April 12, 2024
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
Community Development Department
City of Salinas
65 W. Alisal, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
RE: Conditional Use Permit CUP2022-048
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision
Dear Ms. Brinton:
JRG Attorneys at Law, on behalf of CannaCruz Inc., a California corporation, as Applicant for the above referenced conditional use permit application (“CUP2022 - 048”), is hereby filing an appeal of the decision made by the Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, April 3, 2024.
Following is a summary of the requested entitlements, the Planning Commission proceedings, and the basis for the request for appeal.
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
As referenced in the Staff Report, Applicant is seeking the following entitlements for its Cannabis retail operation:
1. Conditional Use Permit CUP2022-048, to change the use from Retail to a two- tenant Shopping Center and allowing for a parking reduction for the proposed Shopping Center use, exception from the requirements of Zoning Code Section 37-50.200 to allow for inter nal waste storage, and Alternative Means of Compliance for landscaping.
2. A major amendment of Commercial Cannabis Permit (CCP) CCP2023-007, to allow the relocation of the existing permit for the Cannabis retail operation located at 1156 Abbott Street to the Project site located at 1228 South Main Street.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
Please see the attached timeline regarding the applications for these entitlements.
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The matter before the April 3, 2024, Planning Commission hearing was CUP2022 -048, and not CCP2023-007, as stated during the Staff presentation provided by Thomas Wiles. In addition, it was indicated in both the Staff verbal presentation and written Staff R eport that approval of CUP2022-048 would be required in order for CCP2023-007 to be considered.
Staff and Applicant Presentations and Public Comment
In accordance with the agenda, both Staff and Applicant presentations addressed CUP2022 -048 and not CCP2023 -007. Staff made their presentation and, following the Staff presentation and prior to the opening of public comment, Planning Commissioners were giv en the opportunity to ask questions about CUP2022 -048. Public comment followed, commencing with Applicant’s presentation regarding CUP2022-048. Planning Commissioners were again given an opportunity to further discuss and ask questions regarding CUP2022-048.
Prior to closing public comment, Chair Meeks inquired of each Commissioner whether or not they had questions or comments for Staff and Applicant.
It is important to note that regarding the above process and sequence of events, Commissioner Donahue was specifically asked by the Chair, more than once, if he had any comments and/or questions regarding Staff’s presentation, CUP2022 -048 and/or public com ments regarding the same before making is first comments right before his motion to deny. First, immediately after Staff’s presentation, at the start of the first discussion and questions period by the Planning Commissioners, his response was “Still thinking” (Salinas YouTube Channel video recording time 13:80) and did not comment during this period even after all of the Planning Commissioners had their chance to speak, completely passing on making any comments. After Applicant’s presentation and public com ments and at the start of the second Planning Commissioners’ discussion, Commissioner Donahue was then asked again if he had any comments and /or questions, and his response was “No…my comments I’ll reserve prior to the vote.” (recording time 50:38).
Only after all the other commissions had opportunities to speak and ask questions, only after Applicant’s presentation and after all public comments did Commissioner Donahue finally provide his comments.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Discussion
After the close of public comment, Planning Commissioners had the opportunity to discuss CUP2022-048 as presented by Staff and commented on by the public.
Commissioner Donahue then made the following declarations and arguments, as follows:
1. Municipal code Section 5-07.27 – Location of commercial cannabis businesses – Proximity to sensitive uses, subsection (d) regarding adjacent residential uses , requires a policy decision.
2. The two entitlements CUP2022 -048 and CCP2023 -007 are related and should be considered together.
3. Approval of CUP2022 -048, while deferring the decision for CCP2023 -007 is to be addressed at a later date, could be misleading to Applicant.
Commissioner Manzo echoed Commissioner Donahue’s opinion with respect to the third opinion.
Planning Commission Decision
A motion was made by Commissioner Donahue and seconded by Chair Meeks as follows:
“I’ll motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit.”
Following the motion, the vote took place with no discussion, and the motion was approved.
No basis for the denial was given in the language of the motion, and there was no discussion following the motion. Therefore, the Planning Commission discussion at the hearing preceding their decision is presumed to be the basis for the denial.
Commissioner Donahue clearly prepared his points and arguments prior the hearing, as evidenced by his knowledge of the letter from attorney Hansen Reed and his comments regarding discussing the same with his wife (time 55:05). What is particularly troublin g is that Commissioner Donahue’s approach set forth above, appears clearly intentional and effectively denied the other Commissioners, staff, and more importantly, the Applicant and the public, the chance to address the flawed and irrelevant facts and arguments he set forth in support of his motion to deny.
The Planning Commission resolution includes findings that address the Salinas general plan, the Zoning Code, the specific purposes of the base or overlay zoning district in which the development site is located, but the conclusions are based on the Police Department memorandum dated March 19, 2024, to be discussed below.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
BASIS FOR APPEAL
Pursuant to City of Salinas municipal code Section 37 -60.1280 – Initiation of appeal, the appeal application shall state, as appropriate, any of the following:
1. A determination or interpretation that is not in accord with the purposes of this article;
2. There was an error or abuse of discretion;
3. The record includes inaccurate information; or
4. A decision is not supported by the record.
Pursuant to the above, Applicant hereby appeals the Planning Commission decision of April 3, 2024, for the following reasons –
1. The Planning Commission’s determination and interpretation are not in accord with the purposes of Article VI – Administration, Division 8 – Conditional Use Permits.
2. The Planning Commission’s decision improperly involved consideration of issues related to CCP2023 -007, improperly ignoring the clear purpose of the hearing and the presentations by Staff and Applicant regarding CUP2022-048.
3. The Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by the record.
Determination or Interpretation Not in Accord With Article VI – Administration, Division 8 – Conditional Use Permits
The Planning Commission decision involved a determination or interpretation that is not in accord with Article VI – Administration, Division 8 – Conditional Use Permits, particularly Section 37 -
60.510 – Planning commission duties and Section 37 -60.520 – Required findings for conditional use permits.
Pursuant to municipal code Section 37 -60.510 – Planning commission duties, subsection (a) review of Non-administrative Conditional Use Permits –
The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny applications for non -administrative conditional use permits subject to the general purposes of the Salinas general plan, this Zoning Code, the specific purposes of the base or overlay zoning district in which a development site is located, and the provisions of this division, unless authority for a decision on a conditional use permit is specifically assigned Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
to the city planner in accordance with Section 37 -60.480: City planner duties of this division.
Although both CUP2022-048 and CCP2023-007 are required entitlements and could be approved concurrently, in this case, the matter before the Planning Commission was CUP2022-048 and not CCP2023-007. CCP2023-007 was to be considered subsequently at a later da te. The Planning Commission had full authority and obligation to properly consider the record for CUP2022 -048 and make a decision on only CUP2022-048.
The basis of Planning Commission’s decision regarding CUP2022-048 was that CUP2022-048 is related to CCP2023 -007, that CCP2023 -007 requires a policy decision, and that the two entitlements should be considered concurrently.
The basis for the denial is improper because it is procedural in nature and does not address the Salinas general plan, the Zoning Code, the specific purposes of the base or overlay zoning district in which the development site is located, or the provisions of this municipal code Section 37 -
60.510.
The Applicant had the option of submitting an application for CCP2023 -007 following approval of the CUP2022-048. Conversely, the Applicant also had the option of moving forward with both entitlements concurrently. Staff advised Applicant late in the proces s that, in light of CUP2022 - 048 being subject to a Permit Streamlining Act deadline and the risk of the Planning Commission losing a quorum after one hour of the meeting, and the difficulty in obtaining a quorum at any time prior to the deadline, it would be more expeditious to consider only CUP2022-048 at the hearing.
The determination of whether or not to consider the two entitlements concurrently is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. The Commission’s decision was not based on conformance with the general plan or Zoning Code and, therefore, was not in c onformance with the Commission’s duties.
Pursuant to municipal code Section 37-60.520 – Required findings for conditional use permits – The city planner or planning commission, as applicable, shall approve an application for a conditional use permit as it was applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of the application and testimony submitted, all of the following findings can be made:
a. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the objectives of the Salinas general plan, this Zoning Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; b. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained are consistent with the Salinas general plan and will not Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use, nor detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city; and c. That the proposed conditional use complies with the provisions of this Zoning Code, including any specific conditions required for the proposed use.
Again, the basis of Planning Commission’s decision regarding CUP2022-048 was that CUP2022- 048 is related to CCP2023 -007, that CCP2023 -007 requires a policy decision, and that the two entitlements should be considered concurrently. However, these reasons do not comprise any of the findings that the municipal code requires to approve or deny a conditional use permit. In denying CUP2022 -048, the Planning Commission abused its discretion by failing to properly consider (i) the objectives of, consistency with, o r compliance with the Salinas general plan, Zoning Code, or zoning district in order to make findings for the decision, (ii) whether the proposed location of the use would be consistent with the general plan and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of people in the adjacent residential neighborhood or vicinity, or (iii) whether the proposed use complies with the zoning code.
Decision Not Supported by the Record
The record for CUP2022-048 includes the following –
1. A site plan, floor plan, landscape plan, and parking demand study submitted as part of the application.
2. Staff’s written report and verbal presentation regarding the proposed parking reduction, internal waste storage, and landscape Alternative Means of Compliance.
3. Applicant’s presentation regarding CUP2022 -048, including comments regarding the requested parking reduction.
The record for CUP2022 -048 does not include information related to security measures or the location of the business within proximity of sensitive uses, which are included in the record for CCP2023-007.
CCP2023-007 was not agendized, the record for CCP2023 -007 was not presented, and, accordingly, the Planning Commission was not afforded the opportunity to review the record for CCP2023-007. An application for CCP2023-007 had been submitted, but Staff was still reviewing the application. At the time of this appeal request, the Applicant has not received comments from Staff regarding the application for CCP2023 -007. However, regardless of the CUP2022 -048 agenda item before them, the Planning Commission improperly chose to discuss CCP2023-007.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
Also part of the record is a memorandum from the Police Department dated March 19, 2024. With respect to the request for a parking reduction associated with CUP2022 -048, the memorandum states –
The Police Department sees no issues with the parking reduction or relocation of the dispensary.
However, the Police Department memorandum also references municipal code Section 5-07-27(d) – Location of commercial cannabis businesses – Proximity to sensitive uses, particularly adjacent residential uses, which is relevant to CCP2023-007.
Municipal code Section 5 -07.27(d) is applicable to Cannabis businesses located adjacent to residential uses , and the intent of this section is to address concerns regarding proximity to residential uses. The project is surrounded with primarily commercial uses, with one residential neighborhood located behind the proposed location, at the northwest corner of the parking lot, separated by an existing fence.
The concerns raised in the memorandum are not relevant to proximity to sensitive uses, particularly the adjacent residential use, per the intent of the municipal code.
There are several flaws in the Police Department memorandum, as follows –
1. The memorandum references issues with traffic and accidents at the intersection of South Main Street and Plaza Circle. Although this intersection is in proximity to the driveway of the proposed project, the issues related to that intersection do not apply to the proposed location. The uncontrolled intersection precedes the driveway to the north of the project site by over 50 feet, with no way for vehicles to exit the driveway to access the intersection due to the one way flow of traffic (in the opposite dir ect) coming out of the driveway and the presence of an island prohibiting the crossing of Main Street to go left toward the intersection. The proposed project is located in a segment where there is an island separating traffic, and motorists may make only right turns entering and exiting the parking lot. In addition, the memorandum fails to specify how the traffic issues on South Main Street are related to the adjacent residential use.
2. The memorandum references the “residential area with close proximity to Salinas High School.” The proposed location is approximately 3,700 feet from the high school, which is well above the minimum 1,000 feet established in municipal code Section 5 -07.27(a). No youth are allowed on the premises, as enforced by uniformed security personnel patrolling the interior and exterior, the point of sale track and trace system does not allow bypassing of proof of identification and age, and there have been no incidents involving youth at the Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
current business location. In addition, there is no pedestrian access from the proposed location to the adjacent residential area and therefore no access to the business on the path of travel from the high school to the residential area. Therefore, the memorandum fails to establish the relationship between the “residential area with close proximity to Salinas High School” and the proposed location.
3. The memorandum references burglaries at Cannabis businesses – a “dispensary” located at 1051 Terven, which was not in fact a storefront dispensary but a non -storefront retail delivery service, and other dispensaries in the Monterey County area. Although we cannot verify the accuracy of the referenced incidents, we have verified that, according to the City of Salinas crime statistics reporting there were 232 burglaries in the City in 2023, and therefore, the number of burglaries related to Cannabis businesse s referenced in the memorandum is less than 1 percent of all burglaries in the City. More importantly, the memorandum fails to establish any connection between the burglaries and adjacent residential areas. In addition, the business incorporates physical and operational features such as a fence, lighting, and security measures such as an alarm system and 24 -hour live video surveillance accessible to the Police Department to lower the risk of incidents. It should be noted that the motivation for burglaries stems is a result of the inherent value of property, the desire of thieves to obtain the same, and the security measures that stand in their way. It has nothing to do with Cannabis, aside from the fact that Cannabis and Cannabis product, like other commodities, have value.
4. The memorandum concludes with an erroneous attempt to justify an “opinion” of the Acting Police Chief regarding the project’s potential impact on adjacent residential uses, pursuant to municipal code Section 5-07.27(d). It should be noted that the term “opinion” in the context of a conditional use permit must be supported by substantial facts and evidence, pursuant to case law. The points detailed in the memorandum do not properly support this opinion.
It should be noted that this memorandum raising these concerns was the fourth memorandum from the Police Department regarding this project and was written several months after the application had been deemed complete. The Police Department had the opportun ity to raise these concerns following the review of each application submittal, and they did provide written comments regarding each submittal. These concerns were not raised in the three previous Police Department memoranda that accompanied incomplete letters for the application (please see timeline to follow).
In addition, Applicant had a very short window of time to discuss and resolve concerns with the Police Department, and Applicant’s attempts to resolve any concerns were largely unanswered.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
It has been established in case law that the proceeding for a conditional use permit is a quasi - judicial process requiring a decision maker to ascertain facts and adopt findings to support conclusions. Therefore, the Planning Commission has the authority a nd the obligation to review the memorandum alongside other facts and evidence in the record.
In addition, because case law requires a decision maker to ascertain facts and adopt findings to support conclusions, the “opinion” of the Chief of Police must be an opinion based on facts and evidence in the record.
The Police Department memorandum lacks relevance to CUP2022-048, lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions and relevance regarding either CUP 2022-048 or CCP2023-007, fails to properly mention or explain how facts and evidence in the record, such as the Applicant’s security plan, addresses alleged nuisance concerns and is not in conformance with the municipal code regarding Cannabis uses in proximity to sensitive uses, particularly adjacent to residential uses.
By discussing the Police Department memorandum regarding the issue of proximity to sensitive (residential) uses, the Planning Commission improperly chose to consider issues that are not within the scope of CUP2022-048 but within the scope of CCP2023-007.
As alluded to previously, the Planning Commission’s discussion of the sensitive uses portion of the Police Department memorandum occurred after the public comment period had closed.
Applicant was not afforded the opportunity to provide evidence related to CCP2023-007, such as proposed security measures, or to provide facts and evidence to counter the Police Department memorandum. The Planning Commission did not allow the Applicant to respond to new issues raised by the Planning Commission after the close of the public hearing, thereby violating the Applicant’s due process rights, including the Applicant’s rights to a fair hearing. Therefore, the Police Department memorandum was improperly considered without evaluation of any other facts and evidence in the record such as the security plan.
It is the Applicant’s position they did not receive a fair hearing because the Planning Commission committed procedural error by raising issues not required for the determination of the conditional use permit and not addressed by Staff or Applicant, and, more importantly, raised these irrelevant issues after Staff, the Applicant, and the public had made their presentations/comments, depriving the Applicant and the public of any ability to address the flawed and irrelevant facts and arguments that were ultimately used to deny the Applicant’s conditional use permit. An Applicant that is “not permitted to adequately address the Council on [newly raised] subjects, …[does] not receive proper notice or an opportunity to be heard” and is a “procedural error.” Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1152, at page 1173.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
Again, the basis of Planning Commission’s decision regarding CUP2022-048 was that CUP2022- 048 is related to CCP2023-007, that CCP2023-007 requires a policy decision regarding Municipal code Section 5-07.27 – Location of commercial cannabis businesses – Proximity to sensitive uses, subsection (d) regarding adjacent residential uses, and that the two entitlements should be considered concurrently, without citing any legal basis for the same.
The decision was not properly based on facts and evidence in the record relevant to CUP2022 - 048. The Planning Commission improperly referenced concerns raised in the Police Department memorandum that were irrelevant to CUP2022 -048, lacked substantial evide nce, and lacked conformance with the municipal code. Furthermore, the concerns raised in the memorandum were not properly considered alongside other substantial evidence. Therefore, the Planning Commission decision is not supported by the record.
CONCLUSION
Regarding the application timeline and process in general (see timelines to follow), in coordination with several City departments, Applicant in good faith prepared an application that included professionally prepared plans and analyses in accordance with the City’s land use policies.
Applicant recognized the difficulty of designing the existing building and property to achieve the City’s objectives and repeatedly requested meetings with Staff to discuss the design. Instead, Staff issued multiple letters indicating that the application was incomplete, which Applicant addressed with each resubmittal. It should be noted that several times, late in the process, well after the application had been deemed complete, Staff identified issues that had not previously been identified. This caused Applicant to request a Permit Streamlining Act extension, and this extension of time was impacted by additional issues raised by Staff. In addition, Applicant followed Staff direction regarding postponement of consideration of CCP2023-007 due to the short window remaining, the anticipated loss of quorum to occur during the Planning Commission hearing, and the anticipated inability to achieve a quorum prior to the deadline. The short window of time deprived the Planning Commissio n of the option to continue the matter for proper consideration.
Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director
At this time, the Applicant requests the appeal to take place in a timely manner and with clear instructions to the decision maker regarding applicable City of Salinas regulations and the consideration of the record for CUP2022-048. Please contact me immediately regarding this appeal request. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
JRG Attorneys at Law
/ y
/ Lh / fi Peter D. Brazil
Partner
Copies provided to:
Brad Palmer, Applicant
Grant Palmer, Applicant
Chris Callihan, City Attorney
Courtney Grossman, Planning Manager
Thomas Wiles, Planner
Attachment:
Timeline for CUP2022-048 and CCP2023-007
Johnson, Rovella, Retterer, Rosenthal & Gilles, LLP
SALINAS MONTEREY HOLLISTER PASO ROBLES KING CITY WATSONVILLE
CUP2022-048 PERMIT APPLICATION TIMELINE
August 23, 2022 Development Review Application was submitted to the Planning department for consideration of a parking reduction for a proposed cannabis use at 1228 S. Main Street.
September 22, 2022 Staff provided an incomplete letter, which included a memorandum from the Police Department containing comments regarding the parking study.
Applicant contacted Staff regarding availability for a meeting to ensure that the resubmittal adequately addresses the comments.
March 13, 2023 Applicant contacted staff regarding availability for a meeting to discuss open issues.
April 28, 2023 Applicant submitted the second application submittal.
May 24, 2023 Applicant contacted staff to regarding any information or clarifications needed in order for staff to deem application complete.
May 25, 2023 Staff provided a second incomplete letter, which included a memorandum from the Police Department containing comments regarding the parking study.
September 7, 2023 Applicant submitted the third application submittal, requesting that any comments be provided as soon as possible to provide Applicant the opportunity to address during the review process.
October 6, 2023 Staff provided a third incomplete letter, which included a memorandum from the Police Department indicating that the department “after being informed a fence is to be built separating the applicant’s parking lot from neighboring businesses, the Salinas Police Department does not oppose the reduction of available parking.”
October 18, 2023 Prior to resubmittal, Applicant contacted Staff regarding the resubmittal and requested a meeting to ensure that the revised plans comply with City regulations. Staff responded requesting Applicant to resubmit revised plans for review and that staff can schedule a DRC applicant meeting if necessary.
October 19, 2023 Applicant submitted the fourth application submittal.
November 3 Applicant inquired about whether it is necessary to schedule a DRC applicant meeting to address any outstanding issues.
November 6, 2023 Staff responded that if a DRC applicant meeting is required, Staff would contact the applicant.
November 16, 2023 Applicant inquired about the status of the application and several options, including a meeting, to ensure that any incomplete items may be addressed during the review period. Staff responded that staff has tentatively scheduled the application for Planning Commission consideration on January 3, 2024.
December 28, 2023 Staff contacted Applicant regarding clarifications of square footage of uses on plans.
December 29, 2023 Staff contacted Applicant regarding concerns about the plans and retail frontage oriented toward Main Street. Staff indicated that an extension request would be necessary to extend the Permit Streamlining Act deadline for the City to take action on CUP2022-048. Applicant submitted a written request for the extension, thereby extending the deadline to April 16, 2024.
January 24, 2024 DRC meeting was held to discuss the revised plans. Staff indicated that the plans need revision in order to address the intent of the zoning code to provide retail street frontage.
February 9, 2024 Applicant resubmitted revised plans.
February 20, 2024 Applicant requested a DRC applicant meeting to discuss the revised plans.
February 28, 2024 A DRC meeting was held to discuss the revised plans. Staff indicated that the revised plans address the intent of the zoning code to provide retail street frontage and that Staff would be able to provide a recommendation of approval.
March 6, 2024 Staff indicated that CUP2022-048 would be scheduled for the March 20, 2024, Planning Commission hearing.
March 15, 2024 Staff telephoned Applicant and left a voicemail indicating that the City Attorney indicated that CUP2022-048 and CCP2023-007 must be rescheduled to April 3, 2024, because CCP2023-007 requires a statement from the Acting Police Chief is needed to address municipal code Section 5-07.27 – Location of commercial cannabis businesses – Proximity to sensitive uses, subsection (d).
March 29, 2024 Staff Report for both CUP2022-048 and CCP2023-007 was published on City website.
April 2, 2024 Staff contacted Applicant to discuss limited Planning Commission time for presentation, review, discussion and decision due to an anticipated loss of quorum to occur at 5:00 PM, and Staff decision to remove CCP2023- 007 from the agenda in order to ensure adequate time to address CUP2022-048 due to the PSA deadline.
CCP2023
-
007
P
ERMIT
A
PPLICATION
T
IMELINE
February 22, 2022
Applicant emailed Cannabis consultant Ryan Russell and Planning Manager Courtney Grossman (collectively, “Staff”) regarding list of application materials to be submitted for permit application.
March 30, 2022
Applicant submitted application.
April 8, 2022
Staff indicated additional information to required for submittal.
April 25, 2022
Applicant resubmitted application revised to included additional requested information.
May 20, 2022
Applicant followed up inquiring whether application is in order.
May 23, 2022
Staff replied indicating that application looks to be in order.
June 9, 2022
Staff indicated that application would be reviewed by Planning Commission due to proximity to sensitive uses.
May 26, 2023
Staff provided invoice for application fee.
June 7, 2023
Staff confirmed payment of application fee.
March 15, 2024
Staff telephoned Applicant and left a voicemail indicating that the City Attorney indicated that CUP2022
-
048
and CCP2023
-
007
must be
rescheduled to April 3, 2024, because
CCP2023
-
007 requires
a statement
from the
Acting Police Chief
is needed to address municipal code Section
5 -
07.27 –
Location of commercial cannabis businesses
–
Proximity to
sensitive uses, subsection (d).
March 20, 2024
Staff informed Applicant of March 19, 2024, memorandum from Police Department regarding proximity to adjacent residential uses.
March 20, 2024
Applicant left telephone messages for Sergeant Magana and Acting Chief Murray and sent email to Sergeant Magana to discuss memorandum.
March 21, 2024
Applicant reattempted to reach Sergeant Magana and was informed that Sergeant Magana is expected to return to office on March 25.
March 25, 2024
Applicant left telephone messages for Sergeant Magana and Acting Chief
Murray.
March 25, 2024
Staff
req
uested
that Applicant email
copy of submitted application an
d
confirmation that application fee
that was paid.
March 26, 2024
Applicant reattempted to reach Sergeant Magana and Acting Chief Murray by email and telephone; Applicant contacted office of City Manager for assistance; Acting Chief Murray telephoned Applicant and requested Applicant to forward email regar
ding addressing memorandum proposed
security.
March 29, 2024
Staff Report for both CUP2022
-
048 and CCP2023
-
007 was published on
City website.
April 1, 2024
Applicant discussed Police Department memorandum with City Attorney Chris Callihan.
April 2, 2024
Applicant discussed Police Department memorandum with Acting Chief Murray, Community Development Director Lisa Brinton, and City Attorney Chris Callihan. Applicant was informed that Staff would discuss internally and respond to Applicant.
Ms. Brinton requested that Applicant
email a copy of th
e security
plan.
April 2, 2024
Staff contacted Applicant to discuss limited P
lanning Commission
time
for presentation, review, discussion and decision due to a n anticipated
loss
of quorum to occur at 5:00 PM
,
and Staff decision to remove CCP2023
-
007 from the agenda in order to ensure adequate time to address CUP2022
-
048 due to the PSA deadline.
April 3, 2024
City Attorney Chris Callihan during Planning Commission hearing indicated that Staff has concerns regarding completeness of permit application CCP2023
-
007 and that CCP2023
-
007 would be considered at
a later date.