0 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision:
$'1,220.00 (Tier 1 )'
$3,825.00 (Tier 2)a
City of Costa Mesa
0 Appeal of Non-Planning Commission Decision:
$690.00 (Tier 1 )'
X $3,825.00 (Tier 2)'
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OR REVIEW
4pplj(,B1'10 %3111B" Culture CM Newporf Sireeei Julie Le AddreSS 2301 NEWPORT BLVD COSta MeSa CA 92627
Phone 6192772827 - Devon Julian 7146579628 - Julie Le REQUEST FOR: [8 APPEAL @ REVIEW"
File with: City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-754-5225
Decision of which appeal or review is requested: (give application number, if applicable, and the date of the decision, if known.)
Notice of abandonment, Cannabis Business Permit MO-21-15, 2301 Newport Boulevard received June 16th, 2025
Decision by: Carie Ta
Reasons for requesting appeal or review:
See attached
Date: 6/23/25 Signature: Julie Le
"If you are serving as the agent for another person, please identify the person you represent and provide proof of authorization "Review may be requested only by Planning Commission, Planning Commission Member, City Council, or City Council Member For office use only - do not write below this line SCHEDULED FOR THE CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF:
If appeal or review is for a person or body other than City Council/Planning Commission, date of hearing of appeal or review Updated September 2023
' Includes owners and/or occupants of a property located within 500 feet of project site (excluding owners and/or occupants of the project site). ' Includes the project applicant, owners and/or occupants of the project site, and owners and/or occupants of a property located greater than 500 feet from the project site.
ATTACHMENT 2
June 23, 2025
Via Hand Delivery
City of Costa Mesa Building Departinent
77 Fair Dr, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Atti'i: Director Carrie Tai
RE: Appeal of Revocation of Cannabis Business Permit MO-21-15, 2301 Newport Boulevard ("Permit")
Dear Director Tai,
On belialf of Culture Cannabis Club (tlie "Company"), please accept this letter as a formal notice and request for an appeal and reconsideration of tlie City of Costa Mesa's ("City") decision to revoke tl'ie Peri'nit (referenced above) held by tlie Coinpai'iy ("License") at 2301 Newport Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ("Property").
Despite tlie cliallenges facii'ig cannabis license liolders across tlie state and specifically in tlie City, tlie Company is ready willing and able to resume operations at tlie Property ii'i the event tlie C ity is willing to reverse its prior decision. Tlie Coinpany currently l'ias an agreei'nent witli the landlord for the Propeity to resume its lease. Otl'ier than tlie question of site control, it is our position tliat tlie Coinpany lias otlierwise coinplied witli all conditional of approval set foitli in our Notice of Decision dated June 17, 2022.
Tlie Company first opened foi- business on November 13", 2024 in order to comply witli tlie requirements set fortli by tlie city. Sl'iortly tl'iereafter on Decei'iiber 6"', 2024, tlie Coinpany reduced its liours and t)ien teinporarily closed down in order to reorganize tlie business to lie)p ensure that it liad enougli capital and staff to properly operate. Less than 90 days later, on February 12f", 2025, tlie Company once again began operating in order to ensure tliat it was in compliance witli tlie City rules. The rusli to coi'i"iply left tlie business in a dire position, as it was not yet ready to fiilly re-open, but did not want to risk t)ie License. Shortly after opening in February tlie business once again redriced its l'iours and operations to continue its efforts to stabilize the business' finances. Despite tlie fact tliat the City was not satisfied witli tlie temporary reopening, the Company did in fact open for business in February, even if temporarily.
Tlie Compai'iy t)ien re-opened on Marcli 7'h, 2025. Tlie busii'iess was open Monday tiiroug)i Tl'uirsday from 10ain to 3pm. The business continued to maintain this pace until April 29(h 2025 wlien a dispute arose between tlie Company and tlie landlord of the propeity. Notwitlistandiiig the question of site control, since opening for business the Compai'iy )ias logged sales in eacli quarter. In addition, it lias not been a full 12 inontlis since t)ie Company opened for business, so tlie failrire to maintain 90 days of operations in any 12 mont)i period is not ripe for consideratioi"i.
The Company lias until Novei'nber to reacli tliat threshold, and is confident that it will be able to do so.
As to site coi'itrol, tlie landlord asserted tliat the Coinpany was in breach of tlie lease, however there was and still is, an ongoing dispute as to tlie validity of tl'iose claii'ns. Wliile tlie eviction notice does indicate tl"iat legal proceedings liave taken place wit)i respect to the propeity, the ongoing negotiations with the landlord for site control liave been ongoing and are finally coinplete. Tlie Company did not liave the resources to defend t)ie lawsuit, but discussion were ongoing and no otl'ier party lias had access to tlie Propeily during the discussion. As an update, as of the date of tliis letter, tlie Company lias an agreement witli tlie landlord to confirm site control and allow tlie Company to continue its business.
We feel t)iat we )iave enough suppoit in favor of our position tliat it would be well wit)iin tlie city's ability to suppoit a reversal of the revocation. Our assuinption is t]iat tlie City would ratlier see local businesses thrive instead of shuttering. Despite tlie cliallenging )iistory of tlie Company in navigatiiig tlie volatile nature of tlie cannabis industry in California, what is clear is that it did report sales in each quaiter as required, lias not yet determined if it will be open for 90 days in the first year of operations. In addition, wliile tliere inay liave been a dispute wit)i tlie landlord, resulting in its asseition tliat tlie lease was in question, to date tlie Coinpany lias site control and is ready, willing, and able to reopen.
Reversing tlie revocation is tlie outcome that is in tlie best interest of tlie City, its residents. the landlord and tlie Con"ipany. Confirming tlie revocation ori tl'ie otlier liand, would result in a shuttered business, less potential tax revenue, reduced access to cannabis for tlie City residents, and surely a continued legal dispute between tlie Company and the landlord over tlie lease (more wasted tiine ai'id money t)'iat does i'iot serve any of tlie interested parties).
We are liopeful tliat tlie City is able to provide some grace in tl'iis matter in liglit of tlie financial coinmitinent tliat was required of all applicants wliile tlie City worked tbrough its process of awarding licei'ises and ability to operate witli a conditional use permit. Applicaiits, including tlie Company liad to manage tlie econoi'nic strain created by liaving to liold real propeity for n'ionths on end witli no ability to operate. Hundreds of tliousands of dollars have been spent to open this store. Tlie cannabis process for licensure is i'nore tlian any business sliould liave to face just trying to open its doors. It worild be more t)'ian fair and equitable, and witliin the City's ability given the evidence presented, to reverse its decision given tliat tlie Company is still in a position to continue after everytliing it lias liad to face in order to get to this point.
In conclusion, we are seeking a reversal of tlie City's decision to revoke tlie Licei"ise. Tbe Coinpany currently lias site control, is ready, willing and able to reopen, and lias tlie funding and support necessary to continue ongoing operations. We know we can operate for more tlian 90 days before our I year anniversary and are liopeful to liave tlie cliance to do so. Considering its financial investi'iient to date, losing everytliing now would be notliing s)iort of a travesty for tlie Company. Thank you in advance for your reconsideration, and we look forward to working witli the City to allow t)ie Coinpany to reopei'i the business it iias worked tii-eless to create.
Sincerely,
Julie Le
0,-v