Questions and Concerns Submitted to Banning City Council

Following the October 27, 2026, City Council meeting, I am sharing the 3rd written request letter I sent to the Banning City Council regarding the Sunset Crossroads project, the November 3 ballot measures (U, V, and W), and the recent approval of the Specific Plan Amendment.

Despite attending meetings, submitting public comments, and seeking clarification from City officials, several important questions remain unanswered. These include questions about the legal and procedural basis for certain actions, the relationship between the amendment and the three ballot measures, and how these decisions may affect the public’s understanding of what they are voting on.

I believe Banning residents deserve clear, consistent, and transparent answers before making decisions that will affect our community for decades to come.

I am sharing my letter below so residents can review the questions directly and understand the concerns I have asked the City to address.

________________________________

Date: Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 8:00 AM
Subject: Follow-Up to October 27 Meeting: Unanswered Questions Regarding Specific Plan Amendment 26-0001
To: John Pinkney <pinkney@sbemp.com>, Phaedra Norton <norton@sbemp.com>, Elizabeth Gibbs <egibbs@banningca.gov>, Richard Royce <rroyce@banningca.gov>, Colleen Wallace <cwallace@banningca.gov>, Sheri Flynn <sflynn@banningca.gov>, Cynthia Barrington <cbarrington@banningca.gov>, cityclerks <CityClerks@banningca.gov>, Leroy Miller <lmiller@banningca.gov>

Dear Mayor, City Council Members, City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney,

I am following up on my October 13 written request regarding Specific Plan Amendment 26-0001, as well as my public comments at the October 13 and October 27 City Council meetings.

I am deeply disappointed that, despite submitting my questions in writing twice and raising them during two public comment periods, several substantive questions remain unanswered. During the October 27 meeting, various topics were discussed, but discussing a topic is not the same as answering the specific question being asked. I was particularly disappointed that Council members did not seek clarification when my questions were not directly addressed.

The Council proceeded to approve the amendment seven days before the November 3 election, while several questions concerning its legal basis, interpretation, and practical implications remained unresolved.

The remaining concerns are outlined below.

1. Legal Authority to Proceed During the Pending Referendum — Position Provided; Legal Basis Remains Unclear

The City Attorney has stated that the amendment may proceed, but the specific legal authority or controlling precedent supporting that position under these circumstances remains unclear.

The resolution is expressly linked to the three ordinances Banning voters are deciding on November 3, while the referendum is underway and ballots have already been cast. Proceeding under these circumstances creates confusion about how the amendment relates to the ballot measures and what voters are actually deciding.

2. Clarity and Enforceability of the Amended Provisions — Not Answered

My questions about the clarity, interpretation, and legal enforceability of the amended provisions were not substantively answered.

What steps has the City taken to ensure that all four amended provisions clearly establish which uses are permitted and prohibited and cannot be interpreted inconsistently in future project reviews?

3. Other Permitted Uses and Potential Resource Impacts — Not Answered

I asked whether the City evaluated the potential water consumption and other resource impacts of additional industrial uses listed in the Specific Plan’s permitted-use table but not expressly addressed in the City’s zoning ordinances. This included computer and electronic component manufacturing and assembly.

Has the City evaluated these uses’ potential resource impacts, and where can the public review that analysis?

4. The ICE Detention Facility Prohibition — Not Answered

I asked whether the prohibition on ICE detention facilities also addresses other types of detention facilities, given the separate provision allowing public utility and safety facilities.

Could a detention facility operated by another agency or proposed under a different land-use classification still be considered a permitted use under the existing provisions?

5. Scope of the CEQA Determination — Answered

I acknowledge the clarification provided at the meeting that this amendment does not prevent additional environmental review of future development proposals when required by law. Thank you for addressing that concern.

6. The 15-Day Appeal Period and Effective Date — Not Answered

My question about the appeal process remains unanswered. The staff materials describe a 15-day period following election certification before the amendment becomes effective if the specified voting conditions are met. Staff also previously referenced a 15-day appeal period.

Are these separate periods or do they overlap? Who may appeal, what can be challenged, and could an appeal delay the amendment’s effectiveness?

During the October 27 meeting, the City Attorney indicated that she could not address the earlier discussion because she had not attended the Planning Commission meeting. However, my question concerns the applicable appeal procedures and deadlines, not simply what was said at that meeting. I still have no clear answer.

7. Different Outcomes for Measures U, V, and W — Not Answered

During the October 27 meeting, the City explained that if all three measures receive majority Yes votes, the amendment would move forward, and if all three receive majority No votes, it would not move forward. However, the outcome if the measures receive mixed results was not clarified.

If one or two measures pass while the remaining measure does not, what happens to the amendment? Would it become entirely null and void, or could some portion take effect independently? Please clarify how the resolution addresses these mixed voting outcomes.

I recognize that these questions involve legal and technical issues. However, I have made repeated efforts to obtain clarification, both in writing and during public meetings. I am disappointed that the Council proceeded with approval without ensuring that these specific questions were adequately addressed.

I respectfully request written responses to the outstanding questions, identifying applicable legal provisions, procedural requirements, and supporting documentation where appropriate.

Please include this correspondence in the public record associated with Specific Plan Amendment 26-0001.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to receiving a substantive written response.

Sincerely,

Tara Hagye
Banning Resident