Agenda — Indio City Council, July 26, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

01414.0001/899788.1

HEARING OFFICER OPINION
I. Appointment of Hearing Officer
The undersigned hearing officer was appointed by the City Council pursuant to Resolution 10377.

II. Timeliness of Appeal
On March 10, 2023, the City of Indio served “Notification of Indio Commercial Cannabis Permit Phase III Application Reviews.” (Exhibit 12). On March 23, 2023, Applicant submitted “Indio CC, LLC dba SensIndio Appeals Notice.” (Exhibit 11). On March 23, 2023, Applicant paid the appeal fee of $3,632.58. (Ibid.).

Pursuant to IMC 123.23(A), any appeal of a decision to deny advancement to the final selection process must be made within ten calendar days after service of the notice of decision. The date of service means “the date when a notice or written decision was personally delivered to the applicant or permittee or the date when the notice was caused to be delivered by certified, first class mail.” (Ibid.).

Applicant’s Appeal is untimely as it was received thirteen days after service of the notice of decision, and on that basis, the City’s decision is AFFIRMED. (IMC 123.23(C)).

III. Analysis
A. The Scope of the Administrative Hearing and the Powers of the Hearing Officer Are Limited
Review of an administrative hearing determination, or a “quasi-judicial hearing,” is accomplished via Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Specifically, Subsection (b) provides the scope of judicial review carried out by a reviewing court of a hearing officer’s final administrative order: (1) whether the hearing officer has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair proceeding; and (3) whether there was an prejudicial abuse of discretion. “Abuse of discretion” is established if the hearing officer “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5(b)). These provisions create a statutory right to a fair hearing before an impartial party. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152).

Page 127 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 130 of 205

Christopher Martinez
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 3 ends

01414.0001/899788.1
In fact, the due process clause of the California Constitution at Article 1 § 7, includes a liberty interest to be free from “arbitrary adjudicative procedures.” (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 268-69; accord, Saleeby v. State Bar of California (1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 563-64).

Further, administrative proceedings are distinguishable from legislative proceedings, where legislative actions formulate rules to be applied—for example, adoption of ordinances and amendments to municipal codes to regulate the issuance of cannabis business permits. (See, e.g., J.D. Patterson v. Central Coast Regional Coastal Zone Conserv. Comm’n (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 833, 840). Legislative actions establish public policy and rules applicable to groups or types of property, while administrative hearings apply to individual properties or parties by application of established standards to individualized facts, in order to determine specific rights or to take specific actions under existing law. (Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 519; 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 273; Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (1977) 55 Cal.App.3d 723, 729; Lindgren and Mattas, CEB Cal. Land Use Prac., § 1.49).

Ultimately, however, the findings made in an administrative hearing must be relevant to adopted applicable criteria in statutes or policies. (See, e.g. J.L. Thomas, Inc. v County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 916 [finding adopted by planning commission to support denial of a use permit for an adult business did not address the criteria in the county code for approval of use permit, and that the decision to deny therefore came “as a complete non sequitur from the findings.”]).

In this matter, the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer is set by IMC 123.23(A) and 123.24(A)(1)— generally, pertaining to deviations from the City’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria that adversely affected the Applicant by altering the outcome of the City’s decision on the application. The plain language of IMC 123.24(A)(1) necessarily includes “published procedure guidelines and review criteria.” The City Council adopted Resolution no. 10314 establishing procedure guidelines and review criteria to govern the application and selection process for cannabis storefront retail permits.”
1 Thus, the City’s compliance with the guidelines
and criteria set forth in Resolution no. 10314 also falls within the scope of the administrative

1 See: https://www.indio.org/home/showpublisheddocument/2481/638005077609470000 This document was referenced by the parties, and there was dispute as to existence or the content of the document; the document was considered as part of the Hearing Officer opinion, sua sponte.

Page 128 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 131 of 205

Christopher Martinez
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 4 ends

01414.0001/899788.1
hearing. Resolution no. 10314 includes as Exhibit “A” twelve pages of guidelines and review criteria. (See also Exhibit 4).

B. Applicant’s Appeal Was Untimely
Pursuant to IMC 123.23(A), any appeal of a decision to deny advancement to the final selection process must be made within ten calendar days after service of the notice of decision. The date of service means “the date when a notice or written decision was personally delivered to the applicant or permittee or the date when the notice was caused to be delivered by certified, first class mail.” (Ibid. (emphasis added)). Per IMC 123.23(C), “[f]ailure of the City Clerk to receive a timely appeal constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal the notice issued by the City Manager. In this event, the City Manager’s notice . . . shall be final.” On March 10, 2023, the City of Indio served the determination notice. On March 23, 2023— thirteen days after service of the notice of decision—Applicant submitted its appeal. Since the Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction and powers are limited as provided in the Indio Municipal Code, and where Applicant’s appeal was received by the City after the time provided to appeal, the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, Applicant has waived its right to appeal the notice issued by the City Manager, and that notice is deemed final. On that basis, the City’s decision is AFFIRMED.

IV. Conclusion
Applicant’s appeal was untimely as it was submitted more than ten days after service of the City’s determination. Applicant waived its right to appeal the notice issued by the City manager and that notice is deemed final per IMC 123.23(C). Accordingly, the decision of the City is AFFIRMED.

Respectfully submitted,

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP

G. Ross Trindle, III
Partner

grt:GRT

Page 129 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 132 of 205

01414.0001/899789.1
G. Ross Trindle, III | gtrindle @awattorneys.com
p (951) 241 -7338 | d (951) 241 -7338 | awattorneys.com 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 520 | Riverside, CA 92501 June 14, 2023
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Steven Wijatyk
CEO
Reefer Madness, LLC
4693 Ramon Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
E-Mail: [email protected]
Kevin Snyder, AICP
Director of Community Development
City of Indio
100 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA 92201
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Reefer Madness, LLC - Hearing Officer Decision and Opinion on Cannabis Business Permit Administrative Hearing Appeal

Dear Applicant and City of Indio:

On May 24, 2023, at 3:30 p.m., an administrative appeal hearing took place before the undersigned Hearing Officer, requested by Reefer Madness, LLC (“Applicant”), challenging the decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of Applicant from Phase III (Interviews) to the final selection process of the City Council for possible issuance of a cannabis business permit, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code (“IMC”) 123.25(E). At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission.

Having duly considered the evidence, the undersigned Hearing Officer has reached a determination and this correspondence represents the final decision and opinion of the Hearing Officer regarding the appeal of Applicant.

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(F), this written decision is final and conclusive and is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 for judicial review.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION
The decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of Reefer Madness, LLC to the final selection process of the City Council is: AFFIRMED.

Page 130 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 133 of 205

Christopher Martinez
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 2 ends

01414.0001/899789.1

HEARING OFFICER OPINION
I. Appointment of Hearing Officer
The undersigned hearing officer was appointed by the City Council pursuant to Resolution 10377.

II. Timeliness of Appeal
On March 10, 2023, the City of Indio served “Notification of Indio Commercial Cannabis Permit Phase III Application Reviews.” (Exhibit 11). On March 23, 2023, Applicant submitted a written appeal and proof of fee payment (Exhibit 10).

Applicant’s Appeal is untimely as it was received thirteen days after service of the notice of decision, and on that basis, the City’s decision is AFFIRMED. (IMC 123.23(C)).

Page 131 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 134 of 205

Christopher Martinez
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 3 ends

01414.0001/899789.1
In fact, the due process clause of the California Constitution at Article 1 § 7, includes a liberty interest to be free from “arbitrary adjudicative procedures.” (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 268-69; accord, Saleeby v. State Bar of California (1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 563-64).

Page 132 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 135 of 205

Christopher Martinez
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 4 ends

01414.0001/899789.1
hearing. Resolution no. 10314 includes as Exhibit “A” twelve pages of guidelines and review criteria. (See also Exhibit 4).

Respectfully submitted,

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP

G. Ross Trindle, III
Partner

grt:GRT

Page 133 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 136 of 205

01414.0001/899663.2
G. Ross Trindle, III | gtrindle @awattorneys.com
p (951) 241 -7338 | d (951) 241 -7338 | awattorneys.com 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 520 | Riverside, CA 92501 June 14, 2023
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
CEO
Everest GJN, LLC
82360 CA-111, Suite C
Indio, CA 92201
E-Mail: [email protected]
Kevin Snyder, AICP
Director of Community Development
City of Indio
100 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA 92201
E-Mail: [email protected]

Re: CNC, LLC dba SPARC - Hearing Officer Decision and Opinion on Cannabis Business Permit Administrative Hearing Appeal

Dear Applicant and City of Indio:

On May 24, 2023, at 1:30 p.m., an administrative appeal hearing took place before the undersigned Hearing Officer, requested by Everest GJN, LLC (“Applicant”), challenging the decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of Applicant from Phase III (Interviews) to the final selection process of the City Council for possible issuance of a cannabis business permit, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code (“IMC”) 123.25(E). At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission.

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(F), this written decision is final and conclusive an d is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 for judicial review.

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION
The decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of Everest GJN, LLC to the final selection process of the City Council is: AFFIRMED.

Page 134 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 137 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 2 ends

01414.0001/899663.2

HEARING OFFICER OPINION
I. Appointment of Hearing Officer
The undersigned hearing officer was appointed by the City Council pursuant to Resolution 10377.

II. Timeliness of Appeal
On March 10, 2023, the City of Indio served “Notification of Indio Commercial Cannabis Permit Phase III Application Reviews.” (Exhibit 13). On March 21, 2023, Applicant submitted “Notice of Appeal – City of Indio Cannabis Business Permit Phase III.” (Exhibit 11). On March 21, 2023, Applicant paid the appeal fee of $3,632.58. (Ibid.).

Accordingly, Applicant’s Appeal is untimely, and on that basis, the City’s decision is AFFIRMED.

Notwithstanding the timeliness issue, the preponderance of the evidence does not support overturning the City’s decision, as set forth herein.

III. Scope of Appeal
Pursuant to IMC 123.24(A), an appeal of the denial of application prior to final decision process is limited to the following issues:
• Any deviation from the city’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the city's decision on the application. Examples of appealable deviations include, but are not limited to:
 Failure on the part of the city to provide appropriate notification regarding changes to the application process via website postings and/or email to the applicant prior to the time the application was submitted;

Page 135 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 138 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 3 ends

01414.0001/899663.2
 Failure on the part of the city to provide an applicant an equal opportunity to modify an application where that opportunity was provided to other applicants;
 Failure on the part of the city to correctly apply the review criteria, as established by City Council resolution, in reviewing the application[.] IV. Standard of Review
Pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(3), the “city’s notice constitutes prima facie evidence of [the] grounds for the denial . . .” Further, the Applicant “bear[s] the burden of proof regarding . . . denial of advancement to the final selection process established by the City Council.” Finally, pursuant to IMC 123.24(A)(2), any appeal regarding denial of application prior to the final decision process “must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant presented relevant information with completeness and in the appropriate section of the application.” Further, “[i]nformation presented in the application that is incomplete in nature or that is relevant to a question posed by the city on the application form but appears in the incorrect section, even if complete, may be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, in order to overturn the challenged decision, Applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the application submitted included complete, relevant information, in the appropriate section; (2) at least one “deviation from the city’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria;” and (3) “that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the city’s decision on the application,” as set forth in IMC 123.24(A). All three elements must be supported, otherwise the challenged decision will be affirmed.

V. Basis of Written Appeal
Applicant appealed the City’s decision on the bases that (1) the City failed to provide appropriate notification regarding changes to the application process; (2) failed to provide equal opportunity to modify an application where the opportunity was provided to other applicants; and (3) failed to correctly apply the review criteria as established by the City Council. (Exhibit 11, pp. 1-2).

Page 136 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 139 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 4 ends

01414.0001/899663.2
interviews, should have been the Phase IV City Council Interview.” Applicant continued that “only five (5) applicants were allowed to attend the City Council interviews.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the City’s purported failure to do so constituted a change that should have been reported to all applicants, created an inequality for applicants that were not advanced out of Phase III, and constituted a failure to apply the review criteria correctly.

Pursuant to IMC 123.23(A), appeals of a denial of an application prior to the final decision process must state the reasons for the appeal “with specificity and shall address the issues outlined in § 123.24(A).”
As a threshold matter, the Hearing Officer finds the written appeal generally in compliance with the requirements of the IMC as stated.

VI. Additional Documents Submitted as Evidence
Applicant submitted additional written evidence, mostly comprised of scoring and information from other jurisdictions. Due to the voluminous nature, the documents were not identified and attached to the transcript of the proceeding. Further, the additional documents proved to be irrelevant to determination of the issues, though all documents were reviewed and considered in rendering a final decision and opinion. All additional documents were accepted and considered by the Hearing Officer pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(4) as the documents were timely submitted.

Argument on behalf of Applicant was provided by Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill.

Information, evidence, and argument on behalf of the City was provided by Director of Community Development, Kevin Snyder, AICP, and Michael Eaton of HdL, the City’s contractor for administration of the cannabis business permit program.

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(6), prior to scheduling of the administrative hearing, the City elected to record the proceedings via court reporter. The Hearing Officer accepted and considered a certified copy of the transcript of the proceedings in reaching the determination set forth herein.

Page 137 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 140 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 5 ends

01414.0001/899663.2
VII. Applicant’s Arguments at the Administrative Hearing Applicant reiterated the primary argument at the administrative hearing to support overturning the City’s decision not to advance Applicant out of Phase III, namely that all applicants should have advanced out of Phase III (Interviews) to Phase IV. Applicant argued that not advancing all applicants out of Phase III misapplied Ordinance 1780 and the City’s cannabis permit regulations.
“This was my first question that they’re [the City] giving out five licenses, and only the top five applicants are going to be interviewed by the city council, which doesn’t make sense.” (Transcript, p. 11:18-21). Applicant believed that “if five are given the opportunity, those five will get licenses.” (Transcript, p. 11:22-23). Applicant cited the process from another jurisdiction (City of Merced) that stated only the top applicants would go to a public hearing. Applicant argued for a different number, “maybe, ten applicants, over 90 percent.” Applicant did not feel that “only being given five choices for five licenses” was appropriate for the City Council’s review. (Transcript, p. 11:24-12:7.)
Applicant then argued that it was unclear why its application was marked down in comparison to applicants, citing information requested, but not provided by, the City.

VIII. City’s Arguments at the Administrative Hearing
In response, the City noted that the application process is “competitive” as all applicants “are competing against each other.” (Transcript, p. 16:25-17:3). The process is comprised of objective components and subjective components. (Transcript, p. 17:3-5). In Phase III, all applicants were asked the same questions and provided the same timeframe for the interview, approximately 45 minutes. (Transcript, p. 17:6-12). The four main criteria that were the subject of the interview were provided to applicants via correspondence dated January 11, 2023. (Transcript, 13-17; Exhibit 12). Each applicant was individually scored by each member of the evaluation committee and committee members did not share scores or otherwise discuss scores. (Transcript, 18-21.)
Regarding the number of applicants advancing from Phase III to Phase IV, the City noted that only five permits are available, and the City Manager has discretion under the permitting ordinance to make a recommendation to the City Council “on the top applicants from the Phase III process.” (Transcript, p. 18:1-14). The City described the scoring process for neighborhood compatibility. (Transcript, p. 20:25-21:23). The City noted that “the application procedures and guidelines in all elements of the City’s cannabis application process were established by policy action by the city council through adoptions [of] ordinances [or] resolutions in the spring and

Page 138 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 141 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 6 ends

01414.0001/899663.2
summer of 2022.” (Transcript, p. 21:25-22:4). Staff used those ordinances and resolutions for Phase I through IV. (Transcript, p. 22:5-8); see also Transcript, 22:17-23:14 [list of City Council actions]).

Applicant admitted that it was not in the top five, but if the number of applicants moving on to Phase IV was adjusted, then perhaps Applicant would advance as well, which was requested in the appeal. (Transcript, p. 24:24-25:11).

IX. Analysis
A. The Scope of the Administrative Hearing and the Powers of the Hearing Officer Are Limited
Review of an administrative hearing determination, or a “quasi-judicial hearing,” is accomplished via Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Specifically, Subsection (b) provides the scope of judicial review carried out by a reviewing court of a hearing officer’s final administrative order: (1) whether the hearing officer has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; (2) whether there was a fair proceeding; and (3) whether there was an prejudicial abuse of discretion. “Abuse of discretion” is established if the hearing officer “has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5(b)). These provisions create a statutory right to a fair hearing before an impartial party. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152).

In fact, the due process clause of the California Constitution at Article 1 § 7, includes a liberty interest to be free from “arbitrary adjudicative procedures.” (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 268-69; accord, Saleeby v. State Bar of California (1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 563-64).

Page 139 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 142 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 7 ends

01414.0001/899663.2
Ultimately, however, the findings made in an administrative hearing must be relevant to adopted applicable criteria in statutes or policies. (See, e.g. J.L. Thomas, Inc. v County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 916 [finding adopted by planning commission to support denial of a use permit for an adult business did not address the criteria in the county code for approval of use permit, and that the decision to deny therefore came “as a complete non sequitur from the findings.”]).

B. Applicant’s Argument Regarding the City Council’s Legislative Determinations Are Beyond the Scope of the Administrative Hearing and the Jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer
Applicant raised and primarily relied upon as the basis of its appeal the criticism of the City Council in only allowing five cannabis business permits/only allowing five applicants to proceed to Phase IV.

Again, legislative actions establish public policy, while administrative hearings apply established standards to individualized facts, in order to determine specific rights or to take specific actions under existing law. (Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 519; 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 273; Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (1977) 55 Cal.App.3d 723, 729; Lindgren and Mattas, CEB Cal.

Land Use Prac., § 1.49) Accordingly, second guessing the policy decisions of the City Council is

Page 140 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 143 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 8 ends

01414.0001/899663.2
beyond the scope of an administrative appeal, and beyond the power of the Hearing Officer to consider.

The Hearing Officer declines to issue any opinion regarding the legislatively established number of permits or the authority for the City Manager to advance five applicants to Phase IV.

C. No Evidence Demonstrated a Failure to Notify Applicants of a Change in the application Process.

Applicant’s appeal argued for advancement of all applicants from Phase III to Phase IV. Such argument is not supported by any evidence, but rather appears to be a misinterpretation of the City’s ordinance, resolutions, and policies. The City cited its scoring process for Phase III and the determination provides prima facie evidence of the basis of denial. Thus, even if Applicant’s appeal was timely, it does not provide any evidentiary basis, much less by a preponderance of the evidence, to support overturning the City’s decision. As an alterative basis to timeliness, the decision of the City is AFFIRMED in this regard.

D. No Evidence Demonstrated a Failure to Provide Equal Opportunity to Applicant to Modify Its Application.

E. No Evidence Demonstrated a Failure to Apply the Review Criteria Correctly.

Applicant’s appeal argued for advancement of all applicants from Phase III to Phase IV. Such argument is not supported by any evidence, but rather appears to be a misinterpretation of the City’s ordinance, resolutions, and policies. The City cited its scoring process for Phase III and the determination provides prima facie evidence of the basis of denial. Thus, even if Applicant’s appeal was timely, it does not provide any evidentiary basis, much less by a preponderance of the evidence, to support overturning the City’s decision. As an alternative basis to timeliness, the decision of the City is AFFIRMED in this regard.

Page 141 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 144 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 14, 2023

Page 9 ends

01414.0001/899663.2
X. Conclusion
Applicant’s appeal was untimely as it was submitted more than ten days after service of the City’s determination.

The Hearing Officer declines to issue an opinion challenging the City Council’s thought process in in limiting the number of cannabis business permits to five, and by investing the City Manager with discretion to advance the “top” applicants out of Phase III (Interviews) to Phase IV.

Notwithstanding the timeliness issue, Applicant did not show, but a preponderance of the evidence, that the City failed to provide notification of a change in the application process, failed to provide equal opportunity to modify its application, or failed to apply the review criteria correctly. Thus, as an alternative basis, the decision of the City is AFFIRMED.

Respectfully submitted,

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP

G. Ross Trindle, III
Partner

grt:GRT

Page 142 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 145 of 205 ‘.. Z'.sr3;‘..-3-'.g'i‘1.?.!t.°'=‘5‘é.k‘.ia,:;.=-ism.-as vs.-..~.;‘xw..'. aw.- Docuslgn Envelope ID:F05F76BA-CA3D4081-B1E2-B439E2222638 1 In the Matter of the Licensure of: ) APPROVED AND FORW ARDEDTO 2 Reefer Madness, LLC ) HEARING OFFICER
3 Reconsiderationofllearing Officer )
4 Decision and Opinion on Cannabis )
Business Pemiit Administrative )
Hearing Appeal
—
Submission for )
Reconsideration by Hearing Officer )

STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER
—
C\D0O\l0\U1
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the City of Indio and Reefer ll Madness, LLC as follows:
12 1. On December 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10337, appointing Ross 13 Trindle, III the Hearing Of?ccr responsiblefor adjudicating Cannabis Business Pennit appeals as authorized by Indio Municipal Code section 123.25. The City of lndio (hereinafter, “City”) and Reefer Madness, LLC (hereinafter, “Reefer Madness” or “Appe|lant”) agree that Mr. Trindle (hereinafter “Hearing Officer”) was therefore authorized to issue the Administrative Appeal and ‘ this matter.
ppellant received a “Notification oflndio Commercial Cannabis 3 it 1marma?aess of Appe|lant’s submission of their Appeals Notice should be -._.,_-Reconsiderationof Reefer Madness‘sAppeal
7 Page 1 of 3
—1j.'».uuvwr;'-cjeTu!riu:Z- MI-'*w,1;‘.'D’
-
r
aft 3*‘
7 T “~i\"‘l'.‘1‘;5>.

Page 143 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 146 of 205 !h'7:ua?.'§:"3 «Z '.A'\;._a'T:..’
‘
-K. \ 3115‘: In »- . —_— _._ _ _ _
Docuslgn Envelope ID:F05F76BA-CASD-4081431E2-B439E2222638 S.I)'.W.

COLE HUBERLLP2855 E. GUASTIROAD.SUITE 402ONTARIO.CALIFORNIA91761 reconsidered.City and Appellant assert that the Hearing Officer misinterpreted lndio Municipal Code section -l%3(«B)vand should not have based his AdministrativeRuling upon that interpretation.’23' 1 3(A)

6. NOW THEREFORE the Appellant agrees and consents, and the City finds and concludes, that it is appropriate for the Hearing Officer to reconsider the appeal in this case and issue a new opinion that does not address the issue of timeliness.

7. City and Appellant further agree to be bound by that decision and deem it to be ?nal as de?ned in Indio Municipal Code Section l23.25(E). And therefore, should Appellant or City disagree with the ruling in this reconsiderationmatter, the only remedy would that providedby lndio Municipal Code Section l23.25(F), to ?le a writ of mandamus as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, ct. seq.

8. This Stipulation and Consent Order shall become effective on the day it is approved by City and Appellant; and upon approvalby both parties shall be forwarded forthwith to Hearing Officer.

9. City warrants and represents that the City Manager ofthe City oflndio is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Stipulation and Consent Order on behalfof City. The party signing on behalf of Appellant warrants and represents that he or she is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Stipulation and Consent Order on behalf ofAppellant.

10. City agrees that pursuant to California Government Code Section 16.5 Appcllant’s electronic signature shall hold the same force and effect as a traditional “wet" signature.

SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
A".
'
III .?..‘:O-4-‘€A1.~.Q"'->9’ ‘o"?§’.'_‘.'

Page 144 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 147 of 205 ._1.- .

I
. . .
— . —
v . ,~_ —. v‘
1 ,1». _ ,7-_'v .2." fr _ .- _ rt:-1‘V
.>'*?r1'!‘a%=.w:1“..I'i".2.;°?‘2:':‘u‘-“‘31;..1;r‘..:**'-‘.4‘:*F%.:-..4x-1!ea!'-a--.11-_." I‘- .o- Au- £1’ 9.. LC 5. 1-; 11 '-
"Docuslgn Envelope ID.’F05F76BA-CABD-4081-B1E2-B439E222263B I
"1 AGREED TO AND APPROVED BY: Reefer Madness, LLC
2 Docuslgmd hy: ’
we H.MAM’ >
'
3 CC!5EBllB57B4D8. *
4 Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager Steven Wijatyk
‘
14’51)/‘I/'4;0/I/7_{_{__7:cnrr.,rm‘r//
T
PageI, /F0//X,ifP72’0?, //rm;
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Docuslgnud by:
5 6
7 SftMLlA.éV‘A1uxM "A6/” [M7
i Z
‘
8 c1=o4a57ro7n1un DATE; { ,2 2 ? "
9 St G I ,C't Att ,
10 even raram Iy omey
T46pd [( {mf /K &a,,/,6”:/0/L.
(‘Os 1‘
11 DATE:6/22/2023 TM /UnHP1n}/o401/as I765/'1/(If '
_‘2
04 /mrcz, /3 am;
13 / /
1 14 /V__°TMam /0 20123
15 V
j‘
l
‘
16 _
.
,17 P0‘6 (R //‘/If1; 64>/'/'55?"/‘on,’
"\12
19 Ttwé /V1iS1’n7“:/’/1r:+(.(Story};/,
20 W95 601/55/man /,’?3’.J3(/}J/
21 Am /Jz,o23(/5)
-a1-I;1~‘-«Sm '4#'.YI'v.-‘Kit?-‘é"3?' 1.‘?!
' ‘.1‘GI.N4‘.I

Page 145 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 148 of 205 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

4865-6561-9564.1
In the Matter of the Licensure of: ) APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO Everest GJN, LLC Reconsideration ) HEARING OFFICER ______________ of Hearing Officer Decision and )
Opinion on Cannabis Business )
Permit Administrative Hearing )
Appeal – Submission for )
Reconsideration by Hearing Officer )

STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the City of Indio and Everest GJN, LLC as follows:

1. On December 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10337, appointing Ross Trindle, III the Hearing Officer responsible for adjudicating Cannabis Business Permit appeals as authorized by Indio Municipal Code section 123.25. The City of Indio (hereinafter, “City”) and Everest GJN, LLC (hereinafter, “Everest GJN, LLC” or “Appellant”) agree that Mr. Trindle (hereinafter “Hearing Officer”) was therefore authorized to issue the Administrative Appeal and Hearing Officer Opinion in this matter.

2. On March 10, 2023, Appellant received a “Notification of Indio Commercial Cannabis Permit Phase III Application Reviews” from the City, notifying Everest GJN, LLC that they would not be chosen to receive one of the City’s five (5) Commercial Cannabis Permits.

3. On March 23, 2023, City accepted the Appeals Notice and payment of the appeal fee from Appellant. On May 24, 2023 the appeal hearing was duly held, and City and Appellant made their arguments before the Hearing Officer.

4. On June 14, 2023, the Administrative Appeal Decision and Hearing Officer Opinion was issued, and Appellant’s appeal was denied.

5. The City and Hearing Officer received correspondence from Appellant, indicating their disagreement with the Administrative Appeal and Hearing Officer Opinion. City and Appellant agree that the issue of the timeliness of Appellant’s submission of their Appeals Notice should be DocuSign Envelope ID: D3D1A4C4-2BDF-4AB6-8824-46A935228260

Page 146 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 149 of 205 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

4865-6561-9564.1

COLE HUBER LLP
2855 E. GUASTI ROAD, SUITE 402
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761
reconsidered. City and Appellant assert that the Hearing Officer misinterpreted Indio Municipal Code section 123.23(E) and should not have based his Administrative Ruling upon that interpretation.

7. City and Appellant further agree to be bound by that decision and deem it to be final as defined in Indio Municipal Code Section 123.25(E). And therefore, should Appellant or City disagree with the ruling in this reconsideration matter, the only remedy would that provided by Indio Municipal Code Section 123.25(F), to file a writ of mandamus as set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, et. seq.

8. This Stipulation and Consent Order shall become effective on the day it is approved by City and Appellant; and upon approval by both parties shall be forwarded forthwith to Hearing Officer.

9. City warrants and represents that the City Manager of the City of Indio is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Stipulation and Consent Order on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Appellant warrants and represents that he or she is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Stipulation and Consent Order on behalf of Appellant.

10. City agrees that pursuant to California Government Code Section 16.5 Appellant’s electronic signature shall hold the same force and effect as a traditional “wet” signature.

SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
DocuSign Envelope ID: D3D1A4C4-2BDF-4AB6-8824-46A935228260

Page 147 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 150 of 205 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

4865-6561-9564.1
AGREED TO AND APPROVED BY:

________________________________
Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________
Steven Graham, City Attorney

DATE: __________________
Everest GJN, LLC

____________________________________
Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill

DATE: _______________

DocuSign Envelope ID: D3D1A4C4-2BDF-4AB6-8824-46A935228260 6/22/2023
6/26/2023

Page 148 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 151 of 205 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Stipulation and Consent to Reconsideration of SensIndio’s Appeal

Page 1 of 3 ends

In the Matter of the Licensure of: ) APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO Indio CC, LLC dba SensIndio ) HEARING OFFICER ______________ Reconsideration of Hearing Officer )
Decision and Opinion on Cannabis )
Business Permit Administrative )
Hearing Appeal – Submission for )
Reconsideration by Hearing Officer )

STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the City of Indio and Indio CC, LLC dba SensIndio as follows:

1. On December 7, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10337, appointing Ross Trindle, III the Hearing Officer responsible for adjudicating Cannabis Business Permit appeals as authorized by Indio Municipal Code section 123.25. The City of Indio (hereinafter, “City”) and Indio CC, LLC dba SensIndio (hereinafter, “SensIndio” or “Appellant”) agree that Mr. Trindle (hereinafter “Hearing Officer”) was therefore authorized to issue the Administrative Appeal and Hearing Officer Opinion in this matter.

2. On March 10, 2023, Appellant received a “Notification of Indio Commercial Cannabis Permit Phase III Application Reviews” from the City, notifying SensIndio that they would not be chosen to receive one of the City’s five (5) Commercial Cannabis Permits.

4. On June 14, 2023, the Administrative Appeal Decision and Hearing Officer Opinion was issued, and Appellant’s appeal was denied.

March 13, 2023 - (CM)

Page 149 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 152 of 205 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

2 COLE HUBER LLP
2855 E. GUASTI ROAD, SUITE 402
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761
reconsidered. City and Appellant assert that the Hearing Officer misinterpreted Indio Municipal Code section 123.23(E) and should not have based his Administrative Ruling upon that interpretation.

8. This Stipulation and Consent Order shall become effective on the day it is approved by City and Appellant; and upon approval by both parties shall be forwarded forthwith to Hearing Officer.

10. City agrees that pursuant to California Government Code Section 16.5 Appellant’s electronic signature shall hold the same force and effect as a traditional “wet” signature.

SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /

123.23 (A) - CM

Page 150 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 153 of 205 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Stipulation and Consent to Reconsideration of SensIndio’s Appeal

Page 1 of 3 ends

AGREED TO AND APPROVED BY:

________________________________
Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________________
Steven Graham, City Attorney

DATE: ______________

Indio CC, LLC dba SensIndio

__________________________________
Christopher Martinez

DATE: _________________

6/26/2023

Page 151 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 154 of 205

01414.0001/903299.1
G. Ross Trindle, III | gtrindle @awattorneys.com
p (951) 241-7338 | d (951) 241-7338 | awattorneys.com 3880 Lemon Street, Suite 520 | Riverside, CA 92501
June 30, 2023
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Re: Everest GJN, LLC – Amended Hearing Officer Decision and Opinion on Cannabis Business Permit Administrative Hearing Appeal

Dear Applicant and City of Indio:

On June 14, 2023, the undersigned Hearing Officer issued a Decision and Opinion based on timeliness of the appeal under IMC 123.23(A). After receipt of the Decision and Opinion, both parties requested reconsideration as the City provided a preliminary finding of timeliness to Applicant of its written appeal prior to the administrative appeal process. The parties entered into a Stipulation agreeing, among other things, to reconsideration of Applicant’s appeal, without reference to issues of timeliness, in the interests of equity and fairness. A true and correct copy of the Stipulation is included herein as Exhibit 15 to the appeal proceedings.

Having duly reconsidered the evidence, the undersigned Hearing Officer has reached a determination and this correspondence represents the final decision and opinion of the Hearing Officer regarding the appeal of Applicant.

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(F), this written decision is final and c onclusive and is subject to the time limits set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 for judicial review.

Page 152 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 155 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 2 ends

01414.0001/903299.1

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION
The decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of Everest GJN, LLC to the final selection process of the City Council is: AFFIRMED.

HEARING OFFICER OPINION
I. Appointment of Hearing Officer
The undersigned hearing officer was appointed by the City Council pursuant to Resolution 10377.

II. Timeliness of Appeal
The parties stipulated to timeliness of the appeal, as provided in Attachment 1.

III. Scope of Appeal
Pursuant to IMC 123.24(A), an appeal of the denial of application prior to final decision process is limited to the following issues:
Any deviation from the city’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the city's decision on the application. Examples of appealable deviations include, but are not limited to:
 Failure on the part of the city to provide appropriate notification regarding changes to the application process via website postings and/or email to the applicant prior to the time the application was submitted;  Failure on the part of the city to provide an applicant an equal opportunity to modify an application where that opportunity was provided to other applicants;
 Failure on the part of the city to correctly apply the review criteria, as established by City Council resolution, in reviewing the application[.]

Page 153 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 156 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 3 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
IV. Standard of Review
Pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(3), the “city’s notice constitutes prima facie evidence of [the] grounds for the denial . . .” Further, the Applicant “bear[s] the burden of proof regarding . . . denial of advancement to the final selection process established by the City Council.” Finally, pursuant to IMC 123.24(A)(2), any appeal regarding denial of application prior to the final decision process “must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant presented relevant information with completeness and in the appropriate section of the application.” Further, “[i]nformation presented in the application that is incomplete in nature or that is relevant to a question posed by the city on the application form but appears in the incorrect section, even if complete, may be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, in order to overturn the challenged decision, Applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the application submitted included complete, relevant information, in the appropriate section; (2) at least one “deviation from the city’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria;” and (3) “that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the city’s decision on the application,” as set forth in IMC 123.24(A). All three elements must be supported, otherwise the challenged decision will be affirmed.

Arguing in support of overturning the decision, Applicant stated the same, or substantially similar arguments, namely that all applicants were supposed to have an interview with City Council prior to any final decision being made by the City. Indeed, Applicant stated: “The next step in the application process for all applicants, including Everest GJN LLC, after the Phase III interviews, should have been the Phase IV City Council Interview.” Applicant continued that “only five (5) applicants were allowed to attend the City Council interviews.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the City’s purported failure to do so constituted a change that should have been reported to all applicants, created an inequality for applicants that were not advanced out of Phase III, and constituted a failure to apply the review criteria correctly.

Page 154 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 157 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 4 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
Pursuant to IMC 123.23(A), appeals of a denial of an application prior to the final decision process must state the reasons for the appeal “with specificity and shall address the issues outlined in § 123.24(A).”
As a threshold matter, the Hearing Officer finds the written appeal generally in compliance with the requirements of the IMC as stated.

Additionally, the City submitted Exhibits 1-14 (with no Exhibit 10, a misnumbering error) at the appeal hearing. All additional City documents were accepted and considered by the Hearing Officer pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(4); good cause was found to accept the documents as exhibits as there were no objections raised at the appeal hearing, copies of the submitted documents were provided to Applicant, and the submitted materials were previously provided or equally available to Applicant, with the exception of Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7.

Argument on behalf of Applicant was provided by Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill.

VII. Applicant’s Arguments at the Administrative Hearing Applicant reiterated the primary argument at the administrative hearing to support overturning the City’s decision not to advance Applicant out of Phase III, namely that all applicants should

Page 155 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 158 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 5 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
have advanced out of Phase III (Interviews) to Phase IV. Applicant argued that not advancing all applicants out of Phase III misapplied Ordinance 1780 and the City’s cannabis permit regulations.
“This was my first question that they’re [the City] giving out five licenses, and only the top five applicants are going to be interviewed by the city council, which doesn’t make sense.” (Transcript, p. 11:18-21). Applicant believed that “if five are given the opportunity, those five will get licenses.” (Transcript, p. 11:22-23). Applicant cited the process from another jurisdiction (City of Merced) that stated only the top applicants would go to a public hearing. Applicant argued for a different number, “maybe, ten applicants, over 90 percent.” Applicant did not feel that “only being given five choices for five licenses” was appropriate for the City Council’s review. (Transcript, p. 11:24-12:7.)
Applicant then argued that it was unclear why its application was marked down in comparison to applicants, citing information requested, but not provided by, the City. Applicant raised a purported discrepancy in zoning verification letters (ZVLs). (Transcript, p. 12:10-14). Apparently, Applicant wished to see the ZVLs for other applicants to “make sure I was treated equally and everyone got the same fair chance.” (Transcript, p. 12:15-17). Applicant also asked for “the redacted application[s] so we could compare how our application was scored versus others.” (Transcript, 13:7-9). The City Attorney’s office provide a redacted copy of Applicant’s application, but not applications from other applicants. (Transcript, p. 13:18-14:1).

Applicant next cited a zoning update which, according to Applicant, caused other applicants not to be in compliance with the IMC which, in turn, should have impacted the scores of those applicants negatively. (Transcript, p. 14:14-21).

Finally, Applicant raised the Neighborhood Compatibility criterion, and expressed confusion as to why Applicant’s applicant received a lower score when compared to other applications since “we were all zoned the same in terms of commercial.” (Transcript, p. 14:22-15:6). Further, Applicant called into question the stated donations made by one applicant with twenty locations, noting that “it didn’t seem right that [Everest GJN] scored lower,” while acknowledging that “maybe they are offering more.” (Transcript, p. 15:19-16:2). Then, Applicant asked about a lower score for a site plan without further argument or explanation. (Transcript, p. 15:3-5). Applicant admitted that the zoning changes did not negatively impact its application. (Transcript, p. 29:21-30:2).

Applicant admitted that it was not in the top five, but if the number of applicants moving on to Phase IV was adjusted, then perhaps Applicant would advance as well, which was requested in

Page 156 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 159 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 6 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
the appeal. (Transcript, p. 24:24-25:11). Applicant believed that the top five applicants advancing to Phase IV were guaranteed to receive a permit. (Transcript, p. 25:15-18).

Applicant also argued that it deserved a chance because of diversity interests: “The top vie, there are no brown, black, minor women applicants . . . And we are minority business owners.” (Transcript, p. 28:13-20). The primary basis for Applicant’s appeal was the inability to compare scores between applicants. (Transcript, p. 30:3-9.) Applicant summed up its requested relief as:
“That’s all we are asking for is to get an interview.” (Transcript, p. 29:17-20; p. 32:8-13).

Regarding questions of zoning compliance, the City explained that citywide zoning regulations and establishment of a specific plan for the Highway 111 corridor from Jefferson Street to Indio Boulevard, occurred during the submission process for cannabis business permits. (Transcript, p. 19:11-21). On September 21, 2022, the City Council approved the specific plan, and the specific plan went into effect immediately. (Transcript, p. 19:22-24). The new citywide regulations also were approved, but went into effect 30 days later on October 20, 2022. (Transcript, p. 19:24-20:3). Accordingly, “parties who applied for a zoning verification letter were informed that they were in compliance with the zoning regulations in effect at that time [of submission].” (Transcript, p. 20:4-7).

The City described the scoring process for neighborhood compatibility. (Transcript, p. 20:25- 21:23). Applicants were only scored on information provided verbally during the interview and no additional information from the applicant was used. (Transcript, p. 21:1-5). The interview

Page 157 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 160 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 7 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
questions were taken from Section E of the procedures guidelines, which provided the evaluation criteria. (Transcript, p. 21:6-10). The City noted that “the application procedures and guidelines in all elements of the City’s cannabis application process were established by policy action by the city council through adoptions [of] ordinances [or] resolutions in the spring and summer of 2022.” (Transcript, p. 21:25-22:4). Staff used those ordinances and resolutions for Phase I through IV. (Transcript, p. 22:5-8); see also Transcript, p. 22:17-23:14 [list of City Council actions]). The City’s application procedures and guidelines do not specify that all applicants will be considered by the City Council. (Transcript, p. 32:19-23). Importantly, the City Council has no obligation to accept the five recommended applicants selected by the City Manager. (Transcript, p. 33:4-22). And the procedures and guidelines make clear that the “top applicants” advance, not the top scorers (Transcript, p. 35:9-15), and the procedure and guidelines do not specify a number of applicants for the City Manager to advance. (Transcript, p. 37:13-22).

Page 158 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 161 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 8 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
application of established standards to individualized facts, in order to determine specific rights or to take specific actions under existing law. (Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 519; 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 273; Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (1977) 55 Cal.App.3d 723, 729; Lindgren and Mattas, CEB Cal. Land Use Prac., § 1.49).

In this matter, the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer is set by IMC 123.23(A) and 123.24(A)(1)— generally, pertaining to deviations from the City’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria that adversely affected the Applicant by altering the outcome of the City’s decision on the application. The plain language of IMC 123.24(A)(1) necessarily includes “published procedure guidelines and review criteria.” The City Council adopted Resolution no. 10314 establishing procedure guidelines and review criteria to govern the application and selection process for cannabis storefront retail permits.”1 Thus, the City’s compliance with the guidelines and criteria set forth in Resolution no. 10314 also falls within the scope of the administrative hearing. Resolution no. 10314 includes as Exhibit “A” twelve pages of guidelines and review criteria. (See also Exhibit 4).

B. Applicant’s Argument Regarding the City Council’s Legislativ e Determinations Are Beyond the Scope of the Administrative Hearing and the Jurisdiction of the Hearing Officer
Applicant raised and primarily relied upon as the basis of its appeal the criticism of the City Council in only allowing five cannabis business permits/only allowing five applicants to proceed to Phase IV.

Page 159 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 162 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 9 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
under existing law. (Arnel Dev. Co. v. City of Costa Mesa (1980) 28 Cal.3d 511, 519; 20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 273; Mountain Defense League v. Board of Supervisors of San Diego County (1977) 55 Cal.App.3d 723, 729; Lindgren and Mattas, CEB Cal.

Land Use Prac., § 1.49) Accordingly, second guessing the policy decisions of the City Council is beyond the scope of an administrative appeal, and beyond the power of the Hearing Officer to consider.

The Hearing Officer declines to issue any opinion regarding the legislatively established number of permits or the authority for the City Manager to advance five applicants to Phase IV.

C. No Evidence Demonstrated a Failure to Notify Applicants of a Change in the application Process.

Applicant’s appeal argued for advancement of all applicants from Phase III to Phase IV. Such argument is not supported by any evidence, but rather appears to be a misinterpretation of the City’s ordinance, resolutions, and policies. The City cited its scoring process for Phase III and the determination provides prima facie evidence of the basis of denial. Thus, Applicant’s appeal does not provide any evidentiary basis, much less by a preponderance of the evidence, to support overturning the City’s decision for a purported failure to notify applications of a change in the application process. The process remained unchanged throughout, and Applicant has not provided any evidence to the contrary.

D. No Evidence Demonstrated a Failure to Provide Equal Opportun ity to Applicant to Modify Its Application.

Applicant’s appeal argued for advancement of all applicants from Phase III to Phase IV. Such argument is not supported by any evidence, but rather appears to be a misinterpretation of the City’s ordinance, resolutions, and policies. The City cited its scoring process for Phase III and the determination provides prima facie evidence of the basis of denial. Thus, Applicant’s appeal does not provide any evidentiary basis, much less by a preponderance of the evidence, to support overturning the City’s decision for a purported failure to provide equal opportunity to Applicant to modify its application as was provided to other applicants. No other applicants or modifications were identified.

E. No Evidence Demonstrated a Failure to Apply the Review Crite ria Correctly.

Page 160 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 163 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 10 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
determination provides prima facie evidence of the basis of denial. Thus, Applicant’s appeal does not provide any evidentiary basis, much less by a preponderance of the evidence, to support overturning the City’s decision for a purported failure to apply the review criteria correctly.

Applicant cited the zoning change, though it also admitted that the changes did not negatively impact consideration of its application. Standing alone, the argument fails. Moreover, the process described by the City regarding the specific plan zoning changes and the citywide zoning changes, comport with general principles of land use submissions and approvals, colloquially referred to as “grandfathering” whereby uses approved under regulations in effect at the time will, generally speaking, remain legal despite their non-conforming status due to the passage of new regulations. This underlies the doctrine of legal non-conforming use, and the City’s actions followed advice from the City Attorney related to the same. (Transcript, p. 20:4- 17; see also Hansen Brothers Ent., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 552-53 (describing legal nonconforming uses)). Accordingly, the City did not fail to apply review criteria correctly regarding zoning clearance.

X. Conclusion
The Hearing Officer declines to issue an opinion challenging the City Council’s thought process in limiting the number of cannabis business permits to five, and by investing the City Manager with discretion to advance the “top applicants” out of Phase III (Interviews) to Phase IV.

Applicant did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the City failed to provide notification of a change in the application process, failed to provide equal opportunity to modify its application, or otherwise failed to apply the review criteria correctly. Thus, the decision of the City is AFFIRMED.

Respectfully submitted,

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP

G. Ross Trindle, III
Partner

grt:GRT

Page 161 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 164 of 205

Manpreet “Gina” Kaur Gill
Kevin Snyder, AICP
June 30, 2023

Page 11 ends

01414.0001/903299.1
Attachments: Exhibit 4: Application Procedure Guidelines and Review Criteria for a Commercial Cannabis Business Permit (Storefront Retail Applications) Exhibit 6: HdL Companies, City of Indio Instruction for Cannabis Interview Panel Exhibit7: Interview Scoring Guidance
Exhibit 11: Appellant’s Notice of Appeal
Exhibit 12: January 11, 2023, Invitation to City of Indio Staff Selection Committee Interview Cannabis Business Permit License Application Process Exhibit 15: Stipulation for Reconsideration

Page 162 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 165 of 205

01414.0001/903591.1

G. Ross Trindle, III

gtrindl
e
@
awat
torneys.com
p

(951) 241
-
7338

awattorneys.com
3880 L
emo
n Street, Suite 520

Rive
rs
ide, CA 92501

June
30 , 2023

VIA E
-
MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

CEO

I
n
d
i
o

C
C
, LLC

d
b
a

S
e
n
s
I
n
d
i
o

8 1
3 5
0 R
i
v
e
r
l
a
n
e

D
r
i
v
e

I
n
d
i
o
, CA
922
0 1

E
-
Mail:
c
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
@
c
a
n
n
a
b
i
z
c
g
.com

Kevin Sn
y
der, AICP

Director of Community Development

City of Indio

100 Civic
Center Mall

Indio, CA 92201

E
-
Mail: [email protected]

Re:

I
n
d
i
o

C
C
, LLC

d
b
a

S
e
n
s
I
n
d
i
o

–

Amended
Hearing Officer
Decision and Opinion
on

Cannabis Business Permit Administrative Hearing Appeal

Dear Applicant and City of Indio
:

On
May 24
, 2023, at
3 :30
p
.m., an admi
nistrative appeal hearing took place before the
undersigned Hearing Officer, requested by
I
n
d
i
o

C
C
, LLC

d
b
a

S
e
n
s
I
n
d
i
o

(“Applicant”),
challenging the decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of Applicant from Phase III (Interviews) to the final

sel
ection process of the City Council for possible issuance of a cannabis business permit, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code (“IMC”) 123.25(E). At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission.

On June 14, 2023, the undersigned Heari
ng O
fficer issued a Decision and Opinion based on
timeliness of the appeal under IMC 123.23(A). After receipt of the Decision and Opinion, both parties requested reconsideration as the City provided a preliminary finding of timeliness to Applicant of its w
ritt
en appeal prior to the administrative appeal process. The parties entered into a Stipulation agreeing, among other things, to reconsideration of Applicant’s appeal, without reference to issues of timeliness, in the interests of equity and fairness. A t rue
and
correct copy of the Stipulation is included herein as
Exhibit 1
4 to the appeal proceedings
.

Having duly
re
considered the evidence, the undersigned Hearing Officer has reached a determination and t
his correspondence represents the final
decision and op
inion of the Hearing
Officer regarding the appeal of

Applicant.

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(F), this written decision is final and conclusive and is subject to the
time limits set forth in
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6

for j
udicial review.

Page 163 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 166 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
2 01414.0001/903591.1

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECISION

The decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of I
n
d
i
o

C
C
, LLC

d
b
a

S
e
n
s
I
n
d
i
o

to the final
selection process of the City Council is:

AFFIRMED.

HEARING OFFICER OPINION

Appointment of Hearing Officer

The
undersigne
d hearing officer was appointed by the City Council pursuant to Resolution 10377.

II.

Timeliness of Appeal

The parties stipulated to timeliness of the appeal, as provided in Exhibit 1
4 .

III.

Scope of Appeal

Pursuant to IMC 123.24(A), an appeal of

the denia
l of application prior to final decision process
is limited to the following issues:



Any deviation from the city’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the city's deci
sion on th
e application. Examples of appealable deviations include, but are not limited to:



Failure on the part of the city to provide appropriate notification regarding changes to the application process via website postings and/or email to the applicant
prior to t
he time the application was submitted;



Failure on the part of the city to provide an applicant an equal opportunity to modify an application where that opportunity was provided to other applicants;



Failure on the part of the city to correctly ap
ply the re
view criteria, as
established by City Council resolution, in reviewing the application[.]

Page 164 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 167 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
3 01414.0001/903591.1

I
V.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(3), the “city’s notice constitutes prima facie evidence of [the] grounds for the denial . . .” Further, the Applica
nt “bear[s] the burden of proof regarding . . .
denial of advancement to the final selection process established by

the City Council.” Finally,
pursuant to IMC 123.24(A)(2), any appeal regarding denial of application prior to the final decision process “mu
st be supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant presented relevant information with completen
ess and in the appropriate section of the
application.” Further, “[i]
nformation presented in the application that is incomplete in nature or
that is relevant to a question posed by the city on the application form but appears in the incorrect section, even

if complete, may be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal.” ( Ibid
.)

Accordingly, in order to overturn the challenged decision, Applicant b ears the burden of proof
to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
:

(1) the application submitted
inc
luded complete, relevant information, in the appropriate section ;

(2) at least one “deviation
from the city’s published procedure guidelines
and review criteria
;” and (3)

“
that adversely
affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the city ’
s decision

on the application,” as set
forth in IMC 123.24(A).

All three elements must be supported, o
therwise the challenge
d

decision will be affirmed
.

Basis of Written Appeal

Applicant
s
t
a
t
e
d

f
i
v
e

n
o
n
-
e
x
h
a
u
s
t
i
v
e

g
r
o
u
n
d
s

o
f

a
p
p
e
a
l

i
n

i
t
s

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

a
p
p
e
a
l

(Exhibit 1
0 , p.
1 -
2 )
:

1. Failure on the part of the city to provide appropriate notification regarding changes to the appl
ic
ation process

v
i
a

w
e
b
s
i
t
e

p
o
s
t
i
n
g
s

a
n
d
/
o
r

e
m
a
i
l

t
o

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

t
h
e

t
i
m
e

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

o
r

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

b
e
g
a
n
; and

2. Failure on the part of the city to provide an application an equal

opportu
ni
ty to modify an application where the opportunity was
provided to other applicants; and

3. Failure on the part of the city to correctly apply the review criteria, as established by City Council resolution, in reviewing

the app
li
cation

a
n
d

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

w
i
t
h
i
n

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
:

(a)

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

(b)

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s

a
n
d

I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
s

P
l
a
n

–

L
o
c
a
l

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

Page 165 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 168 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
4 01414.0001/903591.1

(c)

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

S
i
t
e

P
l
a
n

(d)

Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

O
w
n
e
r

E
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e

4. F
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

t
i
m
e
l
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

t
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

c
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

h
a
d

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

o
u
r

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
;

a
n
d

5. D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
,

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

a
n
d

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s

s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

w
o
r
k
s
h
o
p
s
,

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
,

a
n
d

w
e
b
s
i
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

o
u
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.

123.24(A).”

As a threshold matter, the Hearing Officer finds the written

appeal

generally

in compliance
with
the requirements of the IMC as stated.

VI.

Add
itional
Documents
Submitted

as Evidence

Applicant submitted additional written
materials
,
comprised of a
s
l
i
d
e

s
h
o
w

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
n

e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c

a
r
c
h
i
v
e

f
i
l
e

(
“
.

Z
I
P
”

f
i
l
e
)

w
i
t
h

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.

The
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

materials
were recognized and accepted
for consideration
by the Hearing Officer pursuant to IMC
123.25(C)(4)

as the documents were timely submitted

per
t
h
e

briefing schedule
.

(Transcript,
9 :1
-
1 1
)
S
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

Z
I
P

f
i
l
e

w
e
r
e

e
m
b
e
d
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
a
l
l
y

b
y

t
h
e

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g

d
e
a
d
l
i
n
e

w
a
s

o
f
f
e
r
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

h
e
a
r
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

m
i
n
o
r

corrections

(Exhibit 1
)
.

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

w
i
t
h

c
o
p
y

o
f

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 a
t

t
h
e

h
e
a
r
i
n
g
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

9 :
1 6
-
2 5
;

1 2
:
1 1
-
1 4
:
2 )

T
he City submitted Exhibits
2 -
1 3

at the appeal hearing.

All additional City documents were
accepted and considered by the Hearing Officer pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(4); good cause was found t
o accept th
e documents as exhibits

as there were no objections raised at the appeal
hearing, copies of the submitted docum
ents were provided to Applicant, and the submitted
materials were previously provided or equally available to Applicant, with the exce ption of
Ex
hibit 6

and

Exhibit 7.

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(6), prior to scheduling of the administrative hearing, the Cit y elected
to record the proceedings via court reporter. The Hearing Officer accepted and considered

Page 166 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 169 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
5 01414.0001/903591.1

certified copy of the transcript

of the pro
ceedings

in reaching the determination set forth
herein.

VII.

Applicant’s Arguments at the Administrative Heari
ng

Argument on behalf of Applicant was provided by
C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z
.

Applicant
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y

f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d

t
h
e

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

p
a
c
k
e
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
s

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 ,

w
i
t
h

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

p
e
r
-
s
l
i
d
e
,

s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

a
n

o
v
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
f

t
h
e

f
i
v
e

b
a
s
e
s

s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

a
p
p
e
a
l
,

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 0
.

(Transcript 11:
5 -
1 2
:
1 0
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
d
m
i
t
t
e
d

t
o

b
e
i
n
g

“
e
n
g
a
g
e
d
”

i
n

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 5
:
2 1
-
2 4
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
d
m
i
t
s

r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

a
n
d

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

a
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
e
d

o
f
f

o
f

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 5
:
2 5
-
2 6
:
2 )

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,

a
s

t
o

C
l
a
i
m

1 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
r
g
u
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

f
a
i
l
e
d

t
o

i
n
f
o
r
m

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

o
f

“
c
h
a
n
g
i
n
g

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

t
h
a
t

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

i
n

r
e
g
a
r
d

t
o

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 6
:
9 -
1 2
)

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

f
a
i
l
e
d

t
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

“
l
a
r
g
e

p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

s
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

1 a
n
d

3 .
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 6
:
1 3
-
1 5
)

T
he

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

d
i
d

n
o
t

m
e
n
t
i
o
n

b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

o
r

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
a
f
e
t
y

a
n
d

w
e
l
f
a
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
,

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
d

“
n
e
w
l
y

f
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
e
d

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
”

t
h
a
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
d
,

w
h
i
c
h

h
a
d

a
n

a
d
v
e
r
s
e

e
f
f
e
c
t

o
n

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

a
n
s
w
e
r

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 6
:
1 7
-
2 5
)

F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

should

h
a
v
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

o
n
l
y

s
u
m
m
a
r
y

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l
,

a
s

t
h
a
t

a
c
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

n
o
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

T
h
i
s

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

“
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
”

a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d

h
o
w

“
t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
r
s

s
a
w

o
u
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

w
e

h
a
d

n
o

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

o
f

w
h
a
t

t
h
e
y

w
e
r
e

r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 7
:
1 -
7 )

N
e
x
t

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
h
e

l
i
t
e
r
a
l

w
o
r
d
i
n
g

o
f

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

4 )
,

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

l
i
t
e
r
a
l

w
o
r
d
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

6 )
,

n
o
t
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

s
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

w
e
r
e

“
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y

l
e
f
t

o
u
t

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,
”

w
h
i
l
e

s
o
m
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 7
:
1 6
-
2 8
:
1 4
)
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

n
o
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

c
a
l
l
e
d

f
o
r

s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

r
a
d
i
u
s

m
a
p
,

b
u
t

c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

n
o

p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

o
r

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

v
i
s
u
a
l
s

w
a
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

in the

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 8
:
1 5
-
2 3
)

Page 167 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 170 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
6 01414.0001/903591.1

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

f
o
c
u
s
e
s

o
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

a
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,

n
o
t
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

o
n
l
y

t
w
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

“
s
u
p
p
o
s
e
d

t
o

s
u
m

u
p

t
h
i
s

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
”

w
h
i
c
h

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
d

t
h
r
e
e

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

s
e
v
e
n

s
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,

w
i
t
h

o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
s
k
i
n
g

f
o
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

“
t
h
a
t

w
a
s

n
e
v
e
r

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 9
:
1 -
8 )

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

a
s
k
e
d

h
o
w

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e

f
o
r

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

a
n
d

h
o
w

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
o
u
l
d

a
v
o
i
d

b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

t
o

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,

w
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
s
k
e
d

f
o
r

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
u
s

o
f

t
h
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

s
i
t
e

a
n
d

h
o
w

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

s
i
t
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

t
h
e

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

h
e
a
l
t
h
,

s
a
f
e
t
y
,

a
n
d

w
e
l
f
a
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
—
w
i
t
h

t
h
e

l
a
s
t

s
e
n
t
e
n
c
e

n
o
t

b
e
i
n
g

s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 9
:
9 -
2 1
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
l
l
e
g
e
s

t
h
a
t

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e

o
f

H
d
L

m
a
d
e

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

A
u
g
u
s
t

o
f

2 0
2 2

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

c
l
a
r
i
f
i
e
d

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s

t
a
k
i
n
g

p
l
a
c
e
,

w
h
i
c
h

w
a
s

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e

a
s

p
a
s
s
e
d
.

Y
e
t
,

t
h
a
t

c
l
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

n
e
v
e
r

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
n
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

“
d
i
d

n
o
t

k
n
o
w

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 9
:
2 3
-
3 0
:
1 5
;

3 2
:
5 -
1 1
)
)
1 A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
l
a
i
m
s

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

i
t
s

s
c
o
r
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

i
t

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

t
o

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

w
h
a
t

w
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

p
u
r
p
o
r
t
e
d
l
y

d
i
d

n
o
t

f
o
l
l
o
w
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 2
:
2 3
-
3 3
:
1 5
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
l
y

s
e
n
t

i
t
s

w
e
a
k
e
r

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
p
e
a
k
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
l
s
o

c
l
a
i
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

h
i
g
h
e
r

s
c
o
r
e
s

f
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y

m
o
v
e
d

o
n

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 4
:
5 -
1 0
)

F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,

f
o
r

C
l
a
i
m

1 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
l
a
i
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

o
n
l
y

a
d
v
a
n
c
i
n
g

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V

e
q
u
a
t
e
d

n
o
t

t
o

“
a
n

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
”

b
u
t

r
a
t
h
e
r

“
m
o
r
e

[
o
f
]

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
”

t
o

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.

I
n
s
t
e
a
d

o
f

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

d
e
c
i
d
i
n
g
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
r
g
u
e
d

t
h
a
t

o
n
l
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
e
d

i
n
t
o

p
r
i
o
r

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

C
i
t
y

S
t
a
f
f
,

r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

b
y

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 4
:
1 6
-
3 5
:
1 5
)

W
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

i
s

n
o
t

b
o
u
n
d

t
o

a
c
c
e
p
t

t
h
e

f
i
v
e

a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
d

t
h
a
t

i
t

w
o
u
l
d

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
’
s

u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

“
h
i
g
h
l
y

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d
”

b
y

t
h
e

f
i
v
e

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

a
n
d

a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 6
:
1 -
1 9
)

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
e
-
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
d

t
h
e

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
i
s

a
s
p
e
c
t

o
f

C
l
a
i
m

1 t
o

t
h
e

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 7
:
2 -
8 )
2 1

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

p
l
a
y
e
d

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

o
f

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n

s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

m
a
t
c
h
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
c
c
o
u
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
n
d

a
r
g
u
e
d
.

T
h
e

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g

w
a
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g

d
e
a
d
l
i
n
e
.

2 T
h
e

H
e
a
r
i
n
g

O
f
f
i
c
e
r

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
n

i
n
i
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

n
o

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

a
p
p
e
a
r
e
d

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

f
i
v
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
s
,

a
n
d

a
d
v
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V
,

a
n
d

m
a
d
e

a
n

i
n
i
t
i
a
l

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

s
e
c
o
n
d
-
g
u
e
s
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

w
i
s
d
o
m

o
f

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

w
a
s

o
u
t
s
i
d
e

t
h
e

s
c
o
p
e

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
e
a
l

h
e
a
r
i
n
g
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 7
:
9 -
3 8
:
1 7
)

Page 168 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 171 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
7 01414.0001/903591.1

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
a
i
s
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

t
o

r
e
c
o
r
d
s

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
.

T
h
e

H
e
a
r
i
n
g

O
f
f
i
c
e
r

n
o
t
e
d

i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y

t
h
a
t

s
u
c
h

i
s
s
u
e
s

w
e
r
e

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
e

s
c
o
p
e

o
f

t
h
e

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

h
e
a
r
i
n
g
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 8
:
2 4
-
3 9
:
1 6
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
a
d
e

c
o
m
p
a
r
a
t
i
v
e

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
,

a
r
g
u
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

the

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

p
o
i
n
t

s
c
o
r
e
s

f
o
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

w
e
r
e

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

w
h
i
c
h
,

i
f

t
h
e
y

h
a
d

n
o
t

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
d
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

s
c
o
r
e
d

h
i
g
h
e
r

a
n
d

t
h
e

o
t
h
e
r

a
d
v
a
n
c
i
n
g

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
o
u
l
d

have

s
c
o
r
e
d

l
o
w
e
r
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

4 1
:
1 1
-
4 3
:
6 )

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
a
i
s
e
d

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
s
s
u
e

o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g

o
n

o
r

a
b
o
u
t

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 1
,

2 0
2 2
.

O
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

z
o
n
i
n
g

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l

b
e
f
o
r
e

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 1
,

2 0
2 2

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

i
n

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e

t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
,

w
h
i
c
h

s
h
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

p
o
i
n
t
s

p
e
n
a
l
t
y
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

4 3
:
7 -
4 4
:
1 9
)

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

s
i
n
c
e

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

s
i
t
e

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

f
a
r
t
h
e
r

a
w
a
y

f
r
o
m

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

u
s
e
s
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
l
a
i
m
s

i
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

s
c
o
r
e
d

m
o
r
e

p
o
i
n
t
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

4 4
:
2 0
-
4 5
:
3 )

F
o
r

C
l
a
i
m

2 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
d

l
o
s
i
n
g

t
e
n

p
o
i
n
t
s
;

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
i
n
g
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

4 5
:
4 -
2 1
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

t
h
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

i
n

s
c
o
r
i
n
g
,

a
n
d

s
o

i
t

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

f
u
l
l

p
o
i
n
t
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

4 6
:
1 4
-
2 3
)

N
e
x
t
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
r
g
u
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

f
o
u
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

(
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
,

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
i
n
g

S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

G
)

o
n
l
y

h
a
d

t
h
r
e
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

r
a
i
s
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
,

w
i
t
h

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
g
r
e
e
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

p
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e

s
t
e
p
s

t
o

a
v
o
i
d

b
e
i
n
g

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

w
a
s

con
sistent

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

o
f

h
o
w

t
h
e

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
o
u
l
d

a
d
d
r
e
s
s

c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

n
o
i
s
e
,

l
i
g
h
t
,

o
d
o
r
,

a
n
d

v
e
h
i
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n

t
r
a
f
f
i
c
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

4 8
:
8 -
4 9
:
2 0
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

c
l
a
i
m
e
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

d
i
d

n
o
t

m
e
n
t
i
o
n

g
o
o
d

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r

p
o
l
i
c
y
,

a
n
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
d

n
o
t

e
q
u
a
t
e

a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g

b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

h
o
w

t
h
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

w
o
u
l
d

r
e
a
c
t

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

5 0
:
6 -
5 1
:
1 1
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

o
f
f
e
r
e
d

a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

h
a
v
e

d
e
v
i
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

t
h
e
y

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

c
a
l
l
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

w
h
i
c
h

w
a
s

s
c
o
r
e
d

i
n

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
,

w
i
t
h

s
u
m
m
a
r
y

b
e
i
n
g

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

5 1
:
1 9
-
5 4
:
5 )

F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,

f
o
r

C
l
a
i
m

2 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
s
p
u
t
e
d

t
h
e

p
o
i
n
t
s

a
w
a
r
d
e
d

f
o
r

o
n
e

s
u
b
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

f
o
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

F
,

w
h
i
l
e

acknowledging

t
h
e

a
w
a
r
d
i
n
g

o
f

f
u
l
l

p
o
i
n
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

o
t
h
e
r

s
u
b
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

5 4
:
2 1
-
5 5
:
1 5

R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

C
l
a
i
m

3 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
t
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

t
o
o
k

l
o
n
g
e
r

t
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
d

t
h
a
n

i
t

d
i
d

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
,

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

c
i
t
i
n
g

n
i
n
e
-
d
a
y

d
e
l
a
y

i
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

t
o

z
o
n
e

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
.

T
h
i
s

d
e
l
a
y

a
l
s
o

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

s
e
c
o
n
d

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

s
i
t
e
,

a
s

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
a
s

w
a
i
t
i
n
g

o
n

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

f
o
r

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

o
n

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
,

a
n
d

d
i
d

n
o
t

h
a
v
e

e
n
o
u
g
h

t
i
m
e

b
e
f
o
r
e

t
h
e

c
l
o
s
i
n
g

d
a
t
e

t
o

s
u
b
m
i
t

t
h
e

s
e
c
o
n
d

Page 169 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 172 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
8 01414.0001/903591.1

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

a
n
d

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t

5 5
:
1 6
-
5 6
:
1 7
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

w
a
s

t
h
a
t

o
n
l
y

o
n
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

5 6
:
1 8
-
2 3
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
a
d
e

f
u
r
t
h
e
r

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

m
o
r
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
.

I
n

f
a
c
t
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

m
o
r
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

on the

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
a
s

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

H
d
L

p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l

s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

F
A
Q

o
n

i
t
s

w
e
b
s
i
t
e
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

e
q
u
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e

f
o
r

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

r
e
v
i
e
w

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

t
h
a
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
n

m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y

t
o

b
e

u
s
e
d

i
n

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

u
s
e

o
f

r
e
v
i
e
w

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

t
o

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

e
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

p
r
o
c
e
e
d
,

t
o

c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

m
o
r
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

o
r

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

T
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

f
a
i
l
u
r
e

t
o

d
o

s
o

a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
h
a
s
e
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

5 8
:
1 1
-
6 1
:
1 3
)

F
o
r

C
l
a
i
m

4 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d

p
r
i
o
r

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

a
l
l
e
g
e
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

s
t
a
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
s
k
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

p
r
o
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

t
o

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

a
n

i
s
s
u
e

w
i
t
h

G
I
S

m
a
p
p
i
n
g
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
l
l
e
g
e
d

t
h
a
t

C
i
t
y

S
t
a
f
f

c
h
a
n
g
e
d

t
h
e

G
I
S

m
a
p
p
i
n
g

t
o
o
l

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e

t
o

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 1
:
1 4
-
6 4
:
5 )

P
e
r

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

“
i
n

o
n
e

w
e
e
k

y
o
u

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

c
e
r
t
a
i
n

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

that

w
a
s

i
n
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

u
s
e
s
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

w
e
e
k
,
”

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

z
o
n
e

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

u
p
,

i
m
p
a
c
t
i
n
g

eligibility
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 4
:
6 -
1 4
)

T
h
i
s

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

t
o

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

G
,

i
n

p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
,

o
f

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 5
:
1 -
1 4
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

l
a
t
e
r

s
t
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

G
I
S

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

u
s
e
s

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

d
i
d

n
o
t

“
h
i
n
d
e
r
”

i
t
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

l
o
o
k
e
d

a
t

t
h
e

u
s
e

a
r
e
a
s

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

c
l
o
s
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

d
a
y

o
f

t
h
e

h
e
a
r
i
n
g
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

9 1
:
1 9
-
9 2
:
8 )

F
o
r

C
l
a
i
m

5 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
i
t
e
d

t
h
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e

a
l
o
n
g

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1 1
1 ,

m
a
k
i
n
g

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

b
a
c
k

t
o

C
l
a
i
m

3 a
b
o
u
t

d
e
l
a
y
e
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
3 F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

n
o
t
e
d

i
n
c
o
r
r
e
c
t

s
u
m
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
c
o
r
e
s
,

v
a
r
y
i
n
g

a
c
r
o
s
s

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

b
y

1 p
o
i
n
t
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

9 6
:
1 5
-
9 7
:
2 )

B
u
t

i
n

t
h
e

e
n
d
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

a
n

a
w
a
r
d

o
f

a
l
l

p
o
i
n
t
s

d
e
d
u
c
t
e
d
,

a
n
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

t
a
b
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

9 7
:
1 6
-
2 0
;

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 ,

p
.

5 8
)

VIII.

City’s Arguments

at the Administrative Hearing

Information, ev
idence, and argume
nt on beha
lf of the City
was provided by Director of
Commun
ity Deve
lopment, Ke
vin Snyder
, AI
CP, and Michael Eaton of HdL
, the City’s contractor
fo
r adm
inistration of the cannabis business perm
it program.

3 T
h
e

H
e
a
r
i
n
g

O
f
f
i
c
e
r

f
i
n
d
s

t
h
i
s

C
l
a
i
m

d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e

o
f

C
l
a
i
m

3 .

Page 170 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 173 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
9 01414.0001/903591.1

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d

e
a
c
h

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

c
l
a
i
m
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 0
:
1 3
-
1 4
)

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

t
h
e

c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

p
o
l
i
c
y

f
r
o
m

2 0
1 7
,

w
h
e
n

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

w
a
s

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
,

t
o

J
u
n
e

o
f

2 0
2 2
,

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e

1 7
7 9
,

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g

z
o
n
i
n
g

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 0
:
1 5
-
2 1
)

T
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

a
d
o
p
t
e
d

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
r

t
h
e

o
p
e
n
i
n
g

o
f

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

p
e
r
m
i
t

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
n
d
o
w
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 0
:
2 2
-
2 1
:
1 2
)
.

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

a
s
s
e
r
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

“
p
r
o
c
e
s
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

p
e
r
m
i
t

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

w
a
s

d
o
n
e

o
p
e
n
l
y

a
n
d

t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
l
y

i
n

p
u
b
l
i
c

f
o
r
u
m
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 1
:
1 3
-
1 7
)

T
h
i
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

“
t
h
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

a
n
d

t
h
e

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e

i
n

t
h
a
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 1
:
2 1
-
2 3
)

R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

c
l
a
i
m
e
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

C
i
t
y

s
t
a
f
f

d
i
d

“
n
o
t

h
a
v
e

t
h
e

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

t
o

d
e
v
i
a
t
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

a
n
d

r
u
l
e
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

c
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
”
4 (
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 2
:
3 -
8 )

I
n
d
e
e
d
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

“
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

a
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

c
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 2
:
9 -
1 5
)

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

e
n
l
i
s
t
e
d

t
h
e

a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

o
f

H
d
L

“
t
h
e

m
o
s
t

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g

f
i
r
m

i
n

t
h
e

s
t
a
t
e
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 3
:
1 -
6 )

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
i
m
e
l
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 3
:
7 -
1 1
)

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

a
n
d

t
i
m
e
l
y

n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

t
o

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

v
i
a

u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

w
e
b
s
i
t
e

a
n
d

d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

w
e
b

p
a
g
e
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 4
:
4 -
9 )

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

a
l
s
o

n
o
t
i
f
i
e
d

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

v
i
a

e
m
a
i
l

a
n
d

r
e
g
u
l
a
r

c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
c
e

t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 4
:
1 0
-
1 5
)

T
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

n
o

n
e
e
d

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

e
q
u
a
l

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

m
o
d
i
f
y

a
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

t
h
e
r
e

w
e
r
e

n
o

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

m
a
d
e
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 4
:
1 6
-
2 0
)

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

t
o

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

c
l
a
i
m
s
,

s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

a
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

i
n

C
l
a
i
m

3 t
h
a
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

a
d
v
a
n
c
e
.

T
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

d
i
d

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a
n
y

b
a
s
i
s

f
o
r

t
h
i
s

a
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
I

w
a
s

“
a

m
e
r
i
t
-
b
a
s
e
d

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

h
o
w

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

a
n
s
w
e
r
e
d

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,
”

w
h
i
c
h

w
e
r
e

d
e
r
i
v
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
e
t

o
u
t

in the

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 7
:
8 -
1 8
)

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

s
o
u
g
h
t

“
m
o
r
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

m
o
r
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

t
h
a
t

w
e
n
t

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
e
i
r

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

P
h
a
s
e

I
I

s
t
a
n
d
a
l
o
n
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 7
:
2 2
-
2 5
)

E
a
c
h

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
a
s

a
s
k
e
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

b
y

M
r
.

S
n
y
d
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

g
i
v
e
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
.

P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
h
e
a
d

o
f

t
i
m
e

i
n

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

“
w
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
k
i
n

t
o

a
s
k
i
n
g

s
o
m
e
o
n
e

t
o

f
i
l
l

o
u
t

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

f
o
r

j
o
b

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
,

a
n
d

t
h
e
n

a
s
k
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
g
a
i
n
.
”

A
s
k
i
n
g

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

s
o
u
g
h
t

m
o
r
e

d
e
t
a
i
l

o
r

e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

a
r
e
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

w
a
s

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
b
l
e
,

a
s

l
o
n
g

a
s

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

with the

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
.

6 8
:
5 -
2 0
)

U
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
,

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

“
w
e
r
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

t
o

e
l
i
c
i
t

4 O
f

c
o
u
r
s
e
,

n
o
t

h
a
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y

t
o

d
e
v
i
a
t
e

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

i
p
s
o

f
a
c
t
o

t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
e

i
n
t
o

n
o

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
,

h
e
n
c
e

t
h
i
s

a
p
p
e
a
l

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

Page 171 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 174 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
10 01414.0001/903591.1

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
,
”

a
n
d

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

o
n
l
y

s
c
o
r
e
d

o
n

the
i
r

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

a
n
d

n
o
t

i
n

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 9
:
1 -
8 )

“
A
l
l

[
o
f
]

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

b
y

r
e
w
o
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

i
t
s
e
l
f
,
”

a
n
d

i
t

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

b
e

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

p
a
n
e
l

t
o

c
o
v
e
r

e
v
e
r
y

d
e
t
a
i
l

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

a
l
l
o
t
t
e
d

4 5

m
i
n
u
t
e
s
.

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

w
a
s

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d

t
o

b
e

o
r
a
l
,

a
n
d

n
o
t

v
i
s
u
a
l
,

a
n
d

d
i
d

n
o
t

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
e

r
a
d
i
u
s

c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
/
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

u
s
e
s

m
a
p
p
i
n
g

a
s

t
h
a
t

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

c
o
v
e
r
e
d

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

i
n

P
h
a
s
e

I
I

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 9
:
2 0
-
7 0
:
7 )

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l

w
a
s

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

c
o
p
i
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

o
r

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

f
o
r

a
n
y

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

7 0
:
8 -
1 4
)

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

7 ,

a
n
d

e
a
c
h

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
a
s

a
s
k
e
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,

v
e
r
b
a
t
i
m
.

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l

w
a
s

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

f
o
r

e
a
c
h

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
.

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

w
a
s

b
a
s
e
d

s
o
l
e
l
y

o
f
f

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

a
n
d

t
h
e

a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

e
a
c
h

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
o

a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
i
n
g

s
o
l
i
c
i
t
e
d
.

A
f
t
e
r

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

l
e
f
t

t
h
e

r
o
o
m
,

t
h
e

p
a
n
e
l

d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d

t
h
e
i
r

o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

a
n
d

s
c
o
r
e
d

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

u
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

b
u
t

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
h
a
r
e

t
h
e
i
r

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

a
m
o
n
g
s
t

e
a
c
h

o
t
h
e
r
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

7 0
:
1 6
-
7 1
:
1 1
)

T
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e

e
a
c
h

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

7 1
:
1 6
-
7 3
:
1 )

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

w
a
s

i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y

d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d

t
o

b
e

m
o
r
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e

w
h
e
n

c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
h
a
s
e
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

7 5
:
9 -
1 7
)

T
h
e

p
a
n
e
l

w
a
s

c
o
m
p
r
i
s
e
d

o
f

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

m
a
t
t
e
r

e
x
p
e
r
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
,

a
n
d

t
h
o
s
e

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

7 6
:
2 -
1 1
)

B
e
c
a
u
s
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

c
o
u
l
d

r
e
s
p
o
n
d

i
n

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

w
a
y
s

t
o

a
n
y

g
i
v
e
n

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
,

i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l

p
a
n
e
l

s
c
o
r
e
s

c
a
n

d
i
f
f
e
r
,

l
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
o

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

s
c
o
r
e
s

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

7 6
:
1 2
-
7 7
:
2 4
)

I
n

d
i
r
e
c
t

r
e
b
u
t
t
a
l

t
o

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

a
b
o
u
t

n
o
t

r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

l
e
t
t
e
r

s
e
n
t

o
u
t

t
o

a
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 1
)

t
h
a
t

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

t
h
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
i
m
e

l
i
m
i
t
s
,

a
n
d

h
o
w

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

s
h
o
u
l
d

c
o
n
d
u
c
t

t
h
e
m
s
e
l
v
e
s
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
a
n
e
l

w
o
u
l
d

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e

t
h
e
i
r

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

f
o
u
r

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

i
n

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

6 7
:
6 -
2 5
)

A
l
l

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

received

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

n
o

p
a
r
t
y

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

e
x
t
r
a

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
r

g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
a
r
t
i
e
s

w
e
r
e

d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

f
o
r

r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

8 8
:
9 -
1 8
)

I
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

t
h
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e

(
C
l
a
i
m

3 &

5 )

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

z
o
n
i
n
g

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

u
p

t
o

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 1
,

2 0
2 2

w
e
r
e

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
t

t
h
e

t
i
m
e
,

a
n
d

w
h
e
n

t
h
e

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

c
h
a
n
g
e
d

a
f
t
e
r

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 1
,

2 0
2 2
,

z
o
n
i
n
g

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

n
e
w

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

I
t

b
e
c
a
m
e

m
a
t
t
e
r

o
f

t
i
m
i
n
g

o
n

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t

a
s

t
o

w
h
i
c
h

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

app
l
y
;

t
h
i
s

i
s

l
e
g
a
l

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,

p
e
r

a
d
v
i
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
.

7 8
:
1 0
-
8 0
:
1 2
)

T
h
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

h
a
d

b
e
e
n

i
n

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

t
o

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
c
r
u
t
i
n
y

f
o
r

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y

t
w
o

y
e
a
r
s

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 1
,

2 0
2 2
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

8 1
:
1 1
-
1 9
)

T
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

n
o

l
i
m
i
t

t
o

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
,

b
u
t

t
h
e
y

c
o
u
l
d

t
a
k
e

u
p

t
o

Page 172 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 175 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
11 01414.0001/903591.1

3 0

d
a
y
s

t
o

c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
;

w
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

n
i
n
e
-
d
a
y

d
e
l
a
y

f
o
r

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
a
s

l
o
n
g
e
r

t
h
a
n

f
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
,

i
t

w
a
s

w
e
l
l

u
n
d
e
r

t
h
e

3 0
-
d
a
y

p
e
r
i
o
d

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

a
p
p
l
y

a
n
d

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d

b
y

p
e
c
u
l
i
a
r
i
t
i
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
r

t
h
e

n
e
e
d

f
o
r

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

8 1
:
2 3
-
8 4
:
4 )

R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

C
l
a
i
m

4 ,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

i
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

a
w
a
r
e

o
f

a
n
y

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

t
o

t
h
e

G
I
S

m
a
p
p
i
n
g

t
o
o
l
,

w
h
i
c
h

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
s

c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e

t
o

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

G
I
S

m
a
p
p
i
n
g

a
n
d

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e

u
s
e
s

w
a
s

n
o
t

a
s

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

f
a
c
t
o
r

i
n

e
i
t
h
e
r

P
h
a
s
e

I
I

o
r

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
I
,

b
u
t

i
t

w
a
s

u
s
e
d

t
o

e
n
s
u
r
e

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

P
h
a
s
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

8 4
:
5 -
8 8
:
3 )

IX
.

An
aly
sis

The Scope o
f the Administrative Hear
ing and the
Powers of the Heari
ng Officer
Are
Limited

Review of a
n administrative he
aring
determination,

or a “quasi
-
judicial heari
ng
,
” is
accomplished via
Code of Civil Procedure sect
ion 1094.5. S
pecifically,
Sub
section (b) provid
es
the scope of
judicial

review carri
ed out by a reviewi
ng court of a h
earing officer’s fi
nal
administrative
order
:

(1) whether
the hearing officer has pro
ceeded without, or in exc
ess of,
jurisdiction; (2) wh
ether there w
as a fair pro
cee
ding; and (3) whet
her there was an prejudic
ial
abuse of

discretion. “Abuse

of discretion”

is established if
the hearing officer

“has
not
proceeded
in the manner required by l
aw, the order is not supp
orted by the findings, or th
e
findings ar
e not support
ed
by the evidence.”
(Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§

1 094.5(b)).

T
hese provisions
cre
ate a statutory

right to a fair he
aring before an imp
artial

party. (
Clark

v. City of Hermosa
Beach

(
1996) 48 Cal.App.4th

1152
)
.

In fact, t
he due process
clause of the

California C
ons
titution at Articl
e 1
§

7, includes a liber
ty
interest
to be free from “ar
bitrary adjudic
ative procedures.”
(
People v. Ramirez

(1979)

25 Cal.3d
260
, 268
-
69 ;
accord
,

Saleeby v
. State Bar of California

(1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 563
-
6 4
)
.

Further,
administrativ
e p
roceedings are dis
tinguishable from legisla
tive proceed
ings, where
legisla
tive actions fo
rmulate rules to be

applied
—
for exampl
e, ado
ption of ordin
ances and
amendments to mun
icipal codes to regulate
the issuance of cannabis bus
iness permits
. (See,
e.g.,

D. Patterson v. Ce
ntral Coast Regional Coas
tal Zone Con
serv. Comm’n

(1976)

58 Cal.App.3d
833, 840). Legislat
ive actions establi
sh pub
lic policy and

rules applicable to groups

or
types of property, wh
ile administrative hearings
apply to indi
vidual proper
tie
s or parties by
ap
plication of established
standards to

individualized fac
ts, in order to

determine specific

rights
or to take
specif
ic actions und
er existing law. (
Arnel Dev
. Co. v. City of Costa Me
sa

(1980) 28
Cal.3d

511, 519
;
20th Centur
y Ins. Co. v.

Ga
ramendi

(1994) 8 C
al.4th 216, 273;
Mountain

Page 173 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 176 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
12 01414.0001/903591.1

Defense League v. Board of Sup
ervisors of San

Diego County

(1977
) 55 Cal.App.3d 723
, 729
;

Lindgren and
Mattas, CEB Cal. Land Use P
rac.,
§

1.49).

Ultimatel
y, however, the findings mad
e in an admin
istrative hea
rin
g must
be relevant

to
adopted applicable cr
iteria in statutes or policies.

(
See, e.g.

J.L
. Thomas, Inc. v Co
unty of Los
Angeles

(1991
) 232

Cal.App.
3d 916
[
finding adopted by
planning commission to su
pport

denial
of a use permit

for an adult

business did

no
t addre
ss the crit
eria in

the county code f
or approval
of use permit, and
that the decisi
on to deny

therefor
e came “as a comple
te non

sequitur from

the findings.”
]
).

In this
matter, the jurisdiction
of the Hearing Officer is se
t by IMC
123.
23(A) and
123
.24
(A)(
1 )
—
generally,
pertaining to
deviations
from the City’s published proce
dure guidelines

and review
criteri
a that adversely af
fected

the Applicant

by altering the outcome of

the City’s decision on
t
he application.

The plain la
nguage of IMC

123.24(A)(1)

ne
cessari
ly includes

“published
procedure gui
delines and review criteria.” T
he City Council

adopted Resolution

no. 10314
establis
hing p
rocedure guide
lines and review criteria
t
o govern the application
and selection
process for ca
nnabis storef
ront retail p
erm
its.”
5 Thus, the C
ity’s compliance with the

guidelines
and criteria set fo
rth in Resoluti
on no. 10314 also f
alls within the sco
pe of
the administra
tive
hearing. Resolution no
. 10314 includes as Exhib
it “A” twelve pages of guide
lines and rev
iew
criteria.

(S
ee als
o Exhibit
4 )
.

Applicant’s Argument Regarding the City Council’s Legislative Determination s
Are
Beyond the Scope of the Administrative Hearing and the
Jurisdiction
of the
Hearing Officer

C
l
a
i
m

1 c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
d

a
d
v
a
n
c
i
n
g

o
n
l
y

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V
,

a
n
d

e
q
u
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

t
o

“
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
”

a
s

o
p
p
o
s
e
d

t
o

a
n

“
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
”

E
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
,

p
e
r

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

t
h
i
s

a
m
o
u
n
t
e
d

t
o

d
e

f
a
c
t
o

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

f
i
v
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

t
o

r
e
c
e
i
v
e

a
w
a
r
d
s
.

N
o
t

s
o
.

A
s

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
d
m
i
t
t
e
d
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

i
s

n
o
t

b
o
u
n
d

t
o

a
c
c
e
p
t

a
l
l

o
r

e
v
e
n

a
n
y

o
f

t
h
e

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

M
a
n
a
g
e
r
.

T
h
e

u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

r
e
s
t
s

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
,

w
h
i
c
h

c
a
n

a
c
c
e
p
t

a
l
l
,

s
o
m
e
,

o
r

n
o
n
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
i
t
i
a
l

r
e
f
e
r
r
a
l
s

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V
.

5 See:
https://www.in
dio.
or
g
/
ho
me/showpub
lisheddocument/2481/63800507760947
0000

This d
ocumen
t was referenced by the pa
rties, an
d t
here was dispute as

to existence or the
conten
t o
f the document; the document w
as

considered as par
t of th
e Hearing Officer opinion,
sua sponte
.

Page 174 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 177 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
13 01414.0001/903591.1

A
n
y

q
u
a
r
r
e
l

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

w
i
s
d
o
m

o
f

t
h
i
s

m
o
d
e
l
,

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

i
s

b
e
y
o
n
d

t
h
e

s
c
o
p
e

o
f

t
h
i
s

a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e

a
p
p
e
a
l
.

(198
0) 28 Cal.3d

511,
519;
20th Century Ins. Co. v. Garamendi

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 273;
Mountain Defense League v.

Board of Supervisors of San Diego County

(1977) 55 Cal.App.3d 723, 729
; Lindgren and Mattas,
CEB Cal. Land Use Prac.,
§

1.49)

Accordingly, s
eco
nd guessing the policy decisions of the City
Council is beyond the scope of an administrative appeal, and beyond the power of the Hearing Officer to
consider
.

The Hearing Officer declines to issue any opin
ion regarding the legislatively established number
of permits

or the
delegation of
authority for

the City Manager to advance
the
top

scoring
applications in Phase III to
Phase IV
.

The City Council made the legislative decision to adopt the guidelines and procedures for use in the underlying decision -
making

process; opinions after the
fact on the wisdom of those

decisions cannot form the basis of an administrative appeal. The proper time for raising such questions is during consideration of the underlying ordinances, resolutions, and policy actions of the Ci
ty Council during public meetings
,

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
d
m
i
t
t
e
d
l
y

t
o
o
k

p
a
r
t
.

C
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

E
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

V
e
r
b
a
t
i
m

U
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,

i
s

U
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

T
h
e

b
u
l
k

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

a
p
p
e
a
l

c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
s

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

c
r
e
a
t
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
h
a
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
a
l
l
y

c
i
t
e
s

t
o

v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

w
h
a
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

i
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

a
s
k
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

a
n
d

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.

T
h
o
u
g
h

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

i
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

l
o
o
k
i
n
g

f
o
r

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
h
e
a
d

o
f

t
i
m
e
,

t
h
e

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
v
e
a
l
s

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
r
a
r
y
—
o
r

a
t

l
e
a
s
t

e
v
i
n
c
e
s

a
n

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

c
l
o
s
e
l
y

r
e
s
e
m
b
l
e
,

i
f

n
o
t

o
u
t
r
i
g
h
t

d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
,

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

e
x
a
c
t
l
y
,

a
n
d

t
h
u
s
,

a
n
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

i
n

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e

r
o
s
e

t
o

t
h
e

l
e
v
e
l

o
f

a
n

o
b
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
b
l
e

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
.

N
o
t
h
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
s

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
I

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l

t
o

t
h
e

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
o
s
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
—
o
r

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
y

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
h
e
a
d

o
f

t
i
m
e
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

n
o
t
e
d

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
s

w
h
e
r
e

s
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

“
l
e
f
t

o
u
t
”

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

i
g
n
o
r
i
n
g

o
n
e

o
b
v
i
o
u
s

e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

s
u
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

n
e
e
d
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

m
o
r
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
,

q
u
a
l
i
t
i
v
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

a
s

o
p
p
o
s
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

“
c
h
e
c
k
-
t
h
e
-
b
o
x
”

n
a
t
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
i
t
i
a
l

p
h
a
s
e
s
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

n
e
v
e
r

r
e
c
o
n
c
i
l
e
s

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

i
t

p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
h
a
s
e

u
s
i
n
g

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

s
o

i
t

s
t
a
n
d
s

t
o

Page 175 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 178 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
14 01414.0001/903591.1

r
e
a
s
o
n

t
h
a
t

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

a
n

e
a
s
i
e
r

t
i
m
e

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

s
i
n
c
e

i
t

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

h
a
v
e

t
o

r
e
s
p
o
n
d

t
o

a
s

m
a
n
y

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

f
u
l
l

m
e
a
s
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

I
n

o
t
h
e
r

w
o
r
d
s
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
t
u
d
i
e
d

e
v
e
r
y

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e

a
r
e
a

t
h
a
t

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

o
n

t
h
e

t
e
s
t
,

a
n
d

t
h
e
n

g
o
t

a
s
k
e
d

f
e
w
e
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
n

a
l
l

o
f

t
h
e

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

i
t

u
s
e
d

t
o

s
t
u
d
y
.

Y
e
t
,

i
t

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

u
n
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y

s
c
o
r
e
s
.

T
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s

w
e
r
e

s
u
p
p
o
s
e
d

t
o

b
e

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

b
u
t

t
h
e
y

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

t
o

b
e

i
d
e
n
t
i
c
a
l
.

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 ,

p
.

1 3
)

A
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
e
n
t

i
n
t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

o
n

e
q
u
a
l

f
o
o
t
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

o
n
e

a
n
o
t
h
e
r
.

A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,

s
o
m
e

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

s
u
g
g
e
s
t
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
r

s
c
o
r
e
s

w
e
r
e

l
i
k
e
l
y

d
u
e

t
o

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

c
h
o
i
c
e

o
f

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
—
t
h
e

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

w
h
o

a
d
m
i
t
t
e
d
l
y

h
a
d

w
e
a
k
e
r

p
u
b
l
i
c

s
p
e
a
k
i
n
g

s
k
i
l
l
s
,

a
n

i
l
l

f
i
t

f
o
r

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

t
h
a
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

t
h
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
s
k
e
d
,

a
n
d

n
o
t

s
i
m
p
l
y

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

o
f
f

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

s
t
a
t
e
d
—
r
a
t
h
e
r

t
h
a
n

a
s

r
e
s
u
l
t

o
f

a
n
y

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

I
n

t
h
e

s
t
r
i
c
t
e
s
t

a
n
d

m
o
s
t

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

s
e
n
s
e
,

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

d
e
v
i
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

b
u
t

t
h
e

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

b
y

d
e
s
i
g
n
,

t
o

e
l
i
c
i
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
,

t
o

h
e
l
p

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
t
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

e
a
c
h

o
t
h
e
r
,

i
n

t
h
i
s

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e
,

m
e
r
i
t
-
b
a
s
e
d

p
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

A
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,

b
a
s
e
d

on the

s
a
m
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

w
i
t
h

n
o
t
h
i
n
g

a
d
d
e
d

o
r

s
u
b
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
.

A
n
d
,

c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
d

n
o
t

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y

a
n
y

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

s
o

f
a
r

d
e
v
i
a
t
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

s
o
u
r
c
e

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

i
n

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

s
o

a
s

t
o

t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m

i
n
t
o

f
a
t
a
l

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
y

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
i
n
g

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

s
c
o
r
e
—
e
x
c
e
p
t
,

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
,

o
n
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

u
n
d
e
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
.

A
s
i
d
e

f
r
o
m

o
n
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

u
n
d
e
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
,

t
h
e

r
e
m
a
i
n
d
e
r

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

c
l
a
i
m
s

f
a
i
l

a
s

t
h
e

p
r
e
p
o
n
d
e
r
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

f
i
n
d
i
n
g

o
f

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

s
c
o
r
e
.

D
.

O
n
e

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

U
n
d
e
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

S
o
u
g
h
t

I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
v
e
r
e
d

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

E
,

B
u
t

W
h
e
r
e

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

“
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

A
n
s
w
e
r
s

I
n

D
i
r
e
c
t

R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

t
o
”

t
h
e

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,

t
h
e

E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

D
o
e
s

N
o
t

S
h
o
w

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

D
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
i
t
e
d

t
w
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

p
o
s
e
d

u
n
d
e
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
:

o
n
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
n
g

t
o

a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g

b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

t
o

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
,

a
n
d

o
n
e

o
n

h
o
w

t
h
e

s
i
t
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

t
h
e

o
v
e
r
a
l
l

h
e
a
l
t
h
,

s
a
f
e
t
y
,

a
n
d

w
e
l
f
a
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
,

g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e

s
i
t
e

p
l
a
n

a
n
d

information

o
n

t
h
e

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
,

a
n
d

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
(
3 )
(
B
)

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

a
s
k
s

f
o
r

n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e

d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

s
i
t
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,

t
h
e
n

l
i
s
t
s

o
u
t

s
i
x

e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l

f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

m
a
y

b
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
.

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n

c
a
n

b
e

d
r
a
w
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

t
h
e

n
a
r
r
a
t
i
v
e

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
(
3 )
(
B
)

a
n
d

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

h
o
w

t
h
e

s
i
t
e

i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s

w
i
l
l

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.

Page 176 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 179 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
15 01414.0001/903591.1

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g

b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

m
u
c
h

m
o
r
e

c
l
o
s
e
l
y

d
e
r
i
v
e
s

f
r
o
m

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

–

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
l
a
n
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

f
i
r
s
t

t
w
o

b
u
l
l
e
t

p
o
i
n
t
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

p
r
o
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y

a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s

f
o
r

n
o
i
s
e
,

l
i
g
h
t
,

o
d
o
r
,

a
n
d

t
r
a
f
f
i
c

(
a
l
l

o
f

w
h
i
c
h

c
a
n

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

nuisances
)
;

a
n
d

p
l
a
n

f
o
r

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g

“
g
o
o
d

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r

p
o
l
i
c
y
”

a
n
d

m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

i
m
p
a
c
t
s

t
o

n
e
a
r
b
y

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l

n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
,

w
h
i
c
h

e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

a
s
k
s

f
o
r

s
i
m
i
l
a
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

w
a
y
.

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 ,

p
.

7 [
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

E
,

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
]
,

p
.

8 [
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

E
,

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
]
,

p
.

9 [
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
,

G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
]
,

p
.

1 0

[
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
,

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
]
;

s
e
e

a
l
s
o

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 ,

p
.

5 9

[
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
]

a
n
d

p
.

6 0

[
S
e
c
t
i
o
n

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
]
)

D
e
s
p
i
t
e

t
h
i
s

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
,

t
h
e

p
r
e
p
o
n
d
e
r
a
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
n

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

i
t

“
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d

a
n
s
w
e
r
s

i
n

d
i
r
e
c
t

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
”

i
n

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 ,

p
.

1 6
)

A
n
d

s
i
n
c
e

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
w
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

g
r
o
u
n
d
e
d

i
n

a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,

t
h
e

f
a
c
t

t
h
a
t

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g

b
e
c
o
m
i
n
g

n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e

m
a
y

h
a
v
e

e
n
d
e
d

u
p

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

h
a
r
d
l
y

a
p
p
e
a
r
s

p
r
e
j
u
d
i
c
i
a
l
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

could

h
a
v
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

o
r

s
i
m
i
l
a
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

E
,

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
i
m
i
l
a
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

i
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
.

T
h
e

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

l
o
w
e
r

s
c
o
r
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
,

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,

n
o

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

s
h
o
w
n
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

h
a
s

n
o
t

c
a
r
r
i
e
d

i
t
s

b
u
r
d
e
n
.

E
.

An
y Alle
ged Failures t
o Pro
duce Documents or Othe
rwise Comp
ly with the
Pub
lic Records Act Is Beyond th
e
Scope of this

Ap
peal
;

N
i
n
e
-
D
a
y

D
e
l
a
y

i
n

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g

t
o

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

Z
o
n
i
n
g

V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

L
e
t
t
e
r

W
a
s

N
o
t

U
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

The

fi
ndings made in an
administrative hearing mu
st
be relevant to adopted appli
cable criteria
i
n statutes or poli
cies. (
See, e.g.

L. Tho
m
as, Inc. v Co
unty
of Los Angeles

(1991)
232

Cal.Ap
p.3d
916
[
findi
ng adopted by planning commi
ssion to suppor
t

d
enial of

a
use permit for an
adult
business did not ad
dre
ss the criteria in

the count
y code for appr
o
val of use permit,

and that the
decis
ion to

deny

therefor
e cam
e “as a complete non s
equitur fr
om the findings
.”
]).

The jurisdiction of th
e Hearing Offic
er
is set b
y I
MC 123.23(A) and 1

23.24(A)(1)
—
generally,
pe
rta
ining to deviations from the

City’s publish
e
d procedure guidel
ines and review cri
teria
t
hat
adversely

affe
cted the Applicant by
altering t
he outcome of t
he City’s decision on the
ap
plication. The
pla
in langu
age

of IMC 123.24(A)(
1) necessarily includes “
pub
lished procedure
guidelines
and review crit
e
ria.”

Thus, the s
cope of appeal does

not i
n
clude actions

take
n by the City

in responding to r
equest
s
for information or documen
ts under the Publi
c Reco
rd
s A
ct. Applicant has
other potential
remedies
under the la
w with regard to an
y alleged non
-
c
ompliance.

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

m
a
d
e

c
l
e
a
r

t
h
a
t

a
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

t
i
m
e

a
n
d
,

t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
,

w
e
r
e

Page 177 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 180 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
16 01414.0001/903591.1

r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

b
a
c
k

t
o

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.

Accordi
n
gly,
the Hearing Of
ficer
makes no deter
mina
tion regarding
t
h
e
s
e

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s
.

F
i
n
a
l
l
y
,

t
h
e

n
i
n
e
-
d
a
y

d
e
l
a
y

i
n

r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

z
o
n
i
n
g

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
,

w
h
i
l
e

f
r
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
,

w
a
s

n
o
t

u
n
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
.

A
s

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
,

s
u
c
h

n
o
n
-
d
i
s
c
r
e
t
i
o
n
a
r
y

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s

c
a
n

l
e
g
a
l
l
y

t
a
k
e

u
p

t
o

a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y

t
h
i
r
t
y

d
a
y
s

t
o

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
d

i
n

n
i
n
e

d
a
y
s
,

w
h
i
l
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e
,

a
n
d

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
n
g

u
n
t
o
l
d

n
u
m
b
e
r
s

o
f

o
t
h
e
r

z
o
n
i
n
g

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

n
e
w

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

p
e
r
m
i
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.

E
a
c
h

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

b
e

c
h
e
c
k
e
d

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s

a
n

individualized

a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,

n
o
t
h
i
n
g

p
r
e
v
e
n
t
e
d

s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s

c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
s
s
u
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

o
n
l
y

o
n
e

c
o
u
l
d

b
e

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
,

b
u
t

t
h
a
t

a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

n
o
t

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

a
n
y

i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

a
n
d

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
n
d
o
w
.

F
.

No Evide
nce Demonstrate
s

a
Failure t
o Notify Appli
cant
s of
a C
han
ge in the
S
c
o
r
i
n
g

C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

The
procedures and
guidel
ines were ava
ilable to all appli
cants
prior to close

of the
application
window.

I
n
d
e
e
d
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

a
d
m
i
t
s

t
o

t
a
k
i
n
g

p
a
r
t

i
n

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

d
u
r
i
n
g

d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t

o
f

t
h
e

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y

p
a
s
s
e
d

b
y

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

t
o

p
u
t

i
n

p
l
a
c
e

i
t
s

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y

s
c
h
e
m
e
.

A
n
y

a
l
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

f
a
i
l
e
d

t
o

n
o
t
i
f
y

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

o
f

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

f
a
i
l
s
,

a
s

n
o

s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
.

G
.

T
he Qualita
tive Sco
ring o
f th
e Staff Pa
nel
Do
e
s

Not Provide a Basis
for App
eal

Applicant

t
a
k
e
s

i
s
s
u
e

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e
s

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

i
n

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
I
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

m
a
d
e

s
e
v
e
r
a
l

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

i
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

have

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

o
r

b
e
t
t
e
r

s
c
o
r
e
s

t
h
a
n

c
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
o
r
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

s
e
l
f
-
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

But t
he purpose of an adm
inistrative appeal is no
t
to
second
-
guess the q
ualitative
scoring of the

interview pan
el.

The purpose i
s to ensure tha
t the City’s polici
es and guidelines
w
ere fo
llowed.

They
were.

Applicant disagrees w
ith only provid
ing a summ
ary of t
he application revie
wed in Phase II,
rather
th
an
the whole applicat
ion. Applicant then subst
itutes its own

jud
gment on what

is
“important”

for consideration
in Phase III. Yet,
the Ci
ty has made cl
ear that Phase III does not

consider the a
pplication

because

Phase III is a sepa
rate, standalone part of

t
he
total
process.

The

summary
a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
l
y

o
n
l
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s

c
o
n
t
e
x
t

for the
questions
t
o

b
e

a
s
k
e
d

t
o

e
a
c
h

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,
w
ith the same questi
ons be
ing asked, and

which were asked the same
way
. T
hat App
l
icant
disagrees with

the methodology
does no
t
equ
ate to a deviation

from the published proce
dures
and guid
elin
es.

Page 178 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 181 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
17 01414.0001/903591.1

The same
is true with re
spect to not allowi
ng visual aids duri
ng the

presentation.

T
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

n
o
t
e
d

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

p
l
a
n
s

a
n
d

d
i
a
g
r
a
m
s
—
f
o
r

p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s

o
f

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
.

B
u
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

initiation

l
e
t
t
e
r

(
Exhibit

1 1
)

c
l
e
a
r
l
y

s
t
a
t
e
s

t
h
a
t

n
o

v
i
s
u
a
l

a
i
d
s

w
e
r
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
.

A
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

h
a
d

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
.

Finally,
in r
esponse to
Applicant
’s

ar
gument on
the
proc
edures and gu
idelines

not
st
ating

that a
summar
y would be provided

and n
ot stat
ing

tha
t visual materials would
no
t
be allowed

until
the in
terview
notification letter
was received: n
or did t
he

pr
ocedures and guide
lines specify
what day of

the week inte
rvie
ws would take

place,
in what

room, or at what t
ime of day.

Carryin
g out
procedures and

guidelines necessarily imp
lies a degree of discreti
on and f
lexibility
in applic
ation of
actually comple
ti
ng

the
actions

necess
ary to complete the proce
ss
.

It is
unre
ason
able to asser
t that t
he poli
cies and procedures

have to
predict an
d spec
ify all future

conditions that might appl
y

And, in the end, the Ci
ty appli
ed the decisions
it
made
equally
,

across all

a
ppl
icants
, resulting
in no unfair advantage.

A
ccordingly, Ap
plicant has not m
et its
b
urden w
ith respect to
t
h
e
s
e

a
l
l
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

H
.

The
Changes in Zon
ing

Not Constitute a Deviati
on from the City’s
Procedure
s

and Guidelines
,

and Appl
yin
g the
Regulation
s
in Effect at the Time
of
a Zoning Verification Request C
ompo
rts with th
e Law
.

Applicant
ci
te
d zoning change
s
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g

o
n

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 1
,

2 0
2 2

a
s

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
i
n
g

p
r
e
f
e
r
r
e
d

s
i
t
e

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

c
a
u
s
i
n
g

d
i
s
p
a
r
i
t
i
e
s

i
n

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

a
s

s
o
m
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
i
t
h

a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
s

p
r
i
o
r

t
o

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2 1
,

2 0
2 2

v
i
o
l
a
t
e
d

t
h
e

n
e
w

r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

p
o
s
t
-
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
.

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
, the

pr
oc
ess
described by t
he City regarding
zoning ve
rifications v
is
-
à
-
vis
the

specific
plan zoning change
s and the citywide z
oning
cha
nges,
comport with

general principl
es of la
nd
use submissions and approval
s, colloquially

referre
d to as “gr
andfathering” wh
ere
by

use
s
approved und
er regulations in effect at

the time wil
l
, generally

speaking,

remain legal desp
ite
their non
-
confor
ming s
tat
us due

to the pass
age of new regula
tions. T
his underlies the doctrine
of l
egal non
-
confor
ming use
, and the C
ity’s actions fo
llo
we
d
th
is principle b
y applying the
regulations
in effect at
the time of
the verification request
. (
H
ansen Brothers Ent.,

Inc.
v.

Board
of Superviso
rs

(1996) 12 Cal.
4th 533,

552
-
53 (describing legal nonco
nforming uses
)
)
.

Not to

do
so woul
d lead to the ab
sur
d
resu
lt of the City

applying zoning regulation
s that ultima
tely do not
go into effect, or that end
up changed due to Ci
ty Cou
nci
l acti
on.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

a
c
t
e
d

i
n

a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e

w
i
t
h

d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
d
v
i
c
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y

a
s

t
o

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

l
a
w

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.

Ac
cordin
gly, the City did not fai
l to apply review criteria
corr
ectly regarding

zoning clearance
s
,
and the changes in
zo
ning

did not const
itute changes in the City’
s

procedures and guideline
s for

Page 179 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 182 of 205

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

M
a
r
t
i
n
e
z

Kevin Snyder, AI
CP

June 30, 2023

P
age
18 01414.0001/903591.1

its cannabis permit pr
ogram

t
h
a
t

i
n
u
r
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

b
e
n
e
f
i
t

o
r

d
e
t
r
i
m
e
n
t

o
f

a
n
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
. Since no
deviation
occ
urred,

no no
tice w
as required. Applicant’s
appeal based on
t
h
i
s

c
l
a
i
m

f
a
i
l
s
.

X
.

Conclusion

Based o
n the foregoin
g analysis,

Applicant did not s
h
ow, b
y

a preponderance of the evi
den
ce,
that the City
v
i
o
l
a
t
e
d

a
n
y

o
f

t
h
e

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

s
e
t

f
o
r
t
h

i
n

I
M
C

1 2
3 .
2 4
(
A
)
. Thus, t
h
e decis
ion of the City
t
o

d
e
n
y

a
d
v
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V

is AFFIRME
D.

Respectfully submi
tted
,

ALESHIRE & WYNDER,

LLP

G. Ross Trindle, III

Par
tner

g
rt:

GRT

Attachments:

Exhib
it
1 :

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

Exhibit
4 :

Application
Proced
ure Guidelines

and

Review Criteria for a
Commercia
l Cannabis Busin
ess Permit (Storefront Retai
l Applications
)

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

6 :

H
dL Companies, City

of Indio Instruction for

C
annabis Interview Panel

Exhib
it7:

Interview

Scoring Guidance

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 0
:

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
n
t
’
s

A
p
p
e
a
l

Exhib
it 11:

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

1 1
,

2 0
2 3

I
n
v
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e

I
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

Exhibit 1
4 :

Stipulatio
n f
or
Reconsideration

Page 180 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 183 of 205

01414.0001/903465.1

Ross Trindle, III

gtri
ndle
@
awattorneys
.com
p

(951) 2
41 -
7338

(9
51) 24
1 -
7338

awattorneys.
com
388
0 Lemon Street, Suite 52
0 |

Riverside, CA 92501

June
30 , 2023

VIA E
-
MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

CEO

R
e
e
f
e
r

M
a
d
n
e
s
s
, LLC

4 6
9 3

R
a
m
o
n

R
o
a
d

P
a
l
m

S
p
r
i
n
g
s
, CA
9 2
2 6
4 E
-
Mail:
s
t
e
v
e
n
.
j
.
w
i
j
a
t
y
k
@
g
m
a
i
l
.
c
o
m

Kevin Sn
y
der, AICP

Director of Community Development

City of Indio

100 Civic
Center Mall

Indio, CA 92
201

E
-
Mail: [email protected]

Re:

R
e
e
f
e
r

M
a
d
n
e
s
s
,

L
L
C

–

Amended
Hearing Officer
Decision and Opinion
on

Cannabis Business Permit Administrative Hearing Appeal

Dear Applicant and City of Indio
:

On
May 24
, 2023, at
3 :30
p
.m., an administrative appeal hea
ring took place before the
undersigned Hearing Officer, requested by
R
e
e
f
e
r

M
a
d
n
e
s
s
, LLC (“Applicant”), challenging the
decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of Applicant from Phase III (Interviews) to the final se
lection process of the City Co
uncil for possible issuance of a cannabis business permit, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code (“IMC”) 123.25(E). At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission.

On June 14, 2023, the undersigned Hearing
Officer issued a Decision and
Opinion based on
timeliness of the appeal under IMC 123.23(A). After receipt of the Decision and Opinion, both parties requested reconsideration as the City provided a preliminary finding of timeliness to Applicant of its writ
ten appeal prior to the admini
strative appeal process. The parties entered
into a Stipulation agreeing, among other things, to reconsideration of Applicant’s appeal, without reference to issues of timeliness, in the interests of equity and fairness. A true

and
correct copy of the Stipu
lation is included herein as Exhibit 1
4 to the appeal proceedings
.

Having duly
re
considered the evidence, the undersigned Hearing Officer has reached a determination and t
his correspondence represents the final decision and o
pinion of the Hearing
Officer
regarding the appeal of

Applicant.

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(F), this written decision is final and conclusive and is subject to the
time limits set forth in
California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6

for judicial review.

Page 181 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 184 of 205

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

Kevin Snyder, AICP

June 30, 2023

Pag
e
2 01414.0001/903465.1

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL DECIS
ION

The decision of the City of Indio to deny advancement of R
e
e
f
e
r

M
a
d
n
e
s
s
, LLC to the final
selection process of the City Council is:

AFFIRMED.

HEARING OFFICER OPINION

Appointment of Hearing
Officer

The undersigned hearing officer was appointed by th
e City Council pursuant to Resolution
10377.

II.

Timeliness of Appeal

The parties stipulated to timeliness of the appeal
, as provided in
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 4
.

III.

Scope of Appeal

Pursuant to IMC 123.24(A)
, an appeal of the denial of application prior to final decis ion process
is limited to the following issues:



Any deviation from the city’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria that adversely affected the applicant by altering the outcome of t he city's
decision on the application. Examples of appealable

deviations include, but are
not limited to:



Failure on the part of the city to provide appropriate notification regarding changes to the application process via website postings and/or email to the
applicant prior to the time the application was submitted ;



Failure on the part of the city to provide an applicant an equal opportunity to modify an application where that opportunity was provided to other applicants;



Failure on the part of the city t
o correctly apply the review criteria, as
established by City

Council resolution, in reviewing the application[.]

Page 182 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 185 of 205

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

Kevin Snyder, AICP

June 30, 2023

Pag
e
3 01414.0001/903465.1

I
V.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(3), the “city’s notice constitutes prima facie evidence of [the] grounds for the denial . .

.” Further, the Applicant “bear[s] the burden of proof regar ding . . .
denial of advancement to the final selection process established by the City Council.” Finally, pursuant to IMC 123.24(A)(2), any appeal regarding denial of application prior to the fi nal
decision process “must be supported by a preponderance of

the evidence that the applicant
presented relevant information with completeness and in the appropriate section of the application.” Further, “[i]
nformation presented in the
application that is incomplete in nature
or that is relevant to a question posed
by the city on the application form but appears in the
incorrect section, even if complete, may be grounds for the dismissal of the appeal.” ( Ibid
.)

Accordingly, in order to o
verturn the challenged decision, Applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstra
te by a preponderance of the evidence that
:

(1) the application submitted
included complete, relevant information, in the appropriate section ;

(2) at least one “deviation
fro
m the city’s published procedure guidelines and review criteria ;” and (3)

“
that a
dversely
affected the applicant by altering the outcome of the city ’
s decision on the application,” as set
forth in IMC 123.24(A).

All three elements must be supported, o
therw
ise the challenge
d

decision will be affirmed.

Basis of Written Appeal

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
i
t
e
d

I
M
C

1 2
3 .
2 3

a
s

t
h
e

b
a
s
i
s

o
f

i
t
s

a
p
p
e
a
l
,

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g

“
a
n
y

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

c
i
t
y
’
s

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

t
h
a
t

a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y

a
f
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
y

a
l
t
e
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

o
f

t
h
e

c
i
t
y
’
s

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

o
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
”

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 1
,

p
.

1 )

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

n
o
n
-
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e

l
i
s
t

o
f

e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
f

“
a
p
p
e
a
l
a
b
l
e

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
”

(a)

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
n

t
h
e

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e
s

t
o

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
;

a
n
d

(b)

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
n

t
h
e

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

t
o

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n

e
q
u
a
l

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

m
o
d
i
f
y

a
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
h
e
r
e

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
;

a
n
d

(c)

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
n

t
h
e

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

c
i
t
y

t
o

c
o
r
r
e
c
t
l
y

a
p
p
l
y

t
h
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,

a
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

b
y

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

r
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
,

i
n

r
e
v
i
e
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

Page 183 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 186 of 205

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

Kevin Snyder, AICP

June 30, 2023

Pag
e
4 01414.0001/903465.1

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

e
x
a
m
p
l
e

i
t

c
l
a
i
m
s

s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
s

s
u
b
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

(
c
)
,

a
s

l
i
s
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

a
p
p
e
a
l
:

“
[
F
]
o
r

p
h
a
s
e

I
I
I
,

w
a
s

i
n
v
i
t
e
d

i
n

b
y

l
e
t
t
e
r

f
o
r

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

l
e
t
t
e
r

c
a
l
l
e
d

a
n

‘
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
.
’

H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

t
h
i
s

w
a
s

n
o
t

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
,

t
h
i
s

w
a
s

h
e
a
r
i
n
g
,

s
i
n
c
e

i
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

h
e
a
r
i
n
g

b
o
d
y

s
t
a
t
e
d

t
h
e
y

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

t
o

a
n
s
w
e
r

m
y

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

o
r

a
n
s
w
e
r

a
n
y

f
o
l
l
o
w
-
u
p

t
o

t
h
e
i
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
.
”

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 1
,

p
.

1 )

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

t
h
a
t

i
t
,

“
t
h
o
u
g
h
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
i
s

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
n

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

w
h
e
r
e

[
t
h
e

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
]

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
s
k
e
d

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

[
t
h
e
]

p
l
a
n
s

a
n
d

[
t
h
e
]

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s

t
h
a
t
,

h
a
d

i
t

b
e
e
n

k
n
o
w
n

t
h
a
t

“
t
h
e

h
e
a
r
i
n
g

b
o
d
y
”

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

a
s
k
i
n
g

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t

p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

b
e
e
n

u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
,

l
i
k
e

s
i
m
p
l
y

r
e
a
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
u
t

l
o
u
d
.

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

p
r
e
s
e
n
t

t
o

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

a
n
o
t
h
e
r

e
x
a
m
p
l
e

u
n
d
e
r

s
u
b
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

(
c
)
,

r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

i
n

P
h
a
s
e

I
I

v
e
r
s
u
s

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
i
n
g

i
n

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
I
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

n
o
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

“
l
o
w
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

w
a
s

9 7
.
2 5
%
,

w
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

w
a
s

1 0
0 %
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
c
o
r
e
d

9 9
.
0 8
%
,

a
n
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

t
h
a
t

“
[
i
]
t

i
s

r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e

t
o

c
o
n
c
l
u
d
e

f
r
o
m

t
h
i
s

d
a
t
a
,

t
h
a
t

a
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

a
r
e

s
t
r
o
n
g

c
o
n
t
e
n
d
e
r
s
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

n
o
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

P
h
a
s
e

I
I

s
c
o
r
e
d

t
h
e

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

P
l
a
n
,

L
a
b
o
r

a
n
d

E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t

P
l
a
n
,

a
n
d

S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

P
l
a
n

s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

o
b
s
e
r
v
e
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

P
h
a
s
e

I
I
I

s
c
o
r
e
s

w
e
r
e

“
m
o
r
e

s
p
r
e
a
d

o
u
t
,
”

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

l
o
w
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
f

7 4
.
7 5
%

a
n
d

t
h
e

h
i
g
h
e
s
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
f

9 8
%
;

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

s
c
o
r
e

o
f

8 3
.
3 1
%
.

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

i
n
q
u
i
r
e
s

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

r
e
v
i
e
w

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

w
a
s

a
p
p
l
i
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

t
w
o

p
h
a
s
e
s
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,

i
f

t
h
e

d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

i
s

b
a
s
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

s
c
o
r
e
s
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
e
l
i
e
v
e
d

t
h
a
t

e
a
c
h

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

“
d
e
s
e
r
v
e
s

c
o
p
y

o
f

t
h
e
i
r

g
r
a
d
e
d

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

d
e
s
e
r
v
e
s

c
h
a
n
c
e

a
t

a
s
k
i
n
g

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

o
u
r

s
c
o
r
e
s
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

“
t
h
e

m
e
t
h
o
d

o
f

s
c
o
r
i
n
g
,
”

a
n
d

e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

surprise

t
h
a
t

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

s
i
t
e

p
l
a
n

r
a
n
k
e
d

1 1
t
h

o
u
t

o
f

1 3
,

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
i
n
g

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e

w
a
s

“
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r

a
n
d

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

b
u
s
i
n
e
s

o
w
n
e
r
,
”

w
i
t
h

f
o
u
r

y
e
a
r
s

o
f

e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e

c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g

s
i
t
e

d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s

a
n
d

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

p
e
r
m
i
t
s

f
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
,

“
a
s

w
e
l
l

a
s

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

p
l
a
n
s
,

s
i
t
e

p
l
a
n
s
,

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

p
e
r
m
i
t
s
,

a
n
d

o
d
o
r

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

p
l
a
n
s

f
o
r

o
t
h
e
r

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

c
l
i
e
n
t
s
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d

t
o

s
c
o
r
e

h
i
g
h
e
r

i
n

t
h
e

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

“
m
o
r
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
”

w
o
u
l
d

f
o
l
l
o
w

t
h
e

i
n
i
t
i
a
l

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

a
p
p
e
a
l
.

Page 184 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 187 of 205

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

Kevin Snyder, AICP

June 30, 2023

Pag
e
5 01414.0001/903465.1

123.24(A)
.”

As a threshold matter, the Hearing

Officer finds the written appeal

generally

in compliance
with
the requirements of the IMC as stated.

VI.

Additional
Documents
Submitte
d

as Evidence

Applicant submitted additional written
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
c
o
m
p
r
i
s
e
d

o
f

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

b
r
i
e
f

w
i
t
h

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
.

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 5
-
A

[
b
r
i
e
f
]
,

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 5
-
B

[
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
s
]
)

T
h
e

b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

w
e
r
e

r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d

a
n
d

a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d

f
o
r

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

by the Hearing Officer pursu
ant to IMC 123
.25(C)(4)

as the documents were timely submitted

p
e
r

b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

7 :
1 8
-
2 2
)

I
n

t
h
e

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
i
e
f
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

P
h
a
s
e

I
V

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

“
b
e

e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

t
o

a
l
s
o

i
n
c
l
u
d
e

t
h
o
s
e

[
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
]

t
h
a
t

f
e
l
t

s
o

s
t
r
o
n
g
l
y

a
b
o
u
t

[
t
h
e
i
r
]

v
a
l
u
e

t
o

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

t
h
a
t

[
t
h
e
y
]

s
p
e
n
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e

t
i
m
e

a
n
d

m
o
n
e
y

p
r
e
p
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h

a
p
p
e
a
l
s
.
”

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 5
-
A
,

p
.

1 )

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
s
s
e
r
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

“
t
h
e

m
a
c
r
o

l
e
v
e
l

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

u
s
e
d
”

d
i
d

n
o
t

p
r
o
d
u
c
e

“
t
h
e

o
p
t
i
m
a
l

o
u
t
c
o
m
e

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
d

s
u
r
p
r
i
s
e

a
t

n
o
t

h
a
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

b
r
i
n
g

v
i
s
u
a
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

t
o

t
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
,

a
n
d

n
o
t

h
a
v
i
n
g

t
h
e

o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y

t
o

s
h
a
r
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

t
h
e

“
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
v
e

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
n
s
w
e
r

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
l
a
i
m
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

“
m
i
s
s
e
d

t
h
e

g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t

a
s
s
e
t
”

t
h
a
t

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
r
o
u
g
h
t

t
o

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

a
n
d

t
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

i
n

t
h
e

f
o
r
m

o
f

l
o
c
a
l

o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
,

p
u
r
p
o
r
t
e
d
l
y

i
n

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

w
i
t
h

o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

t
h
a
t

h
a
d

“
n
o

l
o
c
a
l

p
a
r
t
n
e
r

b
u
y
-
i
n
s
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d

p
l
a
n
s

t
o

r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

o
w
n
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
,

t
o

b
e

c
l
o
s
e
r

t
o

t
h
e

p
l
a
n
n
e
d

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
;

t
o

d
e
v
e
l
o
p

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s

“
a
n
d

w
a
y
s

t
o

b
e
t
t
e
r

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e

t
o

t
h
e

I
n
d
i
o

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

a
n
d

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
’
s

s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c

g
o
a
l
s
;
”

a
n
d

t
o

s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e

t
h
e

m
u
l
t
i
-
t
e
n
a
n
t

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

p
l
a
n
n
e
d

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

b
u
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

f
o
r

t
h
o
s
e

t
e
n
a
n
t
s
.

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

l
i
s
t
e
d

t
e
n

r
e
a
s
o
n
s

i
n

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

o
f

o
v
e
r
t
u
r
n
i
n
g

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
,

w
i
t
h

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

f
o
u
n
d

i
n

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 5
-
B
,

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

a
s

f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:

1. P
e
r

t
h
e

r
u
l
e
s

e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

s
h
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

r
e
c
e
i
v
e

l
i
c
e
n
s
e
s
,

n
o
t

C
i
t
y

S
t
a
f
f
.

T
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

C
i
t
y

S
t
a
f
f

w
i
l
l

p
i
c
k

o
n
l
y

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

f
o
r

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
s
;

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

“
t
o
p
”

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
o
u
l
d

m
o
v
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d
.

T
h
i
s

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

“
c
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
”

t
h
a
t

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d

n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

Page 185 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 188 of 205

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

Kevin Snyder, AICP

June 30, 2023

Pag
e
6 01414.0001/903465.1

2. A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

h
a
d

n
o
t

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

w
o
u
l
d

h
a
v
e

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.

3. O
n
l
y

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
e
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l
,

a
n
d

n
o
t

t
h
e

w
h
o
l
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
i
s

m
a
y

have

r
e
s
u
l
t
e
d

i
n

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

p
a
r
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
—
s
i
t
e

p
l
a
n

d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
,

s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y

p
l
a
n

d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
,

r
a
d
i
u
s

m
a
p
s
,

o
d
o
r

c
o
n
t
r
o
l

p
l
a
n
s
,

a
n
d

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
—
n
o
t

b
e
i
n
g

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
a
s

n
e
v
e
r

s
h
o
w
n

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l
.

4. V
i
s
u
a
l

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

a
l
l
o
w
e
d

in the

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
.

5. A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

p
o
i
n
t
s

f
o
r

l
o
c
a
l

o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
,

b
u
t

p
r
i
m
a
r
y

o
r

c
o
r
e

e
n
t
i
t
y

o
w
n
e
r
s

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

l
o
c
a
l
;

t
h
i
s

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s

“
g
a
m
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
y
s
t
e
m
.
”

6. S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
h
o
u
l
d

“
f
o
c
u
s

o
n

m
e
r
i
t
,

n
o
t

t
h
e

n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

d
i
s
p
e
n
s
a
r
i
e
s

a
n

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

h
a
s
.
”

7. T
h
e

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

“
i
n

t
h
e

b
e
s
t

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

o
f

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
.
”

8. T
h
e

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1 1
1 C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

P
l
a
n

a
n
d

m
i
x
e
d

u
s
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

p
l
a
n

u
p
d
a
t
e
s

w
e
n
t

i
n
t
o

e
f
f
e
c
t

w
h
i
l
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
e
r
e

b
e
i
n
g

a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

h
a
v
e

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

d
o

n
o
t

m
e
e
t

t
h
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

z
o
n
i
n
g

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.

T
h
e

C
i
t
y

d
i
d

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

p
r
i
o
r

n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
h
a
n
g
e
s
.

9. T
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
e
t
s

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

2 0
4 0

G
e
n
e
r
a
l

P
l
a
n

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

a
d
o
p
t
e
d

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

1 1
1 C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r

S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

P
l
a
n

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,

w
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

f
i
f
t
h
-
r
a
n
k
e
d

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

d
o
e
s

n
o
t
.

I
f

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

s
c
o
r
e
s

f
o
r

N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d

C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
,

P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

S
i
t
e

P
l
a
n
,

a
n
d

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y

B
e
n
e
f
i
t

I
n
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t

P
l
a
n

w
e
r
e

i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d

t
o

m
a
t
c
h

t
h
e

f
i
f
t
h
-
r
a
n
k
e
d

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

t
h
e
n

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

w
o
u
l
d

m
o
v
e

i
n
t
o

t
h
e

f
i
f
t
h

p
l
a
c
e

s
p
o
t
.

T
h
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t

f
i
f
t
h
-
p
l
a
c
e
d

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
h
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

h
a
v
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

s
u
c
h

h
i
g
h

s
c
o
r
e

s
i
n
c
e

t
h
e

z
o
n
i
n
g

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
o
m
p
l
y

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

n
e
w

z
o
n
i
n
g

r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.

10. A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
r
i
n
g
s

“
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e

v
a
l
u
e
”

t
o

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
,

w
i
t
h

“
m
o
r
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y

l
e
t
t
e
r
s

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

f
o
l
l
o
w
”

f
o
r

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

a
t

t
h
e

h
e
a
r
i
n
g
.

Page 186 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 189 of 205

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

Kevin Snyder, AICP

June 30, 2023

Pag
e
7 01414.0001/903465.1

E
a
l
y

m
o
r
n
i
n
g

t
h
e

d
a
y

o
f

t
h
e

s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d

h
e
a
r
i
n
g
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
i
a

e
m
a
i
l
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

l
e
t
t
e
r

o
f

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

“
f
r
i
e
n
d
”

w
h
o

i
s

c
a
n
n
a
b
i
s

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
,

a
n
d

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

t
h
a
t

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

f
o
u
n
d

in the

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

a
l
s
o

e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d

u
p
o
n

t
h
e

s
a
m
e
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 1
:
1 7
-
3 7
:
2 ;

4 0
:
1 6
-
4 1
:
1 9
)

T
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

w
a
s

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

a
f
t
e
r

t
h
e

b
r
i
e
f
i
n
g

d
e
a
d
l
i
n
e
;

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
d

n
o
t

m
a
k
e

s
h
o
w
i
n
g

o
f

g
o
o
d

c
a
u
s
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

l
a
t
e

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
;

t
h
e

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

w
e
r
e

d
u
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
v
e

o
f

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

o
r

c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
d

n
e
w

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

n
o
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

a
s

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
;

a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
,

t
h
e

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

a
s

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
i
s

A
m
e
n
d
e
d

D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n

a
n
d

O
p
i
n
i
o
n
,

p
e
r

I
M
C

1 2
3 .
2 5
(
C
)
(
4 )
.

T
he City submitted Exhibits 1
-
1 3

at the appe
a
l

hearing.

Al
l additional City documents were
accepted and considered by the Hearing Offic
er

pursuant to IMC 123.25(C)(4); good cause

was
found to accept the documents as exhibits

as
there were no objections raised at the appeal
hearing, copies of the sub
m
i
tted docu
men
ts were provided to Applicant, and the submitted
materials were previously pr
ov
i
ded or equally available to Applicant, w
ith the exception of
Exhibit 6

a
n
d

Exhibit 7.

Purs
uant to IMC 123.25(C)(6), prior to

scheduling of the administrative hear
i
n
g, the Ci
ty elected
to record the pro
cee
dings via court reporter. The Hearing Officer
accep
ted and considered

a
certified copy of th
e transcript of the proceedings

in reaching the de
termination set forth
herein.

VII.

Applicant’s Arguments at the Administ
r
a
tive Hear
ing

A
rgument on behalf of Applicant was provided by
S
t
e
v
e
n

J
.

W
i
j
a
t
y
k
.

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
e
a
d

i
n
t
o

t
h
e

r
e
c
o
r
d

t
h
e

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
i
e
f

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 5
-
A
,
)

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

s
o
m
e

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

w
h
i
l
e

d
o
i
n
g

s
o
,

a
n
d

c
i
t
e
d

t
o

e
x
h
i
b
i
t
s

i
n

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
i
e
f

(
E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 5
-
B
)
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t

1 1
:
1 9
-
3 7
:
5 )

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

s
t
a
r
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

R
e
a
s
o
n

9 r
e
l
a
t
e
d

t
o

z
o
n
i
n
g

c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
,

e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
i
n
g

a
n
d

r
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
a
m
e

p
o
i
n
t
s

l
a
i
d

o
u
t

i
n

t
h
e

w
r
i
t
t
e
n

a
p
p
e
a
l

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
i
e
f
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

1 3
:
2 2
-
1 5
:
1 3
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

r
e
t
u
r
n
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

o
r
d
e
r

o
f

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

in the

s
u
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
l

b
r
i
e
f
,

w
i
t
h

R
e
a
s
o
n

1 ,

a
r
g
u
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

C
i
t
y

S
t
a
f
f

w
e
r
e

n
o
t

s
u
p
p
o
s
e
d

t
o

s
e
l
e
c
t

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

b
u
t

r
a
t
h
e
r
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

w
a
s

s
u
p
p
o
s
e
d

t
o

d
o

s
o
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

1 5
:
1 8
-
2 1
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
g
a
i
n

r
e
c
o
u
n
t
e
d

a
n

a
l
l
e
g
e
d

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n

b
e
t
w
e
e
n

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e

(
M
r
.

W
i
j
a
t
y
k
)

a
n
d

t
h
e

C
i
t
y
’
s

c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t

f
r
o
m

H
d
L

(
M
r
.

E
a
t
o
n
)

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

p
a
n
e
l

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
,

w
h
e
r
e

M
r
.

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

i
n
q
u
i
r
e
d

a
b
o
u
t

h
o
w

m
a
n
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

w
o
u
l
d

m
o
v
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d

t
o

P
h
a
s
e

I
V
,

t
o

w
h
i
c
h

M
r
.

E
a
t
o
n

Page 187 of 202 ends

AGENDA ITEM #3.1
Award and Issuance of City of Indio Cannabis Storefront Retail Business ... Page 190 of 205

S
t
e
v
e
n

W
i
j
a
t
y
k

Kevin Snyder, AICP

June 30, 2023

Pag
e
8 01414.0001/903465.1

a
l
l
e
g
e
d
l
y

s
t
a
t
e
d

“
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
y

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

t
o

t
o
p

[
t
e
n
]
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

1 6
:
1 1
-
1 8
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

r
e
i
t
e
r
a
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

d
o

n
o
t

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

C
i
t
y

S
t
a
f
f

w
i
l
l

s
e
l
e
c
t

“
o
n
l
y
”

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
o

m
o
v
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d
,

b
u
t

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

“
t
o
p

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
”

would

m
o
v
e

f
o
r
w
a
r
d
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

1 6
:
2 4
-
1 7
:
3 )

A
n
d
,

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

“
d
i
d

n
o
t

p
r
o
v
i
d
e

a
n
y

p
r
i
o
r

n
o
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

t
h
i
s

c
h
a
n
g
e

t
o

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
v
i
e
w

p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

1 7
:
4 -
6 )

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

t
h
e
n

c
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
d

a
d
v
a
n
c
i
n
g

o
n
l
y

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s

t
o

t
h
e

C
i
t
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
,

a
r
g
u
i
n
g

t
h
a
t

“
i
t

s
e
e
m
s

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

w
i
l
l

b
e

m
o
r
e

o
f

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,

n
o
t

s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

1 7
:
1 5
-
1 8
)
1 F
o
r

i
t
s

R
e
a
s
o
n

3 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

f
u
l
l
-
s
i
z
e

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
,

t
h
a
t

a
l
s
o

w
e
r
e

i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

E
x
h
i
b
i
t

1 5
-
B

i
n

r
e
d
u
c
e
d

s
i
z
e

f
o
r
m
a
t

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

1 7
:
2 4
-
1 8
:
2 4
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
s
s
e
r
t
e
d

t
h
a
t

i
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

k
n
o
w
n

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

s
h
o
w
n

to the

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l
,

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

i
n
s
i
n
u
a
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

n
o
t

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g

t
h
e

f
u
l
l
-
s
i
z
e
d

e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s

w
o
u
l
d

o
b
s
c
u
r
e

t
h
e

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

a
n
d

n
o
t

“
g
i
v
e

t
h
e
m

j
u
s
t
i
c
e
”

i
f

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d

i
n

r
e
d
u
c
e
d
-
s
i
z
e

f
o
r
m
a
t
.

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d

t
h
a
t

o
n
l
y

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
e
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
e
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l
,

n
o
t

the

w
h
o
l
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 0
:
1 8
-
2 1
:
9 )

A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
l
y
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

h
a
d

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s

t
h
a
t

“
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

p
a
r
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
e
r
e

p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y

l
e
f
t

o
u
t
,
”

a
n
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

d
i
d

n
o
t

k
n
o
w

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l

h
a
d

a
l
r
e
a
d
y

s
e
e
n
,

s
o

t
h
e
r
e

w
a
s

“
n
o

w
a
y

t
o

v
e
r
i
f
y

t
h
a
t

t
h
e
y

h
a
d

s
e
e
n

a
l
l

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

a
n
d

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

p
a
r
t
s

o
f

m
y

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
”

(
I
b
i
d
.
)

I
n

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

H
e
a
r
i
n
g

O
f
f
i
c
e
r

a
b
o
u
t

h
o
w

R
e
a
s
o
n

3 c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
d

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

h
o
w

t
h
a
t

d
e
v
i
a
t
i
o
n

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

a
n
d

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y

s
t
a
t
e

t
h
a
t

s
u
m
m
a
r
y

w
o
u
l
d

b
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

i
n
s
t
e
a
d

o
f

t
h
e

e
n
t
i
r
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

t
h
i
s

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
l
y

i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

b
y

n
o
t

k
n
o
w
i
n
g

w
h
a
t

w
a
s

l
e
f
t

o
u
t
—
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

“
j
u
s
t

[
w
a
s
]

n
o
t

s
u
r
e

w
h
a
t

[
t
h
e

C
i
t
y
]

c
h
o
s
e
,

a
n
d

i
f

[
t
h
e

C
i
t
y
]

c
h
o
s
e

t
h
e

r
i
g
h
t

t
h
i
n
g
s
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 7
:
8 -
3 9
:
1 6
)

I
n

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

o
f

R
e
a
s
o
n

4 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
d
d
e
d

t
h
a
t

v
i
s
u
a
l
s

w
e
r
e

“
a
n

i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

p
a
r
t

o
f

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
g

[
t
h
e
]

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
”

a
n
d

“
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t

i
n

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

o
f

a
l
l

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 1
:
1 0
-
1 6
)

F
u
r
t
h
e
r
,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
r
g
u
e
d

t
h
a
t

t
h
e

p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s

a
n
d

g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s

d
i
d

n
o
t

s
a
y

t
h
a
t

v
i
s
u
a
l
s

w
o
u
l
d

n
o
t

b
e

a
l
l
o
w
e
d
,

w
h
i
c
h

w
a
s

“
s
u
r
p
r
i
s
e
”

w
h
e
n

c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
e
d
.

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

3 9
:
1 7
-
4 0
:
1 5
)

R
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g

R
e
a
s
o
n

5 ,

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

a
r
g
u
e
d

t
h
a
t

“
o
t
h
e
r

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

t
h
a
t

a
r
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

i
n

t
h
e

t
o
p

f
i
v
e

r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d

p
o
i
n
t
s

f
o
r

l
o
c
a
l

o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
,

b
u
t

t
h
e

c
o
r
e

e
n
t
i
t
y

o
w
n
e
r
s

a
r
e

n
o
t

l
o
c
a
l
.
”

(
T
r
a
n
s
c
r
i
p
t
,

2 2
:
2 -
5 )

T
h
e
s
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y

w
e
r
e

“
g
a
m
i
n
g

t
h
e

s
y
s
t
e
m
”

b
y

o
n
l
y

a
p
p
e
a
r
i
n
g

t
o

1 A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t

p
r
o
c
e
e
d
e
d

t
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

w
h
e
t
h
e
r

d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s

s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d

w
i
t
h

t
h
e

a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

w
e
r
e

p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d

t
o

t
h
e

s
t
a
f
f

i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w

p
a
n
e
l

i
n

f
u
l
l

s
i
z
e
,

b
u
t

t
h
e

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t

w
a
s

n
o
t

c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t

w
i
t
h

R
e
a
s
o
n

1 ;

h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,

t
h
e

a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d

a
s

p
a
r
t

o
f

A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
’
s

R
e
a
s
o
n

3 .

Page 188 of 202 ends

Indio City CouncilJuly 26, 2023

Indio City Council
July 26, 2023