9. AVOIDING UNINTENTIONAL STATE ACTION
To prevent personal accounts from being treated as official accounts, do not respond to citizen inquiries about government matters on personal accounts, post operational updates, directives, or emergency information on personal accounts, use personal accounts to solicit public feedback on governmental decisions, use governmental resources (staff, logos, email) to manage personal accounts or take any other similar or related actions.
10. TRAINING AND COMPLIANCE
All public officials, including city staff, department heads, and elected officials must complete annual training on the policy, account classifications, moderation rules or practices, and documentation procedures. Officials must review account classifications annually.
11. ENFORCEMENT
Violations may result in corrective action, loss of account privileges, or disciplinary measures consistent with City policy and California law. The City reserves the right to restrict or remove any content that is deemed in violation of this Policy or any applicable law.
12. NO CHANGE TO PUBLIC RIGHTS
Nothing in this Policy shall be interpreted to:
1. Limit a person’s right to communicate with the City through any other lawful alternative communication channel or means;
2. Limit a person’s right to participate in a City public meeting or hearing;
3. Limit a person’s right to submit a public records request;
4. Limit a person’s right to criticize the City or its policies through alternative lawful communication channels or means;
5. Establish a restriction on speech outside official City social media accounts; or
6. Modify any right or obligation established by federal or state law.
13. DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
The agency will maintain (1) a registry of official accounts, (2) copies of social media guidelines, (3) training records, if applicable and (4) annual account classification reviews.
14. POLICY UPDATES
This policy will be reviewed annually by the City Manager or designee and updated to reflect new legal developments, including future court decisions affecting digital public forums. Any substantive amendment to this Policy shall be presented to the City Council for consideration and approval unless the City Council has expressly delegated authority to amend the policy to the City Manager or designee. This Policy may be revised at any time in the City’s sole and absolute discretion.
15. SEVERABILITY
986
Resolution 2026-XXX
If any provision of this Policy is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions.
16. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Policy shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council through Resolution No. 2026-XXXX.
987
CITY OF BANNING
STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Bassi, Interim Community Development Director MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: City Council Resolution of Support for the “Our Neighborhood Voices" Ballot Initiative to Amend Article IX of the California Constitution related to Zoning and Land Use Matters of Local Authority
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
A the request of Mayor Richard Royce, adopt Council Resolution No. 26-113 supporting the “Our Neighborhood Voices" Ballot Initiative.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has brought forward Council Resolution No. 26-113 that if adopted will support the “Our Neighborhood Voices" ballot initiative being sought by the grassroots nonprofit organization referred to as Our Neighborhood Voices. According to the nonprofit group, the Legislature of the State of California in recent years has proposed, and passed, and the Governor has signed into law more than 400 bills addressing a range of local land use, development, and planning issues.
It is their contention, that the majority of these new housing laws over the past several years in the State of California usurp the land use authority of local jurisdictions, including city councils, county boards of supervisors, planning departments, and mayoral offices, among others, to determine for themselves the land use, development, and planning policies that best suit their communities and residents, and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that fail to account for the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State.
If adopted by Council, Staff will forward the Resolution, on behalf of City Council, to the "Our Neighborhood Voices" organization as part of their effort to establish a potential ballot initiative to address these issues.
JUSTIFICATION:
n/a
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Resolution No. 2026-113 [8-25-26].docx
988
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BANNING, CALIFORNIA, OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE “OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
VOICES” BALLOT INITIATIVE TO AMEND ARTICLE IX OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO MAKE
ZONING, DEVELOPMENT, AND LAND USE MATTERS OF
LOCAL AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California in recent years has proposed, and passed, and the Governor has signed into law more than 400 bills addressing a range of local land use, development, and planning issues; and
WHEREAS, the majority of these new laws usurp the authority of local jurisdictions, including city councils, county boards of supervisors, planning departments, and mayoral offices, among others, to determine for themselves the land use, development, and planning policies that best suit their communities and residents, and instead impose “one-size-fits-all” mandates that fail to account for the unique needs and differences of local jurisdictions throughout the State; and WHEREAS, the majority of these new laws do not provide any incentives for low-income, affordable, or moderate income workforce housing, but instead impose mandates that incentivize real estate speculation and the construction of unneeded market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing on a theory of “trickle down” economics, thereby eliminating the authority and ability of local jurisdictions to implement effective policies to create more affordable housing and affirmatively further fair housing practices; and
WHEREAS, this “trickle down” approach to housing has demonstrably failed to produce the needed stock of low-income, affordable, and moderate income housing for working Californians, instead pushing millions of working individuals and families into housing insecurity, defined as individuals and families who spend 50% or more of their monthly income on housing, and WHEREAS, the ability of local jurisdictions to determine for themselves, based on their constituents’ and residents’ needs, which projects require review beyond ministerial approval; what off-street parking requirements are appropriate for different neighborhoods; what housing plans are appropriate for those neighborhoods; what zoning should be applied to those neighborhoods; what restrictions to place in high fire danger severity zones and other sensitive areas; and what types of housing are needed and appropriate, is a matter of critical importance to the City of Banning; and
WHEREAS the sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) allocation of 1673 new units imposed on the City of Banning bears no rational relationship to Banning’s actual housing needs, and amounts to an arbitrary and capricious state mandate; and WHEREAS, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units would force the City of Banning to approve development in open spaces, environmentally sensitive areas, high fire danger severity zones, and other areas inappropriate and/or dangerous for housing; and WHEREAS, the state mandated new construction of unneeded and inappropriate market rate, above market rate, and luxury housing via RHNA, most of which will be in dense, unaffordable new multifamily buildings, would place untenable and unsustainable stresses on local infrastructure, including but not limited to schools, police, sheriff, and fire resources, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power; and
989
WHEREAS, by failing to appropriate funds for necessary infrastructure upgrades, including but not limited to new schools and increased resources for police, sheriff, fire, sanitation, roads, public transit, and water and power, the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA units are an unfunded state mandate that violates Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California; and
WHEREAS the Council of the City of Banning hereby determines and declares that local governmental entities are best able to assess and respond to the unique needs of our communities and neighborhoods, and hereby objects to the proliferation of State legislation and sixth cycle RHNA mandates that deprives us of that ability;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BANNING HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Council of the City of Banning is opposed to the legislature of the State of California continually proposing and adopting legislation that overrides the zoning, development, and land use authority of local government and inhibits the ability of local government to effectively plan for and implement policies to stimulate the efficient production of affordable and workforce housing.
SECTION 2. That the Council of the City of Banning hereby finds and declares that the sixth cycle RHNA mandate of 1673 units by 2029 bears no rational relationship to Banning’s actual housing needs, is arbitrary and capricious, and would be a physical impossibility to meet.
SECTION 3. That the Council of the City of Banning hereby finds and declares that the state mandated sixth cycle RHNA requirements are an illegal unfunded mandate in violation of Article XIIIB, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of California.
SECTION 4. That the Council of the City of Banning supports and endorses the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of California put forth by the grassroots nonprofit Our Neighborhood Voices to ensure that zoning and land use authority rests with the local government entities that represent the communities in which the residents reside, and to allow local government to participate in solving our affordable housing crisis through solutions that effectively address the unique needs and conditions of each local community.
SECTION 5. That the Council of the City of Banning incorporates each recital set forth herein above.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on this 25th day of August, 2026.
Richard Royce, Mayor
City of Banning
ATTEST:
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning
990
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Phaedra Norton, City Attorney
Slovak, Baron, Empey, Murphy &
Pinkney, LLP
991
CERTIFICATION:
I, Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Banning, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution 2026-113, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Banning, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 25th day of August, 2026 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sandra Calderon, Deputy City Clerk
City of Banning, California
992
CITY OF BANNING
STAFF REPORT
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Gibbs, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 25, 2026
SUBJECT: Discussion and Direction on a Proposed Ordinance Modifying Banning Municipal Code Section 2.04.070 - Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discussion and direction to staff on preparing a draft ordinance setting an annual rotation for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore
BACKGROUND:
The City of Banning is a general law city with a five-member City Council. Consistent with California Government Code Section 36801 et seq., the Mayor is not directly elected by the voters; rather, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore are selected annually by and from among the members of the City Council. This process is currently governed by Banning Municipal Code Section 2.04.070 (Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem).
Banning's approach to this selection has changed over time. Prior to 2013, the City Council followed an informal rotation practice under which Council members moved into the Mayor position in turn, regardless of length of service on the Council. In 2013, the Council moved away from automatic rotation in favor of an annual appointment decided by majority vote of the Council at the reorganization meeting.
In practice, this vote-based approach has at times resulted in closely divided outcomes (for example, a 3-2 vote in December 2015), which can create the perception – accurate or not – that the selection of Mayor is influenced by shifting Council alliances rather than an objective, predictable standard.
At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Barrington, staff is bringing this item forward to give the Council an opportunity to discuss whether returning to a rotation-based system – this time using a defined, senioritybased order rather than the pre-2013 informal practice – would better serve the City's interests in predictability, continuity, and reduced potential for political division over an annual procedural matter. A number of California general law cities with at-large or by-district council elections and an appointed (rather than directly elected) Mayor use a codified seniority-based rotation for this purpose. Some examples from Riverside County include:
Rancho Mirage - Longest-serving member without prior mayoral service becomes Mayor; secondlongest becomes Mayor Pro Tem; ties broken by vote total from the most recent election; selection occurs at the second regular November meeting (or at installation of new members in election years). 993
Indian Wells - Same formula, same tiebreaker; members need at least one year of service to be eligible; selection at the first December meeting.
Cathedral City - Codified rotation, but using a standing list rather than a "longest service" formula:
outgoing Mayor Pro Tem automatically becomes Mayor, the outgoing Mayor drops to the bottom of the list, new members are inserted by a card draw if tied, and the Council can override the list with a 3/4 vote.
Calimesa - a formal seniority rotation (one year of service before eligibility, no consecutive terms unless everyone else declines, outgoing member to the back of the line), but adopted by resolution rather than confirmed as a standalone Municipal Code ordinance.
Beaumont - Selection occurs at the Council's first regular December meeting in a year when no seat is up for election, or at the second regular or special December meeting in a year when seats are up for election. The Council member with the most years in office is next in line for Mayor; the second-mostsenior is next for Mayor Pro Tem. After a term as Mayor, that member moves to the back of the rotation and everyone else advances one spot, so the sitting Mayor Pro Tem becomes Mayor and the next member in line becomes the new Mayor Pro Tem. A newly elected or appointed member is inserted in the fourth position — after all incumbents but ahead of the outgoing Mayor; if two or more new members arrive together, they're ordered by votes received, fewest votes placed last (still ahead of the outgoing Mayor). Re-elected incumbents keep their existing spot, and if a member leaves the rotation for any reason, everyone behind them moves up.
Perris, Moreno Valley, Menifee, Desert Hot Springs, Coachella, La Quinta, and Riverside all have directly elected Mayors.
JUSTIFICATION:
Any ordinance ultimately drafted would need to be reviewed by the City Attorney and adapted, as necessary, to Banning's election sequencing (district-based elections), the current Council's actual seniority order, and any other provisions of Banning Municipal Code Chapter 2.04 the Council wishes to retain.
If Council so chooses, staff requests direction on the following questions so that a formal draft ordinance can be prepared for a future meeting:
1. Does the Council wish to direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare a formal ordinance amending BMC Section 2.04.070 or does the Council wish to pursue a different approach?
2. Should the rotation be adopted by ordinance so that it is binding on future Councils, or by Council policy/resolution, which would be easier to revisit but carry less legal weight?
3. Should the three-affirmative-votes ratification threshold be retained for Banning's five-member Council, or adjusted?
4. How should the initial rotation sequence be established for the current City Council when the ordinance first takes effect, and should any current Council member's prior mayoral service be credited or disregarded in setting that initial order?
5. Does the Council wish to retain a differentiated December meeting timing (the first Council meeting in December in a non-election year, versus the second regular or special meeting in December in an election year), or would the Council prefer a single fixed date each year?
6. What is the desired effective date, and should the new procedure first apply beginning with the December 2026 reorganization meeting or a later one, to allow time for adoption and any required noticing?
994
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. BMC Chapter 2.04.070.pdf
995
A.
1. 2.
3. 4.
B.
C.
D.
2.04.070 - Appointment of mayor and mayor pro tem.
General/Annual Appointments.
The City of Banning has a council/manager form of municipal government. All five members of the city council are elected at large to four-year terms. The mayor serves as the nominal head of the council and the mayor pro tem serves as the locum tenens in the absence of the mayor. Additionally, the city has related agencies, including the successor agency to the former community redevelopment agency and the Banning housing authority. These related entities have various officers, including a chair person and vice chairperson.
The city council shall choose one of its members as mayor and one of its members as mayor pro tem every other year at the meeting at which the declaration of the municipal election results and the installation of the newly elected officers is made pursuant to sections 10262 and 10264 of the California Elections Code, following the declaration of the election results. Additionally, in the intervening years, the organizational meeting shall be held at the first meeting in December. The term of service for both mayor and mayor pro tem shall be for a period of one year from the date of appointment or until their successor is appointed. No person may become mayor or mayor pro tem unless a majority of the council votes to approve the action.
A councilmember may be elected to a maximum of two consecutive one-year terms in the same office.
The mayor shall serve as the chair of the successor agency to the former community redevelopment agency and as chair to the housing authority. The mayor pro tem shall serve as the vice chair of the successor agency to the former community redevelopment agency and as vice chair to the housing authority.
Removal. With a majority vote of the body, any officer holding any office governed by this section may be replaced; but in general, such changes should not be made in midterm, and if made, a replacement officer shall be appointed as stated above in subsection 2.04.070(A).
Office of the Mayor Pro Tem. The mayor pro tem will serve as mayor in the event of the absence of the mayor and will be appointed as the mayor when there is a vacancy in the office of mayor.
Manual of Procedures to Govern. All other terms and procedures associated with the seats of mayor/chair, mayor pro tem/vice chair shall be governed by that "Manual of Procedural Guidelines for the Conduct of City Council and Constituent Body/Commission Meetings for the City of Banning" adopted on October 23, 2012 and as may be amended from time to time.
(Ord. No. 1442, § 2, 10-25-11; Ord. No. 1457, § 1, 11-13-12; Ord. No. 1458, § 1, 10-23-12; Ord. No. 1471, § 2, 10-8-13) 8/21/26, 1:46 PM Banning, CA Code of Ordinances
about:blank 1/1
996
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (C001048) FOR
DESIGN OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL HARDWARE UPGRADE BY AND
BETWEEN CITY OF BANNING AND STC TRAFFIC, INC.
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES (“Amendment No. 1”) by and between the CITY OF BANNING (“City”) and STC TRAFFIC, INC., a California Corporation (“Consultant”) is effective as of this day: ______________.
RECITALS
A. City and Consultant entered into that certain Contract dated July 9, 2024 for the purpose of providing Professional Design Services (“Agreement”) following RFP #24-064 for the performance of the services for Design of Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrade, as approved by City Council Resolution 2024-119.
B. City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Term of the Agreement.
The Parties therefore agree follows:
1. Amended Terms. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:
1.1 The Term of the Agreement, as set forth in Section 3.4 of the Agreement, is hereby extended through September 30, 2026, unless sooner terminated or extended as provided in the Agreement.
2. Miscellaneous Provisions
2.1 Continued Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 1, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 and the provisions of the Agreement or Amendment No. 1 the provisions of this Amendment No. 1 shall control.
2.2 Consideration for Amendment. The parties hereby agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the modifications to the Agreement set forth in this Amendment No. 1.
2.3 Authority. The persons executing this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of the parties hereto warrant that (i) such party is duly organized and existing, (ii) they are duly authorized to execute and deliver this Amendment No. 1 on behalf of said party, (iii) by so executing this Amendment No. 1, such party is formally bound to the provisions of this Amendment No. 1, and (iv) entering into this Amendment No.
Docusign Envelope ID: 173A0108-BAE5-42D4-A4C7-E09453AE43B2 9/17/2025
459 997
1 does not violate any provision of any other agreement to which said party is bound.
2.4 Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together will constitute one instrument.
2.5 Electronic Signatures. Each Party may adopt as its signature an electronic identification consisting of a symbol or code that is affixed to or contained in each document transmitted by such Party (“electronic signature”). The Parties hereto herby agree that electronic signatures are acceptable, shall have the same force and effect under the law as original wet signatures, and shall be sufficient to verify that the Parties have executed this Agreement and such other documents transmitted by the Parties.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
Docusign Envelope ID: 173A0108-BAE5-42D4-A4C7-E09453AE43B2 460 998
The Parties are signing this Amendment No. 1 on the date stated in the introductory clause.
CITY OF BANNING STC TRAFFIC INC
Art Vela,
Interim City Manager
NAME:
TITLE:
City Council Approval: _______________ NAME:
TITLE:
ATTEST:
Sandra Calderon
Acting Administrative City Clerk
NOTE: PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO BIND CONTRACTING PARTY REQUIRED.
APPROPRIATE ATTESTATIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE
BYLAWS, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, OR OTHER RULES OR REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSULTANT’S BUSINESS ENTITY.
Docusign Envelope ID: 173A0108-BAE5-42D4-A4C7-E09453AE43B2 Jason Stack
President
2024-119
461 999