[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[1:52] All right. Good evening, neighbors. Thank you all for being here.
[1:55] We're going to call this planning commission meeting to order on September 2nd at 535 p.m.
[2:02] Please stand for the pledge of allegiance and commissioner, let me in there. Would you like to lead us in the pledge?
[2:10] Wonderful.
[2:34] All right. Can we get a roll call, please?
[2:40] Good evening, everyone.
[2:42] Chair, castor Reina.
[2:44] Here.
[2:47] Commissioner Evans.
[2:50] Present.
[2:51] Commissioner Light, I.I.N.A. Air, Commissioner Marshal, Commissioner Veliserie.
[2:58] Thank you.
[3:00] Wonderful.
[3:01] We'll move on to item number two, public comments.
[3:06] So, neighbors, you'll have three minutes to address all this on anything that is not on the agenda.
[3:12] Please state your name for the record, and you can not share your time with another individual.
[3:18] So the floor is yours.
[3:25] Any on Zoom?
[3:39] Looking at your meal, okay?
[3:48] Go ahead, Marcos.
[3:50] Thank you.
[3:52] So yeah, my name is Marcos Santana,
[3:54] and I am a lifelong banding resident.
[3:57] I wanted to start by saying that I think this amendment is moving to conversation
[4:01] and the right direction.
[4:03] Questions about ice attention centers, facilities,
[4:07] data centers, a standalone battery storage?
[4:09] Do you hear me?
[4:10] Yeah, so this is about anything that is not on the agenda today.
[4:15] Got it.
[4:16] Yeah.
[4:16] Anything outside of that is for you.
[4:19] Got it.
[4:20] Okay. Well, I'll wait till the later discussion item, apologies for that.
[4:23] Thank you.
[4:23] No worries. Thank you for calling in.
[4:26] All right.
[4:27] Any public comment from the audience on the item not on the agenda tonight?
[4:33] Okay.
[4:33] Seeing none, no more online.
[4:36] All right.
[4:37] We will close item number three.
[4:39] Item number two, apologies.
[4:40] And we'll move on to, I'm number three, the consent agenda, 3.1, the Planning Commission meeting minutes from August 5th, 2026, and the, oh yeah.
[4:53] So, commissioners, any corrections to the August 5 minutes?
[4:57] Yes, section 9 for adjournment, it's set.
[5:00] Is that Commissioner Marshall made a motion and then was seconded by Commissioner Marshall? It's actually
[5:07] I seconded it. So you have him listed as both. So it was Marshall for motioning and then I seconded it. Thank you.
[5:19] Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Evans? Yes. I did find on the staff report, I did see that there was
[5:27] In correct city and I just wanted to make sure that that was noted that the planning it's state it's that the planning department of the city of Wildomar
[5:36] And
[5:37] Wanted to ensure that that was correct?
[5:42] Is that in the minutes?
[5:43] No, this was on the staff report the project applicant
[5:48] For item 4.1
[5:53] This was the staff report that came along with the planning commission meeting minutes
[6:03] Is
[6:04] that are also the minutes commission. I'm sorry. I'm not seeing that. Good commission.
[6:12] It's on the maybe I'm stepping here, but this is for September today's staff report.
[6:21] So.
[6:21] Yes, so we're talking about the August fifth minute meeting minutes.
[6:25] Okay, I did see cold citation.
[6:28] The staff report size government.
[6:30] co-section for 801 while the certification states that it was 40801 and I just wanted to see if
[6:38] that was a correct citation.
[6:43] Again, you talking about item 4.1?
[6:45] Yes.
[6:46] Okay, we can wait till we get to that item.
[6:49] Yes.
[6:49] So when we go through commission discussion, this is on the August, just on the August meeting
[6:54] minute from last month.
[6:56] Okay.
[6:56] Okay, this was, okay.
[7:00] I do, and there was one other thing that mentioned the data centers was a comment made by myself.
[7:08] They're left unfinished, and I'm not sure where the sentence was going, that we're in the minute.
[7:14] So if that can just be reconciled,
[7:20] the pronoun of those minutes with me, it's just from recollection.
[7:29] And I believe that should be towards the end of them, Mr. Rassie.
[7:40] I'm trying to find in the minutes where you made that comment commissioner.
[7:47] I think they're a correction to the record.
[7:55] Okay. Well, we'll take a look at that.
[7:57] Okay. Awesome. Commissioners, any other notes on the August fifth meeting minutes?
[8:04] No.
[8:06] No.
[8:06] All right.
[8:07] Would anyone like to make a motion with the corrections?
[8:12] I will motion to accept the meeting minutes from August with those adjustments.
[8:17] May.
[8:19] Can we get a second?
[8:23] I'll second that.
[8:25] All right.
[8:26] Roll call.
[8:33] Jerk Asturina.
[8:35] Hi.
[8:36] Commissioner Evans.
[8:39] Commissioner Light A&A.
[8:41] Commissioner Marshall.
[8:42] Yes.
[8:43] Commissioner Valdezary. Yes. Thank you. All right motion passes. You can submit accepted. Now let's move on to item number four public hearings 4.1 specific plan specific plan amendment number 26 to Ash 0 0 0 1 by NP banning industrial LLC for the sunset crossroads specific plan.
[9:10] Take it away.
[9:12] Mr. Secretary.
[9:13] Chair Castrana and fellow members of the Planning Commission, as you mentioned, item 4.1
[9:17] for specific climate amendment 26, dash triple 01, and amendment 2 sunset crossroads
[9:23] specific plan table 3-1.
[9:26] So the project before you as I just mentioned is an amendment to a focus amendment on table 3-1
[9:32] of the sunset crossroads specific plan to bribe it ice detention facilities and data centers
[9:37] and to limit battery energy storage systems, otherwise known as BES.
[9:44] Just some quick background, the Sunset Crossroads specific plan was approved by the City Council on March 10th,
[9:50] 2026, approving a general plan amendment, zone change, ten of parcel map 3-8-118,
[9:56] and the development agreement and a certification of the project EIR.
[10:00] Council members, commissioners, and the general public express their concerns about the industrial buildings possibly being used as these ice detention facilities, data centers, and standalone battery energy storage systems, as these uses can't create significant land use in environmental impacts, and it's not a desirable use in the specific planned area.
[10:23] The project summary, the applicant MP banning industrial LLC, submitted a proposed amendment to table 3-1.
[10:32] It is exhibit A on attachment one, which is the resolution before you.
[10:37] Ice detention facilities and data centers are prohibited in the general commercial and industrial land use districts.
[10:44] The best systems are to be prohibited as a primary use, but will be allowed as ancillary energy storage,
[10:51] to exclusively serve a building specific energy needs when required by the California Building Code.
[11:00] Again, the detention facilities, data centers, and standalone alone, not alone.
[11:04] Best facilities are incompatible with other uses that are allowed in Table 3-1.
[11:10] These uses can impact the retail commercial and light industrial uses of the project area.
[11:14] They can result in significant local impacts and create new sense concerns within the specific
[11:21] plan area and surrounding neighborhoods, and the applicant is requesting the planning
[11:25] commission support to amend table 3-1 to provide these uses in the specific plan.
[11:33] So the applicant has submitted a risk letter, it's the attachment five to the staff report.
[11:39] They're recognizing the sunset crossroads specific plan approvals or subject to a local referendum
[11:43] vote at the November 3rd, 2026 General Election, the specific plan in this proposed amendment
[11:49] cannot be and will not be effective until the outcome of the referendum is determined.
[11:55] The Planning Commission Resolution before you, 2026-03, includes language to stay the
[12:00] effective date of the council's eventual council resolution until after the outcome of the election.
[12:08] The Environmental Determination, per the California Environmental Quality Act, staff is determined
[12:14] the project is exempt from further environmental review, per section 1, 5, 1, 8, 3 of the
[12:19] SQL guidelines, these proposed amendments to prohibit the ICE detention centers, data centers,
[12:26] and to limit best facilities are consistent with the general plan and since the crossroads,
[12:31] specific plan table 3-1 of permitted uses. They're prohibited in limited uses of the potential
[12:37] causing additional environmental impacts and nuisance concerns, and these uses are inconsistent
[12:43] as we've stated with the other permitted and conditionally permitted uses and table 3-1,
[12:49] which were reviewed in the Certified EIAR, and in notice of exemption will be filed for the project.
[12:56] This is some detail, apologize for the small font. The little more detail on the
[13:03] environment or the sequence exemption of 15183 specifically to subsection A, the projects that are
[13:15] the specific plan or general plan for which the NERR was certified, a public agency shall limit
[13:21] it.
[13:22] It's examination of the environmental effects that the agency determines.
[13:28] If they are peculiar to the project site or project location, if they were not analyzed
[13:32] as significant effects in a prior EIR, are potentially significant off-site impacts or community
[13:39] a commutative impact, not discussed in the prior EIR, or our previously identified significant
[13:46] impacts which were not known at the time the EIR was certified and that's subsection
[13:51] B. And then there's a couple of subsections and subsection D that should only apply
[13:58] to projects that meet the following conditions if it is consistent with a community plan or
[14:03] specific plan adopted with the general plan. Project is consistent with the zoning actions,
[14:08] specific plan action that was taken, where the project is located, and the project is consistent
[14:13] with the general plan of a local agency.
[14:15] Those are subsections D1A, 1B and 1C.
[14:21] The specific plan findings are four findings that are outlined in the staff report and the approval
[14:27] resolution that the specific plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan,
[14:32] would not be detrimental to the environment, to the public interest, health safety
[14:36] convenience or welfare of the city, this physically suitable for the requested land use
[14:41] designations and anticipated developments, and that the amendment shall ensure development
[14:46] of desirable character which will be compatible with the existing and proposed development
[14:50] in the surrounding neighborhood, and in this case the items are being prohibited or extremely
[14:55] limited in their allowance.
[14:58] So with that, staff.
[15:00] We recommend that the Planning Commission adopt resolution 2026-03, we're recommending to the City Council approval of specific plan amendment, PSV26-Triple01.
[15:15] That concludes our presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have, but I think we'll start with a comment from our city attorney that he wants to make regarding the project.
[15:26] Right, so I've been asked to comment on an issue that might raise some questions during the hearing and so I'd like to address that now.
[15:37] And that is the fact that there is a referendum pending relative to the ordinances that this specific plan is related to.
[15:50] So, this specific plan in question is not a direct subject of the referenda, and this amendment to this specific plan is permissible because it will only go into effect if the referendum approves the ordinances that it relates to.
[16:19] So, if the referendum vote is to not approve the ordinances, this specific plan
[16:29] amendment will never go into effect.
[16:32] So it's not going to create any kind of conflict or inconsistency with the current referendum.
[16:41] Is that what you had in mind?
[16:43] Yes.
[16:44] Okay.
[16:44] Thank you.
[16:48] So again, I'm available for any questions you may have before we open the public hearing.
[16:54] Does anybody our fellow commissioners, do we have any factual questions?
[16:59] We'll hold any opinions or robust discussion until after public hearing.
[17:07] I did have a few.
[17:11] Can we pull a table 3.1?
[17:31] Can you
[17:36] explain these changes in simple terms that we're reviewing right now?
[17:44] on the 3.1.
[17:46] Sure, and I'm going to go to the top just to give everybody a reference because the label is all the way up here.
[17:52] I apologize for going too far now.
[17:55] Okay, so exhibit A, which is attached to the resolution, is this table 3-1, which is in the sunset crossroads specific plan.
[18:05] And this is the list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the specific plan area.
[18:11] in the general commercial and industrial zone locations.
[18:16] And towards the bottom are the three uses that are in question this evening.
[18:22] I will start with the first one here.
[18:25] Battery energy storage systems.
[18:29] These are essentially the commercial or industrial versions of what you might do at your home,
[18:33] when you install solar panels on a roof and you have a whatever battery pack in your garage.
[18:39] That's the back of power if you ever was power.
[18:42] So at some point commercial use is going to be the norm.
[18:47] It isn't quite yet.
[18:48] There is in some areas.
[18:50] You ever look at aerial photos.
[18:51] You'll see industrial buildings.
[18:54] Their roofs are covered with the solar panels.
[18:57] In their either contributing to their building or to the grid in the area.
[19:01] So there may be a need for these buildings to have some smaller version of this.
[19:07] But the prohibition here is that in permit exclusively to serve the project energy use when required by the California building code. So a stand alone is not permitted in this case.
[19:19] So that's what the note is signifying here. And then the second item is the ice detention facilities. These weren't this was not a line item in this table before, but it has been added towards the bottom of page 3-14.
[19:33] and the acts indicate that it's prohibited in the general commercial and the industrial zones.
[19:40] And then the third item is data processing centers which was there before as a permitted use in industrial zone.
[19:48] It is now prohibited.
[19:51] And the note here states for everybody who's not able to read it there for purposes as a specific plan.
[19:58] Data processing center is defined.
[20:00] As a facility primarily used for the housing, processing and storage of computer servers, networking equipment, and associated infrastructure to support enterprise, cloud, or internet-based computing services.
[20:14] So this is essentially this exhibit is what is being reviewed this evening. The two prohibited items in limiting to the best systems.
[20:26] Mark, is there a reason that it's not allowed the systems, the backup systems are not allowed in the retail commercial?
[20:38] Seems like grocery stores should have a battery backup system.
[20:42] Typically, they are found in the industrial areas. If you look at the very dense industrial areas,
[20:48] like Ontario, Rancho Cogamanga, San Bernardino, Riverside County, ZSL, all that,
[20:52] You'll see they're mostly on those roofs. They are starting to show up on the larger
[20:57] commercial roofs, but it's not as prevalent and
[21:02] So I think the assumption here was that if a industrial building does utilize their roof space for something like this would be limited to that instead of a stand-alone
[21:12] Energy storage substation if you will is what we're prohibiting here. No, I understand a wondering though about the it's
[21:20] It's not permitted in
[21:24] The retail, Commissioner Marshall, if I could just add real quick, that was in the original
[21:29] specific plan.
[21:30] I was adopted by Council.
[21:32] It was never envisioned that a stand-alone battery energy storage facility to be in the
[21:38] commercial zones.
[21:39] There were only allowed in the industrial zones.
[21:42] Now those stand-alone facilities are being prohibited and the inscillary use of the systems
[21:49] are allowed in the industrial zone as a and solar use or secondary use.
[21:54] So it's not compatible in the commercial zone.
[21:57] They have these battery energy storage facilities.
[22:00] Some are 80 megawatts in size.
[22:03] It could take up 3, 4, 5 acres.
[22:06] So it just did not seem appropriate.
[22:08] When the original SP was prepared brought to commission and council.
[22:12] That's why there are an X and that's not being changed.
[22:18] And so I see, I think it's best, right?
[22:22] Yes. So the report says, best is incillary,
[22:26] meaning it's not the primary function,
[22:29] or use the array of the business. It's second, right, the business.
[22:32] But we have P, which is permitted by, right?
[22:35] Is that correct?
[22:38] The note is what determines that it's not primary,
[22:43] but if you're looking for more specificity, we can add.
[22:48] to the note. I ask because it should be then changed to A, right, and Celerina.
[22:55] I can't. We could do that as part of the action this evening. And I ask because a few of these
[23:03] things, depending if, you know, Mr. Bassie, oh, God. Yeah, we don't need to change that from P to A.
[23:12] It is permitted, but it's only permitted as the note says, as a secondary and Celerina,
[23:17] use to the primary building for industrial building. So I think we're good with the way it is.
[23:24] So I guess the only concern is if we, you know, you leave and we have another community development
[23:32] director come in and they read it differently. This will use it open for us. I guess the same line
[23:37] of reasoning comes into play with us not having definitions for the ice detention facilities or
[23:47] I think I can comment on that because I think it's actually clear if you look at the
[23:55] notes for battery energy storage system. It says P under industrial and then it says
[24:03] permitted exclusively to serve project energy use when required by California building code
[24:11] And then it says otherwise prohibited.
[24:14] So it's clear that it's prohibited.
[24:18] So unless required by the building code.
[24:22] Gajad.
[24:23] So for ice detention facilities and data centers,
[24:29] I'm wondering why we don't have definitions
[24:31] for either of those.
[24:34] Because the same line of reasoning,
[24:36] if Mr. Bassie leaves and we have a new person come in
[24:39] And they interpret this differently,
[24:44] something similar to a data center could be in play or
[24:47] similar to ICE detention facilities.
[24:50] I guess it's for council too.
[24:55] If we are zooming in on ICE detention facilities, for example.
[25:00] Would that potentially go against federal law?
[25:05] How do we make this more broad so we're more protected?
[25:13] Yeah, so I think it's pretty clear. It says immigration and custom enforcement, ice, detention facility.
[25:20] I can't think of a situation where there might be any confusion about what that means.
[25:32] And yeah, it seems clear to me to me.
[25:37] I would say with data centers, they use different terminology to describe similar things.
[25:43] And same with ICE attention, are we talking about detention centers in general, would we be okay with a typical detention center, not just an ICE detention facility?
[26:01] That's the my question, because it's very specific.
[26:08] Yeah, I think the applicant requested this specifically that they wanted ice detention facility and it would only apply to an ice detention facility, and that's what they requested.
[26:26] So that's what the application. Are we here in the applicant tonight?
[26:30] Yes, they're available. They don't have a formal presentation, but they'll be available for questions.
[26:34] I got you. Okay. Let's see.
[26:43] Go ahead, go, go, sure.
[26:46] My question is that I know this change
[26:49] is dependent on the referendum being voted in, but is there a scenario where if it does
[26:56] get voted in that this change doesn't happen? I believe the verbiogen here is that it automatically
[27:00] goes into effect 15 days after that would be a yes, but I just want to confirm that that is
[27:04] the case. The 15 days is the appeal period, so that's what we have on every approval, every project
[27:12] approval, so whatever date the certification is of that vote in November, so it would be from that
[27:19] date onward and I think some of the other approvals have a 30 day period, I think the ordinances are
[27:24] 30 days, so there is kind of an unintended stagger of effective dates with all the approvals. Thank you.
[27:33] Going back to the best definition and I'm sorry, my notes are a bit
[27:38] jumbled here. But we are mentioning the California building code that it
[27:45] references. But I looked it up and I think it's actually the
[27:51] building, our California energy code that we're referencing.
[27:54] Energy code is one of the chapters of the building code.
[27:58] Title 24 parts six. They're all total 24 parts six. Yeah of 12 over 13 parts. Is the building code.
[28:10] Okay, and then we changed. I see we updated required or allowed. And we changed it to only required.
[28:20] You never know when the legislature is going to require similar energy systems like this
[28:24] like they do with not required, but allowing the rooftop solar that we have now, they
[28:30] may eventually work their way to commercial industrial buildings.
[28:34] I got so.
[28:36] I'm one of the positive, quick.
[28:37] I forgot.
[28:38] Commissioner, do you have anything, does this close for transparency, as far as according
[28:42] respondents is concerned with staff or the applicant. Any meeting?
[28:50] Okay. I did send in questions to Mr. Bassie on August 20th. I believe. Just to
[29:02] out to get clarification on some of these. It's one of them out there.
[29:07] Mr. Bassie did respond.
[29:08] or actually, it was a team last year's table responded with Mr. Bassie.
[29:14] So thank you both for that and appreciate it.
[29:17] And one of my questions was on the megawatts, the number 65 something that caught my attention.
[29:25] So in 2023, the EIR, the Environmental Impact Review, is it describes a 65 megawatts best
[29:33] use for electrical grid stability, but the September 2025 staff report calls it 65 megawatt per hours.
[29:42] MH and MW and MHW aren't interchangeable.
[29:49] So what was actually proposed both its MH output or my gosh, these letters.
[29:55] MW output.
[29:57] Yeah, so the megawatt measurement is a per hour.
[30:00] Measurement, whatever, it's outflow and flow. I'm not entirely certain on that. But I believe it was a combination of
[30:06] land uses that were assumed in the environmental review. They put together this list of permitted and
[30:12] conditionally permitted uses. And that was one that was discussed in there because probably because of the
[30:19] high energy use, so would be taken on by a system like that. I'm sure the developer could speak to
[30:30] how they came to 65.
[30:33] That, and probably it makes the uses to analyze
[30:37] probably a highest energy, water, or traffic,
[30:41] and other uses, in addition to the commercial industrial uses
[30:44] on the property to have a pretty good range of uses,
[30:49] analyzing that EIR should, any one of those items come in.
[30:53] So I know they're becoming a thing, both with utilities
[30:56] and private properties for these energy systems, so, but they could speak to it more and how they
[31:03] came to that size of 65 megawatts. Comission members? Jim. Yes, I did. I just wanted to make sure
[31:13] that under the data centers. I do see that it's specifically prohibited, but I just wanted to ensure
[31:21] that the definition covered all things that could be under another name, like, you know, server farms,
[31:27] those types of things AI, computing facilities, those types of things. I want to just ensure that
[31:35] that definition is explicit in it covers anything that can fall under that umbrella under another name.
[31:42] So there is the definition, but one thing that's not here, we could write a description that's endless,
[31:49] but with any commercial or industrial society requires what's called a certificate of occupancy inspection before anything could go in there.
[31:56] that's both what a business that occupies the space, the electrical, gets reviewed and approved,
[32:05] signs, everything else about someone occupying that space, whether it's an unmanned data
[32:09] center or a robust office space. So someone would have to go through that process and it would
[32:15] be held up there when we checked against the permitted land use as table, whether it's here in
[32:20] specific plan or in the city-wide zoning code.
[32:24] So there is one more hurdle that's not necessarily discussed here, but is a step in the process
[32:29] for anybody who wants to occupy any commercial or industrial building in the city.
[32:34] Okay, and then that's the same thing, same thing I wanted to ask about the detention facilities
[32:39] just to ensure that there was no contractor operating facilities that can go under another
[32:45] they would have to come before planning commission in council for that kind of use anyways.
[32:52] Thank you.
[32:54] And would we be able to update these definitions to include some of the commissionaries?
[33:01] I don't recall a formal definition section in this specific plan like we do in our zoning code.
[33:07] So if anything, it would be the note section that would further define or limit or constrain the land use.
[33:15] So, but at the end of this, we would be able to add that in potentially.
[33:19] You could put in any recommendation to the council and figure out final language to make sure
[33:24] it's probably a bit of the way everybody's wanting it to.
[33:27] And full disclosure for the audience, we aren't enacting these into the specific plan.
[33:35] That's the duty of the city council. We're slowly making recommendations.
[33:42] Okay, so if this amendment takes effect, will these restrictions bind every current in future
[33:49] property owner unless the city leader approves another public amendment?
[33:54] That's correct.
[33:55] There are runs with the land, not the ownership.
[34:05] Does it limit this amendment or future amendments in any way?
[34:09] No, it's very focused on these three specific uses, so any other proposed changes
[34:14] would have to go through a similar process.
[34:17] Council, can you, is there any additions to that?
[34:24] Can you restate the question?
[34:26] Sure.
[34:27] The development agreement grants vested development rights.
[34:30] Does it limit the amendment or future amendments in any way?
[34:34] If you can explain that.
[34:35] So you're asking about the development agreement now?
[34:38] Yeah, amendments to the development agreement itself
[34:41] have to be approved by an ordinance.
[34:43] So I'm not sure why we're talking about amendments to the development agreement because this is an amendment to a specific plan
[34:52] but that's a little bit different. Those amendments are more detail.
[34:59] Got it. Okay.
[35:00] Thank you.
[35:05] And then if, again, if we move forward with an amendment, when would this legally be able to be sent in place?
[35:13] So, the council meeting, which would be the next meeting I would hear this, would be October 32.
[35:20] Yeah, a little more a month from now, because there's a noticing period in all that, and then their action would not take effect until after the certification of the election,
[35:29] which is usually end of November, so effective dates would be mid, late, December, should everything be approved.
[35:40] And then, uh, Sequa, can you explain, again simply, why no additional study was needed?
[35:48] So 1, 5, 1, 8, 3, as I outlined before, is whenever something is, whenever a project has a certified EIR and a subsequent proposal comes in that is either equal to or less than the impact that was reviewed, that 1, 5, 1, 8, 3 would apply.
[36:08] So, that makes it exempt from any further additional review, and in this case, since we're prohibiting or further eliminating the land use is there that is considered lessening the impact to the project area in the surrounding area.
[36:25] Okay, thank you, Mr. Staples.
[36:28] And when is it appropriate to ask the applicant, when you're done with me?
[36:33] Any other questions for Mr. Staples?
[36:36] Or staff?
[36:37] No.
[36:38] All right.
[36:39] Thank you Mr. Sabels and Mr. Shrank with N.P. or Morris Point is here.
[36:54] Thank you for being here Mr. Shrank.
[36:57] Mr. Shrank?
[36:58] Mr. Shrank.
[36:59] Thank you Mr. Shrank.
[37:01] From North Point.
[37:02] Do you have a presentation for us this evening?
[37:06] Okay.
[37:06] Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant at all?
[37:09] I do not.
[37:11] Okay.
[37:12] I just had one.
[37:13] So exhibit a, does it accurately express your intent to prohibit a standalone best and allow only an onsite system serving another permitted use when required by state code?
[37:28] Are you retaining any right to build the 65 megawatt or 65 megawatt per hours standalone best previously described in the project materials?
[37:39] We are not reserved in the right to do a stand-alone best 65 megawatts or otherwise.
[37:44] All right.
[37:45] Thank you.
[37:50] And because this is a public hearing, folks have five minutes for this.
[37:57] That's correct.
[37:59] Three?
[38:04] Can we just double check that just to make sure?
[38:07] Yes, five.
[38:09] It is five.
[38:10] Thank you, Mr. Staples.
[38:12] All right.
[38:13] Time for our lovely public comment.
[38:16] Thank you all for being here tonight. You will have five minutes? Well, wait a minute. I think is this a public hearing?
[38:23] Yes, so you want to open the public hearing, right? Is that what you're planning on doing at this point? Yes.
[38:30] So you want to say that you're opening the public hearing and announce the time? Okay.
[38:36] So I will now open the public hearing at 6.11 PM and members from the public in the room and on zoom each will have five minutes.
[38:52] Speaking of time may not be transferred, you may state your name, but it is not required.
[39:01] So I'm on the clock now.
[39:03] You're on the clock.
[39:04] Richard McCard, resident of Banyng, regarding our Banyng Planning Commission meeting this evening.
[39:14] This hearing of the Banyng Planning Commission is to consider amendments as you've already heard to the Sunset Crossroads Pacific Plan.
[39:22] Let it be known that the Sunset Crossroads Pacific Plan and I know this has come up already,
[39:27] as never gone into effect and is not now an effect.
[39:32] There is a resolution for the City Council specifically requiring that
[39:36] ordinance 1620 if I have these numbers correct.
[39:40] The sunset crossroads development agreement needs to go into effect first,
[39:45] which has to do with the election coming up.
[39:48] Or then 1620 will be measured W on the ballot.
[39:53] Now, furthermore, the specific plan will only go into effect if and
[39:57] in the ordinance passes.
[40:00] Now, a question comes to mind, how can a city amend a specific plan before the specific plan takes effect?
[40:07] And I think as sort of a catch 22, what sort of defense depends on your view of when it is put into effect.
[40:14] Legally, as we all agree, it's not until after a successful for the applicant, a ballot.
[40:22] I do want to, however, go into some of the election implications of this.
[40:27] I'll spend a little time about half my time on this.
[40:31] There is a date in October, October 13th for consideration.
[40:36] If further this recommendation for the City Council from the Planning Commission
[40:41] is to be a pre by the City Council.
[40:45] That's when I best understand what this meeting is going to be.
[40:49] By the time the City Council acts on this recommendation by the Planning Commission, there will be considerably less than three weeks prior to the election.
[40:59] If the City Council modifies our only promises to modify the City Plan, a specific plan.
[41:07] By that time voters will already have received their ballots receiving arguments therein, which then must be made available to the voter.
[41:16] This will lead to confusion, at least, and likely unlawful information regarding the occurrence of an ordinance wording for 1620.
[41:26] So all I'm really doing there is that there are potential pitfalls that could impact the way the election proceeds.
[41:34] If one of the parties to the election says, well this isn't in there yet, but it will be.
[41:40] You know, that already takes the election.
[41:43] I'm not saying this will happen, but the developer, knowing that there is really nothing
[41:50] formally there yet for this to attach to, after the election is presumably one by
[41:57] then, let's say, and they've already agreed to promise to be faithful to what is agreed to here,
[42:05] but there's really no guardrail for that. Nothing to keep from the saying, well, this isn't in
[42:11] The agreement yet, and we can just pretend it's not there and go ahead, so something like that,
[42:17] it could be a problem.
[42:19] Now, so we have a couple of problems with perception,
[42:25] and everything that I'm going in this part of my presentation says,
[42:29] the election, if it's surled by advertisements promoting something that will come after the fact,
[42:38] That violates both the spirit and the letter of a referendum that will lead to perhaps swaying
[42:47] the votes away from what it would be under the law, which is election code 1941.
[42:54] So if this happens, then a lot of people could be a legal jeopardy.
[42:59] So, I personally think it's really kind of shaky to be doing all of this in public.
[43:09] These are public meetings, so that voters will have a conception which is not what we are voting on in a
[43:16] coordinates with a referendum that I reject that very strenuously.
[43:30] Thank you, Mr. McCart.
[43:41] Good evening, commissioners.
[43:43] My name is Marcos Santana and I'm a lifelong banding resident.
[43:45] I want to start by saying that I think this amendment is moving the conversation in the right direction.
[43:51] Questions about ICE detention facilities, data centers, and standalone battery storage are exactly the kinds of issues we should be discussing clearly in publicly before projects move forward.
[44:00] I also appreciate that the communities concerns are actually being taken seriously.
[44:05] At the same time, many residents are concerned that these changes could make a massive warehouse project seem more acceptable without addressing the larger concerns about the project itself.
[44:14] that concern is understandable and we should not suggest that these amendments solve all the issues
[44:20] residents have. There are several points that need to be clear, especially because these labels
[44:24] could be applied for future projects down the road. First, what exactly counts as a data center? If
[44:31] these facilities are prohibited, the language should be specific enough to prevent a future developer
[44:35] from simply using a different name to get around the rule. If a server farm, a data center,
[44:40] or another name is utilized to describe a similar use,
[44:43] then there should be a defined set of criteria
[44:45] outlining the facility's primary function.
[44:48] The type of amount of equipment it contains
[44:50] is energy demand, its cooling systems, its physical state,
[44:53] and ways it processes stores and transfers data.
[44:56] That ordinance should focus on the actual characteristics
[44:58] and impacts of the system.
[45:00] Sociality, rather than the label used by the applicant. The same principle should apply if a project is described as a technology facility, a cloud computing facility, telecommunications facility, digital infrastructure facility, so on and so forth. The city should have clear objective standards for determining which, whether proposed project falls into the prohibited category.
[45:21] Second, the amendment should clearly explain what types of facilities and equipment are covered
[45:26] by the ban on stand-alone battery storage, common furniture of the best, of course.
[45:31] A developer should not be able to describe the battery energy storage facility as part of
[45:34] another use just to avoid the restriction.
[45:37] The rules should be based on what the facility actually does and how large it is not just
[45:41] on what it's called on an application.
[45:44] So I think of the term, andcillary.
[45:46] If battery storage is allowed as part of another industrial project, the ordinance should explain what counts as a truly secondary use.
[45:54] What really in really be a larger separate battery facility storage?
[46:00] Without clear definitions and enforceable rules, the ban could be weakened by changing the project's description.
[46:06] The labels used by the facilities matter as well.
[46:12] Whether a project is called a data center, a server farm, a best, a standalone battery storage,
[46:16] an ancillary storage, or whatever else, the ordinance should regulate the actual use,
[46:21] the equipment, the scale, and impacts of the facility. Clear definitions are necessary
[46:25] so that change in terminology does not create a loophole. Either for this project or future projects
[46:30] down the road. Even with all these changes, the larger concerns about sunset crossroads remain.
[46:35] Resons are still asking about truck traffic, air pollution, impacts on our roads, water, electricity use,
[46:43] and the types of put jobs that this project would actually bring to banning.
[46:47] Will the project actually bring in enough money for the city to handle the added demands?
[46:51] It takes on our roads for utilities, our public services, the extra increase on our taxpayer dollars to facilitate this construction.
[47:00] I appreciate that the residents concerns are actually being heard on these three issues.
[47:05] And I do support strengthening these protections, but as we consider this amendment, we should
[47:09] remember what's at stake.
[47:11] The decision is about making sure that the terms that we use, including the Ancillary
[47:16] Use, are clearly defined and cannot be used to avoid the attempt of the ordinance, either
[47:21] now or in future projects.
[47:23] It's about what our project of this scale will bring actual good jobs to local residents, protect
[47:28] our residents from added traffic, provide enough revenue for the demand it creates, and actual
[47:33] community benefits.
[47:35] So, those definitions, protections and commitments should be clear before we treat this project as acceptable, thank you.
[47:43] Thank you.
[48:05] Good evening.
[48:07] I have no problem mentioning my name.
[48:08] It's Kathy Aranda.
[48:13] I'm glad I have the opportunity to speak tonight.
[48:16] And I want to mention something before I start.
[48:18] I want to mention the California Constitution.
[48:22] California courts have said that the power of referendum must be
[48:26] jellously guarded. Are we doing that tonight by even bringing this
[48:31] before the planning commission to give a recommendation to our city council?
[48:36] I do not think we are jellously guarding the constitution of California.
[48:43] That being said, the power of the referendum is protected.
[48:49] It's one of the few tools ordinary citizens have to challenge an action of their government.
[48:56] Few, we have so few ability to fight $20 billion worth point.
[49:03] This is all we have.
[49:08] So that matters tonight.
[49:10] North Point through N.P.
[49:12] Banning Industrial LLC is a developer of sunset crossroads.
[49:16] North Point already showed Banning what it wanted.
[49:20] they've already showed us. It's this in a secret. And it's data centers, data storage,
[49:28] best in other controversial, controversial uses. These uses are not just a peer in this specific
[49:34] plan by accident. They were intentionally included in the Table 3-1 as permitted uses.
[49:41] North Point brought that specific plan to banning. That's what they did. The City Council approved
[49:48] forward to one with all those uses in there, the additional uses, that's what they did, that's what happened.
[49:58] The planning commission at the time had even written.
[50:01] And even thought, well, let's bring it back to the Planning Commission. We have issues to discuss.
[50:08] City Council said no. So that's why we have a referendum. That should be jealousy guarded.
[50:16] And what we're doing here tonight is not in the spirit of what the California Constitution says.
[50:22] So,
[50:27] now those very same uses have become politically damaging to sunset crossroads.
[50:32] Suddenly, North Point wants to remove them.
[50:36] Pray tell.
[50:38] So, why now?
[50:40] This appears to be a political damage control before an election.
[50:44] It looks like an attempt to manipulate how voters see this project before they cast their ballots.
[50:49] In a fair answer, in other words, change the words, change the presentation, make the project easier to sell to the voters.
[50:57] That's what we're doing here tonight. Just so we're all clear.
[51:02] The city should not participate in that.
[51:06] The voters deserve to judge sunset crowdsroads based on what North Point originally brought to Bany,
[51:12] not a politically repackaged version that presented weeks before an election.
[51:17] North Point Records Matter and Falls Township, Pennsylvania officials voted 3-1 to deny
[51:25] North Point's rezoning request.
[51:28] North Point later received approvals for their warehouse as in distribution centers.
[51:33] Major portions of that project were later changed to data centers later after the fact.
[51:39] They changed it.
[51:41] And Hazelton Township officials deny North Point's Project Hazelton or Hazelnet, excuse me.
[51:48] North Point sued asking Court to overturn that denial.
[51:53] Wow, there were all team players, aren't they?
[51:56] Look at Julia Delanoi.
[51:58] North Point's massive warehouse project became the subject of the years of litigation.
[52:04] That's happened.
[52:05] Now, look at California, North Point pursued opportunities in Sacramento, Oakley and Modesto,
[52:12] and Modesto, a council member Chris Richie publicly stated, North Point was lobbying
[52:18] council members about data centers.
[52:23] That's.
[52:24] So, when North Point asked Banning to remove data centers from this plan,
[52:28] its actions elsewhere matter.
[52:31] Changing these uses to prohibit today does not make that permanent.
[52:36] table three one can be amended again. As Maya Angelos said, when someone
[52:42] shows you who they are, believe them the first time. North Point already showed
[52:47] us, there is another serious question the city needs to answer. Resolution 2026-29
[52:53] says the resolution of proving the sunset crossroads specific plan becomes
[52:57] effective only when orange at 1620 becomes effective. So if 1620 is not
[53:04] become effective, tonight's own staff report acknowledges
[53:07] that I'm so, okay, well, thank you, I appreciate it.
[53:12] And I hope you understand the spirit of what this is brought forward.
[53:17] I'm really quick.
[53:19] We can ask factual follow-up questions of the speakers.
[53:23] That's correct,
[53:25] right?
[53:26] During a public hearing.
[53:29] You're asking if, what, can you, if we can ask commissioners?
[53:35] We, we can ask commissioners.
[53:36] can ask a factual follow-up question, but the speaker says something we want to get a
[53:45] fact straight, to understand what they said, a clarifying question.
[53:52] Well, I see Mr.
[53:53] Marshall shaking his head. I don't think I've been asked that question before I
[53:59] think that, you know, when somebody comes up to make public comment, it's just that
[54:06] they're giving comment, it's not intended to be a discourse.
[54:11] And if it does become a discourse, the meeting can quickly
[54:15] devolve into something that is not capable of being controlled.
[54:22] So without having the opportunity to research it further,
[54:25] I would recommend against that.
[54:29] Can we take a quick recess, so you can research it really quick?
[54:32] This is a, I'm not going to be able to answer the question in a recess.
[54:37] I've given the best opinion that I can under the circumstances.
[54:42] Okay.
[54:43] We'll go with that.
[54:44] Okay.
[54:44] Thank you, Councilor.
[54:46] Thank you, Speaker.
[54:48] Missed on that.
[54:52] Let's carry on.
[55:00] My name is Lynne Ahaigan and I just, my end of town, received this propaganda ad in the mail this week.
[55:10] And in it, it states that, new shopping and dining options, this could happen without having to have warehouses, questionable 3,700 jobs, 35 million in transportation improvements, 98 acres of parks and open space,
[55:29] and a new fire station, which is not true.
[55:33] They were going to set some land aside,
[55:36] but it's up to banning to build the fire station.
[55:39] Also, no mention about the 5.5 billion
[55:43] eight square feet of warehouses that are going to be there.
[55:47] And in the back, it says the ad was paid for
[55:51] by residents supporting the measure UVW, four sams,
[55:57] and improve city services, a coalition of local businesses, consumers, and North Point development.
[56:05] And I'm sure they probably only gave a dollar and it said the ad committee fund top funders is North Point development.
[56:15] Thank you.
[56:16] Thank you, Ms. Sagan.
[56:29] Yes, hello, commission and staff.
[56:32] My name is Bob Lobby.
[56:33] I have one question about the table 3.1, this may just be a housekeeping issue, but if
[56:40] you do go to the location just above the ice facility, that was the one about cold storage.
[56:51] I thought at one time cold storage was eliminated from the entire process, currently marked
[56:56] here as permitted, we can discuss that later and see if that's, you know, I'm Ron or it just
[57:04] has never been changed from the last provision. And I mainly just do this because I hate
[57:09] to have this go through and then have it kick back at full council. That would delay the whole
[57:15] process. Thank you much. Thank you.
[57:47] Good evening, commissioners. My name is Kathleen Dale. I'm a resident of banning. I'm
[57:52] retired planner and environmental consultant and I was the chair of the Planning Commission
[57:57] when the Planning Commission recommended that since that crossroads not be approved.
[58:02] And as you've already heard, the simple fact is there is not a specific plan to amend at this
[58:08] juncture and this is evident if you just look at the plain language of resolution 202629.
[58:14] If you understand that ordinance is 1618, 1619 and 1620 are suspended, and if you also consider the provisions of government code section 66300.
[58:27] And so I'll just read for you quickly what resolution 202629 says.
[58:34] The approval section says that the general plan amendment and the specific plan are hereby being approved.
[58:41] The effectiveness section says the resolution becomes effective with ordinance 1620, not the specific plan, not the general plan amendment, the resolution, the resolution adopts those two actions and as the resolution is not affected, those two actions are not adopted.
[59:02] There's also a question about the effect of ordinance 1619 being suspended because that is the action that does the residential zoning density offset that's required for the rezoning to industrial on the development site that ordinance is suspended and according to government code section 66300 since that offset has not been done that zoning is null and void.
[59:29] I think you need to look at what you're being asked to do tonight as kind of similar to if you had a zoning request for you for a zoning action that wasn't consistent with the general plan.
[59:41] And they said, it's okay. You can do this tonight because we're going to come back later with that general plan of amendment. You can't separate those things.
[59:50] There's also an issue with what you've been given regarding
[59:53] CEQA. This section 15183 doesn't apply in this circumstance.
[1:00:00] And again, if you look, have the staff bring the section up again, this applies for a project that's consistent with the general plan zoning or community plan. And this project is not. That property is back to the zoning that was in place before the project was approved. So it's primarily residential.
[1:00:24] There's another issue also in that there's been absolutely no documentation provided to you if you look at that section 15183, it says the determination that the EIR continues to apply needs to be supported with an initial study or similar analysis.
[1:00:41] None of that has been done.
[1:00:44] The city is actually in litigation right now on a project involving tri-point for exactly the same reason with a notice of continued relevance being brought through with no substantiation.
[1:00:57] The provision of secret that they should be applying is 15162, which is evaluating whether or not the certified EIR is still relevant to the project.
[1:01:07] And this is not an exhaustive evaluation, but there are at least three aspects that are no longer relevant that require supplemental consideration.
[1:01:18] And that includes the fact that the overriding considerations that the EIR was adopted with considered them getting a five million dollar advance on their diff fees for some like full of art extension, which is not happening.
[1:01:31] The existing EIR also does not address a new protected species, the crutches bumblebee, and also the fire hazard maps have been updated.
[1:01:44] The existing EIR says there's no fire hazard zone within a half a mile of the project site.
[1:01:50] When, in fact, now, the entire site is within a very high fire hazard zone.
[1:01:59] We're here tonight because the City Council ignored the Planning Commission on the initial approval.
[1:02:05] And because the City Council is trying to clean up a mess they created by approving a plan they didn't understand.
[1:02:14] This crafty attempt right now to tell you that you can prospectively amend this plan shows the public that the City can't be trusted to honestly and fairly implement the type of plan that they tried to approve.
[1:02:30] If the city and the developer also think that these little band aids are addressing the community concerns, they're just not listening.
[1:02:40] The communities concerns are the disrespectful establishment of a mega warehouse district next to homes.
[1:02:49] And thank you.
[1:02:53] Thank you, Michelle.
[1:03:08] Do have someone online.
[1:03:10] Go ahead.
[1:03:16] Go ahead, Mr. Platt.
[1:03:24] We can hear you go ahead.
[1:03:26] Hello, can you hear me? Yes,
[1:03:30] proceed, proceed. Okay. Good evening. Commissioner's my name is Jeffrey Platt.
[1:03:36] I'm a resident of DC4. I'm here tonight in support of the amendment to the sunset crossroads
[1:03:40] specific plan land use table 3.1. That would prohibit data centers, battery and energy storage
[1:03:47] system facilities, and ice detention facilities from being permitted under this plan. I want to start
[1:03:54] by saying this plainly, this amendment doesn't matter.
[1:03:57] For months, in the community meetings and public comment on social media and employers distribute
[1:04:01] around this city, residents of race concerns that sunset cross route could become a landing
[1:04:06] site for a data center or for a battery storage facility or even an ice detention
[1:04:11] center.
[1:04:12] Whether those fears were founded or not, they were sincere.
[1:04:15] People genuinely worried about what could come to the site and could, is what land used
[1:04:20] citizens live and die on. Tonight this commission has an opportunity to put those specific
[1:04:24] beers to rest. Not by asking residents to trust that it won't happen. Not by pointing
[1:04:30] to what the developer says they plan to build, by amending the specific planet itself so that
[1:04:35] those uses are firmly prohibited in the governing document. That is the strongest possible answer
[1:04:40] the city can give to those concerns, short of not building anything at all. I want to be clear
[1:04:46] about what this common is and what it isn't.
[1:04:49] It isn't attempt to sway anyone's vote under a November
[1:04:51] referendum.
[1:04:52] Voters will make that decision on the merits.
[1:04:55] What tonight's action does is take three
[1:04:57] specific concerns off the table permanently, regardless.
[1:05:01] If the project moves forward, none of those three uses can occur. If it doesn't move forward, it's
[1:05:08] a signal about how this city handles those uses generally. That's why I'm asking this commission
[1:05:13] to approve the amendment unanimously. Now, I want to speak directly to something this community is aware of.
[1:05:20] Chair Castorina, you have been public don record as opposing the sunset crossroads project. That is your
[1:05:29] to hold that position. What I'm asking is that you separate that position from tonight's
[1:05:34] boat. Tonight isn't a boat on whether since at Crossroads is a good project, it's a
[1:05:39] boat on whether three specific industrial uses, data centers and best facilities and
[1:05:43] ice detention should be permanently excluded from the plan. Every resident who has raised
[1:05:48] those concerns in the past 12 months is watching to see whether this commission will
[1:05:52] formally close that door. If the commission votes yesterday, one of the most repeat
[1:05:57] concerns about this project becomes moved that helps this community regardless of which way the
[1:06:02] referendum goes. If the commission votes no or delays the community has a right to understand why.
[1:06:07] Because could a data center come here is a question. This amendment answers definitely definitively.
[1:06:14] I'll be watching the vote and be documentary reasons offered by each commissioner. That's not a threat.
[1:06:18] That's how public accountability works when the paperwork this commission produces will
[1:06:22] and land use in the city for decades to be clear. I'm asking for a yes on PSP26-001 not
[1:06:30] because I want to score a political point on the referendum because this is a
[1:06:33] community's opportunity to lock in something that residents on both sides of
[1:06:37] the project could say they wanted. Thank you.
[1:06:43] Thank you. Thank you Mr.
[1:06:44] Martin.
[1:06:46] Who's that that? Chris.
[1:06:54] You said there is one more. Oh, okay. Back to
[1:06:58] person?
[1:07:07] I just don't think that it's clear whether or not this is legally binding before or
[1:07:16] after the election. It sounds great. I don't see any reason not to vote for this, but I think
[1:07:24] it should be very clear that it's not legally binding until after the election. And for my own opinion,
[1:07:34] I mean, I just drove down to Palm Springs and back past that empty warehouse, what's that a million square feet.
[1:07:41] And logically, I don't see why a developer would want to build 4.7 million more square feet of warehouse in this area.
[1:07:51] I went, we've got that empty one by the airport. There's another empty one over Cherry Valley.
[1:07:56] That tells me that this is not a normal use. That's planned here.
[1:08:02] And if this is a heist to change the plan again after the election, we're going to be suckers.
[1:08:12] I don't want there to be documentaries about banning.
[1:08:16] I've got a lot of friends that are filmmakers that I jump all over this as a warning to other people.
[1:08:28] I guess that's about it.
[1:08:29] I just hope maybe the city attorney can clarify that
[1:08:32] that this will not be legally binding until after the election.
[1:08:39] That's my fear.
[1:08:42] I love this town.
[1:08:44] I was moved here when I was three years old.
[1:08:49] I was here before McDonald's existed.
[1:08:52] And the stage coach Carnival had to move
[1:08:57] because of the fast food rush going in over there.
[1:09:03] But this sounds great to clarify this stuff.
[1:09:10] But then again, data centers and best systems and ice facilities aside,
[1:09:18] I'm really sad that the city council bypassed you guys
[1:09:23] And pitted neighbor against neighbor, I know the city's desperate for cash right now, but I don't think screwing over the residents in that area, destroying their property values, to squeeze in, this huge, huge industrial project in there is the right thing for anyone.
[1:09:46] I hope that development that's proper comes in there someday soon, but I think that if this whole land mass is blocked end with...
[1:10:00] Just this ugliness that people driving down the freeway are not going to want to pull off to take a piss, let alone go to a restaurant or anything.
[1:10:10] They're going to see the sea of warehouses and keep driving until they get to Palm Springs.
[1:10:15] So,
[1:10:17] that's about it. I hope things go the right way.
[1:10:21] Well, I don't want to say what's right or what's wrong. Somebody said that was on the wrong side, as well as a couple of people that are running for council.
[1:10:28] and it really pissed me off and I just hope the best for this
[1:10:36] town. Thank you.
[1:10:42] And name for the record?
[1:10:45] Scott Reader. Thank you Mr. Reader.
[1:10:53] Chair, other planning commissioners? Yes. My name is Jerry Phelps. I was a
[1:11:01] a planning commissioner on the commission that denied that voted against the sunset crossroads.
[1:11:14] I do do not want to see where a house is, but even more than that I don't want to see
[1:11:20] data centers and ice detention centers.
[1:11:24] I think it would be horrific data centers cause medical problems that use up the water and
[1:11:31] cause the electric rates to go sky high.
[1:11:35] Ice detention centers would be ugly.
[1:11:39] I can't think of anything less desirable in this area.
[1:11:45] Nevertheless, the city council,
[1:11:50] with their eyes wide open, signed and agreement
[1:11:54] with those not with the ice detention centers,
[1:11:57] but with the data centers written in to the agreement and now you and the City Council wants to do something about that.
[1:12:11] Well, it's too late what you're doing is tweaking an ordinance, your tweaking ordinances on a referendum.
[1:12:20] And those referendum were qualified because they had enough valid signatures from the target,
[1:12:36] from the voters, and that ordinance, those ordinances are now suspended.
[1:12:43] You cannot tweak something that isn't.
[1:12:48] I absolutely request that you do not go further with this.
[1:12:55] It's a mistake, I believe it's an issue, a legal issue for the City Council and I questioned
[1:13:04] just last week at the City Council meeting why their bills were so high and I think this
[1:13:11] is another bill for the City Council.
[1:13:15] I feel terrible about this.
[1:13:18] I would absolutely like to wipe away those data centers and
[1:13:22] ICE detention centers.
[1:13:24] But this is not the time.
[1:13:26] This is not the place.
[1:13:28] This is using your influence to influence the voters.
[1:13:35] And I find that just applicable.
[1:13:37] Thank you.
[1:13:40] Thank you, Ms. Hose.
[1:13:49] My name is Fran.
[1:13:50] and I agree with Mr. McCart and just like to share with you why I moved here.
[1:14:04] 18 years ago, my husband and I were looking for a house to retire to.
[1:14:12] It took us two years to find this place.
[1:14:16] I just thought it was a beautiful, beautiful place.
[1:14:18] I still think that it's a beautiful place.
[1:14:23] I have dedicated all those years since I've been here
[1:14:27] to being a volunteer and whatever I can be a volunteer.
[1:14:34] I volunteer for the banning chamber of commerce as an ambassador.
[1:14:39] And the last, in 2025, we were asked those ambassadors to come up with a project.
[1:14:49] And my project was for the mural that's on Ramsi and sixth street, the Stage Coach mural.
[1:15:00] It was the one who brought it up to life and with the help with the banning chamber of commerce.
[1:15:11] I did the fundraising and everything and we hired an artist to do a put that mural.
[1:15:19] On the side of the I-10 freeway, it says, the city of banning with endless opportunities.
[1:15:26] I do not see this city being a mega warehouse with endless opportunities.
[1:15:35] This is a home town for many retirees and families with children to move to.
[1:15:45] So I beg all of you, each and every one of you, not to vote today.
[1:15:54] this is not that they too vote. Thank you.
[1:16:02] Thank you. Thank you, Ms.
[1:16:03] and Rodin.
[1:16:12] Thank you, Mr. Stables.
[1:16:17] Would anyone else like to make public
[1:16:18] comment?
[1:16:30] Good evening. Thank you for lowering that so I can see them. My name is Tara
[1:16:36] Hegeo and I'm banning resident. I've spoken on this project many times and I've
[1:16:43] that thousands of pages, and I have many concerns about this project, but this amendment
[1:16:54] specifically, I have concerns about, and I had two points coming into this, and it's
[1:17:03] expanded, so bear with me.
[1:17:09] Before addressing my concerns, I wanted to point out that I
[1:17:13] item confusing, because the agenda, the proposed resolution and the staff report, do not appear
[1:17:21] to use consistent language regarding what the action the commission is being asked to take
[1:17:27] tonight. What is affected by the referendum and the sequo determination that applies to it?
[1:17:36] My first, the first one is the referendum.
[1:17:41] If voters are being asked to decide whether these projects
[1:17:45] approvals should take effect, why is the city changing
[1:17:49] part of the project's planning rules
[1:17:52] before the voters have made a decision?
[1:17:55] I'm asking the city to clearly explain the legal authority
[1:18:00] for moving forward with this amendment
[1:18:03] while the referendum is pending an exactly what action the planning commission is being asked
[1:18:09] tonight. I'm asking this because when I looked up the information on the referendum and then
[1:18:18] legalities of changing things, if any any part of the plan is tied to the referendum ordinances
[1:18:34] Amendments aren't allowed. That's the information I received. I could be incorrect, but I think that there's more clarity that needs to be had because there has, when in my research, I have not found any other case in regards to referendum law that states amendment can be made to a current referendum.
[1:18:58] I also asked the city to confirm that the November referendum will remain a vote on the ordinances as they were originally adopted.
[1:19:11] And challenged by the referendum, not on a version of the project that has been changed during the referendum process.
[1:19:21] My second concern is in regards to CEQA. Tonight, the commission is being asked to determine
[1:19:30] that this particular change to the specific plan does not require additional environment
[1:19:36] to review under CEQA. I ask the city to clearly confirm that this determination applies
[1:19:43] only to this specific amendment. And it is not a blanket exemption from
[1:19:50] sequo for the entire sunset crossroads project for future development. I'm
[1:19:56] adding this because it's not clear in the staff report.
[1:20:00] I also asked the city to confirm that the original EIR, its mitigation measures and its findings of significant and unavoidal impacts, excuse me, unavoidable impacts, remain in effects and applicable to the Sunset Crossroads project.
[1:20:20] These are all important distinctions in the decision you're making tonight.
[1:20:27] And the additional things that I have felt that needed clarification are in regards to definitions that we've discussed tonight.
[1:20:41] In council meeting, the city council actually stated that they had never received a copy of the 3.1 before there are approval.
[1:20:53] So what does that mean?
[1:20:56] We brought up the things about the data centers.
[1:20:59] We brought up the things about the ice detention centers.
[1:21:02] So what else on here do we not clearly understand?
[1:21:06] If you look at your screen, which is still up right now,
[1:21:10] under computer and electronic parts manufacturing and assembly,
[1:21:15] in the water board meeting last month,
[1:21:20] A presentation was made on the consumption of water and its effects in regards to data centers.
[1:21:30] In that discussion, we'll start up.
[1:21:37] Thank you.
[1:21:38] Thank you, Miss Angie.
[1:21:53] Hi.
[1:21:53] Shirley Hagey, yes, we're related.
[1:21:56] Bailing resident.
[1:21:58] I would like you all to think about 10 years ago.
[1:22:02] did you know what a data center was? Did any of us? This whole project has a 30-year life span.
[1:22:15] What you're being asked to vote on today has nothing to do with what somebody's going to dream up in five years,
[1:22:21] 10 years, 30 years, the span of this development that could harm our city even more.
[1:22:31] So that's my concern, and you have been put in a terrible position I feel asking you
[1:22:40] to make this decision when there's a referendum out there where we know that the developers
[1:22:46] have already spent, who knows, millions of dollars, sending out emails and
[1:22:53] flyers, emails and flyers, not just in the mail, trying to get people to
[1:22:59] see only their side, not seeing the everyday citizens side.
[1:23:05] Don't you think they're going to spend more money if you say, will it prove this and
[1:23:11] to say council two weeks before the election says,
[1:23:15] yeah, it's good.
[1:23:16] If it gets approved, this is good.
[1:23:18] We'll be good.
[1:23:20] Is that really a good thing for us?
[1:23:22] Do you think they're not going to keep sending mailers out?
[1:23:25] Because they have a lot of money already invested,
[1:23:28] but we have the rest of our lives invested here.
[1:23:31] And many of you have many more years than I do to spend here.
[1:23:36] So I would like you to thank when you vote
[1:23:38] about your own personal integrity.
[1:23:41] That's all I ask.
[1:23:45] Thank you Mr. Good
[1:24:06] evening.
[1:24:07] My name's Oscar District 4.
[1:24:10] Yeah, this was mentioned earlier, but this band also needs to use stay attached to the property
[1:24:14] no matter who owns it.
[1:24:16] By Lisa's it or operates there in the future.
[1:24:19] I'd like that same restriction put in the development agreement of possible, so it isn't
[1:24:23] disappear if and when ownership changes.
[1:24:27] Another subject I'm bringing up, Manual Procedural Guidelines for the Conductive City Council,
[1:24:33] Section 7.4B, the purpose of the public comment period is that we see from the public,
[1:24:38] not to create a debate between the members and the public.
[1:24:41] Members should generally refrain from debating members of the public during the period of public comment,
[1:24:45] but if members desire to clarify comments by members of the public, they may ask factual questions
[1:24:51] and if necessary should do so during the public comment period.
[1:24:56] You want me to clarify?
[1:24:58] No, okay, thank you guys.
[1:25:01] Thank you, Mr. Garcia.
[1:25:13] Any other public comment?
[1:25:18] Any online?
[1:25:21] All right.
[1:25:22] Chair, I do have one more that I was supposed to mention during the presentation.
[1:25:26] We did receive an email earlier this afternoon with a letter from Mitchell's
[1:25:32] sigh and Jeremy Herwitt, attorneys for western states regional council of
[1:25:37] Carpenters. I'll try to be brief on the short letter. Dear City Clerk on behalf of the Western
[1:25:44] States Regional Council of Carpenters, otherwise known as Western Carpenters, or WSRCC. My office
[1:25:51] is submitting these comments for the City of Banyng's Planning Commission meeting, addressing
[1:25:55] the sunset crossroads specific plan, SCH number 2021-02011, and agenda item 4.1 known as the
[1:26:04] projects. W-S-R-C-C would like to express its support for this project. After further reviewing
[1:26:11] this project, W-S-R-C-C believes that the project will benefit the environment and the local
[1:26:16] economy by practicing protocols that will protect worker health and safety and will incorporate
[1:26:21] adequate environmental mitigation. Please feel free to contact my office if you have any additional
[1:26:26] questions or concern signed by Mitchell Sy and Jeremy Hurwick. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Staples.
[1:26:33] Can you tell us more about this firm and the the org that this firm is representing?
[1:26:41] I have no idea we just accepted the comment that they submitted in the email which is a slatter.
[1:26:46] Got it. Okay, so it's a firm representing.
[1:26:49] Your attorneys for Western State's regional Council of Carpenters.
[1:26:54] a labor union, a labor union, a good guess, I'm not familiar with them.
[1:27:02] Got it. Okay.
[1:27:03] Jericho, Serena, each of you received a copy of that letter.
[1:27:07] Yeah, it was sent to us today a little bit after two PM, I believe.
[1:27:11] Yeah, just claim, fine.
[1:27:13] And then, is it appropriate for me to read in the email with the responses for the record as
[1:27:17] well at this time?
[1:27:22] Council.
[1:27:28] Are you referring to the email questions you we asked already in a more answered
[1:27:32] right now? Yes sir. That's already part of the record.
[1:27:38] I would like to read the answers and the
[1:27:40] we have the answers to the questions. Mr. Chair, I appreciate you Mr. Bassie. So just for transparency
[1:27:50] for everyone here in the room at home, I did, as I mentioned, send in questions on August 20th. So I'll
[1:27:56] read you by questions with the subsequent responses from City staff as well. Just so we're on the same
[1:28:02] page here. So, hi, Matt. It was nice seeing you at the budget workshop, Tuesday evening.
[1:28:08] A head of the September 2nd hearing on SPA 26-001. I wanted to reach out with a few questions
[1:28:15] that may be helpful to address an advance to the commission and public have a clear
[1:28:19] understanding of the proposed changes. Would it be possible for staff for the staff report
[1:28:24] to show the current table 3-1 language alongside the proposed changes and include the applicant
[1:28:30] application materials in any written rationale to the amendment, the response.
[1:28:35] The changes to table 3-1 are in red text and in the attached exhibit to the resolution.
[1:28:41] The rationale for the amendment is in the staff report.
[1:28:45] It was clear to the developer that IST attention facilities and data centers were not wanted
[1:28:51] in the Sunset Crossroads area and to limit battery energy storage systems best as ancillary
[1:28:58] It used, meaning not a standalone, except where required by the California Building Code.
[1:29:06] Question.
[1:29:07] I'd also appreciate some clarification on the best record.
[1:29:11] The 2023 draft, DIR Section 4.6, page 4.6, 6 to 13, refers to a 65-megawat best,
[1:29:19] while the September 10th, 2025 planning commission staff report page 4 refers to a proposed 65-megawat per hour
[1:29:25] it best. Since megawatt and megawatt per hour measure different things, it could
[1:29:29] staff help explain how these references relate and where this specific 65 figure came from,
[1:29:35] answer or response. The megawatt of megawatt per hour are interchangeable. It doesn't really
[1:29:43] matter given that this standalone use is not allowed. Question, it would also be helpful to
[1:29:49] better understand how the three proposed prohibited uses are being defined, particularly data center,
[1:29:55] battery energy storage system and ice detention facility.
[1:29:58] For Best, I'm Curious.
[1:30:00] This is whether the prohibition is intended only for a standalone facility. We can also affect onsite battery systems serving and otherwise permitted use.
[1:30:09] For the detention facility language, it would be also helpful to understand exactly what type of use the prohibited language is intended to cover.
[1:30:18] The response, there are no definitions proposed with the code amendment, as they will be prohibited, uses no matter how they may or may not be defined.
[1:30:27] You're correct that any standalone best system would be prohibited within Sunset Crossroads specific plan area over a commercial or industrial building may seek to have back up battery storage systems as required slash allowed by state wall and the California building code
[1:30:44] Two more questions y'all. Thanks for
[1:30:46] You marine me could staff slash council also hope explain in simple terms whether these restrictions would apply to future property owners and
[1:30:55] what process would be required to change them later, including how the development agreement
[1:30:59] affects that response.
[1:31:01] The DA is not relevant in the SBA.
[1:31:04] Specific plans can be amended at any time by any one current or future.
[1:31:09] The PC slash CC, the planning commission slash city council, would have the approval authority
[1:31:15] on all future amendments.
[1:31:18] Last question, if possible, I'd appreciate having these issues addressed in the staff report
[1:31:22] or supporting materials, so the full commission and public of this information before hearing
[1:31:26] responds to your questions won't be in the staff report, but you may ask during the public hearing
[1:31:31] as that is the protocol. So those are the questions and answers that were asked prior,
[1:31:37] and I just wanted to enter those into the record for full transparency.
[1:31:42] Okay.
[1:31:45] So it would be appropriate
[1:31:48] to allow the applicant to respond to anything at this time?
[1:31:54] You know, the applicant can respond to some of the comments
[1:31:57] that were made.
[1:31:59] I think it's important to note that the amendment
[1:32:02] is related to these prohibited uses,
[1:32:05] and the comments made about the project in general,
[1:32:08] in the past, we're not relevant to this amendment by itself.
[1:32:13] So the answer should be focused on the questions related
[1:32:16] to the SPA.
[1:32:22] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bassie.
[1:32:27] Mr.
[1:32:30] Schrieg.
[1:32:32] Schrieg? I'm sorry. If you could, Mr. Schrieg.
[1:32:37] Joel Schrieg. Right. Okay. I apologize. Thank you.
[1:32:42] What would you like me to respond to? With respect to the amendment?
[1:32:47] Well, if you'd like to address anything that I was stated, we are in the opportunity.
[1:32:54] We are not. I said it before. I'll say it again today. We're not pursuing data centers.
[1:33:00] Ice detention facilities or jails or any sort of things or standalone bus systems.
[1:33:06] It just we're prohibiting that with this. It's pretty simple.
[1:33:09] And this was based off of I think it was mentioned public comment and feedback that you all received during
[1:33:16] listening sessions. Correct. Yep. Correct. We heard clear feedback from the community and
[1:33:23] These were three areas that they were concerned about, and so we submitted this to the city to
[1:33:31] formally process this amendment to prohibit those. So this was in line with that now.
[1:33:37] I got it. And why did we go down to, I believe it was the best, what do we not have, I
[1:33:48] How did you all get to ICE detention facilities specifically?
[1:33:53] That was named specifically by the community as concern.
[1:33:57] God, and I guess because it's so particular,
[1:34:01] that is that why we don't have a definition,
[1:34:03] or why you all didn't provide a definition for it?
[1:34:08] Correct.
[1:34:09] Okay.
[1:34:12] So if you wouldn't like to address any our commissioners,
[1:34:14] if you all haven't any questions for it?
[1:34:19] All right, thank you, Mr.
[1:34:24] Shrink, S-E-H-R-E-N-K.
[1:34:27] Oh my gosh.
[1:34:30] Mr. Shrink, I wanted to say Shrink.
[1:34:32] I kept coming to mind.
[1:34:35] It's a great movie.
[1:34:37] Thank you for that.
[1:34:40] And our commissioners are there any factual questions to staff
[1:34:44] that you would like to ask for we close public.
[1:34:49] Are the public hearing?
[1:34:52] No?
[1:34:52] Okay, I
[1:35:07] So I was just wanting to clarify, when you're saying factual,
[1:35:13] because I did have some questions for the staff, and response to some of the questions that were asked by the public, but I wanted to ensure that I'm asking within that.
[1:35:24] Yeah, also could you share I would close the public hearing and then you can deliver it in ask us questions and then we're
[1:35:31] We were respond to the questions that I can to the best my ability. That was asked by the public
[1:35:39] We have no more public comment on online
[1:35:43] I'm here. Okay with sing no more speakers. I now close the public hearing at 7 0 8 p.m
[1:35:51] No further public testimony may be received unless the hearing is formally reopened.
[1:35:57] I would like to allow us to all process all of the public comment if we could take a ten-minute
[1:36:07] recess to use the restroom.
[1:36:09] I am prepared to respond to the questions first before you decide to take a break.
[1:36:16] Commissioner, how do you feel? Would you like to take a break before or after the responses?
[1:36:27] So we're going to go from back to front as best as I can.
[1:36:32] One of the speaker's asked about the original EIR.
[1:36:36] The original Certified EIR is still in effect and will be indefinitely.
[1:36:43] All the mitigation measures adopted, including the save and board writing considerations,
[1:36:47] operations are in full force and effect regardless of this SPA amendment and the referendum.
[1:36:57] I'm going to turn real quick to city attorney to he already answered this in the beginning.
[1:37:02] Regarding legal authority to move forward with this SPA, so Bob, if you could just comment
[1:37:08] on that, then I'll go back to the other questions.
[1:37:12] No, being able to file the SBA and move forward with it, even though the reference.
[1:37:19] Right.
[1:37:20] So just to reiterate, under the Beaumont Municipal Code, the applicant does have big burden?
[1:37:31] I'm sorry, banning.
[1:37:34] Municipal Code, the applicant does have the authorization to file an application.
[1:37:40] and they did do that, and staff has a duty to process that application, which they did,
[1:37:49] and then they have presented it to the Planning Commission as is their duty.
[1:37:56] And then I'd like to read from the Banning Municipal Code. Got it right that time.
[1:38:03] 17.96.040 says that the planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the proposed specific plan, whether to approve,
[1:38:16] approve and modified form, or disapprove, based upon the findings contained in Section 1796.060.
[1:38:32] Section 2.28.050 duties and responsibilities states in pertinent part, the planning commission
[1:38:43] scope of responsibility is to prepare, review, adopt, and recommend to the city council
[1:38:51] for its adoption of special areas of specific plans for identifiable areas where in more
[1:38:58] detailed guidelines are needed to supplement the objectives of the general plan.
[1:39:04] So I think the import of these provisions is that the job of the planning commission this
[1:39:11] evening is to recommend approval or disapproval or approval with modifications in a modified
[1:39:25] form.
[1:39:25] So that is your job this evening, I think that covers it, is that what you had in mind?
[1:39:36] Okay.
[1:39:36] Thank you.
[1:39:37] Thanks Bob.
[1:39:39] Also, I wanted to comment there was a question about the secret determination.
[1:39:44] It does apply the decision on the 15183 applies to just the specific plan amendment.
[1:39:52] The certified EIRs, I mentioned, is still in full force and effect, and there will be no attempt to exempt feet, you know.
[1:40:00] The SPA, the specific plan is approved, so the 15183 determination is specific to this amendment.
[1:40:09] In fact, that way our prohibiting uses reduces any impacts that could have resulted from those uses if they were allowed.
[1:40:19] So the impacts or less than what was originally evaluated in the certified EIR.
[1:40:27] So the 15183 provision is acceptable.
[1:40:31] It's according to SQL statutes.
[1:40:34] In the event that that's not enough,
[1:40:37] the commission could make a recommendation as part of their decision tonight
[1:40:42] that we could adopt the 15061 B3 exemption.
[1:40:46] in a general rule exemption that this project,
[1:40:50] this amendment has no ability to impact the environment,
[1:40:55] since we're prohibiting uses.
[1:40:57] Nothing new is being developed under this specific
[1:41:00] pun amendment.
[1:41:01] Everything again is covered by the original certified EIR.
[1:41:05] So we could use that one as well if we wanted.
[1:41:10] Sure, go ahead.
[1:41:10] So, I'd also like to comment on the original exemption, which is, do you have it under there?
[1:41:21] What's the number?
[1:41:24] No, the original.
[1:41:27] So under 15183, that's an exemption or the project is consistent with the general plan and the specific plan.
[1:41:35] And as we know, some people have argued that well, those aren't, in effect, although they were adopted by resolution,
[1:41:47] the fact is that this isn't going to go into effect tonight either, so if it does go into effect, it will be consistent with the general plan in the specific plan.
[1:42:00] So, that exemption applies and then the exemption that Mr. Bassie was talking about is the common sense exemption which says that the activity is covered by the common sense exemption that seek what applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment where it can be seen with certainty there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.
[1:42:30] The activity is not subject to sequa, and that's guidelines section 1, 506, 1, sub B, sub 3, you know, by removing potential uses from a specific plan, you know, the impact is actually diminished and there is no impact from removing something
[1:42:58] removing a use. So, those two exemptions are both available and that will be under consideration tonight.
[1:43:15] Thank you, Bob. The other question that came up was relative to, you know,
[1:43:28] Bob Bansard that, in terms of the definitions, the specific client does not have a list of definitions,
[1:43:38] the information and the uses there are pretty self-explanatory, self-defined, but if the
[1:43:44] commission wants to make as part of his recommendation council, we should provide some more
[1:43:49] specific definitions between now and the council meeting staff can do that and that will be
[1:43:54] to the Staff Report for Council consideration in October.
[1:44:01] Another comments were not really related to the specific kind of amendment, general concerns
[1:44:07] about the project and the election, but those are the comments that I have that I can answer.
[1:44:21] Let's take a 5 minute recess and we'll come back at 7, 7, 7, 20, 7, 20, 3.
[1:58:15] Every one, we're going to call the meeting back to order at 7, 31 p.
[1:58:25] and I believe we're going to commission discussion.
[1:58:30] Yes, before you do that chair, we do want to respond to one other comment that I did not regard a cold storage.
[1:58:37] Mark is going to tackle that real quick.
[1:58:41] Thank you. One comment that was brought up during the public hearing was regarding a cold storage.
[1:58:47] And that was an item that was discussed during the sense of the Crossroads specific plan and discussion.
[1:58:53] And I have on the screen here, you'll see someone in middle to upper part of the table, ice and cold storage.
[1:59:01] It is listed as permitted under the industrial zone, which is on the far right.
[1:59:05] But during the review process,
[1:59:10] back March of 26 and before,
[1:59:13] The DA was revised to include section 3.14.17 which does prohibit cold storage uses in the specific plan area.
[1:59:26] So the DA was utilized to make the amendments per council direction, planning commission direction for things like this.
[1:59:34] And this is the one area, if you recall, commissioners castrated a Marshall.
[1:59:39] There was an area that was planned to be industrial, that is going to be changed to General
[1:59:45] Commercials should everything proceed forward.
[1:59:48] And that was the area that was planned to be a cold storage location.
[1:59:52] And North Point agreed at that time to prohibit cold storage in the DA, but the commission.
[2:00:00] So I can add this as a recommendation to council to change the tables well along with the other three uses, should whoever make the motion this evening to move this forward. So whoever does do that, if you want, you can add the fourth revision here, which would be to have the ice and cold storage permitted use to prohibited on table 3-1.
[2:00:25] Thank you, Mr. Staples, and really quick, I just want to say that that was a lot of information
[2:00:37] and a wonderful public comment from all of you, regardless of what's out of the issue you're on.
[2:00:42] It's very important that you use your voice and you come out here, so it's very commendable.
[2:00:46] From the planning commission to you all, thank you very deeply.
[2:00:51] With that being said, our commission, oh, there is one thing to, I think we discovered
[2:00:59] that we can ask factual follow-up questions to our residents during public, public hearing.
[2:01:10] So I want to take accountability for that.
[2:01:12] We should have went in to recess to clarify that, so we did the public hearing correctly.
[2:01:17] on up to that and moving forward, we'll slow things down.
[2:01:21] There's no need for us to rush this process, as we know, these are really important decisions.
[2:01:28] So it's important for us to note that we do have that ability and we can just slow it down,
[2:01:34] so we fully understand and do the process correctly.
[2:01:37] All right, do my fellow commissioners have any factual follow-up questions for staff or the applicant before we close public hearing?
[2:01:52] I'm sorry chair, you've already closed the public hearing, so you're in commission discussion deliberation.
[2:01:59] Mr. Bassett, thank you. Wonderful, okay.
[2:02:02] That's right, before we went to recess. Wonderful.
[2:02:04] So, the public hearing is closed.
[2:02:06] We will now discuss the items as a commission.
[2:02:10] Please connect your comments to the proposed language,
[2:02:12] the environmental determination, and the four required findings.
[2:02:19] And so, the four findings.
[2:02:22] I have them here in Simple Terms to Council.
[2:02:23] Please correct me or add any additions.
[2:02:26] The four findings that we need to meet,
[2:02:28] the amendment number one, the amendment agrees with the general plan.
[2:02:31] Two, it will not harm public health safety welfare.
[2:02:33] the environment three the properties physically suitable and four the resulting development will be
[2:02:38] compatible with the surrounding area.
[2:02:43] So commissioners discussion on what we have before us
[2:02:47] and are any questions.
[2:02:55] I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move that we approve specific plan
[2:03:00] amendment number 26-001 by NP banning industrial LLC for the Sunset Crossroads
[2:03:09] specific plan, and that we include removing the permit for cold storage in
[2:03:17] intersection 3-1 as market suggested.
[2:03:20] I'd like to make a substitute motion to continue.
[2:03:25] because the language still remains unclear on these uses.
[2:03:32] So, yeah, I'd like the motion to make a substitute motion to continue.
[2:03:37] The hearing to our next planning commission meeting,
[2:03:44] so staff can return with clear language addressing the best
[2:03:47] designation, definitions, units, and units.
[2:03:57] So, to the other three commissioners, you can choose which motion you want to second to move forward.
[2:04:05] I believe they would be seconding my substitute motion because it's stacked on top of the motion prior.
[2:04:11] Well, if there's silence on your motion, then it wouldn't move forward.
[2:04:21] I will second the first motion.
[2:04:29] Second, on Mr. Castorina's motion.
[2:04:39] Okay, yeah.
[2:04:40] Shkasturina?
[2:04:44] Uh, roll call?
[2:04:49] Jerkasturina?
[2:04:51] No.
[2:04:53] Commissioner Evans?
[2:04:55] Yes.
[2:04:56] Commissioner Light and A.
[2:04:58] Yes. Commissioner Marshall.
[2:05:02] All right,
[2:05:05] motion passes.
[2:05:10] So now we move on to five, which is announcements and reports, five point one, the directors are bored.
[2:05:20] Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of items I want to bring to your attention.
[2:05:25] On your dios I gave you a booklet that was prepared by our city attorney's office on the Brown Act.
[2:05:32] some excellent information. If you're bored during the day, please read that and you'll
[2:05:39] become more familiar with the Brown Act and everything that's in there. It's a good
[2:05:46] information that I think the commission would benefit from, especially our new commissioners
[2:05:52] that haven't had a full education process on the Brown Act, so that's real helpful. The
[2:05:58] Another item I want to bring to your attention is the Planning Commission Symposium that's being opened up by the Southern California BIA, it's a free symposium, it's pretty much like a one day conference, down in Irvine, I believe Commissioner Evans you responded and are registered to go already, so the other four, I think this would be an excellent opportunity if you can get off work to go to this, it's free.
[2:06:28] We do not have any money in the budget for commission training going into this current fiscal year 2627, so any time that we can attend some of these, or you guys can attend some of these that are free, it's very, very helpful.
[2:06:43] I think the topics, welcome and commissioners role, the land use hierarchy, zoning and development standards.
[2:06:52] So the vision map act basics and development agreements explained.
[2:06:57] I think there will be a real great opportunity as well as
[2:07:01] Sequo basics that they'll be talking about as well.
[2:07:05] Please, in the email that I sent you with this information,
[2:07:09] you'll need to contact via email or phone call to BIA.
[2:07:14] The gal that is taken registration responded to Commissioner Evans.
[2:07:20] So, you can email her, she was included in there as a copy on that email and she'll be able to get you set up and that's all I have.
[2:07:31] All right.
[2:07:32] Thank you, Mr. Vassie.
[2:07:33] Now, we'll move on to 5.2 commissioner reports.
[2:07:37] I will hear a brief from commissioners and community announcements.
[2:07:43] Commissioners?
[2:07:49] All right.
[2:07:51] I have a few here.
[2:07:53] So, a discover banning, which is a passive experience from the past community foundation.
[2:08:00] A civic experience will be beginning September 11th at Stage Coach Days.
[2:08:06] We'll be getting behind the scenes tour as well.
[2:08:11] And Stage Coach Days is from Friday, a September 11th and Saturday, a September 12th at AC Dice Art Equestrian Park.
[2:08:19] Gates opened at 5 p.m., the rodeo begins at 7 p.m., and Saturday's downtown parade
[2:08:24] of 4 sage coach days begins at 10 a.m. There's the free Marango Thunder in Lightning Palo,
[2:08:31] which runs September 25th through the 27th in Caveson, all bay event in its free.
[2:08:38] There's the downtown art walk, which is Saturday, September 26th from 1 to 4 p.m., followed by
[2:08:44] Saturday evening farmer's market, which
[2:08:47] started 5 PM. So go to that so we can make sure it keeps
[2:08:51] happening. Commissioner Evans? I just wanted to know where can we find that
[2:08:56] information because I haven't seen any of that
[2:08:59] publicized or yeah I'm like if I don't
[2:09:04] here and here I literally don't
[2:09:07] getting in any of that information. Yeah it's a tough one right because
[2:09:11] We talked about this last month, too. It's a chronic issue. I wouldn't
[2:09:16] employ us all to get into any Facebook, like social media groups, follow the
[2:09:21] local organizations that are in town too, that post these fires. If we get a PIO of a
[2:09:29] home out here.
[2:09:33] Public information officer. Thank you. Public information officer
[2:09:37] the handles, the outflow of communications information for our
[2:09:40] community.
[2:09:42] This would be a lot more robust and easier for us. We
[2:09:45] don't have that right now. If there's anyone out there that wants to
[2:09:49] create an app alongside the city to put all of these in one place, that'll
[2:09:53] be wonderful. But again, just follow these as many of the local orgs as
[2:09:57] possible. I guess the tip and trip would be to...
[2:10:00] To go to a local organization, social profile and see who they follow and then just follow them and you'll get them fly directly.
[2:10:09] Yeah, I try to keep social media is a lot.
[2:10:14] Something. Yeah. We got to get better with that. Yeah, it's difficult.
[2:10:21] Staff is there anything that we can do to not just in planning department, but I guess share amongst other departments.
[2:10:29] with events and stuff.
[2:10:31] The only thing I could recommend is our Parks Department does handle a lot of the special event permits that happen at DICEART Park and parade and all that.
[2:10:40] So, again, follow them as best you can and any of the social media sites with them and then the actual stage coach who is a group.
[2:10:50] Thank you, Mr. Staples.
[2:10:52] Okay.
[2:10:54] Maybe I'll work on something.
[2:10:56] The Downtown Banning Art Walk is Saturday, September 26, from 1 to 4 p.m., their social
[2:11:02] media is Downtown Banning, I believe.
[2:11:07] And then that's the farmer's market right after that.
[2:11:10] Blue Zones has helped put that on along with the Farm to Fork, our local business.
[2:11:15] The Banning Library Children's Book Club is going to be discussing Mahikid, our Mexican,
[2:11:21] on Tuesday, September 29th, at 3 p.m. at the Banning Library.
[2:11:26] Supervisor with Dietta's Office, that's our county supervisor for District 5, is going to
[2:11:31] continue their free monthly drive-through produce distributions.
[2:11:36] You can check his District 5 website, I don't have the next day to actually on here.
[2:11:44] Now I do get his publication because I actually, I guess because I'm registered voter and so I get those in my email.
[2:11:56] One of those.
[2:11:57] That's usually the second week of each month on Wednesdays.
[2:12:00] I believe.
[2:12:01] Do you have the date?
[2:12:02] I don't.
[2:12:04] No worries.
[2:12:07] And that is it for my report.
[2:12:11] Anything coming to one for events or anything?
[2:12:15] Okay. All right. We will move on to item six items for future agendas.
[2:12:25] Commissioners.
[2:12:30] So at the August 5th meeting, I asked for status update on the citywide
[2:12:35] amendment addressing data centers, ice detention facilities, and battery energy storage systems.
[2:12:40] Um, not only with sunset crossroads, so, uh, yeah, I just wanted to status update on that.
[2:12:52] So we don't have any specific direction from council yet on those items.
[2:12:57] Um, a side note is we in the near future will be, uh,
[2:13:00] Mending the commercial industrial section of the code, but that's a couple months away.
[2:13:14] And then for, like, for us to explore, strengthen our land use is,
[2:13:23] uh,
[2:13:23] a comment that said, as developments becomes more dynamic and grows in the future, it might
[2:13:30] look different from what it is now. What authority do we have as a planning commission to explore,
[2:13:39] you know, asking, you know, we ask to agendais this to explore this, is it just solely we have to wait
[2:13:44] for the city council to give direction for us to study it? I'm just trying to demystify this,
[2:13:51] So I'm understanding, go
[2:13:57] ahead, council.
[2:13:58] Okay, it just so happens that I have in front of me,
[2:14:02] bending municipal code 2.28.050 of the bending municipal code.
[2:14:09] And I quoted from this earlier, I quoted just a specific section,
[2:14:16] but I can read the entirety.
[2:14:18] So, um, Subsection C says the Planning Commission's scope of responsibility is to prepare
[2:14:27] review adopt and recommend to the City Council for its adoption, a long-range comprehensive
[2:14:32] general plan to guide future physical development and conservation of the city and its
[2:14:47] Two, prepare review adopt and recommend to the City Council for its adoption of special areas,
[2:14:54] specific plans for identifiable areas where in more detailed guidelines are...
[2:15:00] We needed to supplement the objectives of the General Plan. Three, review, development applications submitted to the city for consistency with adopted plans and ordinances.
[2:15:11] Approve or deny applications when final authority is granted to the Planning Commission by the Municipal Code.
[2:15:18] Make a recommendation on those actions for which the City Council is the final reviewing.
[2:15:22] a approval body for acts as an appeal body on decisions made by the community development director
[2:15:31] and five performs such other functions and duties as the city council may from time to time
[2:15:38] direct and or provide within the banning municipal code.
[2:15:46] So those are the duties.
[2:15:53] Okay, I'm sorry. That was a lot to take in. So is that we are able to agendaise and study
[2:16:00] strengthening our land use policies around developments that may or may not be harmful
[2:16:05] to the journal public? I'm sorry. You want to add things onto the agenda that are what?
[2:16:13] I'm sorry, I don't want to understand. Sure, Council. So over the past few months, I've been
[2:16:17] asking about agendizing strengthening our land use policies around what we just talked about.
[2:16:22] about for a very specific project that's also on the invalid through the referendum. But instead
[2:16:29] of us going project by project, the development or the planning department is working on
[2:16:37] amending a lot of code in our municipal code to update it. So I was asking if we could adjust.
[2:16:45] So in other words, whether the planning commission can on its own motion, bring up amendments to the banning municipal code, is that what you're saying?
[2:16:57] Sure, we are a purview of the land policy, our land use.
[2:17:02] So let me add real quick, you're talking about the general plan.
[2:17:07] So the general plan update that was going on has ceased.
[2:17:11] The budget has been taken away for that, so the general plan that we're currently using is the 2006 general plan.
[2:17:20] If the commission desires to amend the general plan line to use policies, we have no budget to do that.
[2:17:32] So it's almost as if you, we really can't bring a general plan amendment.
[2:17:38] And if you want to agenda, just a general discussion, or you want to discuss or talk about
[2:17:46] your ideas about what can maybe done in the future, we could put that on the agenda
[2:17:53] as the study session as a general business side of and so you could at least talk about
[2:17:59] it.
[2:17:59] But if you direct us to do something that's going to require a budget, then we have to get approval
[2:18:05] from city council to do that.
[2:18:08] I got it.
[2:18:09] So the difference between, I've been asking to agendize
[2:18:12] the discussion of strengthening the land use policies,
[2:18:15] but I should have been saying agendizing a study session.
[2:18:17] I'm strengthening our land use policies.
[2:18:20] Well, that's a very vague, strengthening land use policy.
[2:18:22] I have no idea what you're talking about.
[2:18:25] That's a wide variety of things.
[2:18:27] But we can just have a general discussion,
[2:18:31] a general discussion of the city's land use policies
[2:18:34] And then you guys can discuss what that is and what you'd like or what you don't like or what you'd like to see.
[2:18:41] I'm confused, Mr. Raskin. I was, because I've been asking about best ice, detention facilities,
[2:18:49] or detention facilities in general and data centers. I thought I was particular on that.
[2:18:55] I think we can discuss future plans and recommendations but we can't actually enact or implement anything at this point in time.
[2:19:03] So it may be good to have those study sessions or discussions for one the time is right?
[2:19:08] We already have the plan in place.
[2:19:11] Yeah, when we, I guess, pull down the funding and that would be a council direction.
[2:19:16] So our hands are tied.
[2:19:17] Okay.
[2:19:18] I just wanted to get that clarification.
[2:19:21] Cool.
[2:19:22] So then let's move to a adjourn before we adjourn though.
[2:19:27] Can you confirm the next date of our regular meeting?
[2:19:32] October.
[2:19:32] October.
[2:19:32] seven. I don't, yes, October 7th. All right, you all. So our next, oh, literally right here. Our next
[2:19:40] planning commission meeting is Wednesday, October 7th. Can we get a, and we hope to see you all there?
[2:19:46] Can we get a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting? Motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. Thank you,
[2:19:59] right now.
[2:20:00] Aye, Mr. Evans, yes, Mr. Light, aye, and aye, yes, Mr. Marshal? Yes, Mr. Marshal. Yes, Mr. Marshal. Yes, Mr. Marshal. Yes, Mr. Marshal. Yes.
[2:20:13] All right. Media adjourned at 7.53 PM. Enjoy your evening, y'all. Thanks for coming.