Planning commission upholds expiration of King’s Crew cannabis permit after developers miss deadlines

The Costa Mesa Planning Commission on Feb. 24 upheld a staff determination that a conditional use permit (CUP) for a cannabis storefront called King’s Crew at 1687 Orange Avenue had expired because the approvals were not acted upon within the two‑year window required by the city code.

Assistant planner Gabriel Villalobos told the commission staff had no record that a building permit was issued, a certificate of occupancy was obtained, a business license was issued or a time‑extension requested within the two‑year period after the Sept. 12, 2022 approval. Villalobos cited Costa Mesa Municipal Code section 13‑29(K)(2) and the CUP’s condition of approval number 2 in recommending the commission uphold the director of development services’ determination that the CUP had lapsed. “Staff’s review of this request is strictly limited to whether or not the CUP approval was correctly deemed expired as specified by the zoning code,” he said.

The applicant, Dan Thompson, told the commission his team experienced multiple development delays and personal hardship, including the unexpected death of a project manager in early September, and said the project team “literally just missed that 180‑day appeal period.” Contractor Ray Dormey described structural and utility issues, a required Southern California Edison redesign of electrical service and an encroachment permit that could only be pulled by a prime contractor with an A license, which he said extended the timeline.

Vice Chair Zick and other commissioners questioned whether the applicant had submitted the city’s requested “clean set of plans” and whether Southern California Edison’s required changes had been documented in an appeal record; Villalobos and the applicants said building‑division plan check had gone through multiple reviews and that some fees were assessed but not paid at various plan check stages. Commissioners also discussed that staff typically does not proactively notify applicants before approvals lapse and that the code provides a specific 180‑day window to request a time extension.

Vice Chair Zick moved to find the appeal not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and to uphold staff’s expiration determination; Commissioner Martinez seconded. The motion carried 6‑0. The commission’s action affirms the director of development services’ notice of expiration dated Dec. 2, 2024. The decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within seven days.

The commission’s ruling turns on the timing and the four actions listed in the municipal code that preserve a CUP, not on the applicant’s stated hardships. Villalobos reiterated that the code and the CUP condition require an applicant to secure one of the four listed actions within two years of approval to keep the permit active.