Our position · November 3, 2026
We want good jobs and homes people can afford. We also want development that takes care of the neighbors already here. We oppose these three approvals tied to Sunset Crossroads.
Read the official ballot questions ↗Ordinance 1618 changes zoning for commercial, industrial, and open-space uses south of I-10 and west of Sunset Avenue.
We oppose this warehouse expansion between the Sun Lakes and Serrano del Vista senior communities, across Sunset Avenue from MSJC’s San Gorgonio Pass Campus. The City’s own review finds significant air pollution impacts would remain even after measures to reduce them. The people who live and study here deserve stronger protections.
Ordinance 1619 allows higher-density housing on 41 acres near Westward and Sunset. Section 3 says it moves housing capacity from another site to make room for commercial and industrial development.
We oppose moving housing capacity to make room for this industrial project. In November 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5–0 to recommend denying the linked MSJC rezoning. Our housing proposal starts with one downtown site for homes at different income levels, with affordability requirements and deadlines in the agreement.
Ordinance 1620 approves a 30-year agreement with NP Banning Industrial.
This 30-year agreement doesn’t set a local hiring goal. We want enforceable hiring commitments for construction and the ongoing jobs once businesses open, apprenticeship opportunities, and public reports showing how many local residents get hired.
Later public-benefit payments depend on warehouse occupancy and can shrink through tax credits. A separate provision reduces the services assessment when industrial properties generate City sales tax. We want a year-by-year accounting of what Banning keeps after costs, credits, and reimbursements, with reliable funding for road maintenance and services.
If the City misses its annual review, section 7.5 treats the developer as compliant. Other enforcement options remain. We want a public review calendar, published compliance reports, and follow-up when obligations aren’t met.
Look at the whole project
The City lists 4,749,000 square feet of industrial space and 223,753 of retail. About 95.5% of those combined building areas is industrial. The developer’s downloadable flyer leaves those figures out.
Part of the site already had commercial zoning before this plan. We want a clear answer on whether Sam’s Club could move forward as a separate retail project. The zoning alone doesn’t guarantee it would.
The advertised 3,700-plus permanent jobs are a projection. We found no minimum job count or wage guarantee for those permanent jobs in the development agreement. We want commitments residents can hold the developer to.
Check the figures, agreement, and sources ↗Chris’s explanation · Planning Commission
On November 17, 2025, I seconded the motion recommending denial of Sunset Crossroads and voted for it. The Planning Commission recommended denial 3–2. I also seconded and supported the 5–0 recommendation to deny the related MSJC rezoning.
Since becoming Planning Commission chair in July, I’ve asked to put stronger citywide rules for battery energy storage systems (BESS), ICE detention facilities, and data centers on the agenda. I’ve followed up every month. As of September 26, that discussion still hasn’t been scheduled.
On September 2, nearly every resident who spoke opposed data centers, ICE detention facilities, and BESS, but urged us not to take a vote that night. Residents also raised concerns about acting while the referendum was pending.
Marco Santana spoke too. He warned that weak definitions could leave a path for the developer to pursue the very uses the amendment was supposed to prohibit.
I asked to continue the hearing to the next meeting. The proposal applied only to Sunset Crossroads and still allowed certain battery storage. I was the only commissioner to vote no because I believed the language left too many loopholes. I wanted stronger protections and time to address the concerns residents brought to us.
Banning deserves clear, enforceable protections across the city. I’ll keep pushing to get this on the agenda and make sure residents have a voice in the rules that shape their neighborhoods.
Updated October 14: the September 2 official minutes are now available. They record Chris’s motion to continue the hearing, which failed for lack of a second, and the 4–1 recommendation. The October 13 Council staff report identifies Castorena as the no vote. His requests since July and reasons for his vote remain his account. The staff recommendation tied effectiveness to the referendum results; we have not verified the Council’s October 13 disposition.
Each measure is a separate vote. YES approves that ordinance; NO rejects it. This page gives our campaign’s position. The links above lead to City documents and clearly labeled campaign commentary.
Sources reviewed September 26, 2026.
Ask a question, volunteer, or share the plan with a neighbor.