Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Determine that Specific Plan Amendment No. 26-0003 does not require further environmental review in accordance with Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2026-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANNING, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 26-0003 TO AMEND TABLE 5-13 OF THE BUTTERFIELD SPECIFIC PLAN (ATWELL DEVELOPMENT) AND MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 26-0003 DOES NOT REQUIRE FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15183 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES
Tri Pointe Homes
1250 Corona Pointe Court, Ste 600
Corona, CA 92879
The Butterfield Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 27, 2012 via General Plan Amendment No. 11-2501 (Council Resolution No. 2012-25), Zone Change No. 11-3501 (Council Resolution No. 2012-25), a Development Agreement (Ordinance No. 1451), and the Butterfield Specific Plan (Ordinance No. 1450). City Council also certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Specific Plan (Council Resolution No. 2012-24/SCH No. 2007091149) all of which superseded the Deutsch Specific Plan that was adopted by Ordinance No. 1133 on November 9, 2003. Subsequently, the City Council approved an amendment to the Butterfield Specific Plan on February 14, 2017 via General Plan Amendment No. 16-2501 (Resolution No. 2017-07) to amend the Circulation Element to realign Highland Home Road to intersect with Highland Springs Avenue and approve an Addendum to the EIR with additional mitigation measures.
The majority of the revisions approved in the Specific Plan amendment in 2012 and 2017 included the residential land uses, allowable densities, removal of a planned golf course and converting the open space to natural open space for site area drainage. The two Specific Plan commercial areas, Planning Areas 17 and 18, remained unchanged in regard to land area/lot size, permitted and conditionally permitted retail and service commercial land uses (Table 5-13).
One element of the approved Development Agreement for the Specific Plan set a 10-year milestone target for Tri Pointe Homes (new owners of the SP) to market the commercial sites in a good faith effort. Tri-Pointe Homes has achieved this and recently has entered into a negotiation agreement with Regency Centers (a Commercial/Retail Developer) who has expressed interest in developing the 23-acre commercial site for a retail shopping center. Regency has met with city staff several times over the past few months to present the draft development plan. As part of their due diligence, Regency (in agreement with Tri-Pointe) has requested some minor changes to Table 5-13 (Permitted Uses) of the Specific Plan to create better marketing opportunities for development of the commercial site. In reviewing their request, Staff also found some inconsistencies in Table 5-13 that actually prohibited some retail and service commercial uses typically found in a shopping center. Therefore, there is a need to amend Table 5-13; hence, the proposed specific plan amendment request.
Project Summary:
Specific Plan Amendment No. 26-0003 was submitted to the City on September 3, 2026, after discussions between Staff and Tri Pointe Homes resulted in agreeing to minor amendments that would foster economic development and allow for a more effective mix of permitted uses on the commercial properties in PA 17 & 18. The proposed amendment would amend Table 5-13 to include retail and service commercial uses that were previously excluded by the table, in addition to changing some uses from requiring a CUP (C) to Permitted (P).
Note: The proposed amendment to Table 5-13 does not affect any of the Residential uses or designations within the specific plan area as it is focused only on amending the use table for several commercial uses.
The retail and service commercial uses affected by this amendment are summarized below:
Land Use Previous Proposed
Service Clubs/Organizations Prohibited Permitted
Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage Conditional Prohibited
Building Material Stores Prohibited Permitted
Drug Stores N/A Permitted
Farm and Ranch Supply Stores Prohibited Permitted
Restaurants, Drive-In, Take-Out, and Fast Food Prohibited Permitted
Cargo/Storage Containers Permitted Conditional
Repair/Maintenance of Consumer Products Prohibited Permitted
General Retail/Gift Shops (ancillary use) Conditional Permitted
Restaurants (ancillary use) Conditional Permitted
The changes to Table 5-13 listed above are reflected in Exhibit A of PC Resolution No. 2026-06. The proposed amendments are to existing retail and service commercial uses already listed in the table, but amended to permit more of the typical retail, restaurant, and service commercial land uses that one would find in a standalone or larger shopping center. The “membership organization facilities” is proposed to be amended to “Service Clubs/Organizations” to align it with an appropriate title for such groups. The Recreational Vehicle (RV) Storage land use is proposed to be Prohibited to be consistent citywide, as such uses are not permitted in commercial zoning districts, but are only conditionally permitted in Industrial and Business Park zones. Cargo and Storage Containers have been amended from Permitted to Conditional to be consistent with Section 17.24.180 of the Banning Municipal Code for permanent placement of such containers citywide.
Staff believes the proposed amendments are consistent with similar retail, restaurant, and service commercial land uses listed in Table 5-13, and as such, should not result in any impacts on the specific plan’s commercial sites or surrounding areas than the existing permitted uses.
Therefore, Staff is recommending the Planning Commission support the proposed changes to Table 5-13 and recommend the City Council approve Specific Plan Amendment No. 26-0003. The City Council, pending a recommendation from the Planning Commission, is scheduled to review the specific plan amendment at their November 10, 2026 meeting.
In accordance with Section 17.96.060 of the Banning Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is required to make four (4) findings to approve the proposed specific plan amendment. Based on the foregoing findings and substantial evidence in the whole of the record, including the application materials, project plans, staff report, environmental documentation, written and oral testimony, the Planning Commission of the City of Banning, hereby recommends that the City Council make the following findings for approval of Specific Plan, Amendment No. 26-0003:
A. The proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan.
Evidence: The Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that adding permitted and conditionally permitted uses that are similar to other uses in Table 5-13 of the Butterfield Specific Plan will support economic development and retail and service commercial growth in the City. The project will continue to avoid adverse impacts, while allowing economic growth opportunities and balancing land use, circulation, and economic development priorities within the specific plan project. Further, the amendment to Table 5-13 will enhance commercial development and job creation opportunities within the specific plan area while also encouraging and continuing to align with policies related to walkability, infrastructure upgrades, and community amenities in the General Plan.
B. The proposed plan would not be detrimental to the environment, or to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
Evidence: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified (SCH No. 2007091149) for the Butterfield Specific Plan (approved and certified in 2012 and amended in 2017) project that identified potentially significant impacts and included mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less than significant where feasible. The City Council determined that, with mitigation and overriding considerations, the plan would not be detrimental to the environment or public interest, health, safety, or welfare. The adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations as allowed by CEQA guidelines maintains the projects’ long-term economic and community benefits. Additionally, consistent with state law requirements, the approved Specific Plan achieves a comprehensive plan for land use, circulation and infrastructure within the specific plan area and surrounding area to ensure the project accommodates necessary utilities and services to protect the public interest, health safety, convenience and welfare.
C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designation(s) and the anticipated development(s).
Evidence: The Specific Plan project area continues to be physically suitable for the intended permitted and conditionally permitted retail, restaurant, and service commercial land uses. The commercial sites are undeveloped, with appropriate access to major roadways, and will be served by nearby existing infrastructure along Highland Springs Avenue and Wilson Street. The Specific Plan project underwent geotechnical, hydrology, and environmental analyses, during the EIR review, that confirmed suitability for the scale and type of commercial development. The proposed amendment will include retail, restaurant, and service commercial uses that are consistent and compatible with similar land uses in Table 5-13.
D. The proposed plan amendment shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood.
Evidence: The Butterfield Specific Plan amendment reflects the desirable and compatible land uses and features, incorporating landscaping, architectural standards, buffers, and traffic planning. Adjacent uses include residential and commercial land uses, and the Specific Plan includes existing development that transitions use intensity and design to ensure compatibility. The proposed amendment to Table 5-13 will promote compatible land uses that are consistent with the desirable commercial character of the Plan area and the surrounding neighborhood.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Staff has determined that the proposed specific plan amendment to revise Table 5-13 does not require further environmental review per Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed amendments to permit certain retail, restaurant, and service commercial land uses are consistent with the General Plan and similar land uses in the Butterfield Specific Plan Table 5-13. Also, the amendment to permit certain retail, restaurant, and service commercial uses are consistent with other permitted and conditionally permitted in uses in Table 5-13 and do not have the potential for causing additional environmental impacts or nuisance concerns not evaluated in the original EIR certified for the Butterfield Specific Plan. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council make this determination in accordance with Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines.
In accordance with Chapter 17.68 of the Banning Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, the Planning Department on September 10, 2026, gave public notice by mailing a public hearing notice to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the commercial retail Planning Area project boundaries notifying said property owners of the holding of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2026, to review Specific Plan Amendment No. 26-0003. Also, in accordance with Chapter 17.68 of the Banning Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65353, 65854, 65090, and 65091, the Planning Department on September 11, 2026, published a legal notice in the “Record Gazette,” a local newspaper of general circulation, notifying the general public of the holding of a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2026, to review Specific Plan Amendment No. 26-0003. As of the time of writing this staff report, no public comments have been received either in support of, or in opposition to the proposed Specific Plan Amendment.