Banning City Council
July 9, 2024

The following information comprises the minutes for a regular meeting of the City Council, a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and Banning Utility Authority and a joint meeting of the Banning City Council and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Successor Agency Board.

MINUTES 7/9/2024

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

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

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

1.2. Pledge of Allegiance

1.3. Roll Call

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

2. AGENDA APPROVAL

2.1. Approve Agenda
Motion to approve the agenda, reordering agenda item 6.2 and 7.1 to before the consent agenda.

Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 2 of 14
Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

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

3. PRESENTATIONS

3.1 Proclamation - Parks and Recreation Month

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

5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, APPOINTMENTS, CITY COUNCIL

COMMITTEE REPORTS, CITY MANAGER REPORT, AND CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

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

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

5.3. APPOINTMENTS

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

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

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

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

Mayor Pro Tem Minjares had no report.

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

Council Member Happe had no report.

Mayor Sanchez had no report.

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

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

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

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

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

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

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

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

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

Mayor Sanchez invited the Council Members to disclose any “extra-meeting contacts” with applicant and/or appellant:
 Council Member Wallace reported she had met with the applicant but gained no additional information than presented in the staff report.  Mayor Pro Tem Minjares reported having attended no meetings.

Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 5 of 14
 Council Member Flynn reported having participated in two Pass Action Group meetings as an observer.
 Council Member Happe reported he had met with the applicant but gained no additional information than presented in the staff report.  Mayor Sanchez reported having attended no meetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Testimony
 Juan Serrato spoke in support.
 Jonathan Dailey spoke in support.
 Alex Zamora spoke in support.
 Virginia DeBry spoke in opposition.
 John Swem spoke in opposition.
 Bruce L. Brown spoke in opposition.
 Michele Walter spoke in opposition.
 James Corrigan spoke in opposition.
 Al Sanchez spoke in support.
 John Hagen spoke in opposition.
 Virgina E. Cervantes spoke in opposition.
 Nick Gumbleton spoke in support.
 Andrew Mayorga spoke in support.
 Ralph Velador spoke in support.
 Jose Radillo spoke in support.
 Ismael Morales spoke in opposition.
 Ron Roy spoke in opposition.
 Jose Garcia spoke in support.
 Mario Gamboa spoke in support.
 Steven Parker spoke in opposition.
 Efrain Lopez spoke in support.

Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 6 of 14
 Jayson Baiz spoke in support.
 Richard McHard spoke in opposition.
 Bill Hobbs spoke in opposition.
 Betty Badalamente spoke in opposition.
 Kathleen Dale spoke in opposition.

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

Motion by Council Member Flynn
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

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

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

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares
Seconded by Council Member Flynn

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

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

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

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

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

6. CONSENT AGENDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.18 City Attorney Annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Adjustment

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

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

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

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

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

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

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

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

Motion by Council Member Happe
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

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

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

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

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

Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-115.

Motion by Council Member Happe
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

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

Regular Meeting Minutes 7/9/2024 Page 10 of 14

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

Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-116.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

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

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

Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-117.

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

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

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

Emery Papp, Senior Planner, responded to questions.

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

Motion by Council Member Happe
Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares

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

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

Lincoln Bogard, Administrative Services Director, responded to questions.

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

Motion by Council Member Wallace
Seconded by Council Member Happe

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

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

Public Comment
None
Motion to adopt Resolution 2024-127.

Motion by Mayor Sanchez
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

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

7. PUBLIC HEARING(S)

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

8. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
None

9. DISCUSSION ITEM(S)
None

10. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS

10.1. New Items

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

10.2. Pending Items:

1. Grow Banning (Sanchez)

2. Neighborhood Groups/Identities (Minjares)

3. Update on Community Garden (Flynn)

4. Zencity Contract (Flynn)

5. Zoom Options for Public Meetings (Flynn)

6. Developer Presentation on Sunset Crossroads Project (Flynn)

7. City Manager Evaluation (Flynn)

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

9. All Active Lawsuits against the City (Flynn)

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

11. ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Minjares
Seconded by Council Member Wallace

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

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

Minutes Prepared by:

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details to follow.

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

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

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. Provide housekeeping in maintenance shed.

9. Remove leaves from pool pump area.

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

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

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

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

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

DESIGN REVIEW (AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF THAT DECISION) FOR A PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BUILDING OF 619,959 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDING 10,000

SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, AND SIX RETAIL/COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING 34,000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE SUN LAKES VILLAGE NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (APN 419-140-057)
Background/Project Timeline • In December 2020, the City Council approved Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP which modified land uses in the Plan area, including those in the Banning Point Project area.

The prior SLVNSP Amendment No. 4 allowed for:

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

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

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

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

30.22 Acres for a Business & Warehouse District

10.06 Acres for an Office & Professional District

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

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

Background/Project Timeline (con’t.)
• Following briefing and a bench trial, on March 13, 2024, the trial court ruled that the former Councilmember Hamlin was biased and thus the hearing was not fair.

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

Purpose of Hearing
• The purpose of the hearing is to reconsider the Project, and PAG’s appeal, without the participation of former Councilmember Hamlin. • At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council will deliberate on the proposed TPM, the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the DR for the Project, and the Addendum prepared under CEQA.

Project Overview
Vicinity Map
Aerial Map
Zoning Map
Development Opportunities
Land Use Summary Table
Existing Use Zoning Classification General Plan
Designation
Subject
Site Vacant Land Sun Lakes North SP* Sun Lakes North SP* North Right-of-Way R/W R/W
South Residential Specific Plan Zone Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
East Residential Low Density Residential
(LDR) LDR
West Sun Lakes Village
Shopping Center Specific Plan Zone General Commercial
*The Sun Lakes North Specific Plan Amendment No. 5 Land Use Map shows the Site as Business & Warehouse and Office & Professional.

Land Use Summary Table
Site Photos
Site Photos
Project Description
• Industrial Warehouse Building (619,959 s.f.)
• Retail Commercial (34,000 s.f.)
• Public Improvements, landscaping, and on-site
detention
• TPM 38164 - Subdivision of 47-acres into 3 lots
Tentative Parcel Map
Site Plan
Proposed Project Circulation
Site Plan – Ingress/Egress
Proposed Vehicle Access Plan
Preliminary Landscape Plan
Landscape Example Photos
Sun Lakes North Specific Plan
Architectural Drawings
Architectural Drawings (cont’d)
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
Color Elevations & Materials
• June 11, 2024 – City Council Public Hearing (10-days prior/1,000-foot radius – canceled)
• July 9, 2024 - City Council Public Hearing (10-days prior/1,000-foot radius)
Public Notice
Public Notice
(1,000-ft radius map):

Public Notice
(1,000-ft radius map):

Environmental Process
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED PROGRAM EIR FOR AMENDMENT No. 5:
• A Program EIR was prepared to consider the potential environmental impacts of Amendment No. 5 to the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan, including changes to land uses.
• The Draft Program EIR was made available for public review and comment from September 11, 2020 through October 26, 2020.
• A Final Program EIR, including responses to comments, was prepared. • On December 8, 2020, the City Council Certified the Final Program EIR for SLVNSP Amendment No. 5, including adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
• No one challenged the Program EIR or Amendment No. 5 and both are now final and beyond challenge.

Environmental Process
ADDENDUM TO FINAL PROGRAM EIR FOR AMENDMENT No. 5:
• An Addendum under CEQA is used when there are no significant impacts from project changes. • For the Banning Point Project, an Addendum to the Final EIR for SLVNSP Amendment No. 5 was prepared because the Project proposes a smaller development than that analyzed in the Program EIR, and the Project does not include development of any of the office uses analyzed in the EIR. • The Addendum supports a conclusion that additional environmental review is not required for the Project beyond what was analyzed and disclosed in the now-final Program EIR and in the Addendum. All environmental impacts of Amendment No. 5 to the SLVNSP (including those impacts related to the development of industrial and warehouse uses, and retail uses, such as those proposed by the Project) were analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated as set forth in the Program EIR that was certified and is final.
• The trial court agreed and upheld the City’s use of an Addendum for the Project. • The City Council will be asked to adopt the Addendum should it decide to approve the TPM and DR.

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

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

BANNING POINT
City Council Meeting – July 9, 2024

OPENING REMARKS
JOSH ZEMON – CREATION

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

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

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

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

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

APPROPRIATE LOCATION APPROPRIATE USE (COMPARED TO RETAIL, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL) ECONOMIC BENEFITS • Access to I-10 Freeway
• Adjacent to Railroad
• Traffic – lowest trip generator
• Air Quality – lowest air impact
• Market Demand – labor pool and proximity
to port
• 722 local jobs in Banning
• Impact fees to Banning: $4,119,780
• Annual tax revenue to Banning: $325,000
2022 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED: 12/1/21
CITY COUNCIL APPROVED: 2/17/22
MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION 2022-14 AS AMENDED
WITH THREE ADDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
• Divide Condition 11 into two parts. Existing Condition 11 is retitled 11b, and an additional section be added to be titled 11a, which will read “Prior to the issuance of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the warehouse building the developer shall install all landscaping specified for the retail service district pursuant to city approved landscape plans.”
• Update Condition 103, to read, “The developer shall pay for and install traffic signal preemption devices on up to 5 traffic signal intersections from and including Ramsey/Highland Springs to Sun Lakes Boulevard/Highland Springs, not to exceed the cost of $100,000. The applicant shall coordinate these efforts with both the City of Banning and Beaumont.”
• Additional requirement that the applicant contribute an amount equal to the Development Impact Fee (DIF) payment for the development, $175,000, to go toward a fire apparatus for a future fire station in the area. shall install all landscaping specified for the retail service district pursuant to city approved landscape plans.”
Additional requirement that the applicant contribute an amount equal to the Development Impact Fee (DIF) payment for the development, $175,000, to go toward a fire apparatus for a future fire station in the area. the developer
2022
DESIGN

CHANGES
To the right:

Proposed design
changes
2022
DESIGN

CHANGES
To the right:

Sun Lakes Village
Drive Detail

CONCLUSION & QUESTIONS
JOSH ZEMON – CREATION

DESIGNBUILD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another case in point! The World Logistics Center, located along the 60 Freeway, at the eastern end of Moreno Valley, where the Skechers warehouse anchors that Center, and where the facility has a fully automated 3 story high conveyor system, throughout the interior of the warehouse building, which moves all the products, reducing the need for manpower. With this technology and ever expanding (AI), Artificial Intelligence processing and automation, these warehouse jobs are showing a much lower employee to facility square foot ratio than anyone could have anticipated. So, in all actuality, will there be an acceptable tradeoff of the impacts, versus limited "Good Paying Jobs"?
There has also been a lot of misleading and erroneous information about the "Good Paying Jobs" and tax revenue benefits to the city, but nothing about the adverse position the city will face, should the project not be fully completed, or remain vacant! This will result in No jobs and No tax revenue! Also, consider the reality of warehousing worker employment, and the high demands on employees and job turnover rates, due to burnout of employees, for these types of jobs. This Industry is very, very taxing on its employees.

An LA Times article reported October 251h, 2023, that Amazon Inc. US warehouse workers were surveyed and found that 69% of the nation's workers stayed home without pay to recover from pain or exhaustion, and that 34% had done so, (3) or more times.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time and consideration.

FIGURES I INLAND EMPIRE INDUSTRIAL I 01 2024
- . . ----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

18.0 16.0

14.0 12.0

10.0 8.0

6.0 4.0

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

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

1.60 1.40

1.20 1.00

0.80 0.60

0.40 0.20

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

N
0 N
5 _,.

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

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

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

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

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

CBRE RESEARCH
FIGURE 4: Availability Rate(%)

12.0 10.0

8.0 6.0

4.0 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.9 5.1

5.9 7.0

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

9.9 9.2

9.5 7.1

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

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

1.656.474 $1.20

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

1.686,590

1.025.132

1.018,178

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

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

1.20 1.00

0.80 0.60

0.40 0.20

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

CBRE RESEARCH

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

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

2.5 2.0

1.5 10

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

N
0 N
FIGURE 8: Historical Completed Construction (MSF)
40 35
30 25
20 15
10 5
0 CJ)
0 0
N
0 0
N ~
Source CBRi:. Research 01 202<+
N M
0 " N 0
N ~ "' 0 N
<O
0 N
N
N
0 N
r-- "' CJ)
0 0 0 N N N
M
N
0 N
0 N
0 N " N
N 0 0 N N
M
N
0 N
~ 0
N
" N
0 N
0 f-
>-
cc;, 2024 CBRE. INC.

FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024
FIGURE 9: Indust rial Market Statistics by City

U/CBLDG U/CBLDG
1STOTR 1STOTR AVG
CITY BLDG. BLDG VACANT VACANCY AVAIL AVAIL NO. SOFT NO. SO.FT. GROSS 2024 GROSS 2024NET NET TAKING LEASE COUNT SO.FT. COUNT SO. FT. SO.FT. RATE SO.FT. RATE SALES SOLD LEASES LEASED ACTIVITY ACTIVITY ABSORP. ABSORP. RATE(NNN) -- Banning/Beaumont 63 9,556,230 0 0 458,704 4.8 1,759,346 18.4 0 0 1 57,253 57,253 57,253 57,253 57,253 $0.00 Colton 120 8,890,982 1 417,809 374,673 4.2 984,470 11.1 2 37,940 0 0 37,940 37,940 0 0 $0.00 Corona/Norco 713 33,560,089 2 203,823 2,552,912 7.6 3,580,607 10.7 2 75,618 4 165,257 240,875 240,875 76,274 76,274 $1.43 Moreno Valley 103 33,493,816 7 233,443 1,111,088 3.3 1,691,544 5.1 0 0 2 148,212 148,212 148,212 28,212 28,212 $0.00 Perris 164 41,716,788 11 2,597,143 3,859,173 9.3 5,477,673 13.1 1 43,298 3 1,147,726 1,191,024 1,191,024 (314,587) (314,587) $1.23 Redlands/ Loma Linda 186 30,436,069 1 363,039 3,339,249 11.0 4,269,307 14.0 1 21,228 3 224,582 245,810 245,810 (1,058,289) (1,058,289) $1.13 Rialto/Bloomington 239 40,790,737 8 1,649,660 2,764,719 6.8 4,016,826 9.8 0 0 1 25,680 25,680 25,680 (1,153,639) (1,153,639) $0.95 Ri verside 780 58,067,349 10 834,241 2,611,674 4.5 3,819,441 6.6 2 24,800 7 537,324 562,124 562,124 87,894 87,894 $1.12 San Bernardino 408 45,320,650 5 1,143,846 3,705,343 8.2 4,138,256 9.1 1 46,775 3 553,604 600,379 600,379 (764,066) (764,066) $1.16 Inland Empire East 2,776 301,832,710 45 7,443,004 20,777,535 6.9 29,737,470 9.9 9 249,659 24 2,859,638 3,109,297 3,109,297 (3,040,948) (3,040,948) $1.20 Chino/Chino Hills 648 56,004,184 6 504,017 1,470,080 2.6 3,713,143 6.6 1 13,598 16 1,127,015 1,140,613 1,140,613 315,284 315,284 $1.44 Fontana 592 75,985,924 16 5.882,448 3,609,975 4.8 6,661,238 8.8 2 29,179 3 1,032,307 1,061,486 1,061,486 987,029 987,029 $1.38 Juruea Valley/Eastvale 297 48,335,761 7 542,531 3,608,375 7.5 5,413,228 11.2 0 0 7 1,844,762 1,844,762 1,844,762 651,071 651,071 $1.50 Ontario/Montclair/Ueland 1,240 122,298,625 24 5,729,361 7,058,620 5.8 11,598,621 9.5 2 26,921 36 3,158,265 3,185,186 3,185,186 97,415 97,415 $1.37 Rancho Cucamonga 606 44,388,399 4 347,748 1,956,420 4.4 4,634,736 10.4 1 98,685 5 207,910 306,595 306,595 26,396 26,396 $1.41 Inland Emeire West 3,383 347,012,893 57 13,006,105 17,703,470 5.1 32,020,966 9.2 6 168,383 67 7,370,259 7,538,642 7,538,642 2,077,196 2,077,195 $1.44 INLAND EMPIRE CORE 6,159 648,845,603 102 20,449,109 38,481,005 5.9 61,758,436 9.5 15 418,042 91 10,229,897 10,647,939 10,647,939 (963,763) (963,753) $1.36 Adelanto 101 4,349,348 0 0 445,500 10.2 464,750 10.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 A[>[>le Valley 24 3,266,548 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 Barstow 15 571,828 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 Heseeria 69 5,349,139 0 0 683,133 12.8 683,133 12.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 (150,000) (150,000) $0.00 Victorvi lle 78 10,017,115 0 0 528,892 5.3 528,892 5.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.93 Inland Empire North 287 23,553,978 0 0 1,657,525 7.0 1,676,776 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (150,000) (150,000) $0,93 INLAND EMPIRE + IEN 6,446 672,399,581 102 20,449,109 40,138,530 6.0 63,435,211 9.4 15 418,042_ ~ 10,229,897 10,647,939_ J().~_7~939_ (1,113,753) (1,113,763) $1.36 Source CBRE Research 01 2024
7 CBRE RESEARCH cei 2024 CBRE. INC.

FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024
FIGURE 10: Industrial Market Statistics by Building Size Range· BUILDING SIZE RANGE BLDG. BLDG U/C U/C VACANT VACANCY AVAIL AVAIL NO. SOFT NO. SOFT 1ST OTR TOTAL 2024GROSS NEWTO AVG TAKING BLDG. BLDG (SO, FT,) COUNT SOFT COUNT SOFT SOFT RATE SOFT RATE SALES SOLD LEASES LEASED ACTIVITY ACTIVITY MARKET RENT 10,000-19,999 948 13,096,450 2 28,724 202,118 15 424,173 3.2 3 36,500 3 40,651 77,151 77,151 748,945 $110 20,000-29,999 411 9,799,162 5 124,012 240.855 2.5 532,391 5.4 3 73,225 0 0 73,225 73,225 155,657 $0.00 30,000-39,999 232 7,899,290 2 75,534 187,252 2.4 395,962 5.0 0 0 2 57,960 57,960 57,960 180,323 $110 40,000-49,999 175 7,768,214 5 222,191 551,231 7.1 769,877 9.9 3 139,934 5 123,685 263,619 263,619 110,400 $126 50,000-59,999 132 7,088,788 2 706,360 522,964 7.4 599,404 8.5 0 0 2 69,762 69,762 69,762 57,427 $0.00 60,000-69,999 78 5,005,026 3 787,945 257,697 5.1 384,281 7.7 0 0 2 124,911 124,911 124,911 126,584 $1.50 70,000-79,999 80 5,950,089 1 71,415 582,270 9.8 772,364 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 80,000-89,999 51 4,258,794 3 244,766 214,803 5.0 505,027 11.9 0 0 1 39,114 39,114 39,114 157,647 $0.00 90,000-99,999 43 4,074,581 3 296,618 354,032 8.7 354,032 8.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 100,000-249,999 320 48,802,802 6 926,491 5,713,146 11.7 7,411,117 15.2 0 0 5 480,113 480,113 480,113 633,451 $112 250,000-499,999 149 53,800,373 11 3,760,705 5,522,006 10.3 9,173,191 17.1 0 0 3 905,264 905,264 905,264 2,555,026 $120 500,000 and greater 157 134,289,141 2 1,398,243 6,429,161 4.8 8,415,651 6.3 0 0 1 1,018,178 1,018,178 1,018,178 1,229,900 $0.00 INLAND EMPIRE EAST 2,n6 301,832,710 45 7,443,004 20,7n,535 6.9 29,737,470 9.9 9 249,659 24 2,859,638 3,109.297 3,109,297 5,355,360 $1.20 10,000-19,999 1,072 14,672,932 2 32,552 291,125 2.0 481,817 3.3 5 69,698 12 159,748 229,446 229,446 146,616 $135 20,000-29,999 490 11,925,975 3 69,998 670,769 5.6 1,011,077 8.5 0 0 5 109,838 109,838 109,838 300,802 $1.58 30,000-39,999 280 9,654,600 6 213,908 300,281 3.1 715,127 7.4 0 0 6 212,583 212,583 212,583 335,569 $160 40,000-49,999 190 8,386,657 5 230,281 358,390 4.3 685,747 8.2 0 0 4 158,171 158,171 158,171 311,011 $139 50,000-59,999 160 8,619,160 5 294,007 143,105 17 382,077 4.4 0 0 5 117,820 117,820 117,820 89,036 $135 60,000-69,999 107 6,798,922 2 126,659 327,453 4.8 552,503 8.1 0 0 4 163,770 163,770 163,770 52,632 $130 70,000-79,999 67 5,018,802 0 0 270,064 5.4 408,504 8.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 138,440 $0.00 80,000-89,999 65 5,489,582 3 254,182 407,688 7.4 491,238 8.9 0 0 2 27,699 27,699 27,699 59,336 $140 90,000-99,999 68 6,458,890 3 290,794 700,268 10.8 819,297 12.7 1 98,685 1 12,741 111,426 111,426 99,425 $0.00 100,000-249,999 512 78,784,058 12 2,057,527 6,340,098 8.0 9,141,261 11.6 0 0 22 2,386,309 2,386,309 2,386,309 2,567,473 $140 250,000-499,999 245 87,425,571 9 2,551,010 4,098,219 4.7 6,924,087 7.9 0 0 3 988,963 988,963 988,963 1,823,381 $125 500,000 and great er 127 103,777,744 7 6,885,187 3,796,010 3.7 10,408,231 10.0 0 0 3 3,032,617 3,032,617 3,032,617 4,139,713 $132 INLAND EMPIRE WEST 3,383 347,012,J193 57 13,006,105 17,703,470 5.1 32,020,966 9.2 6 168,383 67 7,370,259 7,538,642 7,538,642 10,063,434 $1.44 INLAND EMPIRE CORE 61159 64818451603 102 2014491109 3!:4811005 5.9 6117581436 9.5 15 4181042 91 1012291897 1016471939 1016471939 1514181794 $1.36 'Does not include Inland Empire North Source: CBRE Research. 01 2024. 8 CBRE RESEARCH (" 2024 CBRE, INC.

FIGURES INSERT I INLAND EMPIRE I 01 2024
Market Area Overview
Contacts
Rick Cozart
Senior Field Research Analys
Inland Empire
nck.cozart11@cbre com
Inland Empire East
Arl,,
DeepaShah
Research Manager
Orange County. Inland Empire
deepa shah@cbre com
Definitions
Avai lable Sq. Ft.: Space in a building, ready for occupancy within six months; can be occupied or vacant. Availability Rate: Total Available Sq. Ft. divided by the total Bui lding Area. Building Area: The total floor area sq. ft. of the building, typically taken at the "drip line" of the building. Gross Activity: All user sales, pre-leased, and new lease transactions completed within a specified time period. Excludes investment sale transactions and lease renewals. Gross Lease Rate: Rent typically includes real property taxes, building insurance, and major maintenance. Net Absorption: The change in Occupied Sq. Ft. from one period to the next. New to Market: Available space added to the market during the specified quarter. Occupied Sq. Ft.: Building Area not considered vacant Vacancy Rate: Total Vacant Sq. Ft. divided by the total Building Area. Vacant Sq. Ft.: Space that can be occupied within 30 days. Average Taking Rent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mayor Alberto Sanchez and Council Members
Sandra Calderon
July 9, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elimination of this condition also undermines compliance with CEQA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

No on warehouse . Period .

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

Please, vote NO to this project.

Respectfully,
Danni Otto,
Resident of Banning
1 From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To Whom It May Concern:

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

To all that this concerns:

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
City of Banning
City Clerk's Office
Caroline Patton; Colleen Wallace; Alberto Sanchez; Rick Minjares; Sheri Flynn Banning Pointe
I am writing to express my disdain for the Banning Pointe project. I have noticed that even one semi on Highland Springs significantly slows down traffic let alone having semi trucks going in and out all day and evening!
We have significant pollution already with the freeway and train in our community. I hope you will not add more issues to the environment near a senior housing community! PLEASE VOTE NO ON BANNING POINTE! COMMON SENSE WOULD TELL YOU PUTTING THAT NEAR OUR SHOPPING ON AN ALREADY CONGESTION STREET MAKES NO SENSE! Barbara Davis
5700 W. Wilson St spc 66
Banning ca
1 RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024
City of Banning
anning city co 's Office
1624 Fairway Oaks
Banning,California
July 8,2024
Thank you for your service to Banning citizens. We know the decisions you make take ought and aren't always easy to make.

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

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

Thank you for listening to us.

Sincerely,
Submitted by
Ismael Morales,
1040 Riviera Ave.

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

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

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

Enough with my background ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECEIVED
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

Gail Wright
Sent from my iPhone
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please be Kind and use Common Sense. Vote NO on the Banning Point Project and any warehouse project that is next to a housing community. You can do better for Banning. Please start with NO on warehouses.

Sincerely,
Karen Whempner
578 Northwood Avenue
Banning , CA 922220
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
2 - . - - ----,

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

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

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

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

Please, please do not let this happen to us.

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

Sincerely,
Kim Jensen
Sun Lakes Resident
1 From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:
,- . --·.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Plan Says: Banning Point Project:

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

Specific Plan Says: Banning Point Project:

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

Specific Plan Says: Banning Point Project:

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

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

BANNING POINT VICINITY AERIAL WITH PROJECT OVERLAY

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

To all that this concerns,

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

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

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

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

HEBE & JUAN TALLO
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
. . -

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You,
Cindy Medley
Sent from my iPhone
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

To all that this concerns:

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

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

Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration.

Gary and Olga Marquette
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

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

To:

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

To Banning city officials

RECEIVED
JUL O 8 2024

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

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

Thank you for your consideration and service.

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

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Kathleen Dale
Comments for Banning City Council Regarding
Banning Point Warehouse (Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and Design Review 21-7008) 2/17/22 Special Council Meeting
Submitted by Kathleen Dale

It is abundantly clear from what has transpired over the course of the hearings for this project that this Council and City administration are seriously disconnected from the community. Even if you can dismiss the emotional pleas you have heard from scores of community members, your decision must be based upon evidence and facts in the record before you. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT YOU MAY NOT APPROVE THE DEVELOPER'S PROJECT AS PRESENTED ON THE BAISIS OF THE RECORD BEFORE YOU.

The following is by no means an exhaustive listing of all that is wrong with the record before you, but it is enough to demonstrate that if you want to accommodate the developer's request, you must first amend the Specific Plan, amend the City's Commercial Vehicle Routes (Resolution 2005-91), and conduct an environmental analysis that adequately addresses and mitigates project impacts.

Supporting facts:

1. The proposed project conflicts with substantive requirements of the Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan.
a. Key excerpts from the Specific Plan are provided on page 5 for your convenience. The Specific Plan is only 41 pages and each of you should take the time to read and digest it before taking any action on development of this site.
b. Circulation. There is not an exhibit that clearly depicts the proposed parcel boundaries in the current agenda package or any of the prior agenda packages. Based upon language within the staff report, the public can only assume that the proposed parcel configurations conform to the land use designation boundaries under the specific plan (see Figure 2, page 4 of the staff report). The circulation design for the warehouse has usurped the intended access for the Office and Professional District, which besides being in conflict with specific plan provisions requiring truck access to be limited to the Business and Warehouse District, effectively landlocks this parcel. c. Pedestrian Circulation. The expansive foot print of the warehouse building, associated slopes, and the use of the intend access to the Office and Professional District for truck circulation preclude any reasonable implementation of the fundamental concept within the Specific Plan for pedestrian interconnection between the three land use districts.

The landscaping plan on page 24 of Attachment 5 of the staff report provides a good overview of the site plan that illustrates the complete lack of consideration for this key specific plan provision.
d. Phasing. Specific Plan provisions at Section 4.7.1 clearly provide that the retail uses along the Sun Lakes Boulevard frontage are to go in first. The proposed reversed phasing with this project is in direct conflict with the Specific Plan.

Comments for Banning City Council Regarding
Banning Point Warehouse (Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and Design Review 21-7008} 2/17 /22 Special Council Meeting
Submitted by Kathleen Dale

e. Screening. The conclusory statements in the staff report regarding the effects of landscaping and the future retail buildings in screening the proposed massive warehouse must instead be supported by substantial evidence. This could take the form of illustrative diagrams depicting lines of sight from key perspectives and/or an on-site framework erection (as is used within coastal communities to understand building mass and visibility). Analysis must take into effect comparative finished grades, including that the truck drive adjacent to The Lakes development is 10 feet above that existing facility, and that finished grades for the warehouse pad are up to 10 feet above existing Sun Lakes Boulevard.
f. Screening. The plans for the warehouse building incredulously include a 14-foot concrete screen wall along the truck docks where they face the railroad and freeway, but a 6-foot open metal fence where the truck docks face Sun Lakes Boulevard (see plan sheet DAB Al.6, page 7 of staff report Attachment 5). Even if the future retail buildings would ultimately provide effective screening, how on earth will a six-foot open fence provide screening in the interim?
g. Screening. The plans before you include no landscape buffer adjacent to The Lakes development (recall that the warehouse truck drive at this common boundary is perched 10 feet above them). See the landscaping plan on page 24 of Attachment 5 of the staff report.

2. The CEQA analysis presented for your consideration does not take key project characteristics into consideration
a. Analyses for aesthetics, air quality and noise does not appear to take into consideration the relative grade of the source and receptors, namely that the trucks along the eastern access drive are 10 feet above the adjacent receptors.
b. Analyses for air quality and noise does not appear to take into consideration the design change that pushed the truck access for the warehouse out onto the access panhandle for the Office and Professional District and closer to sensitive receptors (see Exhibit C, page 11 of 2/10/22 air quality memo and Exhibit 8-A, page 36 of 2/7 /22 noise study report).
c. Exhibit 6 on addendum page 69 and Exhibit 7 on addendum page 71 suggest that attenuation effects for a 6-foot wall along the edge of The Lakes development have been considered in the noise analysis - how can such a wall provide any such attenuation when the finished grade on the truck access road is above the top of the wall?
Comments for Banning City Council Regarding
Banning Point Warehouse (Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and Design Review 21-7008) 2/17 /22 Special Council Meeting
Submitted by Kathleen Dale

d. Analysis for air quality and noise appears to erroneously characterize the nature of outdoor use areas for residential receptors across Sun Lakes Boulevard (assumes no outdoor yard areas oriented toward the road; see page 10 of 2/10/22 air quality memorandum).
e. Analysis of biological impacts does not address the narrow endemic plant species of concern, which are correctly Marvin's Onion and Many-stemmed dudleya (verifiable with interactive mapping tool on Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Agency website).
f. Analysis of biological impacts does not address the riverine/riparian resources on the site.
a. The feasibility of the temporary noise barrier noted in Mitigation Measure NOl-1 on page 67 of the addendum must be demonstrated. Slopes and grade differentials at the interface with The Lakes facility suggest it is not likely a temporary noise barrier could be effectively erected. If this is the case, construction noise impacts would be unavoidable and significant and would trigger the requirement for a subsequent EIR. b. The resolution presented for your approval claims that Condition of Approval 2 pulls forward all applicable mitigation measures from the prior specific plan EIR (see item F on page 4). No such condition is apparent in the conditions appended to the resolution posted with the staff report.

3. The intended CEQA compliance vehicle for this project only became evident with release of the City Council agenda a few days ago
Prior to issuance of public notices for this hearing sometime between February 1, 2022 and February 4, 2022, notices and staff reports had only disclosed that staff had done a consistency analysis and that a Notice of Determination had been prepared for Planning Commission and City Council consideration. No documentation associated with the purported staff consistency analysis was made available to the public, nor does it appear to have been provided to the Planning Commission, or the City Council until a few days ago. It was only with the release of the agenda packet a few days ago that the 686-page addendum finally surfaced. The fundamental omissions with the applicability of an addendum in this circumstance aside, that document is only dated February 10, 2022, including some of the supporting technical analysis! Even if the City is not required to provide public review for an addendum, how on earth did the Planning Commission consider this information, how on earth has the Council had time to independently review it, and how on earth did the City release a public notice relying on this document before it even existed?
Comments for Banning City Council Regarding
Banning Point Warehouse {Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and Design Review 21-7008) 2/17/22 Special Council Meeting
Submitted by Kathleen Dale

4. City zoning and General Plan designations
The General Plan and Zoning exhibit included as page 28 of Attachment 5 to the staff report depicts land use designations that are the reverse of those in the Specific Plan - namely a Business Park designation is depicted adjacent to Sun Lakes Boulevard and a General Commercial designation is depicted adjacent to the freeway. This fundamental discrepancy in the City's plans must be resolved.

5. Commercial vehicle routes
The City has designated certain streets in the city for use by heavy trucks by means of Resolution 2005-91. A copy of the current map is attached for your convenience. Please note that Sun Lakes Boulevard is not a designated commercial vehicle route.

Comments for Banning City Council Regarding
Banning Point Warehouse (Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and Design Review 21~7008) 2/17/22 Special Council Meeting
Submitted by Kathleen Dale

Sun Lakes Village North Specific Plan (Amendment 5) Excerpts Section 2.2-1- Semi-truck access is to be limited to the Business and Warehouse District.

Section 2.2.5 - on-site pedestrian circulation to connect the three districts and facilitate employee access to restaurants and retail uses. Repeated in Section 3.2.1, item 4; Section 3.2.5, item 5; Section

3.2.6, item 5; and Section 3.2.7, item 3.

Section 3.2.1, item 2 - provide a connected internal drive aisle linking the Retail & Service District to the Office & Professional District entry road to allow greater passenger vehicle access. Repeated in Section 3.2.6, Item 2 and Section 3.2.7, item 8.

Section 3.2.1, item 5 -stormwater management facilities are to be developed as landscaped features that integrate with onsite pedestrian circulation system.

Section 3.2.1, item 7 -drive aisles are to be design to minimize conflicts with pedestrian movements.

Section 3.2.2, item 4- provide enhanced architectural detail for Business Park & Warehouse District building elevations visible from Sun Lakes Boulevard.

Section 3.2.3, item 7 - locate, grade, and design projects to direct stormwater runoff from building roofs and paved areas into swaled landscape areas that serve a dual purpose of retention/infiltration as well as a visual amenity.

Section 3.2.4, item 2 - locate, design, and/or screen truck courts, dock doors, and truck parking areas so they are not visible from Sun Lakes Boulevard. Ensure that these areas are concealed while in use, including the tops of truck trailers. Repeated in Section 3.2.5, item 4.

Section 3.2.4, item 3 - use evergreen screen trees along with shrubs and groundcover to create a 20- foot-wide landscape buffer along the northeastern Specific Plan boundary adjacent to the existing residential parcels. Select tree species and size to ensure a solid tree screen above the existing wall within one year. Repeated in Section 3.2.6, item 4.

Section 3.2.7, item 4- provide clear and well-designed pedestrian access to buildings from the street, parking lot, and Specific Plan pedestrian circulation system through careful building siting, circulation design, decorative hardscape, and landscaping.

Section 4.6.2 - Specific Plan Amendments are required when proposed changes to text or exhibits significantly alter the intent or development concepts of the Specific Plan. Specific Plan Amendments shall be processed in the same manner as the original Specific Plan approval, which includes review by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council.

Section 4.7.1- construction of development and improvements within the Retail & Service District shall be completed prior to occupancy of development within the Business & Warehouse District.

Comments for Banning City Council Regarding
Banning Point Warehouse (Tentative Parcel Map 38164 and Design Review 21-7008) 2/17/22 Special Council Meeting
Submitted by Kathleen Dale

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

Robert and Beth Carlin
Sent from my iPhone
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

Build them there.

Thank you.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highland Springs Ave was not built to support multiple big rig traffic. It is beyond congested enough with just regular cars. Go drive over there yourselves and see how it is most of every day.

Thank you for your consideration of my opinion in this matter.

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

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

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

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

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

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

Traffic Issues:

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

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

Inappropriate Location:

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

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

Patricia Norcutt
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

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

Please reconsider and vote NO on the Banning Point Development. Maybe this would be a good site for Medical offices, Banning has a horrible shortage of Medical Professionals. Something to consider!! Thank You,
Cindy Medley
Sent from my iPhone
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my iPad

RECEIVED
From:

Sent:

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you ,
Stuart MacKenzie
Banning , California 92220
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

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

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

Respectfully,
Bess Ruano
Banning Resident
1539 Faireway Oaks Ave.

Banning CA
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

,- Patricia Syre
1212 Laguna Seca Ct
Banning CA 92220-5419

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

Concerned senior residents,
Bob & Nancy Sheets
1 ~0\0 \\-+~
RiS1- \JEN\~
, JUN O 5 2024
City of Banning
Cl Clerk', Office
On " June 5 2024 M . . ' ' s. Gartzke submitted . pet1t1on" h signed s eets to the City Clerk's Off ice. 1,007 sheets of the attached
notice were received.

To: The Banning City Cowicil
The residents of Sun Lakes Country Club chose to move into the community because it met the needs of these residents who were entering the latter stages of their life. The surrounding community offered a slower pace of life with adequate resources for their everyday needs. The air quality was good. The traffic was moderate. The neighbors were nice. The city was looking after the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and the community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please consider those who elected you when you vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent:

To:

Subject:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AlLJ!Xl{) SJi)ICJ/cZ- C!J!JIJu!_
13/l/l)Jl)J ti Cl 1Y /.-IA!_!..
~ 9 ~ £4MSEY J T.
l3/lJJJJJJJ6J CA, ?Z220
s2220-::..1-s:::r7gg ,11,IJ 111,1,, ,,,1 I' JJllt ,lJI I 11 ,p 11I11111111 I 1111 I• I• 1i --,.

CITY OF BANNING - Public Meeting Speaker Card
Public participation is encouraged at all meetings. The purpose of this card is to ensure that the speaker's name is properly recorded in the meeting minutes and to provide contact information for later staff follow-up, if appropriate. ThJ~ document is ~____etJblic record suble!cUo disc;l<J~u~~_un9er the Public _F~~c_o_rd_s_A_c_t. ____ _ Name ~ P-1t-l S-e,a-.~l'hc
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No. 7 · l Topic
Support E(' Oppose □
.

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

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

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

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

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

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

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

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

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

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

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

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

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

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

Name
Contact Information
(if desired)
Agenda Item No.

Comments
'-
~1
Topic o(U-·{t c>Vl - \ \</-
Support □ Oppose ~
ooo s