What was recommended, what was approved, and what voters will decide.

On November 17, 2025, the Planning Commission adopted its recommendation to deny the Sunset Crossroads project applications by a 3–2 vote. Chris Castorena seconded the motion and voted for denial, along with Kathleen Dale and Gerry Phelps. Al Marshall and Nathaniel Rodriguez voted against the denial recommendation. The resolution followed the Commission’s November 5 direction.

The Commission also voted 5–0 to recommend denying the related MSJC rezoning, which would transfer housing capacity from the Sunset Crossroads site. Chris seconded that motion too. These were recommendations to the City Council on the proposals before the Commission in November 2025, separate from the September 2026 amendment.

The City’s March 10, 2026 staff report identifies significant, unavoidable impacts even after mitigation: air emissions from project operations, greenhouse gases, employee vehicle miles traveled, and certain construction noise along Sunset Avenue.

The noise finding concerns road and utility construction where a noise barrier might not be possible. The transportation finding concerns miles driven per employee, not a finding about intersection congestion. Other impacts were found less than significant or reduced to that level through mitigation.

The City’s approval notice confirms that it adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, accepting remaining significant impacts based on the project’s expected benefits. We believe those remaining impacts call for stronger protections for the people already here.

The developer’s downloadable flyer mentions reduced industrial development, but gives neither the industrial square footage nor its share of the listed building area. This describes the flyer linked below, not every mailer sent to residents.

The developer advertises Sam’s Club and says the project’s benefits won’t move forward if the measures fail. The City’s environmental report shows that the northeast corner already had a General Commercial designation before this plan. Commercial zoning there wasn’t created by the warehouse proposal.

That earlier zoning doesn’t guarantee Sam’s Club would open under a separate proposal. A separate retail project would still need applicable approvals, infrastructure, and a willing developer and tenant. We haven’t verified a tenant commitment covering that alternative. The development agreement requires commercial construction, but section 3.11 doesn’t name Sam’s Club.

The developer currently advertises 3,700-plus permanent jobs. These are operational jobs: the ongoing jobs at the warehouses and businesses once they open. The agreement doesn’t set a local hiring goal or require any share of the jobs to go to local residents. We found no minimum number of permanent jobs or guaranteed pay for those jobs. Section 5.10.7 requires tenants to notify the City of their hiring plans at least two weeks before they start operations, and the City must notify residents. The agreement also lists a job fair among its benefits. Those provisions don’t guarantee employment for Banning residents.

The number is a projection. Its absence from the agreement doesn’t, by itself, prove the projection is false.

The developer’s nearly $1 billion figure describes private investment. It isn’t a statement of the developer’s revenue or profit. Its website separately advertises $44 million in new City revenue, $37.2 million for services and infrastructure, and nearly $3 million in annual City revenue. Those figures need a clear breakdown before they can be compared or added together.

The agreement requires a nonrefundable $3 million first public-benefit payment within 60 days of its effective date. A separate $250,000 downtown or small-business grant installment is due in that same period. Later public-benefit installments depend on warehouse occupancy and can be reduced by up to $2 million in industrial sales-tax credits.

There are also infrastructure contributions, fees, and possible reimbursements. For example, the fire-station and equipment payments have five-year backstops; part of the electrical-substation contribution can be reimbursed under section 5.9.3. We haven’t verified $40 million as a cap on everything the City would receive over 30 years, or as its net financial benefit.

Section 6.2.2(e) creates another offset: the industrial properties’ annual services special taxes are reduced by the prior year’s City sales-tax revenue generated by industrial properties within the district. The City still receives that sales tax, but the separate services assessment falls. The two revenue streams can’t simply be added together as independent benefits. This offset is separate from the public-benefit payment credits above.

We want a public, year-by-year accounting of revenue, credits, reimbursements, and service costs, including road maintenance. These provisions alone don’t establish a net loss. Residents deserve to see what Banning would actually keep after covering its costs.

Section 7 requires an annual compliance review, a developer monitoring report, and public hearings. But section 7.5 says that if the City fails to conduct an annual review, the developer is deemed to be complying with the agreement.

That doesn’t erase every enforcement option. The agreement allows special reviews and enforcement proceedings, and the City isn’t bound by a compliance certificate if a default was concealed or unknown at the time of review. Still, residents shouldn’t have to rely on City Hall meeting a deadline to get a meaningful check on compliance.

We want a public review calendar, published compliance reports, and documented follow-up when obligations aren’t met.

Building or improving a road is different from paying for its upkeep. Section 5.10.1 requires the owner to maintain private roads. Exhibit G-2 requires maintenance of covered improvements until City acceptance and release of the related security. It also provides a one-year workmanship and materials warranty, while preserving other duties under applicable law.

We didn’t find a ten-year repaving requirement or exemption in this agreement. The question still needing a clear public answer is who pays for future resurfacing of each public road, and whether the funding covers the expected wear. The one-year warranty doesn’t mean all developer responsibility ends after a year.

The proposal concerns Sunset Crossroads, not a citywide ban. It would prohibit ICE detention facilities and data centers in the plan’s commercial and industrial districts. Stand-alone battery storage would be prohibited, but building-code-required battery storage serving an industrial project’s own energy use would remain allowed.

The staff packet recommends making any Council approval effective only if all three referendum measures pass, 15 days after election certification. It doesn’t propose canceling the referendum. The Commission’s role was to make a recommendation to the Council.