Agenda packet, regular meeting — Banning City Council, March 24, 2026 (part 1 of 5)

March 24, 2026
5:00 p.m.

In Chambers
Council Chambers
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. AGENDA APPROVAL
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING AND ADJOURNED REGULAR
MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2026. CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA
The following information comprises the agenda for the regular 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.

This meeting is being held via Zoom so that members of the public may observe and participate in this meeting electronically. If you participate in this meeting via Zoom, you are agreeing to abide by the City's Zoom Community Standards for Public Meetings (provided in full on the last page of the agenda). Esta reunión se lleva a cabo en la Cámara y a través de Video/Teleconferencia en Zoom para que los miembros del público puedan observar y participar en esta reunión de manera electrónica. Si elige participar en esta reunión a través de Zoom, acepta cumplir con los Estándares comunitarios de Zoom para reuniones públicas de la ciudad (que se proporcionan en su totalidad en la última página de la agenda).

To observe and participate in the online video portion of the meeting through your personal computer or device, follow this link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82012644588?pwd=RwqtJC8xehLDKZvr3LEKOf9u8uP2pt.1 Dial in: +1 669 900 9128
Meeting ID: 820 1264 4588
Password: 92220
Per the City of Banning Manual of Procedural Guidelines, matters taken up by the Council before 10 p.m. may be concluded, but no new matters shall be taken up except upon a majority vote of the council members present and voting. Such an extension shall only be valid for one hour and each hour thereafter shall require a renewed action for the meeting to continue.

1.1 INVOCATION
Performed by Reverend Ayodele Ode of Banning United Methodist Church

1.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1.3 ROLL CALL

2.1 AGENDA APPROVAL
1 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 24, 2026 1

3. ADJOURNED BUSINESS - ITEMS CONTINUED FROM MARCH 10, 2026

3.1 Continued from the March 10, 2026, meeting - 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.

3.2 Consideration of Resolution 2026-40 , Adopting Address-Related Fees Pursuant to BMC Chapter 12.32 and Update the City Master Fee Schedule.

3.3 Making a Determination of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and Conducting the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 1622, Amending Chapter 9.09 of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) of the Banning Municipal Code to Provide Updated Regulations Governing Camping and Related Activities Within the City of Banning

3.4 Consideration of Resolution 2026-48, Authorizing the Appointment of Retired Annuitant Matthew Bassi as Interim Community Development Director

4. PRESENTATIONS

5. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, APPOINTMENTS, AND REPORTS The following items were not completed at the March 10, 2026 regular meeting and will be heard first:

Recommendation: STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-33, approving General Plan Amendment No. 22-2502; and

2. Adopt Ordinance No. 1619, approving Zone Change No. 22-3502 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-32, denying General Plan Amendment No. 22-2502 and Zone Change 22-3502 as recommended by the Planning Commission Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-40, establishing fees for address-related services pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 12.32.

Recommendation: Introduce and waive first reading, direct the City Clerk to read the ordinance by title only, and Introduce Ordinance No. 1622, entitled:

Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 2026-48
John Pinkney, City Attorney

6.1 PUBLIC COMMENTS
2 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 24, 2026
2 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS

8. CONSENT ITEMS

8.1 Receive and File Fire Protective Services Statistics for the Month of February 2026

8.2 Receive and File Police Department Statistics for the Month of February 2026

8.3 Receive and File Animal Control Statistics for the Month of February 2026

8.4 Receive and File Code Enforcement Statistics for the Month of February 2026

8.5 Authorize the City Manager to sign the Notice of Completion for Project No. 2024-08 “Banning Water Canyon Stormwater Percolation Basin Repairs” as complete and direct the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion.

8.6 Accept Easements from Tri Pointe Homes for Electric Utility Purposes on Accessor’s Tract Map Nos. 37389-1, 37389-4, and 37389-F within the Atwell Development for the Maintenance of the City-Owned Electric Distribution System

8.7 Consideration of Resolution 2026-52, Adopting the Water Supply Verification for Tract No. 39259 and 39262 (Atwell Specific Plan Phases 3B & 4A-1).

6.2 CORRESPONDENCE

6.3 APPOINTMENTS
Parks and Recreation Appointment for Position 1, term ending January 31, 2029 Recommendation: Appoint applicant to fill vacancy in Position 1 on the Parks and Recreation Commission
Planning Commission Appointments for Positions 1 & 2, terms ending January 31, 2029 Recommendation: Appoint up to two applicants to fill two vacancies in Positions 1 & 2 on the Banning Planning Commission

6.4 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

6.5 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL MEMEBERS

6.6 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Update on the Strategic Plan/Workout Plan to Sustainability

6.7 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
The following items have been recommended for approval and will be acted upon simultaneously, unless a member of the City Council/Banning Utility Authority/Successor Agency Board wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.

Recommendation: Receive and file
Recommendation: Receive and file.

Recommendation: Receive and file
Recommendation: Receive and file
Recommendation: Authorize execution of the Notice of Completion.

Recommendation: Accept easements from Tri Pointe Homes for electric utility purposes for Tract Map Nos. 37389-1 Lots G and M, 37389-4 Lot H, and 37389-F Lot H within the Atwell development.

Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-52
3 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 24, 2026
3 8.8 Consideration of Resolution 2026-57, Approving the Execution of a Service Contract with the California Department of Transportation for the Construction of Safety Improvements at the At-Grade Crossing of San Gorgonio Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad.

9. REPORTS OF OFFICERS

10. DISCUSSION ITEMS/ACTION ITEMS

10.1Discussion and Direction regarding the Draft City of Banning Reimbursement Policy for Elected and Appointed Officials – also known as the Travel Policy

10.2Consideration of Resolution 2026-51, Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Urban Futures, Inc to Provide Municipal Advisory Services in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $100,000 per Year

10.3Consideration of Resolution 2026-43, Approving an Agreement with Pyro Spectaculars, Inc. for Production of the Fourth of July Aerial Fireworks Display

10.4Consideration of Resolution 2026-55, Approving the Purchase of Electronic Citation and Collision Reporting Software from Crossroads Software, Inc. Utilizing Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Traffic Records Improvement Project (TRIP) Grant Funds

10.5Consideration of Resolution 2026-41, Amending the Classification and Compensation Plan, Classification Change (Police Corporal and Police Sergeant)

10.6Consideration of Resolution 2026-54, Declaring the Intention to Levy and Collect Assessments for Fiscal Year 2026/2027, Approving the Engineer’s Report and Setting the Date for the Public Hearing for Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 1

10.7Consideration of Resolution 2026-56 Approving Amendment No. 6 to the Professional Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates, Inc. for an Additional Amount of $78,624 for Construction Engineering Support Services and Extending the Agreement Term to December 31, 2027, for the Sun Lakes Boulevard Extension Project

10.8Consideration of Resolution 2026-53, a Resolution of the Banning City Council approving the amendment to agreement for professional services (C01207) for the Banning Armory Community Resilience Center Project by and between City of Banning and Richard Yen and Associates Architects and Planners, Inc.

11. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-57
Recommendation: Discussion by and direction from the City Council regarding the draft City of Banning Reimbursement Policy for Elected and Appointed Officials.

Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-51
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-43
Recommendation: Approval of Resolution 2026-55
Recommendation:

Adopt Resolution 2026-41
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-54
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-56
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 2026-53

11.1 NEW ITEMS

11.2 EXISTING ITEMS
4 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 24, 2026
4 12. ADJOURNMENT

1. Emergency Preparedness (Barrington) January 2025

2. Review and Update Council Travel Policy (Flynn) May 2025

3. Streamline Procurement Policy (Flynn) August 2025

4.Update (anti-camping) Ordinance 1603 (Flynn) October 2025

5. Revise Manual of Procedural Guidelines, Article 10.3 (c) (Flynn) December 2025

6. Sales Tax Agreement Update with Diamond Chevrolet (Flynn) December 2025

7. Cannabis Warehouse Moratorium (New Facilities Only) (Barrington) December 2025

8. Update Outdated Billboard on Sunset St. (Flynn) January 2026

9. Continue Food Truck Festival (Barrington) January 2026 Next Regular Meeting – April 14, 2026.

Zoom Community Standards for Public Meetings
By participating in this meeting on Zoom, you are agreeing to abide by the City of Banning’s Community Standards for Public Meetings. Zoom attendees that fail to adhere to these standards may be removed from the meeting room.

Your microphone must remain on mute, and you may only unmute your microphone when/if you are recognized by the Mayor.

Your camera must be turned off unless/until you are recognized by the Mayor.

To indicate a desire to make Public Comment, you must use the Raise Hand function. The Mayor will not recognize those who have not used the Raise Hand function.

Public Comment from Zoom attendees will immediately follow in-person comment from members of the public in Council Chambers.

If you fail to adhere to these community guidelines, you may be removed for disrupting the meeting occurring in Council Chambers. You may rejoin the meeting but may be removed for each violation of these community standards.

The chat function will be disabled for all City Council meetings on Zoom.

Estándares comunitarios de Zoom para Reuniones Públicas Al participar en esta reunión en Zoom, usted acepta cumplir con los Estándares Comunitarios para Reuniones Públicas de la ciudad de Banning. Los que atienden por Zoom que no cumplan con estos estándares pueden ser retirados de la sala de reuniones.

Su micrófono debe permanecer en silencio, y solo puede reactivar su micrófono cuando / si es reconocido por el alcalde.

Su cámara debe estar apagada a menos que sea reconocido por el alcalde.

Para indicar el deseo de hacer un Comentario Público, debe utilizar la función Levantar la mano. El alcalde no reconocerá a quienes no hayan utilizado la función Levantar la mano.

Los comentarios públicos de lo que atienden por Zoom seguirán inmediatamente los comentarios en persona de los miembros del público en las Cámaras del Consejo.

Si no cumple con estas pautas de la comunidad, es posible que lo destituyan por interrumpir la reunión que tiene lugar en las Cámaras del Consejo. Puede volver a unirse a la reunión, pero es posible que lo eliminen por cada violación de estos estándares de la comunidad.

La función de chat estará deshabilitada para todas las Reuniones del Ayuntamiento en Zoom.

AFFIDAVIT • DECLARACIÓN JURADA
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED under the laws of the State of California that the above agenda was posted on the City's website (www.banningca.gov) as well as the Bulletin Board at Banning City Hall, located at 99 E Ramsey Street, Banning, CA 92220, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
5 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 24, 2026
5 _________________________
Vickie Sellers, Elected City Clerk
Secretaria Municipal Electa
PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICIA PÚBLICA
Meeting Agendas and Notices
Interested in receiving email and/or text notifications of upcoming City Council meetings? Sign up for meeting notifications through the City's website. Pursuant to amended Government Code §54957.5(b), staff reports and other public records related to open session agenda items are available on the City's website (www.banningca.gov/).

Public Comment
Agenda Items
Any member of the public may address this meeting of the City Council on any item appearing on the agenda. A five-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public and no member of the public shall be permitted to share their time with any other person.

Non-Agenda Items
Any member of the public may address this meeting of the City Council on any item which does not appear on the regular meeting agenda but is of interest to the general public and is an item upon which the City Council may act. A three-minute limitation shall apply to each member of the public and no member shall be permitted to share their time with any other person. No action shall be taken, nor discussion held by the City Council, on any item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the action is otherwise authorized in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b) of §54954.2 of the Government Code.

Special Assistance/Accessibility Requests
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, any member of the public may request that the agenda and agenda packet be mailed to them. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting (such as translation services), please contact the City Clerk's Office. Advanced notification of at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will allow the city to make arrangements to ensure your accessibility.
¿Necesita servicios de traducción para participar? Contacto Oficina del Secretario de la Ciudad.

CONTACT • CONTACTO
City Clerk's Office | 951-922-3102 | [email protected] 99 East Ramsey Street, Banning, California 92220
6 City Council - Regular Meeting Agenda
March 24, 2026
6 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Mark Staples, Planning Manager
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Continued from the March 10, 2026, meeting - 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:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-33, approving General Plan Amendment No. 22-2502; and

2. Adopt Ordinance No. 1619, approving Zone Change No. 22-3502 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2026-32, denying General Plan Amendment No. 22-2502 and Zone Change 22- 3502 as recommended by the Planning Commission
BACKGROUND:

PROJECT APPLICANT:

City of Banning
99 East Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
FEBRUARY 26, 2026, CITY COUNCIL MEETING SUMMARY:

At the February 26, 2026, City Council meeting, City Attorney John Pinkney announced that there were additional revisions to the proposed Development Agreement that had not been made available for review by the City Attorney, City Council, or the public. Mayor Royce made a motion to table the item and continue to the next regular meeting on March 10, 2026, Councilmember Miller seconded the motion and the motion passed 5-0.

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 7 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? 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). 8 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.

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. 9 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 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. 10 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 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 11 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 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
12 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 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.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 3.1a GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 CC APPROVAL Reso 2026-33.pdf

2. 3.1b ZC CC Ordinance No. 1619.pdf

3. 3.1c GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 CC DENIAL Reso 2026-32.pdf

4. 3.1d EXHIBIT A - Proposed General Plan and Zoning MSJC.pdf

5. 3.1e GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 Vicinity Map MSJC.pdf

6. 3.1f GPA22-2502 ZC22-3502 Existing Zoning MSJC.pdf

7. 3.1g GPA22-2502 ZC25-3502 Aerial Map MSJC.pdf

8. 3.1h PHN GPAZC CC Meeting 01-28-26.pdf

9. 3.1i MSJC Letter 2-17-26.pdf

10. 3.1j 2026 01 28_Special Meeting_Minutes_DRAFT.pdf
13 Resolution 2026-33
March 24, 2026

Page 1 of 8 ends

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 14 Resolution 2026-33
March 24, 2026

Page 2 of 8 ends

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 15 Resolution 2026-33
March 24, 2026

Page 3 of 8 ends

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 16 Resolution 2026-33
March 24, 2026

Page 4 of 8 ends

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, at the February 26, 2026, special meeting, the City Council voted unanimously 5-0 to continue the item to a regular meeting date of March 10, 2026; and WHEREAS, at the March 10, 2026, regular meeting, the item was not heard by the City Council in the time allotted for the meeting, and therefore, the item was continued to the regular meeting date of March 24, 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. 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. 17 Resolution 2026-33
March 24, 2026

Page 5 of 8 ends

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).

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.

Page 6 of 8 ends

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.

Finding C: That the proposed amendment would maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City.

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).

Page 7 of 8 ends

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).

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 24th day of March, 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
20 Resolution 2026-33
March 24, 2026

Page 8 of 8 ends

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 24th day of March 2026 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
21 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 1 ends

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 OF 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 22 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 2 ends

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 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
23 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 3 ends

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 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, at the February 26, 2026, special meeting, the City Council voted unanimously 5-0 to continue the item to a regular meeting date of March 10, 2026; and WHEREAS, at the March 10, 2026, regular meeting, the item was not heard by the 24 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 4 ends

City Council in the time allotted for the meeting, and therefore, the item was continued to the regular meeting date of March 24, 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.

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.
25 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 5 ends

C. FINDING No. 3: 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission has conducted an independent review and the Planning Commission recommends approval of a project and programmatic EIR that has been prepared for the Project.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. CERTIFICATION.

The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Banning’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
26 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 6 ends

SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall take affect thirty (30) days after its second reading by City Council.

The City Clerk is directed to certify to the enactment of this Ordinance and to cause this Ordinance to be published and/or posted as required by law.

INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 24th day of March 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 14th day of April 2026, by the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
27 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 7 ends

CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. 1619 was duly introduced at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, held on the 24th day of March, 2026, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 14th day of April, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
28 Ordinance No. 1619
March 24, 2026

Page 8 ends

EXHIBIT A
General Plan/Zoning Map
29 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 1 of 8 ends

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 30 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 2 of 8 ends

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 31 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 3 of 8 ends

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 32 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 4 of 8 ends

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, at the February 26, 2026, regular meeting, the City Council voted unanimously 5-0 to continue the item to a regular meeting date of March 10, 2026; and WHEREAS, at the March 10, 2026, regular meeting, the item was not heard by the City Council in the time allotted for the meeting, and therefore, the item was continued to the regular meeting date of March 24, 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.

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.

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 33 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 5 of 8 ends

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 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. 34 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 6 of 8 ends

Consequently, this finding cannot be made.

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 be made to amend the Land Use map from PF-S to VHDR. Therefore, the proposed Zone 35 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 7 of 8 ends

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 24th day of March, 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
36 Resolution 2026-32
March 24, 2026

Page 8 of 8 ends

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 24th day of March, 2026, by the following vote to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT :

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
37 S Sunset A ve ve
W Westward Ave
eath er Way
W Westward Ave
W Linc oln St
W
Mohawk Rd
vajo D r
Rainbow Ln
Summer Set Cir
Autumn
Way
W Jefferson St
Na
Administration S Sunset Ave
Bob Cat Rd
Bob Cat Rd
W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
S 22nd St
S Woodland Ave
Adams St
Dysart Pa
S 22nd St
Bob Cat Rd
W Victory A
PROJECT NUMBER:GPA 22-2502, ZC 22-3502

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN/ZONING MAP
APN: 537-140-004, 537-140-006 THROUGH -012, 537-150-001, 537-150-003 AND -004, 537-150-008
County of San Bernardino, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA

PROJECT

LOCATION
: 750 1,000 PROPOSED ZONE: Very High Density Residential (VHDR) Medium Density Residential
0 250 500
Feet
Medium Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Very Low Density
Residential
Very Low Density
Residential
High Density Residential
Very Low Density
Residential Open Space - Parks
Open Space
-Parks
Density
Very High Low Density
. Residential
Residential
General
Commercial
Low Density
Residential
General
Commercial
Ranch Agriculture (10 ac. min)
Rural Residential
Public Facilities - School
38 b Cat Rd
S
Sunset Ave
t A
ve
W Westward Ave W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
Weather Way
Mohawk Rd
Navajo Dr
Rainbow Ln
Summer Set Cir
Autumn
Way
W Jefferson St
Administration
S
Sunset Ave
Bob Cat Rd
Bob Cat Rd
Union Pacific RR
W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
S 22nd St
S
Woodland Ave
Adams S
S 22nd St
Bob Cat Rd
W Vic
Dys

JEFFERSON
ST

NAVAJO DR
22ND ST

SUNSET AVE

STORMIE
WAY

DUSK CT
CLOUDY
CIR

RAINBOW LN
AUTUMN
WAY

WEATHER WAY
BREEZY
CIR

SUNSHINE ST

MONROE ST

JEFFERSON ST
HAZY
WAY
SPRING
PL

SOBOBA DR
AMBER
SKY ST
23RD ST

VICTORY
AVE

WESTWARD AVE

LINCOLN ST

SUNSET AVE

MOHAWK RD

SUMMER SET CIR

BOBCAT RD

WOODLAND AVE

NONPAREIL AVE

EXCELSIOR AVE

BOBCAT RD
537150003
537140007
537140010
537150001
537140006
537140008
537140004 537140009
537150008
537140012
County of San Bernardino, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS

PROJECT

LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:GPA 22-2502, ZC 22-3502

VICINITY MAP
APN: 537-140-004, 537-140-006 THROUGH -012, 537-150-001, 537-150-003 AND -004, 537-150-008 : ZONE: Public Facilities - School Unincorporated
Riverside County
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
39 Rd
S
Sunset Ave
A
ve
W Westward Ave W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
Weather Way
Mohawk Rd
Navajo Dr
Rainbow Ln
Summer Set Cir
Autumn
Way
W Jefferson St
Administration
S
Sunset Ave
Bob Cat Rd
Bob Cat Rd
W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
S 22nd St
S
Woodland Ave
Adams St
S 22nd St
Bob Cat Rd
W Victory Av
Dysart Park
County of San Bernardino, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS

PROJECT

LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:GPA 22-2502, ZC 22-3502

GENERAL PLAN/ZONING MAP
APN: 537-140-004, 537-140-006 THROUGH -012, 537-150-001, 537-150-003 AND -004, 537-150-008
:0 250 500 750 1,000 ZONE: Public Facilities - School
Feet
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Public Facilities - School
Very Low Density
Residential
Very Low Density
Residential
Very Low Density
Residential
High Density Residential
Open Space - Parks
Open Space -
Parks
Very High
Density
Residential
General
Commercial
Low Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
General
Commercial
Ranch Agriculture (10 ac. min)
Rural Residential
40 10
ve
Bob Cat Rd
10 W Ramsey St
98 10
S
Sunset Ave
S
Sunset A
ve
W Westward Ave W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
Weather Way
Mohawk Rd
Rainbow Ln
Summer Set Cir
Aut umn
Way
W Jefferson St
99 98
Administration
S
Sunset Ave
Arco
Montgomery Creek
Union Pacific RR
10 W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
S 22nd St
S
Woodland Ave
ampm
S 22nd St
Hal e Ave
W Victory Ave
Dysart Park
§¨¦10

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
§¨¦10

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

VICTORY AVE

SUNSET AVE

WESTWARD AVE

CHIPMUNK TRL

SUNSET AVE

JEFFERSON ST

WEATHER WAY

NAVAJO DR
22ND ST

ADAMS AVE

DAYBREAK
WAY

STORMIE
WAY

AUTUMN WAY

CHEROKEE
CIR

CHEYENNE
CIR
SIOUX
CIR
CLOUDY
CIR

WHIRLWIND
CIR

RAINBOW LN

BREEZY CIR

SUNSHINE ST

MONROE ST

JEFFERSON
ST

CLEAR CT
HAZY
WAY

SPRING PL

RAMSEY ST

SOBOBA DR
AMBER
SKY ST
23RD ST

LINCOLN ST

HALE AVE

MOHAWK RD

SUNSET AVE

SUMMER SET CIR

WOODLAND AVE

NONPAREIL AVE

EXCELSIOR AVE
County of San Bernardino, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS
PROJECT NUMBER:GPA 22-2502, ZC 22-3502

AERIAL BASE MAP
APN: 537-140-004, 537-140-006 THROUGH -012, 537-150-001, 537-150-003 AND -004, 537-150-008 : ZONE: Public Facilities - School 0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
41 City of Banning
Community Development Department
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
General Plan Amendment, GPA 22-2502 and Zone Change, ZC 22-3502 Density Transfer related to Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan 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 the City of Banning (Applicant) in relation to the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan project. The applications consist of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (GPA 22-2502 & ZC 22-3502) to change the General Plan Land Use Map and corresponding Zoning from PF-S (Public Facilities – Schools) to VHDR (Very High Density Residential, allowing 24-30 dwelling units per acre) for approximately 41 acres of land owned by Mt. San Jacinto Community College District and located near the southeast corner of Westward Avenue and Sunset Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 537-140-004, 537-140-006 through 537-140-012, 537-150-001, 537-150-003, 537-150-004, and 537-150-008) (Receiving Site). The applications are proposed to comply with Government Code Section 66300 and transfer density of not less than 1,146 units from the Sunset Crossroads Specific Plan Project Area to the Receiving Site to avoid a net loss to the City’s residential capacity.

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 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the applications to the City Council and ratified this decision on November 17, 2025 by adopting Resolution 2025-16.

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 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:
42 99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3100 • 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
Planning Manager Publish: January 2, 2026
43 b Cat Rd
S
Sunset Ave
t A
ve
W Westward Ave W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
Weather Way
Mohawk Rd
Navajo Dr
Rainbow Ln
Summer Set Cir
Autumn
Way
W Jefferson St
Administration
S
Sunset Ave
Bob Cat Rd
Bob Cat Rd
Union Pacific RR
W Westward Ave
W Lincoln St
S 22nd St
S
Woodland Ave
Adams S
S 22nd St
Bob Cat Rd
W Vic
Dys

JEFFERSON
ST

NAVAJO DR
22ND ST

SUNSET AVE

STORMIE
WAY

DUSK CT
CLOUDY
CIR

RAINBOW LN
AUTUMN
WAY

WEATHER WAY
BREEZY
CIR

SUNSHINE ST

MONROE ST

JEFFERSON ST
HAZY
WAY
SPRING
PL

SOBOBA DR
AMBER
SKY ST
23RD ST

VICTORY
AVE

WESTWARD AVE

LINCOLN ST

SUNSET AVE

MOHAWK RD

SUMMER SET CIR

BOBCAT RD

WOODLAND AVE

NONPAREIL AVE

EXCELSIOR AVE

BOBCAT RD
537150003
537140007
537140010
537150001
537140002
537140006
537140008
537140004 537140009
537150008
537140003
537140001
537140012
County of San Bernardino, Maxar, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Loma Linda University, UC Riverside, County of Riverside, County of San Bernardino, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS

PROJECT

LOCATION
PROJECT NUMBER:GPA 22-2502, ZC 22-3502

VICINITY MAP
APN: 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 : ZONE: Public Facilities - School Unincorporated
Riverside County
0 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
44 San Jacinto Campus
1499 N. State Street
San Jacinto, CA 92583
951.487.6752
Menifee Valley Campus
28237 La Piedra Road
Menifee, CA 92584
951.672.6752
San Gorgonio Pass Campus
Beaumont Middle College High School
3144 W. Westward Avenue
Banning, CA 92220
951.769.8424
Temecula Valley Campus
41888 Motor Car Parkway
Temecula, CA 92591
951.672.6752
February 17, 2026
City of Banning
Attn: Mark Staples, Planning Manager
99 E. Ramsey Street
Banning, CA 92220
Sent via e-mail: [email protected]
RE: General Plan Amendment Case No. GPA 22-2502
Zone Change Case No. ZC 22-3502
Dear Mr. Staples,
Thank you for reaching out to discuss the City of Banning’s Application for General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the land use designation and zoning of approximately 41 acres of land owned by Mt. San Jacinto Community College District. Mt. San Jacinto Community College District has not taken a position either in favor of or in opposition to the City’s Application. It is not our intention for this correspondence to be interpreted as advocacy, endorsement, or objection. However, we understand conditions change, needs evolve, and former plans must be adapted to those realities. As such, we defer entirely to the City Council’s independent review and judgement on this matter.

Sincerely,
Roger W. Schultz, Ph.D.

Superintendent/President
Roger W. Schultz, Ph.D.

Superintendent/President
Board of Trustees
Tom Ashley
Vicki Carpenter
Jhalister Corona
Calvin Smith
Brian Sylva
45 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. 46 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 47 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 48 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 49 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 50 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.
51 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 52 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. 53 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, 54 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 55 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 56 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 57 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 58 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.
59 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 60 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Mary Yaryan, Senior Planner
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2026-40, Adopting Address-Related Fees Pursuant to BMC Chapter 12.32 and Update the City Master Fee Schedule.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution No. 2026-40, establishing fees for address-related services pursuant to Banning Municipal Code Chapter 12.32.

BACKGROUND:

Project Summary:

This is a request for City Council to adopt a fee resolution establishing cost-recovery fees for City addressing services administered by the Community Development Department, including address assignment, change of address, address verification, and street naming-related services. Chapter 12.32 requires these fees to be established by City Council resolution and included in the Master Fee Schedule.

Related Actions:

On December 9, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-165, approving the Citywide Addressing Policy.

On December 9, 2025, the City Council introduced (first reading) Ordinance No. 1614, repealing the existing Chapter 12.32 and adopting a new Chapter 12.32 (House Numbering System) of Title 12 of the Banning Municipal Code related to the addressing and house numbering system.

On January 13, 2026, the City Council conducted second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 1614.

Chapter 12.32 provides that addressing fees shall be set by City Council resolution and included in the Master Fee Schedule.

On November 17, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-156, approving the Comprehensive User Fee Study (Matrix Consulting Group, October 2025) and adopting an updated City Master User Fee Schedule. The Master Fee Schedule did not include the addressrelated fees established under BMC Chapter 12.32 because the updated Chapter 12.32 had not yet been adopted at that time.

This action establishes the address-related fees required by BMC Chapter 12.32 and directs inclusion of the adopted fees into the City Master Fee Schedule as an update. 61 DESCRIPTION:

Staff reviewed addressing fee structures used by other Southern California jurisdictions to compare fee types and service categories. The benchmarking confirms that the City’s proposed structure (base fee, additional-address tiers, address change/verification, and street naming/street name change) is consistent with common municipal practice, while Banning’s proposed amounts are based on the City’s own cost-of-service methodology and staffing model
Staff prepared a time-based fee analysis using fully burdened hourly rates:

Assistant Planner (T63): $187.53/hour
Senior Planner (T81): $214.08/hour
Proposed fees are based on average staff processing time for each service type and are intended to recover reasonable costs of service.

Proposed Addressing Fee Schedule

FEE NAME PROPOSED FEE
ADDRESSING MIN. FEE (FIRST) $242
EACH ADDRESS 2-10 (EACH) $148
EACH ADDRESS 11 OR MORE (EACH) $69
CHANGE OF ADDRESS (EACH) $242
ADDRESS VERIFICATION $242
NEW STREET NAMING MIN. FEE (EACH) $429
EACH STREET AFTER FIRST $215
CHANGE OF STREET NAME + PUBLIC

HEARING(SEPERATE FEE) (EACH)
$2,141
*Fees are rounded up to the nearest whole dollar.

How the addressing tiers are applied:

The Addressing Minimum Fee is charged once per addressing request (e.g., a subdivision/addressing package) and covers the first address. Additional addresses processed under the same request are charged per address using the tiered rates: addresses 2–10 at the “Each Address 2–10” rate, and addresses 11 and above at the “Each Address 11 or More” rate.

Example Calculations (Subdivision / New Lot Addressing) Assumption: All new addresses are processed under one addressing request.

Tier logic:
1st address = $242 (Addressing Minimum Fee)
Addresses 2–10 = $148 each
Addresses 11+ = $69 each
Example Scenario Calculation Total Fee
62 Street with 8 new lots (8
addresses)
$242 + (7 x $148) $1,278
Developer with 18 new lots (18
addresses)
$242 + (9 x $148) + (8 x $69) $2,126
Subdivision with one 8-lot
street + one 12-lot street (20
addresses total)
$242 + (9 x $148) + (10 x $69) $2,264
Multiple streets / phased submittals: For subdivisions with multiple streets, staff applies the tiered addressing rates based on the total number of new addresses included in the same addressing request, not separately by street. If a developer submits separate addressing requests at different times, each request is charged its own Addressing Minimum Fee, and the tiers apply within that request.

FINDINGS:

Consistency with Municipal Code. The proposed fees are consistent with BMC Chapter 12.32, which authorizes City Council to establish addressing-related fees by resolution and include them in the Master Fee Schedule.

Reasonable Cost Recovery. The proposed fee amounts are based on estimated staff time and adopted fully burdened hourly rates for applicable classifications and are reasonably related to the City’s cost of providing each service.

Regional Benchmarking Support. Staff reviewed fee types used by other Southern California cities.

The proposed fee categories are consistent with regional practice, while fee amounts are tailored to Banning’s local processing costs.

Administrative Implementation. Adoption of the fee schedule is necessary to implement the previously adopted ordinance and addressing policy and to ensure uniform, transparent administration of addressing requests.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA):

This action is not a “project” under CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it involves administrative/governmental fiscal activity that does not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment.

Additionally, this action is exempt under the common-sense exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility this fee adoption may have a significant effect on the environment.

JUSTIFICATION:

Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-40 is required to implement BMC Chapter 12.32 and incorporate address-related fees into the Master Fee Schedule, consistent with Ordinance No. 1614 and Resolution No. 2025-165. The proposed fees are cost-based, reasonably related to staff processing time, and supported by a review of fee types used by other Southern California cities. Adoption will improve consistency, transparency, and cost recovery for addressing services.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adoption of the proposed fees will improve cost recovery for address-related services and reduce 63 Adoption of the proposed fees will improve cost recovery for address-related services and reduce subsidy from the General Fund for user-driven processing activities. Annual revenue will vary based on service demand and application volume.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Resolution CC 2026-40.docx

2. Exhibit A. Addressing Fee Schedule.docx

3. Addressing Fee Calculation Table.docx

4. Ordinance No. 1614.pdf

5. CC Resolution No. 2025-165.pdf

6. column_affidavit_eznxNoYZi94HUm4R5p58.pdf
64 Resolution 2026-40

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION 2026-40

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING,

CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING FEES FOR ADDRESS-RELATED
SERVICES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 12.32 (HOUSE NUMBERING

SYSTEM) OF THE BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE AND DIRECTING

INCLUSION IN THE CITY MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, the City of Banning adopted Ordinance No. 1614, repealing and replacing Chapter 12.32 (House Numbering System) of Title 12 of the Banning Municipal Code to establish updated citywide addressing regulations; and WHEREAS, Chapter 12.32 authorizes the City Council to establish fees for address-related services by resolution and include such fees in the City’s Master Fee Schedule; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted Resolution No. 2025-165 approving the Citywide Addressing Policy to establish standardized procedures for address assignment, verification, posting, street naming, and maintenance of address records; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has prepared a fee analysis based on estimated staff time and fully burdened hourly rates to reasonably recover costs associated with processing address-related requests; and WHEREAS, adoption of address-related service fees supports consistent and equitable administration of the City’s addressing program, promotes efficient service delivery, and reduces subsidy of user-driven services from general operating funds; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally adopt fees for address-related services and direct incorporation of the adopted fees into the City’s Master Fee Schedule.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. Adoption of Address-Related Fees
The City Council hereby adopts the City of Banning Address-Related Fee Schedule, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Master Fee Schedule
The City Council directs City staff to incorporate the fees adopted by this Resolution into the City of Banning Master Fee Schedule.
65 Resolution 2026-40

Page 2 of 4 ends

SECTION 3. Administration
The Community Development Director, or designee, is authorized to administer and implement the fees adopted herein and make administrative updates necessary to ensure consistency with applicable federal, state, and local law, provided such updates do not modify adopted fee amounts without further City Council action.

SECTION 4. Effective Date
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 5. Certification
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 2026.

Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
66 Resolution 2026-40

Page 3 of 4 ends

CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2026-40, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of March, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
67 Resolution 2026-40

Page 4 of 4 ends

EXHIBIT A
Addressing Fee Schedule
68 Addressing Fee Schedule

FEE NAME FEE
ADDRESSING MINIMUM FEE (FIRST) $242
EACH ADDRESS 2-10 (EACH) $148
EACH ADDRESS 11 OR MORE (EACH) $69
CHANGE OF ADDRESS (EACH) $242
ADDRESS VERIFICATION (EACH) $242

NEW STREET NAMING MINIMUM FEE
(EACH) $429
EACH STREET (EACH) $215
CHANGE OF STREET NAME + PUBLIC
HEARING (SEPARATE FEE) (EACH) $2,141
69 Addressing Fee Calculation Table

FEE NAME ASSISTANT

PLANNER
HRS
SENIOR

PLANNER
HRS

COMPUTATION PROPOSED
FEE

ADDRESSING

MINIMUM FEE
(FIRST)

1.00 0.25 (1×187.53) +
(0.25 × 214.08)
$242
EACH ADDRESS 2-
10 (EACH)

0.50 0.25 (0.5 × 187.53) +
(0.25 × 214.08)
$148

EACH ADDRESS
11 OR MORE
(EACH)

0.25 0.10 (0.25 × 187.53) +
(0.10 × 214.08)
$69

CHANGE OF

ADDRESS (EACH)

1.00 0.25 (1 × 187.53) +
(0.25 × 214.08)
$242

ADDRESS

VERIFICATION
(EACH)

1.00 0.25 (1 × 187.53) +
(0.25 × 214.08)
$242

NEW STREET

NAMING MINIMUM

FEE (EACH)

0.00 2.00 (2 × 214.08) $429

EACH STREET
(EACH)

0.00 1.00 (1 × 214.08) $215

CHANGE OF
STREET NAME +

PUBLIC HEARING
(SEPARATE FEE)
(EACH)

0.00 10.00 (10 × 214.08) $2,141
70 ORDINANCE NO. 1614

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTER 12.32 AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 12.32 (HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM) OF TITLE 12 ( STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC

PLACES) OF THE BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE

ADDRESSING AND HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM
WHEREAS, Chapter 12.32 of the Banning Municipal Code was adop ted in 1965 and refers to a manual map- based system that is incompatible with the City' s current digital GIS, permitting, utility billing, and emergency dispatch systems.

WHEREAS, a uniform, modern addressing system is necessary to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by enhancing public safety, efficient emergency response, accurate mail and parcel delivery, and interagency coordination.

WHEREAS, the adoption of a new addressing and housing numbering system will provide clarity, sequencing, and support integration with the City' s digital Master Address Database .

WHEREAS, in accordance with the City' s Police Powers , the City of Banning hereby repeals Chapter 12.32 House Numbe ri ng System of the Banning Municipal Code and adopts a new Chapter 12.32 House Numbering System of the Banning Municipal Code .

NOW THERFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF BANNING, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. ENVIRONMENTAL
The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 ( b)(3), the " common sense" exemption, as it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Ordinance will not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. This action involves the modernization and administrative update of existing addressing procedures and will not result in any physical environmental impacts .

SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision 71 shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions. The City Council declares it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any portion.

SECTION 3. PROSECUTION OF PRIOR ORDINANCE.

Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any prior ordinance shall affect the prosecution of any violation of the Banning Municipal Code committed before this Ordinance' s effective date.

SECTION 4. FINDINGS.

The City Council of the City of Banning finds as follows:

A uniform, modern addressing system is necessary to promote public safety, efficient emergency response, accurate mail and parcel delivery, and interagency coordination.

Chapter 12.32 of the Banning Municipal Code, adopted in 1965, refers to a manual map- based system that is not compatible with the City' s current digital GIS, permitting, utility billing, and emergency dispatch systems .

The repealing of the existing and adopting of a new Chapter 12.32 will enhance clarity, sequencing, and consistency of addresses citywide and support integration with the City' s digital Master Address Database and promote the public health, safety, and welfare .

SECTION 5. APPROVAL.

The City Council hereby approves amendments to the Banning Municipal Code by repealing existing Chapter 12.32, in its entirety, as set forth in Exhibit A, and adopting a new Chapter 12.32 titled " House Numbering System", as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION.

The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same, or a summary thereof, to be published within fifteen ( 15) days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty ( 30) days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Banning, California, approves an amendment to the City of Banning Municipal Code.
72 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 9th day of December 2025, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Barrington, Flynn, Miller, Royce, Wallace
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 13th day of January, 2026.

AYES: '&. ff~f\~- tOf\ 1fl' 1""', ~\\\ er-, RCJyo- e, Wo.1\<AC€.

NOES: t--Joi-Je
ABSENT: NoC\\e
ABSTAIN: NONe.

R'harci j;(oyce, Mayor
City of Banning
Attest:

Sandra Calderon, Acting Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
Approved as to form:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney, LLP
73 RESOLUTION 2025-165

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING THE CITY OF BANNING ADDRESSING POLICY TO ESTABLISH A

STANDARDIZED AND UNIFORM ADDRESSING SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Banning requires consistent addressing practices to support emergency response, accurate service delivery, GIS mapping, utility coordination, and interdepartmental communication; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has prepared a Citywide Addressing Policy to establish standardized procedures for address assignment, verification, posting, street naming, and maintenance of address records; and WHEREAS, the Addressing Policy incorporates recognized best practices, including national postal addressing standards and applicable fire guidelines; and WHEREAS, adoption of a Citywide Addressing Policy will ensure uniform application of addressing procedures, improve public safety, and maintain consistency across all City departments, outside agencies, and emergency responders; and WHEREAS, the existing Administrative Policy titled " Addressing Policy," Policy No. F-3, is no longer consistent with current operational practices and will be superseded and replaced in its entirety by the new Addressing Policy, Policy No. F-4; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally adopt the Addressing Policy to guide the administrative implementation of the City' s addressing system.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Banning as follows:

SECTION 1. ADOPTION OF POLICY
The City Council hereby adopts the City of Banning Addressing Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. ADMINISTRATION
The Community Development Director, or designee, is authorized to administer the Addressing Policy, maintain the Master Address Database, and make administrative updates necessary to ensure consistency with applicable federal, state, and local addressing and emergency access standards.

Resolution 2025- 165

Page 1 of 4 ends

74 SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of December, 2025.

ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy &
Pinkney, LLP
Resolution 2025- 165

Page 2 of 4 ends

75 CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2025-165, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9th day of December, 2025 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Barrington, Flynn, Miller, Royce, Wallace
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution 2025-165

Page 3 of 4 ends

Sandra Calderon, Depty City Clerk
City of Banning, California
76 Resolution 2025- 165

Page 4 of 4 ends

EXHIBITC
Addressing Policy
77 Exhibit A
Title 12 STREETS, SIDE\\1ALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES
Chapter 12.32 HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM
Chapter 12.32 HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM

12.32.010 Moblse nblmbering System adopted.

The uniform system of house numbers described in the Section 12.32.020 is hereby adopted and established in the city.

Code 1965, § 2117.)

12.32.020 Mouse numbering S•,istem dessrihed.

The house numbering system for the city shall be as follows:

Starting with Ramsey Street and San Gorgonio Avenue as zero lines and numbering north and south and east and west from these streets, allo•,t,ring one hundred numbers for each three hundred and thirty foot block, plus or minus, with the numbers divided centesimally along the block, and the blocks numbered as set forth and contained in the certain map entitled " Index of Block Numbers of the City of Banning, California," on file at the City Hall, which map is by reference made a part of this chapter.

Code 1965, § 2118.)
12,32.030 Dyt•; of owners or oseupants of premises General!•,', Every person owning, controlling, occupying or using any house, store, storeroom or building situated on premises fronting on any street, avenue or other public way or place in the city shall procure, place, attach and maintain in a conspicuous place on the street front of every such house, store, storeroom or building and on, over or near each door or entry thereto facing on any street, avenue or other public way or place the number assigned thereto by the city.

Code 1965, § 21 19.)

12.32.040 D1:at•1 of 0 11.rners or om:upants of premises In sase of new or altered strnstmes.

It shall be the duty of every person owning, controlling, occup•;ing or using any new or altered structure required to be numbered by this chapter to place, attach and maintain the appropriate number to such structure within sixty days after either the completion or occupancy of the structure, 1Nhichever comes first.

Code 1965, § 21 20.)

12.32.050 Size, t'/pe, ets., of numbers.

All house numbers shall be of such size and type and so placed as to be easily visible and legible from the center of the street, avenue or other public •.-.•ay or place upon 11.'hich the premises fronts and shall not be less than three and one half inches in height; provided, that numbers embossed, stamped or painted on a plate contrasting in color may be not less than tv,·o and one half inches in height.

Code 1965, § 21 21.)

Page 1 of 1 ends

78 Exhibit B
Title 12 - STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES
Chapter 12.32 HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM
Chapter 12.32 HOUSE NUMBERING SYSTEM

12.32.010 Adoption of Uniform Addressing System.

A uniform addressing and house numbering system is hereby adopted and established within the City of Banning.

The purpose of this system is to promote public safety, efficient emergency response, accurate mail and parcel delivery, and coordination among public agencies and utilities.

12.32.020 General Addressing Method
Addresses within the City shall be assigned in a logical, consistent, and sequential manner in accordance with a standardized grid and numbering system maintained by the City.

The baseline for numbering shall generally correspond with major intersecting streets within the City, with address numbers increasing outward from that point.

The specific methods and standards for address assignment, numbering increments, and street naming shall be maintained administratively in the City's adopted Addressing Policy on file with the Community Development Department.

12.32.030 Responsibility of Property Owners and Occupants.

Every person owning, controlling, occupying, or using any house, building, or structure fronting on any street or public way shall post and maintain the official address number assigned by the City Address numbers shall be displayed in a location that is visible from the adjacent public right-of-way or access drive and shall be kept in good repair at all times No person shall display, alter, or remove any address number except as authorized by the City.

12.32.040 New or Altered Structures.

It shall be the duty of every person owning, controlling, occupying, or using any new or altered structure required to be numbered by this Chapter to post and maintain the assigned number prior to final inspection, occupancy, or utility activation, whichever occurs first The City may withhold issuance offinal approvals or services until the structure is properly addressed and posted.

12.32.050 Address Number Specifications.

All address numbers shall be of sufficient size, color contrast, and placement to be clearly visible and legible from the public right-of-way or private access serving the property, consistent with the Fire Code and the City's adopted Addressing Policy.

A. Buildings not visible from the street shall provide address identification at the point of access.

B. Illumination may be required where necessary for visibility and emergency response.

12.32.060 Administration and Enforcement.

The Community Development Director, or designee, shall administer this Chapter and maintain the City's official Master Address Database.

The .Director may adopt and update administrative procedures, standards, and guidelines consistent with this Chapter.

Page 1 of 2 ends

79 Violations of this Chapter or the Addressing Policy are subject to enforcement under Title 1 of this Code and any applicable Fire Code provisions.

12.32.070 Fees.

Fees for address-related services shall be established by resolution of the City Council and listed in the City's Master Fee Schedule.

Such services may include, but are not limited to, new address assignment, address verification, change or correction of address, temporary addresses, tenant or suite numbering, and street naming or renaming.

Fees shall be due at the time of application submittal and are non-refundable unless otherwise specified by the City Council.

The Community Development Director may waive or defer fees for City-initiated address corrections necessary for public safety or administrative consistency.

Page 2 of 2 ends

80 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3
City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 1 of18
The primary purpose of this policy is to provide a standardized and uniform method of assigning addresses to buildings, structures, and utilities within the City of Banning for clarity, safety, and efficient emergency response. This policy supports the requirements outlined in Banning Municipal Code Chapter 12.32 and aligns with the addressing standards of current Fire guidelines and United States Postal Service. The intent is to ensure consistency across all assigned addresses within the City' s data systems.

The Community Development Director ( Director), or their designee, has sole authority to assign, modify, verify, or revoke addresses. Unauthorized changes are prohibited and may result in disruption of services or enforcement actions. The Director may establish administrative rules to implement this policy. The Director or designee is the sole custodian of the City' s Master Address Database and no new address, change, or retirement ( including GIS, permitting, billing, or utility systems) shall occur without written authorization from the Director or designee. Upon assignment or change, addresses shall be synchronized across the City' s Master Address Database, GIS, permitting, Utility Billing, Banning Electric Utility, and emergency systems.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND
Accurate, consistent, and logically sequenced addressing is critical for public safety, emergency response, postal delivery, utility coordination, and integrity of City records. The City of Banning has historically relied on a grid- based addressing system adopted through Banning Municipal Code BMC) Chapter 12.32 and the " Index of Block Numbers of the City of Banning." Over time, variations in development patterns, legacy addressing practices, and the introduction of new residential and mixed- use housing types have created inconsistencies within City and regional data systems.

Modem emergency response, automated dispatch, GIS integration, and utility coordination require precise, standardized address data. Inconsistent or inaccurate addressing can delay emergency response, interfere with postal delivery, disrupt utility activation, and create discrepancies across permitting, billing, and parcel databases.

This Addressing Policy establishes clear administrative procedures and uniform standards to:

Implement the updated BMC Chapter 12.32 House Numbering System; Ensure consistency between the City' s Master Address Database, GIS, Utility Billing, emergency response systems, and regional datasets;
81 City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
LAST AMENDED:

SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE: PAGE 2 of18
F-3 NIA
Guide staff, developers, and property owners through proper assignment, posting, and verification of addresses; and
Support orderly growth, new development types ( e.g., ADUs, mixed- use, multi- story), and long- term maintenance of address integrity.

This policy is intended to modernize and operationalize the City' s addressing program, reduce longterm inconsistencies, and create a predictable and transparent process that supports life- safety, regulatory compliance, and efficient municipal operations.

SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have the assigned definitions for all purposes under this policy:

Accessory Dwelling Unit ( ADU): A legally permitted secondary dwelling unit, attached or detached from the primary residence, with its own kitchen, sleeping, and sanitation facilities.

Addressing for ADUs shall be determined by the Director or designee in compliance with applicable State and local regulations.

Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit ( JADU): A dwelling unit that is 500 square feet or less in size, created within the walls of an existing or proposed single- family residence. Addressing for JADUs shall be determined by the designee in compliance with applicable State and local regulations.

Address Monument: A permanent freestanding sign structure that displays a property' s official address when the building itself is not visible from the public right- of-way.

Address Verification: A formal process performed by the City to confirm that an existing or proposed address is officially recognized in the City' s Master Address Database, County parcel records, and USPS system. Often required by lenders, title companies, and utility providers.

Fractional Address: A numeric suffix ( e.g., ½, ¼, ½,¾) assigned to utility infrastructure, meters, or ancillary features. Fractional addresses are non- deliverable and are for internal City/ agency use only.

Main Address: The base whole number address assigned to a legal parcel or primary structure.

This number is used for all official City records, postal delivery, and emergency response.

Phased Development: A subdivision or master- planned community approved in multiple stages.

Site Map Display Board: A directory sign showing the layout of units, suites, or buildings in a multi- unit development, typically located at primary vehicle/ pedestrian entrances. 82 City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
LAST AMENDED:

SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE: PAGE 3 of18
F-3 NIA
Sub- address: Any designation added to a main address to identify internal occupancy, including apartment numbers, suites, tenant spaces, or units.

Suite Numbering Convention: The standardized numbering method for commercial or multistory buildings where the first digit represents the floor level ( e.g., 101 for first floor, 201 for second floor).

TEMP Address: A temporary numeric designation assigned solely for utility infrastructure, such as construction power poles or temporary electrical service points. TEMP addresses are nondeliverable, non-occupancy addresses and shall be retired upon final power release or project completion.

Unit Number: The official identifier assigned to individual dwelling units or tenant spaces within a larger structure or parcel.

SECTION 4: ADDRESSING STANDARDS

4.1 Addressing Methodology
The City ofBanning uses a block grid addressing system originating from the intersection of Ramsey Street ( east- west axis) and San Gorgonio Avenue ( north- south axis), which serves as the City' s baseline. Addresses are assigned outward from this intersection at an approximate rate of 100 numbers per 330-foot block, as implemented through the City' s standardized grid and numbering system maintained pursuant to BMC Section 12.32.020 and the ' Index ofBlock Numbers of the City ofBanning' on file at City Hall. Address assignments shall be consistent with the " Index ofBlock Numbers of the City ofBanning, California," which is incorporated by reference into BMC Chapter

12.32. Even numbers are assigned to the south and east sides of streets.

Odd numbers are assigned to the north and west sides of streets.

Corner and Through Lots: Corner lots shall be addressed according to the primary pedestrian entry or primary driveway access, as determined by the Director or designee, for emergency response efficiency. Through lots ( with two parallel street frontages) shall be addressed based on actual access and service routing. Any subsequent change in primary access may require an address change. This system ensures uniformity, prevents duplication, and maintains navigability for emergency response, postal delivery, and utility coordination. For structures with internal or stacked occupancies apartments, condominiums, office suites), a base address shall be assigned to the primary structure, with logical unit or suite identifiers added according to floor level and entry sequence. 83 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/ 2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3
City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 4 of 18
Multiple Buildings on One Parcel and Ancillary Facilities: Parcels with multiple principal buildings shall have one main address. Additional buildings shall receive building designators ( e.g., Building A/B or Building 1/2) and/ or sub- addresses as directed by the City. Common- area facilities e.g., laundry rooms, recreation buildings) shall be identified on the Site Map Display Board and may receive internal identifiers for emergency access.

Minimum Address Intervals: Primary addresses shall be assigned using increments of at least twelve ( 12) whole numbers between adjacent properties along a standard residential block face ( e.g., 1000, 1012, 1026). This spacing preserves logical sequencing, accommodates future infill or additional dwelling units, and ensures uniformity with the City' s grid system. For shorter blocks, culde- sacs, or irregular lot configurations, the interval may be adjusted proportionally by the Director or designee to maintain address continuity and reserve capacity for future development or multiple units on a parcel.

All address assignments must conform to the grid, maintain continuity with surrounding properties, and satisfy emergency response and visibility standards.

4.2 Address Assignment Triggers
Addresses shall be assigned:

Upon issuance of a building permit
Upon recordation of a final tract or parcel map
When new utility services are installed
When legal structures are modified, converted, or split into additional pennitted units For final address issuance, an Assessor' s Parcel Number ( APN) or proof of recorded final map must be provided
Final addresses require proof ofrecorded tract/ parcel map or County- issued APN(s) aligned to the recorded map.

Temporary addresses are not valid for postal delivery, utility activation, or occupancy.

Addresses shall not be issued for:

Unpermitted structures
Temporary or unauthorized occupancy
Vacant Parcels

4.3 Display Requirements
84 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3
City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 5 of18
Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, plainly legible, and visible from the public street or road fronting the property. Address numbers shall be permanently affixed and durable. Painted numbers, spray paint, temporary stickers, chalk, or taped paper are prohibited.

Numbers must contrast with their background and be free from visual obstructions such as landscaping, signs, or equipment. Address visibility standards include:

Building Type
One & Two Family Residential
Commercial/ Multi-Family :S 25 ft
uilding height
Commercial/ Multi-Family> 25 ft
uilding height
inimum Stroke
idth
inches
12 inches
4 inches
llumination
equired
es ( if
ew/remodeled)
es
es
All new or remodeled buildings must have internally or externally illuminated address numbers. If the structure is not visible from the street, an address monument must be installed at the property entrance. For shared driveways, provide directional signage with arrows and posted addresses. All suites shall have a minimum 6-inch high number on both the front and rear doors. Numbers shall contrast with their background and remain unobstructed by landscaping, banners, window coverings, or equipment.

4. 4 Duty of Property Owner
The owner or occupant of any new or altered structure shall post and maintain the assigned address prior to final inspection, occupancy, or utility activation, whichever occurs first, and shall keep the address visible and legible at all times. Failure to maintain visible address numbers is subject to enforcement under BMC Chapter 12.32 and the Fire Code.

4. 5 Electric Service Re- Energization
Electric Service Re-Energization ( De- energized> 6 Months).

Prior to electric release, the City requires: ( 1) address verification and use review by Community Development; ( 2) a site investigation by the Building Official, Banning Electric Utility, Public Works ( as applicable), and the Fire Marshal; ( 3) payment of applicable fees; ( 4) proof of tenancy if the request is by a tenant; and ( 5) correction of any use or life-safety violations.

All required corrections must be verified prior to electric release. 85 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3
City ofBanning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
SECTION 5: ADDRESSING ASSIGNMENT PROCESS

5.1 Address Changes, Verifications & Request Submittals POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 6 of18
Applicants seeking to change or verify an address must submit an addressing application on a form provided by the Community Development Department, along with any required supporting materials. Supporting materials may include a site plan, utility layout, justification letter, or other relevant documentation.

Address changes will only be approved when:

There is a sequencing error or duplication
A primary building entrance has moved
Public safety or service delivery would be improved
Verification requests confirm the official status of an existing address and may be required by utility companies or lenders. The Director or designee will evaluate all requests and issue formal confirmation or denial. Occupants affected by any address changes will be provided notice and may request additional time or administrative review, in accordance with procedures established by the Director or designee.

Review Scope and Processing : Address change and verification requests will be reviewed against:
1) the City' s Master Address Database, ( 2) City GIS, ( 3) applicable County Assessor/ APN records, 4) USPS addressing standards ( including Publication 28), ( 5) 911/ computer- aided dispatch and other emergency response layers, and ( 6) Utility Billing and Banning Electric Utility service records.

Standard processing time is five to seven ( 5- 7) business days after the City receives a complete submittal. Life- safety or emergency- response conflicts may be expedited at the Director' s discretion.

Outcomes and Notification: Upon completion of the review, the City will issue one of the following:

Approved - an Address Assignment or Verification Letter and, where applicable, a stamped address site plan; or
86 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3
City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 7 of18
Conditionally approved - subject to specified corrections such as posting, suite numbering, or map notations; or
Denied - with a written deficiency list identifying conflicts ( e.g., duplication, sequencing, visibility, or unpermitted structure issues).

Upon address approval, the City will issue an official Address Assignment Letter and address site plan to the applicant. This documentation must be retained for permitting, utility setup, and agency notifications. The Address Assignment Letter and site plan shall be considered the controlling record for permitting, utility setup, and agency notification.

Corrections may be approved for: ( 1) wrong odd/ even side, ( 2) non- contiguous or non- sequential numbering, ( 3) duplication within 1,000 ft or the same blockface, ( 4) conflicts with emergency services or USPS, ( 5) change in primary access/ frontage, or ( 6) routing/ dispatch ambiguity documented by Fire/ Police.

The City may initiate address corrections when systemic errors are identified ( e.g., wrong parity, skipped ranges, non- sequential runs, or emergency service/ mail conflicts). The Director may issue a Notice of Proposed Correction, provide an opportunity for affected occupants to comment, and then issue a Final Correction Order with an effective date and any applicable appeal information.

Affected occupants may request reconsideration or appeal of a correction on the grounds of mapping error or demonstrated service conflict, subject to procedures and timelines established by the Director or designee. The Director may grant additional time for implementation where lifesafety is not impacted.

5.2 Temporary vs. Final Addresses
A temporary address may be issued for planning or entitlement purposes and is subject to change.

Final addresses are officially issued upon final map recordation or building permit issuance. Only final addresses may be used for utility setup, mail delivery, and occupancy. Final addresses require either a recorded tract/ parcel map or documentation of assigned Assessor Parcel Numbers ( APN) to ensure address alignment with official County records.

Temporary addresses shall be clearly marked as TEMP in all City systems. 87 City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINA TING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
LAST AMENDED:

SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE: PAGE 8 of 18
F-3 NIA

5.2.1 Construction Site Addressing
The purpose is to ensure all active construction sites are identifiable for emergency response, inspections, and deliveries. The City shall assign a provisional construction address to any permitted project prior to or concurrent with building permit issuance. This ensures that Fire, Police, and utility responders can locate the site before permanent structures or monuments are in place.

Assignment:

The construction site shall use the final approved address whenever possible ( e.g., the permanent street number assigned to the parcel or building).

If a permanent address has not yet been issued ( e.g., prior to tract recordation), the City may issue a provisional construction address that aligns with the approved site plan and anticipated permanent numbering sequence.

The provisional address shall be updated to the final address once the map is recorded or the building pennit reaches the final inspection stage.

Display Requirements:

The address ( permanent or provisional) must be posted at the main site entrance using weather- resistant, reflective numbers at least 6 inches high, visible from the public rightof-way.

For large or multi- phase construction sites, additional address signs shall be posted at each major access point and on construction trailers or temporary offices.

Signage shall remain visible throughout construction and not be obstructed by fencing, materials, or equipment.

For gated projects, the address shall be placed outside the gate for emergency responders.

Coordination:

The construction address shall be confirmed with the Fire Marshal and Banning Police Department prior to the first inspection.

The address shall appear on the building permit, inspection records, and emergency dispatch layers in GIS.

Upon final inspection or issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the provisional construction address shall automatically transition to the final permanent address in all City systems.

Prohibited Uses:
88 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

F-3 NIA
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 9 of18
Construction addresses are not postal addresses and may not be used for mail delivery or legal occupancy. They are for safety, inspection, and operational use only.

5.3 Addressing for New Residential Developments
New commercial, industrial, or institutional structures shall be assigned a unique whole number address. Where multiple entrances, tenants, or utility meters exist, additional unit or sub- addresses will be assigned as needed. Building permit issuance shall be contingent upon address assignment and compliance with Fire Department visibility and signage standards.

5.4 Addressing for New Non- Residential Buildings
Address verification requests may be submitted by property owners, tenants, developers, or utility companies to confirm the accuracy and official recognition of an existing address. Requests must be submitted in writing on a form provided by the Department. The City shall verify the address against the City' s official GIS, parcel records, and USPS standards. A fee may apply.

5.5 Tenant Numbering Standards ( Suites/ Unit)
Tenant space addressing ensures that multi- tenant buildings and complexes are logically sequenced, clearly posted, and easily identifiable for emergency response, postal delivery, utilities, and permitting. Proper assignment and numbering reduce confusion, prevent duplication, and improve public safety.

A. Assignment During Development Review
All new subdivisions or multi- unit residential, commercial, or mixed- use developments shall be reviewed for logical and sequential address assignment at the time of final map or site plan approval.

Address ranges will be coordinated with Public Works, Building & Safety, Fire Department, and USPS to ensure consistency and emergency response readiness. Addresses will be assigned upon 89 City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
LAST AMENDED:

SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE: PAGE 10 of18
F-3 NIA
recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits, as appropriate.

B. Unit and Suite Numbering Standards

1. Unit and suite numbers shall follow a three- digit format, with the first digit indicating the floor level ( e.g., 101 for first floor, 201 for second floor).

2. Numbering should begin at the northeast comer of the building and proceed clockwise unless site geometry requires counter- clockwise sequencing.

3. All primary and rear access doors must display unit or suite numbers at a minimum 6-inch height, clearly visible to emergency personnel.

4. Multi- unit complexes must install a Site Map Display Board near the primary vehicle/ pedestrian entrance, showing building layout and corresponding unit/ suite addresses. The board shall be illuminated, weather- resistant, and include building identifiers, unit ranges, and a " You Are Here" indicator.

5.6 Accessory Dwelling Unit Addressing
Addressing for Accessory Dwelling Units ( ADUs) and, when applicable, Junior Accessory Dwelling Units ( JADUs), shall be assigned in a manner that supports emergency response, postal delivery, and utility coordination, and that complies with State law and the Banning Municipal Code as they exist at the time of review.

Because State regulations governing ADUs and JADUs are subject to change, the Director or designee shall determine the appropriate address format based on current legal requirements, site configuration, access, and operational needs.

ADUs and JADUs may be assigned either:
a unique primary address, or
a sub- address associated with the primary dwelling,
as deemed appropriate by block or designee to maintain logical sequencing, support emergency response, and ensure consistency with surrounding addresses.

The City generally avoids new fractional or alphabetic suffixes ( e.g., " 123½", " 123A") unless needed for consistency with legacy addressing or external agency systems. 90 City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
LAST AMENDED:

SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE: PAGE 11 of18
F-3 NIA
Applicants must provide a site plan identifying the unit location, access path, and visibility.

Approved address numbers or sub- addresses shall be clearly posted on the unit or, if not visible from the public right- of-way, at the point of access consistent with Section 4.3 of this Policy.

SECTION 6: UTILITY AND METER ADDRESSING

6.1 Utility and Fractional Addressing Standards
Utility/ fractional addresses are non- deliverable and intended for inter- agency identification only.

Irrigation meter will have the same number as the parcel but also have ½ added to it.

Multiples will have an alphabet letter after i.e. 1025 ½ A: For example, " 1355 ½ Landmark Way Ped " A", " B".

Electric pedestal will have the same number as the parcel but also have 1/3 added to it.

Multiples will have an alphabet letter after i.e. 1025 1/3 A: For example, " 1355 1/3 Landmark Way- Ped " A", " B"".

Fire protection system will have the same number as the parcel but also have ¼ added.

Cell tower meters will have ¾ added ifthere are more than one on the site e.g., 123¾ A, 123 B
Hydrant meters shall be addressed by the cross streets of the hydrant, and including the hydrant number, to the greatest extent possible.

TEMP: Construction power poles Utility and infrastructure addresses must be assigned and documented but are not intended for postal delivery.

6.1 Temporary Power ( TEMP) Addresses
TEMP addresses are assigned exclusively to temporary electrical service poles or other interim power sources associated with construction activity. They are intended to facilitate electric service setup, inspection, and tracking by the City and Banning Electric Utility.

Standards and Procedures:

1. TEMP addresses shall be requested using the City' s addressing application form and must include a valid building or grading permit number.

2. TEMP addresses shall be labeled in all systems with the prefix " TEMP" ( e.g., TEMP 1250 Ramsey Street) to distinguish them from permanent addresses.

3. TEMP addresses shall not be used for occupancy, postal delivery, or any non- utility purpose.
91 City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINA TING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
LAST AMENDED:

SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE: PAGE 12 of18
F-3 NIA

4. TEMP signage shall be posted at the pole or service location using reflective material, minimum 4-inch numerals, visible from the nearest public right- of-way.

5. TEMP addresses shall automatically expire and be retired from the Master Address Database upon permanent power release or project completion.

6. Upon retirement, the permanent address shall be re- verified across all systems to ensure data integrity.

SECTION 7: STREET ADDRESSING

7.1 Street Naming and Suffix Guidelines
Street naming shall comply with USPS Publication 28 suffix standards ( e.g., Street, Avenue, Boulevard) and must avoid duplication or phonetic similarity to existing names within the City or surrounding jurisdictions. Names shall be simple, clear, and not exceed twenty ( 20) characters including the suffix. Cardinal directions ( e.g., North, South, East, West) may not be used as standalone street names. Continuous road segments must retain the same name unless the alignment changes by more than 45 degrees, in which case a new street name shall be assigned. Prohibited names include offensive or derogatory terms, commercial/ advertising names, confusing or cumbersome spellings, and standalone cardinal directions.

Directional Prefixes:

Directional prefixes ( N, S, E, W) may be applied where needed to distinguish otherwise similar street names and to reflect the City' s grid system. Generally:

North" and " South" apply to streets that intersect or cross Ramsey Street ( the east- west baseline); and
East" and " West" apply to streets that intersect or cross San Gorgonio Avenue ( the north- south baseline), as determined by the Community Development Director or designee to avoid confusion and support emergency response.

Approved Street Suffixes:

The following table lists commonly approved street suffixes for the City of Banning. These suffixes align with USPS Publication 28, Utility Billing, and local emergency response practices.

Suffix l-\bbreviation Definition/ Common Use Type
Alley MY INarrow service or rear- access way. NA
Avenue AVE
A thoroughfare running at an angle to streets;
Any
often wider than a street.
92 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3
Boulevard BLVD
Circle CIR
K::ourt CT
Crescent CRES
Drive DR
Green GRN
Prove GRV
Heights HTS
Hill HL
Lane uN
Park PARK
lace PL
Plaza PLZ
Road RD
Row ROW
Square SQ
Street ST
Terrace TER
frail TRL
View vw
Way WAY
City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
Wide roadway with landscaping or median.

Circular or looping road.

Short street ending in a cul- de- sac.

Curved residential street.

Curving or winding road, often in suburbs.

Residential street with or near landscaped areas.

Short, wooded or tree- lined street.

Street on high ground or ridge.

Road climbing or situated on a hill.

Narrow street, sometimes residential or rural.

Street near or within greenbelt/ open space.

Small, quiet street or dead- end.

Commercial or civic square or internal drive.

General- purpose route, often longer than a street.

Linear street with similar townhomes or
buildings.

Urban space, often surrounded by buildings.

Standard road in urban grid.

Small residential road or elevated terrain.

Road or path that follows terrain.

Street with scenic or elevated outlook.

General- purpose road, often in newer
developments.

7.2 Street Naming Procedure
To request a new street name, applicants shall:

Submit at least three preferred names with definitions.

POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 13 of18
k\ny
Any
Cul- de- sac
k\ny
Curving
Any
Any
Any
k\ny
Curving
k\ny
Cul- de- sac
Any
IAny
k\ny
k\ny
ki\ny
Minor Private Street
Any
Any
ki\ny
Ensure proposed names avoid duplication or phonetic similarity to existing street names within the City or surrounding jurisdictions.

Provide justification for commemorative or theme- based names when applicable.

Show all proposed street names on Tentative Maps and submit them for City Council review and approval.
93 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/ 2025
SUPERSEDES:

City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

F-3 NIA
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORI GINA TING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 14 of18
Obtain City Council approval for any change to approved street names prior to recordation of a Final Map.

Apply the same naming standards to private streets and gated drives, which may be required to carry a street- type name ifthey provide the primary or sole emergency access to a development.

7.3 Street Renaming ( Existing Streets)
Renaming an existing street shall follow these requirements:

A written petition signed by sixty percent of the representative group of affected property owners must be submitted to the City.

The applicant shall coordinate preparation of the Certificate of Correction through the City' s Engineering Division prior to recordation with the County.

Renaming requests must demonstrate that the proposed name complies with established naming standards, avoids duplication or phonetic similarity, and uses appropriate suffixes.

City Council approval is required at a public hearing.

Public notice shall be mailed to adjacent property owners and published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten ( 10) days prior to the hearing.

A Certificate of Correction to the recorded subdivision map shall be prepared and recorded with the County to formally document the name change.

The applicant shall bear the full cost of renaming, including the Certificate of Correction, signage replacement, and notification of all affected agencies and utilities.

Once approved, the City shall coordinate re-signing and provide official notice to agencies including USPS, emergency services, utility providers, and local school districts.

After City Council approval and recordation of the street name change, the City will transmit the information to Riverside County for integration into County GIS and addressing systems. The timeframe for the change to appear in County or regional digital maps may vary. Property owners, developers, or agencies needing confirmation of the update' s effective date should contact Riverside County GIS or the County' s Mapping and Land Records Division directly to verify when the change has been reflected in the County' s system.

7.4 Street Name Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria guide the City' s evaluation of proposed new or modified street names:
94 City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
LAST AMENDED:

SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE: PAGE 15 of18
F-3 NIA
Clarity: Simple spelling and easy pronunciation in voice dispatch; no punctuation, diacritics, special characters, or numerals in the name.

Commemorative Names: Provide biography/ justification; avoid living persons unless Council policy allows; ensure no conflict or confusion with existing names.

Continuity: Continuous roads keep one name; if alignment changes by more than 45 degrees, a new name may be required.

Length: Prefer no more than twenty ( 20) characters including spaces and suffix; shorter names are preferred for signage and emergency dispatch.

Map Coordination: Names must appear on the Final Map for recordation and require Council approval.

Private Streets: Apply the same criteria to private streets/ gated drives; require a street- type name ifthey serve as the sole emergency access.

Prohibited Words: No commercial/ advertising content, offensive/ derogatory terms, or standalone cardinal directions.

Suffix Appropriateness: Suffix must match functional class/ form ( see Section 7.1). No unconventional or non- USPS suffixes.

Theme ( Subdivisions): Tracts may use a coherent theme; avoid thematic similarity that introduces phonetic confusion ( e.g., Beach/ Beech/ Peach).

Uniqueness: Must not duplicate or phonetically resemble existing names within the City or surrounding jurisdictions.

SECTION 8: ADDRESSING FOR PHASED PROJECTS
Phased or master- planned developments must submit a comprehensive Addressing Plan during initial entitlement or final map submittal. The Addressing Plan must show phase boundaries, street layouts, lot or unit configurations, proposed address ranges, and utility meter locations. Address ranges must follow the City' s grid-based numbering system and preserve logical sequencing across all phases.

Addresses may be issued prior to the assignment of Assessor' s Parcel Numbers ( APNs) to support:

Utility coordination ( e.g., electric, gas, communications) Pennit submittals and plan check
Emergency response planning
Model home installations or phased sales release
Issued addresses are conditional upon final approval of tract configuration and are subject to modification ifphasing changes or final maps are adjusted. Only addresses for the currently active 95 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3
City ofBanning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 16 of18
construction phase will be activated. Developers are responsible for submitting updated plans as phases evolve.

All address numbers must be posted per Section 5 before inspections or occupancy. Address monuments or directional signage are required for any homes or units not directly visible from public streets.

Ifrequested before APNs have been issued, preliminary addresses may be assigned for utility coordination, plan check, and construction phasing. However, APNs or proof ofrecorded map must be provided prior to formal address confirmation. Only addresses associated with an active construction phase will be activated. The City may modify or reissue addresses iffinal APNs or phasing plans change. All posted address signage must comply with Section 5 before inspections or occupancy.

SECTION 9: TEMPORARY ROAD CLOSURE
During construction or closures affecting postal delivery, the City coordinates with USPS to establish a safe temporary mail delivery location and notifies affected occupants and agencies.

Temporary delivery points shall expire upon restoration of access, and USPS confirmation shall be obtained before closure ofthe temporary site.

SECTION 10: AGENCY NOTIFICATION
Upon assignment or verification of addresses, the City ofBanning shall notify all applicable internal departments and external agencies to ensure consistency across operational, emergency, and utility systems. Notification shall include, but is not limited to:

Internal Departments:

Banning Electric Utility
Banning Police Department
Community Development Department
Building and Safety Division
Office of the Fire Marshal
Planning Division
Public Works - Engineering Division
Utility Billing Division
External Agencies:
96 City ofBanning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
APPROVED BY:

City Council
SUPERSEDES: REFERENCE:

F-3 NIA
Banning Unified School District
GIS Mapping Systems
Morongo Fire
Refuse Service
Riverside County Assessor' s Office
Riverside County Emergency Communications ( Sheriffs)
Riverside County Registrar of Voters
Southern California Gas Company
United States Postal Service ( USPS)
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 17 of18
These notifications support proper service connection, emergency dispatch readiness, and address validation for public records. Notifications shall be issued concurrently with the address assignment letter to maintain data consistency across systems. City will submit changes to USPS Address Management System ( AMS).

SECTION 11: LEGAL INCONSISTENCIES
Legal discrepancies among permitting, GIS, billing or utility records shall be corrected on a from- here- forward basis to avoid disruption of existing services. Corrections shall be applied prospectively ( forward fix) and not retroactively where they would disrupt existing utility accounts, postal delivery, or 911 records. Where corrections affect commercial or multi- family properties, the City will coordinate review with Fire, Building and Safety, Public Works, Police, and utilities before finalizing changes. Public safety concerns may warrant immediate correction.

Prospective ( forward- fix) is preferred. Retroactive renumbering may be used when ( a) life- safety is affected, ( b) duplication exists on the same blockface, or ( c) the wrong parity spans 2:3 consecutive lots.

SECTION 12: FEES
All address- related fees shall be charged in accordance with the City' s Master Fee Schedule and any other fee schedule( s) adopted by the City Council, including fees established by resolution related to addressing. Fees must be paid at the time of submittal and are non- refundable unless otherwise specified by City Council action.

SECTION 13: DIGITAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND SIGNAGE 97 ADOPTION DATE:
12/09/2025
SUPERSEDES:

F-3

COMPLAIN CE
City of Banning
Administrative Procedures
Addressing Policy
APPROVED BY:

City Council
REFERENCE:

NIA
POLICY NO:

F-4

ORIGINATING
DEPARTMENT:

Community
Development
DIVISION:

Planning
LAST AMENDED:

PAGE 18 of18
All applications must include a completed addressing application form provided by the Community Development Department, a site plan and/ or floor plan in PDF, and, for multi- unit developments, a breakdown of unit numbering logic, access points, and utility meter locations. Submittals must clearly identify address display locations.

Failure to meet Fire Department visibility and posting standards may delay inspections, utility releases, or occupancy. Incomplete applications will be deemed not accepted and returned with a deficiency list.
98 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Record Gazette
218 N. Murray St., Banning, CA 92220
Proof of Publication
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
PHN CC Meeting Addressing fee
___________________________________________________
State of California )
County of Riverside ) SS.

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of Record Gazette, a newspaper published in the English language in the City of Banning, County of Riverside, and adjudicated a newspaper of
general circulation as defined by the laws of the state of California by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, under the date October 14, 1966, Case No. 54737.

That the notice, of which the annexed is a copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

Feb 27, 2026
Executed on: ____________________
At City of Banning, California
I ceritfy (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
___________________________________________________
Signature
PHN CC Meeting Addressing fee | Page 1 of 1
February 27, 2026
99 CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Brandon Smith, Lieutenant
Vince Avila, Chief of Police
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Making a Determination of Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act and Conducting the First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 1622, Amending Chapter 9.09 of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) of the Banning Municipal Code to Provide Updated Regulations Governing Camping and Related Activities Within the City of Banning
RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce and waive first reading, direct the City Clerk to read the ordinance by title only, and Introduce Ordinance No. 1622, entitled:

BACKGROUND:

On April 23, 2024, the City Council of the City of Banning adopted Ordinance 1603 to add a new chapter

9.09 to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) of the Banning Municipal Code to provide for regulations governing camping and related activities within the City of Banning. Based on currently available resources within the City of Banning, and the United States Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson, related to camping in public, the City Council has requested amendments to regulations governing camping and related activities.

Ordinance 1622 provides necessary authority to the Banning Police Department and City of Banning Code Enforcement personnel to enforce camping in the City of Banning. The ordinance continues to make camping in public places unlawful, which includes streets, parks, public buildings and grounds, and other public areas in the City. Camping includes, among other things, the use of camp paraphernalia such as tents in combination with sleeping or preparing to sleep. Sleeping, lying, or sitting in public places in and of itself does not constitute camping. This keeps properties readily accessible and available to residents and the public at large. The camping ordinance also makes it unlawful to store personal property in a public place, including camp facilities and camp paraphernalia.

The ordinance updates notification requirements, storage requirements, and protocols for removal of personal property unlawfully stored or found on public places, which is consistent with case law.

Personal property includes items such as medication, medical devices, eyeglasses, sanitary sleeping bag or bed roll, tents in reasonably good condition, sanitary/unsoiled clothing, etc.

Sitting, lying, and sleeping in public places that does not meet the definition of camping but is also regulated by the ordinance. No person shall obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic by sitting, lying, and 100
sleeping in a public place or in doorways or entrances or exits to buildings.

Camping on private property without written consent from the property owner in the possession of the person camping is prohibited and, is further regulated under Title 17 of the Banning Municipal Code.

JUSTIFICATION:

City Council established goals include reducing homelessness and improving quality of life for all residents and visitors to the City. With changes to available resources within the city, and clarification of local governments authority to ban sleeping or camping in public places by the United States Supreme Court in Grants Pass v. Johnson, the City Council has requested that necessary amendments to the existing ordinance governing camping, sleeping, and related activities be considered. Ordinance 1622 provides the necessary language to enforce lying, sleeping, and camping throughout the City of Banning.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Enforcement costs are budgeted.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance_1622.docx

2. Exhibit A Ordinance 1622 Camping in Public Spaces - Redline.final.docx

3. column_affidavit_1QwwLrNRbQd58tnYwmW8.pdf
101
Ordinance 1622

Page 1 of 3 ends

ORDINANCE 1622

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 9.09, CAMPING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
OF TITLE 9 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS, AND WELFARE OF THE

BANNING MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE REGULATIONS

GOVERNING CAMPING AND RELATED ACTIVITES WITHIN THE

CITY OF BANNING, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF

EXEMPTION FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT
WHEREAS, On April 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1603 to add Chapter 9.09 to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) to the Banning Municipal Code to provide for regulations governing camping and related activities; and WHEREAS, in 2024 the United States Supreme Court decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson affirmed a city’s right to adopt and enforce generally applicable laws against sleeping or camping on public property;
WHEREAS, the City, in accordance with its police power to protect the public health and welfare, seeks to update its generally applicable ordinance regarding sleeping and camping on public property consistent with the United State Supreme Court’s decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson:

NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Banning does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true, correct, and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and has determined that the Municipal Code amendments contained in Section 3 of this Ordinance are exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that these amendments may have significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 3. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines that facts exist to approve the amendments to the Banning Municipal Code.

SECTION 4. Approval. The City Council hereby approves Ordinance 1622 amending Chapter 9.09, Camping and Related Activities, of Title 9, Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare of the Banning Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 5. Effective Date. The ordinance shall become final and effective thirty (30) days after the adoption of this Ordinance by the City Council as provided by law.

SECTION 6. Severability. If any section or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this 102
Ordinance 1622

Page 2 of 3 ends

Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.

SECTION 7. Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Banning’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the 24 day of March, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, California, held on the ____ day of ______ 2026.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
103
Ordinance 1622

Page 3 of 3 ends

John Pinkney, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy & Pinkney,
LLP
CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that Ordinance 1622 was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Banning, held on the 24th day of March 2026, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council on the 14th day of April 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
104

EXHIBIT A
"Chapter 9.09 - CAMPING AND RELATED ACTIVITY

9.09.010 - Unlawful camping in public places.

A. Findings and purpose.

1. The streets, parks, public buildings and grounds, and other public areas in the city should be readily accessible and available to residents and the public at large. Public property within the city is not specifically designed for the purpose of camping and so does not have the facilities necessary to protect the property from overuse and unsanitary conditions potentially injurious to public health.

2. Public streets, sidewalks, and walkways are created and maintained for the primary purposes of enabling pedestrians and vehicles to safely and efficiently move about from place to place, facilitating deliveries of goods and services and providing all potential customers and visitors with convenient access to goods and services, as well as a place to recreate and engage in free public speech in shared civic space.

3. The use of public property for camping purposes interferes with the rights of others to use the areas for the purposes for which they were intended, such as transportation, municipal operations, recreation, and open space.

4. Camping activities may constitute a public health and safety hazard when conducted without the proper security, sanitary facilities and precautions. The necessity to clean up, repair, or remediate public property that has been used for unlawful camping may result in substantial costs to the public.

5. Pedestrians, particularly elderly, disabled, and vision-impaired, are put at increased risk when they must see and navigate around individuals sitting or lying upon the public sidewalk.

6. There is no specific site or sites that should be designated for camping because it is the experience of the city and other municipalities that sites where camping is continuous or camping populations are numerous become public health, environmental degradation, and policing problems.

7. Designated open space contains ecologically sensitive habitats, including many protected plant and wildlife species, as well as fresh water supplies. Except as provided for in this section, human presence in open space other than on designated trails can seriously damage or destroy these habitats as well as increase the risk of wildfire danger.

8. Certain public lands within the city's geographical boundaries pose significant health and safety hazards to people who make shelter or stay overnight in these areas.

9. It is the obligation of the city to keep its public property and public rights-of-way clean and available for public use, and to protect the public health, safety, and access by city constituents.

10. The city is committed to protecting the life, health, and safety of its residents and all people within the city's geographical boundaries.

11. The purpose of this section is to maintain public places within the city in a clean and accessible condition, to prevent the accumulation of trash and debris and to reduce the risk of both structural and brush fires.

12. This section shall not be interpreted to criminalize any person based on their status as a homeless individual.
105

13. The city council is committed to protecting the rights of individuals who cannot obtain shelter and to treating their personal property with respect and consideration.

B. Definitions. As used in this section:

1. "Camp" means to pitch or occupy camp facilities; or to use camp paraphernalia, for the purpose of occupancy, habitation, or sheltering for survival in an outdoor area, and in such a way as will facilitate sleeping or storage of personal belongings, carrying on cooking activities, taking measures to keep protected from the elements including heat and cold, or any of these activities in combination with one another or in combination with either sleeping or making preparations to sleep. The act of sleeping on its own does not constitute camping.

2. "Camp facilities" include, without limitation, tents, huts, lean-tos, vehicles, vehicle camping outfits, unapproved shacks or temporary shelters, cook stoves or fire pits, however constructed.

3. "Camp paraphernalia" includes, without limitation, tents or tent-like structures, cots, hammocks, sleeping bags, bedrolls, blankets, personal cooking facilities, and similar equipment.

4. "Open space" means any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use, and which is designated on the local open space plan as any of the following:
(a) for the preservation of natural resources; (b) for the managed production of resources; (c) for outdoor recreation; (d) or public health and safety.

5. "Public place" means property owned, held, or leased by a public entity or agency, improved or unimproved, and includes, without limitation, open space, parks, plazas, parking lots, highways, streets, bridges, alleys, driveways, sidewalks, walkways, or other public rights-of-way.

6. "Store" means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, to place or leave in a location.

C. Camping in a public place.

Unless authorized by permit or other applicable law, it shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to camp, occupy camp facilities, or use camp paraphernalia in, on, or under any public place regardless of the time of day, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.

D. Unlawful storage of personal property in a public place. It shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to store personal property, including camp facilities and camp paraphernalia, in any public place, except as otherwise provided by this code, or except by written permission of the property owner.

Nothing herein shall be construed to allow storage where otherwise prohibited by this code.

E. Property removal. City designated personnel, including City Code Enforcement and Police Officers, or other authorized contractors may remove personal property unlawfully stored or found in or on public places as outlined in subsection (D) of this section or found in an unlawful encampment as follows:

1. The location of any personal property including camp facilities and camp paraphernalia shall be noticed as follows:
"It is illegal to store personal property in or on a public place.. If this personal property is not removed within 48 hours of the date of this posting, THE PERSONAL PROPERTY SHALL BE DEEMED INTENTIONALLY ABANDONED AND SUBJECT TO REMOVAL AND DESTRUCTION." 106
The notice shall include the anticipated time and date of removal, and information on how unattended belongings may be retrieved, and the date by which they must be claimed. The notice may also include information on services, including shelter, that are immediately available to persons camping or occupying camp facilities.

2. City personnel may remove any personal property unlawfully stored or remaining in or on a public place after the 48-hour posting period has expired. No removal operations shall begin earlier than the date and time posted on the notice. If the removal does not begin within two days of the date written on the notice, a new notice must be posted a minimum of 48 hours before removal operations may begin.

3. Any person who returns to a camp or any camp facility during removal proceedings shall be allowed to remove their personal property from the site. Personal property left behind will be deemed abandoned.

4. Personal property which has been clearly abandoned, poses an imminent threat to public health or safety, may result in pollutants entering storm drains or other discharge into water in violation of Section 13.24.090 of this code, is contraband, or which is evidence of a crime shall not be subject to the above notice requirements and shall be removed immediately by city personnel or police and stored or destroyed according to the provisions below.

F. Personal belongings removed pursuant to Subsection (E) that are not a health or safety hazard shall be collected and stored for not less than 60 days as provided for herein.

1. “Personal belongings” includes:
a. items of apparent value of $50 or more;
b. items of apparent personal value, including, but not limited to: eyeglasses, operational wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, other medical equipment, backpacks, photographs, and identification (such as a driver’s license, passports, or other state or federally issued identification cards).

2. Items that constitute a health and safety risk and that will not be collected include, but are not limited to:
a. Toxic sharps: needles, scissors, knives.
b. Chemicals: bleach, paint, oils, etc.
c. Items (including bedding and clothing) soiled by infectious materials, including human waste and bodily fluids.
d. Moldy, mildewed items.
e. Items that may be infested by rodents and insects: rats, mice, fleas, lice, bed bugs. f. Items that pose a risk of fire or explosion, combustibles and propane tanks; any item containing fuel or corrosives or other unidentified liquids. g. Backpacks that have been determined to contain items listed in (a)-(f) above or (3) below will be discarded.
h. If personal belongings are co-mingled or littered with needles, human waste, or other health risks, the entire pile of belongings may be disposed of.

3. Bulky items such as mattresses and sheds, perishable items such as food, controlled substances, contraband, and trash or debris will not be collected and stored. Contraband and controlled substances should be handled by trained professionals and consistent with applicable law.
107

4. At the time of removal of unlawfully stored or remaining personal belongings, city personnel shall conspicuously post and date a notice either at the exact location from which the personal belongings were removed or at another nearby location giving the following information. a. A list of personal belongings removed;
b. A telephone number for information on retrieving personal belongings; c. An address where the personal belongings are temporarily stored; and d. The length of time during which the personal belongings may be claimed.

5. Following removal of unlawfully stored or remaining personal belongings, city personnel shall photograph the items, collectively or individually, and store such personal belongings in an area designated by the city for a period of sixty days.

6. Personal property stored by the city, which is claimed within sixty days from removal, shall be released to the person claiming ownership provided the person identifies the property and the approximate location where the property was left.

7. Disposition of property.
a. Property that remains unclaimed after sixty days may be dedicated for public use or may be given to a local nonprofit agency for charitable use.
b. All other unlawfully stored or found personal property which remains unclaimed after sixty days is deemed intentionally abandoned and may be abated and destroyed.

8. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit or prohibit City officials from enforcing any other city or state laws, including, but not limited to, laws governing use of controlled substances or weapons, fire code, and public nuisance laws.

9.09.020 - Sitting, lying, sleeping in public places.

A. Findings and purpose.

1. Public streets, sidewalks, and walkways are created and maintained for the primary purposes of enabling pedestrians and vehicles to safely and efficiently move about from place to place, facilitating deliveries of goods and services and providing all potential customers and visitors with convenient access to goods and services, as well as a place to recreate and engage in free public speech in shared civic space.

2. Except as provided for in this section, sitting or lying on public streets, sidewalks, or walkways interferes with the primary purposes of the public street, sidewalk, or walkway, threatens public safety, and damages the public welfare.

3. Pedestrians, particularly the elderly, disabled, and vision-impaired, are put at increased risk when they must see and navigate around individuals sitting or lying upon the public sidewalk.

4. In some circumstances, people sitting or lying on sidewalks deter many members of the public from frequenting those areas. This, in turn, contributes to an erosion of the essential economic viability of those areas. Business failures and relocations can cause vacant storefronts contributing to a spiral of deterioration and blight, which harms the public health, safety, and welfare.

5. There are numerous other places within the city where sitting can be accommodated without unduly 108
interfering with the safe flow of pedestrian traffic, impairing commercial activity, threatening public safety, or harming the public welfare. These other places include city parks, numerous public benches and other seating facilities, plazas, portions of sidewalks not intensively used by pedestrians, common areas open to the public and private property with the permission of the property owner.

6. The city recognizes that there is a fundamental need to sleep and desires to accommodate that need while also satisfying the needs of the general public to travel freely and safely throughout the city.

7. The limited regulation of sitting or lying down on sidewalks is both reasonably necessary and appropriately balances the public interest and individual rights.

8. Designated open space contains ecologically sensitive habitats, including many protected plant and wildlife species, as well as fresh water supplies. Except as provided for in this section, human presence in open space, other than on designated trails, can seriously damage or destroy these habitats as well as increase the risk of wildfire danger.

B. Definitions. As used in this section:

1. "Obstruct pedestrians or vehicular traffic" means to obstruct or impede passage by another person or a vehicle, or to require another person or a driver of a vehicle to take evasive action to avoid physical contact.

2. "Public place" means public property, including, without limitation, publicly owned parking lots and driveways, highways, streets, bridges, alleys, sidewalks, walkways, and city-owned areas generally accessible to the public.

C. Prohibited conduct.

1. No person shall obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic by sitting or lying in a public place or in doorways or entrances or exits to buildings.

2. No person shall be permitted to sleep in a public place at any time, unless otherwise permitted by this Chapter.

3. No person shall be permitted to sleep in any open space, as defined in subsection (B)(4) of Section

9.09.010.

4. Except as otherwise permitted under Title 17 of this code, it is unlawful for any person to sleep between 6:00 AM. and 10:00 P.M. in any vehicle parked in or upon any public place or in or upon any privately owned parking area used for parking of customers of any business enterprise without the written consent of the owner of such business enterprise.

D. Exceptions. The prohibitions set forth in subsection (C) of this section shall not apply to:

1. Persons operating or patronizing a commercial establishment conducted on the public sidewalk pursuant to an applicable, valid permit; or person participating in or attending a parade, festival, performance, rally, demonstration, meeting or similar event conducted in a public place;

2. Any conduct that is in conformity with the terms of any permit granted pursuant to this code; or

3. Persons patronizing dining establishments with seating areas in the public right-of- way, who have been permitted pursuant to this code.

E. Picketing or protesting. It is not the intent of this section to prohibit protesting, picketing, demonstrating, 109
signature gathering, voter registration, leafleting, or any other lawful activity permitted under the laws of the United States of America, State of California, or by the National Labor Relations Act in connection with a labor dispute.

9.09.030 -Camping on private property.

A Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to camp, occupy camp facilities, or use camp paraphernalia in, on, or under any private property within the city or to start or maintain an open fire on private property in violation of the Fire Code.

B. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, this section shall not apply to persons camping upon their own land or to persons camping with the written consent of the owner of the land; provided, that such written consent is in their possession at the time and is shown upon demand of any peace officer and is not otherwise prohibited by Title 17 of this code. Irrespective of any written consent provided by the owner of the land, no person shall camp, or permit to camp, on private property for a period of time exceeding seven consecutive days without an interruption of at least five consecutive non-camping days. For purposes of this section, camping for any portion of a day shall count as a full camping day.

C. This section shall not apply to persons lawfully camping within campgrounds or trailer parks approved pursuant to Title 17 of this code, or to any permitted or otherwise lawful special event, nor shall it be construed to waive or preempt any requirement or authorization provided under Title 17 of this code."

9.09.040 - Severability.

If any provision of this chapter is rendered illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, all other parts of this chapter shall remain in full force and effect.
110

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
Record Gazette
218 N. Murray St., Banning, CA 92220
Proof of Publication
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
Pre Adoption Summary Ordinance 1622
___________________________________________________
State of California )
County of Riverside ) SS.

That the notice, of which the annexed is a copy, has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:

Feb 27, 2026
Executed on: ____________________
At City of Banning, California
I ceritfy (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
___________________________________________________
Signature
Pre Adoption Summary Ordinance 1622 | Page 1 of 1
February 27, 2026
111

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Lisa Rossi, Human Resources Director
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolution 2026-48, Authorizing the Appointment of Retired Annuitant Matthew Bassi as Interim Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Resolution 2026-48
BACKGROUND:

Following Community Development Director David Newell’s recent resignation, the City has begun a formal recruitment process to fill the vacancy. Given Mr. Newell’s extensive involvement in key municipal projects, Human Resources partnered with staff and specialized firms to secure a retired annuitant. This interim lead will provide essential guidance and departmental support while a permanent successor is found. A recruitment is underway and a permanent appointment is anticipated to be in place prior to June 30, 2026.

In mid-February, the City identified Mr. Matthew Bassi to fill the vacant Community Development Director position on an interim basis while the recruitment for a permanent appointment continues. Mr. Bassi is a highly qualified CalPERS retiree with over 40 years of distinguished experience in city management and municipal planning. It is anticipated that Mr. Bassi will officially assume the role of Interim Community Development Director on March 25, 2026.

Pursuant to Government Code section 21221(h), the City is permitted to make limited-term appointments of CalPERS retirees to temporary positions, provided they adhere to requirements regarding compensation, duration, and hour limitations. In accordance with these guidelines, Mr. Bassi is restricted to an aggregate of 960 hours per fiscal year across all CalPERS contracting agencies. His appointment ensures that the Community Development Department remains under expert leadership during this pivotal transition period.

Staff recommends that the City Council approve by Resolution the limited-term appointment of Matthew Bassi as Interim Community Development Director, while the city continues to aggressively recruit for a permanent appointment.
112
JUSTIFICATION:

The resolution for Interim Vacant Retired Annuitant under Gov. Code section 21221(h), is for CalPERS retirees hired to work in a vacant position while the employer recruits for a permanent replacement, such as an interim city manager, interim police or fire chief, interim department head, or any other unique managerial or executive position. An open recruitment to fill the vacancy with a permanent replacement is required to appoint a retiree. A retiree can only be appointed once to a vacant position. A retiree must reinstate from retirement to be employed in any regular staff position which includes any permanent positions including full time, part time, seasonal, limited term, permanent intermittent, exempt from membership, or any other type of temporary or periodic regular staff position.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Mr. Bassi will be paid an hourly rate of $103.68, representing the top-step equivalent for the Community Development Director position, for a total of $62,208. This expenditure will be covered by salary savings resulting from current department vacancies. He is not entitled to any additional compensation, benefits, vacation, or holidays.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution_2026- Matthew Bassi 032426.docx

2. Bassi_Matthew_Final_Offer_of_Employment_032526.doc
113
Resolution 2026-48

Page 1 of 4 ends

RESOLUTION 2026-48

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA,

APPOINTING MATTHEW BASSI AS AN INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Government Code Section 21221(h)
WHEREAS, Government (Gov.) Code section 21221(h) of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law permits the governing body to appoint a CalPERS retiree to a vacant position requiring specialized skills during recruitment for a permanent appointment, and provides that such appointment will not subject the retired person to reinstatement from retirement or loss of benefits so long as it is a single appointment that does not exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the Banning City Council desires to appoint Matthew Bassi as an interim appointment retired annuitant to the vacant position of Community Development Director for the City of Banning under Gov. Code section 21221(h), effective March 25h, 2026; and WHEREAS, the City Council, the City of Banning and Matthew Bassi certify that Matthew Bassi has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and
WHEREAS, an appointment under Gov. Code section 21221(h) requires the retiree is appointed into the interim appointment during recruitment for a permanent appointment; and

WHEREAS, the governing body has authorized the search for a permanent appointment as of; and
WHEREAS, this Gov. Code section 21221(h) appointment shall only be made once and therefore will end on June 30th, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the entire employment agreement, contract or appointment document between Matthew Bassi and the City of Banning has been reviewed by this body and is attached herein; and
WHEREAS, the compensation paid to retirees cannot be less than the minimum nor exceed the maximum monthly base salary paid to other employees performing comparable duties, divided by 173.333 to equal the hourly rate; and WHEREAS, the maximum base salary for this position is $215,650.48 and the hourly equivalent is $103.68; the minimum base salary for this position is $159,401.34 and the hourly equivalent is $76.64; and
WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Matthew Bassi will be $103.68; and WHEREAS, Matthew Bassi has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby certifies the nature of the employment of Matthew Bassi as described herein and detailed in the attached employment 114
Resolution 2026-48

Page 2 of 4 ends

agreement / contract / appointment document and that this appointment is necessary to fill the critically needed position of Community Development Director for the City of Banning by March 25th, 2026, because the need for management level support continues to exist while the Community Development Director recruitment remains open.

SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary budget adjustments, appropriations, and transfers related to this resolution.

SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 2026.

Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

John Pinkey, City Attorney
SBEMP
115
Resolution 2026-48

Page 3 of 4 ends

CERTIFICATION:

I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2026-48, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 24th day of March 2026 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
116
Resolution 2026-48

Page 4 of 4 ends

Exhibit A
Letter of Employment – Matthew Bassi
117
City of Banning
Human Resources and Risk Management
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3155 or 3173 March 11th, 2026
Subject: Final Offer of Employment – Interim Community Development Director (Retired Annuitant)
Dear Mr. Bassi,
CalPERS allows retirees receiving a pension to return to work in a limited capacity as a Retired Annuitant. A retired annuitant is a CalPERS retiree, who works as an at-will employee of a CalPERS employer, with certain restrictions to avoid jeopardizing their retirement pension payments. Under Gov. Code section 21221, subdivision (h) (hereinafter “Gov. Code section 21221(h)”), a contracting agency is permitted to use a Retired Annuitant to fill a vacant position on an interim basis while recruiting for a permanent appointment. This appointment is being made as an emergency appointment to prevent a stoppage of public business.

Below is the position and pay information for this special assignment, as well as further rules and requirements for working as a retired annuitant.

Position: Retired Annuitant – Interim Community Development Director Salary Grade: D01, Step 13
Salary Range: $103.6781/hr.

Start Date: March 25th, 2026
Maximum Hours: No more than 40 hours per week
Report to: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
This position is an at-will, temporary position until tentative June 30, 2026.

As a retired annuitant:
 You do not accrue service credit or any additional retirement benefits from employment.  You must have a Limited-Duration work period. You may not exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for employment with all CalPERS employers combined. There are no exceptions to this limit. Your hours will reset each July 1st, and you can work another 960 hours for the new fiscal year. Your employment should terminate when the limited duration work you were hired to perform is completed.
 You cannot be employed in any regular staff position such as “seasonal”, “permanent intermittent” or any other “temporary” position other than a retired annuitant position.  You also cannot receive any benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation in addition to the hourly pay rate. For example, longevity compensation, sick leave or vacation benefits cannot be provided to a retired annuitant. 118
99 E. Ramsey Street • P.O. Box 998 • Banning, CA 92220-0998 • (951) 922-3155 or 3173  You cannot be appointed as a retired annuitant if you received unemployment insurance payments for prior retired annuitant work for any CalPERS employer within 12 months prior to your appointment date. Upon accepting employment, you must certify in writing to the employer that you comply with this requirement.

We are excited to welcome you to the City of Banning. We do require your signature to indicate your acknowledgement of the retired annuitant requirements. Please feel free to contact Lisa Rossi via email at [email protected] or by telephone at (951) 922-3179 with any questions.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Gibbs
City Manager
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS OF THIS LETTER AND ACCEPT THIS POSITION WITH THE STIPULATIONS CONTAINED HEREIN.
_____________________________________________
Name (please print)
______________________________ ________________________ Signature Date
119

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Appointment for Position 1, term ending January 31, 2029
RECOMMENDATION:

Appoint applicant to fill vacancy in Position 1 on the Parks and Recreation Commission BACKGROUND:

The Parks and Recreation Commission’s rules and responsibilities are governed by Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code. The Commission’s main function is to serve as an advisory board to the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Director for the purpose of the formulation of rules, regulations and policies for all parks and recreation programs, activities, and fees.

The Banning Municipal Code Section 2.40.030 requires applications be made available and vacancies announced at least two months prior to the vacancy. The Parks and Recreation vacancy was advertised on the City's website and across social media platforms starting on February 1 2026. Public Notice was published in the Record Gazette on February 6, 2026. The deadline to submit an application was Friday, February 27, 2026.

JUSTIFICATION:

One application was received for the Parks and Recreation vacancy and is up for consideration:

Ashley Brummitt
The candidate will be interviewed in a Special Meeting - Workshop on March 24, 2025 beginning at 4:00 p.m. Staff recommends that the City Council appoint a member to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Reopening the recruitment and maintaining vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission may further delay projects across the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ashley Brummit_P&R Commission App_Redacted.pdf

2. Banning__CA_Code_of_Ordinances_2.40.pdf

3. 2026 02 01_Public Notices - PRC Vacancy (3).pdf
120
121
122
A.

Chapter 2.40 - PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

2.40.010 - Established—Purpose.

There is hereby established a parks and recreation commission of the city for the purpose of facilitating the integration of the parks and recreation activities for the city. (Code 1965, § 15-1; Ord. No. 1438, § 1.A., 6-14-11)

2.40.020 - Advisory agency designated—Powers and duties.

The city parks and recreation commission shall serve as an advisory agency to the city council and the director of community services for the purpose of the formulation of rules, regulations and policies for all parks and recreation programs, activities, and fees. Parks and recreation commission members shall be registered voters of the City of Banning.
(Code 1965, § 15-2; Ord. No. 1438, § 1.A., 6-14-11)

2.40.030 - Appointment of members.

The parks and recreation commission shall consist of five members.

The parks and recreation commission shall serve four-year terms, which shall be staggered every two years concurrent with the city elections. Appointments shall be made by the city council.

Applications shall be made available and the closing date announced at least two months prior to the expiration of the commissioner's term to be filled.

Members shall serve at the pleasure of the council and may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the entire council.

Any member who is absent from two regular meetings of the Commission within a twelve-month period whether the absence is excused or not, will be deemed to have resigned their office and the City Council may appoint a new member to serve in the resigned commissioner's place for the remainder of the existing term.
(Code 1965, § 15-3; Ord. No. 1438, § 1.A., B., 6-14-11; Ord. No. 1579, § 2, 11-9-21)

2.40.040 - Conduct of meetings.

The commission shall meet at 6:00 P.M. on the third Wednesday of the following months: January, February, March, April, May, June, September, October and November.

Additional meeting may occur if deemed necessary by the city council or commission chairperson.

A majority of the voting members of the commission shall constitute a quorum. 123
(Code 1965, § 15-4; Ord. No. 1438, § 1.A., 6-14-11)
124

PUBLIC NOTICE

CITY OF BANNING

PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Banning is accepting applications to fill one immediate vacancy on the City of Banning Parks & Recreation Commission. The term of office will begin immediately and run through January 31, 2029.

This is a volunteer position on a Commission that meets on the third Wednesday of each month beginning at 6:00 P.M. You must be a registered voter in the City of Banning to qualify. All applicants must successfully complete a background investigation with fingerprinting before appointment. The application for this position is available on the City’s website at http://banning.ca.us/607/Parks-Recreation-Commission.

The deadline to submit your application to the City Clerk’s Office is Friday, February 28, 2026 at 5:00 P.M. Submit to the City Clerk’s Office, PO Box 998, Banning, CA 92220 or by emailing your signed application to [email protected]. /s/Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
Dated: February 1, 2026
Publish: February 6, 2026
125

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Appointments for Positions 1 & 2, terms ending January 31, 2029
RECOMMENDATION:

Appoint up to two applicants to fill two vacancies in Positions 1 & 2 on the Banning Planning Commission BACKGROUND:

The Planning Commission’s rules and responsibilities are governed by Chapter 2.28 of the Municipal Code. The Commission’s two main functions are to review land development applications for compliance with the Zoning Code and to make recommendations to the City Council regarding large projects and changes to the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance.

The Banning Municipal Code Section 2.28.020 requires applications be made available and vacancies announced at least two months prior to the vacancy. The Planning Commission vacancies were advertised on the City’s website and across social media platforms starting on February 1 2026. Public Notice was published in the Record Gazette on February 6, 2026. The deadline to submit an application was Friday, February 27, 2026.

JUSTIFICATION:

Five applications were received for the Planning Commission vacancies and are up for consideration:

Leslie Evans
Ashley Brummitt
Christopher Romash
Nicole Coutee
Tia Valdiserri
The candidates will be interviewed in a Special Meeting - Workshop on March 24, 2025 beginning at 4:00 p.m. Staff recommend appointing two members to the City's Planning Commission from among these applicants.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Reopening the recruitment and maintaining vacancies on the City's Planning Commission may further delay projects across the City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Plannning Commission Applications_Redacted.pdf
126

2. Banning__CA_Code_of_Ordinances_Section_2.28.pdf

3. 2026 02 01_Public Notices_Planning Commission Vacancy (2).pdf 127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
A.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. D.

Chapter 2.28 - PLANNING COMMISSION

2.28.010 - Planning commission—Membership requirements.

Members of the planning commission shall be residents of the City of Banning who hold no other municipal office in the city. Members may not be employees of the city.

Proof of residency shall be submitted at time of application to the commission through voter registration, utility bill at a physical address within the city boundaries. Residency shall be confirmed prior to appointment and maintained throughout the term served. (Code 1965, § 2-5.)

2.28.020 - Term and vacancies.

The planning commission shall consist of five members.

Planning commissioners shall serve four-year terms, which shall be staggered every two years concurrent with the city elections. Appointments shall be made by the city council. Applications shall be made available and the closing date announced at least two months prior to the expiration of the commissioner's term to be filled.

In order to re-set the terms of office of planning commissioners consistent with paragraph (b) above, commencing January 2021, the city council shall appoint members of the planning commission, whether newly appointed or as reappointed members, to one of the following five numbered positions:

Position 1. The term of office for Position 1 will begin February 1, 2021, and expire on January 31, 2025.

Position 2. The term of office for Position 2 will begin February 1, 2021, and expire on January 31, 2025.

Position 3. The term of office for Position 3 will begin February 1, 2021, and expire on January 31, 2023.

Position 4. The term of office for Position 4 will begin February 1, 2021, and expire on January 31, 2023.

Position 5. The term of office for Position 5 will begin February 1, 2021, and expire on January 21, 2023.

Upon the expiration of each term of office specified in paragraph C, persons appointed or reappointed to the Position shall serve for a succeeding four-year term measured from the expiration of the prior term of that position. In the event the city council has not completed the appointment process by February 1 of each odd number year to fill the terms of positions that 143
E.

B.
are to commence on February 1 of that year, the predecessor's term of office for that position is automatically extended until the date that the successor has been appointed and sworn into office.

Members shall serve at the pleasure of the council and may be removed at any time by a majority vote of the entire council.

Any member who is unexcused for two consecutive regular meetings of the commission or six meetings within a twelve-month period, whether the six meetings are excused or not, will be deemed to have forfeited his or her office and the city council may appoint a new member to serve in the commissioner's position for the remainder of their term.

To be excused from any such meeting, a member shall notify the planning department, at least forty-eight hours prior to any such meeting that the member will not be in attendance at the upcoming meeting. If a member is unable to attend due to illness, injury or family matters, an oral statement made proving that specific reason by the member at the next regular meeting of the commission shall constitute an excused absence.
(Code 1965, § 2-6.)
(Ord. No. 1569, § 1, 9-22-20)

2.28.030 - Compensation.

Members of the planning commission shall not receive compensation; reasonable traveling expenses to and from conferences and/or special field trips and training sessions shall be reimbursed.

Upon authorization by the city manager, the planning commission and members of its staff, may attend city planning conferences or meetings, or hearings on city planning legislation, or matters affecting the planning of the city. The reasonable expenses of such attendance shall be charged upon the funds allocated to the commission.

All fundings shall be established through the City of Banning budget, which shall be approved by the city council.
(Code 1965, § 2-7.)

2.28.040 - Rules of procedure.

A quorum of the planning commission shall consist of a majority of the members (including any vacancies). A quorum must be present in order for the planning commission to hold a meeting.

In the event that only three commissioners are present, any actions recommending amendment to the Municipal Code or general plan must be unanimous; all other actions would require a majority vote of the commission in attendance. A tie vote shall constitute a denial of the matter or request brought before the planning commission.
144
C.

1. 2.

3. C.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. D.

The commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its transactions, findings, and determinations. The Brown Act and "Robert's Rules in Plain English" by Doris P. Zimmerman (Harper Perennial) shall be incorporated into such rules.

The commission shall follow all applicable city fiscal and administrative policies and procedures. (Code 1965, § 2-8.)

2.28.050 - Duties and responsibilities.

The planning commission shall exercise those functions of the planning agency of the city delegated to it in the Banning Municipal Code.

At the regular February meeting, the planning commission shall choose a chairperson and a vicechairperson from among the planning commission members. The chairman and vice-chairman shall serve for one term. Both positions shall rotate every year.

The chairperson shall preside at all regular and special meetings and rule on all points of order and procedure during the meetings.

The vice-chairperson shall assume all duties of the chairperson in his or her absence.

In the event the chairperson and vice-chairperson are both absent, an acting chairperson shall be appointed from the commission for the meeting from those present.

The planning commission's scope of responsibility is to:

Prepare, review, adopt, and recommend to the city council for its adoption, a long range, comprehensive general plan to guide future physical development and conservation of the city and its adjoining environs based on geographic, social, economic and political characteristics of the community;
Prepare, review, adopt and recommend to the city council for its adoption of special area specific plans for identifiable areas, wherein more detailed guidelines are needed to supplement the objectives of the general plan;
Review development applications submitted to the city for consistency with adopted plans and ordinances. Approve or deny applications when final authority is granted to the planning commission by the Municipal Code. Make a recommendation on those actions for which the city council is the final reviewing approval body;
Act as the appeal body on decisions made by the community development director; Perform such other functions and duties as the city council may from time to time direct and/or provide within the Banning Municipal Code.
145
E.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. The commission may form ad-hoc subcommittees in accordance with the Brown Act, and make appointments to that subcommittee, as it deems necessary. A quorum of commission members may not be appointed to serve in a single subcommittee. Before forming a subcommittee, the commission shall establish a specific mission and term for the subcommittee.

The planning commission is an important function within the City of Banning, and as such, certain expectations are held by the city council in making the appointment of individuals to the commission. These expectations include the following:

Commissioners will attend all regular meetings and special meetings as they arise; Commissioners will communicate expected and unexpected absences to the planning department, prior to the meeting;
Commissioners will communicate any potential conflicts of interest on agenda items to the planning department in advance of the hearing to allow confirmation of a quorum; Commissioners will arrive on time to each meeting, fully participate, and remain in attendance until the end of each meeting;
Commissioners will prepare themselves for each meeting by reading the agenda, reports and other materials, and visiting the site, as necessary, and communicate any questions to the secretary in advance of the hearing. Pursuant to Resolution 2000-41, if a commissioner visits the site prior to a hearing on the matter, the commissioner shall disclose at the hearing such evidence and observation gathered during the site visit; Commissioners are encouraged to attend the annual planner's institute (Monterey and Southern California) or an equivalent planning training program given by a University of California campus (or approved equivalent) and may attend other planning conferences and or training classes as the need and opportunities arise. The city will also provide regular inservice training and make-up training where attendance is required; New commissioners are expected to become familiar with the city's general plan, the "Planning Commission Handbook" (prepared by the State of California), the relevant Municipal Code sections particularly those relevant to zoning to become familiar with these documents. The "Guide for New Members" distributed by the planning commissioners journal and www.plannersweb.com are other valuable resources for new commissioners; Applicants to the planning commission will be expected to attend a brief orientation session explaining the role of commissioners, the planning process, and the expectations of commissioners that are appointed; and
New commissioner members will attend an expanded orientation session with the liaison to the commission and other staff, as deemed necessary, to provide new appointees with a solid understanding immediately upon appointment. The orientation will include an overview of 146
F.

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.
the planning process, a review of the commission's structure, policies and bylaws, a summary of available documents and resources, and a review of the commission's relationship with citizens, staff, developers, and the governing body.

The planning commission may serve on regional boards or commissions as directed by the city council.

The planning commission shall participate in annual meetings with the city council to discuss development activity, development doctrine, policies, etc. (Code 1965, § 2-8.1.)
(Ord. No. 1569, § 2, 9-22-20)

2.28.060 - Conflict of interest requirements.

The State of California Political Reform Act requires planning commission members to disclose interests in investments, real property, and income derived within the City of Banning or from sources doing business within the City of Banning. Filings are required within ten days of assuming office and on an annual basis.

Members shall not work for the "pass" cities, which include Beaumont, Calimesa, and Riverside County in roles, such as economic development, planning, or redevelopment.

If an apparent conflict of interest arises, the member shall inquire of the city attorney or staff prior to the meeting.
(Code 1965, § 2-8.2.)

2.28.070 - Staff liaison.

The staff liaison to the planning commission shall be the community development director.

The planning commission liaison, supported by the secretary to the planning commission (a staff position), shall be responsible for:

Confirming that a quorum will be present prior to each meeting; Receiving and recording all exhibits, petitions, documents, or other material presented to the planning commission in support of, or in opposition to, any issue before the planning commission;
Signing all meeting minutes and resolutions upon approval; Preparing and distributing agendas and agenda packets;
Facilitating the tape recording of meetings and preparation of minutes; and Responding to all questions from planning commission members regarding agenda items in advance of meetings.
147
A.

A.
(Code 1965, § 2-8.3.)

2.28.080 - Meeting times and places.

The planning commission shall meet on the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m. at the city council chambers located at 99 E. Ramsey Street, or at such time and place as the commission may designate by resolution.

Commissioners will attend special meetings as they arise. (Code 1965, § 2-8.4.)
(Ord. No. 1427, § 1, 9-14-10; Ord. No. 1594, § 1, 8-22-22)

2.28.090 - Adoption.

This document, as adopted and amended by council resolution, shall serve as the bylaws for the commission.
(Code 1965, § 2-9.)
148

PUBLIC NOTICE

CITY OF BANNING

PLANNING COMMISSION
The City of Banning is accepting applications to fill one immediate vacancy on the City of Banning Planning Commission. The term of office will begin immediately and run through January 31, 2029.

This is a volunteer position on a Commission that meets on the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30 P.M. You must be a registered voter in the City of Banning to qualify. All applicants must successfully complete a background investigation with fingerprinting before appointment. The application and qualifications for this position are available on the City’s website at http://banning.ca.us/79/Planning-Commission.

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
Todd Hopkins, CalFire Division Chief
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Receive and File Fire Protective Services Statistics for the Month of February 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file
BACKGROUND:

City Council has requested CalFire’s Riverside County Division, which provides fire protection services in the City of Banning, to provide specific reports to the public and City Council on a monthly basis.

JUSTIFICATION:

Many Fire and EMS Departments store and analyze statistical data, which can provide a detailed analysis of the types of responses their organization is called to assist. This information is critical to elevating the level of service provided by the Fire Department.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None
ATTACHMENTS:

1. jurisreport_banning.pdf
150
Robert Fish
Jurisdiction Summary for City of Banning
Fire Chief
Riverside County Fire Department/ CAL FIRE
2/1/2026 to 2/28/2026
Incident Response Activity
*At least 1 Resource Dispatched
Incident Type #
False Alarm 19
Medical 377
Other Fire 6
Other Misc 1
Public Service Assist 21
Rescue 2
Ringing Alarm 4
Standby 2
Traffic Collision 23
Vehicle Fire 1
Wildland Fire 1
Incident Total 457
Average Enroute to On-Scene Time
*Units Responding Charlie, Delta, Bravo, Echo, Code 3
5 241 97
0 4.44 70.26
<5 Minutes +5 Minutes
+10 Minutes +20 Minutes
Average Min % 0 to 5 Min
Enroute Time: Unit has been acknowledged as responding.

On-Scene Time: Unit has been acknowledged as being On-Scene.

Transport
*Based on Units with a Transport time
0 Total: 0
Mutual Aid
*Unit responses
Jurisdiction Units Responses
Engine 192
Total: 192
Mutual Aid Given
Engine 202
Total: 202
Mutual Aid Received
Brush 2
Chief 9
Engine 287
MRF 58
Nurse 9
Patrol 9
PIO 1
Squad 35
Truck/Quint 1
Total: 411
3/1/2026 1:41:00PM Page 1 of 2 151
Truck Report
T2 recorded 1 responses in City of Banning from 2/1/2026 1:40:10 PM to 2/28/2026 1:40:10 PM
Significant Incidents
CAL FIRE / Riverside County Fire Department responded to a report of a tree impacting an apartment triplex at the location listed above. The first arriving company officer reported a large tree had fallen into a two-story apartment triplex, causing significant damage to the roof structure. All occupants self-evacuated prior to fire department arrival and were accounted for with no injuries reported. The affected unit was evaluated and deemed unsafe for occupancy.

Red Cross assistance was offered but declined by the residents. The City of Banning Building and Safety Department will need to respond for further structural assessment. No civilian or firefighter injuries were reported.
26CARRU027928
2/18/2026 4:06:00AM
3/1/2026 1:41:00PM Page 2 of 2 152

CITY OF BANNING

STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Yvette Vaca, Administrative Sergeant
Vincent Avila, Chief of Police
MEETING DATE: March 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Receive and File Police Department Statistics for the Month of February 2026
RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file.

BACKGROUND:

The Banning Police Department provides statistics to the public and City Council upon request.

JUSTIFICATION:

Statistics tell a city how many police officers need to be on the street, what crimes are being committed, and reveal increases and decreases in specific crimes. Also, cities get funding in part on their crime rates. If a federal crime bill passed, the Government needs to know which cities could benefit the most from those funds, and some cities have been rewarded financially for drastically lowering rates of crime.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. STATS-FEBRUARY 2026.pdf

2. Group A Offense Report Feb 2026.pdf
153
154
Offense Reported
in 2026
Reported
in 2025
Percent
Change
Offenses
Cleared
Percent
Cleared
Percent Of
Category
Rate Per
100,000*
Murder 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Negligent Manslaughter 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Justifiable Homicide 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Non-consensual Sex Offenses:

Rape 1 0 NA 0 0.00% 10.00% 3.13
Sodomy 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Sexual Assault with Object 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Fondling 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Aggravated Assault 3 1 200.00% 1 33.33% 30.00% 9.38
Simple Assault 6 4 50.00% 0 0.00% 60.00% 18.75
Intimidation 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Kidnapping/Abduction 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Consensual Sex Offenses:

Incest 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Statutory Rape 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Human Trafficking, Commercial
Sex Acts
0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Human Trafficking, Involuntary
Servitude
0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Crimes Against Persons Total 10 6 66.67% 1 10% 24.39% 31.25 Robbery 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Burglary/Breaking & Entering 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Larceny/Theft Offenses 6 5 20.00% 0 0.00% 50.00% 18.75
Motor Vehicle Theft 2 0 NA 1 50.00% 16.67% 6.25
Arson 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Destruction Of Property 3 3 0.00% 0 0.00% 25.00% 9.38
Counterfeiting/Forgery 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Fraud Offense 1 0 NA 1 100.00% 8.33% 3.13
Embezzlement 0 1 -100.00% 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Extortion/Blackmail 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Bribery 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Stolen Property Offenses 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Crimes Against Property Total 12 10 20% 2 16.67% 29.27% 37.5 Drug/Narcotic Violations 6 5 20.00% 6 100.00% 31.58% 18.75 Drug Equipment Violations 7 2 250.00% 7 100.00% 36.84% 21.88 Gambling Offenses 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Pornography/Obscene Material 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Prostitution 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Weapons Law Violation 6 1 500.00% 6 100.00% 31.58% 18.75 Animal Cruelty 0 0 NA 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00
Crimes Against Society Total 19 8 137.5% 19 100% 46.34% 59.38 Agency: BANNING PD
Total Group "A" Offenses 41 24 70.83% 22 53.66% 100% 128.13 Statewide Crime Profile * Adjusted population base: 32,000 2026 Crime in California

Note: The Rate per 100,000 will be 'NA' when the Adjusted Population Base is Zero.

Group A Offense Report
Beginning Date: 02/01/2026 Ending Date: 02/28/2026
Printed On: 03/16/2026

Page 1 of 1 ends

Banning City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Banning City Council
March 24, 2026