An agreement with the City of Banning or other capable service provider shall be made in writing which states that the provision of services to any application submitted within this Specific Plan shall be available prior to the recordation of any subdivision maps.
TABLE 5-1 MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
FACILITY
MASTER
PROPERTY
OWNERS’
ASSOCIATION
PROPERTY
OWNER OR
OCCUPANT
CITY OF
BANNING
OTHER MAINTENANCE ENTITY1
CIRCULATION & RELATED FACILITIES
Public Roadways
Pavement & Curbs X
Landscaping within public right-ofway, including medians and parkways
X
Sidewalks X
Private Driveways and Drive Aisles X X
Parking Lots, including landscaping X X
456
CHAPTER 5 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUNSET CROSSROADS
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 20-20000002
PAGE | 5-9
FACILITY
MASTER
PROPERTY
OWNERS’
ASSOCIATION
PROPERTY
OWNER OR
OCCUPANT
CITY OF
BANNING
OTHER MAINTENANCE ENTITY1
Traffic Signals2 X
Traffic Signs
Within public right-of-way X
Outside public right-of-way X
Street Lights
Within public right-of-way X
Outside public right-of-way X
UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
Potable Water Facilities/Infrastructure X X
Reclaimed Water Facilities/ Infrastructure X X
Sanitary Sewer Facilities/Infrastructure X X
Storm Water Drainage Facilities/
Infrastructure X X
Dry Utilities (Natural Gas,
Communications Systems) X
Dry Utilities (Electricity) X
LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE, & RELATED FACILITIES
Open Space-Resource Planning Areas 13
through 19 (Existing Natural Drainage
Courses)
X X
Planning Area 11 (Park Site) X
Planning Area 11 (Open Space/Trails) X
Planning Area 12 (Open SpaceResource/Trails/ Open Space) X Common area landscaping, including
entry treatments X X
Entry Monumentation, Freeway Oriented
Freestanding Signs, and Other Signage X X
Walls and Fences X X
Outdoor Employee Patio Areas X X
Outdoor Plazas/Gathering Areas X X
Notes:
1. Other Maintenance Entities may include utility providers, resource agencies, City Departments, park districts, flood control district, Landscape, Lighting and Maintenance District (LLMD), and other public/private entities. 2. Traffic signals and utility facilities/infrastructure may require maintenance easements.
3. The existing steel pole electrical power line shall be protected in place at the northern boundary via a 20’ easement. 457
END OF DOCUMENT
458
OLD TRANSITION LINE NEW TRANSITION LINE JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING “ ” “ ” “ ” 459
OLD TRANSITION LINE NEW TRANSITION LINE JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING JOIN EXISTING 460
461
Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan
Please click on the link below to access the following documents:
• Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Appendices. • Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), Appendices, Findings and MMRP.
https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan 462
September 2025
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
SUNSET CROSSROADS PROJECT FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
SCH #2021020011
463
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
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
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........................................................................ 1‐1
1.1 Findings Required Under CEQA......................................................................................... 1‐1
1.2 Document Format............................................................................................................. 1‐2
1.3 Project Summary............................................................................................................... 1‐3
1.3.1 Project Description/Location..............................................................................................1‐3
1.3.2 Discretionary Actions..........................................................................................................1‐6
1.3.3 Project Objectives...............................................................................................................1‐8
1.4 Environmental Review and Public Participation ...............................................................1‐9
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation .........................................................................................................1‐9
1.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting ......................................................................................................1‐9
1.4.3 Native American Scoping....................................................................................................1‐9
1.4.4 Draft Environmental Impact Report.................................................................................1‐10
1.5 General CEQA Findings.................................................................................................... 1‐10
1.5.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program................................................................1‐10
1.5.2 Recirculation Not Required ..............................................................................................1‐10
1.5.3 Consideration of Record; Independent Judgment............................................................1‐12
1.6 Record of Proceedings .................................................................................................... 1‐12
1.7 Custodian and Location of Records................................................................................. 1‐13
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS...................................................... 2‐1
3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVING NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION ............... 3‐1
3.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 3‐1
3.1.1 Threshold 4.1.1...................................................................................................................3‐1
3.1.2 Threshold 4.1.2...................................................................................................................3‐2
3.1.3 Threshold 4.1.3...................................................................................................................3‐2
3.1.4 Threshold 4.1.4...................................................................................................................3‐4
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources.................................................................................. 3‐5
3.2.1 Threshold 4.2.1...................................................................................................................3‐5
3.2.2 Threshold 4.2.2...................................................................................................................3‐5
3.2.3 Threshold 4.2.3...................................................................................................................3‐6
3.2.4 Threshold 4.2.4...................................................................................................................3‐6
3.2.5 Threshold 4.2.5...................................................................................................................3‐7
3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 3‐8
3.3.1 Threshold 4.3.3...................................................................................................................3‐8
3.3.2 Threshold 4.3.4...................................................................................................................3‐9
3.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................ 3‐10
3.4.1 Threshold 4.4.3.................................................................................................................3‐10
3.4.2 Threshold 4.4.4.................................................................................................................3‐10
3.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 3‐11
3.5.1 Threshold 4.5.3.................................................................................................................3‐11
3.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 3‐12
3.6.1 Threshold 4.6.1.................................................................................................................3‐12
3.6.2 Threshold 4.6.2.................................................................................................................3‐15 465
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
ii
3.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 3‐16
3.7.1 Threshold 4.7.1(i)..............................................................................................................3‐16
3.7.2 Threshold 4.7.1 (ii)............................................................................................................3‐17
3.7.3 Threshold 4.7.1 (iii)...........................................................................................................3‐18
3.7.4 Threshold 4.7.1 (iv)...........................................................................................................3‐18
3.7.5 Threshold 4.7.2.................................................................................................................3‐19
3.7.6 Threshold 4.7.3.................................................................................................................3‐22
3.7.7 Threshold 4.7.4.................................................................................................................3‐23
3.7.8 Threshold 4.7.5.................................................................................................................3‐23
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 3‐24
3.8.1 Threshold 4.9.1.................................................................................................................3‐24
3.8.2 Threshold 4.9.2.................................................................................................................3‐25
3.8.3 Threshold 4.9.3.................................................................................................................3‐27
3.8.4 Threshold 4.9.4.................................................................................................................3‐27
3.8.5 Threshold 4.9.5.................................................................................................................3‐28
3.8.6 Threshold 4.9.6.................................................................................................................3‐28
3.8.7 Threshold 4.9.7.................................................................................................................3‐29
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 3‐30
3.9.1 Threshold 4.10.1...............................................................................................................3‐30
3.9.2 Threshold 4.10.2...............................................................................................................3‐32
3.9.3 Threshold 4.10.4...............................................................................................................3‐33
3.9.4 Threshold 4.10.5...............................................................................................................3‐33
3.10 Land Use and Planning .................................................................................................... 3‐34
3.10.1 Threshold 4.11.1...............................................................................................................3‐34
3.10.2 Threshold 4.112................................................................................................................3‐35
3.11 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 3‐36
3.11.1 Threshold 4.12.1...............................................................................................................3‐36
3.11.2 Threshold 4.12.2...............................................................................................................3‐37
3.12 Noise................................................................................................................................3‐37
3.12.1 Threshold 4.13.1...............................................................................................................3‐38
3.12.2 Threshold 4.13.2...............................................................................................................3‐39
3.12.3 Threshold 4.13.3...............................................................................................................3‐40
3.13 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 3‐41
3.13.1 Threshold 4.14.1...............................................................................................................3‐41
3.13.2 Threshold 4.14.2...............................................................................................................3‐43
3.14 Public Services................................................................................................................. 3‐43
3.14.1 Threshold 4.15.1...............................................................................................................3‐43
3.14.2 Threshold 4.15.2...............................................................................................................3‐46
3.14.3 Threshold 4.15.3...............................................................................................................3‐47
3.14.4 Threshold 4.15.4...............................................................................................................3‐48
3.14.5 Threshold 4.15.5...............................................................................................................3‐48
3.15 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 3‐49
3.15.1 Threshold 4.16.1...............................................................................................................3‐49
3.15.2 Threshold 4.16.2...............................................................................................................3‐50
3.16 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 3‐51
3.16.1 Threshold 4.17.1...............................................................................................................3‐51
3.16.2 Threshold 4.17.3...............................................................................................................3‐51
3.16.3 Threshold 4.17.4...............................................................................................................3‐53 466
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
iii
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems........................................................................................... 3‐54
3.17.1 Threshold 4.19.1...............................................................................................................3‐54
3.17.2 Threshold 4.19.2...............................................................................................................3‐56
3.17.3 Threshold 4.19.3...............................................................................................................3‐57
3.17.4 Threshold 4.19.4...............................................................................................................3‐58
3.17.5 Threshold 4.19.5...............................................................................................................3‐59
3.18 Wildfire............................................................................................................................ 3‐59
3.18.1 Threshold 4.20.1...............................................................................................................3‐59
3.18.2 Threshold 4.20.2...............................................................................................................3‐61
3.18.3 Threshold 4.20.3...............................................................................................................3‐62
3.18.4 Threshold 4.20.4...............................................................................................................3‐63
4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.............................................................................. 4‐1
4.1 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 4‐1
4.1.1 Threshold 4.4.1...................................................................................................................4‐1
4.1.2 Threshold 4.4.2...................................................................................................................4‐8
4.1.3 Threshold 4.4.5...................................................................................................................4‐9
4.1.4 Threshold 4.4.6.................................................................................................................4‐10
4.2 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 4‐11
4.2.1 Threshold 4.5.1.................................................................................................................4‐11
4.2.2 Threshold 4.5.2.................................................................................................................4‐14
4.3 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 4‐15
4.3.1 Threshold 4.7.6.................................................................................................................4‐15
4.4 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 4‐16
4.4.1 Threshold 4.10.3...............................................................................................................4‐16
4.5 Tribal and Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4‐20
4.5.1 Threshold 4.18.1...............................................................................................................4‐20
4.5.2 Threshold 4.18.2...............................................................................................................4‐23
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE..................................................................... 5‐1
5.1 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 5‐1
5.1.1 Threshold 4.3.1...................................................................................................................5‐1
5.1.2 Threshold 4.3.2...................................................................................................................5‐6
5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 5‐10
5.2.1 Threshold 4.8.1.................................................................................................................5‐10
5.2.2 Threshold 4.8.2.................................................................................................................5‐14
5.3 Noise................................................................................................................................5‐16
5.3.1 Threshold 4.13.1...............................................................................................................5‐16
5.4 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 5‐18
5.4.1 Threshold 4.17.2...............................................................................................................5‐18
6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ......................................................................................................... 6‐1
6.1 Impact Statement.............................................................................................................. 6‐1
6.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 6‐1
6.3 Substantial Evidence ......................................................................................................... 6‐1 467
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
iv
7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS ...................................... 7‐1
7.1 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 7‐1
7.2 Substantial Evidence ......................................................................................................... 7‐1
8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING MSJC ENTITLEMENTS .................................................... 8‐1
8.1 MSJC Entitlements ............................................................................................................ 8‐1
8.1.1 Aesthetics...........................................................................................................................8‐1
8.1.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources...................................................................................8‐3
8.1.3 Air Quality...........................................................................................................................8‐3
8.1.4 Biological Resources...........................................................................................................8‐6
8.1.5 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................8‐9
8.1.6 Energy...............................................................................................................................8‐10
8.1.7 Geology and Soils..............................................................................................................8‐12
8.1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...............................................................................................8‐14
8.1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials....................................................................................8‐16
8.1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................8‐18
8.1.11 Land Use and Planning .....................................................................................................8‐21
8.1.12 Mineral Resources............................................................................................................8‐22
8.1.13 Noise and Vibration..........................................................................................................8‐23
8.1.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................8‐25
8.1.15 Public Services..................................................................................................................8‐26
8.1.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................8‐28
8.1.17 Transportation..................................................................................................................8‐29
8.1.18 Tribal Cultural Resources..................................................................................................8‐31
8.1.19 Utilities..............................................................................................................................8‐33
8.1.20 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................8‐34
9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................. 9‐1
9.1 Aesthetics.......................................................................................................................... 9‐1
9.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources................................................................................. 9‐3
9.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 9‐5
9.4 Biological Resources.......................................................................................................... 9‐9
9.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 9‐12
9.6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 9‐14
9.7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................ 9‐17
9.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 9‐20
9.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................. 9‐23
9.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................... 9‐26
9.11 Land Use.......................................................................................................................... 9‐30
9.12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 9‐31
9.13 Noise and Vibration......................................................................................................... 9‐33
9.14 Population and Housing .................................................................................................. 9‐37
9.15 Public Services................................................................................................................. 9‐39
9.16 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 9‐41
9.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 9‐42
9.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 9‐45
9.19 Utilities............................................................................................................................ 9‐47 468
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
v
9.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................ 9‐50
10.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES............................................................ 10‐1
10.1 Alternatives Considered and Rejected............................................................................10‐1
10.1.1 Off‐Site Alternative...........................................................................................................10‐2
10.1.2 Increased Commercial Use Alternative ............................................................................10‐3
10.1.3 Office Use Alternative.......................................................................................................10‐3
10.1.4 Residential Alternative (with Annexation)........................................................................10‐3
10.1.5 Reduced Residential Alternative ......................................................................................10‐4
10.1.6 Increased Residential Alternative.....................................................................................10‐4
10.2 Alternatives Under Consideration................................................................................... 10‐4
10.2.1 No Project/No Build Alternative.......................................................................................10‐4
10.2.2 No Project/Existing General Plan and Zoning Alternative ................................................10‐6
10.2.3 Reduced Commercial Alternative.....................................................................................10‐8
10.2.4 Reduced Industrial Alternative.......................................................................................10‐10
10.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative.........................................................................................10‐12
ATTACHMENT
A: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
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
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
1‐1
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City of Banning (the City) makes the Findings described below in connection with its undertaking of the following actions: (1) certifying the Sunset Crossroads Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021020011) (EIR) prepared by the City of Banning (City) (2) approving the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan and additional discretionary approvals listed in Subsection 1.3.2 below in connection with development of an approximately 533.8‐acre property (Development Site) located partly within the City of Banning (City) and in part in the City’ssphere of influence (SOI) in unincorporated Riverside County (County) and (3) approving a General Plan Amendment, zone change, and rezoning of the Mt.
San Jacinto College (MSJC) Site for approximately 41 acres of the 49.2 acre property located in the City at the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue (MSJC Site). The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City, as described in Subsection 1.5 below, including the EIR.
The term EIR as used in these Findings includes the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, and Final EIR, collectively.
These Findings constitute the decision‐making findings of the City as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, etseq. (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et seq. “CEQA Guidelines” in connection with the certification of the EIR forthe Project and the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”) and a Statement of Overriding Considerationsfor the proposed Project.
The City is the lead agency pursuant to CEQA with respect to the Project. These Findings are attached and incorporated by reference into each and every staff report, resolution, and ordinance associated with approval of the Project. These Findings are based on substantial evidence in the entire administrative record and references to specific reports and specific pages of documents are not intended to identify those sources as the exclusive basis for the Findings. All numbered references identifying specific mitigation measuresrelative to the proposed Project refer to numbered mitigation measures found the EIR and the MMRP.
1.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects ofsuch projects[.]” The statute also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
To implement these provisions, CEQA requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more 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
1‐2
written Findings for each of the Project’s significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding1
. The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project and/or measures have been identified which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect to below identified thresholds (referred to in these Findings as “CEQA Finding 1”).
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (referred to in these Findings as “Finding 2”).
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR [referred to in these Findings as “Finding 3”].
The EIR includes all exhibits and appendices thereto, the list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the EIR, the comments that were received by the City regarding the EIR, and the City's written responses to comments raised in the public review and comment process, all of which are incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15084, the EIR has been reviewed and analyzed by the City of Banning as the Lead Agency with respect to the Project and the EIR. The following findings for the Project and each fact in support of a finding are thus based upon substantial evidence in the record.
1.2 DOCUMENT FORMAT
These Findings have been categorized into the following sections:
Section 1 of these Findings provides introductory information including Project description and location, discretionary actions to be undertaken in connection with the Project and the Project objectives; a summary of the environmental review and public participation process and the record of proceedings; and identification of the Final EIR contents, and this section regarding the organization and format of these Findings.
Section 2 provides certain findings the City is required to make pursuant to CEQA. Section 3 identifies the Development Project’s potential environmental effects determined not to be significant, and for which no mitigation is required. Section 4 identifies the potentially significant effects of the Development Project that are determined to be mitigated to a less‐than‐significant level and describes the mitigation measures implemented to achieve that result.
Section 5 identifies the significant and unavoidable effects of the Development Project and describes the feasible mitigation measures implemented to lessen the impacts identified. 1 State CEQA Guidelines § 15091.
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
1‐3
Section 6 contains the findings of the City regarding significant and irreversible environmental effects of the Project.
Section 7 identifies the findings regarding growth inducing impacts of the Project. Section 8 contains the findings of the City with respect to the MSJC Entitlements. Section 9 contains the findings of the City with respect to Cumulative Impacts. Section 10 contains the findings of the City with respect to Alternatives of the Project.
The MMRP is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Findings.
A Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 is attached to these Findings as Attachment A.
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.3.1 Project Description/Location
Project Location
NP Banning Industrial, LLC (Project Applicant) proposes to develop an approximately 533.8‐acre property (Development Site) located partly within the City and in part in the City’s SOI in the County.
The northerly portion of the Development Site is approximately 280.1 acres (Northern Portion of the Development Site) and is located in the City, while the southerly portion of the Development Site (Southern Portion of the Development Site) is approximately 253.7 acres within the City’s SOI. The Development Site islocated immediately south of I‐10 and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue and north of Bobcat Road. The Development Site is bisected by the existing Westward Avenue right of way (Existing ROW), the centerline of which divides the land within the City and the unincorporated County land. The Existing ROW and adjoining .8 acres of land owned by the City and used for water wells are not part of the Development Site or the Development Project.
The Development Site is crossed by various natural drainages. Pershing Creek flows in a northwest to southeast direction through the eastern portion of the Development Site. Vegetation cover on the Development Site reflects a history of dry farming and cattle grazing disturbance over a majority of the site and consists primarily of non‐native grasslands, with patches of Riversidean sage scrub, mixed ornamental woodland, and sandy wash. The sandy wash habitat is associated with two deeply incised drainage courses and a tributary that flow through the Development Site. Pershing Creek flows in a northwest to southeast direction through the eastern portion of the Development Site and Smith Creek c flows in a north‐south direction. Highland Wash is a smaller drainage course and tributary to Smith Creek that confluences with Smith Creek near Westward Avenue.
The Project also includes the 49.2‐acre MSJC Site. Approximately 8.3 acres of the MSJC Site are currently developed with MSJC Campus features. The balance of the MSJC Site is undeveloped, with no existing structures, and vegetation that is a mosaic of Riversidean sage scrub, grassland, and water habitats. Pershing Creek crosses the MSJC Site from the west across Sunset Avenue, entering the southern portion of the MSJC Site.
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
1‐4
Current campus facilities, comprising one administration building, two classroom buildings, and one ancillary building, and surface parking are located on three parcels collectively encompassing 8.3 acres. The MSJC Site is zoned Public Facilities (PF) with the School (S) suffix, as identified through Chapter 17.16 of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC).
Project Description
The Project analyzed in the EIR consists of the Development Project and MSJC Entitlements, both of which are described below. The Development Project is analyzed at a project level in the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and consists of the proposed commercial and industrial development of the Development Site is of up to 5,067,000 square feet of commercial and industrial uses within 19 Planning Areas. In addition to roads, the Development Project’s master‐planned on‐ site infrastructure improvements include potable water, wastewater, reclaimed water lines, and stormwater management, including water quality management/flood control systems, dry utilities, roadways and sidewalks, landscaping, and a park.
The Development Project is primarily defined by the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (Specific Plan).
The Specific Plan establishes zoning regulations for commercial and industrial uses on the Development Site, including, but not limited to, allowed uses, intensity of use, building heights, setbacks, lot area and dimensions, parking, landscaping, signage, as well as to identify on‐site circulation and infrastructure improvements necessary to support the Development Project. The Specific Plan establishes four General Plan Land Use Designations: General Commercial (GC), Industrial (I), Open Space – Parks(OS‐P), and Open Space – Resources(OS‐R). Within the Development Site, 19 Planning Areas are geographic areas to which identified Implementation Regulations, Development Standards, and Design Guidelines described in the Specific Plan are applied. The Planning Areas would accommodate commercial, industrial, and open space uses.
Commercial (GC). The approximately 47.9‐acre commercial district of the Development Site (Planning Area 1) is bordered on the east by Sunset Avenue and stretches along the northeast portion of the Development Site between Lincoln Street and the site boundary. A maximum of 268,400 square feet of commercial uses, which may include leisure, retail, medical office, professional office, education, wellness, recreation, entertainment, restaurant, and other retail uses, operating out of a number of buildings aligned along an internal road (yet to be named) that would be accessed from Sunset Avenue. This portion of the Development Project is designed as a regional commercial and entertainment attraction, that may include warehouse club stores, multigenerational destinations such as activity and wellness‐based retail uses , and other athletic activities. Restaurants (with patio areas) and specialty retail uses that would orient inwards to central open space areas are proposed to allow for outdoor activities and as connections between uses along with an internal system of pedestrian walkways. Table 3‐1 of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (Draft EIR, Appendix B) provides a detailed list of permitted, conditionally permitted, ancillary, and prohibited uses within the Specific Plan area, and the Specific Plan in Section 3.2 at page 3‐5 provides that if the environmental impacts of proposed uses exceed those analyzed in the EIR, the City will conduct additional environmental review before approving any such use.
The proposed commercial usesinclude a freeway accessible 125‐room (approximately 90,000‐square‐ foot) hotel that would include a fitness room, hotel lobby, common area, office/management/ 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
1‐5
engineering area, laundry facilities, and outdoor or indoor pool. The commercial area further includes a fueling station and carwash with 20 vehicle fueling stations and 6 commercial fueling stations to accommodate recreational vehicles and multi‐axle tractor trailers and electric vehicle charging stations. The fueling facility would be accessed from Sunset Avenue or Lincoln Street and as analyzed would include four 20,000‐gallon underground storage tanks (USTs).
Industrial (I). The Specific Plan would provide for development of up to 5,067,000 square feet of industrial land uses on approximately 392.0 acres within the Development Site. Based on its proximity to the Sunset Avenue interchange at I‐10, the Development Project would facilitate the development of warehousing, distribution, manufacturing, and other industrial uses. To accommodate future tenants, the Specific Plan allows the size of individual buildings to vary within an established range (increasing or decreasing by up to 20 percent); however, the overall square footage of buildings in the industrial Planning Areas is capped at 5.545 million square feet. The Development Project considered in the EIR comprises industrial buildings ranging in size from 44,000 square feet up to 1,420,000 square feet and accommodating uses such as general industrial, manufacturing, parcel hub, warehouse/storage, truck/trailer parking and storage, recreational vehicle (RV) storage, high cube warehouse, fulfillment center, and e‐commerce operations. The Development Project’s Development Agreement would restrict industrial development on PA 2. The industrial building sites within the Development Project may include outdoor employee break areas with tables affixed to the ground to provide employees with a location to eat, gather, and enjoy being outside. Shading of these areas may be achieved through a combination of shade trees, umbrellas, or fabricated shade structures. Other open space amenities within the industrial areas may include pedestrian walkways, seating areas, overhead structures, and open space areas. Development of the industrial Planning Areas shall be subject to the applicable Infrastructure Improvement Standards, Development Standards, and Planning Area Standards set forth in the Specific Plan.
A proposed 65 MWh BESS facility would be a permitted use in any of the industrial use planning areas.
However, it would likely be associated with the planned electrical substation in PA 7. Direct access to the industrial Planning Areas would be provided from Sunset Avenue via Lincoln Street, Westward Avenue and a variety of internal driveways, and from Highland Home Road, the SLB Extension (upon completion), and Bobcat Road.
The MSJC Entitlements are analyzed at a programmatic level in the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 because no specific development project is currently proposed to implement the MSJC Entitlements described below, and because they are logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions. To comply with Government Code Section 66300 et seq., contemporaneously with its consideration of the Development Project, the City proposes to adopt a General Plan amendment and rezone the MSJC Site, owned by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (MSJCCD), to very high‐density residential development, creating capacity for not less than 1,146 housing units to ensure no net loss of residential capacity as required by Government Code Section 66300 et seq.
The City has initiated a General Plan Land Use Amendment (GPA) and a change to the Official Zoning Map (ZC), respectively, on the MSJC Site which will change the land use designation and zoning from PF–S (Public Facilities‐Schools) to VHDR (Very High Density Residential), with a density range of 18– 24 dwelling units per acre (18–24 DU/AC). The City’s VHDR land use district allows condominiums and 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
1‐6
townhomes, as well as apartments with the provision of common area amenities and open space. The clustering of condominiums and townhomes is appropriate with the provision of common area amenities and open space. To ensure that the college facilities and any future residential development are compatible, and to provide for the clustering allowed by the City’s Municipal Code, the City will establish a Specific Plan Zoning Overlay (SPZO) (“Overlay”) coterminous with the MSJC Site boundary.
The Overlay would require preparation of a Specific Plan, pursuant to Chapter 17.96 of the BMC prior to development of residential uses on the MSJC Site, to ensure the MSJC Site is developed in a cohesive manner and accounting for the provision of adequate public infrastructure (i.e., roads,storm drain,sewer, potable and recycled water availability) and would provide the opportunity for clustering of residential development, to provide for a mixed‐use school facility and residential development on the property. Because the MSJC Entitlements would not result in physical changesto the environment and would only allow for the future development of the MSJC Site, no physical environmental impacts would result from the MSJC Entitlements action.
The Development Project and the MSJC Entitlements are referred to collectively in the EIR as the Project, while the Development Site and MSJC Site are collectively referred to as the Project Sites.
1.3.2 Discretionary Actions
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed. They include:
City of Banning Planning Commission
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding Certification of the Project EIR No. 2021020011
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding Adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendment No. 20‐2501 ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption by Ordinance of Zoning and Pre‐ Zoning of Specific Plan No. 20‐20000002, Zoning Change 20‐3502 ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption of a Development Agreement ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding approval of Tentative Map No. 38118 ○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the Annexation of the Specific Plan into the City of Banning
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendment No. 22‐2502 for MSJC Site
○ Recommendation to the City Council regarding the adoption by Ordinance of Zoning Change No. 22‐3502 for MSJC Site
City of Banning City Council
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
1‐7
○ Water Supply Assessment Approval
○ Certification of the Project EIR No. 2021020011
○ Adoption of Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
○ Adoption by Resolution of General Plan Amendment No. 20‐2501 ○ Adoption by Ordinance of Zoning and Pre‐Zoning; Specific Plan No. 20‐20000002, Zoning Change 20‐3502
○ Approval by Ordinance of a Development Agreement
○ Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 38118
○ Approval of Resolution of Annexation of Southern Portion of the Development Site into the City of Banning
○ Adoption by Resolution of General Plan Amendment No. 22‐2502 for MSJC Site ○ Adoption by Ordinance of Zoning Change No. 22‐3502 for MSJC Site Subsequent discretionary actions may include, but not be limited to: Final Maps, Conditional Use Permits, Design Reviews, Subdivision Maps, Grading Permits, Variances, water and sewer system approvals, and encroachment permits and adoption of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(d)(1) further requiresthe City, to the extent the information is known, to include a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision‐making processes, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review/consultation requirements established by federal, State, or local law, regulation, and/or policy. Based on the Project as proposed, the following agencies may require the permits referenced below, However, the EIR can be used by any trustee agency or responsible agency (as such terms are defined by CEQA), whether identified in the EIR or not, as part of their decision‐ making processes in relation to the proposed Project.
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (Responsible Agency). Annexation of the Southern Portion of the Development Site from unincorporated Riverside County into the City. Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean Water Act, Section 401) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Streambed Alteration Agreement, Section 1602) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (404 Permit)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Clean Water Act, Section 404) South Coast Air Quality Management District (Authority to Construct) 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
1‐8
Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (action) Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (action)
1.3.3 Project Objectives
The following objectives of the Project are based on the City’s Vision Statement and Goals from various General Plan elements:
Establish a functional and balanced pattern of land use that maximizes economic opportunity and provides needed public improvements for City residents. Establish land uses for properties in the City’s sphere of influence that will create positive fiscal impact to the City and provide sufficient fiscal benefit to permit annexation of the property upon which the project is proposed into the City.
Promote job creating uses that reduce the need for City residents to commute outside of the City for employment, thereby improving the City’s jobs to housing ratio. Locate industrial and commercial uses that rely on transportation efficiency in areas with convenient access to the local and regional transportation network, thereby minimizing truck traffic on local streets and reducing vehicle miles traveled in the region to the extent feasible. Address a need in the City for commercial and industrial land uses that accommodate a variety of modern industrial, business, hospitality, and commercial activities. Provide commercial development that allows for a diversified economy, complements existing uses, provides a range of employment opportunities, and promotes a safe and enjoyable shopping experience for residents and visitors.
Use comprehensive planning tools to create a master‐planned development that will be marketable to users, establish an aesthetically pleasing environment, and minimize impacts to adjoining uses.
Increase City sales and property tax revenues by establishing commercial and industrial uses in the City that can increase City revenues and assist in offsetting public services costs incurred by the City in development and maintenance of housing and public facilities. Assist in managing supply and demand for electric services to maintain and increase the existing renewables portfolio standard while minimizing costs to rate payers. Assist the City in developing roadway and utility infrastructure to support the anticipated growth requirements of the City and to improve accessibility in areas of the City and the City’s sphere of influence that currently have limited infrastructure to serve the needs of local residents and businesses.
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
1‐9
Conserve natural drainage features and open space to provide a balance between the built and natural environment.
Minimize the demand for water resources and other public services by creating drought tolerant landscaping and encouraging use of recycled water.
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation
The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies and organizations that may provide comment on the Project’s potential impact(s) on the environment.
The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the project, SCH No. 2021020011.
The 30‐day public comment period extended from February 1 to March 3, 2021. An electronic copy of the NOP was made available on the City’s website. Comments received during the public review of the NOP were utilized to assist in identifying potential environmental impacts addressed in Chapter
4.0 of the Draft EIR.
1.4.2 Public Scoping Meeting
Due to COVID‐19 restrictions, the Public Scoping meeting was held virtually on February 18, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via Zoom. Notice of the Public Scoping Meeting was published in the Banning Record Gazette on February 5, 2021 providing the appropriate instructions for public participation in the Scoping Meeting. The Public Scoping Meeting included a presentation providing a summary of the Project, required actions, and the environmental review process. No public comments were received during the Scoping Meeting.
1.4.3 Native American Scoping
The Development Project includes a General Plan Amendment and implementation of a Specific Plan for the Development Project; therefore, Native American consultation pursuant to both SB 18 and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) is required. On November 30, 2020 the City reached out to 31 Native American contacts to formally invite participation in tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 required for the Development Project. The City received responsesfrom the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (SBLI), and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) requesting formal consultation with the City regarding the Development Project.
The City provided a separate consultation invitation to these same 31 Native American contacts on August 25, 2022, specifically identifying the entitlement actions related to the MSJC Site. In this 2022 consultation, the City stated the MSJC Site Entitlements proposed only changes to the City’s land use and zoning maps, and that no construction or physical alterations were proposed or would be authorized under the MSJC Entitlements. The MBMI acknowledged the City’s actions and noted the MSJC Site is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the MBMI and that any future construction or alterations to the MSJC Site would be of interest to the MBMI. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) stated the MSJC Site is outside of Serrano ancestral territory and, as such, SMBMI would not request consulting party status with the City.
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
1‐10
1.4.4 Draft Environmental Impact Report
A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was provided to, responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the organizations, and person who have previously requested notification. The NOA was distributed via priority mail with confirmed receipt. The NOA identified the State mandated 45‐day public review period extending from December 15, 2023 to January 30, 2024 and included a weblink to the City’s public noticing page providing further access to the Draft EIR, project material, and related technical appendices. Emails advising of the availability of the Draft EIR were sent by the City on December 15, 2023 to those parties requesting electronic notification. These emails provided the same weblink leading to the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR, supporting technical appendices, and associated public notices were uploaded to the State Clearinghouse on December 14, 2023. The State Clearinghouse confirmed receipt and published the Draft EIR for a public review period extending from December 15, 2023 to January 30, 2023.
1.4.5 Final Environmental Impact Report
A Final EIR was released to the public in July, 2024 and responses to comments transmitted to commenters in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
1.5 GENERAL CEQA FINDINGS
1.5.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
To the extent that these Findings conclude that the proposed mitigation measures outlined in herein are feasible and have not been modified, superseded, or withdrawn, the City hereby commits to implementing these measures. These Findings, in other words, are not merely informational, but rather constitute a binding set of obligations that will come into effect when the City approves the proposed project. The mitigation measuresthat are referenced herein and adopted concurrently with these Findings will be effectuated through the process of construction and implementation of the proposed Project. In accordance with the Requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6, the City must adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is described in full in Section IV of the Draft EIR and is incorporated herein by this reference. The City reserves the right to make amendments and/or substitutions of mitigation measures if the City determines that the amended or substituted mitigation measure will mitigate the identified potential environmental impacts to at least the same degree asthe original mitigation measure, and where the amendment orsubstitution would notresult in a new significant impact on the environment which cannot be mitigated.
1.5.2 Recirculation Not Required
The City finds that the Draft EIR does not require recirculation under CEQA (CEQA Section 21092.1, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5). CEQA requires that the lead agency recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice of its availability has previously been given but prior to its certification. The purpose of a Final EIR is to document changes to the Draft EIR following receipt of comments and to respond to comments to the Draft EIR. Responses in the Final EIR to comments submitted to the City on the Draft EIR fully considered and responded to comments claiming that the Project would have significant impacts or more severe impacts not disclosed in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the Responsesto Commentsinclude substantial evidence that 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
1‐11
none of the comments submitted to the City provided substantial evidence that the Development Project would result in changed circumstances, significant new information, considerably different mitigation measures, or new or more severe significant impacts than were discussed in the Draft EIR.
In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) provides that “recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies and amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.” Recirculation also is not required simply because new information is added to the EIR — indeed, new information is oftentimes added given CEQA’s public/agency comment and response process and CEQA’s post‐Draft EIR circulation requirement of proposed responses to comments submitted by public agencies.
Accordingly, modifications to the Draft EIR to include modeling and updated emissions totals requested by commenters that show a minimal increase, do not change significance determinations, merely clarify or amplify or make insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), and do not meet the criteria of “new information” warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR. In addition, the addition of project design features and modified or new mitigation measures to the Final EIR to address comments to the Draft EIR expand the scope of mitigation in the Draft EIR and clarify, amplify, or make other modifications in an otherwise adequate EIR and these modifications do not result in adverse environmental impacts or identify mitigations measures the applicant declines to adopt; therefore, the modifications do not constitute new information requiring recirculation. See CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b). Similarly, inclusion of inadvertently omitted files from technical report appendices where that information is summarized in the Draft EIR and/or attached technical reports is not new information under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). See, e.g., High Sierra Rural Alliance v. County of Plumas (2018) (addition of maps to general plan EIR provided clarifying information and did not require recirculation); Beverly Hills Unified Sch. Dist. V. Los Angeles Metro. Transp. Auth. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 627, 663 (new fault and tunneling studies confirmed conclusion in Draft EIR); Mt. Shasta Bioregional Ecology Ctr. V. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 221 (addition to Final EIR of reports that had been summarized in Draft EIR was not significant new information).
As described in the Sunset Crossroads Project‐‐Supplemental CEQA Memorandum prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated September 3, 2025 (Supplemental CEQA Memorandum), modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in similar or a decrease in impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation as compared with the impacts identified in the DEIR and FEIR. The modifications are authorized by the terms of the Specific Plan, there is no significant new information and the modifications do not meet any of the criteria set forth in Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, recirculation is not required.
City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have thoroughly reviewed the public comments received regarding the Project and the Draft EIR to determine whether any of the public comments or responses to comments or modifications to the Development Project requested by the City as described in the Supplemental CEQA Memorandum provide substantial evidence that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to its adoption. The City finds that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.
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
1‐12
1.5.3 Consideration of Record; Independent Judgment
In approving the Project, the City decision‐makers have reviewed and considered the Draft EIR and appendices, the Final EIR and appendices, and all other pertinent evidence in the record of proceedings. The Applicant’s consultants prepared the screen check versions of the Draft EIR, Final EIR and technicalstudies. Allsuch materials and all other materialsrelated to the EIR were extensively reviewed and, where appropriate, modified by the Planning Department or other City representatives. As such, the Draft EIR, Final EIR, technical studies, and all other related materials reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Lead Agency.
1.6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
The Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of those items listed in CEQA Section 21167.6(e), along with other items contained within the City’s files that are relevant to the consideration of the Project. The Record of Proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum and without limitation, which are herein incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these Findings:
The Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion and Availability, and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
The EIR comprised of
○ The Draft EIR for the Project and all technical appendices and documents cited, relied upon or incorporated by reference;
○ The Final EIR, including all written comments submitted by agencies, organizations, and/or members of the public during the public review comment period on the Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR and the City’s responses to those comments and corrections and additions to the Draft EIR and modifications and supplements to the technical appendices attached thereto.
○ A Memorandum entitled: “Sunset Crossroads Project – Supplemental CEQA Memorandum” ( Supplemental CEQA Memorandum) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. dated September 3, 2025 analyzing changes requested by the City following a public informational meeting held jointly on May 28, 2025 before the City Council and the City Planning Commission; and ○ The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Project; All documents submitted to the City by public agencies, organizations or members of the public in connection with the Draft EIR, up through the close of the public review period for the project on January 30, 2024;
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
1‐13
All minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; All documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings;
All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City staff, City Planning Commission, and/or City Council by the environmental consultant and sub‐consultants who prepared the EIR or incorporated into reports presented to the City Council; All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City from other public agencies relating to the proposed Project and the EIR;
All final applications, letters, testimony and presentations presented by the Project Applicant and its consultants to the City in connection with the Project; All findings and resolutions adopted by the City regarding the Project, all documents, cited or referred to therein and all staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
Any documents expressly cited in these Findings, in addition to those cited above; and any other materials required by or comprising the record of proceedings pursuant to CEQA Section 21167.6(e).
1.7 CUSTODIAN AND LOCATION OF RECORDS
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Banning, Community Development Department, 99 East Ramsey Street Banning, California 92220]. The custodian for these records is Emery Papp. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
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
1‐14
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
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
2‐1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by LSA, an independent, professional consulting firm. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff, the thorough and independent peer review by City staff of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses, and the review and careful consideration of the EIR by the City, including comments and responses. All conclusively show that the EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency.
Based on the NOP (Appendix A‐1 to the Draft EIR) and the comments to the NOP (Appendix A‐2 to the Draft EIR), the EIR analyzed 20 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from implementation of the Project. These environmental topics were analyzed in the EIR at a project level for the Development Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, and at a programmatic level for the MSJC Entitlements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and include aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the EIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6. These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City’s environmental consultants.
At a public hearing(s) conducted for the Project, the City determined that, based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and the submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are 1) less‐than‐significant and do not require mitigation; 2) potentially significant but will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance, through the identified mitigation measures or; 3) significant and unavoidable and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less‐than‐significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
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
2‐2
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
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
3‐1
3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVING
NO IMPACT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND
NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project have no impact or are less‐than‐significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
3.1 AESTHETICS
Project impacts for CEQA Aesthetics would not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below. The Development Project will comply with Project Design Features and Development Standards set forth in Chapter 3 and the Design Guidelines set forth in Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan.
Compliance with the Specific Plan’srequirements would serve to reduce and/or avoid impactsrelating to Aesthetics.
3.1.1 Threshold 4.1.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.1‐1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.1 of the EIR. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold 4.1‐1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The City has not designated any portion of the Development Site as a scenic resource. Accordingly, the Development Project will not physically alter a designated scenic resource.
With respect to the ability of the Development Project to block a scenic vista, the Development Site and the City of Banning are located in a valley situated approximately 41 miles south of the San Bernardino Mountains and approximately 25 miles northwest of Mount San Jacinto Peak. Both mountain ranges, along with their foothills rising from the valley floor constitute the most prominent scenic vistas in the vicinity of the Development Site and City of Banning. The Little San Bernardino Mountains are also visible to the east of the Development Site and City. San Gorgonio Mountain in the San Bernardino Mountains, the highest peak in southern California (11,503 feet), is approximately 13 miles north of the Development Site and is visible from nearly the entire Development Site. San Jacinto Peak in the San Jacinto Mountains (10,834 feet) is approximately 15 miles southeast of the Development Site. The western foothills of the San Jacinto mountains begin approximately 1.5 miles south of the southern portion of the Development Site (SOI).
Although the Development Project would obstruct some views of the San Jacinto Mountain Range, the San Bernardino Mountain Range, and the western foothills of both of these mountain rangesfrom 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
3‐2
some public vantage points, the City has not designated these topographical features as scenic vistas and as such, no significant impact would occur to scenic resources.
The Development Project would also include the placement of a maximum 80‐foot tall, 30‐foot‐wide, freeway‐oriented freestanding sign, on the north side of the Development Site. The freeway‐oriented freestanding sign has the potential to partially block motorist’s views of the San Jacinto Mountains and its western foothills, and of the San Bernardino foothills; however, the design, location and size of the sign would make this a minimal temporary obstruction as motorists drive past the Development Site on westbound and eastbound I‐10. Overall, implementation of the freeway‐oriented freestanding sign as part of the Development Project would not adversely affect views of scenic vistas, and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR, Section 4.1.5.1).
3.1.2 Threshold 4.1.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.1‐2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.2 of the EIR. This City finds that the impact of the Project will have no impact related to Threshold 4.1‐2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Caltrans Scenic Highway Program identifies SR‐243 (approximately 2 miles east of the Development Project) between I‐10 and State Route 74 as both an Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highway. Due to intervening topography, distance, existing buildings, and vegetation (i.e., trees), neither the proposed Development Project nor areas on the Development Site for the future development of an electrical substation (PA 7) or reverse osmosis facility (PA 12) are visible from SR‐ 243. The areas where the Development Project and these facilities would be located are not within, adjacent, or near a State‐designated scenic highway.
There are no City or County designated Scenic Corridors that cross or are near or adjacent to the Development Site and no scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on or in the vicinity of the Development Site. As such, implementation of the Development Project and any future development within the Development Site would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway, and no impact would occur. (EIR, Section 4.1.5.2).
3.1.3 Threshold 4.1.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
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
3‐3
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.1‐3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.3 of the EIR. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City of Banning is located within the Riverside‐San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area. As such, the threshold applicable to the Project is to determine if the Project is in conflict with the General Plan and zoning regulations governing scenic quality. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold 4.1‐3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Because of annexation, the entirety of the project area will be located within the City, and therefore will also be entirely classified to be located within an urbanized area. Existing land use designations on the Development Site under the City General Plan include residential, open space and general commercial. Existing zoning classifications on the Development Site within the City include residential, open space and general commercial, although zoning designations would be replaced by the proposed Specific Plan. The Southern Portion of the Development Site lies within the County General Plan and is designated asrural residential. However, this area is within the City’ssphere of influence, and would be annexed into the City with implementation of the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Development Project would require a General Plan Amendment, adoption of the Specific Plan and annexation of the Southern Portion of the Development Site into the City to implement the Specific Plan that would change existing land use and zoning to general commercial, industrial, open space‐ parks, and open space‐resource.
The visual character and quality of the Development Site and surrounding area would be preserved and enhanced through the application of and compliance with the architectural and landscape design guidelines of the Development Project and its Specific Plan. The architectural and landscape design guidelines guide the quality and aesthetic value of future commercial and industrial buildings as a result of implementation of the Development Project.
Although the Project would convert undeveloped land to industrial and commercial development while maintaining open space, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the Development Site and its surroundings because the Project’s proposed structures, would not block views of the nearby mountains and foothills due to their distance from the Development Site and the height and orientation of the Project’s proposed structures, which would r not block views to the San Gorgonio Mountains, San Bernardino Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains. The Development Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The City’s General Plan goals and policies pertaining to aesthetics are intended to ensure that development in the City will not result in substantial degradation to the existing visual character or quality of the Development Site and its surroundings. The Development Project would be consistent with City regulations governing scenic quality, including those outlined in the City of Banning General Plan Land Use Element, in and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, Project impacts would be lessthan significant. (EIR, Section 4.1.5.3). 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
3‐4
3.1.4 Threshold 4.1.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.1‐4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.5.4 of the EIR. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold
4.1‐4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Constructing and operating the Development Project would introduce new sources of light to an area that is not generating glare or day or nighttime illumination. Most construction activities on the Development Site will occur during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. per City Zoning Code guidelines.
Any construction‐related illumination during evening and nighttime hours would consist of the minimum lighting required forsafety and security purposes only and would occur only forthe duration required for the temporary construction process. As a result, light resulting from construction activities would not substantially impact sensitive uses, substantially alter the character of off‐site areas surrounding the Site nor interfere with the performance of an off‐site activity.
The Specific Plan as revised in Section 3.1 at page 3‐4, and Section 4.4.10 at page 4‐15 requires as project design features specific development standards and guidelines that ensure that there will be no significant impact from light or glare from the Development Project, including on nearby properties. The standards and guidelines regarding lighting in the Specific Plan serve as City zoning requirements for the Development Project and ensure that impacts from lighting and glare are less than significant.
The Specific Plan’s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines (refer to Section 4.3.9 of Appendix B, Specific Plan) indicate that the Development Site would minimize glare and “spill over” light onto public streets, open space, Interstate‐10 and adjacent properties by using downward‐directed lights and/or cutoff devises on outdoor lighting fixtures, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illumination for structures, parking, loading, unloading, and similar areas. Low‐level security lighting may be provided for the park, tot lot playground, trails, parking lot, and restrooms. The trails and parking lot may include bollard lighting while the tot lot playground and restrooms may include security lighting. With implementation of the Specific Plan, night lighting will be directed away from the conserved areas to protect species within the conserved areas from direct night lighting and shielding will be required to ensure that ambient lighting in the conserved areas is not increased. See Draft EIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources.
Overall, implementation of the Development Project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, Project impacts associated with construction and operation of the Development Project would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.1.5.4).
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
3‐5
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Agricultural and Forestry Resources do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.2.1 Threshold 4.2.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2‐1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Site does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The City finds that the development of the Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.2‐1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The DOC FMMP was reviewed to determine if the Development Site is designated as Important Farmland which is defined in Public Resources Code Sections 21095 and 21060.1(a) for purposes of CEQA as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The FMMP indicates the Development Site is designated with 451.9 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, 76.83 acres of Grazing Land, and 3.97 acres of Other Land. Development Project implementation would convert the Farmland of Local Importance and Grazing Land to urbanized land. No Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland are classified on the Development Site; therefore, Development Project implementation would not convert Important Farmland to non‐ agricultural uses. (EIR Section 4.2.6.1). Therefore, there are no Project impacts.
3.2.2 Threshold 4.2.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold
4.2.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Northern Portion of the Development Site is not within an agriculturalzone. The Southern Portion of the Development Site, although designated for light agricultural uses under the County’s zoning, is already designated as urbanizing through its placement within the City of Banning Sphere of Influence and is proposed for annexation. Its current City prezoning and the proposed Specific Plan are for urban 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
3‐6
uses. Once the Development Project is approved and annexation occurs, the Southern Portion of the Development Site would be redesignated as Specific Plan and would therefore no longer be zoned as Light Agriculture pursuant to the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance. It should be noted that the Southern Portion of the Development Site, although currently zoned as Light Agriculture, is currently not and has not previously been occupied by agricultural uses. Overall, Development Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
Review of the parcels within the Development Site concluded that none were under Williamson Act Contracts. Additionally, the status of past Williamson Act Contracts placed on parcels within the Development Site was confirmed with Riverside County Planning Staff, and these contracts have been terminated; therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not result in conflict with land under a Williamson Act Contract. (EIR Section 4.2.6.2). Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant.
3.2.3 Threshold 4.2.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2‐3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.3 of the EIR. The Development Project will not impact forest lands or timberlands. The City finds that the development of the Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.2‐3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
There is no forest land on the Development Site, and it is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production under either the County or City zoning designations. As such, Development Project implementation and the construction of public facilities would not conflict with such forest zoning designations, and there is no impact. (EIR Section 4.2.6.3).
3.2.4 Threshold 4.2.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Site is does not qualify as forest land. Accordingly, Development Project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use, and the Project will not impact forest lands or timberlands. The City finds that the development of the Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.2.4; therefore, no mitigation is required. 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
3‐7
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is currently occupied by native grasslands and some native trees. The number of trees currently located on the Development Site does not equate to 10 percent of the site and, therefore, it does not qualify as forest land pursuant to the California’s Forests and Rangelands, 2017 Assessment, and California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g). As such, Development Project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. (EIR Section 4.2.6.4).
3.2.5 Threshold 4.2.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non‐ agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold 4.2‐5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Site does not contain Farmland as defined under CEQA or forest land as defined by applicable statutes. Therefore, the Development Project will not convert Farmland to nob‐ agricultural use or convert forest land to non‐forest use. The City finds that the impact of the Project will be less than significant related to Threshold 4.2.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
As disclosed above in the response to Threshold 4.2.1, the Development Site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance and has not been used for agriculture since the early 1900s. The Development Project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use.
Accordingly, while the Development Project will convert land designated as Farmland of Local Importance to a non‐agricultural use, the Development Site has notsupported agricultural uses, apart from occasional livestock grazing, since the early 1900s. Although the Southern Portion of the Development Site is zoned A‐1, Light Agriculture, there is currently no agricultural activity on the Southern Portion of the Development Site or on any adjacent or nearby property except for occasional cattle grazing. This temporary agricultural use contributes very little to the regional agricultural economy, and the implementation of the Development Project would not directly or indirectly catalyze the conversion of additional farmland to urban land uses. As noted above no active Williamson Act Contracts are in effect on the Development Sites; therefore, no impacts to Williamson Act Contract parcels would occur. Furthermore, as an action associated with the Development Project, the Southern Portion of the Development Site will be annexed into the City and will be redesignated as Specific Plan pursuant to the City’s Zoning Code. There are no forest or timberland resources on, or in the vicinity of, the Development Site. Therefore, Development Project implementation would not contribute or catalyze the conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.
Overall, the Development Project would not result in conversion of Farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use at off‐site locations. (EIR Section 4.2.6.5). 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
3‐8
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Project impacts for CEQA Air Quality Thresholds 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below
3.3.1 Threshold 4.3.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
Findings
Potential impacts to Threshold 4.3.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6.3 of the EIR including text revisions in the Final EIR. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD regulations regarding exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The City finds that Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.3.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction Localized Significance Threshold (LST). Sensitive receptors near the Project site include Mount San Jacinto College campus, across Sunset Avenue and approximately 115 from the Project site. Although the campus is not the closest receptor, concentrations produced during construction are highest at this location due to meteorological conditions of the area. Construction criteria pollutant concentrations during construction of the Development Project would not exceed the localized thresholds and would not result in a locally significant air quality impact.
Operation LST. None of the criteria pollutant concentrations would exceed the LST thresholds at the nearestsensitive land uses; therefore, the proposed operational activity would not result in a localized significant air quality impact.
Operational Health Risk Assessment. Exposure to toxic air contaminants from vehicle exhaust can result in both immediate and long‐term health effects. Exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions such as asthma and respiratory illnesses and can worsen existing heart and lung disease, especially in children and the elderly. As shown in Table 4.3.Q, which was revised in the Final EIR, the future health risk to nearby residents, students, and workers from Project‐related emissions of TACs from the operation of the proposed Project would be below the SCAQMD’s HRA thresholds.
The results of the Revised Table 4.3.Q show the changes to the chronic and acute health risk levels based on the remodeled HRA. These resultsindicate that the additional emissions and project updates would not result in any new significant health risk impacts from those previously described in the Draft EIR. No significant health risk would occur from the operation of the Project, and no mitigation is necessary.
Long‐Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Analysis. Existing carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the Project area are extremely low. Because ambient CO levels are below the standards throughout the South Coast Air Basin, this Project would only be considered to have a significant CO impact if Project emissions result in an exceedance of one or more of the 1‐hour or 8‐hour standards. As the ambient concentrations are very low compared to ambient air quality standards(AAQS) with the current motor 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
3‐9
vehicle control programs, the exhaust emissions of CO will remain extremely low. Therefore, the Project can be implemented in the existing setting with no significant peak‐hour intersection CO hotspot impacts.
Construction of the proposed Project may expose surrounding sensitive receptors to airborne particulates, as well as a small quantity of construction equipment pollutants (i.e., usually diesel‐ fueled vehicles and equipment). However, construction contractors would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate emissions by following South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rulesforstandard construction practices(see Draft EIR, Tables 4.3.O and 4.3.P). Regulatory compliance measures AQ‐1, AQ‐2, AQ‐3, and AQ‐4 are existing SCAQMD regulations that are applicable to the proposed Project and were considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to air quality. These requirements are considered to be mandatory regulatory compliance measures and are not mitigation measures. (EIR Section 4.3.6.3)
3.3.2 Threshold 4.3.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Findings
Potential impacts to Threshold 4.3.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6.4 of the EIR. The project would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules regulating odors. The City finds that the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.3.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Heavy‐duty equipment in the Project vicinity during construction would emit detectable odors. Other sources of odors from construction activities may include roadway construction (e.g., asphalt application), and the application of architectural coatings. While these odors may be noticeable by nearby sensitive receptors, they are typical during construction and would not necessarily be objectionable. These odors would dissipate quickly beyond 300 feet of their source and would be temporary in nature. Additionally, construction‐produced odors would cease upon the completion of construction.
Objectionable odors typically may emanate from agricultural operations, wastewater treatment plants, food‐processing plants, chemical plants, composting,refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. While no such uses are planned for the Development Site, the Project does envision the development of commercial and industrial uses, including a variety of restaurants and a fueling station.
Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 regarding nuisances assures that odors from the proposed commercial and industrial uses would not be a significant source of odors. Rule 402 has two parts – whether air contaminants are emitted which cause injury, nuisance, or annoyance, or whether the odors endanger health/safety, or comfort, or cause injury/damage to business or property. The proposed uses are not anticipated to emit any odors that would result in either condition. City (of 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
3‐10
Banning) and County (of Riverside) regulations require trash storage areas to be in an enclosed area to limit air circulation, and through adherence to City and County regulations, odors from the trash storage areas would be less than significant. Vapor recovery systems on gas nozzles (SCAQMD Rule 461) would minimize odors from the gas station, and cooking odors would be limited by complying with SCAQMD Rule 1138. Therefore, the Project would not result in objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. As such, Project‐related impacts associated with odors would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section 4.3.6.4).
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Biological Resources Thresholds 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.4.1 Threshold 4.4.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would have a less than significant impact, and implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6, which are feasible and adopted, would ensure compliance with BMPs and MSHCP guidelines.
Substantial Evidence
No wetland habitat occurs within the Development Site or within the Biological Study Area (BSA).
Multiple seasonal pooling sites, which are not federally protected wetlands, occur within the Development Site, and many of these seasonal pooling sites would be permanently affected by Development Project construction. While pooling sites provide potential habitat for fairy shrimp, during fairy shrimp surveys conducted on site and within the BSA no State or federally listed fairy shrimp species were observed. None of the on‐site seasonal pooling features that are habitat for fairy shrimp were determined to be a vernal pool ecosystem. These features were barren or overrun by non‐native plant species and occurred within compacted soil in road ruts and other human alterations.
Despite the determination of no significant impact noted, mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 were identified as applicable to thisthreshold to ensure compliance with BMPs and MSHCP guidelines to protect the three noted drainage features during construction and Project‐related impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.4.6.3).
3.4.2 Threshold 4.4.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 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
3‐11
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.4 of the EIR. The City findsthat the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.4.3, and, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is not within an area identified by the MSHCP as an important migratory or native resident wildlife corridor area. The MSHCP Consistency Analysis determined that the Development Site and adjacent vegetation is unsuitable habitat for State and federally listed riparian bird species such as the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or western yellow‐billed cuckoo. While habitat exists for migratory bird species to nest on site, active nests for these species, including grasshopper sparrow, are unlikely to occur on site because they migrate through this area but do not nest on site or within the BSA. Although burrowing owl occur on site and are a State listed special‐status species, no substantial resident population has been observed on site and there is no evidence of the site being used as a migration corridor for this species. The planned conservation areas on the Development Site would conserve potential nesting habitat on site for this and other bird species, meeting the guidelines of the MSHCP.
Because the impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation is required. However, any active bird nest identified on site is protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), regardless of species status, and regulatory compliance with its provisions is required. If an active nest is identified during construction, the nest would not be disturbed until chicks fledge or the nest is no longer active. Construction and operation of the Development Project would not significantly impact wildlife movement or known nursery sites within or in the vicinity of the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.4.6.4).
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Cultural Resources Threshold 4.5.3 does not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.5.1 Threshold 4.5.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.5.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6.2 of the EIR. The City findsthat the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.5.3, and, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
There are no known human remains at the Development Site, although the potential to unearth such remains during construction cannot be ruled out. In the event that human remains are identified during Development Project construction, these remains would be treated in accordance with Section 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
3‐12
7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98, as well as appropriate measures identified in the EIR related to the inadvertent discovery of such remains. (EIR Section
4.5.6.2).
3.6 ENERGY
Project impacts for CEQA Energy do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.6.1 Threshold 4.6.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The City finds that the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.6.1, and no mitigation is required.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.6.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.6.1 of the EIR. The City findsthat the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.6.1, and no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, utility installation, paving, and building construction and architectural coating. Petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) would be the primary sources of energy for these activities. However, energy usage on the Development Site during construction would be temporary.
Through the duration of construction, approximately 443,644 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 3,652 gallons of gasoline during construction. Diesel and gasoline consumption (2023) in Riverside County totals approximately 915.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 321.6 million gallons of diesel fuel. Fuel consumption during construction of the Development Project would increase diesel and gasoline consumption in Riverside County by approximately 0.03 and less than 0.01 percent, respectively. At buildout, the Development Project would generate 20,496 average daily trips, including 17,166 passenger vehicle trips and 3,330 truck trips., which would consume approximately
1.423 million gallons of gasoline and 6.67 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. See Final EIR, section
4.6.6.1, REVISED Table 4.6.D.
At buildout with the implementation of the stated mitigation and PDFs, the Development Project would require 25,570,405 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) (or 25.570 GWh) of electricity and 5,999,799 kBTUs (or 59,997 therms) of natural gas per year. Total electricity consumption in the Banning EU service area in 2022 was 151.5 GWh. The Development Project’s electric demand represent approximately
16.9 percent of existing electricity consumption within the Banning Electric Utility (BEU) service area and 0.14 percent of current electrical demand in Riverside County. The BEU has included the energy usage by this Development Project as well as two other large commercial developments in its future planning. Total natural gas consumption in Riverside County in 2022 was 431.1 million therms. 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
3‐13
Therefore, operation of the proposed Project would negligibly increase the annual natural gas consumption in Riverside County by 0.01 percent.
While implementation of the Development Project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas at the Development Site and petroleum consumption in the region during operation, it entails conventional commercial and industrial uses utilizing up to date energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Development Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive, and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other similar commercial and industrial uses.
The Development Project will increase energy usage; however, it will be used efficiently and therefore would not result in a significant impact. The Development Project would be required to adhere to, and would be consistent with, all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.
CALGreen building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, which would reduce energy usage. Assuch, fuel, electrical and natural gas demand associated with Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Increasingly stringent electricity, natural gas, and fuel efficiency standards combined with compliance with the CBC and CALGreen Code as part of Chapter 15.04 of the City Municipal Code, implementing Riverside County 2019 CAP points, and complying with the WAIRE program would ensure operation of the Development Project would demand only the energy required. The Development Project will increase electricity use; however, it will be used efficiently and therefore would not result in a significant impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption would be less than significant.
As shown in Final EIR REVISED Table 4.6.C, fuel use associated with the vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project is estimated at 1,423,796 gallons of gasoline and 6,376,570 gallons of diesel fuel per year. This analysis conservatively assumes that all vehicle trips generated as a result of Project operation would be new to Riverside County. Based on fuel consumption rates obtained from EMFAC2021, approximately 915.5 million gallons of gasoline and approximately 321.6 million gallons of diesel fuel were consumed from vehicle trips in Riverside County in 2023. Therefore, vehicle and truck trips associated with the proposed Project would increase the annual fuel use in Riverside County by approximately 0.155 percent for gasoline fuel usage and by approximately 1.9 percent for diesel fuel usage. Fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips generated by Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region.
Increasingly stringent electricity, natural gas, and fuel efficiency standards combined with compliance with the CBC and CALGreen Code as part of Chapter 15.04 of the City Municipal Code, implementing Riverside County 2019 CAP points, and complying with the WAIRE program would ensure operation of the Development Project would demand only the energy required. The Development Project will increase electricity use; however, it will be used efficiently and therefore would not result in a significant impact.
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
3‐14
No mitigation is required; however, Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG‐1, described below, is a regulatory requirement implemented as a routine action conditioned by the City to ensure impacts related to energy demand during construction remain less than significant. Through compliance with Title 13‐Section 2449 of the CCR and the CALGreen Building Standards Code as a matter of regulatory policy (Regulatory Compliance Measure ENG‐1), construction of the Development Project would demand only the energy required and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption. (EIR Section 4.6.6.1).
RCM ENG‐1: Construction. Compliance with Title 13‐Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Green Building Standards: Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the City of Banning shall verify that the Development Project Applicant and his/her contractor(s) submit plans to the City indicating incorporation of Best Available Control Measures during construction of the Development Project.
Best Available Control Measures include, but are not limited to, requirements that the Development Project Applicant ensure off‐road vehicles (i.e., self‐propelled diesel‐fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up that were not designed to be driven on road) limit vehicle idling to 5 minutes or less; and register and label vehicles in accordance with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Diesel Off‐Road Online Reporting System; restrict the inclusion of older vehicles into fleets; and retire, replace, orrepower older engines orinstall Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). Additionally, the construction contractor must recycle/reuse at least 65 percent of the construction material. This condition shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Banning Development Services Director or designee, and/or Building Official, or designee.
Mitigation Measure MM AIR‐1 is included in the Final EIR as follows:
MM AIR‐1 The following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented during Project construction:
Plans submitted for grading permit issuance and building permit issuance shall specify a designated area of the construction site where electric or non‐diesel vehicles, equipment, and tools can be fueled or charged. The provision of temporary electric infrastructure forsuch purpose shall be approved by the utility provider, Banning Electric Utility (BEU). If BEU does not approve the installation of temporary power for this purpose, the establishment of a temporary electric charging area will not be required. If electric equipment will not be used on the construction site because the construction contractor(s) does not have such equipment in its fleet (as specified in this Mitigation Measure below), the establishment of a temporary electric charging area also will not be required. If the contractor(s) equipment fleet includes this equipment and BEU approval is secured, the temporary charging location shall be established upon issuance of grading permits and building permits.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road trucks and construction support equipment, including but not limited to hand tools, forklifts, aerial lifts, materials lifts, hoists, 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
3‐15
pressure washers, plate compactors, and air compressors are available in the construction contractor’s equipment fleet and can fulfill the construction requirements during the building, construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of Project construction, such equipment shall be used during on‐site construction. This requirement shall be noted on plans submitted for building permit issuance.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road truck and construction support equipment are not available then the Project contractor shall ensure all 50 horsepower or more off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified Tier 4 Final engines or the equivalent. Construction contractorsshall maintain records of all off‐road diesel construction equipment associated with on‐site construction to document that each off‐road diesel construction equipment used meets required emission standards. Records shall be kept on‐site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City staff or their designee. During construction activities, the City shall conduct periodic inspections to verify compliance with construction‐related mitigation measures pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
During construction of the proposed Development Project, the Project contractor shall only use interior paints with low volatile organic compound (VOC) content with a maximum concentration of 30 grams per liter (g/L) for residential building architectural coating to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 g/L verified.
The City of Banning shall verify these requirements have been incorporated into construction plans prior to issuance of any construction permits and during architectural coating activities.
Operations. Compliance with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy and Energy Independence and Security Act regulations: All vehicles operating in the Development Project will comply with these regulations as enforced by standard vehicle registration processes. Compliance with the Energy Policy Act, Senate Bill 1389, Energy: Planning and Forecasting, Title 24, California Building Code, and the California Green Building Standards Code: The City of Banning shall verify that the Development Project Applicant and all contractor(s) submit plans to the City indicating incorporation of energy‐ efficient measures in compliance with these acts.
3.6.2 Threshold 4.6.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
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
3‐16
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.6.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.6.2 of the EIR. There is no aspect of the Development Project that would conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.6.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would be required to adhere to, and would be consistent with, all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the Title 24 standards, SCAG RTP/SCS goal of reduce commuting distance to jobs, thus helping reduce fuel use, and City General Plan policies General Plan policies that help reduce energy consumption. Title 24 building energy efficiency standards establish minimum efficiency standards related to various building features, including appliances, water and space heating and cooling equipment, building insulation and roofing, and lighting, as well as CALGreen Code which would reduce energy usage. As such, fuel, electrical and natural gas demand associated with Project operations would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. (EIR Section 4.6.6.2).
3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project impacts for CEQA Geology and Soils d do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.7.1 Threshold 4.7.1(i)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7‐1(i) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.1 of the EIR. No known faults underlie the Development Site. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in no impacts to Threshold 4.7‐1(i); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
No Alquist‐Priolo earthquake fault zones are mapped on or adjacent to the Development Site which does not show evidence of active faulting. Therefore, the Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known Alquist‐Priolo earthquake fault or based on other substantial evidence of known fault. (EIR Section 4.7.6.1).
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
3‐17
3.7.2 Threshold 4.7.1 (ii)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.1(ii) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Site is located in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Development Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.7.1(ii); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
While active faults are not known to exist on the Development Site, the Banning Fault located approximately 2.75 miles to the northeast along with the nearby San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones can produce strong ground shaking in case of a fault rupture in this area. However, this is common for virtually all of Southern California, and structures are required to be designed in accordance with the CBC and other applicable Codes (per BMC Chapter 15.08) to withstand the ground shaking during the assumed design seismic event.
Development Project uses would be required to have a site‐specific geotechnical investigation report prepared by the Applicant’s geotechnical consultant, in accordance with Appendix J Section J104 (Engineered Grading Requirements) of the CBC (see Regulatory Compliance Measure [RCM] GEO‐1 below); such investigation would determine seismic design parameters for the Development Project building types pursuant to CBC requirements. Compliance with the design parameters and recommendations of the geotechnical investigation report would be required as a condition of a grading permit and/or building permit. Thus, impacts resulting from strong ground shaking are anticipated to be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.7.6.2).
No mitigation measures are required; however, RCM GEO‐1 identified below would be applicable and implemented by the Development Project.
RCM GEO‐1 Construction Code Compliance. All structures shall be designed in accordance with the seismic parameters presented in the Geologic and Geotechnical Review prepared for this Development Project and applicable sections of the most current California Building Code (CBC) and other applicable Codes (per Chapter 15.08 of the Banning Municipal Code). Prior to the issuance of building permits for planned structures, the Soils Engineer and the City of Banning Chief Building Official, or designee, shall review building plansto verify that the structural design conformsto the requirements of the Geologic and Geotechnical Review and the applicable provisions of the aforementioned codes.
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
3‐18
3.7.3 Threshold 4.7.1 (iii)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.1(iii) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.3 of the EIR. The Development Site is considered to have a low risk of liquefaction due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying soils and deep groundwater. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold
4.7.1(iii); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is considered to have a low risk of liquefaction due to the relatively dense nature of the underlying soils (Older Alluvium Fan deposit) and deep groundwater; groundwater is expected to be approximately 100 feet or more bgs. Seismic densification, however, is possible on granular (greater than 50 percent sand) fills, or native unconsolidated earth materials. The dynamic dry settlement is not considered a geologic hazard and expected to be less than 2 inches. Due to the proposed remedial grading and relatively homogenous subsurface soils between adjacent columns, the seismic differential settlement is expected to be less than 0.5 inch in a 40‐foot horizontal distance within the Development Site. No groundwater was encountered during the Geotechnical Assessment within the borings that were drilled to a depth of 50 feet. Development Project uses that would be constructed are required to comply with the CBC and other applicable Codes(per BMC Chapter 15.08) as well as the recommendations in the geological and geotechnical assessment prepared for the Development Project. Therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not place people or structures at risk due to liquefaction, and impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section
4.7.6.3).
3.7.4 Threshold 4.7.1 (iv)
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Landslides.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.1(iv) are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Site is not located in an area susceptible to landslides.
The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.7.1(iv); therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site and vicinity are relatively flat, and the Development Site is not located within a zone of earthquake‐induced landslide as mapped by the State, City, or County. Soils along and adjacent to some drainage courses have been eroded by water, with concentrated runoff creating 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
3‐19
incised erosion along the banks of Pershing Creek. However, these areas are restricted to the immediate creek areas which are proposed to be conserved and will not be developed.
As established by RCM GEO‐1, construction contractors would be required to adhere to recommendations of the geologic and geotechnical review, the CBC, and other applicable Codes (per BMC Chapter 15.08) for temporary slopes and for shoring or shielding for temporary excavations over 5 feet deep, as required by the City of Banning. Therefore, implementation of the Development Project would result in less than significant impacts related to landslide hazards. (EIR Section 4.7.6.4).
3.7.5 Threshold 4.7.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Project would be required to implement Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) to manage soil erosion. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold 4.7.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction of the Development Project would involve excavation, grading, and construction activities that disturb soil and leave exposed soil on the ground surface. Cut and fill slopes created during Development Site construction would be provided with appropriate drainage features and landscaped with drought‐tolerant, slope stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to reduce the potential for erosion. Berms would be provided at the top of fill slopes, and brow ditches would be constructed at the top of all cut slopes. V‐ditches cut on the Development Site would be founded in dense fill or cut, but not in topsoil colluvium, and lot drainage would be directed such that runoff on slope facesis minimized. Inadvertent oversteepening of cut and fillslopes would be avoided during final grading and building construction. If seepage is encountered in slopes, special drainage features would be recommended by the geotechnical consultant to minimize soil erosion effects.
The conceptual grading design identifies approximately 2,266,112 cubic yards (CY) of cut and approximately 2,118,698 CY of fill. Cut exceeds fill due to settlement, shrinkage and/or compaction of fill material required in connection with the Development Project. No import or exporting of earthwork is expected, but earthwork may be transferred between the two grading phases. (Draft EIR Chapter 3.5.3.8.) Maximum daily disturbance would be approximately 10,000 CY and would have an average daily disturbance ranging from 7,500 to 9,500 CY. All grading would be subject to local and State codes and requirements for erosion control and grading during construction. As required by RCM GEO‐2, all recommendations presented in the Final Geotechnical Assessment for the Development Project shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Building and Safety Director or designee to ensure reduced effects to geology and soils on the Development Site during Development Project construction and operation.
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
3‐20
Additionally, the Construction General Permit (CGP) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulates construction activities to minimize water pollution, including sediment. The Development Project uses constructed would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for each phase of the Development Project. The construction contractor would be required to prepare and implement an SWPPP and associated best management practices (BMPs) in compliance with the CGP during grading and construction as outlined in RCMs WQ‐1, WQ‐2, and WQ‐3, detailed below. Adherence to the BMPs in the SWPPP would reduce, prevent, or minimize soil erosion from future Development Site‐related grading and construction activities. Additionally, the future Development Site‐related grading activities would be required to adhere to the provisions of the City’s grading ordinances, requirements of the Geotechnical Study prepared for the Development Site, and CBC. Therefore, impactsfrom soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.7.6.5) The following Regulatory Compliance Measures are existing regulations that are applicable to the Development Project and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality and are also applicable to potential impacts related to soils and geology. The City of Banning considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are not mitigation measures.
RCM GEO‐2 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City for review and approval that proposed structures, features, facilities, and earthworks to be constructed on the Development Site have been designed to conform to applicable provisions of the California Building Code and other applicable Codes (per BMC Chapter 15.08) in effect at the time of development application as well as the design recommendations detailed in the final geologic and geotechnical review.
Additionally, the Applicant shall provide evidence to the City that the recommendations cited in a project‐specific final geologic and geotechnical review are incorporated into project plans and/or implemented as deemed appropriate by the City. The final geologic and geotechnical review recommendations may include, but are not limited to, removal of existing vegetation, utilities, and any other surface and subsurface improvements that would not remain in place for use with the structures constructed on the Development Site. Remedial earthwork, over‐ excavation, and ground improvement shall occur to depths specified in the final geologic and geotechnical review to provide a sufficient layer of engineered fill or densified soil beneath structural footings/foundations, as well as proper surface drainage devices and erosion control. Retaining wall parameters shall be in accordance with the Final Geotechnical Assessment to protect against lateral spreading and on‐site landslides. Construction of concrete structures in contact with subgrade soils determined to be corrosive shall include measuresto protect concrete, steel, and other metals. Verification testing must be performed upon completion of ground improvements to confirm that the compressible soils have been sufficiently densified. The structural engineer must determine the ultimate thickness and reinforcement of the building flood slabs based on the imposed slab loading. The 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
3‐21
recommendations of the Final Geotechnical Assessment shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City’s Building and Safety Director or designee.
RCM WQ‐1 Construction General Permit. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the Applicant shall obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), NPDES No. CAS000002, Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010‐0014‐ DWQ and Order No. 2012‐0006‐DWQ, or any other subsequent permit. This shall include submission of Permit Registration Documents (PRDs), including permit application fees, a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, a site plan, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a signed certification statement, and any other compliance‐related documents required by the permit, to the State Water Resources Control Board via the Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). Construction activities shall not commence until a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID) is obtained for the Development Project from the SMARTS and provided to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, to demonstrate that coverage under the Construction General Permit has been obtained. Development Project construction shall comply with all applicable requirements specified in the Construction General Permit, including but not limited to, preparation of an SWPPP and implementation of construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address all construction‐ related activities, equipment, and materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate risk level identified for the Development Project. The SWPPP shall identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and shall include BMPs (e.g., Sediment Control, Erosion Control, and Good Housekeeping BMPs) to control the pollutants in storm water runoff. Upon completion of construction activities and stabilization of the Development Site, a Notice of Termination shall be submitted via SMARTS.
RCM WQ‐2 In compliance with City of Banning Ordinance No. 1388 Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control, the Development Project Applicant shallsubmit a grading plan and erosion control plan to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit for each individual development that would occur within the Specific Plan area. The Applicant shall also submit erosion and sediment control plans annually to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, for review and approval.
RCM WQ‐3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department or designee for review and approval. The Final WQMP shall specify: 1) the BMPsto be incorporated into the Development Project design to target pollutants of concern in runoff from the Development Site and from each proposed land use; 2) the target pollutant(s) to be captured from each building/land use and treated by each BMP; 3) the metric for ensuring the BMP is addressing the target pollutant(s) of 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
3‐22
concern; 4) the necessary operation and maintenance activity for each BMP; and 5) the specific action to be taken if it is determined that the BMP is not meeting its intended goal(s). The Final WQMP shall also incorporate the results of the Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses to demonstrate that the detention facilities meet the hydromodification requirements of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit.
The Director of the City of Banning Public Works Department, or designee, shall ensure that the BMPs specified in the Final WQMP are incorporated into the final Development Project design.
3.7.6 Threshold 4.7.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐site or off‐site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.6 of the EIR. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold 4.7.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Because the Development Site is located in a relatively flat area, landslides or other forms of natural slope instability do not represent a significant hazard on or adjacent to the Development Site or to the Development Project. In addition, the Development Site is not within a State‐designated hazard zone for an earthquake‐induced landslide. Therefore, potential impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.
Given the relatively dense nature of the underlying soils and lack of groundwater, the Development Site possesses a very low potential for liquefaction. As indicated with respect to Threshold 4.7.1(iii), above, liquefaction potential at the site is considered low. The on‐site potential for liquefaction, and therefore, lateral spreading, is very low. Thus, impacts from lateral spreading and liquefaction would be less than significant.
Subsidence is typically associated with oil, gas, or groundwater extraction. According to the Riverside County General Plan and as previously noted, the Development Site is located in an area that is susceptible to regional land subsidence. However, the City of Banning General Plan indicates that subsidence has not been observed within the City. There are no oil or gas fields within or near the Development Site. Consequently, regional land subsidence due to the extraction of oil or gas is not a hazard to the Development Project. Groundwater on site is monitored by the City of Banning Public Works Department via four on‐site wells. The City‐monitored wells (M7, M10, M11, and M12) recorded water depths of 375 to 475 feet bgs in September 2003. Any existing water wells should be removed or abandoned prior to grading, in accordance with the Riverside County Department of Health Services guidelines. With these wells removed or abandoned, subsidence from wells at the Development Project would not occur.
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
3‐23
To address and avoid the potential for land subsidence, soils would be removed down to competent dense materials. Recommendations for soil removal would be planned in more detail by a certified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist when grading plans for individual phases of the Development Project are prepared. Subsequent detailed geotechnical investigation will be required, and the Development Project will be required to comply with a site‐specific geotechnical investigation report prepared by a geotechnical consultant, in accordance with Appendix J Section J104 (Engineered Grading Requirements) of the CBC. Implementation of recommendationsrequired by RCM GEO‐1 and compliance with existing regulations would ensure that a less than significant impact from collapsible soils would occur. (EIR Section 4.7.6.6).
3.7.7 Threshold 4.7.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating direct or indirect substantial risks to life or property.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.7 of the EIR. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts to Threshold 4.7.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Expansive soils are soils that experience volumetric changes in response to increases or decreases in moisture content. Older alluvial fan deposits were encountered throughout the property and underlie the young alluvium at depth. As encountered in the exploratory excavations, these materials generally consist of medium dense to very dense, silty to clayey sands and poorly to well‐graded sand with interbedded layers of sandy clay. Based on laboratory test results and review of the referenced reports, the predominate earth materials underlying the subject site are expected to possess a very low to low expansive soil (EI<51). Locally, higher expansive soils may be encountered in deeper excavations in the Older Alluvium. In the event that, following the completion of grading, it is determined that near‐surface soils within building pad areas exhibit an elevated expansion potential, the potential impact of those expansive soils would be addressed through design of structural foundations and floor slabs in compliance with applicable requirements in the CBC, as adopted by the City of Banning in its Municipal Code (RCM GEO‐1 and RCM GEO‐2). Since the potential for expansive soilsislow and any potential expansion would be addressed through compliance with applicable State and local Code requirements, the Development Project would not create substantial potential risks to life or property, and there would be a less than significant impact. (EIR Section 4.7.6.7).
3.7.8 Threshold 4.7.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not have soilsincapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
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
3‐24
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.8 of the EIR. The City finds that the development of the Development Project will result in no impacts to Threshold 4.7.5 because the Development Project will not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project uses would not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Development Project uses would be required to connect to City sanitary sewer and wastewater facilities. Therefore, the Development Project would have no impact with respect to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (EIR Section 4.7.6.8)
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Project impacts for CEQA Hazards and Hazardous Materials do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.8.1 Threshold 4.9.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.1 of the EIR. During Project construction and operation, mandatory compliance with federal, State, county and City regulations would ensure that the Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the environment due to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Development of the Development Project has the potential to transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials during construction and operational activities. Construction of the Development Project would temporarily increase the regional transport, use, and disposal of construction‐related hazardous materials and petroleum products (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, paints and solvents, and cement products containing strong basic or acidic chemicals). These materials are commonly used at construction sites, and the construction activities would be required to comply with applicable State and federal regulations for proper transport, use, storage, and disposal of excess hazardous materials and hazardous construction waste.
Commercial and industrial uses operated on the Development Site may include the use and disposal of hazardous waste along with limited use of pesticide and herbicides for landscape maintenance.
Engines of vehicles and trucks accessing the uses on the Development Site would contain oil and 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
3‐25
gasoline which could have the potential to result in minor releases of such substances through drips or leaks on site. However, development of the Development Project is not anticipated to generate or use major hazardous materials and would not create unusually high quantities of hazardous waste. If a future use would include a business that would handle or use significant quantities of hazardous materials, the City is required in accordance with its General Plan to process such use by the issuance of a City approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP would ensure the business is conditioned to comply with all federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials. If the future business does not comply with the CUP, the CUP can be revoked through a public hearing process.
Some of the proposed activities that could produce hazardous waste would include 20 vehicle fueling stations and six (6) commercial fueling stations with total capacity for four 20,000‐gallon underground storage tanks, restaurants that would utilize refrigerated storage facilities, and commercial and industrial uses that may utilize TRUs that would transport perishable material to and from the Development Site during operation. The commercial and industrial operations may also utilize large‐ scale refrigeration on site for perishable materials.
The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) would review the uses operating on the Development Site for hazardous material use, safe handling, and storage of materials. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the DEH would apply conditions of approval to the Development Site to reduce hazardous material impacts and ensure that any hazardous waste generated at the Development Site would be safely stored and transported to an appropriate disposal facility by a licensed hauler in accordance with State and federal law. Therefore, due to the type and nature of the usesthat would operate on the Development Site, and compliance with the conditions of approval identified below, their implementation would result in less than significant impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; no mitigation is required.
Additionally, the battery energy storage system (BESS), if proposed for development, would be required to comply with regulatory compliance measures. No off‐site electricity transmission is anticipated from the BESS. The Conditions of Approval (COA) for the BESS would require that prior to the issuance of the first BESS‐related building permit, the Applicant shall develop a reclamation plan, which shall be approved by the City’s Community Development Department to be implemented upon the removal of the BESS facilities (the “approved Reclamation Plan”). Additional details are described in Section 4.9.6.1 of the EIR.
While the potential impact would be less than significant, the Regulatory Compliance Measures are existing mandatory regulations that are applicable to development of the Development Site and are considered in the analysis of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. They are described in detail in Section 4.9.6.1 of the EIR. The City of Banning considers these requirements to be mandatory; therefore, they are not mitigation measures. (EIR Section 4.9.6.1)
3.8.2 Threshold 4.9.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
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
3‐26
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment with compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
A petroleum pipeline is located along the north side of the Sun Lakes Boulevard alignment, marked by signs, flags, and spray paint. A gas pipeline crosses the Northern Portion of the Development Site, marked by signs and exposed where the pipeline crossesthe drainages. An above ground storage tank (AST) was observed at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sunset and Westward Avenue. The tank was empty, no markings were visible, and holes were cut in the sides, allowing visual inspection of the interior. No staining or evidence of past releases was observed in the surrounding soils. No underground tanks, unusual or noxious odors, stained soil or pavement, stressed vegetation, leach fields or septic tanks, sumps or floor drains, pits or ponds of liquid, or evidence of fill sites or dumping were identified during the site reconnaissance. Overhead and underground utility lines are present along the Development Site perimeter boundaries. Compliance with Government Code Section 4216, which specifies standard pre‐construction practices requiring appropriate care to define the location, alignment, depth, and operational status of pipelines, above‐ and below‐ground utilities, and other features would ensure the integrity of existing facilities during construction and operation. The existing Union Pacific Railroad located north of the Development Site. While pipeline or rail operations may involve the transport of hazardous materials, it is speculative to anticipate if or to what extent hazardous materials may be released should a rail accident occur in the vicinity of the Development Project.
Implementation of the Development Project would involve use of hazardous materials and could result in accidental releases of hazardous material, as discussed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR. The Development Project envisionsthe operation of a travel center that will dispense fuel products. These activities pose a potentially significant hazard. Transport of these materials, refilling USTs, spilling fuel while refueling vehicles, and a variety of potential accidents could result in the accidental release of these materials into the environment. The California Health and Safety Code, Section 25280, requires USTs installed after 1988 to have leak detection systems consisting of at least one of the following features: secondary containment with interstitial monitoring, automatic tank gauging systems, vapor monitoring (including tracer compound analysis), groundwater monitoring, statistical inventory reconciliation, or similar feature meeting performance standards.
Commercial and warehouse uses built and operating on the Development Site may include the usage of hazardous materials. Commercial land uses utilizing hazardous materials would be required to prepare and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to the DEH, as described in RCM HAZ‐1. An HMBP includes an inventory of hazardous materials used and stored on site, a site map, an emergency plan, and a training program for employees. With implementation of the conditions of approval and regulatory compliance measures specified in Section 4.9.6.1, compliance with all applicable regulations specified in Section 4.9.4, and adherence to BMPs, potential impacts from the 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
3‐27
transport, use,storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in operations of the Development Project would not cause significant hazards to the public or the environment through accidental releases of hazardous materials. (EIR Section 4.9.6.2).
3.8.3 Threshold 4.9.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would not emit hazardous emissions, or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one‐ quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.3 with application of mandatory regulatory requirements; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Mt. San Jacinto Community College (MSJCC) San Gorgonio Pass Campus is located adjacent to the western edge of the Development Site, and Hemmering Elementary School is located approximately
0.9 mile northwest of the Development Site.
Emissions (including toxic air contaminants) will be generated from vehicles driven by employees, customers, and transport trucks delivering goods and materials to and from the Development Site.
The potential impacts of emissions on sensitive receptors has been detailed in the Air Quality impact analysis (Section 4.3.6.3 of the Draft and Final EIR).
Any use utilizing hazardous materials within the Development Site would be required to comply with RCM HAZ‐1 and submit an HMBP to the DEH and the Riverside County Fire Department. In addition, the Development Project would comply with RCM WQ‐1, which provides preventative measures for accidental spills during construction. Construction and operation of uses on the Development Site within 0.25 mile of the MSJCC campus would not pose substantial hazards to persons on those campuses with implementation of the RCMs. The Hemmering Elementary School is .9 miles north of the campus and does not fall within the threshold, but, as with the MSJCC campus, also would not be subject to significant impacts from emission of hazardous emissions, or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste. (EIR Section 4.9.6.3).
3.8.4 Threshold 4.9.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 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
3‐28
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Site is not located on an identified hazardous material site and the development would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment; therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The governmentrecords database search, completed as part of the site‐specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), determined that the Development Site is not included on any of the queried databases of hazardous materials sites that could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Phase I ESA included an analysis of surrounding properties within a 1.0‐mile radius of the Development Site. The Phase I ESA identified several listings for off‐site adjacent or nearby properties on databases potentially indicative of a contamination concern. However, the Phase I ESA concluded that none of the environmental records are considered “recognized environmental conditions” for the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.9.6.4).
3.8.5 Threshold 4.9.5
Impact Statement: The Development Site is not within two miles of an airport and the Development Site is not identified as within an airport influence area.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.5 is discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.5 of the EIR. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has stated the Development Project is located outside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established for Banning Municipal Airport. The Development Site is not located within an airport land use plan, is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts related to Threshold 4.9.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is located approximately 3.3 miles west of the Banning Municipal Airport.
According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the Development Project is not within the noise contours or compatibility zones for the Banning Municipal Airport. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has stated the Development Project is located outside the Airport Influence Area (AIA) established for Banning Municipal Airport. Due to its location outside the AIA established for Banning Municipal Airport, the Development Project would have no impact on an airport land use plan or result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Development Project area. (EIR Section 4.9.6.5).
3.8.6 Threshold 4.9.6
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. 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
3‐29
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.6 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.6 of the EIR. The City finds that the Development Project would not interfere with or inhibit implementation of the City’s Emergency Operation Plan or Emergency Operations Center. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in a less than significant impact related to Threshold 4.9.6; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
According to the City’s General Plan Emergency Preparedness Element, the City does not have established evacuation routesfor major emergenciessuch as wildfire. The closest Fire Hazard Severity Zone to the Development Site is undeveloped land located approximately 0.5 mile southwest of the Development Site at the southern border of the Sun Lakes community. The land uses directly adjacent to the Development Site including residential uses to the west, east, and south, commercial and institutional uses to the east, the I‐10 corridor to the north, and agricultural uses to the south are also designated as a non‐VHFHSZ. Sunset Avenue is considered an important point of access to I‐10. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan outlines the operations of the City of Banning Emergency Operations Center, which isthe central management entity responsible for directing and coordinating the various City departments and other agencies in their emergency response activities.
Implementation of the Development Project would not alter any facility or propose a physical change that would inhibit the City’s Emergency Operations Plan. In addition, development of the Development Project would include widening of roadways adjacent to the Development Site and funding of additional roadway improvements, which could aid in evacuation. Site preparation, grading, and construction would not block roadways providing access to surrounding properties or surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, implementation of the Development Project would not interfere with the adopted emergency response plan and/or the emergency evacuation plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.9.6.6).
3.8.7 Threshold 4.9.7
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, or injury or death involving wildland fires.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.9.7 are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6.7 of the EIR. With adherence to regulatory standards and requirements, the Development Project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.9.7; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is located in a WUIsetting, but it is not located in an area statutorily designated as a Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZ by CAL FIRE or Riverside County; rather the Development Site is accurately designated as LRA Non‐VHFHSZ. The Fire Protection Plan (FPP) did not find evidence that the Development Site has been burned in recorded history. Development of the Development Project 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
3‐30
and its included fire mitigation strategies would further reduce the potential for wildland fire ignition at the Development Site. The FPP analyzed the likelihood that any fire starting on the Development Site would spread to adjacent areas and determined that the Development Site’s managed landscapes ignition resistant building, parking areas, fuel modification zones, improved accessibility for fire personnel, and structures built to the latest ignition and ember resistant fire codes would make spread into wildland fuels unlikely. According to the FPP, the most common type of wildfire anticipated in the vicinity of the Development Project is a wind‐driven fire from the northeast moving through the annual grasses and chaparral typical of the region. Compliance with the regulations of the most recently adopted Riverside County Fire Department Fire Code, California Fire Code (CFC), and California Building Code (CBC) to avoid the Development Project’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risks. Regardless of the origin of a potential wildfire, compliance with regulatory measures would ensure the ignition resistance of the structures. Fuel modification requirements and ongoing maintenance of the site landscaped areas are required to be implemented with the result that projected flame lengths would be reduced to levels that would be manageable by firefighting resources for protecting on‐site structures. (EIR Section 4.9.6.7). In addition, RCM at pages 4.9‐20‐21 provides additional, specific provisions that implement regulatory requirements and further ensure that impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Project impacts for CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality thresholds 4.10‐1, 4.10‐2, 4.10‐4, and
4.10‐5 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.9.1 Threshold 4.10.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐1 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.10‐1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Because construction of the Development Project would disturb greater than 1 acre of soil, the Development Project is subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit (CGP), as specified in Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) WQ‐1, identified below. Construction of the Development Project would comply with existing NPDES regulations (as specified in RCM WQ‐1 and RCM WQ‐2), which include preparation of an SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and implementation of Construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. As also specified in RCM WQ‐1, a SWPPP would be prepared and construction BMPs detailed in the SWPPP would be implemented during construction, in compliance with the requirements of the CGP. In addition, as specified in RCM WQ‐2, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would be prepared and submitted to the City’s Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading permit in 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
3‐31
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code. As construction of the Development Project is expected to occur over a number of years, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan would also be prepared annually during construction and submitted to the City’s Public Works Department for approval. The SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans would detail the BMPs to be implemented during construction and would reduce any amount of sedimentation flowing off‐site and into downstream receiving waters. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into Highland Wash, Smith Creek, and Pershing Creek and into downstream receiving waters. Compliance with the requirements of the CGP and City Municipal Code, including incorporation of construction BMPs to target and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff and reduce sediment release to receiving waters, would ensure that construction impactsrelated to water quality standards, waste discharge requirements and potential degradation of surface or groundwater quality during construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Expected pollutants of concern from long‐term operation of the Development Project could include bacteria/virus, heavy metals, toxic organic compounds, nutrients, sediment/turbidity, trash and debris, oils, and grease. The Development Project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit and associated guidance documents, such as the Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development which would ensure a less than significant impact.
Implementation of proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from runoff from the Development Site in compliance with the Whitewater River Watershed Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit requirements and associated guidance documents, such as the Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development. The MS4 Permit requires preparation of a Final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) would specify the Site Design BMPs (storm water management strategies that emphasize conservation and use of existing site featuresto reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading); Source Control BMPs (measures that prevent the introduction of pollutants into storm water); Low Impact Development (LID) mimic a project site’s natural hydrology by using design measuresthat capture, filter,store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoffratherthan allowing runoff to flow directly to piped or impervious storm drains); and Treatment Control BMPs (structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in storm water runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters) that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff.
The Preliminary WQMP specifies the Source Control, Site Design, and LID BMPs proposed for the Development Project (no Treatment Control BMPs are proposed because the proposed infiltration basins are being sized to retain 100 percent of the 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event), and this will be refined based on final site plans as required by RCM WQ‐3. Preliminary LID and Design features and regulatory requirements are set forth at Draft EIR Section 4.10.6.1.
Compliance with these requirements, including incorporation of RCM WQ‐1 through 3 and operational BMPs to target pollutants of concern, would ensure that impacts related to a potential violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and degradation of surface 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
3‐32
or groundwater water quality during Development Project operation would be reduced to less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR Section 4.10.6.1).
3.9.2 Threshold 4.10.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Development Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐2 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.10‐2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is located within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and the San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin.
According to the Geologic and Geotechnical Review prepared for the Development Project, no groundwater was encountered during on‐site boring as deep as 50 feet; however, based on historical groundwater levels, groundwater is expected 100 feet below the ground surface of the Development Site. Based on the depth to groundwater and infiltration rates determined based on percolation tests performed on the Development Site, dewatering activities are not anticipated to occur during Development Project construction activities. Therefore, Project construction is not expected to result in a decrease in groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge in a manner that may decrease groundwater supplies or impede sustainable groundwater management, and Project impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Development of the Development Project would increase impervious surface area by approximately 333.2 acres, which would decrease on‐site infiltration. However, landscaped slope, parking medians, open space, and infiltration basins would be developed as part of the Development Project design to provide areas where storm water runoff can collect and infiltrate. The City of Banning’s potable and non‐potable water is supplied through groundwater sources. Therefore, it is expected that the Development Project would rely on existing groundwater entitlements to serve the Development Project’s water needs. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the Development Project and determined that the City had sufficient water supply to serve the Development Project and other ongoing and projected usersfrom groundwatersources during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year conditions, and that sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements are available to serve the Development Project. Therefore, impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge in a manner that may impede sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (EIR Section
4.10.6.2).
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
3‐33
3.9.3 Threshold 4.10.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐4 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Site is not located in a tsunami hazard zone, near any closed bodies of water that would be susceptible to impacts associated with a seiche, and, with the exception of Smith Creek and Pershing Creek which are in Flood Hazard Zone A, the majority of the Development Site is not located within a floodplain, so that there is not a risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impactsrelated to Threshold 4.10‐4; therefore, no mitigation isrequired.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is approximately 55 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Based on the distance from the Pacific Ocean, the Development Site is not located in a tsunami hazard zone and therefore would not be susceptible to impacts associated with a tsunami. The Development Site is not adjacent to or near any closed bodies of water, and, therefore, would not be susceptible to impacts associated with a seiche. Smith Creek and Pershing Creek, located on the Development Site, are in Flood Hazard Zone A. Flood Hazard Zone A areas are subject to inundation by the 1‐percent‐annual‐chance flood event. The remaining portions of the Development Site are not located within a floodplain. During construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that during a rain event, pollutants would be retained on site and be prevented from reaching downstream receiving waters. During operations, the Development Project would include 16 infiltration basins sized adequately to retain storm water flows from a 100‐year, 3‐hour storm, thereby reducing the chance of flooding that could release pollutants to downstream receiving waters. Based on Development Project design and the distance the Development Site is away from the Pacific Ocean and closed bodies of water, implementation of the Development Project would not result in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche, risking release of pollutants due to Development Site inundation. (EIR Section 4.10.6.4).
3.9.4 Threshold 4.10.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10‐5 are discussed in detail under Section 4.10.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Project would not conflict with Colorado River RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.10‐5; therefore, no mitigation is required. 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
3‐34
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is within the jurisdiction of the Colorado River RWQCB. The Development Project would comply with existing Whitewater River Watershed MS4 requirements and would implement construction and operational BMPs to reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff (RCM WQ‐1, RCM WQ‐2, and RCM WQ‐3). Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure that the Development Project would not degrade or alter water quality in a manner that would cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the Development Project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Colorado River RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the Colorado River Basin Region.
The Development Project would not require dewatering activities during construction as construction depth would not reach the current groundwater level underlying the Development Site. The additional impervious surface areas that would result from Development Project construction would not substantially decrease infiltration compared to existing conditions due to the incorporation of landscaped slope, parking medians, open space, and infiltration basins. The Development Project would increase water use over the previousland uses on the Development Site which were accounted for in the UWMP, and which would be obtained from groundwater. the Water Supply Assessment completed for the Development Project indicates that there are adequate water supplies from groundwater sources during normal, dry year, and multiple dry year demands to serve the Development Project’s needs through 2045. Additionally, the City of Banning Public Works Department, which supplies municipal water, ensures that sufficient water supplies from non‐ groundwater sources are available to continually recharge the groundwater basins so that groundwater overdraft does not occur. In addition, in 2022, the San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (SGPWA) entered into a 20‐year Agreement with the City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) and the Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas) to purchase annually up to 10,000 acre‐feet of Ventura and Casita’s Table A State Water Project entitlement. This water would be in addition to the existing 17,300 acre‐feet Table A allocation for SGPWA. The City can expect to receive additional water from SGPWA because of its contract with Ventura and would use this additional water for more groundwater recharge. Refer to Section 4.19.3.1 of the Final EIR for additional discussion. For these reasons, the Development Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Project impacts for CEQA Land Use and Planning do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.10.1 Threshold 4.11.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not physically divide an established community.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.11.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Project would not physically divide an established community because the site fits a logical pattern for development in the area. The City finds that 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
3‐35
development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.11.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Development Project would not physically divide an established community because it would contribute to further urbanization of the area, and facilitate connecting existing development to the Development Project. Under current conditions, Westward Avenue connects the communities on the east and westsides of the Development Site but does not cross the Development Site. Westward Avenue is currently a two‐lane unpaved roadway between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue. East of Sunset Avenue, Westward Avenue is a two‐lane paved roadway. To the south of the Development Site, Bobcat Road connectsto Sunset Avenue on the eastside of the Development Site but is also unimproved. In the existing condition, Bobcat Road is a compressed dirt road that traverses the wash at grade near the southeast corner of the Development Site. These roads would be retained with the current design of the Development Project, maintaining connectivity for the existing communities surrounding the Development Site facilitating access to onsite commercial and open space uses, and for potential employees. Bobcat Road would be paved with two lanes in each direction, curbing, and sidewalks in both directions. Westward Avenue would be paved similar to Bobcat Road as part of the SLB Extension. Additionally, the Development Project would include new paved roadways that would connect to the existing roadways, providing additional options for crossing the Development Site and maintaining connectivity of the current communities. Therefore, impacts to the existing communities adjacent to the Development Site would be less than significant.
The Development Project would bring additional traffic to the area because of the commercial and industrial operations that would be developed, but the additional roadways are designed to connect the Development Project to the surrounding areas. (EIR Section 4.11.6.1).
3.10.2 Threshold 4.112
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.11.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project would not conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.11.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, SCAG’s Connect SoCal, the Western Riverside County MSHCP, land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect is discussed below.
As detailed in Section 4.11 of the Draft EIR, implementation of project design features, conditions of approval, regulatory compliance measures, mitigation measures, and ongoing consultation with the 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
3‐36
City of Banning and applicable agencies, would ensure the Development Project maintains consistency with the goals and policies established in the city’s General Plan. CEQA requires an EIR to address only whether the Development Project would conflict with the General Plan in such a way that it would result in an environmental effect. In the absence of a planning inconsistency that results in an environmental effect, it is adequate for the City to state, as indicated below, that no conflict would occur. A project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy to be found consistent with the general plan. It need only be compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan. The Development Project is consistent with the overall goals of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, which are intended to ensure a balance of residential, commercial, industrial, open space and public lands, and to allow changes to the General Plan land use categories for the remaining capacity of undeveloped land. The Land Use Element also recognizes that industrial development has been an important source of jobs in the City, and the City would continue to attract industrial land uses. Table 4.11.A: Development Project Consistency Analysis with the City of Banning General Plan identifies the General Plan policies and goals relevant to the Development Project and discusses Development Project consistency. Appendix J‐2 and Appendix J‐3 identify recommended conditions of approval (COA TRA‐1 through TRA‐35), also listed in the Section 4.11 (land use) of the Draft EIR, that the City can adopt to ensure the Development Project would be consistent with the City of Banning General Plan (Final EIR Chapter 3.0, Response to Comment E‐31‐12). The General Plan Amendment proposed for the Development Project would update the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the land uses of the Development Project while continuing to provide for a range of housing densities in the City through concurrent General Plan Amendment for the MSJC Site.
The current land use designation of the Development Site includes portions of the Development Site that are designated open space. These portions would be retained as open space and/or a public park under current design. The Development Project would preserve more of the Development Site for resource conservation than does the existing zoning and would be consistent with applicable MSHCP guidelines and goals, as discussed in Section 4.4 of this EIR. The remaining portions of the Development Site are currently designated for residential land uses and would need to be re‐zoned for industrial uses. This change would be consistent with the City of Banning’s General Plan goals and policies and would not conflict with existing adjacent land uses. (EIR Section 4.11.6.2).
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Mineral Resources do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.11.1 Threshold 4.12.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the State.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.12.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6.1 of the EIR. The Developmentsite is not identified as an area containing known mineral 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
3‐37
resources. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.12.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The City of Banning is in Riverside County, and there is no land within Riverside County that the SMGB designates aslocally important mineral recovery sites. While the Development Site is mapped as MRZ‐ 3 (an area of undetermined mineral resource significance), it is not identified as an area containing known PCC‐grade aggregate resources. Furthermore, over the past 120 years, there has been no evidence that significant mineral resources are located on the Development Site nor has the State, County, or City conducted mineral recovery on the Development Site. The General Plans of the City and Riverside County have not designated the Development Site with a land use designation that allows for mineral extraction nor does either the City or County designate the Development Site as an area held in reserve for future mining activities. (EIR Section 4.12.6.1). In the absence of any evidence that mineral resources of a regional or Statewide significance are located on the Development Site, project impacts would be less than significant.
3.11.2 Threshold 4.12.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.12.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6.2 of the EIR. The Developmentsite is not identified as an area containing known mineral resources on a local general plan,specific plan, or other land use plan. The City findsthat development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.12.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Neither the City of Banning General Plan nor the Riverside County General Plan delineates the Development Site as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The nearest mine to the Development Site mapped on the Division of Mine Reclamation’s “Mines Online” map is the Banning Quarry, an active sand and gravel mine approximately 3.28 miles northeast of the Development Site.
Implementation of the Development Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (EIR Section 4.12.6.2).
3.12 NOISE
Project impacts for CEQA Noise Thresholds 4.13.2 and 4.13.3 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below. Project impactsfor traffic during construction and related to operational noise under Threshold 4.13.1 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
Findings with respect to significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts under Threshold
4.13.1 are discussed in Section 5.3.
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
3‐38
3.12.1 Threshold 4.13.1
Impact Statement: With respect to construction traffic, the Development Project would not substantially increase ambient noise levels on off‐site noise‐sensitive uses in excess of the City’s interior construction noise standard or substantially increase ambient noise levels on off‐site noise‐ sensitive uses in excess of conditionally acceptable noise levels established in the City and County’s land use compatibility for community noise. With respect to operational noise impacts from traffic and on‐site uses, the Development Project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.13.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6.1 of the EIR. With implementation of PDF N‐1 and N‐2, the City finds that development of the Development Project will result in lessthan significant operational impactsrelating to Threshold
4.13.1 and less than significant traffic noise impacts relating to Threshold 4.13.1; therefore, no mitigation isrequired. Findings with respect to significant and unavoidable construction noise impacts under this Threshold are discussed in Section 5.3.
Substantial Evidence
Construction Noise Traffic Impacts. The Development Project construction traffic would result in a traffic noise increase of up to 7.4 dBA along Sunset Avenue between Westward Avenue and Bobcat Road. The MSJC campus is the only noise‐sensitive use along Sunset Avenue between Westward Avenue and Bobcat Road. As modified with the inclusion of MM NOI‐2, the school is located approximately 115 feet from Sunset Avenue centerline. As analyzed in the Draft EIR, the school was presumed to be located only 75 feet from the Sunset Avenue Centerline and at that distance was determined to be exposed to a traffic noise level of 53.7 dBA CNEL based on Table 4.13.J. This noise level would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. In addition, ambient noise levels in this area represented by ST‐3 have a noise level of 55.5 dBA CNEL shown in Table 4.13.A.
Based on the above information, the actual noise increase would be less than 2.2 dBA when ambient noise levels are factored in. A noise increase of lessthan 3 dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment and therefore is found less than significant without mitigation.
Operational Traffic Noise Impacts. The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD‐77‐ 108) was used to evaluate traffic‐related noise conditions along street segments in the Development Project vicinity for the existing year, opening year, and horizon year and to evaluate whether off‐site traffic noise would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and traffic noise levels would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL along Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and south of Westward Avenue.
Noise levels generated from project operations would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime noise standard of 55 dBA Leq for residences and the MSJC campus located in the City. With implementation of PDF N‐1, off‐site traffic noise impacts from operation of the Development Project would be less than significant because the Development Project would not exceed the City’s exterior noise standard 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
3‐39
of 65 dBA CNEL for noise‐sensitive land uses such as residence even though the Development Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels.
Operational Stationary Source Noise Impacts. Truck delivery and truck loading and unloading activities; heating, ventilation, refrigeration equipment, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment; drive‐through speakerphones; parking lot activities, fueling activities, and outdoor eating activities associated with the Development Project could affect the existing off‐site sensitive land uses. PDF N‐ 2 would include 10ft high “wing walls” around buildings 1 and 2, refrigeration equipment would require rooftop equipment to be shielded or relocated to the ground floor, and automobile parking lots south of warehouse buildings 1 and 2 would be surrounded by 6 ft high walls.
Noise levels generated from operations of the Development Project would not exceed the County’s exterior daytime 10‐minute noise standard of 65 dBA Leq for residences located in the unincorporated County, and noise levels generated from operations of the Development Project would not exceed the County’s exterior nighttime 10‐minute noise standard of 45 dBA Leq for residences located in the unincorporated County except forresidencesrepresented by Receptor R‐11. Since noise level increase of less than 3dBA would not be perceptible to the human ear in an outdoor environment, and the Development Project would increase ambient noise levels by up to 2.9 dBA, the project operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.13.6.1).
3.12.2 Threshold 4.13.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not generate excessive ground‐borne vibration or ground‐borne noise levels.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Projectrelated to Threshold 4.13.2 are discussed in detail under Section 4.13.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project will not generate excessive ground‐borne vibration or noise levels. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.13.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The greatest vibration levels and annoyance and building damage impacts would occur during the site preparation and grading phase and to be generated by construction equipment. Draft EIR Section
4.13.6.2. All other phases are expected to result in lower vibration levels. The Draft EIR (Table 4.13.X Potential Construction Vibration Annoyance) lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be used on the Development Site from the active construction area, which is the center of the closest on‐site building, to the closest off‐site buildings in the project vicinity. As identified there, the level of vibration generated by the Development Project from construction equipment would not have the potential to result in community annoyance because vibration levels would not exceed the FTA community annoyance threshold of 78 VdB for sensitive receptors at the closest residential structures or at the school on the MSJC Site. Other building structures surrounding the Development Site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away. Since construction equipment would be the primary source of vibration impacts and in the absence of any evidence that construction equipment would cause vibration exceeding the FTA 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
3‐40
annoyance threshold at sensitive receptors closest to the Development Site, project impacts would be less than significant.
The Final EIR (Table 4.13.Y Potential Construction Vibration Damage) lists the projected vibration levels from various construction equipment expected to be used on the Development Site from the project construction boundary to the closest off‐site buildings in the project vicinity. This vibration level would not have the potential to result in building damage because all building structures surrounding the Development Site were observed to be constructed of nonengineered‐timber and masonry and vibration levels would not exceed the FTA vibration damage threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec). Other building structures surrounding the Development Site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away. Since construction equipment would be the primary source of building damage vibration impacts and in the absence of any evidence that construction equipment would cause vibration exceeding the FTA annoyance threshold at sensitive receptors closest to the Development Site, project impacts would be less than significant.
Once operational, the Development Project would not generate vibration. In addition, vibration levels generated from project‐related traffic on the adjacent roadways (i.e., Sunset Avenue, Highland Springs Avenue, Sun Lakes Boulevard/Westward Avenue, and Bobcat Road) would be unusual for on‐ road vehicles because the rubber tires and suspension systems of on road vehicles provide vibration isolation. (EIR Section 4.13.6.2). Therefore, vibration levels generated from operations of the Development Project would be less than significant.
3.12.3 Threshold 4.13.3
Impact Statement: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Development Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.13.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6.3 of the EIR. The Development site is outside the noise contours of Banning Municipal Airport. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.13.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Based on the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Development Site is outside the 55 dBA CNEL noise contours of Banning Municipal Airport. Additionally, there are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the Development Site. Therefore, the Development Project would not expose people working in the project vicinity to excessive noise levels. (Draft EIR Section
4.13.6.3).
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
3‐41
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Project impacts for CEQA Population and Housing do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.13.1 Threshold 4.14.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.14.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.14.6.1 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.14.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction. The Development Project would develop a vacant approximately 533.8‐acre site with industrial uses, general commercial uses, and a 125‐room hotel. Implementation of the Development Project is anticipated to occur in three phases over the span of approximately 51 months. It is anticipated that general construction labor would be available from the local and regional labor pool and would not result in substantial population growth. Many of the construction jobs for each phase would be temporary and would be specific to the variety of construction activities. Each construction phase (e.g. grading, paving, electrical etc.) requires different skills and specialties, which would be needed for the length of time of that phase. Although the Specific Plan uses would increase the number of employees at the Development Site during construction activities, it is expected that local and regional construction workers would be available to serve the construction needs of the site. This can be reasonably determined based on the current (August 2023) unemployment rates of 5.9 and
5.0 percent for the City and County, respectively. Construction workers would not be expected to relocate their households’ places of residence as a consequence of working on the Development Project. Because of that, the Development Project’s construction phases would not result in a long‐ term increase in employment and would not induce substantial unplanned population growth from short‐term construction activities. Therefore, the Development Project would not directly orindirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City during construction, or induce demand for housing through increased construction employment. Therefore, construction would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation would be required.
Operation. The Development Site currently is designated for residential and commercial development. The Development Project would not include the development of residential units, and buildout of the Development Project would not directly add to the existing residences or induce direct population growth in the City. However, compliance with Government Code Section 66300 et seq. would mean there would be no net loss of residential capacity in the City and development of the Development Site with commercial and industrial uses would not cause a reduction of potential housing stock.
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
3‐42
Proposed uses on the Development Site are anticipated to provide employmentfor up to 5,993 people at Specific Plan buildout. While SCAG 2016 employment predictions for the City were forecasted to increase to 11,400 jobs in 2045, employment in the City in 2022 already reached 10,500 employees.
Response to Comment D‐3‐18. The City currently has a jobs‐housing imbalance, and City and County unemployment rates cited in the Draft EIR Section 4.14.6.1 and RTC D‐3‐18 suggest an available local and regional labor pool exists to fill the long‐term employment opportunities offered by the Development Project. In addition, there is an imbalance of jobs and housing in Western Riverside County and the jobs that an industrial and commercial project would likely provide would be consistent with the job skills of residents in the area. Approximately 86.1% Banning residents commute outside of the City for work. The city and region contain an ample supply of potential employees under existing conditions which makes it unlikely that the Development Project’s labor demand would need to draw substantial number of employees from outside the region to fill the employment opportunities resulting from implementation of the Development Project. The employment generated from the Development Project generation would not induce substantial growth in the area because the Development Project would result in service‐oriented and industrial‐ oriented jobs, which are jobs that are anticipated to be filled by residents of the City and surrounding area. See response to Comment D‐3‐18. Additionally, existing approved and planned residential development in the City could sufficiently accommodate any new workers; therefore, the Development Project does not induce unplanned population growth.
The infrastructure that would be constructed in connection with the Development Project is either already planned for by the City or needed for already planned growth as described in the City’s General Plan, Integrated Master Plan (IMP), Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and/or other City plans. The Development Project does not require off‐site construction or extension of infrastructure that was not already considered and approved by the City. For example, while the Development Project includes the installation of a new internal circulation network, the roadway improvements constructed as part of the Development Project would result in build out of roads in a manner consistent with the City’s existing General Plan Circulation Element and would not expand the scope or change the designations of those roadways beyond the City’s already planned for improvements.
Similarly, while the Development Project will underground certain existing utility lines along the perimeter of the Development Site it will not extend utility lines in areas other than the perimeter of the Development Site and only connects the Development Site with existing utility lines abutting the site. The installation of wet utility facilities (e.g., water, wastewater, recycled water) required for the Development Project would connect to existing City systems pursuant to the future needs identified in the IMP and developed pursuant to the City’s CIP and would not extend infrastructure or promote growth (directly or indirectly) beyond that already accounted for by the City; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
To comply with SB 330 requirements, the proposed Development Site would transfer the 1,146 residential units to an existing 49.2‐acre site located in the City (to the east of the Development Site) that is owned by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (MSJCCD). As such, unaccounted for population growth due to this action would not occur. (EIR Section 4.14.6.1). 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
3‐43
3.13.2 Threshold 4.14.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.14.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.14.6.2 of the EIR. The Development Project would not displace any existing housing or populations at the Development Site. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in no impacts relating to Threshold 4.14.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
In its existing condition, the Development Site is undeveloped land that is utilized for occasional cattle grazing. The Development Project would not displace any existing housing or populations at the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.14.6.2).
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Project impactsfor CEQA Public Services do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.14.1 Threshold 4.15.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.1 of the EIR. Construction of a new fire facility on the Development Site or elsewhere in the City is not required as a result of the Development Project. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would impact fire services by placing an additional demand on existing resources and personnel but would not increase the level of personnel or resources beyond that currently provided by these stations.
Construction. Construction activities for the Development Project and the public facilities have the potential to affect fire protection services, such as emergency vehicle response times, by potentially requiring circulation detours, road closures, and lane closures during off‐site improvements around the Development Site. The City and/or fire protection authority may identify requirements to 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
3‐44
maintain necessary access by law enforcement providers through evacuation (as necessary) from construction zones. Requirements may include (but would not be limited to): advance notification to motorists and emergency service providers; identification or installation of appropriate detour/access routes; use of signage, traffic control features, or flag persons during construction activities to facilitate access; restrictions on the duration/timing of construction activities; and/or scheduling/ phasing of construction activities to avoid/minimize changes in public access. The Development Project would implement the necessary provisions identified by the City and emergency service providers to maintain access to and through the Development Site. Therefore, potential impacts related to emergency access during Development Project construction would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures would be required.
Construction associated with the Development Project could also increase the potential for accidental on‐site fires from the operation of construction equipment, the use of flammable construction materials, and sparking during the removal of existing on‐site vegetation. California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CAL‐OSHA) and Fire and Building Code requirements mandate that the construction contractor carefully store flammable materials in appropriate containers during Development Project construction, use construction equipment with spark arrestors, and to immediately and completely clean up spills of flammable materials when they occur. In addition, the construction contractor and construction personnel would be trained in emergency response, and fire suppression equipment specific to the construction site would be available and maintained on site for the duration of the construction period. Adherence to existing laws would ensure that the Development Project would not have a significant construction impact related to fire protection service from RCFD. As such, construction‐related impacts to fire protection, emergency medical services, and fire department response times would be minimized and the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectivesfor fire protection would not be required. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation. The proposed Development Project permits up to 5,545,000 square feet of industrial use on 392.0 acres, up to 268,400 square feet of commercial uses, including Travel Center Retail Uses, a Fueling Facility and a hotel with 125 rooms comprised of approximately 90,000 square feet in a 47.9‐ acre area on the Northern Portion of the Development Site, 65.6 acres of Open Space – Park/Resource use, and 28.3 acres of internal street dedication/circulation. The Development Project would provide general and emergency access via Sunset Avenue. With development of the Development Project, multiple points of access would be created. Access to Sunset Avenue would be provided via “Street A,” Lincoln Street, and the Sun Lakes Boulevard (SLB) Extension. Access to the commercial area in PA 1 would be provided by “Street A” and Lincoln Street. Direct access to PAs 2, 3, and 4 would be provided by Sunset Avenue. Accessto PAs 6 and 7 would be provided from the south by Lincoln Street, and access to PAs 2, 5, and 8 would be provided from the north by Lincoln Street and by the SLB Extension to the south. PAs 9 and 10 would be provided access from the future SLB Extension. PAs 11 and 12 would be accessible from the SLB Extension and South Highland Home Road. Planning Area 4 would be accessible from the SLB Extension on the north and Bobcat Road on the south. All roadways and structures associated with the Development Project would be constructed in accordance with 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
3‐45
City and RCFD emergency access standards. Development on the Development Site would also be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on the Development Site for emergency vehicles. The commercial and industrial uses associated with the Development Project would generate an increased demand for RCFD service due to the number of employees anticipated to occupy the Development Site at any given time and based on the size of the buildings that would be developed as part of the Development Project. Although the Development Project would increase the demand of service from RCFD, the RCFD has indicated that existing staffing levels at Stations 89 and 20, as well as other RCFD Stations in the vicinity of the Development Site, would adequately serve the Development Project.
Further, the Development Project would not have a significant impact on fire services if the RCFD Fire Station to be located in PA 12 is not developed, as the RCFD has indicated that existing staffing levels at Stations 89 and 20, as well as other RCFD Stations in the vicinity of the Site, would adequately serve the Development Project. Based on the anticipated nature and scale of development, including the anticipated employment population on the Development Site, occupation of the Development Site with the proposed uses is anticipated to increase emergency call volume by up to 483 calls per year (9 calls per week or 40 calls per month). At Development Project buildout, Fire Station 20 could potentially respond to an additional 8 calls per week, which would increase the total number of calls per week to up to 65.17Due to the industrial and commercial nature of the Development Project, the Development Site will be best categorized as “Heavy Urban” with a recommended response time of 5 minutes 90 percent of the time. Fire response to the Development Site closest existing Fire Station (Station 20) would achieve a 5‐minute travel time to the western entrance of the Development Site.
Responding from the east, Fire Station 89 would achieve a 5‐minute travel time to the eastern entrance of the Development Site.
The Fire Protection Plan (FPP) prepared for the Development Project evaluated the potential fire risk associated with the proposed land uses and identified requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, and fire protection systems, among other pertinent fire protection criteria. The FPP has been prepared for the Development Project to generate and memorialize the fire safety requirements and standards of the RCFD which inform the Development Project’s designed to meet fire protection, emergency access, and emergency evacuation safety requirements. Water availability, fire water flow, and hydrant placement would be reviewed and verified by the RCFD to ensure compliance with local and State codes. The Fuel Modification Plan (FMP) of the FPP would be implemented to provide greater protection to Development Project buildings and occupants and to reduce commencement of fires.
Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) FIRE‐1 (RCM FIRE‐1) requires the Development Project to implement and adhere to the FPP and its wildfire reduction measures. Furthermore, RCM Public Services‐1 (RCM PS‐1) would require the payment of development impact fees to the City of Banning that would contribute to the fair share funding for RCFD improvements, staffing increases, and equipment purchases to ensure adequate fire protection services continue in the City and at the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.15.6.1)
With implementation of RCMs FIRE‐1 and PS‐1, the Development Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire facilitiesin order to maintain acceptable service 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
3‐46
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection. Construction of a new fire facility on the Development Site or elsewhere in the City is not required as a result of the Development Project and, notwithstanding the request by the City that the Development Project include a set aside of land for a potential future fire station, consideration of impacts of construction of a station at that location would be remote and speculative. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
To allow flexibility to the City for future planning purposes, the Development Project incorporates an offer of dedication to the City for an approximately 1.5‐acre site in Planning Area (PA) 12 as a potential future site for a fire station, should the City determine in the future that location of a fire station facility in that location is advisable.
3.14.2 Threshold 4.15.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.2 of the EIR. Construction of a new government facilities on the Development Site or elsewhere in the City is not required as a result of the Development Project and significant need of additional police protection is not anticipated. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Construction. Construction activities have the potential to affect law enforcement services, such as emergency vehicle response times, by potentially requiring circulation detours, road closures, and lane closures during off‐site improvements around the Development Site. Construction activities including activities resulting in changes to access will be reviewed by the City and the Banning Police Department (BPD). The City and/or BPD may identify requirements to maintain necessary access by law enforcement providers similar to those identified for fire protection access. The Development Project would implement the necessary provisions identified by the City and emergency service providers to maintain access to and through the Development Site thus resulting in no significant impacts.
Construction activities at the Development Site have the potential to attract criminals during non‐ construction hours due to construction equipment and vehicles with gasoline and diesel fuel left on site, and unsecured construction materials. To minimize criminal trespassing, the Development Site (construction areas) would be fenced and, during non‐construction hours, access points would be locked. Construction equipment would be stored in well‐lit areas, and smaller equipment would be secured to reduce absconding from trespassers. Patrols by BPD would increase during non‐ 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
3‐47
construction hours; however, such increases in patrolling would be nominal and would be in existing patrol areas of the BPD. Overall, steps would be taken during Development Project construction activities to reduce calls for service from the BPD negating the necessity to build a new police station or expand existing BPD stations in the City. Potential impacts related to law enforcement service during Development Project construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Operation. The Development Project’s commercial and industrial uses would increase the number of employees on the Development Site and would attract business and hotel visitors and therefore would increase the population within the City of Banning and within the BPD service area during certain periods. The Development Project would not include the development of residential units and therefore would not directly increase the existing population of the City of Banning and the BPD service area. Because of the increase in employees and business and hotel visitors, it is anticipated that BPD service calls would increase due to the Development Project and could impact the service capability of the BPD over the lifetime of the Development Project. The purpose of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fees is to address the needs of the City to add new BDP stations purchase of new BPD equipment, and/or improvements to existing BDP facilities in the City as needed. As a condition of the Development Project, specified in RCM PS‐2 (Draft EIR Section 4.15.6.2), the Development Project would pay its fair share of Police Facilities Development Impact Fees and implementation of the Development Project would not require the specific development of a new BPD facility or expansion of the existing facility in the City, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. (EIR Section 4.15.6.2 ).
3.14.3 Threshold 4.15.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.3 of the EIR. The Development Project does not include the development of residential uses and direct increases in student enrollment to schools in BUSD would not occur. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
As the Development Project does not include the development of residential uses, direct increases in student enrollment to schools in BUSD would not occur. it is estimated that the majority of the employees that would occupy the Development Site would likely reside in areas and jurisdictions surrounding the Development Site or within the City of Banning and/or within the current service boundary of the BUSD; as such, school‐aged children of any potential new employees would already be enrolled in BUSD schools and the addition of new students to BUSD would be nominal. The 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
3‐48
provisions of SB 50 provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA or other State or local laws. As such, with payment of Development Impact Fees to BUSD through implementation of RCM PS‐3, impacts to the BUSD and its schools from implementation of the Development Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section 4.15.6.3 ).
3.14.4 Threshold 4.15.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.4 of the EIR. The Development Project would not increase the population requiring the need for the development of additional parks. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would not include the development of residential units; therefore, the Development Project would not directly add to the existing population of the City, and would not generate new residential park demand. The City determines park demand on a per resident basis. As such, industrial and commercial uses are not considered by the City to generate park and recreation demand. Additionally, the Development Project would include approximately 12.6 acres of Open Space – Parks. The 5 acre passive park on the Development Site would be open to the public and would be accessible to City residents, employees (including employees occupying the Development Site), and visitors. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section 4.15.6.4 ).
3.14.5 Threshold 4.15.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.15.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.6.5 of the EIR. The Development Project would not increase the population to the extent that the construction of additional or physically altered public facilities are required. The City finds 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
3‐49
that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.15.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The EIR analysis focused on libraries, as other public facilities (i.e., City Town Hall and City Departments) have been developed to accommodate the build‐out population of Banning as well as the employment force in the City of Banning. The Banning Library District (BLD) provideslibrary service to Banning residents and employees. BLD facilities are currently providing adequate service to District residents. Demand for library services is typically determined based on the size of the resident population. Implementation of the Development Project does not include residential uses and therefore would not directly add population to the City of Banning that could use services provided by the BLD. The BLD is funded through the payment of property taxes. In the absence of a direct or indirect increase in library demand from Development Site uses, there is no need for additional library facilities. As BLD facilities are currently providing adequate service to District residents, and because any use of BLD facilities by Development Site employees would be expected to be nominal, it is reasonable to conclude the continued payment of property taxes (which include an appropriate BLD assessment) will provide adequate funds to support BLD functions/facilities; therefore, no impact to BLD would result from development of the Proposed Project. (EIR Section 4.15.6.5).
3.15 RECREATION
Project impacts for CEQA Recreation do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.15.1 Threshold 4.16.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.16.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6.1 of the EIR. The Development Project is not expected to result in an unplanned increase in the number of residents and would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of those facilities would occur or be accelerated. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.16.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
As indicated above, the City determines park demand on a per resident basis. Industrial and commercial uses are not considered by the City to generate park and recreation demand. The Development Project would not include the development of residential units and as a result buildout of the Development Project would not directly add to the existing population of the City and would not generate new residential park demand. Buildout of the Development Project is anticipated to 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
3‐50
increase employment in the City by approximately 5,993 jobs, the majority of which are anticipated to be filled by existing City residents or existing County residents. These existing City and County residents likely already use park and recreation facilities within the City and County. Some employees could relocate into the City or nearby unincorporated County land; however, the existing and planned housing stock in the City is more than sufficient to accommodate the small number of employees who may relocate, and therefore buildout of the Development Project would not indirectly result in a population increase in the City that has not been accounted for. Therefore, the Development Project would not result in existing park and recreational facilities in the City being used by more residents.
Nevertheless, the Development Project would include approximately 12.6 acres of Open Space – Parks (comprising a 5.0‐acre passive park and 7.6 acres of passive open space).
Although the City currently does not meet its per resident park requirements, because the Development Project is not expected to result in an unplanned increase in the number of residents in the City and the City does not considerindustrial or commercial uses as generating park and recreation demand, the Development Project is not anticipated to generate an increased need for use of existing neighborhood or regional parks and other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated. (EIR Section 4.16.6.1).
3.15.2 Threshold 4.16.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.16.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6.2 of the EIR. Future park developments within the Development Site were analyzed as ancillary incremental portions related to other uses on the Development Site, and would also be required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.16.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Within the 12.6‐acre Planning Area 11, Open Space – Park uses include 5.0 acres to be utilized as a passive park, with the remaining 7.6 acres utilized as passive open space. The 5.0‐acre passive park would provide recreational amenities including a tot lot playground, picnic tables, trails, walking paths, surface parking lot, and restrooms. The 7.6‐acre passive open space area would include a trail system. The 12.6‐acre Open Space – Parks use would be publicly accessible and would more than likely be used by employees on the Development Site and existing off‐site residents in the City and adjacent unincorporated County areas. a Construction and operation of the proposed passive park on the Development Site has been evaluated throughout this EIR under the appropriate resource sections(air quality, biologicalresources, etc.) and isincluded in the analysis of environmental impacts of the Development Project in this EIR. Potentially adverse impactsto the environment that may result from the creation of parkland pursuant to buildout of the Development Project would be less than significant upon the implementation of the Specific Plan’s goals, policies, and actions and existing 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
3‐51
federal, State, and local regulations. Future park developments within the Development Site would also be required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan.
Furthermore,subsequent City review would be required for approval and development of future park sites on the Development Site. Therefore, a less than significant impact relating to new or expanded park and recreational facilities would occur and no mitigation is warranted. (EIR Section 4.16.6.2).
3.16 TRANSPORTATION
Project impacts for CEQA Transportation Thresholds 4.17.1, 4.17.3 and 4.17.4 do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.16.1 Threshold 4.17.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.17.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.17.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would be consistent with applicable plans, ordinances, and polices that address the circulation systems. Improvements to the existing roadway network (i.e., widening, parkways, sidewalk, curb and gutter, new lanes) and new internal roadways would be constructed to meet City standards. The Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines identify road design standards by which the Development Project roadway network would be developed. The Development Project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan policies related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Development Project would include an internal circulation system presenting an opportunity for new bus stops to be added to the Banning Connect transit system. It is expected that transit service would be provided as needed and determined by Banning Connect once the Development Project reaches a transit‐supportable level of operations or surpasses the existing transit facilities to the east of the Development Site. For these reasons, implementation of the Development Project would not be inconsistent with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the existing transit system. (EIR Section 4.17.6.2).
3.16.2 Threshold 4.17.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.17.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.17.3; therefore, no mitigation is required. 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
3‐52
Substantial Evidence
Improvements to the existing roadway network and new internal roadways would be constructed to meet City standards. The proposed driveways and intersections would be designed so as to not introduce hazards due to geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections).
This impact would be less than significant. Additionally, the Development Site occurs in an area surrounded by residential uses to the west, Union Pacific Railroad and I‐10 to the north, and business park, light industrial, and residential uses to the east. While large‐lot residential uses and agricultural operations (ranching/grazing) are located south of Bobcat Road, the Development Project would be separated from such uses by the existing roadway (Bobcat Road).
An additional project design feature has been incorporated into the Specific Plan (see revised Specific Plan, Section 3.4) to discourage truck travel along Sun Lakes Boulevard west of the Development Site.
Final EIR, Chapter 3.0, Response to Comment E‐31‐15 states, “As cited in the Specific Plan (Draft EIR, Appendix B, page 2‐9) Sunset Avenue would have a “center raised or painted median.” The improvement stated in the Specific Plan for this segment of Sunset Avenue is identified in Section
3.5.3.2 of the Draft EIR (see page 3‐45 and Figure 3‐9). As detailed in the Draft EIR (Section 4.11, pages 4‐11‐32 and ‐33), the improvements at the intersection of Sunset Avenue at both Lincoln Street and the Sun Lakes Boulevard include the installation of traffic signals, dedicated left turn lanes, and through‐ and right turn‐lanes.2 These features will regulate traffic along Sunset Avenue, thereby promoting sufficient and safe access into the Serrano del Vista Community and the MSJC Campus. As discussed in the Specific Plan (Appendix B, pages 1‐4 and 2‐10) the proposed circulation improvements are in conformance with the City’s General Plan and would require appropriate review by the City Engineer. The City, through established design and developmentreview processes, ensures that developments do not introduce inefficient or unsafe transportation system or traffic improvements. Established traffic safety designs and design protocols routinely employed by the City typically include: the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD); the Highway Design Manual; the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets; the Caltrans Standard Plans and Standard Specifications; the City’s Standard Drawings; and the City’s Special Provisions. Other pertinent documents may include Specific Plans, Master Plans, and the Conditions of Approval for the Project. These design protocols would appropriately consider community access, truck movement, and potential traffic hazards. The provision of the circulation improvements (as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the with the incorporation of appropriate design criteria) would ensure such improvements provide sufficient safe access to and through the Project area and to/from the Serrano del Vista community.”
PDF T‐4: Truck Route Management Plan. The Truck Route Management Plan, to be approved by the City Community Development Director, will be required prior to issuance of the first occupancy permits for each industrial site, and will include the following components:
Posting of signage clearly showing the designated entry for trucks from the public streets to the designated on‐site truck check‐in and truck parking areas. 2 See COAs TRA‐25 and TRA‐25, at Draft EIR Section 4.11.6.2. 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
3‐53
Posting ofsignage indicating that all parking and maintenance of trucks must be conducted within the designated onsite areas and not within the surrounding community or on public streets. Posting of signage for exiting traffic (other than exempt vehicles) showing the designated exits and restricting westward travel on Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home Road. Lease provisions clearly identifying the required truck routes, including requiring trucks to use Sunset Avenue to access the I‐10 Freeway interchange and prohibiting trucks (other than exempt vehicles) on Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home Road. Consider and include, where feasible, driveway aprons providing egress to SLB Extension that physically direct trucks east on Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension in a manner that does not affect exempt vehicles.
Truck route maps provided to all drivers and posted in breakrooms and throughout the Project. Designation of a Traffic Coordinator contact for the City to notify in the event of traffic issues.
For the Truck Route Management Plan, exempt vehiclesinclude emergency and public safety vehicles, buses, limos and passenger vehicles, vehicles owned by a public utility or public agency and delivery vansserving local routes or using designated detour routes. With the incorporation of the Truck Route Management Plan, potential conflicts with truck traffic through residential uses would be reduced.
Therefore, the Development Project would not introduce safety hazards due to incompatible uses, and no mitigation is required. (EIR Section 4.17.6.4).
3.16.3 Threshold 4.17.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.17.6.5 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.17.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project is not anticipated to result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction. In the event of an accident or emergency during Development Project construction, emergency service providers would still be able to access the Development Site from Bobcat Road, Sunset Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and Highland Home Road. Internal access roads would be constructed throughout the Development Site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage of emergency response vehicles.
During Project operations, unimpeded access throughout the Development Site would be maintained by ensuring that vehicles would not be parked or placed in a manner that would impede access for 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
3‐54
emergency response vehicles. The access roads would be maintained in such condition to allow for the safe passage of emergency response vehicles. the Development Project would include improvements to the existing roadway network and development of an internal roadway network consistent with City design standards. Overall, the Development Project would provide adequate access and signage for patrons, workers, and emergency access personnel. (EIR Section 4.17.6.5).
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Project impactsfor CEQA Utilities and Service Systems do not result in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.17.1 Threshold 4.19.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.1 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Water. The Development Project would not necessitate new or expanded water facilities, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water from existing supplies and infrastructure. While the City of Banning does not currently have a supply of recycled water available to users in the City, it anticipates implementing upgrades at the City’s wastewater treatment plant that would meet tertiary treatment standards to supply recycled water for outdoor irrigated use.
Accordingly, the Development Project would include internal infrastructure to connect to recycled water lines that currently exist in Sunset Avenue (24‐inch diameter) from Lincoln Street to the future SLB Extension and in the future SLB Extension (24‐inch diameter) itself, and would install four recycled water lines in adjacent streets to connect the Development Project to recycled water infrastructure. (Draft EIR Section 4.19.6.1). Given that the Development Project would comply with the City of Banning’s standard requirements for facility planning and that adequate water distribution facilities would exist to serve the Development Site, the Development Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded potable or recycled water facilities beyond the improvements detailed above. As required by the City of all development that connects to the City’s potable water supply, Water Development Impact Fees, as required by Regulatory Compliance Measure UT‐1 (RCM UT‐1) (Draft EIR Section 4.19.6.1)) would be required to be paid to the City prior to certificate of occupancy issuance by the City on the Development Site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1) Wastewater. Asthe Development Site is currently vacant, uses developed as part of the Development Project would increase wastewater generation. On‐site infrastructure would be required for the Development Site to be completed. The Banning Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) is currently 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
3‐55
operating at 57.1 percent of its daily intake capacity. As wastewater conveyance infrastructure already exists in the SLB Extension and along PAs 12 and 14, installation of wastewater conveyance infrastructure is required to be constructed to connect the Development Project with existing City conveyance infrastructure. (Draft EIR Section 4.19.6.1). Sanitary services during construction would be provided by portable restroom facilities, which transport waste off site for treatment and disposal.
Therefore, during construction, potential impacts to wastewater treatment and wastewater conveyance infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
Industrial and General Commercial uses would be developed as part of the Development Project. The Development Project would result in an increase in wastewater generation during operation. The estimated increase in wastewater associated with the buildout of the Development Project would represent 23.5 percent of the Banning WRF’s remaining daily intake capacity. The increase in wastewater generated by the uses associated with the Development Project can be accommodated within the existing design capacity of the Banning WRF. Therefore, the Development Project would not require, nor would it result in, the construction of new wastewater treatment or collection facilities or the expansion of existing facilities other than those facilities to be constructed on the Development Site. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1)
Stormwater Infrastructure. Buildout of the Development Project would substantially increase impervioussurfaces on the site with street, access drives, paved parking areas, and building footprints (including the reverse osmosis facility). Landscaped slopes, undeveloped open space, open space occupied by a park, landscaped parking medians, and landscaped areas around buildings would be incorporated into each PA of the Development Project to reduce the overall number of impervious surfaces. To accommodate the increase in stormwater flows generated by the Development Project, the Development Site has been segmented into 13 Drainage Management Areas. The Development Project would include the installation of storm drainpipes, reinforced concrete pipes (RCP) ranging in size from 12 inches to 42 inches in diameter, and 15 on‐site Water Quality Management Plan basins (stormwater basins) where stormwater from the uses on the site would be stored before flowing off site into downstream stormwater receivers. Two 10‐foot by 100‐foot reinforced concrete box (RCB) culverts would be developed for the Lincoln Street crossings of the Pershing Wash and Smith Creek drainages. The drainage system would route the runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces to the 15 on‐site stormwater basins for treatment and peak flow mitigation for their respective tributaries via RCP facilities. Per City of Banning Ordinance #1415, the Development Project is required to retain 100 percent of a 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event. The 100‐year, 3‐hour flood volume anticipated to be generated by the Development Project totals 2,797,246 cubic feet (ft3), and the on‐site stormwater system includes development of basins with a total volume of 5,193,324 ft3. Assuch, the Development Project would incorporate an adequate on‐site stormwater infrastructure system. Overall, the peak discharge of stormwater generated by the Development Project would not adversely affect the capacity of downstream networks, and construction or expansion of off‐site stormwater drainage facilities would not be required. Therefore, impacts to stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1) Electricity Infrastructure. Construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the site for grading activities, utility installation, paving, and building construction and architectural coating. Energy required for these activities would be supplied either through petroleum fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline for on‐site generation) or the extension of 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
3‐56
power to the Development Site from existing electrical systems. Due to the limited duration (estimated at 51 months) and phased nature of construction, the amount of electricity required is not anticipated to exceed that required during Project operation. The Development Project operations would require 25,570,405 kilowatt‐hours (kWh) (or 25.570 GWh) of electricity per year. As total electricity consumption in the BEU service area in 2022 was 151.5 GWh, the Development Project electric demand represents approximately 16.9 percent of existing electricity consumption within the BEU service area and 0.14 percent of current electrical demand in Riverside County. Approximately 1 acre within the Development Site, at the northwest corner of Planning Area, has been identified by the BEU as a potential site for development of an electric substation to be developed by the BEU to support projected long‐term growth anticipated by the City’s existing General Plan. The extension of electrical infrastructure to/through the Development Site and individual buildings (including any future electrical substation or battery storage use) would conform to applicable design, construction, and maintenance requirements established by the BEU. As the Development Project would not increase demand on electrical systems beyond existing network capacity; a less than significant impact would occur. (Draft EIR section 4.19.6.1)
Natural Gas Infrastructure. A natural gas pipeline crosses the northern half of the Development Site and is marked by signs and exposed where the pipeline crosses the natural drainages that exist on the site. Natural gas distribution services would be extended through all on‐site streets and surface parking lots to which the Development Project would connect. The applicant would be responsible for construction connections to these distribution facilities and the backbone distribution systems for the Development Project. Construction activities would not impact natural gas services, and the Development Project would not require new or physically altered gas transmission facilities.
Operation of the uses on the Development Site would result in increased demand for natural gas.
Because the Development Project would only represent a small fraction of natural gas demand in Riverside County, the uses of the Development Project would exceed Title 24 requirements, and there would be sufficient natural gas supplies available. As such, natural gas demand for the Development Project at buildout would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. (Draft EIR section
4.19.6.1)
Telecommunications. Telephone, cable, and internet services are located along the perimeter of the Development Site and would be extended into the site. Additionally, cable box locations would be carefully planned and coordinated with utility providers and the landscape architect to be unobtrusive and screened from public view where possible. Impacts associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. (EIR Section 4.19.6.1)
3.17.2 Threshold 4.19.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Development Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that the City has a sufficient water supply to serve the 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
3‐57
Development Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years and that development of the Development Project will result in lessthan significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project, at buildout, would demand approximately 949,600 gallons of water per day or 1,060 acre‐feet of water annually. According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Development Project, the City has projected a water surplus during normal, dry, and multiple‐dry years through 2045. The increase in potable water demand as a result of Development Project buildout (1,060 acre‐feet/year) would represent a small portion (1.89 percent3
) of the City’s protected water supply in 2025 under the worst‐case scenario.
Under the worst case condition (2045, multiple dry year), adequate water supplies still exist to serve the Development Project and the water demand for population/land use forecast in the UWMP; the Development Project would not necessitate new or expanded water facilities, and the City would be able to accommodate the increased demand for potable water. In addition, in 2022, SGPWA entered into a 20‐year Agreement with the City of San Buenaventura (Ventura) and the Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas). Together, the City of Ventura and the Casitas Municipal Water District have a combined Table A water allocation of 20,000 acre‐feet. Ventura and Casitas do not plan to take direct delivery of their respective Table A water. The Ventura Water Agreement allows SGPWA to purchase water from Ventura and Casitas through its contractual arrangement. Of the 20,000 acre‐feet total Table A allocation, the agreement allows for SGPWA to receive up to 10,000 acre‐feet in addition to the existing 17,300 acre‐feet Table A allocation for SGPWA. The City can expect to receive additional water from SGPWA because of its contract with Ventura. This additional water will increase the amount of water that the City has available for groundwater recharge and will be able to extract from storage for future use. As the City would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Development Project and existing and reasonably foreseeable and planned future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, project impacts are less than significant. (EIR Section
4.19.6.2; Final EIR Section 4.19.3.1).
3.17.3 Threshold 4.19.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Development Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Development Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.3; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3 1,060 acre‐feet/year/56,298 acre‐feet/year *100 = 1.89 percent. 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
3‐58
Substantial Evidence
Development Project buildout would increase wastewater generation above and beyond what is currently being generated on the vacant land. The Development Project, once operational, is estimated to generate approximately 352,920 gallons of wastewater per day, which represents 23.5 percent of the Banning WRF’s remaining daily intake capacity. With existing wastewater flows and Development Project wastewater flows, the WRF would continue to operate below its daily intake capacity without improvementsto the existing WRF or development of a new WRF in the City. Impacts would therefore be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. (EIR Section
4.19.6.3).
3.17.4 Threshold 4.19.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The City of Banning contracts with Waste Management, Inc. for solid waste collection service from residential, commercial, and industrial uses within the City limits. Solid waste collected in the City is disposed of at three landfills serving the City: Badlands Sanitary Landfill, Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, and El Sobrante Landfill. As the Development Site is vacant, solid waste generation due to demolition of existing structures would not occur. However, construction of the Development Project would still have the potential to generate nominal amounts of solid waste which would either be recycled or disposed of at one of the local three landfills serving the City. The amount of daily waste generated during construction is less than that occurring during operation of the proposed uses at Project buildout. Once operational and built‐out, the Development Project would generate more solid waste than what is being generated under existing conditions. Based on solid waste generation rates gathered from CalRecycle, the Development Project is estimated to generate 29,317 pounds of solid waste per day or 14.66 tons of solid waste per day once operational. However, this is a worst case scenario and represents 0.1466 percent of the daily maximum combined intake of the three landfills serving the Development Site or 0.000038 percent of the remaining combined capacity of the three landfills serving the Development Site. Consistent with State diversion rate goals, the Development Project would implement a diversion rate of 75 percent of the solid waste generated daily once operational, and is anticipated to divert 10.995 tons of solid waste daily for recycling. The Development Project would therefore be served by three landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate its solid waste disposal needs during construction and operation of the proposed on‐site uses and would attain state solid waste reduction goals. (EIR Section 4.19.6.4). 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
3‐59
3.17.5 Threshold 4.19.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations to solid waste.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.19.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.19.6.5 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.19.5; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
The state’s focus of solid waste management from landfill to diversion strategies such as source reduction, recycling, and composting. The current diversion requirement is 75 percent of solid waste generated. The Development Project would generate 29,317 pounds of solid waste per day or 14.66 tons of solid waste per day once operational. The Development Project is anticipated to divert 10.995 tons of solid waste daily for recycling. The Development Project would implement a diversion rate of 75 percent of the solid waste generated daily; therefore, up to 7,330 pounds (or 3.665 tons) would be transported to area landfills daily (1,338 tons per year). To comply with State requirements to reduce the volume of solid waste through recycling and reuse of solid waste, the City’s per capita disposal rate must meet the target established by CalRecycle of 6.1 pounds/person/day for residents and 30.4 pounds/person/day for employees. The City currently meets this target. The Development Project would add 5,993 new jobs; therefore, with a daily waste generation rate of 7,330 pounds per day for 5,993 employees, the Development Project employee disposal rate would decrease to 13.4 pounds/person/day. Therefore, the Development Project would comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (EIR Section 4.19.6.5).
3.18 WILDFIRE
Project impactsfor CEQA Wildfire do notresult in significant impacts and findings are discussed below.
3.18.1 Threshold 4.20.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.1 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.1; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
According to the Banning General Plan Emergency Preparedness Element, the City does not have established evacuation routes, although depending on the location and extent of an emergency, major surface streets would be utilized to route traffic through the City onto Interstate 10 to exit the region. A Fire Protection Plan (FPP) has been prepared for the Development Site to evaluate and 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
3‐60
identify the potential fire risk associated with the Development Project’s land uses and to identify requirements for water supply, fuel modification and defensible space, access, building ignition and fire resistance, and fire protection systems, among other pertinent fire protection criteria.
During construction, all large construction vehicles entering and exiting the Development Site would be guided by personnel using signs and flags to direct traffic. The Development Site does not include any characteristics that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in its vicinity. Construction of the Development Project may require temporary lane closures on Sunset Avenue, Highland Home Road, and Bobcat Road to allow for utility connections.
Temporary closures may also occur on Sunset Avenue between Interstate 10 and Lincoln Street, Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Bobcat Road, Lincoln Street, Bobcat Road, and Highland Home Road due to improvements to the surrounding circulation system. These temporary lane closures/road closures would be implemented with the recommendation of the California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, which, among other things, recommends early coordination with affected agencies to ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained. Police protection services within the City are provided by the Banning Police Department and fire protection services are provided through a contractual agreement with the RCFD, which in turn contracts with CAL FIRE. The City and/or fire protection authority may identify requirements to maintain necessary access by law enforcement providersthrough evacuation (as necessary) from construction zones. Requirements may include (but would not be limited to): advance notification to motorists and emergency service providers; identification or installation of appropriate detour/access routes; use of signage, traffic control features, or flag persons during construction activities to facilitate access; restrictions on the duration/timing of construction activities; and/or scheduling/phasing of construction activities to avoid/minimize changes in public access. The Development Project would implement the necessary provisions identified by the City and emergency service providers to maintain access to and through the Development Site. (See substantial evidence for Threshold 4.15.1). In this manner, officials would be able to plan and respond appropriately to direct the public away from Sunset Avenue, Lincoln Street, Bobcat Road, and Highland Home Road, as appropriate, in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation. Therefore, because the Development Project would involve early coordination with affected agencies and emergency service personnel. Temporary lane closures/road closures would be implemented with the recommendation of the California Temporary Traffic Control Handbook, which, among other things, recommends early coordination with affected agenciesto ensure that emergency vehicle access is maintained. Because the Development Project would involve early coordination with affected agencies and emergency service personnel, the Development Project would notsubstantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during construction activities.
According to the Traffic Impact Report, the operation of the Development Project is not anticipated to result in any substantial queuing along Sunset Avenue, Bobcat Road, Highland Home Road, or other nearby roads. The City of Banning General Plan, as indicated above, has not established evacuation routes within the City; however, all roads within the City could be used as evacuation routes in the event of an emergency. For the Development Site, the main corridor utilized would be Sunset Avenue.
The Development Project would provide general and emergency access via Sunset Avenue. Sunset Avenue provides access to the Development Site via “Street A,” Lincoln Street, and the SLB Extension. 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
3‐61
All roadways and structures within the Development Site would be developed in accordance with City and RCFD emergency access standards. The Development Project would also be required to comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency vehicle access, which would ensure adequate access to, from, and on the Development Site for emergency vehicles. The Fuel Modification Plan (FMP) for the Development Project would be implemented to provide greater protection to buildings and occupants of the Development Project and to reduce risk of fires. The FPP and FMP prepared specifically for the Development Project would conform to City and RCFD standards and facilitate effective emergency response and operation. Regulatory Compliance Measure (RCM) Fire‐1 (Draft EIR Section 4.20.6.1) requires the Development Project to implement and adhere to the FPP and its wildfire reduction measures. Therefore, construction and operation of the Development Project would not physically interfere with or impair an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. (EIR Section 4.20.6.1).
3.18.2 Threshold 4.20.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.2; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Topography influences fire risk by affecting fire spread rates. Typically, steep terrain results in faster fire spread up‐slope and slower fire spread down‐slope in the absence of wind. The Development Site is on relatively flat undeveloped parcels with several seasonal natural drainages that drain to Smith Creek, which traverses the western portion of the Development Site, and eventually drain to the San Gorgonio and Whitewater Rivers. Fires can be an issue in the City and County during summer and fall, before the rainy period, especially during dry Santa Ana wind events. The seasonal Santa Ana winds can be particularly strong in the Development Site area. Santa Ana winds may gust up to 75 mph or higher thereby drying out and preheating vegetation as well as accelerating oxygen supply, and thereby making possible the burning of fuels that otherwise might not burn under cooler, moister conditions.
Wildfires may potentially occur in open space areas adjacent to the Development Site, or in on‐site undeveloped open space. Under existing conditions, the Development Site includes numerous potential fire hazards, including unmaintained, fire‐prone vegetation. The types of potential ignition sources that currently exist in the surrounding area include vehicles, residential neighborhoods, as well as arson. The existing physical condition poses as a challenge for fire protection to the surrounding communities because of grassland fuels, Santa Ana winds, high temperatures, and/or firefighter exposure. The Development Project would include conversion of approximately 80 percent of the Development Site to maintained urban development with designated landscaping and FMZs (a strip of land where combustible vegetation has been removed and/or modified and partially or totally 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
3‐62
replaced with more adequately spaced, drought‐tolerant, fire‐resistant plantsto provide a reasonable level of protection to structures from wildland and vegetation fires).
The Development Project would introduce new potential ignition sources in the form of building materials (e.g., wood and stucco), vegetation for landscaping, vehicles, and small machinery (e.g., for typical commercial and landscape maintenance), but would also result in a large area separating ignition sources from native fuels as well as the conversion of existing ignitable fuels to maintained landscapes that are ignition resistant. Therefore, the Development Site would function as a fuel reduction area by helping create context‐sensitive development and a new first‐fuel break line of defensible space. The Development Project proposes FMZs ranging from a minimum of 100 feet to 200 feet, twice the required distance, or provides alternative measures to meet the intent of the FMZ requirement. In addition, the Development Project is required to implement regulatory compliance measures set forth in RCM FIRE‐1 which would require compliance with the regulations of the most recently adopted CFC and CBC to avoid potential impacts from the Development Site’s potential to exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby reduce exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. (EIR Section 4.20.6.2).
3.18.3 Threshold 4.20.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.3; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
Utility and infrastructure improvements included as part of the Development Project are discussed in Chapter 3.0 and analyzed in Section 4.19 of this EIR. Potable, recycled water, and wastewater infrastructure would be installed on the Development Site and improvements to existing infrastructure in surrounding roads would occur. Existing overhead power lines surrounding the Development Site would be undergrounded and connected to buildings developed as a part of the Development Project. The Development Project would include a new internal circulation system and would also include improvementsto surrounding roads. None of these features would exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Although utilities, including water facilities, sewer facilities, storm drain lines, and power lines, would be modified and/or extended throughout the Development Site, these improvements would be underground and would not exacerbate fire risk.
The installation of on‐site utilities, on‐site circulation system, and off‐site road improvements would not exacerbate fire risk due to the Development Site’s location in an urban area outside of a designated fire hazard zone. The Development Site is not located in an area statutorily designated as 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
3‐63
a Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone by CAL FIRE or Riverside County. The Northern Portion of the Development Site is accurately designated as LRA Non‐VHFHSZ, while the Southern Portion of the Development Site is designated SRA Non‐FHSZ.
The proposed electrical substation would be developed and operated by the City in compliance with regulations set forth by Cal/OSHA and the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). The reverse osmosis facility and potable water reservoir would be developed and operated by the City in compliance with standards as set forth by the City of Banning Water and Wastewater Department. These facilities would be remotely operated and monitored and include fire suppression features (i.e., sprinklers, defensive space, and fire alarms) that would reduce the exacerbation for fire risk. The location of the electrical substation, in an industrial use area of the Development Site, would also reduce the risk of wildfire exacerbation as this facility would not be located in Open Space areas occupied by natural vegetation. A shortstretch of transmission line (0.9 mile long), currently located in an open area south of the I‐10 Freeway between Sunset Avenue and South Highland Home Road, is identified as an area of Tier 2 threat (areas of elevated risk for destructive utility‐associated fires). However, Banning Electric Utility (BEU) meets or exceeds the minimum industry standard management practices for safety. Implementation of the City‐sponsored public infrastructure and facilities on the Development Site would not exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The City‐sponsored infrastructure and facilities will be constructed, operated, and maintained pursuant to required fire protection requirementsfor utility facilities, and the potential for increased fire risk from these facilities would be less than significant. (EIR Section 4.20.6.3).
3.18.4 Threshold 4.20.4
Impact Statement: The Development Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related Threshold 4.20.4 are discussed in detail in Section 4.20.6.4 of the EIR. The City finds that development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.20.4; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Substantial Evidence
After a wildfire passes through an area, post‐fire hazards can occur based on conditions of the topography and susceptibility to flooding. Post‐fire landslide hazards include fast‐moving, highly destructive debris flows that can occur in the years immediately after wildfires in response to high intensity rainfall events.
The Development Site is situated on a relatively flat undeveloped area with several seasonal natural drainages that drain to Smith Creek, which traverses the western portion of the Development Site, and eventually to the San Gorgonio and Whitewater Rivers. The topography surrounding the Development Site is also relatively flat. According to the California Department of Conservation, no landslides have been inventoried on or adjacent to the Development Site; however, the Development Site is susceptible to deep‐seated landslides which would not be susceptible to immediate impact 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
3‐64
from wildfires. The Development Project would be required to comply with the measures of the approved FPP and FMP. In the extremely unlikely event that a wildfire should spread to the Development Site, it would not expose any on‐site slopes to erosion and potential failure because the Development Site does not contain any steep slopes that are prone to landslide.
The Development Site is located on FIRM Panel 06065C0816G and portions of the Development Site are designated as Flood Zone A based on the existing natural drainages that cross the Development Site. A fire north of the Development Site could trigger increased downstream sediment movement, which could raise the elevation of potential flooding along the natural drainages in the Development Site. The design of the Development Project considers such events and would be developed in accordance with standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would reduce flooding and post‐fire flows (Refer to Section 4.10.4 of the Draft EIR for regulatory discussion regarding flood, and Section 4.10.6.3 of the Draft EIR for discussion on Development Project‐specific regulatory compliance measures (RCMs) and best management practices (BMPs) regarding flood) and would adhere to the FPP and FMP approved by the City and RCFD. Compliance with these plans would reduce the likelihood of urban conflagration on the Development Site in the unlikely event of a wildfire.
In the unlikely event that a wildfire should spread to the Development Site, it is not expected that the Development Project would contribute any additional runoff or sedimentation to the on‐site natural drainages or other downstream drainages. This is due to the lack of steep slopes prone to landslide or erosion on the Development Site, and the fact that the drainage improvements would remain intact after a major wildfire, allowing them to continue to reduce the potential for flooding conditions in downstream storm drain facilities. Therefore, downslope, or downstream flooding as a result of runoff, post‐fire slope instability, or drainage changes are unlikely to expose occupants or structures on the Development Site to significant risks. (EIR Section 4.20.6.4). 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
4‐1
4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A
LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City finds that the following potential impacts associated with the implementation of the Development Project are less than significant with the imposition of mitigation measures.
4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Biological Resources Thresholds 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.5, and 4.4.6 do not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.1.1 Threshold 4.4.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.1 of the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through BIO‐16 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
A number of criteria, sensitive, or special‐status plant and animal species have the potential to occur on the Development Site. Burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse have been observed on the Development Site, and sensitive fairy shrimp species, Marvin’s (Yucaipa) onion, and many stemmed dudleya have been observed and documented in the vicinity of the Development Site, though not on the Development Site. No other criteria, sensitive, or special‐status species identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or identified by the CDFW or USFWS have been identified on the Development Site. Other special‐status plant species identified in the General Plan as having potential to occur in the vicinity of the Development Site were not observed during surveys and were determined to be unlikely to occur due to habitat conditions at the Development Site.
The Development Site is located within the boundaries of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and is mapped within an MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. The habitat on the Development Site has been altered due to agricultural operations and regular disking, therefore, a majority of the vegetation communities present on site are disturbed. Construction at the Development Site would permanently impact the occupied colony, resulting in a direct impact to the colony. During construction, noise, dust, and vibration would directly impact the known colony on the southeast portion of the Development Site. Additional surveys, including pre‐construction surveys, would need to be conducted to determine occupancy of the known colony and identify active or passive relocation sites either on the Development Site or at the adjacent MSJC Site. Impacts would be minimized and mitigated through mitigation measures MM BIO‐7 and MM BIO‐8 approved by the appropriate agencies as identified below.
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
4‐2
Results of surveys identified only the common versatile fairy shrimp, which is not State or federally listed as threatened or endangered, nor is it a special‐status species. Therefore, no impacts would occur to listed fairy shrimp species or species identified and covered by the MSHCP, and no mitigation or avoidance is required.
Los Angeles pocket mouse were detected at drainages within the Development Site during the 2002 and 2005 surveys, and again during surveys conducted in 2020 in limited upland areas of the Development Site. With the exception of 40.5 acres of drainages and their immediately adjacent uplands (Open Space – Resource), MSHCP designated Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat on the Development Site would be directly affected by the Development Project, including all areas where LAPM populations were identified during the 2020 surveys. These effects will be reduced through mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6, MM BIO 9, and MM BIO‐12.
While upland habitat throughout the Development Site will be permanently and irreversibly impacted by the Development Project, as discussed above, no candidate or sensitive species occur in these areas. Burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket mouse are both designated as species of concern by CDFW and are known to occur in these areas. No federally or State listed endangered or threatened species or special‐status plant or amphibian species occur within the Development Site. No special‐ status fairy shrimp species occur within the Development Site, though the common versatile fairy shrimp does occur in seasonal pooling locations throughout the Development Site. As a result, no impacts with respect to these categories of species would occur. However, as discussed below, both the burrowing owl and LAPM are California Species of Concern. Mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐16 would reduce potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species present on the Development Site through habitat preservation or enhancement, active or passive relocation, and compliance with the DBESP regulations and MSHCP BMPs. Along with these mitigation measures, impacts to burrowing owl and LAPM would be further reduced through the permanent conservation of riparian/riverine lands on site (7.92 of 8.99 acres) as well as a surrounding upland area buffer of approximately 32.58 acres. To mitigate for the permanent impacts to 1.07 acres of riparian/riverine areas on the Development Site, 3.21 acres of on‐site riparian habitat would be enhanced or restored (a 3:1 ratio). (EIR Section 4.4.6.1).
Mitigation Measures
Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.4, Biological Resources of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, the following mitigation measures are feasible and are made binding through the MMRP. Imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant:
MM BIO‐1 Construction Guidelines. Construction activities will follow the Construction Guidelines found in Volume 1, Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP.
MM BIO‐2 Equipment Staging. Equipment and vehicle storage, fueling, and material staging and storage will be in previously paved or previously disturbed, upland areas with no risk of direct drainage into riparian/riverine areas or other sensitive habitats. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into riparian/riverine areas. Development Project related spills of hazardous 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
4‐3
materials shall be reported to appropriate entities and shall be cleaned up immediately with contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
MM BIO‐3 Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A qualified biologist will present to each Development Site employee a worker environmental awareness training prior to the initiation of work. They will be advised of the riparian/riverine resources and any other sensitive environmental resources in the Development Project area, the steps to avoid impacts to such, and the potential penalties for violating those steps. At a minimum, the program will include the following topics:
occurrence of the sensitive biological resources in the Development Project area and their general ecology,sensitivity ofsuch to human activities, legal protection afforded these species, penalties for violations, reporting requirements, and Development Project features designed to reduce the impact area. A sign‐in sheet will be utilized to identify all workers that have completed the WEAP training. If additional employees are added to the Development Project after the initiation, they will receive instruction prior to working on the Development Project. They will also need to sign the sign‐in sheet to provide proof of completion. For some projects with numerous contractors entering the project at differentstages of the project, the WEAP training can be video‐ taped and shown to additional workersrather than completing the training in person.
MM BIO‐4 Materials and Spoils Control. Development Project materials will not be cast from the Development Site, and Development Project related debris, spoils, and trash will be contained daily and removed to a proper disposal facility.
MM BIO‐5 Vehicle Washing. It will be required in the Development Projectspecification that the contractor will wash equipment priorto entering the vicinity of areasto be conserved.
This will reduce the potential for introduction of non‐native plant, animal, viral, or bacterial species to the areas that will otherwise be undisturbed. All vehicles shall be washed at a distance that would remove the likelihood of run‐off from entering any adjacent riverine/riparian areas.
MM BIO‐6 MSHCP Best Management Practices (BMPs). Development Project activities will be in compliance with BMPs, as applicable, detailed in MSHCP Volume 1, Section 7.5.3, and Appendix C of the MSHCP. The Project Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) would provide regulations consistent with the MSHCP BMPs, and the Development Project shall comply with all DBESP regulations.
MM BIO‐7 Burrowing Owl Impacts. To avoid direct and indirect impactsto burrowing owl, a pre‐ construction survey shall be conducted in areas to be disturbed by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to ground disturbance at the Development Site and submitted to the City. If construction activities occur during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) and burrowing owl is determined to be present within any portion of the study area during the pre‐construction survey, consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) shall take place, and no construction activity shall take place within a 300‐foot buffer zone. This buffer area may be reduced at the discretion of the 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
4‐4
biological monitor in consultation with CDFW and/or USFWS, until it has been determined that the nest/burrow is no longer active and all juveniles have fledged the nest/burrow.
To avoid active nests, no grading or heavy equipment activity shall take place in the buffer zone during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31). If construction activities cannot avoid the nesting season and an occupied burrow is identified in a proposed development area, the burrows shall be avoided or the owls passively relocated. A Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan will be required and is included under MM BIO‐8.
MM BIO‐8 Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan. Within 90 days of the commencement of grading, a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan would be drafted and reviewed by CDFW to ensure MSHCP guidelines for protection and/or relocation are followed. As part of that plan, one‐way doors shall be installed as part of a passive relocation program. Burrowing owl burrows shall be hand‐excavated by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure animals do not re‐enter. Disturbance to active burrows shall be minimized to the extent feasible.
If three or more pairs of burrowing owl are identified, MSHCP guidelines require additional conservation land be set aside to off‐set the significant impacts to burrowing owl in a project site outside of a cell criteria area. In all scenarios, including the detection of additional burrowing owls, mitigation and equivalency will be achieved through the Development Project following all MSHCP guidelines and the direction of the Environmental Programs Department, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, and/or the Wildlife Agencies.
MM BIO‐9 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse. Prior to commencement of grading, nighttime trapping surveys will occur in areas within the known habitat and other areas providing the key constituent habitat elements based on historicalsurveys and those conducted for the Development Project, in riparian areas (the three identified drainage features) and adjacent upland habitat that will be permanently impacted by the Development Project. An exclusion fence will be installed along the perimeter of the construction footprint associated with the drainage crossings. Trapping and relocation of LAPM shall be performed immediately prior to grading or other construction on the Development Site within areas known to be occupied by LAPM within the existing drainage features and/or uplands. Where new roads cross the riparian corridors, undercrossings suitable for safe passage of wildlife will be constructed. The exclusion fencing will be monitored through construction activities within suitable habitat to ensure animals do not return.
Restoration of a total of 3.21 acres of Development Site riparian habitat may bring project related impacts to a level that allows for 90 percent conservation of suitable habitat within the Development Site. Mitigation and equivalency may be achieved through the conservation of 7.92 of 8.99 acres of riparian/riverine lands on the 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
4‐5
Development Site as well as a surrounding buffer of approximately 32.58 acres, including the use of a deed restriction and/or conservation easement (see MM BIO‐ 15 below). As part of the restoration effort, all non‐native invasive species, such as tamarisk, arundo, and pampas grass, will be removed prior to any seeding or planting of native species.
MM BIO‐10 Prior to issuance of construction permits, a conservation easement will be applied to upland conservation areas adjacent to drainages. During construction and operation, light pollution into the conservation areas will be reduced by shielding light sources and aiming them only into active construction areas during construction, and focused on parking, and commercial areas during operation where lighting is needed. If unforeseen circumstances were to arise that required hazard reduction within an area considered environmentally sensitive or a part of the MSHCP Conservation Area, such as lands proposed for conservation on the Development Site, it would require approval from the appropriate agencies prior to any vegetation management activities. These could include, but are not limited to, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRCRCA), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
MM BIO‐11 Upland conservation areas, adjacent to the existing drainages, within the Development Project will be avoided during construction and operation. Lightsources during construction and operation will be angled and shielded to avoid light pollution into drainages and adjacent upland conservation areas.
MM BIO‐12 During construction, upland conservation areas will be fenced to prevent personnel and construction equipment from entering the conservation areas. Standard construction fencing will be sufficient to prevent personnel and equipment from entering the conservation areas.
MM BIO‐13 Mitigation for impacts to Riparian/Riverine areas covered under the MSHCP would be achieved by conserving all remaining riparian/riverine lands on the Project Site (7.92 of 8.99‐acres) as well as a surrounding buffer of approximately 32.58‐acres. These areas will be preserved in perpetuity through the use of a deed restriction and/or conservation easement as further described in MM BIO‐15. To mitigate for Project impacts to 1.07‐acre of riparian/riverine, a minimum of 3.21‐acres of Project Site riparian habitat will be enhanced and restored (a 3:1 ratio for permanent impacts), with riparian habitat spread throughout all three features within the Project Site, for compliance with the requirements of the MSHCP. Non‐native invasive species will be removed (enhancement) and native riparian species will be planted (restored) which will increase the function and value of the currently disturbed drainage features following mitigation. In the event that land on the Project Site cannot be conserved, then the applicant shall either (1) contribute land at a 3:1 ratio containing similar habitat and jurisdictional areas to the Reserve Assembly; or (2) make a fee payment to a mitigation bank pursuant to an in‐lieu fee program at a 3:1 mitigation ratio. 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
4‐6
MM BIO‐14 If habitat mitigation on the Project Site or at land contributed by the applicant is the selected means of mitigation, then as part of the restoration effort, a Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) will be prepared by a qualified restoration consultant and will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of construction activities on the Project Site. The exact location of the proposed riparian restoration areas (whether on‐site or off‐site) will be provided to the City for review and approval. If off‐site mitigation areas are selected, the applicant shall have control of the mitigation area prior to commencement of construction. However the off‐site mitigation option is not anticipated at this time.
The HRMP shall provide a plan for removal of non‐native invasive species (enhancement) and planting of native riparian species (restoration) which will increase the function and value of the currently disturbed drainage featuresfollowing mitigation and will be designed to assure that installation of the proposed mitigation will result in an outcome that would be biologically equivalent or superior to an avoidance measure. The HRMP will include species information, success criteria and mapped location(s) for the proposed on‐site riparian/riverine mitigation, and a habitat viability analysis for the proposed new areas of riparian vegetation and will also include:
Removal of non‐native invasive species, such as tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla), giant reed (Arundo donax), and castor bean (Ricinus communis); Removal of trash and debris associated with human disturbance will be removed. Planting of boxed riparian trees, container plantings, and hand broadcasting, with Riparian/Riverine species to be planted to match the existing riparian/riverine trees and include plant species such as Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Goodding’s black willow, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and/or mule fat and, along the upland benches, planting of more upland species such as scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), brittlebush (Encelia californica), pinebush (Ericameria pinifolia), and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). Planting of plants with mycorrhizal fungi and root hormone to increase survivability. Following the installation of the plant material, mulch will be used at boxed trees and container plants for additional moisture and protection. Maintenance and monitoring for 5‐years following the installation, to include:
○ Irrigation for the first three years, if feasible.
○ If instigated, removal of irrigation after year three to allow the plants to acclimate to existing climatic conditions during the last two years of monitoring, to ensure that the vegetation has long‐term survivability. 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
4‐7
○ Monitoring by a qualified biologist quarterly for the first year, then annually for years two through five.
○ A qualitative assessment will be completed by the qualified biologist and reported to the Wildlife Agencies, and will include Project Site specific photo locations and an aerial photograph (with drone) documenting vegetation progress.
○ To determine if the restoration has been successful, minimum success criteria at the end of five years will be specified in the HRMP. If the minimum success criteria is not achieved, then the applicant shall be responsible for taking the appropriate corrective measures, as determined by a qualified restoration ecologist. Correction actions will continue until the success criteria have been met.
A Weed Management Plan prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by CDFW will be prepared prior to commencing of grading on the Project Site setting forth best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the amount of non‐native weedy speciesintroduced into the Project during construction activities. The plan will focus on specific BMPs that will be used to reduce the risk of spreading non‐ native invasive seeds within the Project during construction, to include, but not limited to annual monitoring of sprouting vegetation in early spring, removing non‐native invasive species, and utilizing water‐wise native landscaping in the surrounding development areas. The purpose of the Weed Management Plan is to substantially reduce the potential for weeds to grow on‐site and then monitor the Project Site and implement BMP so that weeds that do occur on‐site can be removed before they go to seed.
MM BIO‐15 A third‐party conservation organization will be chosen to monitor and maintain all portions of the Development Site within the designated conservation area, as outlined in a conservation easement covering the drainage features and adjacent upland buffer zones adjacent to drainages. The conservation easement should be in place prior to or immediately following regulatory agency permits being issued.
Additionally, any additional off‐site land acquired for project mitigation, if any, will be incorporated into the managed land, with approval from relevant agencies such as the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Although a designated organization has not been chosen, one will be selected and approved by the City before the project's implementation.
MM BIO‐16 Sediment Transport and Scour Analysis: The Project proposes to construct concrete‐ lined box culverts at two drainage crossings on the Project Site. To avoid significant changes to downstream sediment transport and deposition, floodplain modification, and potential streambed aggradation or incision above and below each of the proposed stream crossings consistent with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species 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
4‐8
Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), the applicant shall prepare and submit a sediment transport and scour analysis to the City and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for review and approval prior to construction of any drainage crossing on the Project Site. The sediment transport and scour analysis shall identify and compare pre‐ and post‐crossing development of sediment transport and deposition, floodplain modification, and potential streambed aggradation and incision above or below each proposed drainage crossing to confirm that the Project would not have significant impacts on the CVMSHCP conservation sediment transport system strategy. It is anticipated based on the results of the sediment deposition analysis performed by Albert A. Webb and Associates for the City of Banning’s Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, which adjoins the Project Site and crosses the same drainages that the concrete‐lined box culvert in the referenced drainages, would have nearly no sediment deposition. However, if the results of the Project specific sediment transport and scour analysis determine that the proposed concrete‐ lined box culvert option would have a significant impact on the sedimentation transportsystem, the applicantshall either mitigate the impacts of the design to have a less than significant impact or will consider other methods of on‐site drainage crossing.
4.1.2 Threshold 4.4.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and MM BIO 9 through MM BIO‐16 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
Three main washes were identified within the Development Site that contained both bed and bank and an OHWM: Highland Wash, Pershing Creek, and Smith Creek. An unnamed ponded area in the southeast portion of the Development Site adjacent to Bobcat Road was also identified as containing jurisdictional waters. Under current Development Project design, approximately 7.92 of the approximately 8.99 acres of riparian habitat present on site would be preserved, as well as a surrounding buffer of approximately 32.58 acres. Approximately 1.07 acres of riparian habitat would be permanently impacted. Impacts to the drainages will be limited to road crossings. (EIR Section
4.4.6.2). Impacts to the drainages will be limited to road crossings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and Mitigation Measures MM BIO‐9 through MM BIO‐16, as well as compliance with applicable State and local policies and regulations as described in Section
4.4.4 above, would reduce impacts to less than significant. 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
4‐9
Mitigation Measures
The Development Project would comply with all applicable local policies and regulations from the CDFW and USFWS. The Development Project as designed would preserve all habitat within the existing washes that cross the Development Site. As discussed, these wash habitats for candidate, sensitive, and special‐statusspecies would be preserved per mitigation measures MM BIO‐10 through MM BIO‐16. The City finds that implementation of mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐ 6 and MM BIO‐10 through MM BIO‐16 would reduce impacts to less than significant.
4.1.3 Threshold 4.4.5
Impact Statement: The Development Project could conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.5 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.5 of the EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site lies within the MSHCP boundaries. The City’s General Plan policies and programs include compliance with regional conservation plans, including the MSHCP. The City of Banning’s General Plan is the guiding document for development within the City. The General Plan designates open space land uses within the City. The Development Project as designed, with mitigation applied, would comply with all applicable policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. While there are no policies in the City of Banning related to biological resources or tree ordinances, the Development Project is required to comply with Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines for lighting. Low‐level security lighting may be provided for the park, tot lot playground, trails, parking lot, and restrooms. The trails and parking lot may include bollard lighting while the tot lot playground and restrooms may include security lighting. As a project design feature, lighting on the Development Site shall adhere to the following Development Standards: lighting shall be limited to that necessary to light the project site; no lighting source shall be visible; or shall be permitted to spill over to adjacent properties; lighting shall not be permitted which blinks, flashes, or is of unusually high intensity or brightness; all lighting fixtures shall not have a visible light source and must be shielded and directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights‐of‐ way; lighting in commercial and industrial projects should be only the minimum required for safety and security; light standards should be limited to eighteen to thirty‐four feet; lighting should be integrated into the structure's architecture to the greatest extent possible (refer to Section 3.1 of Appendix B, Specific Plan). In parking areas, the Specific Plan requires that adequate illumination for security and safety be provided in all parking areas. Lighting shall be energy efficient. Any illumination, including security lighting,shall be shielded, with visibility of lightsource eliminated and directed away from adjoining properties and public rights of way (refer to Section 3.1 of Appendix B, Specific Plan).
The Specific Plan’s Outdoor Lighting Guidelines (refer to Section 4.3.9 of Appendix B, Specific Plan) also indicate that the Development Site would minimize glare and “spill over” light onto public streets, open space, Interstate‐10 and adjacent properties by using downward‐directed lights and/or cutoff devises on outdoor lighting fixtures, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors, and other 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
4‐10
means of illumination forstructures, parking, loading, unloading, and similar areas. As a project design feature, night lighting will be directed away from the conserved areas to protect species within the conserved areasfrom direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in the Development Project designsto ensure that ambient lighting in the conserved areasis not increased. As a result, no impacts would occur.
Planning Area 12 contains 12.3 acres along the western portion of the Development Site intended to provide a buffer between the existing Sun Lakes Community to the west of the Development Site and the industrial development. This area may include soft trails and certain public facilities, but Planning Area 12 is not intended for mitigation purposes, and its development would not result in a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. (EIR Section 4.4.6.5).
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 would ensure compliance with BMPs applicable policies and MSHCP guidelines to protect the three noted drainage features during construction and operation. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure the Development Project impacts are less than significant.
4.1.4 Threshold 4.4.6
Impact Statement: The Development Project could conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.4.6 are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6.6 of the EIR. The City finds that mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and MM BIO‐9 through MM BIO‐16 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site lies within the boundaries of the Western Riverside County Multi‐Species Habitat Conservation Plan and within MSHCP designated survey areas for burrowing owl and LAPM.
However, it is not within a Criteria Area. The Development Site is not within an MSHCP designated amphibian survey area or CASSA for plants.
Burrowing owl and burrowing owl habitat occur on site and would be permanently affected by the development of the site. The MSHCP states, “If the site contains, or is part of, an area supporting less than 35‐acres of suitable habitat or the survey reveals that the site and the surrounding area supports fewer than 3 pairs of burrowing owls, then the on‐site burrowing owls would be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols.” Because the site contains one active burrow with two individuals, this MSHCP guideline applies. If an active burrow is affected, and the individuals are actively or passively relocated, the Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (Environmental Programs Department) (“RCTLMA EPD”) states, “In the event owls are observed on site, please contact the Environmental Programs Department (EPD) immediately to discuss potential 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
4‐11
mitigation measures such as passive or active relocation.” Per MM BIO‐6 the Development Project would comply with all MSHCP guidelines regarding burrowing owl as part of the Development Project’s regulatory compliance.
Los Angeles pocket mouse occur on site and within the adjacent study area. Surveys on site and in adjacent parcels within the BSA identified persistent populations of Los Angeles pocket mouse on site and throughout the BSA. The current design conserves most of the drainages and buffers of uplands around those drainages. These design features conserve at least 90 percent of the known habitat for Los Angeles pocket mouse, which meets MSHCP goalsfor protecting Los Angeles pocket mouse. (Draft EIR Section 4.4.6.5). Where new roads cross the riparian corridors, undercrossings suitable for safe passage of wildlife and allowing continued downstream sediment transport will be constructed to provide for long‐term conservation of the riparian/riverine resources which are being avoided and their associated functions and values for the Development Site features as well as down‐stream conservation areas associated with the sediment transportsystem. Since the majority of the drainages on‐site are unvegetated sandy bottom features and the crossings will be desired to allow for wildlife movement, the overall biological value of the drainage features will not be affected by the Development Project. As further discussed in Section 4.10.6.3, with MM BIO‐16 and MM HYD‐1 and MM HYD‐2, construction of Lincoln Street draining crossings for the Development Project will not divert or change the overall function of the drainage and potential impacts from sediment transport on the CVMSHCP Plan Area downstream of the Development Site and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
The Development Project complies with all applicable guidelines from the MSHCP. Mitigation Measure MM BIO‐6 addresses the RCTLMA EPD guidance and further ensures impacts from the Development Project on burrowing owls are less than significant.
While current design of the Development Project conserves at least 90 percent of known Los Angeles pocket mouse habitat, satisfying MSHCP goals for Los Angeles pocket mouse protection, mitigation measures MM BIO‐1 through MM BIO‐6 and MM BIO‐9 through MM BIO‐16 would ensure that the Development Project complies with all applicable MSHCP guidelines, to ensure MSHCP coverage for the Los Angeles pocket mouse.
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Cultural Resources Thresholds 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 do not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.2.1 Threshold 4.5.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.5.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6.1 of the EIR. Although no known historic resources are located on the Development Site, 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
4‐12
the potential exists for Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities to result in a direct impact to historic resources should such resources be discovered during Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities. The City finds that mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The record searches and field surveys that were conducted on the Development Site revealed two previously recorded historic resources within the boundary of the Development Site. Site P‐33‐013778 contains historic ranch foundations/features, and Site RIV‐7544 consists of historic erosion control feature(s)/water conveyance systems. Additional, previously unrecorded features of Site RIV‐7544 were discovered during the field survey conducted on the Development Site between August 31 and September 2, 2020. Both of these historical resources (including the additional features found on the Development Site as part of RIV‐7544) were re‐evaluated to determine if either one would meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP or CRHR.
The results of the re‐evaluation for Sites P‐33‐013778 and RIV‐7544 have confirmed the previous assessment of the potential historic resources as not significant under Section 106 or CEQA criteria and ineligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. As such, the implementation of the Development Project would not cause a significant impact to Site P‐33‐013778 or Site RIV‐7544, as the resources do not retain sufficient integrity, do not retain further research potential, are not significant under any State or local criteria, and are not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR. Feature 36 associated with Site RIV‐ 7544 on the Development Site contained very sparse scatters of clam, oyster, and scallop shell fragments. Based upon the lack of any observable prehistoric material, such as flakes, milling stones, or other artifacts, it was determined the shell scatter was representative of recent or historic refuse and not associated with any prehistoric occupation of the area. No other historical or archaeological resources were discovered on the Development Site, nor were any previously recorded on the Development Site. (EIR Section 4.5.6.1 ).
Mitigation Measures
Although no significant historical resources have been identified following earlier and current studies of the Development Site, there still remains the potential that other unobserved resources may exist within the Development Site due to the identification of multiple resources within the Development Site, the dense vegetation and other constraints that inhibited ground visibility during the survey of the Development Site, and the presence of multiple natural sources of water which extend through the Development Site. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the Development Project’s potential impacts to archaeological and historical resources to a less than significant level.
The following mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to undiscovered historical resources during construction of the Development Project:
MM CUL‐1 The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeological monitor who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards. The monitor shall be present during all ground‐disturbing activitiesto identify any known orsuspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The monitor will conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training 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
4‐13
“Sensitivity Workshop,” in conjunction with the Consulting Tribe(s)’s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). The training session will focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event.
MM CUL‐2 The qualified archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Development Site, in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s).
MM CUL‐3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Native American monitoring agreement with one of the Consulting Tribes for the Development Project. The Native American Monitor shall be on site during all initial ground‐disturbing activities, including clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, grading, and trenching, within native soils. The Native American Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground‐disturbing activities in accordance with MM CUL‐5 to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources. The applicant shall meet and confer with the Tribe on the consideration of a “Sensitivity Workshop” training on possible things that could come up in case a Native American Monitor is not on site to monitor at certain times.
MM CUL‐4 In the event of discovery of human remains during grading or other ground disturbance, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) shall cease and the applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. In the event human remains are found and identified as Native American, the applicant shall also notify the City Planning Department so that the City can ensure PRC § 5097.98 is followed.
MM CUL‐5 In the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities, ground‐disturbing activities shall stop (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) or shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. A treatment plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist (meeting SOI standards) in consultation with the Tribe and the City Planning Department to include relinquishment of all artifacts through one of the following methods:
A fully executed reburial agreement with the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribe or band. This reburial area should be away from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing, analysis, and any necessary special studies have been completed on the cultural resources. Details of contents and location of the reburial shall be documented in a final report. Curation at a Riverside County Curation facility that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers and tribal members for further study. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to 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
4‐14
be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
Evidence shall be provided in the form of a letter from the curation facility identifying that archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid.
MM CUL‐6 Any and all cultural documents created as a part of the Development Project (Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plans, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the Consulting Tribe.
4.2.2 Threshold 4.5.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.5.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6.1 of the EIR. Although no known archeological resources are located on the Development Site, the potential exists for Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities to result in a direct impact to archeological resources should such resources be discovered during Project‐related ground‐disturbing activities. The City finds that mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
Ground disturbances at depths up to 12 feet below existing grade on the Development Site isrequired to accommodate the development of buildings, infrastructure, and ancillary features. While known historic and archaeological features have been determined not to be significant pursuant to CEQA, as multiple resources have been identified within the Development Site, and due to the dense vegetation and other constraints that inhibited ground visibility during the survey, along with the presence of multiple naturalsources of water which extend through the property, there still remainsthe potential that other unobserved resources may exist within the Development Site. When a project will impact a historic or archaeological site, a Lead Agency shall first determine whether the site is a historical resource. Those archaeological sites that do not qualify as historical resources shall be assessed to determine if they qualify as “unique archaeological resources” (California PRC Section 21083.2). The City finds that implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 would ensure that if any historic or archaeological resources are identified during excavation, these resources would be evaluated, documented, and studied in accordance with standard historic or archaeological practice, and these resources (including human remains) would be treated in accordance with appropriate State codes and regulations. (EIR Section 4.5.6.1).
Mitigation Measures
Although no significant archaeological resources have been identified following earlier and current studies of the Development Site, there still remains the potential that other unobserved resources may exist within the Development Site due to the identification of multiple resources within the Development Site, the dense vegetation and other constraints that inhibited ground visibility during 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
4‐15
the survey of the Development Site, and the presence of multiple natural sources of water which extend through the Development Site. Implementation of the mitigation measures described in Section 4.5.6.1 of the EIR would reduce the Development Project’s potential impactsto archaeological and historical resources to a less than significant level.
4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Project impacts for CEQA Geology and Soils Threshold 4.7.6 does not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.3.1 Threshold 4.7.6
Impact Statement: The Development Project could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.7.6 are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.6.9 of the EIR. The Quaternary sediments across the Development Site as having an “Undetermined” paleontological sensitivity. To the extent that the Development Site contains Quaternary older alluvial fan sediments which have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources, a monitoring program is required to mitigate impacts to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. The City finds that Mitigation Measure MM GEO‐1 is feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
A paleontological sensitivity map generated by the Riverside County Land Information System in August 2020 ranks the Quaternary sediments across the Development Site as having an “Undetermined” paleontological sensitivity. The SBCM in Redlands and the Western Science Center Museum in Hemet both regard Quaternary older alluvial fan sediments as having a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources and, therefore, typically recommend that a monitoring program be implemented to “mitigate impacts to [potential] nonrenewable paleontological resources.” Mitigation Measure MM GEO‐1 below require paleontological monitoring during mass grading and excavation activities in undisturbed Quaternary older alluvial fan sediments to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. The mitigation measure described below would mitigate any potential impacts to scientifically significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources to a less than significant impact. (EIR Section 4.7.6.9).
Mitigation Measures
The following Mitigation Measure shall be implemented to reduce impacts to paleontological resources that could be discovered on the Development Site during Development Project grading/excavation activities.
MM GEO‐1 Paleontological Resources Monitoring. All mass grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching activities within the old alluvial fan deposits (“Qof”), which underlie the majority of the Development Site, starting at the surface shall be monitored full‐time 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
4‐16
by a qualified paleontological monitorfor paleontologicalresources. Priorto initiation of any grading, drilling, and/or excavation activities, a pre‐construction meeting shall be held and attended by the paleontologist of record, the grading contractor and subcontractors, the Development Site applicant, and a representative of the lead agency. The nature of potential paleontological resources shall be discussed, as well as the protocol that is to be implemented following discovery of any fossiliferous materials.
For earthmoving within young alluvial fan deposits (“Qyf”) and young alluvial valley deposits (“Qya”) mapped at the Development Site, periodic “spot check” monitoring shall be conducted, consisting of approximately one to three scheduled site visits per week by a qualified paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance.
If fossils are discovered, full‐time monitoring for paleontological resources shall be warranted.
In the field, the primary monitor or the monitors under the direction and supervision of the site‐specific paleontologist shall be the responsible persons on site with the assigned authority and responsibility to control all grading operations that might adversely affect any salvage efforts.
Isolated fossils will be collected by hand, wrapped in paper, and placed in temporary collecting flats or five‐gallon buckets. Notes will be taken on the map location and stratigraphy of the site, which will be photographed before it is vacated and the fossils are removed to a safe place.
All paleontological monitors shall immediately notify all concerned parties (client and lead agency [i.e., the City of Banning]) at the time of any discovery. The City of Banning shall ensure that the recommendations from the qualified, professional paleontologist shall be followed by the Applicant/Developer.
Within 90 days of final paleontological monitoring, a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance will be prepared, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). The report, when submitted to, and accepted by, the appropriate lead agency, willsignify satisfactory completion of the Project program to mitigate impacts to any potential nonrenewable paleontological resources(i.e., fossils) that might have been lost or otherwise adversely affected without such a program in place.
4.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Project impacts for CEQA Hydrology and Water Quality Threshold 4.10.3 does not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.4.1 Threshold 4.10.3
Impact Statement: The Development Project could substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Development Site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or 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
4‐17
through the addition of impervioussurfaces, in a manner which would: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site; (iii) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.10.3 are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6.3 of the EIR. The City finds that, with implementation of mandatory regulatory requirements, development of the Development Project will result in less than significant impacts related to Threshold 4.7.6.9 for impacts not related to sediment transport; therefore, no mitigation is required. For impacts related to sediment transport, mitigation measures MM HYD‐1 and MM HYD‐2 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Site is currently undeveloped and is split up into two existing Drainage Areas.
Drainage Area A represents the tributary area for Smith Creek, and Drainage Area B represents the tributary area for Pershing Creek. Storm water on the Development Site, under existing conditions, either flows into Smith Creek or Pershing Creek or infiltrates into the ground. (i) Construction. During Development Project construction activities, soil would be exposed and disturbed, and drainage patterns would be temporarily altered during grading and other construction activities. Therefore, there would be an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. The SWPPP and erosion and sediment control plans would detail Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPsto be implemented during Development Project construction to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site. Compliance with the requirements of the CGP and City Ordinance No. 1388 and implementation of the construction BMPs, would reduce any construction impacts related to on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltation to less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (i) Operation. The Development Project would add approximately 333.2 acres (62.4 percent) of impervious surface area, which is not prone to on‐site erosion or siltation because there would be no exposed soil. The remaining approximately 200.6 acres (37.6 percent) of the Development Site would consist of pervious surfaces including landscaped areas, landscaped medians, and open space areas.
These areas would include vegetation and landscaping that would stabilize the soil and promote infiltration and thereby minimize on‐site erosion and siltation. Therefore, on‐site erosion and siltation impacts would be minimal. However, the Development Project would increase impervious area on the Development Site by approximately 333.2 acres, which would result in a net increase in storm water runoff that can lead to downstream erosion in receiving waters. Consistent with the requirements of the City of Banning’s Municipal Code, the Development Project would construct 16 infiltration basins to retain 100 percent of the 100‐year, 3‐hourstorm event. Collecting, retaining, and infiltrating storm water runoff would prevent sediment from being washed off site and impacting downstream receiving waters. Implementation of regulatory requirements in RCM WQ‐3, which requires the Development Project to comply with the hydromodification requirements of the Whitewater River Watershed MS4 Permit and reduce storm water runoff from the Development Site, 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
4‐18
and RCM WQ‐4, which requires the preparation of a Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Analyses that provides BMPs and LIDs that are consistent with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual and the Riverside County Whitewater River Region Stormwater Quality Best Management Practice Design Handbook for Low Impact Development, would ensure that operation impacts related to substantial on‐ or off‐site erosion or siltation would be less than significant.
(i) Sediment Transport. While the city is not located within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) or a party to its requirements, much of the sand for the sand dune and sand sheet habitats in the CVMSHCP is supplied by ephemeral streams flowing out of the San Bernardino Mountains through the City and then onward to the San Gorgonio River. Strong winds in the San Gorgonio Pass pick up sand deposited along Smith Creek and the San Gorgonio River during the winter and transport it into the CVMSHCP Conservation Areas located downwind. Features within upstream drainage areas,such as detention basins, and changesin stream flow related to flood control features have the potential to diminish the amount of sediment transported downstream which is then available for aeolian transport. Over the past three decades, the sand dune and sand sheet habitats being conserved in the CVMSHCP have been diminishing steadily with the development in upper watershed areas, including the City of Banning. Lincoln Street development would include construction of a 10‐foot‐by‐10‐foot reinforced concrete box culvert across Pershing Creek, which flows in a northwest to southeast direction through the eastern portion of the Development Site (Planning Areas 13 and 14), and Smith Creek, on the western portion of the Development Site, which flows in a north‐south direction through Planning Areas 17 and 18. The proposed Lincoln Street crossings of Smith and Pershing Creeks have the potential to affect the pattern, volume, velocity, and/or sediment transport capacity within these drainages, which could have a potentially significant impact on transport to CVMSHCP Conservation Areas. Preparation of, approval by the City, and implementation of a sediment transport and scour analysis that compares drainage features in the pre‐ and post‐project conditions and ensures that following construction of the Lincoln Street crossings, the functions and values of the drainages with respect to downstream sedimentation are consistent with the long‐term preservation of sand dune and sand sheet habitat within the Coachella Valley under the CVMSHCP is required by mitigation measures MM HYD‐1 and MM HYD‐2, which will address this potentially significant impact. (ii) and (iv) Construction. Development Project construction would comply with the requirements of the CGP and would include the preparation and implementation of an SWPPP. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct on‐site surface runoff to ensure that storm water runoff from the construction site does not exceed the capacity of the storm water drainage systems.
With implementation of BMPs, construction impacts related to a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
(ii) and (iv) Operation. Implementation of the Development Project would alter the on‐site drainage pattern when compared to existing conditions. The Development Site’s conceptual drainage plan consists of catch basins,storm drainpipes, reinforced concrete pipes, and 16 on‐site infiltration basins.
The drainage system for the Development Site would route the storm water runoff from the on‐site impervious surfaces to the proposed infiltration basins. Each of the basins would provide storm water 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
4‐19
treatment and peak flow mitigation for their respective downstream receiving waters. The Development Project would comply with the City of Banning Ordinance No. 1415 Stormwater Code in requiring 100 percent retention of storm water from a 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event through the development of the infiltration basins at required sizes. With implementation of RCM WQ‐3 and RCM WQ‐4, impacts related to an increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in on‐ or off‐site flooding would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (iii) Construction. Construction of the Development Project has the potential to introduce pollutants to existing storm water that percolatesinto the ground or that flowsinto Smith and/or Pershing Creek on the Development Site, due to erosion, siltation, and accidental spills. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct surface runoff on the Development Site and would include detention measures, if required, to ensure that storm water runoff from the construction activities does not exceed the capacity of the storm water drainage systems. In addition, the City requires preparation of erosion and sediment control plans. Implementation of construction BMPs target pollutants of concern in runoff from the Development Site, and erosion and sediment control measures would preventsubstantial additionalsources of polluted runoff being discharged into Smith and/or Pershing Creeks. Therefore, with compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements, construction impacts related to creation or contribution of runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additionalsources of polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (iii) Operation. Storm water will surface flow to catch basins and be directed to infiltration basins, which would be appropriately sized to retain and infiltrate 100 percent of the 100‐year, 3‐hour storm event so that excess runoff does not exceed the capacity of the downstream receiving waters.
Additionally, the Development Project would be required to implement RCM WQ‐3, which requires implementation of operational BMPs that target and reduce pollutants of concern in storm water runoff. Therefore, operational impacts related to creation or contribution of storm water runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (EIR Section 4.10.6.3).
Mitigation Measure
To addressthe potentially sediment transport‐related impact at the proposed Lincoln Street crossings, the following mitigation measures have been identified:
MM HYD‐1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit(s) for roadway work in or adjacent to the proposed Lincoln Street creek crossings, the Applicant shall submit a sediment transport and scour analysis to the City and Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority for review and approval. As appropriate, the submittal may include equivalent detail on alternative proposals for the proposed creek crossings.
The sediment transport and scour analysis shall identify pre‐project conditions associated with channel morphology, hydrologic flow patterns, existing sedimentation and scouring, sediment size, and depth at each crossing. These same attributes will be analyzed based on post‐project conditions to determine if there are any substantial changes to the existing conditions. The purpose of the sediment 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
4‐20
transport and scour analysis is to compare the functions and values of the drainage features in the pre‐ and post‐project conditions and to ensure that following construction of the Lincoln Street crossings, the functions and values of the drainages with respect to downstream sedimentation are consistent with the long‐term preservation of sand dune and sand sheet habitat within the Coachella Valley under the CVMSHCP. It is anticipated based on the results of the sediment deposition analysis performed by Albert A. Webb and Associates for the City of Banning’s Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project, which adjoins the Project Site and crosses the same drainages that the concrete‐lined box culvert in the referenced drainages, would have nearly no sediment deposition. However, if the results of the Project specific sediment transport and scour analysis determine that the proposed concrete‐ lined box culvert option would have a significant impact on the sedimentation transportsystem, the applicantshall either mitigate the impacts of the design to have a less than significant impact or will consider other methods of on‐site drainage crossing.
MM HYD‐2 Prior to City approval of roadway improvement plans for Lincoln Street, including the proposed Lincoln Street crossings, the Applicantshallsubmit evidence to the City that the Lincoln Street crossings of Pershing and Smith Creeks have been designed to avoid impacts to or, if impacted, to maintain the development transport capacity identified in the approved sediment transport and scour analysis required under Mitigation Measure HYD‐1.
4.5 TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
Project impacts for CEQA Tribal and Cultural Resources Thresholds 4.18.1 and 4.18.2 do not result in significant impacts after the implementation of mitigation, and findings are discussed below.
4.5.1 Threshold 4.18.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, orin a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.18.1 are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.6.1 of the EIR. Sites of potential historic and archaeological sensitivity were observed on the Development site and impacts to tribal cultural resources could be potentially significant. The City finds that, mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6, are feasible, adopted and would reduce impacts to less than significant.
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
4‐21
Substantial Evidence
In addition to a record search, Native American consultation was conducted by the City in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. As part of the initial consultation process, a review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results. Subsequently, a total of 31 Native American representatives were contacted by the City to determine their desire to consult on the Development Project. The City received consultation requestsfrom the Morongo Band of Mission Indians(MBMI), the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.
Initial consultation meetings were held on April 7, 2022 with MBMI and on April 20, 2022 with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians.
Because there was no further follow up from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians after the initial consultation request, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians did not respond to the initial request, tribal consultation efforts did not move forward beyond the initial tribal consultation request that was received.
The tribal representatives who attended the initial consultation meeting held on April 7, 2022 with MBMI emphasized the importance of including archaeological and Native American monitoring in order to thoroughly assess if there are any tribal cultural resources that could be listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) and located at the Development Site. MBMI representatives provided their review of the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and stated that the Development Project is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. These concerns about the Development Project being located within a tribally sensitive area were brought up during the initial consultation meeting held on April 20, 2022 with the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, whose representatives emphasized the importance of their concerns regarding the treatment and disposition of tribal cultural resources that may be uncovered at the Development Site.
Because the Development Site is located in an area considered to be sensitive for tribal cultural resources, ground disturbance associated with implementation of the Development Project has a potential to affect undiscovered tribal cultural material. As such, the Development Project has the potential to result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in this threshold.
Due to the potential presence of tribal cultural resources at the Development Site, the City is engaged in ongoing consultation efforts with MBMI and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and will continue to consult with them as Development Project construction occurs in the event that a tribal cultural resource is encountered. If identified, procedures outlined in MM CUL‐1 to MM CUL‐6 will be followed, as appropriate. Therefore, with mitigation, the Development Project is not expected to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. Implementation of the Development Project would have a potentially significant impact on unique archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, unless mitigation described under MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are incorporated. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources within the Development Site to a less than significant level. (EIR Section
4.18.6.1).
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
4‐22
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures as identified in Section 4.5 are also identified as Cultural Resource Conditions in the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and are considered standard project procedures to be conducted if a cultural resource is encountered during construction to reduce potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources:
MM CUL‐1 The applicant shall retain a qualified professional archaeological monitor who meets U.S. Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards. The monitor shall be present during all ground‐disturbing activitiesto identify any known orsuspected archaeological and/or cultural resources. The monitor will conduct an Archaeological Sensitivity Training “Sensitivity Workshop,” in conjunction with the Consulting Tribe(s)’s Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). The training session will focus on the archaeological and tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during earthmoving activities and the procedures to be followed in such an event.
MM CUL‐2 The qualified archaeologist shall develop an Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plan to address the details, timing, and responsibility of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the Development Site, in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s).
MM CUL‐3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall enter into a Native American monitoring agreement with one of the Consulting Tribes for the Development Project. The Native American Monitor shall be on site during all initial ground‐disturbing activities, including clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, grading, and trenching, within native soils. The Native American Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground‐disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources. The applicant shall meet and confer with the Tribe on the consideration of a “Sensitivity Workshop” training on possible things that could come up in case a Native American Monitor is not on site to monitor at certain times.
MM CUL‐4 In the event of discovery of human remains during grading or other ground disturbance, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) shall cease and the applicant shall comply with State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) § 5097.98. In the event human remains are found and identified as Native American, the applicant shall also notify the City Planning Department so that the City can ensure PRC § 5097.98 is followed.
MM CUL‐5 In the event that archaeological or tribal cultural resources are unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities, ground‐disturbing activities shall stop (within a 100‐foot buffer of the discovery) or shall be diverted away from the vicinity of the find, so that the find can be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist. A treatment plan shall be developed by a qualified archaeologist (meeting SOI standards) in consultation with the Tribe and the City Planning Department to include relinquishment of all artifacts through one of the following methods:
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
4‐23
A fully executed reburial agreement with the appropriate culturally affiliated Native American tribe or band. This reburial area should be away from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing, analysis, and any necessary special studies have been completed on the cultural resources. Details of contents and location of the reburial shall be documented in a final report. Curation at a Riverside County Curation facility that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore will be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers and tribal members for further study. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.
Evidence shall be provided in the form of a letter from the curation facility identifying that archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid.
MM CUL‐6 Any and all cultural documents created as a part of the Development Project (Archaeological Monitoring and Treatment Plans, isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to the Consulting Tribe.
4.5.2 Threshold 4.18.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Findings
Potential impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.18.2 are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.6.2 of the EIR. The City finds that there is a possibility potential tribal cultural resources may be unearthed during ground‐disturbing activities and impacts to tribal cultural resources would be significant. The City finds that mitigation measures MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐6 are feasible, adopted, and would reduce the significant impact identified to less than significant.
Substantial Evidence
Asindicated above, Native American consultation was conducted in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18.
As part of the consultation process, a review of the SLF by the NAHC yielded negative results.
Following the initial consultation meeting between the City and MBMI, MBMI has provided its review of the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and has stated that the Development 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
4‐24
Project is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. Although there are no known human remains at the Development Site, the potential to unearth such remains during construction cannot be ruled out. In the event that human remains are identified during Development Project construction, these remains would be treated in accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and PRC Section 5097.98, as appropriate. Adherence to previously identified MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐5 would ensure compliance with the State’s Health and Safety Code forthe treatment of human remains and the appropriate coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission. With implementation of and compliance with the above stated mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MM CUL‐1 through MM CUL‐5 from Section 4.5 of the EIR are also identified as Cultural Resource Conditions in the Development Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment and are considered standard project procedures to be conducted if a cultural resource is encountered during construction to reduce potential impacts to undiscovered archaeological resources. 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
5‐1
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR identify the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project should be implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(b)), and the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126(c)). As further described below, the City finds the Development Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and transportation after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the City cannot approve the Development Project unless it first finds (1) under Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities to highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the EIR; and (2) under CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b), that the remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 because the economic, legal,social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
5.1 AIR QUALITY
5.1.1 Threshold 4.3.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Findings
Impacts to the Development Project related to Threshold 4.3.1 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.3.6.1. The City finds that the Development Project would be inconsistent with the 2022 South Coast AQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) because it 1) would require a General Plan Amendment and therefore is inconsistent with the land use assumptions on which the AQMP was based and is conservatively assumed to generate operational source emissions not accounted for in the AQMP; and 2) would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOCs, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions. Specifically, the Development Project would exceed regional thresholds of significance for VOC during construction and for VOCs, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5during operation despite implementation of project design features and mitigation measures both added and as revised in Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 and AIR‐2. As such, the Development Project is considered to be inconsistent with the AQMP and a significant and unavoidable impact regarding inconsistency with the 2022 AQMP would result from the construction and operation of the Development Project. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, and emissions for PM2.5 would be reduced to less than significant; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that the mitigation measures, as revised, identified in Final EIR are feasible, adopted, and will reduce air quality impacts attributable to the Project to the extent feasible. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce 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
5‐2
these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. The City further finds that mobile source emissions that contribute to exceedance of thresholds of significance are subject to regulations that control heavy‐ duty truck emissions which are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described below, the City has determined that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR..
Substantial Evidence
The proposed Development Site is located within the Basin and is within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The 2022 AQMP is the applicable plan for the Development Project. CEQA requires that Specific Plans be evaluated for consistency with the AQMP. SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides the following two criteria to determine whether a project would be consistent or in conflict with the AQMP:
Consistency Criterion No. 1: The project would generate population and employment growth that would be inconsistent with SCAG growth forecasts.
Consistency Criterion No. 2: The project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to the SCAG’s growth forecasts and associated assumptions included in the AQMP. The future air quality levels projected in the AQMP are based on SCAG’s growth projections, which are based, in part, on the general plans of cities located within the SCAG region.
Therefore, if the level of employment related to the proposed project is consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP, the project would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP.
The Development Project would require a general plan land use change. Based on residential occupancy densities, the existing residential use designations would accommodate up to 3,752 persons, while the commercial usus under the existing designations would provide employment for up to 610 persons, for a total of 4,362 residents and employees. The Development Project would allow for up to 5,993 employees at full buildout. As a result of the growth in employment projections for the Development Site, the proposed Project would not be consistent with Consistency Criterion No.
1. Once the General Plan Amendment is approved, the AQMP modeling updated, and the SCAG growth forecasts updated, the Development Project would then be consistent with Criterion No. 1.
However, the Development Project is not currently consistent with the growth projections included in the AQMP, and therefore this criterion is not met.
As evaluated under Thresholds 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 in the FEIR, the Development Project would not exceed the LST thresholds for operational activity. However, the regional operational‐source emissions were anticipated to exceed the regional thresholds of significance for VOC, NOX, PM10. and PM2.5 emissions and would not be reduced to lessthan significant with imposition of mitigation measures. With project 576
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐3
modifications, all emissions would be reduced, and the PM2.5 emissions would be lessthan significant, but remaining emissions identified above still exceed the applicable thresholds of significance. As such, the Development Project operations have the potential to result in a significant impact with respect to this criterion, and the Development Project would have the potential to conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion.
Based on the preceding, the Development Project is determined to be inconsistent with Consistency Criterion No. 1, and impacts would be potentially significant. (EIR Section 4.3.6.1).
Emissions associated with the operation of the Development Project would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of the planned project design features and Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2 as revised. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant. As such, the Project would not be consistent with the attainment of the AAQS or emission reductions assumptions indicated in the AQMP. Therefore, based on the requirements for consistency with emission control strategies in the AQMP, the Development Project would conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the AQMP and/or applicable portions of the SIP. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
In order to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible, the following mitigation measures are required:
MM AIR‐1 The following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented during Project construction:
Plans submitted for grading permit issuance and building permit issuance shall specify a designated area of the construction site where electric or non‐diesel vehicles, equipment, and tools can be fueled or charged. The provision of temporary electric infrastructure forsuch purpose shall be approved by the utility provider, Banning Electric Utility (BEU). If BEU does not approve the installation of temporary power for this purpose, the establishment of a temporary electric charging area will not be required. If electric equipment will not be used on the construction site because the construction contractor(s) does not have such equipment in its fleet (as specified in this Mitigation Measure below), the establishment of a temporary electric charging area also will not be required. If the contractor(s) equipment fleet includes this equipment and BEU approval is secured, the temporary charging location shall be established upon issuance of grading permits and building permits.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road trucks and construction support equipment, including but not limited to hand tools, forklifts, aerial lifts, materials lifts, hoists, pressure washers, plate compactors, and air compressors are available in the construction contractor’s equipment fleet and can fulfill the construction requirements during the building, construction, paving, and architectural coating phases of Project construction, such equipment shall be used during on‐site 577
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐4
construction. This requirement shall be noted on plans submitted for building permit issuance.
If electric or non‐diesel off‐road truck and construction support equipment are not available then the Project contractor shall ensure all 50 horsepower or more off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment is powered with California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified Tier 4 Final engines or the equivalent. Construction contractorsshall maintain records of all off‐road diesel construction equipment associated with on‐site construction to document that each off‐road diesel construction equipment used meets required emission standards. Records shall be kept on‐site for the duration of construction activities and shall be made available for periodic inspection by City staff or their designee. During construction activities, the City shall conduct periodic inspections to verify compliance with construction‐related mitigation measures pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
During construction of the proposed Development Project, the Project contractor shall only use interior paints with low volatile organic compound (VOC) content with a maximum concentration of 30 grams per liter (g/L) for residential building architectural coating to reduce VOC emissions. All building and site plans shall note use of paints with a low VOC content with a maximum concentration of 30 g/L verified.
The City of Banning shall verify these requirements have been incorporated into construction plans prior to issuance of any construction permits and during architectural coating activities.
MM AIR‐2 The following multi‐part mitigation measure shall be implemented during Project operation:
Implement mitigation measures MM GHG‐4, MM GHG‐5, MM GHG‐6, and GHG‐
7. All facility‐owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site shall meet or exceed 2010 model‐ year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025.
Facility operators shall maintain records on site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the City of Banning, SCAQMD, and State upon request.
All on‐site cargo handling equipment including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, forklifts, and other on‐site equipment shall be electric with the 578
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐5
necessary electrical plug‐in charging included in the design of the Development Project electrical system, buildings, and equipment storage and parking areas. Tenant lease agreements for the Development Project shall include contractual language restricting trucks and support equipment from nonessential idling longer than 3 minutes while on site. The idling restriction will be presented on signs at the entrance to the industrial portions of the Development Project as well as at loading docks and truck parking areas.
All facility operators shall train managers and employees on efficient scheduling and load management to eliminate unnecessary queuing and idling of trucks. Interior‐ and exterior‐facing signs, including signs directed at all dock and delivery areas, shall be provided identifying idling restrictions and contact information to report violations to CARB, the air district, and the building manager. At buildout of the industrial land uses a minimum of 50 Class 8 electric vehicle (EV) truck chargers shall be installed at the tractor trailer parking spaces in logical locations to facilitate electric truck charging. These chargers shall have the power rating sufficient to charge a Class 8 truck battery.
For the warehouse/industrial portions of the Development Project, the buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for installation of electric charging systems for electric trucks and power transport refrigeration units (TRUs). Conduit shall be installed from the electrical room to all tractor trailer parking spaces in logical locations on site to facilitate future electric truck charging.
The Development Project shall include the higher value of either:
○ At least 350 Level 2 AC EV chargers; or
○ A percentage of total parking spaces with Level 2 AC EV chargers to comply with the minimum requirements of CCR, Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards Code.
○ The provision of EV charges in each parking lot shall occur prior to the occupancy of uses for said lots.
All truck/dock baysthatserve cold storage facilities within the proposed buildings shall be electrified to facilitate plug‐in capabilities and support use of electric standby and/or hybrid electric TRUs. A condition of approval shall be included for the cold storage facility that requiresthat by buildout at least 90 percent of trucks with TRUs are fully electric.
579
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐6
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the industrial/warehouse area, the Development Project operators employing 200 or more employees shall be required to establish and promote a rideshare program and prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management Program detailing strategies that discourage single‐occupancy vehicle trips by employees by increasing and providing financial incentives for alternate modes of transportation, including carpooling/vanpools, public transit, and biking.
Signs at every truck exit driveway shall be provided showing directional information to the truck route.
Every tenant shall be required to train staff in charge of keeping vehicle records in diesel technologies and compliance with CARB regulations, by attending CARB‐ approved courses. Facility operatorsshall also be required to maintain records on site demonstrating compliance and make records available for inspection by the City of Banning, SCAQMD, and State upon request.
Tenants shall be required to enroll in the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartWay program, and tenants shall be required to use carriers that are SmartWay carriers.
Industrial and commercial buildings within the Development Project shall be all electric unlessthe land use requires natural gas(i.e., restaurants, bakeries, dental and medical laboratories).
Tenants shall be provided with information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Program and Voucher Incentive Program, to upgrade their fleets.
5.1.2 Threshold 4.3.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non‐attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.
Findings
Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The nonattainment status of regional pollutants is based on past and present development, and the South Coast AQMD develops and implements plans for future attainment of ambient air quality standards taking into account current attainment status and the potential impacts of future development. Based on these considerations, project‐level thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants are used by the South Coast AQMD to determine whether a project’s individual emissions would have a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. The potential for the project to result in a cumulatively considerable impact, is based on whether a project will exceed a threshold of significance for any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable NAAQS and/or CAAQS. Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.3.2 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.3.6.2. 580
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐7
The City finds that the Project will exceed the thresholds established by SCAQMD for emissions of certain criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non‐attainment even after mitigation Therefore, Project impacts would be significant on a project‐specific and cumulative basis for those emissions. The Development Project is required to comply with mitigation measures MM AIR‐1 and MM AIR‐2. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The City finds that the mitigation measures, as revised, identified in Final EIR are feasible, adopted, and will reduce air quality impacts attributable to the Project to the extent feasible. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. The City further finds that mobile source emissions that contribute to exceedance of thresholds of significance are subject to regulations that control heavy‐duty truck emissions which are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, as described below, the City has determined thatspecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.
Substantial Evidence
The Basin is currently designated nonattainment for the federal and State standards for O3 and PM2.5.
In addition, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State PM10 standard.
Construction Emissions. During construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by demolition, grading, paving, building, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NOx, VOCs, directly emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Table 4.3.I of the Draft EIR shows the mitigated construction emissions and indicates that with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, maximum daily construction emissions would be less than the SCAQMD thresholds of all pollutants except for VOCs. Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 would reduce construction VOCs by requiring low‐VOC paint application; however, construction VOC emissions associated with the Development Project would still be significant. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures to further reduce VOC emissions. Therefore, the proposed Development Project would result in significant construction air quality impacts.
Operational Emissions. Long‐term air pollutant emission impactsthat would result from the proposed Project are those associated with mobile sources (e.g., vehicle trips), energy sources (e.g., electricity), and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings and the use of landscape maintenance equipment.
Mobile source emissionsinclude emissions associated with passenger vehicles which are based on the trip numbers, length, and fleet mix/vehicle type assumptionsin the Traffic Analysisfor employees and site visitors/shoppers. The truck trip assumptions are also based on the Traffic Analysis for trips and fleet mix. A truck trip length of 40 miles was assumed based on previous recommendations by the SCAQMD. In response to public comments received on the Draft EIR, the air emission totals for the 581
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐8
Development Project were updated based on the updated, increased truck trip lengths from the WAIRE Guidelines and a weighted average for truck axle type was calculated.
Even with implementation of the designated project design features and revised Mitigation Measure AIR‐2, operation of the proposed Development Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact for VOCs, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 (Tables 4.3.J through 4.3.N). Mitigation Measure AIR‐2 is required to reduce criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed Development Project to the extent feasible. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to a less than significant level; therefore, the operational impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Impacts to the Project related to Threshold 4.3.2 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.3.6.2.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1, daily regional construction emissions would not exceed the daily thresholds of any criteria pollutant emission thresholds established by SCAQMD during construction except for VOCs. Assuming the worst‐case scenario of overlap of construction and operations set forth in each table, the daily emissions from Project operations would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants except for SOX.
Construction emissions of all pollutants except for VOCs associated with the Project would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1. However, emissions associated with operation of the Development Project would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of the planned project design features and Mitigation Measure AIR‐2, as revised, which would require all feasible measuresto reduce potential impacts. Therefore, thisimpact would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
As such, impacts are potentially significant. In order to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible, the following mitigation measures are required:
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR‐1 and Mitigation Measure AIR‐2, described above.
RCM AQ‐1 SCAQMD Rule 403. During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventative measures by using the following procedures, in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 during construction. The applicable Rule 403 measures are as follows:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’ specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more).
Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur shall be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load 582
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐9
and the top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet (30 meters) onto the site from the main road.
Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less.
RCM AQ‐2 All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2), and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads.
RCM AQ‐3 Prior to approval of the Project plans and specifications, the City shall confirm that the construction bid packages specify:
Contractors shall use high‐volume low‐pressure paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent;
Coatings and solvents that will be utilized have a volatile organic compound content lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 1113; and To the extent feasible, construction/building materials shall be composed of pre‐ painted materials.
RCM AQ‐4 The Project shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants or other material from any type of operations, which can cause nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of people or to the public or which endangers the comfort or repose of any such persons, or the public.
From Section 4.3.6.2 of the Draft EIR, “Other regional transportation measures that may reduce VMT include but are not limited to improving/increasing access to transit, increasing access to common goods and services, or orientating land uses toward alternative transportation. These regional transportation measures may be infeasible at the project level but will generally be implemented as the surrounding communities develop. The Sunset Crossroads Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis concludes that there is no means, however, to quantify any VMT reductions that could result.
Additionally, the effectiveness of any VMT reduction program would be dependent on as yet unknown building tenant(s); and as noted above, VMT reductions from various CTR measures cannot be guaranteed.” This assessment was revised in the Final EIR Section 4.17.6.3 which imposed mitigation measures but similarly concluded that potential decreases in emissions from reduced VMT may be possible but cannot be quantified at this time.
583
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐10
5.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5.2.1 Threshold 4.8.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.8.1 are discussed in detail in Section
4.8.5.1 of the EIR and Section 4.8 of the Final EIR. Unmitigated Project GHG emissions with PDFs incorporated are approximately 62,844.96 MT CO2e per year through all three phases of the Development Project at buildout, which would exceed the City’s threshold of significance of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. Therefore, impacts are significant. The Development Project includes Project Design Features (PDFs), which will reduce GHG emissions attributable to the Development Project (Draft EIR Section 4.8.5.1).
The Development Project is required to comply with mitigation measures MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised in the Final EIR, and MM GHG‐1 through GHG‐7 which would reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible. The City finds that even after application of mitigation measures, the Development Project’s mitigated GHG emissions are estimated to be approximately 44,174.26 MT CO2e per year, exceed the City’s screening threshold for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, and result in mitigated emissions of 38,875.50 MT CO2e per year.
However, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that the above PDFs and mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce GHG impacts attributable to the proposed Project to the extent feasible, The City therefore finds this impact significant and unavoidable. The City also findsthat no further feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from construction and operation of the Development Project.
Several mitigation measures were recommended by commenters on the Draft EIR. These measures were evaluated in the Final EIR and were: 1) already be required through regulatory requirements, project design features, or mitigation; 2) added as mitigation and included, herein; or 3) determined to be infeasible. For example, due to the reasons described below under “Substantial Evidence,” the requirement that all heavy‐duty vehicles must be zero emission was found to be economically and technologically infeasible because they are not commercially available for the foreseeable future.
Additionally, regulations that control heavy‐duty truck emissions are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Therefore, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, control of tailpipe emissions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been adopted by that other agency. Accordingly, the City finds that the majority of the Development Project’s emissions come from mobile sources which are regulated by the State and not the City.
Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation 584
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐11
measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
When amortized over the 30‐year life of the Development Project as required by the SCAQMD, on‐ site construction activities would result in annual emissions of 487.49 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT CO2e/yr). Long‐term GHG emissions associated with buildout of the Development would be approximately 56,902.96 MT CO2e annually from both construction and operations. Modifications to the project and the incorporation of feasible mitigation would reduce project GHG emissions to 38,726.25 MT CO2e/yr, but the volume of GHG emissions resulting from the Development Project would exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e at Development Project buildout (2027). The majority of the GHG emissions (66 percent of unmitigated emissions) are associated with non‐construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and neither the City nor the Development Project have control over these standards.
Based on comments received during public review of the Draft EIR, a supplemental greenhouse analysis was conducted to account for emissions from updated truck trip lengths trucks by axle type which conform to SCAQMD WAIRE Guidelines and emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRUs) (see Final EIR, Appendices C‐5 and C‐6). These additional emissions were added to those previously identified for the Project. This additional analysis identified, at buildout, with the incorporation of project design features, the Development Project’s unmitigated emissions with incorporation of the PDFs would be approximately 56,902.96 MT CO2e annually from both construction and operations4 (see Final EIR, Table 4.8.F‐1). Several mitigation measures were recommended by commenters on the Draft EIR. These measures were evaluated in the Final EIR and were: 1) already required through regulatory requirements, project design features, or mitigation; 2) added as mitigation and included in the Final EIR; or 3) determined to be infeasible. For example, the suggested mitigation measure to require that all heavy‐duty vehicles must be zero emission was found to be economically and technologically infeasible because they are not commercially available to serve the entire Development Project for the foreseeable future. (See Final EIR, Section 3.0, responses to Comments A‐3‐25, A‐3‐26, and A‐3‐27).
Another suggestion was the installation of roof‐top solar panels to the extent feasible. While the City will require Project buildings be to designed and constructed to include solar‐ready roof and solar facilities required for commercial and office space in the industrial buildings, the installation of solar panels beyond those required by law is not anticipated at this time as the City prefers that new commercial and industrial uses refrain from installing solar roofs and purchase electricity from BEU to facilitate and support the utility’s long‐term renewable energy contracts (see Final EIR, Section 3.0, response to Comment A‐3‐64). The discussion of mitigation measures suggested during public review to reduce the emission of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gasesis provided in the Final EIR, Section 4 This includes total construction emissions amortized over 30 years per 2008 SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Thresholds for Stationary Sources, Rules, and Plans. 585
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐12
3.0, including (but not limited to) the responses to Comments A‐3‐28, A‐3‐58, A‐3‐60, B‐2‐15, B‐2‐16, D‐3‐8, D‐3‐53 and D‐3‐56 through D‐3‐93, and D‐6‐4.
Project design features(PDFs) to reduce the emission of GHGs have been previously identified in Draft EIR, Draft EIR, Section 4.8.5.1, (pg 4.8‐23) and Appendix C‐3 (pg 31). Because PDFs are incorporated into the design and construction or operational activities they are not considered mitigation.
Previously, the California Building Code required only solar ready roofs for non‐residential development. The Specific Plan PDF has been revised to require compliance with California Building Code Title 24, Part 6 solar requirements. These requirements which continue to evolve, now include certain solar roof requirements for non‐residential development. The supplemental GHG analysis applies current Title 24, Part 6 requirements for solar roofs which keep the Development Project compliant with Title 24, Part 6 requirements, and is the basis for the updated GHG analysis:
All Commercial and Industrial buildings within the Development Project will have solar ready roofs, that includes roof vents and skylights spaced in a manner that allows the south facing roof areas sufficient space to install PV solar panels. In addition, all Commercial buildingsshall install PV solar panels with the capacity to generate at least 20 percent of the Commercial buildings’ expected electricity consumption. All Industrial buildingsshall install PV solar panels with the capacity to generate the expected electricity consumption of the office space of the warehouses and otherwise comply with Title 24, Part 6. Electric conduit leading from the roof area to the electric control panels shall be installed and include electrical panels with sufficient capacity to accommodate PV solar.
The new requirement has been incorporated into the Final EIR (see Final EIR Chapter 4.0, Sections
4.6.3 through 6.5.6.2). Greenhouse gas reducing practices have been identified in revised Mitigation Measures AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, asrevised, and GHG‐1 through GHG‐7, along with previously identified and new PDFs, and modifications to the project would reduce mitigated emissions to 38,875.50 MT CO2e per year at Project buildout (see Final EIR, Table 4.8.J‐1), which would still exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e. Again, the majority of these are generated from mobile sources that are regulated by the State and not the City.
Reliance on carbon offsets to reduce either the Development Project’s mobile or non‐mobile emissions is not feasible. No local program is available that meets CEQA’s criteria of being quantifiable, additional, and verifiable. It has been determined that even offset credits purchased from CARB‐approved offset project registries do not adequately ensure that purchased offset credits accurately and reliably represent actual emissions reductions or cannot guarantee that such reductions are additional to any reduction that would occur under business‐as‐usual operations and reductionsrequired by law, and do not meet the definition of a valid mitigation measure. Additionally, as the Lead Agency, the City of Banning is responsible for enforcing project mitigation measures that are relied upon to reduce GHG impacts and has no enforcement authority over offset creditsthat fund carbon reduction projects outside of the City. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Development 586
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐13
Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect on the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the EIR, mitigation measures GHG‐1 through GHG‐7 have been identified to address this impact are feasible and made binding through the MMRP. In addition, MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised, would also be applicable and reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible. (Draft EIR Section 4.8.5.1).
The Project shall implement mitigation measure MM AIR‐2 (discussed above in Section 5.1 and in the EIR), many provisions of which in addition to reducing air quality emissions would result in a reduction in GHG emissions. Despite imposition of these feasible mitigation measures, the volume of GHG emissions generated by the Development would not be reduced below established significance threshold.
The following are additional mitigation measures that would be required to address significant GHG emissions:
MM GHG‐1 Provide separate recycling bins within each commercial/industrial building and provide large external recycling collection bins at central locations in the commercial and industrial land uses for collection truck pickup. Provide a commercial recycling/composting program that provides 70 percent diversion of waste for the commercial land uses. Provide an industrial recycling program that provides 80 percent diversion of waste for the industrial land uses.
MM GHG‐2 Provide drought tolerant low‐water landscaping and trees throughout the Development Site and use recycled (purple pipe) irrigation water with drip irrigation and weather based smart irrigation controllers.
MM GHG‐3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant orsuccessor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Banning demonstrating that the Project is designed to achieve energy efficient buildings exceeding Title 24 standards with the following design criteria:
Building envelops insulation of conditioned space within all commercial and industrial buildings shall be R15 or greater for walls and R30 or greater for attics/roofs.
Windows of commercial and industrial buildings shall have an insulation factor of
0.28 or less U‐factor and 0.22 or less SHGC.
All roofing material for commercial buildings shall be CRRC Rated 0.15 aged solar reflectance or greater and 0.75 thermal emittance.
All heating/cooling ducting within the commercial and industrial buildings shall be insulated with R6 or greater insulation.
All heating and cooling equipment shall be ERR 14/78 percent AFUE, or 7.7 HSPF levels of efficiency or greater.
587
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐14
All water heaters in the commercial and industrial buildings shall be high efficiency electric water heaters with a minimum 0.72 Energy Factor or greater. Lighting within the commercial and industrial buildings shall be high efficiency LED lighting with a minimum of 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures, 50 lumens/watt for 15–40‐watt fixtures, and 60 lumens/watt for fixtures greater than 40 watts.
Building roofs shall be in compliance with solar requirements of the California Building Code Title 24 standards.
MM GHG‐4 All appliances within the commercial and industrial land uses shall be energy star rated appliances.
MM GHG‐5 All water fixtures shall be water efficient (toilets/urinals [1.5 GPM or less], showerheads [2.0 GPM or less], and faucets [1.28 GMM or less]).
MM GHG‐6 All landscape equipment used to maintain the landscaping within the Development Project shall be electric.
MM GHG‐7 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Project shall provide documentation to the City as part of the plan check process, demonstrating that the Project will implement the measures specified in Table 4.8.K which were obtained from the Riverside County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Screening Tables. The Project may also achieve equivalent emission reductions from other measures approved by the City. Implementing these mitigation measures shall be verified by the City prior to the issuance of final Certificate of Occupancy.
5.2.2 Threshold 4.8.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of GHGs.
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.8.2 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.8.5.2. The City finds that the Development Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG emissions. Despite plan consistency, the Development Project’s long‐term operational GHG emissions would exceed the City’s significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. For that reason, the City finds that the Development Project results in a significant GHG impact. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Development Project isrequired to comply with mitigation measures MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, asrevised, and MM GHG‐ 1, GHG‐2, GHG‐4, GHG‐5, GHG‐6, and GHG‐7, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The City finds that even after application of mitigation measures, the Development Project’s GHG 588
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐15
emissions exceed the City’s screening threshold for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The City finds that the above PDFs and mitigation measures are feasible, are adopted, and will reduce GHG impacts attributable to the proposed Project to the extent feasible, The City therefore finds this impact significant and unavoidable. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. Regulations that control heavy‐duty truck emissions are the responsibility of the State and outside of the responsibility and control of the City. Therefore, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, control of tailpipe emissions are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been adopted by that other agency. Accordingly, the City finds that the majority of the Development Project’s emissions come from mobile sources which are regulated by the State and not the City. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
The Development Project would not conflict with any of the local, regional, and Statewide plans, polices, programs, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. The Development Project would incorporate GHG emission reducing project design features and implement feasible mitigation (cited previously in these findings).
Plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS, the County of Riverside Climate Action Plan, the City of Banning General Plan, and the Air Quality Management Plan. Analysis of whether the Development Project would conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions is discussed below:
Riverside Climate Action Plan: The Development Project gains over 500 points in the County of Riverside CAP Screening Tables, and these measures will be implemented as part of the Development Project through the PDFs and Mitigation Measures AIR‐2, GHG‐1, GHG‐2, GHG‐4, GHG‐5, and GHG‐6 and GHG‐7. Since the Development Project greatly exceeds the 100‐point threshold needed to show consistency with the CAP, the Development Project would implement a greater amount of the reduction measures than needed and would be consistent with the County of Riverside CAP if it applied to the entire project. City of Banning General Plan: The Development Project would be consistent with the 2006 Banning General Plan Air Quality Policies and policies in the Energy and Mineral Resources Element, as discussed in Table 4.8.L of the Final EIR (pp. 4.8‐37). Scoping Plan Consistency: Building decarbonization measures are intended to maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, maximize distributed renewable energy generation and energy storage, eliminate the use of natural gas, pursue additional efficiency effortsincluding new technologies and new policy and implementation mechanisms, pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California, and expand the 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
5‐16
use of green building practices. The Development Project would not conflict with pertinent Statewide action measuresin the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Development Project would comply with the CALGreen standards and would include low‐flow plumbing fixtures, drought‐tolerant landscaping, and other features that would reduce water demand. The Development Project would implement the use of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and ZEV infrastructure (1.e. electric vehicle chargers) and would increase the use of alternative means of transportation. SCAG’s 2020‐2045 RTP/SCS: Development Project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether the Development Project would inhibit the post‐2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the State. The Development Project’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.8.N: Project Consistency with the 2020 RTP/SCS. Air Quality Management Plan: The Development Project would not conflict with applicable control measures within the 2022 AQMP. The Development Project’s consistency with the AQMP goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.8.O: Project Consistency with Applicable 2022 AQMP Control Strategies.
Therefore, with respect to thisthreshold, the Development Project does not have a significant impact.
However, despite plan consistency, the Development Project’s long‐term operational impacts would exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year despite implementing PDFs and all feasible mitigation. Though implemented, despite this plan consistency (as detailed in Draft EIR Section 4.8), the Development Project’s long‐term operational impacts would exceed the City’s threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year and therefore, could impede long‐term GHG reduction goals of various plans (e.g., for 2030 and 2050) and result in a significant impact. (EIR Section 4.8.5.2).
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Development Project that avoid or substantially lessen the emission of GHGs into the environment. Based upon the analysis presented in Section 4.8 of the EIR, mitigation measures MM GHG‐1 through MM GHG‐7 have been identified to address this impact are feasible and made binding through the MMRP. In addition, MM AIR‐1 and AIR‐2, as revised, would also be applicable, and reduce GHG impacts to the extent feasible.
5.3 NOISE
5.3.1 Threshold 4.13.1
Impact Statement: The Development Project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.13.1 are discussed in detail in Draft EIR Section 4.13.6.1. Findings with respect to construction traffic noise impacts and operational noise impacts under Threshold 4.13.1 are discussed in Section 3.12 and are found to be lessthan significant. 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
5‐17
With respect to construction noise impacts from equipment and construction work, the Development Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM NOI‐1, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in reduced impacts with respect to this Threshold as compared to the analysis in the DEIR and FEIR, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City finds that the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the proposed Project construction noise impacts attributable to construction work for the Development Project to the extent feasible. However, the City also finds that because it is yet to be determined if a noise barrier can be constructed on City right‐of‐way, construction noise impacts for construction of the roadway and utilities on Sunset Avenue would be considered significant and unavoidable and no further feasible mitigation to reduce this impact has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from construction noise with respect to the Development Project would result. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.
Substantial Evidence
Construction Noise Impacts Generated by Construction Equipment and Construction Work. Noise will be generated during mass grading, grading, sitework‐utilities, building construction, paving, and architectural coating/tenant finishing on the Development Site. As discussed in Draft EIR Section
4.13.6.1. and shown in Table 4.13.L‐M, construction noise levels would reach up to 85 dBA Lmax (82 dBA Leq) at a distance of 50 ft and residential buildings east of the Development Site along Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Westward Avenue and the school building east of the Development Site on the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue in the City of Banning would be exposed to interior construction noise levels of 55.7 dBA Leq and 60.4 dBA Leq, respectively. This exceeds the City’s interior construction noise standard of 55 dBA for more than 15 minutes per hour. Also, residential buildings south of the Development Site along Bobcat Road in the County of Riverside would be exposed to interior construction noise levels of 56.4 dBA Leq, which exceeds the City’s interior construction noise standard of 55 dBA for more than 15 minutes per hour.
Therefore, noise generated from Development Project construction activities would be potentially significant at these locations unless mitigation described under Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 is incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
Noise generated by project construction activities would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. Mitigation Measure NOI‐1 includes the installation of minimum 10 ft high temporary construction barriers when Development Project construction activities are within 100 ft from the nearest residential structure and other measures to reduce noise impacts will reduce construction noise impacts associated with on‐site construction of the Development Project to less than significant. However, because it is yet to be determined if a noise barrier can be constructed on City right‐of‐way during construction of roadway and utilities on 591
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
5‐18
Sunset Avenue, the City finds that construction noise impacts for construction of the roadway and utilities on Sunset Avenue is considered significant and unavoidable.
MM NOI‐1 The construction contractor shall limit construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
During grading,site work, paving and utility construction, the construction contractor shall install a minimum 10 ft high temporary construction barrier along the eastern construction boundary to shield residences along Sunset Avenue between Lincoln Street and Westward Avenue, along the southern construction boundary to shield residences along Bobcat Road, and along the eastern construction boundary to shield the school located at the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue when project construction activities are within 100 ft from the nearest residential structure to that activity. The temporary construction barrier may be any material that has a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 28. For off‐site construction, including for construction of the roadway and utilities, on Sunset Avenue, the City will determine whether the noise barrier can be constructed on City right of way without impacting roadway access and the construction contractor shall installsuch barrier on City‐owned property provided thatsuch roadway access can be maintained during construction.
During all Development Site excavation and grading, the Development Project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest feasible distance between construction‐related noise sources and noise‐ sensitive receptors nearest the Development Site during all project construction.
The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that the emitted noise is directed away from the sensitive receptors nearest the Development Site.
5.4 TRANSPORTATION
5.4.1 Threshold 4.17.2
Impact Statement: The Development Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
Findings
Impacts of the Development Project related to Threshold 4.17.2 are discussed in detail in EIR Section
4.17.6.3. The Development Project would result in a significant VMT impact. The Development Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM TRA‐1, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible, but impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. As discussed in the Supplemental CEQA Memorandum and Modified Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan (SP No. 200‐20000002) Vehicle 592
F INDINGS OF F ACT AND S TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C ONSIDERATIONS S EPTEMBER 2025
S UNSET C ROSSROADS P ROJECT
CITY OF B ANNING , C ALIFORNIA
5‐19
Miles Traveled (VMT) Comparative Analysis, modifications to the project that restrict industrial development on Planning Area 2 and modify the mix of commercial uses would result in a reduced level of impact but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City findsthat the above mitigation measure is feasible, is adopted, and will reduce the proposed Project transportation impacts attributable to trips generated by the proposed Project to the extent feasible. The City also finds that no further feasible mitigation to reduce this impact has been identified; therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would result from operation of the Development Project. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) and (c) (findings “shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives”), the City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR that would reduce the identified impact to less than significant levels.
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:
593
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. 594
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 595
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, 596
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.
597
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
598
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 599
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.
600
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.
601
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
602
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. 603
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).
604
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.
605
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 606
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 607
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
608
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.
609
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).
610
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 611
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.
612
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 613
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 614
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.
615
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 616
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.
617
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 618
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 619
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 620
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 621
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. 622
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 623
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. 624
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. 625
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). 626
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 627
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 628
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.
629
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.
630
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, 631
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 632
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 633
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 634
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).
635
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). 636
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 637