Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council NOT support amending Condition of Approval #32 as requested by the Applicant and keep the approved COA #32 language as approved in Council Resolution No. 2025-135 adopted on October 14, 2025.
Tony Simeone, Flowers Dept LLC
19360 Rinaldi St, #388
Porter Ranch, CA 91326
On September 23, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to review Conditional Use Permit No. 24-0107 (PLN 24-0107) for a new cannabis cultivation use at 200 John Street. The Planning Commission had recommended approval of the project at their meeting on August 6, 2025, where they held a public hearing and received comments from the public. A public hearing was held by the Council where Council members asked questions about the proposal, how the operation would control odors and the requirement of an access easement; and opened the public hearing to receive comments and testimony from those in attendance. Concerns were raised by the public about electric utility use, controlling odors and air filtration, and access to the property, and the hearing was continued to the next meeting. On October 14, 2025, the public hearing was re-opened with Councilmembers asking additional questions and receiving additional comments from the public. The Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-135 with the only amendments to the conditions involving additional filtration units and requiring Condition of Approval #32 before issuance of a building permit.
The project applicant, Tony Simeone, subsequently has been processing building permits to complete the exterior and interior tenant improvements to convert the existing building into a cannabis cultivation facility. In processing the necessary access easement for the property, per Condition of Approval #32, the early drafts of the easement document included language that allowed the property owner of 313 Gallaher Way to revoke the rights to the easement with a 30-day notice. However, the necessary access to the project site at 200 John St/301 Galleher Way needs to be an irrevocable easement to maintain the access to the property in perpetuity.
Subsequently, the applicant has pursued an amended easement with the adjacent property owner that would make the access easement permanent. However, the negotiations have not resulted in an agreeable set of terms to make the easement irrevocable. This has resulted in Mr. Simeone pursuing this amendment to CC Resolution No. 2025-235 and Condition of Approval #32.
Summary:
Conditional Use Permit No. 26-0003 was filed by the project applicant on August 20, 2026, proposing an amendment to Condition of Approval #32 on CC Resolution No. 2025-135. Mr. Simeone is requesting Planning Commission approval to modify COA #32 so that the timing of the recordation of the easement be changed to "Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy" instead of "Prior to Issuance of Building Permits" and that the easement be in full force and effect during the cannabis operations and not be irrevocable or perpetual as approved by the City Council on October 14, 2025. The adopted City Council Resolution No. 2025-135 modified the Planning Commission's approved condition of approval by changing the timing for the recordation of the easement from prior to issuance of "Certificate of Occupancy" to prior to issuance of "Building Permits." The applicant has provided a Justification Letter (Attachment 3) which includes an exhibit with recommended language to modify Condition of Approval #32.
The applicant has conveyed to Staff that their request to change the recording of the required easement prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy (instead of building permits as approved by City Council) would allow building permits to be issued for construction of on-site/off-site improvements and construction of the building's interior tenant improvements. The Applicant believes this would better provide time for them and the adjacent property owner to finalize an agreeable easement and record the document prior to completion of the permitted improvements.
Regarding the language in the access easement regarding its irrevocability, an original draft executed agreement and easement between the property owners of 200 John Street and 313 S. Galleher Way did not include proper exhibits for the easement, but included provisions that the easement rights could be revoked by the property owner of 313 S. Galleher Way. The applicant's Justification Letter states that it is their belief that the executed agreement contains the substance of complying with Condition of Approval #32 and is satisfied in fact.
The applicant's Justification Letter also contends that the staff-required "irrevocability in perpetuity" is not found in the condition of approval and that the adjacent property owner is reluctant to agree to such irrevocability, and that it is commercially ordinary for a property owner to be reluctant over such an agreement in perpetuity. That the imposition of such a condition places the entitlement beyond the applicant's reach. The applicant claims the irrevocability provision adds no protection to the City or its control over access to the property, that the City has its own operational control of the easement. As the cannabis regulatory permit must be renewed annually, the operations could not continue if the easement is not in full force and effect. The applicant finds the cannabis renewal process is self-enforcing over the use and the easement.
Further, the applicant claims the landlocked condition of 200 John Street is of the City's own making. That the landlocked parcel historical access to John St and redirection of access for the property to Galleher Way was imposed after the property was acquired. The easement depends on private negotiation, the applicant has negotiated in good faith, executed an agreement, and has worked with the City since December 2025. The irrevocable requirement halts construction and places a burden on the applicant to work on an irrevocable agreement that the adjacent owner will not grant. The applicant believes the City retains every control for occupancy, operational clearance, and cannabis activity until the easement is recorded and in effect. The applicant has been diligently moving their project forward to provide cannabis tax revenue and local employment for the City, and they feel that allowing the permits to be issued will advance the benefits of the project with no reduction in public safety.
It is the opinion of the City Engineer that all recorded easements in the City of Banning are to be irrevocable. The matter of easements are not tied to the type of use on the properties in question or to any terms any parties may seek to enter into. Access easements are to be perpetual access rights to all that may utilize them for access onto, across and through, or adjacent to the properties. No public jurisdiction has the time, staffing, resources, nor the authority to annually monitor a privately agreed upon easement or other matters recorded onto a property.
The easement required in Condition of Approval #32 is to establish, in perpetuity, an access easement for all current and future property owners and tenants of the structures at 301 and 313 S Galleher Way. The property at 301 S. Galleher Way (200 John Street) is a landlocked property that is not adjacent to any recorded right-of-way or street that could provide direct access or emergency access to the property. Staff was not able to find historical documents that would explain its former addressing of 200 John St, which is a right-of-way that no longer exists (or may have never existed) between S. San Gorgonio Avenue and Florida Street. Any former right-of-way area for John St is now part of the Union Pacific Railroad property that runs east-west just south of Interstate 10. Further, Condition of Approval #32 is needed to ensure legal access to the project site in perpetuity, regardless of the current cannabis cultivation use or any future use allowed on the property.
The project site has no legal means of access without the easement so a recorded irrevocable easement is needed to ensure emergency access between Galleher Way and the project site should the Fire or Police Departments or other emergency services be needed to respond to incidents at the site. A "revocable easement" as the Applicant desires results in uncertainty for access to future users of the project site and for potential emergency service needs. Further, there is no effective means of monitoring the future granting or revoking of such an easement for occupants of the site after Flowers Dept LLC ceases operations.
Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council NOT support amending Condition of Approval #32 as requested by the Applicant and keep the approved COA #32 language as approved in Council Resolution No. 2025-135 adopted on October 14, 2025 requiring the easement be recorded prior to the issuance of "Building Permits" and that the easement remain an irrevocable easement. The City Council, pending a recommendation from the Planning Commission, is scheduled to review the Applicant's request at their November 10, 2026, meeting.
Not Applicable. However, all the original findings of fact outlined in Council Resolution No. 2025-135 remain in full force and effect as adopted by City Council on October 14, 2025.
Not Applicable.
On September 11, 2026, a public hearing notice was published in the Record Gazette, a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Banning, notifying the general public that Conditional Use Permit No. 26-0003 to amend COA #32 would be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing to be held on October 7, 2026. The public hearing notice for the project was also mailed to all property owners within 300-foot radius of the project site on September 10, 2026, notifying the public that Conditional Use Permit No. 26-0003 to amend COA #32 would be considered by the Planning Commission at a public hearing to be held on October 7, 2026. 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 amendment other than the Applicant's justification letter (Attachment 3).