Banning City Council
January 28, 2026

Substantial Evidence
For projects that are not residential, office, or retail land use types, the City Guidelines identify VMT per employee as the appropriate VMT metric for analysis. Therefore, the Development Project’s industrial warehouse and hotel land uses were evaluated based on the metric VMT per employee.

The Development Project would exceed the City’s adopted thresholds of 25.9 VMT per employee for the industrial and hotel uses. This would result in a potentially significant impact. To achieve a less than significant findings for non‐retail VMT per employee, VMT would need to be reduced by 15.9 percent or 26,377 HBW VMT. The following project design features (PDFs) have the potential to reduce HBW VMT. These design features are based on coordination with the City staff and the recommendations contained within the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and the Western Riverside Council of governments (WRCOG) TDM Strategies Evaluation Memo.

PDF T‐1: Commute Trip Reduction Marketing. The Development Project will include a marketing strategy to promote the project site employer’s CTR 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. The following features (or similar alternatives) of the marketing strategy are essential for effectiveness.

1. Onsite or online commuter information services.

2. Employee transportation coordinators.

3. Onsite or online transit pass sales.

The 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.

PDF T‐2: Ridesharing Program. The 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:
461

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
5‐20
 Designating a certain percentage of desirable parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles.  Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas or ridesharing vehicles.  Providing an app or website for coordinating rides.

The 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.

PDF T‐3: End‐of‐Trip Bicycle Facilities. The Development Project will install and maintain end‐of‐trip facilities for employee use. In this case End‐of‐trip facilities will only include bike parking. The provision and maintenance of secure bike parking and related facilities encourages commuting by bicycle, thereby reducing VMT. End‐of‐trip facilities should be installed at a size proportional to the number of commuting bicyclists and regularly maintained.

The Development Project will include building elements for bicycle trip end facilities (i.e., parking) for commuters that choose to bicycle as a mode of travel. This will promote an alternative mode choice of commuting for employees. As calculated, the Project will reduce VMT by 0.06 percent.

As the reduction in trips and associated VMT cannot be accurately accounted for by the calculations conducted using the RIVCOM model, these adjustments are made through the following calculations as described in the Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. The PDFs will be incorporated into the Transportation Demand Strategy Report required under Mitigation Measure TRA‐1. With implementation of the PDFs and MM TRA‐1, as well as home‐based work, VMT would be reduced 8.4 percent. The Development Project would need to reduce HBW VMT by 15.9 percent to fall below the City’s adopted VMT impact threshold; therefore, the Project’simpact to non‐retail VMT per employee would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR Section 4.17.6.3).

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure would require the preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)strategy report to reduce employee VMT. While the inclusion of PDFs T‐1 through T‐3 would reduce HBW VMT by 8.4 percent, Project generated VMT per employee still exceeds the City’s adopted VMT impact threshold. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM TRA‐1, Threshold 4.17.2 would remain significant and unavoidable.

MM TRA‐1: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the project applicant shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy report (as discussed in the Sunset Crossroads Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis) for review and approval by the City Traffic/Transportation Manager, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies have been incorporated into the project design including commute trip reduction marketing, rideshare program, and end‐of‐trip bicycle facilities. 462

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
6‐1

6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR identify the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved should the proposed project be implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(d)). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non‐renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from environmental accidents associated with the project; or d) the proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

6.1 IMPACT STATEMENT
Although the Project would cause irreversible impacts to the environment, the impacts are not significant.

6.2 FINDINGS
The Development Project’s potential to result in significant irreversible changes are discussed in detail in Section 7.1 of the Final EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would permanently alter the site by converting vacant and undeveloped land to commercial and industrial uses, which would commit future generations to similar uses in that area. Construction and operation of the Development Project would require the commitment of nonrenewable resources; however, the City findsthat use of nonrenewable resourcesis not expected to negatively impact the availability of these resources. Accordingly, the City finds that these irreversible environmental changes are not significant. The City finds that as described in the analysis presented throughout the EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly reduced to below levels of significant, with the exception of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, construction noise, and VMT impacts which are discussed in Section 5.0.

6.3 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Determining whether the proposed Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. As the Development Project site is currently vacant and undeveloped, converting it to commercial and industrial uses would result in a significant irreversible environmental change that would occur because of the Project implementation.

Natural resourcesin the form of construction materials and fuels would be utilized in the construction of the proposed Project, and energy resourcesin the form of electricity and natural gas would be used during the long‐term operation of the Development Project; however, their use is not expected to have a negative impact on the availability of these resources and is not a significant irreversible environmental change. The proposed (mitigated) use of electricity on the Development Site would be approximately 25.570 gigawatt‐hours(GWh) of electricity per year. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), total electricity consumption in the Banning Electric Utility (BEU) service area in 463

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
6‐2
2022 was 151.5 GWh (47.4 GWh for the commercial sector). In Riverside County, total electricity consumption in 2022 was 17,780.6 GWh (9,060.64 GWh for the residential sector and 8,720.0 GWh for the non‐residential sector). The Project demand would represent approximately 16.9 percent of existing electricity consumption within the BEU service area and 0.14 percent of current electrical demand in Riverside County. Senate Bill (SB) 100 raised California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirement targets to 50 percent renewable by December 31, 2026 and 60 percent by December 31, 2030, and it requires all the State’s electricity to be from carbon free resources by 2045.

Based on its mix of generation sources, BEU currently has a renewable portfolio of 81.3 percent (2022), far exceeding the State’s target of 50% by 2030; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude the BEU will continue this practice and that any increased energy demand from the Development Project and other uses will be adequately met with a majority of renewable energy resources. (Draft EIR Section 7.1).

The estimated potential increase (mitigated) in natural gas demand associated with the Development Project is 59,998 therms. Total natural gas consumption in the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) service area in 2022 was 5,026.5 million therms. Within Riverside County, natural gas consumption totaled 431.1 million therms in 2022. The Development Project would increase annual natural gas consumption in the SoCalGas service area and Riverside County by approximately 0.001 and 0.01 percent, respectively. While the Development Project would increase energy demand, electricity in the City is increasingly provided by renewable sources and the Development Site will be required to implement applicable energy efficiency standard/features. As a result, operation of the proposed uses and utilizing natural gas would not result in significant irretrievable loss of non‐ renewable fuels or impact the availability of these energy resourcesforfuture generations or for other uses for the life of the Development Project.

The Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) has designated the majority of the Development Site (451.9 acres) as Farmland of Local Importance (L).

The remaining portions of the Development Site are designated as Grazing Land (G) (76.83 acres) and Other Land (X) (3.97 acres). While mapping by the FMMP identifies 4,381.5 acres of Farmland of Local Importance within Banning and the conversion of locally important farmland to a non‐agricultural use would be permanent and irreversible, it is not considered a significant impact under CEQA.

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). The additional enhancement/restoration would ensure the long‐term conservation of the riparian/riverine resources, preserving the function and value of on‐site and downstream areas. While upland habitat throughout the Development Site will be permanently and irreversibly impacted by the Development Project, no candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species 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. As a result, no impacts would occur with respect to these categories of species.

While burrowing owl have been identified on site and would be directly and indirectly impacted by Development Project construction, as stated in Section 4.4.6.1 of this EIR, impacts to this species are reduced to less than significant through the implementation of mitigation. Los Angeles pocket mouse occur on site and would be directly and indirectly impacted by the Development Project. However, the predominant areas of occupation (the existing drainages) will be maintained. Additionally, 464

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
6‐3
mitigation has been identified that would reduce potential impacts to this species to a less than significant level.

The conversion of the Development Site from undeveloped to developed uses has been previously considered by the City through previous designation of the site for residential and commercial development in its General Plan, and implementation of the Development Project would result in the removal of existing vegetation, modification of topography, and the subsequent installation of buildings and supporting infrastructure thatrepresents a permanent and irreversible change in nature of on‐site biological resources. Nonetheless, the direct impacts to biological resources resulting from the Development Project are fully mitigated and less than significant.

The 533.8‐acre Development Site is currently undeveloped and represents an open space area resource in Banning. While the Development Project would retain existing drainage features and other open space areas within 65.6 acres, development pursuant to the Specific Plan would result in the conversion of open, natural areas to a collection of industrial and commercial buildings and a supporting inventory of ancillary features/facilities (e.g., roadways, parking areas, lighting, signage, landscaping, utilities). The conversion of the site to urban uses represents a permanent and irreversible change in the existing aesthetic character of the site.

Commercial and industrial uses operated on the Development Site may include the use and disposal of some amount of hazardous waste along with limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape maintenance. Vehicles accessing the uses on the Development Site would contain oil and gasoline to power their engines, which could have the potential to result in minor releases of such substances through drips or leaks in parking areas. Transport truck traffic to and from the Development Site, including transport refrigeration units (TRUs), or refrigerated trucks transporting perishable material may also contribute to minor releases of oil and gasoline in the loading dock areas in addition to the parking areas. Specific Plan uses are not anticipated to generate or use major hazardous materials, or create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste, and would be required to prepare Hazardous Materials Business Plan(s) (as appropriate). Because no such hazards currently exist on site, development per the Specific Plan would extend the potential for accidental hazardous material release/upset through the lifetime of the project but would not constitute a significant impact.

465

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
6‐4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
466

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
7‐1

7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the Development Project could be growth inducing.

The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment, and includes removing obstacles to population growth (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(e)).

Impact Statement: The Development Project would not have significant growth inducting impacts.

7.1 FINDINGS
The Development Project’s potential to result in growth‐inducing impacts is discussed in detail in Subsection 7.2 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Development Project would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the surrounding area, which could result in significant adverse effects to the environment.

7.2 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Pursuant to Sections 15126(d) and 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, the construction of additional housing (either directly or indirectly) in the surrounding environment or remove obstacles to population growth. This discussion is included in Subsection 7.2 of this EIR to provide additional information on ways in which this project has the potential to contribute to significant changes in the environment, beyond the direct consequences of developing the Development Project established in earlier chapters in the EIR. To address this issue, potential growth‐inducing effects are assessed by determining if the Development Project would: (1) remove obstacles to population growth through the construction or extension of major otherwise unplanned for infrastructure facilities that do not presently exist in the project area (e.g., a major expansion of a wastewater treatment facility); (2) by increasing population, tax existing community service facilities, thereby requiring construction of new facilities, which could cause significant environmental effects that could significantly affect the environment; or (3) include project characteristics that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Each of these issues is discussed below.

The Development Project does not require off‐site construction or extension of infrastructure that was not already considered, planned for and approved by the City. While the Development Project will underground certain existing utility lines along the perimeter of the Development Site, it will not extend transmission utility lines in other areas. The installation of utilities is to connect 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, and additional identified construction isfor planned for infrastructure identified in the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and developed pursuant to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and would not extend infrastructure beyond that already planned for the City. In addition to these specific facilities, the Development Project will include the extension of water, recycled water, natural gas, and communication (cable, telephone service) to the Development Site. Necessary infrastructure improvements for these services would extend from existing or planned infrastructure 467

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
7‐2
locations and would only serve the Development Site. The proposed improvements would not extend utility or roadway infrastructure in areas further removed from the Development Site and therefore would not directly or indirectly induce additional unplanned development in intervening areas.

To comply with the requirement in Government Code Section 66300 et seq. that there be no net loss of residential capacity, 1,146 units of residential capacity from the Development Site will be moved to the Mt. San Jacinto College (MSJC) Site to land currently designated for Public Facility uses5 , which
upon rezoning, would accommodate development of not less than 1,146 residential units on the approximately 41 acre site. This entitlement serves to ensure no net loss of residential units within the City and preserves the development of planned housing. It does not significantly increase the maximum number of housing units to be built in the City and does not represent an increase in residential uses or population. Improvements to adjacent infrastructure would be required to accommodate development on the MSJC Site regardless of the future use; therefore, the MSJC Entitlements and any subsequent Very High Density Residential (VHDR) uses would not directly or indirectly result in growth not already planned for and anticipated by the City.

As discussed in Chapters 3.0 and 6.0 of this EIR, the City has either previously approved or is in the process of considering various public improvements that it will implement that may occur on or adjacent to the Development Site. Each of these has either undergone prior review or is under consideration by the City and would proceed with or without development of the Development Project, and each is intended to provide infrastructure to serve planned growth within the City and its Sphere of Influence. Although these public facilities projects would be carried out on land within or adjacent to the Development Site, they are not part of the Development Project, are already planned for, and do not serve to make the Development Project growth inducing. See Subsection 7.2.1.3 of the EIR.

In addition, although the Development Project does not create the need for development of another fire station within the City, at the City’s request, the Specific Plan identifies a site in Planning Area 12 to be reserved for a possible future fire station use if desired by the City. However, because neither the City nor the Riverside County Fire Department has considered nor identified a need for a fire station at this location, there is no current plan for development of a fire station. Accordingly, development of a fire station at the Development Site is considered speculative and is not growth inducing. If the City and County Fire Department elect to proceed with a fire station at a future date, they would be responsible for the planning, design, construction, and future environmental analysis and development of the fire station.

The related public facilities projects described above are either sized specifically for the Development Project or already planned for by the City in its General Plan, or in connection with other approved projects. The Development Project does not require construction of new community servicesfacilities to serve it. Because the Development Project maintains existing housing capacity by moving residential units from the Development Site to the MSJC Site, and the jobs created by the 5 In collaboration with the Beaumont Unified School District, MSJC is housing the Beaumont Middle College High School at the San Gorgonio Pass Campus. The middle college high school is designed to raise graduation rates, prepares students for transfer to a 4‐year institution or an associate degree, and serves underrepresented students.
468

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
7‐3
Development Project will serve to improve the jobs‐housing balance by creating job opportunities in the City and nearby area, the Development Project will not increase population in the City. When considered together, it is reasonable to conclude the Development Project would not facilitate unplanned growth that could significantly affect the environment.

469

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
7‐4
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
470

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
8‐1

8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING MSJC ENTITLEMENTS

8.1 MSJC ENTITLEMENTS
The MSJC Entitlements are comprised of (1) a General Plan Land Use Amendment (GPA) and (2) a change to the Official Zoning Map (ZC) on the MSJC Site to 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).6 The City’s VHDR land use designation authorizes condominiums and townhomes, as well as apartments with the provision of common area amenities and open space. The City will establish by ordinance a specific plan overlay (Overlay) coterminous with the MSJC Site boundary. The Overlay would require preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan, pursuant to Chapter 17.96 of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC) prior to development of VHDR residential uses on the MSJC Site. While the adoption of the MSJC Entitlements would rezone the MSJC Site to allow very high‐density residential uses, no residential development application has been filed or is contemplated for the MSJC Site at this time. The Overlay would ensure the MSJC Site be developed in a cohesive manner, account for the provision of adequate public infrastructure (i.e., roads, storm drain, electricity, 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. Refer to Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EIR for further discussion of the proposed entitlements.

The MSJC Entitlements were analyzed at a programmatic level in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15168 because they are logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions (CEQA Guidelines §15168). Consistent with the requirements set forth in Public Resources Code §21068.5 and CEQA Guidelines §§15152 and 15168(c), later activities (i.e., any future project level activity at the MSJC Site, such as adoption of the required specific plan) could be tiered from, and would be examined in light of, the information in this programmatic analysis to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared to evaluate project‐level environmental impacts associated with development of the MSJC Site. As such, these finding reflect, to the extent feasible and practicable, the programmatic nature of the MSJC analysis contained in Chapter 5.0 of the Draft EIR.

8.1.1 Aesthetics
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements would result in no impact or less than significant impacts to aesthetic/visual resources.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to aesthetic and visual resources is discussed in Section 5.4.1.2 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that no impact or no significant impact (depending upon the threshold measured) to aesthetics would result from approval of the MSJC Entitlements. The City finds that implementation of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in significant impacts related to aesthetics; therefore, no mitigation is required. 6 General Plan Amendment 22‐2502 and Zone Change 22‐3502. 471

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
8‐2
Substantial Evidence
The MSJC Entitlementsthemselves do not propose any development on the MSJC Site. While the type, quantity, location, configuration, orientation or design of development that may occur on the MSJC Site subsequent to the adoption of the entitlements, if any, is unknown, it isreasonable to expect that the VHDR uses would include the construction of individual and/or clusters of multi‐storied buildings and site improvements (e.g., access roads, parking, sidewalks, lighting, enhanced landscaping, signage, utility infrastructure, etc.) necessary to support new high density residential development.

Future development of the MSJC Site would require adoption of a specific plan to regulate the site plan and design of the uses; therefore, such future development would be expected to be well regulated and aesthetically consistent with the surrounding land uses. There are no designated scenic vistas visible from the MSJC Site. The placement of residential structures on the MSJC Site will alter views of the San Jacinto Mountainsfrom public spaces, but the extent of any such alternation of views will be determined based on the location, orientation, and height/mass of future structures. The San Jacinto Mountains located approximately 1.3 miles south of the MSJC Site rise to a height of 10,804 feet amsl; therefore, it is not likely development of multi‐story VHDR7 uses would completely obstruct views of these mountainsfrom adjacent roadways. Itshould be noted that MSJC Site frontage extends approximately 0.35 mile along Westward Avenue. The posted speed along this segment of Westward Avenue is 40 miles per hour (mph); therefore, any potential change in views to the San Jacinto Mountains would be available to travelers on Westward Avenue for approximately 30 seconds only.

Adherence to future site‐specific aesthetic guidelines, no significant impact to a scenic vista would result from adoption of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site.

State Route 243 (SR‐243) is an Officially Designated State Scenic Highway and islocated approximately

1.3 miles east of the MSJC Site. The MSJC Site is bounded by existing, approved, or proposed development on three sides(residential to the north, Rancho San Gorgonio to the south and east, and the Development Site to the west. Due to intervening topography, distance, existing buildings, and vegetation (i.e., trees), the proposed MSJC Site is not directly visible from SR‐243. As such, adoption of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway; therefore, no impact would occur.

The City has not identified the MSJC Site as a scenic resource. Because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in any physical development at this time, the aesthetic condition of the site would remain unchanged until such development is subsequently initiated by an interested party at some future point in time. It is anticipated the review and approval of any future VHDR residential development on the MSJC Site would conform to the City standards and/or specific plan guidelines, including but not limited to site planning and grading, building design and architecture, requirements for open space, landscaping, and lighting in effect at the time of said review. Therefore, it is not anticipated that development of the MSJC Site would degrade the existing visual character or quality of MSJC Site and surroundings area(s). No significant impact would result. 7 City of Banning Municipal Code: 17.08.030, Table 17.08.030 (Residential Development Standards), maximum height of four stories (60 feet).
472

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
8‐3
New development accommodated by the MSJC Entitlements would require a consistency review of regulations related to aesthetics, light, and glare contained in the Title 17 (Zoning Code) of the City’s Municipal Code. Chapter 17.24.100 requiresthat exterior lighting be shielded or recessed so that light is contained within the boundaries of the parcel on which the lighting is located. It is reasonable to anticipate applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal and/or any future specific plan required for the MSJC Site will follow lighting guidelines to reduce nighttime light pollution; therefore, adoption of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area and no significant impact would occur.

8.1.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements would not impact agricultural or forestry resources.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to agricultural and forestry resources is discussed in Section 5.4.2 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that no impact would result from approval of the MSJC Entitlements. The City also finds that implementation of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in significant impacts related to agricultural or forestry resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
No portion of the site is designated as Prime, Unique or Statewide Important Farmland which is considered by CEQA to be a potential significant impact, most of the MSJC Site (45.65 acres) is considered Farmland of Local Importance, and the remaining portion (3.54 acres) of the MSJC Site is designated as “Urban/Built Up Land”; therefore, adoption of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site would not result in the conversion of any such farmland and no impact would occur. No Williamson Act contracts currently exist on the site. The MSJC Site is designated “Public Facilities” under the City’s General Plan and zoning; therefore, adoption of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site would not result in the conversion of any Williamson Act contract land or land zoned for agriculture or forestry/timberland to a non‐agricultural or non‐forestry use, and no impact would occur. There is no evidence of any current or on‐going agricultural activity, forest, or timberland resources on the MSJC Site; therefore, the MSJC Entitlements and subsequent development of the MSJC site would not contribute or catalyze the conversion of active agricultural or forest land to other uses; therefore, no impact would occur.

8.1.3 Air Quality
Impact Statement: Adoption of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in the generation of pollutants; therefore, no significant air quality impact would occur. The City’s General Plan includes a mechanism requiring project‐specific air quality analysis for proposed physical development of the MSJC Site. Absent a specific proposal for development of VHDR on the MSJC Site, a project‐specific air quality analysis showing air quality impacts associated with VHDR development on the MSJC Site, the effectiveness of the regulatory compliance and mitigation measures, cannot be determined. In the absence of the ability to conduct such assessment, potential air quality impacts resulting from future development of the MSJC Site may be significant.
473

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
8‐4
Finding
The City finds that because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in development at this time, no significant air quality impacts would result from adoption of the entitlements. The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements relative to air quality is provided in Section 5.4.3 of the Draft EIR.

Because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant increase in the inventory of residential units or population growth in the City, the City finds that MSJC Entitlements would be consistent with the 2022 AQMP if development is limited to 1,146, but that assessment of air quality impacts would be needed to determine if the incremental increase in units up to 1,181 units would result in air quality emissions that exceed established air quality thresholds. The City further finds that total project emissions resulting from the development of residential uses on the MSJC Site cannot be accurately quantified at this time, that the City will require preparation of a project‐specific air quality analysis evaluating the potential for generating emissions that could exceed established air quality thresholds or cause a significant air quality impact. Without a project‐specific analysis, the City finds it would be speculative to reach a significance conclusion about whether potential air quality impacts exceed thresholds of significance, whether development of VHDR would result in a cumulative increase of criteria pollutants or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution, and whether any potential impacts could be mitigated to less than significant. In the absence of project plans, and based on the programmatic analysis, future development on the MSJC Site may result in a significant air quality impact but assessment of air quality impacts needs to be deferred to a project‐level analysis. The City finds that the Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) which require adherence to South Coast Air Quality Management Rules to minimize emissions from construction (MSJC Site RCMs AQ‐1 through AQ‐3) and to minimize objectionable odors (MSJC Site RCM‐AQ‐4) are feasible, adopted and would reduce air quality emissions. The City additionally finds its General Plan Air Quality Element Policy 4, and related programs, provide a feasible and appropriate method to identify and address potential air quality impacts that may result from the future development of residential uses on the MSJC Site.

The City further finds that neither construction nor operation of VHDR development on the MSJC Site would result in objectionable odors.

Substantial Evidence
Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based on two criteria: (1) whether a project is consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts, which is based, in part, on the planned land uses in general plans of cities located within the SCAG region; and (2) whether a project would increase 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. Because the MSJC Entitlements do not propose development at this time, approval would not result in air quality emissions and the MSJC Entitlements are consistent with the AQMP.

The approval of the MSJC Entitlements would transfer residential capacity of up to 1,181 from the Development Site to the MSJC Site; however, there would be no significant increase in the inventory of residential units or population growth in the City that was not planned for and included as part of SCAG forecasts. The MSJC Entitlements would transfer an estimated 1,146 residential units, which are accounted for in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant increase in the inventory of residential units or population growth in the City, the MSJC Entitlements would be consistent with the first criterion. The second criterion requires a 474

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
8‐5
project to determine whether the project would 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. The South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is currently designated as nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5. In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State PM10 standard. Specific information about the footprint of land use development on the MSJC Site, and the duration, frequency, and intensity of construction, potential overlap between construction and occupation of any residential uses are neither known nor available at this time. The density of residential uses on the MSJC site at buildout is also not known at this time. The MSJC entitlements transfer the potential for 1,146 units but could incrementally increase to 1,181 units depending on unit density at buildout. Therefore, emissions resulting from the development of residential uses on the MSJC Site cannot be accurately quantified (Draft EIR, Section 5.4.3.2).

The MSJC Entitlements themselves do not include a physical project that would emit pollutants, compromise, or conflict with the AQMP, or jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP. The City’s General Plan Air Quality Element, Policy 4 states, “Development Proposals brought before the City shall be reviewed for their potential to adversely impact local and regional air quality and shall be required to mitigate any significant impact.” The City has identified Program 4.A and 4.B to ensure development projects are consistent with this policy (Draft EIR, pg 5‐17):

Program 4.A: Projects that may generate significant levels of air pollution shall be required to conduct detailed impact analyses and incorporate mitigation measures into their designs using the most advanced technological methods feasible. All proposed mitigation measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading or demolition permits.

Program 4.B: Provide consistent and effective code enforcement of construction and grading activities and offroad vehicle use to assure that the impacts of blowing sand and fugitive dust emissions are minimized.

As part of the development process, future proposals on the MSJC Site would be required to prepare a project‐specific air quality analysis evaluating the proposal’s potential to exceed established air quality thresholds, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In the absence of project plans, future development on the MSJC Site may result in a significant impact, but it would be speculative to reach a conclusion, and assessment of air quality impacts needs to be deferred to a project‐level analysis. Once a specific development plan for the MSJC Site has been proposed, pursuant to Policy 4, an air quality analysis needs to be prepared for development of the MSJC Site to quantify all construction and operational emissions, and whether other mitigation would be identified to reduce the significance of any air pollutant that exceeds the construction and/or operational significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (Draft EIR, pg 5‐17).

The SCAQMD developsrules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures. These Rules have been previously summarized in Section

4.3.4.3 of the Draft EIR. Any construction for new development occurring on the MSJC Site would be 475

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
8‐6
required to conform to applicable SCAQMD rules, including Rule 401 (Visible Emissions), Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to reduce emissions, dust, and volatile organic compounds during project construction, as well as other applicable rules governing air pollutant emissions (Draft EIR, pg 5‐18). Heavy‐duty equipment engaged on the MSJC Site during construction would emit odors, primarily from the vendor trucks and heavy‐duty off‐road equipment exhaust. This odor may be noticeable to nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., residential uses north of the MSJC Site and MSJC campus facilities); however, these odors would also dissipate quickly beyond 300 feet from a source and would be temporary in nature. Development on the MSJC Site would include VHDR units that would not be a significant source of odor emissions. City and County regulations require trash storage areas for multi‐family residential 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. Furthermore, compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (construction), Rule 402 (operation), and City regulations (including Municipal Code Chapter 8.48, Nuisances; construction and operation) would apply to any development occurring on the MSJC Site, reducing the significance of such impacts (Draft EIR Section 5.4.3.2).

8.1.4 Biological Resources
Impact Statement: No impact would result from approval of the MSJC Entitlements. Subsequent development of the MSJC Site, as allowed by the MSJC Entitlements, could have a significant impact on biological resources without the implementation of mitigation measures.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to biological resources is provided in Section 5.4.4 of the Draft EIR and includes analysis of the following thresholds related to biological resources.
 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;
 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;  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;
 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;
 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
476

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
8‐7
 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

The City finds that with respect to the above thresholds that MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in a physical disturbance; therefore, the impacts to biological resources from adoption of these entitlements would be less than significant. The City finds that with the respect to the above thresholds subsequent development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses could potentially impact biological resources; therefore, implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐5 is required to reduce the potential impacts to biological resources resulting from subsequent development on the MSJC Site to a less than significant level. The City has determined the identified mitigation measures are feasible, required, and appropriate to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the development of the MSJC Site to less than significant.

Substantial Evidence
Currently, campus facilities are developed on three parcels, which collectively encompass 8.3 acres of MSJC Site. The remaining portion of the MSJC Site is vegetated with a mosaic of Riversidean sage scrub, grassland, and water habitats generally sloping from northwest to southeast, following the typical drainage characteristics of the City. There are two drainage features that traverse the MSJC Site from the northwest, primarily from Westward and Sunset Avenues. Pershing Creek crosses Sunset Avenue from the west. Due to the meandering course of this drainage, the MSJC Site encroaches onto this feature.

A review of the MSJC Site using the Western Riverside County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Conservation Summary Generator indicates that the MSJC Site is not within designated survey areasfor Criteria Area Plant Species or Amphibians but that it is within designated survey areas for the following species:
 Burrowing Owl: The MSJC Site is located within the MSHCP designated burrowing owl (Athene cunucularia) survey area. Mapped vegetation in the area shows most of the site is non‐native grassland and therefore potentially provides suitable habitat on site for burrowing owl.  Narrow Endemic Plants: The MSJC Site is located within a MSHCP designated Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for two species: Marvin’s (Yucaipa) onion (Allium marvinii) and many‐stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis). Vegetation communities mapped by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) (2021) within the MSJC Site includes Riversidean sage scrub habitat and soils include sandy loam both attributes potentially provide suitable habitat for these two species.

The MSHCP Information Tool indicates that the entire MSJC Site lies within the NEPSSA for Marvin’s (Yucaipa) onion and many stemmed dudleya. Although these plant species have an affinity for clay soils, they are not clay obligates. Suitable habitat and/orsoils on site are consistent for both plants to occur, although there are no many‐stemmed dudleya records in the area.

Historic records for the Marvin’s onion occur less than a mile from the MSJC Site on soils not mapped as clay. Neither species has been observed during past survey efforts on neighboring properties.
477

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
8‐8
 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse: A portion of the MSJC Site is located within the survey area for Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus). This species is classified as a ‘Species of Special Concern.’ It prefers sandy soils for burrowing within coastal sage scrub and similar habitats in Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. It is nocturnal and active late spring to early fall. Suitable conditions for the species appear to be present on site.  Riparian Birds: Existing drainage features on site may potentially provide habitat for riparian bird species such as the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus), or the yellow‐billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus).  Fairy Shrimp: Based on the “desktop reconnaissance” conducted for the MSJC Site, a habitat assessment and focused survey(s) for fairy shrimp will need to be conducted during wet season surveys initiated at first storm of fall season and during dry season surveys on pools identified during the wet season to determine the suitability of habitat found on the site. Surveys will need to be conducted at the beginning of the development planning for the residential units on the MSJC Site.
 Nesting/Migratory Birds: The MSJC Site contains suitable nesting habitat for nesting songbirds and raptors protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and State code. These laws protect most nesting native bird species, both directly and indirectly, and impacts can be minimized or eliminated by conducting work activities outside of the breeding season.

As the MSJC Site has not been formally or thoroughly surveyed, development‐specific biological resource survey(s) are required prior to any ground disturbance. The City is a permittee under the MSHCP, there are requirements with which the City must comply concerning biological species.

Mitigation Measures in the General Plan EIR8 require compliance with MSHCP policies, including the conduct of species‐specific focused surveys (as appropriate) for burrowing owl, narrow endemic plants, the Los Angeles pocket mouse, and riparian communities/drainages. The specifics of potential biological resource impacts and level of required mitigation, if any, will not be known until required site surveys are conducted. MSJC Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐5 are applicable to any development of the MSJC Site. These measures require, 1) conduct of a habitat assessment and identification of required focused surveys, 2) completion of required focused surveys, 3) evidence the mitigation recommended or required in the focused surveys has been incorporated into project design and/or satisfied pursuant to review of the Regional Conservation Authority, 4) receipt of required regulatory permits, including the incorporation into the project design, those features and/measures identified and required by the permitting authority(ies); and 5) submittal of evidence that any drainages have been avoided and/or impacts to drainage features have been minimized to the extent feasible and that appropriate buffer area(s) have been established to appropriately separate on‐site drainage features from any subsequent development that may occur on the MSJC Site (Draft EIR Section 5.4.5.1).

The City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 15.72.050, details the purpose and procedures for adherence to applicable provisions of the MSHCP including habitat evaluation, implementation requirements for 8 City of Banning. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the City of Banning Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, Section III(F)(3).
478

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
8‐9
protection of riparian/riverine areas and narrow endemic species, conduct of required focused biologicalspecies, and compliance with MSHCP guidelinesfor urban/wildland interface. Chapter 15.72 requires the imposition of conditions or mitigation to ensure each project complies with the applicable biological resource protection polices detailed in the MSHCP. The implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐5 and the payment of required MSHCP fees ensures the effects of any subsequent development of the MSJC Site on MSHCP‐covered plants and wildlife, wildlife movement, riparian/riverine areas, and habitat connectivity and covered species would be fully mitigated due to the City’s status as a MSHCP permittee and the applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code; therefore, a less than significant impact would occur from development of the MSJC Site.

8.1.5 Cultural Resources
Impact Statement: Due to identification of elements associated with Barker Ranch (sites P‐33‐ 013778/P‐33‐009176), which existed on both sides of what is now Sunset Avenue, future development of the MSJC Site has the potential to affect previously undetected historic and/or archaeological material associated with Barker Ranch.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to cultural resources is discussed in Section 5.4.5 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the MSJC Entitlements would not result in a physical disturbance; therefore, the impacts to cultural resources from adoption of these entitlements would be less than significant. The City finds that subsequent development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses could potentially impact cultural resources; therefore, implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measure CUL‐1, including the application of Standard City Measures CUL‐1 through CUL‐6 as appropriate, would be necessary to reduce the potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. The City has determined the identified mitigation measures are feasible, required, and appropriate to reduce impacts to cultural resources resulting from the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site.

Substantial Evidence
The results of the records search conducted for the Development Project identified 68 previously recorded resources (one prehistoric isolate and 67 historic sites, buildings, and features) within one mile of the Development Site. Of the resourcesidentified within the recordssearch, one, P‐33‐009176, is located within the MSJC Site, at the southeast corner of Sunset and Westward Avenues. This site (P‐33‐009176 originally contained historic buildings associated with a ranch complex tied to the Barker Ranch, which extended across Sunset Avenue into the Development Site. The records search additionally identified three previous studies that explicitly included the MSJC Site, and portions of the MSJC Site have been included in surveys conducted for other projects none of which identified any cultural resources within the site. However, these studies are older and would not be considered current for evaluating cultural impacts.

The MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in a physical disturbance; therefore, the impacts to cultural resources resulting from these actions would be less than significant. Subsequent development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses could potentially significantly impact undiscovered 479

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
8‐10
historic and archaeological resources. The specifics of potential cultural resource impacts and level of required mitigation, if any, will not be known until a site‐specific survey is conducted once a specific development project is proposed therefore, MSJC Mitigation Measure CUL‐1 isrequired. This measure requires preparation of a Cultural Resources Assessment by a Secretary of the Interior (SOI) qualified professional which would include, but not be limited to, (1) an updated archaeological recordssearch, (2) an intensive pedestrian survey of the MSJC Site, (3) an evaluation of significance of any cultural resources identified, and (4) the preparation of a Phase I report of the findings with recommendation and potential mitigation. Based on the outcome of any required cultural resource assessment, further compliance with the City’s standard cultural resource mitigation measures CUL‐1 through CUL‐6 (as detailed in Draft EIR, Section 4.5.6.1, page 4.5‐17 through 4.5‐19) may be required. These standard measures would, (1) require the retention of a qualified archaeologist during all ground disturbance activities and the conduct of a pre‐construction archaeological sensitivity training; (2) mandate development of an archaeological monitoring treatment plan; (3) establish a Native American monitoring agreement detailing the presence, extent, and authority of Native American monitoring during ground disturbance activities; (4) identify the notification process related to human burials; (5) establish a process for the treatment and disposition of archaeological or Native American cultural material (including human remains); and (6) ensure disclosure of all project‐related cultural data to consulting Native American parties. Implementation of these measures 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.

The MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in a physical disturbance; therefore, the impacts to cultural resources resulting from these actions would be less than significant. Subsequent development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses could potentially significantly impact undiscovered historic and archaeological resources or disturb human remains. Implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 would reduce the potential impacts to archaeological, and historical resources or human remains on the MSJC Site to a less than significant level.

8.1.6 Energy
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements and future development of the MSJC Site would result in no impacts concerning the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy resources, or conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements and future development of the MSJC Site related to energy resources is provided in Section 5.4.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that implementation of the MSJC Entitlements and future development of the MSJC Site would result in no impacts related to use of energy resources or conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, no mitigation is required.
480

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
8‐11
Substantial Evidence
As stated in Sections 4.6 and 5.4.6.2 of the Draft EIR, future use of the Project Sites would incorporate the most current energy efficient, energy conserving designs, and install required renewable energy features; adhere to vehicle fuel efficiency requirements; and install the fixtures, features and facilities meeting the energy efficiency requirements in effect at the time of development.

The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time. Therefore, the proposed MSJC Entitlements themselves would not generate any demand for energy resources. The MSJC Entitlements avoid the net loss of residential capacity and do notsignificantly increase residential capacity or unitsin the City, if at all. The MSJC Entitlements shift the entitlement for 1,146 residential units from the Development Site to the MSJC Site. Because the MSJC Entitlements would allow for up to 1,181 VHDR units on the MSJC Site, it is possible that 35 more units than currently planned for in the City could be added. Nevertheless, it is not anticipated that physical development of housing units on the site would increase impacts to energy resources or result in the inefficient use of energy resources differently than accounted for in current City planning documents.

Any construction on the MSJC Site would require energy for the transport of building materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, utility installation, paving, building construction and architectural coating, the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. Operational energy use is typically associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with a project. Any development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses would increase the demand for vehicle fuels, electricity, and natural gas over current uses.

The 2022 Energy Code (effective January 1, 2023) establishes specifications related to electric‐ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards. As such, the MSJC Entitlements would be subject to the 2022 standards or later, as applicable. Compliance with the standards would be confirmed by the City during the plan check process prior to permitting. It is anticipated that energy conserving requirements in the Building Code will continue to increase, thereby providing greater energy efficiency for residential uses. Adherence to established standards related to fuel efficiency, the incorporation of energy conservation measuresinto project design, and installation of energy efficient features is a required of any development in the City. Whether and how additional energy efficiencies would be incorporated into the design and operation of the VHDR units is unknown and speculative.

Minimally, it is reasonable to estimate that future development on the MSJC Site would not use energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or wasteful manner; therefore, no impact would occur.

In 2010, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) adopted Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code is updated on a regular basis, and the 2022 update became effective on January 1, 2023. The CALGreen Code establishes mandatory measures for residential and non‐ residential building construction and encourages sustainable construction practices in the following five categories: (1) planning and design, (2) energy efficiency, (3) water efficiency and conservation, (4) material conservation and resource efficiency, and (5) indoor environmental quality. Although the 481

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
8‐12
CALGreen Code was adopted as part of the State’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the CALGreen Code standards have co‐benefits of reducing energy consumption by residential and non‐residential buildings. The 2022 CALGreen updates include specific requirements for the installation of EV charging and solar facilities for residential and non‐residential buildings, including solar systems for multifamily buildings that are four stories or higher.

As established in Chapter 15.08.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, the City has adopted the CBC and CALGreen (and other relevant codes) “…for the purposes of prescribing regulations for erecting, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, improving, removal, conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment use, height, and area of building and structures.” Any future development on the MSJC Site would obtain electrical power from BEU which has a mix of generation sources in its renewable portfolio. In 2022, BEU maintained a renewable portfolio of 81.3 percent (2022), far exceeding the State’s target of 50% by 2030 (see Final EIR, Section 3.0, response to Comment A‐3‐64).

In addition, BEU is required to comply with SB 100’s requirement for a one hundred percent renewable portfolio by 2045. As required by BMC, it is reasonable to anticipate that any development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site would conform to applicable provisions of the CALGreen Code in effect at the time such development occurs; accordingly, the MSJC Entitlements and subsequent development of the MSJC Site would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, no impact would occur.

8.1.7 Geology and Soils
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlementsthemselves would not impact geology and soils(risk of loss due to earthquakes, seismic ground failure, or landslides, substantial erosion or loss of topsoil, unstable soil, expansive soil, or soils incapable of supporting septic tanks). Impacts from subsequent development of the MSJC Site would be less than significant (geologic) and potentially significant (paleontological).

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements relative to geology and soils is provided in Section 5.4.7 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in any physical changes to the MSJC Site and therefore no impact to geologic or paleontological resources would occur. The City further finds that development of the MSJC Site could result in significant impacts related to geology and soils. The City finds that the Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) identified in Section 5.4.7.2 which require, among other requirements, the future development project to prepare and follow the recommendations detailed in the MSJC Site‐specific geotechnical evaluation would ensure impactsrelative to seismic ground failure, fault rupture,seismic shaking, landslides, erosion or loss of topsoil, and unstable/expansive soil, would not be significant; therefore, no mitigation is required. The City finds that no impacts related to septic tanks or other alternative waste water disposal systems would occur from future development of the MSJC Entitlements because it is expected that future development on the MSJC Site would connect to the City’s sewer system.

The potential impacts related to paleontological resources resulting from development of the MSJC Site are addressed in Section 5.4.7.2 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in any impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic 482

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
8‐13
features. The City further finds that subsequent development on the MSJC Site could result in potentially significant direct impacts to paleontological resources within the Project site should such resources be discovered during Project‐related construction activities; therefore, Mitigation Measures MSJC Site GEO‐1 and GEO‐2, are required. The City further finds that no unique geologic features would be impacted by future development of the MSJC Site. The City has determined that these measures are appropriate and feasible as incorporated into the project and would avoid or reduce impact to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

Substantial Evidence
The San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately six miles northeast, and the active Banning Fault Zone, a branch of the San Andreas Fault Zone, is located approximately 1.20 miles northeast of MSJC Site. The San Jacinto Fault Zone is located approximately nine miles southwest of the MSJC Site. The nearest known active fault isthe San Gorgonio Fault Zone, to the north. Asthe San Andreas Fault Zone marks the boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates, the City and immediate area continuesto experience seismic activity, though no active or potentially active fault of “Alquist‐Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone or City designated Fault Hazard Management Zone is located within the limits of the MSJC Site. Per the City’s General Plan9 the MSJC Site is not located in an area with mapped faults or seismic settling potential. Furthermore, the liquefaction potential of the site is “low,”10 nor within an area of a known susceptibility for landslides.11 Due to the distance of large bodies of water from the MSJC, the possibility of seiches, tsunamis, and inundation due to failure of large water storage facilities is considered low. FEMA designated Flood Zone X traverses the MSJC Site in from Westward Avenue in a northwest‐southeast direction, while Flood Zone A12 associated with Pershing Creek is located along the southern boundary of the MSJC Site.13 As with the Development Project, any development based on the MSJC Entitlements would likely not occur within the natural drainages on the MSJC Site. No ponds, lakes, or other large man‐made open water retention features exist on or are adjacent to the MSJC Site.

An MSJC Site‐specific geotechnical investigation has not been conducted since no buildings or construction are proposed in connection with adoption of the MSJC Entitlements. The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time; however, residential development could be authorized on the site in the future following adoption of a specific plan. If future development is proposed, adherence to City regulatory compliance measure (RCM) GEO‐1 would require a project‐specific geotechnical evaluation prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer which identifies the geotechnical conditions of the MSJC Site and provides appropriate design, grading, and construction parameters required per applicable sections 9 City of Banning. 2006. General Plan, Geotechnical Element, Figures V‐2 through V‐4.   10   California Department of Conservation. 2023. Website: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/DataViewer/ (accessed May 11, 2023). 11   U.S. Geological Survey. 2023. U.S. Landslide Inventory. Website: https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/pps/ ebappviewer/index.html?id=ae120962f459434b8c904b456c82669d (accessed May 10, 2023). 12   Flood Zone X: 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard, areas of 1% chance of flood with average depth of less than one feet, or drainage areas of less than on square mile. Flood Zone A: 100‐year flood zone without base flood elevation.   13   Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Panel 06065C0816G, effective August 28, 2008.
483

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
8‐14
of the most current California Building Code. Any applicant for development on the MSJC Site would be required to provide evidence to the City Engineer that the site‐specific geotechnical conditions and recommendations identified in the geotechnical evaluation are appropriately incorporated into the grading plans, design and construction documents for any on‐site landform modification, structure, feature, or facility, and that the building plans and structural design conform to the requirements of the geotechnical evaluation and the City Municipal Code and the CBC.

A paleontological records search conducted for the Development Project extended one mile from the Development Site (inclusive of the MSJC Site). No fossil localities were identified within the one‐mile search radius. While the Quaternary sediments on the Project Sites have an “Undetermined” paleontological sensitivity, typically in western Riverside County, these sediments are assigned a High (High A or High B) paleontological sensitivity based on the well documented record of yielding important Ice Age fossils, such as large terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., bison, mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant ground sloth, short‐faced bear, saber‐toothed cat, and others). A potential exists that subsequent development of the MSJC Site would result in a significant impact to paleontological resources. MSJC Site Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 and GEO‐2 require preparation of a site‐specific Paleontological Resources Assessment. No known unique geologic features are present on the site; however, if during the preparation of the development‐specific geotechnical investigation a unique geologic feature is identified, the report would include recommendations to avoid effects resulting from impact to the potential unique geological feature. Furthermore, future development application would be required to provide evidence that the applicable recommendations identified in the assessment are carried out prior to and during ground disturbance activities.

8.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in any development activity that would generate GHGs, and their approval would not result in a conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation whose purpose is reducing GHG emissions, and no impact would occur.

Development of the MSJC Site would not significantly increase the number of units, residential capacity or population in the City beyond that previously forecast, and the clustering of units as VHDR over a smaller footprint located in the same area as the Development Site likely would result in fewer GHG emissions than if the residential units were constructed on the Development Site. In the absence of a project proposal for VHDR development on the MSJC Site, it would be speculative to estimate the project‐specific GHG emissionsthat may be associated with VHDR development, and the effectiveness of regulatory compliance and potential mitigation measures, cannot be determined. In the absence of the ability to conduct such assessment, potential GHG impacts resulting from future development of the MSJC Site may be significant.

Finding
Because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in development at this time, the City finds that no significant GHG impacts would result from adoption of the entitlements. The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements relative to GHG emissions is provided in Section 5.4.8 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that GHG emissions resulting from the development of residential uses on the MSJC Site cannot be accurately quantified at this time, that the City will require preparation of a project‐specific GHG analysis evaluating the potential for generating GHG emissionsthat would exceed an established 484

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
8‐15
GHG threshold, be considered cumulatively considerable, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Without a project‐specific analysis, the City finds it would be speculative to reach a significance conclusion about whether potential GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation, and whether any potential significant impacts could be mitigated to less than significant. In the absence of project plans, and based on the programmatic analysis, future development on the MSJC Site may result in a significant GHG impact but assessment of GHG impacts needs to be deferred to a project‐level analysis.

Substantial Evidence
Except for existing MSJC campus facilities, the majority of the MSJC Site is undeveloped and does not generate anthropogenic GHG emissions. Construction and occupation of any use on the MSJC Site would generate GHG emissions. However, moving 1,146 units of residential capacity from the Development Site to the MSJC Site does not represent an increase in number of residential units or increase in population beyond that previously considered by the City (or by extension SCAG), and clustering the units as VHDR in a smaller development footprint would likely result in fewer construction and operational GHG emissions. The potential to develop up to 1,181 VHDR units likely would not significantly increase GHG emissions above those produced by the 1,1,46 units already accounted for. Therefore, the operation of the residential units likely would not result in GHG emissions that were not already anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the proposed MSJC Entitlements and any VHDR development resulting from adoption or development of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in the relocation of residential uses to outlying portions of the City. The MSJC Site is located directly adjacent to the Development Site (east across Sunset Avenue), and it is reasonable to anticipate no substantial increase in the length of vehicle trips or a corresponding increase in GHG emissions from vehicle usage would result from the proposed MSJC Entitlements or any subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site that were not already anticipated from the original land use and zoning on the adjacent Development Site. Because specific plans for development, including a development footprint, are not part of the MSJC Entitlements, it would be speculative to estimate whether GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable under CEQA Guidelines section 16064.4, or compare potential GHG emissions from construction and operation, although they are likely to be less than if the residential units were constructed on the Development Site.

Without specific information about the development footprint and configuration of the residential units on the MSJC Site, the programmatic‐level analysis does not allow evaluation of whether future development of VHDR units on the MSJC Site would comply with existing plans and policies. A more specific analysis for GHG emissions from development of the MSJC Site will need to be conducted under CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) to assess GHG impacts. As appropriate, subsequent development would be subject to conditions and regulatory requirements that would reduce impacts related to the emission of GHG, and mitigation measures that would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible.
485

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
8‐16

8.1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements themselves do not propose physical development that has the potential to result in impacts related to hazardous materials or hazards; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Because the MSJC Site has not been formally surveyed for potential hazards resulting from on‐site conditions or assessed for potential risks from hazards that may result from future residential development, potential significant impacts may result from future development of the MSJC Site and mitigation is required.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to hazards and hazardous materials is provided in Section 5.4.9 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that because the MSJC Entitlements do not propose physical development on the Site at this time, there will be no significant impact related to hazardous materials, airport plan, emergency response plans, or wildland fires. The City also findsthat subsequent development of the MSJC Site with residential uses could result in potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and that implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measures HAZ‐1 through HAZ‐3 is required. These measures require the preparation of a project specific Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and the provision of evidence that the compliance measures identified in this report are satisfied, implemented, or incorporated into the design of any future residential uses (MSJC MM HAZ‐1 and HAZ‐2). The City finds that implementation of these measures would mitigate impacts to less than significant. Furthermore, MSJC MM HAZ‐3 requires the development of a project‐specific Fire Protection Plan, the incorporation of mitigation from and compliance with that plan, including incorporating required featuresinto the project design, and finds that this mitigation would lessen any potential impacts to less than significant. The City has determined the identified mitigation measures are feasible, adopted, and will reduce hazardous material/hazard impacts resulting from subsequent development of the MSJC Site to less than significant.

Substantial Evidence
The MSJC Entitlements themselves do not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time; however, residential development could occur at some future point in time. It reasonably can be anticipated that construction associated with future development could involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, such as vehicle fuels and fluids, which could be released should a leak or spill occur. 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, including compliance with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. It is further reasonable that future residential uses would use and store household hazardous materials (e.g., household cleaners, paints, fuel, etc.) and that future residents would use such materials in the manner prescribed by the manufacturer. Because adoption of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in the direct transport, storage, or use of hazardous materials, no impact would occur. Any future development proposal would be required to comply with applicable conditions of approval and regulatory compliance measures identified in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR that would be imposed, and the potential impacts from the transport, use, storage, and disposal or the release due to upset or 486

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
8‐17
accident of hazardous materials would be less than significant (Draft EIR Section 5.4.9.1). The MSJC Entitlements themselves do authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time; therefore, the entitlement actions would not result in use of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school. The MSJC campus is located on 8.3 acres of the MSJC Site, on which a school site is located. Hemmering Elementary School is located approximately 0.9 mile north (across I‐10). Unlike commercial or industrial development, residential uses do not generate, use, store, or transport large quantities of hazardous materials. During construction, typical hazardous materials in use include fuels, lubricants, solvents, architectural coatings, and similar substances. During occupation of residential uses, hazardous substances in use may include vehicle fuel, household cleaners, paint, and similar items. It is reasonable to conclude the use of any hazardous material during construction or occupation of any residential uses developed after adoption of the MSJC Entitlements would conform to legally applicable safeguards. Adherence to these safeguards would limit the release into the environment; therefore, no significant impact would occur.

The MSJC Site was evaluated via the SWRCB GeoTracker database, the DTSC‘s EnviroStor database, and the Cortese List for the purposes of identifying recognized environmental conditions or historical recognized environmental conditions. Based on the review of these databases, there are no known conditions on site that would represent a significant risk to public health or safety (e.g., on‐site storage, leaking tanks, approaching groundwater contamination plume) on the MSJC Site. The MSJC Site does not currently contain any recognized environmental conditions or historical recognized environmental conditions (Draft EIR, pg 5‐40). Any future residential development project proposed on the MSJC Site would be required to conduct project‐level review, including preparation of a project‐specific Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to confirm the presence or absence of any known or previously unknown hazardous materials sites on, adjacent, or within the reporting vicinity of the MSJC Site. MSJC Site Mitigation Measures HAZ‐1 and HAZ‐2 require the preparation of a project specific Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and the provision of evidence that the compliance measures identified in this report are satisfied, implemented, or incorporated into the design of any future residential uses, respectively. The implementation of these measures will ensure potential impacts related hazardous waste sites are reduced to a less than significant level (Draft EIR, pg, 5‐42).

The MSJC Site is located approximately 3.0 miles west of the Banning Municipal Airport. As the MSJC Site is located outside the boundaries of any Airport Influence Area or Height Review Overlay established for Banning Municipal Airport, no airport hazard to future residential uses on the MSJC Site would occur (Draft EIR, pg, 5‐43).

According to the City’s General Plan Emergency Preparedness Element, the City does not have established evacuation routes for major emergencies such as wildfire. Sunset Avenue is an important point of access to I‐10, while Westward Avenue provides access east to San Gorgonio Avenue/SR‐243 and its interchange with I‐10. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan outlines the operations of the City of Banning Emergency Operations Center, which is the central management entity responsible for directing and coordinating the various City departments and other agencies in their emergency response. Any subsequent residential development would be reviewed by the City, which would require that site preparation, grading, and construction activities maintain appropriate access along local roadways or to surrounding properties. Review and approval of site‐specific plans by the City and Riverside County Fire Department would ensure all roadways and structures within the MSJC Site would be developed to applicable emergency accessstandards. Any development of VHDR uses would 487

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
8‐18
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 Site for emergency vehicles. Furthermore, such requirements would ensure appropriate access to/from any future residential development that conforms to applicable City and RCFD standards, and ensures impacts related to emergency access remain less than significant (Draft EIR Sections 5.4.9.2 and 5.4.20.2).

Adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements will not result in any construction of residential units or the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate wildfire risk. The MSJC Site is located within a wildlands urban interface, according to CalFire’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone map. Except for existing campus buildings and ancillary features, the MSJC Site is undeveloped, and the MSJC Site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and is designated as a non‐Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). While not located within an identified very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), the MSJC Site is located approximately one mile from two separate VHFHSZ areas and is located within a WUI. The construction and occupation of future residential uses on the MSJC Site could potentially increase the exposure of persons and/or property to wildfire hazards. As required by the City’s development review process, any such development would be evaluated for wildfire safety when a proposed for physical development of VHDR units is proposed to the City. Future proposals for development within the MSJC Site would be subject to adopted federal, State, and local development guidelines in existence at that time that govern wildfire, emergency services, and emergency access, including Chapter 8.16 of the City’s Municipal Code (which, as amended by the City, incorporates the current California Building and Fire Codes). To address the specific wildland impacts to the MSJC Site, a development specific Fire Protection Plan (FPP) will be required to identify the condition and wildland fire potential at the time MSJC Site development occurs (see MSJC MM HAZ‐3). Such an FPP Plan would conform to City and RCFD requirements. Adherence to these measures will ensure potential wildfire impactsrelated to potential future VHDR development on the MSJC Site are reduced to a less than significant level. Because adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements will not result in any physical changes on the site, no impact related to this issue will occur (Draft EIR Sections 5.4.9.2 and 5.4.20.2).

8.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site would not result in a significant impact related to hydrology or water quality.

Finding
The City finds that the MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in a physical disturbance; therefore, there would be no impacts related to hydrology and water quality. The City further finds that subsequent development of the MSJC Site may result in potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts. The City finds that for proposed future development, the Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) which require compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirement (MSJC Site RCM WQ‐1); preparation of a site‐specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and implementation of the design features identified therein (MSJC Site RCM WQ‐2)[ and preparation of a site‐specific site Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis and incorporation of the required drainage features cited in said study (MSJC Site RCM WQ‐3) would 488

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
8‐19
ensure impacts relative to hydrology and water quality fault would not be significant; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at thistime; however,residential development could be authorized in the future following adoption of a specific plan. Development of the MSJC Site after the proposed land use actions could potentially impact surface or ground water quality due to erosion related to earth disturbance activities and runoff from paved surfaces. Chapter 13.24 (Stormwater Management System) of the City’s Municipal Codes, requires the implementation of stormwater pollution prevention and control for construction activities. Review of project‐level construction plans by the City would, as appropriate, identify the specific project design features, or other conditions required to conform to the City’s NPDES program (MSJC Site RCM WQ‐1), including preparation of a SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and implementation of construction BMPs (MSJC Site RCM WQ‐2), and preparation of a site‐specific Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis (MSJC Site RCM WQ‐3). These are standard regulatory compliance measures required of all development in the City to reduce the potential for violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction, or significant impacts from construction and development; therefore, the impact from future development of VHDR would be less than significant (Draft EIR, pg 5‐46).

The City’s primary water supply is groundwater. While the proposed MSJC Entitlements will allow the development of up to 1,181 residential units on the MSJC Site, it must be noted that this residential water demand has previously been anticipated under the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and is included in the WSA prepared for the Development Project. Both documents show sufficient water supplies for development of up to 1,181 residential units that may result from adoption and development of the MSJC Entitlements. The WSA calculates water supply for the maximum 1,181 residential units at 734 AFY, and sufficient 20‐year supplies in normal, dry, and multiple dry years to serve these units if the MSJC Site is ultimately developed. Therefore, development of the MSJC Site per the proposed land use actions would not significantly deplete groundwater. Future development of the MSJC Site would conform to the design features and BMPs identified in a site‐specific WQMP (see MSJC Site RCM WQ‐2). It is reasonable to anticipate that these features, incorporated into the design of any future residential development on the MSJC Site, will include retention featuresto allow the continuation of appropriate amount infiltration on the MSJC Site; therefore, no significant interference with groundwater recharge would result from adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site (Draft EIR Section 5.4.10.2).

Two drainage features traverse the MSJC site from the northwest, primarily from Westward and Sunset Avenues. Pershing Creek crosses Sunset Avenue from the west. A smaller, secondary drainage course enters the property from a storm drain outlet located approximately 400 linear feet east of the intersection of Sunset and Westward Avenues and joins Pershing Creek approximately 700 feet south of the MSJC Site. Based on the FEMA maps for the City of Banning (FIRM Panels 06065C0816G and 06065C0817G), Pershing Creek is located in Flood Hazard Zone A. Flood Hazard Zone A areas are subject to inundation by the 1‐percent‐annual‐chance flood event. Per the FIRM Panels, the unnamed drainage is identified as an “an area of undetermined flood hazard.” Pursuant to MSJC Site MM BIO‐ 5 (see Section 8.1.4 of these Findings), future development that may occur on the MSJC would avoid 489

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
8‐20
the on‐site drainages to the extent practicable, providing appropriate buffer areas to separate these features from any development. Future development’s contribution to future drainage and flooding impacts would be identified through a site‐specific analysis based on the type and location of said development. To ensure a thorough assessment of potential drainage related impacts, MSJC Site RCMs WQ‐2 and WQ‐3 require the preparation of a site‐specific Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis. As future development on the MSJC Site will require that the specific recommendations and design features identified in reports be incorporated into future development, it is reasonable to anticipate that potential water quality concerns regarding erosion and runoff/flooding concerns would be appropriately mitigated, and that design features implementing low impact development requirements(MSJC Site RCM WQ‐3) would minimize impacts from a potential flood impact such that the release of pollutants from a flood event also would be less than significant. However, since no development is planned because of City adoption of the MSJC Entitlements, no significant impact is anticipated from adoption of the proposed entitlements (Draft EIR, pg 5‐47).

As the MSJC Site is not located adjacent to or near the ocean, or enclosed closed bodies of water, it would not be susceptible to impacts associated with a seiche, or tsunami; therefore, no impact would occur (Draft EIR Section 5.4.10.2).

The MSJC Site is within the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board, which maintains a Basin Plan that designates beneficial uses for all surface water and groundwater within its jurisdiction and establishes the water quality objectives and standards necessary to protect those beneficial uses. Adoption of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in any physical impact to a water quality or applicable groundwater management plan. Residential uses that may occur on the MSJC Site after approval of the MSJC Entitlements could result in discharge of that have the potential to impact water quality. Development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses 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. Compliance with the measures and design features identified through MSJC Site RCMs WQ‐1 and WQ‐2 would ensure that future development of residential uses on the MSJC Site does not degrade or alter water quality, cause receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, no conflict with the Basin Plan would occur and impacts from future VHDR development would be less than significant. Since no development is planned as a result of City adoption of the MSJC Entitlements, no significant impact on a water quality control plan would result from adoption of the proposed entitlements (Draft EIR 5‐47 and 5‐48).

In January 2022, the San Gorgonio Pass Groundwater Sustainability Agency adopted14 the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin, which identifies projects and management actions to conserve water, capture stormwater, and recharge imported water. Apart from existing MSJC facilities, the site is undeveloped and permeable to groundwater infiltration. As development occurs on the MSJC Site, the permeable surfaces would be replaced with buildings and 14   San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. 2022. San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan, Appendix B, Noticing and Adoption Documentation. January. Website:
https://www.sgpgsas.org/wp‐content/uploads/2022/01/Final_SGPGSP_1230_2021‐web.pdf. 490

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
8‐21
paved surfaces, reducing potential recharge area. It is anticipated, subject to the design parameters of a site‐specific WQMP (see MSJC Site RCM WQ‐2) prepared for development on the MSJC Site, the MSJC residential specific plan project WQMP could identify retention of on‐site storm flows allowing for continuation of appropriate infiltration. The 2020 UWMP and Project WSA show sufficient water from all City supplies to serve up to 1,181 residential units if the MSJC Site is developed with these units, and the City’s 2020 UWMP accounted for water supply for these units. Therefore, it is not anticipated that future development of residential uses on the MSJC Site as contemplated by the MSJC Entitlements would significantly obstruct the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Gorgonia Pass Subbasin. In addition, since no development is planned as a result of City adoption of the MSJC Entitlements, no significant impact is anticipated from adoption of the proposed entitlements (Draft EIR, pg 5‐48).

8.1.11 Land Use and Planning
Impact Statement: As the MSJC Entitlements and any subsequent development that may occur pursuant to the MSJC Entitlements would not significantly divide any community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; therefore, no impact would occur.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to land use/planning is provided in Section 5.4.11 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that neither adoption nor implementation of the MSJC Entitlements would result in significant impactsrelated to land use/planning; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
Any future development on the MSJC Site would likely front Westward Avenue, which will tie into the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension, ensuring continued access through the southern portion of the City.

The MSJC Entitlements provide for a continuation of the pattern of residential development along Sunset Avenue, north of Westward Avenue, and further east along Westward Avenue. No significant division of a community or incompatibility with existing residential uses would result from approval of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site (Draft EIR, pg 5‐51).

The MSJC Entitlements themselves do not include the development of residential uses, though VHDR residential development could occur on the MSJC Site atsome future point in time following adoption of the required specific plan. The City’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1 requires the City provide a range of housing densities while considering land use compatibility with non‐residential land uses. The proposed MSJC Entitlements will change the current general plan and zoning designation of the MSJC Site from Public Facilities to Very High Density Residential, allowing a minimum capacity of not less than 1,146 residential units and a maximum of 1,181 units. The MSJC Entitlements would allow the potential development of very high‐density residential units that will provide greater diversity of housing across income levels and housing types including affordable housing opportunities. The MSJC Entitlements ensure no net loss of residential capacity in the City and provide alternative housing opportunities for a broader segment. The proposed entitlements or any subsequent development that may occur on the MSJC Site would not be inconsistent with this 491

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
8‐22
policy. In addition, the MSJC Entitlements would be consistent with the nearby residential development, the school use currently on the site, and the commercial development and job opportunities afforded by the commercial and industrial development on the Development Site and consistent with this policy. The City’s General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2 requires that projects adjacent to existing neighborhoods be carefully reviewed to assure that neighborhood character is protected. Existing single‐family residential neighborhoods are located north of Westward Avenue and further west along Westward Avenue. The RSG project, an 831‐acre master planned community located south of the MSJC Site, aims to provide up to 3,385 residential units of variety of residential densities, lot types and housing types is located directly south of the MSJC Site. Areas within the RSG project adjacent to the MSJC Site are planned for Medium High Density Residential (18.0 units/acre) residential uses and Neighborhood Commercial uses. Under the RSG project, MHDR residential use may include duplex, row townhome, attached cluster, and multi‐family flat products.15 (See Draft EIR, pg 5‐51.) The density of proposed residential uses on the MSJC site issimilarto that previously planned and approved for the RSG project located south and east of the MSJC Site, and would be complementary to the existing campus uses, as well as the employment and commercial opportunities provided by the Development Project located west across Sunset Avenue. Therefore, adoption of the MSJC Entitlements orsubsequent residential development on the MSJC Site would be consistent with this Land Use Element Policy 2. Future residential development occurring on the MSJC Site would be accomplished through a specific plan. The required future specific plan would include a development framework for detailed land use, circulation, infrastructure including drainage, sewer, and waterfacilities, and urban design and landscape plans. Through itsreview by the City, the required future specific plan would be consistent with the zoning for VHDR residential districts which allows for clustered housing, open space, common area amenities, etc. The required future specific plan, reviewed and adopted by the City, would be subject to the guidelines established by a specific plan that would need to be approved consistent with applicable City policies for the creative and flexible design of residential project. Any subsequent development on the MSJC Site in conformance with the future specific plan would also be consistent with City General Plan policies and guidelines. Therefore, no inconsistency with City General Plan Land Use Policy 6 requiring creative and flexible design for residential development would result from the adoption of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site (Draft EIR, pg 5‐52).

8.1.12 Mineral Resources
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant impact to mineral resources.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to mineral resources is provided in Section 5.4.12 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that neither adoption nor implementation of the MSJC Entitlements would result in significant impactsrelated to mineral resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.
15   RBF Consulting. 2015. Rancho San Gorgonio Specific Plan. January. 492

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
8‐23
Substantial Evidence
The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site; however, residential development could be authorized in the future following adoption of a specific plan. The MSJC Site is mapped as MRZ‐3, though it can be reasonably inferred that mineral resources of importance to the region or State are not located on the site because: (1) a review of historic areas from 1966 onward does not indicate any evidence that mineral resources recovery has occurred on the MSJC Site, and (2) the State Mining Board does not designate the MSJC Site as a regionally significant Portland cement concrete (PCC)‐grade aggregate resource nor does the City’s General Plan designate the MSJC Site as a mineral resource land use designation that allows for mineral extraction.

No evidence suggests significant mineral resources are located on the MSJC Site and neither the State nor City has designated the site for mineral recovery. Therefore, approval of the MSJC Entitlements and any subsequent residential development would not impact the availability of a known or valuable mineral resource.

The Banning Quarry, operated by Robertson’s Ready Mix, is the only aggregate producer in the City.

This quarry is mined for rock,sand, and base materials used for concrete and construction. The quarry is located approximately 2.8 miles northeast of the MSJC Site. Adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the site would not conflict or interfere with a locally important mineral resource at the Banning Quarry or other mineral extraction site delineated on any City planning document.

8.1.13 Noise and Vibration
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in a physical disturbance or change of activity on the MSJC Site; therefore, no noise impacts would result from these actions and no impact would occur. No significant airport noise impact would occur to future residential uses on the MSJC Site. Subsequent development of the MSJC Site would generate a potentially significant increase in ambient and excessive vibration noise during construction, and a potentially significant increase in ambient noise from occupation of VHDR uses; therefore, implementation of mitigation related to potential ambient noise increase and excessive vibration is required.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to noise and vibration is provided in Section 5.4.13 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in a physical disturbance or change of activity on the MSJC Site, and no noise impact would occur. The City finds that subsequent development of the MSJC Site with VHDR use could potentially generate a significant construction or operational noise or vibration impact; therefore, implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 requiring preparation of project‐specific noise assessment and the submittal of evidence that any subsequent residential development project on the MSJC Site incorporates the features and measures necessary detailed in the assessment is required. The City has determined the identified mitigation measure is feasible, adopted, and will reduce noise impacts resulting from subsequent development of the MSJC Site to less than significant. 493

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
8‐24
Substantial Evidence
The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site, and none is proposed at this time; therefore, no noise impact would result from adoption of the MSJC Entitlements themselves. Future residential development could occur on the MSJC Site following adoption of a specific plan. The construction and occupation of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site would generate noise that may be perceptible at adjacent noise sensitive uses. Noise generated during construction is dependent on the type, duration, location, and intensity of use of construction equipment and will vary during development within the MSJC Site. Typically, construction noise levels would reach up to 85 dBA Lmax (82 dBA Leq) at 50 feet. Ambient noise levels at the corner of Sunset and Westward Avenues are 55.5 dBA CNEL. Construction noise would contribute 2.2 dBA to this level.

Such an increase would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment. In compliance with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code, construction activities would be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and the maximum permissible noise level for construction activities of 55 dB(A) can be exceeded only for intervals of more than 15 minutes per hour as measured in the interior of the nearest occupied residence or school.

Because the proposed MSJC Entitlements would not result in any physical development as a result of adoption, no generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the city would result and no impact would occur. As established in Table 4.13.U of the Draft EIR, traffic noise along Westward Avenue (east of Sunset Avenue) under the 2045 condition was estimated at

56.9 dBA CNEL, which would not exceed the City’s CNEL noise standard (65 dBA). Operation of future residential units on the MSJC Site would likely result in increased ambient noise levels related to use of equipment (e.g., landscaping or air conditioning. In the absence of a site‐specific project design, noise impacts associated with occupancy of the residential units that developed on the MSJC Site are unknown and are potentially significant. An existing 6‐foot‐high block wall along the northside of Westward Avenue would provide a minimum noise attenuation of 5 dBA of from traffic and on‐site noise generated from residential uses developed on the MSJC Site. No such wall currently exists at the existing campus facilities. MSJC Site Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 requires preparation of a project‐ specific noise and vibration impact assessment for City for review and approval. The project‐specific noise assessment would identify the measures and features necessary to reduce the levels of noise resulting from the construction and operation of any future residential development on the MSJC Site.

It is reasonable to anticipate the future residential development of the MSJC would conform to the mitigation identified and as required by the City (Draft EIR Section 5.4.13.2).

Because MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in development, no direct vibration impact would occur. The greatest level of potential vibration would occur during site preparation and grading of the MSJC Site. Depending on the type of equipment used during construction, typical levels of vibration may reach 94 VdB (0.210 PPV [in/sec],16 when measured at 25 feet from the source. This level of vibration would likely exceed the community annoyance threshold of 78 VdB for daytime residences and school uses. This level of community annoyance typically occurs only with the use of vibratory rollers during roadway paving operations, which are temporary and intermittent. Other pieces of construction equipment at the closest building structure would generate lower vibration levels and receptors would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away. The 16   Vibration resulting from Vibratory rollers (see Table 4.13.V in Section 4.13 of the Draft EIR). 494

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
8‐25
nearest sensitive receptors are the existing residential structures north of Westward Avenue (50 feet north) and the existing MSJC campus, which is immediately adjacent to the undeveloped portion of the MSJC Site. In the absence of a site‐specific project design, vibration impacts resulting from operation of construction equipment are unknown. As required by MSJC Site MM NOI‐1, a project‐ specific noise and vibration impact assessment would be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval for any proposed development. The rubber tires and suspension systems of on‐ road vehicles typically provide vibration isolation; therefore, high levels of vibration (e.g., from traffic) occurring during occupation of residential uses that may develop on the MSJC Site would be unusual.

The specific impacts of physical development of the MSJC Site would need to be confirmed at the time of proposed development. It is reasonable to anticipate though that vibration levels generated from project construction activities and occupation of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site would be less than significant (Draft EIR Section 5.4.13.2).

The MSJC Site islocated approximately 3.0 miles west of the Banning Municipal Airport and more than

2.5 miles outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour established for the airport; therefore, future residential uses on the MSJC Site would not be exposed to significant levels of noise and no impact would result from adoption or implementation of the proposed MSJC Entitlements or subsequent residential development (Draft EIR Section 5.4.13.2).

8.1.14 Population and Housing
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant impact relative to population or housing.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements relative to population and housing is provided in Section 5.4.14 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in physical development of housing on the MSJC Site, and no impact would occur. The City finds that implementation of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in significant impactsrelated to population and housing; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would amend the General Plan land use designation and rezone 9.0 acres of High Density Residential and 64.5 acres of Medium Density Residential within the Northern Portion of the Development Site. This change in land use designation would result in the reduction of the City’s residential inventory by up to 1,146 units. To maintain compliance with applicable provisions of SB 330, the City has initiated a General Plan Land Use Amendment (GPA) and a change to the Official Zoning Map (ZC), to change the land use and zoning on the MSJC Site from PF–S to VHDR, with a density range of 18–24 dwelling units per acre. These changes would create a residential capacity of not less than 1,146 residential units, and up to 1,181 units on the MSJC Site, which offsets the reduction of residential capacity on the Development Site. No significant increase in the inventory of residential units, and therefore no unplanned increase in population, in the City would result from adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements or any subsequent development of residential uses on the MSJC Site. The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site, and none is proposed at this time. Any future development would require the 495

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
8‐26
connection/extension of infrastructure onto the previously undeveloped portions of the MSJC Site in order to serve the VHDR uses. The MSJC Site is surrounded by existing (north) and approved residential units(the RSG SP to the south), and the proposed Development Site, and would not require the extension of roads or utility facilities to or through an area where no such facilities current exist.

There are no residential structures or residents currently located either on the MSJC Site. While the proposed MSJC Entitlements would accommodate the subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site, as no persons reside on the property, neither the entitlements nor subsequent residential development would displace persons or housing.

8.1.15 Public Services
Impact Statement: No Impact to public services would result from adoption of the MSJC Entitlements; Impacts to public services resulting from future residential development on the MSJC Site would be reduced to below a level of significance upon payment of required DIFs and school impact fees.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements relative to public services is provided in geology and soils is provided in Section 5.4.15 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in any physical development of housing on the MSJC Site and would not impact public services. The further City finds that the Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) which require site development to provide evidence that applicable and appropriate Development Impact Fees and School Impact Fees are paid, would ensure impacts relative to the provision of public services are less than significant once VHDR units are developed on the MSJC Site, and that no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The proposed MSJC Entitlements do not increase the number of planned residential units in the City, nor would they result in an unplanned increase in the resident population. Rather, the proposed MSJC Entitlements transfer the residential capacity formerly located on the Development Site to a site located directly adjacent to (across Sunset Avenue) the Development Site.

New development in the City will require the funding of public services and facilitiesto meet the needs and expectations of the community. Chapter 15.68 (Development Impact Fees) of Banning’s Municipal Code identifies requirementsto fund required facilitiesfor fire and police protection facilities, general City facilities, traffic control features, parkland and park facilities, and wastewater facilities. California Education Code §17620 allows school districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project within its boundaries for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. Facilities planning is routinely conducted by the City and/or individual service providers to assess needs to maintain adequate service ratios and response times.

Currently, existing public service demand originating from the MSJC Site is limited to that provided to MSJC campus facilities. The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time; therefore, no direct increase in the demand for public services would result from approval of the MSJC Entitlements. However, residential 496

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
8‐27
development on the MSJC Site could occur in the future. The transfer of residential capacity from the Development Site to the MSJC Site does not represent a significant increase in the number of residential units or increase in unplanned population not previously accounted for in public facility planning or funding programs in City. The City prepared the Development Impact Fee Update Study to outline and update development impact fees (DIF) that are imposed on developments built in the City to fund public services. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future developments’ share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on development in the form of a DIF for Police Facilities, Fire Facilities, Parks and Recreation Facilities, General City Facilities, Wastewater Facilities, and Water Facilities.

Due to the adjacency of the MSJC Site to the Development Site, no increased delay in travel from existing fire protection providers is anticipated. As the City’s DIF program has already accounted for the population associated with the residential units on the Development Site, it is reasonable to anticipate that the fire protection fees established in the DIF program adequately provide for any demand for fire protection services that may result from the subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site. As the payment of these fees is required for any development in the City, it is reasonable to conclude no significant impact to fire protection service and facilities will result from the proposed development of the MSJC Site with residential uses. In addition, since no development is planned as a result of City adoption of the MSJC Entitlements, no impact on fire protection services is anticipated from adoption of the MSJC Entitlements (Draft EIR, pg 5‐62).

Due to the adjacency of the MSJC Site to the Development Site, no increased delay in police response would occur The City’s DIF Impact Study documents the impact fee for police facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet the City’s needs. The fee impact analysis identifies existing and future service population (residents plus workers) and existing and planned police facilities. The City may use the police facilities fee to pay for the debt service on the existing police facilities and/or for the construction or purchase of buildings, equipment and land that are part of the system of police facilities serving new development. As the DIF program has already accounted for the population associated with the units on the Development Site, it is reasonable to anticipate that the police facilities fee established in the current DIF program (or whatever DIF program is in effect at the time of proposed physical development of residential units) adequately provides for any increased demand for police servicesthat may result from the subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site. As the payment of police facility fees is required for any development in the City, a less than significant impact to police service and facilities will result from the future development of the residential units (Draft EIR, pg 5‐62).

The Banning Unified School District (BUSD) was operating over capacity in the 2022–2023 school year by 175 students(see Draft EIR, Table 4.15.A). Based on student generation rates detailed in the BUSD’s Fee Justification Report,17 existing residential uses on the Development Site would generate a student population of 419 students if 1,146 residential units are constructed, and 432 students if 1,181 residential units are constructed. The MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant increase in student population, as the proposed action merely transfers the residential capacity and the 17   The overall student generation rate is 0.3657 student per residential unit. Table VI, District Wide Student Generation Rates, Banning Unified School District Fee Justification Report for New Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development, SDFA, May 2020.
497

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
8‐28
corresponding potential increase in student population to a different site within the jurisdictional boundaries of the BUSD. The student generation associated with the proposed MSJC Entitlements and any subsequent development of VHDR uses has already been accounted for in the facilities and fee planning completed by the BUSD. The payment ofschool fees(as established and ratified by the BUSD) by the applicant for any future residential use developed on the MSJC Site, would provide full mitigation of potential impacts on school facilities that may result from development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site in the future (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65996). The proposed actions would not significantly increase the number of residential units within the jurisdiction of the BUSD, and with payment of school fees that are required of all development, no significant impact to school facilities would result from subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site (Draft EIR, pg 5‐63).

The City does not meet its current standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents; however, the MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant change in the number of residential units in the City since the units are only being transferred from the Development Site to the MSJC Site. As the proposed MSJC Entitlements would not result in the physical development of any residential units, no increase in the demand of park facilities would occur. Asisrequired with all projects, future residential development on the MSJC Site would be required to pay applicable per unit fees to provide for future park facilities, reducing the potential park impacts to a less than significant level (Draft EIR, pf. 5‐63).

The City’s general government facilities inventory consists of administrative space at City Hall, a corporation yard, and an animal shelter. These facilities serve both residents and businesses.

Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including existing and future residents and workers. The proposed MSJC Entitlements do not significantly increase the number of residential unitsin the City, nor would they result in an unplanned increase in the resident population. The City’s Development Impact Fee Update Study documents the impact fee for general city facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet City needs. As the DIF program has already accounted for the population associated with the units on the Development Site, it is reasonable to conclude the fee for government facilities established in the DIF program adequately provides for any increased demand for these facilities.

Furthermore, as the payment of DIF fees is required for any development in the City, it is reasonable to conclude no significant impact to government facilities resulting from physical development of residential units on the MSJC Site would occur (Draft EIR Section 5.4.15.2).

The Banning Library District (BLD), a California Special District, is funded by property tax revenue. The annual estimate of costs of BLD operations is furnished to Riverside County and the tax required to fund library functions is computed, entered upon the tax rolls, and collected in the same manner as County taxes are computed and collected. All money collected is sent to County treasury to the credit of the BLD. The proposed actions would not alter this funding mechanism; therefore, no significant impact would result from the subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site, and no impact would result from the proposed adoption of the MSJC Entitlements (Draft EIR, pg 5‐64).

8.1.16 Recreation
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant impact relative to the provision of recreation facilities or services.
498

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
8‐29
Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements relative to recreation facilities is provided in Section 5.4.16 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in the development of housing on the MSJC Site, and no impact to recreation would occur. The City finds that with compliance with MSJC Site RCM REC‐1, implementation of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in significant impacts related to recreational facilities or services; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site at this time; therefore, no increased demand for recreation facilities would occur.

The City’s General Plan identifies a standard of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Population estimates from July 2022 indicate the population of Banning is 30,683 residents. As the MSJC Entitlements merely move the location where residential development could occur; the transfer of residential capacity from the Development Site to the MSJC Site would not cause an unplanned increase in residential units or population in the City that was not previously accounted for in planning or funding programs for park and/or recreation facilities. Chapter 15.68 (Development Impact Fees) of Banning’s Municipal Code identifies requirements to fund required public facilities, including parkland and recreation facilities. Any future residential development project on the MSJC Site would be required to pay applicable per unit development impact fee (DIF) to provide for future parks and park services, and no significant impact from the VHRD development would occur.

As no specific development for the MSJC Site is proposed at this time, it is not known if public recreation facilities will be provided on the MSJC Site. As permitted by the City, future development on the MSJC Site may dedicate and/or improve on‐site areas for public recreation purposes. The extent to which any such on‐site dedication/improvement exempts development from or lessens the amount of payment of required park fees would be determined at the time a development proposal for the MSJC Site is provided to the City. Compliance with dedication requirements or payment of required park fees would ensure demands on recreation facilities resulting from development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site would not be significant.

8.1.17 Transportation
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlement themselves would not result in activity that would cause a physical change in the environment or any transportation‐related impact. Future development of the MSJC Site Due to the unknown nature of subsequent development of the MSJC Site, there is a potential the development of VHDR uses may result in a significant transportation impact under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 and mitigation could be required.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements relative to transportation is provided in Section

5.4.16 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in physical development on the MSJC Site, and no transportation impacts would occur. The City finds that while transportation impacts from future development of the MSJC Site are not fully known, 499

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
8‐30
there is a potential that transportation impacts may occur under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

The City finds that implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measures TRA‐1, requiring the study of development‐specific impacts and identification of appropriate measure to reduce any significant impacts, is required. The City further determines this mitigation is feasible, required, and appropriate to reduce transportation impacts associated with subsequent development of the MSJC Site.

Substantial Evidence
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate measure of transportation impacts used in CEQA documents.

The City has identified a number of VMT screening criteria, which if satisfied on a project level, would result in a less than significant VMT impact. The development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site alone does not appear to meet these screening criteria, though this determination could change based on other factors such as if the future project includes affordable housing, provides on‐site uses (e.g., commercial/service uses) that reduce vehicle trips, includes connections to quality transit, or other criteria. Without a specific development proposal, it is not possible to determine if any future development of residential units on the MSJC Site could satisfy any of the City‘s VMT screening criteria. The screening of any future VMT impact would be conducted when an application for development physical development of the site is proposed. MSJC Mitigation Measure TRA‐1 requires the preparation of a MSJC Site‐specific traffic assessment and VMT analysis that identifies potential impacts and the appropriate and applicable measures to address potential traffic deficiencies and/or impacts resulting from development of the MSJC Site. However, while the proposed MSJC Entitlements would accommodate a transfer of residential density from the Development Site to the MSJC Site, this would not result in a significant increase in residential units or unplanned population beyond that previously considered by the City in its development of its VMT Guidelines. The proposed MSJC Entitlements would not result in the movement of residential capacity to an area of the City that would substantially increase trip lengths (vehicle miles traveled) due to the proximity of the MSJC Site to the Development Site. Therefore, no significant impact on VMT would result from adoption of the MSJC Entitlements.

The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time; therefore, the MSJC Entitlements themselves would not increase traffic, congestion, or be inconsistent with the General Plan Circulation Element. Specific improvements may be required for any subsequent residential development on the MSJC Site. The type and location of required improvements would be determined through the preparation of a project‐specific traffic analysis. Any necessary improvements analysis may be funded through a combination of fee payments to established programs, construction of specific improvements, payment of a fair share contribution toward future improvements or a combination of these approaches. Funding programs may include: the Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program; City of Banning Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, and Measure A funds. TUMF is a regional mitigation fee program and is imposed and implemented in every jurisdiction in Western Riverside County. The City requires new development proposals to pay the requisite City DIF fees at the rates in effect when specific physical development is undergoing review, and the timing of fee determination and payment isspecified by City ordinance. Absent preparation of a study to assess potential transportation impacts from a specific VHRD proposal on the Site, it cannot be determined whether VHDR development could 500

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
8‐31
result in a significant impact or whether payment of required fees and compliance with City requirements would result in a less than significant impact with mitigation.

As no development of the MSJC Site is planned at this time, the proposed MSJC Entitlements would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and no impact would result. Any future development of the MSJC Site, like other development activity in the City, would adhere to applicable General Plan Circulation Element policies related to the design, installation, and maintenance of required circulation features, including those promoting or improving and/or accommodating pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access. Future development permitted on the MSJC would be reviewed on a project‐specific level for potential transportation‐related impacts. Required improvements or mitigation to address any impacts to roadways associated with development of the MSJC Site would be identified during such project‐specific review. Similarly, adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements is not a physical project that would alter any facility or inhibit the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. As subsequent residential development occurs, it is reasonable to City review of any future residential development proposed for the MSJC Site would ensure appropriate access to/from any future residential development conforms to applicable City standards. Therefore, no significant constriction of an emergency response plan or evacuation route would result from future VHDR development on the Site, and no impact would result from adoption of the MSJC Entitlements.

8.1.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements themselves do not include a physical component that has the potential to disturb or other impact tribal cultural resources; therefore, impacts resulting from approval of the MSJC Entitlements would be less than significant. Because the MSJC Site has not been formally surveyed and because physical development‐specific tribal consultation has not occurred, there is a potential that future development of the MSJC Site with residential units could impact Native American cultural resources and mitigation is required.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to cultural resources is discussed in Section 5.4.18 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in a physical disturbance, and therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources from adoption of these entitlements would be less than significant. The City further finds that subsequent development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses could potentially impact tribal cultural resources; therefore, implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measure CUL‐1, including the application of Standard City Measures CUL‐1 through CUL‐6 as appropriate, would be necessary to reduce the potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level. The City has determined the identified mitigation measures are feasible, adopted, and will reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources resulting from the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent development of the MSJC Site to less than significant.

Substantial Evidence
The City requested SB 18/AB 52 consultation from 31 Native American contacts on August 25, 2022, specifically identifying the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan Overlay 501

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
8‐32
for the MSJC Site. The City stated in its consultation request that these actions propose only changes to the City’s land use and zoning maps, no construction or physical alterations are proposed or will be authorized under the MSJC Entitlements. The City received two (2) responses to its consultation request. The Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI) acknowledged that the City only proposes the land use changes and that no construction or physical alterations would occur under these actions.

While the MBMI did not have comments, the Tribe noted that any construction or alterations proposed on the MSJC Site would be of interest to the MBMI under SB 18 and AB 52 because the MSJC Site islocated within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of 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.

While the records search did not identify any prehistoric resources in proximity to the MSJC Site, the site itself has not been formally surveyed. An 1856 plat map shows a north/south‐trending trail identified as an “Indian Trail” situated approximately 0.75 mile to the east. In addition, the presence of multiple natural sources of water in proximity to the MSJC Site, including Pershing Creek, elevate the potential for prehistoric resources in the area.

The adoption of the MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in a physical disturbance; therefore, the impacts to tribal cultural resources from adoption of these entitlements would be less than significant. The MSJC Site has been identified as an area of interest to the MBMI and a potential exists that development activities on the site may encountered previously unknown or undetected Native American cultural material. As established in MSJC Site MM CUL‐1, a site‐specific cultural resource assessment is required prior to the commencement of any on‐site ground disturbance on the MSJC Site. This measure requires preparation of a Cultural Resources Assessment by a Secretary of the Interior (SOI) qualified professional which would include, but not be limited to, (1) an updated archaeological records search, (2) an intensive pedestrian survey of the MSJC Site, (3) an evaluation of significance of any cultural resources identified, and (4) the preparation of a Phase I report of the findings with recommendation and potential mitigation. Based on the outcome of any required cultural resource assessment, further compliance with the City’sstandard cultural resource mitigation measures CUL‐1 through CUL‐6 (as detailed in Draft EIR, Section 4.5.6.1, page 4.5‐17 through 4.5‐19) may be required. These standard measures would, (1) require the retention of a qualified archaeologist during all ground disturbance activities and the conduct of a pre‐construction archaeological sensitivity training; (2) mandate development of an archaeological monitoring treatment plan; (3) establish a Native American monitoring agreement detailing the presence, extent, and authority of Native American monitoring during ground disturbance activities; (4) identify the notification processrelated to human burials; (5) establish a processfor the treatment and disposition of archaeological or Native American cultural material (including human remains); and (6) ensure disclosure of all project‐related cultural data to consulting Native American parties.

In the event cultural material is identified prior to or during ground disturbance, procedures outlined in Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 to CUL‐6 will be followed, as appropriate. Therefore, any subsequent development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site is not expected to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource defined as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with 502

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
8‐33
cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).

8.1.19 Utilities
Impact Statement: No impact results from the adoption of the MSJC Entitlements. A less than significant impact related to the provision of utility services would result from any subsequent development of the MSJC Site.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to utilities and service systems is provided in Section 5.4.19 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that approval of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in physical development of housing on the MSJC Site, and no impact to utilities would occur. The City further finds that implementation of the MSJC Entitlements would not result in significant impacts related to utility and service systems; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
Existing public service demand originating from the MSJC Site is limited to that provided to MSJC campus facilities. The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time. Development of the MSJC Entitlements is not expected to significantly increase the number of residential units in the City because the MSJC Entitlements merely shift the location of their potential development from the Development Site to the MSJC Site.

The various utility providers have accounted for these units in existing demand/capacity. The MSJC Entitlements are not creating new demand, but merely slightly shifting where that demand will originate from. Because it is unknown when development of the residential units would occur, it is possible that utility demands and need for supporting infrastructure may change in the future. At the time actual physical development is proposed, improvements to water, wastewater, and stormwater conveyance facilities, electrical and natural gasinfrastructure, and telecommunicationsinfrastructure may be required. The type, manner, and location of any such improvements and/or connections would subject to development‐specific review by the City, and any required mitigation would be imposed at that time. It would be expected that such mitigation would cause any potential impacts to be less than significant. Because adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements will not result in any physical changes on the site, no impact related to this issue will occur (Draft EIR, pg 5‐75).

Per the Water Supply Assessment (Draft EIR, Appendix K), the maximum 1,181 VHDR units contemplated by the MSJC Entitlements would require a water demand of approximately 734 acre‐ feet/year (af/yr). This annual water demand can be sufficiently accommodated in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years (see Draft EIR, Appendix K, Tables 11‐13) as required by Water Code Section 10910 et seq., thereby, ensuring that no significant impact related to the provision of water would result from the development of VHDR on the MSJC Site. As required by the City of all development, connection fees and any other conditions or requirements for connecting to the City’s water system would be paid and/or satisfied after a formal proposal for physical development of the VHDR units is submitted to the City (Draft EIR Section 5.4.19.2).
503

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
8‐34
The MSJC Entitlements themselves would not impact wastewater facilities or the provision of wastewater services, as the transfer of residential density from one site to a different site would not generate any wastewater flows. The City’s Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) has a daily intake capacity of 3.5 million gallons of wastewater and is currently operating at an intake of 2.0 million gallons of wastewater per day. The wastewater generation rates for High‐Density Residential Uses is 1,260 gallons/day per acre (gpd/ac).18 Using this generation rate, wastewater flows from developed uses on the MSJC Site would total approximately 61,992 gallons per day (gpd), or approximately four percent of the of the City’s current surplus wastewater treatment capacity. It is reasonable to anticipate that future residential development on the MSJC Site would not exceed the current City wastewater treatment capacity.19 Therefore, no significant wastewater treatment capacity impact would result from the development of VHDR uses on the MSJC Site (Draft EIR, pg 5‐76).

The City contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for solid waste collection service from residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City limits. Three landfills serve the City: Badlands Sanitary Landfill, Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, and El Sobrante Landfill. These landfills have a maximum combined permit capacity of 79.6 million tons of solid waste, and a combined remaining capacity of

38.8 million tons (10,200 tons per day). Based on an actual generation rate20 of 5.6 pounds/day/ person, approximately 8.27 tons of solid waste per day conservatively could be generated if VHDR uses are developed on the MSJC Site at some future point in time. This level of waste represents

0.08 percent of currently permitted daily throughput at receiving landfills(see Draft EIR, Table 4.19.F).

The City’s per capita disposal rate (5.6 pounds/day/person) is below the target of

6.1 pounds/person/day for residents and 30.4 pounds/person/day for employees established by CalRecycle. The City is in compliance with goals and State mandates for solid waste disposal, collection, and diversion. Household waste recycling services are also provided through the City to comply with State‐mandated solid waste reduction goals. Because adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements will not result in any physical changes on the site or generate solid waste, no impact related to this issue will occur. Subsequent development of the MSJC Site with residential uses would not exceed receiving landfill capacity impair the attainment of local or State solid waste reduction goals; therefore, a significant solid waste impact would not result from future development of VHDR on the MSJC Site (Draft EIR Section 5.4.19.2).

8.1.20 Wildfire
Impact Statement: The MSJC Entitlements would not result in physical development of the MSJC Site, and would notsubstantially impair an emergency evacuation plan, exacerbate wildfire risks, or expose people or structures to significant risks from post‐fire slope instability. Therefore, impacts resulting from adopting the MSJC Entitlements would be less than significant. Because the type, density, and 18   City of Banning. 2018. City of Banning 2018 Integrated Master Plan (IMP) Final Report, Chapter 3, Table 3.19 Wastewater Flow Factors, page 3‐28. 19   The City’s Integrated Master Plan includes assumptions for development of residential units previously proposed as part of the Five Bridges Project (which is located within the limits of the current Development Site).   20   California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). n.d. Jurisdiction Diversion/ Disposal Rate Detail, Jurisdiction: Banning, County: Riverside, Reporting Year: 2021. Website:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/slcp/capacityplanning/recycling/Jurisdiction DiversionDetail?year=2021&jurisdictionID=34 (accessed May 31, 2023). 504

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
8‐35
configuration of future development on the MSJC Site is not known, there is a potential that future development of the MSJC Site with residential units could potentially be impacted by wildfire; therefore, mitigation is required.

Finding
The programmatic analysis of the MSJC Entitlements related to wildfire is provided discussed in Section 5.4.20 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the MSJC Entitlements would not result in physical development of or changes on the MSJC Site, and no wildfire related impacts under CEQA Guidelines Appendix G XX would occur. The City finds that subsequent development of the MSJC Site with VHDR uses could potentially be impacted by wildfires; therefore, implementation of MSJC Mitigation Measure WLD‐1 and WLD‐2 requiring the preparation of a development specific Fire Protection Plan and submittal of evidence that subsequent development follows the provisions of said plan are necessary. The City has determined the identified mitigation measures are feasible, required, and appropriate to reduce impacts from wildfire resulting from subsequent development of the MSJC Site to less than significant.

Substantial Evidence
With the exception of existing campus buildings and ancillary features, the MSJC Site is undeveloped.

The MSJC Site is located within a Local Responsibility Area and is designated as a Non‐Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (see Draft EIR, Figure 4.20‐1). Due to its location and adjacency to undeveloped areas, the MSJC Site is located in a wildland‐urban interface (WUI). The adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements themselves will not result in any a physical project that would alter any facility or inhibit the City’s Emergency Operations Plan; and no impact related to this issue will occur.

According to the City’s General Plan Emergency Preparedness Element, the City does not have established evacuation routes for major emergencies such as wildfire. Sunset Avenue is an important point of access to I‐10, while Westward Avenue provides access east to San Gorgonio Avenue/SR‐243 and its interchange with I‐10. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan outlines the operations of the City of Banning Emergency Operations Center, which is the central management entity responsible for directing and coordinating the various City departments and other agencies in their emergency response. Any subsequent residential development would be reviewed by the City, which would require that site preparation, grading, and construction activities maintain appropriate access along local roadways or to surrounding properties. Through the review and approval of site‐specific plans by the City and Riverside County Fire Department would ensure all roadways and structures within the MSJC Site would be developed in applicable emergency access standards. Any development of VHDR uses 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 Site for emergency vehicles.

Furthermore, such requirements would ensure appropriate access to/from any future residential development conforms to applicable City and RCFD standards, ensure impacts related to emergency access remain less than significant (Draft EIR, p, 5‐78).

The application for MSJC Entitlements does not authorize any development on the MSJC Site and none is proposed at this time. While not located within an identified very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), the MSJC Site is located approximately one mile from two separate VHFHSZ areas and is located within a WUI. The construction and occupation of future residential uses on the MSJC Site could potentially increase the exposure of persons and/or property to wildfire hazards. As required 505

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
8‐36
by the City’s development review process, any such development would be evaluated for wildfire safety when a proposed for physical development of VHDR units is proposed to the City.

Future proposals for development within the MSJC Site would be subject to adopted federal, State, and local development guidelines in existence at that time that govern wildfire, emergency services, and emergency access, including Chapter 8.16 of the City’s Municipal Code (which, as amended by the City, incorporates the current California Building and Fire Codes). Furthermore, the City adopted the Multi‐Hazard Functional Guidance document in 1996 and the Emergency Operations Plan in July 2007 (updated in 2012) both of which provide guidance for residents, City emergency responders, and businesses in the event a man‐made or natural emergency occurs within the City or threatensthe City.

Future development within the RSG project located directly south of the MSJC Site, may alter the nature of fuel and wildland fire potential, fire behavior, and the potential for exposure to wildfire pollutants on the MSJC Site. Should development on the RSG project proceed in advance of MSJC Site development, fuel modification zones stipulated in the RSG project would provide buffer any future MSJC Site development. To address the specific wildland impacts to the MSJC Site, a development specific Fire Protection Plan (FPP) will be required to identify the condition and wildland fire potential at the time MSJC Site development occurs. Such a FPP Plan would conform to City and RCFD21 requirements. This requirement is detailed in MSJC Site MM WLD‐1. Furthermore, MSJC Site MM WLD‐2 requires the submittal of evidence that the protective features and preventative measures are fully and appropriately implemented into the design and construction of any development occurring on the MSJC Site prior to the issuance of construction permits. Adherence to these measures will ensure potential wildfire impacts related to potential future VHDR development on the MSJC Site are reduced to a less than significant level. Because adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements will not result in any physical changes on the site, no impact related to this issue will occur (Draft EIR Section

5.4.20.2).

Adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements will not result in any construction of residential units or the installation of infrastructure that would exacerbate wildfire risk. Utility and infrastructure improvements required to facilitate residential development of the MSJC Site would include water, wastewater, drainage, roadway, and electrical transmission features. A new circulation system internal to the MSJC Site and connectionsto adjacent roadways would be provided. Utilities, including waterfacilities,sewerfacilities,storm drain lines, and powerlines would be modified and/or extended throughout the MSJC Site. All utility lines, pipes, utility junction boxes, and transformers would be located underground and would not exacerbate fire risk. Design and implementation of utility and roadway improvements on the MSJC Site would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Public Works Department as part of the development review, ensuring any proposed uses are compliant with all applicable fire codes, design standards, and regulations. Compliance with these standards would ensure a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR Section 5.4.20.2). 21   To include compliance with applicable portions of the Riverside County Fire Code (Chapter 8.32 of County’s Code of Ordinances) and Ordinances No. 460 and No. 787‐9, and the City of Banning’s Fire Protection Code (Chapter 8.16 of the City’s Municipal Code). where the Riverside County Fire Code and Banning Fire Protection Code differ, the most restrictive requirements are typically implemented. 506

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
8‐37
Adoption of the proposed MSJC Entitlements will not result in any exposure of people or structures to post‐fire risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, slope instability, or drainage changes. Design and implementation of improvements on the MSJC Site would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Public Works Department as part of the development review, ensuring any proposed uses are compliant with all applicable fire codes, design standards, and regulations.

Compliance with these standards would ensure a less than significant impact would occur.

507

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
8‐38
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
508

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
9‐1

9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The cumulative impacts of the Project are analyzed in Chapter 6.0 of the Draft EIR. Asstated in Chapter

6.0, the Project is comprised of the following components:
a. The Development Project, consisting of the proposed commercial and industrial development of a 533.8‐acre property (Development Site) located in part in the City of Banning (City) and in part in the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) in unincorporated Riverside County (County), California, which is proposed to be entitled through, among other things, adoption of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and a City project for a reverse osmosis facility on the Development Site that is analyzed in this EIR; and
b. The Mt. San Jacinto College (MSJC) Entitlements, pursuant to which the City proposes to rezone an approximately 41 ‐acre property located adjacent to the Development Site, east of Sunset Avenue and south of Westward Avenue and owned by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District22 (MSJCCD) (MSJC Site) to very high‐density residential development, creating capacity for up to 1,181 housing units to ensure no net loss of residential capacity asrequired under State law.

Because the MSJC Entitlements propose no development and would not result in physical changes to the environment and would only allow for the potential future development of the MSJC Site, no physical environmental impacts, and thus no cumulative impacts, would result from the MSJC Entitlements action. However, buildout is anticipated by 2045, and the cumulative impacts, if any, that could occur with future physical development of the MSJC Site are considered in this chapter.

The impacts associated with the construction and operation of the Project are addressed in Chapter

4.0 (Development Project) and Chapter 5.0 (MSJC Entitlements) of the Draft EIR. The Development Project and the MSJC Entitlements are referred to collectively in the EIR as the Project, and the Development Site and MSJC Site are collectively referred to as the Project Sites. The cumulative impact analysis considered development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development as detailed in Table 6.B and Figure 6‐1 of the Draft EIR, including a number of planned developments in the cities of Banning and Beaumont that have been identified as cumulative projects. The list of cumulative projects was developed through consultation with planning and engineering staff from the City of Banning and the City of Beaumont which shares a common street network with the City of Banning and would generate traffic and contribute traffic to the study area intersections.

9.1 AESTHETICS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to aesthetics.
22   In collaboration with the Beaumont Unified School District, MSJC is housing the Beaumont Middle College High School at the San Gorgonio Pass Campus. The middle college high school is designed to raise graduation rates, prepares students for transfer to a 4‐year institution or an associate degree, and serves underrepresented students.
509

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
9‐2
Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to aesthetics are discussed in detail in Section

6.5.1 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The Project’s potential to result in cumulatively considerable visual quality impacts would be limited locally to the City of Banning and immediate adjacent areas of unincorporated Riverside County. The Project and related public facility projects (i.e., the SLB Extension) would occur in the same general area as the Project and are not likely to be separately discernable. Other construction activities associated with the cumulative projects would be of limited duration and scale; would be dispersed throughout the City or in the City of Beaumont, and would likely not occur simultaneously; therefore, it is reasonable that construction activity itself would not result in cumulative aesthetic impacts.

With respect to scenic resources in the viewshed of the Project and the cumulative projects, the Caltrans Scenic Highway Program identifies State Route 243 (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.23 At lower elevations, views of the Project Sites and the cumulative projects are either limited or obscured from SR‐243. From higher elevations along SR‐243, expansive views of the cumulative area would be visible. While cumulative development would be visible, the extent of other projects relative to viewshed available from SR‐243 is limited; therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Due to the topography, the intervening presence of existing development and landscaping, and the visual barrier of I‐10, views of the cumulative project area are generally limited. The City has not designated any portion of the Development Site or the MSJC Site as a scenic resource. Future development within the viewshed of I‐10 will continue to expand as structures, infrastructure, and lighting associated with the Project and cumulative projects are installed and occupied. The City’s General Plan EIR recognizes development activity will result in changes to the visual character throughout the City resulting from modifications to existing vegetation and topography, and the development of new structures/facilities. Any development in the City and the cumulative area would adhere to the applicable General Plan, zoning, and specific plan regulations and development standards, including those related to the design and orientation of buildings, amenities, landscaping, signage, and lighting, which would ensure the specific aesthetic impacts from cumulative projects are appropriately addressed. Cumulative projects located in the City of Beaumont would likewise be required to adhere to the City of Beaumont’s applicable General Plan, zoning, and specific plan regulations and development standards to ensure the specific aesthetic impacts from cumulative projects are appropriately addressed. Future development within the viewshed of I‐10 will continue to expand as structures, infrastructure, and lighting associated with the Project and cumulative projects are installed and occupied. In addition, future development, including at the MSJC Site, would be required to undergo its own review pursuant to CEQA, which may require mitigation measures to 23   California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). n.d. Scenic Highways. Website: https://dot.ca.gov/ programs/design/lap‐landscape‐architecture‐and‐community‐livability/lap‐liv‐i‐scenic‐highways (accessed August 31, 2023).
510

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
9‐3
reduce aesthetic impacts. The General Plan and City Municipal Code would regulate design of the anticipated development of the Project and the cumulative projects within the respective cities; therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact to aesthetics when measured cumulatively with future development of cumulative projects. Additionally, the Specific Plan would regulate the design of the Project to be consistent with the guidelines and standards established in the General Plan and Municipal Code; therefore, the Project would not result in a significant aesthetic impact and its aesthetic effect is not cumulatively considerable. It is reasonable to anticipate that any development in the cumulative area would adhere to the applicable General Plan,zoning, and specific plan regulations and development standards, including those related to the design and orientation of buildings, amenities, landscaping, signage, and lighting, which would ensure the specific aesthetic impacts from individual projects are appropriately addressed.

To contribute to cumulative light or glare impacts, cumulative projects must be located in the same field of view as the Project. As such, impacts with respect to light and glare are typically localized. To the extent of the Project’s proximity to the cumulative projects or with respect to proximity of the Development Site and MSJC Site, there exists the possibility for the Project to result in a cumulative light and glare impact. As a project design feature, lighting on the Development Site would follow the standardsidentified in the Specific Plan (see Draft EIR, Appendix B, Sections 3.1 and 4.3.9). Any cumulative development would be required to comply with existing lighting regulations under the City’s Municipal Code Sections 17.12.170 and 17.24.100, or the provisions of their respective Specific Plans, which encourage the minimum amount of lighting required for safety and security, appropriate shielding of all lighting, the integration of lighting into buildings where possible, and the incorporation of features to confine light spread to the boundaries of a development site. As with the Project, potential light or glare generated by cumulative projects would also be regulated by City Municipal Code and design requirements and would not be anticipated to occur, and no cumulatively considerable impact would result.

As detailed in Sections 4.1 and 5.4.1.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project’s potential visualresource/aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. Section 6.0 of the Draft EIR identifies other planned developments in the City, including the Rancho San Gorgonio Specific Plan (RSG), Sun Lakes Village North (e.g., Banning Pointe) project (SLVN), and Butterfield Specific Plan (e.g., Atwell) (BSP. These cumulative projects are subject to the siting and design guidelines enshrined in their respective Specific Plans and/or the City code. The implementation of City design, siting, and development standards at a project‐level basis would ensure the incremental aesthetic effect of other projects would not be cumulatively considerable. The related public facilities are typical of public improvements in an existing urban environment, and development of these facilities would not directly or cumulatively adversely affect the visual character or obstruct view to, from or through the Sites.

9.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to agricultural and forestry resources.
511

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
9‐4
Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to agricultural and forestry resources are addressed in Section 6.5.2 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to agricultural or forestry resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The Project’s potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact to agricultural and forestry resources is limited to the City of Banning and Riverside County. No Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland (collectively Important Farmland), which CEQA identifies asthe types of farmland to assess in the Appendix G threshold of significance 1a, is located within the City of Banning or within adjacent areas of unincorporated Riverside County, or on the Project Sites, including within the alignment of the SLB Extension. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to the cumulative loss or conversion of Important Farmland to non‐agricultural use.

Neither the Development Site nor the MSJC Site are zoned for agricultural uses, or subject to the Williamson Act; therefore, the Project has no impact related to changes in agricultural zoning or Williamson Act designation. Accordingly, the Project would not have a significant cumulative effect on existing agricultural zoning/use and would not cumulatively effect Williamson Act lands.

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. Within the City there are 4,382 acres designated as Farmland of Local Importance, and the Farmland of Local Importance that will be developed as part of the Project is a small percentage of this total. Additionally, Riverside County contains approximately 221,201 acres of Farmland of Local Importance. Even if all of the cumulative projects were located on designated Farmland of Local Importance, loss of that acreage would be a small portion (1.9 percent) of the overall land designated as Farmland of Local Importance in the County. As detailed in the CEQA documents for the RSG, BSP, SLB Extension, SLVN, and other projects, those cumulative projects identified no impact related to agricultural and forestry resources or such impact has been determined to be less than significant; therefore, the incremental effects of the Project, when considered with the other projects cited in Table 6.A, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on Important Farmland.

The 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)). No land in the City is zoned for forestry uses or used for forestry/timberland production; therefore, no change to or conflict with such uses/zones would result from cumulative development in the City. In absence of any conflict or change, no cumulative impact would occur.

The Project would not involve other changes to the existing environment which, due to location or nature, could result in conversion of Important Farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. Therefore, the Project would not result in the indirect conversion of 512

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
9‐5
agricultural land to non‐agricultural use as a result of land use incompatibilities with adjacent land uses and no cumulative impact would occur.

9.3 AIR QUALITY
Impact Statement: The Project would result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts for construction (VOCs) and operational regional emissions for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Finding
Under applicable SCAQMD standards, a project that individually has a significant air quality impact by exceeding regional emissions thresholds would also be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative significant regional air quality impact. The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to air quality are addressed in Section 6.5.3 of the Draft EIR.

The City finds that the development of the Project would result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts due to an exceedance of pollutants in excess of established SCAQMD standards for VOC (both construction and operations), and NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 (collectively, for operations), and inconsistency with the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The City finds that project‐ related odors would be less than significant and there would not be a cumulatively considerable impact. With the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) AIR 1 through AIR‐4 and Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and Air‐2, the City finds that the Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to concentrations of localized pollutants during construction and operations, and emissions during Project construction and operations would not exceed the cancer risk and chronic hazard index thresholds with implementation of the above‐referenced mitigation.24 For these two impact areas, because the Project does not have a significant impact under the relevant SCAQMD guidance, it would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

Consistency with the AQMP is based on two criteria: (1) whether a project is consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts, which is based, in part, on the planned land uses in general plans of cities located within the SCAG region; and (2) whether a project would increase the frequency orseverity 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. The Project requires General Plan amendments for the Development Project. Therefore, the City finds that the Project is not consistent with SCAG’s growth forecasts, and is not consistent with the first criterion. Asidentified in Section 4.3 of the Draft EIR, the Development Project’sregional construction emissions would result in an exceedance of volatile organic compounds(VOCs) after the implementation of mitigation. Under a conservative analysis assuming concurrent construction and operation of each phase of the Development Project (Final EIR, Revised Table 4.3.M), emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants except for sulfur oxides (SOx). Because the Development Project exceeds the regional thresholds of significance for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5, the City finds that the Project is inconsistent with the AQMP and has a significant cumulative air quality impact. The City finds that the Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 AND AIR‐2, as revised in 24   A project specific air quality analysis for the MSJC Site would be required to confirm that SCAQMD RCMs would likely reduce potential impacts from construction and development of the VHRD uses to a less than significant impact.
513

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
9‐6
Final EIR, which are feasible, adopted, and will reduce cumulative 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 cumulative impact would result from construction and operation of the Project. The City finds that implementation of mitigation measures, compliance with RCMs, the Project’s emissions‐reducing design features and operational programs are consistent with and support overall AQMP air pollution reduction strategies.

Project support of these strategies would globally promote timely attainment of AQMP air quality standards and would bring the Project into conformance with the AQMP to the extent feasible.

However, the City finds that impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Relative to AQMP consistency, the City finds that exceedance of regional thresholds by the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable and significant impact.

Several comments on the Draft EIR identified new or modified mitigation to further address the Project’s significant air quality impacts. 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, herein; or 3) determined to be infeasible. Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2 (Draft EIR, pages 4.3‐35) have been revised, which reduced (to the extent feasible) the air quality impacts of the Project. See the Final EIR (Section 3.0, responses to Comments, D‐3‐56 and D‐6‐4).

Public comments also identified measures that were determined by the City to be infeasible; for example, the recommendation to restrict all trucks used on‐site to zero‐emission vehicles. While zero‐ emission heavy‐duty trucks are commercially available, the City finds that these vehicles are not available on a large enough scale to totally support Project operations; therefore, requiring exclusive zero‐emission vehicles is currently economically and technologically infeasible. Please see Findings, Section 5.1; Final EIR (Section 3.0, responses to Comment D‐6‐13).

The City finds that Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised in the Final EIR, are feasible, adopted, and will reduce cumulative 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 cumulative impact would result from operation of the Project. The City further finds that mobile source emissions that contribute to exceedance of thresholds ofsignificance are subject to regulationsthat control heavy‐duty truck emissions which are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. See Final EIR, Section 3.0, Response to Comments. 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 Project’s potential to result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts extends to the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The nonattainment status of a project with respect to regional pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment is a result of past and present development, and the SCAQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards. To facilitate attainment of those standards, the SCAQMD has developed a South Coast Air Basin plan based on planned development and regional, basin‐wide thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants which are 514

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
9‐7
needed to attain the Clean Air Act air quality standards. Non‐compliance with either is considered non‐compliance with an applicable plan and a significant project level impact. Project‐level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants also determine whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. Under the applicable standards established by SCAQMD, a project that individually triggers a significant air quality impact by exceeding regional emissions thresholds would also be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative regional air quality impact.

As detailed in Draft EIR, Section 4.3, with the implementation of Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) AIR 1 through AIR‐4 and Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, the Project was determined to have less than significant impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to concentrations of localized pollutants during construction (see Draft EIR, Tables 4.3.O and 4.3.P). Based on public comments received on the Draft EIR, a supplemental HRA (Final EIR, Appendix C‐4) was prepared assess the additional potential health risks from resulting from revised truck trip lengths and the operation of TRUs. As with the original HRA, the supplemental HRA determined that health risk impacts at the nearest sensitive receptor while higher, would still be substantially lower than SCAQMD health risk thresholds (see Final EIR, revised Table 4.3.Q). Construction and operation of the Project would not result in odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people, and accordingly, Project‐ related impacts associated with odors would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required (see Draft EIR, Section 4.3.6.4). For localized health risk impacts, because the Project does not have a significant impact under the relevant SCAQMD guidance, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact.

The Development Project’s regional construction emissions would result in an exceedance of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), NOX and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) before mitigation. With the exception of VOCs, construction emissions associated with the Development Project would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of revised Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 (see Draft EIR, Table 4.3.I); therefore, during construction, a significant and unavoidable regional cumulative air quality impact would occur. Other projects in the area, including the City’s Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension (SLB Extension), the electric substation, reserve osmosis facility, potable water reservoir, and/or Sunset Avenue Bridge may be under construction at the same time as the Development Project. However, construction of the SLB Extension and electrical substation would not result in the emission of pollutants in excess of regional or localized thresholds.

Such concurrent development would generate fugitive dust and equipment emissions that could result in substantial short‐term increases in air pollutants in the local area without mitigation. A standard requirement during construction is adherence to applicable SCAQMD rules governing the control of fugitive dust, the application of architectural coatings, and operation of construction equipment. These rules seek to eliminate project‐specific significant impacts resulting from emissions generated during development and would apply equally to the Project and the cumulative projects; therefore, the uniform implementation of these rules during construction would ensure construction impacts are not cumulatively considerable, with the exception of VOCs.

Under a conservative analysis where concurrent construction and operation of each phase of the proposed Development Project (Draft EIR, Tables 4.3.J through 4.3.M) occurs, emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants except for sulfur oxides (SOx). Despite implementation of 515

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
9‐8
the planned Project Design Features (PDFs) and revised Mitigation Measure AIR‐2 (which requires the implementation of all feasible measures to reduce operational impacts associated with the Development Project), emissions associated with operation of the Development Project would remain significant and unavoidable (see Final EIR, revised Table 4.3.N). Emissions from future operations of the MSJC Site cannot be calculated at this time, and therefore any contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is speculative. Because the MSJC Entitlements are part of the Project, the combined Project emissions also would be significant and unavoidable, and therefore cumulatively considerable.

Similar to the Development Project, despite the identification of mitigation and project design features, the RSG, SLVN, BSP, and BPSP projects each identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to AQMP consistency and exceedance of pollutant thresholds for reactive organic gas (ROG), NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), PM10 and PM2.5 during project operations.25,26,27,28 Forthe SLVN project, though the level of other emissions were reduced through implementation of mitigation, emissions of NOx emissions remained in excess of the SCAQMD threshold; therefore, the operational air quality impact of that project remained significant and unavoidable. Even with the implementation of Development Project mitigation, emissions of VOCs, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants would still exceed SCAQMD standards, prompting a significant and unavoidable project level and cumulative impact (see Table 4.3.N). Due to the Project’s exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds, the infeasibility of mitigation to reduce operational air quality impacts to below SCAQMD significance standards, and in combination with other inability to show that other cumulative projects could implement feasible mitigation to reduce their similar impacts, air quality impacts would cumulatively and significantly contribute to the nonattainment designation in the South Coast Air Basin.

In response to public comment on the Draft EIR, a supplemental air quality assessment (Final EIR, Appendix C‐5) was prepared assess the additional potential air quality impacts resulting from revised truck trip lengths and the operation of TRUs. Public comment received on the Draft EIR requested implementation of additional mitigation measures. These measures were evaluated in the Final EIR (see Section 3.0, Responses to Comments) and were either, 1) already required through regulatory requirements, project design features, or mitigation, 2) added to mitigation, or 3) determined to be infeasible (see Final EIR, Section 3.0, responses to Comments A‐3‐25 and A‐3‐ 58, B‐2‐15 and B‐2‐6, D‐3‐56 through D‐3‐93, and D‐6‐10 through D‐6‐13. Additional measures have been added to revised Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2 to further reduce, to the extent feasible, the emission of pollutants during the construction and operation of the Development Project. Examples include electrification of construction activities to the extent feasible (see Final EIR, Section 3.0, responses to Comments A‐3‐49, A‐3‐54, and D‐3‐45) and a requirement to ensure 90 percent of TRUs at cold storage uses be zero‐emission (response to Comment A‐3‐64).

As stated in Section 4.3,6.1 of the Draft EIR, the Development Project was determined to be inconsistent with the AQMP, which is based on, 1) whether a project is consistent with the SCAG growth forecasts, which is based, in part, on the planned land uses in general plans of cities located 25   RBF Consulting. 2011. Draft Butterfield Specific Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. June 3.   26   Placeworks. 2016. Rancho San Gorgonio Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. October.   27   Romo Planning Group. 2020. Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, Amendment No. 5, Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 202002907. September 9. 28   T&B Planning, Inc. 2022. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan, City of Beaumont, California. December.
516

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
9‐9
within the SCAG region; and, 2) whether a project would increase the frequency orseverity 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. The Development Project29 along with many of the projects on the cumulative project list entail a General Plan amendment and/orzone change and therefore would not be consistent with SCAG’s growth forecasts, and the impact is cumulatively considerable. The Development Project also contributes to a cumulatively considerable impact under the second criterion because the regional operational‐source emissions are anticipated to exceed the regional thresholds of significance for VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. The RSG, BSP, SLVN, and BPSP projects also each exceed regional emission thresholds and were determined to be inconsistent with the AQMP; therefore, the Project would have a cumulatively considerable and significant air quality impact.

9.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact Statement: The Project could have a significant cumulative impact on biological resources without the implementation of mitigation measures.

Finding
A cumulatively considerable effect would occur if the Project, in conjunction with the cumulative projects, resulted in a significant impact on candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species or their habitats, protected wetlands/riparian resources, wildlife movement or nursery sites, or conflicted with local policies or adopted conservation plans/programsintended to protect protected species and habitats. Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to biological resources are discussed in detail in Draft Section 6.5.4. The City finds that the Development Project would not significantly impact protected wetlands, wildlife movement, or wildlife nursery sites; therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively significant related to these issues. One pair of burrowing owls was detected at the Development Site. The on‐site burrowing owls and most, if not all, other burrows, if any are identified on the Development Site through future surveys, would be permanently impacted by implementation of the Development Project, and they would need to be relocated. The on‐site burrowing owls may suffer indirect effects as a result of their forced relocation. The Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM) was 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; therefore, the on‐site drainages and portions of the upland areas are assumed to be occupied by LAPM based on these survey results. Per the Draft EIR (pg 4.4‐33), while approximately 7.92 of the approximately 8.99 acres of riparian habitat present on‐ site and a buffer of approximately 32.58 acres of upland area would be preserved, assome permanent impact to drainages would result from the Development Project, there is a potential to impact the LAPM. A wide variety of bird species, including many criteria, sensitive, or special‐status species, have potential to occur on the Development Site, particularly while passing through during migration.

These species are all protected under the MBTA as discussed in Section 4.4.4.1 of the Draft EIR. The 29   Because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in a significant increase in the inventory of residential units or population growth in the City and only changes the location of the development of the units, the MSJC Entitlements would be consistent with SCAG forecasts and the first criterion identified in the SCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook, and the future development of residential units on the MSJC Site would not add to cumulative impacts under this criterion.
517

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
9‐10
MSJC Site islocated in an area that potentially hosts MSHCP‐protected biological resources; therefore, removal of vegetation, ground disturbance, landform modification, or other activities associated with subsequent development residential uses, has the potential to adversely impact protected biological resources on site.

The City finds that impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species from development of the MSJC Site would be substantially similar to those on the Development Site and accordingly would be mitigated to a lessthan significant level by imposition of MSJC Site Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐5 identified in Section 5.4.4.2 of the Draft EIR. Additionally, the City finds that Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐16 (see Section 4.1.1 of these Findings), revised as appropriate in response to public comments, and MSJC Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐5 (see Section 8.1.4 of these Findings) would minimize and mitigate impacts to biological resources to less than significant through the protection, conservation, and/or restoration of on‐site biological resources. The City finds that the identified mitigation measures are feasible, required, and appropriate to reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level, and therefore would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. The City further finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.

The City also finds that significant cumulative effects of the Project on MSHCP‐covered plants and wildlife, wildlife movement, riparian/riverine areas, and habitat connectivity and covered species are fully mitigated due to the City’s status as a MSHCP permittee and the applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which impose MSHCP compliance on discretionary projects that have or may be developed in the City. See Draft EIR Section 6.5.4. The cities of Banning and Beaumont and the County of Riverside are each permitteesto the MSHCP. The cumulative area for jurisdictional features and sediment transport is the Whitewater River watershed. As with the Project, the cumulative projects may result in the modification of existing landforms, vegetation, habitats, and jurisdictional features, and may alter the volume and/or intensity ofsediment transport. Depending on the location and design of each cumulative project and the avoidance measures implemented to avoid these impacts, impacts to sensitive biological resources, habitats, and jurisdictional waters will occur, but the City finds that Project compliance with identified mitigation measures that are feasible, required, and appropriate to reduce impactsto biologicalresourcesto a lessthan significant level, and therefore would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

Substantial Evidence
As discussed in Section 4.4 of the Draft EIR, the Development Project would not significantly impact protected wetlands (Draft EIR Section 4.4.3.5), wildlife movement (Draft EIR Section 4.4.6.4), or wildlife nursery sites (Draft EIR Section 4.4.6.4); therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively significant related to these issues. The Project’s potential to result in cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources extends to the Western Riverside County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Area and the Whitewater River watershed (for impacts related to jurisdictional features). The cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project, including the MSJC Site, in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project Sites. 518

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
9‐11
The MSHCP setsforth conservation goalsfor each covered species. A development project must either demonstrate that the conservation goals for each covered species identified within the development site have been met or prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report enumerating mitigation measures to achieve equivalent or superior preservation for each not conserved covered species through deed restriction, conservation easement, or other appropriate method. The City of Banning was a party to the Implementing Agreement for the MSHCP and is a member of the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA).

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through 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. 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). The MSJC Entitlements themselves would not result in a physical disturbance; therefore, the impactsto biological resourcesfrom adoption of these entitlements would be lessthan significant.

While subsequent development of the MSJC Site with residential uses could potentially significantly impact biological resources; implementation of the MSJC Site Mitigation Measures BIO‐1 through BIO‐ 5 would reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from subsequent development on the MSJC Site to a less than significant level.

The City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 15.72.050, details the purpose and procedures for adherence to applicable provisions of the MSHCP including habitat evaluation, implementation requirements for protection of riparian/riverine areas and narrow endemic species, conduct of required focused biologicalspecies, and compliance with MSHCP guidelinesfor urban/wildland interface. Chapter 15.72 requires the imposition of conditions or mitigation to ensure each project complies with the applicable biological resource protection polices detailed in the MSHCP. Additionally, as required under the MSHCP, each permittee has established a fee program to collect required MSHCP mitigation fees. Banning Municipal Code Chapter 15.72.060 identifies the requirements for payment of MSHCP fees. The fees collected are to be used to finance the acquisition and perpetual conservation of the natural ecosystems and certain improvements necessary to implement the goals and objectives of the MSHCP. The mitigation fee must be paid no later than at the issuance of a building permit. Currently, MSHCP fees(effective July 1, 2023) range from $781 per residential unit (greater than 14.1 units/acre) to $19,066/acre for commercial and industrial development. Significant cumulative effects of the Project on MSHCP‐covered plants and wildlife, wildlife movement, riparian/riverine areas, and habitat connectivity and covered species are fully mitigated due to the City’s status as a MSHCP permittee and the applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which impose MSHCP compliance on discretionary projects that have or may be developed in the City.

As with the Project, the cumulative projects in the cities of Banning and Beaumont and in unincorporated areas of Riverside County, may result in the modification of existing landforms, vegetation, habitats, and jurisdictional features, and may alter the volume and/or intensity of sediment transport. Depending on the location and design of each cumulative project and the avoidance measures implemented to avoid these impacts, impacts to sensitive biological resources, 519

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
9‐12
habitats, and jurisdictional waters will occur. While the Project and the cumulative projects may conserve a portion of their property by protecting areas within local drainages, development on these sites represents a cumulative loss of habitat. For each cumulative project, it is anticipated the project‐ specific effects to jurisdictional features and sediment transport will be assessed during the project‐ specific permitting process and mitigation will be imposed consistent with the requirements of the MSHCPs.

The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Plan Area lies downstream of the Development Site. The CVMSHCP was designed, in part, to conserve species which depend specifically on the preservation of their respective sand dune or sand sheet habitats in CVMSHCP Conservation Area(s). As stated in Section 4.10 of the Draft EIR, while the city is not located within the boundaries of the 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. Mitigation Measures HYD‐1, HYD‐2 and BIO‐16 have been identified to address and mitigate potential Project impacts related to the transport of sediment (Final EIR Section 4.4.6.1, Final EIR Section 4.10.6.3, and Draft EIR Section 6.5.10) (see also Final EIR, Section 3.0, response to Comment A‐4‐7). Cumulative development, such as the Rancho San Gorgonio (RSG) project, Butterfield Specific Plan (BSP), and Sun Lakes Boulevard (SLB) Extension projects, have or are currently addressing thisissue in theirrespective environmental clearance and/or permitting actions. Adherence to the project‐level measures would ensure no cumulatively considerable sediment transport would result from cumulative development activity. Similarly, the Project would be required to comply with respective permit requirements such that the impactsto jurisdictional features and sediment transport are reduced to a lessthan significant level. The collective adherence of permit requirements will ensure the regional (watershed) cumulative impacts on jurisdictional features and sediment transport remain less than significant.

Significant cumulative effects of the Project on MSHCP‐covered plants and wildlife, wildlife movement, riparian/riverine areas, and habitat connectivity and covered species are fully mitigated due to the City’s status as a MSHCP permittee and the applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which impose MSHCP compliance on discretionary projects that have or may be developed in the City. The Project, including the identified Mitigation Measures, are in compliance with the conservation goals and guidelines of the MSHCP. Other cumulative projects in the City or MSHCP would be equally required to implement measures to achieve compliance with the MSHCP; therefore, no significant adverse cumulative effect to biological resources would occur.

9.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in significant cumulative cultural resources impacts.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to cultural resources are discussed in detail in Draft EIR, Section 6.5.5. The culturalresourcesrecord search identified 68 previously recorded cultural resources within one mile of the Project Sites, with only one, an isolate, determined to be prehistoric.

The remaining are historic sites, buildings, and features, including 39 single‐family residences, three multifamily residential properties, eight commercial buildings, one ranch complex, two remnantranch 520

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
9‐13
foundations/features, one motel, two industrial building complexes, one transmission line, one road, one railroad alignment, six erosion control features/water conveyance systems, and two trash scatters. Two of the previously recorded resources (P‐33‐013778 Historic Ranch Foundations/Features and RIV‐7544 Historical erosion control feature[s]/water conveyance system) are located within the Development Site and the SLB Extension. Within the MSJC Site, one resource (P‐33‐009176) containing historic buildings associated with a ranch complex tied to Barker Ranch was previously recorded. The standing structures associated with this resource were demolished in 2010 for the construction of the MSJC campus buildings. Six previously recorded and 12 new cultural resource/sites were identified during the cultural assessment of the RSG project site, located directly east and south of the Development Sites.

The City finds that Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 through CUL‐6 Implementation of these measures 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 which would minimize and mitigate Project impacts to cultural resources to less than significant. The City also finds that the cumulative projects have, are, or will be required to complete project‐specific cultural resource assessments and be subject to the same resource protection requirements and CEQA process as the Development Project that would reduce those impacts to less than significant, and that therefore cumulative impacts to historic and archaeological resources would be less than significant. The City further finds that the identified Project mitigation measures are feasible, required, and appropriate to reduce Project and cumulative impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level, and that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid orsubstantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Draft EIR.

Substantial Evidence
The cumulative area for cultural resources is the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). The cultural resources survey areas and the survey reports for the Development Site encompass the area planned for the eventual development of the related public facility projects including the SLB extension; therefore, for those projects, the cumulative effect is accounted for in the impacts identified for the Development Site.

A cultural resources assessment was conducted for the Development Site (see Section 4.5). Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 through CUL‐6 have been identified to: (1) require the retention of a qualified archaeologist during all ground disturbance activities and pre‐construction archaeological sensitivity training; (2) mandate development of an archaeological monitoring treatment plan; (3) establish a Native American monitoring agreement detailing the presence, extent, and authority of Native American monitoring during ground disturbance activities; (4) identify the notification processrelated to human burials; (5) establish a process for the treatment and disposition of archaeological or Native American cultural material (including human remains); and (6) ensure disclosure of all project‐related cultural data to consulting Native American parties. Implementation of these measures 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 521

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
9‐14
practice, and these resources (including human remains) would be treated in accordance with appropriate State codes and regulations.

One historic‐period archaeological resource, Site 33‐013779 (CA‐RIV‐7544), and one built environment resource, 33‐013778, are located within the limits of the SLB Extension. Eighteen cultural resources were found on the RSG site (Draft EIR Section 6.5.5. Ground disturbance associated with the Project and cumulative projects could potentially affect previously unidentified archaeological sites and/or associated human remains. The City’s General Plan EIR states, “…All development or land use proposals, which have the potential to disturb or destroy sensitive cultural resources shall be evaluated by a qualified professional and, if necessary, comprehensive Phase 1 studies and appropriate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into project approvals.” Mandatory compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097 et seq., would assure that the Project and all cumulative Projects treat human remains that may be uncovered during development activities in accordance with prescribed, respectful, and appropriate practices, thereby avoiding significant cumulative impacts. In addition, as with the Project, the cumulative projects have, are, or will be required to complete project‐specific cultural resource assessments required under the City’s General Plan and similar to the Project, impacts on known or previously unknown cultural resources on adjacent sites would be required to be mitigated to less than significant levels with appropriate mitigation measures adopted as part of the respective approvals of those projects. Other development projects would be required to undergo discretionary review and be subject to the same resource protection requirements and CEQA process as the Development Project that would reduce those impacts to less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of appropriate project‐specific mitigation, cumulative impacts to historic and archaeological resources would be rendered less than significant.

9.6 ENERGY
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively significant impact related to energy.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to energy are discussed in detail in Section

6.5.6 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the construction and operation of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to energy; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
Cumulative energy impacts would result if the Project, along with cumulative projects, taken together could result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. The cumulative projects are subject to CEQA and required to conduct an energy analysis, consistency with existing plans and policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and implementation of control measures and mitigation if necessary to avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

The cumulative area for electricity and natural gas energy resources is the service areas of the utility providers. The Project Sites are within the service territory of the Banning Electric Utility (BEU). BEU is a not‐for‐profit, publicly owned retail electrical energy distribution utility. Southern California Gas 522

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
9‐15
Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas to approximately 21.8 million people in a 24,000‐square‐ mile service area throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border.

As with the Project, the largest energy use during construction of the cumulative projects would likely occur from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles and haul trucks, construction worker vehicles, and use of on‐site equipment that would use petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel fuel and/or gasoline). Fuel consumption from transportation uses depends on the type and number of trips, VMT, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles, and the travel mode. While it would be speculative to precisely identify the fleet mix used by persons working on cumulative development sites, it must be noted that updated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations establish fuel efficiency standards for model years 2024 through 2026, requiring an industry‐wide fleet average of approximately 49 miles per gallon (mpg) for passenger cars and light trucks in model year 2026.

The updated standards require fuel efficiency increases of 8 percent annually for model years 2024 and 2025, and 10 percent annually for model year 2026. It is anticipated that these updated standards avoid the consumption of about 234 billion gallons of gasoline between model years 2030 to 2050.30 As cumulative development occurs, construction vehicles would collectively and appropriately adhere to the fuel efficiency standards enshrined in the CAFE regulations. The cumulative projects would be required to comply with the California Air Resources Board’s(CARB) Airborne Toxics Control Measure, which restricts heavy‐duty diesel vehicle idling time to 5 minutes, CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation, and federal fuel efficiency requirements, which would minimize fuel consumption, and other regulatory requirements designed to increase fuel efficiency. In addition, because petroleum use during construction would be temporary and relatively minimal in comparison to overall usage, it would not be wasteful or inefficient. It is reasonable to anticipate (as with the Project) that such fuel use would have a negligible effect on the amount or availability of fuel resources during cumulative development (see Draft EIR, Section 4.6.6.1); therefore, no cumulatively significant conflict or obstruction with an energy efficiency program would occur.

The Project and other cumulative projects would result in an increased services demand in electricity and natural gas. As discussed in the Draft EIR, Section 4.6, the total annual electricity consumption in the BEU service area in 2022 was 151.5 gigawatt‐hours(GWh). The BEU hasincluded the energy usage by this Development Project as well as other large commercial and residential developments or industrial projects in itsfuture planning, which has enabled it to enter into long‐term contractsfor the purchase of renewable sources of electricity as required by State law. The Project, in combination with cumulative projects, is well within BEU’ssystem‐wide net increase in electricity supplies annually over the 2018 to 2030 period and, with construction of the electrical substation, there are sufficient planned electricity supplies in the region for estimated net increases in energy demands and the increases are not significant.
30   It should be further noted that approval of any one cumulative project does not ensure that development will occur. The timing and/or certainty of development is in part based on economic conditions, market demand, legal/regulatory, and/or community factors. For example: The RSG project (2016) anticipated building out of a Master Planned residential community over a 20‐year period. Currently, no development has yet occurred on the RSG site. It is uncertain if the projects identified in Table 6.B of the Draft EIR will be developed at the time and in the manner outlined in their respective approvals. 523

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
9‐16
Similarly, additional natural gas infrastructure is not anticipated due to cumulative development.

Total natural gas consumption in the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas)service area in 2022 was 5,026.5 million therms. Total natural gas consumption in SoCalGas’s service area is forecast to remain steady between 2018 and 2035 for the low‐ and mid‐demand scenarios and to increase by approximately 650 million therms in the high‐demand scenario due to intense energy efficiency efforts.31 It is anticipated that SoCalGas would be able to meet the natural gas demand of the Project and cumulative projects without additional facilities. In addition, both BEU and SoCalGas’s demand forecasts include the growth contemplated by the Project and the related projects. BEU and SoCalGas plan to continue to provide reliable service to their customers and upgrade their distribution systems as necessary to meet future demand.

As stated in Sections 4.6 and 5.4.6.2 of the Draft EIR, future use of the Project Sites would incorporate the most current energy efficient/energy conserving designs; adhere to vehicle fuel efficiency requirements; and install the fixtures, features and facilities meeting the energy efficiency requirements in effect at the time of development. The California Energy Code is a building code for Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings that imposes building standards to reduce energy consumption through efficient lighting and heating standards among other requirements. Increased building energy efficiency will reduce energy consumption on a per square foot basis. The 2022 Energy Code establishes specifications related to electric‐ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, requires solar roofs on multifamily residential units of 3 stories or less, and strengthens ventilation standards.

Since January 1, 2023, projects that apply for building permits must comply with the 2022 Energy Code. Based on its mix of generation sources, BEU currently has a renewable portfolio of 81.3 percent (2022), far exceeding the State’s target of 50% by 2030. This satisfies Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) targets for 2030 mandated under Senate Bill 100.

The Project and cumulative projects are required to comply with various federal and State government legislation to improve energy efficiency in buildings, equipment, and appliances and reduce vehicle milestraveled. The State of California provides a minimum standard for building design and construction standards through Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), known as the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC is updated every 3 years, and the current 2022 CBC went into effect in January 2023 and is applicable to the Development Project. The California Building Standards Commission adopted Part 6 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and adopted Part 11 (referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen) as part of the State’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption from residential and non‐ residential buildings. CALGreen covers the following five categories: (1) planning and design; (2) energy efficiency; (3) water efficiency and conservation; (4) material conservation and resource efficiency; and (5) indoor environmental quality. As the cumulative projects are developed, it is reasonable to assume that provisions of the applicable energy and/or building codes would be implemented, furthering the efficient use of energy resources. Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG‐ 1 is a regulatory requirement imposed on all projects by the City to ensure the incorporation of required features to meet code requirements and ensure efficient use of energy for building operations. Accordingly, as cumulative projects are developed, they would comply with the applicable 31   Ibid.
524

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
9‐17
CALGreen Code requirements and Title 24 efficiency standards, so they would not significantly obstruct or conflict with adopted plansforrenewable energy and energy efficiency, and no cumulative impacts would result.

Based on fuel consumption obtained from the CARB California Emissions Factor Model, Version 2021 (EMFAC2021), approximately 915.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 321.6 million gallons of diesel fuel will be consumed from vehicle trips in Riverside County in 2023. Based on estimated VMT, the Development Project would use approximately 1.423 and 6.667 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel, respectively (approximately 1.5 percent of Countywide gasoline fuel usage and 2.01 percent of Countywide diesel fuel usage). While the size and nature of the cumulative projects vary, it is reasonable to conclude that each will require the use of vehicle fuels. The amount of fuel used will vary, but even collectively and due to the incremental percentage of fuel used, the operation of the cumulative projects regarding the amount of fuel required does not represent a meaningfully significant percentage of the total fuel used in Riverside County. As stated previously, the fuel standards established under the CAFE regulations require an industry‐wide fleet average of approximately 49 mpg for passenger cars and light trucksin model year 2026. It isreasonable that use of vehicles adhering to updated CAFE standards and the increasing use of electric vehicles will exert a downward pressure on total vehicle fuel usage.

The Development Project and, if developed, the VHDR on the MSJC Site, will increase energy 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. Mitigation is not required. While development of the Project and other cumulative projects would increase the demand for vehicle fuels, electricity and natural gas over current use, it is anticipated that the fuel efficiency of vehicles and energy efficiency in buildings will increase over the lifetime of these projects. Further, compliance with the existing and future regulatory requirements would ensure that the Project and the cumulative projects do not result in an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to impacts related to the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy would not be cumulatively considerable, and no mitigation is required.

9.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to geology and soils (risk of loss due to earthquakes, substantial soil erosion/loss of topsoil, risks due to unstable geologic unit/soil, expansive soil, erosion, or septic tanks).

In the absence of mitigation measures, the Project has the potential to directly or indirectly impact a paleontological resource and contribute to cumulative considerable impacts.

Finding
The potential cumulative geology and soils impacts of the Project related to risk of loss due to fault rupture, seismic shaking, ground failure, erosion, unstable soil, expansive soil, landslides and septic tanks are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.7 of the Draft EIR. The cumulative projects would be required to comply with the Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs) or the equivalent applicable to 525

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
9‐18
the Project. The City findsthat with application of the RCMs, which require site development to follow the recommendations detailed in the development of the proposed Project, no significant cumulative impacts related to geology and soils would result; therefore, no mitigation is required.

The potential Project impacts related to paleontological resources is addressed in Section 4.7.6.9 and

6.5.7 of the Draft EIR. While the Quaternary sediments on the Project Sites have an “Undetermined” paleontological sensitivity, typically in western Riverside County, these sediments are assigned a High (High A or High B) paleontological sensitivity based on the well documented record of yielding important Ice Age fossils, such as large terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., bison, mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant ground sloth, short‐faced bear, saber‐toothed cat, and others). The Project could result in direct impacts to paleontological resources within the Project Sites should such resources be discovered during Project‐related construction activities. The City finds that Project compliance with Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 and MSJC Site GEO‐1 and GEO‐2, would reduce impactsto paleontological resources to less than significant. The City further finds that the cumulative projects, as appropriate, would be required to comply with comparable measures. The City finds that these measures are feasible, adopted, and will reduce impacts to paleontological resources attributable to the Project to less than significant. Therefore, the Project will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact, and its cumulative impact is less than significant.

Substantial Evidence
Typically, geology and soils impacts are specific to a particularsite and there islittle, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a proposed project and development within a larger cumulative area; therefore, the geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis for geology, soils, and seismicity includes the Development Site and the MSJC Site. The area included in the geologic assessment (Draft EIR, Appendix F‐1) prepared for the Development Site encompasses the area planned for the eventual development of the related public facility projects; therefore, the cumulative effects associated with those projects are accounted for in the impactsidentified for the Development Site.

Issues including fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and expansive soils would involve effects to (and not from) a proposed development project, are specific to conditions on the Project Sites, and are not influenced or exacerbated by the geologic and/or soils hazards that may occur at the location(s) of other cumulative projects. Construction activities associated with the MSJC Site and cumulative projects would include some level of earthmoving, trenching, and/or temporary stockpiling, which could contribute to cumulative soil erosion effects. A standard development requirement is compliance with relevant federal, State, and local laws, which require preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) to identify, evaluate, and minimize erosion and sedimentation from construction sites. The SWPPPs generally identify the project‐specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion control features that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion that may result from construction activities. For the Development Project, RCM WQ‐1 requires preparation of a SWPPP, and construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP would be implemented during construction. Additionally, 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 compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. Regulatory compliance would be required for the MSJC Site and all other related projects as well. 526

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
9‐19
The project‐specific geotechnical investigation prepared for the SLB Extension did not identify significant geotechnical or soil‐related issues. While seismic events may affect a broad region, implementation of the Development Project would not increase the intensity, frequency, or duration of seismic events or the properties of off‐site geology or soils. The CBC (adopted by reference in Chapter 15.08 [Construction Codes] of the City’s Municipal Code) contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards.

In addition, the California Building Code (adopted by reference in Chapter 15.08 [Construction Codes] of the City’s Municipal Code) contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) CM GEO‐1 requires all structures to be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Geotechnical Assessment prepared for this Development Project. RCM GEO‐2 further requires that the recommendations detailed in the Geotechnical Assessment are appropriately incorporated/ implemented during design, grading, and construction activities on the Development Sites. Adherence to applicable sections of the most current CBC and the site‐specific recommendationsidentified in the Geotechnical Investigation would effectively minimize the potential effects of liquefaction, ground shaking, landslides, and other seismically induced hazards. MSJC Site RCM GEO‐1 similarly requires the preparation of a site‐specific geotechnical assessment and adherence to the recommendations related to design, grading, construction, and/or development on the MSJC Site. It is reasonable to expect similar measures would be implemented on cumulative projects. Furthermore, because potential geologic hazards are generally site‐specific, there would be no direct or indirect cumulative effect when considered with other projects; therefore, the Project’s impact relative to geology and soils would not be cumulatively considerable.

Sediments mapped as Quaternary older and younger alluvial fan sediments in western Riverside County are assigned a High (High A or High B) paleontological sensitivity based on the well documented record of yielding important Ice Age fossils, such as large terrestrial vertebrates (e.g., bison, mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant ground sloth, short‐faced bear, saber‐toothed cat, etc.). Combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City of Banning, the Project could contribute to a cumulatively significant impact due to the overall loss of paleontological remains unique to the region. The Development Project and MSJC Entitlements each identify (Mitigation Measures GEO‐1 and MSJC Site GEO‐1 and GEO‐2) to reduce the level of impact to paleontological resources at each of these sitesto a lessthan significant level. See Draft EIR Sections

4.7 and 5.4.7.2. The SLB Extension and RSG Project require similar mitigation to reduce the project‐ level paleontological resource impacts on those sites to a less significant level.

There are no unique geologic features in the Project vicinity. Cumulative development in the City, would be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The potential for significant impactsto paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be identified in a project‐level investigation to determine the nature and extent of the impacts and/or resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. The implementation of project‐level mitigation, tailored to the specific nature of each cumulative site, would ensure that the development of cumulative projects in the City would not result in significant cumulative impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.
527

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
9‐20

9.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact Statement: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable impact replated to GHG emissions.

Finding
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate change‐related impacts are inherently cumulative, and any project level GHG emissions above an applicable threshold of significance – here 3,000 MT CO2e ‐ would have a cumulative impact. The unmitigated emission of 62,844.96 MT CO2e and mitigated emissions of 44,313 MT CO2e (see Final EIR, Tables 4.8.F‐1 and

4.9.J‐1, respectively). Accordingly, the City adopts the findings for GHG emissions in Section 5.2.1 as though fully set forth. The cumulative impacts of the Project related GHG emissions are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.8 of the Draft EIR with additional, supplemental analysis provided in Section 4.0 and Appendix C‐6 of the Final EIR.

In addition, because the MSJC Entitlements are not a physical project, no GHG emissions would result from the entitlement actions themselves. The GHG emissions that may result from the subsequent residential development of the MSJC Site cannot be determined until such a project is proposed.

Because the Project is comprised of both the MSJC Entitlements and Development Project, the City findsthat Project‐related GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MT CO2e per yearsignificance threshold, and Project impacts are cumulatively significant.

The Development Project is generally consistent with and/or would not conflict with applicable GHG reducing plans or policies. These plans and policies are the GHG emission reduction policies, measures, goals, orstrategiesidentified in the City’s General Plan, applicable Scoping Plan(s) including the CARB 2022 Scoping Plan, and Riverside County CAP, Regional Transportation Plan (Connect SoCal), or the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. However, due to the annual volume of CO2e emitted in excess of the City’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold, and the infeasibility of additional mitigation measuresto reduce the impacts of the Development Project to lessthan significant, the City findsthat Development Project’s contribution of GHG is cumulatively considerable. In addition, because the Project is comprised of both the MSJC Entitlements and Development Project, the City finds that Project‐related GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year significance threshold, and Project impacts are cumulatively significant concerning applicable GHG reducing plans or policies.

The City finds that the revised mitigation measures identified in Final EIR are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce GHG impacts attributable to the Project to the extent feasible, and that additional, suggested mitigation measures are infeasible for the reasons stated in the Final EIR and responses to comments. The City further finds that regulations that control heavy‐duty truck emissions 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.
528

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
9‐21
Substantial Evidence
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4, greenhouse gas (GHG) and climate change‐related impacts are inherently cumulative, and any project level GHG emissions above an applicable threshold of significance would have a cumulative impact.

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 62,844.96 MT CO2e annually from both construction and operations32 (see Final EIR, Table 4.8.F‐1). Comments received during public review of the Draft EIR identified a variety of potential measures that could reduce the volume of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases emitted during the construction and operation of the Development Project. For example, the suggestion that all truck traffic related to the Development Project utilize zero‐emission vehicles.

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, requiring the Project to use all zero‐emission trucks is economically and technologically infeasible, as such trucks are not commercially available on a large enough scale to serve the Project. Imposing mandatory requirements on the Project based on an emerging, not yet established technology when the technological advances and timeframesforreadily available quantities of such trucks are not known with any certainty, is not a feasible mitigation measure. (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). Other measures suggested by commenters were either, (1) already included in the Draft EIR, (2) incorporated into the Final EIR through the revision of the mitigation measures previously identified in the Draft EIR, and/or (3) determined by the City to be infeasible. The discussion of mitigation measures suggested during public review to reduce the emission of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases is provided in the Final EIR, Section 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). The Specific Plan has been revised to require compliance with California Building Code Title 24, Part 6 solar requirements which have been continuously evolving. Previously, consistent with the CALGreen requirement, only solar ready 32   This includes total construction emissions amortized over 30 years per 2008 SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans. 529

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
9‐22
roofs were required for non‐residential development. The revised GHG analysis includes the updated CALGreen solar roof requirements for non‐residential 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 panelsshall be installed and include electrical panels with sufficient capacity to accommodate PV solar.

This has been incorporated into the Final EIR (Final EIR Section 4.6.4.2 and Section 6.5.6.2).

Quantifiable greenhouse gas reducing practices have been identified in revised Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2 and GHG‐1 through GHG‐7, along with previously identified and new PDFs, would reduce emissions to 44,313.0 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. Therefore, the Project’s GHG emissions are significant and would be cumulatively considerable.

The County of Riverside Climate Action (CAP) determined a baseline GHG emissions inventory, and calculated percentage reductions needed to meet 2020, 2030, and 2050 reduction goals. See Draft EIR, Sections 4.3 and 4.8. Consistency with the CAP is demonstrated as the Development Project greatly exceeds the 100‐points (+586 points) needed to show consistency with the CAP. See Draft EIR Table 4.8.K. Through the incorporation of project design features(PDFs) and Mitigation Measures AIR‐ 2, and GHG‐1 through GHG‐7 (including the addition of GHG‐7 expressly verifying implementation of the total number of CAP points (see the response to Comment D‐3‐8) the Development Project implements actions required for consistency with the CAP (and therefore 2030/2050 GHG reduction goals). See also response to Comment D‐3‐13 and D‐3‐32. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Tables 4.8.K through 4.8.O of the Draft EIR, the Development Project is consistent with and/or would not conflict with the GHG emission reduction policies, measures, goals, or strategies identified in the City’s General Plan (Draft EIR, Table 4.8.L, pg 4.8‐33), the Riverside County CAP (Draft EIR, Table 4.8.K, pg 4.8‐323), applicable Scoping Plan(s) (the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan) (Draft EIR, Table 4.8.M, pg 4.8‐ 35), Regional Transportation Plan (Connect SoCal) (Draft EIR, Table 4.8.N, pg 4.8‐37 and ‐38), and the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (Draft EIR, Table 4.8.O, pg 4.8‐38). As previously stated, discussion of mitigation measures suggested during public review to reduce the emission of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases is provided in the Final EIR, Section 3.0, Where feasible, revisions to mitigation and the incorporation of new PDFs have been identified to reduce GHG emissions. As established in the previously cited responses to public comments, due to the annual volume of MT CO2e emitted in excess of the City’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold, and the infeasibility of additional mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the Development Project to less than significant, the Project’s contribution of GHG is cumulatively considerable. The GHG analyses conducted for various cumulative 530

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
9‐23
projects33 each identified significant and unavoidable emissions of GHGs in excess of established thresholds and concluded the projects’ contribution of GHG emissions would be cumulatively significant.

GHG emissions from development of the MSJC Site cannot be determined until a project is proposed, and approval of the MSJC Entitlements will not result in GHG emissions. Because the Project is comprised of both the MSJC Entitlements and Development Project, Project‐related GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MT CO2e per year threshold. The majority of the GHG emissions are associated with non‐construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and federal standards over which the City has no control.

9.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to hazards and hazardous materials are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.9 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that with the application of mandatory RCMs, the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials; therefore, no mitigation for cumulative impacts is required.

Substantial Evidence
Cumulative impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials would occur when the Project and cumulative projects, taken as a whole, would result in accidental spills or inadvertent releases of hazardous substances, create an increased wildfire impact, emit hazardous substances within

0.25 mile of a school, or create a public safety hazard relative to airport safety. The cumulative areas for this issue are the Project Sites and immediately adjacent areas.

The Project Sites are not included on any of the queried databases of hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. A search of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment database and Cleanup Sites Map indicated no active cleanup sites within the vicinity of the Project Sites. Two inactive sites are located approximately

0.5 mile north of the Development Site, north of Interstate 10 (I‐10).

Construction within the Project Sites, and at the cumulative projects would increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of 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 during construction operation of various land uses. It is reasonable to anticipate that applicable State and federal regulations for the proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous would be. Additionally, RCMs WQ‐1, 33   For example, ‘mitigated’ GHG emissions from the selected cumulative projects include Butterfield Specific Plan (124,025 MT CO2e), Rancho San Gorgonio Specific Plan (46,000 MT CO2e), Sun Lakes Village North (11,966 MT CO2e), and Beaumont Pointe Specific Plan (60,638 MT CO2e). 531

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
9‐24
WQ‐2, and WQ‐3 require compliance with the waste discharge permitrequirementsto avoid potential impacts to water quality due to spills or runoff from hazardous materials used during construction, thus ensuring cumulative impacts during construction remain less than significant (Draft EIR, pg 6‐37).

As established in Section 4.9, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Development Site identified several listings for off‐site adjacent or nearby properties on databases potentially indicative of a contamination concern. However, none of these listings are considered as a “recognized environmental condition.” RCM HAZ‐1 requires the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that includes (at a minimum) an inventory of hazardous materials used and stored on site, a site map, an emergency plan, and a training program for employees. Compliance with all applicable regulations presented in Section 4.9.4 would reduce potential impacts from the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to a less than significant level. These regulatory requirements would apply to the cumulative projects which therefore would also have a less than significant impact. The MSJC Site was evaluated via regional and State hazardous materials databases (see Section 5.4.9.1). Based on this review, there are no known conditions on the MSJC Site that would represent a significant risk to public health or safety (e.g., on‐site storage, leaking tanks, approaching groundwater contamination plume) on the MSJC Site. At the time of development occurs, MSJC Mitigation Measures HAZ‐1 and HAZ‐2 require the preparation of a site‐specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and submittal of evidence that any required site‐specific compliance measures identified have been appropriately implemented and/or incorporated into MSJC Site design. No significant hazardous material related to construction of the SLB Extension has been identified in the project‐specific investigation prepared for that roadway improvement effort. The area included in the hazard materials assessment prepared for the Development Site encompasses the area planned for the eventual development of the electrical substation and water reservoir; therefore, it is reasonable the less than significant cumulative effect is accounted for in the impacts identified. Once constructed, these public facilities may require the incremental use of hazardous substances, but it is anticipated any such use would comply with accepted use, storage, and disposal requirements, and their operation would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

The geographic scope of impacts associated with hazardous materials generated or released on the any site generally encompasses that site and areas immediately adjacent to or within a 0.25‐mile radius. Construction and operation/occupation within the Project Sites, and at the cumulative projects would increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of 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 during construction and operation of various land uses. It is reasonable to anticipate that applicable State and federal regulations for the proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous would be followed by the owners, tenants, occupants, and/or employees at the cumulative projects’ sites; therefore, the potential to generate, release, or increase the risk of impacts related to hazardous materials, either through accidents or due to routine transport, use, or disposal during construction would be similarly addressed and mitigated and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. RCMs WQ‐1, WQ‐2, and WQ‐3 require compliance with waste discharge permit requirements to avoid potential impacts to water quality due to spills or runoff from hazardous materials used during construction.

While the cumulative projects listed in Table 6.B also have the potential to generate or increase the risk of impacts related to hazardous materials, these uses include residential, industrial, and 532

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
9‐25
commercial development, and like the Development Project, would be required to comply with these orsimilar regulatory requirements which would avoid potential impactsto water quality, and any such impacts likely would be confined to the limits of their respective sites.

Because the MSJC Site is proposed to be developed with residential uses, the limited use of household hazardous materials would occur subsequent to any subsequent development of the site. Similar to the Development Project, cumulative projects, including the RSG, Sun Lakes Village North (SLVN), and Butterfield Specific Plan (BSP) projects either identified impacts related to hazardous materials as less than significant through implementation ofstandard hazardous materialstransport, use,storage, and disposal regulations and/or the incorporation of project‐specific mitigation. The applicants of future cumulative projects would be required to comply with regulating agencies as well as the County to implement the applicable and appropriate measures to reduce the risk associated with the use and transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, no cumulatively significant hazardous materials impacts would occur.

While the Project Sites are located adjacent to the MSJC campus, as stated in Section 4.9, compliance with RCM HAZ‐1 and adherence to applicable regulations related to the transport, storage, use, and/or disposal of hazardous substances would ensure Project impacts remain less than significant.

Schools within 0.25 mile of cumulative projects also include Banning High School, Hoeffner Elementary School, and Hemmering Elementary School. It should be noted that the RSG and BSP projects themselves include the construction of schools within their respective Specific Plans. As with the Project, it is reasonable that adherence to these applicable regulations mitigate hazardous material impacts associated with other cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to the release of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Project Sites are located outside the influence area of Banning Municipal Airport and as a result would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on development within the Airport Influence Area established for this facility; therefore, the Project would not result a safety hazard or air excessive airport noise for people residing or working on the Project Sites and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable airport hazard impact.

The Development Site is located in a wildland‐urban interface (WUI) setting, but it is not located in an area statutorily designated as a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) or Riverside County. The MSJC Site is located within a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) non‐VHFHSZ. Both the Development and MSJC Sites are located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) influence zone. The occupation of the proposed commercial, industrial (and in the case of the MSJC Site, residential) uses would increase the number and concentration of persons within a Wildland Urban Interface zone. A number of cumulative projects in the cities of Beaumont (e.g., Fairway Canyon, Beaumont Pointe, Heartland) and Banning (e.g., RSG) are located within or adjacent to fire hazard severity zones (very high, high, and moderate) designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).34 Development in 34   California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. November 21. Website https://calfire‐forestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/ index.html?id=4466cf1d2b9947bea1d4269997e86553 (accessed March 8, 2023). 533

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
9‐26
these areas could increase the risk of property loss or injury from wildfire hazards. All projects approved and developed within fire hazard severity zones would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the California Fire Code, including provisions related to development within zones and the wildland‐urban interfaces. Additionally, adherence to appropriate provisions of the CBC and City requirements related to the type, method, and manner of construction and the establishment and maintenance of fuel management zones would reduce the site‐specific wildfire impacts of each cumulative project. As noted in Sections 4.9, 4.20, and 5.4.20.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project would provide a fire protection plan (and per MSJC Site Mitigation Measure HAZ‐3, the MSJC Site would be required to develop a fire protection plan when development is proposed) that identifies the features/procedures to further offset potential wildland fire impacts. The related SLB Extension would improve circulation within and around the Development Site by improving the road surface and providing additional lanes of traffic that could be used to evacuate in an emergency and allow emergency personnel additional access to the Development Site and adjacent residential communities faster than using the roadways currently available. Upon compliance with existing regulations, including the applicable provisions of any project‐specific fire protection plan, the cumulative impacts with respect to hazards would be less than significant.

9.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts related to hydrology and water quality.

Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to hydrology and water quality are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.10 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that with the application of RCMs, the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality; therefore, no mitigation for cumulative effects is required.

Substantial Evidence
The Project is located within the Coachella Valley Groundwater, San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin and within the Whitewater River Watershed (which is within the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board). The Development Site is located within an undeveloped open grassland valley where two main creeks flow: Smith Creek and Pershing Creek, both of which flow in a southeasterly manner across the Development Site. Storm water on the Development Site, under existing conditions, either flows into Smith or Pershing Creek or infiltrates into the ground. Highland Wash, a tributary to Smith Creek, also crosses the Development Site until it meets with Smith Creek.

One such drainage transects the MSJC Site in a northwest to southeast direction joining Pershing Creek on the RSG site. The City of Banning and the Project Sites are located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin.

Cumulative development in the Whitewater River Watershed is a continuation of the existing urban pattern of development that has already resulted in extensive modifications to watercourses in the area  ‐‐ Smith Creek and Pershing Creek, both of which flow in a southeasterly manner across the Development Site, and the Highland Wash is a tributary to Smith Creek. Cumulative development in the Whitewater River Watershed is a continuation of the existing urban pattern of development that 534

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
9‐27
has already resulted in extensive modifications to watercourses in the area. The area’s watercourses have been either channelized or left in natural conditions, and drainage systems have been put into place to respond to the past urbanization that has occurred in this area. Without mitigation or implementation of applicable RCMs, the Project and related public facilities projects would increase impermeable surfaces and increase the volume of storm water runoff and contribute to pollutant loading in storm water runoff reaching the City’s storm drain system, the Coachella Valley Storm Channel, and Whitewater River Watershed, thereby resulting in cumulative impacts to hydrology and surface water quality. A similar result could occur with the cumulative projects without comparable RCMs or mitigation. Section 4.10 of this EIR identifies RCMs WQ‐1 through WQ‐3, construction general permit (CGP) requirements, City erosion control requirements (per Ordinance No. 1388), and water quality management plan(s) satisfying Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit requirements which were imposed to achieve a less than significant impact for the Development Project. The proposed public facilities are located within the area studied in the Development Project‐specific hydrologic report and water quality management plan, and it is anticipated that no appreciable decrease in impermeable surface area would or change of drainage pattern would occur. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the public facilitiesis accounted for in the impactsidentified for the Development Site, which will be confirmed by City review of their facility design to ensure the appropriate management of storm runoff that may occur during the construction and operation of the facilities.

Detailed hydrologic analysis of the MSJC Site has not been completed; however MSJC Site RCMs WQ‐ 1 through WQ‐3 identified in Section 5.4.10.2 of the Draft EIR mirror those required for the Development Site which would likewise result is no significant impacts.

The Project would increase impermeable surfaces and increase the volume of storm water runoff and could contribute to pollutant loading in storm water runoff reaching the City’s storm drain system, the Coachella Valley Storm Channel, and Whitewater River Watershed, thereby resulting in cumulative impacts to hydrology and surface water quality. RCMs WQ‐1 through WQ‐3 and MSJC Site RCMs WQ‐1 through WQ‐3 identify construction general permit (CGP) requirements, City erosion control requirements (per Ordinance No. 1388), and water quality management plan(s) satisfying Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit requirements. Compliance with these requirements would result in a less than significant Project impact. As with the Project, each cumulative project could also result in increased urban pollutantsin storm water runoff from developmentsitesthat would degrade surface or ground water quality, and also must comply with existing water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, including Whitewater River Watershed MS4 permit requirements. These requirements include preparation of a Final WQMP for all new development that specify the Site Design, Source Control, Low‐Impact Development (LID), and Treatment Control BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. and would implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff.

These would include preparation and approval of a SWPPP, erosion and sediment control plans (for construction), and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) (for operation) for each project to minimize water quality impacts. Accordingly, there would not be a significant cumulative impact.

The City is located in the Whitewater River Watershed. The Whitewater River is the major stream in the watershed and extends 54 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains to the Salton Sea, and Smith Creek and Pershing Creek confluence with the San Gorgonio River which ultimately joins the Whitewater River. The SLB Extension crosses Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek. These 535

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
9‐28
crossings have been sized and will be ultimately designed to mimic downstream flow conditions and to not exacerbate the existing hydrologic and sediment transport condition similar to RCM WQ‐4 which requires preparation of a hydrology and hydraulic analysis consistent with local and regional flood control and water quality requirements. As deemed appropriate by the City, similar studies would be required for cumulative projects. It is reasonable that cumulative development would occur pursuant to the siting, design, and maintenance measures detailed in these project‐specific reports such that the drainage impacts from each site do not exceed existing conditions or result in hydromodification orsoilsedimentation impacts. These studies would be reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department (or as appropriate the Riverside County Public Works Department for projects within the County) on a case‐by‐case basis to ensure that sufficient local and regional drainage capacity is available and that sediment transport conditions are not significantly impacted (Draft EIR, Section 6.5.10).

Each project must consider impacts to impaired receiving waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for receiving waters. The TMDL program is designed to identify all constituentsthat adversely affect the beneficial uses of water bodies and then identify appropriate reductions in pollutant loads or concentrationsfrom allsourcesso that the receiving waters can maintain/attain the beneficial uses in the Basin Plan. Thus, by complying with TMDL requirements, a project’s cumulative impacts to overall water quality in the Whitewater River Watershed are taken into account. Regional programs and BMPs, such as TMDL programs and the MS4 Permit Program, have been designed under an assumption that the Whitewater River Watershed would continue its pattern of urbanization. The regional control measures contemplate the cumulative effects of proposed development. Compliance with these regional programs and permits constitutes compliance with programs intended to address cumulative water quality impacts.

Portions of the Whitewater River watershed are located within 100‐year flood zones. No development on the Development Sites would occur in identified 100‐year flood zones. For the cumulative projects that include residential development, those projects will be required to provide evidence their residential improvements are maintained at least one foot above 100‐year‐flood elevations in accordance with National Flood Insurance Program requirements. City of Banning Ordinance No. 1415 Stormwater Code requires compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and BMPs related to stormwater runoff and catchment basins, and that projects be subject to regular inspection to ensure compliance. Section 13.24.110 of the City of Banning Municipal Code requires that any construction in the City comply with the Stormwater Management Provisions as codified in Chapter 13.24 and the Uniform Building Code, as well as the City of Banning Ordinance 1388.35 Concerning potential groundwater impacts, the City is located within San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, which the California Department of Water Resources designates as a medium priority basin. In 2022, the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan, which identifies projects and management actions to conserve 35   The City is approximately 55 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean, as such it is not located in a tsunami hazard zone. Seiches are waves that are created in an enclosed body of water such as a bay, lake, or harbor that are triggered by high winds, changes in atmospheric pressure, earthquakes, tsunamis, or tidal influence. The cumulative projects are not adjacent to or near any large, enclosed closed bodies of water.

There would be no significantly cumulative tsunami or seiche hazard. 536

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
9‐29
water, capture stormwater, and recharge imported water into the Subbasin. Project 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. Similar to the Project, the cumulative projects would each be required to analyze potential impacts and impose mitigation necessary to ensure that the projects do not substantially interfere with groundwater management or recharge that may impede implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin.

The cumulative projects would increase impervious surface area, which may alter the amount or duration of local or regional runoff. It is reasonable that as cumulative development occurs, site‐ specific design (through on‐site retention and/or detention of stormwater runoff) and project mitigation will ensure post‐development flows do not result in on‐site or off‐site substantial erosion or siltation, substantially increase surface runoff that would result in on‐site or off‐site flooding, contribute runoff which would exceed existing or planned capacity of stormwater drainage systems or substantially add to polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows. Similar to the Project, the cumulative projects would each be required to control or otherwise limit runoff in accordance with the applicable City regulation and the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit. The implementation of these requirements on a project‐level would ensure no significant cumulative drainage or flooding impacts would occur.

Flows within alluvial channels typically carry sediment, with concentrations that tend to increase with flow rate. The ability of flow to move sediment as it passes downstream is termed its sediment transport capacity. Hydraulic properties, particularly flow velocity, and bed material properties, such as median grain size, determine the sediment transport capacity of a given river reach. The capacity of a flow to transport particles of a given diameter is exponentially related to the flow velocity (above a given incipient or threshold velocity). In channels with similar bed material composition, higher velocities result in increased sediment transport capability. The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Plan Area lies downstream of the Development Site. The CVMSHCP was designed, in part, to conserve species which depend specifically on the preservation of their respective sand dune or sand sheet habitats in CVMSHCP Conservation Area(s). As stated in Section 4.10 of this EIR, while the city is not located within the boundaries of the 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. High 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 changes in 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.

Cumulative development, such as the RSG, BSP, and SLB Extension projects, have or are currently addressing this issue in their respective environmental clearance and/or permitting actions. Project‐ level adherence to appropriate measures identified during these processes, similar to Mitigation Measures HYD‐1 and HYD‐2, will ensure the maintenance of appropriate sediment transport to support deposition in downstream/downwind conservation areas. 537

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
9‐30
As development within the City must include project‐level provisions related to the management of storm water, maintenance of surface or groundwater water quality, preservation of groundwater, drainage patterns, flood control, consistency with plans drafted for the management of water resources, and Agency requirements related to the appropriate maintenance of sediment transport, the impacts related to these issues would not be cumulatively significant.

9.11 LAND USE
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to land use and planning.

Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to land use and planning are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.11 of the Draft EIR. The City findsthat the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to land use and planning; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
A cumulatively considerable impact would occur if a project, when considered with other cumulative projects, would cause an environmental impact due to conflict with an established land use policy or program adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect or results in a physical division of an established community. As detailed in Draft EIR Sections 4.11 and 5.4.11.2, the Development Project and MSJC Entitlements would have no impact or a less than significant land use/planning impact and no regulatory compliance measures or mitigation measures are required.

The construction and operation of the Project would increase the urban development footprint and improve roadway connections within the City and would not physically divide an established community and therefore would not contribute to cumulative land use impacts with respect to division of an existing community. In addition, the Project Sites are outside of and do not conflict with the Banning Airport Master Plan and therefore would not contribute to cumulative land use impacts with respect to airport uses.

The Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan has been prepared under the provisions of Government Code §65450 through §65454, which establish the authority to adopt a Specific Plan, identify the required content of a Specific Plan, and mandate consistency with city’s General Plan. In addition to standard requirements established by statute, the City may require the inclusion of other material it deems deemed necessary or desirable to implement the General Plan, such as architectural or landscaped design guidelines. Chapter 17.96 (Specific Plans) of the Banning Code of Ordinances establishes uniform procedures for the adoption and implementation of Specific Plans. The Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan has been prepared to provide the essential link to the policies of the City of Banning General Plan. By functioning as a regulatory document, the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan provides a means of implementing and detailing the City’s General Plan and tailoring its policies to the Development Site. The Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan has been prepared to address site‐specific issues such as building setbacks and visual appearance, as well as community‐wide concerns such as vehicular and non‐vehicular circulation, energy conservation, landscaping, and the provision for 538

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
9‐31
infrastructure improvements, and ensures the Development Project meets or exceeds City land use standards for environmental protection, infrastructure, and aesthetic quality.36 Future development within the City could result in changes to the existing land use environment through the conversion of vacant land to developed uses, or through conversions of existing land uses (e.g., from residential to commercial). As Specific Plans are tailored to implement the General Plan and establish policies and guidelines to address site‐specific issues and community‐wide concerns, cumulative development would not conflict with the General Plan and Zoning Code, or with General Plan policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect or result in a physical division of an established community. Other cumulative development would also be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the City, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and planning requirements. Development of future projects proposing changes in land use would require project‐specific consistency analysis to ensure such a change would not conflict with the General Plan or City Code.

The City has initiated the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Change (ZC) of the MSJC Site to avoid a net loss of residential capacity resulting from implementation of the Development Project.

The proposed MSJC Entitlements will change the current general plan and zoning designation of the MSJC site from Public Facilities to Very High Density Residential, allowing a maximum capacity of not fewer than 1,146 residential units (and a maximum of 1,181 units). The MSJC Entitlements ensure no net loss of residential capacity in the City and provide alternative housing opportunities for a broader segment of the community. Future development of the MSJC Site with a specific plan would include a development framework for detailed land use, circulation, infrastructure including drainage, sewer, and water facilities, and urban design and landscape. Subsequent development on the MSJC Site would be pursuant to the required specific plan, and is required to be consistent with City guidelines and requirements; therefore, no significant inconsistency with this policy would result from implementation of the MSJC Entitlements or subsequent residential development on the MSJC Site.

Construction and operation of the Project (pursuant to its Specific Plan(s)), combined with cumulative development in accordance with the City of Banning’s General Plan or the controlling Specific Plan, would not result in significant land use and planning impacts and would comply with State law requirements related to no net loss of residential units. The Project would be consistent with applicable plans, goals, policies, and regulations of the City of Banning’s General Plan and zoning regulations, and the SCAG RTP/SCS, that have been adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect or results in a physical division of an established community. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed Project with respect to future development would not be cumulatively considerable and would not result in significant land use impact.

9.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to mineral resources.
36   T&B Planning, Inc. 2022. Draft Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan No. 20‐20000002. August. 539

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
9‐32
Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to mineral resources are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.12 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to mineral resources; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)‐3 is the predominant designation throughout most of the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). The only mineral extraction site in the City, the Banning Quarry, mines rock, sand, and base materials used for concrete and construction. The quarry is located in the MRZ‐2 zone in the eastern portion of the City approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the Project Sites. The General Plans of the City and Riverside County have not designated the Sites with a land use designation that allows for mineral extraction nor are these areas held in reserve for future mining activity. The proposed sites for the public facilities projects, as well as the alignment of the SLB Extension, like the Project Sites, are located within Mineral Resource Zone 3; therefore, any development of the Project and these public facilities would be expected to have a less than significant mineral resource impact.

As stated in stated in Sections 4.13 and 5.4.13.2 of this EIR, the Development Site and the MSJC Site are designated as MRZ‐3 (areas of known of inferred mineral occurrences of unknown significance.

While the Projects Sites are mapped assuch, over the past 120 years, there has been no evidence that significant mineral resources are located on the Sites, nor has the State, County, or City conducted mineral recovery at these locations.

Of the cumulative projects, only the Hathaway Industrial project (BA7) is located in an MRZ‐2 zone (an area where adequate information indicatesthatsignificant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists). The State Mining and Geology Board maps the Hathaway Industrial project site as Sector G‐1, which indicates that the site contains regionally significant Portland‐cement concrete (PCC) grade aggregate resources. However, there are no records that indicate the project site was previously used as a mineral resource recovery site or as a site occupied by mines. Within Sector G‐1, approximately 470.6 acres remain open for mineral extraction including the Banning Quarry. The Hathaway Industrial project site has previously been mass graded.

While the Hathaway Project would preclude any future mineral extraction on the site, the loss of the site represents 0.43 percent of the total remaining areas designated for PCC grade aggregate in the Region. Development of the cumulative projects would not conflict with or interfere with extractive operations at the Banning Quarry. Implementation of the Project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant loss of known mineral resources or the development of a site that has been delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery area by the City or Riverside County.

Therefore, the Project would not cumulatively contribute to a significant loss of known mineral resources or the development of a site that has been delineated as a locally important mineral resource recovery area or have a cumulatively considerable effect on mineral resources. 540

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
9‐33

9.13 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise resulting from Project‐related traffic or Project operations in excess of established standards under cumulative conditions.

Finding
The potential cumulative noise impacts of the Project are discussed in Section 6.5.13 of the Draft EIR.

On‐site construction‐related noise impacts are reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. For activities associated with construction of roadway or utility improvements, it may not be possible to construct the temporary noise attenuation walls required under Mitigation Measure NOI‐1; therefore, the off‐site construction noise resulting from roadway and utility improvement associated with the Development Project was determined to be significant. However, as the roadway work in this location would be completed by the Project applicant and not by cumulative projects, the significant Project impact is not a cumulative impact.

Off‐site traffic noise impacts and operational noise impacts are reduced to below a level of significance through the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐2. The City has determined that these measures, incorporated into the Project, are feasible and reduce the potential significant operations impact identified in the EIR to a less than significant level.

Substantial Evidence
Cumulatively significant noise impacts require multiple sources and noise receptors, each in close proximity to each other. Due to the attenuating characteristics of noise, cumulative noise and vibration impacts are evaluated on the Project Sites and immediately adjacent areas. The only adjacent cumulative projects to the Development Site and MSJC Site are the RSG site, located immediately to the east of the Development Site and south of the MSJC Site, and the SLB Extension, potable water reservoir, reverse osmosisfacility, and electricalsubstation proposed to be constructed and operated by the City within the boundaries of the Development Site. Other cumulative projects would generally not result in cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors near the Project Sites due to their scattered locations and distance from the Development Project. The primary noise sources in the Project area for Project operations are transportation facilities/traffic. In order for a cumulative impact to be considered significant, the Project traffic would need to create a noise level increase of 3 dB(A) or greater in the area adjacent to the roadway segments. In addition, the resulting noise level would need to exceed the City’s 65 dB(A) CNEL exterior noise standard.

Construction. As stated in Draft EIR, Section 4.13, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 requiring a temporary construction noise barrier when project construction activities are within 100 feet from the nearest residential structure would reduce noise levels from on‐site construction to below the City’s interior construction noise standard of 55 A‐weighted decibel (dBA) for more than 15 minutes per hour; therefore, a significant impact would not occur. For activities associated with construction of roadway or utility improvements, it may not be possible to construct the temporary noise attenuation walls required under Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. While the off‐site construction noise resulting from roadway and utility improvement associated with the Development Project were determined to be significant, cumulatively significant noise impacts require multiple sources and noise receptors, each in close proximity to each other. As roadway and utility improvements are 541

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
9‐34
typically linear projects that do not overlap (either in location or schedule) it is not likely multiple projects would be on‐going at the same time; therefore, construction noise resulting from roadway and utility improvements would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, Banning Municipal Code Chapter 8.44.085 states that sound emanating from capital improvement projects of a governmental agency, or the maintenance and repair of public properties by a governmental agency are exempt from City noise standards; therefore, construction of the related public facilities would not contribute to a cumulative considerably noise impact.

The timing of any future development of the MSJC Site is not known at this time, but development may occur in the future concurrently with development of portions of the RSG site. Construction crew commutes and the transport of construction equipment and materials would incrementally increase noise levels on adjoining roadways. Noise generated during site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of construction could, if carried out at the same time, have cumulatively considerable impacts on sensitive receptors in the community. The net increase in noise levels generated by these activities and other sources has been quantitatively estimated and compared to the applicable noise standards and thresholds of significance. If the Development Project and RSG project are developed at the same time, adherence to the City’s Municipal Code (Section 8.44.090[E]) would limit the construction activities to daytime between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. As stated in Section 4.13, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 requiring a temporary construction noise barrier when project construction activities are within 100 feet from the nearest residential structure would reduce construction noise levels below the City’s interior construction noise standard of 55 A‐weighted decibel (dBA) for more than 15 minutes per hour. Like the Development Project, the RSG project identified a significant construction‐related noise impact at nearby receptors, recommending mitigation to reduce noise levels at nearby receptors. Section 5.4.13.2 of this EIR indicates that a site‐specific noise assessment identifying noise reduction requirements is required prior to any construction on the MSJC Site. As the City’s Municipal Code limits hours of construction, because of the temporary nature of construction noise, and as both the Project and the RSG project will implement necessary mitigation to reduce construction noise levels at nearby receptors, construction noise in the project area would not be cumulatively considerable.

Operation. Noise from Development Project operations has two sources: traffic and onsite operations. With respect to long‐term operational noise primarily caused by traffic, this EIR analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project Sites, and cumulative projects (see Draft EIR, Table 6.B) as described in Section 4.13 of this EIR (as revised). Specifically, future (2045) cumulative traffic calculations were used to determine the noise levels of all cumulative projects and reflect the cumulative conditions at new and existing land uses in the vicinity of the Project. The Horizon Year (2045) average daily traffic trips were obtained from the Project specific traffic analysis (which estimated traffic volumes and distributions for the cumulative projects added to the projected ambient growth detailed in Section 4.5 of the Traffic Assessment and Supplemental Traffic Assessment (see Appendices J‐2 and J‐3 of the Draft EIR) prepared for the Project.

The Draft EIR identified two significant unavoidable noise impacts from operation of the proposed Development Project at nearby sensitive receptors from: (1) Project traffic at the residences located east of Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Sun Lakes Boulevard/Westward Avenue and at the 542

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
9‐35
MSJC school on the east side of Sunset Avenue south of Sun Lakes Boulevard/Westward Avenue, and (2) noise generated on‐site from Development Project operations at certain residences located immediately south of Bobcat Road. Although these impacts were identified in the Draft EIR as significant and unavoidable (based on the original parameters of the Development Project), in response to public comments, the Development Project is modified by the inclusion of the Project Design Features N‐1 and N‐2, which are detailed in the revised Specific Plan (page 2‐1 and 2‐10, respectively) and Final EIR (Section 4.0 and Appendix I‐2). See also see Final EIR, Section 3.0, response to Comment D‐6‐29.

These PDFs include:
 PDF N‐1: To address traffic noise impacts along Sunset Avenue, the alignment of Sunset Avenue is shifted to the west from its previously proposed location to provide additional distance from sensitive receptors east of Sunset Avenue. More specifically, the centerline of Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Sun Lakes Boulevard/Westward Avenue would be adjusted 42 ft to the west from the existing centerline with implementation of the Development Project, which results in the new centerline being 72 ft from the nearest residential property line and 115 feet from the school at the MSJC Site.
 PDF N‐2: To address the potential for impacts to residences from on‐site Development Project operations, on‐site project operations are revised to require:
○ Cold storage equipment previously allowed on industrial building rooftops will be shielded or relocated to the ground floor; and
○ Construction of 10 ft high “wing walls” on the south end of warehouse buildings 1 and 2, and 6 ft high walls that surround the automobile parking lots south of warehouse buildings 1 and 2 as depicted in the SoundPLAN printoutsin Attachment A to the Supplemental Noise Analysis (Final EIR, Appendix I‐2, Attachment A).

These project design features are included in Mitigation Measure NOI‐2 as follows:

NOI‐2 Prior to approval of roadway plans for Sunset Avenue, the City will confirm that the Development Project design plans for Sunset Avenue incorporate project design feature N‐1 (PDF N‐1) and shift the alignment of Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension/Westward Avenue to the west from the existing centerline as required by PDF N‐1 to reduce traffic noise at neighboring sensitive uses to a less than significant level. To reduce operational noise impacts to a less than significant level, prior to issuance of building permits, the City will confirm that the following building design plans are consistent with PDF N‐2: (1) design plans for each building proposed to contain cold storage facilities shall eithershield rooftop cold storage equipment or locate such equipment on the ground level and (2) design plans for buildings adjacent to Bobcat Road (in the location depicted for Buildings 1 and 2 in the Specific Plan), shall include wing walls and parking lot walls meeting the requirements of PDF N‐2.
543

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
9‐36
As the Final EIR has been revised to include Mitigation Measure NOI‐237 into any future plans for Sunset Avenue and Buildings 1 and 2, these PDFs become fully enforceable through the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program developed for the Project. As described below and in the Supplemental Noise Analysis for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Banning, California (see Final EIR, Appendix I‐2 and revised Section 4.13 Noise), all operational noise impacts from the Development Project are reduced to lessthan significant levels with implementation of these PDFs and revised MM NOI‐2. Cumulatively significant noise impacts require multiple sources and noise receptors, each in close proximity to each other, within the same time period; therefore, in the absence of a Project‐related impact, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant traffic noise; therefore, the effect of traffic noise resulting from the Project would not be cumulatively considerable.

Operational noise resulting from occupation of the Development Site would be typical of that experienced in similar industrial and commercial development and will include noise generated from truck delivery and truck unloading activities, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, speakerphones, parking activities, fueling activities, and outdoor eating activities. While on‐site operational noises are individual noise occurrences and are not typically additive in nature, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI‐2, the significant nighttime operational noise impact previously identified in the Draft EIR at residential uses south of Bobcat Road has been eliminated.

MSJC Site VHDR operational noise would be typical of residential developments. On‐site noise from both the MSJC Site and the RSG site would be limited that that typical of residential and educational uses (e.g., parking area noise, HVAC, recreational activity). Therefore, although the RSG site and MSJC Site are in proximity to the Development Site, it is extremely unlikely that these adjacent properties will generate noises that would be additive in nature for two reasons. First, the noise sources would have to be adjacent or in close proximity to one another in order for the noisesto intermingle. Second, the sensitive receptor or receptors would also have to be adjacent to or in close proximity to the noise generators; therefore, cumulative operational noise is not expected to create significant noise impacts at sensitive receptors. It is reasonable to conclude that each project will be required to identify and mitigate operational noise such that exterior and interior noise levels do not exceed established City standards at any noise‐sensitive use.

Noise‐producing components at the electrical substation would be limited to the transformers. The electrical substation site is located approximately 700 feet northwest of the nearest residential use.

Transformers at the electrical substation would produce a combined maximum noise level of approximately 37 dBA Leq at 45 feet. Assuming standard distance attenuation, noise from the substation would be approximately 19 dBA Leq at the nearest residential uses, which is below the nighttime (most restrictive) allowable level of 45 dBA Leq at residential property lines. Other operational noise related to the electrical substation and potable water reservoir would likely result only from periodic inspection/maintenance activities. Noise from these activities at public facilities are not anticipated to exceed established thresholds and would, additionally, be exempt from City noise control requirements and therefore would not be significant. 37   Note: Mitigation Measure NOI‐2 referenced in the Final EIR and these findings replace Mitigation Measure NOI‐2 included in the Draft EIR. Based on public comment received during public review of the Draft EIR 544

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
9‐37
Special roadway paving and sound walls were considered to mitigate traffic noise associated with the RSG project. These measures were deemed infeasible due to the limited noise reduction achievable (paving) and inability to provide a sound barrier that retained necessary accessto affected residences.

Despite the infeasibility of this measure for the RSG project, cumulatively significant noise impacts require multiple sources and noise receptors, each in close proximity to each other, within the same time period; therefore, in the absence of a Project‐related impact, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant traffic noise; therefore, the effect of traffic noise resulting from the Project would not be cumulatively considerable.

9.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to population and housing.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to population and housing are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.14 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to population and housing; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
A cumulatively considerable effect on population would occur if the Project, combined with cumulative development, would directly orindirectly induce substantial unplanned growth or displace substantial numbers of persons or housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Under existing conditions, no residential structures are located on Development Sites; therefore, there the Project no potential to contribute to a cumulatively significant impact associated with the need to construct unplanned housing units. The MSJC Entitlements could result in development of up to 1,181 units of housing on the MSJC Site, but that is transferring residential capacity from the Development Site resulting in no net change in housing capacity in the City. Other cumulative projects, including the RSG SP and Butterfield Specific Plan, propose a variety of planned residential uses that have or will contribute to population increases in the City but accommodate planned growth. In July 2022, the City of Banning had an estimated population of 30,683. By 2045, the City’s population is expected to increase to 41,500 residents. Within the City, the cumulative projects anticipate development of up to 8,596 residential dwellings. Whether all of these units are ultimately constructed and/or occupied is dependent on future economic conditions and market demand. The cumulative projects represent 165 percent of the number of households forecast in the SCAG RTP/SCS Connect SoCal for 2045; though It should be noted the buildout plans for the BSP and RSG projects envision a 30‐  and 20‐year buildout, respectively; which extend beyond the SCAG forecast period.

The sites for the proposed electrical substation, reverse osmosis facility, potable water reservoir, and Sunset Avenue Bridge are previously planned projectsto support the utility service and transportation needs of the City. The infrastructure that would be constructed in connection with the Development Project and is either already planned for by the City or needed for planned growth as described in the City’s General Plan, IMP, CIP, and/or other City plans. The eventual development of these public 545

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
9‐38
facilities at some future point in time would not result in an unplanned indirect increase in population in the City. The SLB Extension entails the construction of thisroadway as an Arterial Highway between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue, in conformance with the City’s Circulation Element, and constitutes a planned infrastructure improvement. As the SLB Extension is implementing a portion of the City’s Circulation Element, it also would not indirectly induce population growth not previously considered by the City.

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) reflects the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) determination of the projected housing needs in a region by household income level as a percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The SCAG was tasked with allocating the RHNA among the jurisdictions in the SCAG region, which includes the City of Banning.

Banning’s RHNA for the current planning period which runs until 2029 is 1,673 units, which includes:
 510 very low‐ and low‐income housing units
 280 moderate‐income housing units
 883 above moderate‐income housing units
The City is able to meet the majority (1,316 units) of its current cycle RHNA with existing Land Use/Zoning classifications and projects that were either pending or approved (pipeline) projects at the time the Housing Element was updated, and on vacant or nonvacant (underutilized) sites. The remaining 357 units have been accommodated by the City’s rezoning of nonvacant or vacant sites.

These actions accommodate a total of 2,691 units, which provides sufficient capacity to meet the City’s 2021–2029 RHNA allocation.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65890.1, land use patterns should be encouraged that balance the location of employment‐generating uses with residential uses, so that employment‐related commuting is minimized. As stated in Section 4.14.3.3 (page 4.14‐4) of the Draft EIR, the SCAG Connect SoCal Environmental Justice technical report indicates that Riverside County has a jobs‐to‐ housing ratio of 0.88, indicating that the region is “housing rich, but jobs poor.” While neither the City nor SCAG maintain formal statistics regarding Banning’s jobs‐housing ratio, previous evaluations indicated that the City of Banning followed similar trends asthe County as a whole, with more housing available than employment opportunities within the City. Based on the number of jobs (10,500) and housing stock (12,156 units), the City’s jobs/housing ratio would be calculated at approximately 0.86, slightly lower than Riverside County as a whole. Therefore, the jobs added by the Development Project and cumulative projects would serve to improve the jobs‐housing ratio, and would not result in substantial unplanned growth.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in February 2024, the Riverside‐San Bernardino‐ Ontario region’s civilian labor force exceeded 2,184,128 persons with more than 2,063,5980 people employed and an unemployment rate of 5.56 percent (or 120,530 persons)38. Within the City and the 38   Bureau of Labor Statistics, Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t01.htm, Site accessed April 19, 2024. 546

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
9‐39
County of Riverside, the unemployment rate is 6.6 and 4.6 percent, respectively.39 Approximately 86.1 percent of Banning residents commute outside of the city for work.40 The Development Project is anticipated to provide up to 5,993 jobs at full buildout. Following current trends of the City having more housing available than employment opportunities; it is anticipated that local employees will seek jobs at the Development Site and that the Development Project would provide additional employment opportunities, while not displacing or reducing housing opportunities. The Project would provide job opportunities close to home for existing and future Banning residents, which would subsequently help achieve a better job‐to‐housing balance within the city. The employment generated from the Development Project would not induce substantial growth in the area because the 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 Final EIR, response to Comment D‐3‐18).

As the City has sufficient existing and planned housing for the anticipated employment growth, and because a sufficient pool of potential employees is available in the City and region, the Project would not cause substantial unplanned population growth or displace existing housing or people; therefore, population and housing impacts of the Project are not cumulatively considerable.

9.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to public services.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to public services are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.15 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to public services; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The cumulative impact area is the service area of the respective public service providers. The City maintains a schedule of development impact fees (DIF) imposed on development to fund public services and to offset future developments’ share of public facilities and capital improvements for Police Facilities, Fire Facilities, Parks and Recreation Facilities, General City Facilities, Wastewater Facilities, and Water Facilities.41 The fees collected are dependent on the type and size of development and fund the share of public facilities related to new development in the City. Public services to Project would be provided by the City (police), Riverside County (fire), the Banning Unified School District, and the Banning Library District, which maintain sufficient capacity to provide service 39   Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) April 2024 ‐ Preliminary, California Economic Development Department.   40   Page 21, Pre‐certified Local Housing Data for the City of Banning, Southern California Association of Governments, updated April 2021. 41   Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the City of Beaumont’s Municipal Code also establishes a procedure for the identification of fees, revenue, and assessments to construct and maintain necessary public services and facilities.
547

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
9‐40
to the Project Sites (see Draft EIR Section 4.15). The Banning Library District (BLD), as it is a California Special District, is funded by property tax revenue. The annual estimate of costs of BLD operations is furnished to Riverside County and the tax required to fund library functions is computed, entered upon the tax rolls, and collected in the same manner as County taxes are computed and collected.

Under the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 50, the Banning Unified School District (BUSD) is authorized to collect fees to offset the costs associated with increased demand on school facilities resulting from development. Under Assembly Bill (AB) 2926, this funding may go to acquiring school sites, constructing new school facilities, and modernizing existing school facilities. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65995(h), the payment of these school fees (as established and ratified by the BUSD) by a developer would provide full mitigation of potential impacts on school facilities.

The City’s DIF impact analysisidentifies existing and future service population (residents plus workers) and existing and planned public facilities based on an estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Banning, both in 2018 and in 2040. The base year estimates of residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. Future resident and dwelling unit are based on draft Growth Figures from SCAG's Integrated Growth Forecast from the 2016‐2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Asthe DIF program has already accounted for the 2040 forecasted population/dwellings in the City, it is reasonable to anticipate that the fees established in the current DIF program (or the DIF program isin effect at the time of proposed physical development of cumulative projects). The City may use these feesto pay for the debtservice on the existing facilities or for the construction or purchase of buildings, equipment and land that are part of the system of public facilities to serve new development. As established in Sections 4.15 and 5.4.15.2 of the Draft EIR, the Project will be conditioned to pay applicable development impact fees and required school fees (as required by RCMs PS‐1 through PS‐3 and MSJC RCM PS‐2). The payment of said fees is required under Banning Municipal Code Section 15.68 and the California Government Code. The payment of required fees would off‐set and mitigate for any proportional Project‐related or cumulative projects’ increase in demand for public services.

The need for the proposed electricalsubstation has been identified to by the BEU to support the City’s existing General Plan’s long‐term growth. The potable water reservoir is required to provide the long‐ term water storage requirements of the City and the approved RSG project. The need for additional water storage capacity was identified in the City’s Integrated Master Plan (2018) and the RSG EIR, but the exact location was not identified at that time. The SLB Extension would implement the City’s Circulation Element. As these facilities themselves are planned services to meet public demand, and because activity at these public facilities would be limited to periodic inspection and/or maintenance, no cumulative substantial adverse impacts are anticipated from construction of these facilities which accommodate planned for increases in demand for public services.

As noted in Section 6.3 of the Draft EIR, a number of cumulative projects are located within the City of Beaumont. Similar to the City of Banning, per Title 3 of its Municipal Code,42 the City of Beaumont also maintains a development fee program “Development Related Fee Schedule” (July 1, 2023) that identifiesthe feesrequired to fund public services, including, but not limited to: Fire Protection Impact 42   City of Banning. 2023. Municipal Code, Title 3  ‐  Revenue and Finance. November 22. Website:
https://library.municode.com/ca/beaumont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT3REFI (accessed September 5, 2023).
548

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
9‐41
Fee, Police Facilities Impact Fee, Recreation Facilities Impact Fee, Park(s) Impact Fee(s), and Public Facility Fees. The Beaumont Unified School District maintains Level 1 fees for residential uses, commercial, industrial, and self‐storage uses.43 It is reasonable to assume that applicable fees for cumulative development occurring within the City of Beaumont or within the Beaumont Unified School District would be collected by the City or Beaumont USD prior to the construction of those projects and that these fees would appropriately address the proportional cumulative demand for public services in the City of Beaumont.

Although public service impacts tend to be cumulative in nature, each cumulative project would be required to pay development impact fees, school fees, and/or property tax assessments to provide for its fair‐share contribution to any increased demand for public services in the jurisdiction in which it is located. With payment of such fees and tax assessments, which is required pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 15.68, the Project's contribution to public services impacts is not cumulatively considerable. Further, as the payment of such fees is required for the cumulative development projects, in either the City of Banning or Beaumont, it is reasonable the cumulative impacts on public facilities would not be significant.

9.16 RECREATION
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to recreation.

Finding
Potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to recreation are discussed in detail in Section

6.5.16 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to recreation; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
The cumulative area for the discussion of recreation facilities/services is the City of Banning. There are currently seven developed public parks within the City, which range in size from the approximately

0.33‐acre Carpenter‐Hamilton Park to the 20‐acre Dysart Equestrian Park. The total parkland acreage in the City of Banning is 66.67 acres, including both active and passive recreational areas The City’s Community Center/Municipal Pool complex occupies an additional 14 acres (see Draft EIR, Table 6.A).

The Development Project does not propose any residential uses or other land use that may generate population that would directly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The MSJC Entitlements do not propose any development at this time, would accommodate the transfer of residential capacity to the MSJC Site and do not cause an increase in residential units or population in the City that was not previously accounted for in planning or funding programsfor park and/or recreation facilities. Any future development of the MSJC Site would comply with applicable requirements to either include recreational facilities or parks as part of the development or housing units, or would require dedication of and/or payment of required park fees likely resulting in no significant impact on City and regional recreational facilities. Approximately 210 43   Beaumont Unified School District (USD). n.d. Developer Fees, Current Developer Fee Rates. Website:
https://www.beaumontusd.us/apps/pages/Developer_Fees (accessed September 5, 2023). 549

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
9‐42
acres of parks and open space areas are provided within the approved RSG project. Facilities within the RSG project include: an entry park (1.1 acres), neighborhood park (12.7 acres), confluence park (10.2 acres), and community park (26 acres); a linear park along Smith Creek and Pershing Creek (122 acres); village paseos (12.6 acres); and natural open space (25.7 acres), all of which would be in proximity to the Project Sites (Draft EIR, pg 6‐52).

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. As described in Section 6.1.14 of the Findings, the 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 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 as discussed in Section 4.14 of the Draft EIR and Section 6.1.14 of these Findings.

It can be assumed that existing City, City of Beaumont, and County residents already use park and recreation facilities within the respective jurisdictions. 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 includes approximately 12.6 acres of Open Space – Parks (comprising a 5.0‐acre passive park and 7.6 acres of passive open space. The passive park on the Development Site would be open to the public and would be accessible to City residents and employees(including Development Site employees) and would add to the existing City’s existing park inventory.

While 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 and because the City does not consider industrial 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 and no cumulatively considerable impact would occur. Chapter 15.68 (Development Impact Fees) of the Banning Municipal Code identifies requirements to fund required public facilities, including parkland and recreation facilities. Banning Municipal Code Chapter 15.68 imposes park fees on new residential, commercial, and industrial development to pay for recreational facilities to meet the increased needs, if any, from the effects of new, non‐residential development. Each of the cumulative projects along with the Project would be subject to such paymentrequirements. With payment ofsuch required fees, the Project's contribution to recreation impacts is not cumulatively considerable. Other cumulative projects in the City would be required to demonstrate their level of impact on recreational facilities, including payment of the appropriate development impact fees; therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to recreation.

9.17 TRANSPORTATION
Impact Statement: The Development Project’s VMT non‐retail VMT per employee (30.8) would exceed the City’s significance threshold of (25.9) by 4.9, an increase in per employe e VMT of 18.9 550

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
9‐43
percent. While the Transportation Demand Measures implemented pursuant to Mitigation Measure TRA‐1 (which would incorporate Project Design Features T‐1 through T‐3) would realize a maximum

8.4 percent reduction in commute VMT, Project generated VMT per employee would still exceed the City’s adopted VMT impact threshold. Therefore, even with the implementation of MM TRA‐1, the Project’s VMT impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The remaining cumulative transportation impacts are less than significant.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to transportation are discussed in detail in Section 6.5.17 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to conflicts with the circulation system, roadway design hazards, and emergency access, and therefore, the Development Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Because the Development Project would result in a significant cumulative VMT impact, the City finds that implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA‐1 would reduce impacts to the extent feasible; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that the stated mitigation isfeasible, is adopted, and will reduce to some measure, the level of VMT generated through operation of the proposed uses. The implementation and effectiveness of TDM measures will vary according to the tenants which are unknown at this time; therefore, the extent and effectiveness of mitigation cannot be determined. The significance determination is based on a conservative worst‐ case scenario whereby it is assumed that effectiveness of VMT mitigation and project design features cannot be guaranteed based on research to date, and no additional mitigation is feasible, and therefore, the City finds that the impacts are significant and unavoidable. 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 alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the EIR.

Substantial Evidence
A significant cumulative transportation impact would occur if cumulative development conflicts with transportation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, results in inadequate emergency access, increases transportation hazards, or is inconsistent with VMT reduction policy established by the City.

As discussed in Section 4.17 of the Draft EIR, the Development Project would result in less than significant impacts relating to conflicts with the circulation system, roadway design hazards, and emergency access. To comply with the City’s General Plan and the Banning Municipal Code requirements, development of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City would be required to meet standard requirements to provide transportation facilities that accommodate both pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle travel and to avoid roadway design hazards and emergency access. Therefore, the Development Project would not result in circulation system, roadway design hazards, and emergency access impacts that are cumulatively considerable.

The proposed electrical substation, reverse osmosis facility, and potable water reservoir would be public facilities. While these facilities would require period inspection/maintenance, per the City’s guidelines, local‐serving community projects and local‐serving essential services are screened from VMT analysis and are assumed to have a less than significant impact. Based on the VMT screening analysis conducted for the SLB Extension, the With Project condition results in a substantial reduction of VMT within a 5‐mile and 10‐mile radius of the SLB Extension and would likely increase Countywide 551

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
9‐44
VMT by approximately 0.0005 percent. This increase is well within the margin of error for transportation models, and as such may not be indicative of a significant impact. When compared with the base year (2012) condition, the SLB Extension results in a decrease under all analyzed geographic limits (5‐  and 10‐mile radius and Countywide); therefore, the VMT impact of the SLB Extension was determined to be less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

Interstate 10 (I‐10) borders the Project site to the north; the Highland Springs Avenue/I‐10 interchange is located approximately one mile west of the Development Site; and Sunset Avenue interchanges with I‐10 immediately northeast of the Development Site. This Development Site’s location provides direct access to the Project via the interstate freeway system, minimizing trip lengths and VMT for all patrons and employees and reducing travel distances for movement of goods.

This is also consistent with the SB 743 legislative intent. Furthermore, the Project is located within an urbanized area, proximate to prospective employees and patrons. Uses proposed by the Project would increase and diversify the City’s economy and would provide new and varied employment and commercial opportunities closer to the local workforce and customers (see Final EIR, Section 3.0, response to Comment D‐3‐24). The Development Site is located in an area considered to be generally housing rich and jobs poor; therefore, the Project uses at this location promote a balanced jobs/housing condition, reducing commuter trip lengths and VMT. Please refer Final EIR, Section 3.0, responses to Comments D‐3‐8 and D‐3‐18.

Regardless of the Development Project’s location or contribution to remedying the City’s current jobs/housing imbalance, the Development Project’s VMT net change for retail uses and VMT per non‐ retail worker exceeds the City’s respective thresholds of no net increase in regional VMT for retail and

25.9 VMT per non‐retail worker. Even with implementation of the limited feasible mitigation measures, the Development Project’s VMT cannot be reduced to levels that would be less than significant, and the Project wasfound to have a significant and unavoidable VMT impact at the project level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA‐1, including the project design features T‐1 (Commute Trip Reduction Marketing), T‐2 (Ridesharing Program), and T‐3 (End‐of‐Trip Bicycle Facilities) would reduce VMT by 8.4 percent, lessthan 15.9 percent reduction necessary for a lessthan significant VMT impacts. While it is possible the reduction could be greater, because the tenants of the Development Site are currently unknown, this cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, conservatively, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, Development Project VMT impacts would not be substantially lessened and would remain significant and unavoidable.

Therefore, the Development Project’s contribution to cumulative transportation impacts from increases in VMT would be considerable and significant.

As previously stated in Section 5.4.17.2, moving residential density from the Development Site to the MSJC Site itself would not result in a significant increase in residential units or population beyond that previously considered by the City in its development of its VMT Guidelines. As the MSJC Site is directly adjacent to the Development Site, the proposed MSJC Entitlements and the potential future development of the MSJC Site would not likely increase trip lengths (vehicle miles traveled).

Nonetheless, future development on the MSJC Site will require a project‐specific VMT assessment.

Because the Development Project’s VMT impacts are significant and unavoidable, as a whole, the Project’s contribution to cumulative transportation impacts from increases in VMT would be considerable and significant.
552

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
9‐45
Changes to the CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay‐based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate took effect July 1, 2020. Environmental documents for cumulative projects published subsequent to this date (e.g., SLVN and BPSP projects) identified significant VMT impacts. Despite the implementation of mitigation for these projects, the VMT impacts of these other cumulative projects remained significant and unavoidable.

9.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to result in cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project to tribal cultural resources is addressed in in Section

6.5.18 of the Draft EIR. While no tribal cultural resources are known to occur within the limits of the Development or MSJC Site, through the removal of vegetation or ground disturbance, implementation of the Project has the potential to impact previously unknown or undetected tribal cultural material.

The City finds that Mitigation Measures CUL‐1 through CUL‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The City has determined that these measures, incorporated into the Project, reduce the potential significant impact identified in the Draft EIR to a less than significant level.

Substantial Evidence
Potential cumulative impacts to known or unknown tribal cultural resources may result from cumulative development in the City and elsewhere and may contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to these resources. However, for each development proposal, the City must engage interested tribal governments pursuant to AB 52 and/or SB 18 and with appropriate project‐specific mitigation, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The cumulative area for tribal cultural resources is the area(s) of traditional tribal interest identified by respective tribes. Native American consultation was conducted by the City in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18 for both the Development project and the MSJC Entitlements. As part of the initial consultation process, a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (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 (Draft EIR, Section 4.18.2).

The Development Project is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the MBMI. Because the Development Site is located in an area 553

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
9‐46
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, which may inform or provide broader knowledge/context of tribal resources located elsewhere. As such, the Development Project has the potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. The MBMI emphasized the importance of including archaeological and Native American monitoring in order to thoroughly assess if there are any tribal cultural resources are located at the Development Site.

As detailed in Section 4.18.6.1 of the Draft EIR, mitigation described under MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 would: (1) require the retention of a qualified archaeologist during all ground disturbance activities and the conduct of a pre‐construction archaeological sensitivity training; (2) mandate development of an archaeological monitoring treatment plan; (3) establish a Native American monitoring agreement detailing the presence, extent, and authority of Native American monitoring during ground disturbance activities; (4) identify the notification process related to human burials; (5) establish a processfor the treatment and disposition of archaeological or Native American cultural material (including human remains); and (6) ensure disclosure of all project‐related cultural data to consulting Native American parties. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources within the Development Site to a less than significant level and would not contribute to cumulatively significant impact relative to tribal cultural resources.

The City engaged in Native American consultation related to the SLB Extension, providing cultural resources assessment prepared for the project to the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. No tribal cultural resources were identified within the alignment, nor did the results of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Search indicate the presence of any sacred sites/or locations of religious/ceremonial importance in the SLB Extension study area. Mitigation was identified to reduce potential impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural materials to a less than significant impact. The cultural resources survey areas, survey reports, and tribal consultation for the Development Site encompass the area planned for the eventual development of the electrical substation, reverse osmosis facility, and water reservoir; therefore, it is reasonable the cumulative effect is accounted for in the impacts identified for the Development Site. As the Sunset Avenue Bridge was a component of the RSG project, the impacts of that facility have been considered in the EIR for the RSG project.

For other cumulative projects in the City, the City’s General Plan EIR44 states, “… All development or land use proposal which have the potential to disturb or destroy sensitive cultural resources shall be evaluated by a qualified professional and, if necessary, comprehensive Phase 1 studies and appropriate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into project approval.” This requirement applies equally to City‐sponsored public facility projects. The City maintains a standard practice of providing site‐specific cultural assessments to interested Tribes for review and comment during the consultation process and prior to final City acceptance of said assessments. Furthermore, completion of the consultation processes required under AB 52 and SB 18 and the incorporation of measures recommended by interested tribal governments, is required prior to completion of the CEQA process on all projects. All cumulative projects would be required to conductsite specific assessments, consult 44   City of Banning. 2005. Environmental Impact Report for the City of Banning Comprehensive General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, Section III(G)(3).
554

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
9‐47
with the interested Tribes, and would be subject to appropriate mitigation measures. Projects located outside the City, within areas of tribal interest, will also be required to comply with applicable existing statutes, regulations, procedures, and policies that address tribal cultural resources, including consultation under SB 18 and/or AB 52. As tribal consultation is required under CEQA, it is reasonable to anticipate that cumulative projects located outside of the City would conduct appropriate assessment to assess potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and to identify and implement appropriate mitigation (similar to or equivalent to the City’s standard measures) so that the cumulative projects would not constitute or contribute to a cumulative considerable or significant impact to tribal cultural resources.

9.19 UTILITIES
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to utility and service systems.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project relative to utility and service systems is provided in Section 6.5.19 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the Project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to utility and service systems; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
A significant cumulative impact would occurif demands of cumulative development exceed the supply or capacity of existing utility and service systems or result in the construction of new or expansion of existing public utility facilities. The cumulative area for the discussion of utility and service system impacts is the service area of the respective providers. The City manages its own water and wastewater through the City Water and Wastewater Utilities Department and electrical services through the BEU, a not‐for‐profit, publicly owned electrical energy distribution utility. Solid waste collection and transport services in the City, including the SOI, is provided by Waste Management of the Inland Empire. The City’s 2018 Integrated Master Plan (IMP) evaluates the performance and condition of the City’s potable water, wastewater, and recycled water systems through 2040. Since the adoption of the 2015 UWMP, the 2020 UWMP identified, among other proposed uses, eight new developments and included the Butterfield and RSG developments as well as water supply for the mixed use project located on the Development Site. The BSP and RSG project plans, which combined, envision the development of 7,996 residential units. Each project subject to CEQA is required to prepare its own water supply assessment (WSA) to show sufficient water supply to meet the project demand in normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

The Sites (including the area currently within the SOI which will be annexed) are within the service area of Banning Electric Utility (BEU), a not‐for‐profit publicly owned utility. The City manages a Water and Wastewater Utilities Department. The Development Site (including the SOI) and the MSJC Site are both within the City’s service area for these services. The total annual electricity consumption in the BEU service area in 2022 was 151.5 gigawatt‐hours (GWh). The BEU has included the energy usage by this Development Project as well as other large commercial and residential developments or industrial projects in its future planning, which has enabled it to enter into long‐term contracts for the purchase 555

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
9‐48
of renewable sources of electricity as required by State law.45 The Project, in combination with cumulative projects, is well within BEU’s system‐wide net increase in electricity supplies annually over the 2018 to 2030 period (See Draft EIR, pg 6‐33).

The City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan conservatively anticipates a projected water demand of 9,507 afy in 2025. In 2045, with an anticipated population within its service area of 66,400, the UWMP projects a demand of 13,467 afy. Per the UWMP, sufficient water is available to the City to meet future water demand during normal, dry, and multiple dry year conditions through 2045. The project‐specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) provides a comparison of water demand versus water supply based on the General Plan land uses detailed in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, including the BSP and RSG projects and indicated sufficient water to supply the Development Project and MSJC Site would be available in normal, dry, and multiple‐dry years through 2045. See Draft EIR, Section 4.19, pages 4.19‐20 through ‐24, including Tables 4.19.I through 4.19.K, and Section

5.4.19.2, pg 5‐75. Because the Project shows a sufficient water supply, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable or significant impact on water supply.

For wastewater, the City’s Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) is projected to increase from 2.80 mgd (2025) to 4.29 mgd by year 2040. As stated in Section 4.19 of this EIR, the City’s current wastewater treatment capacity is 3.5 mgd, sufficient to accommodate the cumulative development (including the BSP and RSG projects). The IMP identified the share of improvements needed to serve existing development and the share needed to serve new development for water and wastewater demand requirements. The City has preexisting plansto upgrade the existing WWTP treatment to meet tertiary standards and facilitate infrastructure to supply recycled water. These upgrades are included in the City’s current CIP. The design of the upgraded WWTP will allow for expansion of the treatment capacity when it becomes necessary. Further, both the BSP and RSG project include provisions for the installation of satellite or package treatment plants that would accept flows from those projects. The requirement for these facilities would be determined as necessary by the City, as development within those projects occur. As facilities are brought on‐line, wastewater flows to the City’s WWTP would be reduced. As detailed in the Draft EIR, Table 4.19.L, the Development Project would generate approximately 0.353 mgd. The increase in wastewater generated by the Development Project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of the WWTP and no significant wastewater impacts was identified in the Draft EIR. The City’s Development Impact Fee Update Study outlines and updates development impact fees that are imposed on new development in the City to fund public services and includes wastewater and water facilities and improvements allotted to new development. The City imposes development impact fees for Wastewater Facilities, and Water 45   Long‐term forecasts included in the City’s 2015 Power Supply Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) recognize growth in electrical demand from the Rancho San Gorgonio project and the Butterfield – Pardee Home projects, which envision the development of 3,385 and 4,862 residential units, respectively. The anticipated growth in electrical demand in the IRP anticipated that up to 200 homes each year would be built from 2020 through the end of the project period (2034). It was also assumed there would be additional commercial development to support the increased population. The First Hathaway Industrial project (currently under environmental review) envisions development of 1.42 million square feet of industrial warehouse uses north of I‐10. The development of this use is consistent with the existing land use designation (“Business Park”) for that site established by the City; therefore, it is reasonably included in IRP forecasts of future demand.
556

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
9‐49
Facilities for all development projects. See Banning Municipal Code Chapters 15.068.060 and

15.068.070. As with the Development Project and development on the MSJC Site, developments on all other projects in the City would be required to pay fees to support the water and wastewater system improvements necessary to serve their individual demands. With payment of such fees and tax assessments, which is required pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 15.68, the Project's and cumulative projects’ contribution to public services impacts are not cumulatively considerable.

The development of the reverse osmosis facility is not needed or required to supply water for the Development Project. The City would develop, own, maintain, and operate the reverse osmosisfacility in order to reduce salt and nitrogen in the water prior to recharge of the aquifer. The reverse osmosis facility that would be built in PA 12 of the Development Site would receive treated water from the existing Banning WRF via a 24‐inch diameter pipeline that is currently located in the future SLB Extension. The treated water would flow into the reverse osmosis facility where TDS (specifically nitrates) would be separated from the treated water. Grey water with the TDS would be recirculated back to the Banning WRF for additional processing. The waterseparated from the TDS (nitrates) would exit the reverse osmosis facility through a 24‐inch diameter pipe where it would be conveyed to the golf course at the neighboring Sun Lakes Community and used for irrigation of the golf course. The reverse osmosis facility would operate as a closed system. The electrical substation and water reservoir are planned public facilities.

The SCAG estimates the City’s 2045 population and employment at 41,500 persons and 11,400 jobs, respectively. Based on current daily per capita disposal rates of 5.6 and 31.5 pounds for residents and employees, future project development in the City could generate up to 591,500 pounds (295.8 tons) of solid waste per day. The volume of solid waste represents approximately 2.9 percent of the current permitted daily throughput of receiving landfills (see Draft EIR, Table 4.19.G). Remaining permitted capacity at the receiving landfills totals approximately 171 million tons. Cumulative solid waste generated City‐wide in 2045 represents approximately 1.4 percent of permitted capacity at receiving landfills.46 As the receiving landfill capacity is permitted through 2059,47 the cumulative contribution of solid waste from the City would not have a cumulatively significant effect on landfill capacity.

The City’s 2018 Integrated Master Plan (IMP)48 evaluates the performance and condition of the City’s potable water, wastewater, and recycled water systems through 2040. The IMP identified six master planned communities,49 other residential developments, and three commercial/industrial developments.50 The six master planned communitiesinclude a mixture of residential, public facilities, commercial, and open space. These developments considered in the IMP include the BSP and RSG project plans, which combined, envision the development of 7,996 residential units. To addressfuture 46   295.8 tons/day x 365 days = 107,967 tons/yr x 22 years = 2.375 million tons cumulative solid waste City wide through 2045. This calculation assumes existing generation rates. Future decreasesin per capita waste generation would proportionally reduce 2045 solid waste totals.   47   Lamb Canyon Landfill through 2032; El Sobrante Landfill through 2051; Badlands Landfill through 2059. 48   Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2018. 2018 Integrated Master Plan, Final Report, Revision 1.2. March.   49   Planned Communities: Black Bench, Five Bridges, Little Europe, Loma Linda, Pardee Butterfield, and Rancho San Gorgonio.   50   Carollo Engineers, Inc. 2018. 2018 Integrated Master Plan, Final Report, Revision 1.2. March. Figure 2.4 Known Developments.
557

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
9‐50
water and wastewater demand requirements, the IMP identified the share of improvements needed to serve existing development and the share needed to serve new development. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) isthe foundation of the City’slong‐range capital investment and financial planning. The CIP establishes a specific list of projects to be completed for capital replacements and improvements. The City’s Development Impact Fee Update Study outlines and updates development impact fees that are imposed on new development in the City to fund public services. The Development Impact Fee Update Study identifies the wastewater and water facilities and improvements allotted to new development. The City imposes fees on future developments for capital facilities in the form of a development impact fee for Wastewater Facilities, and Water Facilities. Banning Municipal Code Chapters 15.068.060 and 15.068.070 identify the process for how the development impact fee is administered for required wastewater and water improvements in the City.

The Project and the cumulative projects would each be subject to connection and improvement requirements of the respective utility. Cumulative development would require the construction of necessary infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, storm drain facilities, dry utilities, and others) to serve each project. It is reasonable that as cumulative development is proposed, each such development project would undergo review by the City and appropriate service provider(s) to ensure adequate capacity, supplies, and/or facilities. Similar to Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) UT‐1 (see Section 4.19), cumulative projects would be required to pay appropriate required wastewater and water facilities Development Impact Fees required under Section 15.68 of the Banning Municipal Code. As with the Project, adherence to applicable connection requirements, the design of improvements per the utilities’ standards, and payment of required fees and tax assessments, which is required pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 15.68, would result in a cumulative effect to utility services is neither considerable nor significant, and no mitigation is required.

9.20 WILDFIRE
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impact related to wildfire.

Finding
The potential cumulative impacts of the Project related to wildfire are discussed in detail in Section

6.5.20 of the Draft EIR. The City finds that the development of the proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to wildfire; therefore, no mitigation is required.

Substantial Evidence
A significant impact would occur if cumulative development (including infrastructure) increases or exacerbates fire risk or impairs emergency response/evacuation plans. While the Development Site is located in a wildland‐urban interface (WUI) setting, it is not located in an area statutorily designated as a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection or Riverside County. The Development Project has been designed to reduce wildfire conditions on the Development Site as compared with the natural state. As stated in the Fire Protection Plan (FPP) (see Draft EIR, Appendix G‐2) once the Development Project is built, the 558

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
9‐51
on‐site fire potential will be lower51 than its current condition due to conversion of fire facilitating wildland fuels to ignition resistant buildings, parking areas, managed landscapes, fuel modification areas, improved accessibility for fire personnel, and structures built to the latest ignition and ember resistant fire codes. The Development Project is also accessible to local fire department personnel within acceptable fire response travel times. In addition, the Development Project will adopt a “Ready, Set, Go!” plan for evacuation. When an evacuation is ordered, it will occur according to pre‐ established evacuation decision points or as soon as a notice to evacuate is received, which may vary depending on many environmental and other factors. Therefore, although the Development Project will increase occupancy of the Development Site, it is anticipated that with compliance with building code requirements and Condition of Approval (COA) FIRE‐1, Project impacts would be less than significant.

The MSJC Site is located within a Local Responsibility Area and is designated as a non‐VHFHSZ. Both the Development and MSJC Sites are located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) influence zone. As discussed in Section 5.4.9.1 of the Draft EIR, MSJC Site Mitigation Measures HAZ‐3 requires the preparation of a project‐specific fire protection plan for development on the MSJC Site (at a time when such development occurs). To meet fire code requirements, MSJC Site development would incorporate the same or similar design features as required for the Development Site. The Project would be required to adhere to FPP and fuel management plans (FMP) approved by the City and the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD). Compliance with these plans would reduce the likelihood of urban conflagration on the Project Sites in the unlikely event of a wildfire and reducing impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable wildland fire impact.

The proposed electrical substation would be developed and operated by the City in compliance with regulations set forth by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). The reverse osmosis facility and potable water reservoir would be 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. Chapter 1206 was added to the California Fire Code (CFC) to address a wide range of systems to generate and store energy, including standby and emergency power, portable generation, photovoltaic systems, fuel cell energy systems, and energy storage systems. The provisions of Chapter 1206 apply to the installation, operation, maintenance, repair, retrofitting, testing, commissioning, and decommissioning of these energy systems. It is anticipated the installation and operation of a battery energy storage system as envisioned, as permitted under the Specific Plan, would be conditioned by the City to demonstrate compliance with California Fire Code Chapter 1206. As the City‐sponsored infrastructure and facilities will be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant to required fire protection requirements for utility facilities, the potential for increased fire risk from these facilities, and the cumulative impact, would be less than significant.

A number of cumulative projects in the cities of Beaumont (e.g., Fairway Canyon, Beaumont Pointe, Heartland) and Banning (e.g., RSG and Butterfield) are located within five miles of the Project Sites and are located within or adjacent to fire hazard severity zones (very high, high, and moderate) 51   Dudek. 2023. Fire Protection Plan Sunset Crossroads. November. 559

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
9‐52
designated by CAL FIRE. As with the Project, cumulative development proposed, approved, and developed within fire hazard severity zones would be required to prepare a project‐specific fire protection plan complying with applicable provisions of the most current edition of the CFC as adopted and amended by Banning Municipal Code Chapter 8.16, City of Beaumont Chapter 15.20, and/or Chapter 8.32 of the Riverside County Code; including applicable portions of CFC Chapter 49 related to development within fire hazard severity zones and wildland‐urban interfaces. It is reasonable the cumulative projects have or will be appropriately conditioned by the approving jurisdiction (City/County) to fully incorporate and implement the features, facilities, and practices established in site‐ and project‐specific FPPs. As with the Project, adherence to these provisions of these FPPs will ensure wildland fire hazards associated with individual projects are reduced to a less than significant level; therefore, with the collective establishment and implementation of the cumulative FPPs, wildfire hazard impacts will not be cumulatively significant.

No emergency facilities are located on the Project Sites nor do the Project Sites currently serve as emergency evacuation routes. During construction and operation of the Development Project and MSJC Site, adequate access for emergency vehicles would be maintained. Cumulative development in the City would increase the number of persons (residents, employees, and patrons) susceptible to wildfire hazards. While the location, intensity, direction, frequency, and/or nature of future wildfire events cannot be precisely predicted, it is reasonable that fire authorities would exercise appropriate judgement as to when, where, and how evacuations are executed. It is further reasonable that during the processing of cumulative development, necessary roadway improvements will be appropriately located and sized to accommodate efficient and safe evacuation as necessary. Implementation of the project specific FPPs through the establishment of fuel management zones, and the installation of water delivery features (e.g., water mains, hydrants, storage capacity) necessary for cumulative development will facilitate firefighting operations should a wildfire event occur. The cumulative development sites would be required to accommodate emergency access and facilities. As such, the Development Project’s contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts would be less than significant. The related SLB Extension would improve circulation within and around the Development Site by improving the road surface and providing additional lanes of traffic that could be used to evacuate in an emergency and allow emergency personnel to access the Development Site and adjacent residential communities faster than using the roadways currently available.

In the unlikely event that a wildfire should spread to the Project Sites, 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. The drainage improvements installed on the Project Sites would remain intact after a major wildfire, allowing them to continue to reduce the potential for flooding conditions. Downslope fire‐related flooding hazards are generally site specific and would not extend beyond the immediate area of the Project Sites; therefore, there would be no cumulative effect related to post‐fire down‐stream flooding resulting from other cumulative projects. As such, the Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to this issue. 560

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
10‐1

10.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES

10.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives (see Draft EIR, Sections 3.7 and 8.1.2), while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significantly adverse environmental effects of the project (see Final EIR, Table 8.A), and evaluate the comparable merits of the alternatives.

The Project’s significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant are air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, construction noise (off‐site roadway/utility improvements only), and VMT.

In accordance with Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR should identify alternatives considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible, and briefly explain the reasons for their elimination.

Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is a failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid any of the project’s significant environmental impacts. Additionally, regarding the feasibility of potential alternatives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) provides:
(f) Rule of Reason. The range of alternativesrequired in an EIR is governed by a "rule ofreason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. (1) Feasibility. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries… and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site…
In determining an appropriate range of project alternatives to be evaluated in this EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and then rejected. The following alternatives have been considered and rejected as infeasible, either because they would exceed or not substantially lessen the impacts of the Project being analyzed, are repetitive of other alternatives, or, based on City input, would not meet most of the City’s basic objectives and requirements, or are otherwise considered infeasible.

The City has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR, and the EIR reflects the City's independent judgment as to the alternatives. Six alternatives considered and rejected are described below, and reasons for infeasibility are provided in the discussion. Each individual reason presented below constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject the project alternative as being infeasible.
561

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
10‐2

10.1.1 Off‐Site Alternative
Regarding alternative locations, per CEQA, the first step is to determine whether any of the significant effects) would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in a different location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects need be considered.

Any development of the size and type proposed by the Project would have substantially the same environmental effect, regardless of where in the City it was located. The Development Site consists of 533.8 contiguous acres under a single ownership. Based on a review of the current and proposed development in the City, no single undeveloped property of sufficient size to accommodate the Development Project is available.

The First Hathaway and Banning Commerce Center projects, located north of Interstate 10 (I‐10), east of Hathaway Street, are currently under review by the City and are unavailable as an alternative site.

Property east of these sites and west of Malki Road is controlled by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and is not available as an alternative site. The Banning Distribution Project is slated for development on property south of I‐10 and north of Banning Municipal Airport. Undeveloped land located between Banning Municipal Airport and the City’s wastewater treatment facility is not sufficiently sized to accommodate the Development Project and is occupied by smaller industrial and residential uses which would require relocation. Land farther south is constrained by Smith Creek, rural residential uses, and the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains. Other large currently undeveloped properties (the Butterfield Specific Plan [BSP] and Rancho San Gorgonio [RSG] sites) are entitled with Specific Plans envisioning the development of residential and commercial uses; therefore, these sites are not available as alternative sites. Due to the size of the Development Site, the current ownership of other properties, current or pending entitlements, and/or site constraints, no alternative site is available to accommodate the Development Project; an off‐site alternative was rejected from further consideration in this EIR.

The Project includes the transfer of residential capacity to the MSJC Site, located south of Westward Avenue and east of Sunset Avenue. As part of its updated Housing Element, the City identified nine parcels that have been rezoned to VHDR to accommodate additional units required by the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Appendix B of the City’s Housing Element update includes an inventory of “Vacant and Underutilized Sites” which was consulted to determine if other alternate sites remain available to accept the Project’s transfer of residential capacity. The relocation of existing residents and removal of existing structures would result in potential impacts and would not be consistent with State law requirements to achieve no net loss of residential units, only vacant sites included in this inventory were considered as potential alternative locations for the transfer of residential capacity. These areas are primarily infill, but none would so efficiently replace the scope and extent of housing and on a unit for unit basis. The transfer of entitlement for the units would generate the same number of trips and therefore equivalent air quality, noise and GHG impacts.

Should the transfer occur over multiple sites, the possibility exists for greater impact to existing uses (due to proximity) and potentially increased VMT impacts due to the dispersed nature of multiple sites.

As there are no other singular potential sites large enough to fully accommodate the transfer of residential capacity required, consideration of an alternative site other than the MSJC Site was deemed infeasible and was not carried forward for further analysis. 562

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
10‐3

10.1.2 Increased Commercial Use Alternative
Under the existing ITE rates used to develop traffic models, commercial trip generation rates are substantially higher than that of the highest intensity industrial use. Therefore, increased commercial intensity or replacement of any industrial use with commercial use would generate more traffic than would the industrial uses under the Development Project. As the Development Project already has significant project‐level and cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, and because mobile source emissions are the greatest contributor to these emissions, it is reasonable to conclude that increases in project traffic resulting from more intensive commercial uses would be equally or more significant and unavoidable. As this potential alternative would not substantially lessen or avoid significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Development Project, this alternative was rejected from further consideration in the Draft EIR.

10.1.3 Office Use Alternative
The traffic assessment for the Development Project anticipated a variety of industrial uses. The daily and peak hour trips for the most traffic intensive industrial use estimated daily, a.m. peak hour, and p.m. peak hour rates are 4.96, 0.70, and 0.63 trips per 1,000 square feet of use, respectively. Trip generation rates for general office uses in an urban/suburban setting are 10.84 daily trips, 1.52 a.m. peak hour trips, and 1.44 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. This rejected alternative would generate approximately 59,533 passenger cars trips from offices uses and 7,702 from commercial uses (67,255 passenger car trips total). Truck uses generated total 1,718 trips with 554 and 1,164 generated from office and commercial uses, respectively. In comparison, the Development project generates 17,166 passenger vehicle 3,330 truck trips (20,496 trips total). While truck trips are 52 percent of that associated with the Development project, passenger vehicle trips are increased by nearly 400 percent.

As mobile source emissions are the primary contributor of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, with the increase in traffic associated with development of office uses, it is reasonable to conclude that increases in traffic under this potential alternative would increase the level of pollutants and greenhouse gases emitted, and similar to the Development Project would result in significant and unavoidable project‐specific and cumulative impacts.

As this potential alternative would not substantially lessen or avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Development Project, this alternative was rejected from further consideration in the Draft EIR.

10.1.4 Residential Alternative (with Annexation)
This alternative would analyze development of the Development Site with a mix of residential options and includes annexation of the Southern Portion of the Development Site into the City for redevelopment with residential uses. Alternative 2 (Existing General Plan and Zoning) already considers potential impacts associated with development of the Development Site with residential uses. Furthermore, without inclusion of development of commercial or industrial uses in this portion of the Development Site, which is in the City’s sphere of influence, it is not likely this potential alternative would generate sufficient revenue to justify annexation into the City; therefore, this alterative was rejected from further consideration in the Draft EIR. 563

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
10‐4

10.1.5 Reduced Residential Alternative
A reduction in the amount of residential development was considered and not addressed further in the Draft EIR as it would require the City to justify that zoning reduction under State law based on public health and safety reasons. Furthermore, such an alternative would fail to satisfy any of the basic project objectives identified by the City for development of the Project.

10.1.6 Increased Residential Alternative
Alternative 2 envisions development of 1,630 units on the Development Site. As detailed in Section

8.4 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 was determined to generate vehicle trips and air pollutantsin excess of that associated with the Development Project. A potential alternative further increasing the residential density of the Development Site was considered, though rejected as it would generate traffic in excess of that identified for the Development Project, proportionally increase the emission of air and greenhouse gas pollutants as compared with Alternative 2, and likely increase vehicle miles traveled, making it unlikely to substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant impacts associated with the Development Project.

It is reasonable to conclude that increasing residential density beyond that identified in Alternative 2, when compared to the Development Project, these exceedances would be further increased.

Furthermore, use of the site for residential development would not satisfy the most of the basic project objectives identified by the City for development of the Development Site; therefore, this potential alternative was not further considered in the Draft EIR.

10.2 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION

10.2.1 No Project/No Build Alternative
Finding
The City finds that the No Project/No Build Alternative fails to satisfy the Project’s underlying purpose and fails to meet most of the basic the project objectives, and rejects it on that basis. The City finds that each of these reasonsis an independent ground for rejecting the No Project/No Build Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies and hereby rejects the No Project/No Build Alternative.

Substantial Evidence
This alternative was analyzed by the City as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project Sites in their existing condition (as described in Draft EIR Section 3.3). The No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) assumes that the 533.8‐acre Development Site would remain in its current undeveloped condition, and the Development Site would not be rezoned. Incidental grazing and agricultural uses could take place but would not be anticipated to occur on a large‐scale basis. Under this Alternative, the MSJC Site would not be rezoned, as there would be no requirement to concurrently rezone another site to avoid net loss of residential capacity; therefore, no potential for future development of the MSJC Site with residential uses would occur. The Sunset Avenue Bridge, which was approved as part of the entitlements for the RSG project, would proceed as required to construct the RSG project.
564

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
10‐5
Because Alternative 1 would retain the Development Site in its current undeveloped condition, the significant and unavoidable air quality, greenhouse, noise, and VMT‐related impacts associated with the Development Project would not occur. While this alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Development Project, it would not meet any of the project objectives. Refer to EIR Section 8.3 for a complete description and evaluation of this alternative.

The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project Sites. Agricultural uses could incidentally proceed but would not be anticipated on a large‐scale basis.

In the absence of development, there would be no impact in terms of construction and operational air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy use, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, construction and operational noise, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, or utilities and service systems. There would be no impacts with respect to land use as there would be no change to the City or County General Plans or zoning.

Under this Alternative, the City could proceed with construction of the Public Facilities to service existing and future demand consistent with the forecastsin the General Plan and/or Integrated Water Plan. As the City maintains more housing than available employment opportunities, absent the Development Project’s 5,993 new jobs the construction and occupation of other large residential projects in the City may exacerbate the existing job‐housing imbalance since the Project serves to improve the jobs‐housing imbalance in the City. The absence of these job opportunities could cause persons to travel further for employment, which could indirectly contribute to a regional increase in VMT, although in the absence of development there would be no direct impacts to VMT. In the absence of fire protection afforded by the Development Project (e.g., development of a fire protection plan, including requirements for ignition resistant building materials, infrastructure improvements, hardened surfaces, landscape management and established of fuel management zones), and due to the extent and volume of existing ignition sources, this alternative could result in greater fire hazard risk to residential areas (e.g., Sun Lakes Community). Therefore, compared to the Project, there is a potential that fire hazards under this alternative may be increased. Although it is reasonable that current fire protection requirements and fire service providers would continue to provide an appropriate level of service to existing uses in the project area, and compliance with current fire protection standards/practices required by the City (e.g., clearance of flammable vegetation, etc.) would continue (see Draft EIR, Section 8.3.2.20).

Further, this Alternative fails to meet the project objectives as described in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR. Because it would result in no new uses, this Alternative would not: (1) create positive fiscal impact to the City, (2) promote job creating uses that reduce the need for City residents to commute outside of the City for employment, (3) improve transportation efficiency by taking advantage of the site’s proximity to local and regional access for industrial and commercial use, (4) address a need in the City for commercial and industrial land uses that accommodate a variety of modern industrial, business, hospitality, and commercial activities, (5) provide uses that allow for a diversified economy, complements existing uses, and provide a range of employment opportunities, or (6) 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 costsincurred by the City in development and maintenance of housing and public facilities.
565

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
10‐6

10.2.2 No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative Finding
The City finds that the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative fails to reduce significant Development Project impacts and does not meet most of the basic project objectives.

Specifically, this alternative fails to reduce the emission levels of criteria pollutants and GHGs to less than significant levels. The VMT impact and construction noise (off‐site roadway/utility construction only) would also remain significant.

The development of residential and commercial uses under this would not meet most of the primary project objectives and would increase residential uses in the City without sufficiently increasing the level of employment, exacerbating the existing jobs/housing imbalance and creating additional fiscal impacts without commensurate revenue increases. The City finds that each of these reasons is an independent ground for rejecting the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies the rejection of, and hereby rejects the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Build Alternative.

Substantial Evidence
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), the No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative considers development of the Project Site with land uses that are consistent with the current City and Riverside County General Plan land use designations. This alternative assumes that the Development Site would remain undeveloped in the short term, but that future development could occur pursuant to existing City commercial and residential and County residential land use and zoning standards. Total residential development under this alternative would be comprised of 1,630 units. As with the Project, this alternative analyzes development of a 125 room hotel (approximately 90,000 square feet), a 7,500‐square‐foot Travel Center, and 260,900 square feet of commercial/retail uses. As there would be no net loss in residential capacity under this Alternative, the MSJC Site would not be rezoned for residential development. Refer to Section 8.4 of the Draft EIR for a complete description and evaluation of this alternative.

As detailed in Section 8.4 and Table 8.D of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 would reduce the overall emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases compared to the Development Project, though the reduction would be insufficient to reduce the emissions to below established thresholds of significance and the air quality and greenhouse gasimpacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Similar to the Development Project, this alternative would not be consistent with Criterion 2 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook because it would increase violations of the State and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS) and delay the timely attainment of air quality standards indicated in the AQMP, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. A slight increase in overall ADT (384 total trips) would occur, with the reduction in truck traffic (65 percent reduction) contributing to reductions in emissions of VOCs (35 percent), NOx (64 percent), SO (33 percent), PM10 (26 percent) and PM2.5 (27 percent), compared to the Development Project (Final EIR, Revised Table 8.B). The increase in emissions of CO (24 percent) under this alternative would exceed the 550 pounds/day threshold for this pollutant established by the SCAQMD. Because other pollutants while reduced compared to the Development Project, still exceed significance thresholds, the overall significant impact of this alternative compared to the Development Project is unchanged. 566

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
10‐7
Adding residential density and intensity as envisioned by this alternative would reduce the VMT per capita; however, the retail component would increase boundary VMT to the region. Further, although VMT impacts are reduced as compared with the Project, until specific tenants are identified for commercial uses, as with the Development Project it is infeasible to impose and implement specific VMT reduction measures such as traffic demand management measures at commercial uses at this time, and the VMT impact under this alternative remains potentially significant and unavoidable.

Due to changes in land use and a reduction in VMT, compared to the Development Project this alternative would result in a 32 percent decrease in GHGs generated (Final EIR, Revised Table 8.D), but the level of GHGs emitted (26,314.85 MTCO2e/year) would still exceed established thresholds of significance (3,000 MTCO2e/year). Therefore, greenhouse gas impacts would be significant and unavoidable under this alternative.

Based on the supplemental noise assessment (Final EIR, Appendix I‐2), the significant traffic and stationary noise impacts resulting from implementation of the Development Project that were previously identified in the Draft EIR were eliminated. Due to the primarily residential nature of residential nature of the uses under this alternative, and the substantial decrease of truck traffic, the operational noise impact (both traffic‐related and from stationary sources) under this alternative would be lessthan significant. Due to a similarity of construction activity, a similarlevel of construction noise is expected under this alternative. As with the Development Project, implementation of minimum 10‐foot‐high temporary construction barrier at the construction boundary when project construction activities are within 100 feet from the nearest residential structure would reduce construction noise levels by a minimum of 6 dBA and would reduce construction noise levels to

49.7 dBA Leq. With the reduction achieved by a similar mitigation, the construction noise impact resulting from this alternative also would be less than significant.

As development under this alternative (as with the Development Project) would result in earth disturbance, removal of existing natural vegetation, and landform modification throughout the site, land‐based impacts (agricultural, cultural, mineral resources, hydrology, etc.) would be expected to be similar to those associated with the Development Project. Generally, residential uses have higher fiscal impacts related to the provision of public services and would generally generate less revenue to support the resultant population. As this alternative would result in the development of the Development Site under existing land use and zoning designations, it is consistent with the land use and planning policies as well as local and regional population/housing forecasts. While the demand for electricity and diesel fuel under this alternative is reduced, development with residential uses under Alternative 2 would result in a substantial increase in the demand for natural gas and gasoline as compared with the Development Project.

This alternative would not provide, to the same extent as the Development Project or either Alternatives 3 or 4, the level of employment, variety of uses, or revenue increases, and would not meet most of the basic project objectives: (1) create positive fiscal impact to the City, (2) promote job creating uses that reduce the need for City residents to commute outside of the City for employment, (3) improve transportation efficiency by taking advantage of the site’s proximity to local and regional access for industrial and commercial use, (4) address a need in the City for commercial and industrial land uses that accommodate a variety of modern industrial, business, hospitality, and commercial activities, (5) provide uses that allow for a diversified economy, complements existing uses, and 567

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
10‐8
provide a range of employment opportunities, or (6) 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. The retention of the commercial center under this alternative would satisfy to a much lesser degree some of the basic project objectives, though the overall the primary objectives of job creation, providing for a balanced and diversified land use that maximizes economic opportunity; and the establishment of land uses that will create a positive fiscal impact for the City, for the Project would not be realized with the substantial development of residential uses. As this alternative does not include any industrial uses and only minimal commercial uses, the project objectives would be substantially unrealized with this alternative (see EIR, Table 8.S).

10.2.3 Reduced Commercial Alternative
Finding
The City findsthe Reduced Commercial Alternative failsto reduce significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project to less than significant and fails to sufficiently satisfy most of the basic project objectives. It provides fewer jobs, reduced levels of sales and property tax revenue and a reduced variety of commercial opportunities as compared with the Project. The City finds that each of these reasons is an independent ground for rejecting the Reduced Commercial Alternative and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies and hereby rejects the Reduced Commercial Alternative.

Substantial Evidence
This alternative assumes that the annexation of the Southern Portion of the Development Site proceeds and that the Development Project proceeds with the following changes: Commercial uses are removed from the Development Project with the exception of the hotel (approximately 90,000 square feet and 125 rooms) and travel center (7,500 square feet), resulting in removal of 260,900 square feet of commercial development. The area identified currently for those commercial uses in the Northern Portion of the Development Site would be replaced with 260,900 square feet of ‘warehousing’ uses (ITE LU 150). Other industrial uses will remain the same throughout the Development Site (same location,size, use, and ITE rates). In total, development under this alternative includes 5,805,900 square feet of industrial uses. As with the Project, to avoid net loss in residential capacity, the MSJC Site would be rezoned to allow development of up to 1,181 residential units. Refer to EIR Section 8.5 for a complete description and evaluation of this alternative.

Though emissions of criteria pollutants are reduced under this alternative as compared with the Development Project, development under this alternative would not reduce the levels of criteria pollutants to below established significance thresholds. Changes in composition of the traffic associated with this alternative would slightly reduce emissions of some pollutants (e.g., VOCs, NOX) while increasing emissions of others (e.g., CO, SO, PM10, and PM2.5). While SOX is reduced by a greater percentage, impacts are lessthan significant under both the Development Project and this alternative.

CO emissions are increased under this Alternative as compared to the Development Project, but as with the Development project, do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Despite changes in composition of the traffic associated with this alternative, mitigated emissions of VOC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 remain above SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 568

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
10‐9
During operation of this alternative, the volume of VOC and NOX would be reduced to approximately 165 and 323 pounds/day, respectively. In addition, under this Alternative, the volume of CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would be increased to 541, 240, and 65 pounds/day respectively (see Final EIR, revised Table 8.G). Despite the volume reductions achieved under this alternative, emissions of VOC, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 after mitigation still remain above SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative increases CO emissions to above the SCAQMD threshold of 550 lbs./day, an impact that does not occur under the Development Project. The new exceedance of CO further contributes to the significance determination. Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised in the Final EIR to address public comments regarding the Draft EIR, still do not reduce emission levelsto below established SCAQMD significance thresholds. Compared to the Development Project, the significant air quality impacts under this alternative are similar and significant. Based on the requirements for consistency with emission control strategies in the AQMP, this alternative would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP; therefore, similar to the Development Project, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Compared to the Project, this alternative would reduce to some degree overall ADTs (18.2 percent) and VMT (13.4 percent) (see Final EIR, revised Table 8.Q). This alternative also reduces overall demand for electricity, natural gas, and vehicle fuels (see Final EIR, revised Table 8.H). Therefore, this alternative would result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions (32,801.19 MTCO2e/year, a

15.3 percent reduction compared to the Development Project) (see Final EIR, revised Table 8.I), as compared to the Development Project after implementation of mitigation measures, but would not reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to below the established threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. As such, similar to the Development Project, greenhouse gas impacts under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable.

The reduced retail component and increase in industrial uses results in VMT per employee being nominally reduced, although still above the City’s VMT impact threshold. The reduction of locally serving retail uses in Alternative 3 results in an increased trip length for the service population (i.e., population and employees) in the nearby area seeking retail services that may now be further away.

This alternative would implement a Transportation Demand Management Strategy report incorporating the same features (PDFs T‐1 through T‐3) as the Development Project and VMT under this alternative would be reduced by 13.4 percent compared to the Development Project.

Nevertheless, the VMT impact resulting from this alternative remains significant and unavoidable.

Due to the similarity of uses, this alternative would also implement the project design features identified after public review (PDFs N‐1 and N‐2) which eliminate the traffic noise impacts along Sunset Avenue, and the nighttime operation noise impacts to sensitive receptors south of Bobcat Road identified in the Draft EIR. As such, noise impacts under this alternative would be similar to but slightly less than those associated with the Development Project and less than significant. The development proposed under this alternative would require mass grading, fine grading, and various construction activities across the site at a location, extent, intensity and duration similar to that required of the Development Project; therefore, noise associated with grading and construction operations would also be substantially similar. As with the Development Project, implementation of minimum 10‐foot‐high temporary construction barrier at the construction boundary (as required under Mitigation Measure NOI‐1) when project construction activities are within 100 feet from the 569

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
10‐10
nearest residential structure would reduce construction noise levels by a minimum of 6 dBA and would reduce construction noise levels to 49.7 dBA Leq. With the reduction achieved by a similar mitigation, the construction noise impact resulting from this alternative also would be less than significant.

A similar suite of land use entitlement modifications would be required to develop either this alternative or the Development Project and physical modifications to the Development Site such as earth disturbance, removal of existing natural vegetation, and landform modification under this alternative would result in substantially similar building footprints as what is planned under the Development Project. With adherence to standard City codes, regulations, standards, and/or project‐ specific mitigation, it is reasonable that this alternative would have similar aesthetics, agricultural, biological resource, wildfire, hydrology and water quality, recreational, and cultural and tribal cultural resource impacts to those associated with the Development Project. The replacement of the commercial uses with an additional warehouse building will slightly reduce (4.5 percent) potential future jobs available (from 5,993 jobs to 5,725 jobs and would result in incremental changes in the demand for public services and utilities as commercial uses would be decreased and industrial uses increased, resulting in a decreased demand for water (to 90.6% of that required for the Development Project) and a reduction in wastewater but with no change in solid water requirements and for both this alternative and the Development Project would have less than significant impacts.

While the Reduced Commercial Alternative would satisfy most of the basic project objectives, removal of commercial, entertainment, and leisure‐related attractions geared to a multi‐generational, regional cliental under this alternative deprivesthe City of a balanced, diversified use of the Development Site, reduces the number and variety of employment opportunities, and creates a reduced fiscal benefit to the City. (See Final EIR, Table 8.S.) The hotel and travel center uses retained under Alternative 3 (Reduced Commercial) would provide a less diversified economy and more limited range of commercial employment opportunities than included in the Development Project. The Development Project’s regional commercial and entertainment leisure‐focused attractions provide opportunities for retail and professional office development that are either not currently available or not available in this configuration in the City of Banning. As such, the removal of these uses would result in Alternative 3 satisfying the objectives of the Project to a lesser extent than the Development Project because it would not provide jobs to the same extent as the Development Project (5,725 jobs under this alternative versus 5,993 with the Development Project), would result in reduced levels of sales and property tax revenue, and a reduced variety of commercial opportunities (see Final EIR, Table 8.S).

10.2.4 Reduced Industrial Alternative
Finding
The City finds that the Reduced Industrial Alternative (Alternative 4) does not meet most of the basic project objectives to the same extent as the Development Project and lessens but does not reduce the significant environmental impacts of the Project to less than significant. The City finds that each of the reasons set forth below is an independent ground for rejecting the Reduced Industrial Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies and hereby rejects the Reduced Industrial Alternative.
570

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
10‐11
Substantial Evidence
The Reduced Industrial Alternative assumes that the annexation of the Southern Portion of the Development Site proceeds and that the Development Project proceeds, but with the elimination of Building 9 (274,000 square feet of warehousing uses). This alternative further combines the cold storage usesinto a single building (combined Building 5/6). This alternative reducesindustrial building square footage by approximately 7.6 percent. This alternative foregoesthe extension of Lincoln Street over the Smith Creek drainage. All other components of the Development Project would remain unchanged. Due to these changes, the overall footprint and square footage of industrial development of the Development Project is reduced. Alternative 4 reduces but does not eliminate the significant impacts associated with the Development Project.

Emissions of criteria pollutants under Alternative 4 are reduced as compared with the Development Project, but not to a sufficient extent to reduce the levels of criteria pollutants below established significance thresholds. This alternative would slightly reduce ADTs (total traffic generated under this alternative represents approximately 97.6 percent of the traffic associated with the Development Project) and VMT (reduction of 6.4 percent) (see Final EIR, revised Table 8.Q), which would also slightly reduce the overall emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. During operation of this alternative, the volume of all criteria pollutants would be reduced or remain the same: VOC (reduction of 5%), NOX (reduction of 6%), CO (reduction of 2%), SO (no change), PM10 (reduction of 4%) and PM2.5 (reduction of 5%) (see Final EIR, revised Table 9.L). Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised in the Final EIR to address public comments regarding the Draft EIR, still do not reduce emission levels to below SCAQMD significance thresholds. Despite the reductions achieved under this alternative, and even with revised mitigation, emissions of all criteria pollutants under this alternative, as with the Development Project, remain significant and unavoidable. Because development under this alternative would require a general plan land use change,similar to the Development Project, it would not be consistent with AQMP Consistency Criterion No. 1. The reduction in truck trips (202 daily trips) associated with this alternative would proportionally reduce TAC emissions; the TAC emissions and health risks resulting from the operation of industrial uses permitted under this alternative but as compared with the Development Project, both would remain similar and less than significant.

The mitigated greenhouse gas emissions resulting from this alternative total 33,829.54 MTCO2e/year or a reduction of 12.6 percent as compared with the Development Project (see Final EIR, revised Table 8.N) but would not reduce the emissions to below the 3,000 MTCO2e/year threshold of significance. As such, similar to the Development Project, greenhouse gas impacts under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable.

Although implementation of Alternative 4 would reduce VMT, because Alternative 4 assumes a reduction in industrial intensity it results in no change of VMT per employee. As the City of Banning’s VMT threshold is framed in an efficiency metric, the reduction of intensity and the subsequent reduction of employees remains proportional to the home‐based work VMT generated. Therefore, as with the Project, VMT under Alternative 4 scenario in its entirety remains significant and unavoidable.

Due to the similarity of uses, Alternative 4 would also implement the project design features adopted subsequent to public review of the Draft EIR (PDFs N‐1 and N‐2) which eliminate the traffic noise impacts along Sunset Avenue, and the nighttime operation noise impacts to sensitive receptors south 571

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
10‐12
of Bobcat Road identified in the Draft EIR. As such, construction noise impacts under this alternative would be similarly to those associated with the Development Project, and operational noise impacts would be slightly lower than the Development Project. Therefore, this alternative would have similar impacts to the Development project and would be less than significant.

A similar suite of land use entitlement modifications would be required to develop either this alternative or the Development Project. Due to the removal of Building 9 under this alternative, the Lincoln Street crossing of Smith Creek is not required; therefore, impacts to biological resources and jurisdictional features are reduced and no change in the rate or capacity of sediment transport would occur in this drainage. Because the area planned for Building 9 would remain undeveloped, development under this alternative would reduce the overall extent of earth disturbance and reduce the amount existing natural vegetation removed. Landform modification throughout the balance of the Development Site would result in substantially similar building footprints as what is planned under the Development Project and would have similar aesthetics, agricultural, wildfire, hydrology and water quality and cultural and tribal cultural resource impacts as well as recreational impacts to those associated with the Development Project. Incremental changes in the demand for public services and utilities would occur. Because the industrial uses are reduced under this Alternative, the overall demand for electricity, natural gas, and vehicle fuel is reduced as compared with the Development Project.

The Reduced Industrial Alternative would satisfy (see Draft EIR, Table 8.S) most of the project objectives, though to a lesser extent than the Development Project. Alternative 4 provides a similar diversified economy but has a lower range of employment opportunities than the Development Project (5,584 jobs versus 5,993 jobs for the Development Project). Because it retains the commercial uses, this alternative would meet the City’s objectives of accommodating development that generates sales and property tax revenues that can increase City revenues and assist in offsetting other public services costs incurred by the City but to a lesser extent than the Development Project. As compared with the Development Project, as a result of the 7.6 % reduction in overall industrial building square footage under Alternative 4, property tax revenue from industrial buildings would be reduced as a result of the reduction in assessed valuation, and Development Project contributions under the Development Agreement, DIF fee payments,service use tax and other project related revenues, which are substantially tied to projectsquare footage, would be reduced commensurately (by approximately

7.6%). The reduction in square footage and employees under Alternative 4 as compared with the Development Project result in decreases in a variety of revenue streams to the City without eliminating the significant unavoidable impacts of the Development Project. Although reduced, all of the significant unavoidable impacts of the Development Project would remain with this alternative.

10.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Finding
The City finds that Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build Alternative) would be environmentally superior to the Development Project based on the avoidance of physical environmental impacts and the avoidance of significant and unavoidable air quality, greenhouse, construction noise (roadway/utility improvements only), and VMT‐related impacts associated with the Development Project; however, Alternative 1 does not meet any of the project objectives. 572

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
10‐13
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that the EIR identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Therefore, the City finds that Alternative 4 is the environmentally superior alternative as it would slightly reduce environmental effects compared to the Project and would further reduce the less than significant biological and jurisdictional waters impacts of the Development Project and Alternatives 2 and 3 while meeting most of the basic project objectives. However, the City further finds that as compared with the Development Project, Alternative 4 would produce fewer employment opportunities and would result in substantial reductions in tax, service tax and DIF fees and payments to the City which are linked to or based on project square footage. Under Alternative 4, the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Development Project remain.

Although, as with the Development Project and Alternatives 2 and 3, mitigated impacts to Biological Resources and Hydrology are less than significant, the removal of Building 9 under Alternative 4 eliminates the need for a crossing over Smith Creek (at Lincoln Street) thus eliminating the need for mitigation to reduce potential impacts to lessthan significant. Compared to the Development Project, Alternative 4 slightly reduces air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and overall traffic, reducesthe number of crossings ofsensitive drainage features, maintains existing sediment transport in Smith Creek, and meets most of the basic project objectives. As compared with Alternative 3, Alternative 4 slightly reduces air pollutants and its GHG emissions are very similar to Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 would be substantially more effective in meeting the City’s basic project objectives.

Further, although Alternative 3 contributes slightly less to the other significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project than does Alternative 4, under both Alternative 3 and Alternative 4, the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the Development Project remain. Therefore, the City finds that Alternative 4 is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Substantial Evidence
As detailed in Section 8.4 and Table 8.D, Alternative 2 would reduce the overall emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, though the reduction would be insufficient to reduce the emissions to below established thresholds of significance and the air quality and greenhouse gas impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, while adding residential density and intensity to the Project would reduce the VMT per capita, the retail component continues to increase boundary VMT to the region; therefore, the VMT impact resulting from Alternative 2 in its entirety would be considered potentially significant. Changes in vehicle traffic and the removal of large industrial buildings that would occur under Alternative 2 would reduce traffic‐related and stationary noise sources; though the significant and unavoidable operational impacts of the Development Project previously identified in the Draft EIR (e.g. operational traffic noise east of Sunset Avenue and nighttime operational noise south of Bobcat Road) have been eliminated through the implementation of project design features; therefore, the noise impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to that of the Development Project, and less than significant (Draft EIR Section 8.7).

Compared to the Development Project and Alternative 4, Alternative 3 increases emissions of CO, SO, PM10, and PM2.5, with emissions of CO increasing beyond established significance thresholds (a new impact not created by the Development Project). Under Alterative 4, the level of VOCs, NOX, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 criteria pollutants is reduced from that resulting from Development Project. Additionally, when the overall emissions from Alternative 3 and 4 are compared, emissions of VOCs, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 criteria pollutants for Alternative 4 are the lower of the two, except for emissions of NOX (which 573

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
10‐14
are 5 lb/day or one percent greater than NOx emission from Alternative 3). As detailed in REVISED Tables 8.G and 8.L, both alternatives still exceed the established significance thresholds, and would require mitigation. While implementation of revised Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2 would apply equally to either alternative, the air quality impacts of either alternative remains, similar to the Development Project, significant and unavoidable. Since Alternative 4 does reduce the level of all criteria pollutants (when compared to the Development Project) and does not result in a new CO exceedance (see REVISED Table 8.Q), of the two, Alternative 4 provides a greater reduction in pollutant levels.

While the significant and unavoidable air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, and VMT impacts would still occur under either of these alternatives, as established in Sections 8.5 and 8.6 and as compared to the Development Project, Alternative 4’s relative contribution to these impacts is slightly reduced.

Project design features PDF N‐1 and PDF N‐2 would apply equally to either Alternative 3 or 4, and similar to the effect of these features on the Development Project, the traffic related noise (east of Sunset Avenue) and operational noise (south of Bobcat Road) would be reduced to a less than significant level under either alternative. Like the Development Project, the significant and unavoidable construction impact resulting from roadway and utility improvements would remain under both Alternative 3 and 4.

With respect to meeting the Project objectives, Alternative 4 would be substantially more effective (see Table 8.S) in meeting the City’s basic project objectives than would Alternative 3. Alternative 4 meets all of the basic project objectives compared to Alternative 3, although to a lesser degree than the Development Project, and with the removal of Building 9, eliminates the need for a crossing over Smith Creek (at Lincoln Street) and retains the area planned for Building 9 in an undeveloped state reducing the overall extent of earth disturbance and the amount existing natural vegetation removed.

Draft EIR Section 8.6.3.

The hotel and travel center uses retained under Alternative 3 (Reduced Commercial) would provide a less diversified economy and more limited range of commercial employment opportunities than that included in Alternative 4 (Reduced Industrial). In addition, Alternative 3 would provide much lesssales tax revenue and reduced property tax revenue than Alternative 4 (Reduced Industrial) and would be materially less effective in satisfying the City’s economically based objectives for development of the Development Site.

The City’s economically based objectives are of critical importance to the City. In its 2023 and 2024 fiscal years, the City has had to draw from reserves to meet its general fund budgeted requirements.

Therefore, while Alternative 4 is the environmentally superior alternative and best meets most of the basic objectives over the other alternatives, the reduction in revenue over the Development Project is problematic for the City. Further, Alternative 4 reduces the scope of but does not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Project. The City concludes therefore that the Development Project provides the best balance between the Project objectives, the Project's benefits as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and mitigates environmental impacts to the extent feasible.
574

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

ATTACHMENT A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

575

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
576
A‐1

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

CITY OF BANNING

SUNSET CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines
and Section 21081(b) of the Public Resources Code
The City of Banning (the City), upon consideration of all evidence in the record of proceedings for the Project, adopts the following findings based on its independent review and judgment. The City specifically finds and determines that this Statement of Overriding Considerations (Statement) is based upon and supported by substantial evidence in the record. Initially capitalized terms used in this Statement have the meaningsset forth in the CEQA Findingsto which this Statement is appended.

The City acknowledges that implementation of the Project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts. As detailed in this Statement, the City has carefully considered and balanced the benefits of the Sunset Crossroads Project against its unavoidable environmental risks as required by Section 15093(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states: “[i]f the benefits of a Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.‘ “Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are identified in the EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions based on the EIR and/or other information in the record. Courts have upheld overriding considerations that were based on a variety of policy considerations including, but not limited to, new jobs, stronger tax base, implementation of an agency’s economic development goals, growth management policies, redevelopment plans, the need for housing and employment, conformity to community plan, and provision of construction jobs. See Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (1988) 200 Cal App.3d 671; Dusek v. Redevelopment Agency (1985) 173 Cal App. 3d 1029; City of Poway v City of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal App. 3d 1037; Markley v. City Council (1982) 131 Cal App.3d 656.

Public Resource Code Section 21002 provides: "In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such Project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof." Section 21002.1(c) provides: "In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency...."
Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.”
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the City has reviewed the EIR, the Project description and the alternatives to the Project presented in the EIR, and the City fully understands the Project, its alternatives, and proposed mitigation measures. The City finds and determines that:
577
A‐2

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
(i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to less‐than significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR and approved and adopted by these Findings;
(ii) the City’s approval of the Project will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and
(iii) all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the DEIR, Final EIR and public testimony and there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or avoid the remaining significant environmental effects. The significant effectsthat have not been mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level are therefore considered significant and unavoidable. Having considered the potential for the Project to cause or contribute to significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures have been adopted to reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation or alternatives are available to further reduce or avoid significant impacts.

The City has carefully considered all of the environmental impacts that have not been mitigated to a less than significant level. The City has also carefully considered the economic, fiscal, legal, social and technological benefits of the Project, as well as other considerations. Based upon the substantial evidence in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR and the Development Agreement associated with the Development Project, and as detailed below and the City of Banning Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2021‐2026 dated December 2021 (“Banning CEDS”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and furthermore, finds that such adverse, environmental effects are “acceptable”. Specifically, the City finds that each of the following benefits, on their own, is sufficient to justify the adverse environmental effects of the Development Project. This Statement is made as to every significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and Findings which occur despite the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, and which create or otherwise contribute to related cumulative impacts and the City finds that any one of these Project benefits standing alone would be sufficient to sustain this Statement.

THE CITY HEREBY FINDS AND DECLARES that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by incorporating project design features, taking into account required regulatory measures and adopting the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation, the City has determined that the social, economic and other benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable significant impacts and render those potential significant impacts acceptable based upon the following considerations:
578
A‐3

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. The Project would meet the Project objectives established by the City.

As demonstrated by the EIR, the Findings, this Statement, the Specific Plan and the remainder of the documents and evidence comprising the administrative record, the Project meets the following objectives established by the City in the Specific Plan and EIR, which objectives are fundamental to the approval of the Project by the City:
 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 usesthat accommodate a variety of modern industrial, business, hospitality, and commercial activities.  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 costsincurred 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.
 Conserve natural drainage features and open space to provide a balance between the built and natural environment.
579
A‐4

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. The Development Project is consistent with and will contribute to achieving the policies, goals and objectives established by the City of Banning General Plan.

The Development Project will establish a functional and balanced pattern of land use that maximizes economic opportunity and provides needed public improvements for City residents.

Implementing the City’s General Plan and its policies is a legal and social prerogative of the City.

The City of Banning General Plan Land Use Element seeks 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 addition of industrial, retail, professional and medical offices, education, recreation, and hospitality uses that are permitted by the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan will contribute to the City of Banning’s sales tax base and will provide a diverse set of modern usesto support job creation, needed retail, wellness and medicalservices as well asleisure activities of City residents and visitors, consistent with these policies. The Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan retains the existing General Commercial designation for the northeastern portion of the Development Site and the Open Space – Park, and Open Space –Resources land uses elsewhere on the Development Site to provide recreational opportunities and avoid development of riparian/riverine resources and related upland areas. The remainder of the Development Site is redesignated with the adoption of the Development Project from Residential to Industrial. The Land Use Element recognizes that industrial development has been and will continue to be an important source of jobs in the City and incorporates policies to allow the City to attract industrial land uses. Large‐scale residential development is occurring in other areas of the City and residentially‐zoned land makes up 53 percent of all the vacant land in the City, while open space comprises 35 percent. Although industrial and commercial development are key economic drivers to the City to achieve fiscal sustainability, only 12 percent of undeveloped land in the City is zoned commercial, industrial, and public facilities and only 8 percent of developed land is zoned for existing industrial uses. Further, as identified in Chapter

8.0 of the DEIR, there is limited undeveloped land available in the City for large‐scale industrial development and no single undeveloped property in the City is of sufficient size to accommodate the range and size of uses of the Development Project. Development of the Development Project on undeveloped land in the City and within the City’s sphere of influence would expand industrial options within the City and San Gorgonio Pass region in a manner consistent with General Plan goals, policies and objectives.

The General Plan also identifies specific plans as an important tool in the coordinated development of larger parcels, or of projects which propose a variety of land uses to ensure the coordinated, orderly development of a project. To minimize impacts to adjoining uses, and to assure that the design, development, operation, and maintenance of uses, infrastructure, landscaping and open space will be consistent with the General Plan, each specific plan will develop standards and guidelines directing development. Circulation and infrastructure improvements would also be required to be in conformance with the roadway classification and design outlined in the City’s General Plan. Thus, the Project is consistent with and furthers the City’ General Plan policies, goals and objectives.
580
A‐5

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. The Project meets the core economic objectives of the City identified in the City’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (2021‐2026) (“Banning CEDS”) and General Plan, as follows:
a. Increase fiscal revenue generation.

The General Plan identifies that the City’s tax revenues have not kept pace with its need for services. As described in the Fiscal Impact Analysis attached as Exhibit 1 to this Statement (“Fiscal Impact Analysis”), the construction and development of the Development Site would produce an economic stimulus as a result of the payment of one‐time feesincluding estimated total development impact fees to the City and region of approximately $71 million  based on the current fee schedule in effect. The City fees are used to fund police, fire, general city, wastewater, water, and traffic control facilities and regional fees support transportation and conservation policies of the region that enhance transportation infrastructure and open space conservation in a manner that supports City needs and policies. Additionally, construction of the Development Project would result in the payment of fees designated for the Banning Unified School District for discretionary use, which would provide a benefit to current and future residents of the City.

The Fiscal Impact Analysis identifies net recurring annual general fund surplus paid to the City at buildout, of approximately $2.95 million. The Development Project is expected to result in approximately $1.75 million of recurring annual expenditure to the City associated with the Development Project. These annual revenues more than cover the coststo the City associated with the Development Project and as a result will offset certain public services costs incurred by the City from the development and maintenance in the City of uses such as housing and public facilities that have a negative fiscal impact. Additionally, the $2.95 million in net recurring annual general fund surplus will serve to reduce or eliminate the need to expend cash reserves, such as was done in fiscal years 2022–23 and 2023–24 when city cashflows from operations were negative, or avoid the reduction of services provided to citizens within the City due to general fund limitations.

Through the Development Agreement, the Development Project will also support a City created service special tax establishing a perpetual maintenance tax on industrial portions of the Development Project to contribute to the City’s long‐term infrastructure maintenance. .

Development and construction of the Project will create both temporary and permanent onsite jobs, will indirectly support local and regional jobs and will create a one‐time stimulus to the local and regional economies. The Development Project is estimated to generate approximately 3,500 annual full time equivalent construction related jobs, and over 5,500 permanent jobs. Temporary construction and long‐term operational jobs created by the Development Project would result in increased spending throughout the region, including in the City. Any development of the MSJC Site, should it occur, would create construction jobs and one‐time development impact fee revenues to the City as well. It is anticipated that the Project would increase annual personal earnings through the generation of these new jobs, and these earnings would ripple through the local and regional economy, creating a one‐time 581
A‐6

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
increase in output and earnings associated with construction jobs and an on‐going increase in output and earnings associated with permanent jobs.
b. Enhance employment, educational and business opportunities and industrial job creation and further a balance of land uses.

The Project will improve industrial job opportunities in the City (and thus the City’s jobs‐to‐ housing balance) consistent with Banning General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies.

The Land Use Element identifies industrial development as an important source of jobs in the City and notes that industrial development can bring stable and generally higher paying jobs to a community and can induce development in a variety of secondary or supporting industries. The General Plan encourages designation of sufficient industrial lands for manufacturing, warehousing and distribution while carefully considering compatibility with adjacent lands (General Plan Land Use Element‐Commercial and Industrial Goals and Policies, Policy 7). The General Plan encourages industrial campuses and master planned projects (General Plan Land Use Element‐Commercial and Industrial Goals and Policies, Policy 11).

As identified in the Banning CEDS, compared to Riverside County, Banning has a higher concentration of jobs in the health care and social assistance sector and to a lesser extent in other services. Weaknesses to the economic health of the City identified in the Banning CEDS include outdated zoning that does not precisely consider current land use trends, and a limited job base forcing most workers to commute long distances. Major goals of the City identified in the Banning CEDS are to expand and diversify industrial uses to provide a wide range of quality employment opportunities and expand workforce development programs. (Banning CEDS, p. 34). However, the Banning CEDS indicated that while Riverside County has seen 80 million square feet of new industrial development in the past decade (50% growth) and there has been 4 million square foot growth in the Beaumont / Hemet submarket, there was zero growth in Banning for these uses. The report identifies this as a major job expansion opportunity for the City. (Banning CEDS at p. 15‐17).

The Development Project directly supports the City’s industrial development goals and objectives in that it is anticipated to provide over 5,500 permanent new jobs, including approximately 4,920 industrial employees, 520 retail employees and 73 service employees (Draft EIR, Table 4.17.A as modified as identified in Supplemental CEQA Memorandum). Job creation associated with industrial and commercial uses is also consistent with the types of jobs sought by Banning residents. According to the US Census Bureau 2019 Average Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates cited in the Banning CEDS, approximately 52 percent of the population in Banning aged 25 years and older had high school education or lower, while 15 percent had earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Riverside County and California featured higher college attainment (22 percent and 34 percent, respectively). As stated in the Banning EDS, “this lack in educational attainment suggests that a sizable proportion of the labor force may not have the education required to compete in the labor market for higher‐skilled jobs with higher wages.” The range of opportunities provided by the Development Project would suit a range of workers from unskilled to skilled, including food service, retail service, various warehouse positions, hospitality service positions, office worker positions, and management level positions for all industries. With projected employment for the Development Project 582
A‐7

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
anticipated to be over 5,500, the Development Project would provide varied employment opportunities for the City’s population through the horizon year of 2045 (Draft EIR, Section

4.14.3.1).

Increasing employment opportunities will also improve the jobs‐housing balance in the City and surrounding area (Draft EIR, p. 4.14‐4; response to Comment D‐3‐18), furthering City and regional goals of placing employment near housing to reduce commute times and obtain benefits to the environment from reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Approximately

86.1 percent of Banning residents commute outside of the City for work (Pre‐certified Local Housing Data for the City of Banning, Southern California Association of Governments, updated April 2021, page 21). While no specific jobs‐housing balance data is available for the City, the SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS Environmental Justice technical report indicates that Riverside County has a jobs‐to‐housing ratio of 0.88 and previous evaluations indicated that the City of Banning followed similar trends as the County as a whole, with more housing available than employment opportunities within the City. Based on the number of jobs (10,500) and housing stock (12,156 units) in the City, the City’s jobs/housing ratio would be calculated at approximately 0.86, slightly lower than Riverside County as a whole. The City follows the general trend of having more housing available than employment opportunities within the City. The Project would provide job opportunities close to home for existing and future Banning residents, which would subsequently help achieve a better job‐to‐housing balance within the City.

The unemployment in the City and County of Riverside in August 2023 was at 6.6 and 4.6 percent, respectively. (See Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) April 2024 ‐ Preliminary, California Economic Development Department and response to EIR Comment D‐3‐18.) By providing job opportunities in a housing‐rich area and commercial and industrial uses near the regional transportation network, the Development Project supports the strong planning processes emphasized under the SCAG RTP/SCS, helps reduce commuting distance to jobs, and facilitates more efficient movement of goods throughout the region. Therefore, the Project would have a beneficial impact on the City’sjob creation goals and support existing residential land uses in the City, with a balance of other uses.
c. Enhance Banning’s commercial and residential market by attracting and retaining a healthy balance of local and national businesses.

The Banning CEDS identifies a need for community shopping centers to support existing and planned residential development in the City. The 47.9‐acre commercial components of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (referred to as Sunset Crossroads) have been crafted to support City residents by attracting new businesses, including warehouse club uses and leisure, retail, medical office, professional office, education, recreation and entertainment uses along with a freeway accessible 125‐room hotel restaurants and wellness facilities,.

These uses are either not currently available or not available in this configuration in the City of Banning. As detailed in Section 3.b above, the Development Project would provide approximately 520 retail employees and 73 service jobs generated from commercial use. The addition of retail,  and the opportunity for offices, education, recreation, and hospitality uses 583
A‐8

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
will contribute to the City of Banning’s sales tax base and will provide a diverse set of uses to create an enjoyable shopping and dining experience and to support leisure activities of City residents and visitors. The Development Project includes design guidelines for on‐site development, open space areas, and lighting that would ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan goals and policies regarding aesthetics. The project design uses contemporary architecture, lighting and signage, combined with architectural elevations and a variety of uses to create a safe and welcoming environment for residents and visitors and to create a destination that contributes to the long‐term prosperity of the City of Banning. d. Develop a wide range of housing options.

Consistent with goals of the Banning CEDS, through the Sunset Crossroads development, the Development Project would provide additional commercial opportunities that support buildout of properties zoned as residential in the City. At the same time, with the zoning of the MSJC Site southeast of the Development Site for high density residential development allowing at least 1,146 very high density residential units (Draft EIR, p. 4.14‐4), the Development Project allows the City to comply with State law mandates that there be no net loss of housing entitlement and to support its Housing Element Goals of achieving a wide range of housing options, including very high density residential units. Although the City General Plan and zoning provides for very high density residential development, there are only limited areas in the City where VHDR zoning is in place and thus this rezoning supports a diversity of housing type options in the City.

As indicated in the City of Banning 6th Cycle Housing Element, low‐income households (50 to 80 percent AMI) comprised 24 percent of the City’s households, while moderate and above‐ moderate income households comprised 40 percent of the City and approximately 36 percent of Banning households were considered extremely low or very low‐income. Given thisincome spread, higher density, lower cost housing is an essential element of the City’s residential planning effort. Although the MSJC Site is not designated for housing development to support RHNA goals, the Housing Element identified a shortage of VHDR zoning in the City and required the City to develop standards for the VHDR zone with a minimum density of 20 du/acre and maximum of 30 du/acre by October 2023. Application of the City’s General Plan requirement for a specific plan overlay for the MSJC Site would ensure that residential development of that site, should it occur, is carried out in a cohesive manner, would account for the provision of adequate public infrastructure (i.e., roads, storm drain, electricity, sewer, potable and recycled water availability), and would provide the opportunity for clustering of residential development on the property, supporting the City’s housing goals and objectives.

4. The Development Project will fund critical infrastructure improvements that the City would not otherwise be able to fund with current revenue streams and provide land for development of key City infrastructure projects.

The Development Project will contribute substantial roadway and utility infrastructure through direct construction and payment of development impact fees, fair share fees and public benefit fees that will support the anticipated growth requirements of the City and improve accessibility in areas of the City and the City’s sphere of influence that currently have limited infrastructure to 584
A‐9

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
serve the needs of residents and businesses. The City has a detailed Integrated Master Plan (2018), development impact fee program, and other plans that together establish and plan for the infrastructure needs for the City and provide funds for capital improvements as projects are developed, but lacks funding to fulfill its objectives. Construction of the Development Project would result in the payment of one‐time fees including estimated total development impact fees, including TUMF and MSHCP impact fees (before DIF transportation reduction described in the Development Agreement) to the City and region of approximately $71 million   based on the current fee schedule in effect, which will be used to address City and regional infrastructure needs including development of road and utility infrastructure and for conservation (MSHCP) purposes.

Additionally, construction of the Development Project would result in the payment of fees designated for the Banning Unified School District for discretionary use, which would provide a benefit to current and future residents of the City. Development of the MSJC Site, should it occur, would provide further development impact fees to support City infrastructure. The City General Plan has identified construction of the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension as a key City goal to help reduce impacts to the intersections of Highland Springs Avenue at Interstate 10 (I‐10) and West Ramsey Street and create an east/west link across the City of Banning, south of I‐10, supporting regional transportation planning and assisting in maintaining peak hour levels of service to “D” or better on roadways and intersections.   As a component of its DIF funding, the Development Project will contribute an accelerated payment of $5.1 million for design and construction of the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension.

In addition, through the Development Project’s Development Agreement and Specific Plan requirements, the Development Project Applicant will be providing additional public benefits supporting the surrounding community, including:
 Increased real property taxes, sales taxes, transit occupancy taxes and other revenues to the City;
 Provision of public facilities, including the construction of the Sunset Avenue Improvements;  Provision of $1,000,000 for a new fire ladder truck or other fire suppression equipment;  Provision of $750,000 for City downtown beautification/small business assistance;  Dedication of property to the City as a site for a possible future fire station, a water tank, electrical substation and a reverse osmosis facility; A public benefit fee of the lesser of $8 Million or $1.44 per square foot of entitled warehouse/logistics/industrial building square footage, that can be used by the City to support its infrastructure needs not required by the Development Project of which $1 million will be paid at issuance of initial grading permit;  Construction of surrounding and internal roadways and improvements to circulation features in the existing surrounding community, enhancing connectivity within the City;  Undergrounding of all existing utility lines along the perimeter of the Development Site; 585
A‐10

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
 Contribution of up to $15 million for a possible future fire station or other uses as determined by the City in its sole discretion and $10 million for design and construction of BEU’s planned substation;
 Dedication of land for a possible fire station, waterreservoir and pump facility, for city’sfuture use, if determined necessary by the city;
 Establishment of a job fair to benefit City residents, and a requirement that all leases include language requiring lessees to provide two weeks’ advance notice to City residents when new lessees are hiring employees.
 Setting aside approximately 53 acres for Open Space Resource Land and approximately 5 acres for parks and recreational facilities and construction and maintenance of park facilities.  Provision of both construction jobs and permanent jobs.

5. The Project will expand industrial options within the City and provide needed infrastructure, services, and jobs, in proximity to regional transportation in a manner that is consistent with regional plans and policies and City General Plan Elements.

The Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan Project will locate high‐quality, large‐scale high cube warehouse/distribution centers with convenient access to the local and regional transportation network, thereby minimizing truck traffic on the local (non‐highway) roadway system and reducing vehicle miles traveled in the region to the extent feasible. The Development Site is located immediately adjacent to Interstate 10 (I‐10), a regionally and nationally important east‐ west transportation facility that connects the City to the greater Los Angeles area, including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and to other major metropolitan areas to the east. Regional connectivity is further provided by interchanges on I‐10 connecting to State Routes (SR) 60, 62, 111, and 243 which provide access to Moreno Valley/Riverside, Yucca Valley/29 Palms, Palm Springs, and Idyllwild, respectively. (Draft EIR at p. 3‐7) Regional access to the Development Site is provided via the I‐10 Freeway at the Sunset Avenue, which is a full interchange located within 1/4 mile of the Development Site. The location of the Development Site thus facilitates implementation of SCAG’s 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals by creating a major employment centerin an RTP/SCS designated priority growth area designed to reduce VMT and improve the existing jobs to housing imbalance. The Development Site location also implements the RTC/SCS goal of supporting the vital goods movement industry by allowing trucks traveling to and from the Development Project to efficiently access the regional transportation network ((SR‐60, I‐15, and I‐215) to facilitate the movement of goods throughout the region.

The location of the Development Site at Sunset Avenue and in close proximity to the Sunset Avenue / I‐10 interchange, is consistent with existing City General Plan policies that indicate that industrial lands shall be located on major roadways with good access to Interstate 10, to assure that potential traffic impacts associated with tractor‐trailers are minimized. (General Plan Land Use Element‐Commercial and Industrial Goals and Policies, Policy 8). The location of the Development Site is unique in the City in terms of itssize and location and provides an opportunity 586
A‐11

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
for development proximate to major transportation corridors and existing and planned infrastructure in the City.

At the same time, the size of the Development Site allows for design standards and guidelines imposed by the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan to create buffer areas from adjoining uses and allows a functional and balanced land use plan for the Development Site and the area that conforms to General Plan goals, policies and objectives. The proximity to I‐10 by direct arterial and secondary highways, the shift of the Sunset Avenue alignment to the west away from existing residential uses and incorporation of other project design features including a truck route management plan that restricts tractor‐trailer access to residential neighborhoods is consistent with City General Plan Land Use and Noise Elements policies that encourage industrial development while also seeking to restrict truck traffic on residential roads. As a result of its location, project design features and mitigation measures imposed by the EIR and Specific Plan and conformance with General Plan goals, policies and objectives, the Development Project does not result in significant localized significant air quality or health risk impacts, or in noise impacts other than with respect to roadway and utility construction and conforms with a range of City policies promoting a balance of land uses, including industrial, commercial and residential uses in the City.

6. The Project will facilitate the City’s goal of sustainable development by being energy and water efficient in conformance with the City’s General Plan Policies and other State and Regional Plans.

The Specific Plan requires the Development Project to be energy efficient in that it must be consistent with or exceed the criteria from the California Building Code, Title 24 standards which the City has adopted by ordinance. As a result, the Development Project Specific Plan imposes minimum requirementsrelated to energy efficientstructures, lighting and appliances; compliance with building code solar requirements; energy efficient heating and cooling, potable water systems, water efficient irrigation systems for drought tolerant landscaping that can be served by recycled water, installation of EV charging stations, and incorporation of transportation demand management features and bicycle access and parking.

7. The Development Project will assist the City’s municipally owned utility (BEU) in managing supply and demand for electric services to maintain and increase the existing renewables portfolio standard while minimizing costs to rate payers.

Banning Electric Utility (BEU) isthe City’s municipal utility, and itsservice area includes the Project Site. SB 100 requires BEU's portfolio to be 100 percent renewable by 2045. BEU competes with other utilities which likewise are required to increase their renewable portfolios. According to the U.S. Census, the City’s median income in 2022 was $54,083 and the poverty rate was 18.9%; therefore, it is important that electricity rates for residents remain affordable as the City’s renewable portfolio grows to meet State requirements. To keep electricity costs down for residents, the City needs to enter into long‐term renewable energy purchase contracts in as large an amount as possible to obtain favorable rates for renewable sources. However, due to State mandated solar requirements for rooftops, the City has an abundance of solar generation from newer residential developments during daylight hours depressing its electrical demand system 587
A‐12

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
load and forcing BEU to “dump” excess electricity, including the electricity from its current solar power purchase agreement, into the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) wholesale markets, at low to no return due to the glut of solar on the grid during the daytime. Increases in large commercial and industrial development within the City, that purchase electricity from BEU, like the Development Project, facilitate and support the utility’s long‐term renewable energy contracts and promote efficiency in electrical generation and usage. The Development Project will directly and immediately support BEU’s renewable power objectives. At buildout and with the implementation of the stated mitigation and PDFs, the Development Project electricity use would be 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. (DEIR at p. 4.19‐ 27). The BEU has included the energy usage by this Development Project as well as two other large residential projects in its future planning, which has enabled it to enter into long‐term contracts for the purchase of renewable sources of electricity as required by State law. (DEIR at p. 4.19‐28). Construction of the Development Project allowsthe City to continue to maintain these power agreements while keeping costs for its users at reasonable rates.

In addition, the Development Project includes the right to develop a 65 megawatt‐hours (MWh) Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility in an industrially zoned portion of the Development Site. The BESS would be a privately owned and operated 65‐megawatt‐hour (MWh) battery energy storage facility proposed to support storage of energy by the BEU to assist BEU in managing the supply of energy it receives. (DEIR at p. 4.9‐11). As such, it would also facilitate BEU’s goals of maximizing renewable sources of energy and minimizing costs to its customers by allowing BEU to store energy generated when there is a glut of solar production for use in hours when there is more demand.

8. The Development Project would conserve natural drainage features and open space to provide a balance between the built and natural environment.

The Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan creates approximately 12.6 acres of Open Space – Parks and

53.0 acres of Open Space – Resource. Consistent with City General Plan Biological Resources Element Policy 4 (encouraging preservation of drainage channels in natural open space to the greatest extent possible), the Development Project was designed to avoid most of the drainage features as well as providing a buffer area around the drainages. With implementation of the Project, permanent conservation of 7.92 of 8.99‐acres of riparian/riverine lands on the Development Site and a surrounding buffer of 32.58‐acres will be preserved, and a minimum of

3.21‐acres of Project Site riparian habitat will be enhanced or restored (a 3:1 ratio) within the conservation area on‐site. With these actions, a total of 40.5 acres of land will be designated in the General Plan as Open Space‐Resources. These open space and conservation lands will be preserved and managed in perpetuity to protect environmental resources and provide enhanced recreational opportunities and scenic qualities in the City. Where new roads cross the riparian corridors, undercrossings allowing wildlife movement and continued downstream sediment transport are required. These undercrossings will assure the long‐term conservation of the riparian/riverine resources which are being avoided and preserve their associated functions and 588
A‐13

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
values for Project Site features and for downstream conservation areas associated with the sediment transport system. Any development on the MSJC Site would be required to meet regulatory mitigation requirements as well.

Although the Development Project would not include the development of residential units and would not add to the existing population nor generate new residential park demand, the Development Project provides a 12.6‐acre Open Space – Parks area that would be publicly accessible, including a 5 acre passive park within the Development Site that could provide a variety of recreational amenitiesincluding a tot lot playground, picnic tables, trails, walking paths, surface parking lot, and restroom.
589

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
Exhibit 1
EXHIBIT 1

SUNSET CROSSROADS SPECIFIC PLAN FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

590

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
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
591

FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR

SUNSET CROSSROADS
(Fiscal Impact Analysis Tables Only)
September 2025
Prepared By:
592
Table 1
Sunset Crossroads
Fiscal Impact Analysis Summary
Annual Recurring Revenues:

Property Tax $ 629,792 Table 5
Sales Tax 578,130 Table 6
Property Tax in-lieu of Vehicle License Fees 1,306,101 Table 7 Transient Occupancy Tax 533,813 Table 8
CFD Revenues 1,013,400 Table 9
Other Revenues 634,348 Table 10
Total Recurring Revenue $ 4,695,584
Annual Recurring Expenditures:

City Council $ 8,693 Table 11
City Manager 34,439 Table 11
Economic Development 11,031 Table 11
Personnel 14,070 Table 11
City Clerk 5,804 Table 11
City Attorney 19,868 Table 11
TV Government Access 5,874 Table 11
Fiscal Services 54,908 Table 11
Purchasing 19,242 Table 11
Police 653,000 Table 11
Dispatch 74,249 Table 11
Animal Control 19,641 Table 11
Animal Shelter 3,570 Table 11
Fire 213,440 Table 11
Building and Safety 115,422 Table 11
Code Enforcement 39,183 Table 11
Planning 99,196 Table 11
Engineering 106,066 Table 11
Building Maintenance 12,946 Table 11
Parks 70,588 Table 11
Recreation 34,052 Table 11
Aquatics 48,951 Table 11
Day Care 4,072 Table 11
Senior Center 6,983 Table 11
Public Information 19,813 Table 11
Grants Management 47,408 Table 11
Elections 212 Table 11
Community Enhancement 7,086 Table 11
Total Recurring Expenditures $ 1,749,805
Net Annual Fiscal Surplus (Deficit) $ 2,945,779
Fiscal Impact Annual Summary
593
Table 2
Sunset Crossroads
Population and Employment Data
Population 31,213 (a) -
Employees 10,600 (b) 3,951
Residents + 50% Employees 36,513 (c) 1,975 (c)
Footnotes:
(b) Per State of California, Employment Development
Department April 2025 estimate.

City Project
(a) Per the E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates report published by the California Department of Finance dated 1/1/2025.
(c) The Per Capita-and-Employee Multiplier Method represents the total service population for the City and Project respectively, as each employee is counted as one-half of a resident to reflect their relative impact in generating City public service costs or City revenues. This multiplier method is a widely accepted standard of estimating per capita and employee impacts. 594
Table 3
Sunset Crossroads
Estimated Commercial Uses Property Value Using Income Method Industrial Commercial
Gross Square Feet 5,067,000 223,753
Less: Non-leasable Space @ 10% (a) - -
Leasable Square Feet 5,067,000 223,753

REVENUE
Average Monthly NNN Rental Rate per s.f. (b) $ 1.18 $ 1.77 Total Scheduled Annual NNN Rents $ 71,748,720 $ 4,752,514

EXPENSES
Vacancy (%) (b) 6.70% 6.50%
Vacancy ($) $ 4,807,164 $ 308,913
Unreimbursed Expenses (vacant space) (c) 13,388,311 1,644,132 Total Expenses $ 18,195,475 $ 1,953,046
NET OPERATING INCOME $ 53,553,245 $ 2,799,468
CAP RATE (d) 5.00% 5.75%
TOTAL VALUE $ 1,071,064,892 $ 48,686,404
VALUE PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT 211.38 217.59
VALUE PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT (ROUNDED) 211.00 218.00
Hotel
No. of Rooms 125
Average Daily Rate $ 150
Occupancy 65%
Annual Room Revenue $ 4,448,438
Other Revenues (5% of Room Rev.) 222,422
Total Revenue $ 4,670,859
Operating Expenses as % of Revenue 65%
Total Operating Expenses 3,036,059
Net Operating Income $ 1,634,801
Cap Rate (c) 6.75%
TOTAL VALUE $ 24,219,271
VALUE PER ROOM 193,754
VALUE PER ROOM (ROUNDED) 194,000
Footnotes:
(a) Analysis estimates office site is comprised of approximately 10% common area. (b) Commercial per CBRE MarketView Inland Empire Retail, Q4 2024 Report. Industrial per Cushman and Wakefield Inland Empire Industrial, Q1 2025 Report. Office per the CBRE Inland Empire Office, Q4 2024 (c) Operating Expenses for Warehouse and Office estimated at 20.0% of revenue based on California Department of Transportation. Assumes operating expenses at 37% of rental revenue; based on U.S. Super Community/Community Shopper Center operating cost data per Dollars & Cents of Shopping Center (2008) published by ULI for Commercial and Retail. (d) Commercial Retail cap rate per CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey Second Half 2025 for Stabilized Retail property in the Inland Empire. Industrial cap rate per CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey Second Half 2024 for Class A Stabilized Industrial property in the Inland Empire. Office cap rate per the CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey Second Half 2024 for Class A Stabilized Suburban Office property in Orange COunty. Hotel cap rate per CBRE North America Cap Rate Survey Seond Half 2025 for hotels in the Los Angeles Market, not in a city center or luxury destination. 595
Table 4
Sunset Crossroads
Land Use and Assessed Value Assumptions
Building 1 1,420,000 $ 211 $ 299,620,000
Building 2 1,386,000 211 292,446,000
Building 3 575,000 211 121,325,000
Building 4 44,000 211 9,284,000
Building 5 - 211 -
Building 6 - 211 -
Building 7 896,000 211 189,056,000
Building 8 250,000 211 52,750,000
Building 9 274,000 211 57,814,000
Building 10 222,000 211 46,842,000
Subtotal Industrial 5,067,000 $ 211 $ 1,069,137,000
Restaurant 18,748 $ 218 $ 4,087,020
Retail 205,005 218 44,691,134
Subtotal Commercial Retail 223,753 $ 218 $ 48,778,154
Hotel 125 $ 194,000 $ 24,250,000
Subtotal Hotel 125 $ 194,000 $ 24,250,000
Total Project Assessed Value $ 1,142,165,154
Footnotes:
(a) Commercial estimated value per square foot per Table 3.

Retail
Hotel 125 Keys
Probable Tenant Type Number of
Rooms
Estimated
Assessed Value
per Room (a)
Total Assessed
Value
Probable Tenant Type Bldg. SF
Estimated
Assessed Value
per SF (a)
Total Assessed
Value
Industrial
Probable Tenant Type Bldg. SF
Estimated
Assessed Value
per SF (a)
Total Assessed
Value
596
TRA (a)
Within City of Banning - Agency 001-006 001-022 Within Unincorporated County - Agency 055-008 General Purpose 0.0000000% 0.0000000% 0.0000% General Purpose 0.00000000% General 10.3949007% 10.3949007% 10.3949% General 13.65333663% City of Banning 9.1329641% 9.1329641% 9.1330% Co Structure Fire Protection 5.69552712% RDV Banning DW / Mid 03ANX AB 1290 0.0000000% 0.0000000% 0.0000% Banning Unified School 38.03740800% Banning Unified School 38.0374080% 38.0374080% 38.0374% Mt San Jacinto Jr College 3.84743700% Mt San Jacinto Jr College 3.8474370% 3.8474370% 3.8474% Riverside Co OFC of Education 3.97160400% Riverside Co Office of Education 3.9716040% 3.9716040% 3.9716% Co Waste Resource Management District 0.00000000% Flood Control Admin 0.2279164% 0.2279164% 0.2279% Riverside Co Regional Park and Open Space 0.33700907% Flood Control Zone 5 4.7564996% 4.7564996% 4.7565% Flood Control Admin 0.22791635% CSA 152 0.0000000% 0.0000000% 0.0000% Flood Control Zone 5 4.75649962% Summit Cemetery District 1.8195520% 1.8195520% 1.8196% CSA 152 0.00000000% San Gorgonio Pass Memorial Hospital 1.9601130% 1.9601130% 1.9601% Summit Cemetery District 1.81955201% Banning Library District 4.3229931% 4.3229931% 4.3230% San Gorgonio Pass Memorial Hospital 1.96011300% San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency District 3.4427847% 3.4427847% 3.4428% Banning Library District 4.32299313% Inland Empire Jt (33,36) Res 0.0000000% 0.0000000% 0.0000% San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency 3.44278472% ERAF Rdv 0.0000000% 0.0000000% 0.0000% Inland Empire JT (33, 36) Res 0.00000000% Eraf Fund 18.0858274% 18.0858274% 18.0858% ERAF Fund 17.92781935% Total 100.000000% 100.000000% 100.0000% 100.0000%
Project Acres (c) 157 121 277.95 241
% of Total 56.48% 43.52% 100.00% 100.00%
Total City General Fund 9.1330% Total Unincorporated County General Fund 13.6533% Total Assessed Value $ 419,490,154 Total Assessed Value $ 722,675,000 Base 1% Ad-Valorem Tax 1.00% Base 1% Ad-Valorem Tax 1.00% Base Commercial Ad-Valorem Revenue $ 4,194,902 Commercial Ad-Valorem Revenue Before Annexation $ 7,226,750 City of Banning Allocation $ 383,119 City of Banning Annexation Allocation 25.00% City of Banning Base Ad-Valorem Revenue $ 1,806,688
City of Banning Allocation from Annexed Parcels $ 246,673 Total City of Banning Property Tax Allocation $ 629,792 Source: Fiscal Year 2024-25 Share of the Basic Tax per Riverside County Auditor-Controller's Office, Property Tax Division. (a) Shares of the basic tax that are received by the City and County for each TRA are highlighted in bold print. (b) The weighted average of TRAs was calculated by the distribution of acreage among the TRAs within the Project. (c) TRA and acreage data per LandVision, 1/11/2023.

Footnotes:

Table 5
Sunset Crossroads
Post-ERAF Share of the Basic Tax Calculation
TRA (a) Wtd. Avg. of
TRAs (b)
597
Table 6
Sunset Crossroads
On-Site Sales Tax Revenue
Probable Tenant Type (a) Bldg. SF
Estimated Sales
per SqFt (b)
Total Estimated
Taxable Sales
Commercial
Restaurant 18,748 350 $ 6,561,730
Retail 205,005 250 51,251,300
Total 223,753 $ 57,813,030
Annual Sales Tax to City 1.00% $ 578,130
Footnotes:
(a) Estimated tenant types per 10/21/2020 - Sunset Crossroads - Concept Site Plan, Uses and Activities. (b) Preliminary DPFG estimates based on industry knowledge and review of various data sources in addition to Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers (2008) by Urban Land Institute. 598
Table 7
Sunset Crossroads
Property Taxes In Lieu of Vehicle License Fee ("VLF")
FY 2025/26 In Lieu VLF Allocation to City $ 4,447,926 (a) FY 2024/25 City Assessed Value 3,889,641,412 (b)
Total Project Assessed Value 1,142,165,154 (c)
AV Growth from Project 29.364%
Annual City Property Taxes In Lieu of VLF $ 1,306,101
Footnotes:

Annual City Property Taxes In Lieu of VLF
(b) Per County of Riverside Assessor's Office 2024/2025 Assessment Roll. (c) Per Table 3.
(a) Per City of Banning FY 2024-25 and 2025-26 two year budget. 599
Table 8
Sunset Crossroads
Transient Occupancy Taxes
No. of Rooms 125
Average Daily Rate (ADR) $ 150 (a)
Occupancy Rate (%) 65.0% (a)
Total Annual Room Revenues 4,448,438
Annual County Transient Occupancy Tax 12.00% (b) $ 533,813 Footnotes:
(a) Estimate per DPFG ADR rate research regarding hotels located within Project area dated 1/26/2024.
(b) Transient occupancy tax rate per City of Banning Measure L. Measure L was then extended per Measure E which was passed by voters in 2014.

Proposed Hotel
600
Table 9
Sunset Crossroads
Community Facilities District
Building 1 1,420,000 $ 0.20 $ 284,000
Building 2 1,386,000 0.20 277,200
Building 3 575,000 0.20 115,000
Building 4 44,000 0.20 8,800
Building 5 - 0.20 -
Building 6 - 0.20 -
Building 7 896,000 0.20 179,200
Building 8 250,000 0.20 50,000
Building 9 274,000 0.20 54,800
Building 10 222,000 0.20 44,400
Subtotal Industrial 5,067,000 $ 0.20 $ 1,013,400
Footnotes:
(a) Per Table 4.
(b) Estimated CFD annual revenues based on preliminary Development Agreement terms.

Industrial
Probable Tenant Type (a) Bldg. SF Estimated CFD
Cost per SqFt (b)
Total Annual CFD
Revenue
601
Table 10
Sunset Crossroads
Other Recurring Revenues
Revenue Category
City FY 2025/2026
Budget (a)
Marginal
Increase Adjusted Budget Multiplier Factor
Project
Equivalent
Persons
Project
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 4,791,779 100% $ 4,791,779 Case Study - Table 5 N/A - $ - Property Taxes In-Lieu of VLF 4,447,926 100% 4,447,926 Case Study - Table 8 N/A - - Sales and Use Tax 6,643,039 100% 6,643,039 Case Study - Table 9 N/A - - Franchise Tax 525,000 100% 525,000 Per Capita & 50% Employee 14.38 1,975 28,401 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,250,000 100% 1,250,000 Case Study - Table 7 N/A - - Other Taxes 720,000 100% 720,000 Per Capita & 50% Employee 19.72 1,975 38,950 Business License 215,000 100% 215,000 Per Capita & 50% Employee 5.89 1,975 11,631 Internal Service Revenues 2,590,159 0% - Per Capita & 50% Employee 0.00 1,975 - Interfund Transfers 1,460,121 0% - Per Capita & 50% Employee 0.00 1,975 - Licenses and Permits 7,017,429 100% 7,017,429 Per Capita & 50% Employee 192.19 1,975 379,624 Charges for Services 793,533 100% 793,533 Per Capita & 50% Employee 21.73 1,975 42,928 Miscellaneous Income 2,185,315 50% 1,092,658 Per Capita & 50% Employee 29.93 1,975 59,110 Sales and Service Charges 1,269,480 10% 126,948 Per Capita & 50% Employee 3.48 1,975 6,868 Fines and Forfeitures 261,830 100% 261,830 Per Capita & 50% Employee 7.17 1,975 14,164 Other Intergovernmental Revenues 848,668 100% 848,668 Per Capita & 50% Employee 23.24 1,975 45,911 State Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees 40,000 0% - Per Capita & 50% Employee 0.00 1,975 - Use of Money and Property 307,600 0% - Per Capita & 50% Employee 0.00 1,975 - Other Income 125,000 100% 125,000 Per Capita & 50% Employee 3.42 1,975 6,762 Contributions 280,400 0% - Per Capita & 50% Employee 0.00 1,975 - Total $ 35,772,279 $ 28,858,810 $ 634,348
Footnotes:
(a) Per City of Banning FY 24-25 and 25-26 Biennial Budget Report dated June 25, 2024 on the City of Banning OpenGov Budget webpage. 602
Table 11
Sunset Crossroads
Recurring Expenditures
Expenditure Category
City FY 2025/2026
Preliminary Operating
Budget (a)
Marginal
Increase Adjusted Budget Multiplier Factor
Project
Equivalent
Persons Project Cost
City Council $ 321,376 50% $ 160,688 Per Capita & 50% Employee 4.40 1,975 $ 8,693 City Manager 1,273,234 50% 636,617 Per Capita & 50% Employee 17.44 1,975 34,439 Economic Development 407,808 50% 203,904 Per Capita & 50% Employee 5.58 1,975 11,031 Personnel 520,162 50% 260,081 Per Capita & 50% Employee 7.12 1,975 14,070 City Clerk 214,563 50% 107,282 Per Capita & 50% Employee 2.94 1,975 5,804 City Attorney 734,531 50% 367,266 Per Capita & 50% Employee 10.06 1,975 19,868 TV Government Access 217,149 50% 108,575 Per Capita & 50% Employee 2.97 1,975 5,874 Subtotal - General Government 3,688,823 1,844,412 99,778 Fiscal Services 2,029,956 50% 1,014,978 Per Capita & 50% Employee 27.80 1,975 54,908 Purchasing 711,370 50% 355,685 Per Capita & 50% Employee 9.74 1,975 19,242 Subtotal - Finance 2,741,326 1,370,663 74,149
Police 12,070,856 100% 12,070,856 Per Capita & 50% Employee 330.59 1,975 653,000 Dispatch 1,372,511 100% 1,372,511 Per Capita & 50% Employee 37.59 1,975 74,249 Subtotal - Law Enforcement 13,443,367 13,443,367 727,249 Animal Control 363,060 100% 363,060 Per Capita & 50% Employee 9.94 1,975 19,641 Animal Shelter 66,000 100% 66,000 Per Capita & 50% Employee 1.81 1,975 3,570 Subtotal - Animal Control 429,060 429,060 23,211
Fire 3,945,491 100% 3,945,491 Per Capita & 50% Employee 108.06 1,975 213,440 Building and Safety 2,133,610 100% 2,133,610 Per Capita & 50% Employee 58.43 1,975 115,422 Subtotal - Fire and Life Safety 6,079,101 6,079,101 328,863 Code Enforcement 724,302 100% 724,302 Per Capita & 50% Employee 19.84 1,975 39,183 Planning 1,833,652 100% 1,833,652 Per Capita & 50% Employee 50.22 1,975 99,196 Engineering 1,960,662 100% 1,960,662 Per Capita & 50% Employee 53.70 1,975 106,066 Building Maintenance 239,301 100% 239,301 Per Capita & 50% Employee 6.55 1,975 12,946 Parks 1,304,828 100% 1,304,828 Per Capita & 50% Employee 35.74 1,975 70,588 Recreation 629,463 100% 629,463 Per Capita & 50% Employee 17.24 1,975 34,052 Subtotal - Development Services 6,692,208 6,692,208 362,030 Aquatics 904,872 100% 904,872 Per Capita & 50% Employee 24.78 1,975 48,951 Day Care 75,278 100% 75,278 Per Capita & 50% Employee 2.06 1,975 4,072 Senior Center 258,156 50% 129,078 Per Capita & 50% Employee 3.54 1,975 6,983 Public Information 244,166 150% 366,249 Per Capita & 50% Employee 10.03 1,975 19,813 Grants Management 350,539 250% 876,348 Per Capita & 50% Employee 24.00 1,975 47,408 Elections 3,923 100% 3,923 Per Capita & 50% Employee 0.11 1,975 212 Community Enhancement 130,979 100% 130,979 Per Capita & 50% Employee 3.59 1,975 7,086 Subtotal - Community Services 1,967,913 2,486,727 134,525 Total $ 35,041,798 $ 32,345,537 $ 1,749,805
Footnotes:
(a) Per the City of Banning Citywide Preliminary Biennial Budget FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26 on the City Council agenda dated May 28, 2024. 603
Table 12
Sunset Crossroads
Permanent Employment
Building 1 1,420,000 1,500 947
Building 2 1,386,000 1,500 924
Building 3 575,000 1,500 383
Building 4 44,000 1,500 29
Building 5 - 1,500 -
Building 6 - 1,500 -
Building 7 896,000 1,500 597
Building 8 250,000 1,500 167
Building 9 274,000 1,500 183
Building 10 222,000 1,500 148
Subtotal Industrial 5,067,000 1,500 3,378
Restaurant 18,748 500 37
Retail 205,005 500 410
Subtotal Commercial Retail 223,753 500 448
Hotel 125 1 125
Subtotal Hotel 125 125
Total Employees 3,951
Footnotes:
(a) Per Table 4.
(b) Estimated employees per square foot per the United States Green Building Council default occupancy count and review of various data sources. Estimated employees represent full time equivalent (“FTE”) employees. Actual employee count, including part-time and seasonal employees, may result in a potentially higher total headcount value depending on tenant mix. Per Table 10 FTE employees are estimated to generate $321.15 in Other Revenues and per Table 11 FTE employees are estimated to generate $885.86 in Expenditures for a net change of $564.71 per FTE employee.

Estimated
Employees Tenant Type (a) Number of Rooms (a) Employees per Room (b) Industrial
Retail
Hotel 125 keys
Tenant Type (a) Bldg. SqFt / Acre (a) Estimated SqFt per Employee (b)
Estimated
Employees
Tenant Type (a) Bldg. SqFt / Acre Estimated SqFt per
Employee (b)
Estimated
Employees
604
¦¨§10
§¨¦10

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
¦¨§10
§¨¦10

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

BOBCAT RD

SUNSET AVE
HAYS
ST
APEX
ST

SAINT CROIX WAY

WILLIAMS ST

TURTLE DOVE LN

SUNSET AVE SUNSET AVE

PINES RD
TORREY

COMSTOCK RD

COUNTRY CLUB DR

CHIPMUNK TRL

KINGSWELL AVE SUMMER
CT

CHIPMUNK TRL

SANDPIPER ST

GEORGE ST

HIGHLAND

HOME RD

DOROTHY

ANNA DR

WEATHER WAY

DOWNS ST

CRYSTAL
OREGON
TRL
LAGUNA

SECA CT
22ND ST

ALLIN LN

COTTONWOOD
RD

RIVIERA AVE

CATCHEN
RD
MARIAN
WAY
BUNKER

HILL RD

WINCHESTER DR
CASEY
CIR

MEADOW LAKE LN

NORTHWOOD
AVE
SPRING

VIEW DR
DUSK
CT

FALLING LEAF LN

SUNRISE CT
AUTUMN
WAY

RAINBOW LN

SUNRISE AVE

OMAR ST

SHOAL CREEK ST

SHEEHAN
CIR

WENDY CT

SILVER LAKES AVE

MASTERS DR

SCIOTO CT

OAKHURST AVE

SUNSHINE
ST

LONG COVE RD
BAY

HILL RD SAVANNAH DR

SILVERADO
AVE

EVELYN DR
LESLIE
CT

BROOKLAWN DR

SALEM CIR

JEFFERSON
ST
BARBER
CT

BIRDIE DR

RIO BRAVO DR

CRENSHAW CIR

SKYVIEW CIR

WESTERN

SUNSET RD

BEVERLY
DR

NICOLET ST

W GEORGE ST

NATIVE DR

MARKET DR
DAWN
WAY
LINKS
AVE
LORI
WAY
SPRING
PL

PINEHURST DR
CASTLE
PINES
AVE

MT VIEW
AVE

HOGAN AVE

SUNRISE
AVE

MARLBORO
WAY
SOBOBA
DR

OAKS AVE

FAIRWAY
GOLDEN
SKY CT

BOCA WEST
AVE
23RD ST

WOODLANDS
DR

RODRIGUEZ AVE

ROBERGE
AVE

VICTORY
AVE

GROVE ST

RAMSEY ST

LINCOLN ST

JEFFERSON
ST

WESTWARD AVE

KINGSTON RD

KELLOGG DR

REMINGTON DR

FRONTIER DR ELLEN

WAY MEADOW WAY

GENEVA ST

HIGHLAND

HOME RD

OLYMPIC AVE

BIG SPRING DR

ROBERGE AVE

TREVINO WAY
SYLVAN
AVE

MORONGO AVE

PARK AVE

WOODLAND AVE

PALMER DR

MISSION

HILLS DR

WILSON ST
N PARK
AVE

FIFTH ST

APEX AVE
HILTON

HEAD DR
GLENN
ABBEY
WAY
41ST ST

CHAPPAREL WAY

JACINTO

VIEW RD

TWIN HILLS DR
40TH AVE

PRAIRIE
PL

SINGING HILLS DR

BERMUDA

DUNES AVE

MOHAWK RD

ALDER CT

ROLLING HILLS
AVE

OAKLAND HILLS DR

LAIRD ST
SUMMER

SET CIR

HILLTOP DR

BOBCAT RD

MCGOVERN AVE

WOODLAND AVE
C ST

NONPAREIL AVE

EXCELSIOR AVE
SUN
LAKES
BLVD
County of San Bernardino, Maxar

PROJECT

LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:SP 20-2002,GPA 20-2501,ZC 20-3502,TPM 38118

AERIAL BASE MAP
APN: 537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036
ZONE: General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), :

Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
605
¦¨§10
§¨¦10

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROA

BOBCAT RD

SUNSET AVE

LINCOLN ST

GROVE ST

RAMSEY ST

HAYS ST

WILLIAMS ST

MARLBORO
WAY

SAINT CROIX WAY

SUNSET AVE
41ST ST

COMSTOCK
RD

COUNTRY CLUB DR

CHIPMUNK TRL
22ND ST

SANDPIPER ST

NATIVE DR

GEORGE ST

AUTUMN LN

HIGHLAND

HOME RD
WAY

WEATHER
NAVAJO
DR
ALLIN
LN

DOROTHY

ANNA DR

RIVIERA
AVE
BUNKER

HILL RD

WINCHESTER
DR
EAST

LAKE CT

MEADOW LAKE LN

NORTHWOOD
AVE
SPRING

VIEW DR

SUNRISE
CT

AUTUMN WAY

WHIRLWIND
CIR

RAINBOW LNBREEZY CIR

JANAN CT
SCIOTO
CT

OAKHURST
AVE

SUNSHINE
ST

SUNRISE AVE
BAY

HILL RD

SAVANNAH DR

SILVERADO
AVE
LESLIE
CT

BROOKLAWN DR

SALEM CIR

JEFFERSON ST

OMAR ST

CLAIR CT

CRENSHAW CIR

MARKET DR

SKYVIEW CIR
PALMER
DR

NICOLET ST

GRAND VIEW AVE
AMY
DR
LINKS
AVE
WAY
LORI
HAZY
WAY
SPRING
PL

PINEHURST DR

MT VIEW AVE
HOGAN
AVE

SUNRISE
AVE
FOREST
OAKS
AVE

BEVERLY
DR

SOBOBA DR

OAKS AVE

FAIRWAY

TREVINO WAY
23RD ST

WOODLANDS
DR

KINGSMILL AVE
NAIRN
AVE

KINGSTON RD

HIGHLAND HOME RD

GOLDRUSH
PL

BOBCAT RD

OLYMPIC
AVE

BIG SPRING DR
SYLVAN
AVE

ALDER CT

MORONGO AVE

PARK AVE

WOODLAND AVE

MCGOVERN AVE

SOUTHERN

HILLS DR

COPPER CREEK DR

MISSION HILLS DR

SINGING

HILLS DR
HILTON

HEAD DR
GLENN
ABBEY
WAY

JACINTO VIEW RD

HILLS DR
TWIN
40TH AVE

PRAIRIE PL
TURTLE

DOVE LN

CHIPMUNK TRL
C ST

BERMUDA
DUNES
AVE

MOHAWK RD

ROLLING HILLS
AVE

OAKLAND

HILLS DR

SUNSET AVE

LAIRD ST

SUMMER SET CIR

WESTWARD AVE

NONPAREIL AVE WOODLAND
AVE

EXCELSIOR AVE

SUN LAKES
BLVD
County of San Bernardino, Maxar

PROJECT

LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:SP 20-2002,GPA 20-2501,ZC 20-3502,TPM 38118

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
APN: 537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, : 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones
California Geological Survey Liquefaction Hazard Zone
FEMA 1% (100-Year) Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone
FEMA 0.2% (500-Year) Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone
MSHCP Criteria Cells
USGS Blue Line Streams
Banning Airport Influence Area
Legend
No California Department of Conservation Earthquake Fault Zones within 1.5 miles of the project location.

ZONE:General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) 606
¦¨§10
§¨¦10
§¨¦10

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

ANNA DR

DOROTHY

BOBCAT RD

VICTORY
AVE

VALLEY RD
PINE
SUNSET
AVE

WILLIAMS ST

HAYS ST

NICOLET ST
GEORGE
ST

WILSON ST

HAYS ST RAMSEY ST

COMSTOCK
RD

CLUB DR

COUNTRY

CHIPMUNK TRL
DAWN
LN

HIGHLAND

HOME RD

RIVIERA
AVE
22ND ST

SECA CT
LAGUNA
ALLIN
LN

CATCHEN RD
MARIAN
WAY
HAIG
POINT
CIR
RAVEN
WAY

KINGSWELL
AVE
SPRING

VIEW DR
NECTAR
DR
BIRDIE
DR

HIGHLAND

SPRINGS
AVE
AUTUMN
WAY

RAINBOW
LN
OMAR
ST

VALLEY RD
PAUMA

FOUR SEASONS CIR MASTERS
DR
TURTLE

DOVE LN
BAY

HILL RD
EVELYN
DR
SALEM
CIR
MONROE
ST

ROADRUNNER
TRL

JEFFERSON
ST
LAKE
BUENA

VISTA WAY

BEL AIR CT
SPRING
DR

CHIPMUNK TRL COG HILL RD
SALT
CREEK

ECLIPSE DR
RIO

BRAVO DR
DEL

RITA RD

STELLAR
PEAK
SILVER

STAR DR

W GEORGE ST

LINCOLN ST

WESTWARD AVE

LORI WAY

PINEHURST DR
HOGAN
AVE

FAIRWAY OAKS AVE

BROOKLAWN DR

SUNRISE AVE

MYRTLE BEACH DR
23RD
ST

EIGHTH ST

BOBCAT RD
SUNSET
AVE

MEADOW WAY

HIGHLAND

HOME RD

OLYMPIC
AVE
ASPEN
LN

MORONGO
AVE

PARK AVE

WOODLAND
AVE
PALMER
DR
16TH ST
19TH
ST

MOUNTAIN
AVE
16TH ST
20TH
ST

SIXTH ST
41ST ST

ROBERGE
AVE
RUNNER

SCARLETT

JACINTO

VIEW RD

HILLS DR
TWIN

CROOKED
CREEK

BERMUDA
DUNES
AVE
ALDER
CT

SUNSET AVE

APEX ST
LAIRD
ST

POTRERO
BLVD

FIRST ST

SECOND ST
LOVELL

WOODLAND AVE
ST
16TH ST

TURTLE DOVE LN

DEATH VALLEY RD

LONGHORN RD
C ST

NONPAREIL AVE

EXCELSIOR
AVE
HALE
AVE

BRECKENRIDGE AVE

SUN LAKES
BLVD

HILLTOP DR

FIFTH ST

DEATH VALLEY RD
County of San Bernardino, Maxar

PROJECT

LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER: SP 20-2002, GPA 20-2501, ZC 20-3502, TPM 38118

VICINITY MAP
APN:537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036
ZONE:General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), :

Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) Unincorporated
Riverside County
0 250 500 7501,000
Feet
607

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
¦¨§10
§¨¦10 UNION PACIFIC

RAILROAD

PROJECT

LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:SP 20-2002,GPA 20-2501,ZC 20-3502,TPM 38118

GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
APN: 537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036
ZONE:General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), :

Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
General Commercial
High Density Residential
Highway Serving Commercial
Public Facilities - School
Open Space - Resources
Ranch Agriculture (10 ac. min)
Open Space - Parks
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Very Low Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Open Space - Parks
Very Low Density
Residential
Business
Park
Very High
Density
Residential
Low Density Residential
Open Space - Parks
Open Space - Parks
General
Commercial
Low Density
Residential
General
Commercial
General
Commercial
Low Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Open Space - Parks
608

CITY OF BANNING

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
Specific Plan, SP 20-2002; General Plan Amendment, GPA 20-2501; Zone Change, ZC 20-3502; Tentative Parcel Map, TPM 38118; Development Agreement with NP Banning Industrial, LLC Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan Project; Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Banning, California, will hold a public hearing at a Special Meeting on January 28, 2026. The City Council meeting begins at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220. To observe the live meeting through your personal computer or smart phone enter the following link: https://banninglive.viebit.com or view on the Banning Government Channel on Cable Television.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider applications by NP Banning Industrial, LLC (Applicant) for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan project. The project applications consist of the following:
• Specific Plan (SP 20-2002). Proposes to establish the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan for the development of industrial and commercial uses on a 533.8-acre site, including up to 268,400 square feet of medical office, professional office, education, recreation, and commercial uses, a travel center with refueling uses, and a 125-room hotel (approximately 90,000 sf) on 47.9-acres; and up to 5,545,000 square feet of industrial uses (including up to 330,000 square feet of cold storage uses) on 392.0 acres. The Specific Plan text identifies the permitted land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation provisions. The Specific Plan Area includes land located south of Interstate 10 between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue extending south to include land south of the City’s current border (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 537-110-003 through -005, 537-110-011 through -014, 537-120-013, 537-120- 025, and 537-120-028 through -036).
• General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Specific Plan Area (GPA 20-2501 & ZC 20-3502).

Proposes amending the General Plan land use designations and re-zoning of the Specific Plan Area to General Commercial (GC), Industrial (I), Open Space – Parks (OS-P), and Open Space – Resources (OS-R), including pre-zoning for annexation of portions of the Specific Plan Area into the City of Banning.
• Development Agreement. The Development Agreement would grant the Project vested development rights in exchange for public benefits as specified in the agreement. • Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 38118). A subdivision of the Specific Plan Area into thirty-four parcels and five lettered lots ranging in size from 1.0 acre to 78.7 acres in size, creating 19 Planning Areas consistent with the Specific Plan.

The Planning Commission reviewed the subject project at its meetings of September 10, 2025 and November 5, 2025. At the latter meeting, the Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the applications to the City Council and ratified this decision on November 17, 2025 by adopting Resolution 2025-15.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project, together with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOOC), Findings in support of the SOOC, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, to be considered by the Planning Commission. A Notice of Availability to review the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021020011) was published in December 2023, with the 45-day public review and comment period for the Project beginning on December 15, 2023, and ending on January 30, 2024, and a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared.

Information regarding the Project and the Final EIR can be obtained by contacting the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division at (951) 922-3125, or by going to the City of Banning website at: https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan 609
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed application, site plan, and related documents are available for public review by contacting the Community Development Department during normal business hours (Monday – Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm) by telephone at (951) 922-3125. Additional project information is also available on the City’s website by visiting the following link:
https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing:
• You may provide oral comments at the in-person hearing. Agendas are available at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting online: https://banningca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1 • Written comments may be submitted to the City Council by email at [email protected] or letter to the address below. Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. Any correspondence received during or after the meeting will be distributed to the City Council as soon as practicable and retained for the official record.

City Clerk’s Office
PO Box 998
99 E. Ramsey St
Banning, CA 92220
Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]).

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at 951-822-3125. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting Will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, por favor llame a la Ciudad de Banning y puede hablar con Sandra Calderon, teléfono (951) 922-3125.

BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA.

Mark Staples Dated: December 23, 2025
Community Development Director Publish: January 2, 2026 610
From: Allen Mackey
To: cityclerks
Subject: Re: Sunset crossroads
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:26:56 PM
My e-mail is [email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 18, 2025, at 2:04 PM, Allen Mackey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I support SunsetCrossroads because it will make a better Banning and comely in appearance. Banning is not the most beautiful city in the world but this project will help Banning look better. Also, we need that Sun Lakes Blvd extension all the way to Sunset. We got to have another way in and out to the shopping areas off of 2nd street in Beaumont. Thank you very much!
611
From: Judy Algea
To: cityclerks
Subject: Requests for Approval of The Crossroads Project Date: Thursday, January 22, 2026 8:46:45 AM
Attachments: Crossroads Project for Approval.PDF
Good Morning, I am writing on behalf of Banning Citizens that would like to have this project approved.

The City of Banning has stayed stagnant for way too long due to decisions made by mostly residents of Sun Lakes that have been on our City Council far to long and do not do business here, shop or bank here because there is no shopping or banking or any stores here except for primarily smoke shops, liquor stores, Dollar stores and a few fast food places. Most of the projects that would benefit Banning have been turned down or terminated because of a few standing in the way of progress, like the 5 bridges project, Walmart Project and many others.

It is time to let our City grow and prosper so our residents can have development and new infrastructure as well as new opportunities and shopping in our community.

If they are worried about a truck stop, what is the problem? They come off the off ramp to get fuel and go right back on the freeway where there are alot of trucks anyway.

We need medical offices, Professional offices, education ect...and recreation for our youth because there has been nothing new built here in many years.

This will bring in more new stores, jobs, revenue, infrastructure, shopping and our banking back in.

Banning residents have to go to Beaumont for everything now that has turned into a mess for the transportation issue causing traffic jams and road pile ups. Plus Beaumont is getting all the revenue not Banning.

So if this finds people disturbed think about the rest of us that live in Banning and have to constantly fight the traffic on Highland Springs. It is getting unbearable.

Banning needs to say yes to this project and let our community grow for our sake and the sake of our children. Do not let them keep undermining this City and community. WE VOTE YES.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER:)
--
Thanks so much,
Algea Real Estate
Judy AlgeaOwner/Broker
Lice # 01366805
42850 Hill Top Dr.

Banning, CA 92220
Phone (909)-841-2289
Email: [email protected]
612
From: Pamela Hardy Alpert
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset-Crossroads FEIR & Specific Plan
Date: Monday, January 5, 2026 10:42:25 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers,
We support the Sunset-Crossroads Specific Plan and the variety of new retail, medical office, recreation and commercial opportunities. However our support is based primarily on the extension of Sun Lakes Blvd to ultimately connect with the Sunset I10 access in order to provide a much needed relief from the continual traffic bottleneck on Highlands Springs at I10 on/off ramps and to the local medical offices and hospital. We assume the development agreement may authorize phased construction of the new boulevard but we feel it is now needed given the existing (F) level of service on Highlands Springs. We hope the Council is working closely with the City of Beaumont, Caltrans and railroad to make curb changes and signal modifications to permit a double left turn to I10 westbound which would help traffic flow. In fact we would expect some traffic impact fees be obtained for this purpose perhaps through an assessment district established by the developers in order to participate in the funding for the underpass improvements as well as the Sun Lakes Blvd completion.

Additionally we ask that no commercial or industrial uses be permitted adjacent to Sun Lakes community, 3,500 homes for senior citizens in order to be compatible with the existing land use patterns.We are relieved that the proposed trucking facility next to The Lakes Assisted Care facility on Sunset Blvd is not active and hope for comparability sake of our senior citizens that it is never resubmitted again.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project albeit it we were unaware of the DEIR consideration.

Sincerely,
Pamela Hardy Alpert c/o
Melinda Hardy
5001 Rio Bravo Drive
Banning, Ca. 92220
Pamela Hardy Alpert
(925) 570-1210 mobile
613
From: SUSAN MCKENZIE
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Saturday, January 17, 2026 7:21:15 AM
I would like to express my support for supporting the Sunset Crossroads project. I’ve been in the City Of Banning for 4 1/2 years and there is very little shopping that is available in the city. I understand that the city is struggling with revenue. I think this would help with the cities financial short falls and would also give a place for the cities residents, to have a place to dine and shop. I currently at shop primarily in Beaumont because there is so little Banning. I also support this project because of the jobs that it will create for the residents.

Sent from my iPad
614
From: Anna Cortese
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset crossing changes
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:51:27 PM
I am a resident of Serrano del Vista Senior community. This highly affects me. I am not happy about the changes that may happen. I submit a Big No! Anna Cortese 591 Autumn Way
615
From: Barbara Jesus
To: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller; cityclerks Subject: Not again-More Warehouses!Sunset Crossroads Project Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:21:32 AM
Importance: High
I think our community has made this clear time and time again.     NO WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC ON SLBLVD.

Barbara DelGatto-Jesus
909-915-4320
616
From: Betty Ann Finigan
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset crossroads
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:13:22 PM
I am opposed to this project in that location.

Betty Ann Finigan
4980 Rolling Hills Ave, Banning, CA 92220
617
From: Bill Jenkins
To: Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; cityclerks; Leroy Miller; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn Subject: Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Friday, January 16, 2026 12:08:51 PM
Dear Banning City Council, I have been the structural engineer of record on projects similar to the subject project. Locating a project with a five and one half million square foot industrial/distribution center and a refueling center adjacent to a high-density retirement community is an example of flawed planning. Vote NO on this project. Sincerely, William C. Jenkins, PE, 2448 Wailea Beach Drive, Banning, CA 92220
618
From: Tim Goodson
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Cc: Audrey Faucetta; Janice McGill
Subject: Challenge to Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 10:26:26 AM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

My issues are the project location adjacent to our senior community, the 18 wheel truck traffic the project will generate, and especially the very-high density housing included in this project.

Personally, since the project would have multiple and very serious negative consequences for our senior community and the surrounding residential community as a whole, and since there seems to be so many other more appropriate locations within the boundaries of the City of Banning, we do not understand the City's decision to even consider such a proposed project.

Please think of your obligation to your constituents and vote "NO" on January 28, 2026.

Thank you,
Braden Bowman, Serrano del Vista Architectural Committee Chair 2690 Rainbow Lane
Banning, CA 92220
(951) 846-3080
619
From: Candace Parrish
To: cityclerks
Subject: Traffic between Sun Lakes and Vista del Sol - Warehouse Project Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 7:38:17 AM
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.

Sincerely,
Candace Parrish
840 Miller Rd.

Banning, CA 92220
620
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossing Project and any Zoning Changes Related Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:37:26 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my objection to the Sunset Crossroads Project and all the zoning changes requested including the Very High Density Housing.

The issues are the project locations in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.

Sincerely,
Carol Shearman
2820 Rainbow Lane
Banning, CA 92220
621
From: Connie Van Pelt
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads & Utility Billing
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:58:47 PM
City of Banning, RRoyce, SFlynn, CBarrington, CWallace, and LMiller, This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project and all the zoning changes already denied by the Planning Commission.

The issues are the project locations in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets. Maybe rooftops would be a better choice...

And you should start with figuring out the utility billing... what a continuing mess. It's embarrassing.

Connie Van Pelt & Eric Weisbrod
600 Autumn Way, Banning 92220
622
From: Dennis Field
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:59:55 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.

Sincerely,
Dennis Field
417 Brooklawn Dr
Banning ca 92220
Smile and have a great day.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S23 ultra
623
From: Diane Stone
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 3:28:19 PM
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.

Please vote "NO" on this project.

Sincerely,
Diane Stone
5395 Breckenridge Avenue
Banning, CA 92220
624
From: diane sweeney
To: cityclerks; Colleen Wallace; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Leroy Miller Subject: City of Banning Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 4:38:09 PM
City of Banning,
NO to the Sunset Crossroads Project!!
There are problems of the project location and truck traffic and noise on these Banning city streets.

Banning resident - Diane Sweeney
5821 Indian Canyon Drive
Banning, CA 92220
625
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 2:51:05 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.

Warehouses do not belong here. We respectively and strongly urge you to deny this project.

Sincerely,
Dominic & MarySue Caron
5144 Rio Bravo Drive
Banning, CA., 92220
626
From: Elizabeth B
To: cityclerks
Subject: Re: Sunset Crossroads Project - comments on plan Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:10:36 PM
I reconfirm my vehement objection to this project. No more warehouses, light industrial, heavy industrial or the link near/adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

This is not a well thought out strategic, long term growth strategy for Banning. It will not turn our city into a bright, vibrant, desirable community people will want to live in and businesses want to invest in. It's the worst kind of short-term city planning possible.

No on Sunset Crossroads.

On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 03:55:16 PM PDT, Elizabeth B <[email protected]> wrote:

I see that this proposal is scheduled for review again by the city council. I once again express my concerns and opposition to this project moving forward at all. It is not appropriate for a residential area. It is not appropriate for the roads and quality of life. It belongs out on the industrial side of town. Please see the below email submitted to the Banning City Council via email to you for fuller description of my strong opposition to Sunset Crossroads or a cut through from Sun Lakes Blvd to Sunset.

On Friday, September 5, 2025 at 02:14:53 PM PDT, Elizabeth B <[email protected]> wrote:

Reference: https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan To the City Council
I am registering my opposition to this project in its entirety. The neighborhood is residential and is not designed to handle freeway cut-through for large trucks and cars when the freeway is full, and as a cut-through to the Beaumont stores from the other side of Banning, both are levels of traffic that cannot be accommodated.

In addition, there are dozens of empty warehouses in the county, including in Banning. They become a blight from lack of use, a haven for the homeless, and a target for criminal activity. In other words, unless other warehouses up and down the I-10 corridor are leased out, there should be zero building of additional warehouses, especially not up to 10 and 5.5 million square feet of empty warehouses. Warehouses that bring very large trucks that will impact not only the quality of life, but the quality of the roads. Warehouses DO NOT BELONG in or near residential neighborhoods. Go build them on the industrial side of Banning if you're firm in conviction that Banning needs them and will benefit from them. Semi tractor-trailers DO NOT BELONG in a residential neighborhood 627
outside a moving van bringing household goods to or from a residence.

A medical office would be appropriate, and serve the need of the south side of the I-10, only if it's daytime use and not a huge building. Any hotel can be located and should be located closer to downtown.

Speaking of downtown - I agree, Banning needs to draw in more business and tax revenue. Drive down Ramsey and see all the opportunity there, if you just embraced cleaning up and enhancing existing infrastructure and buildings, providing tax incentives to draw better businesses downtown and beyond.

Warehouses Will Not bring the revenue you seem to believe they will. If they did, you'd have all the empty warehouses in Banning and beyond full, and they are empty. I invite you to go to Livermore CA. They city faced the same dilemma and rather than put in more industrial junk, they went a different route and the city has bloomed ever since. It's become a city to be proud to live in. Isn't that what you want for Banning? To become a city that people want to move to and live in? Warehouses will not do that. Semis through neighborhoods will not do that.

Fixing eyesores & blight, focus on reducing crime and homelessness,, enticing other businesses like restaurants and shops will.

I do not support this misguided attempt to force in the exact opposite of what Banning needs to thrive.
-Elizabeth Baumach
Banning CA
92220
628
From: Elsie Nunez
To: cityclerks; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Leroy Miller; Richard Royce
Subject: No on project on Sunset
Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 11:07:54 AM
Shame on you … We challenge all of you .

Sent from my iPhone
629
From: Esther Wynter
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; [email protected]; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroad Project
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 11:05:56 AM
Dear City of Banning Planning Department and City Officials, My name is Esther Wynter, and I am a homeowner and long-term resident of 3062 Rainbow Lane, Banning, California. I am writing to formally express my concerns and opposition regarding the proposed Sunset Crossroads project.

While I understand the City’s interest in economic development, I am deeply concerned about the location, scale, and intensity of this project and the significant negative impacts it would have on my neighborhood and the surrounding residential community.

First, the placement of this project within proximity to established residential neighborhoods is troubling. Our area is primarily a quiet, family-oriented neighborhood, and the proposed development is fundamentally incompatible with the existing character of the community.

Second, the anticipated 18-wheel truck traffic is excessive and unacceptable for local residential streets. The estimated 1,850 truck trips per day along Sunset Avenue raise serious concerns regarding:

Public safety for residents, children, pedestrians, and cyclists Traffic congestion and roadway deterioration
Noise pollution, air quality degradation, and vibration impacts Reduced quality of life and potential decline in property values Our neighborhood streets were not designed to accommodate this level of heavy industrial truck traffic.

Third, the high-density housing component further intensifies the strain on local infrastructure, including roads, emergency services, schools, and utilities. The cumulative impacts of up to ten warehouses alongside dense residential development have not, in my opinion, been adequately addressed or mitigated.

I respectfully request that the City:

Reconsider the scope, scale, and location of the Sunset Crossroads project Provide meaningful opportunities for community input and transparency 630
Explore alternative locations more appropriate for heavy industrial and logistics use
Prioritize the health, safety, and quality of life of existing residents I do not support a project that would effectively turn our residential neighborhood into a major industrial truck corridor. I urge the City of Banning to take resident concerns seriously and to ensure that development decisions are balanced, responsible, and community-focused.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully request that this correspondence be included in the public record for the Sunset Crossroads project.

Esther L. Wynter, President
Wynter Accounting Services, Inc.
[email protected]
(310) 850-0891 phone
(310) 872-3992 Fax
631
From: Gerald Shearman
To: cityclerks
Subject: Banning City Projects
Date: Monday, January 19, 2026 10:54:00 AM
I wish to strongly oppose the building of either
very high density housing , warehouses , or truck
stops around my residential neighborhood . The
city of Banning has numerous other more
appropriate locations for such construction .

Please register my opposition to your planning
commission and city council members .

Gerald Shearman
a long time resident
632
From: jamie taylor
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset crossing vote
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 12:47:01 PM
I would like to inform the city council that I strongly oppose rezoning the land from residential in order to put warehouses next to the Sun Lakes development. I strongly encourage you to leave this zoned residential and build homes. No one should be subjected to warehouses which results in trucks right next to a senior living community.

This would be extremely dangerous, and increase our poor air quality. Please do not change the zoning of this land! Sincerely, Jamie Taylor
Sun Lakes resident
Sent from my iPhone
633
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks; [email protected]; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; [email protected]; JOHN BOBENG; Janice Mcgill; Alice Esquivel
Subject: PROBLEMS WITH THE PROJECT AT SUNSET AVE.

Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 11:37:53 AM
TO OUR CITY OFFICALS:

WE HAVE LIVED AT SERRANO DEL VISTA 55 PLUS COMMUNITY FOR 22 YEARS.

IT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROJECT THAT YOU ARE VOTING ON.

IT HAS BEEN VERY NICE HERE, ESPECIALLY AFTER THEY ADDED THE TRAIN OVER PASS.

BEING IN THE OLDER AGE GROUP, WE REQUIRE GOING TO DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS VERY OFTEN.

WE ALSO REQUIRE RAPID EMERGENCY RESPONSE. SUCH AS

AMBULANCE,POLICE AND FIRE
AT THIS TIME SUNSET AVE. IS THE ONLY QUICK WAY IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

GOING SOUTH ON SUNSET FROM OUR FACILTY IS A DEAD END AND A DIRT ROAD GOING NO WHERE.

SO, THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDED 10 WAREHOUSES AND LOW DENSITY HOUSES.

WITH AS MANY AS 1,850 TRUCKS AND CARS ON SUNSET IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.'
*IT ALSO COULD CAUSE A LARGE LIABILTY FOR THE CITY OF BANNING WITH

ACCIDENTS AND TRAFFIC
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FREEWAY. .

I WAS IN THE GROCERY BUSINESS FOR 53 YEARS, MANAGING GROCERY STORES AND DRIVING 18 WHEELERS.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THESE TRUCKS TAKE UP A LOT MORE ROOM AND

REQUIRE ALOT OF TURNING
AND BACKING UP SPACE.
634

IN RECENT YEARS WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL FIRE IN THE FIELDS

SURROUNDING SERRANO DEL VISTA,

ONE OF THE FIRES WAS TWO YEARS AGO ON THE LAND THAT THEY WHAT TO PUT THE WAREHOUSES AND HOUSES.

LAST YEAR WE HAD A FIRE BIG FIRE JUST SOUTH EAST OF SERRANO DEL

VISTA ,COMING FROM IDLEWILD AND SAN
JACINTOMOUNTAIN. WE ALSO HAD A LAND FIRE LAST YEAR JUST SOUTH ONF SERRANO DEL VISTA.

ALL OF THESE SITUATIONS CAUSED A LOT OF CONFUSION AND POSSIBLE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON SUNSET AVE.

WE ARE CONCERNED OF PUBLIC SAFETY,AND OTHER FUTURE PROBLEMS THAT COULD COME FROM THIS PROJECT.

PLEASE, CONSIDER A (NO) VOTE ON THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU, JOHN BOBENG AND OFELIA BOBENG 909 379 8026
635
From: Judy Green Shaw
To: cityclerks
Cc: Richard Royce
Subject: Fw: Sunset Project.

Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 9:58:29 AM
Attachments: Sunset Project.pdf
Judy Green Shaw
Cell: 310-896-6147
Email: [email protected]
From: Judy Green Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 9:47 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Sunset Project.
636
From: Karen Parmer
To: cityclerks
Subject: Warehouses
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 1:18:20 PM
The Planning Commission voted three times against the warehouses and now you want another vote. How many times do we need to tell you this is something we do not want. Vote NO.
637
From: Kathy Hanrahan
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset. Ross roads Project
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:38:48 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets. We already have enough traffic congestion as it is. This is way too close to Sun Lakes Country Club.

Sincerely,
Kathy Hanrahan
2349 Keystone Ct
Banning, CA 92220
Sent from my iPhone
638
From: Linda Vieira
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Protest
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 8:41:10 AM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.

Please vote "NO" on this project.

Sincerely,
Linda Vieira
5052 W Hilton Head Drive
Banning
639
From: [email protected]
To: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; "[email protected]"; Colleen Wallace; cityclerks Subject: Sunset Cross Roads
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:37:58 PM
To: The City of Banning City Council
The City of Banning City Clerks
I am vehemently opposed to any warehouse that would be located near ANY residential areas.

I also oppose rezoning any land to accommodate a developer's project. The truck traffic will be a HUGE detriment to the city overall.

If warehouses are built one can only hope the warehouses will stand empty! This could become reality!
.

I respect The City of Banning Planning Commission's wisdom in declining to move this forward to council. .

Options I see as viable for the city's growth are housing. Bring more homeowners in. Most major retailers locate to areas where the population can support their business.

We need more retail and new businesses to change the trajectory of our little town..

Thank you for your consideration.

Lois Jordan
Banning resident for 23 years
640
641
From: Martha Bederio
To: cityclerks
Subject: Fwd: Warehouses at Sunset Crossroads
Date: Saturday, January 17, 2026 2:55:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Martha Bederio <[email protected]>
Date: January 17, 2026 at 2:09:29 PM PST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Warehouses at Sunset Crossroads
City Council Members
City Council Clerk
City of Banning, CA
Greetings:

I am a long time resident of Banning, California having moved here circa 1979. I was a teacher here in Banning for over 22 years and have served as Trustee on the Banning Unified School Board.

I am opposed to the building of warehouses in our city, especially the Sunset Crossroad project. The proposed project is too close to residential properties. The increased traffic caused by large trucks will make vehicular traffic worse than it is today for nearby residents.

The pollution from idling trucks could adversely affect the health of the very young and the elderly. The freeway traffic is already congested; more big rigs will exacerbate the problem and make commute times for residents only longer. Although the project may bring revenue to the city budget, it may not. I can remember a commercial building project south of the freeway in Banning that was partially built but never occupied. It became a public menace and was eventually torn down. I would wager than there would be very few jobs generated for the local population by this project.

For these reasons I urge you to follow the Planning Commission's no vote and vote no on the Sunset Crossroads project.

Thank you for serving!
Sincerely,
Maretha A. Bederio
642
This written communication is being submitted to be included in the public hearing process scheduled for the meeting of the Banning City Council on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, regarding the Sunset Crossroads project.

We are adamantly opposed to this project, to be located between two senior residential communities, because of the following reasons: traffic issues, air and noise pollution, and inappropriate location for warehouse operations.

Traffic Issues:

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

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

Inappropriate Location:

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

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

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

Sincerely,
643
Mary Ann Harvey-Melleby
Richard Collier
Sun Lakes Country Club Residents
6308 Ponte Verde Circle
Banning, CA 92220
(909) 974-8008
644
From: MaryJo McElwain
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:15:45 PM
I am against the Sunset Crossroads project. There is no buffer between our 55+ community and the hundreds of trucks and traffic that will use Sun Lakes Boulevard.

Sun Lakes Boulevard cannot structurally support semi truck traffic .

Highway 10 doesn’t need another truck stop. Morongo is only 5 minutes away.

Mary Jo McElwain
1004 Hogan Avenue
Banning
645
From: Nancey Cambron
To: cityclerks
Cc: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 3:48:48 PM
I do not want ten warehouses with 1850 trucks driving daily on sunset and I don’t want very high density housing across the street from myself. There is a meeting January 28 at 5 o’clock in City Hall. I do plan on attending Banning has not got the utility billing right over a year.

You could help make sure they get this right I am emailing the people that represent the City Of Banning To challenge this Ridiculous plan of extra warehouses and 1850 trucks driving daily on sunset. The people elected to Banning California’s government has destroyed Highland Springs.ave.

The traffic is ridiculous. Why do they want to destroy this whole town? 646
From: Patricia Naylor
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:50:52 AM
Please listen to the Planning Commission...NO SUNSET CROSSROADS!!! Thank you,
Patricia Naylor
Banning Resident
647
From: Pat Savage
To: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Leroy Miller; Colleen Wallace; Cynthia Barrington; cityclerks Subject: Re: Sunset Crossing proposed Development
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 5:30:29 PM
Dear City of Banning:

As I live adjacent to the proposed property to be developed into Sunset Crossing Warehouse Project, I feel very strongly that this development is the WRONG project to be put into this property. The site is surrounded on both sides by residential property. Heavy truck traffic will overflow onto both Lincoln and Sun Lakes Blvd. Trucks will park along both thruways on an overnight basis if their particular destination is closed for the night.

Currently, heavy GOLF CART traffic uses Sun Lakes Blvd to go to and from the NORTH section of Sun Lakes CC. Mixing golf carts with heavy highway Rigs is a recipe for disaster. There HAS to be another site onto which this development should go that can be traded for this one.

Please give these concerns some consideration on January 28th Thanks for being a thoughtful Councilperson.

Patrick H. Savage
5772 Indian Canyon Dr.

Banning, CA
648
From: Paul Fitzpatrick
To: cityclerks
Subject: unset Crossroads
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:06:20 AM
Please vote no on the Sunset crossroads project!!!!
Thank you,
Paul Fitzpatrick
(Banning resident and voter)
--
Slainte
649
From: Rhonda Jones
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Leroy Miller; Colleen Wallace Subject: Sunset Crossing Project
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:15:36 PM
Rhonda I Jones
5756 Oakmont Drive
Banning, CA 92220
January 13, 2026
Dear City of Banning clerk and council members,
I am writing regarding my concerns for warehouses and trucks driving down Sun Lakes Boulevard which is less than 200 miles from my home. The traffic driving down the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension to these warehouses would be devastating to me since I have to drive down this street to get to my home and the noise, banging and clamoring of trucks would be irritating to hear from my front yard and home.

We have a huge warehouse not in use since sketchers left that building. We dont need more warehouses when the huge warehouse is not being rented. We need this property to have more neighborhood friendly businesses or homes.

Thank you for reading my email and considering my homeowner concerns.

Sincerely,
Rhonda I Jones
Banning Homeowner
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
650
From: Robin Warner
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: City of Banning
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:20:25 AM
January 14, 2026
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.

Please vote "NO" on this project, & (minimally) prohibit truck traffic from using Sun Lakes Blvd as a thoroughfare.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Robin Warner
651
From: ronmmc
To: cityclerks
Subject: Warehouses No No,NO. WHAT ARE U THINKING. MORE BIG TRUCKS, TRAFFIC, AND UGLY IN OUR BEAUTIFUL AREA
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:02:01 PM
Sent from my Galaxy
652
From: Sheri Ross
To: cityclerks; Sheri Flynn
Cc: Richard Royce; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:06:30 PM
City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.

One warehouse in a location between two housing complexes is not a good idea. But, TEN!!!! The truck traffic in the neighborhoods along with the additional traffic congestion at the freeway interchanges on Highland Springs (which is already at a standstill most of the time) is going to be horrific. The thought is too ludicrous to even contemplate! The idea that I have to write this email to protest this project sickens me. This city council is a humongous disappointment to me and my neighbors. After the utilities billing debacle, I should think you would be doing everything in your power to redeem yourselves for the people of this city.

Please vote NO on this absurd plan.

Sincerely,
Sharen G. Ross
1237 Hogan Ave.

Banning, CA 92220
653
From: Sylvia Berbiar
To: cityclerks
Subject: No to warehouse projects
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:13:08 AM
No to warehouse projects in Banning.

Sylvia Berbiar
SLCC
654
From: steve rubrecht
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2026 5:47:48 AM
City of Banning;
I do not want the Sunset Crossroads project to continue. This is my challenge .

The issues are the location of the project in my neighborhood, the truck traffic, and the very high density housing.

Sincerely
Steve Rubrecht
6358 Player Court
Banning, CA
655
From: Raelene Kretchman Thornton
To: Richard Royce; cityclerks; Cynthia Barrington; Sheri Flynn; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 1:27:42 PM
Dear Council Members,
As a Banning resident, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the proposal to build 10 new warehouses, which could add 1,800+ more trucks to our area. Our city is already overburdened, and this project would intensify the problems we face.

There is a significant number of vacant warehouses nearby; adding more won’t help our local economy, but it will:
·
Increase freeway congestion and traffic risks
·
Worsen pollution and harm our air quality and environment ·
Go against repeated community input opposing more warehouses Please prioritize public health, safety, and sustainable development.

We ask you to vote NO on this proposal.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Sincerely, Steven & Raelene Kretchman
950 S By Hill Rd, Banning CA
]
656
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Objection to Sunset Crossing
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 9:33:27 AM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission / City Council, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed warehouse development planned for our community. I have serious concerns regarding the safety risks, environmental impacts, and traffic problems this project would create for nearby residents.

First, the safety implications cannot be overlooked. Large warehouse operations typically involve frequent heavy truck traffic, extended operating hours, and increased noise. This creates heightened risks for seniors, pedestrians, cyclists, children, and emergency responders in the area. Our neighborhood infrastructure was not designed to support industrial-scale activity, and introducing it would significantly compromise public safety.

Second, the environmental impact of this development is deeply concerning.

Warehouses often contribute to increased air pollution from diesel trucks, higher noise levels, and potential harm to local wildlife and green spaces. Paving over open land also increases stormwater runoff and flood risk, which can negatively affect surrounding homes and ecosystems. These impacts run counter to our community’s goals of sustainability and environmental stewardship.

Finally, the traffic consequences would be substantial. The addition of constant truck and employee traffic would worsen congestion on already busy roads, increase wear and tear on local infrastructure, and lengthen commute times for residents. This could also hinder emergency vehicle access, creating further safety risks.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider approval of this project or, at a minimum, require a comprehensive and transparent study addressing safety, environmental, and traffic impacts, with meaningful opportunities for community input. Our neighborhood deserves development that enhances quality of life—not one that puts residents at risk.

Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the community you serve.

Sincerely,
Teresa SolomonBillings
5825 Orange Tree Ave
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 634-8065
657
From: Thelma Thomas
To: cityclerks
Subject: Fwd: Sunset Crossroads Proposal
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 9:07:59 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Thelma Thomas <[email protected]>
Date: January 14, 2026 at 9:05:48 PM PST
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Sunset Crossroads Proposal
Dear Council Members,
As a Banning resident I respectfully request and urge you to VOTE NO on the proposal to build 10 new warehouses which could add 1800+ more trucks to our area. This project would only intensify the problems we are already facing.

There is a significant number of vacant warehouses nearby—adding more won’t help our local economy! It will:
. Increase freeway congestion and traffic risks
. Worsen pollution and harm our air quality and environment . Go against repeated community input opposing more warehouse Please prioritize public health, safety, and sustainable development. I ask you to VOTE NO on thi proposal!
Thank you for your service and consideration.

Sincerely,
Thelma G. Thomas
689 LaQuinta Drive
Banning, CA 92220
658
659
From: Timothy Donatini
To: cityclerks
Subject: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 11:03:21 AM
[email protected]
CBarrington,@Banning CA. Gov
[email protected]
[email protected]
This my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project this would be a big traffic issue in this neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration
660
From: Victor Banuelos
To: cityclerks
Subject: Don’t want 10 warehouses on Sunset .We don’t want the tragic.

Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 7:20:50 PM
Sent from my iPhone
661
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Cross Roads
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:13:46 PM
I do not want the Sunset Cross Road project to go forward in my Community. We don't need more warehouses. The truck traffic on our streets would be terrible for our community.

Sincerely,
Virginia De Bry
5259 W Pinehurst Drive
Banning, CA 92220
662
From: Rowen Celestial
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; [email protected]; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: City Council"s Votation on January 28, 2026 Re Construction Across SDV Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 2:48:22 PM
Dear City of Banning:

My issues are the project location in my neighborhood, the 18 wheel truck traffic and the very high-density housing included in this project.

Sincerely,
Rowena Celestial
3078 Rainbow Lane
Banning, CA 92220
663
4861-3845-1024.132
390086.00004/1-27-26/jcc/kp

RECORDING REQUESTED BY,

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL
TO:

CITY OF BANNING
99 EAST RAMSEY STREET
BANNING, CA 92220
ATTN: CITY CLERK
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103 664
4861-3845-1024.132
390086.00004/1-27-26/jcc/kp

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. ___

A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF BANNING
AND

NP BANNING INDUSTRIAL, LLC
665

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
(i)

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.....................................................................................5

1.1 Definitions.............................................................................................................5

1.2 Exhibits...............................................................................................................13

2. GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................................14

2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement..............................................................................14

2.2 Ownership of Property........................................................................................14

2.3 Term....................................................................................................................14

2.4 Transfer...............................................................................................................16

2.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement ........................................................16

2.6 Termination.........................................................................................................17

2.7 Notices ................................................................................................................17

2.8 Estoppel Certificate.............................................................................................19

3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.......................................................................19

3.1 Vested Rights to Develop ...................................................................................19

3.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Regulations..................................................20

3.3 Reservations of Authority...................................................................................20

3.4 Subsequent Development Review ......................................................................22

3.5 Timing and Phasing of Development .................................................................23

3.6 Changes and Amendments..................................................................................25

3.7 Regulation by Outside Agencies.........................................................................25

3.8 Public Works.......................................................................................................26

3.9 Provision of Real Property Interests by City ......................................................26

3.10 City Covenants....................................................................................................26

3.11 Retail Development Obligations.........................................................................27

3.12 Planning Area 2...................................................................................................28

3.13 Planning Area 4 Buffer.......................................................................................28

4. ANNEXATION ..............................................................................................................28

4.1 Contemplated LAFCO Action ............................................................................28

4.2 Contemplated Action ..........................................................................................28

4.3 Cooperation of City.............................................................................................29

4.4 Development of Annexed Property ....................................................................29

5. PUBLIC BENEFITS, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, AND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ...............................................................................................................29

5.1 Intent ...................................................................................................................29

5.2 Public Benefit Fee...............................................................................................29 666
(ii)

5.3 Public Improvements..........................................................................................30

5.4 Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension .........................................................................30

5.6 Sunset Avenue Improvements............................................................................33

5.7 Payment of “Fair Share” Share of Roadway Improvements ..............................33

5.8 Land Reservation, Conveyance, and Dedication ................................................34

5.9 Electrical Substation ...........................................................................................35

5.10 Additional Public Benefits..................................................................................37

5.11 Development Fees...............................................................................................39

5.12 Fair Share Payments; Oversized Improvements; Fee Credits.............................39

5.13 Limits on Public Funds.......................................................................................40

6. FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.............................................................40

6.1 Intent ...................................................................................................................40

6.2 Formation of Community Facilities Districts.....................................................40

6.3 City Council Approval........................................................................................41

6.4 City’s Reimbursement to Owner ........................................................................42

6.5 Accounting of Revenue.......................................................................................42

6.6 Legal Challenge ..................................................................................................42

7. REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE .....................................................................................42

7.1 Annual Review....................................................................................................42

7.2 Procedure ............................................................................................................43

7.3 Proceedings Upon Modification or Termination ................................................43

7.4 Hearing on Modification or Termination............................................................43

7.5 Certificate of Agreement Compliance ................................................................44

8. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES........................................................................................44

8.1 Remedies in General...........................................................................................44

8.2 Specific Performance ..........................................................................................45

8.3 General Release ..................................................................................................45

8.4 Termination or Modification of Agreement for Default of Owner.....................46

8.5 Termination of Agreement for Default of City...................................................46

8.6 Attorneys’ Fees...................................................................................................46

9. THIRD PARTY LITIGATION ......................................................................................46

10. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION .....................................................................................48

11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS...............................................................................49

11.1 Recordation of Agreement..................................................................................49

11.2 Entire Agreement................................................................................................49

11.3 Severability .........................................................................................................49

11.4 Preemption or Frustration of Agreement by Changes in Law ............................49 667
(iii)

11.5 Force Majeure .....................................................................................................50

11.6 Interpretation and Governing Law......................................................................50

11.7 Operating Memoranda ........................................................................................50

11.8 Section Headings ................................................................................................51

11.9 Gender and Number............................................................................................51

11.10 Rule Against Perpetuities....................................................................................51

11.11 Time of Essence..................................................................................................51

11.12 Waiver.................................................................................................................51

11.13 No Third-Party Beneficiaries..............................................................................51

11.14 Mutual Covenants...............................................................................................51

11.15 Successors in Interest..........................................................................................51

11.16 Counterparts........................................................................................................51

11.17 Jurisdiction and Venue........................................................................................51

11.18 Project as a Private Undertaking.........................................................................51

11.19 Further Actions and Instruments.........................................................................52

11.20 Eminent Domain .................................................................................................52

11.21 Agent for Service of Process...............................................................................52

11.22 Designation of City Officials..............................................................................52

11.23 Legally Binding Contract; Enforceability...........................................................52

11.24 Authority to Execute ...........................................................................................53 668
(iv)

EXHIBIT LIST
EXHIBIT “A-1” - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE

PROPERTY AND THE SLB EXTENSION
EXHIBIT “A-2” - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE

PROPERTY
EXHIBIT “B” - MAP SHOWING PROPERTY AND ITS LOCATION
EXHIBIT “C” - EXISTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS
EXHIBIT “D” - EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS
EXHIBIT “E-1” - INITIAL PHASING PLAN
EXHIBIT “F” - PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT “G-1” INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
EXHIBIT “G-2” DIF CREDIT AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT “H” - DEVELOPMENT FEES IN EFFECT AS OF EFFECTIVE DATE EXHIBIT “I” - FAIR SHARE PAYMENTS
669
-1-
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. __________
This Development Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into as of the Effective Date by and among the CITY OF BANNING (hereinafter “City”), and NP BANNING INDUSTRIAL, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company (hereinafter “Owner”). City and Owner are, collectively, the “Parties,” and individually, a “Party”. Initially capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth in Section 1.1 below.

RECITALS

1. City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property, pursuant to Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution and Section 65864, et seq. (“Development Agreement Law”) of the California Government Code (“Government Code”).

2. City has adopted Procedures and Requirements of the City of Banning For the Consideration of Development Agreements (“Procedures and Requirements”), pursuant to Section 65865 of the Government Code.

3. Owner is the owner of real property comprised of approximately 533.8 acres of land. The Property is divided for purposes of this Agreement into the northerly portion, comprising approximately 280.1 acres (“Northern Portion of the Property”) located in the City, an additional approximately 8.52 acres of real property owned by Owner but subject to a public right of way easement in favor of the City for the future extension of Sun Lakes Boulevard (“SLB Extension”) and the southerly portion, comprising approximately 253.7 acres (“Southern Portion of the Property”), located in unincorporated Riverside County (“County”) within the Sphere of Influence of the City (“SOI”). The SLB Extension is subject to this Agreement but is not addressed by the Specific Plan. The Northern Portion of the Property, the SLB Extension, and the Southern Portion of the Property are collectively referred to herein as the “Property”. The Northern Portion of the Property and the SLB Extension is described in Exhibit “A-1” to this Agreement, the Southern Portion of the Property is described in Exhibit “A-2” to this Agreement, and the Property is depicted in Exhibit “B” to this Agreement.

4. Owner has filed, or will be filing, and is seeking the approval of an annexation application pertaining to the Southern Portion of the Property (“Annexation Application”) through the Local Agency Formation Commission for Riverside County (“LAFCO”) pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, Government Code Section 56000 et seq. LAFCO is processing the Annexation Application concurrently with City’s consideration of this Agreement and various land use entitlements detailed below.

5. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement shall be operative on the Northern Portion of the Property and the SLB Extension upon the Effective Date, and as established under the Development Agreement Law, this Agreement shall be operative on the Southern Portion of the Property upon approval of the Annexation Application.

6. Owner is proposing to develop and facilitate the future development on the Property of a project currently titled Sunset Crossroads, which is intended to include commercial and industrial uses, including, but not limited to: (a) up to 268,400 square feet of commercial uses, 670
-2-
including Travel Center Retail Uses, a Fueling Facility and a hotel with approximately 125 rooms comprised of approximately 90,000 square feet in a 48.3-acre area on the Northern Portion of the Property; (b) up to 5,545,000 square feet of industrial land uses within a 396.5-acre portion of the Property; (c) related signage; (d) approximately 65.4 acres of land designated for Open SpaceResources (52.8 acres), and Open Space-Parks (approximately 5 acres); and approximately 23.6 acres of internal circulation features.

7. Owner has initiated an application to City for this Agreement, and certain related land use entitlements and development rights (collectively, “Existing Development Approvals”, and listed in Exhibit “C” to this Agreement), which were approved by City, specifically: (a) a General Plan Amendment, designated (GPA 20-2501) by City, changing the General Plan land use designation of the Property to the land uses identified on the General Plan Land Use Map attached as Exhibit “B” (“GPA”), (b) a Specific Plan (designated SP 20-2002) , by City, (c) a Zone Change (designated ZC 20-3502), (d) a tentative parcel map (designated TPM 38118), (e) a Tax Sharing and Reimbursement Agreement and (f) an Environmental Impact Report (designated EA 20-1506) by City, inclusive of the EIR, incorporating a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (“MMRP”) and conforming to the specifications of the California Environmental Quality Act California Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA guidelines, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, chapter 3, § 15000 et seq. (collectively, “CEQA”).

8. Owner has requested City to enter into a development agreement and proceedings have been taken in accordance with the Procedures and Requirements of City.

9. By electing to enter into this Agreement, City shall bind current and future Councils of City (“City Council”) by the obligations specified herein and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of City.

10. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable.

11. The best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.

12. All of the procedures of CEQA have been met with respect to the Project and the Agreement.

13. This Agreement and the Project are consistent with the City General Plan, the City of Banning Municipal Code and any specific plan applicable thereto.

14. All actions taken, and approvals given by City have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters; and

15. This Agreement will confer substantial private benefits on Owner by granting vested rights to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.

16. City has determined that development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement and Owner’s participation in the implementation of the Specific Plan and provision of 671
-3-
the Public Improvements will result in a number of public benefits will provide substantial benefits to City and will further important policies and goals of the City.

17. This Agreement will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly development of the Property, ensure progressive installation of necessary improvements, provide for public services appropriate to the development of the Project, and generally serve the purposes for which development agreements under Sections 65864, et seq. of the Government Code (“Development Agreement Law”) are intended.

18. Owner has incurred and will in the future incur substantial costs in excess of the generally applicable requirements in order to assure vesting of legal rights to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement.

19. The development of the Project and the Public Improvements and other Public Benefits require a substantial early investment of money and planning and design effort by Owner.

Without the protection provided by this Agreement, uncertainty that the Project may be completed in its entirety could result in a waste of public resources, escalate the cost of public improvements, and discourage Owner’s provision of the Public Benefits specified in this Agreement. Owner’s participation in the implementation of Project will result in a number of public benefits. These benefits require the cooperation and participation of City and Owner and could not be secured without mutual cooperation in and commitment to the comprehensive planning effort that has resulted in the Specific Plan and other development approvals adopted concurrently with this Agreement.

20. Owner wishes to avoid certain development risks and uncertainties that would, in the absence of this Agreement, deter and discourage Owner from making a commitment to implement the Project. The following assurances are of vital concern to Owner to offset or remove the disincentives and uncertainties:
a. Assurance to Owner that, in return for Owner’s commitment to the development of the Property, City will in turn remain committed to development of the Project in accordance with the Development Plan and the terms of this Agreement and subject to the Reservations of Authority.
b. Assurances to Owner that as Owner becomes obligated for the costs of designing and constructing the public and private improvements described in the Project Approvals, and to make dedications, Owner will become entitled to rely upon the vested rights conferred by this Agreement in the development of the Property; and c. Assurances to Owner that in City’s administration of the Development Plan, Owner will be allowed, consistent with the Specific Plan, to develop the types and intensities of use identified in the Specific Plan.

21. The Parties agree that the consideration to be received by City pursuant to this Agreement and the rights secured to Owner hereunder constitute sufficient consideration to support the mutual and respective covenants and agreements of the Parties. By entering into this Agreement, City desires to vest in Owner certain rights and approvals as specified in this Agreement.
672
-4-

22. This Agreement provides assurances that the public benefits identified below will be achieved in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Developer is willing, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, to make expenditures and provide benefits to the City including, without limitation, construction of improvements in a manner that benefits a wider area, and mitigates impacts resulting in part from certain existing conditions and cumulative development in addition to those impacts caused by the Project, thus conferring a public benefit on the City. The Project will provide local and regional public benefits to the City, including, without limitation:
a. Increased real property taxes, sales taxes, transit occupancy taxes and other revenues to the City.
b. Provision of public facilities, including the construction of the Sunset Avenue Improvements. The Sunset Avenue Improvements are depicted in Exhibit “F”. c. Provision of a Public Benefit Fee, an Accelerated Transportation DIF Payment to facilitate the construction of the SLB Extension, and a Service Special Tax. d. Provision of funding for a Banning Electric Utility Substation. e. Provision of $15,000,000 for a possible future fire station to be considered by the City pursuant to Section 5.10.4.
f. Provision of $1,000,000 for a new fire ladder truck or other fire suppression equipment.
g. Provision of $750,000 for City downtown beautification/small business assistance.
h. Dedication of property to the City as a site for a possible future fire station, a water tank, electrical substation and a reverse osmosis facility. i. Establishment of a job fair to benefit City residents, and a requirement that all leases include language requiring lessees to provide two weeks’ advance notice to City residents when new lessees are hiring employees.
j. Setting aside approximately 53 acres for Open Space Resource Land and approximately 5 acres for parks and recreational facilities (“Park”). k. Construction of the Park facilities, as specified in the Specific Plan (“Specific Plan Park Facilities”) and maintenance of the Park. l. Provision of both construction jobs and permanent jobs. m. Provision of approximately $71,000,000 in City Development Impact Fees (“DIF”), TUMF and MSHCP impact fees and school fees, before the DIF transportation reduction specified herein.
673
-5-
n. Modifications to the Project analyzed in the EIR that are consistent with the Specific Plan to provide further buffer to certain nearby residential properties.

COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS AND EXHIBITS.

1.1 Definitions. The following terms when used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows unless another meaning is clearly intended in the context in which it appears:
“Accelerated Transportation DIF Payment” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5.1. “Additional Park Facilities” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.10.3. “Agreement” means this Development Agreement.
“Annexation” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.1.
“Annexation Application” has the meaning set forth in Recital 4. “Annexation Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3.1. “Annexation Deadline” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3.1 “Annual Escalation Factor” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.2(c). “Authorized Facilities and Fees” means facilities authorized under the Mello-Roos Act including, without exception, public streets and other related improvements, including grading, paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street signalization and signage, street lights and parkway and landscaping related thereto, water facilities, storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, public parks, open space and landscaping, electrical facilities, any fees (cash contribution) paid by Owner pursuant to the Project’s conditions of approval or this Agreement or which is included in any City capital improvement fee program, to finance public facilities to be constructed and owned by City, subject to credit against the corresponding fee.
“Authorized Services” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.1. “Banning Electric Final Contribution” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.3. “Banning Electric Initial Contribution” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.1. “Base Year” means the Fiscal Year prior to the effective date of the ordinance approving this Agreement.
674
-6-
“Benefitted Properties” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.12.1 “CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act.
“CFD” means a community facilities district formed pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act by the City as described in section 6.2.1.
“CFD Bonds” means one or more series of bonds (including refunding bonds) issued by the CFD secured by the levy of special taxes levied against taxable parcels within the boundaries of the Property, the proceeds of which reimburse the Owner for Authorized Facilities and Fees.
“Certificate” has the meaning set forth in Section 7.5. “City” means the City of Banning, a political subdivision of the State of California. “City Council” means the current and future councils of City. “City Grant” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.6. “City Manager” means the current and future city manager for the City. “City Ordinance” means the Ordinance adopted by the City Council approving this Agreement.
“City Substation Payment” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.3. “Conveyance Documents” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.3(a). “County” means County of Riverside.
“CSCDA” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.1.
“Default” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.4.
“Design Review” has the meaning set forth in the Specific Plan. “Development” means the improvement of the Property for the purposes of completing the structures, improvements and facilities comprising the Project including, but not limited to grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of buildings and structures; and the installation of landscaping. When authorized by a Subsequent Development Approval as provided by this Agreement, “development” includes the maintenance, repair, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any building, structure, improvement, or facility after the construction and completion thereof.
“Development Agreement Law” as defined in Section 7 of the California Constitution and Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code.
675
-7-
“Development Approvals” means all discretionary and ministerial permits and other entitlements authorizing the development and use of the Project and which have been requested by Owner and approved by the City including, but not limited to the Existing Development Approvals and the following and any amendments thereto:
(1) General Plan Amendments
(2) Specific Plan
(3) Zoning Code Amendments
(4) Sign Program
(5) Tentative and Final Subdivision and Parcel Maps
(6) Lot line adjustments
(7) Minor Modifications to Specific Plan
(8) Variances
(9) Conditional use permits
(10) Design Review approvals
(11) Reimbursement Agreement
(12) DIF Credit and Reimbursement Agreement
(13) Grading and building permits
(14) Electrical and Misc. Permits
(15) Sign Permits
(16) Occupancy Permits
(17) Tenant Permits
“Development Exactions” means any requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Development Approval for the dedication of land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of Development Fees in order to lessen, offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public interests.
“Development Fees” or “DIF” means any monetary exactions, other than Processing Fees, charged by City or local agencies under City’s control to applicants in connection with approval of development projects for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost 676
-8-
of public improvements, public services or community amenities related to the Project or the Property.
“Development Limitation” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3.2. “Development Plan” means the Existing Development Approvals and the Existing Land Use Regulations applicable to development of the Property. “DIF Vesting” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.11. “DIF Vesting End Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.11. “Economic Downturn” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3.2(e). “Effective Date” means the later of (i) the date the City Ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective; or (ii) the date the Agreement is recorded in the County Recorder’s Office.
“Engineer’s Estimate” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.2. “EIR” means Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2021020011, addressing the impacts of the Project, certified by the City in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and includes, without limitation, the Draft EIR, the Final EIR and all technical appendices.
“Electrical Property” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.8.3. “Existing Development Approvals” means all Development Approvals approved or issued prior to the Effective Date. Existing Development Approvals includes the list of Existing Development Approvals incorporated herein as Exhibit “C” and all other Development Approvals which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date or the finalization of which is contingent only upon this Development Agreement becoming effective. “Existing Land Use Regulations” means all Land Use Regulations in effect on the Effective Date and includes the Land Use Regulations incorporated herein as Exhibit “D” and all other Land Use Regulations which are a matter of public record on the Effective Date, as the same may have been modified or superseded pursuant to the Existing Development Approvals or this Agreement.
“Fair Share” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.12.2. “Fire Equipment Payment” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.10.5. “Fire Station Payment” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.10.4. “Fire Station Property” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.8.1. “Fiscal Year” means the period beginning on July 1 of each year and ending on the next succeeding June 30.
677
-9-
“Fueling Facility” has the meaning set forth in the Specific Plan. “Government Code” means the California Government Code. “GPA” has the meaning set forth in the Recitals hereto. “Gross Tax Increment Revenue” shall mean, with respect to the Property, one hundred percent (100%) of the ad valorem tax revenue the City receives from the County with respect to the Incremental Assessed Property Value of the Property for any given Fiscal Year.
“Incremental Assessed Property Value” means, in any Fiscal Year, the difference between the assessed value of the Property and the assessed value of the Property in the Base Year, to the extent that the difference is a positive number. “Industrial Property” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.2(b). “Initial Phasing Plan” means the phasing plan set forth on Exhibit “E-1”. “LAFCO” means the Local Agency Formation Commission for Riverside County. “Land Use Regulations” means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations and official policies of City governing the development and use of land, including, without limitation, the permitted use of land, the density or intensity of use, subdivision requirements, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and structures, Development Exactions, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the property. “Land Use Regulations” does not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation, or official policy, governing:
(1) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (2) Taxes and assessments;
(3) The control and abatement of nuisances;
(4) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; (5) The exercise of the power of eminent domain.
“Maximum Reimbursement Payment” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.4. “MARA Agreement” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.4. “Mello-Roos Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 53311-53368), as amended from time to time.
678
-10-
“MMRP” means a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, as more fully described in the Recitals hereto.
“Mortgage” means any mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement (in which the Property, or a portion thereof or an interest therein is sold by Owner and leased back concurrently therewith, which arrangement is subject to no prior contractual encumbrances securing payment of money), or other transaction in which the Property, or a portion thereof or an interest therein is pledged as security contracted in good faith and for fair value.
“Mortgagee” means the holder or beneficiary of any Mortgage covering all or part of the Property or any successor and assignee of any such Mortgage holder or beneficiary. “Non-DIF Sunset Improvements” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.6. “Northern Portion of the Property” has the meaning set forth in Recital 3. “Offsite Interests” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.9. “Operating Memoranda” has the meaning set forth in Section 11.7. “Outside Agencies” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.7. “Outside Agency” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.7. “Oversized Improvements” shall mean any Public Improvement with respect to which the Parties agree that Owner’s direct or indirect financial contribution exceeds the cost of the Improvement or portion thereof reasonably attributable to the Project or phase thereof, as depicted in Exhibit “F”.
“Owner” means the persons and entities listed as Owner on the first page of this Agreement and their successors in interest to all or any part of the Property. “Owner’s Costs” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5.2(d)(iii). “Owner’s Deficit” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5.2(d)(iii). “Owner’s Offset” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5.2(d)(iii). “Owner’s Plan” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5.2(b). “Park” has the meaning set forth in Recital 22.j.
“Permitted Uses” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.4.3. “Phasing Plan” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.5.2. “Procedures and Requirements” means the Procedures and Requirements of the City of Banning For the Consideration of Development Agreements. 679
-11-
“Processing Fees” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.3.1. “Project” means the development of the Property contemplated by the Development Plan as the same may be further defined, enhanced, or modified pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
“Property” means the real property described on Exhibits “A-1” and “A-2.” “Public Benefit Fee” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.2. “Public Benefits” means the Public Improvements constructed by Owner pursuant to this Agreement, including the Oversized Improvements (subject to the right of Owner for reimbursement and/or fee credit as described in this Agreement), the payment of Owner’s Fair Share of Public Improvements and the additional matters described as public benefits in Section 5.
“Public Improvements” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.3. “Public Maintenance and Access Easements” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.4. “Reduced Tolling Obligations” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3. “Regulatory Change” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.2. “Retail Plan” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.11. “Retail Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.11. “Retail Threshold” has the meaning set forth in Section 3.11. “Reimbursement Payment” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.4. “RCA” means the Regional Conservation Authority.
“RCTC” means the Riverside County Transportation Commission. “RMA” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.2.
“Reservations of Authority” means the rights and authority reserved to City under Section 3.6 of this Agreement and not a part of the assurances and rights provided to Owner under this Agreement.
“RO Property” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.8.4. “Sales Tax Revenue” means the City’s share of annual State sales tax revenue received from the State and/or County attributable to the Property. “Service Special Tax” has the meaning set forth in Section 6.2.2(b). 680
-12-
“SLB Estimated Completion Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5.2(a). “SLB Extension” has the meaning set forth in Recital 3, as depicted in Exhibit “F”. “SLB Extension Completion Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5. “SOI” has the meaning set forth in Recital 3.
“Southern Portion of the Property” has the meaning set forth in Recital 3. “Specific Plan” means the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 20- 20000002) as the same may be amended or modified from time to time consistent with the requirements of this Agreement.
“Specific Plan Park Facilities” has the meaning set forth in Recital 22.k. “Subsequent Installment” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.2.2. “Substation” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.1. “Substation Clearances” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.1. “Substation Costs” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.1. “Substation Excess Cost Documentation” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.3. “Substation Fair Share Percentage” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.3(b). “Substation Funding Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.3. “Substation Reimbursement” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.9.3(b) “Subdivision Map” means any parcel map or tract map approved by the City pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, including without limitation Parcel Map No. _________. “Subdivision Map Act” means Government Code Section 66410, et seq. “Subsequent Development Approvals” means all Development Approvals approved after the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property that are adopted in accordance with the Development Plan or in accordance with Subsequent Land Use Regulations adopted consistent with the requirements of this Agreement, including the Reservation of Authority, but specifically excluding the Existing Development Approvals. “Subsequent Land Use Regulations” means any Land Use Regulations adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement that are adopted in accordance with the Development Plan and the requirements of this Agreement, including the Reservation of Authority.
681
-13-
“Sunset Avenue Improvements” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.6, as depicted in Exhibit “F”.
“Term” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3.1.
“Third Party Fair Share Payments” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.6. “Tolling Period” has the meaning set forth in Section 2.3. “Transfer” means sale, assignment, lease, sublease, or any other transfer of a legal or equitable interest in the Property.
“Travel Center Retail Uses” has the meaning set forth in the Specific Plan. “TUMF Agreement” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.5.2(d)(ii). “Water Tank Property” has the meaning set forth in Section 5.8.2. “WRCOG” means the Western Riverside Council of Governments.

1.2 Exhibits. The following documents are attached to, and by this reference made a part of, this Agreement:

Exhibit “A-1” Legal Description of the Northern Portion of the Property and the SLB Extension
Exhibit “A-2” Legal Description of the Southern Portion of the Property Exhibit “B” Map Showing Property and Its Location
Exhibit “C” Existing Development Approvals
Exhibit “D” Existing Land Use Regulations
Exhibit “E-1” Initial Phasing Plan
Exhibit “F” Public Improvements
Exhibit “G-1” Intentionally Omitted
Exhibit “G-2” DIF Credit and Reimbursement Agreement
Exhibit “H” Development Fees in Effect as of Effective Date Exhibit “I” Fair Share Payments
682
-14-

2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

2.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out only in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

2.2 Ownership of Property. Each Owner represents and covenants that it is the owner of a legal or equitable interest in the Property or a portion thereof.

2.3 Term.

2.3.1 Commencement. For the Northern Portion of the Property and the SLB Extension, the term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date. For the Southern Portion of the Property, this Agreement shall become operative on the recordation date of the LAFCO Certificate of Completion. (“Annexation Date”). This Agreement shall remain in effect for thirty (30) years from the Effective Date unless this term is modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement (“Term”). The Annexation Date shall be no later than June 15, 2030 or such subsequent date as may be determined based upon intervening Development Limitations as that term is defined below in Section 2.3.2 or the Parties’ written agreement to extend this time period (“Annexation Deadline”). In the event that either the Annexation or another successor annexation effort relative to the Southern Portion of the Property is not complete by the Annexation Deadline, either Party may terminate this Agreement as a matter of right upon written notice to the other per Section 2.7 below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Sections 5.2, 5.4, 5.4.1, 5.5, 5.6 and 6.4 shall survive the expiration or the termination of this Agreement.

2.3.2 Extensions for Development Limitations. Notwithstanding the Parties’ expectation that there will be no limit or moratorium upon the Project’s development or the issuance of any Development Approvals, building or other development related permits (“Development Limitation”) during the Term, the Parties understand and agree that various third Parties may take action causing a de facto Development Limitation. Such third party actions include the filing of litigation challenging the City’s issuance of any Development Approval, including this Agreement and the following potential Development Limitations. Consequently, the Term, all Development Approvals and all obligations imposed pursuant to this Agreement shall be extended day for day for any delay arising from or related to any of the following potential Development Limitations for a time equal to the duration of that delay occurring during the Term:
(a) Changed conditions, changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations, floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, moratoria enacted by governmental entities or agencies, including Owner’s inability to obtain any kind of utility service to serve the Project, litigation challenging this Agreement or any Development Approvals, injunctions issued by any court of competent jurisdiction, acts of the public enemy, wars, riots or similar hostilities; epidemics, quarantine, pandemics or other nation, state, or local mass medical emergencies, restrictions; freight embargoes, lack of transportation, unusually severe weather, inability to secure or delays in securing labor, fuels, materials, services or tools, delays due to 683
-15-
the existence or remediation of hazardous materials, acts of God, riots, war or acts of terrorism;
(b) Strikes or other labor problems, or delays of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier;
(c) Any national, state, county or local state of emergency declared by a duly authorized public official;
(d) Any delays resulting from the unreasonable delay or failure of a governmental agency or entity, including the City, to perform any act or to issue any permit or approval necessary for the Project where such delay or failure is beyond the reasonable control of the Owner and not caused by any act or omission of the Owner;
(e) Withdrawal of financing for the Project that is beyond the reasonable control of the Owner and not caused by any act or omission of Owner; or economic hardship of a nature that is not specific to the Owner but is reflective of a broad economic downturn or similar event or circumstance affecting the ability of the Owner to develop or lease the Project or any portion thereof (“Economic Downturn”).
(f) Other matters beyond the reasonable control of Owner.

Each Party shall promptly notify the other Party to this Agreement upon learning of any Development Limitation. If any Party to this Agreement is prevented (the filing of a lawsuit by a third party attacking this Agreement or the Development Approvals is deemed to prevent any Party from performing its obligations under this Agreement or the Development Approvals) by any Development Limitation from performing its obligations under this Agreement, then on the condition that the Party claiming a Development Limitation (i) did not cause said event(s) and (ii) said event(s) was beyond said Party’s reasonable control, the time for performance by said Party of the applicable obligations under this Agreement shall be extended day for day by a number of days equal to the number of days of that said Development Limitation continued in effect or by the number of days it takes to repair or restore the damage caused by the Development Limitation to the condition which existed prior to the occurrence, whichever is longer, or longer as the Parties may mutually agree (“Tolling Period”). Regarding the applicable time periods of Owner’s satisfaction of obligations under Sections 3.11 (Retail Development Obligations), 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 (Public Benefit Fee), 5.5.1 (Accelerated Transportation DIF Payment), 5.8.1 (Fire Station Property), 5.8.2 (Water Tank Property), 5.8.3 (Electrical Property), 5.8.4 (RO Property), 5.9.1 (Banning Electric Initial Contribution), 5.9.3(Substation Funding Date), 5.10.2 (Open Space Dedication), 5.10.3 (Park Dedication) 5.10.4 (initial Fire Station Payment), and 5.10.6 (City Grant) (collectively, “Reduced Tolling Obligations”), when such Development Limitation terminates, all of the Reduced Tolling Obligations’ respective time periods for satisfaction shall be extended only ten (10) business days after the Development Limitation terminates. 684
-16-

2.4 Transfer.

2.4.1 Right to Transfer. Owner shall have the right to transfer the Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map Act) to any person, partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such, transfer shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No transfer of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the transfer of all or a part of the Property. (b) Concurrent with any such transfer, or within thirty (30) days thereafter, Owner shall notify City, in writing, of such transfer and shall provide City with an executed agreement by the transferee providing therein that the transferee expressly and unconditionally assumes all the duties and obligations of Owner under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property so transferred.
(c) Notwithstanding the failure of any transferee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph (b) of this Subsection 2.4.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such transferee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to such transferee until and unless such agreement is executed.

2.4.2 Release of Transferring Owner.
(a) Notwithstanding any transfer, a transferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement until the full satisfaction by such transferring Owner of the following conditions and upon such satisfaction shall be released from the obligations under this Agreement: (i) Owner no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part of the Property; (ii) Owner is not then in default under this Agreement; (iii) Owner has provided City with the notice and executed agreement required under Section 2.4.1(b) above; and (iv) The transferee provides City with security equivalent in all respects to any security previously provided by Owner to secure performance of its obligations hereunder. If City previously had not required the posting of security, then City shall not require the transferee to provide such security.
(b) If requested by transferring Owner, the City shall promptly memorialize such release in writing upon satisfaction of the foregoing conditions.

A default under this Agreement by Owner shall not be considered or acted upon by the City as a default by the transferee and shall not affect the transferee’s rights or obligations hereunder. Likewise, a default by a transferee relating to the transferred property shall not be considered or acted upon by the City as a default by Owner and shall not affect Owner’s rights and obligations hereunder.

2.4.3 Subsequent Transfer. Any subsequent transfer after an initial transfer shall be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of this Section 2.4. 685
-17-

2.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. This Agreement may be amended or cancelled in whole or in part only by written consent of all Parties in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65868 or 65865.1. This provision shall not limit any remedy of City or Owner as provided by this Agreement. In the case of amendments affecting portions of the Property, only the consent of the owner of such portion of the Property shall be required so long as the amendment does not diminish the rights appurtenant to or increase the burdens upon any other portion of the Property. Any Subsequent Land Use Approval pursuant to this Agreement and any amendment of the Land Use Regulations including to the General Plan, the Specific Plan or City’s zoning ordinance, shall not require amendment of this Agreement. Instead, any such amendment shall be deemed to be incorporated into this Agreement at the time that such amendment is approved by the City Council.

2.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events:
(a) Expiration of the stated term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 2.3.
(b) Entry of a final judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement, provided the time for filing any return to writ has also expired. (c) The adoption of a referendum measure overriding or repealing the City Ordinance.
(d) Owner’s election to terminate this Agreement. If Owner elects not to develop Property in accordance with the Development Approvals in substantial conformance with the Development Approvals, Owner shall provide notice of said election to the City and identify the location of the Property that is subject to the notice of termination. Following receipt of Owner’s notice of election to terminate this Agreement in whole or in part, Owner and City shall execute an appropriate instrument in recordable form evidencing such termination. (e) Upon the termination of this Agreement, no Party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement.