will be a need to adapt these Guidelines to meet certain parcel-specific or user-identity requirements. As such, these Landscape Guidelines are intended to be flexible and are subject to modification over time. However, it is critical to the SUNSET CROSSROADS long-term design integrity that any deviations from these Landscape Guidelines are in keeping with the spirit of the core elements of the overall theme described herein, to ensure a cohesive and unified landscape concept across SUNSET CROSSROADS.
The Landscape Design Guidelines serves the dual purpose of adding year-round visual appeal while being sensitive to the environment, and the Southern California climate, by using drought-tolerant materials. Landscaping occurs throughout SUNSET CROSSROADS, but most prominently at street corners, along exterior roadways to create buffers to adjoining uses, and at building entrances and in passenger car parking lots. Monumentation featuring colorful accent trees, shrubs, and groundcover provided at entries welcome employees and visitors to SUNSET CROSSROADS occur at the corners of entrances.
Streetscape landscaping presents a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, low shrubs, and masses of groundcovers to create a visually pleasing experience for pedestrians and passing motorists. As identified on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan, the SUNSET CROSSROADS thematic identity is reinforced by the landscape design of interfaces, monumentation, streetscapes, and pedestrian pathways and promenades. Furthermore, the recommended Plant Palette, community elements, and hardscape materials work in concert to reinforce and emphasize the SUNSET CROSSROADS landscape theme.
4.6.1 PLANT PALETTE
The Plant Palette for SUNSET CROSSROADS was selected to complement and enhance the setting of the site, while ensuring the conservation of the site’s natural vegetation and habitats. The Plant Palette was selected to complement SUNSET CROSSROADS’ architectural styles and design elements (hardscape, monumentation, walls and fences, etc.). Table 4-1, Plant Palette, provides a base plant palette which includes a list for SUNSET CROSSROADS’ landscape design. Alternative plant species may be used in lieu of species listed in Table 4-1, provided the alternative plants are drought-tolerant and complement the SUNSET CROSSROADS design theme.
Three (3) Plant Palette Categories are used to establish and differentiate areas of SUNSET CROSSROADS and are described below and identified in Figure 4-2, Conceptual Landscape Zones. Zone A - Entrance Planting
282
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-20
Zone A consists of plant material designed to create a strong opening statement. These plants will be arranged for viewing from public roadways such as Sunset Avenue, Lincoln Street, and the SLB Extension, as well as for viewing from I-10.
Zone B – Native California Palette
Zone B will make up the majority of the aesthetic landscape surrounding the entrances and fronts of the buildings within the General Commercial and Industrial areas. Zone B creates a satisfying backdrop to any visitor’s stay, and contains plants that are native, drought tolerant, and perform admirable in Banning’s climate. Zone C – Industrial Screen Planting
Zone C will be made up of tall, large, evergreen trees and thick groundcover along the perimeters of SUNSET CROSSROADS. Zone C is also intended to screen industrial buildings and any truck traffic passing through.
Photos of selected plants from the Plant Palette can be found in Figure 4-3, Conceptual Plant Palette Imagery.
Table 4-1 Plant Palette
TREES
Botanical Name Common Name Entries Streets
Parking
Lots Screening Accent Basins Slopes Size Spacing
Min
Size
Max
Size
Acacia smallii Acacia * * * 20’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Acacia stenophylla Shoestring Acacia * 40’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Cercidium ‘Desert
Museum” Blue Palo Verde * * 25’ x 25’ 25’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow * * * 20’ x 15’ 15’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Chitalpha
tashkentensis Chitalpa * * * * 30’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Heteromeles
arbutifolia Toyon * * * * 8’ x 5’ 5’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Koelreuteria bipinnata
Chinese Flame
Tree * * * 40’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box
Magnolia g ‘Samuel
Sommer’ Magnolia * * * 40’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Olea wilsoni
Wilson Fruitless
Olive * * 30’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box
Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine * * * 60’ x 40’ 40’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Pistachia Chinensis Chinese Pistache * * * * 35’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Platanus acerifolia London Plane * * * * 100’ x 75’ 75’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Platanus racemosa
California
Sycamore * * * * 80’ x 50’ 50’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak * 70’ x 70’ 70’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Quercus virginiana Southern Live oak * * * * 50’ x 80’ 80’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Rhus lancea African Sumac * * * * * 30’ x 40’ 40’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Salix lesiolepis Arroyo Willow * * * 30’ x 30’ 30’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box Tristania conferta Brisbane Box Tree * * * 20 x 20’ 20’ O.C. 15 gal 48” box SHRUBS
Botanical Name Common Name Entries Streets
Parking
Lots Screening Accent Basins Slopes Size Spacing
Min
Size
Max
Size
283
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-21
Ligustrum j. 'Texanum' Texas Privet * * * 6’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Acca sellowiana Pineapple Guava * * * 6’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree * * * 8’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Calliandra californica Baja Fairy Duster * * * * 4’ x 4’ 4’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Lavandula ‘Goodwin
Creek Grey’ Lavender * * * * 3’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Callistemon 'Little
John' Dwarf Bottlebrush * * * 3’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Leucophyllum spp. Texas Ranger * * * * 4’ x 4’ 4’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry * * * * 6’ x 4’ 4’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Salvia greggii Autumn Sage * * * * 3’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Senna artemisiodes Feathery Cassia * * 4’ x 4’ 4’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Westingia spp. Coast Rosemary * * 5’ x 5’ 5’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal
ACCENTS
Botanical Name Common Name Entries Streets
Parking
Lots Screening Accent Basins Slopes Size Spacing
Min
Size
Max
Size
Agave spp. Agave * 3’ x 5’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal
Aloe spp. Aloe * 2’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal
Cactus spp. Cactus * 2’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca * 5’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal Yucca spp. Yucca * 3’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. 1 gal 5 gal
GROUNDCOVER
Botanical Name Common Name Entries Streets
Parking
Lots Screening Accent Basins Slopes Size Spacing
Min
Size
Max
Size
Acacia redolens 'Low
Boy' Dwarf Acacia * * 2’ x 8’ 8’ O.C. Flats 5 gal
Baccharis p. 'Pigeon
Point'
Dwarf Coyote
Bush * * * 2’ x 6’ 6’ O.C. Flats 5 gal
Carex pansa
California Meadow
Sedge * 1’ x 12” 12” O.C. Flats 5 gal
Carissa m. ‘Green
Carpet’ African Daisy * * 2’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. Flats 5 gal
Festuca mairei Atlas Fescue * * * * 2’ x 2’ 2’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Hemerocallis
hybridus-Yellow Yellow Day Lily * * * 2’ x 2’ 2’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Lantana ‘Gold Mound’ Yellow lantana * 2’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Liriope gigantea Big Blue Lily Turf * 2’ x 3’ 2’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Lonicera j. 'Halliana'
Hall's
Honeysuckle * 2’ x 4’ 4’ O.C. Flats 5 gal
Myoporum parvifolium Mypoporum * 2’ x 3’ 3’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Rose ‘Flower Carpet’-
Red
Red Flower
Carpet Rose * * 2’ x 30” 30” O.C. Flats 5 gal
Rosmarinus o.
'Huntington Carpet' Rosemary * 2’ x 4’ 4’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Sesleria autumnalis Moor Grass * * 2’ x 18” 18” O.C. Flats 5 gal Trachelospermum
jasminiodes Star Jasmine * * 2’ x 2’ 2’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic * 2’ x 2’ 2’ O.C. Flats 5 gal Basins/Swales-Applied by Hydroseed Bottom Slopes
Achillea millefolium Yarrow *
284
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-22
Eschscholzia
californica California Poppy *
Juncus bufonius Toad Rush *
Leymus tricoides Rio
Creeping Wild
Rye *
Descampsia cespitosa Tuft Hair Grass *
Festuca rubra 'Molate' Red Fescue *
Hordium
brachyantherum Meadow Barley *
Muhlenbergia regens Deer Grass *
Muhlenbergia
microsperma Little Seed Muhly *
Hordium depressum Low Barley *
Aristada purpuria Purple three-awn *
Artemisia californica
California
Sagebrush *
Eriogonum
fasiculatum Buckwheat *
Mimulus aurantiacus Monkey flower *
Encelia farinosa Brittlebush *
Salvia alpinia White Sage *
Salvia mellifera Black Sage *
Acmispon glaber Deer Weed *
Eschscholzia
californica California Poppy *
Lupinus trumcatus Lupine *
Salvia columbarie Chia Sage *
Plantago erecta California Platain *
Festuca microstachys Small Fescue *
285
286
287
288
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-26
4.6.2 IRRIGATION
The following general irrigation concepts should be considered in the design and installation of irrigation systems within SUNSET CROSSROADS:
(1) All landscaped areas should be equipped with a permanent, automatic, underground irrigation system. Drip systems and highly efficient rotators are encouraged in all areas needing irrigation. Irrigation systems must conform to all City of Banning requirements and State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance AB1881. (2) Irrigation systems should be designed to apply water slowly, allowing plants to be deep soaked and to reduce runoff. (3) Connect the irrigation system to the recycled water conveyance system, if available. (4) “Pop-up” type sprinkler heads may be used adjacent to walks, drives, curbs (car overhangs), parking areas and public right-of-way but must be designed and maintained to prevent run-off and overspray. (5) The design of irrigation systems, particularly the location of controller boxes, valves, and other above-ground equipment (e.g., backflow prevention devices), should be incorporated into the overall landscaping design. Where aboveground equipment is provided, it should be screened or otherwise removed from public view to the extent possible.
(6) The irrigation system should be programmed to operate between 8:00pm and 9:00am. (7) Non-functional turf, meaning turf that is not intended for active or passive recreation, is prohibited from use.
4.6.3 CONCEPTUAL PARK PLAN (PLANNING AREA 11)
A 5.0-acre public passive park is anticipated to be provided within Planning Area 11, along with 7.6 acres of open space and trails. As illustrated on Figure 4-4, Conceptual Park Plan (PA 11), Planning Area 11 may provide recreational amenities such as, but not limited to, a tot lot playground, picnic tables, walking paths, trails, and restrooms. Open field areas are provided next to the playground and picnic tables, along with a looped walking path which winds through the recreational area surrounded by trees and landscaping, in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette.
4.6.4 MONUMENTATION
Entry Monumentation has been created in order to identify arrival to SUNSET CROSSROADS, distinguish individual Planning Areas, and establish a sense of place consistent with the overall SUNSET CROSSROADS theme. The entry treatments have been designed to create a distinctive visual statement that emphasizes the SUNSET CROSSROADS’ image as a high-quality, contemporary development.
The monumentation examples illustrated within these Design Guidelines represent consistent interpretations of SUNSET CROSSROADS’ character and theme. Implemented monumentation need not match these examples exactly and may be designed with enough flexibility to respond to physical contexts along with the needs and desires of individual tenants, but all entry monuments should be generally consistent in theme and character. Consistency should be established through use of matching or complementary logos, type styles, and color schemes throughout the area being identified.
The conceptual location of entry monumentation is depicted on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. Note that Figure 4-1 identifies the conceptual locations of entry monumentation and signage, the final locations of entry monuments and signs will be determined at the time internal streets, buildings, and driveway locations are identified as part of applications submitted within this Specific Plan). 289
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-27
Conceptual Primary Monumentation
Primary Monumentation provided within SUNSET CROSSROADS creates an inviting atmosphere for employees and visitors by providing a form of wayfinding and sense of identity to SUNSET CROSSROADS. Primary Monumentation may be provided at the Sunset Avenue and Lincoln Street intersection. As shown on Figure 4-5, Conceptual Primary Monumentation, Primary Monumentation is made of fabricated aluminum, a faux corten color finish with the project logo, and a stone veneer base. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the background and foreground of Primary Monumentation are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. The final design and materials of this monument will be determined with applications submitted within this Specific Plan and/or as part of the Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines.
Conceptual General Commercial Monumentation
General Commercial Monumentation may be provided at individual building sites within Planning Area 1 to announce the arrival into the General Commercial area for employees and visitors. As shown on Figure 4-6, Conceptual General Commercial Monumentation, the General Commercial Monumentation consist of fabricated aluminum, a faux corten color finish with the project logo, a stone veneer base, and raised illuminated or non-illuminated letters of building tenants. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the background and foreground of General Commercial Monumentation are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. The final design and materials of this monument will be determined with applications submitted within this Specific Plan and/or as part of the Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines.
Conceptual Industrial Monumentation
Industrial Monumentation may be provided at individual building sites within Planning Areas 2 through 10 to announce the arrival into the Industrial areas for employees and visitors. As shown on Figure 4-7, Conceptual Industrial Monumentation, Industrial Monumentation consist of fabricated aluminum, a faux corten color finish with the project logo, a stone veneer base, and raised illuminated or non-illuminated letters of building tenants. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the background and foreground of the Industrial Monumentation are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. The final design and materials of this monument will be determined with applications submitted within this Specific Plan and/or as part of the Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. Conceptual Tenant Monumentation Tenant Monumentation may be provided at individual building sites within Planning Areas 1 through 10 to announce the arrival into the General Commercial and Industrial areas for employees and visitors. As shown on Figure 4-8, Conceptual Tenant Monumentation, Tenant Monumentation consists of fabricated aluminum, a faux corten color finish with the project logo, a stone veneer base, and raised illuminated or non-illuminated letters of building tenants. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the background and foreground of the Tenant Monumentation are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. The final locations of Tenant Monumentation will be determined at the time internal streets, buildings, and driveway locations are identified as part of applications submitted within this Specific Plan. The final design and materials of this monument will be determined with implementing project(s) and/or as part of the Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines.
Conceptual Freeway Oriented Freestanding Signs
The final location, design, and materials of Freeway Oriented Freestanding Signs will be established by the SUNSET CROSSROADS Sign Program and will be selected to maximize exposure and enhance the visibility of SUNSET CROSSROADS from Interstate 10. Freeway Oriented Freestanding Signs include electronic message board pylon signs, freestanding monument signs, freestanding pylon signs, and freestanding tenant signs at a maximum height of 80 feet and maximum width of 30 feet. As illustrated on Figure 4-9, Conceptual Freeway Oriented Freestanding Sign, Freeway Oriented Freestanding Signs may consist of fabricated aluminum, a faux corten color finish with the project logo, a stone veneer base, and individually illuminated channel letters. The final design and materials of this sign will be determined with applications submitted within this Specific Plan and/or as part of the Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines. 290
291
292
293
294
295
296
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-34
4.6.5 STREETSCAPES
Streetscapes within SUNSET CROSSROADS are critical to creating a sense of place and maintaining the project’s high-quality theme. In addition, streetscapes serve the functional purposes of softening and screening less desirable project elements from public view. Streetscapes throughout SUNSET CROSSROADS should be planted with a combination of street trees, shrubs, and large masses of groundcover. The landscaping Plant Palette for streetscapes links the roadways to the rest of SUNSET CROSSROADS by providing continuity throughout the entire Specific Plan using the Landscape Zones discussed in Section 4.6.1, Plant Palette.
Landscape treatments may include elements such as sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and parkway trees to enhance roadway appearances. Landscaping should consist of drought-tolerant plants, colorful shrubs, and street trees in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. Landscaping within the public right of way will be maintained by one or a combination of the following entities: the City of Banning, a Landscape, Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD), a Master Property Owners’ Association (MPOA), or a Property Owners’ Association (POA). In all instances, an appropriate lineof-sight for entering/exiting vehicles shall be maintained at street intersections within SUNSET CROSSROADS. The conceptual streetscape landscape treatments within SUNSET CROSSROADS are presented on the following pages. Conceptual Lincoln Street Streetscape (78’ ROW)
As shown on Figure 4-10, Lincoln Street Streetscape is a 78-foot right-of-way. The right of way consists of 56 feet of paving with a 6-foot-wide landscaped parkway and 5-foot-wide parkway-adjacent sidewalk on one side of the street and a 6-foot-wide curb-adjacent sidewalk and 5-foot-wide landscaped parkway on the other side of the street. SUNSET CROSSROADS will be constructing the full width of this roadway. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the landscape zones along Lincoln Street are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. Conceptual Sunset Avenue Streetscape (I-10 to Lincoln Street) (110’ ROW) As shown on Figure 4-11, Sunset Avenue Streetscape from I-10 to Lincoln Street is a 110-foot right-of-way. The westerly portion of the right of way consists of a 9-foot median and 34 feet of paving including an 8-foot-wide Class II bike lane, with a 4-foot curb-adjacent landscaped parkway and an 8-foot-wide parkway-adjacent sidewalk. The easterly portion consists of a 9-foot median and 34 feet of paving including an 8-foot-wide Class II bike lane, with an 8-footwide curb-adjacent sidewalk and a 4-foot landscaped parkway. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the landscape zones along Sunset Avenue are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. Conceptual Sunset Avenue Streetscape (Lincoln Street to SLB Extension) (110’ ROW) As shown on Figure 4-11A, Sunset Avenue Streetscape from Lincoln Street to SLB Extension is a 110-foot right-ofway. Each side of the right of way consists of a 9-foot median and 34 feet of paving including an 8-foot-wide Class II bike lane, with a 4-foot landscaped parkway and an 8-foot-wide parkway-adjacent sidewalk. 17 feet of excess right of way to the east may be landscaped as a buffer. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the landscape zones along Sunset Avenue are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. Conceptual Sunset Avenue Streetscape (SLB Extension to Bobcat Road) (88’ ROW) As shown on Figure 4-11B, Sunset Avenue Streetscape from the SLB Extension to Bobcat Road is an 88-foot right-ofway. Each side of the right of way consists of 32 feet of paving, with a 4-foot curb-adjacent landscaped parkway and an 8-foot parkway-adjacent sidewalk. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the landscape zones along Sunset Avenue are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. Conceptual Bobcat Road Streetscape (78’ ROW)
297
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-35
As shown on Figure 4-12, Bobcat Road Streetscape is a 78-foot right-of-way. The northerly portion of the right of way consists of 28 feet of paving with a 5-foot-wide landscaped parkway and 6-foot-wide curb-adjacent sidewalk. SUNSET CROSSROADS will be constructing only the north half-width plus 10’ of this roadway. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the landscape zones along Bobcat Road are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. Conceptual Highland Home Road Streetscape (north of SLB Extension) (66’ ROW) As shown on Figure 4-13, Highland Home Road Streetscape (north of SLB Extension) is a 66-foot right-of-way within a 110-foot dedication. The western portion of the right of way consists of a 5-foot-wide curb-adjacent sidewalk, a 6- foot-wide landscaped parkway, and 44 feet of paving, including a Class III bikeway adjacent to the curb. SUNSET CROSSROADS will construct the half-width plus 10’ of paving along the western boundary, which will terminate at the northern end with a cul-de-sac. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the landscape zones along Highland Home Road are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. Conceptual Highland Home Road Streetscape (south of SLB Extension) (66’ ROW) As shown on Figure 4-13A, Highland Home Road Streetscape (south of SLB Extension) is a 66-foot right-of-way within a 110-foot dedication. The eastern portion of the right of way consists of 22 feet of paving, including a Class III bikeway, a 6-foot-wide curb-adjacent sidewalk, and a 5-foot-wide landscaped parkway. SUNSET CROSSROADS will complete the existing improvements on the western side of the right-of-way. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers planted in the landscape zones along Highland Home Road are in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. 298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-43
4.6.6 WALL AND FENCES
Along building site perimeters and interior to building sites, walls and fences may be provided for screening, buffering, and security purposes within SUNSET CROSSROADS. Tubular steel fences with pilaster and CMU screen may be provided around the perimeters of individual building sites. Walls and fences may be provided around loading and dock areas, trailer parking areas, and parking lots and should be adequate to screen on-site uses from abutting public views and public roads. Landscaping may also be used to provide screening of SUNSET CROSSROADS’ land uses from off-site areas. Figure 4-14, Conceptual Wall and Fence Details, illustrate the walls and fences which may be provided within the Specific Plan area. The final locations, materials, and details of these walls and fences will be determined when buildings are designed and oriented within a Planning Area as part of any applications submitted within this Specific Plan.
Tubular Steel Fence
Tubular Steel Fences may be provided around the perimeters of General Commercial and Industrial land uses from roadways, water quality basins, loading and dock areas, truck yards, parking lots, within individual building sites, and/or as an alternative to CMU screen walls, when screening is not required. Tubular Steel Fences have a maximum height of 8’ and include black tubular steel rods with pilasters and decorative concrete caps to be provided and spaced approximately 25’ on-center. The final locations, materials, and details will be determined when buildings are designed and oriented within a Planning Area as part of any applications submitted within this Specific Plan. CMU Screen Wall
CMU Screen Walls may be provided within SUNSET CROSSROADS around the perimeters of Industrial land uses from roadways and Open Space-Resource Planning Areas. CMU Screen Walls have a minimum height of 6’ and include warm architectural colors, concrete masonry unit walls and decorative concrete caps. CMU Screen Walls may be provided as an alternative to tubular steel fences, where screening may be required. The final locations, materials, and details will be determined when buildings are designed and oriented within a Planning Area as part of any applications submitted within this Specific Plan.
Vinyl Fence and Gate
Vinyl Fences with gates may be provided within SUNSET CROSSROADS. Vinyl fences with gates have a minimum height of 4’ 2” and consist of aluminum insert reinforcement, concrete footing, fence posts, gates with latches and hinges. The final locations, materials, and details will be determined when buildings are designed and oriented within a Planning Area as part of any applications submitted within this Specific Plan. Chainlink Fence and Bollard with Mangate
Chainlink Fences with bollards and mangates may be provided within SUNSET CROSSROADS. Chainlink Fences have a minimum height of 6’ and consist of chain link tension wires, tension bars, rail ends, and post caps. The final locations, materials, and details will be determined when buildings are designed and oriented within a Planning Area as part of any applications submitted within this Specific Plan. 306
307
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-45
4.6.7 LANDSCAPE INTERFACES
SUNSET CROSSROADS contains seven (7) distinct Landscape Interfaces, or edge treatments, which buffer at the boundaries of adjacent off-site and dissimilar on-site land uses. The general location of each of these Landscape Interfaces is depicted on Figure 4-1, Conceptual Master Landscape Plan. Each of these landscape interfaces are discussed in detail below. The interfaces depicted in this section may be modified by the requirements for fuel modification or brush clearing associated with future applications submitted within this Specific Plan. The types of landscape material and width may be modified if needed to address final building orientations or fire safety. Walls and fences may be provided within these interface locations during the design and implementation of the Specific Plan.
Conceptual Interface #1 – Commercial (Planning Area 1) to Open Space & Industrial (Planning Area 6) Interface #1, as illustrated on Figure 4-15, identifies the interface condition where General Commercial land uses within Planning Area 1 are adjacent to existing natural drainage features within Planning Area 13 to the west and Industrial land uses within Planning Area 6. In this condition, General Commercial land uses are buffered from the existing natural drainage features within Planning Area 13 by a landscape buffer within Planning Area 1. Industrial land uses in Planning Area 6 are buffered from the existing natural drainage features within Planning Area 13 by a basin and a 15-foot-wide sewer easement. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within this interface are planted in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette.
Conceptual Interface #2 – Industrial (Planning Area 2) to Off-Site Residential (East) Interface #2, as illustrated on Figure 4-16, identifies the interface condition where Industrial land uses within Planning Area 2 are adjacent to the off-site residential uses located to the east. In this condition, Industrial land uses are buffered from the off-site uses by a landscape buffer and the 110-foot-wide right-of-way of Sunset Avenue and 17 feet of excess right of way. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within this interface are planted in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette.
Conceptual Interface #3 – Industrial (Planning Area 3) to Off-Site School Site (East) Interface #3, as illustrated on Figure 4-17, identifies the interface condition where Industrial land uses within Planning Area 3 are adjacent to the off-site Mount San Jacinto School Site to the east. In this condition, Industrial land uses are buffered by a landscape buffer along the perimeter of Planning Area 3 and Sunset Avenue. The eastern side of Sunset Avenue contains an existing, built-out 5-foot landscaped parkway and 5-foot-wide non-curb adjacent sidewalk, fronting the MSJC school site. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within this interface are planted in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette.
Conceptual Interface #4 – Industrial (Planning Area 4) to Off-Site Residential (South) Interface #4, as illustrated on Figure 4-18, identifies the interface condition where Industrial land uses within Planning Area 4 are adjacent to the off-site residential land uses to the south. In this condition, Industrial land uses are buffered from the off-site residential land uses by an infiltration basin, and the 78-foot-wide right-of-way of Bobcat Road. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within this interface are planted in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette.
Conceptual Interface #5 – Industrial (Planning Area 4) to Off-Site Open Space Interface #5, as illustrated on Figure 4-19, identifies the interface condition where Industrial land uses within Planning Area 4 are adjacent to the off-site open space areas to the west. In this condition, Industrial land uses are buffered from the off-site open space areas by a parking area, 40-foot-wide private drive aisle, and a landscape buffer. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within this interface are planted in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette. 308
CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 4-46
Conceptual Interface #6 – Industrial (Planning Area 12) to Off-Site Residential (West) Interface #6, as illustrated on Figure 4-20, identifies the interface condition where the open space areas within Planning Area 12 are adjacent to the off-site residential land uses to the west. In this condition, existing natural drainage features within Planning Area 12 and the 110-foot-wide right-of-way of Highland Home Road act as a buffer for the residential land uses to the west. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within this interface are planted in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette.
Conceptual Interface #7 – Industrial (Planning Area 7) to Off-Site Residential (West) Interface #7, as illustrated on Figure 4-21, identifies the interface condition where Industrial land uses within Planning Area 7 are adjacent to the off-site residential land uses to the west. In this condition, Industrial land uses are buffered from the off-site residential land uses by a parking area, a landscape buffer up to 250-foot wide in some locations, and the 110-foot right-of-way of Highland Home Road. The trees, shrubs, and groundcovers within this interface are planted in accordance with Table 4-1, Plant Palette.
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
CHAPTER FIVE presents the policies and procedures for the City of Banning’s review and approval of implementing projects and describes the methods and procedures for interpreting and amending the Specific Plan as necessary.
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
5.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF SP 20-20000002
5.2 MODIFICATIONS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN
5.3 MAINTENANCE PLAN
5.4 CONCEPTUAL PHASING PLAN
5 317
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-2
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
5.1 IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
Approval of the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan (SP20-20000002) indicates acceptance by the City of Banning Planning Commission and City Council of the general framework of development for the 533.8-acre property described therein. Part of that framework establishes the Implementation Regulations which constitute the zoning regulations for the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan. The SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan also includes Design Guidelines which establish the character of the project through its architecture and landscape design. Unlike the Implementation Regulations, the Design Guidelines are not compulsory, but are intended instead to provide clear direction while allowing flexibility during the design and review of implementing development projects. Further, it is anticipated that Specific Plan No. 20-20000002 will be implemented through a series of Design Reviews and Conditional Use Permits, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Banning. Approvals within the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan shall be subject to the review authority and review processes set forth in this Section.
5.1.1 APPLICABILITY
All development and proposed uses in the Specific Plan area shall comply with the Implementation Regulations set forth in this Specific Plan. Where conflicts exist between the Implementation Regulations contained in the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan and those found in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the standards in this Specific Plan shall take precedence. Implementation Regulations not addressed in this Specific Plan shall be subject to the applicable requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the submittal of an application for development within the Specific Plan or as otherwise provided in an approved and in-effect Development Agreement for the site. Unless otherwise provided for in a development agreement between the applicant and the City. In addition, procedures, notices, timelines, and appeals (including who is authorized to file appeals) not addressed in this Chapter 5, Implementation Plan shall be subject to applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time an application submitted within this Specific Plan is submitted. The Design Guidelines are not compulsory but are intended instead to provide clear direction while allowing flexibility during the design of implementing development projects.
Consistency with the Design Guidelines of applications submitted within this Specific Plan shall be determined by the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 5.1.3.
5.1.2 SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Specific Plan, or future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Specific Plan.
5.1.3 INTERPRETATIONS
The Community Development Director may make interpretations related to the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan and/or the applicability of Zoning Ordinance requirements or, at his/her discretion, refer interpretations to the Planning Commission for its consideration and action. Interpretations made by the Community Development Director and/or decisions made by the Planning Commission may be appealed by the applicant to the Planning Commission, if applicable, and to the City Council per the procedures contained in the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time an application for development within the Specific Plan is submitted, unless otherwise set forth in this Chapter 5 or any then in effect Development Agreement. The Community Development Director is authorized to make a determination 318
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-3
that a use not listed in Table 3-1 (Permitted Uses) shall be allowed by the Specific Plan because it is found to be substantially similar to, or no more objectionable than, an allowed use. Such a use shall be subject to the same review requirements of the “similar” allowed use. “Substantially similar” means that the use would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Planning Area’s Land Use Designation. Appeals to interpretations made by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission may be made by any applicant pursuant to Section 5.2.7.
Implementation Regulations not addressed in this Specific Plan shall be subject to the applicable requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time an application for development within the Specific Plan is submitted or as otherwise provided in an approved and effective Development Agreement for the site.
5.1.4 APPROVAL AUTHORITY
1. The Community Development Director shall be responsible for administering, interpreting, and enforcing all Implementation Regulations and Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan, including the acceptance and processing of all land use permit applications.
2. The Community Development Director is also the approval authority for the following applications subject to appeal to the Planning Commission per the procedures contained in the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time the application is submitted, unless otherwise set forth in this Chapter 5 or any then effective Development Agreement:
a. Review and approval of the Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines; b. Modification to the Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines; c. Occupancy Permits;
d. Tenant Improvement Permits (except for Building Permits which remain governed by Ordinance); e. Lot Line Adjustments;
f. Minor Modifications to the Specific Plan;
g. Design Review - Administrative Review.
3. The Planning Commission is the approval authority for the following applications, subject to appeal to the City Council per the procedures contained in the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time a project is submitted, unless otherwise set forth in this Chapter 5 or any then effective Development Agreement:
a. Variances;
b. Design Review - Planning Commission Public Hearing Required; c. Conditional Use Permits (subject to the procedures of the City’s Zoning Ordinance); d. Minor Modifications to the Specific Plan with concurrent application as described in Section 5.2.3; and e. Any timely appeal by authorized parties of the matters described in Section 5.1.4.B.
The Planning Commission is the recommending body and the City Council is the final approval authority for General Plan Amendments, Specific Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, Development Agreements, and Subdivision including tentative and final maps, subject to the procedures set forth in the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
5.2 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF IMPLEMENTING DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Implementation of development proposals shall be subject to review and approval by the City of the land use applications identified in Section 5.2.1 through 5.2.4 (as applicable) and the City’s determination in accordance with Section 5.2.6 that its actions comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 319
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-4
5.2.1 DESIGN REVIEW
Design Review, which is initiated by an application filed by an applicant, is one of the entitlement mechanisms for implementing development within this Specific Plan. A Design Review implements uses “permitted by right” including any ancillary uses pursuant to Table 3-1, Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses, of this Specific Plan or other uses authorized by interpretation of the Specific Plan as described in Section 5.1.3, (Interpretations).Three (3) different Design Review processes may be used for implementing development within this Specific Plan, distinguished by the level of conformity with the Specific Plan and CEQA review requirements:
1. Design Review - Administrative Review:
A Design Review application which is found by the Community Development Director to be a “Permitted Use” or an “Ancillary Use” in compliance with the List of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted and Ancillary Uses in Table 3-1 or a use permitted without a Conditional Use Permit by interpretation as described in Section 5.1.3, (Interpretations) , shall be approved administratively by the Community Development Director, subject to Section 5.2.6 (Environmental Review) if the Community Development Director additionally finds that either:
a. The project described in the application is consistent with the overall intent and/or character of the Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines; or
b. The project described in the application is not in full compliance with other Implementation Regulations but is consistent with the overall intent and/or character of the Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines, and the Community Development Director additionally finds that: 1) that the proposed modifications are minor; and, 2) implementation of the proposed modifications would be generally consistent with the remaining Implementation Regulations, and with the overall intent and/or character of the Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines.
2. Design Review – Planning Commission Public Hearing:
A Design Review Application which is found by the Community Development Director to be a “Permitted Use” or an “Ancillary Use” in compliance with the List of Permitted, Conditionally Permitted and Ancillary Uses in Table 3-1 or a use permitted without a Conditional Use Permit by interpretation as described in Section 5.1.3, (Interpretations) but for which the Community Development Director cannot make the findings required by either Section 5.2.1.1.a. or Section
5.2.1.1 b., shall be referred by the Community Development Director to the Planning Commission for review and a determination at a public hearing. In addition, an application for Design Review shall require Planning Commission review and approval if the application includes a concurrent request for a Specific Plan Amendment or for a Minor Modification that is reviewable by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 5.2.3. The Planning Commission may approve, condition or deny the Design Review application, or may determine that a Conditional Use Permit is required, or may determine that a Minor Modification or Specific Plan Amendment is additionally required. A Specific Plan Amendment would also require approval by City Council.
5.2.2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Uses subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit are identified in Table 3-1 (Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, Ancillary, and Prohibited Uses) of this Specific Plan with a “C” symbol. A Conditional Use Permit application is an intensive consideration of an application submitted within this Specific Plan; no Design Review application is required.
Unless otherwise set forth in this Chapter 5, uses requiring the approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the filing, required findings, notification, hearing, and appeal procedures identified in the Zoning Ordinance applicable 320
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-5
to Conditional Use Permits effective at the time of development permit application(s). Applications for Conditional Use Permits shall be subject to Section 5.2.6 (Environmental Review).
5.2.3 MINOR MODIFICATIONS
A Minor Modification may be used to propose minor changes to the Specific Plan text and graphics. Minor Modifications shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director without a public hearing and shall be subject to Section 5.2.6 (Environmental Review). Any such approval shall be based on a finding made by the Community Development Director that the proposed changes to the Specific Plan text, graphics, and/or project design are minor deviations, adjustments, alterations, variations or changes which do not change the character or intent of the Specific Plan, and therefore do not require a Specific Plan Amendment.
However, a request for a Minor Modification accompanied by a concurrent application which requires Planning Commission and/or City Council review and approval, shall be reviewed and approved by the required hearing body for the concurrent application(s).
The following particular minor deviations, modifications or changes to the Specific Plan, along with other minor modifications that the Community Development Director may determine do not change the character or intent of the Specific Plan, shall be subject to review and administrative approval by the Community Development Director as a Minor Modification:
1. Modifications to the Specific Plan text and graphics which do not substantially change the character or intent of SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan.
2. Modifications to the Specific Plan text or graphics resulting from any of the following:
a. Modifications to the right of way width, improvements and/or alignment of any roadway within the Specific Plan or bordering the Specific Plan that is requested or directed by any department of the City of Banning, or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agency. b. Modifications to the location, size and/or timing of the installation of any sanitary sewer, storm drain, potable water or recycled water facility that is requested or directed by any department of the City of Banning, or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agency. c. Addition, deletion or relocation of any public facility, requested or directed by any department of the City of Banning, including but not limited to fire station, electrical substation, water reservoir, reverse osmosis facility or any other type of facility intended to be owned or operated by the City of Banning or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agency.
3. Expansion or reduction of the net acreage of any Planning Area (and accompanying expansion or reduction of the net acreage covered by a given land use designation) provided that such change does not increase the size of any Planning Area by more than 20%.
4. Increases or decreases of no more than 20% to development intensity/density or building square footage within any or all of the Planning Areas, provided that the overall Maximum Building Square Footage for Industrial uses and for General Commercial uses within this Specific Plan is not exceeded. Maximum Building Square Footage is defined as the total square footage of all floors in structure as measured from either the interior surface of each exterior wall of the structure or, if the structure does not have walls, from each outer edge of the roof.
5. Construction of buildings across Planning Area boundaries with the same Land Use Designation, which cross over into abutting Planning Areas, subject to all of the applicable Implementation Regulations and Design 321
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-6
Guidelines of this Specific Plan. Buildings constructed across Planning Area boundaries or lot lines shall not, by themselves, trigger the requirement for a Specific Plan Amendment.
6. Modifications to landscape coverage that result in reductions in coverage of less than 25% of that stated within the Specific Plan.
7. Modifications to the SUNSET CROSSROADS signage requirements contained in this Specific Plan or to any subsequently approved Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines.
8. Modifications to the heights of walls and fences by no more than 1 foot.
9. Decrease in parking requirements of not more than 10 spaces with a parking study reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. Applications submitted within this Specific Plan shall be consistent with parking requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance Section 17.28.
10. Other minor changes, deviations, adjustments, alterations, variations or modifications of a similar nature to those listed above or which are deemed minor by the Community Development Director, including (i) minor changes, adjustments, alterations, variations, deviations or modifications to landscape materials, wall materials, wall alignment, entry design, streetscape design, and the lengths and/or location of streets not identified in the General Plan Circulation Element and or pursuant to modifications on the final map and (ii) minor modifications to the Implementation Regulations (except for the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted, and Ancillary Uses) and Design Guidelines set forth in this Specific Plan, provided such changes, adjustments, alterations, variations, deviations or modifications are consistent with the intent of the Implementation Regulations and Design Guidelines and with the character and intent of the Specific Plan, and in substantial conformance with the City of Banning General Plan.
5.2.4 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
All Specific Plan modifications which do not meet the criteria of a Minor Modification as defined in Section 5.2.3 shall be deemed to require a Specific Plan Amendment. When public hearings are authorized or required to adopt Amendments to the Specific Plan, notices of public hearings shall be provided, and hearings held in accordance with the relevant procedural provisions of the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. Specific Plan Amendments shall be processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of State law provided in California Government Code section 65450 et. seq. and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Council. The Planning Commission shall first hear and consider applications for Specific Plan Amendments and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
Any Specific Plan Amendment initiated by an applicant requires the filing of a City application and required materials supporting the amendment, submittal of a fee deposit, Planning Commission review and recommendations, and City Council review and final decision.
5.2.5 SPECIFIC PLAN SIGN PROGRAM
Prior to the approval of the first application submitted within this Specific Plan, a comprehensive Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines for the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan consistent with the Signage Design Guidelines (Section 4.5) shall be prepared and reviewed pursuant to Section 5.1.4 (Approval Authority),. The Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall establish provisions for the development and use of signs within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Sign Program and Signage Design Guidelines shall exclusively regulate the development and use of all signs within the Specific Plan and shall take precedence over the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance related to signs (Section 17.36.110 - Sign regulations). 322
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-7
5.2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The SUNSET CROSSING Specific Plan and all subsequent entitlements for the Project shall be subject to CEQA.
For purposes of CEQA, the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan is considered a “project.” The evaluation of environmental impacts under CEQA for the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan is contained in the project’s Environmental Impact Report, a project level environmental impact report certified by the City of Banning concurrently with the approval of the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan (EIR). Adoption of the SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan, for which an environmental determination shall be made, and mitigation measures adopted, shall be deemed to have satisfied the environmental review requirements for build out of the Specific Plan area. Because the Project has been extensively reviewed in the EIR, it is the intent of the City in adopting this Specific Plan that applications for implementing entitlements for the Project, including with respect to grading, improvements, individual maps, buildings or phases, consistent with this Specific Plan shall not require additional review under CEQA, provided that none of the conditions are present which require further environmental review under CEQA, in particular, Public Resources Code Section 21166.
Upon filing of any application by applicant, a review in compliance with CEQA shall be conducted by the City to determine potential environmental impacts resulting from each land use application to implement the Specific Plan, if any, and if said proposal is consistent with the EIR, does not require subsequent environmental documentation, or is exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The CEQA review shall be undertaken as part of the review process for applications submitted within this Specific Plan. The Community Development Director shall make the determination as to the level of CEQA documentation (exemption, addendum, supplemental EIR, supplemental MND, or subsequent EIR or no further review required), that is appropriate and may request and obtain technical information as necessary to make this determination.
Although the EIR analyzes a range of uses as part of a conceptual development plan, it is recognized that the intent of the Specific Plan is not to identify a particular mixture or intensity of land uses, but rather to designate areas where a mixture of commercial or industrial uses may be developed. To permit development of the full range of uses described by the Specific Plan, any use shall be considered consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan if the City, in considering an application for a specific permitted use, conditionally permitted use or ancillary use, determines that no significant environmental impacts not addressed in the EIR or subsequent environmental documentation result from such proposed use.
5.2.7 APPEALS
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Specific Plan or the Zoning Ordinance, appeals from any determination of the Community Development Director and/or Planning Commission with respect to all matters may be made on forms provided by the City of Banning, and accompanied by the appropriate filing fee, where applicable, within fifteen (15) days following the final date of action for which an appeal is made. Except as specifically set forth in this Chapter 5, appeals may be brought and shall be processed consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
5.3 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Successful operation of maintenance entities and maintenance associations are important in maintaining the quality of a development. The public and private improvements constructed within SUNSET CROSSROADS shall be maintained through a combination of public and private entities as described in Table 5-1, Maintenance Responsibilities. A Master Property Owners’ Association (MPOA) and/or Property Owner’s Association (POA) shall be established for the maintenance of privately-owned common area landscape improvements, storm water and water quality management facilities, and private driveways within areas of SUNSET CROSSROADS. Indication of more than one party responsible for maintenance of any facility on Table 5-1, infers that maintenance may be undertaken by one party or any 323
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-8
combination of the listed parties, subject to a formal agreement. For areas in public ownership (such as public roadway ROWs), maintenance districts may fund the maintenance of these areas.
5.4 CONCEPTUAL PHASING PLAN
The SUNSET CROSSROADS Specific Plan is designed for development in response to market demands and according to the logical and orderly extension of roadways, public utilities, and infrastructure. The exact timing of implementation for any Planning Area may vary based on several factors, including market and economic demands, as well as physical constraints or timing of infrastructure improvements. It is anticipated three different types of phasing would occur to implement the Specific Plan: 1) Grading, 2) Mapping, and 3) Infrastructure Construction and Development. Development of the Planning Areas may take place in any order.
GRADING
Phasing of the grading may occur in two (2) or more phases and in any order: 1) north of the SLB Extension, and 2) south of the SLB Extension, and/or may occur in smaller increments, subject to approved Grading Plans and Permits.
MAPPING
Phasing of the mapping may occur with multiple Tentative Parcel Maps anticipated to be processed for the Specific Plan.
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Planning Areas may be developed in any sequence, or increment, provided that the infrastructure improvements required to serve the implementing development are available at the time of development or constructed concurrently with the development. Planning Areas which are dependent on adjacent Planning Areas for access shall demonstrate the ability to provide the necessary infrastructure and access, including the construction of interim infrastructure, prior to issuance of building permits. Applications submitted within this Specific Plan s may be approved by the City of Banning Planning Department, provided vehicular access, public facilities and infrastructure is constructed to adequately service the development or as needed for public health and safety in each stage of development.
An agreement with the City of Banning or other capable service provider shall be made in writing which states that the provision of services to any application submitted within this Specific Plan shall be available prior to the recordation of any subdivision maps.
TABLE 5-1 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
FACILITY
MASTER
PROPERTY
OWNERS’
ASSOCIATION
PROPERTY
OWNER OR
OCCUPANT
CITY OF
BANNING
OTHER MAINTENANCE ENTITY1
CIRCULATION & RELATED FACILITIES
Public Roadways
Pavement & Curbs X
Landscaping within public right-ofway, including medians and parkways
X
Sidewalks X
Private Driveways and Drive Aisles X X
Parking Lots, including landscaping X X
324
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-9
FACILITY
MASTER
PROPERTY
OWNERS’
ASSOCIATION
PROPERTY
OWNER OR
OCCUPANT
CITY OF
BANNING
OTHER MAINTENANCE ENTITY1
Traffic Signals2 X
Traffic Signs
Within public right-of-way X
Outside public right-of-way X
Street Lights
Within public right-of-way X
Outside public right-of-way X
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Potable Water Facilities/Infrastructure X X
Reclaimed Water Facilities/ Infrastructure X X
Sanitary Sewer Facilities/Infrastructure X X
Storm Water Drainage Facilities/
Infrastructure X X
Dry Utilities (Natural Gas,
Communications Systems) X
Dry Utilities (Electricity) X
LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE, & RELATED FACILITIES
Open Space-Resource Planning Areas 13
through 19 (Existing Natural Drainage
Courses)
X X
Planning Area 11 (Park Site) X
Planning Area 11 (Open Space/Trails) X
Planning Area 12 (Open SpaceResource/Trails/ Open Space) X Common area landscaping, including
entry treatments X X
Entry Monumentation, Freeway Oriented
Freestanding Signs, and Other Signage X X
Walls and Fences X X
Outdoor Employee Patio Areas X X
Outdoor Plazas/Gathering Areas X X
Notes:
1. Other Maintenance Entities may include utility providers, resource agencies, City Departments, park districts, flood control district, Landscape, Lighting and Maintenance District (LLMD), and other public/private entities. 2. Traffic signals and utility facilities/infrastructure may require maintenance easements.
3. The existing steel pole electrical power line shall be protected in place at the northern boundary via a 20’ easement. 325
END OF DOCUMENT
326
OLD TRANSITION LINE NEW TRANSITION LINE JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING “ ” “ ” “ ” 327
OLD TRANSITION LINE NEW TRANSITION LINE JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING 328
329
Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan
Please click on the link below to access the following documents:
• Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Appendices. • Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Appendices, Findings and MMRP.
https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan 330
September 2025
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
SUNSET CROSSROADS PROJECT FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
SCH #2021020011
331
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
332
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........................................................................ 1‐1
1.1 Findings Required Under CEQA......................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Document Format............................................................................................................. 1‐2
1.3 Project Summary............................................................................................................... 1‐3
1.3.1 Project Description/Location..............................................................................................1‐3
1.3.2 Discretionary Actions..........................................................................................................1‐6
1.3.3 Project Objectives...............................................................................................................1‐8
1.4 Environmental Review and Public Participation ...............................................................1‐9
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation .........................................................................................................1‐9
1.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting ......................................................................................................1‐9
1.4.3 Native American Scoping....................................................................................................1‐9
1.4.4 Draft Environmental Impact Report.................................................................................1‐10
1.5 General CEQA Findings.................................................................................................... 1‐10
1.5.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program................................................................1‐10
1.5.2 Recirculation Not Required ..............................................................................................1‐10
1.5.3 Consideration of Record; Independent Judgment............................................................1‐12
1.6 Record of Proceedings .................................................................................................... 1‐12
1.7 Custodian and Location of Records................................................................................. 1‐13
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS...................................................... 2‐1
3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVING NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION ............... 3‐1
3.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1.1 Threshold 4.1.1...................................................................................................................3‐1
3.1.2 Threshold 4.1.2...................................................................................................................3‐2
3.1.3 Threshold 4.1.3...................................................................................................................3‐2
3.1.4 Threshold 4.1.4...................................................................................................................3‐4
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................. 3‐5
3.2.1 Threshold 4.2.1...................................................................................................................3‐5
3.2.2 Threshold 4.2.2...................................................................................................................3‐5
3.2.3 Threshold 4.2.3...................................................................................................................3‐6
3.2.4 Threshold 4.2.4...................................................................................................................3‐6
3.2.5 Threshold 4.2.5...................................................................................................................3‐7
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3‐8
3.3.1 Threshold 4.3.3...................................................................................................................3‐8
3.3.2 Threshold 4.3.4...................................................................................................................3‐9
3.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................ 3‐10
3.4.1 Threshold 4.4.3.................................................................................................................3‐10
3.4.2 Threshold 4.4.4.................................................................................................................3‐10
3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 3‐11
3.5.1 Threshold 4.5.3.................................................................................................................3‐11
3.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 3‐12
3.6.1 Threshold 4.6.1.................................................................................................................3‐12
3.6.2 Threshold 4.6.2.................................................................................................................3‐15 333
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
ii
3.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 3‐16
3.7.1 Threshold 4.7.1(i)..............................................................................................................3‐16
3.7.2 Threshold 4.7.1 (ii)............................................................................................................3‐17
3.7.3 Threshold 4.7.1 (iii)...........................................................................................................3‐18
3.7.4 Threshold 4.7.1 (iv)...........................................................................................................3‐18
3.7.5 Threshold 4.7.2.................................................................................................................3‐19
3.7.6 Threshold 4.7.3.................................................................................................................3‐22
3.7.7 Threshold 4.7.4.................................................................................................................3‐23
3.7.8 Threshold 4.7.5.................................................................................................................3‐23
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3‐24
3.8.1 Threshold 4.9.1.................................................................................................................3‐24
3.8.2 Threshold 4.9.2.................................................................................................................3‐25
3.8.3 Threshold 4.9.3.................................................................................................................3‐27
3.8.4 Threshold 4.9.4.................................................................................................................3‐27
3.8.5 Threshold 4.9.5.................................................................................................................3‐28
3.8.6 Threshold 4.9.6.................................................................................................................3‐28
3.8.7 Threshold 4.9.7.................................................................................................................3‐29
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 3‐30
3.9.1 Threshold 4.10.1...............................................................................................................3‐30
3.9.2 Threshold 4.10.2...............................................................................................................3‐32
3.9.3 Threshold 4.10.4...............................................................................................................3‐33
3.9.4 Threshold 4.10.5...............................................................................................................3‐33
3.10 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 3‐34
3.10.1 Threshold 4.11.1...............................................................................................................3‐34
3.10.2 Threshold 4.112................................................................................................................3‐35
3.11 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 3‐36
3.11.1 Threshold 4.12.1...............................................................................................................3‐36
3.11.2 Threshold 4.12.2...............................................................................................................3‐37
3.12 Noise................................................................................................................................3‐37
3.12.1 Threshold 4.13.1...............................................................................................................3‐38
3.12.2 Threshold 4.13.2...............................................................................................................3‐39
3.12.3 Threshold 4.13.3...............................................................................................................3‐40
3.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 3‐41
3.13.1 Threshold 4.14.1...............................................................................................................3‐41
3.13.2 Threshold 4.14.2...............................................................................................................3‐43
3.14 Public Services................................................................................................................. 3‐43
3.14.1 Threshold 4.15.1...............................................................................................................3‐43
3.14.2 Threshold 4.15.2...............................................................................................................3‐46
3.14.3 Threshold 4.15.3...............................................................................................................3‐47
3.14.4 Threshold 4.15.4...............................................................................................................3‐48
3.14.5 Threshold 4.15.5...............................................................................................................3‐48
3.15 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 3‐49
3.15.1 Threshold 4.16.1...............................................................................................................3‐49
3.15.2 Threshold 4.16.2...............................................................................................................3‐50
3.16 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 3‐51
3.16.1 Threshold 4.17.1...............................................................................................................3‐51
3.16.2 Threshold 4.17.3...............................................................................................................3‐51
3.16.3 Threshold 4.17.4...............................................................................................................3‐53 334
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
iii
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................... 3‐54
3.17.1 Threshold 4.19.1...............................................................................................................3‐54
3.17.2 Threshold 4.19.2...............................................................................................................3‐56
3.17.3 Threshold 4.19.3...............................................................................................................3‐57
3.17.4 Threshold 4.19.4...............................................................................................................3‐58
3.17.5 Threshold 4.19.5...............................................................................................................3‐59
3.18 Wildfire............................................................................................................................ 3‐59
3.18.1 Threshold 4.20.1...............................................................................................................3‐59
3.18.2 Threshold 4.20.2...............................................................................................................3‐61
3.18.3 Threshold 4.20.3...............................................................................................................3‐62
3.18.4 Threshold 4.20.4...............................................................................................................3‐63
4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.............................................................................. 4‐1
4.1 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.1.1 Threshold 4.4.1...................................................................................................................4‐1
4.1.2 Threshold 4.4.2...................................................................................................................4‐8
4.1.3 Threshold 4.4.5...................................................................................................................4‐9
4.1.4 Threshold 4.4.6.................................................................................................................4‐10
4.2 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4‐11
4.2.1 Threshold 4.5.1.................................................................................................................4‐11
4.2.2 Threshold 4.5.2.................................................................................................................4‐14
4.3 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 4‐15
4.3.1 Threshold 4.7.6.................................................................................................................4‐15
4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 4‐16
4.4.1 Threshold 4.10.3...............................................................................................................4‐16
4.5 Tribal and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4‐20
4.5.1 Threshold 4.18.1...............................................................................................................4‐20
4.5.2 Threshold 4.18.2...............................................................................................................4‐23
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE..................................................................... 5‐1
5.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.1.1 Threshold 4.3.1...................................................................................................................5‐1
5.1.2 Threshold 4.3.2...................................................................................................................5‐6
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 5‐10
5.2.1 Threshold 4.8.1.................................................................................................................5‐10
5.2.2 Threshold 4.8.2.................................................................................................................5‐14
5.3 Noise................................................................................................................................5‐16
5.3.1 Threshold 4.13.1...............................................................................................................5‐16
5.4 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 5‐18
5.4.1 Threshold 4.17.2...............................................................................................................5‐18
6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ......................................................................................................... 6‐1
6.1 Impact Statement.............................................................................................................. 6‐1
6.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 6‐1
6.3 Substantial Evidence ......................................................................................................... 6‐1 335
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
iv
7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ...................................... 7‐1
7.1 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 7‐1
7.2 Substantial Evidence ......................................................................................................... 7‐1
8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING MSJC ENTITLEMENTS .................................................... 8‐1
8.1 MSJC Entitlements ............................................................................................................ 8‐1
8.1.1 Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................8‐1
8.1.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...................................................................................8‐3
8.1.3 Air Quality...........................................................................................................................8‐3
8.1.4 Biological Resources...........................................................................................................8‐6
8.1.5 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................8‐9
8.1.6 Energy...............................................................................................................................8‐10
8.1.7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................8‐12
8.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................8‐14
8.1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................8‐16
8.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................8‐18
8.1.11 Land Use and Planning .....................................................................................................8‐21
8.1.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................8‐22
8.1.13 Noise and Vibration..........................................................................................................8‐23
8.1.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................8‐25
8.1.15 Public Services..................................................................................................................8‐26
8.1.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................8‐28
8.1.17 Transportation..................................................................................................................8‐29
8.1.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................8‐31
8.1.19 Utilities..............................................................................................................................8‐33
8.1.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................8‐34
9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................. 9‐1
9.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources................................................................................. 9‐3
9.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 9‐5
9.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 9‐9
9.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 9‐12
9.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 9‐14
9.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 9‐17
9.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 9‐20
9.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 9‐23
9.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 9‐26
9.11 Land Use.......................................................................................................................... 9‐30
9.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 9‐31
9.13 Noise and Vibration......................................................................................................... 9‐33
9.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 9‐37
9.15 Public Services................................................................................................................. 9‐39
9.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 9‐41
9.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 9‐42
9.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 9‐45
9.19 Utilities............................................................................................................................ 9‐47 336
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
v
9.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................ 9‐50
10.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES............................................................ 10‐1
10.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected............................................................................10‐1
10.1.1 Off‐Site Alternative...........................................................................................................10‐2
10.1.2 Increased Commercial Use Alternative ............................................................................10‐3
10.1.3 Office Use Alternative.......................................................................................................10‐3
10.1.4 Residential Alternative (with Annexation)........................................................................10‐3
10.1.5 Reduced Residential Alternative ......................................................................................10‐4
10.1.6 Increased Residential Alternative.....................................................................................10‐4
10.2 Alternatives Under Consideration................................................................................... 10‐4
10.2.1 No Project/No Build Alternative.......................................................................................10‐4
10.2.2 No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative ................................................10‐6
10.2.3 Reduced Commercial Alternative.....................................................................................10‐8
10.2.4 Reduced Industrial Alternative.......................................................................................10‐10
10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative.........................................................................................10‐12
ATTACHMENT
A: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
337
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
338
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
1‐1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City of Banning (the City) makes the Findings described below in connection with its undertaking of the following actions: (1) certifying the Sunset Crossroads Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021020011) (EIR) prepared by the City of Banning (City) (2) approving the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan and additional discretionary approvals listed in Subsection 1.3.2 below in connection with development of an approximately 533.8‐acre property (Development Site) located partly within the City of Banning (City) and in part in the City’ssphere of influence (SOI) in unincorporated Riverside County (County) and (3) approving a General Plan Amendment, zone change, and rezoning of the Mt.
San Jacinto College (MSJC) Site for approximately 41 acres of the 49.2 acre property located in the City at the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue (MSJC Site). The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City, as described in Subsection 1.5 below, including the EIR.
The term EIR as used in these Findings includes the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, and Final EIR, collectively.
These Findings constitute the decision‐making findings of the City as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, etseq. (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. “CEQA Guidelines” in connection with the certification of the EIR forthe Project and the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”) and a Statement of Overriding Considerationsfor the proposed Project.
The City is the lead agency pursuant to CEQA with respect to the Project. These Findings are attached and incorporated by reference into each and every staff report, resolution, and ordinance associated with approval of the Project. These Findings are based on substantial evidence in the entire administrative record and references to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the Findings. All numbered references identifying specific mitigation measuresrelative to the proposed Project refer to numbered mitigation measures found the EIR and the MMRP.
1.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects ofsuch projects[.]” The statute also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
To implement these provisions, CEQA requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more 339
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
1‐2
written Findings for each of the Project’s significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding1
. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project and/or measures have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to below identified thresholds (referred to in these Findings as “CEQA Finding 1”).
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 (referred to in these Findings as “Finding 2”).
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 [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 3”].
The EIR includes all exhibits and appendices thereto, the list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the EIR, the comments that were received by the City regarding the EIR, and the City's written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084, the EIR has been reviewed and analyzed by the City of Banning as the Lead Agency with respect to the Project and the EIR. The following findings for the Project and each fact in support of a finding are thus based upon substantial evidence in the record.
1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
These Findings have been categorized into the following sections:
Section 1 of these Findings provides introductory information including Project description and location, discretionary actions to be undertaken in connection with the Project and the Project objectives; a summary of the environmental review and public participation process and the record of proceedings; and identification of the Final EIR contents, and this section regarding the organization and format of these Findings.
Section 2 provides certain findings the City is required to make pursuant to CEQA. Section 3 identifies the Development Project’s potential environmental effects determined not to be significant, and for which no mitigation is required. Section 4 identifies the potentially significant effects of the Development Project that are determined to be mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level and describes the mitigation measures implemented to achieve that result.
Section 5 identifies the significant and unavoidable effects of the Development Project and describes the feasible mitigation measures implemented to lessen the impacts identified. 1 State CEQA Guidelines § 15091.
340
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
1‐3
Section 6 contains the findings of the City regarding significant and irreversible environmental effects of the Project.
Section 7 identifies the findings regarding growth inducing impacts of the Project. Section 8 contains the findings of the City with respect to the MSJC Entitlements. Section 9 contains the findings of the City with respect to Cumulative Impacts. Section 10 contains the findings of the City with respect to Alternatives of the Project.
The MMRP is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 is attached to these Findings as Attachment A.
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.3.1 Project Description/Location
Project Location
NP Banning Industrial, LLC (Project Applicant) proposes to develop an approximately 533.8‐acre property (Development Site) located partly within the City and in part in the City’s SOI in the County.
The northerly portion of the Development Site is approximately 280.1 acres (Northern Portion of the Development Site) and is located in the City, while the southerly portion of the Development Site (Southern Portion of the Development Site) is approximately 253.7 acres within the City’s SOI. The Development Site islocated immediately south of I‐10 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue and north of Bobcat Road. The Development Site is bisected by the existing Westward Avenue right of way (Existing ROW), the centerline of which divides the land within the City and the unincorporated County land. The Existing ROW and adjoining .8 acres of land owned by the City and used for water wells are not part of the Development Site or the Development Project.
The Development Site is crossed by various natural drainages. Pershing Creek flows in a northwest to southeast direction through the eastern portion of the Development Site. Vegetation cover on the Development Site reflects a history of dry farming and cattle grazing disturbance over a majority of the site and consists primarily of non‐native grasslands, with patches of Riversidean sage scrub, mixed ornamental woodland, and sandy wash. The sandy wash habitat is associated with two deeply incised drainage courses and a tributary that flow through the Development Site. Pershing Creek flows in a northwest to southeast direction through the eastern portion of the Development Site and Smith Creek c flows in a north‐south direction. Highland Wash is a smaller drainage course and tributary to Smith Creek that confluences with Smith Creek near Westward Avenue.
The Project also includes the 49.2‐acre MSJC Site. Approximately 8.3 acres of the MSJC Site are currently developed with MSJC Campus features. The balance of the MSJC Site is undeveloped, with no existing structures, and vegetation that is a mosaic of Riversidean sage scrub, grassland, and water habitats. Pershing Creek crosses the MSJC Site from the west across Sunset Avenue, entering the southern portion of the MSJC Site.
341
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
1‐4
Current campus facilities, comprising one administration building, two classroom buildings, and one ancillary building, and surface parking are located on three parcels collectively encompassing 8.3 acres. The MSJC Site is zoned Public Facilities (PF) with the School (S) suffix, as identified through Chapter 17.16 of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC).
Project Description
The Project analyzed in the EIR consists of the Development Project and MSJC Entitlements, both of which are described below. The Development Project is analyzed at a project level in the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and consists of the proposed commercial and industrial development of the Development Site is of up to 5,067,000 square feet of commercial and industrial uses within 19 Planning Areas. In addition to roads, the Development Project’s master‐planned on‐ site infrastructure improvements include potable water, wastewater, reclaimed water lines, and stormwater management, including water quality management/flood control systems, dry utilities, roadways and sidewalks, landscaping, and a park.
The Development Project is primarily defined by the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan).
The Specific Plan establishes zoning regulations for commercial and industrial uses on the Development Site, including, but not limited to, allowed uses, intensity of use, building heights, setbacks, lot area and dimensions, parking, landscaping, signage, as well as to identify on‐site circulation and infrastructure improvements necessary to support the Development Project. The Specific Plan establishes four General Plan Land Use Designations: General Commercial (GC), Industrial (I), Open Space – Parks(OS‐P), and Open Space – Resources(OS‐R). Within the Development Site, 19 Planning Areas are geographic areas to which identified Implementation Regulations, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines described in the Specific Plan are applied. The Planning Areas would accommodate commercial, industrial, and open space uses.
Commercial (GC). The approximately 47.9‐acre commercial district of the Development Site (Planning Area 1) is bordered on the east by Sunset Avenue and stretches along the northeast portion of the Development Site between Lincoln Street and the site boundary. A maximum of 268,400 square feet of commercial uses, which may include leisure, retail, medical office, professional office, education, wellness, recreation, entertainment, restaurant, and other retail uses, operating out of a number of buildings aligned along an internal road (yet to be named) that would be accessed from Sunset Avenue. This portion of the Development Project is designed as a regional commercial and entertainment attraction, that may include warehouse club stores, multigenerational destinations such as activity and wellness‐based retail uses , and other athletic activities. Restaurants (with patio areas) and specialty retail uses that would orient inwards to central open space areas are proposed to allow for outdoor activities and as connections between uses along with an internal system of pedestrian walkways. Table 3‐1 of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (Draft EIR, Appendix B) provides a detailed list of permitted, conditionally permitted, ancillary, and prohibited uses within the Specific Plan area, and the Specific Plan in Section 3.2 at page 3‐5 provides that if the environmental impacts of proposed uses exceed those analyzed in the EIR, the City will conduct additional environmental review before approving any such use.
The proposed commercial usesinclude a freeway accessible 125‐room (approximately 90,000‐square‐ foot) hotel that would include a fitness room, hotel lobby, common area, office/management/ 342
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
1‐5
engineering area, laundry facilities, and outdoor or indoor pool. The commercial area further includes a fueling station and carwash with 20 vehicle fueling stations and 6 commercial fueling stations to accommodate recreational vehicles and multi‐axle tractor trailers and electric vehicle charging stations. The fueling facility would be accessed from Sunset Avenue or Lincoln Street and as analyzed would include four 20,000‐gallon underground storage tanks (USTs).
Industrial (I). The Specific Plan would provide for development of up to 5,067,000 square feet of industrial land uses on approximately 392.0 acres within the Development Site. Based on its proximity to the Sunset Avenue interchange at I‐10, the Development Project would facilitate the development of warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, and other industrial uses. To accommodate future tenants, the Specific Plan allows the size of individual buildings to vary within an established range (increasing or decreasing by up to 20 percent); however, the overall square footage of buildings in the industrial Planning Areas is capped at 5.545 million square feet. The Development Project considered in the EIR comprises industrial buildings ranging in size from 44,000 square feet up to 1,420,000 square feet and accommodating uses such as general industrial, manufacturing, parcel hub, warehouse/storage, truck/trailer parking and storage, recreational vehicle (RV) storage, high cube warehouse, fulfillment center, and e‐commerce operations. The Development Project’s Development Agreement would restrict industrial development on PA 2. The industrial building sites within the Development Project may include outdoor employee break areas with tables affixed to the ground to provide employees with a location to eat, gather, and enjoy being outside. Shading of these areas may be achieved through a combination of shade trees, umbrellas, or fabricated shade structures. Other open space amenities within the industrial areas may include pedestrian walkways, seating areas, overhead structures, and open space areas. Development of the industrial Planning Areas shall be subject to the applicable Infrastructure Improvement Standards, Development Standards, and Planning Area Standards set forth in the Specific Plan.
A proposed 65 MWh BESS facility would be a permitted use in any of the industrial use planning areas.
However, it would likely be associated with the planned electrical substation in PA 7. Direct access to the industrial Planning Areas would be provided from Sunset Avenue via Lincoln Street, Westward Avenue and a variety of internal driveways, and from Highland Home Road, the SLB Extension (upon completion), and Bobcat Road.
The MSJC Entitlements are analyzed at a programmatic level in the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because no specific development project is currently proposed to implement the MSJC Entitlements described below, and because they are logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions. To comply with Government Code Section 66300 et seq., contemporaneously with its consideration of the Development Project, the City proposes to adopt a General Plan amendment and rezone the MSJC Site, owned by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (MSJCCD), to very high‐density residential development, creating capacity for not less than 1,146 housing units to ensure no net loss of residential capacity as required by Government Code Section 66300 et seq.
The City has initiated a General Plan Land Use Amendment (GPA) and a change to the Official Zoning Map (ZC), respectively, on the MSJC Site which will change the land use designation and zoning from PF–S (Public Facilities‐Schools) to VHDR (Very High Density Residential), with a density range of 18– 24 dwelling units per acre (18–24 DU/AC). The City’s VHDR land use district allows condominiums and 343
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
1‐6
townhomes, as well as apartments with the provision of common area amenities and open space. The clustering of condominiums and townhomes is appropriate with the provision of common area amenities and open space. To ensure that the college facilities and any future residential development are compatible, and to provide for the clustering allowed by the City’s Municipal Code, the City will establish a Specific Plan Zoning Overlay (SPZO) (“Overlay”) coterminous with the MSJC Site boundary.
The Overlay would require preparation of a Specific Plan, pursuant to Chapter 17.96 of the BMC prior to development of residential uses on the MSJC Site, to ensure the MSJC Site is developed in a cohesive manner and accounting for the provision of adequate public infrastructure (i.e., roads,storm drain,sewer, potable and recycled water availability) and would provide the opportunity for clustering of residential development, to provide for a mixed‐use school facility and residential development on the property. Because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in physical changesto the environment and would only allow for the future development of the MSJC Site, no physical environmental impacts would result from the MSJC Entitlements action.
The Development Project and the MSJC Entitlements are referred to collectively in the EIR as the Project, while the Development Site and MSJC Site are collectively referred to as the Project Sites.
1.3.2 Discretionary Actions
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed. They include:
City of Banning Planning Commission
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding Certification of the Project EIR No. 2021020011
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding Adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendment No. 20‐2501 ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption by Ordinance of Zoning and Pre‐ Zoning of Specific Plan No. 20‐20000002, Zoning Change 20‐3502 ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of a Development Agreement ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding approval of Tentative Map No. 38118 ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the Annexation of the Specific Plan into the City of Banning
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendment No. 22‐2502 for MSJC Site
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption by Ordinance of Zoning Change No. 22‐3502 for MSJC Site
City of Banning City Council
344
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
1‐7
○ Water Supply Assessment Approval
○ Certification of the Project EIR No. 2021020011
○ Adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
○ Adoption by Resolution of General Plan Amendment No. 20‐2501 ○ Adoption by Ordinance of Zoning and Pre‐Zoning; Specific Plan No. 20‐20000002, Zoning Change 20‐3502
○ Approval by Ordinance of a Development Agreement
○ Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 38118
○ Approval of Resolution of Annexation of Southern Portion of the Development Site into the City of Banning
○ Adoption by Resolution of General Plan Amendment No. 22‐2502 for MSJC Site ○ Adoption by Ordinance of Zoning Change No. 22‐3502 for MSJC Site Subsequent discretionary actions may include, but not be limited to: Final Maps, Conditional Use Permits, Design Reviews, Subdivision Maps, Grading Permits, Variances, water and sewer system approvals, and encroachment permits and adoption of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)(1) further requiresthe City, to the extent the information is known, to include a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision‐making processes, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review/consultation requirements established by federal, State, or local law, regulation, and/or policy. Based on the Project as proposed, the following agencies may require the permits referenced below, However, the EIR can be used by any trustee agency or responsible agency (as such terms are defined by CEQA), whether identified in the EIR or not, as part of their decision‐ making processes in relation to the proposed Project.
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (Responsible Agency). Annexation of the Southern Portion of the Development Site from unincorporated Riverside County into the City. Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act, Section 401) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 1602) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (404 Permit)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Clean Water Act, Section 404) South Coast Air Quality Management District (Authority to Construct) 345
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
1‐8
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (action) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (action)
1.3.3 Project Objectives
The following objectives of the Project are based on the City’s Vision Statement and Goals from various General Plan elements:
Establish a functional and balanced pattern of land use that maximizes economic opportunity and provides needed public improvements for City residents. Establish land uses for properties in the City’s sphere of influence that will create positive fiscal impact to the City and provide sufficient fiscal benefit to permit annexation of the property upon which the project is proposed into the City.
Promote job creating uses that reduce the need for City residents to commute outside of the City for employment, thereby improving the City’s jobs to housing ratio. Locate industrial and commercial uses that rely on transportation efficiency in areas with convenient access to the local and regional transportation network, thereby minimizing truck traffic on local streets and reducing vehicle miles traveled in the region to the extent feasible. Address a need in the City for commercial and industrial land uses that accommodate a variety of modern industrial, business, hospitality, and commercial activities. Provide commercial development that allows for a diversified economy, complements existing uses, provides a range of employment opportunities, and promotes a safe and enjoyable shopping experience for residents and visitors.
Use comprehensive planning tools to create a master‐planned development that will be marketable to users, establish an aesthetically pleasing environment, and minimize impacts to adjoining uses.
Increase City sales and property tax revenues by establishing commercial and industrial uses in the City that can increase City revenues and assist in offsetting public services costs incurred by the City in development and maintenance of housing and public facilities. Assist in managing supply and demand for electric services to maintain and increase the existing renewables portfolio standard while minimizing costs to rate payers. Assist the City in developing roadway and utility infrastructure to support the anticipated growth requirements of the City and to improve accessibility in areas of the City and the City’s sphere of influence that currently have limited infrastructure to serve the needs of local residents and businesses.
346
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
1‐9
Conserve natural drainage features and open space to provide a balance between the built and natural environment.
Minimize the demand for water resources and other public services by creating drought tolerant landscaping and encouraging use of recycled water.
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was 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.
The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the project, SCH No. 2021020011.
The 30‐day public comment period extended from February 1 to March 3, 2021. 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 impacts addressed in Chapter
4.0 of the Draft EIR.
1.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting
Due to COVID‐19 restrictions, the Public Scoping meeting was held virtually on February 18, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via Zoom. Notice of the Public Scoping Meeting was published in the Banning Record Gazette on February 5, 2021 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.
1.4.3 Native American Scoping
The Development Project includes a General Plan Amendment and implementation of a Specific Plan for the Development Project; therefore, Native American consultation pursuant to both SB 18 and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) is required. On November 30, 2020 the City reached out to 31 Native American contacts to formally invite participation in tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 required for the Development Project. The City received responsesfrom the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (SBLI), and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) requesting formal consultation with the City regarding the Development Project.
The City provided a separate consultation invitation to these same 31 Native American contacts on August 25, 2022, specifically identifying the entitlement actions related to the MSJC Site. In this 2022 consultation, the City stated the MSJC Site Entitlements proposed only changes to the City’s land use and zoning maps, and that no construction or physical alterations were proposed or would be authorized under the MSJC Entitlements. The MBMI acknowledged the City’s actions and noted the MSJC Site is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the MBMI and that any future construction or alterations to the MSJC Site would be of interest to the MBMI. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) stated the MSJC Site is outside of Serrano ancestral territory and, as such, SMBMI would not request consulting party status with the City.
347
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
1‐10
1.4.4 Draft Environmental Impact Report
A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was provided to, responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the organizations, and person 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 December 15, 2023 to January 30, 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 December 15, 2023 to those parties requesting electronic notification. These emails provided the same weblink leading to the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR, supporting technical appendices, and associated public notices were uploaded to the State Clearinghouse on December 14, 2023. The State Clearinghouse confirmed receipt and published the Draft EIR for a public review period extending from December 15, 2023 to January 30, 2023.
1.4.5 Final Environmental Impact Report
A Final EIR was released to the public in July, 2024 and responses to comments transmitted to commenters in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
1.5 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS
1.5.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
To the extent that these Findings conclude that the proposed mitigation measures outlined in herein are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby commits to implementing these measures. These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City approves the proposed project. The mitigation measuresthat are referenced herein and adopted concurrently with these Findings will be effectuated through the process of construction and implementation of the proposed Project. In accordance with the Requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the City must adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is described in full in Section IV of the Draft EIR and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City reserves the right to make amendments and/or substitutions of mitigation measures if the City determines that the amended or substituted mitigation measure will mitigate the identified potential environmental impacts to at least the same degree asthe original mitigation measure, and where the amendment orsubstitution would notresult in a new significant impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated.
1.5.2 Recirculation Not Required
The City finds that the Draft EIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). CEQA requires that the lead agency recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice of its availability has previously been given but prior to its certification. The purpose of a Final EIR is to document changes to the Draft EIR following receipt of comments and to respond to comments to the Draft EIR. Responses in the Final EIR to comments submitted to the City on the Draft EIR fully considered and responded to comments claiming that the Project would have significant impacts or more severe impacts not disclosed in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the Responsesto Commentsinclude substantial evidence that 348
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
1‐11
none of the comments submitted to the City provided substantial evidence that the Development Project would result in changed circumstances, significant new information, considerably different mitigation measures, or new or more severe significant impacts than were discussed in the Draft EIR.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) provides that “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR — indeed, new information is oftentimes added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post‐Draft EIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies.
Accordingly, modifications to the Draft EIR to include modeling and updated emissions totals requested by commenters that show a minimal increase, do not change significance determinations, merely clarify or amplify or make insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), and do not meet the criteria of “new information” warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR. In addition, the addition of project design features and modified or new mitigation measures to the Final EIR to address comments to the Draft EIR expand the scope of mitigation in the Draft EIR and clarify, amplify, or make other modifications in an otherwise adequate EIR and these modifications do not result in adverse environmental impacts or identify mitigations measures the applicant declines to adopt; therefore, the modifications do not constitute new information requiring recirculation. See CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b). Similarly, inclusion of inadvertently omitted files from technical report appendices where that information is summarized in the Draft EIR and/or attached technical reports is not new information under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). See, e.g., High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) (addition of maps to general plan EIR provided clarifying information and did not require recirculation); Beverly Hills Unified Sch. Dist. V. Los Angeles Metro. Transp. Auth. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 627, 663 (new fault and tunneling studies confirmed conclusion in Draft EIR); Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Ctr. V. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 221 (addition to Final EIR of reports that had been summarized in Draft EIR was not significant new information).
As described in the Sunset Crossroads Project‐‐Supplemental CEQA Memorandum prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated September 3, 2025 (Supplemental CEQA Memorandum), modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in similar or a decrease in impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation as compared with the impacts identified in the DEIR and FEIR. The modifications are authorized by the terms of the Specific Plan, there is no significant new information and the modifications do not meet any of the criteria set forth in Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, recirculation is not required.
City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have thoroughly reviewed the public comments received regarding the Project and the Draft EIR to determine whether any of the public comments or responses to comments or modifications to the Development Project requested by the City as described in the Supplemental CEQA Memorandum provide substantial evidence that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to its adoption. The City finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
349
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
1‐12
1.5.3 Consideration of Record; Independent Judgment
In approving the Project, the City decision‐makers have reviewed and considered the Draft EIR and appendices, the Final EIR and appendices, and all other pertinent evidence in the record of proceedings. The Applicant’s consultants prepared the screen check versions of the Draft EIR, Final EIR and technicalstudies. Allsuch materials and all other materialsrelated to the EIR were extensively reviewed and, where appropriate, modified by the Planning Department or other City representatives. As such, the Draft EIR, Final EIR, technical studies, and all other related materials reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Lead Agency.
1.6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
The Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of those items listed in CEQA Section 21167.6(e), along with other items contained within the City’s files that are relevant to the consideration of the Project. The Record of Proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum and without limitation, which are herein incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
The Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion and Availability, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
The EIR comprised of
○ The Draft EIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied upon or incorporated by reference;
○ The Final EIR, including all written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, and/or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR and the City’s responses to those comments and corrections and additions to the Draft EIR and modifications and supplements to the technical appendices attached thereto.
○ A Memorandum entitled: “Sunset Crossroads Project – Supplemental CEQA Memorandum” ( Supplemental CEQA Memorandum) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated September 3, 2025 analyzing changes requested by the City following a public informational meeting held jointly on May 28, 2025 before the City Council and the City Planning Commission; and ○ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project; All documents submitted to the City by public agencies, organizations or members of the public in connection with the Draft EIR, up through the close of the public review period for the project on January 30, 2024;
350
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
1‐13
All minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; All documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City staff, City Planning Commission, and/or City Council by the environmental consultant and sub‐consultants who prepared the EIR or incorporated into reports presented to the City Council; All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City from other public agencies relating to the proposed Project and the EIR;
All final applications, letters, testimony and presentations presented by the Project Applicant and its consultants to the City in connection with the Project; All findings and resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, all documents, cited or referred to therein and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and any other materials required by or comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to CEQA Section 21167.6(e).
1.7 CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Banning, Community Development Department, 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, California 92220]. The custodian for these records is Emery Papp. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
351
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
1‐14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
352
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
2‐1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by LSA, an independent, professional consulting firm. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff, the thorough and independent peer review by City staff of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses, and the review and careful consideration of the EIR by the City, including comments and responses. All conclusively show that the EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency.
Based on the NOP (Appendix A‐1 to the Draft EIR) and the comments to the NOP (Appendix A‐2 to the Draft EIR), the EIR analyzed 20 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from implementation of the Project. These environmental topics were analyzed in the EIR at a project level for the Development Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, and at a programmatic level for the MSJC Entitlements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and include aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the EIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City’s environmental consultants.
At a public hearing(s) conducted for the Project, the City determined that, based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and the submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are 1) less‐than‐significant and do not require mitigation; 2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance, through the identified mitigation measures or; 3) significant and unavoidable and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less‐than‐significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
353
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
2‐2
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
354
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐1
3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVING
NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND
NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project have no impact or are less‐than‐significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
3.1 AESTHETICS
Project impacts for CEQA Aesthetics would not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below. The Development Project will comply with Project Design Features and Development Standards set forth in Chapter 3 and the Design Guidelines set forth in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
Compliance with the Specific Plan’srequirements would serve to reduce and/or avoid impactsrelating to Aesthetics.
3.1.1 Threshold 4.1.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.1‐1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.1 of the EIR. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold 4.1‐1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The City has not designated any portion of the Development Site as a scenic resource. Accordingly, the Development Project will not physically alter a designated scenic resource.
With respect to the ability of the Development Project to block a scenic vista, the Development Site and the City of Banning are located in a valley situated approximately 41 miles south of the San Bernardino Mountains and approximately 25 miles northwest of Mount San Jacinto Peak. Both mountain ranges, along with their foothills rising from the valley floor constitute the most prominent scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Development Site and City of Banning. The Little San Bernardino Mountains are also visible to the east of the Development Site and City. San Gorgonio Mountain in the San Bernardino Mountains, the highest peak in southern California (11,503 feet), is approximately 13 miles north of the Development Site and is visible from nearly the entire Development Site. San Jacinto Peak in the San Jacinto Mountains (10,834 feet) is approximately 15 miles southeast of the Development Site. The western foothills of the San Jacinto mountains begin approximately 1.5 miles south of the southern portion of the Development Site (SOI).
Although the Development Project would obstruct some views of the San Jacinto Mountain Range, the San Bernardino Mountain Range, and the western foothills of both of these mountain rangesfrom 355
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐2
some public vantage points, the City has not designated these topographical features as scenic vistas and as such, no significant impact would occur to scenic resources.
The Development Project would also include the placement of a maximum 80‐foot tall, 30‐foot‐wide, freeway‐oriented freestanding sign, on the north side of the Development Site. The freeway‐oriented freestanding sign has the potential to partially block motorist’s views of the San Jacinto Mountains and its western foothills, and of the San Bernardino foothills; however, the design, location and size of the sign would make this a minimal temporary obstruction as motorists drive past the Development Site on westbound and eastbound I‐10. Overall, implementation of the freeway‐oriented freestanding sign as part of the Development Project would not adversely affect views of scenic vistas, and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, Section 4.1.5.1).
3.1.2 Threshold 4.1.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.1‐2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.2 of the EIR. This City finds that the impact of the Project will have no impact related to Threshold 4.1‐2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Caltrans Scenic Highway Program identifies SR‐243 (approximately 2 miles east of the Development Project) between I‐10 and State Route 74 as both an Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highway. Due to intervening topography, distance, existing buildings, and vegetation (i.e., trees), neither the proposed Development Project nor areas on the Development Site for the future development of an electrical substation (PA 7) or reverse osmosis facility (PA 12) are visible from SR‐ 243. The areas where the Development Project and these facilities would be located are not within, adjacent, or near a State‐designated scenic highway.
There are no City or County designated Scenic Corridors that cross or are near or adjacent to the Development Site and no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on or in the vicinity of the Development Site. As such, implementation of the Development Project and any future development within the Development Site would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway, and no impact would occur. (EIR, Section 4.1.5.2).
3.1.3 Threshold 4.1.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
356
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐3
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.1‐3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.3 of the EIR. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Banning is located within the Riverside‐San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area. As such, the threshold applicable to the Project is to determine if the Project is in conflict with the General Plan and zoning regulations governing scenic quality. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold 4.1‐3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Because of annexation, the entirety of the project area will be located within the City, and therefore will also be entirely classified to be located within an urbanized area. Existing land use designations on the Development Site under the City General Plan include residential, open space and general commercial. Existing zoning classifications on the Development Site within the City include residential, open space and general commercial, although zoning designations would be replaced by the proposed Specific Plan. The Southern Portion of the Development Site lies within the County General Plan and is designated asrural residential. However, this area is within the City’ssphere of influence, and would be annexed into the City with implementation of the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Development Project would require a General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan and annexation of the Southern Portion of the Development Site into the City to implement the Specific Plan that would change existing land use and zoning to general commercial, industrial, open space‐ parks, and open space‐resource.
The visual character and quality of the Development Site and surrounding area would be preserved and enhanced through the application of and compliance with the architectural and landscape design guidelines of the Development Project and its Specific Plan. The architectural and landscape design guidelines guide the quality and aesthetic value of future commercial and industrial buildings as a result of implementation of the Development Project.
Although the Project would convert undeveloped land to industrial and commercial development while maintaining open space, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the Development Site and its surroundings because the Project’s proposed structures, would not block views of the nearby mountains and foothills due to their distance from the Development Site and the height and orientation of the Project’s proposed structures, which would r not block views to the San Gorgonio Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains. The Development Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The City’s General Plan goals and policies pertaining to aesthetics are intended to ensure that development in the City will not result in substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the Development Site and its surroundings. The Development Project would be consistent with City regulations governing scenic quality, including those outlined in the City of Banning General Plan Land Use Element, in and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, Project impacts would be lessthan significant. (EIR, Section 4.1.5.3). 357
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐4
3.1.4 Threshold 4.1.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.1‐4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.4 of the EIR. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold
4.1‐4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Constructing and operating the Development Project would introduce new sources of light to an area that is not generating glare or day or nighttime illumination. Most construction activities on the Development Site will occur during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. per City Zoning Code guidelines.
Any construction‐related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would consist of the minimum lighting required forsafety and security purposes only and would occur only forthe duration required for the temporary construction process. As a result, light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of off‐site areas surrounding the Site nor interfere with the performance of an off‐site activity.
The Specific Plan as revised in Section 3.1 at page 3‐4, and Section 4.4.10 at page 4‐15 requires as project design features specific development standards and guidelines that ensure that there will be no significant impact from light or glare from the Development Project, including on nearby properties. The standards and guidelines regarding lighting in the Specific Plan serve as City zoning requirements for the Development Project and ensure that impacts from lighting and glare are less than significant.
The Specific Plan’s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines (refer to Section 4.3.9 of Appendix B, Specific Plan) indicate that the Development Site would minimize glare and “spill over” light onto public streets, open space, Interstate‐10 and adjacent properties by using downward‐directed lights and/or cutoff devises on outdoor lighting fixtures, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illumination for structures, parking, loading, unloading, and similar areas. Low‐level security lighting may be provided for the park, tot lot playground, trails, parking lot, and restrooms. The trails and parking lot may include bollard lighting while the tot lot playground and restrooms may include security lighting. With implementation of the Specific Plan, night lighting will be directed away from the conserved areas to protect species within the conserved areas from direct night lighting and shielding will be required to ensure that ambient lighting in the conserved areas is not increased. See Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources.
Overall, implementation of the Development Project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, Project impacts associated with construction and operation of the Development Project would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.1.5.4).
358
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐5
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Agricultural and Forestry Resources do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.2.1 Threshold 4.2.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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 non‐agricultural use.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2‐1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Site does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The City finds that the development of the Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.2‐1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The DOC FMMP was reviewed to determine if the Development Site is designated as Important Farmland which is defined in Public Resources Code Sections 21095 and 21060.1(a) for purposes of CEQA as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The FMMP indicates the Development Site is designated with 451.9 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 76.83 acres of Grazing Land, and 3.97 acres of Other Land. Development Project implementation would convert the Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land to urbanized land. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland are classified on the Development Site; therefore, Development Project implementation would not convert Important Farmland to non‐ agricultural uses. (EIR Section 4.2.6.1). Therefore, there are no Project impacts.
3.2.2 Threshold 4.2.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold
4.2.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Northern Portion of the Development Site is not within an agriculturalzone. The Southern Portion of the Development Site, although designated for light agricultural uses under the County’s zoning, is already designated as urbanizing through its placement within the City of Banning Sphere of Influence and is proposed for annexation. Its current City prezoning and the proposed Specific Plan are for urban 359
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐6
uses. Once the Development Project is approved and annexation occurs, the Southern Portion of the Development Site would be redesignated as Specific Plan and would therefore no longer be zoned as Light Agriculture pursuant to the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that the Southern Portion of the Development Site, although currently zoned as Light Agriculture, is currently not and has not previously been occupied by agricultural uses. Overall, Development Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
Review of the parcels within the Development Site concluded that none were under Williamson Act Contracts. Additionally, the status of past Williamson Act Contracts placed on parcels within the Development Site was confirmed with Riverside County Planning Staff, and these contracts have been terminated; therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not result in conflict with land under a Williamson Act Contract. (EIR Section 4.2.6.2). Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.
3.2.3 Threshold 4.2.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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)).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2‐3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.3 of the EIR. The Development Project will not impact forest lands or timberlands. The City finds that the development of the Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.2‐3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
There is no forest land on the Development Site, and it is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production under either the County or City zoning designations. As such, Development Project implementation and the construction of public facilities would not conflict with such forest zoning designations, and there is no impact. (EIR Section 4.2.6.3).
3.2.4 Threshold 4.2.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Site is does not qualify as forest land. Accordingly, Development Project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use, and the Project will not impact forest lands or timberlands. The City finds that the development of the Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.2.4; therefore, no mitigation is required. 360
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐7
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is currently occupied by native grasslands and some native trees. The number of trees currently located on the Development Site does not equate to 10 percent of the site and, therefore, it does not qualify as forest land pursuant to the California’s Forests and Rangelands, 2017 Assessment, and California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). As such, Development Project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. (EIR Section 4.2.6.4).
3.2.5 Threshold 4.2.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2‐5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Site does not contain Farmland as defined under CEQA or forest land as defined by applicable statutes. Therefore, the Development Project will not convert Farmland to nob‐ agricultural use or convert forest land to non‐forest use. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold 4.2.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
As disclosed above in the response to Threshold 4.2.1, the Development Site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance and has not been used for agriculture since the early 1900s. The Development Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use.
Accordingly, while the Development Project will convert land designated as Farmland of Local Importance to a non‐agricultural use, the Development Site has notsupported agricultural uses, apart from occasional livestock grazing, since the early 1900s. Although the Southern Portion of the Development Site is zoned A‐1, Light Agriculture, there is currently no agricultural activity on the Southern Portion of the Development Site or on any adjacent or nearby property except for occasional cattle grazing. This temporary agricultural use contributes very little to the regional agricultural economy, and the implementation of the Development Project would not directly or indirectly catalyze the conversion of additional farmland to urban land uses. As noted above no active Williamson Act Contracts are in effect on the Development Sites; therefore, no impacts to Williamson Act Contract parcels would occur. Furthermore, as an action associated with the Development Project, the Southern Portion of the Development Site will be annexed into the City and will be redesignated as Specific Plan pursuant to the City’s Zoning Code. There are no forest or timberland resources on, or in the vicinity of, the Development Site. Therefore, Development Project implementation would not contribute or catalyze the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.
Overall, the Development Project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use at off‐site locations. (EIR Section 4.2.6.5). 361
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐8
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Project impacts for CEQA Air Quality Thresholds 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below
3.3.1 Threshold 4.3.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Findings
Potential impacts to Threshold 4.3.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6.3 of the EIR including text revisions in the Final EIR. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD regulations regarding exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The City finds that Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.3.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction Localized Significance Threshold (LST). Sensitive receptors near the Project site include Mount San Jacinto College campus, across Sunset Avenue and approximately 115 from the Project site. Although the campus is not the closest receptor, concentrations produced during construction are highest at this location due to meteorological conditions of the area. Construction criteria pollutant concentrations during construction of the Development Project would not exceed the localized thresholds and would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.
Operation LST. None of the criteria pollutant concentrations would exceed the LST thresholds at the nearestsensitive land uses; therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a localized significant air quality impact.
Operational Health Risk Assessment. Exposure to toxic air contaminants from vehicle exhaust can result in both immediate and long‐term health effects. Exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions such as asthma and respiratory illnesses and can worsen existing heart and lung disease, especially in children and the elderly. As shown in Table 4.3.Q, which was revised in the Final EIR, the future health risk to nearby residents, students, and workers from Project‐related emissions of TACs from the operation of the proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds.
The results of the Revised Table 4.3.Q show the changes to the chronic and acute health risk levels based on the remodeled HRA. These resultsindicate that the additional emissions and project updates would not result in any new significant health risk impacts from those previously described in the Draft EIR. No significant health risk would occur from the operation of the Project, and no mitigation is necessary.
Long‐Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. Existing carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the Project area are extremely low. Because ambient CO levels are below the standards throughout the South Coast Air Basin, this Project would only be considered to have a significant CO impact if Project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of the 1‐hour or 8‐hour standards. As the ambient concentrations are very low compared to ambient air quality standards(AAQS) with the current motor 362
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐9
vehicle control programs, the exhaust emissions of CO will remain extremely low. Therefore, the Project can be implemented in the existing setting with no significant peak‐hour intersection CO hotspot impacts.
Construction of the proposed Project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel‐ fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rulesforstandard construction practices(see Draft EIR, Tables 4.3.O and 4.3.P). Regulatory compliance measures AQ‐1, AQ‐2, AQ‐3, and AQ‐4 are existing SCAQMD regulations that are applicable to the proposed Project and were considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to air quality. These requirements are considered to be mandatory regulatory compliance measures and are not mitigation measures. (EIR Section 4.3.6.3)
3.3.2 Threshold 4.3.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Findings
Potential impacts to Threshold 4.3.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6.4 of the EIR. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules regulating odors. The City finds that the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.3.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Heavy‐duty equipment in the Project vicinity during construction would emit detectable odors. Other sources of odors from construction activities may include roadway construction (e.g., asphalt application), and the application of architectural coatings. While these odors may be noticeable by nearby sensitive receptors, they are typical during construction and would not necessarily be objectionable. These odors would dissipate quickly beyond 300 feet of their source and would be temporary in nature. Additionally, construction‐produced odors would cease upon the completion of construction.
Objectionable odors typically may emanate from agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, food‐processing plants, chemical plants, composting,refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. While no such uses are planned for the Development Site, the Project does envision the development of commercial and industrial uses, including a variety of restaurants and a fueling station.
Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances assures that odors from the proposed commercial and industrial uses would not be a significant source of odors. Rule 402 has two parts – whether air contaminants are emitted which cause injury, nuisance, or annoyance, or whether the odors endanger health/safety, or comfort, or cause injury/damage to business or property. The proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any odors that would result in either condition. City (of 363
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐10
Banning) and County (of Riverside) regulations require trash storage areas to be in an enclosed area to limit air circulation, and through adherence to City and County regulations, odors from the trash storage areas would be less than significant. Vapor recovery systems on gas nozzles (SCAQMD Rule 461) would minimize odors from the gas station, and cooking odors would be limited by complying with SCAQMD Rule 1138. Therefore, the Project would not result in objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. As such, Project‐related impacts associated with odors would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section 4.3.6.4).
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Biological Resources Thresholds 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.4.1 Threshold 4.4.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would have a less than significant impact, and implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6, which are feasible and adopted, would ensure compliance with BMPs and MSHCP guidelines.
Substantial Evidence
No wetland habitat occurs within the Development Site or within the Biological Study Area (BSA).
Multiple seasonal pooling sites, which are not federally protected wetlands, occur within the Development Site, and many of these seasonal pooling sites would be permanently affected by Development Project construction. While pooling sites provide potential habitat for fairy shrimp, during fairy shrimp surveys conducted on site and within the BSA no State or federally listed fairy shrimp species were observed. None of the on‐site seasonal pooling features that are habitat for fairy shrimp were determined to be a vernal pool ecosystem. These features were barren or overrun by non‐native plant species and occurred within compacted soil in road ruts and other human alterations.
Despite the determination of no significant impact noted, mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 were identified as applicable to thisthreshold to ensure compliance with BMPs and MSHCP guidelines to protect the three noted drainage features during construction and Project‐related impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.4.6.3).
3.4.2 Threshold 4.4.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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. 364
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐11
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.4 of the EIR. The City findsthat the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.4.3, and, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is not within an area identified by the MSHCP as an important migratory or native resident wildlife corridor area. The MSHCP Consistency Analysis determined that the Development Site and adjacent vegetation is unsuitable habitat for State and federally listed riparian bird species such as the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow‐billed cuckoo. While habitat exists for migratory bird species to nest on site, active nests for these species, including grasshopper sparrow, are unlikely to occur on site because they migrate through this area but do not nest on site or within the BSA. Although burrowing owl occur on site and are a State listed special‐status species, no substantial resident population has been observed on site and there is no evidence of the site being used as a migration corridor for this species. The planned conservation areas on the Development Site would conserve potential nesting habitat on site for this and other bird species, meeting the guidelines of the MSHCP.
Because the impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. However, any active bird nest identified on site is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), regardless of species status, and regulatory compliance with its provisions is required. If an active nest is identified during construction, the nest would not be disturbed until chicks fledge or the nest is no longer active. Construction and operation of the Development Project would not significantly impact wildlife movement or known nursery sites within or in the vicinity of the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.4.6.4).
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Cultural Resources Threshold 4.5.3 does not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.5.1 Threshold 4.5.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.5.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6.2 of the EIR. The City findsthat the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.5.3, and, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
There are no known human remains at the Development Site, although the potential to unearth such remains during construction cannot be ruled out. In the event that human remains are identified during Development Project construction, these remains would be treated in accordance with Section 365
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐12
7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98, as well as appropriate measures identified in the EIR related to the inadvertent discovery of such remains. (EIR Section
4.5.6.2).
3.6 ENERGY
Project impacts for CEQA Energy do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.6.1 Threshold 4.6.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The City finds that the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.6.1, and no mitigation is required.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.6.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.6.1 of the EIR. The City findsthat the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.6.1, and no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, utility installation, paving, and building construction and architectural coating. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. However, energy usage on the Development Site during construction would be temporary.
Through the duration of construction, approximately 443,644 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 3,652 gallons of gasoline during construction. Diesel and gasoline consumption (2023) in Riverside County totals approximately 915.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 321.6 million gallons of diesel fuel. Fuel consumption during construction of the Development Project would increase diesel and gasoline consumption in Riverside County by approximately 0.03 and less than 0.01 percent, respectively. At buildout, the Development Project would generate 20,496 average daily trips, including 17,166 passenger vehicle trips and 3,330 truck trips., which would consume approximately
1.423 million gallons of gasoline and 6.67 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. See Final EIR, section
4.6.6.1, REVISED Table 4.6.D.
At buildout with the implementation of the stated mitigation and PDFs, the Development Project would require 25,570,405 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) (or 25.570 GWh) of electricity and 5,999,799 kBTUs (or 59,997 therms) of natural gas per year. Total electricity consumption in the Banning EU service area in 2022 was 151.5 GWh. The Development Project’s electric demand represent approximately
16.9 percent of existing electricity consumption within the Banning Electric Utility (BEU) service area and 0.14 percent of current electrical demand in Riverside County. The BEU has included the energy usage by this Development Project as well as two other large commercial developments in its future planning. Total natural gas consumption in Riverside County in 2022 was 431.1 million therms. 366
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐13
Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Riverside County by 0.01 percent.
While implementation of the Development Project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the Development Site and petroleum consumption in the region during operation, it entails conventional commercial and industrial uses utilizing up to date energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Development Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive, and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other similar commercial and industrial uses.
The Development Project will increase energy usage; however, it will be used efficiently and therefore would not result in a significant impact. The Development Project would be required to adhere to, and would be consistent with, all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.
CALGreen building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage. Assuch, fuel, electrical and natural gas demand associated with Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Increasingly stringent electricity, natural gas, and fuel efficiency standards combined with compliance with the CBC and CALGreen Code as part of Chapter 15.04 of the City Municipal Code, implementing Riverside County 2019 CAP points, and complying with the WAIRE program would ensure operation of the Development Project would demand only the energy required. The Development Project will increase electricity use; however, it will be used efficiently and therefore would not result in a significant impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would be less than significant.
As shown in Final EIR REVISED Table 4.6.C, fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project is estimated at 1,423,796 gallons of gasoline and 6,376,570 gallons of diesel fuel per year. This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of Project operation would be new to Riverside County. Based on fuel consumption rates obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 915.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 321.6 million gallons of diesel fuel were consumed from vehicle trips in Riverside County in 2023. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed Project would increase the annual fuel use in Riverside County by approximately 0.155 percent for gasoline fuel usage and by approximately 1.9 percent for diesel fuel usage. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Increasingly stringent electricity, natural gas, and fuel efficiency standards combined with compliance with the CBC and CALGreen Code as part of Chapter 15.04 of the City Municipal Code, implementing Riverside County 2019 CAP points, and complying with the WAIRE program would ensure operation of the Development Project would demand only the energy required. The Development Project will increase electricity use; however, it will be used efficiently and therefore would not result in a significant impact.
367
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐14
No mitigation is required; however, Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG‐1, described below, is a regulatory requirement implemented as a routine action conditioned by the City to ensure impacts related to energy demand during construction remain less than significant. Through compliance with Title 13‐Section 2449 of the CCR and the CALGreen Building Standards Code as a matter of regulatory policy (Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG‐1), construction of the Development Project would demand only the energy required and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption. (EIR Section 4.6.6.1).
RCM ENG‐1: Construction. Compliance with Title 13‐Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Green Building Standards: Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the City of Banning shall verify that the Development Project Applicant and his/her contractor(s) submit plans to the City indicating incorporation of Best Available Control Measures during construction of the Development Project.
Best Available Control Measures include, but are not limited to, requirements that the Development Project Applicant ensure off‐road vehicles (i.e., self‐propelled diesel‐fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road) limit vehicle idling to 5 minutes or less; and register and label vehicles in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Diesel Off‐Road Online Reporting System; restrict the inclusion of older vehicles into fleets; and retire, replace, orrepower older engines orinstall Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). Additionally, the construction contractor must recycle/reuse at least 65 percent of the construction material. This condition shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Banning Development Services Director or designee, and/or Building Official, or designee.
Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1 is included in the Final EIR as follows:
MM AIR‐1 The following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented during Project construction:
Plans submitted for grading permit issuance and building permit issuance shall specify a designated area of the construction site where electric or non‐diesel vehicles, equipment, and tools can be fueled or charged. The provision of temporary electric infrastructure forsuch purpose shall be approved by the utility provider, Banning Electric Utility (BEU). If BEU does not approve the installation of temporary power for this purpose, the establishment of a temporary electric charging area will not be required. If electric equipment will not be used on the construction site because the construction contractor(s) does not have such equipment in its fleet (as specified in this Mitigation Measure below), the establishment of a temporary electric charging area also will not be required. If the contractor(s) equipment fleet includes this equipment and BEU approval is secured, the temporary charging location shall be established upon issuance of grading permits and building permits.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road trucks and construction support equipment, including but not limited to hand tools, forklifts, aerial lifts, materials lifts, hoists, 368
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐15
pressure washers, plate compactors, and air compressors are available in the construction contractor’s equipment fleet and can fulfill the construction requirements during the building, construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of Project construction, such equipment shall be used during on‐site construction. This requirement shall be noted on plans submitted for building permit issuance.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road truck and construction support equipment are not available then the Project contractor shall ensure all 50 horsepower or more off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified Tier 4 Final engines or the equivalent. Construction contractorsshall maintain records of all off‐road diesel construction equipment associated with on‐site construction to document that each off‐road diesel construction equipment used meets required emission standards. Records shall be kept on‐site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City staff or their designee. During construction activities, the City shall conduct periodic inspections to verify compliance with construction‐related mitigation measures pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
During construction of the proposed Development Project, the Project contractor shall only use interior paints with low volatile organic compound (VOC) content with a maximum concentration of 30 grams per liter (g/L) for residential building architectural coating to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 g/L verified.
The City of Banning shall verify these requirements have been incorporated into construction plans prior to issuance of any construction permits and during architectural coating activities.
Operations. Compliance with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy and Energy Independence and Security Act regulations: All vehicles operating in the Development Project will comply with these regulations as enforced by standard vehicle registration processes. Compliance with the Energy Policy Act, Senate Bill 1389, Energy: Planning and Forecasting, Title 24, California Building Code, and the California Green Building Standards Code: The City of Banning shall verify that the Development Project Applicant and all contractor(s) submit plans to the City indicating incorporation of energy‐ efficient measures in compliance with these acts.
3.6.2 Threshold 4.6.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
369
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐16
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.6.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.6.2 of the EIR. There is no aspect of the Development Project that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.6.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would be required to adhere to, and would be consistent with, all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards, SCAG RTP/SCS goal of reduce commuting distance to jobs, thus helping reduce fuel use, and City General Plan policies General Plan policies that help reduce energy consumption. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, as well as CALGreen Code which would reduce energy usage. As such, fuel, electrical and natural gas demand associated with Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. (EIR Section 4.6.6.2).
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project impacts for CEQA Geology and Soils d do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.7.1 Threshold 4.7.1(i)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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 known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7‐1(i) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.1 of the EIR. No known faults underlie the Development Site. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in no impacts to Threshold 4.7‐1(i); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
No Alquist‐Priolo earthquake fault zones are mapped on or adjacent to the Development Site which does not show evidence of active faulting. Therefore, the Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known Alquist‐Priolo earthquake fault or based on other substantial evidence of known fault. (EIR Section 4.7.6.1).
370
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐17
3.7.2 Threshold 4.7.1 (ii)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.1(ii) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Development Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.7.1(ii); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
While active faults are not known to exist on the Development Site, the Banning Fault located approximately 2.75 miles to the northeast along with the nearby San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones can produce strong ground shaking in case of a fault rupture in this area. However, this is common for virtually all of Southern California, and structures are required to be designed in accordance with the CBC and other applicable Codes (per BMC Chapter 15.08) to withstand the ground shaking during the assumed design seismic event.
Development Project uses would be required to have a site‐specific geotechnical investigation report prepared by the Applicant’s geotechnical consultant, in accordance with Appendix J Section J104 (Engineered Grading Requirements) of the CBC (see Regulatory Compliance Measure [RCM] GEO‐1 below); such investigation would determine seismic design parameters for the Development Project building types pursuant to CBC requirements. Compliance with the design parameters and recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report would be required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit. Thus, impacts resulting from strong ground shaking are anticipated to be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.7.6.2).
No mitigation measures are required; however, RCM GEO‐1 identified below would be applicable and implemented by the Development Project.
RCM GEO‐1 Construction Code Compliance. All structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Geologic and Geotechnical Review prepared for this Development Project and applicable sections of the most current California Building Code (CBC) and other applicable Codes (per Chapter 15.08 of the Banning Municipal Code). Prior to the issuance of building permits for planned structures, the Soils Engineer and the City of Banning Chief Building Official, or designee, shall review building plansto verify that the structural design conformsto the requirements of the Geologic and Geotechnical Review and the applicable provisions of the aforementioned codes.
371
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐18
3.7.3 Threshold 4.7.1 (iii)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.1(iii) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.3 of the EIR. The Development Site is considered to have a low risk of liquefaction due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying soils and deep groundwater. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold
4.7.1(iii); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is considered to have a low risk of liquefaction due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying soils (Older Alluvium Fan deposit) and deep groundwater; groundwater is expected to be approximately 100 feet or more bgs. Seismic densification, however, is possible on granular (greater than 50 percent sand) fills, or native unconsolidated earth materials. The dynamic dry settlement is not considered a geologic hazard and expected to be less than 2 inches. Due to the proposed remedial grading and relatively homogenous subsurface soils between adjacent columns, the seismic differential settlement is expected to be less than 0.5 inch in a 40‐foot horizontal distance within the Development Site. No groundwater was encountered during the Geotechnical Assessment within the borings that were drilled to a depth of 50 feet. Development Project uses that would be constructed are required to comply with the CBC and other applicable Codes(per BMC Chapter 15.08) as well as the recommendations in the geological and geotechnical assessment prepared for the Development Project. Therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not place people or structures at risk due to liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section
4.7.6.3).
3.7.4 Threshold 4.7.1 (iv)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.1(iv) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Site is not located in an area susceptible to landslides.
The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.7.1(iv); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site and vicinity are relatively flat, and the Development Site is not located within a zone of earthquake‐induced landslide as mapped by the State, City, or County. Soils along and adjacent to some drainage courses have been eroded by water, with concentrated runoff creating 372
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐19
incised erosion along the banks of Pershing Creek. However, these areas are restricted to the immediate creek areas which are proposed to be conserved and will not be developed.
As established by RCM GEO‐1, construction contractors would be required to adhere to recommendations of the geologic and geotechnical review, the CBC, and other applicable Codes (per BMC Chapter 15.08) for temporary slopes and for shoring or shielding for temporary excavations over 5 feet deep, as required by the City of Banning. Therefore, implementation of the Development Project would result in less than significant impacts related to landslide hazards. (EIR Section 4.7.6.4).
3.7.5 Threshold 4.7.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Project would be required to implement Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) to manage soil erosion. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold 4.7.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction of the Development Project would involve excavation, grading, and construction activities that disturb soil and leave exposed soil on the ground surface. Cut and fill slopes created during Development Site construction would be provided with appropriate drainage features and landscaped with drought‐tolerant, slope stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to reduce the potential for erosion. Berms would be provided at the top of fill slopes, and brow ditches would be constructed at the top of all cut slopes. V‐ditches cut on the Development Site would be founded in dense fill or cut, but not in topsoil colluvium, and lot drainage would be directed such that runoff on slope facesis minimized. Inadvertent oversteepening of cut and fillslopes would be avoided during final grading and building construction. If seepage is encountered in slopes, special drainage features would be recommended by the geotechnical consultant to minimize soil erosion effects.
The conceptual grading design identifies approximately 2,266,112 cubic yards (CY) of cut and approximately 2,118,698 CY of fill. Cut exceeds fill due to settlement, shrinkage and/or compaction of fill material required in connection with the Development Project. No import or exporting of earthwork is expected, but earthwork may be transferred between the two grading phases. (Draft EIR Chapter 3.5.3.8.) Maximum daily disturbance would be approximately 10,000 CY and would have an average daily disturbance ranging from 7,500 to 9,500 CY. All grading would be subject to local and State codes and requirements for erosion control and grading during construction. As required by RCM GEO‐2, all recommendations presented in the Final Geotechnical Assessment for the Development Project shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Building and Safety Director or designee to ensure reduced effects to geology and soils on the Development Site during Development Project construction and operation.
373
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐20
Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution, including sediment. The Development Project uses constructed would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for each phase of the Development Project. The construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement an SWPPP and associated best management practices (BMPs) in compliance with the CGP during grading and construction as outlined in RCMs WQ‐1, WQ‐2, and WQ‐3, detailed below. Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from future Development Site‐related grading and construction activities. Additionally, the future Development Site‐related grading activities would be required to adhere to the provisions of the City’s grading ordinances, requirements of the Geotechnical Study prepared for the Development Site, and CBC. Therefore, impactsfrom soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.7.6.5) The following Regulatory Compliance Measures are existing regulations that are applicable to the Development Project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality and are also applicable to potential impacts related to soils and geology. The City of Banning considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are not mitigation measures.
RCM GEO‐2 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that proposed structures, features, facilities, and earthworks to be constructed on the Development Site have been designed to conform to applicable provisions of the California Building Code and other applicable Codes (per BMC Chapter 15.08) in effect at the time of development application as well as the design recommendations detailed in the final geologic and geotechnical review.
Additionally, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the recommendations cited in a project‐specific final geologic and geotechnical review are incorporated into project plans and/or implemented as deemed appropriate by the City. The final geologic and geotechnical review recommendations may include, but are not limited to, removal of existing vegetation, utilities, and any other surface and subsurface improvements that would not remain in place for use with the structures constructed on the Development Site. Remedial earthwork, over‐ excavation, and ground improvement shall occur to depths specified in the final geologic and geotechnical review to provide a sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil beneath structural footings/foundations, as well as proper surface drainage devices and erosion control. Retaining wall parameters shall be in accordance with the Final Geotechnical Assessment to protect against lateral spreading and on‐site landslides. Construction of concrete structures in contact with subgrade soils determined to be corrosive shall include measuresto protect concrete, steel, and other metals. Verification testing must be performed upon completion of ground improvements to confirm that the compressible soils have been sufficiently densified. The structural engineer must determine the ultimate thickness and reinforcement of the building flood slabs based on the imposed slab loading. The 374
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐21
recommendations of the Final Geotechnical Assessment shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Building and Safety Director or designee.
RCM WQ‐1 Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010‐0014‐ DWQ and Order No. 2012‐0006‐DWQ, or any other subsequent permit. This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement, and any other compliance‐related documents required by the permit, to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is obtained for the Development Project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the Construction General Permit has been obtained. Development Project construction shall comply with all applicable requirements specified in the Construction General Permit, including but not limited to, preparation of an SWPPP and implementation of construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address all construction‐ related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the Development Project. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in storm water runoff. Upon completion of construction activities and stabilization of the Development Site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS.
RCM WQ‐2 In compliance with City of Banning Ordinance No. 1388 Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control, the Development Project Applicant shallsubmit a grading plan and erosion control plan to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual development that would occur within the Specific Plan area. The Applicant shall also submit erosion and sediment control plans annually to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, for review and approval.
RCM WQ‐3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department or designee for review and approval. The Final WQMP shall specify: 1) the BMPsto be incorporated into the Development Project design to target pollutants of concern in runoff from the Development Site and from each proposed land use; 2) the target pollutant(s) to be captured from each building/land use and treated by each BMP; 3) the metric for ensuring the BMP is addressing the target pollutant(s) of 375
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐22
concern; 4) the necessary operation and maintenance activity for each BMP; and 5) the specific action to be taken if it is determined that the BMP is not meeting its intended goal(s). The Final WQMP shall also incorporate the results of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the hydromodification requirements of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit.
The Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, shall ensure that the BMPs specified in the Final WQMP are incorporated into the final Development Project design.
3.7.6 Threshold 4.7.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐site or off‐site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.6 of the EIR. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold 4.7.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Because the Development Site is located in a relatively flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not represent a significant hazard on or adjacent to the Development Site or to the Development Project. In addition, the Development Site is not within a State‐designated hazard zone for an earthquake‐induced landslide. Therefore, potential impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
Given the relatively dense nature of the underlying soils and lack of groundwater, the Development Site possesses a very low potential for liquefaction. As indicated with respect to Threshold 4.7.1(iii), above, liquefaction potential at the site is considered low. The on‐site potential for liquefaction, and therefore, lateral spreading, is very low. Thus, impacts from lateral spreading and liquefaction would be less than significant.
Subsidence is typically associated with oil, gas, or groundwater extraction. According to the Riverside County General Plan and as previously noted, the Development Site is located in an area that is susceptible to regional land subsidence. However, the City of Banning General Plan indicates that subsidence has not been observed within the City. There are no oil or gas fields within or near the Development Site. Consequently, regional land subsidence due to the extraction of oil or gas is not a hazard to the Development Project. Groundwater on site is monitored by the City of Banning Public Works Department via four on‐site wells. The City‐monitored wells (M7, M10, M11, and M12) recorded water depths of 375 to 475 feet bgs in September 2003. Any existing water wells should be removed or abandoned prior to grading, in accordance with the Riverside County Department of Health Services guidelines. With these wells removed or abandoned, subsidence from wells at the Development Project would not occur.
376
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐23
To address and avoid the potential for land subsidence, soils would be removed down to competent dense materials. Recommendations for soil removal would be planned in more detail by a certified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist when grading plans for individual phases of the Development Project are prepared. Subsequent detailed geotechnical investigation will be required, and the Development Project will be required to comply with a site‐specific geotechnical investigation report prepared by a geotechnical consultant, in accordance with Appendix J Section J104 (Engineered Grading Requirements) of the CBC. Implementation of recommendationsrequired by RCM GEO‐1 and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that a less than significant impact from collapsible soils would occur. (EIR Section 4.7.6.6).
3.7.7 Threshold 4.7.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.7 of the EIR. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold 4.7.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Expansive soils are soils that experience volumetric changes in response to increases or decreases in moisture content. Older alluvial fan deposits were encountered throughout the property and underlie the young alluvium at depth. As encountered in the exploratory excavations, these materials generally consist of medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey sands and poorly to well‐graded sand with interbedded layers of sandy clay. Based on laboratory test results and review of the referenced reports, the predominate earth materials underlying the subject site are expected to possess a very low to low expansive soil (EI<51). Locally, higher expansive soils may be encountered in deeper excavations in the Older Alluvium. In the event that, following the completion of grading, it is determined that near‐surface soils within building pad areas exhibit an elevated expansion potential, the potential impact of those expansive soils would be addressed through design of structural foundations and floor slabs in compliance with applicable requirements in the CBC, as adopted by the City of Banning in its Municipal Code (RCM GEO‐1 and RCM GEO‐2). Since the potential for expansive soilsislow and any potential expansion would be addressed through compliance with applicable State and local Code requirements, the Development Project would not create substantial potential risks to life or property, and there would be a less than significant impact. (EIR Section 4.7.6.7).
3.7.8 Threshold 4.7.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not have soilsincapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
377
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐24
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.8 of the EIR. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in no impacts to Threshold 4.7.5 because the Development Project will not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project uses would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Development Project uses would be required to connect to City sanitary sewer and wastewater facilities. Therefore, the Development Project would have no impact with respect to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (EIR Section 4.7.6.8)
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Project impacts for CEQA Hazards and Hazardous Materials do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.8.1 Threshold 4.9.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.1 of the EIR. During Project construction and operation, mandatory compliance with federal, State, county and City regulations would ensure that the Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the environment due to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Development of the Development Project has the potential to transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials during construction and operational activities. Construction of the Development Project would temporarily increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of construction‐related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). These materials are commonly used at construction sites, and the construction activities would be required to comply with applicable State and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess hazardous materials and hazardous construction waste.
Commercial and industrial uses operated on the Development Site may include the use and disposal of hazardous waste along with limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape maintenance.
Engines of vehicles and trucks accessing the uses on the Development Site would contain oil and 378
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐25
gasoline which could have the potential to result in minor releases of such substances through drips or leaks on site. However, development of the Development Project is not anticipated to generate or use major hazardous materials and would not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste. If a future use would include a business that would handle or use significant quantities of hazardous materials, the City is required in accordance with its General Plan to process such use by the issuance of a City approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP would ensure the business is conditioned to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials. If the future business does not comply with the CUP, the CUP can be revoked through a public hearing process.
Some of the proposed activities that could produce hazardous waste would include 20 vehicle fueling stations and six (6) commercial fueling stations with total capacity for four 20,000‐gallon underground storage tanks, restaurants that would utilize refrigerated storage facilities, and commercial and industrial uses that may utilize TRUs that would transport perishable material to and from the Development Site during operation. The commercial and industrial operations may also utilize large‐ scale refrigeration on site for perishable materials.
The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) would review the uses operating on the Development Site for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage of materials. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the DEH would apply conditions of approval to the Development Site to reduce hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste generated at the Development Site would be safely stored and transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State and federal law. Therefore, due to the type and nature of the usesthat would operate on the Development Site, and compliance with the conditions of approval identified below, their implementation would result in less than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; no mitigation is required.
Additionally, the battery energy storage system (BESS), if proposed for development, would be required to comply with regulatory compliance measures. No off‐site electricity transmission is anticipated from the BESS. The Conditions of Approval (COA) for the BESS would require that prior to the issuance of the first BESS‐related building permit, the Applicant shall develop a reclamation plan, which shall be approved by the City’s Community Development Department to be implemented upon the removal of the BESS facilities (the “approved Reclamation Plan”). Additional details are described in Section 4.9.6.1 of the EIR.
While the potential impact would be less than significant, the Regulatory Compliance Measures are existing mandatory regulations that are applicable to development of the Development Site and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. They are described in detail in Section 4.9.6.1 of the EIR. The City of Banning considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are not mitigation measures. (EIR Section 4.9.6.1)
3.8.2 Threshold 4.9.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
379
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐26
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment with compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
A petroleum pipeline is located along the north side of the Sun Lakes Boulevard alignment, marked by signs, flags, and spray paint. A gas pipeline crosses the Northern Portion of the Development Site, marked by signs and exposed where the pipeline crossesthe drainages. An above ground storage tank (AST) was observed at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sunset and Westward Avenue. The tank was empty, no markings were visible, and holes were cut in the sides, allowing visual inspection of the interior. No staining or evidence of past releases was observed in the surrounding soils. No underground tanks, unusual or noxious odors, stained soil or pavement, stressed vegetation, leach fields or septic tanks, sumps or floor drains, pits or ponds of liquid, or evidence of fill sites or dumping were identified during the site reconnaissance. Overhead and underground utility lines are present along the Development Site perimeter boundaries. Compliance with Government Code Section 4216, which specifies standard pre‐construction practices requiring appropriate care to define the location, alignment, depth, and operational status of pipelines, above‐ and below‐ground utilities, and other features would ensure the integrity of existing facilities during construction and operation. The existing Union Pacific Railroad located north of the Development Site. While pipeline or rail operations may involve the transport of hazardous materials, it is speculative to anticipate if or to what extent hazardous materials may be released should a rail accident occur in the vicinity of the Development Project.
Implementation of the Development Project would involve use of hazardous materials and could result in accidental releases of hazardous material, as discussed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR. The Development Project envisionsthe operation of a travel center that will dispense fuel products. These activities pose a potentially significant hazard. Transport of these materials, refilling USTs, spilling fuel while refueling vehicles, and a variety of potential accidents could result in the accidental release of these materials into the environment. The California Health and Safety Code, Section 25280, requires USTs installed after 1988 to have leak detection systems consisting of at least one of the following features: secondary containment with interstitial monitoring, automatic tank gauging systems, vapor monitoring (including tracer compound analysis), groundwater monitoring, statistical inventory reconciliation, or similar feature meeting performance standards.
Commercial and warehouse uses built and operating on the Development Site may include the usage of hazardous materials. Commercial land uses utilizing hazardous materials would be required to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the DEH, as described in RCM HAZ‐1. An HMBP includes an inventory of hazardous materials used and stored on site, a site map, an emergency plan, and a training program for employees. With implementation of the conditions of approval and regulatory compliance measures specified in Section 4.9.6.1, compliance with all applicable regulations specified in Section 4.9.4, and adherence to BMPs, potential impacts from the 380
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐27
transport, use,storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in operations of the Development Project would not cause significant hazards to the public or the environment through accidental releases of hazardous materials. (EIR Section 4.9.6.2).
3.8.3 Threshold 4.9.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would not emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one‐ quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.3 with application of mandatory regulatory requirements; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Mt. San Jacinto Community College (MSJCC) San Gorgonio Pass Campus is located adjacent to the western edge of the Development Site, and Hemmering Elementary School is located approximately
0.9 mile northwest of the Development Site.
Emissions (including toxic air contaminants) will be generated from vehicles driven by employees, customers, and transport trucks delivering goods and materials to and from the Development Site.
The potential impacts of emissions on sensitive receptors has been detailed in the Air Quality impact analysis (Section 4.3.6.3 of the Draft and Final EIR).
Any use utilizing hazardous materials within the Development Site would be required to comply with RCM HAZ‐1 and submit an HMBP to the DEH and the Riverside County Fire Department. In addition, the Development Project would comply with RCM WQ‐1, which provides preventative measures for accidental spills during construction. Construction and operation of uses on the Development Site within 0.25 mile of the MSJCC campus would not pose substantial hazards to persons on those campuses with implementation of the RCMs. The Hemmering Elementary School is .9 miles north of the campus and does not fall within the threshold, but, as with the MSJCC campus, also would not be subject to significant impacts from emission of hazardous emissions, or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. (EIR Section 4.9.6.3).
3.8.4 Threshold 4.9.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 381
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐28
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Site is not located on an identified hazardous material site and the development would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The governmentrecords database search, completed as part of the site‐specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), determined that the Development Site is not included on any of the queried databases of hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Phase I ESA included an analysis of surrounding properties within a 1.0‐mile radius of the Development Site. The Phase I ESA identified several listings for off‐site adjacent or nearby properties on databases potentially indicative of a contamination concern. However, the Phase I ESA concluded that none of the environmental records are considered “recognized environmental conditions” for the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.9.6.4).
3.8.5 Threshold 4.9.5
Impact Statement: The Development Site is not within two miles of an airport and the Development Site is not identified as within an airport influence area.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.5 is discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.5 of the EIR. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has stated the Development Project is located outside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established for Banning Municipal Airport. The Development Site is not located within an airport land use plan, is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.9.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is located approximately 3.3 miles west of the Banning Municipal Airport.
According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Development Project is not within the noise contours or compatibility zones for the Banning Municipal Airport. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has stated the Development Project is located outside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established for Banning Municipal Airport. Due to its location outside the AIA established for Banning Municipal Airport, the Development Project would have no impact on an airport land use plan or result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Development Project area. (EIR Section 4.9.6.5).
3.8.6 Threshold 4.9.6
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 382
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐29
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.6 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.6 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would not interfere with or inhibit implementation of the City’s Emergency Operation Plan or Emergency Operations Center. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in a less than significant impact related to Threshold 4.9.6; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
According to the City’s General Plan Emergency Preparedness Element, the City does not have established evacuation routesfor major emergenciessuch as wildfire. The closest Fire Hazard Severity Zone to the Development Site is undeveloped land located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the Development Site at the southern border of the Sun Lakes community. The land uses directly adjacent to the Development Site including residential uses to the west, east, and south, commercial and institutional uses to the east, the I‐10 corridor to the north, and agricultural uses to the south are also designated as a non‐VHFHSZ. Sunset Avenue is considered an important point of access to I‐10. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan outlines the operations of the City of Banning Emergency Operations Center, which isthe central management entity responsible for directing and coordinating the various City departments and other agencies in their emergency response activities.
Implementation of the Development Project would not alter any facility or propose a physical change that would inhibit the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. In addition, development of the Development Project would include widening of roadways adjacent to the Development Site and funding of additional roadway improvements, which could aid in evacuation. Site preparation, grading, and construction would not block roadways providing access to surrounding properties or surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not interfere with the adopted emergency response plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.9.6.6).
3.8.7 Threshold 4.9.7
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, or injury or death involving wildland fires.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.7 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.7 of the EIR. With adherence to regulatory standards and requirements, the Development Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.7; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is located in a WUIsetting, but it is not located in an area statutorily designated as a Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ by CAL FIRE or Riverside County; rather the Development Site is accurately designated as LRA Non‐VHFHSZ. The Fire Protection Plan (FPP) did not find evidence that the Development Site has been burned in recorded history. Development of the Development Project 383
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐30
and its included fire mitigation strategies would further reduce the potential for wildland fire ignition at the Development Site. The FPP analyzed the likelihood that any fire starting on the Development Site would spread to adjacent areas and determined that the Development Site’s managed landscapes ignition resistant building, parking areas, fuel modification zones, improved accessibility for fire personnel, and structures built to the latest ignition and ember resistant fire codes would make spread into wildland fuels unlikely. According to the FPP, the most common type of wildfire anticipated in the vicinity of the Development Project is a wind‐driven fire from the northeast moving through the annual grasses and chaparral typical of the region. Compliance with the regulations of the most recently adopted Riverside County Fire Department Fire Code, California Fire Code (CFC), and California Building Code (CBC) to avoid the Development Project’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risks. Regardless of the origin of a potential wildfire, compliance with regulatory measures would ensure the ignition resistance of the structures. Fuel modification requirements and ongoing maintenance of the site landscaped areas are required to be implemented with the result that projected flame lengths would be reduced to levels that would be manageable by firefighting resources for protecting on‐site structures. (EIR Section 4.9.6.7). In addition, RCM at pages 4.9‐20‐21 provides additional, specific provisions that implement regulatory requirements and further ensure that impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Project impacts for CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality thresholds 4.10‐1, 4.10‐2, 4.10‐4, and
4.10‐5 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.9.1 Threshold 4.10.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐1 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.10‐1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Because construction of the Development Project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the Development Project is subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit (CGP), as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) WQ‐1, identified below. Construction of the Development Project would comply with existing NPDES regulations (as specified in RCM WQ‐1 and RCM WQ‐2), which include preparation of an SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and implementation of Construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. As also specified in RCM WQ‐1, a SWPPP would be prepared and construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP would be implemented during construction, in compliance with the requirements of the CGP. In addition, as specified in RCM WQ‐2, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would be prepared and submitted to the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading permit in 384
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐31
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. As construction of the Development Project is expected to occur over a number of years, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would also be prepared annually during construction and submitted to the City’s Public Works Department for approval. The SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans would detail the BMPs to be implemented during construction and would reduce any amount of sedimentation flowing off‐site and into downstream receiving waters. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek and into downstream receiving waters. Compliance with the requirements of the CGP and City Municipal Code, including incorporation of construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff and reduce sediment release to receiving waters, would ensure that construction impactsrelated to water quality standards, waste discharge requirements and potential degradation of surface or groundwater quality during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Expected pollutants of concern from long‐term operation of the Development Project could include bacteria/virus, heavy metals, toxic organic compounds, nutrients, sediment/turbidity, trash and debris, oils, and grease. The Development Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit and associated guidance documents, such as the Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development which would ensure a less than significant impact.
Implementation of proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from runoff from the Development Site in compliance with the Whitewater River Watershed Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit requirements and associated guidance documents, such as the Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development. The MS4 Permit requires preparation of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would specify the Site Design BMPs (storm water management strategies that emphasize conservation and use of existing site featuresto reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading); Source Control BMPs (measures that prevent the introduction of pollutants into storm water); Low Impact Development (LID) mimic a project site’s natural hydrology by using design measuresthat capture, filter,store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoffratherthan allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or impervious storm drains); and Treatment Control BMPs (structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in storm water runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters) that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff.
The Preliminary WQMP specifies the Source Control, Site Design, and LID BMPs proposed for the Development Project (no Treatment Control BMPs are proposed because the proposed infiltration basins are being sized to retain 100 percent of the 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event), and this will be refined based on final site plans as required by RCM WQ‐3. Preliminary LID and Design features and regulatory requirements are set forth at Draft EIR Section 4.10.6.1.
Compliance with these requirements, including incorporation of RCM WQ‐1 through 3 and operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern, would ensure that impacts related to a potential violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and degradation of surface 385
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐32
or groundwater water quality during Development Project operation would be reduced to less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR Section 4.10.6.1).
3.9.2 Threshold 4.10.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Development Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐2 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.10‐2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin.
According to the Geologic and Geotechnical Review prepared for the Development Project, no groundwater was encountered during on‐site boring as deep as 50 feet; however, based on historical groundwater levels, groundwater is expected 100 feet below the ground surface of the Development Site. Based on the depth to groundwater and infiltration rates determined based on percolation tests performed on the Development Site, dewatering activities are not anticipated to occur during Development Project construction activities. Therefore, Project construction is not expected to result in a decrease in groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that may decrease groundwater supplies or impede sustainable groundwater management, and Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Development of the Development Project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 333.2 acres, which would decrease on‐site infiltration. However, landscaped slope, parking medians, open space, and infiltration basins would be developed as part of the Development Project design to provide areas where storm water runoff can collect and infiltrate. The City of Banning’s potable and non‐potable water is supplied through groundwater sources. Therefore, it is expected that the Development Project would rely on existing groundwater entitlements to serve the Development Project’s water needs. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the Development Project and determined that the City had sufficient water supply to serve the Development Project and other ongoing and projected usersfrom groundwatersources during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year conditions, and that sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements are available to serve the Development Project. Therefore, impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (EIR Section
4.10.6.2).
386
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐33
3.9.3 Threshold 4.10.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐4 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Site is not located in a tsunami hazard zone, near any closed bodies of water that would be susceptible to impacts associated with a seiche, and, with the exception of Smith Creek and Pershing Creek which are in Flood Hazard Zone A, the majority of the Development Site is not located within a floodplain, so that there is not a risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impactsrelated to Threshold 4.10‐4; therefore, no mitigation isrequired.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is approximately 55 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Based on the distance from the Pacific Ocean, the Development Site is not located in a tsunami hazard zone and therefore would not be susceptible to impacts associated with a tsunami. The Development Site is not adjacent to or near any closed bodies of water, and, therefore, would not be susceptible to impacts associated with a seiche. Smith Creek and Pershing Creek, located on the Development Site, are in Flood Hazard Zone A. Flood Hazard Zone A areas are subject to inundation by the 1‐percent‐annual‐chance flood event. The remaining portions of the Development Site are not located within a floodplain. During construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that during a rain event, pollutants would be retained on site and be prevented from reaching downstream receiving waters. During operations, the Development Project would include 16 infiltration basins sized adequately to retain storm water flows from a 100‐year, 3‐hour storm, thereby reducing the chance of flooding that could release pollutants to downstream receiving waters. Based on Development Project design and the distance the Development Site is away from the Pacific Ocean and closed bodies of water, implementation of the Development Project would not result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche, risking release of pollutants due to Development Site inundation. (EIR Section 4.10.6.4).
3.9.4 Threshold 4.10.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐5 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Project would not conflict with Colorado River RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.10‐5; therefore, no mitigation is required. 387
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐34
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is within the jurisdiction of the Colorado River RWQCB. The Development Project would comply with existing Whitewater River Watershed MS4 requirements and would implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff (RCM WQ‐1, RCM WQ‐2, and RCM WQ‐3). Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the Development Project would not degrade or alter water quality in a manner that would cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the Development Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Colorado River RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region.
The Development Project would not require dewatering activities during construction as construction depth would not reach the current groundwater level underlying the Development Site. The additional impervious surface areas that would result from Development Project construction would not substantially decrease infiltration compared to existing conditions due to the incorporation of landscaped slope, parking medians, open space, and infiltration basins. The Development Project would increase water use over the previousland uses on the Development Site which were accounted for in the UWMP, and which would be obtained from groundwater. the Water Supply Assessment completed for the Development Project indicates that there are adequate water supplies from groundwater sources during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demands to serve the Development Project’s needs through 2045. Additionally, the City of Banning Public Works Department, which supplies municipal water, ensures that sufficient water supplies from non‐ groundwater sources are available to continually recharge the groundwater basins so that groundwater overdraft does not occur. In addition, in 2022, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) entered into a 20‐year Agreement with the City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) and the Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas) to purchase annually up to 10,000 acre‐feet of Ventura and Casita’s Table A State Water Project entitlement. This water would be in addition to the existing 17,300 acre‐feet Table A allocation for SGPWA. The City can expect to receive additional water from SGPWA because of its contract with Ventura and would use this additional water for more groundwater recharge. Refer to Section 4.19.3.1 of the Final EIR for additional discussion. For these reasons, the Development Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Project impacts for CEQA Land Use and Planning do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.10.1 Threshold 4.11.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not physically divide an established community.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.11.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Project would not physically divide an established community because the site fits a logical pattern for development in the area. The City finds that 388
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐35
development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.11.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Development Project would not physically divide an established community because it would contribute to further urbanization of the area, and facilitate connecting existing development to the Development Project. Under current conditions, Westward Avenue connects the communities on the east and westsides of the Development Site but does not cross the Development Site. Westward Avenue is currently a two‐lane unpaved roadway between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. East of Sunset Avenue, Westward Avenue is a two‐lane paved roadway. To the south of the Development Site, Bobcat Road connectsto Sunset Avenue on the eastside of the Development Site but is also unimproved. In the existing condition, Bobcat Road is a compressed dirt road that traverses the wash at grade near the southeast corner of the Development Site. These roads would be retained with the current design of the Development Project, maintaining connectivity for the existing communities surrounding the Development Site facilitating access to onsite commercial and open space uses, and for potential employees. Bobcat Road would be paved with two lanes in each direction, curbing, and sidewalks in both directions. Westward Avenue would be paved similar to Bobcat Road as part of the SLB Extension. Additionally, the Development Project would include new paved roadways that would connect to the existing roadways, providing additional options for crossing the Development Site and maintaining connectivity of the current communities. Therefore, impacts to the existing communities adjacent to the Development Site would be less than significant.
The Development Project would bring additional traffic to the area because of the commercial and industrial operations that would be developed, but the additional roadways are designed to connect the Development Project to the surrounding areas. (EIR Section 4.11.6.1).
3.10.2 Threshold 4.112
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.11.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project would not conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.11.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the Western Riverside County MSHCP, land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is discussed below.
As detailed in Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR, implementation of project design features, conditions of approval, regulatory compliance measures, mitigation measures, and ongoing consultation with the 389
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐36
City of Banning and applicable agencies, would ensure the Development Project maintains consistency with the goals and policies established in the city’s General Plan. CEQA requires an EIR to address only whether the Development Project would conflict with the General Plan in such a way that it would result in an environmental effect. In the absence of a planning inconsistency that results in an environmental effect, it is adequate for the City to state, as indicated below, that no conflict would occur. A project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy to be found consistent with the general plan. It need only be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. The Development Project is consistent with the overall goals of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, which are intended to ensure a balance of residential, commercial, industrial, open space and public lands, and to allow changes to the General Plan land use categories for the remaining capacity of undeveloped land. The Land Use Element also recognizes that industrial development has been an important source of jobs in the City, and the City would continue to attract industrial land uses. Table 4.11.A: Development Project Consistency Analysis with the City of Banning General Plan identifies the General Plan policies and goals relevant to the Development Project and discusses Development Project consistency. Appendix J‐2 and Appendix J‐3 identify recommended conditions of approval (COA TRA‐1 through TRA‐35), also listed in the Section 4.11 (land use) of the Draft EIR, that the City can adopt to ensure the Development Project would be consistent with the City of Banning General Plan (Final EIR Chapter 3.0, Response to Comment E‐31‐12). The General Plan Amendment proposed for the Development Project would update the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the land uses of the Development Project while continuing to provide for a range of housing densities in the City through concurrent General Plan Amendment for the MSJC Site.
The current land use designation of the Development Site includes portions of the Development Site that are designated open space. These portions would be retained as open space and/or a public park under current design. The Development Project would preserve more of the Development Site for resource conservation than does the existing zoning and would be consistent with applicable MSHCP guidelines and goals, as discussed in Section 4.4 of this EIR. The remaining portions of the Development Site are currently designated for residential land uses and would need to be re‐zoned for industrial uses. This change would be consistent with the City of Banning’s General Plan goals and policies and would not conflict with existing adjacent land uses. (EIR Section 4.11.6.2).
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Mineral Resources do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.11.1 Threshold 4.12.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the State.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.12.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6.1 of the EIR. The Developmentsite is not identified as an area containing known mineral 390
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐37
resources. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.12.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The City of Banning is in Riverside County, and there is no land within Riverside County that the SMGB designates aslocally important mineral recovery sites. While the Development Site is mapped as MRZ‐ 3 (an area of undetermined mineral resource significance), it is not identified as an area containing known PCC‐grade aggregate resources. Furthermore, over the past 120 years, there has been no evidence that significant mineral resources are located on the Development Site nor has the State, County, or City conducted mineral recovery on the Development Site. The General Plans of the City and Riverside County have not designated the Development Site with a land use designation that allows for mineral extraction nor does either the City or County designate the Development Site as an area held in reserve for future mining activities. (EIR Section 4.12.6.1). In the absence of any evidence that mineral resources of a regional or Statewide significance are located on the Development Site, project impacts would be less than significant.
3.11.2 Threshold 4.12.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.12.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6.2 of the EIR. The Developmentsite is not identified as an area containing known mineral resources on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan. The City findsthat development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.12.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Neither the City of Banning General Plan nor the Riverside County General Plan delineates the Development Site as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The nearest mine to the Development Site mapped on the Division of Mine Reclamation’s “Mines Online” map is the Banning Quarry, an active sand and gravel mine approximately 3.28 miles northeast of the Development Site.
Implementation of the Development Project would not 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. (EIR Section 4.12.6.2).
3.12 NOISE
Project impacts for CEQA Noise Thresholds 4.13.2 and 4.13.3 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below. Project impactsfor traffic during construction and related to operational noise under Threshold 4.13.1 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
Findings with respect to significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts under Threshold
4.13.1 are discussed in Section 5.3.
391
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐38
3.12.1 Threshold 4.13.1
Impact Statement: With respect to construction traffic, the Development Project would not substantially increase ambient noise levels on off‐site noise‐sensitive uses in excess of the City’s interior construction noise standard or substantially increase ambient noise levels on off‐site noise‐ sensitive uses in excess of conditionally acceptable noise levels established in the City and County’s land use compatibility for community noise. With respect to operational noise impacts from traffic and on‐site uses, the Development Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.13.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6.1 of the EIR. With implementation of PDF N‐1 and N‐2, the City finds that development of the Development Project will result in lessthan significant operational impactsrelating to Threshold
4.13.1 and less than significant traffic noise impacts relating to Threshold 4.13.1; therefore, no mitigation isrequired. Findings with respect to significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts under this Threshold are discussed in Section 5.3.
Substantial Evidence
Construction Noise Traffic Impacts. The Development Project construction traffic would result in a traffic noise increase of up to 7.4 dBA along Sunset Avenue between Westward Avenue and Bobcat Road. The MSJC campus is the only noise‐sensitive use along Sunset Avenue between Westward Avenue and Bobcat Road. As modified with the inclusion of MM NOI‐2, the school is located approximately 115 feet from Sunset Avenue centerline. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the school was presumed to be located only 75 feet from the Sunset Avenue Centerline and at that distance was determined to be exposed to a traffic noise level of 53.7 dBA CNEL based on Table 4.13.J. This noise level would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. In addition, ambient noise levels in this area represented by ST‐3 have a noise level of 55.5 dBA CNEL shown in Table 4.13.A.
Based on the above information, the actual noise increase would be less than 2.2 dBA when ambient noise levels are factored in. A noise increase of lessthan 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment and therefore is found less than significant without mitigation.
Operational Traffic Noise Impacts. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD‐77‐ 108) was used to evaluate traffic‐related noise conditions along street segments in the Development Project vicinity for the existing year, opening year, and horizon year and to evaluate whether off‐site traffic noise would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and traffic noise levels would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL along Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and south of Westward Avenue.
Noise levels generated from project operations would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime noise standard of 55 dBA Leq for residences and the MSJC campus located in the City. With implementation of PDF N‐1, off‐site traffic noise impacts from operation of the Development Project would be less than significant because the Development Project would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard 392
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐39
of 65 dBA CNEL for noise‐sensitive land uses such as residence even though the Development Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts. Truck delivery and truck loading and unloading activities; heating, ventilation, refrigeration equipment, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; drive‐through speakerphones; parking lot activities, fueling activities, and outdoor eating activities associated with the Development Project could affect the existing off‐site sensitive land uses. PDF N‐ 2 would include 10ft high “wing walls” around buildings 1 and 2, refrigeration equipment would require rooftop equipment to be shielded or relocated to the ground floor, and automobile parking lots south of warehouse buildings 1 and 2 would be surrounded by 6 ft high walls.
Noise levels generated from operations of the Development Project would not exceed the County’s exterior daytime 10‐minute noise standard of 65 dBA Leq for residences located in the unincorporated County, and noise levels generated from operations of the Development Project would not exceed the County’s exterior nighttime 10‐minute noise standard of 45 dBA Leq for residences located in the unincorporated County except forresidencesrepresented by Receptor R‐11. Since noise level increase of less than 3dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment, and the Development Project would increase ambient noise levels by up to 2.9 dBA, the project operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.13.6.1).
3.12.2 Threshold 4.13.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not generate excessive ground‐borne vibration or ground‐borne noise levels.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Projectrelated to Threshold 4.13.2 are discussed in detail under Section 4.13.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project will not generate excessive ground‐borne vibration or noise levels. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.13.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The greatest vibration levels and annoyance and building damage impacts would occur during the site preparation and grading phase and to be generated by construction equipment. Draft EIR Section
4.13.6.2. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The Draft EIR (Table 4.13.X Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance) lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be used on the Development Site from the active construction area, which is the center of the closest on‐site building, to the closest off‐site buildings in the project vicinity. As identified there, the level of vibration generated by the Development Project from construction equipment would not have the potential to result in community annoyance because vibration levels would not exceed the FTA community annoyance threshold of 78 VdB for sensitive receptors at the closest residential structures or at the school on the MSJC Site. Other building structures surrounding the Development Site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away. Since construction equipment would be the primary source of vibration impacts and in the absence of any evidence that construction equipment would cause vibration exceeding the FTA 393
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐40
annoyance threshold at sensitive receptors closest to the Development Site, project impacts would be less than significant.
The Final EIR (Table 4.13.Y Potential Construction Vibration Damage) lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be used on the Development Site from the project construction boundary to the closest off‐site buildings in the project vicinity. This vibration level would not have the potential to result in building damage because all building structures surrounding the Development Site were observed to be constructed of nonengineered‐timber and masonry and vibration levels would not exceed the FTA vibration damage threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec). Other building structures surrounding the Development Site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away. Since construction equipment would be the primary source of building damage vibration impacts and in the absence of any evidence that construction equipment would cause vibration exceeding the FTA annoyance threshold at sensitive receptors closest to the Development Site, project impacts would be less than significant.
Once operational, the Development Project would not generate vibration. In addition, vibration levels generated from project‐related traffic on the adjacent roadways (i.e., Sunset Avenue, Highland Springs Avenue, Sun Lakes Boulevard/Westward Avenue, and Bobcat Road) would be unusual for on‐ road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on road vehicles provide vibration isolation. (EIR Section 4.13.6.2). Therefore, vibration levels generated from operations of the Development Project would be less than significant.
3.12.3 Threshold 4.13.3
Impact Statement: 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 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Development Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.13.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6.3 of the EIR. The Development site is outside the noise contours of Banning Municipal Airport. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.13.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Based on the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Development Site is outside the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours of Banning Municipal Airport. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the Development Site. Therefore, the Development Project would not expose people working in the project vicinity to excessive noise levels. (Draft EIR Section
4.13.6.3).
394
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐41
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Project impacts for CEQA Population and Housing do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.13.1 Threshold 4.14.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.14.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.14.6.1 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.14.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction. The Development Project would develop a vacant approximately 533.8‐acre site with industrial uses, general commercial uses, and a 125‐room hotel. Implementation of the Development Project is anticipated to occur in three phases over the span of approximately 51 months. It is anticipated that general construction labor would be available from the local and regional labor pool and would not result in substantial population growth. Many of the construction jobs for each phase would be temporary and would be specific to the variety of construction activities. Each construction phase (e.g. grading, paving, electrical etc.) requires different skills and specialties, which would be needed for the length of time of that phase. Although the Specific Plan uses would increase the number of employees at the Development Site during construction activities, it is expected that local and regional construction workers would be available to serve the construction needs of the site. This can be reasonably determined based on the current (August 2023) unemployment rates of 5.9 and
5.0 percent for the City and County, respectively. Construction workers would not be expected to relocate their households’ places of residence as a consequence of working on the Development Project. Because of that, the Development Project’s construction phases would not result in a long‐ term increase in employment and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth from short‐term construction activities. Therefore, the Development Project would not directly orindirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City during construction, or induce demand for housing through increased construction employment. Therefore, construction would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. The Development Site currently is designated for residential and commercial development. The Development Project would not include the development of residential units, and buildout of the Development Project would not directly add to the existing residences or induce direct population growth in the City. However, compliance with Government Code Section 66300 et seq. would mean there would be no net loss of residential capacity in the City and development of the Development Site with commercial and industrial uses would not cause a reduction of potential housing stock.
395
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐42
Proposed uses on the Development Site are anticipated to provide employmentfor up to 5,993 people at Specific Plan buildout. While SCAG 2016 employment predictions for the City were forecasted to increase to 11,400 jobs in 2045, employment in the City in 2022 already reached 10,500 employees.
Response to Comment D‐3‐18. The City currently has a jobs‐housing imbalance, and City and County unemployment rates cited in the Draft EIR Section 4.14.6.1 and RTC D‐3‐18 suggest an available local and regional labor pool exists to fill the long‐term employment opportunities offered by the Development Project. In addition, there is an imbalance of jobs and housing in Western Riverside County and the jobs that an industrial and commercial project would likely provide would be consistent with the job skills of residents in the area. Approximately 86.1% Banning residents commute outside of the City for work. The city and region contain an ample supply of potential employees under existing conditions which makes it unlikely that the Development Project’s labor demand would need to draw substantial number of employees from outside the region to fill the employment opportunities resulting from implementation of the Development Project. The employment generated from the Development Project generation would not induce substantial growth in the area because the Development Project would result in service‐oriented and industrial‐ oriented jobs, which are jobs that are anticipated to be filled by residents of the City and surrounding area. See response to Comment D‐3‐18. Additionally, existing approved and planned residential development in the City could sufficiently accommodate any new workers; therefore, the Development Project does not induce unplanned population growth.
The infrastructure that would be constructed in connection with the Development Project is either already planned for by the City or needed for already planned growth as described in the City’s General Plan, Integrated Master Plan (IMP), Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and/or other City plans. The Development Project does not require off‐site construction or extension of infrastructure that was not already considered and approved by the City. For example, while the Development Project includes the installation of a new internal circulation network, the roadway improvements constructed as part of the Development Project would result in build out of roads in a manner consistent with the City’s existing General Plan Circulation Element and would not expand the scope or change the designations of those roadways beyond the City’s already planned for improvements.
Similarly, while the Development Project will underground certain existing utility lines along the perimeter of the Development Site it will not extend utility lines in areas other than the perimeter of the Development Site and only connects the Development Site with existing utility lines abutting the site. The installation of wet utility facilities (e.g., water, wastewater, recycled water) required for the Development Project would connect to existing City systems pursuant to the future needs identified in the IMP and developed pursuant to the City’s CIP and would not extend infrastructure or promote growth (directly or indirectly) beyond that already accounted for by the City; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
To comply with SB 330 requirements, the proposed Development Site would transfer the 1,146 residential units to an existing 49.2‐acre site located in the City (to the east of the Development Site) that is owned by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (MSJCCD). As such, unaccounted for population growth due to this action would not occur. (EIR Section 4.14.6.1). 396
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐43
3.13.2 Threshold 4.14.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.14.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.14.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project would not displace any existing housing or populations at the Development Site. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.14.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
In its existing condition, the Development Site is undeveloped land that is utilized for occasional cattle grazing. The Development Project would not displace any existing housing or populations at the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.14.6.2).
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Project impactsfor CEQA Public Services do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.14.1 Threshold 4.15.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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 fire protection.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.1 of the EIR. Construction of a new fire facility on the Development Site or elsewhere in the City is not required as a result of the Development Project. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would impact fire services by placing an additional demand on existing resources and personnel but would not increase the level of personnel or resources beyond that currently provided by these stations.
Construction. Construction activities for the Development Project and the public facilities have the potential to affect fire protection services, such as emergency vehicle response times, by potentially requiring circulation detours, road closures, and lane closures during off‐site improvements around the Development Site. The City and/or fire protection authority may identify requirements to 397
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐44
maintain necessary access by law enforcement providers through evacuation (as necessary) from construction zones. Requirements may include (but would not be limited to): advance notification to motorists and emergency service providers; identification or installation of appropriate detour/access routes; use of signage, traffic control features, or flag persons during construction activities to facilitate access; restrictions on the duration/timing of construction activities; and/or scheduling/ phasing of construction activities to avoid/minimize changes in public access. The Development Project would implement the necessary provisions identified by the City and emergency service providers to maintain access to and through the Development Site. Therefore, potential impacts related to emergency access during Development Project construction would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
Construction associated with the Development Project could also increase the potential for accidental on‐site fires from the operation of construction equipment, the use of flammable construction materials, and sparking during the removal of existing on‐site vegetation. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL‐OSHA) and Fire and Building Code requirements mandate that the construction contractor carefully store flammable materials in appropriate containers during Development Project construction, use construction equipment with spark arrestors, and to immediately and completely clean up spills of flammable materials when they occur. In addition, the construction contractor and construction personnel would be trained in emergency response, and fire suppression equipment specific to the construction site would be available and maintained on site for the duration of the construction period. Adherence to existing laws would ensure that the Development Project would not have a significant construction impact related to fire protection service from RCFD. As such, construction‐related impacts to fire protection, emergency medical services, and fire department response times would be minimized and the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the 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 objectivesfor fire protection would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation. The proposed Development Project permits up to 5,545,000 square feet of industrial use on 392.0 acres, up to 268,400 square feet of commercial uses, including Travel Center Retail Uses, a Fueling Facility and a hotel with 125 rooms comprised of approximately 90,000 square feet in a 47.9‐ acre area on the Northern Portion of the Development Site, 65.6 acres of Open Space – Park/Resource use, and 28.3 acres of internal street dedication/circulation. The Development Project would provide general and emergency access via Sunset Avenue. With development of the Development Project, multiple points of access would be created. Access to Sunset Avenue would be provided via “Street A,” Lincoln Street, and the Sun Lakes Boulevard (SLB) Extension. Access to the commercial area in PA 1 would be provided by “Street A” and Lincoln Street. Direct access to PAs 2, 3, and 4 would be provided by Sunset Avenue. Accessto PAs 6 and 7 would be provided from the south by Lincoln Street, and access to PAs 2, 5, and 8 would be provided from the north by Lincoln Street and by the SLB Extension to the south. PAs 9 and 10 would be provided access from the future SLB Extension. PAs 11 and 12 would be accessible from the SLB Extension and South Highland Home Road. Planning Area 4 would be accessible from the SLB Extension on the north and Bobcat Road on the south. All roadways and structures associated with the Development Project would be constructed in accordance with 398
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐45
City and RCFD emergency access standards. Development on the Development Site would also be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on the Development Site for emergency vehicles. The commercial and industrial uses associated with the Development Project would generate an increased demand for RCFD service due to the number of employees anticipated to occupy the Development Site at any given time and based on the size of the buildings that would be developed as part of the Development Project. Although the Development Project would increase the demand of service from RCFD, the RCFD has indicated that existing staffing levels at Stations 89 and 20, as well as other RCFD Stations in the vicinity of the Development Site, would adequately serve the Development Project.
Further, the Development Project would not have a significant impact on fire services if the RCFD Fire Station to be located in PA 12 is not developed, as the RCFD has indicated that existing staffing levels at Stations 89 and 20, as well as other RCFD Stations in the vicinity of the Site, would adequately serve the Development Project. Based on the anticipated nature and scale of development, including the anticipated employment population on the Development Site, occupation of the Development Site with the proposed uses is anticipated to increase emergency call volume by up to 483 calls per year (9 calls per week or 40 calls per month). At Development Project buildout, Fire Station 20 could potentially respond to an additional 8 calls per week, which would increase the total number of calls per week to up to 65.17Due to the industrial and commercial nature of the Development Project, the Development Site will be best categorized as “Heavy Urban” with a recommended response time of 5 minutes 90 percent of the time. Fire response to the Development Site closest existing Fire Station (Station 20) would achieve a 5‐minute travel time to the western entrance of the Development Site.
Responding from the east, Fire Station 89 would achieve a 5‐minute travel time to the eastern entrance of the Development Site.
The Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared for the Development Project evaluated the potential fire risk associated with the proposed land uses and identified requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, and fire protection systems, among other pertinent fire protection criteria. The FPP has been prepared for the Development Project to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements and standards of the RCFD which inform the Development Project’s designed to meet fire protection, emergency access, and emergency evacuation safety requirements. Water availability, fire water flow, and hydrant placement would be reviewed and verified by the RCFD to ensure compliance with local and State codes. The Fuel Modification Plan (FMP) of the FPP would be implemented to provide greater protection to Development Project buildings and occupants and to reduce commencement of fires.
Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) FIRE‐1 (RCM FIRE‐1) requires the Development Project to implement and adhere to the FPP and its wildfire reduction measures. Furthermore, RCM Public Services‐1 (RCM PS‐1) would require the payment of development impact fees to the City of Banning that would contribute to the fair share funding for RCFD improvements, staffing increases, and equipment purchases to ensure adequate fire protection services continue in the City and at the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.15.6.1)
With implementation of RCMs FIRE‐1 and PS‐1, the Development Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire facilitiesin order to maintain acceptable service 399
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐46
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. Construction of a new fire facility on the Development Site or elsewhere in the City is not required as a result of the Development Project and, notwithstanding the request by the City that the Development Project include a set aside of land for a potential future fire station, consideration of impacts of construction of a station at that location would be remote and speculative. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
To allow flexibility to the City for future planning purposes, the Development Project incorporates an offer of dedication to the City for an approximately 1.5‐acre site in Planning Area (PA) 12 as a potential future site for a fire station, should the City determine in the future that location of a fire station facility in that location is advisable.
3.14.2 Threshold 4.15.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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 police protection.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.2 of the EIR. Construction of a new government facilities on the Development Site or elsewhere in the City is not required as a result of the Development Project and significant need of additional police protection is not anticipated. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction. Construction activities have the potential to affect law enforcement services, such as emergency vehicle response times, by potentially requiring circulation detours, road closures, and lane closures during off‐site improvements around the Development Site. Construction activities including activities resulting in changes to access will be reviewed by the City and the Banning Police Department (BPD). The City and/or BPD may identify requirements to maintain necessary access by law enforcement providers similar to those identified for fire protection access. The Development Project would implement the necessary provisions identified by the City and emergency service providers to maintain access to and through the Development Site thus resulting in no significant impacts.
Construction activities at the Development Site have the potential to attract criminals during non‐ construction hours due to construction equipment and vehicles with gasoline and diesel fuel left on site, and unsecured construction materials. To minimize criminal trespassing, the Development Site (construction areas) would be fenced and, during non‐construction hours, access points would be locked. Construction equipment would be stored in well‐lit areas, and smaller equipment would be secured to reduce absconding from trespassers. Patrols by BPD would increase during non‐ 400
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐47
construction hours; however, such increases in patrolling would be nominal and would be in existing patrol areas of the BPD. Overall, steps would be taken during Development Project construction activities to reduce calls for service from the BPD negating the necessity to build a new police station or expand existing BPD stations in the City. Potential impacts related to law enforcement service during Development Project construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation. The Development Project’s commercial and industrial uses would increase the number of employees on the Development Site and would attract business and hotel visitors and therefore would increase the population within the City of Banning and within the BPD service area during certain periods. The Development Project would not include the development of residential units and therefore would not directly increase the existing population of the City of Banning and the BPD service area. Because of the increase in employees and business and hotel visitors, it is anticipated that BPD service calls would increase due to the Development Project and could impact the service capability of the BPD over the lifetime of the Development Project. The purpose of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fees is to address the needs of the City to add new BDP stations purchase of new BPD equipment, and/or improvements to existing BDP facilities in the City as needed. As a condition of the Development Project, specified in RCM PS‐2 (Draft EIR Section 4.15.6.2), the Development Project would pay its fair share of Police Facilities Development Impact Fees and implementation of the Development Project would not require the specific development of a new BPD facility or expansion of the existing facility in the City, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. (EIR Section 4.15.6.2 ).
3.14.3 Threshold 4.15.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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 schools.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.3 of the EIR. The Development Project does not include the development of residential uses and direct increases in student enrollment to schools in BUSD would not occur. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
As the Development Project does not include the development of residential uses, direct increases in student enrollment to schools in BUSD would not occur. it is estimated that the majority of the employees that would occupy the Development Site would likely reside in areas and jurisdictions surrounding the Development Site or within the City of Banning and/or within the current service boundary of the BUSD; as such, school‐aged children of any potential new employees would already be enrolled in BUSD schools and the addition of new students to BUSD would be nominal. The 401
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐48
provisions of SB 50 provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA or other State or local laws. As such, with payment of Development Impact Fees to BUSD through implementation of RCM PS‐3, impacts to the BUSD and its schools from implementation of the Development Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section 4.15.6.3 ).
3.14.4 Threshold 4.15.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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 parks.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Project would not increase the population requiring the need for the development of additional parks. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would not include the development of residential units; therefore, the Development Project would not directly add to the existing population of the City, and would not generate new residential park demand. The City determines park demand on a per resident basis. As such, industrial and commercial uses are not considered by the City to generate park and recreation demand. Additionally, the Development Project would include approximately 12.6 acres of Open Space – Parks. The 5 acre passive park on the Development Site would be open to the public and would be accessible to City residents, employees (including employees occupying the Development Site), and visitors. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section 4.15.6.4 ).
3.14.5 Threshold 4.15.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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 other public facilities.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Project would not increase the population to the extent that the construction of additional or physically altered public facilities are required. The City finds 402
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐49
that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The EIR analysis focused on libraries, as other public facilities (i.e., City Town Hall and City Departments) have been developed to accommodate the build‐out population of Banning as well as the employment force in the City of Banning. The Banning Library District (BLD) provideslibrary service to Banning residents and employees. BLD facilities are currently providing adequate service to District residents. Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of the resident population. Implementation of the Development Project does not include residential uses and therefore would not directly add population to the City of Banning that could use services provided by the BLD. The BLD is funded through the payment of property taxes. In the absence of a direct or indirect increase in library demand from Development Site uses, there is no need for additional library facilities. As BLD facilities are currently providing adequate service to District residents, and because any use of BLD facilities by Development Site employees would be expected to be nominal, it is reasonable to conclude the continued payment of property taxes (which include an appropriate BLD assessment) will provide adequate funds to support BLD functions/facilities; therefore, no impact to BLD would result from development of the Proposed Project. (EIR Section 4.15.6.5).
3.15 RECREATION
Project impacts for CEQA Recreation do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.15.1 Threshold 4.16.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.16.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Project is not expected to result in an unplanned increase in the number of residents and would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of those facilities would occur or be accelerated. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.16.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
As indicated above, the City determines park demand on a per resident basis. Industrial and commercial uses are not considered by the City to generate park and recreation demand. The Development Project would not include the development of residential units and as a result buildout of the Development Project would not directly add to the existing population of the City and would not generate new residential park demand. Buildout of the Development Project is anticipated to 403
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐50
increase employment in the City by approximately 5,993 jobs, the majority of which are anticipated to be filled by existing City residents or existing County residents. These existing City and County residents likely already use park and recreation facilities within the City and County. Some employees could relocate into the City or nearby unincorporated County land; however, the existing and planned housing stock in the City is more than sufficient to accommodate the small number of employees who may relocate, and therefore buildout of the Development Project would not indirectly result in a population increase in the City that has not been accounted for. Therefore, the Development Project would not result in existing park and recreational facilities in the City being used by more residents.
Nevertheless, the Development Project would include approximately 12.6 acres of Open Space – Parks (comprising a 5.0‐acre passive park and 7.6 acres of passive open space).
Although the City currently does not meet its per resident park requirements, because the Development Project is not expected to result in an unplanned increase in the number of residents in the City and the City does not considerindustrial or commercial uses as generating park and recreation demand, the Development Project is not anticipated to generate an increased need for use of existing neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. (EIR Section 4.16.6.1).
3.15.2 Threshold 4.16.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.16.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6.2 of the EIR. Future park developments within the Development Site were analyzed as ancillary incremental portions related to other uses on the Development Site, and would also be required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.16.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Within the 12.6‐acre Planning Area 11, Open Space – Park uses include 5.0 acres to be utilized as a passive park, with the remaining 7.6 acres utilized as passive open space. The 5.0‐acre passive park would provide recreational amenities including a tot lot playground, picnic tables, trails, walking paths, surface parking lot, and restrooms. The 7.6‐acre passive open space area would include a trail system. The 12.6‐acre Open Space – Parks use would be publicly accessible and would more than likely be used by employees on the Development Site and existing off‐site residents in the City and adjacent unincorporated County areas. a Construction and operation of the proposed passive park on the Development Site has been evaluated throughout this EIR under the appropriate resource sections(air quality, biologicalresources, etc.) and isincluded in the analysis of environmental impacts of the Development Project in this EIR. Potentially adverse impactsto the environment that may result from the creation of parkland pursuant to buildout of the Development Project would be less than significant upon the implementation of the Specific Plan’s goals, policies, and actions and existing 404
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐51
federal, State, and local regulations. Future park developments within the Development Site would also be required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan.
Furthermore,subsequent City review would be required for approval and development of future park sites on the Development Site. Therefore, a less than significant impact relating to new or expanded park and recreational facilities would occur and no mitigation is warranted. (EIR Section 4.16.6.2).
3.16 TRANSPORTATION
Project impacts for CEQA Transportation Thresholds 4.17.1, 4.17.3 and 4.17.4 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.16.1 Threshold 4.17.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.17.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.17.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would be consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, and polices that address the circulation systems. Improvements to the existing roadway network (i.e., widening, parkways, sidewalk, curb and gutter, new lanes) and new internal roadways would be constructed to meet City standards. The Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines identify road design standards by which the Development Project roadway network would be developed. The Development Project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Development Project would include an internal circulation system presenting an opportunity for new bus stops to be added to the Banning Connect transit system. It is expected that transit service would be provided as needed and determined by Banning Connect once the Development Project reaches a transit‐supportable level of operations or surpasses the existing transit facilities to the east of the Development Site. For these reasons, implementation of the Development Project would not be inconsistent with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the existing transit system. (EIR Section 4.17.6.2).
3.16.2 Threshold 4.17.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.17.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.17.3; therefore, no mitigation is required. 405
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐52
Substantial Evidence
Improvements to the existing roadway network and new internal roadways would be constructed to meet City standards. The proposed driveways and intersections would be designed so as to not introduce hazards due to geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections).
This impact would be less than significant. Additionally, the Development Site occurs in an area surrounded by residential uses to the west, Union Pacific Railroad and I‐10 to the north, and business park, light industrial, and residential uses to the east. While large‐lot residential uses and agricultural operations (ranching/grazing) are located south of Bobcat Road, the Development Project would be separated from such uses by the existing roadway (Bobcat Road).
An additional project design feature has been incorporated into the Specific Plan (see revised Specific Plan, Section 3.4) to discourage truck travel along Sun Lakes Boulevard west of the Development Site.
Final EIR, Chapter 3.0, Response to Comment E‐31‐15 states, “As cited in the Specific Plan (Draft EIR, Appendix B, page 2‐9) Sunset Avenue would have a “center raised or painted median.” The improvement stated in the Specific Plan for this segment of Sunset Avenue is identified in Section
3.5.3.2 of the Draft EIR (see page 3‐45 and Figure 3‐9). As detailed in the Draft EIR (Section 4.11, pages 4‐11‐32 and ‐33), the improvements at the intersection of Sunset Avenue at both Lincoln Street and the Sun Lakes Boulevard include the installation of traffic signals, dedicated left turn lanes, and through‐ and right turn‐lanes.2 These features will regulate traffic along Sunset Avenue, thereby promoting sufficient and safe access into the Serrano del Vista Community and the MSJC Campus. As discussed in the Specific Plan (Appendix B, pages 1‐4 and 2‐10) the proposed circulation improvements are in conformance with the City’s General Plan and would require appropriate review by the City Engineer. The City, through established design and developmentreview processes, ensures that developments do not introduce inefficient or unsafe transportation system or traffic improvements. Established traffic safety designs and design protocols routinely employed by the City typically include: the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD); the Highway Design Manual; the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; the Caltrans Standard Plans and Standard Specifications; the City’s Standard Drawings; and the City’s Special Provisions. Other pertinent documents may include Specific Plans, Master Plans, and the Conditions of Approval for the Project. These design protocols would appropriately consider community access, truck movement, and potential traffic hazards. The provision of the circulation improvements (as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the with the incorporation of appropriate design criteria) would ensure such improvements provide sufficient safe access to and through the Project area and to/from the Serrano del Vista community.”
PDF T‐4: Truck Route Management Plan. The Truck Route Management Plan, to be approved by the City Community Development Director, will be required prior to issuance of the first occupancy permits for each industrial site, and will include the following components:
Posting of signage clearly showing the designated entry for trucks from the public streets to the designated on‐site truck check‐in and truck parking areas. 2 See COAs TRA‐25 and TRA‐25, at Draft EIR Section 4.11.6.2. 406
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐53
Posting ofsignage indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within the designated onsite areas and not within the surrounding community or on public streets. Posting of signage for exiting traffic (other than exempt vehicles) showing the designated exits and restricting westward travel on Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home Road. Lease provisions clearly identifying the required truck routes, including requiring trucks to use Sunset Avenue to access the I‐10 Freeway interchange and prohibiting trucks (other than exempt vehicles) on Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home Road. Consider and include, where feasible, driveway aprons providing egress to SLB Extension that physically direct trucks east on Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension in a manner that does not affect exempt vehicles.
Truck route maps provided to all drivers and posted in breakrooms and throughout the Project. Designation of a Traffic Coordinator contact for the City to notify in the event of traffic issues.
For the Truck Route Management Plan, exempt vehiclesinclude emergency and public safety vehicles, buses, limos and passenger vehicles, vehicles owned by a public utility or public agency and delivery vansserving local routes or using designated detour routes. With the incorporation of the Truck Route Management Plan, potential conflicts with truck traffic through residential uses would be reduced.
Therefore, the Development Project would not introduce safety hazards due to incompatible uses, and no mitigation is required. (EIR Section 4.17.6.4).
3.16.3 Threshold 4.17.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.17.6.5 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.17.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project is not anticipated to result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction. In the event of an accident or emergency during Development Project construction, emergency service providers would still be able to access the Development Site from Bobcat Road, Sunset Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Highland Home Road. Internal access roads would be constructed throughout the Development Site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage of emergency response vehicles.
During Project operations, unimpeded access throughout the Development Site would be maintained by ensuring that vehicles would not be parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for 407
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐54
emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage of emergency response vehicles. the Development Project would include improvements to the existing roadway network and development of an internal roadway network consistent with City design standards. Overall, the Development Project would provide adequate access and signage for patrons, workers, and emergency access personnel. (EIR Section 4.17.6.5).
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Project impactsfor CEQA Utilities and Service Systems do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.17.1 Threshold 4.19.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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 or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.1 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Water. The Development Project would not necessitate new or expanded water facilities, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water from existing supplies and infrastructure. While the City of Banning does not currently have a supply of recycled water available to users in the City, it anticipates implementing upgrades at the City’s wastewater treatment plant that would meet tertiary treatment standards to supply recycled water for outdoor irrigated use.
Accordingly, the Development Project would include internal infrastructure to connect to recycled water lines that currently exist in Sunset Avenue (24‐inch diameter) from Lincoln Street to the future SLB Extension and in the future SLB Extension (24‐inch diameter) itself, and would install four recycled water lines in adjacent streets to connect the Development Project to recycled water infrastructure. (Draft EIR Section 4.19.6.1). Given that the Development Project would comply with the City of Banning’s standard requirements for facility planning and that adequate water distribution facilities would exist to serve the Development Site, the Development Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded potable or recycled water facilities beyond the improvements detailed above. As required by the City of all development that connects to the City’s potable water supply, Water Development Impact Fees, as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure UT‐1 (RCM UT‐1) (Draft EIR Section 4.19.6.1)) would be required to be paid to the City prior to certificate of occupancy issuance by the City on the Development Site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1) Wastewater. Asthe Development Site is currently vacant, uses developed as part of the Development Project would increase wastewater generation. On‐site infrastructure would be required for the Development Site to be completed. The Banning Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) is currently 408
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐55
operating at 57.1 percent of its daily intake capacity. As wastewater conveyance infrastructure already exists in the SLB Extension and along PAs 12 and 14, installation of wastewater conveyance infrastructure is required to be constructed to connect the Development Project with existing City conveyance infrastructure. (Draft EIR Section 4.19.6.1). Sanitary services during construction would be provided by portable restroom facilities, which transport waste off site for treatment and disposal.
Therefore, during construction, potential impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Industrial and General Commercial uses would be developed as part of the Development Project. The Development Project would result in an increase in wastewater generation during operation. The estimated increase in wastewater associated with the buildout of the Development Project would represent 23.5 percent of the Banning WRF’s remaining daily intake capacity. The increase in wastewater generated by the uses associated with the Development Project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of the Banning WRF. Therefore, the Development Project would not require, nor would it result in, the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or the expansion of existing facilities other than those facilities to be constructed on the Development Site. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1)
Stormwater Infrastructure. Buildout of the Development Project would substantially increase impervioussurfaces on the site with street, access drives, paved parking areas, and building footprints (including the reverse osmosis facility). Landscaped slopes, undeveloped open space, open space occupied by a park, landscaped parking medians, and landscaped areas around buildings would be incorporated into each PA of the Development Project to reduce the overall number of impervious surfaces. To accommodate the increase in stormwater flows generated by the Development Project, the Development Site has been segmented into 13 Drainage Management Areas. The Development Project would include the installation of storm drainpipes, reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) ranging in size from 12 inches to 42 inches in diameter, and 15 on‐site Water Quality Management Plan basins (stormwater basins) where stormwater from the uses on the site would be stored before flowing off site into downstream stormwater receivers. Two 10‐foot by 100‐foot reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts would be developed for the Lincoln Street crossings of the Pershing Wash and Smith Creek drainages. The drainage system would route the runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces to the 15 on‐site stormwater basins for treatment and peak flow mitigation for their respective tributaries via RCP facilities. Per City of Banning Ordinance #1415, the Development Project is required to retain 100 percent of a 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event. The 100‐year, 3‐hour flood volume anticipated to be generated by the Development Project totals 2,797,246 cubic feet (ft3), and the on‐site stormwater system includes development of basins with a total volume of 5,193,324 ft3. Assuch, the Development Project would incorporate an adequate on‐site stormwater infrastructure system. Overall, the peak discharge of stormwater generated by the Development Project would not adversely affect the capacity of downstream networks, and construction or expansion of off‐site stormwater drainage facilities would not be required. Therefore, impacts to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1) Electricity Infrastructure. Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, utility installation, paving, and building construction and architectural coating. Energy required for these activities would be supplied either through petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline for on‐site generation) or the extension of 409
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐56
power to the Development Site from existing electrical systems. Due to the limited duration (estimated at 51 months) and phased nature of construction, the amount of electricity required is not anticipated to exceed that required during Project operation. The Development Project operations would require 25,570,405 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) (or 25.570 GWh) of electricity per year. As total electricity consumption in the BEU service area in 2022 was 151.5 GWh, the Development Project electric demand represents approximately 16.9 percent of existing electricity consumption within the BEU service area and 0.14 percent of current electrical demand in Riverside County. Approximately 1 acre within the Development Site, at the northwest corner of Planning Area, has been identified by the BEU as a potential site for development of an electric substation to be developed by the BEU to support projected long‐term growth anticipated by the City’s existing General Plan. The extension of electrical infrastructure to/through the Development Site and individual buildings (including any future electrical substation or battery storage use) would conform to applicable design, construction, and maintenance requirements established by the BEU. As the Development Project would not increase demand on electrical systems beyond existing network capacity; a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1)
Natural Gas Infrastructure. A natural gas pipeline crosses the northern half of the Development Site and is marked by signs and exposed where the pipeline crosses the natural drainages that exist on the site. Natural gas distribution services would be extended through all on‐site streets and surface parking lots to which the Development Project would connect. The applicant would be responsible for construction connections to these distribution facilities and the backbone distribution systems for the Development Project. Construction activities would not impact natural gas services, and the Development Project would not require new or physically altered gas transmission facilities.
Operation of the uses on the Development Site would result in increased demand for natural gas.
Because the Development Project would only represent a small fraction of natural gas demand in Riverside County, the uses of the Development Project would exceed Title 24 requirements, and there would be sufficient natural gas supplies available. As such, natural gas demand for the Development Project at buildout would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR section
4.19.6.1)
Telecommunications. Telephone, cable, and internet services are located along the perimeter of the Development Site and would be extended into the site. Additionally, cable box locations would be carefully planned and coordinated with utility providers and the landscape architect to be unobtrusive and screened from public view where possible. Impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. (EIR Section 4.19.6.1)
3.17.2 Threshold 4.19.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Development Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that the City has a sufficient water supply to serve the 410
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐57
Development Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years and that development of the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project, at buildout, would demand approximately 949,600 gallons of water per day or 1,060 acre‐feet of water annually. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Development Project, the City has projected a water surplus during normal, dry, and multiple‐dry years through 2045. The increase in potable water demand as a result of Development Project buildout (1,060 acre‐feet/year) would represent a small portion (1.89 percent3
) of the City’s protected water supply in 2025 under the worst‐case scenario.
Under the worst case condition (2045, multiple dry year), adequate water supplies still exist to serve the Development Project and the water demand for population/land use forecast in the UWMP; the Development Project would not necessitate new or expanded water facilities, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. In addition, in 2022, SGPWA entered into a 20‐year Agreement with the City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) and the Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas). Together, the City of Ventura and the Casitas Municipal Water District have a combined Table A water allocation of 20,000 acre‐feet. Ventura and Casitas do not plan to take direct delivery of their respective Table A water. The Ventura Water Agreement allows SGPWA to purchase water from Ventura and Casitas through its contractual arrangement. Of the 20,000 acre‐feet total Table A allocation, the agreement allows for SGPWA to receive up to 10,000 acre‐feet in addition to the existing 17,300 acre‐feet Table A allocation for SGPWA. The City can expect to receive additional water from SGPWA because of its contract with Ventura. This additional water will increase the amount of water that the City has available for groundwater recharge and will be able to extract from storage for future use. As the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Development Project and existing and reasonably foreseeable and planned future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, project impacts are less than significant. (EIR Section
4.19.6.2; Final EIR Section 4.19.3.1).
3.17.3 Threshold 4.19.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Development Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Development Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.3; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3 1,060 acre‐feet/year/56,298 acre‐feet/year *100 = 1.89 percent. 411
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐58
Substantial Evidence
Development Project buildout would increase wastewater generation above and beyond what is currently being generated on the vacant land. The Development Project, once operational, is estimated to generate approximately 352,920 gallons of wastewater per day, which represents 23.5 percent of the Banning WRF’s remaining daily intake capacity. With existing wastewater flows and Development Project wastewater flows, the WRF would continue to operate below its daily intake capacity without improvementsto the existing WRF or development of a new WRF in the City. Impacts would therefore be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section
4.19.6.3).
3.17.4 Threshold 4.19.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The City of Banning contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for solid waste collection service from residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City limits. Solid waste collected in the City is disposed of at three landfills serving the City: Badlands Sanitary Landfill, Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, and El Sobrante Landfill. As the Development Site is vacant, solid waste generation due to demolition of existing structures would not occur. However, construction of the Development Project would still have the potential to generate nominal amounts of solid waste which would either be recycled or disposed of at one of the local three landfills serving the City. The amount of daily waste generated during construction is less than that occurring during operation of the proposed uses at Project buildout. Once operational and built‐out, the Development Project would generate more solid waste than what is being generated under existing conditions. Based on solid waste generation rates gathered from CalRecycle, the Development Project is estimated to generate 29,317 pounds of solid waste per day or 14.66 tons of solid waste per day once operational. However, this is a worst case scenario and represents 0.1466 percent of the daily maximum combined intake of the three landfills serving the Development Site or 0.000038 percent of the remaining combined capacity of the three landfills serving the Development Site. Consistent with State diversion rate goals, the Development Project would implement a diversion rate of 75 percent of the solid waste generated daily once operational, and is anticipated to divert 10.995 tons of solid waste daily for recycling. The Development Project would therefore be served by three landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate its solid waste disposal needs during construction and operation of the proposed on‐site uses and would attain state solid waste reduction goals. (EIR Section 4.19.6.4). 412
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐59
3.17.5 Threshold 4.19.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations to solid waste.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.5 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The state’s focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies such as source reduction, recycling, and composting. The current diversion requirement is 75 percent of solid waste generated. The Development Project would generate 29,317 pounds of solid waste per day or 14.66 tons of solid waste per day once operational. The Development Project is anticipated to divert 10.995 tons of solid waste daily for recycling. The Development Project would implement a diversion rate of 75 percent of the solid waste generated daily; therefore, up to 7,330 pounds (or 3.665 tons) would be transported to area landfills daily (1,338 tons per year). To comply with State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and reuse of solid waste, the City’s per capita disposal rate must meet the target established by CalRecycle of 6.1 pounds/person/day for residents and 30.4 pounds/person/day for employees. The City currently meets this target. The Development Project would add 5,993 new jobs; therefore, with a daily waste generation rate of 7,330 pounds per day for 5,993 employees, the Development Project employee disposal rate would decrease to 13.4 pounds/person/day. Therefore, the Development Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (EIR Section 4.19.6.5).
3.18 WILDFIRE
Project impactsfor CEQA Wildfire do notresult in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.18.1 Threshold 4.20.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.1 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
According to the Banning General Plan Emergency Preparedness Element, the City does not have established evacuation routes, although depending on the location and extent of an emergency, major surface streets would be utilized to route traffic through the City onto Interstate 10 to exit the region. A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the Development Site to evaluate and 413
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐60
identify the potential fire risk associated with the Development Project’s land uses and to identify requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, and fire protection systems, among other pertinent fire protection criteria.
During construction, all large construction vehicles entering and exiting the Development Site would be guided by personnel using signs and flags to direct traffic. The Development Site does not include any characteristics that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in its vicinity. Construction of the Development Project may require temporary lane closures on Sunset Avenue, Highland Home Road, and Bobcat Road to allow for utility connections.
Temporary closures may also occur on Sunset Avenue between Interstate 10 and Lincoln Street, Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Bobcat Road, Lincoln Street, Bobcat Road, and Highland Home Road due to improvements to the surrounding circulation system. These temporary lane closures/road closures would be implemented with the recommendation of the California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, which, among other things, recommends early coordination with affected agencies to ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained. Police protection services within the City are provided by the Banning Police Department and fire protection services are provided through a contractual agreement with the RCFD, which in turn contracts with CAL FIRE. The City and/or fire protection authority may identify requirements to maintain necessary access by law enforcement providersthrough evacuation (as necessary) from construction zones. Requirements may include (but would not be limited to): advance notification to motorists and emergency service providers; identification or installation of appropriate detour/access routes; use of signage, traffic control features, or flag persons during construction activities to facilitate access; restrictions on the duration/timing of construction activities; and/or scheduling/phasing of construction activities to avoid/minimize changes in public access. The Development Project would implement the necessary provisions identified by the City and emergency service providers to maintain access to and through the Development Site. (See substantial evidence for Threshold 4.15.1). In this manner, officials would be able to plan and respond appropriately to direct the public away from Sunset Avenue, Lincoln Street, Bobcat Road, and Highland Home Road, as appropriate, in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation. Therefore, because the Development Project would involve early coordination with affected agencies and emergency service personnel. Temporary lane closures/road closures would be implemented with the recommendation of the California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, which, among other things, recommends early coordination with affected agenciesto ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained. Because the Development Project would involve early coordination with affected agencies and emergency service personnel, the Development Project would notsubstantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during construction activities.
According to the Traffic Impact Report, the operation of the Development Project is not anticipated to result in any substantial queuing along Sunset Avenue, Bobcat Road, Highland Home Road, or other nearby roads. The City of Banning General Plan, as indicated above, has not established evacuation routes within the City; however, all roads within the City could be used as evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. For the Development Site, the main corridor utilized would be Sunset Avenue.
The Development Project would provide general and emergency access via Sunset Avenue. Sunset Avenue provides access to the Development Site via “Street A,” Lincoln Street, and the SLB Extension. 414
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐61
All roadways and structures within the Development Site would be developed in accordance with City and RCFD emergency access standards. The Development Project would also be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on the Development Site for emergency vehicles. The Fuel Modification Plan (FMP) for the Development Project would be implemented to provide greater protection to buildings and occupants of the Development Project and to reduce risk of fires. The FPP and FMP prepared specifically for the Development Project would conform to City and RCFD standards and facilitate effective emergency response and operation. Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) Fire‐1 (Draft EIR Section 4.20.6.1) requires the Development Project to implement and adhere to the FPP and its wildfire reduction measures. Therefore, construction and operation of the Development Project would not physically interfere with or impair an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. (EIR Section 4.20.6.1).
3.18.2 Threshold 4.20.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Topography influences fire risk by affecting fire spread rates. Typically, steep terrain results in faster fire spread up‐slope and slower fire spread down‐slope in the absence of wind. The Development Site is on relatively flat undeveloped parcels with several seasonal natural drainages that drain to Smith Creek, which traverses the western portion of the Development Site, and eventually drain to the San Gorgonio and Whitewater Rivers. Fires can be an issue in the City and County during summer and fall, before the rainy period, especially during dry Santa Ana wind events. The seasonal Santa Ana winds can be particularly strong in the Development Site area. Santa Ana winds may gust up to 75 mph or higher thereby drying out and preheating vegetation as well as accelerating oxygen supply, and thereby making possible the burning of fuels that otherwise might not burn under cooler, moister conditions.
Wildfires may potentially occur in open space areas adjacent to the Development Site, or in on‐site undeveloped open space. Under existing conditions, the Development Site includes numerous potential fire hazards, including unmaintained, fire‐prone vegetation. The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the surrounding area include vehicles, residential neighborhoods, as well as arson. The existing physical condition poses as a challenge for fire protection to the surrounding communities because of grassland fuels, Santa Ana winds, high temperatures, and/or firefighter exposure. The Development Project would include conversion of approximately 80 percent of the Development Site to maintained urban development with designated landscaping and FMZs (a strip of land where combustible vegetation has been removed and/or modified and partially or totally 415
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐62
replaced with more adequately spaced, drought‐tolerant, fire‐resistant plantsto provide a reasonable level of protection to structures from wildland and vegetation fires).
The Development Project would introduce new potential ignition sources in the form of building materials (e.g., wood and stucco), vegetation for landscaping, vehicles, and small machinery (e.g., for typical commercial and landscape maintenance), but would also result in a large area separating ignition sources from native fuels as well as the conversion of existing ignitable fuels to maintained landscapes that are ignition resistant. Therefore, the Development Site would function as a fuel reduction area by helping create context‐sensitive development and a new first‐fuel break line of defensible space. The Development Project proposes FMZs ranging from a minimum of 100 feet to 200 feet, twice the required distance, or provides alternative measures to meet the intent of the FMZ requirement. In addition, the Development Project is required to implement regulatory compliance measures set forth in RCM FIRE‐1 which would require compliance with the regulations of the most recently adopted CFC and CBC to avoid potential impacts from the Development Site’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby reduce exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (EIR Section 4.20.6.2).
3.18.3 Threshold 4.20.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not 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
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Utility and infrastructure improvements included as part of the Development Project are discussed in Chapter 3.0 and analyzed in Section 4.19 of this EIR. Potable, recycled water, and wastewater infrastructure would be installed on the Development Site and improvements to existing infrastructure in surrounding roads would occur. Existing overhead power lines surrounding the Development Site would be undergrounded and connected to buildings developed as a part of the Development Project. The Development Project would include a new internal circulation system and would also include improvementsto surrounding roads. None of these features would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Although utilities, including water facilities, sewer facilities, storm drain lines, and power lines, would be modified and/or extended throughout the Development Site, these improvements would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk.
The installation of on‐site utilities, on‐site circulation system, and off‐site road improvements would not exacerbate fire risk due to the Development Site’s location in an urban area outside of a designated fire hazard zone. The Development Site is not located in an area statutorily designated as 416
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
3‐63
a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by CAL FIRE or Riverside County. The Northern Portion of the Development Site is accurately designated as LRA Non‐VHFHSZ, while the Southern Portion of the Development Site is designated SRA Non‐FHSZ.
The proposed electrical substation would be developed and operated by the City in compliance with regulations set forth by Cal/OSHA and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). The reverse osmosis facility and potable water reservoir would be developed and operated by the City in compliance with standards as set forth by the City of Banning Water and Wastewater Department. These facilities would be remotely operated and monitored and include fire suppression features (i.e., sprinklers, defensive space, and fire alarms) that would reduce the exacerbation for fire risk. The location of the electrical substation, in an industrial use area of the Development Site, would also reduce the risk of wildfire exacerbation as this facility would not be located in Open Space areas occupied by natural vegetation. A shortstretch of transmission line (0.9 mile long), currently located in an open area south of the I‐10 Freeway between Sunset Avenue and South Highland Home Road, is identified as an area of Tier 2 threat (areas of elevated risk for destructive utility‐associated fires). However, Banning Electric Utility (BEU) meets or exceeds the minimum industry standard management practices for safety. Implementation of the City‐sponsored public infrastructure and facilities on the Development Site would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The City‐sponsored infrastructure and facilities will be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant to required fire protection requirementsfor utility facilities, and the potential for increased fire risk from these facilities would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.20.6.3).
3.18.4 Threshold 4.20.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
After a wildfire passes through an area, post‐fire hazards can occur based on conditions of the topography and susceptibility to flooding. Post‐fire landslide hazards include fast‐moving, highly destructive debris flows that can occur in the years immediately after wildfires in response to high intensity rainfall events.
The Development Site is situated on a relatively flat undeveloped area with several seasonal natural drainages that drain to Smith Creek, which traverses the western portion of the Development Site, and eventually to the San Gorgonio and Whitewater Rivers. The topography surrounding the Development Site is also relatively flat. According to the California Department of Conservation, no landslides have been inventoried on or adjacent to the Development Site; however, the Development Site is susceptible to deep‐seated landslides which would not be susceptible to immediate impact 417
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
3‐64
from wildfires. The Development Project would be required to comply with the measures of the approved FPP and FMP. In the extremely unlikely event that a wildfire should spread to the Development Site, it would not expose any on‐site slopes to erosion and potential failure because the Development Site does not contain any steep slopes that are prone to landslide.
The Development Site is located on FIRM Panel 06065C0816G and portions of the Development Site are designated as Flood Zone A based on the existing natural drainages that cross the Development Site. A fire north of the Development Site could trigger increased downstream sediment movement, which could raise the elevation of potential flooding along the natural drainages in the Development Site. The design of the Development Project considers such events and would be developed in accordance with standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would reduce flooding and post‐fire flows (Refer to Section 4.10.4 of the Draft EIR for regulatory discussion regarding flood, and Section 4.10.6.3 of the Draft EIR for discussion on Development Project‐specific regulatory compliance measures (RCMs) and best management practices (BMPs) regarding flood) and would adhere to the FPP and FMP approved by the City and RCFD. Compliance with these plans would reduce the likelihood of urban conflagration on the Development Site in the unlikely event of a wildfire.
In the unlikely event that a wildfire should spread to the Development Site, it is not expected that the Development Project would contribute any additional runoff or sedimentation to the on‐site natural drainages or other downstream drainages. This is due to the lack of steep slopes prone to landslide or erosion on the Development Site, and the fact that the drainage improvements would remain intact after a major wildfire, allowing them to continue to reduce the potential for flooding conditions in downstream storm drain facilities. Therefore, downslope, or downstream flooding as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes are unlikely to expose occupants or structures on the Development Site to significant risks. (EIR Section 4.20.6.4). 418
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐1
4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A
LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City finds that the following potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Development Project are less than significant with the imposition of mitigation measures.
4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Biological Resources Thresholds 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6 do not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.1.1 Threshold 4.4.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project could 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.1 of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through BIO‐16 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
A number of criteria, sensitive, or special‐status plant and animal species have the potential to occur on the Development Site. Burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse have been observed on the Development Site, and sensitive fairy shrimp species, Marvin’s (Yucaipa) onion, and many stemmed dudleya have been observed and documented in the vicinity of the Development Site, though not on the Development Site. No other criteria, sensitive, or special‐status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or identified by the CDFW or USFWS have been identified on the Development Site. Other special‐status plant species identified in the General Plan as having potential to occur in the vicinity of the Development Site were not observed during surveys and were determined to be unlikely to occur due to habitat conditions at the Development Site.
The Development Site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and is mapped within an MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. The habitat on the Development Site has been altered due to agricultural operations and regular disking, therefore, a majority of the vegetation communities present on site are disturbed. Construction at the Development Site would permanently impact the occupied colony, resulting in a direct impact to the colony. During construction, noise, dust, and vibration would directly impact the known colony on the southeast portion of the Development Site. Additional surveys, including pre‐construction surveys, would need to be conducted to determine occupancy of the known colony and identify active or passive relocation sites either on the Development Site or at the adjacent MSJC Site. Impacts would be minimized and mitigated through mitigation measures MM BIO‐7 and MM BIO‐8 approved by the appropriate agencies as identified below.
419
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐2
Results of surveys identified only the common versatile fairy shrimp, which is not State or federally listed as threatened or endangered, nor is it a special‐status species. Therefore, no impacts would occur to listed fairy shrimp species or species identified and covered by the MSHCP, and no mitigation or avoidance is required.
Los Angeles pocket mouse were detected at drainages within the Development Site during the 2002 and 2005 surveys, and again during surveys conducted in 2020 in limited upland areas of the Development Site. With the exception of 40.5 acres of drainages and their immediately adjacent uplands (Open Space – Resource), MSHCP designated Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat on the Development Site would be directly affected by the Development Project, including all areas where LAPM populations were identified during the 2020 surveys. These effects will be reduced through mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6, MM BIO 9, and MM BIO‐12.
While upland habitat throughout the Development Site will be permanently and irreversibly impacted by the Development Project, as discussed above, no candidate or sensitive species occur in these areas. Burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse are both designated as species of concern by CDFW and are known to occur in these areas. No federally or State listed endangered or threatened species or special‐status plant or amphibian species occur within the Development Site. No special‐ status fairy shrimp species occur within the Development Site, though the common versatile fairy shrimp does occur in seasonal pooling locations throughout the Development Site. As a result, no impacts with respect to these categories of species would occur. However, as discussed below, both the burrowing owl and LAPM are California Species of Concern. Mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐16 would reduce potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species present on the Development Site through habitat preservation or enhancement, active or passive relocation, and compliance with the DBESP regulations and MSHCP BMPs. Along with these mitigation measures, impacts to burrowing owl and LAPM would be further reduced through the permanent conservation of riparian/riverine lands on site (7.92 of 8.99 acres) as well as a surrounding upland area buffer of approximately 32.58 acres. To mitigate for the permanent impacts to 1.07 acres of riparian/riverine areas on the Development Site, 3.21 acres of on‐site riparian habitat would be enhanced or restored (a 3:1 ratio). (EIR Section 4.4.6.1).
Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4, Biological Resources of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following mitigation measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant:
MM BIO‐1 Construction Guidelines. Construction activities will follow the Construction Guidelines found in Volume 1, Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP.
MM BIO‐2 Equipment Staging. Equipment and vehicle storage, fueling, and material staging and storage will be in previously paved or previously disturbed, upland areas with no risk of direct drainage into riparian/riverine areas or other sensitive habitats. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into riparian/riverine areas. Development Project related spills of hazardous 420
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐3
materials shall be reported to appropriate entities and shall be cleaned up immediately with contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
MM BIO‐3 Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A qualified biologist will present to each Development Site employee a worker environmental awareness training prior to the initiation of work. They will be advised of the riparian/riverine resources and any other sensitive environmental resources in the Development Project area, the steps to avoid impacts to such, and the potential penalties for violating those steps. At a minimum, the program will include the following topics:
occurrence of the sensitive biological resources in the Development Project area and their general ecology,sensitivity ofsuch to human activities, legal protection afforded these species, penalties for violations, reporting requirements, and Development Project features designed to reduce the impact area. A sign‐in sheet will be utilized to identify all workers that have completed the WEAP training. If additional employees are added to the Development Project after the initiation, they will receive instruction prior to working on the Development Project. They will also need to sign the sign‐in sheet to provide proof of completion. For some projects with numerous contractors entering the project at differentstages of the project, the WEAP training can be video‐ taped and shown to additional workersrather than completing the training in person.
MM BIO‐4 Materials and Spoils Control. Development Project materials will not be cast from the Development Site, and Development Project related debris, spoils, and trash will be contained daily and removed to a proper disposal facility.
MM BIO‐5 Vehicle Washing. It will be required in the Development Projectspecification that the contractor will wash equipment priorto entering the vicinity of areasto be conserved.
This will reduce the potential for introduction of non‐native plant, animal, viral, or bacterial species to the areas that will otherwise be undisturbed. All vehicles shall be washed at a distance that would remove the likelihood of run‐off from entering any adjacent riverine/riparian areas.
MM BIO‐6 MSHCP Best Management Practices (BMPs). Development Project activities will be in compliance with BMPs, as applicable, detailed in MSHCP Volume 1, Section 7.5.3, and Appendix C of the MSHCP. The Project Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would provide regulations consistent with the MSHCP BMPs, and the Development Project shall comply with all DBESP regulations.
MM BIO‐7 Burrowing Owl Impacts. To avoid direct and indirect impactsto burrowing owl, a pre‐ construction survey shall be conducted in areas to be disturbed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to ground disturbance at the Development Site and submitted to the City. If construction activities occur during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) and burrowing owl is determined to be present within any portion of the study area during the pre‐construction survey, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall take place, and no construction activity shall take place within a 300‐foot buffer zone. This buffer area may be reduced at the discretion of the 421
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐4
biological monitor in consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS, until it has been determined that the nest/burrow is no longer active and all juveniles have fledged the nest/burrow.
To avoid active nests, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place in the buffer zone during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction activities cannot avoid the nesting season and an occupied burrow is identified in a proposed development area, the burrows shall be avoided or the owls passively relocated. A Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan will be required and is included under MM BIO‐8.
MM BIO‐8 Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. Within 90 days of the commencement of grading, a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan would be drafted and reviewed by CDFW to ensure MSHCP guidelines for protection and/or relocation are followed. As part of that plan, one‐way doors shall be installed as part of a passive relocation program. Burrowing owl burrows shall be hand‐excavated by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure animals do not re‐enter. Disturbance to active burrows shall be minimized to the extent feasible.
If three or more pairs of burrowing owl are identified, MSHCP guidelines require additional conservation land be set aside to off‐set the significant impacts to burrowing owl in a project site outside of a cell criteria area. In all scenarios, including the detection of additional burrowing owls, mitigation and equivalency will be achieved through the Development Project following all MSHCP guidelines and the direction of the Environmental Programs Department, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and/or the Wildlife Agencies.
MM BIO‐9 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse. Prior to commencement of grading, nighttime trapping surveys will occur in areas within the known habitat and other areas providing the key constituent habitat elements based on historicalsurveys and those conducted for the Development Project, in riparian areas (the three identified drainage features) and adjacent upland habitat that will be permanently impacted by the Development Project. An exclusion fence will be installed along the perimeter of the construction footprint associated with the drainage crossings. Trapping and relocation of LAPM shall be performed immediately prior to grading or other construction on the Development Site within areas known to be occupied by LAPM within the existing drainage features and/or uplands. Where new roads cross the riparian corridors, undercrossings suitable for safe passage of wildlife will be constructed. The exclusion fencing will be monitored through construction activities within suitable habitat to ensure animals do not return.
Restoration of a total of 3.21 acres of Development Site riparian habitat may bring project related impacts to a level that allows for 90 percent conservation of suitable habitat within the Development Site. Mitigation and equivalency may be achieved through the conservation of 7.92 of 8.99 acres of riparian/riverine lands on the 422
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐5
Development Site as well as a surrounding buffer of approximately 32.58 acres, including the use of a deed restriction and/or conservation easement (see MM BIO‐ 15 below). As part of the restoration effort, all non‐native invasive species, such as tamarisk, arundo, and pampas grass, will be removed prior to any seeding or planting of native species.
MM BIO‐10 Prior to issuance of construction permits, a conservation easement will be applied to upland conservation areas adjacent to drainages. During construction and operation, light pollution into the conservation areas will be reduced by shielding light sources and aiming them only into active construction areas during construction, and focused on parking, and commercial areas during operation where lighting is needed. If unforeseen circumstances were to arise that required hazard reduction within an area considered environmentally sensitive or a part of the MSHCP Conservation Area, such as lands proposed for conservation on the Development Site, it would require approval from the appropriate agencies prior to any vegetation management activities. These could include, but are not limited to, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
MM BIO‐11 Upland conservation areas, adjacent to the existing drainages, within the Development Project will be avoided during construction and operation. Lightsources during construction and operation will be angled and shielded to avoid light pollution into drainages and adjacent upland conservation areas.
MM BIO‐12 During construction, upland conservation areas will be fenced to prevent personnel and construction equipment from entering the conservation areas. Standard construction fencing will be sufficient to prevent personnel and equipment from entering the conservation areas.
MM BIO‐13 Mitigation for impacts to Riparian/Riverine areas covered under the MSHCP would be achieved by conserving all remaining riparian/riverine lands on the Project Site (7.92 of 8.99‐acres) as well as a surrounding buffer of approximately 32.58‐acres. These areas will be preserved in perpetuity through the use of a deed restriction and/or conservation easement as further described in MM BIO‐15. To mitigate for Project impacts to 1.07‐acre of riparian/riverine, a minimum of 3.21‐acres of Project Site riparian habitat will be enhanced and restored (a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts), with riparian habitat spread throughout all three features within the Project Site, for compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP. Non‐native invasive species will be removed (enhancement) and native riparian species will be planted (restored) which will increase the function and value of the currently disturbed drainage features following mitigation. In the event that land on the Project Site cannot be conserved, then the applicant shall either (1) contribute land at a 3:1 ratio containing similar habitat and jurisdictional areas to the Reserve Assembly; or (2) make a fee payment to a mitigation bank pursuant to an in‐lieu fee program at a 3:1 mitigation ratio. 423
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐6
MM BIO‐14 If habitat mitigation on the Project Site or at land contributed by the applicant is the selected means of mitigation, then as part of the restoration effort, a Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) will be prepared by a qualified restoration consultant and will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of construction activities on the Project Site. The exact location of the proposed riparian restoration areas (whether on‐site or off‐site) will be provided to the City for review and approval. If off‐site mitigation areas are selected, the applicant shall have control of the mitigation area prior to commencement of construction. However the off‐site mitigation option is not anticipated at this time.
The HRMP shall provide a plan for removal of non‐native invasive species (enhancement) and planting of native riparian species (restoration) which will increase the function and value of the currently disturbed drainage featuresfollowing mitigation and will be designed to assure that installation of the proposed mitigation will result in an outcome that would be biologically equivalent or superior to an avoidance measure. The HRMP will include species information, success criteria and mapped location(s) for the proposed on‐site riparian/riverine mitigation, and a habitat viability analysis for the proposed new areas of riparian vegetation and will also include:
Removal of non‐native invasive species, such as tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), giant reed (Arundo donax), and castor bean (Ricinus communis); Removal of trash and debris associated with human disturbance will be removed. Planting of boxed riparian trees, container plantings, and hand broadcasting, with Riparian/Riverine species to be planted to match the existing riparian/riverine trees and include plant species such as Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Goodding’s black willow, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and/or mule fat and, along the upland benches, planting of more upland species such as scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), brittlebush (Encelia californica), pinebush (Ericameria pinifolia), and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). Planting of plants with mycorrhizal fungi and root hormone to increase survivability. Following the installation of the plant material, mulch will be used at boxed trees and container plants for additional moisture and protection. Maintenance and monitoring for 5‐years following the installation, to include:
○ Irrigation for the first three years, if feasible.
○ If instigated, removal of irrigation after year three to allow the plants to acclimate to existing climatic conditions during the last two years of monitoring, to ensure that the vegetation has long‐term survivability. 424
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐7
○ Monitoring by a qualified biologist quarterly for the first year, then annually for years two through five.
○ A qualitative assessment will be completed by the qualified biologist and reported to the Wildlife Agencies, and will include Project Site specific photo locations and an aerial photograph (with drone) documenting vegetation progress.
○ To determine if the restoration has been successful, minimum success criteria at the end of five years will be specified in the HRMP. If the minimum success criteria is not achieved, then the applicant shall be responsible for taking the appropriate corrective measures, as determined by a qualified restoration ecologist. Correction actions will continue until the success criteria have been met.
A Weed Management Plan prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by CDFW will be prepared prior to commencing of grading on the Project Site setting forth best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the amount of non‐native weedy speciesintroduced into the Project during construction activities. The plan will focus on specific BMPs that will be used to reduce the risk of spreading non‐ native invasive seeds within the Project during construction, to include, but not limited to annual monitoring of sprouting vegetation in early spring, removing non‐native invasive species, and utilizing water‐wise native landscaping in the surrounding development areas. The purpose of the Weed Management Plan is to substantially reduce the potential for weeds to grow on‐site and then monitor the Project Site and implement BMP so that weeds that do occur on‐site can be removed before they go to seed.
MM BIO‐15 A third‐party conservation organization will be chosen to monitor and maintain all portions of the Development Site within the designated conservation area, as outlined in a conservation easement covering the drainage features and adjacent upland buffer zones adjacent to drainages. The conservation easement should be in place prior to or immediately following regulatory agency permits being issued.
Additionally, any additional off‐site land acquired for project mitigation, if any, will be incorporated into the managed land, with approval from relevant agencies such as the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Although a designated organization has not been chosen, one will be selected and approved by the City before the project's implementation.
MM BIO‐16 Sediment Transport and Scour Analysis: The Project proposes to construct concrete‐ lined box culverts at two drainage crossings on the Project Site. To avoid significant changes to downstream sediment transport and deposition, floodplain modification, and potential streambed aggradation or incision above and below each of the proposed stream crossings consistent with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species 425
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐8
Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), the applicant shall prepare and submit a sediment transport and scour analysis to the City and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for review and approval prior to construction of any drainage crossing on the Project Site. The sediment transport and scour analysis shall identify and compare pre‐ and post‐crossing development of sediment transport and deposition, floodplain modification, and potential streambed aggradation and incision above or below each proposed drainage crossing to confirm that the Project would not have significant impacts on the CVMSHCP conservation sediment transport system strategy. It is anticipated based on the results of the sediment deposition analysis performed by Albert A. Webb and Associates for the City of Banning’s Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, which adjoins the Project Site and crosses the same drainages that the concrete‐lined box culvert in the referenced drainages, would have nearly no sediment deposition. However, if the results of the Project specific sediment transport and scour analysis determine that the proposed concrete‐ lined box culvert option would have a significant impact on the sedimentation transportsystem, the applicantshall either mitigate the impacts of the design to have a less than significant impact or will consider other methods of on‐site drainage crossing.
4.1.2 Threshold 4.4.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and MM BIO 9 through MM BIO‐16 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
Three main washes were identified within the Development Site that contained both bed and bank and an OHWM: Highland Wash, Pershing Creek, and Smith Creek. An unnamed ponded area in the southeast portion of the Development Site adjacent to Bobcat Road was also identified as containing jurisdictional waters. Under current Development Project design, approximately 7.92 of the approximately 8.99 acres of riparian habitat present on site would be preserved, as well as a surrounding buffer of approximately 32.58 acres. Approximately 1.07 acres of riparian habitat would be permanently impacted. Impacts to the drainages will be limited to road crossings. (EIR Section
4.4.6.2). Impacts to the drainages will be limited to road crossings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and Mitigation Measures MM BIO‐9 through MM BIO‐16, as well as compliance with applicable State and local policies and regulations as described in Section
4.4.4 above, would reduce impacts to less than significant. 426
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐9
Mitigation Measures
The Development Project would comply with all applicable local policies and regulations from the CDFW and USFWS. The Development Project as designed would preserve all habitat within the existing washes that cross the Development Site. As discussed, these wash habitats for candidate, sensitive, and special‐statusspecies would be preserved per mitigation measures MM BIO‐10 through MM BIO‐16. The City finds that implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐ 6 and MM BIO‐10 through MM BIO‐16 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
4.1.3 Threshold 4.4.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project could conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.5 of the EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site lies within the MSHCP boundaries. The City’s General Plan policies and programs include compliance with regional conservation plans, including the MSHCP. The City of Banning’s General Plan is the guiding document for development within the City. The General Plan designates open space land uses within the City. The Development Project as designed, with mitigation applied, would comply with all applicable policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. While there are no policies in the City of Banning related to biological resources or tree ordinances, the Development Project is required to comply with Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines for lighting. Low‐level security lighting may be provided for the park, tot lot playground, trails, parking lot, and restrooms. The trails and parking lot may include bollard lighting while the tot lot playground and restrooms may include security lighting. As a project design feature, lighting on the Development Site shall adhere to the following Development Standards: lighting shall be limited to that necessary to light the project site; no lighting source shall be visible; or shall be permitted to spill over to adjacent properties; lighting shall not be permitted which blinks, flashes, or is of unusually high intensity or brightness; all lighting fixtures shall not have a visible light source and must be shielded and directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights‐of‐ way; lighting in commercial and industrial projects should be only the minimum required for safety and security; light standards should be limited to eighteen to thirty‐four feet; lighting should be integrated into the structure's architecture to the greatest extent possible (refer to Section 3.1 of Appendix B, Specific Plan). In parking areas, the Specific Plan requires that adequate illumination for security and safety be provided in all parking areas. Lighting shall be energy efficient. Any illumination, including security lighting,shall be shielded, with visibility of lightsource eliminated and directed away from adjoining properties and public rights of way (refer to Section 3.1 of Appendix B, Specific Plan).
The Specific Plan’s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines (refer to Section 4.3.9 of Appendix B, Specific Plan) also indicate that the Development Site would minimize glare and “spill over” light onto public streets, open space, Interstate‐10 and adjacent properties by using downward‐directed lights and/or cutoff devises on outdoor lighting fixtures, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other 427
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐10
means of illumination forstructures, parking, loading, unloading, and similar areas. As a project design feature, night lighting will be directed away from the conserved areas to protect species within the conserved areasfrom direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in the Development Project designsto ensure that ambient lighting in the conserved areasis not increased. As a result, no impacts would occur.
Planning Area 12 contains 12.3 acres along the western portion of the Development Site intended to provide a buffer between the existing Sun Lakes Community to the west of the Development Site and the industrial development. This area may include soft trails and certain public facilities, but Planning Area 12 is not intended for mitigation purposes, and its development would not result in a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (EIR Section 4.4.6.5).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 would ensure compliance with BMPs applicable policies and MSHCP guidelines to protect the three noted drainage features during construction and operation. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure the Development Project impacts are less than significant.
4.1.4 Threshold 4.4.6
Impact Statement: The Development Project could conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.6 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.6 of the EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and MM BIO‐9 through MM BIO‐16 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site lies within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation Plan and within MSHCP designated survey areas for burrowing owl and LAPM.
However, it is not within a Criteria Area. The Development Site is not within an MSHCP designated amphibian survey area or CASSA for plants.
Burrowing owl and burrowing owl habitat occur on site and would be permanently affected by the development of the site. The MSHCP states, “If the site contains, or is part of, an area supporting less than 35‐acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on‐site burrowing owls would be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.” Because the site contains one active burrow with two individuals, this MSHCP guideline applies. If an active burrow is affected, and the individuals are actively or passively relocated, the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (Environmental Programs Department) (“RCTLMA EPD”) states, “In the event owls are observed on site, please contact the Environmental Programs Department (EPD) immediately to discuss potential 428
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐11
mitigation measures such as passive or active relocation.” Per MM BIO‐6 the Development Project would comply with all MSHCP guidelines regarding burrowing owl as part of the Development Project’s regulatory compliance.
Los Angeles pocket mouse occur on site and within the adjacent study area. Surveys on site and in adjacent parcels within the BSA identified persistent populations of Los Angeles pocket mouse on site and throughout the BSA. The current design conserves most of the drainages and buffers of uplands around those drainages. These design features conserve at least 90 percent of the known habitat for Los Angeles pocket mouse, which meets MSHCP goalsfor protecting Los Angeles pocket mouse. (Draft EIR Section 4.4.6.5). Where new roads cross the riparian corridors, undercrossings suitable for safe passage of wildlife and allowing continued downstream sediment transport will be constructed to provide for long‐term conservation of the riparian/riverine resources which are being avoided and their associated functions and values for the Development Site features as well as down‐stream conservation areas associated with the sediment transportsystem. Since the majority of the drainages on‐site are unvegetated sandy bottom features and the crossings will be desired to allow for wildlife movement, the overall biological value of the drainage features will not be affected by the Development Project. As further discussed in Section 4.10.6.3, with MM BIO‐16 and MM HYD‐1 and MM HYD‐2, construction of Lincoln Street draining crossings for the Development Project will not divert or change the overall function of the drainage and potential impacts from sediment transport on the CVMSHCP Plan Area downstream of the Development Site and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The Development Project complies with all applicable guidelines from the MSHCP. Mitigation Measure MM BIO‐6 addresses the RCTLMA EPD guidance and further ensures impacts from the Development Project on burrowing owls are less than significant.
While current design of the Development Project conserves at least 90 percent of known Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat, satisfying MSHCP goals for Los Angeles pocket mouse protection, mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and MM BIO‐9 through MM BIO‐16 would ensure that the Development Project complies with all applicable MSHCP guidelines, to ensure MSHCP coverage for the Los Angeles pocket mouse.
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Cultural Resources Thresholds 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 do not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.2.1 Threshold 4.5.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.5.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6.1 of the EIR. Although no known historic resources are located on the Development Site, 429
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐12
the potential exists for Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities to result in a direct impact to historic resources should such resources be discovered during Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities. The City finds that mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The record searches and field surveys that were conducted on the Development Site revealed two previously recorded historic resources within the boundary of the Development Site. Site P‐33‐013778 contains historic ranch foundations/features, and Site RIV‐7544 consists of historic erosion control feature(s)/water conveyance systems. Additional, previously unrecorded features of Site RIV‐7544 were discovered during the field survey conducted on the Development Site between August 31 and September 2, 2020. Both of these historical resources (including the additional features found on the Development Site as part of RIV‐7544) were re‐evaluated to determine if either one would meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP or CRHR.
The results of the re‐evaluation for Sites P‐33‐013778 and RIV‐7544 have confirmed the previous assessment of the potential historic resources as not significant under Section 106 or CEQA criteria and ineligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. As such, the implementation of the Development Project would not cause a significant impact to Site P‐33‐013778 or Site RIV‐7544, as the resources do not retain sufficient integrity, do not retain further research potential, are not significant under any State or local criteria, and are not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. Feature 36 associated with Site RIV‐ 7544 on the Development Site contained very sparse scatters of clam, oyster, and scallop shell fragments. Based upon the lack of any observable prehistoric material, such as flakes, milling stones, or other artifacts, it was determined the shell scatter was representative of recent or historic refuse and not associated with any prehistoric occupation of the area. No other historical or archaeological resources were discovered on the Development Site, nor were any previously recorded on the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.5.6.1 ).
Mitigation Measures
Although no significant historical resources have been identified following earlier and current studies of the Development Site, there still remains the potential that other unobserved resources may exist within the Development Site due to the identification of multiple resources within the Development Site, the dense vegetation and other constraints that inhibited ground visibility during the survey of the Development Site, and the presence of multiple natural sources of water which extend through the Development Site. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the Development Project’s potential impacts to archaeological and historical resources to a less than significant level.
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to undiscovered historical resources during construction of the Development Project:
MM CUL‐1 The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeological monitor who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards. The monitor shall be present during all ground‐disturbing activitiesto identify any known orsuspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The monitor will conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training 430
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐13
“Sensitivity Workshop,” in conjunction with the Consulting Tribe(s)’s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). The training session will focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event.
MM CUL‐2 The qualified archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Development Site, in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s).
MM CUL‐3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Native American monitoring agreement with one of the Consulting Tribes for the Development Project. The Native American Monitor shall be on site during all initial ground‐disturbing activities, including clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, grading, and trenching, within native soils. The Native American Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground‐disturbing activities in accordance with MM CUL‐5 to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources. The applicant shall meet and confer with the Tribe on the consideration of a “Sensitivity Workshop” training on possible things that could come up in case a Native American Monitor is not on site to monitor at certain times.
MM CUL‐4 In the event of discovery of human remains during grading or other ground disturbance, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) shall cease and the applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. In the event human remains are found and identified as Native American, the applicant shall also notify the City Planning Department so that the City can ensure PRC § 5097.98 is followed.
MM CUL‐5 In the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities, ground‐disturbing activities shall stop (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) or shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. A treatment plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist (meeting SOI standards) in consultation with the Tribe and the City Planning Department to include relinquishment of all artifacts through one of the following methods:
A fully executed reburial agreement with the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribe or band. This reburial area should be away from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing, analysis, and any necessary special studies have been completed on the cultural resources. Details of contents and location of the reburial shall be documented in a final report. Curation at a Riverside County Curation facility that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers and tribal members for further study. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to 431
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐14
be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
Evidence shall be provided in the form of a letter from the curation facility identifying that archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid.
MM CUL‐6 Any and all cultural documents created as a part of the Development Project (Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plans, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the Consulting Tribe.
4.2.2 Threshold 4.5.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.5.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6.1 of the EIR. Although no known archeological resources are located on the Development Site, the potential exists for Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities to result in a direct impact to archeological resources should such resources be discovered during Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities. The City finds that mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
Ground disturbances at depths up to 12 feet below existing grade on the Development Site isrequired to accommodate the development of buildings, infrastructure, and ancillary features. While known historic and archaeological features have been determined not to be significant pursuant to CEQA, as multiple resources have been identified within the Development Site, and due to the dense vegetation and other constraints that inhibited ground visibility during the survey, along with the presence of multiple naturalsources of water which extend through the property, there still remainsthe potential that other unobserved resources may exist within the Development Site. When a project will impact a historic or archaeological site, a Lead Agency shall first determine whether the site is a historical resource. Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2). The City finds that implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 would ensure that if any historic or archaeological resources are identified during excavation, these resources would be evaluated, documented, and studied in accordance with standard historic or archaeological practice, and these resources (including human remains) would be treated in accordance with appropriate State codes and regulations. (EIR Section 4.5.6.1).
Mitigation Measures
Although no significant archaeological resources have been identified following earlier and current studies of the Development Site, there still remains the potential that other unobserved resources may exist within the Development Site due to the identification of multiple resources within the Development Site, the dense vegetation and other constraints that inhibited ground visibility during 432
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐15
the survey of the Development Site, and the presence of multiple natural sources of water which extend through the Development Site. Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 4.5.6.1 of the EIR would reduce the Development Project’s potential impactsto archaeological and historical resources to a less than significant level.
4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project impacts for CEQA Geology and Soils Threshold 4.7.6 does not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.3.1 Threshold 4.7.6
Impact Statement: The Development Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.6 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.9 of the EIR. The Quaternary sediments across the Development Site as having an “Undetermined” paleontological sensitivity. To the extent that the Development Site contains Quaternary older alluvial fan sediments which have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources, a monitoring program is required to mitigate impacts to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. The City finds that Mitigation Measure MM GEO‐1 is feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
A paleontological sensitivity map generated by the Riverside County Land Information System in August 2020 ranks the Quaternary sediments across the Development Site as having an “Undetermined” paleontological sensitivity. The SBCM in Redlands and the Western Science Center Museum in Hemet both regard Quaternary older alluvial fan sediments as having a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources and, therefore, typically recommend that a monitoring program be implemented to “mitigate impacts to [potential] nonrenewable paleontological resources.” Mitigation Measure MM GEO‐1 below require paleontological monitoring during mass grading and excavation activities in undisturbed Quaternary older alluvial fan sediments to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. The mitigation measure described below would mitigate any potential impacts to scientifically significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources to a less than significant impact. (EIR Section 4.7.6.9).
Mitigation Measures
The following Mitigation Measure shall be implemented to reduce impacts to paleontological resources that could be discovered on the Development Site during Development Project grading/excavation activities.
MM GEO‐1 Paleontological Resources Monitoring. All mass grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching activities within the old alluvial fan deposits (“Qof”), which underlie the majority of the Development Site, starting at the surface shall be monitored full‐time 433
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐16
by a qualified paleontological monitorfor paleontologicalresources. Priorto initiation of any grading, drilling, and/or excavation activities, a pre‐construction meeting shall be held and attended by the paleontologist of record, the grading contractor and subcontractors, the Development Site applicant, and a representative of the lead agency. The nature of potential paleontological resources shall be discussed, as well as the protocol that is to be implemented following discovery of any fossiliferous materials.
For earthmoving within young alluvial fan deposits (“Qyf”) and young alluvial valley deposits (“Qya”) mapped at the Development Site, periodic “spot check” monitoring shall be conducted, consisting of approximately one to three scheduled site visits per week by a qualified paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance.
If fossils are discovered, full‐time monitoring for paleontological resources shall be warranted.
In the field, the primary monitor or the monitors under the direction and supervision of the site‐specific paleontologist shall be the responsible persons on site with the assigned authority and responsibility to control all grading operations that might adversely affect any salvage efforts.
Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five‐gallon buckets. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated and the fossils are removed to a safe place.
All paleontological monitors shall immediately notify all concerned parties (client and lead agency [i.e., the City of Banning]) at the time of any discovery. The City of Banning shall ensure that the recommendations from the qualified, professional paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant/Developer.
Within 90 days of final paleontological monitoring, a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to, and accepted by, the appropriate lead agency, willsignify satisfactory completion of the Project program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources(i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.
4.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Project impacts for CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 4.10.3 does not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.4.1 Threshold 4.10.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Development Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or 434
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐17
through the addition of impervioussurfaces, in a manner which would: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site; (iii) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that, with implementation of mandatory regulatory requirements, development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.7.6.9 for impacts not related to sediment transport; therefore, no mitigation is required. For impacts related to sediment transport, mitigation measures MM HYD‐1 and MM HYD‐2 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is currently undeveloped and is split up into two existing Drainage Areas.
Drainage Area A represents the tributary area for Smith Creek, and Drainage Area B represents the tributary area for Pershing Creek. Storm water on the Development Site, under existing conditions, either flows into Smith Creek or Pershing Creek or infiltrates into the ground. (i) Construction. During Development Project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities. Therefore, there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. The SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plans would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPsto be implemented during Development Project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. Compliance with the requirements of the CGP and City Ordinance No. 1388 and implementation of the construction BMPs, would reduce any construction impacts related to on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltation to less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (i) Operation. The Development Project would add approximately 333.2 acres (62.4 percent) of impervious surface area, which is not prone to on‐site erosion or siltation because there would be no exposed soil. The remaining approximately 200.6 acres (37.6 percent) of the Development Site would consist of pervious surfaces including landscaped areas, landscaped medians, and open space areas.
These areas would include vegetation and landscaping that would stabilize the soil and promote infiltration and thereby minimize on‐site erosion and siltation. Therefore, on‐site erosion and siltation impacts would be minimal. However, the Development Project would increase impervious area on the Development Site by approximately 333.2 acres, which would result in a net increase in storm water runoff that can lead to downstream erosion in receiving waters. Consistent with the requirements of the City of Banning’s Municipal Code, the Development Project would construct 16 infiltration basins to retain 100 percent of the 100‐year, 3‐hourstorm event. Collecting, retaining, and infiltrating storm water runoff would prevent sediment from being washed off site and impacting downstream receiving waters. Implementation of regulatory requirements in RCM WQ‐3, which requires the Development Project to comply with the hydromodification requirements of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit and reduce storm water runoff from the Development Site, 435
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐18
and RCM WQ‐4, which requires the preparation of a Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses that provides BMPs and LIDs that are consistent with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual and the Riverside County Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development, would ensure that operation impacts related to substantial on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
(i) Sediment Transport. While the city is not located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) or a party to its requirements, much of the sand for the sand dune and sand sheet habitats in the CVMSHCP is supplied by ephemeral streams flowing out of the San Bernardino Mountains through the City and then onward to the San Gorgonio River. Strong winds in the San Gorgonio Pass pick up sand deposited along Smith Creek and the San Gorgonio River during the winter and transport it into the CVMSHCP Conservation Areas located downwind. Features within upstream drainage areas,such as detention basins, and changesin stream flow related to flood control features have the potential to diminish the amount of sediment transported downstream which is then available for aeolian transport. Over the past three decades, the sand dune and sand sheet habitats being conserved in the CVMSHCP have been diminishing steadily with the development in upper watershed areas, including the City of Banning. Lincoln Street development would include construction of a 10‐foot‐by‐10‐foot reinforced concrete box culvert across Pershing Creek, which flows in a northwest to southeast direction through the eastern portion of the Development Site (Planning Areas 13 and 14), and Smith Creek, on the western portion of the Development Site, which flows in a north‐south direction through Planning Areas 17 and 18. The proposed Lincoln Street crossings of Smith and Pershing Creeks have the potential to affect the pattern, volume, velocity, and/or sediment transport capacity within these drainages, which could have a potentially significant impact on transport to CVMSHCP Conservation Areas. Preparation of, approval by the City, and implementation of a sediment transport and scour analysis that compares drainage features in the pre‐ and post‐project conditions and ensures that following construction of the Lincoln Street crossings, the functions and values of the drainages with respect to downstream sedimentation are consistent with the long‐term preservation of sand dune and sand sheet habitat within the Coachella Valley under the CVMSHCP is required by mitigation measures MM HYD‐1 and MM HYD‐2, which will address this potentially significant impact. (ii) and (iv) Construction. Development Project construction would comply with the requirements of the CGP and would include the preparation and implementation of an SWPPP. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct on‐site surface runoff to ensure that storm water runoff from the construction site does not exceed the capacity of the storm water drainage systems.
With implementation of BMPs, construction impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
(ii) and (iv) Operation. Implementation of the Development Project would alter the on‐site drainage pattern when compared to existing conditions. The Development Site’s conceptual drainage plan consists of catch basins,storm drainpipes, reinforced concrete pipes, and 16 on‐site infiltration basins.
The drainage system for the Development Site would route the storm water runoff from the on‐site impervious surfaces to the proposed infiltration basins. Each of the basins would provide storm water 436
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐19
treatment and peak flow mitigation for their respective downstream receiving waters. The Development Project would comply with the City of Banning Ordinance No. 1415 Stormwater Code in requiring 100 percent retention of storm water from a 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event through the development of the infiltration basins at required sizes. With implementation of RCM WQ‐3 and RCM WQ‐4, impacts related to an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on‐ or off‐site flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (iii) Construction. Construction of the Development Project has the potential to introduce pollutants to existing storm water that percolatesinto the ground or that flowsinto Smith and/or Pershing Creek on the Development Site, due to erosion, siltation, and accidental spills. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on the Development Site and would include detention measures, if required, to ensure that storm water runoff from the construction activities does not exceed the capacity of the storm water drainage systems. In addition, the City requires preparation of erosion and sediment control plans. Implementation of construction BMPs target pollutants of concern in runoff from the Development Site, and erosion and sediment control measures would preventsubstantial additionalsources of polluted runoff being discharged into Smith and/or Pershing Creeks. Therefore, with compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements, construction impacts related to creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additionalsources of polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (iii) Operation. Storm water will surface flow to catch basins and be directed to infiltration basins, which would be appropriately sized to retain and infiltrate 100 percent of the 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event so that excess runoff does not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving waters.
Additionally, the Development Project would be required to implement RCM WQ‐3, which requires implementation of operational BMPs that target and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. Therefore, operational impacts related to creation or contribution of storm water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (EIR Section 4.10.6.3).
Mitigation Measure
To addressthe potentially sediment transport‐related impact at the proposed Lincoln Street crossings, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
MM HYD‐1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit(s) for roadway work in or adjacent to the proposed Lincoln Street creek crossings, the Applicant shall submit a sediment transport and scour analysis to the City and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for review and approval. As appropriate, the submittal may include equivalent detail on alternative proposals for the proposed creek crossings.
The sediment transport and scour analysis shall identify pre‐project conditions associated with channel morphology, hydrologic flow patterns, existing sedimentation and scouring, sediment size, and depth at each crossing. These same attributes will be analyzed based on post‐project conditions to determine if there are any substantial changes to the existing conditions. The purpose of the sediment 437
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐20
transport and scour analysis is to compare the functions and values of the drainage features in the pre‐ and post‐project conditions and to ensure that following construction of the Lincoln Street crossings, the functions and values of the drainages with respect to downstream sedimentation are consistent with the long‐term preservation of sand dune and sand sheet habitat within the Coachella Valley under the CVMSHCP. It is anticipated based on the results of the sediment deposition analysis performed by Albert A. Webb and Associates for the City of Banning’s Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, which adjoins the Project Site and crosses the same drainages that the concrete‐lined box culvert in the referenced drainages, would have nearly no sediment deposition. However, if the results of the Project specific sediment transport and scour analysis determine that the proposed concrete‐ lined box culvert option would have a significant impact on the sedimentation transportsystem, the applicantshall either mitigate the impacts of the design to have a less than significant impact or will consider other methods of on‐site drainage crossing.
MM HYD‐2 Prior to City approval of roadway improvement plans for Lincoln Street, including the proposed Lincoln Street crossings, the Applicantshallsubmit evidence to the City that the Lincoln Street crossings of Pershing and Smith Creeks have been designed to avoid impacts to or, if impacted, to maintain the development transport capacity identified in the approved sediment transport and scour analysis required under Mitigation Measure HYD‐1.
4.5 TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Tribal and Cultural Resources Thresholds 4.18.1 and 4.18.2 do not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.5.1 Threshold 4.18.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project could 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: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, orin a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.18.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.6.1 of the EIR. Sites of potential historic and archaeological sensitivity were observed on the Development site and impacts to tribal cultural resources could be potentially significant. The City finds that, mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6, are feasible, adopted and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
438
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐21
Substantial Evidence
In addition to a record search, Native American consultation was conducted by the City in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. As part of the initial consultation process, a review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results. Subsequently, a total of 31 Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the Development Project. The City received consultation requestsfrom the Morongo Band of Mission Indians(MBMI), the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
Initial consultation meetings were held on April 7, 2022 with MBMI and on April 20, 2022 with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.
Because there was no further follow up from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians after the initial consultation request, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians did not respond to the initial request, tribal consultation efforts did not move forward beyond the initial tribal consultation request that was received.
The tribal representatives who attended the initial consultation meeting held on April 7, 2022 with MBMI emphasized the importance of including archaeological and Native American monitoring in order to thoroughly assess if there are any tribal cultural resources that could be 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) and located at the Development Site. MBMI representatives provided their review of the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and stated that the Development Project is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. These concerns about the Development Project being located within a tribally sensitive area were brought up during the initial consultation meeting held on April 20, 2022 with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, whose representatives emphasized the importance of their concerns regarding the treatment and disposition of tribal cultural resources that may be uncovered at the Development Site.
Because the Development Site is located in an area considered to be sensitive for tribal cultural resources, ground disturbance associated with implementation of the Development Project has a potential to affect undiscovered tribal cultural material. As such, the Development Project has the potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in this threshold.
Due to the potential presence of tribal cultural resources at the Development Site, the City is engaged in ongoing consultation efforts with MBMI and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and will continue to consult with them as Development Project construction occurs in the event that a tribal cultural resource is encountered. If identified, procedures outlined in MM CUL‐1 to MM CUL‐6 will be followed, as appropriate. Therefore, with mitigation, the Development Project is not expected to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Implementation of the Development Project would have a potentially significant impact on unique archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, unless mitigation described under MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are incorporated. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources within the Development Site to a less than significant level. (EIR Section
4.18.6.1).
439
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐22
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures as identified in Section 4.5 are also identified as Cultural Resource Conditions in the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and are considered standard project procedures to be conducted if a cultural resource is encountered during construction to reduce potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources:
MM CUL‐1 The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeological monitor who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards. The monitor shall be present during all ground‐disturbing activitiesto identify any known orsuspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The monitor will conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training “Sensitivity Workshop,” in conjunction with the Consulting Tribe(s)’s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). The training session will focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event.
MM CUL‐2 The qualified archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Development Site, in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s).
MM CUL‐3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Native American monitoring agreement with one of the Consulting Tribes for the Development Project. The Native American Monitor shall be on site during all initial ground‐disturbing activities, including clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, grading, and trenching, within native soils. The Native American 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. The applicant shall meet and confer with the Tribe on the consideration of a “Sensitivity Workshop” training on possible things that could come up in case a Native American Monitor is not on site to monitor at certain times.
MM CUL‐4 In the event of discovery of human remains during grading or other ground disturbance, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) shall cease and the applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. In the event human remains are found and identified as Native American, the applicant shall also notify the City Planning Department so that the City can ensure PRC § 5097.98 is followed.
MM CUL‐5 In the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities, ground‐disturbing activities shall stop (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) or shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. A treatment plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist (meeting SOI standards) in consultation with the Tribe and the City Planning Department to include relinquishment of all artifacts through one of the following methods:
440
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
4‐23
A fully executed reburial agreement with the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribe or band. This reburial area should be away from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing, analysis, and any necessary special studies have been completed on the cultural resources. Details of contents and location of the reburial shall be documented in a final report. Curation at a Riverside County Curation facility that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers and tribal members for further study. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
Evidence shall be provided in the form of a letter from the curation facility identifying that archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid.
MM CUL‐6 Any and all cultural documents created as a part of the Development Project (Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plans, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the Consulting Tribe.
4.5.2 Threshold 4.18.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project could 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: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.18.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that there is a possibility potential tribal cultural resources may be unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities and impacts to tribal cultural resources would be significant. The City finds that mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce the significant impact identified to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
Asindicated above, Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18.
As part of the consultation process, a review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results.
Following the initial consultation meeting between the City and MBMI, MBMI has provided its review of the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and has stated that the Development 441
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
4‐24
Project is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Although there are no known human remains at the Development Site, the potential to unearth such remains during construction cannot be ruled out. In the event that human remains are identified during Development Project construction, these remains would be treated in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98, as appropriate. Adherence to previously identified MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐5 would ensure compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code forthe treatment of human remains and the appropriate coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission. With implementation of and compliance with the above stated mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐5 from Section 4.5 of the EIR are also identified as Cultural Resource Conditions in the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and are considered standard project procedures to be conducted if a cultural resource is encountered during construction to reduce potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources. 442
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐1
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR identify the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project should be implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(b)), and the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(c)). As further described below, the City finds the Development Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the City cannot approve the Development Project unless it first finds (1) under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities to highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR; and (2) under CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b), that the remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 because the economic, legal,social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
5.1 AIR QUALITY
5.1.1 Threshold 4.3.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Findings
Impacts to the Development Project related to Threshold 4.3.1 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.3.6.1. The City finds that the Development Project would be inconsistent with the 2022 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because it 1) would require a General Plan Amendment and therefore is inconsistent with the land use assumptions on which the AQMP was based and is conservatively assumed to generate operational source emissions not accounted for in the AQMP; and 2) would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. Specifically, the Development Project would exceed regional thresholds of significance for VOC during construction and for VOCs, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5during operation despite implementation of project design features and mitigation measures both added and as revised in Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 and AIR‐2. As such, the Development Project is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP and a significant and unavoidable impact regarding inconsistency with the 2022 AQMP would result from the construction and operation of the Development Project. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, and emissions for PM2.5 would be reduced to less than significant; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that the mitigation measures, as revised, identified in Final EIR are feasible, adopted, and will reduce air quality impacts attributable to the Project to the extent feasible. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce 443
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐2
these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. The City further finds that mobile source emissions that contribute to exceedance of thresholds of significance are subject to regulations that control heavy‐ duty truck emissions which are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described below, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR..
Substantial Evidence
The proposed Development Site is located within the Basin and is within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The 2022 AQMP is the applicable plan for the Development Project. CEQA requires that Specific Plans be evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides the following two criteria to determine whether a project would be consistent or in conflict with the AQMP:
Consistency Criterion No. 1: The project would generate population and employment growth that would be inconsistent with SCAG growth forecasts.
Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project would 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.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the SCAG’s growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections, which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities located within the SCAG region.
Therefore, if the level of employment related to the proposed project is consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP, the project would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP.
The Development Project would require a general plan land use change. Based on residential occupancy densities, the existing residential use designations would accommodate up to 3,752 persons, while the commercial usus under the existing designations would provide employment for up to 610 persons, for a total of 4,362 residents and employees. The Development Project would allow for up to 5,993 employees at full buildout. As a result of the growth in employment projections for the Development Site, the proposed Project would not be consistent with Consistency Criterion No.
1. Once the General Plan Amendment is approved, the AQMP modeling updated, and the SCAG growth forecasts updated, the Development Project would then be consistent with Criterion No. 1.
However, the Development Project is not currently consistent with the growth projections included in the AQMP, and therefore this criterion is not met.
As evaluated under Thresholds 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 in the FEIR, the Development Project would not exceed the LST thresholds for operational activity. However, the regional operational‐source emissions were anticipated to exceed the regional thresholds of significance for VOC, NOX, PM10. and PM2.5 emissions and would not be reduced to lessthan significant with imposition of mitigation measures. With project 444
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐3
modifications, all emissions would be reduced, and the PM2.5 emissions would be lessthan significant, but remaining emissions identified above still exceed the applicable thresholds of significance. As such, the Development Project operations have the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to this criterion, and the Development Project would have the potential to conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion.
Based on the preceding, the Development Project is determined to be inconsistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1, and impacts would be potentially significant. (EIR Section 4.3.6.1).
Emissions associated with the operation of the Development Project would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of the planned project design features and Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2 as revised. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant. As such, the Project would not be consistent with the attainment of the AAQS or emission reductions assumptions indicated in the AQMP. Therefore, based on the requirements for consistency with emission control strategies in the AQMP, the Development Project would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP and/or applicable portions of the SIP. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
In order to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible, the following mitigation measures are required:
MM AIR‐1 The following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented during Project construction:
Plans submitted for grading permit issuance and building permit issuance shall specify a designated area of the construction site where electric or non‐diesel vehicles, equipment, and tools can be fueled or charged. The provision of temporary electric infrastructure forsuch purpose shall be approved by the utility provider, Banning Electric Utility (BEU). If BEU does not approve the installation of temporary power for this purpose, the establishment of a temporary electric charging area will not be required. If electric equipment will not be used on the construction site because the construction contractor(s) does not have such equipment in its fleet (as specified in this Mitigation Measure below), the establishment of a temporary electric charging area also will not be required. If the contractor(s) equipment fleet includes this equipment and BEU approval is secured, the temporary charging location shall be established upon issuance of grading permits and building permits.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road trucks and construction support equipment, including but not limited to hand tools, forklifts, aerial lifts, materials lifts, hoists, pressure washers, plate compactors, and air compressors are available in the construction contractor’s equipment fleet and can fulfill the construction requirements during the building, construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of Project construction, such equipment shall be used during on‐site 445
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐4
construction. This requirement shall be noted on plans submitted for building permit issuance.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road truck and construction support equipment are not available then the Project contractor shall ensure all 50 horsepower or more off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified Tier 4 Final engines or the equivalent. Construction contractorsshall maintain records of all off‐road diesel construction equipment associated with on‐site construction to document that each off‐road diesel construction equipment used meets required emission standards. Records shall be kept on‐site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City staff or their designee. During construction activities, the City shall conduct periodic inspections to verify compliance with construction‐related mitigation measures pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
During construction of the proposed Development Project, the Project contractor shall only use interior paints with low volatile organic compound (VOC) content with a maximum concentration of 30 grams per liter (g/L) for residential building architectural coating to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 g/L verified.
The City of Banning shall verify these requirements have been incorporated into construction plans prior to issuance of any construction permits and during architectural coating activities.
MM AIR‐2 The following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented during Project operation:
Implement mitigation measures MM GHG‐4, MM GHG‐5, MM GHG‐6, and GHG‐
7. All facility‐owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site shall meet or exceed 2010 model‐ year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025.
Facility operators shall maintain records on site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the City of Banning, SCAQMD, and State upon request.
All on‐site cargo handling equipment including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on‐site equipment shall be electric with the 446
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐5
necessary electrical plug‐in charging included in the design of the Development Project electrical system, buildings, and equipment storage and parking areas. Tenant lease agreements for the Development Project shall include contractual language restricting trucks and support equipment from nonessential idling longer than 3 minutes while on site. The idling restriction will be presented on signs at the entrance to the industrial portions of the Development Project as well as at loading docks and truck parking areas.
All facility operators shall train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. Interior‐ and exterior‐facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, shall be provided identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager. At buildout of the industrial land uses a minimum of 50 Class 8 electric vehicle (EV) truck chargers shall be installed at the tractor trailer parking spaces in logical locations to facilitate electric truck charging. These chargers shall have the power rating sufficient to charge a Class 8 truck battery.
For the warehouse/industrial portions of the Development Project, the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for installation of electric charging systems for electric trucks and power transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Conduit shall be installed from the electrical room to all tractor trailer parking spaces in logical locations on site to facilitate future electric truck charging.
The Development Project shall include the higher value of either:
○ At least 350 Level 2 AC EV chargers; or
○ A percentage of total parking spaces with Level 2 AC EV chargers to comply with the minimum requirements of CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code.
○ The provision of EV charges in each parking lot shall occur prior to the occupancy of uses for said lots.
All truck/dock baysthatserve cold storage facilities within the proposed buildings shall be electrified to facilitate plug‐in capabilities and support use of electric standby and/or hybrid electric TRUs. A condition of approval shall be included for the cold storage facility that requiresthat by buildout at least 90 percent of trucks with TRUs are fully electric.
447
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐6
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the industrial/warehouse area, the Development Project operators employing 200 or more employees shall be required to establish and promote a rideshare program and prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management Program detailing strategies that discourage single‐occupancy vehicle trips by employees by increasing and providing financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling/vanpools, public transit, and biking.
Signs at every truck exit driveway shall be provided showing directional information to the truck route.
Every tenant shall be required to train staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB‐ approved courses. Facility operatorsshall also be required to maintain records on site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the City of Banning, SCAQMD, and State upon request.
Tenants shall be required to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and tenants shall be required to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
Industrial and commercial buildings within the Development Project shall be all electric unlessthe land use requires natural gas(i.e., restaurants, bakeries, dental and medical laboratories).
Tenants shall be provided with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
5.1.2 Threshold 4.3.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
Findings
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is based on past and present development, and the South Coast AQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards taking into account current attainment status and the potential impacts of future development. Based on these considerations, project‐level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are used by the South Coast AQMD to determine whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. The potential for the project to result in a cumulatively considerable impact, is based on whether a project will exceed a threshold of significance for any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable NAAQS and/or CAAQS. Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.3.2 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.3.6.2. 448
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐7
The City finds that the Project will exceed the thresholds established by SCAQMD for emissions of certain criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non‐attainment even after mitigation Therefore, Project impacts would be significant on a project‐specific and cumulative basis for those emissions. The Development Project is required to comply with mitigation measures MM AIR‐1 and MM AIR‐2. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The City finds that the mitigation measures, as revised, identified in Final EIR are feasible, adopted, and will reduce air quality impacts attributable to the Project to the extent feasible. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. The City further finds that mobile source emissions that contribute to exceedance of thresholds of significance are subject to regulations that control heavy‐duty truck emissions which are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described below, the City has determined thatspecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.
Substantial Evidence
The Basin is currently designated nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5.
In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State PM10 standard.
Construction Emissions. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, VOCs, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Table 4.3.I of the Draft EIR shows the mitigated construction emissions and indicates that with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, maximum daily construction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds of all pollutants except for VOCs. Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 would reduce construction VOCs by requiring low‐VOC paint application; however, construction VOC emissions associated with the Development Project would still be significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures to further reduce VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed Development Project would result in significant construction air quality impacts.
Operational Emissions. Long‐term air pollutant emission impactsthat would result from the proposed Project are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.
Mobile source emissionsinclude emissions associated with passenger vehicles which are based on the trip numbers, length, and fleet mix/vehicle type assumptionsin the Traffic Analysisfor employees and site visitors/shoppers. The truck trip assumptions are also based on the Traffic Analysis for trips and fleet mix. A truck trip length of 40 miles was assumed based on previous recommendations by the SCAQMD. In response to public comments received on the Draft EIR, the air emission totals for the 449
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐8
Development Project were updated based on the updated, increased truck trip lengths from the WAIRE Guidelines and a weighted average for truck axle type was calculated.
Even with implementation of the designated project design features and revised Mitigation Measure AIR‐2, operation of the proposed Development Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 (Tables 4.3.J through 4.3.N). Mitigation Measure AIR‐2 is required to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Development Project to the extent feasible. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, the operational impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Impacts to the Project related to Threshold 4.3.2 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.3.6.2.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, daily regional construction emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds of any criteria pollutant emission thresholds established by SCAQMD during construction except for VOCs. Assuming the worst‐case scenario of overlap of construction and operations set forth in each table, the daily emissions from Project operations would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants except for SOX.
Construction emissions of all pollutants except for VOCs associated with the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1. However, emissions associated with operation of the Development Project would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of the planned project design features and Mitigation Measure AIR‐2, as revised, which would require all feasible measuresto reduce potential impacts. Therefore, thisimpact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
As such, impacts are potentially significant. In order to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible, the following mitigation measures are required:
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 and Mitigation Measure AIR‐2, described above.
RCM AQ‐1 SCAQMD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventative measures by using the following procedures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during construction. The applicable Rule 403 measures are as follows:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load 450
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐9
and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet (30 meters) onto the site from the main road.
Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.
RCM AQ‐2 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.
RCM AQ‐3 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications, the City shall confirm that the construction bid packages specify:
Contractors shall use high‐volume low‐pressure paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent;
Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a volatile organic compound content lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and To the extent feasible, construction/building materials shall be composed of pre‐ painted materials.
RCM AQ‐4 The Project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other material from any type of operations, which can cause nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of people or to the public or which endangers the comfort or repose of any such persons, or the public.
From Section 4.3.6.2 of the Draft EIR, “Other regional transportation measures that may reduce VMT include but are not limited to improving/increasing access to transit, increasing access to common goods and services, or orientating land uses toward alternative transportation. These regional transportation measures may be infeasible at the project level but will generally be implemented as the surrounding communities develop. The Sunset Crossroads Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis concludes that there is no means, however, to quantify any VMT reductions that could result.
Additionally, the effectiveness of any VMT reduction program would be dependent on as yet unknown building tenant(s); and as noted above, VMT reductions from various CTR measures cannot be guaranteed.” This assessment was revised in the Final EIR Section 4.17.6.3 which imposed mitigation measures but similarly concluded that potential decreases in emissions from reduced VMT may be possible but cannot be quantified at this time.
451
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐10
5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5.2.1 Threshold 4.8.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.8.1 are discussed in detail in Section
4.8.5.1 of the EIR and Section 4.8 of the Final EIR. Unmitigated Project GHG emissions with PDFs incorporated are approximately 62,844.96 MT CO2e per year through all three phases of the Development Project at buildout, which would exceed the City’s threshold of significance of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, impacts are significant. The Development Project includes Project Design Features (PDFs), which will reduce GHG emissions attributable to the Development Project (Draft EIR Section 4.8.5.1).
The Development Project is required to comply with mitigation measures MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised in the Final EIR, and MM GHG‐1 through GHG‐7 which would reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible. The City finds that even after application of mitigation measures, the Development Project’s mitigated GHG emissions are estimated to be approximately 44,174.26 MT CO2e per year, exceed the City’s screening threshold for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, and result in mitigated emissions of 38,875.50 MT CO2e per year.
However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that the above PDFs and mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce GHG impacts attributable to the proposed Project to the extent feasible, The City therefore finds this impact significant and unavoidable. The City also findsthat no further feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from construction and operation of the Development Project.
Several mitigation measures were recommended by commenters on the Draft EIR. These measures were evaluated in the Final EIR and were: 1) already be required through regulatory requirements, project design features, or mitigation; 2) added as mitigation and included, herein; or 3) determined to be infeasible. For example, due to the reasons described below under “Substantial Evidence,” the requirement that all heavy‐duty vehicles must be zero emission was found to be economically and technologically infeasible because they are not commercially available for the foreseeable future.
Additionally, regulations that control heavy‐duty truck emissions are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Therefore, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, control of tailpipe emissions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been adopted by that other agency. Accordingly, the City finds that the majority of the Development Project’s emissions come from mobile sources which are regulated by the State and not the City.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation 452
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐11
measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
When amortized over the 30‐year life of the Development Project as required by the SCAQMD, on‐ site construction activities would result in annual emissions of 487.49 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr). Long‐term GHG emissions associated with buildout of the Development would be approximately 56,902.96 MT CO2e annually from both construction and operations. Modifications to the project and the incorporation of feasible mitigation would reduce project GHG emissions to 38,726.25 MT CO2e/yr, but the volume of GHG emissions resulting from the Development Project would exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e at Development Project buildout (2027). The majority of the GHG emissions (66 percent of unmitigated emissions) are associated with non‐construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and neither the City nor the Development Project have control over these standards.
Based on comments received during public review of the Draft EIR, a supplemental greenhouse analysis was conducted to account for emissions from updated truck trip lengths trucks by axle type which conform to SCAQMD WAIRE Guidelines and emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRUs) (see Final EIR, Appendices C‐5 and C‐6). These additional emissions were added to those previously identified for the Project. This additional analysis identified, at buildout, with the incorporation of project design features, the Development Project’s unmitigated emissions with incorporation of the PDFs would be approximately 56,902.96 MT CO2e annually from both construction and operations4 (see Final EIR, Table 4.8.F‐1). Several mitigation measures were recommended by commenters on the Draft EIR. These measures were evaluated in the Final EIR and were: 1) already required through regulatory requirements, project design features, or mitigation; 2) added as mitigation and included in the Final EIR; or 3) determined to be infeasible. For example, the suggested mitigation measure to require that all heavy‐duty vehicles must be zero emission was found to be economically and technologically infeasible because they are not commercially available to serve the entire Development Project for the foreseeable future. (See Final EIR, Section 3.0, responses to Comments A‐3‐25, A‐3‐26, and A‐3‐27).
Another suggestion was the installation of roof‐top solar panels to the extent feasible. While the City will require Project buildings be to designed and constructed to include solar‐ready roof and solar facilities required for commercial and office space in the industrial buildings, the installation of solar panels beyond those required by law is not anticipated at this time as the City prefers that new commercial and industrial uses refrain from installing solar roofs and purchase electricity from BEU to facilitate and support the utility’s long‐term renewable energy contracts (see Final EIR, Section 3.0, response to Comment A‐3‐64). The discussion of mitigation measures suggested during public review to reduce the emission of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gasesis provided in the Final EIR, Section 4 This includes total construction emissions amortized over 30 years per 2008 SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans. 453
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐12
3.0, including (but not limited to) the responses to Comments A‐3‐28, A‐3‐58, A‐3‐60, B‐2‐15, B‐2‐16, D‐3‐8, D‐3‐53 and D‐3‐56 through D‐3‐93, and D‐6‐4.
Project design features(PDFs) to reduce the emission of GHGs have been previously identified in Draft EIR, Draft EIR, Section 4.8.5.1, (pg 4.8‐23) and Appendix C‐3 (pg 31). Because PDFs are incorporated into the design and construction or operational activities they are not considered mitigation.
Previously, the California Building Code required only solar ready roofs for non‐residential development. The Specific Plan PDF has been revised to require compliance with California Building Code Title 24, Part 6 solar requirements. These requirements which continue to evolve, now include certain solar roof requirements for non‐residential development. The supplemental GHG analysis applies current Title 24, Part 6 requirements for solar roofs which keep the Development Project compliant with Title 24, Part 6 requirements, and is the basis for the updated GHG analysis:
All Commercial and Industrial buildings within the Development Project will have solar ready roofs, that includes roof vents and skylights spaced in a manner that allows the south facing roof areas sufficient space to install PV solar panels. In addition, all Commercial buildingsshall install PV solar panels with the capacity to generate at least 20 percent of the Commercial buildings’ expected electricity consumption. All Industrial buildingsshall install PV solar panels with the capacity to generate the expected electricity consumption of the office space of the warehouses and otherwise comply with Title 24, Part 6. Electric conduit leading from the roof area to the electric control panels shall be installed and include electrical panels with sufficient capacity to accommodate PV solar.
The new requirement has been incorporated into the Final EIR (see Final EIR Chapter 4.0, Sections
4.6.3 through 6.5.6.2). Greenhouse gas reducing practices have been identified in revised Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, asrevised, and GHG‐1 through GHG‐7, along with previously identified and new PDFs, and modifications to the project would reduce mitigated emissions to 38,875.50 MT CO2e per year at Project buildout (see Final EIR, Table 4.8.J‐1), which would still exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e. Again, the majority of these are generated from mobile sources that are regulated by the State and not the City.
Reliance on carbon offsets to reduce either the Development Project’s mobile or non‐mobile emissions is not feasible. No local program is available that meets CEQA’s criteria of being quantifiable, additional, and verifiable. It has been determined that even offset credits purchased from CARB‐approved offset project registries do not adequately ensure that purchased offset credits accurately and reliably represent actual emissions reductions or cannot guarantee that such reductions are additional to any reduction that would occur under business‐as‐usual operations and reductionsrequired by law, and do not meet the definition of a valid mitigation measure. Additionally, as the Lead Agency, the City of Banning is responsible for enforcing project mitigation measures that are relied upon to reduce GHG impacts and has no enforcement authority over offset creditsthat fund carbon reduction projects outside of the City. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Development 454
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐13
Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the EIR, mitigation measures GHG‐1 through GHG‐7 have been identified to address this impact are feasible and made binding through the MMRP. In addition, MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised, would also be applicable and reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible. (Draft EIR Section 4.8.5.1).
The Project shall implement mitigation measure MM AIR‐2 (discussed above in Section 5.1 and in the EIR), many provisions of which in addition to reducing air quality emissions would result in a reduction in GHG emissions. Despite imposition of these feasible mitigation measures, the volume of GHG emissions generated by the Development would not be reduced below established significance threshold.
The following are additional mitigation measures that would be required to address significant GHG emissions:
MM GHG‐1 Provide separate recycling bins within each commercial/industrial building and provide large external recycling collection bins at central locations in the commercial and industrial land uses for collection truck pickup. Provide a commercial recycling/composting program that provides 70 percent diversion of waste for the commercial land uses. Provide an industrial recycling program that provides 80 percent diversion of waste for the industrial land uses.
MM GHG‐2 Provide drought tolerant low‐water landscaping and trees throughout the Development Site and use recycled (purple pipe) irrigation water with drip irrigation and weather based smart irrigation controllers.
MM GHG‐3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant orsuccessor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Banning demonstrating that the Project is designed to achieve energy efficient buildings exceeding Title 24 standards with the following design criteria:
Building envelops insulation of conditioned space within all commercial and industrial buildings shall be R15 or greater for walls and R30 or greater for attics/roofs.
Windows of commercial and industrial buildings shall have an insulation factor of
0.28 or less U‐factor and 0.22 or less SHGC.
All roofing material for commercial buildings shall be CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance or greater and 0.75 thermal emittance.
All heating/cooling ducting within the commercial and industrial buildings shall be insulated with R6 or greater insulation.
All heating and cooling equipment shall be ERR 14/78 percent AFUE, or 7.7 HSPF levels of efficiency or greater.
455
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐14
All water heaters in the commercial and industrial buildings shall be high efficiency electric water heaters with a minimum 0.72 Energy Factor or greater. Lighting within the commercial and industrial buildings shall be high efficiency LED lighting with a minimum of 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures, 50 lumens/watt for 15–40‐watt fixtures, and 60 lumens/watt for fixtures greater than 40 watts.
Building roofs shall be in compliance with solar requirements of the California Building Code Title 24 standards.
MM GHG‐4 All appliances within the commercial and industrial land uses shall be energy star rated appliances.
MM GHG‐5 All water fixtures shall be water efficient (toilets/urinals [1.5 GPM or less], showerheads [2.0 GPM or less], and faucets [1.28 GMM or less]).
MM GHG‐6 All landscape equipment used to maintain the landscaping within the Development Project shall be electric.
MM GHG‐7 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project shall provide documentation to the City as part of the plan check process, demonstrating that the Project will implement the measures specified in Table 4.8.K which were obtained from the Riverside County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables. The Project may also achieve equivalent emission reductions from other measures approved by the City. Implementing these mitigation measures shall be verified by the City prior to the issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2.2 Threshold 4.8.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.8.2 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.8.5.2. The City finds that the Development Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions. Despite plan consistency, the Development Project’s long‐term operational GHG emissions would exceed the City’s significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. For that reason, the City finds that the Development Project results in a significant GHG impact. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Development Project isrequired to comply with mitigation measures MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, asrevised, and MM GHG‐ 1, GHG‐2, GHG‐4, GHG‐5, GHG‐6, and GHG‐7, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The City finds that even after application of mitigation measures, the Development Project’s GHG 456
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐15
emissions exceed the City’s screening threshold for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The City finds that the above PDFs and mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce GHG impacts attributable to the proposed Project to the extent feasible, The City therefore finds this impact significant and unavoidable. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. Regulations that control heavy‐duty truck emissions are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Therefore, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, control of tailpipe emissions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been adopted by that other agency. Accordingly, the City finds that the majority of the Development Project’s emissions come from mobile sources which are regulated by the State and not the City. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would not conflict with any of the local, regional, and Statewide plans, polices, programs, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. The Development Project would incorporate GHG emission reducing project design features and implement feasible mitigation (cited previously in these findings).
Plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS, the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan, the City of Banning General Plan, and the Air Quality Management Plan. Analysis of whether the Development Project would conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions is discussed below:
Riverside Climate Action Plan: The Development Project gains over 500 points in the County of Riverside CAP Screening Tables, and these measures will be implemented as part of the Development Project through the PDFs and Mitigation Measures AIR‐2, GHG‐1, GHG‐2, GHG‐4, GHG‐5, and GHG‐6 and GHG‐7. Since the Development Project greatly exceeds the 100‐point threshold needed to show consistency with the CAP, the Development Project would implement a greater amount of the reduction measures than needed and would be consistent with the County of Riverside CAP if it applied to the entire project. City of Banning General Plan: The Development Project would be consistent with the 2006 Banning General Plan Air Quality Policies and policies in the Energy and Mineral Resources Element, as discussed in Table 4.8.L of the Final EIR (pp. 4.8‐37). Scoping Plan Consistency: Building decarbonization measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, maximize distributed renewable energy generation and energy storage, eliminate the use of natural gas, pursue additional efficiency effortsincluding new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California, and expand the 457
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐16
use of green building practices. The Development Project would not conflict with pertinent Statewide action measuresin the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Development Project would comply with the CALGreen standards and would include low‐flow plumbing fixtures, drought‐tolerant landscaping, and other features that would reduce water demand. The Development Project would implement the use of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and ZEV infrastructure (1.e. electric vehicle chargers) and would increase the use of alternative means of transportation. SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS: Development Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Development Project would inhibit the post‐2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The Development Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.8.N: Project Consistency with the 2020 RTP/SCS. Air Quality Management Plan: The Development Project would not conflict with applicable control measures within the 2022 AQMP. The Development Project’s consistency with the AQMP goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.8.O: Project Consistency with Applicable 2022 AQMP Control Strategies.
Therefore, with respect to thisthreshold, the Development Project does not have a significant impact.
However, despite plan consistency, the Development Project’s long‐term operational impacts would exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year despite implementing PDFs and all feasible mitigation. Though implemented, despite this plan consistency (as detailed in Draft EIR Section 4.8), the Development Project’s long‐term operational impacts would exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year and therefore, could impede long‐term GHG reduction goals of various plans (e.g., for 2030 and 2050) and result in a significant impact. (EIR Section 4.8.5.2).
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Development Project that avoid or substantially lessen the emission of GHGs into the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8 of the EIR, mitigation measures MM GHG‐1 through MM GHG‐7 have been identified to address this impact are feasible and made binding through the MMRP. In addition, MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised, would also be applicable, and reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible.
5.3 NOISE
5.3.1 Threshold 4.13.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.13.1 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.13.6.1. Findings with respect to construction traffic noise impacts and operational noise impacts under Threshold 4.13.1 are discussed in Section 3.12 and are found to be lessthan significant. 458
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐17
With respect to construction noise impacts from equipment and construction work, the Development Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM NOI‐1, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the proposed Project construction noise impacts attributable to construction work for the Development Project to the extent feasible. However, the City also finds that because it is yet to be determined if a noise barrier can be constructed on City right‐of‐way, construction noise impacts for construction of the roadway and utilities on Sunset Avenue would be considered significant and unavoidable and no further feasible mitigation to reduce this impact has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from construction noise with respect to the Development Project would result. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
Construction Noise Impacts Generated by Construction Equipment and Construction Work. Noise will be generated during mass grading, grading, sitework‐utilities, building construction, paving, and architectural coating/tenant finishing on the Development Site. As discussed in Draft EIR Section
4.13.6.1. and shown in Table 4.13.L‐M, construction noise levels would reach up to 85 dBA Lmax (82 dBA Leq) at a distance of 50 ft and residential buildings east of the Development Site along Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Westward Avenue and the school building east of the Development Site on the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue in the City of Banning would be exposed to interior construction noise levels of 55.7 dBA Leq and 60.4 dBA Leq, respectively. This exceeds the City’s interior construction noise standard of 55 dBA for more than 15 minutes per hour. Also, residential buildings south of the Development Site along Bobcat Road in the County of Riverside would be exposed to interior construction noise levels of 56.4 dBA Leq, which exceeds the City’s interior construction noise standard of 55 dBA for more than 15 minutes per hour.
Therefore, noise generated from Development Project construction activities would be potentially significant at these locations unless mitigation described under Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 is incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
Noise generated by project construction activities would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 includes the installation of minimum 10 ft high temporary construction barriers when Development Project construction activities are within 100 ft from the nearest residential structure and other measures to reduce noise impacts will reduce construction noise impacts associated with on‐site construction of the Development Project to less than significant. However, because it is yet to be determined if a noise barrier can be constructed on City right‐of‐way during construction of roadway and utilities on 459
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐18
Sunset Avenue, the City finds that construction noise impacts for construction of the roadway and utilities on Sunset Avenue is considered significant and unavoidable.
MM NOI‐1 The construction contractor shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
During grading,site work, paving and utility construction, the construction contractor shall install a minimum 10 ft high temporary construction barrier along the eastern construction boundary to shield residences along Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Westward Avenue, along the southern construction boundary to shield residences along Bobcat Road, and along the eastern construction boundary to shield the school located at the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue when project construction activities are within 100 ft from the nearest residential structure to that activity. The temporary construction barrier may be any material that has a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 28. For off‐site construction, including for construction of the roadway and utilities, on Sunset Avenue, the City will determine whether the noise barrier can be constructed on City right of way without impacting roadway access and the construction contractor shall installsuch barrier on City‐owned property provided thatsuch roadway access can be maintained during construction.
During all Development Site excavation and grading, the Development Project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest feasible distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐ sensitive receptors nearest the Development Site during all project construction.
The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that the emitted noise is directed away from the sensitive receptors nearest the Development Site.
5.4 TRANSPORTATION
5.4.1 Threshold 4.17.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.2 are discussed in detail in EIR Section
4.17.6.3. The Development Project would result in a significant VMT impact. The Development Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM TRA‐1, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. As discussed in the Supplemental CEQA Memorandum and Modified Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (SP No. 200‐20000002) Vehicle 460
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐19
Miles Traveled (VMT) Comparative Analysis, modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in a reduced level of impact but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City findsthat the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the proposed Project transportation impacts attributable to trips generated by the proposed Project to the extent feasible. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce this impact has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.