The Modified Project would include similar on-site noise sources; however, there would be fewer loading docks and less on-site truck activity as well as less rooftop equipment associated with cold storage, which is anticipated to result in lower overall noise levels at surrounding receivers.
SinceAdditionally, the Modified Project removes industrial uses from planning area ͮ and it is uncertain at this time what uses will be proposed. Therefore, it would be speculative to analyze potential future impacts associated with planning area ͮ. The big box retail will be developed in planning area ͭ with no change in location as compared to the off-site sensitive receivers. Finally, since the same Project design feature included in the FEIR Supplemental Noise Analysis would continue to be applicable to the Modified Project and the noise sources are similar, the Modified Projecteven without reference to an updated site plan, noise impacts from operations would result inbe similar and remain less than significant impacts..
CONSTRUCTION
The FEIR evaluated on-site construction activities and off-site traffic noise from construction deliveries and workers accessing the Project site. The analysis included Mass Grading, Grading, Sitework-Utilities, Building Construction, Paving, and Architectural Coatings. The FEIR concluded that noise levels generated from on-site construction activity and off-site construction-related traffic would be less than significant, including at residential noise receivers. However, because it is yet to be determined if a noise barrier can be constructed on the City's right-of-way, construction noise impacts for the construction of the roadway and utilities on Sunset Boulevard would be considered significant and unavoidable.
The FEIR evaluated on-site construction activities for vibration impacts to off-site receivers, as discussed in the FEIR, “the closest building structures are located east of the Development Project (across Sunset Avenue) approximately ͱʹ ft from the project construction boundary and would experience a vibration level of up to ͬ.ͬͱ͵ PPV (in/sec)…Other building structures surrounding the Development Site would experience lower vibration levels because they are farther away.” Additionally, the found that vibration would result in less than significant impacts due to annoyance.
Both the original Project and the Modified Project would involve the same construction stages and would use similar, if not the same equipment for all phases of construction. Therefore, the Modified Project would generate similar construction vibration levels at off-site receivers as identified in the FEIR for the original Project.
The Modified Project would require a similar level of construction effort, including similar phases of construction, equipment requirements, number of workers, and deliveries. Thus, construction noiseFor example, the loudest activities are associated with site preparation and grading, which would occur across the entire site under both the original Project and the Modified Project. Thus, construction noise and vibration from the construction of the Modified Project is anticipated to be 910
ͭͯͱͯͰ-ͭͰ Noise Memo SUNSET CROSSROADS
nearly identical to the Project and would therefore result in similar impacts as the Project.
ThereforeDue to feasible limitations for mitigation of construction noise identified in the , the Modified Project would also result in significant unavoidable construction noise impacts.
CONCLUSION
The Modified Project is anticipated to reduce off-site traffic noise impacts and result in similar operations and construction impacts. Therefore, the Modified Project does not result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Therefore, this does not represent significant new information as defined in Section ͭͱͬʹʹ.ͱ(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project modifications do not change the findings in the Final EIR and lessen noise impacts without causing any new environmental impacts. 911
ͭͯͱͯͰ-ͭͰ Noise Memo SUNSET CROSSROADS
REFERENCES
ͭ. City of Banning. Sunset Crossroads Project Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH# ͮͬͮͭͬͮͬͬͭͭ.
Banning, California : LSA Associates, Inc., July ͮͬͮͰ.
ͮ. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Modified Sunset Crossroads (SP No. ͮͬ-ͮͬͬͬͬͬͬͮ) Trip Generation Assessment. ͮͬͮͱ.
ͯ. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September ͮͬͭͯ.
Ͱ. LSA Associates, Inc. Supplemental Noise Anlaysis for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Banning, California. July ͮͬͮͰ.
912
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
13534-19 TG Memo v2.1 REV 1 Sunset Crossroads Modified project v2.1 DATE: February 20, 2026
TO: Mark Staples, City of Banning
FROM: Charlene So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.
JOB NO: 13534-19 TG Memo v2.1 REV
SUBJECT: SUNSET CROSSROADS MODIFIED PROJECT V2.1(SP NO. 20- 20000002) TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. provided the City with a Sunset Crossroads Project—Supplemental CEQA Memorandum dated October 23, 2025 (Supplemental CEQA Memorandum) that evaluated the uses listed in Table 1, which represented a reduction from the uses evaluated for the Project in the FEIR and the 2023 Supplemental Traffic Assessment attached as Exhibit J-3 to the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2021020011) (FEIR Supplemental Traffic Assessment). The Modified Project described in the Supplemental CEQA Memorandum reduced overall square footage of the Project described in the Final EIR by reducing the overall square footage to 5,067,000 square feet (SF) of industrial development and 223,753 SF of commercial retail use.
The Modified Project was anticipated to generate 17,788 daily trips per day (of which 1,828 are trucks) which represented a reduction in trips from the FEIR Supplemental Traffic Assessment of 3,174 daily trips.
The project is proposing further modifications (Modified Project v2.1) which removes an additional Building (denominated in the FEIR Supplemental Traffic Study within Planning Area 7) from the industrial component of the project resulting in a further reduction of 274,000 SF of warehousing use. Modified Project v2.1 would have a maximum industrial square footage of 4,749,000 square feet and is anticipated to generate 17,308 daily trips (of which 1,696 are trucks) as shown in Table 2.
Vehicle trips associated with the proposed Modified Project v2.1 are reduced from the previously evaluated Original Project and Modified Project. As such, the Project is anticipated to result in conclusions similar to (or improved from) what is disclosed in the FEIR for the subject site for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected]. 913
13534-19 TG Memo v2.1 REV 2 Sunset Crossroads Modified project v2.1 TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF LAND USE CHANGES
TABLE 2:MODIFIED PROJECT V2.1 TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Quantity Units1 AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Daily
Modified Project v2.1:
Commercial 223.753 TSF
Passenger Cars: 448 676 6,936
Industrial 4,749.000 TSF
Passenger Cars: 665 808 8,676
Trucks: 94 90 1,696
Modified Project v2.1 Total 1,207 1,574 17,308 1
TSF = Thousand Square Feet
2 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 12th Edition, 2025. 3 Net Change = Residential Alternative - Modified Project. Positive value reflects net increase over the Modified Project.
Quantity Units1 Quantity Units1 Quantity Units1
High-Cube Fulfillment Center 3,381.000 TSF 3,381.000 TSF 3,381.000 TSF High-Cube Transload/Short-Term Storage 896.000 TSF 896.000 TSF 896.000 TSF High-Cube Parcel Hub 250.000 TSF 250.000 TSF 250.000 TSF High-Cube Cold Storage 330.000 TSF -- --
Warehousing 490.500 TSF 385.000 TSF 111.000 TSF
General Light Industrial 197.500 TSF 155.000 TSF 111.000 TSF Total Industrial Square Footage 5,545.000 TSF 5,067.000 TSF 4,749.000 TSF Commercial Retail 12.000 TSF 5.005 TSF 5.005 TSF
Go-Kart Racing 40.700 TSF -- --
Rock Climbing 13.000 TSF -- --
Trampoline Park 12.500 TSF -- --
Health/Fitness Club 116.700 TSF -- --
Discount Club -- 200.000 TSF 200.000 TSF
Quality Restaurant 9.500 TSF -- --
High Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant 40.000 TSF 10.595 TSF 10.595 TSF Fast-Food Without Drive-Thru -- 7.508 TSF 7.508 TSF
Fast-Food With Drive-Thru 7.000 TSF 0.645 TSF 0.645 TSF Medical-Dental Office 9.500 TSF -- --
Truck Stop 7.500 TSF -- --
Hotel 125 Rooms 125 Rooms 125 Rooms
Total Retail Square Footage* 268.400 TSF 223.753 TSF 223.753 TSF * Note: Hotel square footage is not included in this total. 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet
Original Project Modified Project Modified Project v2.1 Land Use 914
¦¨§10
§¨¦10
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
¦¨§10
§¨¦10
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
BOBCAT RD
SUNSET AVE
HAYS
ST
APEX
ST
SAINT CROIX WAY
WILLIAMS ST
TURTLE DOVE LN
SUNSET AVE SUNSET AVE
PINES RD
TORREY
COMSTOCK RD
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CHIPMUNK TRL
KINGSWELL AVE SUMMER
CT
CHIPMUNK TRL
SANDPIPER ST
GEORGE ST
HIGHLAND
HOME RD
DOROTHY
ANNA DR
WEATHER WAY
DOWNS ST
CRYSTAL
OREGON
TRL
LAGUNA
SECA CT
22ND ST
ALLIN LN
COTTONWOOD
RD
RIVIERA AVE
CATCHEN
RD
MARIAN
WAY
BUNKER
HILL RD
WINCHESTER DR
CASEY
CIR
MEADOW LAKE LN
NORTHWOOD
AVE
SPRING
VIEW DR
DUSK
CT
FALLING LEAF LN
SUNRISE CT
AUTUMN
WAY
RAINBOW LN
SUNRISE AVE
OMAR ST
SHOAL CREEK ST
SHEEHAN
CIR
WENDY CT
SILVER LAKES AVE
MASTERS DR
SCIOTO CT
OAKHURST AVE
SUNSHINE
ST
LONG COVE RD
BAY
HILL RD SAVANNAH DR
SILVERADO
AVE
EVELYN DR
LESLIE
CT
BROOKLAWN DR
SALEM CIR
JEFFERSON
ST
BARBER
CT
BIRDIE DR
RIO BRAVO DR
CRENSHAW CIR
SKYVIEW CIR
WESTERN
SUNSET RD
BEVERLY
DR
NICOLET ST
W GEORGE ST
NATIVE DR
MARKET DR
DAWN
WAY
LINKS
AVE
LORI
WAY
SPRING
PL
PINEHURST DR
CASTLE
PINES
AVE
MT VIEW
AVE
HOGAN AVE
SUNRISE
AVE
MARLBORO
WAY
SOBOBA
DR
OAKS AVE
FAIRWAY
GOLDEN
SKY CT
BOCA WEST
AVE
23RD ST
WOODLANDS
DR
RODRIGUEZ AVE
ROBERGE
AVE
VICTORY
AVE
GROVE ST
RAMSEY ST
LINCOLN ST
JEFFERSON
ST
WESTWARD AVE
KINGSTON RD
KELLOGG DR
REMINGTON DR
FRONTIER DR ELLEN
WAY MEADOW WAY
GENEVA ST
HIGHLAND
HOME RD
OLYMPIC AVE
BIG SPRING DR
ROBERGE AVE
TREVINO WAY
SYLVAN
AVE
MORONGO AVE
PARK AVE
WOODLAND AVE
PALMER DR
MISSION
HILLS DR
WILSON ST
N PARK
AVE
FIFTH ST
APEX AVE
HILTON
HEAD DR
GLENN
ABBEY
WAY
41ST ST
CHAPPAREL WAY
JACINTO
VIEW RD
TWIN HILLS DR
40TH AVE
PRAIRIE
PL
SINGING HILLS DR
BERMUDA
DUNES AVE
MOHAWK RD
ALDER CT
ROLLING HILLS
AVE
OAKLAND HILLS DR
LAIRD ST
SUMMER
SET CIR
HILLTOP DR
BOBCAT RD
MCGOVERN AVE
WOODLAND AVE
C ST
NONPAREIL AVE
EXCELSIOR AVE
SUN
LAKES
BLVD
County of San Bernardino, Maxar
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:SP 20-2002,GPA 20-2501,ZC 20-3502,TPM 38118
AERIAL BASE MAP
APN: 537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036
ZONE: General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), :
Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
915
¦¨§10
§¨¦10
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROA
BOBCAT RD
SUNSET AVE
LINCOLN ST
GROVE ST
RAMSEY ST
HAYS ST
WILLIAMS ST
MARLBORO
WAY
SAINT CROIX WAY
SUNSET AVE
41ST ST
COMSTOCK
RD
COUNTRY CLUB DR
CHIPMUNK TRL
22ND ST
SANDPIPER ST
NATIVE DR
GEORGE ST
AUTUMN LN
HIGHLAND
HOME RD
WAY
WEATHER
NAVAJO
DR
ALLIN
LN
DOROTHY
ANNA DR
RIVIERA
AVE
BUNKER
HILL RD
WINCHESTER
DR
EAST
LAKE CT
MEADOW LAKE LN
NORTHWOOD
AVE
SPRING
VIEW DR
SUNRISE
CT
AUTUMN WAY
WHIRLWIND
CIR
RAINBOW LNBREEZY CIR
JANAN CT
SCIOTO
CT
OAKHURST
AVE
SUNSHINE
ST
SUNRISE AVE
BAY
HILL RD
SAVANNAH DR
SILVERADO
AVE
LESLIE
CT
BROOKLAWN DR
SALEM CIR
JEFFERSON ST
OMAR ST
CLAIR CT
CRENSHAW CIR
MARKET DR
SKYVIEW CIR
PALMER
DR
NICOLET ST
GRAND VIEW AVE
AMY
DR
LINKS
AVE
WAY
LORI
HAZY
WAY
SPRING
PL
PINEHURST DR
MT VIEW AVE
HOGAN
AVE
SUNRISE
AVE
FOREST
OAKS
AVE
BEVERLY
DR
SOBOBA DR
OAKS AVE
FAIRWAY
TREVINO WAY
23RD ST
WOODLANDS
DR
KINGSMILL AVE
NAIRN
AVE
KINGSTON RD
HIGHLAND HOME RD
GOLDRUSH
PL
BOBCAT RD
OLYMPIC
AVE
BIG SPRING DR
SYLVAN
AVE
ALDER CT
MORONGO AVE
PARK AVE
WOODLAND AVE
MCGOVERN AVE
SOUTHERN
HILLS DR
COPPER CREEK DR
MISSION HILLS DR
SINGING
HILLS DR
HILTON
HEAD DR
GLENN
ABBEY
WAY
JACINTO VIEW RD
HILLS DR
TWIN
40TH AVE
PRAIRIE PL
TURTLE
DOVE LN
CHIPMUNK TRL
C ST
BERMUDA
DUNES
AVE
MOHAWK RD
ROLLING HILLS
AVE
OAKLAND
HILLS DR
SUNSET AVE
LAIRD ST
SUMMER SET CIR
WESTWARD AVE
NONPAREIL AVE WOODLAND
AVE
EXCELSIOR AVE
SUN LAKES
BLVD
County of San Bernardino, Maxar
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:SP 20-2002,GPA 20-2501,ZC 20-3502,TPM 38118
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
APN: 537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, : 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zones
California Geological Survey Liquefaction Hazard Zone
FEMA 1% (100-Year) Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone
FEMA 0.2% (500-Year) Annual Chance Flood Hazard Zone
MSHCP Criteria Cells
USGS Blue Line Streams
Banning Airport Influence Area
Legend
No California Department of Conservation Earthquake Fault Zones within 1.5 miles of the project location.
ZONE:General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) 916
¦¨§10
§¨¦10
§¨¦10
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
ANNA DR
DOROTHY
BOBCAT RD
VICTORY
AVE
VALLEY RD
PINE
SUNSET
AVE
WILLIAMS ST
HAYS ST
NICOLET ST
GEORGE
ST
WILSON ST
HAYS ST RAMSEY ST
COMSTOCK
RD
CLUB DR
COUNTRY
CHIPMUNK TRL
DAWN
LN
HIGHLAND
HOME RD
RIVIERA
AVE
22ND ST
SECA CT
LAGUNA
ALLIN
LN
CATCHEN RD
MARIAN
WAY
HAIG
POINT
CIR
RAVEN
WAY
KINGSWELL
AVE
SPRING
VIEW DR
NECTAR
DR
BIRDIE
DR
HIGHLAND
SPRINGS
AVE
AUTUMN
WAY
RAINBOW
LN
OMAR
ST
VALLEY RD
PAUMA
FOUR SEASONS CIR MASTERS
DR
TURTLE
DOVE LN
BAY
HILL RD
EVELYN
DR
SALEM
CIR
MONROE
ST
ROADRUNNER
TRL
JEFFERSON
ST
LAKE
BUENA
VISTA WAY
BEL AIR CT
SPRING
DR
CHIPMUNK TRL COG HILL RD
SALT
CREEK
ECLIPSE DR
RIO
BRAVO DR
DEL
RITA RD
STELLAR
PEAK
SILVER
STAR DR
W GEORGE ST
LINCOLN ST
WESTWARD AVE
LORI WAY
PINEHURST DR
HOGAN
AVE
FAIRWAY OAKS AVE
BROOKLAWN DR
SUNRISE AVE
MYRTLE BEACH DR
23RD
ST
EIGHTH ST
BOBCAT RD
SUNSET
AVE
MEADOW WAY
HIGHLAND
HOME RD
OLYMPIC
AVE
ASPEN
LN
MORONGO
AVE
PARK AVE
WOODLAND
AVE
PALMER
DR
16TH ST
19TH
ST
MOUNTAIN
AVE
16TH ST
20TH
ST
SIXTH ST
41ST ST
ROBERGE
AVE
RUNNER
SCARLETT
JACINTO
VIEW RD
HILLS DR
TWIN
CROOKED
CREEK
BERMUDA
DUNES
AVE
ALDER
CT
SUNSET AVE
APEX ST
LAIRD
ST
POTRERO
BLVD
FIRST ST
SECOND ST
LOVELL
WOODLAND AVE
ST
16TH ST
TURTLE DOVE LN
DEATH VALLEY RD
LONGHORN RD
C ST
NONPAREIL AVE
EXCELSIOR
AVE
HALE
AVE
BRECKENRIDGE AVE
SUN LAKES
BLVD
HILLTOP DR
FIFTH ST
DEATH VALLEY RD
County of San Bernardino, Maxar
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER: SP 20-2002, GPA 20-2501, ZC 20-3502, TPM 38118
VICINITY MAP
APN:537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036
ZONE:General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), :
Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) Unincorporated
Riverside County
0 250 500 7501,000
Feet
917
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
¦¨§10
§¨¦10 UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD
PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:SP 20-2002,GPA 20-2501,ZC 20-3502,TPM 38118
GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
APN: 537-110-003 THROUGH -005, 537-110-011 THROUGH -014, 537-120-013, 537-120-025, AND 537-120-028 THROUGH -036
ZONE:General Commercial(GC), Low Density Residential(LDR), High Density Residential(HDR), :
Medium Density Residential(MDR), Open Space - Parks(OS-P), Open Space - Resources(OS-R) 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
General Commercial
High Density Residential
Highway Serving Commercial
Public Facilities - School
Open Space - Resources
Ranch Agriculture (10 ac. min)
Open Space - Parks
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Very Low Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Open Space - Parks
Very Low Density
Residential
Business
Park
Very High
Density
Residential
Low Density Residential
Open Space - Parks
Open Space - Parks
General
Commercial
Low Density
Residential
General
Commercial
General
Commercial
Low Density
Residential
High Density
Residential
Open Space - Parks
918
CITY OF BANNING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
Specific Plan, SP 20-2002; General Plan Amendment, GPA 20-2501; Zone Change, ZC 20-3502; Tentative Parcel Map, TPM 38118; Development Agreement with NP Banning Industrial, LLC Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan Project; Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Banning, California, will hold a public hearing at a Special Meeting on January 28, 2026. The City Council meeting begins at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220. To observe the live meeting through your personal computer or smart phone enter the following link: https://banninglive.viebit.com or view on the Banning Government Channel on Cable Television.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider applications by NP Banning Industrial, LLC (Applicant) for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan project. The project applications consist of the following:
• Specific Plan (SP 20-2002). Proposes to establish the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan for the development of industrial and commercial uses on a 533.8-acre site, including up to 268,400 square feet of medical office, professional office, education, recreation, and commercial uses, a travel center with refueling uses, and a 125-room hotel (approximately 90,000 sf) on 47.9-acres; and up to 5,545,000 square feet of industrial uses (including up to 330,000 square feet of cold storage uses) on 392.0 acres. The Specific Plan text identifies the permitted land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation provisions. The Specific Plan Area includes land located south of Interstate 10 between Highland Home Road and Sunset Avenue extending south to include land south of the City’s current border (Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs): 537-110-003 through -005, 537-110-011 through -014, 537-120-013, 537-120- 025, and 537-120-028 through -036).
• General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for Specific Plan Area (GPA 20-2501 & ZC 20-3502).
Proposes amending the General Plan land use designations and re-zoning of the Specific Plan Area to General Commercial (GC), Industrial (I), Open Space – Parks (OS-P), and Open Space – Resources (OS-R), including pre-zoning for annexation of portions of the Specific Plan Area into the City of Banning.
• Development Agreement. The Development Agreement would grant the Project vested development rights in exchange for public benefits as specified in the agreement. • Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 38118). A subdivision of the Specific Plan Area into thirty-four parcels and five lettered lots ranging in size from 1.0 acre to 78.7 acres in size, creating 19 Planning Areas consistent with the Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission reviewed the subject project at its meetings of September 10, 2025 and November 5, 2025. At the latter meeting, the Commission voted 3 to 2 to recommend denial of the applications to the City Council and ratified this decision on November 17, 2025 by adopting Resolution 2025-15.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Project has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project, together with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOOC), Findings in support of the SOOC, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, to be considered by the Planning Commission. A Notice of Availability to review the draft Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021020011) was published in December 2023, with the 45-day public review and comment period for the Project beginning on December 15, 2023, and ending on January 30, 2024, and a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared.
Information regarding the Project and the Final EIR can be obtained by contacting the City's Community Development Department, Planning Division at (951) 922-3125, or by going to the City of Banning website at: https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan 919
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed application, site plan, and related documents are available for public review by contacting the Community Development Department during normal business hours (Monday – Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm) by telephone at (951) 922-3125. Additional project information is also available on the City’s website by visiting the following link:
https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing:
• You may provide oral comments at the in-person hearing. Agendas are available at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting online: https://banningca.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=1 • Written comments may be submitted to the City Council by email at [email protected] or letter to the address below. Transmittal prior to the start of the meeting is required. Any correspondence received during or after the meeting will be distributed to the City Council as soon as practicable and retained for the official record.
City Clerk’s Office
PO Box 998
99 E. Ramsey St
Banning, CA 92220
Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Office of the City Clerk at 951-822-3125. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting Will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, por favor llame a la Ciudad de Banning y puede hablar con Sandra Calderon, teléfono (951) 922-3125.
BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA.
Mark Staples Dated: December 23, 2025
Community Development Director Publish: January 2, 2026 920
Amy Freilich
(805) 702-3002
[email protected]
1241 Johnson Avenue | Suite 360 | San Luis Obispo | California 93401 | www.HepnerMyers.com January 23, 2026
By Email
City Council
City of Banning
Council Chambers, 99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Re: City Council Hearing on Sunset Crossroads Project (“Project”) - January 28, 2026 To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
We represent NP Banning Industrial, LLC (“NorthPoint”), the applicant for the Project, which is scheduled for your consideration at the City Council meeting on January 28. This matter comes before you after being considered by the Banning Planning Commission (“Commission”) at its September 10, November 5, and November 17, 2025 meetings. At the November 5 meeting, the Commission voted 3-2, to have staff prepare findings recommending denial of the Project applications.
Although the matter was publicly noticed for the Commission meeting on November 5th for a public hearing and continued deliberation on the Project applications, the public hearing was not opened, and no comments from the members of the public in attendance or NorthPoint were allowed.
NorthPoint had been prepared to provide clarification of information presented at the September 10th meeting, and new information about changes to the Project (including a revised site plan attached here as Exhibit 1) and benefits for the City during the public hearing on November 5th that would have addressed the findings used as the basis for the denial vote.
As you know, the City Council is tasked with applying its independent judgment to review the Project in the first instance, and is not bound in any manner by the Commission’s findings or interpretation of the City’s general plan. Since the Applicant was not provided the opportunity to address the Commission’s concerns and proposed findings at the Commission meeting on November 5th, we provide the following information for the Council’s benefit detailing why the Commission’s denial findings were incorrect, do not meet the required legal standards, and the Project is in fact consistent with the General Plan.1 921
2 1. The Commission’s Environmental Determination Findings concluded without evidence or analysis that the Overriding Considerations do not outweigh the Project’s potential significant unavoidable impacts.
The Commission’s findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) were required to be supported by substantial evidence or to provide an explanation linking the finding to evidence in the record, but did neither. Commissioners Marshall and Rodriguez, who both voted in favor of recommending approval of the Project, spoke of significant benefits the Project would bring the City of Banning.
The 3 significant unavoidable impacts of the Project - air quality, greenhouse gas emissions (“GHG”), and vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) - are all regional impacts, and would be significant, unavoidable impacts for any proposed development of this size in this location, regardless of what land uses would be proposed. There are no localized significant unavoidable impacts for this Project. The Commission’s conclusion that the Project benefits do not outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project is legally insufficient because it does not explain why the Project benefits, which include 12.6 acres of public parks, accelerated payment of $5.1 million for the construction of Sun Lakes Boulevard, construction of general plan roadways at no cost to the City, nearly 4,000 local jobs for Banning residents, land and $16 million toward the potential future development of a fire station, $1 million annually for a special facilities tax, a $7.2 million public benefit fee, $10 million toward the Banning Electric substation cost, $750,000 to be used for Banning downtown beautification or small business assistance for small businesses located in Banning, and 13 acres for public facilities, fail to outweigh the few significant unavoidable Project impacts and fails to show the analytic route between the conclusion and the evidence that would support it.
These public benefits also are summarized in the conclusion of this letter.
2. The Commission improperly found that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan because it did not give equal status to all general plan elements, key objectives and policies as required by law, and impermissibly elevated residential land use over other land use policies and goals.
The Commission’s Finding that the Project conflicts with the Vision Statement that calls for respecting the character of existing residential neighborhoods is not consistent with Policy 1 requiring the City to maintain a land use map which assures a balance of residential, commercial, industrial open space and public lands, and Program 1.A. which mandates the City to annually monitor capacity for land use categories and recommend changes to the City Council. Since adoption of the 2006 General Plan, residential development has outpaced commercial and industrial 922
3 development resulting in an unfavorable jobs-housing ratio, and creating a current need for more industrial and commercial development than contemplated in the 2006 General Plan relied on in the Finding. The Finding is also not supported by facts as set forth below.
The Commission’s Finding that the Project conflicts with Land Use Residential Goal 1 and Policy 2 to preserve City neighborhoods and carefully review projects adjacent to existing neighborhoods to assure neighborhood character is protected is based on inaccurate statements and is incorrect for the following reasons:
i. Residential Policy 2 does not prohibit non-residential uses adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods.
ii. The residential/commercial development of the site urged by the Commission - or any large scale development of the site - would still result in 1,164 daily truck trips, and 20,880 total daily vehicle trips which exceeds the 17,852 total daily trips for the modified Project by 3,028, and comparable air quality, GHG and noise impacts as the modified Project. iii. The EIR analyzed and did not identify any significant localized air quality impacts, health risk, noise, transportation or GHG impacts from Project truck and auto traffic along Sunset Avenue or other streets adjoining residential use, which were asserted as the basis for the Finding. iv. The EIR found no significant visual impacts. The buildings are spread over 530 acres. Since the EIR analysis was completed, the site plan has been revised to provide further significant setbacks from and buffering of nearby residential development - with park, open space, extensive landscaping setbacks, walls and fencing - shielding the Project from nearby residential areas, and eliminating industrial uses in Planning Area 2 (see revised site plan attached at Exhibit 1). The findings do not address why the EIR’s conclusions of no impact and these changes do not address the Commission’s concern about visual impacts.
v. The only 3 unmitigated significant impacts identified in the EIR from Project operations are regional air quality emissions (and concomitant lack of AQMP compliance) and GHG emissions (which are measured regionally and statewide), both of which would occur whether the Project was located in Banning or Beaumont or anywhere else in the SCAG/South Coast Air Basin region, and VMT impacts, which are also regional in nature and cannot be mitigated until specific Project users are identified. vi. Operational noise impacts associated with vehicles on Sunset Avenue (disclosed in the EIR) were addressed and fully mitigated by the relocation of Sunset Avenue 42 feet to the west. The only significant noise impact is 923
4 from roadway construction along Sunset Avenue and can and will be mitigated to less than significant with the City’s consent. The Commission’s Finding that the Project conflicts with the Industrial Goal of a balanced mix of non-polluting land uses which provide local jobs is incorrect because the industrial uses proposed are not polluting industries, non-mobile impacts are not a significant source of pollution, and the Project would provide a significant number of local jobs for City residents, 86.1% of whom currently leave the City to commute to their jobs.
The Commission’s Finding that the Project conflicts with Commercial and Industrial Policy 7, which mandates that the land use map shall include sufficient industrial lands while carefully considering adjacent lands, is based solely on the unsupported conclusion that the Project is incompatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. It thus is incorrect because it fails to focus on the mandatory requirement that there be sufficient land for industrial uses, including warehousing and distribution, and elevates consideration of adjacent lands as the sole basis for determining general plan consistency. This policy does not prohibit industrial uses adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods; it only specifies that adjacent land uses be considered. In addition, industrial acreage specified in 2006 is currently insufficient for industrial and commercial land uses, and concerns about visual and noise impacts are directly contradicted by the EIR’s analysis. The Commission’s Finding that the Project conflicts with Commercial and Industrial Policy 8 that industrial land shall be located on major roadways with good access to I-10 to minimize potential traffic impacts from trucks is incorrect because Sunset Avenue was designated as an arterial/secondary highway in the 2013 General Plan Circulation Element and the general plan indicates that arterial/secondary highways are appropriate for truck traffic. Also, the EIR traffic study shows more than sufficient capacity on Sunset Avenue for Project truck and City projected background growth traffic increases, and Caltrans’ design criteria used for rebuilding of the I-10/Sunset Avenue interchange and ramps in 2016 and for development of the 22nd street ramp ensure accommodation of all vehicles, including Project trucks.
The Commission’s Finding that the Project does not meet General Plan Circulation Element Policy 6 requirement to maintain LOS D or better on all local intersections is incorrect. The Finding relies on the Draft EIR. As made clear in the Final EIR, Section 4.0, Draft EIR Text Revisions at page 4-85 and 4-86, the LOS D standard set forth in the General Plan is met.
The Commission’s Finding that the Project does not comply with General Plan Circulation Element Programs 14.A. and 14.B. requiring new development to pay its fair share of bridges constructed to serve the Project, ignores that fair share 924
5 payments are required by the EIR and conditions of approval and will be determined by the City, that the Development Agreement requires NorthPoint to build the Sunset Avenue Bridge if it is not built by the Rancho San Gorgonio developer prior to the time it is required for the Project, and that the bridge is analyzed as a cumulative impact in the Project EIR (See DEIR at page 6-16.) The Commission’s Finding that the Project does not comply with General Plan Circulation Element Program 28.A. requiring the City to develop a non-motorized trail system, is based on non-compliance with the 2010 Parks & Recreation Master Plan which identifies an equestrian trail and urban trail loop on the Project site. This Finding is incorrect because Parks & Recreation Element Policy 1 requires updating the Master Plan including updated assessment of immediate and future community needs for parks planning and the 2010 Master Plan is outdated, and the Master Plan’s proposed trail is based on future development of Smith Creek Ranch Park which has not occurred.
3. The Commission’s Finding incorrectly concluded that the proposed amendment would be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety convenience or welfare, and is contradicted by facts in the record as follows:
The reasons cited - increases in air quality, GHG emissions and noise from 1,850 truck trips on Sunset Avenue and commercial trucks using roads not designated for truck use in Resolution 2005-091 - do not support the Finding because operational noise impacts are less than significant, and there are no local air quality or health related impacts from truck trips so there is no direct impact from trucks on Sunset Avenue to adjacent residences.
Air quality and GHG impacts are regional not local and would be comparable to the Commission’s preferred residential/commercial development of the Project site which would include 1,164 daily truck trips, 20,880 total daily vehicle trips, and would result in comparable significant, unavoidable air quality and GHG impacts, 2 as would any project located on the Project site because of its size. The truck route resolution is not a basis for a finding of detrimental Project impacts because the General Plan designates Sunset Avenue as an arterial/secondary highway making it appropriate for truck traffic. Also, the California Vehicle Code prohibits local ordinances from restricting commercial vehicles from using a street not designated as a truck route for pickup and delivery if the vehicle takes a direct route between the unrestricted street (truck route) and the destination on the restricted street for a legitimate purpose. Accordingly, the Vehicle Code would prohibit the City from restricting truck access along the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension and the portion of Sunset Avenue between Sun Lakes Boulevard and the I-10, which are the most direct routes from the Project site to I-10. 925
6 The Finding failed to consider the extensive public benefits the Project provides to the City as discussed above and in the conclusion. These Project benefits are in the public interest, contribute to public safety and the welfare of the City, and support a Finding that these criteria are met.
4. The Commission’s Finding incorrectly determined that the proposed amendment would not maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City relying only on statements that the Project represents a 40% increase in the 2006 General Plan designation of 940 acres for industrial uses, and alters the distribution and variety of housing densities by consolidating a variety of densities that are currently planned into a smaller site with much higher density.
The Finding is based on the outdated 2006 General Plan designation of 940 total acres in the City for industrial uses (III-18) which only includes 688 acres of vacant land and failed to apply General Plan Land Use and Economic Development Element policies and programs that mandate the City to maintain a balance of residential, commercial and industrial lands, annually monitor the remaining capacity of all general plan land use categories to assure that a variety of economic development opportunities are available and recommend changes to the City Council as needed.
While the Housing Element has been updated since the 2006 General Plan, the Commercial/Industrial Land Use Element has not, with the net result that the City remains housing rich but jobs poor with a jobs-housing ratio of 0.86. The Finding that the Project would alter the distribution and diversity of planned residential uses by moving 1,146 residential units of various types to a high density development in a smaller area does not disrupt anticipated and desired residential density ranges in the City but rather implements the 2024 Housing Element mandate to create very high density zoning with a range of 24-30 du/acre to facilitate RHNA required increases in multifamily, high density residential sites.
5. The Commission’s Finding that the Project site parcels are not physically suitable (including but not limited to access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and absence of physical constraints) for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s) is based on conflicts with unspecified general plan provisions, the volume of truck traffic near existing and future residential neighborhoods and unsuitability of the I-10/Sunset Avenue interchange for increased volume of truck traffic, all of which are not supported by the record.
The failure to identify general plan provisions and City policies and programs with which the Project conflicts, renders this finding legally insufficient because it is vague and unsupported by any evidence. See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v 926
7 City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 717, 719; see also Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.App,4th 91, 99-100. The Project is sufficiently compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods based on volume of truck traffic passing by and use of Sunset Avenue, as discussed above.
Caltrans designed the I-10/Sunset Avenue interchange sufficiently to safely accommodate Project truck traffic as discussed above.
No findings were made regarding site access, provision of utilities, and absence of physical constraints to develop the Project site, but these considerations were addressed in the Draft EIR including in sections 3.2.3, 3.3.1, 3.5.3.2-3.5.3.4 and in the Specific Plan, and these criteria are met.
6. The Commission’s conclusion that required Findings for the proposed Zone Change cannot be made because it is not consistent with the 2006 General Plan and the Commission recommendation to reject EIR certification based on significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, increases in noise, and GHG emissions are not based on record facts and did not follow CEQA’s requirements. The zone change is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment. As stated above, the proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the 2006 General Plan, and the Commission’s findings to the contrary are not consistent with applicable law or the policies and programs of the General Plan. Contrary to the Finding, operational noise impacts, including traffic and on-site generated noise are mitigated to less than significant as are construction noise impacts other than roadway construction noise that can be mitigated to less than significant with the City’s consent, local air quality and health risk impacts are less than significant, and regional air quality and GHG emissions are significant but are comparable to the Commission’s preferred residential/commercial project which would also have significant impacts for these criteria, and would be the same if the Project were developed in adjacent communities or elsewhere in the South Coast Air Basin.
Contrary to CEQA’s requirements, the Finding did not consider and weigh the Project’s numerous benefits, and its recommendation is not supported.
7. The Commission’s conclusion that required Findings for the proposed Specific Plan cannot be made is based solely on the incorrect finding that it is not consistent with the 2006 General Plan.
927
8 The Specific Plan is consistent with the proposed general plan amendment. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the 2006 General Plan, as stated above, and a finding of consistency is properly made.
8. The Commission’s conclusion that required Findings for the Tentative Parcel Map and Development Agreement cannot be made are based solely on the incorrect finding that they are not consistent with the 2006 General Plan and the Project site is not suited for the proposed development.
The Tentative Parcel Map and Development Agreement are consistent with the proposed general plan amendment. The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the 2006 General Plan, as stated above, and findings of consistency can properly be made.
Conclusion. The Commission’s findings did not achieve the required balancing of General Plan policies, as legally required, and had numerous factual and procedural errors. Because of that and as required under law, the Council must consider the Project anew. There is precedence for City Council action overturning Commission entitlement recommendations of denial under similar circumstances.3 In deciding consistency, the law does not require satisfaction of every General Plan policy, as no project could. Variations from the details of the General Plan are allowed for a project when required to balance the various elements of the General Plan to ensure the project is compatible with the objectives, policies, and general land uses. As indicated here, in the EIR and elsewhere in the record, applying these requirements, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
As policy makers for the City, we urge you to consider the Project’s many benefits, which provide ample basis to make the required findings in support of the Project, in determining whether to allow the Project to proceed. These Project Benefits would be transformative to the City and include:
• $7.2 million Public Benefit Fee, which the City can use for any purpose; • $15 million toward the potential future development of a fire station by the City, and $1 million to provide equipment for this station;
• $10 million for construction of a Banning Electric Substation; • Accelerated payment of $5.1 million in DIF Transportation funds, to be used to assist in the Sun Lakes Blvd. extension funding;
• NorthPoint will construct and dedicate roadways surrounding the Project site to meet General Plan Circulation Element buildout requirements; 928
9 • NorthPoint is obligated to complete construction of a minimum of 100,000 square feet of commercial uses, or pay penalties of $500,000 every 6 months until these commercial uses are completed;
• NorthPoint is obligated to construct two 100,000 square feet or larger retail commercial buildings, for single tenants;
• The Project is estimated to generate approximately 3,300 construction jobs and over 3,500 permanent jobs and Project tenants are obligated to notify the City when each tenant intends to commence its operations, to facilitate employment opportunities for City residents;
• NorthPoint will, at no cost to the City, dedicate approximately 52.8 acres as Open Space Resource land, and approximately 13 additional acres of land for various public facilities that may be developed by the City, including an electrical substation, water tank, reverse osmosis facility and fire station; • NorthPoint is to design, construct and maintain a 5-acre park, at no cost to the City; • NorthPoint is required to pay a Special Tax of $0.20/SF for all industrial building square footage in perpetuity, subject to mandatory annual increases; and • According to the Project Fiscal Impacts Analysis, the Project is estimated to generate an annual surplus to the City of $2,945,779 and $69,665,291 in City DIF, MSHCP, TUMF and Banning Unified School District fees.
NorthPoint’s track record is one of working cooperatively with cities to deliver economic growth and jobs aligned with compatible development. This Project meets those standards— delivering growth and imparting limited local environmental impacts while buffering residential communities. With your additional detailed input, NorthPoint is confident that it can and will deliver a project that addresses any remaining concerns as well as the critical economic, job creation and fiscal needs of the City.
Very truly yours,
Amy E. Freilich
cc: Mr. Art Vela
John Pinkney, Esq.
Mr. Mark Staples
929
10 1 Findings must be supported by substantial evidence and a reasonable person must be able to reach the same conclusion based on the evidence before it. As indicated in this letter, that standard is not met. In addition, the Commission was required to, but did not, consider the key objectives and policies of the entire General Plan in making the inconsistency determinations, and the process was not procedurally fair. Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) 248 Cal.App,4th 91, 99-100; Endangered Habitat League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 782; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 CA4th 656, 678; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Ass’n v City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 717, 719.
2 In addition to significant truck trips, a residential/commercial uses project evaluated as Alternative 2 in the EIR, would still result in comparable significant and unavoidable air quality, GHG and construction noise emissions as the modified Project.
3 In Resolution 2020-118, the City Council overruled the Commission’s denial of a General Plan Amendment and concluded that with adoption of an amendment to the General Plan land use designation, the project should be viewed for consistency with the general plan standards applicable to the new designation, and found internal General Plan consistency requirements were met. See also Mun. Code Section 17.04.060.
930
BANNING : CALIFORNIA
SC-Presentation-011626 5
SUNSET CROSSROADS
SITEPLAN
S 22nd St
INTERSTATE 10 AND SUNSET
AVENUE INTERCHANGE
10 10
ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION SITE COMMERCIAL / RETAIL
INDUSTRIAL
PARK / DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE
100' BUFFER
ALONG BOB CAT ROAD
FIRE STATION/
RESERVOIR SITE
Bob Cat Rd
Zoned for Industrial but Industrial use prohibited; available for future commercial use
SLB EXTENSION
Sunset Ave
Sun Lakes Blvd
Highland Home Rd
PUBLIC FACILITIES
931
From: Allen Mackey
To: cityclerks
Subject: Re: Sunset crossroads
Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 2:26:56 PM
My e-mail is [email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 18, 2025, at 2:04 PM, Allen Mackey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I support SunsetCrossroads because it will make a better Banning and comely in appearance. Banning is not the most beautiful city in the world but this project will help Banning look better. Also, we need that Sun Lakes Blvd extension all the way to Sunset. We got to have another way in and out to the shopping areas off of 2nd street in Beaumont. Thank you very much!
932
From: Judy Algea
To: cityclerks
Subject: Requests for Approval of The Crossroads Project Date: Thursday, January 22, 2026 8:46:45 AM
Attachments: Crossroads Project for Approval.PDF
Good Morning, I am writing on behalf of Banning Citizens that would like to have this project approved.
The City of Banning has stayed stagnant for way too long due to decisions made by mostly residents of Sun Lakes that have been on our City Council far to long and do not do business here, shop or bank here because there is no shopping or banking or any stores here except for primarily smoke shops, liquor stores, Dollar stores and a few fast food places. Most of the projects that would benefit Banning have been turned down or terminated because of a few standing in the way of progress, like the 5 bridges project, Walmart Project and many others.
It is time to let our City grow and prosper so our residents can have development and new infrastructure as well as new opportunities and shopping in our community.
If they are worried about a truck stop, what is the problem? They come off the off ramp to get fuel and go right back on the freeway where there are alot of trucks anyway.
We need medical offices, Professional offices, education ect...and recreation for our youth because there has been nothing new built here in many years.
This will bring in more new stores, jobs, revenue, infrastructure, shopping and our banking back in.
Banning residents have to go to Beaumont for everything now that has turned into a mess for the transportation issue causing traffic jams and road pile ups. Plus Beaumont is getting all the revenue not Banning.
So if this finds people disturbed think about the rest of us that live in Banning and have to constantly fight the traffic on Highland Springs. It is getting unbearable.
Banning needs to say yes to this project and let our community grow for our sake and the sake of our children. Do not let them keep undermining this City and community. WE VOTE YES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER:)
--
Thanks so much,
Algea Real Estate
Judy AlgeaOwner/Broker
Lice # 01366805
42850 Hill Top Dr.
Banning, CA 92220
Phone (909)-841-2289
Email: [email protected]
933
From: Pamela Hardy Alpert
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset-Crossroads FEIR & Specific Plan
Date: Monday, January 5, 2026 10:42:25 PM
Dear Honorable Mayor & Councilmembers,
We support the Sunset-Crossroads Specific Plan and the variety of new retail, medical office, recreation and commercial opportunities. However our support is based primarily on the extension of Sun Lakes Blvd to ultimately connect with the Sunset I10 access in order to provide a much needed relief from the continual traffic bottleneck on Highlands Springs at I10 on/off ramps and to the local medical offices and hospital. We assume the development agreement may authorize phased construction of the new boulevard but we feel it is now needed given the existing (F) level of service on Highlands Springs. We hope the Council is working closely with the City of Beaumont, Caltrans and railroad to make curb changes and signal modifications to permit a double left turn to I10 westbound which would help traffic flow. In fact we would expect some traffic impact fees be obtained for this purpose perhaps through an assessment district established by the developers in order to participate in the funding for the underpass improvements as well as the Sun Lakes Blvd completion.
Additionally we ask that no commercial or industrial uses be permitted adjacent to Sun Lakes community, 3,500 homes for senior citizens in order to be compatible with the existing land use patterns.We are relieved that the proposed trucking facility next to The Lakes Assisted Care facility on Sunset Blvd is not active and hope for comparability sake of our senior citizens that it is never resubmitted again.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the project albeit it we were unaware of the DEIR consideration.
Sincerely,
Pamela Hardy Alpert c/o
Melinda Hardy
5001 Rio Bravo Drive
Banning, Ca. 92220
Pamela Hardy Alpert
(925) 570-1210 mobile
934
From: SUSAN MCKENZIE
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Saturday, January 17, 2026 7:21:15 AM
I would like to express my support for supporting the Sunset Crossroads project. I’ve been in the City Of Banning for 4 1/2 years and there is very little shopping that is available in the city. I understand that the city is struggling with revenue. I think this would help with the cities financial short falls and would also give a place for the cities residents, to have a place to dine and shop. I currently at shop primarily in Beaumont because there is so little Banning. I also support this project because of the jobs that it will create for the residents.
Sent from my iPad
935
From: Anna Cortese
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset crossing changes
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:51:27 PM
I am a resident of Serrano del Vista Senior community. This highly affects me. I am not happy about the changes that may happen. I submit a Big No! Anna Cortese 591 Autumn Way
936
From: Barbara Jesus
To: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller; cityclerks Subject: Not again-More Warehouses!Sunset Crossroads Project Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:21:32 AM
Importance: High
I think our community has made this clear time and time again. NO WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC ON SLBLVD.
Barbara DelGatto-Jesus
909-915-4320
937
From: Betty Ann Finigan
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset crossroads
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 2:13:22 PM
I am opposed to this project in that location.
Betty Ann Finigan
4980 Rolling Hills Ave, Banning, CA 92220
938
From: Bill Jenkins
To: Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; cityclerks; Leroy Miller; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn Subject: Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Friday, January 16, 2026 12:08:51 PM
Dear Banning City Council, I have been the structural engineer of record on projects similar to the subject project. Locating a project with a five and one half million square foot industrial/distribution center and a refueling center adjacent to a high-density retirement community is an example of flawed planning. Vote NO on this project. Sincerely, William C. Jenkins, PE, 2448 Wailea Beach Drive, Banning, CA 92220
939
From: Tim Goodson
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Cc: Audrey Faucetta; Janice McGill
Subject: Challenge to Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 10:26:26 AM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
My issues are the project location adjacent to our senior community, the 18 wheel truck traffic the project will generate, and especially the very-high density housing included in this project.
Personally, since the project would have multiple and very serious negative consequences for our senior community and the surrounding residential community as a whole, and since there seems to be so many other more appropriate locations within the boundaries of the City of Banning, we do not understand the City's decision to even consider such a proposed project.
Please think of your obligation to your constituents and vote "NO" on January 28, 2026.
Thank you,
Braden Bowman, Serrano del Vista Architectural Committee Chair 2690 Rainbow Lane
Banning, CA 92220
(951) 846-3080
940
From: Candace Parrish
To: cityclerks
Subject: Traffic between Sun Lakes and Vista del Sol - Warehouse Project Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 7:38:17 AM
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.
Sincerely,
Candace Parrish
840 Miller Rd.
Banning, CA 92220
941
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossing Project and any Zoning Changes Related Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:37:26 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my objection to the Sunset Crossroads Project and all the zoning changes requested including the Very High Density Housing.
The issues are the project locations in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.
Sincerely,
Carol Shearman
2820 Rainbow Lane
Banning, CA 92220
942
From: Connie Van Pelt
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads & Utility Billing
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:58:47 PM
City of Banning, RRoyce, SFlynn, CBarrington, CWallace, and LMiller, This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project and all the zoning changes already denied by the Planning Commission.
The issues are the project locations in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets. Maybe rooftops would be a better choice...
And you should start with figuring out the utility billing... what a continuing mess. It's embarrassing.
Connie Van Pelt & Eric Weisbrod
600 Autumn Way, Banning 92220
943
From: Dennis Field
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:59:55 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.
Sincerely,
Dennis Field
417 Brooklawn Dr
Banning ca 92220
Smile and have a great day.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S23 ultra
944
From: Diane Stone
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 3:28:19 PM
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.
Please vote "NO" on this project.
Sincerely,
Diane Stone
5395 Breckenridge Avenue
Banning, CA 92220
945
From: diane sweeney
To: cityclerks; Colleen Wallace; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Leroy Miller Subject: City of Banning Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 4:38:09 PM
City of Banning,
NO to the Sunset Crossroads Project!!
There are problems of the project location and truck traffic and noise on these Banning city streets.
Banning resident - Diane Sweeney
5821 Indian Canyon Drive
Banning, CA 92220
946
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 2:51:05 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.
Warehouses do not belong here. We respectively and strongly urge you to deny this project.
Sincerely,
Dominic & MarySue Caron
5144 Rio Bravo Drive
Banning, CA., 92220
947
From: Elizabeth B
To: cityclerks
Subject: Re: Sunset Crossroads Project - comments on plan Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:10:36 PM
I reconfirm my vehement objection to this project. No more warehouses, light industrial, heavy industrial or the link near/adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
This is not a well thought out strategic, long term growth strategy for Banning. It will not turn our city into a bright, vibrant, desirable community people will want to live in and businesses want to invest in. It's the worst kind of short-term city planning possible.
No on Sunset Crossroads.
On Tuesday, October 28, 2025 at 03:55:16 PM PDT, Elizabeth B <[email protected]> wrote:
I see that this proposal is scheduled for review again by the city council. I once again express my concerns and opposition to this project moving forward at all. It is not appropriate for a residential area. It is not appropriate for the roads and quality of life. It belongs out on the industrial side of town. Please see the below email submitted to the Banning City Council via email to you for fuller description of my strong opposition to Sunset Crossroads or a cut through from Sun Lakes Blvd to Sunset.
On Friday, September 5, 2025 at 02:14:53 PM PDT, Elizabeth B <[email protected]> wrote:
Reference: https://www.banningca.gov/762/Sunset-Crossroads-Specific-Plan To the City Council
I am registering my opposition to this project in its entirety. The neighborhood is residential and is not designed to handle freeway cut-through for large trucks and cars when the freeway is full, and as a cut-through to the Beaumont stores from the other side of Banning, both are levels of traffic that cannot be accommodated.
In addition, there are dozens of empty warehouses in the county, including in Banning. They become a blight from lack of use, a haven for the homeless, and a target for criminal activity. In other words, unless other warehouses up and down the I-10 corridor are leased out, there should be zero building of additional warehouses, especially not up to 10 and 5.5 million square feet of empty warehouses. Warehouses that bring very large trucks that will impact not only the quality of life, but the quality of the roads. Warehouses DO NOT BELONG in or near residential neighborhoods. Go build them on the industrial side of Banning if you're firm in conviction that Banning needs them and will benefit from them. Semi tractor-trailers DO NOT BELONG in a residential neighborhood 948
outside a moving van bringing household goods to or from a residence.
A medical office would be appropriate, and serve the need of the south side of the I-10, only if it's daytime use and not a huge building. Any hotel can be located and should be located closer to downtown.
Speaking of downtown - I agree, Banning needs to draw in more business and tax revenue. Drive down Ramsey and see all the opportunity there, if you just embraced cleaning up and enhancing existing infrastructure and buildings, providing tax incentives to draw better businesses downtown and beyond.
Warehouses Will Not bring the revenue you seem to believe they will. If they did, you'd have all the empty warehouses in Banning and beyond full, and they are empty. I invite you to go to Livermore CA. They city faced the same dilemma and rather than put in more industrial junk, they went a different route and the city has bloomed ever since. It's become a city to be proud to live in. Isn't that what you want for Banning? To become a city that people want to move to and live in? Warehouses will not do that. Semis through neighborhoods will not do that.
Fixing eyesores & blight, focus on reducing crime and homelessness,, enticing other businesses like restaurants and shops will.
I do not support this misguided attempt to force in the exact opposite of what Banning needs to thrive.
-Elizabeth Baumach
Banning CA
92220
949
From: Elsie Nunez
To: cityclerks; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Leroy Miller; Richard Royce
Subject: No on project on Sunset
Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 11:07:54 AM
Shame on you … We challenge all of you .
Sent from my iPhone
950
From: Esther Wynter
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; [email protected]; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroad Project
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 11:05:56 AM
Dear City of Banning Planning Department and City Officials, My name is Esther Wynter, and I am a homeowner and long-term resident of 3062 Rainbow Lane, Banning, California. I am writing to formally express my concerns and opposition regarding the proposed Sunset Crossroads project.
While I understand the City’s interest in economic development, I am deeply concerned about the location, scale, and intensity of this project and the significant negative impacts it would have on my neighborhood and the surrounding residential community.
First, the placement of this project within proximity to established residential neighborhoods is troubling. Our area is primarily a quiet, family-oriented neighborhood, and the proposed development is fundamentally incompatible with the existing character of the community.
Second, the anticipated 18-wheel truck traffic is excessive and unacceptable for local residential streets. The estimated 1,850 truck trips per day along Sunset Avenue raise serious concerns regarding:
Public safety for residents, children, pedestrians, and cyclists Traffic congestion and roadway deterioration
Noise pollution, air quality degradation, and vibration impacts Reduced quality of life and potential decline in property values Our neighborhood streets were not designed to accommodate this level of heavy industrial truck traffic.
Third, the high-density housing component further intensifies the strain on local infrastructure, including roads, emergency services, schools, and utilities. The cumulative impacts of up to ten warehouses alongside dense residential development have not, in my opinion, been adequately addressed or mitigated.
I respectfully request that the City:
Reconsider the scope, scale, and location of the Sunset Crossroads project Provide meaningful opportunities for community input and transparency 951
Explore alternative locations more appropriate for heavy industrial and logistics use
Prioritize the health, safety, and quality of life of existing residents I do not support a project that would effectively turn our residential neighborhood into a major industrial truck corridor. I urge the City of Banning to take resident concerns seriously and to ensure that development decisions are balanced, responsible, and community-focused.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully request that this correspondence be included in the public record for the Sunset Crossroads project.
Esther L. Wynter, President
Wynter Accounting Services, Inc.
[email protected]
(310) 850-0891 phone
(310) 872-3992 Fax
952
From: Gerald Shearman
To: cityclerks
Subject: Banning City Projects
Date: Monday, January 19, 2026 10:54:00 AM
I wish to strongly oppose the building of either
very high density housing , warehouses , or truck
stops around my residential neighborhood . The
city of Banning has numerous other more
appropriate locations for such construction .
Please register my opposition to your planning
commission and city council members .
Gerald Shearman
a long time resident
953
From: jamie taylor
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset crossing vote
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 12:47:01 PM
I would like to inform the city council that I strongly oppose rezoning the land from residential in order to put warehouses next to the Sun Lakes development. I strongly encourage you to leave this zoned residential and build homes. No one should be subjected to warehouses which results in trucks right next to a senior living community.
This would be extremely dangerous, and increase our poor air quality. Please do not change the zoning of this land! Sincerely, Jamie Taylor
Sun Lakes resident
Sent from my iPhone
954
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks; [email protected]; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; [email protected]; JOHN BOBENG; Janice Mcgill; Alice Esquivel
Subject: PROBLEMS WITH THE PROJECT AT SUNSET AVE.
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 11:37:53 AM
TO OUR CITY OFFICALS:
WE HAVE LIVED AT SERRANO DEL VISTA 55 PLUS COMMUNITY FOR 22 YEARS.
IT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROJECT THAT YOU ARE VOTING ON.
IT HAS BEEN VERY NICE HERE, ESPECIALLY AFTER THEY ADDED THE TRAIN OVER PASS.
BEING IN THE OLDER AGE GROUP, WE REQUIRE GOING TO DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS VERY OFTEN.
WE ALSO REQUIRE RAPID EMERGENCY RESPONSE. SUCH AS
AMBULANCE,POLICE AND FIRE
AT THIS TIME SUNSET AVE. IS THE ONLY QUICK WAY IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
GOING SOUTH ON SUNSET FROM OUR FACILTY IS A DEAD END AND A DIRT ROAD GOING NO WHERE.
SO, THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDED 10 WAREHOUSES AND LOW DENSITY HOUSES.
WITH AS MANY AS 1,850 TRUCKS AND CARS ON SUNSET IS A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.'
*IT ALSO COULD CAUSE A LARGE LIABILTY FOR THE CITY OF BANNING WITH
ACCIDENTS AND TRAFFIC
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FREEWAY. .
I WAS IN THE GROCERY BUSINESS FOR 53 YEARS, MANAGING GROCERY STORES AND DRIVING 18 WHEELERS.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THESE TRUCKS TAKE UP A LOT MORE ROOM AND
REQUIRE ALOT OF TURNING
AND BACKING UP SPACE.
955
IN RECENT YEARS WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL FIRE IN THE FIELDS
SURROUNDING SERRANO DEL VISTA,
ONE OF THE FIRES WAS TWO YEARS AGO ON THE LAND THAT THEY WHAT TO PUT THE WAREHOUSES AND HOUSES.
LAST YEAR WE HAD A FIRE BIG FIRE JUST SOUTH EAST OF SERRANO DEL
VISTA ,COMING FROM IDLEWILD AND SAN
JACINTOMOUNTAIN. WE ALSO HAD A LAND FIRE LAST YEAR JUST SOUTH ONF SERRANO DEL VISTA.
ALL OF THESE SITUATIONS CAUSED A LOT OF CONFUSION AND POSSIBLE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON SUNSET AVE.
WE ARE CONCERNED OF PUBLIC SAFETY,AND OTHER FUTURE PROBLEMS THAT COULD COME FROM THIS PROJECT.
PLEASE, CONSIDER A (NO) VOTE ON THIS PROJECT.
THANK YOU, JOHN BOBENG AND OFELIA BOBENG 909 379 8026
956
From: Judy Green Shaw
To: cityclerks
Cc: Richard Royce
Subject: Fw: Sunset Project.
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 9:58:29 AM
Attachments: Sunset Project.pdf
Judy Green Shaw
Cell: 310-896-6147
Email: [email protected]
From: Judy Green Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 9:47 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Sunset Project.
957
From: Karen Parmer
To: cityclerks
Subject: Warehouses
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 1:18:20 PM
The Planning Commission voted three times against the warehouses and now you want another vote. How many times do we need to tell you this is something we do not want. Vote NO.
958
From: Kathy Hanrahan
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset. Ross roads Project
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:38:48 PM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets. We already have enough traffic congestion as it is. This is way too close to Sun Lakes Country Club.
Sincerely,
Kathy Hanrahan
2349 Keystone Ct
Banning, CA 92220
Sent from my iPhone
959
From: Linda Vieira
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Protest
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 8:41:10 AM
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.
Please vote "NO" on this project.
Sincerely,
Linda Vieira
5052 W Hilton Head Drive
Banning
960
From: [email protected]
To: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; "[email protected]"; Colleen Wallace; cityclerks Subject: Sunset Cross Roads
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 12:37:58 PM
To: The City of Banning City Council
The City of Banning City Clerks
I am vehemently opposed to any warehouse that would be located near ANY residential areas.
I also oppose rezoning any land to accommodate a developer's project. The truck traffic will be a HUGE detriment to the city overall.
If warehouses are built one can only hope the warehouses will stand empty! This could become reality!
.
I respect The City of Banning Planning Commission's wisdom in declining to move this forward to council. .
Options I see as viable for the city's growth are housing. Bring more homeowners in. Most major retailers locate to areas where the population can support their business.
We need more retail and new businesses to change the trajectory of our little town..
Thank you for your consideration.
Lois Jordan
Banning resident for 23 years
961
962
From: Martha Bederio
To: cityclerks
Subject: Fwd: Warehouses at Sunset Crossroads
Date: Saturday, January 17, 2026 2:55:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Martha Bederio <[email protected]>
Date: January 17, 2026 at 2:09:29 PM PST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Warehouses at Sunset Crossroads
City Council Members
City Council Clerk
City of Banning, CA
Greetings:
I am a long time resident of Banning, California having moved here circa 1979. I was a teacher here in Banning for over 22 years and have served as Trustee on the Banning Unified School Board.
I am opposed to the building of warehouses in our city, especially the Sunset Crossroad project. The proposed project is too close to residential properties. The increased traffic caused by large trucks will make vehicular traffic worse than it is today for nearby residents.
The pollution from idling trucks could adversely affect the health of the very young and the elderly. The freeway traffic is already congested; more big rigs will exacerbate the problem and make commute times for residents only longer. Although the project may bring revenue to the city budget, it may not. I can remember a commercial building project south of the freeway in Banning that was partially built but never occupied. It became a public menace and was eventually torn down. I would wager than there would be very few jobs generated for the local population by this project.
For these reasons I urge you to follow the Planning Commission's no vote and vote no on the Sunset Crossroads project.
Thank you for serving!
Sincerely,
Maretha A. Bederio
963
This written communication is being submitted to be included in the public hearing process scheduled for the meeting of the Banning City Council on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, regarding the Sunset Crossroads project.
We are adamantly opposed to this project, to be located between two senior residential communities, because of the following reasons: traffic issues, air and noise pollution, and inappropriate location for warehouse operations.
Traffic Issues:
Adding additional trucks to our already congested traffic area on Highland Springs will increase traffic to unacceptable levels. With over 80 percent of the residents living near the project being over 55 years in age, there is almost a daily need for emergency services, in particular, paramedics and ambulance service. With increased traffic congestion, these emergency services will be greatly impeded to those residents in critical need at The Lakes, Sun Lakes Country Club and Four Seasons, as well as the 55+ community off Sunset Avenue. Every second counts in a medical emergency. No amount of traffic light management or roadway improvements will be effective.
Air and Noise Pollution
Increased presence of trucks in the area will certainly have a negative effect on air and noise pollution, due to the daily presence of noisy trucks spewing diesel fumes. Here again, with over 80 percent of the residents living in the project area being over 55 years of age, many with compromised health conditions, it is unacceptable for any warehouse to be in an area near a large retirement community.
Inappropriate Location:
One only has to drive the 60 freeway through the Moreno Valley region to see that the warehouses are not located adjacent to residential areas. For the most part, this is also true in the Ontario area. The Amazon facility in Beaumont and the new (and seemingly vacant) warehouses off Cherry Valley Avenue are located away from residential areas. There is another warehouse located in the eastern part of Banning that has recently become vacant. It is appropriately placed.
Warehouses are an important element of goods movement in today’s economy, but location, besides the availability of raw land, is an important consideration. The Sunset Crossroads Project is grossly inappropriately placed and should not be approved for the proposed location.
We are vehemently opposed to the project, especially the warehouse component.
Sincerely,
964
Mary Ann Harvey-Melleby
Richard Collier
Sun Lakes Country Club Residents
6308 Ponte Verde Circle
Banning, CA 92220
(909) 974-8008
965
From: MaryJo McElwain
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:15:45 PM
I am against the Sunset Crossroads project. There is no buffer between our 55+ community and the hundreds of trucks and traffic that will use Sun Lakes Boulevard.
Sun Lakes Boulevard cannot structurally support semi truck traffic .
Highway 10 doesn’t need another truck stop. Morongo is only 5 minutes away.
Mary Jo McElwain
1004 Hogan Avenue
Banning
966
From: Nancey Cambron
To: cityclerks
Cc: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 3:48:48 PM
I do not want ten warehouses with 1850 trucks driving daily on sunset and I don’t want very high density housing across the street from myself. There is a meeting January 28 at 5 o’clock in City Hall. I do plan on attending Banning has not got the utility billing right over a year.
You could help make sure they get this right I am emailing the people that represent the City Of Banning To challenge this Ridiculous plan of extra warehouses and 1850 trucks driving daily on sunset. The people elected to Banning California’s government has destroyed Highland Springs.ave.
The traffic is ridiculous. Why do they want to destroy this whole town? 967
From: Patricia Naylor
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:50:52 AM
Please listen to the Planning Commission...NO SUNSET CROSSROADS!!! Thank you,
Patricia Naylor
Banning Resident
968
From: Pat Savage
To: Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Leroy Miller; Colleen Wallace; Cynthia Barrington; cityclerks Subject: Re: Sunset Crossing proposed Development
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 5:30:29 PM
Dear City of Banning:
As I live adjacent to the proposed property to be developed into Sunset Crossing Warehouse Project, I feel very strongly that this development is the WRONG project to be put into this property. The site is surrounded on both sides by residential property. Heavy truck traffic will overflow onto both Lincoln and Sun Lakes Blvd. Trucks will park along both thruways on an overnight basis if their particular destination is closed for the night.
Currently, heavy GOLF CART traffic uses Sun Lakes Blvd to go to and from the NORTH section of Sun Lakes CC. Mixing golf carts with heavy highway Rigs is a recipe for disaster. There HAS to be another site onto which this development should go that can be traded for this one.
Please give these concerns some consideration on January 28th Thanks for being a thoughtful Councilperson.
Patrick H. Savage
5772 Indian Canyon Dr.
Banning, CA
969
From: Paul Fitzpatrick
To: cityclerks
Subject: unset Crossroads
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:06:20 AM
Please vote no on the Sunset crossroads project!!!!
Thank you,
Paul Fitzpatrick
(Banning resident and voter)
--
Slainte
970
From: Rhonda Jones
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Leroy Miller; Colleen Wallace Subject: Sunset Crossing Project
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:15:36 PM
Rhonda I Jones
5756 Oakmont Drive
Banning, CA 92220
January 13, 2026
Dear City of Banning clerk and council members,
I am writing regarding my concerns for warehouses and trucks driving down Sun Lakes Boulevard which is less than 200 miles from my home. The traffic driving down the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension to these warehouses would be devastating to me since I have to drive down this street to get to my home and the noise, banging and clamoring of trucks would be irritating to hear from my front yard and home.
We have a huge warehouse not in use since sketchers left that building. We dont need more warehouses when the huge warehouse is not being rented. We need this property to have more neighborhood friendly businesses or homes.
Thank you for reading my email and considering my homeowner concerns.
Sincerely,
Rhonda I Jones
Banning Homeowner
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
971
From: Robin Warner
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: City of Banning
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 11:20:25 AM
January 14, 2026
Dear City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
The issues are the project location in my neighborhood and the truck traffic on my streets.
Please vote "NO" on this project, & (minimally) prohibit truck traffic from using Sun Lakes Blvd as a thoroughfare.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Robin Warner
972
From: ronmmc
To: cityclerks
Subject: Warehouses No No,NO. WHAT ARE U THINKING. MORE BIG TRUCKS, TRAFFIC, AND UGLY IN OUR BEAUTIFUL AREA
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 2:02:01 PM
Sent from my Galaxy
973
From: Sheri Ross
To: cityclerks; Sheri Flynn
Cc: Richard Royce; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads Project
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 3:06:30 PM
City of Banning,
This is my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project.
One warehouse in a location between two housing complexes is not a good idea. But, TEN!!!! The truck traffic in the neighborhoods along with the additional traffic congestion at the freeway interchanges on Highland Springs (which is already at a standstill most of the time) is going to be horrific. The thought is too ludicrous to even contemplate! The idea that I have to write this email to protest this project sickens me. This city council is a humongous disappointment to me and my neighbors. After the utilities billing debacle, I should think you would be doing everything in your power to redeem yourselves for the people of this city.
Please vote NO on this absurd plan.
Sincerely,
Sharen G. Ross
1237 Hogan Ave.
Banning, CA 92220
974
From: Sylvia Berbiar
To: cityclerks
Subject: No to warehouse projects
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 11:13:08 AM
No to warehouse projects in Banning.
Sylvia Berbiar
SLCC
975
From: steve rubrecht
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Thursday, January 22, 2026 5:47:48 AM
City of Banning;
I do not want the Sunset Crossroads project to continue. This is my challenge .
The issues are the location of the project in my neighborhood, the truck traffic, and the very high density housing.
Sincerely
Steve Rubrecht
6358 Player Court
Banning, CA
976
From: Raelene Kretchman Thornton
To: Richard Royce; cityclerks; Cynthia Barrington; Sheri Flynn; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: Sunset Crossroads
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 1:27:42 PM
Dear Council Members,
As a Banning resident, I respectfully urge you to vote NO on the proposal to build 10 new warehouses, which could add 1,800+ more trucks to our area. Our city is already overburdened, and this project would intensify the problems we face.
There is a significant number of vacant warehouses nearby; adding more won’t help our local economy, but it will:
·
Increase freeway congestion and traffic risks
·
Worsen pollution and harm our air quality and environment ·
Go against repeated community input opposing more warehouses Please prioritize public health, safety, and sustainable development.
We ask you to vote NO on this proposal.
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Sincerely, Steven & Raelene Kretchman
950 S By Hill Rd, Banning CA
]
977
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; Cynthia Barrington; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Objection to Sunset Crossing
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 9:33:27 AM
Dear Members of the Planning Commission / City Council, I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed warehouse development planned for our community. I have serious concerns regarding the safety risks, environmental impacts, and traffic problems this project would create for nearby residents.
First, the safety implications cannot be overlooked. Large warehouse operations typically involve frequent heavy truck traffic, extended operating hours, and increased noise. This creates heightened risks for seniors, pedestrians, cyclists, children, and emergency responders in the area. Our neighborhood infrastructure was not designed to support industrial-scale activity, and introducing it would significantly compromise public safety.
Second, the environmental impact of this development is deeply concerning.
Warehouses often contribute to increased air pollution from diesel trucks, higher noise levels, and potential harm to local wildlife and green spaces. Paving over open land also increases stormwater runoff and flood risk, which can negatively affect surrounding homes and ecosystems. These impacts run counter to our community’s goals of sustainability and environmental stewardship.
Finally, the traffic consequences would be substantial. The addition of constant truck and employee traffic would worsen congestion on already busy roads, increase wear and tear on local infrastructure, and lengthen commute times for residents. This could also hinder emergency vehicle access, creating further safety risks.
I respectfully urge you to reconsider approval of this project or, at a minimum, require a comprehensive and transparent study addressing safety, environmental, and traffic impacts, with meaningful opportunities for community input. Our neighborhood deserves development that enhances quality of life—not one that puts residents at risk.
Thank you for your time and for considering the concerns of the community you serve.
Sincerely,
Teresa SolomonBillings
5825 Orange Tree Ave
Banning, CA, 92220
(951) 634-8065
978
From: Thelma Thomas
To: cityclerks
Subject: Fwd: Sunset Crossroads Proposal
Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2026 9:07:59 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Thelma Thomas <[email protected]>
Date: January 14, 2026 at 9:05:48 PM PST
To: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Sunset Crossroads Proposal
Dear Council Members,
As a Banning resident I respectfully request and urge you to VOTE NO on the proposal to build 10 new warehouses which could add 1800+ more trucks to our area. This project would only intensify the problems we are already facing.
There is a significant number of vacant warehouses nearby—adding more won’t help our local economy! It will:
. Increase freeway congestion and traffic risks
. Worsen pollution and harm our air quality and environment . Go against repeated community input opposing more warehouse Please prioritize public health, safety, and sustainable development. I ask you to VOTE NO on thi proposal!
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Sincerely,
Thelma G. Thomas
689 LaQuinta Drive
Banning, CA 92220
979
980
From: Timothy Donatini
To: cityclerks
Subject: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 11:03:21 AM
[email protected]
CBarrington,@Banning CA. Gov
[email protected]
[email protected]
This my challenge to the Sunset Crossroads Project this would be a big traffic issue in this neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration
981
From: Victor Banuelos
To: cityclerks
Subject: Don’t want 10 warehouses on Sunset .We don’t want the tragic.
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 7:20:50 PM
Sent from my iPhone
982
From: [email protected]
To: cityclerks
Subject: Sunset Cross Roads
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:13:46 PM
I do not want the Sunset Cross Road project to go forward in my Community. We don't need more warehouses. The truck traffic on our streets would be terrible for our community.
Sincerely,
Virginia De Bry
5259 W Pinehurst Drive
Banning, CA 92220
983
From: Rowen Celestial
To: cityclerks; Richard Royce; Sheri Flynn; [email protected]; Colleen Wallace; Leroy Miller Subject: City Council"s Votation on January 28, 2026 Re Construction Across SDV Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 2:48:22 PM
Dear City of Banning:
My issues are the project location in my neighborhood, the 18 wheel truck traffic and the very high-density housing included in this project.
Sincerely,
Rowena Celestial
3078 Rainbow Lane
Banning, CA 92220
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
1 MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL – SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
January 28, 2026 Council Chambers
5:00 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
The following information comprises the agenda for the special meeting of the Banning City Council, a joint meeting of the City Council and Banning Utility Authority, and the Banning City Council sitting in its capacity as the Banning Successor Agency Board.
1. CALL TO ORDER – 5:04 p.m.
1.1 PLEADGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1.2 ROLL CALL
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Cynthia Barrington Council Member Sheri Flynn
Council Member Leroy Miller
Mayor Richard Royce
Council Member Colleen Wallace
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney
Art Vela, Interim City Manager
Mark Staples, Planning Manager
Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Todd Hopkins, Assistant Chief – Riverside Unit
Vickie Sellers, City Clerk
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Closed Session Items Only
None
3. CLOSED SESSION
2.1 CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. Property: Banning Municipal Airport consisting of approximately 232.41 acres comprised of APNs 541-240-009; 541-250-009; 541-140-003; 532-150- 002; 532-150-003; 532-150- 004; 532-130-012; 532-130-018; 532-130-011; 532-180-034. Agency Negotiator: Interim City Manager Art Vela or his designee. Negotiating Parties: City of Banning and Industrial Enterprises, LLC. Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of payment. 997
2 City Attorney John Pinkney said Council did not meet on Closed Session
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public comments on items not on the agenda were not taken due to the Special Meeting.
5. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney John Pinkney reviewed procedural guidelines from the manual, emphasizing courtesy, respect, and order during the meeting.
Mayor Royce announced the public hearing for items 6.1 and 6.2, the proposed Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan project, reminding the public of the previously stated guidelines. The process would involve a staff presentation, council questions, and then public testimony limited to two minutes per person, with a suggestion for groups to appoint a spokesperson. Mr. Staples, Planning Manager was then introduced to present the staff report.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
6.1 Consideration of Applications By NP Banning Industrial, LLC for the Sunset Crossroads Project, including (1) a Specific Plan (Case No. SP 20-2002) to Allow for the Development of Industrial and Commercial Uses on 533.8-acres of Land Located South of I-10 and the Union Pacific Railroad, and West of Sunset Avenue (Specific Plan Area); (2) a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 20-2501) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 20-3502) to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Zoning of the Specific Plan Area to General Commercial (GC), Industrial (I), Opens Space-Parks (OS-P), and Open Space-Resources (OS-R), including Pre-zoning for Annexation of Portions of the Specific Plan Area into the City of Banning’s Jurisdictional Boundary; (3) a Development Agreement to Establish Vested Development Rights in Exchange for Public Benefits as Specified in the Agreement; (4) a Tentative Parcel Map (Case No. TPM 38118) for a Subdivision of the Specific Plan Area into Thirty-four Parcels and Five Lettered Lots Ranging in Size from One Acre to Seventy-eight Acres Consistent with the Nineteen Planning Areas in the Specific Plan; and (5) a Final Environmental Impact Report (Sch No. 2021020011) Including Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Recommendation: Deny the Project Applications as Recommended by the Planning Commission by Adopting:
(1) Resolution 2026-26 Rejecting the Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2021020011, Including Related Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
(2) Resolution 2026-27 Denying Applications by NP Banning Industrial LLC for the Sunset Crossroads Project, Including General Plan Amendment (No. 20-2501), Zone Change (No. 20-3502), Specific Plan (No. 20-2002), Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 38118) and a Development Agreement, for the Development of Industrial and Commercial Uses on a 533.8-acre Project Site Located South of I-10/the Union Pacific Railroad and West of Sunset Avenue.
Alternatively, Approve the Project Applications as recommended by Staff by Adopting:
(1) Resolution 2026-28 Certifying the Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2021020011, Including Related Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
(2) Resolution 2026-29 Approving the General Plan Amendment (No. 20-2501); and (3) Resolution 2026-30 Approving Annexation of 253.7 Acres into the City of Banning; and (4) Resolution 2026-31 Approving the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 38118); and (5) Introducing by Title Only the Following Ordinances:
Ordinance 1618, Approving Zone Change (No. 20-3502);
Ordinance 1619, Approving Specific Plan (No. 20-2002); and Ordinance 1620, Approving a Development Agreement Between NP Banning Industrial 998
3 LLC and the City of Banning.
Mark Staples outlined the proposed applications for the Sunset Crossroads project, including General Plan Amendment 20-2501, Zone Change 20-3502, Specific Plan 20-2002, Tenant Parcel Map 38118, pre-annexation zoning and development agreement, and Environmental Assessment 20-1506 (State Clearinghouse number 2021-10232. 2021-020011), along with General Plan Amendment 22-2502 and Zone Change 22-3502 for the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District. The project site includes a northern half within the city boundary and a southern half in unincorporated Riverside County, requiring annexation. The northern half is to be re-designated as a specific plan, and the southern half pre-zoned as such, pending LAFCO approval. Existing general plan and zoning show commercial areas to the north and residential zoning throughout, with open space. Proposed changes maintain commercial to the north, convert much of the residential area to industrial, and preserve open space for natural drainage.
Planning Area 2, a shaded red area, would require a site-specific change to general commercial at a later date. The Sunset Crossroads project proposes commercial and industrial uses on 533.8 acres, including 268,400 square feet of commercial space (medical office, professional office, education, recreation), a 125-room hotel, and up to 5 million square feet of industrial uses (including up to 330 square feet of cold storage). The specific plan text serves as the project zoning document, containing land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and implementation provisions. Planning Area 1 is the general commercial area, while Planning Area 2 (33.8 acres) will need a future amendment for general commercial designation.
Examples of development standards from the specific plan (Chapter 3) were presented, including general commercial and industrial standards for lot size and setbacks. Mark Staples then introduced Nate Smith, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, to discuss circulation and traffic improvements.
Nate Smith discussed public works improvements related to the city's master plan. The project would require constructing Sunset Avenue to its full width from the Union Pacific Railroad to Westward Avenue, with a partial width improvement south of that point and a bridge crossing over Smith Creek. Dedications are required on Highland Home Road and Sun Lakes Boulevard. Ramp improvements on Sunset Avenue and intersection improvements at Sunset Lincoln, Sunset and Westward, Sun Lakes and Highland Home, and Ramsey Street are planned. These improvements align with circulation element roadways, intersections, and the traffic development impact fee program.
Roadway cross-sections are generally consistent with adopted city sections, with variations in parkway widths. Bike lanes and facilities are proposed. The current adopted truck route Resolution 2005-91) was presented, noting that roadways are not automatically truck routes and local serving businesses are exempt. The city is working towards AB 98 compliance with the general plan update by January 1, 2030.
A truck management plan is required to address community concerns about excessive trucks near Sun Lakes. The plan aims to divert traffic to Sunset Avenue towards the I-10 trade corridor, including signage, lease provisions with penalties for non-compliance, and physical improvements to discourage turns towards Sun Lakes. A traffic coordinator contact with the city and increased enforcement by Banning PD are also planned.
The project would provide additional water system redundancy and looping, benefiting the Sun Lakes community. An alternate water source would be provided via an 18-inch main within Westward Avenue. Non-potable water will be used for landscaping, with extensions to Sun Lakes and Sunset Avenue, and potentially to Sunset and Bobcat. A new gravity sewer backbone line from the Westward Avenue lift station to Sunset is required, eventually leading to the decommissioning of the lift station, which would reduce energy and maintenance demands.
All drainage on the project is set to be self-contained, with no major city-owned drainage system proposed. Stormwater must comply with the Banning-Venie Code, Regional Water Quality Board 999
4 control measures, and permits from CDFW, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Army Corps. The grading plan must comply with Title 18 of the Banning Municipal Code and environmental agency permits, with grading proposed to balance on site.
The Public Works Department developed conditions to ensure necessary infrastructure is built before each building's operation, allowing for flexibility in development sequencing based on market demands. The Planning Commission suggested adding conditions for ramp improvements at I-10 and Sunset (westbound and eastbound right turn lanes) and a traffic signal at Ramsey Street and Highland Home Avenue. These locations are within the city's traffic diff, making the project eligible for diff credit and reimbursement. Nate Smith concluded his presentation and handed it back to Mark Staples.
Mark Staples resumed, discussing design guidelines in Chapter 4 of the specific plan, which aim to ensure quality and character throughout the project. These guidelines assist developers, tenants, builders, engineers, architects, and landscape architects in achieving the desired design. They provide an aesthetic benchmark for future applications, encourage energy-efficient design, and ensure compliance with the City of Banning General Plan and ordinances. Chapter 5 includes implementation measures for land use and development guidelines, assisting city staff in project review.
A tentative parcel map subdivides the industrial and commercial areas into 34 lots (ranging from one to 78 acres) and five lettered lots for common areas or public purposes. The map has been updated to remove financing conveyance purposes and include correct APM numbers. The northern half and southern half (currently in Riverside County) of the map were shown. Mark Staples then introduced Interim City Manager Art Vela to discuss the development agreement.
Interim City Mager Art Vela highlighted notable terms in the development agreement, including an $8 million public benefit fee ($1.44 per square foot) paid in installments, with the first million due before grading permit issuance. The developer can receive up to $2 million in credits towards the $8 million for bringing in a sales tax-generating tenant, such as a fulfillment center. The agreement also includes an accelerated transportation development impact fee payment of $5.1 million for improvements to the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension, intended to help the city cash flow the project.
The developer is offering land for a fire station site, water tank site, electric substation site, and reverse osmosis site, estimated to be worth $5 to $7 million, at no cost to the city. They will also contribute $500,000 for the design and environmental review of a new substation, with total contributions not to exceed $12.5 million, which is estimated to cover the entire construction. This is crucial because the existing Midway substation (20 MVA) is outdated, and the electric utility lacks the funds for replacement. The developer's contribution would fund both the replacement and the capacity needed for their project.
The developer will be reimbursed for the city's share of the substation, partly through the city's transformer equipment and labor (estimated at $2.5 million), and the balance through rate revenues. The current electric rate structure supports this payback. The developer is also dedicating a five-acre park, which they will design, construct, and maintain.
The development agreement mandates a minimum 100-foot buffer between buildings and Bobcat Road, including a 20-foot landscape area. Facility funding includes a $15 million fire station contribution (covering design and construction) and $1 million for fire station equipment (a new fire truck), plus the electric substation contribution. A $750,000 grant contribution can be used to beautify downtown or fund a small business assistance program, such as a revolving loan.
The development agreement includes the formation of a CFD for a special tax on industrial buildings at 20 cents per square foot annually, with an annual escalator and no sunset date. The developer benefits from a seven-year freeze on new impact fees (excluding increases in existing categories). The developer is required to construct or begin construction of 100,000 square feet of commercial retail within 24 months of the first industrial building occupancy, with a $500,000 1000
5 payment to the city every six months if they fail to meet this commitment. The agreement calls for at least two 100,000 square foot retailers, and the developer must submit an amendment to the specific plan and conduct an environmental review to allow retail and commercial in planning area two.
The development agreement was made public on September 10th and November 5th, 2025, with changes made based on Planning Commission discussions. Further revisions have been made in collaboration with the city attorney's office and the developer's team, including a tolling period (to be explained by City Attorney John Pinkney).
A 17 cents per square foot cap on permit fees has been removed due to refined calculations. A provision related to a tax-sharing and reimbursement agreement for the electric substation has also been removed, as the electric rate structure now supports the city's share of the substation cost.
Various other changes clarify the intent of specific provisions.
Interim City Manager Vela presented a table summarizing the fiscal impact of the project, highlighting its timeliness given the recent audit discussion. The 2024 audit identified a serious fiscal challenge and a structural deficit of at least $3 million for the next few years. The annual revenue from the project includes the special tax (20 cents per square foot) and other recurring revenues, totaling over $2.9 million per year. The "other recurring revenues" represent the net surplus after subtracting the city's estimated expenditures for providing services to the development.
One-time revenues total over $37 million, including the public benefit fee (potentially reduced by $2 million), and contributions towards the electric substation. Half of the property is within the county jurisdiction, and upon annexation, the county will retain 75% of the property tax, with the city receiving only 25%. The project is expected to generate over $70 million in impact fee revenue, which is not included in the one-time revenue table as it is a standard requirement for all developments. Interim City Manager Vela concluded his presentation and handed it back to Mark Staples.
Mark Staples outlines the required findings for various project applications as per the municipal code. For general plan amendments, section 17.64.070 lists four items addressed in resolutions 26- 27 (denial) and 28-31 (approval), carrying over findings from the Planning Commission's November 17th meeting. The specific plan adheres to section 17.96.040, emphasizing consistency with the general plan, environmental impact, site suitability, and neighborhood character. Zone change findings are under section 17.116.050, focusing on consistency with the general plan, zoning ordinance, and environmental concerns. The development agreement, unique to each project, is subject to section 17.0.030, ensuring consistency with the general plan, specific plans, and zoning ordinance, while promoting public welfare. The parcel map complies with the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66474, mirroring the seven findings discussed previously for the track map.
Mark Staples resumed, stating that he would go through the last of the project slides, mostly dealing with the required findings that are required with every project application. With all the application types, there are a couple slides to get through. He stated that he would not read through them all, but this is the list of required findings per the municipal code for general plan amendments. He pointed out the four items there per section 17.64.070. He stated that these items are all addressed both in the different resolutions that are before the council. He stated that the first two, resolutions 26 and 27, are what could be called the denial resolutions, and that resolutions 28 through 31 are the approval resolutions.
The project's environmental compliance timeline dates back to February 2021, with the circulation of the EIR notice of preparation. A scoping session followed two weeks later. The draft EIR was published in December 2023, with a comment period yielding 54 letters. The final EIR was published in July 2024. Due to unavoidable impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation, Council must make findings and adopt statements of overriding considerations for approval. The draft EIR covers the summary, introduction, project description, environmental analysis, density change to Mt. San Jacinto College, cumulative impacts, CEQA topics, alternatives, and preparers, along with technical appendices. The final EIR focuses on responses to comments, draft EIR text revisions, the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, findings of fact, and 1001
6 statement of overriding considerations, supplemented by a memorandum from September 10th, 2025.
The Mt. San Jacinto project involves general plan application 22-2502 and zone change 22-3502, transferring 1146 potential residential units from Sunset Crossroads to the Mt. San Jacinto College property. This includes rezoning 41 acres of the 49.2-acre area from public facilities/school to very high-density residential. The Sunset Crossroads project must also adhere to general plan amendment findings (section 17.64.070) and zone change findings (section 17.116.050). The Council has two groups of decisions: denying the EIR and project per the Planning Commission's recommendation or approving the project. The Planning Commission initially voted 3-2 to recommend denial on September 10th, then adopted denial resolutions on November 17th, 2025.
Resolution 2026-26 rejects the EIR certification, while resolution 2026-27 denies the applications for the 533-acre site. Approval resolutions include 2026-28 (EIR certification), 2026-29 (general plan amendment), 30 (annexation resolution for LAFCO), and 31 (tentative parcel map 38118). Three ordinances are needed to approve Zone Change 20-3502, Specific Plan 20-2002, and the development agreement 1620.
Council Member Flynn inquiries about the removal of cold storage, the Sunset Avenue ramp improvements, and AB 98 compliance. Mark Staples clarifies that the cold storage was removed from the 33-acre planning area. Nate Smith explains that the Sunset ramp improvements are part of the DIF program, with the developer potentially making right-hand turn improvements and receiving DIF credit. The Caltrans process could take about 18 months, but there are no current plans.
Caltrans was notified about the EIR but did not respond. Regarding AB 98 compliance, Nate Smith states that Banning is not listed as a warehouse-impacted area and, as a jurisdiction under 50,000 residents, has a compliance date of 2030. The city will evaluate truck routes in coordination with Beaumont as part of the general plan update.
Council Member Flynn questions the designation of Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home as a truck route. Nate Smith clarifies that it is not currently a truck route and would require a separate council action. He notes the section to Highland Springs is designated for 10,000 pounds or less.
Regarding prohibiting trucks from turning right from the extension past Highland Home to Highland Springs, Nate Smith mentions the applicant's proposed intersection control with narrower lanes. He also addresses the proposed signal at Ramsey and Highland Home, stating it was not included as a condition of approval due to its location on the opposite side of the freeway, but the traffic study shows a potential impact. A signal at Highland Home and Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is not planned at this point, pending a more detailed traffic analysis. Council Member Flynn asks about the transformer for the electric substation.
Interim City Manager Art Vela estimates the transformer has been at the yard for about two years, purchased for the Midway substation replacement. He confirms the CFD is a service special tax, found in section 6.2.2 C of the development agreement, and requires property owner approval.
Council Member Flynn notes the development agreement was published recently and is labeled as a draft. Mark Staples clarifies it's the most final version. Council Member Flynn questions if the project is null and void if LAFCO denies annexation. Mark Staples believes only the southern portion's development rights would be affected, but Council Member Flynn cites section 4.2 on page 29, stating the owner reserves the right to terminate the agreement if LAFCO denies annexation. Mark Staples acknowledges this is the owner's decision.
Council Member Flynn raises concerns about the retail development obligation, noting the 100,000 square feet of commercial use is required within 24 months after the first final certificate of occupancy for a project warehouse, potentially delaying the retail development. She also questions the market feasibility study requirement for Planning Area 2, fearing another warehouse if the study deems commercial retail unviable. Mark Staples acknowledges the change to commercial was a late addition based on feedback. City Manager Vela agrees with Council Member Flynn's concerns, suggesting the 24-month clock should start sooner and emphasizing the city's intent for commercial and retail use regardless of the market study.
1002
7 Council Member Flynn prefers the retail development clock to start with permitting, not occupancy.
Mark Staples clarifies that occupancy refers to the final inspection, not necessarily a physical presence. Council Member Flynn then questions the special account for public benefit fees until the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension is completed. Interim City Manager Vela explains this provision was added early on when the city lacked full funding for the extension, but the project is now fully funded, so the fees won't be used for the road. Council Member Flynn asks if the city will miss out on the money. Interim City Manager Vela confirms the city will still receive the money per the installment schedule. Council Member Flynn expresses concern about the first installment of the public benefit fee being paid prior to the first grading permit, potentially delaying payment for years. She wants to see fees paid sooner.
Council Member Wallace seeks clarification from Nate Smith regarding truck routes, specifically ensuring Sun Lakes Boulevard is not designated as one. Nate Smith confirms it is not and would require separate council action. Mayor Royce raises the issue of defining "construction" within the contract agreement, questioning whether it refers to permit issuance, groundbreaking, building completion, or occupancy. Interim City Manager Vela suggests the definition depends on the context and should be clarified in each provision where the term is used. Mark Staples suggests tying it to building department standards, where work is expected to begin within six months of permit issuance.
Brent Miles, one of the owners and founders of North Point, introduces the firm, highlighting its position as the largest privately held landlord in the United States with over $20 billion in assets under management. He emphasizes North Point's experience with California regulations and its commitment to investing in communities through thoughtful planning and public input. Miles states the project will create generational economic impact for Banning. He acknowledges the Council's difficult decision and aims to demonstrate transparency, openness, collaboration, and partnership.
Miles expresses eagerness to begin the project, noting North Point purchased the property from a residential developer in June 2020. He highlights the team of professionals involved in creating a robust plan. Miles claims this project has the largest amount of public benefit North Point has ever given, representing almost a $1 billion investment in Banning.
Brent Miles emphasizes the significant public benefit of the project, estimating it as a near $1 billion investment in Banning. He addresses concerns about distrust in developers, assuring commitment to working with the city attorney to ensure transparency in payments. The project aims to transform the community by introducing retail, grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, entertainment, and services, with a signed contract with an anchor tenant. Miles highlights the creation of approximately 4,000 permanent jobs, infrastructure improvements, funding for a fire station and equipment, and a partnership to address Banning Electric's issues. Land donation for parks, along with their construction and maintenance, is also part of the plan. The development agreement is structured to protect the city without incurring costs, featuring a high CFD fee. Miles points out the elimination of cold storage plans and the addition of a 100-foot buffer in response to community feedback, ensuring AB 98 compliance. He also mentions the reduction of industrial square footage and the relocation of the fire station, emphasizing the importance of the anchor tenant and the donation of land to the retail user.
Brent Miles reiterates the public benefits, including the retail timing penalty, special facilities tax, and fire station funding, clarifying that the city retains the fire station funds if an agreement with Riverside County isn't reached. He highlights a grant for small businesses and the donation of land and easements for the Banning Electric substation and Sun Lakes Boulevard extension. A two-week job look-ahead for Banning residents and a partnership with MSJC are proposed to ensure local job creation. Financial impacts are tied to the certificate of occupancy, with flexibility in payment timing.
Infrastructure improvements, including the Sun Lakes Boulevard extension and upgrades to Sunset, Lincoln, Bobcat, and Highland Home roadways, are valued at $42 million. Other benefits include the donation of right-of-way, a substation, a fire station, a water storage tank, an osmosis center, and parkland. Miles expresses excitement about bringing new shopping opportunities and a first-class fire station and parks to the community. He acknowledges the project's impacts, including sound, traffic, and noise, and explains the mitigation efforts. The sound impact is addressed, noting that the 1003
8 project only exceeds sound variance during the construction of Sunset, with a temporary sound wall proposed as a solution.
Brent Miles discusses the traffic management plan, emphasizing no truck traffic west on SLB and proposing a headache bar solution. He highlights the use of sound walls, buffering, and landscaping to mitigate noise, stating that the project does not exceed sound limits except during Sunset construction. Miles argues that residential development is not viable on the site due to infrastructure costs and the presence of arroyos. He emphasizes the project's billion-dollar investment, commitment to paying fees, and desire to bring amenities and jobs to the community. Miles seeks a partnership to create a project that benefits the community, acknowledging the courage required to approve such a project and the potential for opposition. He believes the project's benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Council Member Flynn inquires about the anchor tenant, which Miles confirms is a grocery-anchored retailer but cannot be publicly named. She questions the usability of the 65 acres of public park land, noting that much of it consists of culverts and ravines, and expresses concern about the existing homeless population in the area. Miles suggests that increased activity will deter homelessness and offers to consider providing more land for pure park space. Flynn emphasizes the ongoing issue of homelessness on the property and asks about plans for addressing it.
Council Member Flynn raises concerns about the lack of plans and funding for staffing the proposed fire station. Brent Miles suggests staff can better address the funding issue. Council Member Flynn requests a permanent sound wall north of Sun Lakes Boulevard on Highland Home Road to buffer the view and noise for the Sun Lakes community. Miles agrees to explore the sound wall. City Manger Vela explains that the project is projected to bring a net annual fiscal surplus to the city, part of which could be used for fire services, and mentions the possibility of a citywide CFD service to fund fire and police. He also suggests cost-sharing with the City of Beaumont. Brent Miles adds that the park land could potentially be expanded from five to twelve acres.
Councilman Miller expresses concern that the $16 million allocated for the fire station and equipment may not be sufficient due to rising costs. Brent Miles offers to increase the funding and tie it to a CPI inflator. Council Member Wallace asks the Fire Chief Hopkins about staffing the fire station once it's built. Fire Chief Hopkins explains that the city can request staffing through a letter, and the costs would depend on the type of resource placed there. He emphasizes the need for a fire station on the south side of the freeway and its potential to improve coverage in the city. Council Member Flynn clarifies the desired extent of the sound wall along Highland Home Road, requesting it extend to the substation for continuity.
Fire Chief Hopkins discussed the potential costs and benefits of establishing a fire station on the south side of Beaumont, emphasizing the current lack of coverage in that area and the reliance on stations in Cabazon (often blocked by trains) or Poppet Flats. He mentioned that staffing costs would depend on the type of resource deployed. Moving Engine 20 to the new station and adding equipment to the Wilson station could improve coverage for Atwell and other north-side communities. The Fire Chief offered to provide cost estimates for fire equipment, noting that a fully outfitted fire engine currently costs around $1.7 million, while a truck like the one purchased by Beaumont cost $2.4 million plus outfitting expenses. The estimated cost for a new fire station is around $8 million, potentially excluding land costs, but the city has architecture drawings available to help reduce costs. Projections have been made regarding response times from potential fire station locations off Sunset and at the Wilson site, aiming for a four-to-five-minute response time. Other fire stations being built in the county are estimated to cost around $12 million or more.
Charlene So from Urban Crossroads stated that the modified project now anticipates 1,850 trucks per day on Sunset Avenue daily, a reduction from the original estimate of 3,200 due to project modifications. The traffic study primarily focuses on morning and evening peak hours, revealing slightly more truck traffic in the morning (about 100 trucks more). While truck activity generally occurs outside peak commute hours, there could be truck traffic between 7-9 PM. The industrial traffic pattern is inverse to residential traffic, with higher inbound traffic in the morning and higher outbound traffic in the afternoon, potentially mitigating congestion during peak commute times. 1004
9 Council Member Flynn questioned the significant reduction in truck traffic (from 3,200 to 1,800) despite the removal of only 500,000 square feet of warehouse space. Brent Miles clarified that the removal of 330,000 square feet of cold storage, along with the elimination of the truck stop as a permitted use, significantly contributed to the reduction in truck traffic. Cold storage and truck stops have a disproportionately high impact on truck volume compared to standard warehouse space.
Council Member Flynn requested that the updated traffic study memo be provided to the entire council for review.
Mayor Royce questioned Brent Miles about comparable mixed-use projects in California. Brent Miles mentioned a large project near the Sacramento airport and retail developments in Kansas City and Detroit, but not a similar mixed-use project in California. He stated that his company has developed 30,000 residential units across the U.S. Mayor Royce expressed concern about the high number of vacant warehouses in Riverside County and asked if tenants were secured for the proposed warehouses. Brent Miles stated that he doesn't have tenants yet because he doesn't know when construction will begin. He cited a 5.2% vacancy rate for IE East, indicating a tight market. Council Member Flynn expressed concern that the warehouses might remain empty, referencing the Skechers building and other vacant properties in Cherry Valley. Brent Miles stated that the Skechers issue is related to foreign trade zone status, not a lack of demand. He disagreed with the notion of a downturn in warehousing, asserting that the region is the most robust industrial market globally.
Council Member Flynn suggested a condition requiring a tenant to be secured before building each subsequent warehouse. Brent Miles expressed openness to discussing language around this but highlighted the financial risk of building additional vacant warehouses. Council Member Flynn emphasized the community's concern about potential empty warehouses, given the history of vacant properties and the rezoning of land previously designated for single-family homes. She worried about the negative impact on surrounding communities if the warehouses remain unoccupied and do not benefit the city. Brent Miles pointed out that he would still be paying fees and taxes even if the buildings were vacant. City Manager Vela added that vacant warehouses would generate revenue through CFD and property taxes without placing demands on city services like traffic management.
Mayor Royce expressed concern that empty warehouses could attract crime and blight, potentially exceeding the revenue generated. Brent Miles stated that less than 2%, possibly less than 1%, of his California properties are currently vacant. Mayor Royce inquired about the intended use of the warehouses, specifically whether they would be used for "point of sale" activities. Brent Miles explained that point of sale taxation in California is complex and depends on the tenant's other facilities. He mentioned Chewy.com as an example of a point-of-sale tenant in Missouri. Brent Miles estimated that 20% of their California portfolio involves point of sale. He believes that the Banning location is a "home-run site" and that he has the capital ready for the project. He noted that last year, his company leased 15.6 million square feet, with 9.8 million square feet coming from existing Fortune 500 tenants.
Brent Miles clarified that the plans include dedicated truck parking spaces, separate from loading and unloading docks. These spaces are intended for trucks staging between loads. Mayor Royce expressed concern about trucks spilling over onto city roads, a common problem in other cities with large distribution centers. Brent Miles assured that the site has ample land coverage (22-25%) compared to typical industrial developments (35-38%), allowing for sufficient on-site storage and queuing. City Manager Vela emphasized the longer throats leading into the buildings, providing more on-site storage capacity for trucks. Brent Miles stated that the internal road networks are designed to prevent trucks from queuing on public streets. He expressed confidence in leasing the buildings due to their state-of-the-art design and ample parking.
Mayor Royce Opened Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
• A resident highlights key issues previously raised: electricity bills, warehouses, and animal care. urges the council to consider whether the current project is truly in the city's best interest, noting resident opposition to empty warehouses and uncertainty about future buyers and the economy. • Richard McCard expresses concerns about the incompatibility of warehouses with neighboring residential areas and focuses on traffic impacts. He cites a figure of 1,850 trucks per day, 1005
10 exceeding one truck per minute. He raises concerns about ambulance and police access, added load on the 10 freeway, noise, and pollution. He questions truck routing via Sun Lakes Boulevard to Sunset Blvd. and suggests the airport as a more suitable location. • Chuck Huff emphasizes that the council's loyalty should be to residents, not freight traffic. He criticizes the council's credibility, citing the San Gorgonio Inn and a drag racetrack. He recalls previous claims about the impossibility of extending Sun Lakes Boulevard due to dangerous pipelines. He highlights traffic problems on Sunset and Lincoln, the impact on fire engine access despite the $35 million underpass, and the increase in decibel levels from sirens. He also mentions the shift from rural land to high-density housing and commercial development. • A resident asks if homeowners in Serrano Del Vista will be reimbursed if truck traffic on Sunset lowers property values.
• John, representing union plumbers, pipe fitters, and refrigeration workers, finds it ironic that people complain about warehouses while ordering online. He challenges the vacancy rate argument, citing statistics of approximately 5% vacancy in the general area and 8% county-wide, suggesting a 92% chance of occupancy. He proposes organizing warehouses with tiered wage systems, higher salaries based on seniority, supervisors with higher pay, and union representation. He urges the council not to turn down this opportunity. • Jack Marty, a Banning resident with logistics and trucking experience, notes the presentation sounded better than previous ones. He recalls citizen opposition to warehouses and marijuana facilities, preferring grocery stores and retail. He expresses concern about 80 trucks per hour accessing the freeway, predicting a "nightmare." He also mentions fumes, drugs, overnight truck parking, and the potential for lawsuits forcing the opening of Sun Lakes Boulevard to truckers. • Ashley Adams, a lifelong Banning resident and mother, acknowledges setbacks but emphasizes the need to consider the future for her child and other children. She highlights the jobs, entertainment, and food the plan could bring, urging the council to work out the details and consider the expectations of the younger generation.
• Tara Hagee, a Banning resident and caregiver in Sun Lakes, admires the area's environment and nature. She notes the existing 11 industrial, two commercial, and four residential projects already in the works. She argues for legacy over quick fixes, emphasizing community, small business, sustainable jobs, and environmental alignment. She urges consideration of the proposal's economic, health, and longevity impacts.
• Edward Espinosa clarifies factual points about the Sunset Crossroads project, including the 30- year development agreement and the $8 million public benefit fee being contingent on building construction and occupancy. He notes that the fire station, water reservoir, and other public facilities are based on phased needs, not automatic construction. He states that the warehouse and commercial components are market-driven and phased, with no mandatory build-out date.
He also mentions the illustrative nature of the presented map and the lack of fixed warehouse sizes or layouts. He suggests ways for the city to protect itself, such as performance bonds and permit-based phasing. He raises concerns about decibel levels affecting seniors with hearing aids.
• Kathy Aranda formally opposes the Sunset Crossroads project, calling it the wrong project in the wrong location. She emphasizes the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial. She notes the permanent rezoning and annexation of over 500 acres, allowing over 5.5 million square feet of industrial warehouse development. She highlights the Environment Impact Report's acknowledgement of significant unavoidable impacts, including air quality, noise, traffic, and quality of life effects. She argues that environmental review identifies impacts but does not justify them, and rezoning makes those impacts permanent. She urges the council to deny the project, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. • Amy Pippinger expresses agreement with the previous speaker. If the project passes, she insists on a stoplight or stop sign at Highland Home and Sun Lakes. She raises concerns about student 1006
11 and resident traffic on Sunset, especially near Westward, and the potential for problems with teenage drivers and semi-trucks. She believes the developer should have proposed a project consistent with the existing zoning. She also requests a buffer on Bobcat for horse trailers. • Nick Weyrich, Senior Vice President at SRS Real Estate Partners, explains his firm was hired to secure retail tenants for the project's commercial component. He argues this is a transformational opportunity for Banning, potentially bringing a major nationally recognized retail anchor tenant. He emphasizes the competitive landscape with other sites in Beaumont and Calimesa. He states that the logistics component subsidizes the deal, making it attractive to retailers. He believes the anchor tenant will attract other retailers, creating a diverse mix of uses and a first-class amenity for the city.
• Lee Park, a partner at Axiom Retail Advisors, represents a nationally recognized big box retail client in advanced negotiations with North Point. He expresses strong support for the project, citing the potential for good local jobs, substantial tax revenue, and secured future growth. He emphasizes the client's real interest but ties their ability to move forward to the industrial component and its infrastructure. He warns that delays could lead the client to deploy resources elsewhere, making Banning no longer viable. He believes North Point is the right steward for the property and that the time for approval has come.
• Juanita Diaz expresses concern that the community is not adequately involved and convinced of the project's benefits. She feels information is often left out and that last-minute document releases are designed to confuse residents. She requests the council to deny the project with prejudice due to inadequate information.
• Louie Lopez, business agent for Ironworkers Local 433, highlights the "endless opportunity" promised by the city's motto. He seeks to recruit more Banning residents into the ironworkers, especially veterans through a direct entry program. He emphasizes the community benefits offered by North Point, stating he has never seen a developer willing to give so much to the community. He notes that union ironworkers start at $30 an hour as first-period apprentices, emphasizing the value of on-the-job skill training.
• Chuck Huff, a 52-year member of Local 250 Steam Fitter, acknowledges the improvements made to the project over the years. He admits that change is hard, especially for long-time residents. He notes his community's proximity to the project and its potential impact. He acknowledges the reduction in warehouses and the removal of the refrigeration component. He connects the project to the college and high-density housing, questioning the affordability of housing for retail workers earning $20 an hour. He commends the developers but remains hesitant about the change, understanding the need for jobs. • Fran Hanrati asks the city council to be careful in their decision, suggesting the amount of warehouse square footage is excessive. She emphasizes the city's beautiful surroundings and its status as a blue zone city, highlighting the importance of clean air. She requests a revision to reduce the warehouse square footage.
• A resident addresses the potential uses of warehouses, citing examples of sports arenas, eateries, and chef classes. Emphasize the potential for community benefit and job creation, particularly in carpentry, ironworking, and electrical trades. • A resident suggests relocating the project to the airport, creating a win-win situation for everyone and avoiding truck traffic near homes.
• Ron Roy supports the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the project, reflecting the community's wishes for the 534 acres. He suggests the city staff's support for the developer stems from private meetings and communications without comparable public input. He asks the council to require the developer to reduce the industrial warehouse footprint and expand on existing general plan land uses, suggesting less than 160 acres or 30% of total acreage away from homes. He also mentions available industrial land east of Hathaway. He argues that the future of the 534 acres should reflect the Planning Commission and community's vision, not the 1007
12 developer's, criticizing the developer's unchanging monolithic vision since 2021, where warehouses dominate 74% of the land use. He requests the Council to require the developer to reduce the industrial warehouse footprint and expand on existing general plan land uses, suggesting less than 160 acres or 30% of total acreage away from homes for industrial use. He believes more diverse land uses would create better dynamics and value. • Carlos Esparza expresses his support for the project, mentioning his desire for a new park and nearby work opportunities. As a member of Iron Workers Local 433, he emphasizes the need for opportunities for young people, highlighting the union's apprenticeship programs for veterans and others
Mayor Royce Closed Public Hearing at 8:36 p.m.
Brent Miles with North Point addresses concerns, stating that fire services were prioritized based on staff input and that they have never seen property value decline near their industrial projects, citing examples in Kansas City and Edgerton, Kansas. They clarify that weed is a prohibited use due to their financial partners' restrictions inside warehouses. They emphasize the benefits of the 30-year development agreement, including guaranteed fees and an upfront payment of $7 million. They also highlight the explicit details of the development agreement regarding upfront payments.
Brent Miles addresses concerns about sound, stating that the human ear cannot detect decibel changes of less than three decibels, while the project's noise impact is much lower. He is willing to discuss the stoplight at Highland with public works and engineering. He also mentioned Hillwood as a competitor in the airport commentary.
Brent Miles clarifies that the industrial buildings will not be built all at once, and the traffic model accounts for full build-out over several years. expresses a shared desire to avoid vacant buildings and offer to provide a more detailed illustration of the traffic model, including signal locations, turn lanes, and time frames.
Brent Miles is unsure about the electrical substation and offers to consider how the project can help with other city needs like animal control. Council Member Flynn expresses concern about the amount of warehouses and square footage, suggesting the inclusion of more retail, commercial, and medical facilities.
Brent Miles agrees to consider alternative land uses but cautions that changes to the industrial square footage could impact on the financial viability of the project and the public benefit package.
Emphasizes that the development agreement was heavily negotiated and that industrial use is the primary financial driver.
Mayor Royce points out the conflict between the developer's financial interest in warehouses and the city's need for retail. The applicant representative acknowledges the community's desire for retail but argues that industrial development generates more fees and is a more reliable financial producer. They estimate that the retail development could generate $2.5 million in sales tax.
Council Member Miller raises concerns about truck traffic and asks if some warehouses could be used for other purposes. The applicant representative explains that traffic is modeled based on warehouse square footage and that they actively monitor traffic to minimize problems, as excessive truck traffic is undesirable for both the developer and potential tenants. He highlight the $46 million investment in infrastructure to manage traffic.
Mayor Royce suggests a traffic study model predicting traffic in two to three years. The applicant representative and Charlene So from Urban Crossroads clarify that the traffic study looks at various time horizons, including existing conditions, project phases, cumulative projects, and a horizon year of 2045.
Council Member Flynn emphasizes that various commercial uses beyond retail are possible and 1008
13 that warehouses generate 24/7 truck traffic, unlike medical or retail buildings. She expresses concern about the potential impact of 80 trucks per hour on the on and off ramps and suggests reducing the warehouse area south of Sun Lakes Blvd.
Brent Miles reiterates their efforts to minimize truck traffic and balance community needs with the development agreement. Councilmember Flynn questions the guarantee of LAFCO approval for the county land south of Sun Lakes Boulevard and the potential for the developer to withdraw if it's not approved.
J.J. Jenkins with Northpoint confirms that a survey was conducted in a disadvantaged unincorporated community, and residents chose not to join the city.
Council Member Wallace emphasizes the need for economic development in Banning, highlighting the city's fiscal challenges and the importance of adapting to change. She argues that the Planning Commission's denial of projects is hurting the city and that Banning needs to attract businesses to avoid being bypassed by other booming cities. She stresses the need for a change in mindset to support economic growth for the benefit of future generations.
Charlene So, with Urban Crossroads confirms the original traffic study was completed on August 9th, 2023, with subsequent technical memos, including one dated September 3rd, 2025.
Deputy City Clerk, Sandra Calderon reports receiving seven letters in support and 416 letters in opposition to the project, distributed to the council. Councilman Wallace reiterates that the project impacts the entire city of Banning.
Council Member Flynn moves to continue the discussion to a future date, citing the late release of the development agreement and a 10-page letter received from Sunset Crossroads. She argues that the council needs more time to digest these documents and the traffic study. The motion is seconded by Council Member Barrington. Motion carried 4-1 with Council Member Wallace voting no.
City Attorney Pinkney clarifies that continuing the public hearing to a date certain avoids the need for re-noticing. The discussion clarifies that agenda items 6-1 and 6-2 are related to the same project and can be continued together.
Councilmember Flynn suggests hearing agenda item 6-2, which involves the general plan amendment and zone change, as it is a separate issue involving the city and Mt. San Jacinto College, not North Point.
Mark Staples, Senior Planner proceeds to present the next item 6.2.
6.2 Consideration of an Application by the City of Banning, CA for General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502) to Amend the Land Use Designation and Zoning of Approximately 41 acres of Land Owned by Mount San Jacinto Community College District Located Near the Southeast Corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues from PF–S (Public Facilities-Schools) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR) to Transfer Density of Not Less Than 1,146 Residential Units from the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan.
Recommendation: 1. Adopt Resolution 2026-33, DENYING the project proposals of General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502)
2. Adopt Resolution 2026-34, APPROVING the project proposals of a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502) Mark Staples, Senior Planner proceeds to present on the residential land use transfer, explaining that it complies with state law regarding no net loss of residential land uses and is tied to the housing element. Another site was needed to accommodate the 1,146 units. Explaining the prior residential land uses in the area, referencing the "no net loss law" passed around 2021 or 2022 and its connection to the housing element. To compensate for the loss of 1,146 units, previous 1009
14 directors contacted Mt. San Jacinto College, who were willing to take on the residential unit total, but wouldn't provide a formal letter of commitment. The presentation includes approval and denial resolutions tied to the North Point project and resolutions approving general plan 22-2502 and zone change 22-3502, specific to the college district's properties.
Council Member Flynn questioned the college's willingness without a formal commitment and the implications of transferring 1,146 low-density homes to a property not owned by the city, suggesting it's merely a "paper trade" to satisfy state housing policy. She expressed concern about losing these homes and the potential repercussions from HCD. She emphasized the Planning Commission's opposition to the project and the need for rooftops to support local businesses.
Mark Staples stated that the MSJC district generally accepted the responsibility for the 1,146 units.
They mentioned the possibility of further transfer development rights. Council Member Flynn questioned the density required to accommodate that many units, and Mark clarified it would be roughly 27 units per acre, similar to recently built three-story apartments.
Mayor Royce opened public comments.
• Amy Pippinger speculated that MSJC might be amenable to the proposal because Diversified Pacific could purchase the land for apartments. She expressed her opposition to the plan. • Tara Hagee questioned the logic of voting on the proposal without guarantees and its contingency on the other proposal, suggesting it be revisited with a committed site. The developer representative stated the MSJC site was considered in the EIR for the North Point project due to SB 330 requirements. He clarified that the MSJC site is intended for job development, not housing, and wouldn't preclude future school facilities. He also mentioned the 1,146 units were analyzed programmatically in the EIR and traffic analysis, with a housing range of 24-30 DU per acre, potentially in a clustered, three-story format. • Shirley Hagey noted the reduced audience and expressed concern that the community wasn't adequately informed about the rezoning. She suggested delaying the decision for more public input. John Kond, counsel for the developer, emphasized the legal requirement under SB 330 to handle the North Point project and the zone change simultaneously. He clarified that state law only requires capacity, and the 1,146 units were merely shifted, not built or planned, similar to the previous situation with Lennar and the Sunset Crossroads property. • Juanita Diaz expressed concern about the number of warehouses and questioned whether the city was prioritizing the community's needs. She emphasized the need for affordable housing and raised concerns about MSJC's potential departure. The meeting host then opened the floor for council discussion, deferring to legal counsel regarding separating or combining the items.
The City Attorney advised handling the two items together as they are applications for one project.
Mayor Royce closed public comments
City Attorney, Pinkney suggested continuing the public hearing to February 26th to allow for the inclusion of missing ordinances. A motion was made to continue the meeting to February 26th.
Councilmember Flynn inquired about the impact of the Rancho San Gregorio project (3,500 homes) on traffic. Staff confirmed the EIR accounted for Rancho San Gregorio as an existing approved project from 2016.
Council Member Flynn sought clarification on the car traffic numbers in addition to the 1,800-truck count.
Mark Staples indicated they would need to defer to traffic experts for specific car traffic numbers but estimated Island Springs had 30,000+ cars per day. Mayor Pro Tem Barrington pointed out that Rancho San Gregorio traffic would use multiple streets, not just Sunset. Council Member Flynn requested clear data on truck and car traffic. Mark Staples committed to translating the technical traffic data into an understandable narrative.
1010
15 7. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Mayor Royce and seconded by Council Member Miller to continue items 6-1 and 6-2 to February 26th at 5 p.m., motioned carried 5-0. Meeting was adjourned 9:32 p.m.
Minutes prepared by:
Sandra B. Calderon
Deputy City Clerk
These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).
The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/282?view_id=1&redirect=true 1011
1 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
September 10, 2025 Council Chambers
5:30 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
1. CALL TO ORDER
5:43 p.m.
1.1 ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT
Castorena, Chris X
Dale, Kathleen X
Marshall, Al X
Phelps, Gerry X
Rodriguez, Nathaniel X
2. REPORTS
2.1 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Assistant City Attorney, Robert Patterson reviewed rules of decorum, emphasizing courtesy to all, and providing examples of non-disruptive conduct like silent gestures and criticism during public comment.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Agenda Items Only
Staff proceeded with the staff report for item 4.1.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 Consideration of Applications By NP Banning Industrial, LLC for the Sunset Crossroads Project, including (1) a Specific Plan (Case No. SP 20-2002) to Allow for the Development of Industrial and Commercial Uses on 533.8-acres of Land Located South of I- 10 and the Union Pacific Railroad, and West of Sunset Avenue (Specific Plan Area); (2) a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 20-2501) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 20-3502) to Amend the General Plan Land Use and Zoning of the Specific Plan Area to General Commercial (GC), Industrial (I), Opens Space- Parks (OS- P), and Open Space-Resources (OS- R), including Pre-zoning for Annexation of Portions of the Specific Plan Area into the City of Banning’s Jurisdictional Boundary; (3) a Development Agreement to Establish Vested Development Rights in Exchange for Public Benefits as Specified in the Agreement; (4) a Tentative Parcel Map (Case No. TPM 38118) for a Subdivision of the Specific Plan Area into 1012
2 Thirty- four Parcels and Five Lettered Lots Ranging in Size from One Acre to Seventy -eight Acres Consistent with the Nineteen Planning Areas in the Specific Plan; and (5) a Final Environmental Impact Report (Sch No. 2021020011) Including Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommendation: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2025-10, Recommending City Council Conditionally Approve the Sunset Crossroads Entitlements including Specific Plan (Case No. SP 20-2002), General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 20-2501), Zone Change (Case No. ZC 20- 3502), Development Agreement, Tentative Parcel Map (Case No. TPM 38118) and Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (Sch No. 2021-020011) Including Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Community Development Director Newell presented the staff report on item 4.1, the Sunset Crossroads project, which includes a general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan, tentative parcel map, annexation of the southerly half of the site, and a development agreement, all supported by an environmental impact report (EIR). The Planning Commission's decision tonight is a recommendation to the City Council. A second item on the agenda is a general plan and zone change for land east of the project site, adjacent to Mt. San Jacinto Community College District, to allow for very high-density residential.
The project site is bordered by the 10 Freeway, Sunset Avenue, Bobcat Road, and Highland Home Road. Westward Avenue will extend through the site to Sun Lakes Boulevard. The southerly portion of the site requires annexation by LAFCO. The general plan amendment would redesignate the site as specific plan, with the southerly half pre-zoned for specific plan. Existing designations include commercial on the northeasterly portion, with proposed industrial designations replacing low, medium, and highdensity residential. The specific plan designates purple areas for industrial, green for open space, and red for general commercial retail.
The Specific Plan governs permissible uses, identifying commercial within 48 acres and industrial within 392 acres of the 533-acre site. Commercial areas would allow for 268,000 square feet of various uses, including a potential 125-room hotel, and approximately 5.5 million square feet of industrial uses, including up to 333,000 square feet of cold storage. The plan includes development standards, design guidelines, and implementation provisions, and identifies several planning areas with corresponding uses. The document outlines permitted uses for both commercial and industrial areas.
Implementation measures include a required truck route management plan prior to industrial building occupancy, with specific components such as signage, designated entries, and parking areas, and restrictions on westward travel on Sun Lakes Boulevard. Lease provisions must clearly identify truck routes, requiring trucks to use Sunset Avenue to access the 10 freeway and prohibiting them on Sun Lakes Boulevard west of Highland Home Road. Development standards limit industrial development height to 60 feet. Infrastructure improvements within and adjacent to the site are also detailed, including circulation networks and road cross-section requirements.
Specific design guidelines aim to ensure high-quality development. The Specific Plan delegates design review application approval authority to City staff. A tentative parcel map application proposes subdividing the 533-acre site into 34 lots, ranging from one to 78 acres, aligning with the Specific Plan's planning areas, plus five lettered lots for common area and public purposes. An incorrect attachment to the staff report for the tentative parcel map exhibit was noted, with the correct version included in the presentation and available on the city's website. Larger buildings are generally oriented in a north-south direction.
A development agreement between the City and the developer establishes terms and obligations for both parties, with a 30-year term. Public benefits include an $8 million public benefit fee in installments, roadway improvements, an accelerated transportation development impact fee of $5.1 million, land for a fire station, water tank, electric substation, and reverse osmosis facility, and an electric substation payment of $500,000 for design and environmental review, plus up to $9.5 million for construction of the substation. Roughly 53 acres of open space would be offered for dedication, along with a five-acre park 1013
3 designed, constructed, and maintained by the developer. Additional benefits in the agreement include a $15 million payment for a new fire station and $1 million to outfit it, a $10 million electric substation contribution, and a $750,000 grant for downtown beautification or small business assistance. These items were negotiated after the joint meeting of Planning Commission & City Council this past May.
At least 100,000 square feet of commercial retail must be constructed within 24 months of the first industrial building's occupancy, with a $500,000 penalty after 24 months, plus an additional $500,000 every six months until the threshold is met. The applicant has agreed to build at least two 100,000-square foot retailers and submit an amendment to the plan for additional retail in Planning Area 2. An additional buffer of at least 50 feet, including 25 feet of landscaping, will be added along Bobcat Road. The special tax for a community facilities district will increase to 20 cents per square foot of industrial annually with an escalator. The developer can seek a sales tax credit or rebate of up to $2 million of the public benefit fee and be reimbursed for the difference of electric substation capacity above their use. The agreement allows for a seven-year freeze on new impact fees.
To recommend approval, findings must be made for the General Plan Amendment (consistency, no detriment to public health, maintaining land use balance), Specific Plan (consistency with General Plan, no detriment to environment or public interest, suitability of property, compatible development), zone change (consistency with general plan and zoning ordinance, CEQA review), development agreement (consistency with General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning ordinance, promotion of public welfare), and subdivision map (Subdivision Map Act requirements).
The project was reviewed under CEQA, with a notice of preparation circulated in early 2021 and a scoping session held. A Draft EIR was published in December 2023, with a comment period concluding in January 2024, resulting in 54 comment letters. The final EIR, published in July 2024, included responses to comments and revisions. Due to unavoidable impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation, findings and statements of overriding considerations are required.
The EIR includes an environmental impact analysis, mitigation measures, and identification of significant impacts. A supplemental memorandum addresses potential changes from the development agreement, confirming no increased impacts. Documents are available on the City's website. This concluded Mr.
Newell’s presentation.
The Applicant, Brent Miles of NorthPoint Development, one of the owners and founders of North Point Development, thanked the Commissioners. He highlighted the project's long development timeline and the company's nationwide presence as the largest privately held developer in the United States, developing industrial, multifamily, residential retail, and mixed-use projects. North Point purchased the site from Lennar Homes, who could not make it work.
North Point purchased the site in June 2020 and has been working on the project since. The May 8th joint workshop between the City Council and Planning Commission was impactful. The company has solicited feedback through various channels, including social media. The May 8th workshop led to a revised plan and development agreement. Questions from the public and elected officials focused on reducing industrial space and increasing retail.
Key revisions include reducing industrial land and enhancing the development agreement. There's a formalized workforce integration plan to prioritize Banning residents' employment. The original plan from May 8th has been revised to reduce industrial costs and restrict industrial development to Planning Area 2, potentially allowing for more retail in the future. This addresses concerns from the Serrano Del Vista Homeowners Association by eliminating industrial development along Sunset Avenue fronting their development.
The project includes 66 acres of open space and a five-acre park. North Point aims to create a first-class park and will collaborate with city staff and commissioners on its design and use, considering options like soccer fields and Little League sports.
Since May 8th, the development agreement has been enhanced through conversations with City staff and legal counsel. The industrial area has been reduced from 392 acres to 358 acres, eliminating two buildings in the planning area near Serrano Del Vista. A 100-foot buffer (corrected from a typoed 50-foot buffer) has been agreed upon along Bobcat Road to address concerns from residents. A $1 million annual payment to the city will be enforced if the retail requirement is not met. The special facilities tax 1014
4 has been increased from $500,000 to $1 million annually. Questions about the fire station were raised on May 8th.
The developer addressed concerns raised on May 8th regarding the retail component, agreeing to a $1 million annual payment to the City if the promised retail is not delivered. They also committed to donating land for a fire station and providing $16 million in funding ($15 million for the station and $1 million for equipment), with the flexibility for the city to use the funds differently if the fire station isn't built or needed.
A $750,000 contribution was added for downtown and small businesses, and 6.8 acres were donated for public facilities related to the Banning substation, along with $10 million in upfront funding. To address job concerns, the developer agreed to a two-week look-ahead for Banning residents for any jobs created by the project, mirroring a program in Detroit. The project, estimated at $850-$900 million (plus $50-$100 million from retailers), is expected to create 3,600 permanent full-time jobs and 3,300 union construction jobs. The developer highlighted the discrepancy between Banning's per capita income ($31,000) and Riverside County's ($51,000), noting that 91% of Banning residents commute outside the city for work, often for lower-paying jobs. The developer aims to create jobs within the community, with 60% in general warehousing (starting at $45,000/year) and 40% above that and is pursuing a workforce training program in partnership with the community college and other agencies. This concluded Mr. Miles presentation and introduced their planning representative, Tracy Zinn, to provide additional information on the project.
Tracy Zinn of T&B Planning Inc. provided an overview of the Specific Plan, emphasizing its role as a framework for development and infrastructure installation. The plan designates land uses and specifies maximum square footage, including design guidelines and development standards. The project site's location is ideal due to freeway visibility and access, aligning with the City's General Plan policies for job creation and economic opportunity. The property is separated from adjacent uses by major roads. The Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, promoting a balance of land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, open space, park) and recognizing the importance of commercial and industrial development for job creation and fiscal balance. The specific plan process coordinates these uses. The land use plan includes a general commercial area (47.9 acres) and an industrial park. Planning Area 2 (33.8 acres) will not be developed for industrial use, reducing building square footage by almost half a million square feet (from 5.5 million to under 5.1 million), and will be subject to a future entitlement process. Landscaping and buffering will be implemented along the edges of the industrial development.
Ms. Zinn’s presentation detailed the three proposed land uses, with refinements made to the commercial area since May. The permitted uses in the commercial area are now limited to retail (including big box), restaurants, and a hotel. A visual representation showed the entry point to the project at the northwest corner of Sunset Avenue and Lincoln, featuring widened roads, landscaping, and a landscaped center median. Table 3.1 in the specific plan lists permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the commercial area, which the City will consult when reviewing future development proposals. The City will ensure compliance with the Specific Plan's design details, including architecture, landscaping, signage, and lighting. The Specific Plan provides design guidelines for the commercial area, covering landscaping, screening, shading, parking design, and pedestrian activity. In the industrial park area, parcels range from 3.3 to just under 200 acres, offering flexibility for various business sizes. The city will consult the Specific Plan's table of permitted and conditionally permitted uses for each building proposal, ensuring compliance with design details. Design guidelines for the industrial park address landscaping, screening, shading, employee amenity areas, truck court orientation, and building facades, ensuring contemporary design with variations in building massing, colors, and materials.
The truck management plan, a key concern for industrial park development, requires City approval before the first industrial building's occupancy permit. It establishes a preferred truck route to the freeway (Sunset Avenue) and mandates driver education, with signs posted and lease agreements requiring compliance. The plan also prohibits truck parking and maintenance on city streets and in residential areas. Signs and flyers will be used to educate truck drivers on the designated route. The project includes 65.6 acres of open space and park areas. Planning Area 11 (12.6 acres) features a five-acre active park with various amenities and 7.6 acres of passive park area. Planning Area 12 (12.5 acres) serves as a physical separation between properties to the west and the industrial park uses in Planning Area 10. Planning Areas 13-17 (40.5 acres) preserve natural areas, including the drainage courses of Smith Creek, Pershing Creek, and the Highland Wash drainage. A rendering depicted the active park space in Planning Area 11, with potential amenities like play areas, picnic areas, and walking paths. A 1015
5 cross-section illustrated Planning Area 12 (620 feet wide), combined with Highland Home Road's right-ofway (110 feet), creating a 730-foot separation between the community and industrial uses, which will be landscaped. A complete traffic study identified required roadway improvements, including Sunset Avenue, Highland Home Road, and Bobcat. The project will dedicate right-of-way and widen Sunset Avenue from south of the I-10 interchange to Bobcat Road (4,300 feet). Two traffic signals will be installed at Sunset's intersections with Lincoln and Sun Lakes Boulevard, and power poles will be relocated by the developer. Visuals showed the existing and proposed conditions of Sunset Avenue, with two travel lanes in each direction, a landscaped center median, and sidewalks. The centerline of Sunset Avenue will be shifted into the Sunset Crossroads project, creating a 17-foot landscape buffer for the Serrano Del Vista community.
The Specific Plan identifies locations for four potential municipal facilities (totaling 6.75 acres), to be conveyed to the City at no cost. This includes a 1.8-acre site for a potential future electrical substation in Planning Area 7, with $10 million in upfront funding for design, permitting, and construction. A 2.3-acre site will be conveyed for a potential reverse osmosis water treatment facility, and a one-acre site for the fire station, co-located with the water reservoir site (also one acre) in Planning Area 3. The project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requiring public disclosure of all environmental impacts. The city is fully informed of environmental consequences and mitigation measures. The EIR analyzed 20 environmental topic areas, with significant and unmitigable impacts identified in transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise. The transportation impact relates to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The project aims to reduce trip lengths by bringing jobs to the community.
However, due to the region's size, a significant and unmitigable VMT impact is common. Mitigation efforts include carpool programs, transit passes, sidewalks, and bike lanes, but influencing human behavior is challenging. A significant unmitigable regional air quality impact is also common for projects of this size.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District sets low significance thresholds to maximize mitigation.
There are no unmitigated health risks associated with air pollutants, and the project aligns with the City's climate action plan, achieving 586 points against a minimum requirement of 100.
The project implements various features to reduce air quality impacts, including electric cargo handling equipment, restricted truck idling (3 minutes), electric vehicle charging stations (for both passenger cars and trucks), and building design elements. Industrial buildings will not use natural gas, and reclaimed water irrigation and Energy Star appliances will be used. The presentation aimed to demonstrate how the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan helps the City achieve its general plan vision and benefits residents.
The project combines uses identified in the General Plan as beneficial, in a location consistent with the plan's goals. It will create a commercial destination, increase sales and property tax revenue, and provide thousands of jobs, allowing residents to work closer to home. The developer will construct several general plan roadway segments at no cost to the City and contribute millions of dollars towards City roads and public infrastructure, representing a significant investment in the City's future. The Applicant team requested the Planning Commission recommend approval of the applications and CEQA documentation, with the following modifications: prohibit industrial park development in planning area two, commit to commercial retail uses in the retail planning area, reduce the amount of allowed commercial retail development by 44,647 square feet, prohibit cold storage warehouse uses in the industrial park, and increase the acreage to be conveyed to the City at no cost for public facility sites from
5.3 to 6.75 acres. These changes will reduce environmental impacts and vehicular traffic. A CEQA compliance memo analyzing these changes was included in the packet. This concluded Ms. Zinn’s presentation.
Chair Dale asked for a show of hands from audience members who wished to speak without filling out a speaker card. Chair Dale stated that the speaking time would remain at five minutes per speaker, encouraging speakers to avoid repetition and be concise.
Chair Dale opened Public Hearing at 7:26 p.m.
Juan Serrano, representing LIUNA, expressed strong support for the Sunset Crossroads Project, highlighting the potential for good-paying jobs, community benefits such as new restaurants, a grocery store, office spaces, entertainment options like rock climbing and trampoline parks, and 65 acres of open space, including a five-acre community park. He emphasized North Point's commitment to partnering with the community and urged the commission to approve the project as an investment in the people and future of Banning.
1016
6 Amy Smith, representing CARE California, voiced support for the Sunset Crossroads Project, emphasizing its potential to boost the City of Banning's economy. She cited an estimated $40 million in new net revenue over the next 20 years, support for local education, downtown beautification, and expansion of community park space. She stated that the developer has gone above and beyond to assure that this project brings jobs, infrastructure updates, and community betterment.
Inge Schuler, a Banning resident, expressed skepticism about the promised benefits, referencing the unfulfilled promises of the Skechers warehouse project. She criticized the prioritization of warehouses over commercial development in the Specific Plan and raised concerns about increased truck traffic on Sunset Avenue and Sun Lakes Boulevard, citing Appendix E of the EIR and Caltrans warnings about I-10 interchange impacts. She also questioned the adequacy of the fire station dedication and the long-term costs to the City, as well as the water supply issues related to warehouse development. She stated that the I-10 interchange is inadequately mitigated.
Omar Cobian, representing the Carpenters Union, spoke in favor of the project, highlighting the need for job opportunities in Banning and the importance of creating opportunities for young people to work close to home. He addressed criticism about union support for warehouse projects, explaining that such jobs are more readily available than union jobs in residential construction. He urged city officials to encourage developers to work with union representatives and emphasized the importance of supporting developers who support union labor.
Tim Hanratty, a Banning resident, acknowledged the compelling presentation but argued that warehouses are inappropriate between residential areas. He suggested placing the park on the Sunset side of the development and emphasized the need for low to medium-density housing to meet state mandates, rather than more warehouses, referencing the empty Skechers warehouse and planned warehouses on the north side.
Howard Katz, a Sun Lakes resident, voiced strong opposition to the project, drawing a parallel to the rejected Banning Point warehouse project and its impact on seniors. He expressed concerns about diesel particulate emissions and noise from warehouse operations affecting the health of residents, particularly those with respiratory issues like his wife.
Bill Hobbs, a 23-year resident of Banning and Sun Lakes, stated that he is not against warehouses in general, but emphasized that location is crucial. He argued that the proposed location is unsuitable due to its proximity to Sun Lakes and Serrano Del Vista, disrupting the lives of seniors who moved to Banning to escape congestion and pollution.
John Hagen, a City of Banning resident, expressed skepticism about the project's promised benefits, describing them as "pie-in-the-sky." He argued that the focus is primarily on warehouses, with the touted amenities representing only a small portion of the project. He questioned the 4,000-job projection, citing empty warehouses in the area and the impact of automation. He suggested that residential development would generate more sustainable revenue and criticized the proposed fire station expenditure. He also noted the removal of certain amenities from the project plans.
Ron, a Zoom participant, argued that the warehouse proposal is ill-suited for its location, questioning the best use of the land given its proximity to residential areas. He suggested prioritizing residential zoning with 21st-century amenities and enlarging retail and commercial uses. He stated that warehouses should be concentrated in East Banning near the airport. He also raised concerns about the long-term revenue sources from property and sales taxes, citing Beaumont's experience and the potential impact of AB9.
Virginia Cervantes, a Zoom participant, questioned why Banning couldn't have the same development as Beaumont and expressed concerns about increased traffic and safety issues, particularly near senior communities. She criticized the developers for making promises but ultimately prioritizing warehouses for their investors, rather than building retail or medical offices that would benefit the community.
Kelly Renteria, a Zoom participant, compared the project to the Hillwood project, noting that Hillwood had contracts lined up in Texas, unlike the Banning proposal. She emphasized the need for definite contracts and long-term job commitments, rather than projections and estimates, to alleviate community skepticism about empty warehouses.
1017
7 Carol Shearman, a Serrano Del Vista resident, said there were omission during a presentation to residents, specifically regarding the planned high-density housing on 41 acres surrounding Serrano Del Vista. She stated that this information was not disclosed and that many residents are unaware of the plan.
Linnea Hagen, a City of Banning resident, expressed strong skepticism about the project's promises of restaurants, stores, and jobs, suggesting that only those paid to do so support the plan. She stated that Banning needs rooftops that bring in money, suggesting ranch-style homes and retail development instead of warehouses.
Sue Savage, a Banning resident, echoed concerns about empty warehouses and questioned the City's plan if the project turns into another Skechers with no revenue.
Fran Hanrati questioned the percentage of land dedicated to warehouses and emphasized the need for responsible, visionary planning. She expressed concern about the proximity of the industrial park to Sun Lakes and the potential impact on its residents. She also raised the issue of the City's non-compliance with state housing mandates and advocated for more housing in the project.
Evan, member representing over 6,000 LIUNA members in Riverside County, voiced strong support for the project, emphasizing the potential for local jobs, infrastructure improvements, transportation enhancements, community leisure, and economic benefits. They highlighted the developer's commitment and the potential for a $1 billion investment, urging the commission not to dismiss the project lightly.
Frank Connelly voiced opposition to more warehouses, citing existing empty warehouses and the obstruction of mountain views.
Richard McHard a resident of Sun Lakes, echoed concerns about warehouses, highlighting potential issues with empty warehouses, increased truck traffic, pollution, noise, and negative impacts on residential areas and emergency services access. They questioned the removal of medical offices and health clubs from the plan while retaining warehouses, emphasizing unmitigated environmental impacts on senior living communities and advocating for alternative uses like housing.
Amy Pippinger, a 50-year resident, questioned the proposed stoplights at Sun Lakes Boulevard and Highland Home and expressed skepticism about the project, citing past failed promises from developers and urging the commission to adhere to existing zoning plans. Emphasized the value of open space, clean air, and clean water for future generations, arguing that these are more precious than the touted benefits of the project.
Robert Lugen representing local 416 reinforced iron workers, expressed support for the project, emphasizing the creation of union jobs and the opportunity for veterans to learn a trade and support their families.
Salvador Amezquita representing the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, also voiced support, highlighting the benefits of local employment, family time, and community growth, noting the developer's commitment to utilizing union labor.
Lilly Aguilera expressed a changing perspective, acknowledging the City's desperate need for revenue to improve Code Enforcement, address unsightly properties, and support services for the homeless.
While initially supportive due to landscaping considerations and the developer's cooperation in moving building number five, emphasizing the need for revenue generation.
Diego Rose questioned the assumptions of growth, citing global population decline and the lack of a clear source for new business. Argued that existing resources should be sufficient and cautioned against changing zoning to benefit developers, referencing the Atwell project's unmet promises. Also challenged the feasibility of attracting restaurants and grocery stores due to the City's demographics and low average income, suggesting that Banning is primarily a bedroom community and that the proposed development would not change this.
Ivan Esparza an Ironworker Local 433 member and Banning resident, expressed support for the project, emphasizing the need for local job creation to avoid long commutes. 1018
8 Stuart McKenzie a Banning resident, opposed the project, citing existing empty warehouses, increased traffic, pollution, and the proximity of the proposed warehouses to senior citizen residences. Urged the developer to reconsider the project and focus on building housing.
Juanita Diaz, a Banning resident from District 2, voiced strong opposition to the warehouses, emphasizing the long-term negative impacts on the community and future generations. Criticized past decisions that have led to the City's current state and argued that the warehouses would not benefit the community, urging the commissioners to convey the community's opposition to the City Council.
Peggy Murphy, a 35-year Banning resident and former teacher, criticized the project's promotion through a misleading cartoon and highlighted the community's consistent opposition to warehouses.
Argued against high-density housing, advocating for residential development that aligns with the community's rural character and provides more space for gardens and other amenities. Also noted the negative impact of past developments on mountain views and urged the commission to prioritize the City's needs over those of developers.
Dorrie Gartzke urged the Commission to make decisions that benefit the citizens of Banning, not personal gain.
Jackie Renteria, a lifelong Banning resident with 20 years of experience in retail and restaurant management, questioned the projected job pay rates, arguing that they are not significantly higher and that companies prioritize minimizing labor costs. Also raised concerns about increased traffic congestion and the wear and tear on roads caused by semi-trucks.
Max Diego outlined a framework for evaluating the project based on infrastructure, environmental impact, impact on residential communities, tax revenue, and job creation, assigning percentage weights to each category. Based on this framework, he concluded that the project should fail due to its negative impacts.
Also cautioned against giving too much weight to comments from non-residents.
Chair Dale sought clarification on the number of written comments received, with staff confirming 170 letters in support and 25 in opposition.
Chair Dale closed public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
Commission Discussion:
Chair Dale asked if the Commission has questions for staff.
Commissioner Castorena will hold his questions for the developers.
Chair Dale wants clarification on the proposed changes in the commercial area and planning area on Sunset opposite Serrano Del Vista, noting a 10% reduction in industrial square footage but a 44% reduction in truck trips according to the supplemental environmental analysis, which she couldn't follow the math on. Staff suggests the traffic consultant can provide clarifications on the truck trip reduction.
Chair Dale asks about outreach or input from Riverside County regarding the area outside the city limits.
Staff states that there has been no outreach in the past year, but the project has been in process for four to five years, so there may have been outreach before.
Chair Dale points out inconsistencies in the documents regarding the LAFCO process for annexation, with some stating that the process has started and others saying it will start. Staff clarifies that the City reached out to LAFCO in the past and was directed to complete the pre-zoning process, which requires City Council approval before a formal application is processed with LAFCO.
Chair Dale notes that the county mapping system shows an active ag preserve for some of the project limits, but the project record refers to a communication from the county stating those contracts had been canceled. She asks for clarification. Staff suggests this question is for the Applicant, mentioning that the City has consultants who peer-reviewed the documents.
Chair Dale inquires about existing City commercial vehicle route designations, asking which roads project traffic is on are currently designated routes and what is required to modify that resolution. Staff explains that the current truck route system does not include roads in the area because the roads don't exist yet.
They mention that modifications would be needed and that provisions allow for local serving regardless of truck route designation, using a grocery store as an example. 1019
9 Chair Dale asks if there are any circulation element amendments as part of the General Plan Amendment. Staff states that the Specific Plan proposes roadway sections generally consistent with the current circulation element and the City's General Plan Amendment. And will check if the proposed sections require companion amendments. Chair also asks about trail designations, noting the parks master plan shows a trail through the eastern and northern parts of the project area, but she found no specific designation in the documentation. Staff agrees to recommend consistency with the General Plan as a condition if the project moves forward.
Chair asks if any other General Plan Amendments have been done this year. Staff responded that none have been done. She then expresses concern about the commitment on not building industrial in Planning Area 2 and instead processing a future amendment, given the need for CEQA. She understands that the area will still be designated for industrial use tonight, with a commitment from the developer not to build any buildings on that site and to later apply to change it to commercial.
Staff confirms that the Specific Plan shows a combination of commercial and industrial, with industrial areas designated in purple. The development agreement includes a commitment from the Applicant not to build industrial in Planning Area 2 (adjacent to Sunset) until they process a request to change the specific plan, which would require Planning Commission and City Council approval.
Chair Dale notes that the supplemental CEQA memorandum mentions some square footage of industrial space in that planning area and asks if she should hold that question for the Applicant. Staff agrees. She then expresses difficulty understanding the project benefits in the development agreement and requests a summary, particularly differentiating between what's required anyway versus what's over and above, and separating benefits within and outside the city.
Chair Dale notes the development agreement's commitment to try to get the annexation done within five years but also notes provisions to extend it and an "out," meaning there's no firm commitment. She asks for clarification on the annexation commitment, as it's core to the override for unavoidable environmental impacts. She also finds the reimbursement provisions and tax sharing agreements unclear, noting the developer gets 30% of tax revenue up to a certain amount. Staff confirms the Applicant has the option to exercise a tax rebate reimbursement.
Chair seeks clarification on improvements on Sunset south of Westward, where an exhibit indicated only right-of-way dedication and no improvements. Staff clarifies that at project build-out, all required roadways surrounding the project would be dedicated and constructed to city standards. However, allowances exist for dedication without immediate improvements depending on building sequencing, with full roadway construction and dedication required at completion of the project.
Chair Dale asks about the intent for the crossing over the channel, and staff indicates it would likely be a bridge structure similar to the one at Sun Lakes Boulevard, subject to engineering design and environmental permitting. She also raises two questions from the public: a visual of warehouse coverage and whether there would be a signal at Sun Lakes Boulevard and Highland Home.
Staff refers to conceptual site plans and the tentative subdivision map for potential building locations, noting that specific plans are more general and provide a regulatory framework. Industrial buildings are limited to 60% lot coverage and a 60-foot height maximum. Regarding the intersection of Sun Lakes and Highland Home, staff states that the traffic study and conditions of approval indicate stop control will be required. The intersection will have stop control, assuming it meets the warrants for four-way stop control (speed, volume, traffic, minor delay). Chair asks about the 170 comments in support, inquiring how many were auto generated from Sunset Crossroads versus individual ones. Staff confirms the majority were generated by Sunset Crossroads
Commissioner Phelps expresses confusion about the LAFCO process timeline, recalling a conversation about approving the plan, zoning, and LAFCO sequentially. She questions the five-year timeline for areas south of Sun Lakes Boulevard/west of Westward. Staff clarifies that the five-year timeline relates to the development agreement's effective date, which is tied to the LAFCO process completion. The development agreement becomes effective regardless if the LAFCO process is finalized within five years.
City Attorney clarifies Section 4.2 of the development agreement, stating it becomes operative on the southern portion of the property upon LAFCO approval and recordation of the certificate of completion. If LAFCO denies annexation, the parties will negotiate in good faith to preserve the agreement. The public 1020
10 benefits obligations are not contingent upon annexation and would go into effect according to their terms once the project is approved.
Commissioner Phelps asks when the fire station and electric grid would kick in. The City Attorney clarifies that these are not contingent on the annexation.
Commissioner Castorena expresses gratitude and began asking questions. He starts with air quality and community health, asking if project emissions are still over clean air limits and if it conflicts with the regional air plan (AQMP). Staff confirms there will be significant air quality impacts and refers to the Applicant's CEQA consultant for specifics. He asks who is most affected near the site, specifically mentioning Sunset Avenue residents. Staff again refers to the Applicant's EIR analysis. He then asks if greenhouse gas emissions are still above the threshold. Staff confirms they will exceed thresholds.
Commissioner Castorena states the GHG number is 38,875 versus the 3,000 threshold, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. He asks if added measures can get GHG under the limit before approval. Staff confirms that with the project as currently proposed, the answer is no. He asks about traffic and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) regarding SB 743, inquiring how far over the city's VMT standard the project is. He states it's 18.5% over, with VMT/employee at 30.7 versus the 25.9 threshold. He asks what it would take to comply with VMT before entitlements. Staff confirms the numbers and states that reducing the project would be necessary.
Commissioner Castorena asks about construction noise on Sunset and whether a noise barrier can be built in the city right-of-way. Staff mentions a proposed noise barrier on the south edge of the project and suggests the Applicant address additional noise barriers. He notes that the barrier's feasibility in the ROW is undetermined and sunset construction noise is significant and unavoidable.
Commissioner Castorena asks about daily trips and truck trips at full build-out. Staff confirms roughly 16,000 total daily trips, including about 1,848 truck trips a day. He asks how offset truck routing will be enforced. Staff explains that while enforcing routing for unfamiliar vehicles is difficult, infrastructure can be designed to discourage trucks from heading west on Sun Lakes Boulevard towards Highland Springs upon exiting a site within the project. This includes narrow left turn lanes and wider right turn lanes.
Education and knowledge will also play a role. Commissioner Castorena asks if this would be part of the Truck Route Management Plan (TRMB), and staff confirms it was discussed Commissioner Castorena notes that a condition restricts trucks on Highland Home Road south of the SLB extension, but the record doesn't specify detailed enforcement tools or penalties. He asks staff to summarize the concerns of outside agencies like CARV, DOJ Bureau of Environmental Justice, SCAQMD, and CDFW. Staff suggests the environmental consultants can describe those.
Commissioner Rodriguez asks when Highland Home Road will connect east and west with Sunset. Staff explains that the timing of the Highland Home Road connection depends on the project's phasing, with requirements varying based on which planning area moves forward first. Commissioner asks if there's a set of particular points upon which this will occur, or if it's still pretty flexible. Staff clarifies that the conditions of approval are set up based on development area, dictating what infrastructure is required to support each phase. Commissioner asks if Sun Lakes would have to be through before getting to area 14, for example. Staff confirms that Sun Lakes would generally need to be constructed to provide secondary fire access. Commissioner Rodriguez asks if the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension is scheduled. Staff clarifies that each development phase dictates how much of Sun Lakes Boulevard has to be constructed, allowing for partial construction. The commercial site, however, would not require Sun Lakes access.
Commissioner Castorena asks if the GPA findings can be lawfully made given the AQMD conflict, VMT exceedance, and sense of construction noise. Staff states that it is the Planning Commission's discretion.
The City Council has the final decision, but if the Planning Commission and City Council believe they have findings for CEQA and statements of overriding considerations, they can make the findings in support of the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Castorena points out the staff report documents significant and unavoidable impacts, undermining internal consistency and no judgment findings, and asks if they are being asked to rely on the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). Staff confirms this is correct.
1021
11 Commissioner Castorena asks what happens if the project misses the VMT target after opening. Staff states that it shouldn't happen if the analysis is accurate, relying on professional understanding of impacts. CEQA aims to evaluate the greatest extent of impacts, and if the project is built to its full extent, it shouldn't exceed the analyzed VMT. CEQA mitigates and identifies the greatest extent of impacts, and most projects don't get built to that full extent.
The City Attorney clarifies that if impacts cannot be fully mitigated (like greenhouse gas emissions), the Planning Commission or City Council can adopt a statement of overriding considerations, acknowledging the impacts but determining that other benefits to the city outweigh them. This is a legislative action, giving the City Council broad discretion.
Commissioner Castorena asks if the developer committed to using union labor, as mentioned by a public speaker, and if that's stipulated in the developer agreement. The City Attorney confirms it is not.
The Commission began asking the Applicant questions. The Applicant responds by discussing the Inland Empire's industrial market, addressing concerns about empty warehouses, specifically the Skechers warehouse, which is vacant due to a foreign trade zone issue, not a lack of demand. The Applicant emphasizes their long-term commitment to the community and takes offense to suggestions of dishonesty.
Clarification is provided regarding modifications made to the project, including the removal of cold storage to reduce traffic. The discussion covers the balance between big box and small retail, with the applicant highlighting the million-dollar penalty for not including a big box retailer. The Applicant states they have a letter of intent (LOI) with a large grocery retailer and expects a purchase sale agreement by October. The Applicant addresses public comments about the park's location, with the Applicant offering to move it as requested. The need for a fire station and emergency services is discussed, along with traffic issues on Sun Lakes Boulevard.
The applicant elaborates on their retail strategy, focusing on attracting restaurants and making the big box retailer a draw. They emphasize their commitment to saying "yes" to the City's requests and acknowledge the challenges posed by the area's demographics.
The applicant explains the construction timeline, prioritizing retail development, including Lincoln Avenue and the big box retailer. They discuss the importance of annexation for financial viability and delivering on promised infrastructure and community benefits.
The impact of reducing industrial space on the retail component is discussed. There's a debate about the number of warehouses in the revised plan, with differing counts presented.
The applicant outlines the timeline for warehouse construction, stating the first warehouse (Building 7) will be built between Sun Lakes and Lincoln. The Applicant explains the reasons for prioritizing this building and the infrastructure considerations. The Applicant clarifies that while they haven't actively sought tenants due to uncertainty about project approval, they have a large pool of potential tenants.
The applicant confirms they don't have a commitment for the hotel yet but anticipates progress in the near future. The discussion transitions to the incentives being offered to Banning, with a request for a detailed schedule of payments.
John Condas of Allen Matkins, the applicant's attorney, outlines the payment schedule for various fees and public benefits under the development agreement (DA), including payments for the fire station, public benefit fee, beautification fee, and substation fee. Specific timelines and amounts are provided.
The applicant’s attorney continues detailing the payment schedule, clarifying timelines for the beautification fee and substation fee. A commissioner seeks a general understanding of when the city would be satisfied with the incentives. The applicant estimates that 75-80% of the upfront funding will be received within the first three years.
The applicant’s attorney emphasizes that the City will receive $2.5 million in the first year, regardless of construction progress. The Applicant acknowledges that the payment schedule is heavily weighted in the City's favor.
1022
12 A "travel center" is clarified to not be a truck stop, as that use has been eliminated. The Applicant’s attorney clarifies the tax sharing agreement, explaining that North Point's reimbursement is limited to the cost of constructing Sun Lakes Boulevard (which the city is doing) and 46% of the substation payment.
The applicant explains that they are essentially funding the entire substation upfront, even though they only need 54% of its capacity, and will be reimbursed for 46% over time.
The applicant confirms their commitment to maintaining the green zones through an association, even after the warehouses and commercial properties are leased. The applicant’s attorney reiterates the benefits of the special tax, which will provide the city with a million dollars annually, escalating by 1-5% each year. The applicant notes that the special tax increased from 10 cents to 20 cents since the May 8th presentation.
Commissioner Phelps seeks clarification on changes to the project that aren't yet reflected in the specific plan and DA documents. Questions on how a 10% reduction in the project translates to a 44% reduction in trips and seek clarification on the status of the hotel. The Applicant confirms the hotel is still included in the project.
The applicant’s traffic consultant, Urban Crossroads, explains that the 45% reduction in truck trips is due to changes in land use, with the elimination of high truck-generating uses like cold storage and the travel center. The reduction in heavy truck numbers is attributed to the removal of these uses, particularly the cold storage use.
The discussion focused on the changes in truck traffic due to revisions in land use, particularly the reduction in heavy truck numbers from 3,300 to 1,848, primarily due to the elimination of cold storage and the travel center. The supplemental analysis concluded that while impacts were reduced, significant unavoidable impacts remain for air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic. Concerns were raised about the lack of a comprehensive exhibit summarizing the transportation system and truck volumes, especially on Sunset Parkway. The commitment states that all trucks will use Sunset Avenue.
The applicant’s environmental consultant clarified that the modified project trip generation assessment only demonstrated reduced trips compared to the original project. Truck numbers from the original traffic study were provided, indicating 3,044 truck trips per day north of Lincoln and 1,781 between Lincoln and Sun Lakes. The removal of the truck stop significantly reduced truck trips past Lincoln. Buildings on the southern end would use both Sun Lakes Boulevard and Bobcat for access, with approximately half of the truck trips using Bobcat up to Sunset.
Mr. Jenkins, VP of Development said the fire hazard evaluation was based on old maps and hasn't been updated. The landscape buffer on Bobcat will be implemented within existing planning areas, treated as a streetscape or landscape feature.
A request was made by Chair Dale to display a developments matrix showing an aerial base with building layouts for public viewing. It was clarified by the Environmental Consultant that the Specific Plan does not include approval of building footprints, and the City staff will conduct a thorough review of landscaping, architecture, building height, colors, signage, and lighting when individual buildings are proposed.
Director Newell said the tentative map shows potential building locations, but the final map will not.
The applicant said Planning Area 2, initially planned for a warehouse, will be converted to commercial retail due to concerns from residents of Serrano Del Vista. City Attorney Patterson said the development agreement states that no warehouses or industrial uses will be constructed in Planning Area 2. The owner will evaluate and use its best efforts to implement additional commercial development, submitting a market feasibility study and an initial plan for review with the City. This is a "best efforts" clause, not a guarantee.
Mr. John Condas said a commitment to retail in Planning Area 2 could not be guaranteed at this point because it would have required a heavy-duty modification of the EIR, which addressed industrial use, not retail. The developer intends to pursue retail development in line with city preferences and the DA's requirement of a minimum of 100,000 square feet of retail.
The applicant said the development agreement includes an 8.6% reduction in industrial square footage.
The public benefit fee was calculated at $1.58 per square foot, and the upfront $10 million was calculated at $1.97 per square foot, totaling $3.55 per square foot. The question was raised whether these figures 1023
13 are indexed to protect buying power. The public benefit numbers are not subject to escalators for cost-ofliving increases. The special tax, used for maintenance, starts at 20 cents per foot and increases between 1 and 5 percent annually. This special facilities tax is in perpetuity. The retail timing penalty was discussed, with clarification that there are no loopholes, although force majeure events could be considered. The public benefit numbers are not subject to escalators for cost-of-living increases because they are anticipated to be paid in a relatively short timeframe.
The applicant does not intend to take 30 years to build out the project. Some payments have a drop-dead date, with a five-year limit after the clock starts ticking. The contribution for the fire station payment has specific timelines: $1.5 million within six months of the effective date, and the remaining $13.5 million 60 days after the city gets all approvals for the fire station. If the City chooses not to build the fire station, the entire $15 million is due within five years. The fire station payment is payable in tranches based on occupancy of the project, but no later than five years. The payments are not indexed. The developer felt that the 20 cents per square foot special tax, the land donation, and the interest-free loan for the substation justified not including a COLA or CPI on other items.
Most payments are based on occupancy, not building permits, including the public benefit fee. The beautification fee and substation fee are based on time, not permits. The fire station payment is also not based on permits. The automatic remedies for late payments or improvements were discussed. The City can declare a default under the development agreement and pursue a lawsuit for specific performance if payments are late. The possibility of permit holds, or daily liquidated damages was raised. The development agreement does not explicitly state that building permits can be withheld for late payments, requiring analysis of the municipal code.
The possibility of stipulating permit withholding in the DA was discussed. The applicant agreed to a cure period before permits are withheld. Language will be added to the DA stating that the City has the right to withhold building permits if any amount due under section five is not paid on a timely basis, following a notice of default and a cure period.
The land donation of 6.8 acres was discussed by the applicant, with an estimated appraisal value of $6 million. There are no known title encumbrances or use restrictions. The right-of-way is separate from the
6.8 acres. The discussion then turned to the quarterly job fairs and the desire for local hiring. The possibility of setting local hire percentage targets was discussed. The applciant expressed willingness to conduct outreach but raised concerns about the legality and potential for discrimination in requiring specific percentages. Legal counsel confirmed that there are legal issues with requiring a certain percentage of local hires.
Concerns were raised by Commissioner Castorena about discrepancies in the payroll math, with the slide claiming 3,591 permanent full-time jobs with $60 to $70 million in annual wages, while another source listed an average annual wage of $50,500, which would equate to $181 million per year.
The applicant acknowledged the typo in the $60 to $70 million figure. The Applicant stated that the minimum wage in Riverside County is $16.50 an hour, and the entry-level general warehousing position starts at $21.50 an hour ($44,782 annually). Commissioner Castorena pointed out that comparing wages to Banning's per capita income is an apples-to-oranges comparison. The entry-level wage is only 43% above the per capita income, not 60%. The commissioner requested the median wage for entry-level roles with benefits and the number of such positions guaranteed.
Commissioner Disclosures Regarding Project Contacts and Site Visits:
Commissioner Marshall met with Mr. Miles and Company at City Hall, discussing topics similar to those discussed in the meeting, and drove by the site multiple times. Commissioner Rodriguez also met with Mr. Miles to review the numbers presented, as they missed the May 8th meeting, and has driven by the site frequently. Commissioner Phelps received an email invitation for a meeting but did not reply due to illness and has driven by the site numerous times. Commissioner Castorena met with Applicant to understand the DA's progression since the May 8th workshop and has driven by the site extensively.
Chair Dale declined meeting invitations, preferring public forums, and drove the perimeter areas, including the Sunset interchange, to assess the area.
Chair Dale Opened the floor for a motion.
1024
14 Commissioner Marshall moved to adopt Resolution 2025-10, seconded by Commissioner Rodgriguez recommending City Council conditionally approve the Sunset Crossings entitlements, including the specific plan, general plan amendment, zone change, development agreement, tentative parcel map, and certify the final environmental impact report.
City Attorney clarified that the development agreement had been modified with redlining, adding a sentence to Section 8.4 drafted by the developer's attorney regarding the city's right to withhold building permits for unpaid monetary amounts.
Director Newell noted that the 100-foot setback along Bobcat Road was incorrectly identified as 50 feet in the DA.
Commissioner Castorena wanted to make a substitute motion, but City Attorney stated that there was already a motion and a second.
Chair Dale expressed concerns about changing the residential area to industrial, the residual significant impacts, and inconsistencies with the general plan, truck route, trail plans, and parks master plan. Stated that she could not support the findings for the General Plan Amendment, rendering the rest of the package moot.
A vote was called.
COMMISSIONERS YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Castorena X
Dale X
Marshall X
Phelps X
Rodriguez X
The motion failed due to 2 in support and 3 opposed.
Director Newell explains that based on the failure of item 4.1 by a vote of 2 in support and 3 opposed, the Commission’s recommendation of denial will be forwarded to the City Council.
Director Newell outlines the procedural guideline section 10.9 regarding the 10 p.m. curfew, stating that new matters taken up after 10 p.m. require a unanimous vote to proceed.
4.2 Consideration of an Application by the City of Banning, CA for General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22 -3502) to Amend the Land Use Designation and Zoning of Approximately 41 acres of Land Owned by Mount San Jacinto Community College District Located Near the Southeast Corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues from PF–S (Public Facilities-Schools) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR) to Transfer Density of Not Less Than 1,146 Residential Units from the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-09, Recommending City Council Approve General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22- 3502)
Director Newell presents the Commission's options regarding item 4.2, noting that proceeding depends on the number of public comments. He clarifies that item 4.2 is a separate application.
Commissioner Castorena questions the point of proceeding with 4.2 if 4.1 isn't approved.
Director Newell elaborates that state law mandates cities cannot have a net reduction in density, requiring a corresponding application (like 4.2) to upzone density when downzoning occurs (as proposed in 4.1). He emphasizes that 4.2 requires a separate action and decision, regardless of the outcome of
4.1. Chair Dale seeks a motion to continue the meeting past the curfew. David clarifies that without a motion; item 4.2 will be moved to the next agenda on October 1st. 1025
15 Commissioner Phelps makes a motion to continue past the curfew and hearing Item 4.2, which is seconded by Chair Dale.
COMMISSIONERS YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Castorena X
Dale X
Marshall X
Phelps X
Rodriguez X
Director Newell announces that the motion fails because it requires a unanimous vote. Item 4.2 will be scheduled for the next regular meeting.
5. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12:06 a.m.
Minutes prepared by:
Sandra B. Calderon
Recording Secretary
These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).
The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/235?view_id=1&redirect=true 1 of 2 https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/236?view_id=1&redirect=true 2 of 2 All documents related to this meeting are available here:
https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/banningca/e8766d74-7b7d-11f0-a766-005056a89546- 38305488-93fe-4918-9dd7-c67857e7b6c7-1757105583.pdf
1026
1 MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - SPECIAL MEETING
CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
November 17, 2025 Council Chambers
5:30 p.m. 99 E. Ramsey Street
In Chambers Banning, CA 92220
1. CALL TO ORDER – 5:30 p.m.
1.1 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1.1 ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT
Castorena, Chris X
Dale, Kathleen X
Marshall, Al X
Phelps, Gerry X
Rodriguez, Nathaniel X
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chair Dale opened public comments.
• Inge Schuler requested that the list of Commissioners present be included in the minutes as well as when they show up.
• Howard Katz resident of Sun Lakes was the president of Pass Action Group, hopes that Sunset Crossroads project won’t come to fruition.
Chair Dale closed public comments.
Director Newell said there are some additional changes that were presented by the Chair and suggested to remove both consent items for discussion before taking any action.
Motion to move the consent items to the end of the agenda by Commissioner Marshall.
COMMISSIONERS YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Castorena X
Dale X
Marshall X
Phelps X
Rodriguez X
Motion Carried 4-0-1 motion passes, Castorena absent.
1027
2 3. CONSENT AGENDA
3.1 Adoption of Resolution 2025-015, A Resolution Recommending City Council Deny the Sunset Crossroads Project Applications, including General Plan Amendment No. 20-2501, Specific Plan No. 20-2002, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 38118, and a Development Agreement for the Development of Industrial and Commercial Uses on a 533.8-acre Project Site Located South of Interstate 10 and the Union Pacific Railroad, and West of Sunset Avenue, including 253.7 Acres Located in Unincorporated Riverside County; and Reject Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH 2021020011).
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-015.
3.2 Adoption of Resolution 2025-016, A Resolution Recommending City Council Deny an Application by the City of Banning for a General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22- 2502) and a Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502) to Amend the Land Use Designation and Zoning of Approximately 41 acres of Land Owned by Mount San Jacinto Community College District Located Near the Southeast Corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues from PF–S (Public Facilities-Schools) to VHDR (Very High Density Residential) to Transfer Density of Not Less Than 1,146 Residential Units from the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2025-016.
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.1 Consideration of a Request by the City of Banning for a Zone Text Amendment Application to Amend Chapter 17.88, Non-conforming Uses and Structures.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-17.
Director Newell presented a staff report on a Zone Text Amendment application to amend Chapter 17.88, Nonconforming Uses and Structures. The proposed amendment allows greater leniency on residential structures damaged by catastrophe. The amendment removes the two-year time limit for reconstruction or repair.
Director Newell confirmed that the two-year time frame is being removed and it applies citywide.
Public Hearing was opened by Chair Dale at 5:45 p.m.
No public Comments
Public Hearing was closed at 5:46 p.m.
Motion to approve and adopt resolution 2025-17 was made by Commissioner Marshall, Seconded by Commissioner Phelps.
COMMISSIONERS YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Castorena X
Dale X
Marshall X
Phelps X
Rodriguez X
Motion Carried 4-0-1) motion passes, Castorena absent
Commissioner Castorena arrived at the meeting at 5:52 p.m.
4.2 Tentative Tract Map No. 39259 (PTM25-0004) and Design Review No. 25-0008 (PDR25- 0008)
1028
3 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this Public Hearing item to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 3, 2025.
4.3 Tentative Tract Map No. 39262 (PTM25-0005)
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this Public Hearing item to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 3, 2025.
Items 4.2 and 4.3, related to the Atwell development:
Director Newell said the applicant requested items be continued to the December 3rd meeting due to pending details on conditions.
Chair Dale opened public comments.
• Frank Connelly inquired about fixing links to the documents. • Isaac Aguirre expressed concerns about traffic in the Atwell community.
Chair Dale closed public comments.
A motion was made by Commissioner Phelps to continue items 4.2 and 4.3 to the December 3rd meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Castorena..
The motion passed unanimously by 5-0.
Director Newell presented two resolutions related to the Sunset Crossroads project:
● Resolution 2025-015: Recommending City Council deny the project applications. ● Resolution 2025-016: There was one minor change.
The resolutions reflected direction given at the November 5th meeting.
Commission Discussion and Clarifications
Chair Dale reviewed the changes made to the resolutions. Changes included removing references to the Mount San Jacinto site action and clarifying the commission's authority to interpret the general plan.
Other changes involved wordsmithing for clarification.
Motion and Vote on Resolution 2025-15
A motion was made by Commissioner Phelps to adopt resolution 2025-15. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Castorena. The initial vote was recorded as 4-1, but Commissioner Rodriguez requested to change his vote to no.
COMMISSIONERS YES NO ABSTAIN RECUSE ABSENT
Castorena X
Dale X
Marshall X
Phelps X
Rodriguez X
Motion Carried 3-2-0) motion passes.
Motion and Vote on Resolution 2025-16
A motion was made by Commissioner Phelps to adopt resolution 2025-16. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Castorena. Motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 1029
4 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Commissioner Phelps requested staff to consider a specific plan amendment for a zone change behind Albertsons.
6. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REPORTS
6.1 DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Newell provided updates on:
● City Council approval of tentative track map 38408.
● WRCOG Vehicle Miles Travel Program.
6.2 COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Castorena mentioned a community presentation and inquired about participating in the Christmas parade.
7. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Phelps to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Castorena. Motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
Minutes prepared by:
Sandra B. Calderon
Recording Secretary
These minutes have been prepared as Summary Minutes in accordance with City Council Resolution 2025-22 and Government Code Sections 36814, 40801, and 54953(c)(2).
The entire discussion of this meeting may be viewed here:
https://banningca.granicus.com/player/clip/256?view_id=1&redirect=true All documents related to this meeting are available here https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.net/banningca/8686b557-b041-11f0-8df7-005056a89546- bf2c6f2f-6a5f-4aa7-a665-6efde7d73e84-1763401619.pdf 1030
CITY OF BANNING
STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Art Vela, Interim City Manager
PREPARED BY: Mark Staples, Planning Manager
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of an Application by the City of Banning, CA for General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No.
ZC 22-3502) to Amend the Land Use Designation and Zoning of Approximately 41 acres of Land Owned by Mount San Jacinto Community College District Located Near the Southeast Corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues from PF–S (Public Facilities-Schools) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR) to Transfer Density of Not Less Than 1,146 Residential Units from the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-33, approving General Plan Amendment No. 22-2502
2. Adopt Ordinance No. 1619, approving Zone Change No. 22-3502 BACKGROUND:
PROJECT APPLICANT:
City of Banning
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
JANUARY 28, 2026, CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY:
At the January 13, 2026, City Council meeting, a public hearing was opened and closed for this project, comments from the public were received, and the Council asked questions of the project applicant.
Council Member Miller motioned to continue the item to the next meeting, with Mayor Royce seconding the motion. The questions asked at the January 13 meeting include:
1. Was Mt. San Jacinto College involved in the review process? The previous Community Development Directors were in communication with the College during the process. Planning Manager Mark Staples held a follow-up Teams call, on February 6, 2026, with Dr.
Roger Schultz, Superintendent/President, and Michael Beckham, VP Business Services, of MSJC. The College has not taken a position either in favor of or in opposition to the transfer of development rights or the zone change and general plan amendment to the surplus school properties. Attached is a letter from MSJC, dated February 17, 2026.
2. Will the transfer of the 1,146 residential units be units lost for the City? 1031
The Planning Department will be required to report the transfer of development rights annually to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) with each Annual Progress Report (APR) until such time the units are realized and developed.
BACKGROUND:
NP Banning Industrial, LLC has submitted multiple entitlement applications for approval of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan, which will appear at public hearings as a separate public hearing item.
Approval of the proposed new Specific Plan Project will result in approximately 141.2 acres of existing residentially zoned properties within the City of Banning to convert to commercial and industrial land uses. The City has determined that adoption of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the Sunset Crossroads Project would result in the reduction of the City’s residential capacity by a maximum of 1,146 units. This is a conservative estimate because it assumes the maximum number of units that could be developed and developments typically do not achieve maximum density due to a variety of factors, including topography and infrastructure requirements.
State law, set forth in California Government Code Section 66300 et seq., requires that the City identify and rezone other land in the City concurrently with adoption of the Sunset Crossroads Project to ensure ‘no net loss’ of the City’s residential development capacity. The City has therefore identified 41-acres of the 49.2-acre site located adjacent to the Sunset Crossroads development site, east of Sunset Avenue and south of Westward Avenue (MSJC Site), that is owned by the Mt. San Jacinto Community College District (MSJCCD) for that purpose. A portion of the MSJC site houses the existing MSJCCD San Gorgonio Campus.
To avoid a net loss to the City’s residential capacity that would otherwise occur if the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan Project is approved, the City is proposing to concurrently amend the general plan land use designation and change the zoning classification of the approximately 41 acres of the MSJC site to Very High Density Residential, which would permit residential development from 24 to 30 dwelling units per acre, which would create capacity for no less than 1,146 units at the MSJC site.
The proposed amendments are: (1) General Plan Amendment (GPA) 22 -2502; and (2) Zone Change (ZC) 22-3502, which together would change the land use designation and zoning of the MSJC Site from PF–S (Public Facilities-Schools) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR) with a density range of 24 to 30 dwelling units per acre (24-30 DU/AC).
No residential development on the MSJC site has been proposed nor is any application pending. If the site is developed in the future, it would occur under the VHDR designation and in conformance with the applicable development standards found in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. For example, the City’s VHDR land use designation allows for development condominiums, townhomes, and apartments, or a combination of these types, along with the provision of common area amenities and open space. The City’s regulations also provide for clustering of such units development of a new specific plan to provide for orderly development or provide for adequate public infrastructure (i.e., roads, storm drain, electricity, sewer, potable and recycled water availability).
Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of the MSJC Entitlements at a programmatic level. Approval of the proposed MSJC entitlements will effectively serve to avoid any net loss of residential capacity and would not result in an increase in capacity or number of residential units in the City. Therefore, the proposed MSJC entitlements are consistent with existing City planning documents and baseline assumptions identified in the environmental impact report, with only the location of the residential uses changing. A programmatic level analysis of potential environmental impacts pertaining to the MSJC entitlements and cumulative analysis was analyzed in the Final EIR and is provided in Chapters 5.0 and 6.0 of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan EIR. The Sunset Crossroads development project is discussed in detail in the project-level analysis of the development project in Chapter 3.0 of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The use of this EIR as both a project-level and programmatic-level document is detailed in Chapter 1.0 of the EIR. 1032
DESCRIPTION:
The MSJC Site totals 49.2 acre and is located at the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Westward Avenue. The MSJC campus - including structures, off-street parking, and other features - is located on 3 parcels (APNs 537-140-001, 537-140-002 and 537-140-003) that constitute approximately 8.3 acres.
The remaining 41-acres is undeveloped sage scrub, grassland, and water habitats. Pershing Creek crosses Sunset Avenue from the west, bordering the southern portion of the MSJC site.
Project setting for the MSJC Site:
North: Westward Avenue is located in the City, directly north of the MSJC Site, and a single- family residential neighborhood is located north of Westward Avenue. Land to the north of the MSJC Site has a City of Banning General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Classification of Medium Density Residential (MDR) (0-10 DU/AC).
West: Sunset Avenue is located west of the MSJC Site and to the west of Sunset Avenue is the Sunset Crossroads development site. Currently, property west of Sunset Avenue and south of the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension is within the City's SOI and will be annexed into the City upon approval of the Development Project.
East: Land to the east of the MSJC site is within the City but not developed and is occupied by natural vegetation and natural topography. A small, 0.11-acre area of land to the east of the MSJC site is occupied by a well and water reservoir that is fenced on its perimeter. Land to the east of the MSJC site has a City of Banning General Plan and Zoning designation of Specific Plan. The approved Rancho San Gorgonio Specific Plan (RSG SP or RSG site) encompasses 831 acres and envisions the creation of a master planned community offering up to 3,385 residential units, as well as commercial uses, public facility, school, and public open space uses.
South: Land to the south of the MSJC Site within the City is undeveloped and is occupied by natural vegetation and natural topography. This area is General Plan designated and zoned Specific Plan. The natural drainage of Pershing Creek is also located south of the MSJC Site, within the approved RSG SP.
JUSTIFICATION:
FINDINGS:
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Section 17.64.070 of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC) requires that General Plan Amendment applications meet certain findings prior to approval by the City Council. An analysis of the required findings for General Plan Amendment, Case GPA 22-2502, is provided for City Council consideration as follows:
Finding A: That the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan.
Findings of Fact: California Government Code Section 65302 requires that a General Plan consist of seven (7) State-mandated elements, including Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. The Land Use Element is one of the seven State-mandated elements of the General Plan and includes the Land Use Map for the City of Banning. The Land Use map and the Zoning map are 100% consistent with one another and, therefore, the same map doubles to serve both purposes. The transfer of residential density is consistent with state law, and with programs contained in the certified Housing Element.
The General Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zone Change would allow for potential development of very high-density residential units that will provide greater diversity of housing across income levels and housing types including affordable housing opportunities as required for the General Plan land use 1033
map. The proposed amendments would also be consistent with the nearby residential development, the school use currently on the site, and the commercial development and job opportunities afforded by the commercial and industrial development within the proposed Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan.
Finding B: That the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Findings of Fact: The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zone Change will allow for the orderly development of the proposed Sunset Crossroads development project in an industrial area, further strengthening economic development and job opportunities, while allowing for housing opportunities adjacent to a higher-education campus and ensuring there would be no net loss in the City’s residential development capacity. The potential residential development on the MSJC proposed amendment is not anticipated to cause detrimental impacts to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, while preserving affordable, high density residential uses by transferring the residential density to the subject site, ensuring there will be no net loss of residential development capacity.
Finding C: That the proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Findings of Fact: Table III -3, of the Community Development Chapter of the City’s General Plan details that 252.1 acres of vacant land is designated as General Commercial, and 274.1 acres of vacant land is designated as Industrial. The approval of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan would increase the amount of vacant General Commercial land by 47.9 acres, and will increase the amount of vacant Industrial land by 392 acres, which provide a statistically significant positive change in the balance of vacant non -residential land uses within the City. With the proposed amendment, residential density will transfer adjacent to a higher-education campus and create additional housing opportunities for students, entry-level homes and increase the variety of housing options in the City. As such, the balance of land use designations will not be negatively impacted by the Project.
Finding D : The amendment is physically suitable for the surrounding environment; including, but not limited to site access, the provision of utilities, and compatibility with adjoining land uses, including the absence of any physical constraints, for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s).
Findings of Fact: The land use amendment will not adjust or change the physical characteristics of the parcels, as there are currently no development proposals for the MSJC property. The existing backbone infrastructure, such as sewer, water, electricity, and other utilities, is in place to service the project location, and future development of the project site will dedicate additional right-of-way along the frontage of Sunset and Westward Avenues to accommodate widening to the General Plan Circulation Element ultimate configuration for these street segments. Any future residential development of the MSJC site would be designed to meet City standards, which provide satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including emergency vehicle access and on-site improvements, streets, utilities, and drainage facilities consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The Project will implement Policy 8 of the Community Development Chapter of the General Plan, which requires that the City assure the provision of adequate utilities, infrastructure, and other capital facilities” (General Plan, Page III-44).
The Project will implement Program 4.B, which “requires the City make regular assessments of infrastructure capacity and evaluate the necessary expansion and improvements needed to carry out responsible growth management” (General Plan, Page VI-19).
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 (ZONING)
Section 17.116.030 of the Banning Municipal Code provides that the City Council shall make a written 1034
recommendation on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) whether to approve, approve in modified form, or disapprove based upon their findings. An analysis of the required findings for Zone Change, Case ZC 22-3502, is provided for City Council consideration as follows:
Finding A: The proposed Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Findings of Fact: The Zone Change would implement the related General Plan amendment and is therefore consistent with the policies of the General Plan for the reasons discussed above.
Finding B: The proposed Amendment is internally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
Findings of Fact: The proposed Zone Change will transfer residential density from one project site to the subject site to accommodate a commercial/industrial development project. The proposed amendment will provide consistency with state housing law in that it ensures no net loss in the residential development capacity identified in the City’s General Plan, and the proposed density range is from 24 to 30 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and development standards for the Very High Density Residential zone.
Finding C : That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Findings of Fact: A Programmatic Analysis for the MSJC entitlements is contained in Chapter 5 of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan FEIR, in accordance with CEQA. The City Council has conducted an independent review of the FEIR and the City Council approves the project and programmatic EIR that has been prepared for the Project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The proposed General Plan Amendment, Case GPA 22-2502 and Zone Change, Case ZC 22-3502, are entitlements for a residential density transfer to the MSJC Site from the related Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan Project. Both projects have been evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan, both projects are to be heard by the City Council, and both projects are intended to be scheduled together at a future City Council public hearing. Procedurally, the City Council may adopt Resolutions and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan, that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the proposed MSJC entitlements are consistent with the analysis contained in the FEIR, and therefore, no further analysis is required.
The Sunset Crossroads FEIR contains both a project-level and a programmatic-level of review. The Sunset Crossroads Development Project described in Chapter 4.0 of the FEIR is analyzed at a project level of detail consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and considers the changes in the environment that would result during construction and operation of the development project. The MSJC entitlements are analyzed at a programmatic level, consistent with CEQA Guidelines §15168 because no specific development project is currently proposed for the MSJC site, but they are logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions. Consistent with the requirements set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21068.5 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15168(c), later activities could be tiered from, and would be examined in light of, the information in the programmatic analysis. The City would use the Sunset Crossroads FEIR to determine whether impacts of future development on the MSJC Site have been addressed in the analysis and whether or not additional environmental analysis shall be required. If an additional environmental document is necessary, under Section 15168(c)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, and under tiering provisions in Public Resources Code Section 21068.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(a), it would incorporate the discussion, and applicable mitigation measures from the FEIR and focus the analysis on site specific issues not previously or sufficiently addressed.
Such programmatic analysis is intended to assist the City in streamlining environmental documentation for future development projects at the MSJC Site that could tier from the FEIR. Factors to be used in determining whether subsequent environmental review is required include but are not limited to whether 1035
the subsequent, project- level development is within the scope of the MSJC entitlements, consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure described in the FEIR, and whether impacts from development of residential uses on the MSJC site have been fully analyzed and mitigated to less than significant in the programmatic analysis.
Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of the Sunset Crossroads FEIR described the environmental setting of the development project and the impacts that are expected to result from implementation of the development project. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce potential impacts where appropriate. The environmental issues addressed included:
4.1 Aesthetics
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.3 Air Quality
4.4 Biological Resources
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.6 Energy
4.7 Geology and Soils
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.12 Mineral Resources
4.13 Noise
4.14 Population and Housing
4.15 Public Services
4.16 Recreation
4.17 Transportation
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.19 Utilities and Services
4.20 Wildfire
A Programmatic Analysis for the MSJC entitlements is contained in Chapter 5 of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan FEIR, which includes a discussion of the existing environmental condition of the MSJC site relative to each of the environmental issues cited above. As the laws, regulations and City policies previously presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.20 of the FEIR would be applicable to actions related to the MSJC site, they are referenced, but not listed in the discussions contained in Chapter 5. For each environmental issue, the same Appendix G thresholds have been applied at a Programmatic Level. As 1036
there is no specific development planned for the MSJC site at this time, the precise nature, location, and/or design of future residential uses is not known. The MSJC entitlements merely relocate potential impacts from one property to an adjoining property to avoid the net loss of residential capacity and by definition would be equal to or incrementally increase residential capacity or unit count in the City if an application for full buildout of the entitlement envelope is sought. Impacts from the future development of the 1,146 units are already contemplated by the City’s planning documents. Any new impacts would generally be those that create site specific modifications where the focus of the analyses is on the specific location for the proposed use or the density of the use rather than the nature of the use. Where appropriate, the assessment identifies future actions that may be required prior to development of the MSJC site. The cumulative effects resulting from implementation of the Sunset Crossroads development project, the proposed MSJC entitlements and future development on the MSJC Site, and other development activity in the City are provided in Chapter 6.0 of the FEIR. Relevant “Other CEQA Considerations” concerning the MSJC entitlements are discussed in Chapter 7.0 of the FEIR.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION:
A notice of public hearing for the subject applications was published in the Record Gazette newspaper and mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project boundary on January 2, 2026. The notice was also posted on the City's webpage and provided electronically to interested parties. As of the writing of this report, the City received several comments related to the Sunset Crossroads project, but none specific to the subject amendment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
A motion to deny or approve the proposed project would not result in a direct impact on the City's General Fund. The project will transfer development rights of residential units to the Mt. San Jacinto College, but the City does not have a project application filed for the development of those units. State university and community college owned properties are not assessed property taxes, and in turn housing on MSJC property will not generate property tax for the city. However, the indirect fiscal benefit of siting housing adjacent to an educational institution could make post-secondary education more accessible to residents of the San Gorgonio Pass region.
ALTERNATIVES:
Continue the Public Hearing. Continue the item to a date certain or a future meeting to allow time for additional information, analysis, or project modifications.
BUDGETED?:
No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT:
No
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 3.2a GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 CC DENIAL Reso 2026-32.pdf
2. 3.2b GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 CC APPROVAL Reso 2026-33.pdf
3. 3.2c ZC CC Ordinance No. 1619.pdf
4. 3.2d EXHIBIT A - Proposed General Plan and Zoning MSJC.pdf
5. 3.2e GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 Vicinity Map MSJC.pdf
6. 3.2f GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 Existing Zoning MSJC.pdf
7. 3.2g GPA22-2502 ZC25-3502 Aerial Map MSJC.pdf
8. 3.2h PHN GPAZC CC Meeting 01-28-26.pdf
9. 3.2i MSJC Letter 2-17-26.pdf
10. 3.2j 2026 01 28_Special Meeting_Minutes_DRAFT.pdf
1037
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
RESOLUTION 2026-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (CASE NO. GPA 22-2502) AND ZONE CHANGE (CASE NO. ZC 22-3502) TO REDESIGNATE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 41 ACRES OF
PROPERTY OWNED BY MOUNT SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT AND LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
WESTWARD AND SUNSET AVENUES FROM PF-S (PUBLIC FACILITIESSCHOOLS) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR) TO TRANSFER CAPACITY FOR DEVELOMENT OF NO LESS THAN 1,146
RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM THE SUNSET CROSSROADS SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA; REJECT CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021020011); AND REJECT ADOPTING
FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, an application for General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502), (collectively, the "Project"), a proposal to amend the existing land use designation on twelve parcels of land from Public Facilities – School (PF-S) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), and amending the Zoning District classification from Public Facilities – School (PF-S) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), for 41 acres of a 49.2-acre site located near the southeast corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues (APNs: 537-140-001 through -004, 537-140-006 through -012, 537-150-001, -003 and -004, and 537-150-008), has been duly filed; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060.C. of the BMC, the City Council has the authority to review and act upon General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes, such as Case Nos. GPA 22-2502, ZC 22-3502, and EA 20-1506; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 of the Banning Municipal Code, the Planning Commission has the authority to interpret the General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(f)(2) and 15070, the proposal constitutes a project as defined by CEQA and Community Development Department staff has determined that the Project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based upon the complexity and magnitude of the proposed project, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project, and an Initial Study was not necessary. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was therefore completed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies and organizations that may provide comment on the Project’s potential impact(s) on the environment. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the project, SCH No. 2021020011. The 30-day public comment period extended from 1038
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
February 1 to March 3, 2021. An electronic copy of the NOP was made available on the City’s website. Comments received during the public review of the NOP were utilized to assist in identifying potential environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Public Scoping meeting was held virtually on February 18, 2021 via Zoom. Notice of the Public Scoping Meeting was published in the Banning Record Gazette on February 5, 2021 providing the appropriate instructions for public participation in the Scoping Meeting. The Public Scoping Meeting included a presentation providing a summary of the Project, required actions, and the environmental review process. No public comments were received during the Scoping Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Sunset Crossroads development project includes a General Plan Amendment and implementation of a Specific Plan for the Project; therefore, Native American consultation pursuant to both SB 18 and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was conducted. On November 30, 2020 the City reached out to 31 Native American contacts to formally invite participation in tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 required for the Project. The City received responses from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (SBLI), and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) requesting formal consultation with the City regarding the Development Project; and
WHEREAS, the City provided a separate consultation invitation to these same 31 Native American contacts on August 25, 2022, specifically identifying the entitlement actions related to the MSJC Site. In this 2022 consultation, the City stated the MSJC site entitlements proposed only changes to the City’s land use and zoning maps, and that no construction or physical alterations were proposed or would be authorized under the MSJC entitlements. The MBMI acknowledged the City’s actions and noted the MSJC Site is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the MBMI and that any future construction or alterations to the MSJC Site would be of interest to the MBMI. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) stated the MSJC Site is outside of Serrano ancestral territory and, as such, SMBMI would not request consulting party status with the City; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was provided to, responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the organizations, and persons who have previously requested notification. The NOA was distributed via priority mail with confirmed receipt. The NOA identified the State mandated 45-day public review period extending from December 15, 2023 to January 30, 2024 and included a weblink to the City’s public noticing page providing further access to the Draft EIR, project material, and related technical appendices. Emails advising of the availability of the Draft EIR were sent by the City on December 15, 2023 to those parties requesting electronic notification. These emails provided the same weblink leading to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City received 54 letters from Resource Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties. The City 1039
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
prepared a response to each comment letter received and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the disclosure requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(g)(5), the Project site is not listed as a hazardous property as designated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on August 15, 2025 the City provided public notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Project. The public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on September 10, 2025 the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the Planning Commission considered the entirety of the Project and is recommending that the City Council approve the Project.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on October 10, 2025 the City provided notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and related environmental documentation. The notice was also mailed to the owners of properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on November 5, 2025 the Planning Commission considered any new information received on the project and voted 3 in support and 2 opposed to not re-open the public hearing, in accordance with the City of Banning’s Manual of Procedural Guidelines, Section 7.3(e), before continuing its deliberation and considering the entirety of the record for the Project; and
WHEREAS, at the November 5, 2025, regular meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 instructing staff to prepare a resolution making findings supporting a denial recommendation to the City Council of GPA 22-2502 and ZC 22-3502; and WHEREAS, at the November 17, 2025, special meeting, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 adopting Resolution No. 2025-16 recommending the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 22-2502 and Zone Change 22-3502 with findings that are included in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, a public notice for the January 28, 2026, City Council special meeting was published in accordance with State law and the Banning Municipal Code, and written notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site; and 1040
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
WHEREAS, at the January 28, 2026 special meeting, the City Council held a public hearing, commenced deliberation and voted 5-0 to continue deliberation of the matter at a special meeting on February 26, 2026; and
WHEREAS, Urban Crossroads, Inc. provided certain additional supplemental information to the City on February 18, 2026 (“collectively with the Initial Supplemental CEQA Memorandum, the “Supplemental CEQA Memoranda”) regarding average daily trips following further reductions in Project industrial square footage; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff report, Planning Commission recommendation, environmental documentation, proposed general plan amendment and zone change, supporting materials, and public testimony and finds the project in conformance with the requirements of the Banning Municipal Code, the City’s General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Banning does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
The preceding Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), the State Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City Staff prepared an Environmental Impact Report evaluating the potential environmental effects of the Sunset Crossroads development project, and a programmatic analysis of the proposed MSJC entitlements.
B. Thereafter, City Staff provided public notice of completion of a DEIR and establishing the 45-day public review and comment period as required by law. The public comment period began on December 15, 2023, and expired on January 30, 2024. Copies of the documents are available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, the Banning Public Library, located at 21 West Nicolet Street, Banning, California 92220, and the City of Banning website. The City received 54 comment letters during the public review period.
C. The City Council reviewed the Final EIR, inclusive of the Draft EIR, which is on file with the Planning Department and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan EIR. In light of the whole record, the City Council determines and finds that: the project will result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment, including the degradation of air quality and increases in vehicles miles travelled, noise and greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the Project. The City Council finds that the overriding considerations related to the social, economic and other benefits of the Project, including the eight identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of 1041
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
the record, do not outweigh the potential unavoidable significant impacts.
D. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the whole of the administrative record in this matter, the City Council hereby rejects the certification of the Sunset Crossroads FEIR, and rejects the adoption of the related CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
Section 17.64.070 of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC) requires that General Plan Amendment applications meet four required findings. The City Council finds and determines that General Plan Amendment, Case No. 22-2502, shall be denied as a legislative act based on information in the record and because at least one of the required findings cannot be met in the affirmative for the following reasons:
Finding A: That the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan.
Findings of Fact: The General Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zone Change would replace 41 acres of vacant land designated Public Facilities-School (PF-S) with Very High Density Residential (VHDR). Table III-1 of the 2006 Land Use Element identifies the PF-S designation with only 95.7 acres of vacant land remaining in the City, resulting in a loss of 43% of land available for education purposes. This is inconsistent with the following Goal, Policy and Programs of the Land Use Element:
• Goal: A balanced, broadly-based economy that provides a full range of economic and employment opportunities, while maintaining high standards of development and environmental protection.
• Policy 1 General Plan land use designations and allocations will facilitate a broad range of residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development opportunities.
• Program 1.A The city shall annually monitor the remaining capacity of all General Plan land use categories to assure that a variety of economic development opportunities are available.
• Program 2.A Work closely with Mount San Jacinto College throughout their planning process to assist in its efficient and timely development, implement educational programs geared to job creation and retention, and to coordinate synergistic development opportunities.
The Amendment would reduce available land for school purposes, impede campus expansion, and limit future educational opportunities for residents. This is inconsistent with the goal of a balanced, broadly-based economy that provides a full range of economic and employment opportunities, as envisioned by the General Plan.
Consequently, this finding cannot be made.
1042
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
Finding B: That the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Finding C: That the proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Findings of Fact: The proposed Amendment would limit or remove opportunities for a campus expansion by Mt. San Jacinto Community College District. The amendment would replace 41 acres of vacant land designated Public Facilities-School (PF-S) with Very High Density Residential (VHDR). Table III-1 of the 2006 Land Use Element identifies the PF-S designation with only 95.7 acres of vacant land remaining in the City, resulting in a loss of 43% of land available for education purposes. This is inconsistent with the Land Use Element Goal for a desirable balance of land uses: “A balanced, broadly-based economy that provides a full range of economic and employment opportunities, while maintaining high standards of development and environmental protection.” As a result, this finding cannot be made.
Finding D: The subject parcels are physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s).
Findings of Fact: The site proposed for amendment is not physically suitable to accommodate very high density residential units (up to 30 units per acre, up to 5 stories in height) due to physical constraints and is not compatible with existing adjoining singlestory single-family residential uses. The 41-acre property is split by a watercourse channel that traverses the site from northwest to southeast, limiting the developable area of the site. The site also has limited access potential on the adjoining segments of Sunset and Westward Avenues. The amendment site is owned by a public agency that provides higher education services; the proposed amendment may limit expansion and ultimate buildout of a higher-education campus in the City of Banning, as described above.
Consequently, this finding cannot be made.
SECTION 4. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 (ZONING):
Section 17.116.040 of the Banning Municipal Code provides that the City Council shall on a proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 17) whether to approve, approve in modified form, or disapprove based upon their findings. The City Council finds and determines that Zone Change, Case No. ZC 22- 2502, shall be denied because at least one of the following required findings cannot be met in the affirmative for the following reasons:
Finding A: The proposed Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Findings of Fact: The proposed Zone Change would re-zone 41 acres of vacant land from Public Facilities – School (PF-S) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR). Findings for a corresponding General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map cannot 1043
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
be made to amend the Land Use map from PF-S to VHDR. Therefore, the proposed Zone Change to VHDR would cause inconsistency between the existing General Plan Land Use designation (PF-S) and the proposed zone (VHDR).
The proposed Zone Change is also inconsistent with General Plan goals and policies, as described in Section 3 of this Resolution.
For the above reasons, this finding cannot be made.
Finding B: The proposed Amendment is internally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
Finding C: That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 5. DENIAL
The City Council hereby denies the project proposals of a General Plan Amendment, Case No. GPA 22-2502, and a Zone Change, Case No. ZC 22-3502, and reject certifying the EIR (SCH No. 2021020011) and reject the associated Findings, Statements of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP.
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book or original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of January, 2026.
Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM
John Pinkney, City Attorney
SBEMP
1044
Resolution 2026-32
February 26, 2026
CERTIFICATION:
I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk for the City of Banning City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-32, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a special meeting thereof held on the 26th day of February, 2026, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
1045
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
RESOLUTION 2026-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (CASE NO. GPA 22-2502) AND ZONE CHANGE (CASE NO. ZC 22-3502) TO REDESIGNATE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 41
ACRES OF PROPERTY OWNED BY MOUNT SAN JACINTO COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DISTRICT AND LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF WESTARD AND SUNSET AVENUES FROM PF-S (PUBLIC
FACILITIES-SCHOOLS) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR) TO TRANSFER CAPACITY FOR DEVELOMENT OF NO LESS THAN 1,146
RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM THE SUNSET CROSSROADS SPECIFIC
PLAN AREA; CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021020011); AND ADOPT FINDINGS, A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, an application for General Plan Amendment (Case No. GPA 22-2502) and Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502), (collectively, the "Project"), a proposal to amend the existing land use designation on twelve parcels of land from Public Facilities – School (PF-S) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), and amending the Zoning District classification from Public Facilities – School (PF-S) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), for 41 acres of a 49.2-acre site located near the southeast corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues (APNs: 537-140-004, 537-140-006 through -012, 537- 150-001, 537-150-003 and -004, 537-150-008, and 537-140-001 through -003), has been duly filed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.64.060.C. of the BMC, the City Council has the authority to review and act upon General Plan Amendments, such as Case No. GPA 22-2502 and EA 20-1506; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.76.020 of the Banning Municipal Code, the Planning Commission has the authority to interpret the General Plan; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(f)(2) and 15070, the proposal constitutes a project as defined by CEQA and Community Development Department staff has determined that the Project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based upon the complexity and magnitude of the proposed project, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project, and an Initial Study was not necessary. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was therefore completed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies and organizations that may provide comment on the Project’s potential impact(s) on the environment. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the 1046
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
project, SCH No. 2021020011. The 30-day public comment period extended from February 1 to March 3, 2021. An electronic copy of the NOP was made available on the City’s website. Comments received during the public review of the NOP were utilized to assist in identifying potential environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Public Scoping meeting was held virtually on February 18, 2021 via Zoom. Notice of the Public Scoping Meeting was published in the Banning Record Gazette on February 5, 2021 providing the appropriate instructions for public participation in the Scoping Meeting. The Public Scoping Meeting included a presentation providing a summary of the Project, required actions, and the environmental review process. No public comments were received during the Scoping Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Sunset Crossroads development project includes a General Plan Amendment and implementation of a Specific Plan for the Project; therefore, Native American consultation pursuant to both SB 18 and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was conducted. On November 30, 2020 the City reached out to 31 Native American contacts to formally invite participation in tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 required for the Project. The City received responses from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (SBLI), and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) requesting formal consultation with the City regarding the Development Project; and
WHEREAS, the City provided a separate consultation invitation to these same 31 Native American contacts on August 25, 2022, specifically identifying the entitlement actions related to the MSJC Site. In this 2022 consultation, the City stated the MSJC site entitlements proposed only changes to the City’s land use and zoning maps, and that no construction or physical alterations were proposed or would be authorized under the MSJC entitlements. The MBMI acknowledged the City’s actions and noted the MSJC Site is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the MBMI and that any future construction or alterations to the MSJC Site would be of interest to the MBMI. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) stated the MSJC Site is outside of Serrano ancestral territory and, as such, SMBMI would not request consulting party status with the City; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was provided to, responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the organizations, and persons who have previously requested notification. The NOA was distributed via priority mail with confirmed receipt. The NOA identified the State mandated 45-day public review period extending from December 15, 2023 to January 30, 2024 and included a weblink to the City’s public noticing page providing further access to the Draft EIR, project material, and related technical appendices. Emails advising of the availability of the Draft EIR were sent by the City on December 15, 2023 to those parties requesting electronic notification. These emails provided the same weblink leading to the Draft EIR; and 1047
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City received 54 letters from Resource Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties. The City prepared a response to each comment letter received and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the disclosure requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(g)(5), the Project site is not listed as a hazardous property as designated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on August 15, 2025 the City provided public notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Project. The public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on September 10, 2025 the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the Planning Commission considered the entirety of the Project and is recommending that the City Council approve the Project.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on October 10, 2025 the City provided notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and related environmental documentation. The notice was also mailed to the owners of properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on November 5, 2025 the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the Planning Commission considered the entirety of the Project; and WHEREAS, at the November 5, 2025, regular meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 instructing staff to prepare a resolution making findings supporting a denial recommendation to the City Council of GPA 22-2502; and
WHEREAS, at the November 17, 2025, special meeting, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 adopting Resolution No. 2025-16 recommending the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 22-2502 with findings that are included in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, a public notice for the January 28, 2026, City Council special meeting was published in accordance with State law and the Banning Municipal Code, and written notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site; and 1048
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff report, Planning Commission recommendation, environmental documentation, proposed general plan amendment and zone change, supporting materials, and public testimony and finds the project in conformance with the requirements of the Banning Municipal Code, the City’s General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Banning does hereby resolve, determine, find, and order as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
The preceding Recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.
A. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.), the State Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City Staff prepared an Environmental Impact Report evaluating the potential environmental effects of the Sunset Crossroads development project, and a programmatic analysis of the proposed MSJC entitlements. Based upon the findings contained in the DEIR, City Staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the MSJC entitlements will have a potentially significant effect on the environment.
B. Thereafter, City Staff provided public notice of completion of a DEIR and establishing the 45-day public review and comment period as required by law. The public comment period began on December 15, 2023, and expired on January 30, 2024. Copies of the documents are available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 99 E. Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220, the Banning Public Library, located at 21 West Nicolet Street, Banning, California 92220, and the City of Banning website. The City received 54 comment letters during the public review period.
C. The City Council reviewed the Final EIR, which is on file with the Planning Department and incorporated herein by this reference, and all comments received regarding the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan EIR. In light of the whole record, the City Council determines and finds that: (1) the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (2) with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the MSJC entitlements will have a significant effect on the environment; and (3) the EIR reflects the independent judgement and analysis of the City Council.
D. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the whole of the administrative record in this matter, the City Council certifies the Sunset Crossroads FEIR, and adopts the related CEQA Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP for the Project.
SECTION 3. MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (MSHCP). 1049
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
The project is located outside of any MSHCP criteria cell areas and plan compliance is provided through payment of the MSHCP Mitigation Fee at the time of building permit issuance.
SECTION 4. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.
Section 17.64.070 of the Banning Municipal Code (BMC) requires that General Plan Amendment applications meet certain findings. The City Council finds and determines that General Plan Amendment, Case No. 22-2502, can be approved because the following required findings can all be met in the affirmative:
Finding A: That the proposed amendment is internally consistent with the General Plan.
Findings of Fact: California Government Code Section 65302 requires that a General Plan consist of seven (7) State-mandated elements, including Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. The Land Use Element is one of the seven State-mandated elements of the General Plan and includes the Land Use Map for the City of Banning. The Land Use map and the Zoning map are 100% consistent with one another and, therefore, the same map doubles to serve both purposes. The transfer of residential density is consistent with state law, and with programs contained in the certified Housing Element.
The General Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zone Change would allow for potential development of very high-density residential units that will provide greater diversity of housing across income levels and housing types including affordable housing opportunities as required for the General Plan land use map. The proposed amendments would also be consistent with the nearby residential development, the school use currently on the site, and the commercial development and job opportunities afforded by the commercial and industrial development within the proposed Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan.
Finding B: That the proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Findings of Fact: The proposed General Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zone Change will allow for the orderly development of the proposed Sunset Crossroads development project in an industrial area, further strengthening economic development and job opportunities, while allowing for housing opportunities adjacent to a highereducation campus and ensuring there would be no net loss in the City’s residential development capacity. The potential residential development on the MSJC proposed amendment is not anticipated to cause detrimental impacts to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, while preserving affordable, high density residential uses by transferring the residential density to the subject site, ensuring there will be no net loss of residential development capacity. 1050
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
Finding C: That the proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.
Findings of Fact: Table III -3, of the Community Development Chapter of the City’s General Plan details that 252.1 acres of vacant land is designated as General Commercial, and 274.1 acres of vacant land is designated as Industrial. The approval of the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan would increase the amount of vacant General Commercial land by 47.9 acres, and will increase the amount of vacant Industrial land by 392 acres, which provide a statistically significant positive change in the balance of vacant non -residential land uses within the City. With the proposed amendment, residential density will transfer adjacent to a higher-education campus and create additional housing opportunities for students, entry-level homes and increase the variety of housing options in the City. As such, the balance of land use designations will not be negatively impacted by the Project.
Finding D: The amendment is physically suitable for the surrounding environment; including, but not limited to site access, the provision of utilities, and compatibility with adjoining land uses, including the absence of any physical constraints, for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated land use development(s).
Findings of Fact: The land use amendment will not adjust or change the physical characteristics of the parcels, as there are currently no development proposals for the MSJC property. The existing backbone infrastructure, such as sewer, water, electricity, and other utilities, is in place to service the project location, and future development of the project site will dedicate additional right-of-way along the frontage of Sunset and Westward Avenues to accommodate widening to the General Plan Circulation Element ultimate configuration for these street segments. Any future residential development of the MSJC site would be designed to meet City standards, which provide satisfactory pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including emergency vehicle access and on-site improvements, streets, utilities, and drainage facilities consistent with the City’s General Plan.
The Project will implement Policy 8 of the Community Development Chapter of the General Plan, which requires that the City assure the provision of adequate utilities, infrastructure, and other capital facilities” (General Plan, Page III-44).
The Project will implement Program 4.B, which “requires the City make regular assessments of infrastructure capacity and evaluate the necessary expansion and improvements needed to carry out responsible growth management” (General Plan, Page VI-19).
1051
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
SECTION 5. APPROVAL
The City Council hereby approves the project proposals of a General Plan Amendment, Case No. GPA 22-2502, and approves the certification of EIR (SCH No. 2021020011) with its associated Findings, Statements of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP.
SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book or original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of February, 2026.
Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM
John Pinkney, City of Attorney
SBEMP
1052
Resolution 2026-33
February 26, 2026
CERTIFICATION:
I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning City Council, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2026-33, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a special meeting thereof held on the 26th day of February 2026 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
1053
Ordinance No. 1619
February 26, 2026
ORDINANCE NO. 1619
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF BANNING OFFICIAL
ZONING MAP AND APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 22-3502 REZONING
CERTAIN TERRITORY IN THE CITY LOCATED SOUTH WEST
WESTWARD AVENUE AND EAST OF SUNSET AVENUE (APNS 537-
140-001- THROUGH -004, -006 THROUGH -012, 537-150-001, -003 AND -004, -008).
WHEREAS, the City of Banning, California, (“City”) is a general law city and a municipal corporation of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, an application for Zone Change (Case No. ZC 22-3502), (the "Project"), a proposal to amend the Zoning District classification from Public Facilities – School (PF-S) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), for 41 acres of a 49.2-acre site located near the southeast corner of Westward and Sunset Avenues (APNs: 537-140- 001 through -004, 537-140-006 through -012, 537-150-001, 537-150-003 and -004, 537- 150-008), has been duly filed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.04.060.C. of the BMC, the Planning Commission has the authority to review and make recommendations to the City Council concerning Case No. ZC 22-3502; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 17.116.040 of the Banning Municipal Code, the City Council has the authority to interpret the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(f)(2) and 15070, the proposal constitutes a project as defined by CEQA and Community Development Department staff has determined that the Project is likely to have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, based upon the complexity and magnitude of the proposed project, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project, and an Initial Study was not necessary. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was therefore completed and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies and organizations that may provide comment on the Project’s potential impact(s) on the environment. The State of California Clearinghouse issued a project number for the project, SCH No. 2021020011. The 30-day public comment period extended from February 1 to March 3, 2021. An electronic copy of the NOP was made available on the City’s website. Comments received during the public review of the NOP were utilized to assist in identifying potential environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, due to COVID-19 restrictions, the Public Scoping meeting was held virtually on February 18, 2021 via Zoom. Notice of the Public Scoping Meeting was published in the Banning Record Gazette on February 5, 2021 providing the appropriate instructions for public participation in the Scoping Meeting. The Public Scoping Meeting 1054
Ordinance No. 1619
February 26, 2026
included a presentation providing a summary of the Project, required actions, and the environmental review process. No public comments were received during the Scoping Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Sunset Crossroads development project includes a General Plan Amendment and implementation of a Specific Plan for the Project; therefore, Native American consultation pursuant to both SB 18 and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) was conducted. On November 30, 2020 the City reached out to 31 Native American contacts to formally invite participation in tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 required for the Project. The City received responses from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (MBMI), the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians (SBLI), and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) requesting formal consultation with the City regarding the Development Project; and
WHEREAS, the City provided a separate consultation invitation to these same 31 Native American contacts on August 25, 2022, specifically identifying the entitlement actions related to the MSJC Site. In this 2022 consultation, the City stated the MSJC site entitlements proposed only changes to the City’s land use and zoning maps, and that no construction or physical alterations were proposed or would be authorized under the MSJC entitlements. The MBMI acknowledged the City’s actions and noted the MSJC Site is located within the ancestral territory and traditional use area of the Cahuilla and Serrano people of the MBMI and that any future construction or alterations to the MSJC Site would be of interest to the MBMI. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) stated the MSJC Site is outside of Serrano ancestral territory and, as such, SMBMI would not request consulting party status with the City; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was provided to, responsible and trustee agencies, as well as the organizations, and persons who have previously requested notification. The NOA was distributed via priority mail with confirmed receipt. The NOA identified the State mandated 45-day public review period extending from December 15, 2023 to January 30, 2024 and included a weblink to the City’s public noticing page providing further access to the Draft EIR, project material, and related technical appendices. Emails advising of the availability of the Draft EIR were sent by the City on December 15, 2023 to those parties requesting electronic notification. These emails provided the same weblink leading to the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City received 54 letters from Resource Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties. The City prepared a response to each comment letter received and prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the disclosure requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(g)(5), the Project site is not listed as a hazardous property as designated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on August 15, 2025 the City provided public notice by advertisement in the 1055
Ordinance No. 1619
February 26, 2026
Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing concerning the Project, and Notice of Intent (NOI) to recommend that the City Council adopt a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Project. The public hearing notice/NOI was also mailed to the owners of the subject properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on September 10, 2025 the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the Planning Commission considered the entirety of the Project and is recommending that the City Council approve the Project.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, on October 10, 2025 the City provided notice by advertisement in the Record Gazette newspaper of a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Project, and related environmental documentation. The notice was also mailed to the owners of properties within 300-feet of the Project boundary; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Sections 65353 and 65855, on November 5, 2025 the Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or opposition to the Project and at which time the Planning Commission considered the entirety of the Project; and WHEREAS, at the November 5, 2025, regular meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 instructing staff to prepare a resolution making findings supporting a denial recommendation to the City Council of GPA 22-2502 and ZC 22-3502; and WHEREAS, at the November 17, 2025, special meeting, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 adopting Resolution No. 2025-16 recommending the City Council deny General Plan Amendment 22-2502 and Zone Change 22-3502 with findings that are included in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, a public notice for the January 28, 2026, City Council special meeting was published in accordance with State law and the Banning Municipal Code, and written notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site; and WHEREAS, at the January 28, 2026 special meeting, the City Council of the City of Banning (the “City Council”) held a public hearing, commenced deliberation and voted five in favor and none opposed to continue deliberation of the matter at a special meeting on February 26, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the staff report, Planning Commission recommendation, environmental documentation, proposed general plan amendment and zone change, supporting materials, and public testimony and finds the project in conformance with the requirements of the Banning Municipal Code, the City’s General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.
1056
Ordinance No. 1619
February 26, 2026
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. RECITALS
That the above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby approves ZC 22-2502, zoning land lying within the jurisdiction of the City and directs the Community Development Director to amend the City of Banning Official Zoning Map, as depicted in Exhibit A to this Ordinance and incorporated by this reference, to amend the zoning classifications of the Real Property legally described on Exhibit B-1 and Exhibit B-2 to this Ordinance, each incorporated by this reference, from Public Facilities – School (PF-S) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), for the portion of the Property legally described on Exhibit B-1, comprising APNS 537-110-003 through -005, 537-110-011 through -014 is within the jurisdiction of the City.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ZC 22-2502.
BMC Section 17.116.040 provides that upon receipt of the Planning Commission's recommendation, the City Council may approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the proposed amendment based upon its findings. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance shall be adopted by ordinance. Further, BMC Section 17.116.050 provides that an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance may be adopted only if the following findings are made. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows:
A. FINDING No. 1: The proposed Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.
Findings of Fact: The Zone Change would implement the related General Plan amendment and is therefore consistent with the policies of the General Plan for the reasons discussed above.
B. FINDING No. 2: The proposed Amendment is internally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
Findings of Fact: The proposed Zone Change will transfer residential density from one project site to the subject site to accommodate a commercial/industrial development project. The proposed amendment will provide consistency with state housing law in that it ensures no net loss in the residential development capacity identified in the City’s General Plan, and the proposed density range is from 24 to 30 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and development standards for the Very High Density Residential zone.
C. FINDING No. 3: That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered 1057
Ordinance No. 1619
February 26, 2026