00000\CGK\2076843.1:61724
WWW.NHEH.COM
E-MAIL [email protected]
831-424-1414 EXT. 271
OUR FILE NO. 30046.001
Stephen W. Pearson
Anne K. Secker
Randy Meyenberg
Christine G. Kemp
Timothy J. Baldwin
* Charles Des Roches
* Robert D. Simpson
Ana C. Toledo
* Leslie E. Finnegan
Lindsey Berg-James
Heidi A. Quinn
Daniel J. Little
Sharilyn R. Payne
Anne Frassetto Olsen
* Yvonne A. Ascher
William H. Falor III
Geraldine A. Villa
Charles Mullaney
Chiara Veronesi
Stacey Cheatham Wilson
Michael Masuda
(Of Counsel)
___________
Harry L. Noland
(1904-1991)
Paul M. Hamerly
(1920-2000)
Myron E. Etienne, Jr.
(1924-2016)
Peter T. Hoss
(1934-2018)
* CERTIFIED SPECIALIST IN
PROBATE, ESTATE PLANNING,
AND TRUST LAW BY
THE CALIFORNIA BOARD OF
PHONE 831-424-1414 FROM MONTEREY 831-372-7525 FAX 831-424-1975 333 SALINAS STREET POST OFFICE BOX 2510 SALINAS, CA 93902-2510
June 17, 2024
VIA E-MAIL
Ms. Kimbley Craig, Mayor
Office of the Mayor
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Mr. Orlando Osornio, District 4
Office of the City Council
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Ms. Carla Viviana Gonzales, District 1
Office of the City Council
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Mr. Andrew Sandoval, District 5
Office of the City Council
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Mr. Tony Barrera, District 2
Office of the City Council
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Mr. Anthony Rocha, District 6
Office of the City Council
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Mr. Jesus Valenzuela, District 3
Office of the City Council
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
City Clerk
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
[email protected]
Re: Upholding Planning Commission Denial of Conditional Use Permit 2022-048 and
Upholding Selection Committee Denial of Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007
(Public Hearing 6-18-2024)
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers:
I am writing on behalf of Charlie Sammut, an adjoining landowner, to urge your Council to uphold the City Planning Commission’s denial of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2022-048 and uphold the City’s Selection Committee’s denial of the Amendment to the Commercial Cannabis Permit (CCP) 2023-007 based upon the Mayor Craig
City Councilmembers
June 17, 2024
00000\CGK\2076843.1:61724
substantial evidence in the record of the negative impact these permits will have on the immediate surrounding neighborhood and the public welfare in general.
Should the Council reverse these denials and seek to approve these permits, these approvals cannot be granted until full environmental review under CEQA is completed for these permits, as set forth below.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2022-048 CEQA Determination
The staff report for CUP 2022-048 states, that if the Council approves the Use Permit, the Council can rely on a Class 32 “Infill” Exemption under CEQA.
The Class 32 Exemption cannot be used in this case. The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332), only exempts infill development under certain circumstances, which do not apply to this permit.
To be exempt from CEQA under a Class 32 Exemption, the project must be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning requirements, and cannot be used for a project that would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts.
In this case there is irrefutable substantial evidence in the record that the project will result in significant traffic and safety concerns on already congested streets and intersection; is not consistent with the City’s zoning code and parking requirements, including requesting a 51% parking variance which will be create additional parking congestion in an already congested parking; and will create a nuisance, and health and safety issues to the public given the increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic related to the cannabis operation, and the proximity to several existing sensitive use sites (Evidence including: Letters from Charlie Sammut; Letter from Hansen Reed; Letter from Elli’s Great American Restaurant; Request for Parking Variance; Police March 19, 2024 memorandum; Additional first hand Public Comments; Selection Committee and Planning Commission Findings for CUP 2022-048 and Amendment to CCP Permit 2023-007).
Amendment to Commercial Cannabis Permit (CCP) 2023-007 CEQA Determination
The staff report for the amendment to CCP 2023-007 states, that if the Council approves the Amended Permit, no CEQA analysis is required because the amendment to the existing Cannabis Permit is not a “project” under CEQA Guideline Section 15378 and the project has no potential to cause any effect on the environment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061.
Mayor Craig
City Councilmembers
June 17, 2024
00000\CGK\2076843.1:61724
N
either CEQA Guideline Section 15378 or CEQA Guideline Section 15061 can be applied in this matter.
U
nder Section 15378, a “project’ is defined as “any action which has the potential to result in either direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment”, including any activity involving the issuance to a person or a permit or license.
A
mending CCP 23-007 to move the location of the cannabis dispensary to another area of the city clearly involves the issuance of an amended permit dispensary to operate in another location which area already has congested streets and limited parking, requires a 51% parking variance, and will be located near other sensitive uses.
Given these facts, the permit amendment clearly has the potential to create physical change to the environment, as well as. Impact the general public health and safety. (Evidence including: Letters from Charlie Sammut; Letter from Hansen Reed; Letter from Elli’s Great American Restaurant; Request for Parking Variance; Police March 19, 2024 memorandum; Additional first hand Public Comments Selection Committee and Planning Commission findings for CUP 2022-048 and Amendment to CCP Permit 2023-007).
L
ikewise under Section 15061, the CEQA exemption can only be used “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment” which is clearly not the case here based on substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, impacts to traffic, parking, and public safety. (Evidence including: Letters from Charlie Sammut; Letter from Hansen Reed; Letter from Elli’s Great American Restaurant; Request for Parking Variance; Police March 19, 2024 memorandum; Additional first hand Public Comment; Selection Committee and Planning Commission findings for CUP 2022-048 and Amendment to CCP Permit 2023-007).
F
or the reasons set forth in the letters submitted by Charlie Sammut and other public comments made, as well as the findings of the Planning Commission and Selection Committee, we request your Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision denying the Use Permit CUP2022-048 and the Selection Committee’s decision denying the amended Commercial Cannabis Permit CCP 2023-007.
S
incerely,
NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS
A Professional Corporation
Christine G. Kemp
Christine Kemp