TANATHE DISPUTE BESOLETION ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION JOHN L. BAILEY
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
E-MAIL [email protected]
O WEST ALISAL STREET, SUITE 10
ALINAS. CALIFORNIA 9390 AREA CODE 831
OR
POST OFFICE BOX 1411 TELEPHONE 783-0779
SALINAS. CALIFORNIA 93902 FACSIMILE 422-0180
December 1, 2025
City of Salinas
Community Development Department
Attn: Tom Wiles, Senior Planner
65 West Alisal Street, 2nd Floor
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: Development Review Application - Appeal of Planning Commission Decision - UP 2025-023 - Applicant: Simon Maida
Dear Mr. Wiles:
I am writing as legal counsel for Simon Maida to formally submit this Development Review Application for an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding Use Permit Application UP 2025-023, rendered on November 19, 2025.
This appeal is timely filed pursuant to Zoning Code Section 37-
60.1290(a), as it is being submitted within the 10-day appeal period, with today, December 1, 2025, being the deadline as calculated under Section 37-60.1290(b).
In accordance with Zoning Code Section 37-60.1280(a), this appeal is based upon the following grounds:
1. Error or Abuse of Discretion [Section 37-60.1280(a)(2)): The Planning Commission erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant zoning standards to the facts presented in this case.
2. Decision Not Supported by the Record [Section 37-60.1280(a)(4)]:
The Planning Commission's findings and conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, and the decision fails to adequately address evidence favorable to the applicant's position.
3. Determination Not in Accord with the Purposes of the Zoning Article (Section 37-60.1280(a)(1)]: The Commission's determination conflicts with the stated purposes and intent of the applicable zoning provisions.
Enclosed with this cover letter are:
• Completed Development Review Application form
• Processing fee of $972.30 (payable to "City of Salinas") • Detailed statement of appeal grounds with supporting documentation We respectfully request that this matter be scheduled for hearing before the City Council at the earliest available date. We are prepared to provide any additional information or documentation that may be required to process this appeal.
Please confirm receipt of this appeal application and advise regarding the anticipated hearing schedule.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
John Leonard Bailey
Attorney for Applicant Simon Maida
SBN252783
cc: Simon Maida, Applicant
ogd 530 y
Fee: CITY OF SALINAS Permit No.:
community Devolo ent Departmen
Planner: 65 West Allbal Stree Date Received:
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 758-7206
Official Use Only Official Use Only
developMenT REVIEW
APPLICATION
Site Plan Review • General Plan Amendment
• Conditional Use Permit Master Sign Plan
Rezoning Subdivision Map (TM, Parcel, LLA, etc.)
Planned Unit Development Other (Please specify) Appeal of PC Decision Ra: UP 2025-023
APPLICANT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Simon Maida 1018 N. Dans RA.
Name Site Address
1018 North Davis Road.
261-711-070-000
Address
Assessor's Parcel Number
Salinas 93907
Description of Proposal:
831) 783-0779
Apegal of 250=053 ot PC Decisten
JOHNO BaileyADR.com
E-mail
Signatule
John Barky
Printed Name
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION RELATED FILES
Rex Ford Title Inc.
Name
1018 N. Dais Ra
Address COMMENTS
Salinas CA 93907
City State
E-mail
Signature* Official Use Only
Printed Name
*I/we declare under penally of perjury that the information contained in thls Applicalion, including any plans and documents submitled herewith, are true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge. I/we further declare that I/we agree to the Standard Permit Conditions shown on the reverse side.
Ive recognize that this applicalions) may be subject to the California Environmental Qually Act, $21000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-023
TO THE SALINAS CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant: Simon Maida
Property Owner: Rexford Title Incorporated
Location: 1018 North Davis Road (Laurel West Shopping Center) Proposed Use: 2,618 square foot convenience store with Type 21 ABC License (Off-sale beer, wine, and distilled spirits)
Business Name: Click Liquor Store
Date of Planning Commission Decision: November 19, 2025 Appeal Filing Deadline: December 1, 2025
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
This appeal is filed pursuant to Salinas Zoning Code Section 37-60.1280 on all four statutory grounds:
1. The determination is not in accord with the purposes of the Zoning Code;
2. There was an error or abuse of discretion;
3. The record includes inaccurate information;
4. The decision is not supported by the record
DETAILED ARGUMENTS
I. THE DETERMINATION IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE PURPOSES
OF THE ZONING CODE
The Planning Commission's denial contradicts the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code.
Key Facts Supporting Approval:
• Location in Commercial Retail (CR) Zone: The site is properly zoned for retail commercial uses, including convenience stores with alcohol sales. • Not in Crime Area: The site is located in PRD 181 with 78 reported crimes in 2024, which is below the 88.12 threshold for undue concentration (89% vs. 120% required for undue concentration).
• Exceptional Distance from Other Outlets: The average distance to other off-sale outlets in CT 18.02 is 5,883 feet, far exceeding the 956-foot average for approved CUPs since 2010.
• Police Department Support: The Salinas Police Department explicitly stated it 'does not object to the approval of CUP 2025-023' subject to standard security conditions. • Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommended approval, finding all required findings could be made.
II. THERE WAS AN ERROR OR ABUSE OF DISCRETION
ne Planning commission abused its discretion by denying a permit that meets all objectiv andards and has support from both staff and police. The denial appears to be based o subjective concerns not supported by evidence in the record.
Errors in the Commission's Decision:
1. Disregarding Police Analysis: The Commission ignored the Police Department's professional assessment that the location does not present undue public safety concerns.
2. Misapplying 'Undue Concentration' Standard: While CT 18.02 has 6 licenses (one over the 5 authorized), the Commission failed to properly weigh that the crime rate is significantly below the threshold and distances between outlets are exceptional.
3. Failure to Find Public Convenience or Necessity: The Commission ignored evidence that customers would benefit from one-stop shopping convenience in an established shopping center.
1. Inconsistent Application of Standards: The Commission approved Vallart Supermarket's Type 21 license (CUP 2023-017) just 500 feet away in the same shopping center under similar circumstances.
III. THE RECORD INCLUDES INACCURATE INFORMATION
Based on the transcript except, Commissioner Wruck's questions reveal confusion and potentially inaccurate understanding of key facts:
1. Floor Plan Confusion: Commissioner Wruck stated the floor plan looks different than her floor plan, suggesting review of incorrect or outdated documents.
2. DUI Statistics Request: Commissioner Wruck asked for DUI statistics that the Police Sergeant could not provide, yet this unavailable information may have influenced the decision despite not being part of the required analysis under the Code.
3. Misunderstanding of Use: There appears to be confusion about whether the liquor store is 'part of the convenience store use' and whether food would be served, indicating fundamental misunderstanding of the proposal.
IV. THE DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD
The evidentiary record overwhelmingly supports approval of this permit. Every objective criterion and professional analysis favors approval:
Evidence Supporting Approval:
• Planning Staff Analysis: 10-page staff report recommending approval with detailed findings
• Police Department Memorandum: No objection to approval (August 1, 2025) • CEQA Exemption: Project found exempt under Section 15061(b)(3) • Compliance with All Conditions: Applicant agreed to all 41 conditions of approval • General Plan Consistency: Site designated Retail, consistent with Land Use Goal LU-1 and Policy LU-1.1
• Economic Development: Consistent with Policy ED-LU-1.17 promoting new investment
Evidence Against Approval:
The record contains no substantial evidence against approval. The only potential negative factor - being in CT 18.02 with 6 existing licenses versus 5 authorized - is mitigated by:
• Crime rate well below threshold (89% vS. 120%)
• Exceptional distances between outlets (5,883 feet average) • Police Department's non-objection
• Previous approval of similar use 500 feet away is a large store, not a convenience store, and the one stop shopping in a convenience store is necessary for the success of the business.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS TO APPROVED PERMITS
This project compares favorably to the 61 alcohol-related CUPs processed since 2010:
Distance Comparisons:
• To other outlets: 5,883 feet (this project) vs. 956 feet (average) • To schools: 570 feet (this project) vs. 1,900 feet (average) - still exceeds 600-foot state minimum
• To parks: 2,200 feet (this project) vs. 1,919 feet (average) Crime Rate Comparison:
• This project: 89% (below threshold)
• Average approved: 146% (above threshold)
The Commission has approved permits with significantly worse metrics than this application, including locations with crime rates as high as 386% and with existing alcohol outlet concentrations as high as 800%.
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY FINDING
Public convenience and necessity would be served by this permit because:
1. One-Stop Shopping Convenience: Customers can complete shopping needs without multiple trips, reducing traffic and emissions.
2. Established Shopping Center Location: The Laurel West Shopping Center is designed for retail uses and has adequate parking and infrastructure.
3. Enhanced Security Measures: Applicant commits to high-quality surveillance, enhanced lighting, and all Police Department recommendations.
4. Responsible Operator: All owners and managers will complete ABC-certified responsible beverage service training.
5. Economic Benefits: Creates jobs and generates tax revenue for the City.
6. Distance from Other Outlets: At 5,883 feet average distance, this location serves an underserved area of the census tract.
REQUESTED RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that the City Council:
1. REVERSE the Planning Commission's denial of Conditional Use Permit 2025-023;
2. FIND that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3);
3. MAKE all required findings for approval as detailed in the staff report;
4. FIND that public convenience or necessity would be served; and
5. APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 2025-023 with the conditions recommended by staff and the Police Department.
CONCLUSION
This is not a close case. Every objective measure, every professional analysis, and every The applicant has demonstrated full compliance with all applicable regulations, has agreed to that should be reversed
Respectfully submitted,
Tch Loar
•
John Leonard Bailey
Attorney for Appellant Simon Maida
Date: December 1, 2025