For the Record Gazette


“The time has come,” the Walrus said, “to talk of many things.” In this case, it wasn't Alice Through the Looking Glass, it was the Banning Planning Commission hearing a single item during a specially called meeting: Whether to revoke an Unclassified Use Permit for the project known as Drag City.

Banning assistant city attorney Eric S. Vail began with the statement that it was the opinion of staff and the attorneys that the permit had expired and was null and void. Vail continued to say that there was an “inconsistency” and would err on the side of caution, give the applicant due process and validate the revocation.

Vail went on to say that granting 3 extensions was the norm but in this case 4 extensions had been permitted. When Commission Chairperson Betty DeSantis asked why the 4th extension was granted and wouldn't have made their permit expiration date 2004 and not August 14, 2006, when the permit became null and void, Vail responded that the people who granted the permit were not available. Furthermore, the paperwork was lost for awhile or mis-numbered, so for the sake of being fair, the actual expiration date was August, 2006

Whatever, the permit had expired and no construction had been done, therefore there was no vesting. Further evidence in favor of termination came in a letter from the City attorney's office that offered evidence that BAA (Banning Airport Associates) failed to meet terms of agreement including failure to meet grading permit terms and failure to make a deposit into escrow in a timely manner, and many more.

BAA attorney James DeAguilar began his address to the commission with an apology that he had the flu and he was in “fundamental disagreement with your city attorney.” He said that the work his clients had done on “Bourbon” Street had gained them vested status and invested $192,000 for offsite work done on “Bourbon” Street.

A couple of things here Š Mr. DeAguilar apologized to all for showing up when he was as ill as he said he was. I'm sorry he was ill; so why didn't he stay home? Can I sue him if my flu returns from his floating germs?



He repeatedly referred to “Bourbon” Street when he meant Barbour Street. To quote Robert Preston as the Music Man, “he didn't know the territory.”

What one does not want to acquire, is an advanced degree from the “Andy Marocco School of Charm.” I have watched Marocco testify time after time before the planning commission and city council and tear the heads off the people he is requesting to approve his project. He may have the best facts in the world but somehow they are lost between the vitriol he spews.

Then we had the battle of the barristers, where Vail and DeAguilar have conflicting opinions. The question is, which one does the jury, err, the commission believe? DeAguilar had already pointed out that if the law suit (what law suit?) proceeds, it would cost the city about a half million dollars of the people's money to defend.

Well, I want to believe Eric Vail, Banning's attorney. So if they go to court and Vail was incorrect about his “assumptions” during the process and loses, who pays for the appeal?

Vail works for Burke, Williams and Sorenson. These are some of the attorneys who recently lost a suit against the city and the developers of the Black Bench project. While SunCal companies consider their options, so I assume are Banning's city attorneys. Since the judge seemed to have ruled against some of Burke, Williams and Sorenson's work product, would I be safe in assuming that the lawyers will not charge the city for the appeal process as they, in part, were responsible for the loss? This seems fair. The question is, will it happen? Ha.

While you are pondering this, let's return to the recent hearing. Andy Maracco gets up to testify and says that “Vail's assumptions are not true.” On the issue of vesting, Marocco said “we are moving stuff back and forth so we are under construction and vested.” Vail later countered with what was spent on Barbour Street was irrelevant, as it was not construction.

Marocco was referring to the offsite improves made to Barbour Street. I was uncertain about how much Marocco and Company paid, but all seemed to agree that checks in the amount of $62,500 and $25,000 was paid by the Banning Redevelopment Agency to Marocco for Barbour Street improvements.

Andy Marocco then presents the city clerk with large books, “in case we have to go to litigation.”

The public hearing opened. I believe there wasn't a single person from Banning speaking in favor of the project. The closest people were from Beaumont. Others were from Joshua Tree and some came from Orange County. The person who testified against the raceway was from Banning.

Unfortunately, his comments included the less than brilliant statement that these kinds of venues would attract “riff raff.” As each person headed to the podium to comment, they were quick to disavow themselves from the riff raff class. Again, a very bad choice of words.

There is a huge difference between being “vested” and having “invested.” Vail made a statement that I think sums it up: “A developer has to spend money; it is the risk of private enterprise.” To me, that's an investment to get vested.

After the public hearing finally closed, DeSantis said “I wish to remind the commission that we are being asked to pass a resolution to revoke a UUP which has terminated on its own.” Motion/second, vote 4-0 to revoke the permit. (Commissioner Hawkins absent).

In almost seven years, this project has not gotten off the ground (literally) or been able to come up with financing. While a friend of mine thinks council/commission should have given them one more extension to see if they would swim or sink, I think it was time to end it.

At the very least, I do not have faith in an EIR that is nearly seven years old. Another council passed this project. Had the applicant moved in a timely manner, the place would have been built and this column and the situation that promoted it would be irrelevant.

For now, I hope the powers that be have something in the wings to provide Banning with a solid economic base. We deserve it and we could probably avoid any new taxes being levied on residents.

Gail and her husband Bill Paparian created a service called Writing Solutions in 1996. Gail has also written for a number of local and national magazines and newspapers over the years. Currently, she provides public relations consulting services for the Banning Unified School District. She can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .