Agenda Packet — Salinas City Council, June 25, 2024 (part 3 of 5)

215 W. FRANKLIN STREET, 5 TH FLOOR | MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 831 - 649 - 1100 | WWW.WALKERANDREED.COM
Via Email – [email protected]
June 4, 2024
Mr. Thomas Wiles Author’s Email Address:

Salinas Planning Commission [email protected]
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: June 5, 2024 City of Salinas Planning Commission Meeting; Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007; Appeal of Selection Committee Denial Determination Mr. Wiles:

The purpose of this letter is to reiterate our client’s opposition (see our attached April 2, 2024 letter), on behalf of concerned community members, to deny CannaCruz’s appeal of the Selection Committee’s denial of the Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007 Application Amendment. On May 14, 2024, the Selection Committee correctly denied the CCP 2023-007 Application Amendment due to the new proposed location not meeting the requirements set forth in Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.09(a)(2). The reversal or the modification of the Selection Committee’s denial of CCP 2023-007 Application Amendment resulting in the approval of the CCP 2023-007 Amendment Application would directly violate Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27.

Selection Committee’s Denial of Commercial Cannabis Permit Application Amendment Is Proper
As discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report published on May 31, 2024, Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.09(a)(2), requires the Selection Committee to review the proposed new location, the Selection Committee may then approve the amendment to the new location if the following findings are met:
a. The new site would not be located within the distances specified in section 5-

07.27, unless an exception is approved pursuant that section; b. The relocation to the new site would not create any significant negative impacts greater than those that existed at the original site;
c. The proposed location is located in an appropriate zoning district for the proposed use; and
June 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

215 W. FRANKLIN STREET, 5 TH FLOOR | MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 831 - 649 - 1100 | WWW.WALKERANDREED.COM
d. Owners of real property located within three hundred feet of the proposed site have been notified and have had an opportunity to provide information to the City regarding the proposed site.

The Selection Committee denied the CCP 2023-007 Amendment Application due to, and for additional reasons established in the Planning Commission’s Staff Report, the proposed location of 1228 South Main Street, in Salinas, California, being located within a sensitive use zone in violation of Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27. Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27 restricts cannabis businesses from operating within 1,000 feet other sensitive uses.

As the Selection Committee correctly found, Clout Nine Smoke Shop is located at 1152 South Main Street, Elli’s Restaurant serves alcohol for individual consumption on the premises is located directly adjacent to the proposed retail location, and three grocery stores within the 1,000 feet sell alcohol for individual consumption.

Violation of Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27 is sufficient to deny the CCP 2023-007 Amendment Application due the intent and policy consideration of Article VII of Chapter 5 - Public Peace and Morals of the Salinas Municipal Code, to prevent commercial cannabis businesses from being proximately located to other sensitive uses not being met. The Selection Committee held the opinion that the City of Salinas’ overall master planning objective for retail cannabis businesses are best suited for industrial or commercial areas that are not in proximity located to sensitive uses and residential areas.

The relocation of CannaCruz’s from its previous location would create greater negative impacts on the area of 1228 South Main Street than those that existed at 1156 Abbott Street and for the undisputable fact that the location is not an appropriate zoning district for the intended use.

In addition, the approval of a cannabis dispensary in a sensitive use zone like the location at 1228 South Main street is in direct opposition to the intent of the Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27 and City of Salinas’ overall master planning objective.

Commercial Cannabis Permit Application Amendment 2023-007 – Directly Violates Salinas Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d)
Approval of the CCP 2023-007 Application Amendment is a direct violation of Salinas Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d), which states in full:
“NO commercial cannabis business may operate within any residential area or district of the city or adjacent to a residential area or district if, in the opinion of the chief of police or the community development director, the operation of a commercial cannabis business in such location would tend to cause a public nuisance or a situation which may result in repeated police department response or a negative impact on the adjacent residential units.” [emphasis added]
The acting City of Salinas Chief of Police, Sergeant Gerry Manana, in his memorandum date March 19, 2024, specifically determined that the location would tend to cause a public nuisance or situation that would result in the repeated police department response or a negative June 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

215 W. FRANKLIN STREET, 5 TH FLOOR | MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 831 - 649 - 1100 | WWW.WALKERANDREED.COM
impact on the adjacent residential uses. The Memorandum dated March 19, 2024, raised concerns with the already high density of traffic in the area and cited that there had been eighteen (18) vehicle collisions that the Salinas Police Department had responded to since 2021, with one of the collisions being a fatality. Sergeant Gerry Manana’s Memorandum dated March 19, 2024, is sufficient for the planning commission to deny CCP 2023-007 Application Amendment appeal, any approval of the CCP 2023-007 Application Amendment would be in direct violation of Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d).

The Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007 Application Amendment, as previously stated in our April 2, 2024 letter to the Salinas City Attorney, by the terms of Salinas City Municipal Code 5.07.27(d), cannot be approved by the City of Salinas and must be denied. Any approval by the City of Salinas would be in violation of Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d). A denial based upon Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d) is final and unappealable.

A Negative Impact On The Community is Preventable
To introduce a high customer volume retail operation such as a cannabis dispensary in a high-density traffic area with one narrow driveway for entrance and exit, will undeniably increase the traffic to this already congested area and increase the occurrence and frequency of vehicle collisions placing an additional burden on law enforcement and first responder resources. The Planning Commission Staff Report, in its discussion of the Police Department Considerations, finds that the proposed cannabis business creates a present threat to the public health, safety, and welfare to the community.

For all the reasons stated above, we on behalf of our clients, request that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007 Application Amendment, any approval would be illegal and in direct violation to Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d).

We request that this letter be included in the Planning file record, and that my office continue to receive future notices as an interested party.

Very Truly Yours,
Hansen P. Reed, Esq.

HPR/mb
[Enclosures]
cc: Clients via email
Salinas Planning Commission – [email protected] Thomas Wiles – [email protected]
April 2, 2024

Page 1 ends

215 W. FRANKLIN STREET, 5 TH FLOOR | MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 831 - 649 - 1100 | WWW.WALKERANDREED.COM
Via Email – [email protected]
April 2, 2024
Christopher A. Callihan, Esq. Author’s Email Address:

City Attorney, City of Salinas [email protected]
200 Lincoln Ave
Salinas, CA 93901
Re: April 3, 2024 City of Salinas Planning Commission Meeting Conditional Use Permit 2022-048 and Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007 for Subject Site 1228 South Main Street in the Commercial Retail – South Main Street Focused Growth Overlay District (CR-FG-3) Zoning District Mr. Callihan:

Our office represents a group of concerned Salinas Valley residents regarding the proposed Conditional Use Permit 2022-048 and Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007 to re-locate the Cannabis Dispensary “CannaCruz” from their location on 1156 Abbott Street to 1228 South Main Street (the “Property”). This letter serves to direct opposition to the CUP 2022-048 and CCP 2023- 007 application for a Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Cannabis Permit (collectively the “Application”).

Commercial Cannabis Permit Application 2023-007 – Cannot Be Illegally Approved by the City of Salinas
The Commercial Cannabis Permit Application 2023-007, by the terms of Salinas City Municipal Code 5.07.27(d), cannot be approved by the City of Salinas and must be denied.

Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5.-07.27(d) states in full:
“NO commercial cannabis business may operate within any residential area or district of the city or adjacent to a residential area or district if, in the opinion of the chief of police or the community development director, the operation of a commercial cannabis business in such location would tend to cause a public nuisance or a situation which may result in repeated police department response or a negative impact on the adjacent residential units.” [emphasis added]
April 2, 2024

Page 2 ends

215 W. FRANKLIN STREET, 5 TH FLOOR | MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 831 - 649 - 1100 | WWW.WALKERANDREED.COM
Mr. Wiles included a March 19, 2024 Memorandum from the City of Salinas Police Department by a Sergeant Gerry Manana, copy attached, which specifically states:
“The site is located adjacent to a residential area with close proximity to Salinas High School. It is the opinion of the Chief of Police that the operation of the Commercial Cannabis business in such a location would tend to cause a public nuisance or a situation which may result in a repeated police department response or a negative impact on the adjacent residential units as stipulated in municipal code section 5-07.27(d).”
The Chief of Police specifically found that Commercial Cannabis Permit Application 2023- 007 meets the required threshold for a public nuisance and/or impact on the adjacent residential units (said application cannot be approved). Any approval by the City of Salinas would be in violation of Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d). A denial based upon Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d) is final and unappealable.

Planning Commission – No Standing to Hear and Approve Commercial Cannabis Permit 2023-007
Notwithstanding the legally required denial, pursuant to Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(a) “No commercial cannabis business may operate within one thousand feet of any of the following sensitive uses:
(3) Church or other house of worship;
(4) Smoke-shops, hookah lounges or businesses engaged in the same or similar activity, and locations where alcohol is sold or served for individual consumption on or off the premises;”
As noted in Thomas Wiles’ April 3, 2024 agenda item application report and packet material, “… the project is located within 1,000 feet of identified sensitive uses listed in subsections 3 and 4…” of Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(a)(3) and (4).

Pursuant to Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(c) “An application (including a dispensary application) which has been denied based on any of the limitations set forth in subsections (a)(3) through (a)(7) may be appealed by the applicant in accordance with section 5-

07.10. The appellant body may grant an exception to the limitations set forth in this subsection upon finding that the intent of this article would otherwise be met.” (emphasis added) Based upon Mr. Wiles’ report, this application and this agenda item is not an appeal but the original hearing on said application. Procedurally the Planning Commission hearing is premature, and it has no standing to make the initial decision on the application. Pursuant to Salinas City Municipal Code 5.07.07(e) the “…Selection Committee1 shall have the authority to either grant or deny an application for a commercial cannabis permit.” Pursuant to Salinas City 1 The Selection Committee is appointed by the City Manager to review applications for commercial cannabis permits.

April 2, 2024

Page 3 ends

215 W. FRANKLIN STREET, 5 TH FLOOR | MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 831 - 649 - 1100 | WWW.WALKERANDREED.COM
Municipal Code 5-07.07(f) upon a Selection Committee denial, the city attorney “…shall prepare and send a notice of denial”… and “…any person denied a commercial cannabis permit shall have the right to appeal such denial in accordance with this section [Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.10]”.

The Cannabis Committee must first, deny the application based upon the Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(a)(3) and (4) and the applicant then may appeal the denial in compliance and in accordance with Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.10.

Mr. Wiles claims that “The Cannabis Selection Committee is not authorized to consider a cannabis permit for a dispensary located within proximity of sensitive uses.” This is an inaccurate interpretation of the Salinas City Cannabis Code. Nothing in the Salinas City Cannabis Code provides that applications are heard by the Planning Commission and not always first heard by the Selection Committee. What the Cannabis Code does require, is the Selection Committee deny the application based upon Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(a)(3) and (4)2 which then triggers the appeal process for the applicant.

Significant Negative Impact to Nearby Community:

In addition, the relocation to the new site will create a significant negative impact greater than those that existed at the original site. The location is centered in an area that caters directly to families such as grocery stores, medical offices, pharmacies, coffee shops, restaurants, and other prominent Salinas businesses. Businesses that stand to be directly negatively impacted by the approval of the Application is Elli’s Great American Restaurant which has long been a Salinas landmark and frequented daily by visitors and Monterey Bay Orthodontics which primarily caters to children. The new site increases the likelihood of crime, vehicle collisions, and a negative perception of the City of Salinas. South Main Street is the gateway from Highway 68 into Salinas and the greater Monterey Bay area, the first or last views visitors have of our City should not be a Cannabis Dispensary.

Should the Planning Commission move forward to approve the Application despite the direct violation of the Municipal Code and against the opinion of the Chief of Police, the City shall be setting a precedent that the increase of tax revenue generated by the Cannabis Businesses will be of greater importance to the City than Municipal Codes set in place to protect the health, safety, and well-being of its residents.

For all of the above reason, it is hereby requested that this item be removed from the April 3, 2024 Planning Commission agenda for lack of standing to hear the application and that the City of Salinas specifically deny such application pursuant to Sergeant Manna’s Memorandum and Salinas City Municipal Code Section 5-07.27(d).

We request that this letter be included in the Planning file record, and that my office receive future notices as an interested party.
2 Additionally the Selection Committee should also deny the Commercial Cannabis Permit Application pursuant to Salinas City Municipal Code 5-07.27(d), which discussion follows.

April 2, 2024

Page 4 ends

215 W. FRANKLIN STREET, 5 TH FLOOR | MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA 93940 831 - 649 - 1100 | WWW.WALKERANDREED.COM
I am happy to discuss this letter and the contents herein in more detail at your convenience prior to the Planning Commission meeting on April 3, 2024.

Very Truly Yours,
Hansen P. Reed, Esq.

HPR/mb
[Enclosures]
cc: Clients via email
Salinas City Council
Salinas Planning Commission
Thomas Wiles

CAUTION: This message originated outside of the City of Salinas email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

RE: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Tue 5/21/2024 3:17 PM
To:Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Cc:Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Hi Chris:

Thanks for the update. Our client is willing to extend the deadline for the appeal of CUP2022-048 to June

18. Does the CCP2023-007 appeal request appear to be in order? Please let me know if there is anything outstanding. Thanks.

Trinh Retterer
Direct/Mobile/Fax: (831) 269-7117
From: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 3:49 PM
To: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Trinh:

We will need to have the Commercial Cannabis Permit appeal before the Planning Commission on June 5. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, it could not go before the City Council until June 18. Please confirm that CannaCruz would agree to extend the CUP deadline to June 18, if needed. We have done a quorum check and believe we will have a quorum for June 5.

Thank you,
Chris.

Christopher A. Callihan, Esq.

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256 (main)
Telephone: (831) 758-7418 (direct)
Facsimile: (831) 758-7257
5/30/24, 6:09 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 1/8 Email: [email protected]

From: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 4:30 PM
To: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Trinh:

I need to coordinate the scheduling with Planning staff. I forwarded them your email and will follow up with you.

Thanks
Chris.

Christopher A. Callihan, Esq.

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256 (main)
Telephone: (831) 758-7418 (direct)
Facsimile: (831) 758-7257
Email: [email protected]
5/30/24, 6:09 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 2/8 CAUTION: This message originated outside of the City of Salinas email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

From: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 3:54 PM
To: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Hi Chris:

Thank you very much.

Our client would be willing to extend the CUP2022-048 appeal deadline to June 18 if it enables the CCP2023-007 amendment appeal and CUP2022-048 appeal to be considered at the same time. We do have a few questions and concerns, given that we are heading into the season of graduations and vacations –
May we work toward a June 11 City Council hearing for the CUP (including public notice) and make a decision on the extension depending on what happens with the PC on June 5? Is it possible to have a special meeting of the PC in order to have the matters considered earlier? Is it possible to do a quorum check for both the PC and the City Council? Trinh Retterer
Direct/Mobile/Fax: (831) 269-7117
From: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:52 AM
To: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Trinh:
5/30/24, 6:09 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 3/8 CAUTION: This message originated outside of the City of Salinas email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Thank you. The appeal will be tentatively scheduled for the June 5 Planning Commission meeting. We will let you know if that changes.

Chris.

Christopher A. Callihan, Esq.

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256 (main)
Telephone: (831) 758-7418 (direct)
Facsimile: (831) 758-7257
Email: [email protected]

From: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:36 AM
To: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Hello, Chris:
5/30/24, 6:09 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 4/8 Pursuant to municipal code section 5-07.10 – Commercial cannabis permits – appeals, CannaCruz would like to appeal the Selection Committee’s decision.

Pursuant to section 5-07.27 – location of commercial cannabis businesses – proximity to sensitive uses, subsection (c), CannaCruz is seeking an exception with findings that the intent of Article VI – Cannabis would otherwise be met.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Trinh Retterer
Direct/Mobile/Fax: (831) 269-7117
From: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2024 9:59 AM
To: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Good morning Trinh and Peter:

Please see the attached letter regarding the City Selection Committee's review and determination related to CannaCruz's request for a Major Amendment to Commercial Cannabis Permit CCP 2023-007.

As you know, CannaCruz's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional Use Permit for 1228 South Main Street is scheduled for the City Council's consideration on June 11.

The next Planning Commission meeting is June 5. Any matters heard by the Planning Commission on June 5 and subject to appeal could not be heard by the City Council until June

18. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks
Chris
Christopher A. Callihan, Esq.

From: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:12 AM
To: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Trinh:

I am meeting with the Selection Committee tomorrow morning and until they give me their decision I cannot say whether CannaCruz will need to appeal their decision. If you wanted to have an appeal application prepared in the eventuality the Selection Committee denies the application, then I would suggest using the same form as the CUP application because I am not aware of a separate for an appeal of the Selection Committee's decisions. That form is familiar to all of us.

Thanks
Chris
Christopher A. Callihan, Esq.

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256 (main)
Telephone: (831) 758-7418 (direct)
Facsimile: (831) 758-7257
Email: [email protected]
5/30/24, 6:09 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 6/8 CAUTION: This message originated outside of the City of Salinas email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

From: Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 4:17 PM
To: Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
Subject: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Hello, Chris:

Thanks again for your time this week. We really appreciate your efforts.

In anticipation of the Selection Committee denial regarding the CCP amendment, should we go ahead and prepare an application form for the appeal? We’d like to submit it as soon as we receive word (or earlier, if possible). Do we use the same form as we did for the CUP appeal? On another note, with our client’s approval, Jason will be reaching out to you regarding his read on how the quasi-judicial standards for a discretionary permit apply to the CCP amendment and appeal.

Have a great weekend!
Trinh Retterer
Land Use Specialist
Johnson, Rovella, Retterer, Rosenthal & Gilles, LLP
318 Cayuga Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Direct/Mobile/Fax: (831) 269-7117
Office: (831) 754-2444 Ext. 317
JRGattorneys.com
5/30/24, 6:09 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 7/8

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE -- ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT The information contained in this electronic transmission is legally privileged and confidential, and it is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please take notice that any form of dissemination, distribution or photocopying of this electronic transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately contact Trinh Retterer, (831) 269-7117, [email protected] and immediately delete the electronic transmission.
5/30/24, 6:09 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 8/8 CAUTION: This message originated outside of the City of Salinas email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

RE: CCP2023-007 Amendment Appeal
Trinh Retterer <[email protected]>
Thu 5/16/2024 10:36 AM
To:Christopher Callihan <[email protected]>
Cc:Peter Brazil <[email protected]>
1 attachments (584 KB)
Development Review Application (Signed).PDF;
Hello, Chris:

Pursuant to the municipal code section 5-07.10 – Commercial cannabis permits – appeals, CannaCruz would like to appeal the Selection Committee’s decision.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Please see the attached letter regarding the City Selection Committee's review and determination related to CannaCruz's request for a Major Amendment to Commercial Cannabis Permit CCP 2023-007.

As you know, CannaCruz's appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Conditional Use Permit for 1228 South Main Street is scheduled for the City Council's consideration on June 11.

The next Planning Commission meeting is June 5. Any matters heard by the Planning Commission on June 5 and subject to appeal could not be heard by the City Council until June

18. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks
Chris
5/30/24, 6:11 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 1/4 Christopher A. Callihan, Esq.

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256 (main)
Telephone: (831) 758-7418 (direct)
Facsimile: (831) 758-7257
Email: [email protected]

Thanks
Chris
Christopher A. Callihan, Esq.
5/30/24, 6:11 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 2/4 CAUTION: This message originated outside of the City of Salinas email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

City Attorney
City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901-2639
Telephone: (831) 758-7256 (main)
Telephone: (831) 758-7418 (direct)
Facsimile: (831) 758-7257
Email: [email protected]

Thanks again for your time this week. We really appreciate your efforts.

Have a great weekend!
Trinh Retterer
5/30/24, 6:11 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 3/4 Land Use Specialist
Johnson, Rovella, Retterer, Rosenthal & Gilles, LLP
318 Cayuga Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Direct/Mobile/Fax: (831) 269-7117
Office: (831) 754-2444 Ext. 317
JRGattorneys.com

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE -- ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT The information contained in this electronic transmission is legally privileged and confidential, and it is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please take notice that any form of dissemination, distribution or photocopying of this electronic transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately contact Trinh Retterer, (831) 269-7117, [email protected] and immediately delete the electronic transmission.
5/30/24, 6:11 AM Mail - Christopher Callihan - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADEzZjc1OTMxLTYwNTgtNDUwMy05ZWQ1LTE0Yjk2YTQ5ZTQzZQAQAK27zXRKakbki%2BJvgxmiY4M%3D 4/4 Fee: CITY OF SALINAS
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 758-7206
Permit No.:

Planner: Date Received:

Official Use Only Official Use Only

DEVELOPMENT REVI EW

A PPLICATION
 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) ______________________

APPLICANT INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Name Site Address
Address
Assessor’s Parcel Number
City State Zip
Description of Proposal:

Phone Fax
E-mail
Signature*
____________________________________________
Printed Name

PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION RELATED FILES
Name
Address COMMENTS
City State Zip
E-mail
___________________________________________
Signature*
_______________________________________________
Printed Name
Official Use Only
* I/we declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Application, including any plans and documents submitted 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.

I/we recognize that this application(s) may be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, §21000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code.

Representative: 831 269 7117 (Trinh Retterer) Representative: 318 Cayuga Street, Salinas, CA 93901 1228 S. Main Street Salinas, CA 93901 Appeal of CCP 2023-007 CannaCruz, Inc. (Grant Palmer)/Representative: JRG Attorneys (Trinh Retterer) 016-161-052-000
115 Limekiln Street Santa Cruz CA 95060 415-722-5517(Grant Palmer) 831-269-7117 (Rep) 831-754-2444 [email protected]; [email protected] Appeal of CCP2023-007 major amendment as to location Grant Palmer Samuel Kobrinsky and Marguerite Kobrinsky as Co-Trustees of the Samuel Kobrinsky and Marguerite Kobrinsky Trust 235 Monterey Street, Suite A Salinas CA 93901 [email protected] Catherine Kobrinsky Evans DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655 A complete submittal consists of:
•The required number of site plans (see Information Bulletin for your particular permit). •A completed and signed Development Review Application form. •A completed Operational Statement.
•The fee for the permit (see Fee Schedule for your particular permit).

Standard Permit Conditions
• Pursuant to Salinas City Code Section 1-8.1: Civil action enforcement, and Section 1-8.2: Liability for costs, permittee shall reimburse the City of Salinas for all costs and expenses (including but not limited to fees and charges of architects, engineers, attorneys, and other professionals, and court costs) incurred by the City in enforcing the provisions of this Permit.
• Use of the property shall be conducted in such a way that it does not constitute a nuisance to the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties or the public. Any permittee, person, firm, corporation, whether as principal, agent, employee or otherwise, violating, causing or maintaining the violation of any of the provisions of this Permit shall be guilty of a misdemeanor or an infraction, as charged. Upon determination by the Planning Manager that there are reasonable grounds for revocation of this Permit, a revocation hearing shall be set to be heard before the Salinas Planning Commission in accordance with Section 37-321:

Revocation of permits, of the Salinas Zoning Code.
• The applicant(s) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Salinas or any of its boards, commissions, agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commissions, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of this project/use. For Tentative Maps, this shall also apply when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided for inapplicable state and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant(s) of any such claim, action, or proceeding. The City shall cooperate in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participation in a defense of any claim, action, or proceeding if the City bears its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. • Notwithstanding any of the provisions in this permit, all improvements and uses shall comply with all other ordinances and regulations of the City of Salinas and all local, state and federal laws and regulations. • No further development other than that shown on this permit or attached exhibits shall be allowed unless or until an amendment to this permit has been approved by the Planning Manager.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655 City of Salinas
Community Development Department
65 West Alisal Street
Salinas, CA 92901
(831) 758-7206

OPERATIONAL / ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
It is important that this statement accurately describes the proposed project. Please fill in the following blanks accordingly (Attach additional sheets if necessary):

1. Please provide the following:
a. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN)
b. Site Address
c. Parcel size (square feet and/or acres)

2. Describe the nature of your operation (please be specific).

3. What is the existing (or previous) use of the property?

4. What products will be produced by the operation? What materials will be used? Will assembly of the product occur on-site? Will these products be sold on-site?

5. What are the proposed hours of operation? Months (if seasonal)? Days per week? Hours (from ___ to ___ )? Total hours per day?

6. Describe any special activities or events. Frequency?

7. How many customers/visitors are expected per day on average?

8. How many employees will there be? Are additional employees anticipated? What hours do they work? Do any live on-site (as a caretaker)?

9. What equipment, materials, or supplies will be used, and how will they be stored?

10. Will there be any service or delivery vehicles? Number? Frequency?

11. What are the total number of parking spaces on-site?

12. How will access be provided to the site (street name(s))? 016-161-052-000 1228 S. Main Street Salinas, Ca 93901 1.1019 Acres Conducting a duly licensed and compliant California Commercial Medical and Adult use cannabis retail and distribution business and all other operations consistent with the same and authorized by the City of Salinas, the County of Monterey, and the State of California. Furniture Store Cannabis products will be packaged and sold on site. The Retail area will comprise of approximately 3,926 SF. The interior of the building will be remodeled to add a lobby, dispensary floor, office area, storage area, packaging area, secured storage area that includes currency and security measures. Monday-Sunday 8:30am-9:00pm none 30-40 20-25 employees, no, hours of operation, no employees live on site. packaging materials, Delivery Vehicles, Once a week 36 regular spaces and 2 handicap spaces S. Main Street. currency materials, cannabis products, computers, alarm and security system.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655

13. Is there any existing landscaping or fencing? Is any proposed?

14. Will existing buildings be used or will new buildings be constructed? Indicate which building(s) or portion(s) will be used, and describe the type or construction materials, height, color, etc. Provide floor plan and exterior elevations.

15. What are the surrounding land uses to the north, south, east and west?

16. Is this part of a larger project that was previously reviewed by the City? If so, identify previous permit number(s).

17. What is the total floor area of the building(s) on site, (including additional stories)?

18. (Residential projects only) – Identify type, size, and number of dwelling units. Project density. Range of sale prices or rents.
 IF BOX IS CHECKED, COMPLETE REMAINING QUESTIONS (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW).

19. Will the operation or equipment used generate noise greater than other parcels in the area?

20. On a daily basis, estimate how much water will be used by the development?

21. On a daily basis, estimate how much wastewater will be generated?

22. On a weekly basis, estimate how much solid waste (garbage) will be generated, and how will it be disposed of?

23. Will there be any grading on-site? Will it change existing drainage patterns?

24. Does the property contain any archaeological or historic sites?

25. Show on the site plan all bodies of water on, through, or adjacent to the site.

26. Will any hazardous materials or waste be involved in the operation? If so, how will it be disposed of?

27. Will the operation require a substantial increase in public services (schools, police, fire protection)?

28. Will the project generate dust, ash, smoke, fumes, or other odors?

29. How do you see this development impacting the surrounding area?

30. Will the project create a substantial demand for energy? Yes existing landscaping on parts of the property. Wooden fence on the North boundary of property. There are none proposed. Existing building will be used. North: RM, South: RM, East: RM, West: RL No 20,000 SF DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655

DISCRETIONARY APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
ALL DISCRETIONARY PERMIT applications (plus section 1, 2 or 3 as applicable):

Applicant City use only Application requirement
Plans "to scale" and legible and prepared and stamped by A California licensed design professional, if applicable
Vicinity/location map included
10 sets of plans
Application signed by:

Project applicant
Property owner
Operational/environmental statement (application will not be determined complete until all documentation needed for environmental action is received)
8 ½” X 11” reductions (each page of plans)
Case-by-case basis: additional information may be deemed by the Community Development Department as necessary for a determination of completeness
Checklist does not include items which may be required by other City departments nor those which may be required for approval by other agencies

1. DISCRETIONARY PERMIT, expansion of developed site ** Applicant City use only Application requirement
Site plan showing general site layout and including:

All property lines and lot dimensions; easements; lot size; north arrow (north at top if feasible)
Location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings, including distance between structures and between structures and property lines.

Parking, loading and circulation plan, including:

Space, aisle and driveway dimensions
Bicycle parking
Parking lot landscaping, including dimensions
Existing and proposed walls and fences, including height Existing and proposed landscaping (may be conceptual plans) including dimensions and including total landscape area as a percentage of lot area
Trash/recycling facilities, including type of enclosure Any activity or facility conducted or located outdoors needs to be shown
Land use/Zoning on adjacent parcels
Engineering items: Threshold Determination Spreadsheet, Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, preliminary earthwork quantities, existing and proposed utilities, and LID features on the site plan
Floor plan, including:

Total floor area of all existing and proposed buildings Existing and proposed floor area broken down by use (e.g., office, storage, etc.)
Exterior building elevations ***
** CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED
DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655

2. DISCRETIONARY PERMIT, undeveloped site
Applicant City use only Application requirement
Site plan showing general site layout and including:

All property lines and lot dimensions; easements; lot size; north arrow (north at top if feasible)
Location and dimensions of all existing structures including distance between structures and distance between structures and property lines.

Parking, loading and circulation plan, including:

Space, aisle and driveway dimensions
Bicycle parking
Parking lot landscaping, including dimensions, as required by the zoning code
Walls and/or fences, including height
Conceptual landscape plans (may be a separate sheet), including total landscape area as a percentage of lot area
Trash/recycling facilities, including type of enclosure Any activity or facility proposed to be conducted or located outdoors needs to be shown
Land use/Zoning on adjacent parcels
Engineering items: Threshold Determination Spreadsheet, Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, preliminary earthwork quantities, existing and proposed utilities, and LID features on the site plan
Floor plan, including:

Total floor area of all buildings
Floor area broken down by use (e.g., office, storage, etc.) Exterior building elevations***

3. DISCRETIONARY PERMIT, re-use of an existing building Applicant City use only Application requirement
Site Plan showing general site layout and including:

All property lines and lot dimensions; easements; lot size; north arrow (north at top if feasible)
Location and dimensions of all proposed structures, including distance between structures and distance between structures and property lines.

Parking, loading and circulation plan, including:

Space, aisle and driveway dimensions
Bicycle parking
Existing and proposed walls and/or fences, including height Existing and proposed landscape areas, including dimensions Trash/recycling facilities, including type of enclosure Land use/Zoning on adjacent parcels
Floor plan, including:

Total floor area of all buildings
Floor area broken down by use (e.g., office, storage, etc.) Exterior building elevations*** (exclusive of signs which will be handled under a separate permit)
***When a commercial or industrial addition abuts a residential district, a section drawing must be included which demonstrates compliance with the height limit restrictions adjacent to a residential district.

Submittal requirements for Site Plan Review, Parcel Maps and Tentative Maps are found on separate checklists.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655

SITE PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
ALL Site Plan Review applications (plus section 1, 2 or 3 as applicable):

Project applicant
Property owner
Operational statement
8 ½” X 11” reductions (each page of plans)
Case-by-case basis: additional information may be deemed by the Community Development Department as necessary for a determination of completeness

1. Site Plan Review, expansion of developed site **
Applicant City use only Application requirement
Site plan showing general site layout and including:

All property lines and lot dimensions; easements; floor area ratio; north arrow (north at top if feasible)
Location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings, including distance between structures and between structures and property lines.

Parking, loading and circulation plan, including:

Space, aisle and driveway dimensions
Bicycle parking
Parking lot landscaping, including dimensions
Existing and proposed walls and fences, including height Existing and proposed landscaping (may be conceptual plans) including dimensions and including total landscape area as a percentage of lot area
Trash/recycling facilities, including type of enclosure Any activity or facility conducted or located outdoors needs to be shown
Residential proposals must include adequate information to determine that usable open space requirements are met
Land use/Zoning on adjacent parcels
Engineering items: Threshold Determination Spreadsheet, Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, preliminary earthwork quantities, existing and proposed utilities, and LID features on the site plan
Floor plan, including:

Total floor area of all existing and proposed buildings Existing and proposed floor area broken down by use (e.g., office, storage, etc.)
Exterior building elevations. ***
** CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED
DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655

2. Site Plan Review, re-use of an existing building
Applicant City use only Application requirement
Site plan showing general site layout and including:

Parking, loading and circulation plan, including:

Space, aisle and driveway dimensions
Bicycle parking
Existing and proposed walls and fences, including height Existing and proposed landscape areas, including dimensions Trash/recycling facilities, including type of enclosure Land use/Zoning on adjacent parcels
Floor plan, including:

3. Site Plan Review, undeveloped site
Applicant City use only Application requirement
Site Plan, to include all of the following:

Space, aisle and driveway dimensions
Bicycle parking
Parking lot landscaping, including dimensions, as required by the zoning code
Walls and/or fences, including height
Conceptual landscape plans (may be a separate sheet), including total landscape area as a percentage of lot area
Trash/recycling facilities, including type of enclosure Any activity or facility proposed to be conducted or located outdoors needs to be shown
Residential proposals must include adequate information to determine that usable open space requirements are met
Land use/Zoning on adjacent parcels
Engineering items: Threshold Determination Spreadsheet, Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan, preliminary earthwork quantities, existing and proposed utilities, and LID features on the site plan
Floor plan, including:

Total floor area of all buildings
Floor area broken down by use (e.g., office, storage, etc.) Exterior building elevations***. (exclusive of signs which will be handled under a separate permit)
***When a commercial or industrial addition abuts a residential district, a section drawing must be included which demonstrates compliance with the height limit restrictions adjacent to a residential district. I:\ComDev\Planning\xDept Forms\Development Review Application and Checklists.doc DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655 Attachment A
CannaCruz, Inc. (“CannaCruz”) currently holds a City of Salinas Commercial Cannabis Facility Permit (CCF 2021-003) for retail and distribution at 1156 Abbott Street. CannaCruz was awarded its permit in 2017 and commenced operations in 2019. CannaCruz has ceased the distribution side of the operation at the current site. The business has not had any compliance issues since the commencement of its operation.

CannaCruz is proposing to relocate its existing dispensary facility at 1156 Abbott Street to 1228 S Main Street in the City of Salinas and include distribution at the new site.

Upon issuance of this permit amendment, CannaCruz, Inc. proposes a cosmetic remodel of the existing 20,142 square foot building. The facility will be remodeled to create a lobby, dispensary floor, office area, storage area, packaging area, secured storage of product and currency and security measures. The retail area will comprise approximately 3,926 SF.

State licenses for retail and distribution will be applied for upon City authorization.

There are no changes proposed to the operation.

Currently, the proposed site does not meet the parking requirements for the change in use.

We are applying for a parking reduction for the new site. The current parking count will be able to accommodate the new change in use proposed by applicants. Applicants only plan to use a portion of the existing floor plan for a dispensary. The current parking requirements extremely overestimate the projected amount of parking needed for the use of the building.

Applicants propose a parking reduction for the site as the current number of spaces will comfortably accommodate the expected traffic and use of the property.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 35EE825F-AA36-47FC-9757-80E388A37655

April 17, 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 internal 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

Page 2 of 16 ends

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 Report 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 given 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 comments 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 comments 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

Page 3 of 16 ends

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 troubling 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

Page 4 of 16 ends

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

Page 5 of 16 ends

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 date. 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 process 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 conformance 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

Page 6 of 16 ends

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, or 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

Page 7 of 16 ends

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 direct) 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

Page 8 of 16 ends

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 businesses 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 opportunity 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

Page 9 of 16 ends

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 and 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

Page 10 of 16 ends

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 evidence, 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 Commission of the option to continue the matter for proper consideration.

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 PERMIT APPLICATION TIMELINE
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 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 requested that Applicant email copy of submitted application and 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, indicated he had reviewed security plan and that it is “sound,” and requested Applicant to forward email regarding 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 the security plan.

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.

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:

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:

Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director

Page 2 of 16 ends

Please see the attached timeline regarding the applications for these entitlements.

Prior to closing public comment, Chair Meeks inquired of each Commissioner whether or not they had questions or comments for Staff and Applicant.

Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director

Page 3 of 16 ends

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.

Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director

Page 4 of 16 ends

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.

3. The Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by the record.

60.510 – Planning commission duties and Section 37-60.520 – Required findings for conditional use permits.

Page 5 of 16 ends

to the city planner in accordance with Section 37-60.480: City planner duties of this division.

60.510.

Page 6 of 16 ends

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.

Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director

Page 7 of 16 ends

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 –

Page 8 of 16 ends

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

Page 9 of 16 ends

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.

Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director

Page 10 of 16 ends

Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director

Page 11 of 16 ends

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.