Council hears appeal of denied cannabis sales license; supplemental motion directs staff to reflect commission findings

Public comment and an applicant appeal over a denied cannabis sales license (agenda item 0.7) dominated part of the council meeting Wednesday, ending with a supplemental motion directing staff to include detailed findings in the official record and in a required intervention letter under the municipal code.

The appeal attracted several public speakers who identified themselves as employees or acquaintances of the applicant and who urged the council to approve the license. Supporters included Ethan Stern, who said he was “aquí para hablar a PCCA 0.7” in support of Eugene Popa; Bryan Zha, who said Popa had “puesto muy de pie para su comunidad”; Paul Sulzman, who said he had known Popa “por más de 5 años” and described him as “una buena persona”; and Blanca Sánchez, who said she had worked for Popa for more than two years and called him “muy honesto.”

The applicant’s attorney told the council the commission’s factual findings did not support denial. The attorney argued the alleged neighborhood problems cited at the commission hearings — graffiti, trash and noise — were not traceable to the applicant’s nonoperational retail location, and that photographs and other evidence presented at the commission hearing were unreliable. The attorney said two separate cannabis licenses had been involved (a delivery license and a nonoperational retail license) and that both sites were not operating at the time complaints were reported. He told the council, “no fue para omitir en calidad acerca de ello” and repeatedly said there was no intent to mislead the commission.

Councilmembers questioned whether the two license applications were properly disclosed and whether the adjacency of related businesses could reasonably lead the commission to view them as connected. A councilmember observed that the commission had weighed community letters and agency input and had concluded there were grounds to deny in its finding number referenced in the staff report. After discussion, the council approved a supplemental motion directing staff to ensure that the administrative record for the appeal and the intervention letter required by the municipal code (referenced in the meeting as “código principal de 1 0 4.10 a 5”) reflect the detailed findings summarized in the motion.

The supplemental motion was phrased to “directar a los empleados que el journey para esta reunión refleje los hallazgos detallados que estaban incluidos en el pedimento” and to ensure the required letter “también refleje los abstragos detallados resumidos en la moción.” The council advanced the matter for the normal processing to the full council.

No formal vote tally (yes/no/abstain by member) was recorded in the transcript excerpt. The council discussion and the supplemental instruction to staff were captured on the record and will be part of the council packet forwarded for further consideration.

Why it matters: The decision and the record the council directs staff to prepare shape whether a cannabis sales license will be approved or denied and how the city documents community concerns, enforcement history and factual findings for any future appeals.

The council moved on to other agenda items after concluding the appeal discussion.