Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the June 3rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. We will now call the meeting to order and lead you in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Thank you. Okay, for Zoom webinar participation, it's available for members of the public. The Zoom webinar ID link are available on the posted agenda on the city website. May we please have a roll call?

Commissioner Rocamora?

Here.

Commissioner Ruck? Here. Commissioner Mora? Commissioner Gutierrez?

Here.

Commissioner Flores?

Here.

Commissioner Pernell?

Here.

Chairperson McAwee-Dame?

Present. And now all staff introductions.

Lisa Salcedo, Administrative Aid. Lisa Brinton, Community Development Director.

Courtney Grossman, Planning Manager. Chris Callahan, City Attorney.

Bobby Latino, Associate Planner.

Tom Miles, Senior Planner.

Susan Matthey, Management Analyst.

Jonathan Moore, Senior Planner.

All right. Welcome, everyone. General public comments. Public comments generally are limited to two minutes per speaker. The chair may further limit the time for public comments depending on the agenda schedule. Are there any comments from the public for items not on today's agenda? Do we have any on Zoom? For Zoom participants, you can use the raise hand feature. No comments on Zoom. All right, thank you. We'll go ahead and close public comments. Consent ID number 26-261, approval of minutes from May 20th, 2026 meeting. Are there any questions or comments from the commissioners? Commissioner Rocamora?

No questions or comments.

Commissioner Ruck.

No questions or comments.

Commissioner Gutierrez.

No questions or comments.

Commissioner Flores.

No questions or comments.

Commissioner Purnell. No questions or comments. And I have no questions or comments. Is there a motion and a second?

I move to approve the minutes from May 20th, 2026.

I'll second. All right. With a motion from Commissioner Purnell and a second from Commissioner Ruck, we'll have a roll call vote.

Commissioner Ocamara? Yes. Commissioner Ruck?

Yes. It says that I was absent. I was, but I watched the tapes. Thank you.

Commissioner Gutierrez?

Yes, I also watched the meeting.

Thank you. Commissioner Flores?

Yes.

Commissioner Pernault? Yes. Chair Persilma-KVD?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, and... okay it says administrative reports we have none in public hearings id number 26-262 commercial cannabis permit 2025-004 appeal of selection committee denial of a major amendment to commercial cannabis permit 2024-0 to relocate from 1610 Moffett Street to 2033 North Main Street in the commercial retail West Baronda Road at US 101 Gateway Overlay, CR-GW-1 Zoning District. All right, so just for everybody's information, the public comment segment is scheduled as follows. The project applicant or their representatives will have an opportunity for comments and will be limited to five minutes total. The public comment period will then be open to all other members of the public with each speaker limited to two minutes. Participants attending via Zoom will be asked to use the raise hand feature to indicate their desire to speak and will be limited to two minutes. And then the project applicant or the representatives will have an opportunity for rebuttal comments and will be limited to five minutes total.

Chair. Yes, Chair. I'd like to recuse myself from this because I own property right across the street.

Okay.

Okay.

And if we could announce, Chair, that item 26-260 is going to be continued to June 17th. We should do that now, please, and then we can get to this item.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right. So skipping forward, ID number 26-260 is continued to June 17th, 2026. So if you're here for that item, we'll see you in a couple weeks.

Maybe we could describe what that item is in case folks aren't memorizing it.

Tell me not to, but I will. Oh, okay. If you want me to.

That's fine. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chairperson McCovey-Day. All right.

So this is Tom Wiles, Senior Planner, who will be presenting the item.

Thank you very much, Chairperson McCovey-Day, Commissioners. Commercial Cannabis Permit 2020-504 is an appeal of the Section Committee to denial of a major amendment. THE PROPOSAL IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL CANNABIS PERMIT 20-24-09. IT IS THE EMERALD SKY WAY LLC DOING BUSINESSES VALLEY FARMS. IT IS TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING CANNABIS DISPENSARY WITH ACCESSORY DELIVERY AND DISTRIBUTION FROM 1610 MOFFET STREET TO 2033 NORTH MAIN STREET. located in the northwest corner of East Veranda Street and North Main Street. It is located at its own commercial retail in the West Veranda Road at US 101 Gateway Overlay District. It's in a 2,733-square-foot-10 space of the Northridge Plaza Shopping Center. The property owner is Northridge Plaza LLC. Surrounding uses are residential adjacent to the north and commercial retail. to the east and to the south, and US 101 is located adjacent to the west. Background is that on April the 13th, 2026, the selection committee denied the amendment application because the facility is located within 1,000 feet of Santa Rita School, and the amendment is per Municipal Code Section 5-0727A1, is that they cannot be within 1,000 feet of a school use, and it is at 995 feet. On April the 21st, 2026, the applicant appealed the selection committee denial because that the municipal code did not specifically state distance, specified distance. The state establishes a 600-foot radius. The city has a 1,000-foot radius. The city failed to raise the zoning issues within a timely manner, and the denial rests on a five-foot shortfall. The municipal code section 5.0727, the measurement, go back here. measurement for a Located of our proposed cannabis use to a sensitive uses a thousand feet from parcel to parcel This is the locations to the thousand foot radius map it shows proposed parcel to post site and the school center e-schools about 995 feet Located which is within a thousand feet of the school use. This is another map showing the proposed site and the Santa Rita school and It is the Santa Rita schools located at 2014 Santa Rita Street. The proposed commercial cannabis use is also located within eight other sensitive uses, including seven alcohol related uses and one smoke shop. It is also located adjacent to the north of residential concerning the THE RESIDENTIAL USE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY INFORMATION CONDITIONS SUFFICIENT TO FORM AN OPINION REGARDING POTENTIAL OF ANY PUBLIC NUISANCE OR OPERATION TO THE RESPONSE OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL CANNABIS USE. THEY STATED THAT IF THE COMMERCIAL CANNABIS USE WERE TO BE APPROVED THAT THEY RECOMMEND CONDITIONS AS PER THE MARCH 16, 2026 POLICE DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM. the project the Recommendation from staff is to find that the project is not find the action assuming is not a project on the action is not project per California Environmental Quality Act sequel from the selection committee's denial of Emerald Skyways LLC's REQUEST TO AMEND COMMERCIAL CANNABIS PERMIT 202409 AND TO RELOCATE FROM 1610 MOFFET STREET TO 233 NORTH MAIN STREET BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED WITHIN PROXIMITY OF SENSITIVE USES AS PER THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION. AND THERE IS ACTUALLY THERE IS A REVISION TO THE TABLE 1 THAT THE ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT PROVIDED FIVE ZONING INFORMATION REQUESTED FIVE INFORMATION ZONING INFORMATION LETTERS One was for the site at 2033 North Main Street, but from another applicant. And that they did apply for a zoning letter at 245 Merced Street, which is located south of the project site, south of the property site. Excuse me. and that the zoning letter for 2033 North Main Street, zoning letter 202507, the date of the letter was November 21st, 2025, but it was revised on December 15th, 2025. Are there any questions of staff at this time?

Are there any questions from the commissioners to Mr. Wiles or members of city staff regarding this presentation? Commissioner Rupp?

I do have questions. Thank you. Mr. Wills, I have a couple of questions here. The state establishes a minimum distance of a 600-foot radius. Is that correct? Correct. The state... But it... Oh, I'm sorry. But it doesn't tell cities or other jurisdictions what they may establish. Is that correct?

Correct. And the city is established 1,000 feet. Thank you.

There are several letters in here that go back and forth. All of them seem to say that it's a thousand feet and it's not building to building because buildings can change, they get added on to, they get taken down, other ones go up. It's a parcel by parcel basis, which most land use is dependent upon parcel by parcel, correct? Correct. Am I correct in reading that correctly? Correct. All right, thank you. We're, here in Salinas, we've never taken apart an ordinance on a case-by-case basis, have we?

You mean as far as?

We don't apply the ordinance on a case-by-case basis. It's carte blanche or it's not.

It's within the sense of uses or not.

Right. It's not, oh, you have a case over here and we're going to apply a different standard over here, but over here...

I think we've been consistent with...

Okay, thank you.

All right.

So, am I correct in thinking that the applicant wants this because... There's a dispute potentially over the amount of five feet.

Well, there was a let me see here. They they had the denial is one of them is that the on page seven of the staff report. They had four denial points from their letter of April 21st. that the Municipal Code did not specify whether the 1,000-foot distance is measured from parcel to parcel, building to building, or another method. The Municipal Code specifically states it's parcel to parcel. There also was that they point out to the 600-foot radius required by the state, but the city has put the 1,000-foot radius. The city of Salinas failed to raise a zoning issue in a timely manner. And it was not identified until November 2025. However, the previous letters did state that it was within sensitive uses and that the denial rests on a five-foot shortfall. But the municipal code specifically stated it's 1,000 feet. And as a measurement from the school, it's 995 feet. And there's other sensitive uses to the proposed site.

Right. And so no one else has received a waiver, a what I want to say, a variance on that five feet, have they?

Not that I'm aware of. I've done only I did Cana Cruz and then we did not. OK, that was true. But that was all right. Thank you.

Any questions, Commissioner Gutierrez?

I have no questions.

Any questions, Commissioner Flores? Yes.

Is it okay if I hold my questions till I hear? Is the applicant going to have something to say?

Yes.

I'll hold out till then.

Okay. Questions, Commissioner Pernell? Yeah, I have a few questions. I think to build on Commissioner Ruck's question for clarification, you mentioned there were currently one shop and seven alcohol licenses within 1,000 feet of that parcel.

Yeah, there's nine sensitive uses. The school, there's on page, table two, page six, there's Santa Rita School, there's seven on and off sale alcohol-related uses, and there's a smoke shop.

So for those seven and one shop, did that require an additional step from the city to allow that to be permissible, or did it fall within this scope?

Well, the municipal code does have some language in those uses that there may be, they may find some, not necessarily I would say variance, but may allow it, if those uses, but A1 and A2, and A1 is a school, There is specific language that there can be no variance or any sort of deviation from that thousand foot Thank you for the clarification And I have a question Well, I guess kind of a request.

Can you when it has here appeal of selection committee denial? What is who is the selection committee? How is that? handled within the cannabis licenses

Well, the selection committee is present members as per the chapter five of the municipal code. It's a selection committee and is selected by the city manager and they meet on the proposed commercial cannabis businesses.

Okay, so in addition to just staff receiving a request, it goes to an actual committee who reviews all this? Okay. Correct. That was what I was wanting to ask. And I think my other questions were? ALREADY ADDRESSED. OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO NEXT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE OR OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO IN THIS ORDER. HOLD ON A MINUTE. LOOKS LIKE I'M OUT OF ORDER HERE ON MY INSTRUCTIONS. We're doing applicant first, right? Okay, so let me back up here. So project applicant and your representatives, you have an opportunity for comments. It'll be limited to five minutes total, so come on up.

Hi, thank you for hearing us. My name is Krista Fonches, and I'm the regional director for Valley Farms. I understand everyone has read over our appeal letter, timeline, and supporting documents, and we're here today to request an exception to the sensitive use conflicts, specifically the five-foot shortfall to the school. I want to take the time to touch on some of the points we made in our letter so you understand what has brought us to this point and why it's so important that we receive an approval on this relocation. To be clear, we're attempting to relocate simply to maintain business within the city of Salinas. We purchased our business in 2021 for over three million in cash and liabilities. During the purchase process, we were in direct communication with the city. We filed a major amendment for change of ownership, which was approved and issued in February of 2022. In April of 2022, we completed the final purchase payment. Seven days later, we were notified by the city that the property was zoned incorrectly and that we were not able to operate at that location long term. We've been looking for a place to relocate ever since, and given the sensitive use constraints in Salinas, it has made it impossible to find a location that does not have conflicts. In April of 2023, the city cannabis consultant stated that out of all the locations we had looked at, 2033 North Main Street seemed to be the most feasible. The initial zoning letter for 2033 North Main Street provided only building-to-building measurements, which stated 1,458 feet away from the school. In May of 2025, we followed up with the city in regards to that original zoning letter, and they confirmed there were no changes to the adjacent locations, and thus the letter was still valid. We signed the lease and moved forward on the major amendment for relocation based on this information. It was not until five months later and well into the major amendment process that we were told a new zoning letter needed to be issued, which we received in December of 2025. We had been paying rent at the new location for seven months at this point, and this was the first time we were given the 995 foot parcel to parcel distance. This new measurement causes a conflict of five feet. The staff report stated that this measurement was taken from parcel line to parcel line, including any parking areas, landscaping, or fencing. I want to clarify that this is a large shopping center with over 70,000 square feet of retail space, of which we would be located in the middle unit with less than 3,000 square feet. And there are over 70 parking spots. Our last location operated smoothly with nine. Measuring parcel to parcel is simply not accurate for this location. Due to the zoning issue at our previous location, our landlord would not renew our lease, and as a result, we had to close operations as of January of this year. Since 2021, we've contributed over $600,000 in licensing and taxes to the city. With the closing of our operations, those tax collections have stopped until we can relocate. The building location is, at a minimum, 365 feet away from the parcel line. We are asking that you grant an exception to the five-foot parcel-to-parcel shortfall and allow us to continue business with the City of Salinas.

Good afternoon. My name is Martin Wesley. I'm one of the managing members of Valley Farms Emerald Skyway. I just wanted to summarize how we got here today. It wasn't that we were operating over on Moffitt and we're like, hey, we want to go move this somewhere else and create an issue and have to come before you to get something passed. Here's how we arrived at this. We arrived at this because on 4-29-21, we gave the city the bill of sale. And we worked through the process with the previous owners, the Blodgetts, And on 7-19-21, the city approval was given to us to change the DCC licenses, put it in our name. And on 2-18-22, the blodges were removed from the license. And we're operating. We're tax paying. We're operating. We're hiring people. Seven days after we made our final payment of the $3 million, plus we took on all the debt, liabilities for the business. Seven days after that, Ken Slama, our landlord, gets a call from the city saying that we're nonconforming and we can't operate there. So then we get to the end of our lease this year in January, He won't give us a month-to-month, so we have to shut down. So I just want to be clear, because I know we're talking about process. Excuse me just 10 seconds. Is that we are now $6 million in losses over this, including the purchase price and the debt and all the marketing we had to build the business and turn it around. And we did all that because the city said that it was conforming. And then we don't hear from the city. The city calls our landlord. Landlord won't sign a month-to-month with us so we can continue operations. So the city shut us down, basically, because we couldn't get a new lease because the landlord wouldn't do it because the city already contacted him. And we were forced out of business. And we wouldn't be here today if the city had told us before we bought it that it was nonconforming. But the city planning department I said it was conforming. Yep, you can buy it. You can pay the bloggers all the money. Seven days after you pay them, oh, it's not conforming. And here we are tonight. We're trying to get our business back open so we can continue being a good taxpayer here. We're already a great employer here. We have 60 or 65 employees here at our grow. But now we have this $6 million loss and we wouldn't have bought it had the city said it wasn't conforming. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Now, are there any comments from the public?

Good afternoon, commissioners and staff.

My name is Jacob Sandoval. I'm a board member for the Santa Rita Union School District and member of Salinas Leadership LULAC Council 3315, someone who grew up in the Santa Rita neighborhood and knows this community well. I'm here to respectfully request that the Planning Commission reaffirm the Select Committee's recommendation to deny this request. This area is frequented by many families and is part of a daily routine of many students who attend nearby schools. The proposed location, as already mentioned, is less than 1,000 feet from a school, But it's also less than 400 square feet from a school bus stop as well. The bus stop is located in front of a Mexican market less than 400 square feet. Also, there's a laundry man at the nearby shopping center, which is a common gathering place for young families and students in the neighborhoods. If you're just swing by there when laundry is being done, a lot of students really hang out in that spot there while they're waiting for their families to stand by. This further increases the presence of children in the immediate area throughout the day. Many students who attend our schools through this area on their way home to nearby apartment complex. It's not an isolated location. It's a high traffic area that serves as a gathering point for residents. The safety and well-being of our children and families should be the priority when evaluating land use decisions such as this one. For this reason, I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to reaffirm the Select Committee's recommendation and deny this request. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Hello, good afternoon. My name is Felipe Lopez and I am a resident of District 5 and a proud member of the Salinas Leadership LULAC Council number 3315. I'm here today to ask you to reaffirm the denial. I say this because the dispensary is situated near a school and in an area where children are dropped off and picked up from school. Students pass by the area regularly and the presence of a dispensary will be inconsistent with the purpose of maintaining a safe atmosphere around schools. Also, many students regularly spend time in the vicinity before and after school while waiting for their rides. Therefore, overall, it is not an appropriate location for a cannabis dispensary. Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Jasmine Topete, resident of District 5 and member of Salinas Leadership Lula Council 3315. Today, I'm asking you to uphold the denial of this cannabis dispensary. I urge you to prioritize the health, safety, and well-being of the families and children who live in this neighborhood. This location is within the city's 1,000-foot buffer from Santa Rita Elementary School. That buffer exists for a reason, and I don't believe exceptions should be made when children are involved. This issue is personal for me because I live near this area. There's often someone who parks outside our apartment complex and smokes cannabis in their car. I have two autistic nephews, one of whom has asthma. And when that happens, I have to take them inside instead of letting them play outside because of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. This proposed dispensary would be located next to apartments, near a school, close to a bus stop where students are dropped off, and near a laundromat where children often spend time or wait for their families. These are places where kids regularly gather, walk, and play. Easier access means more exposure for the families who already live in this area. I believe our children and youth deserve spaces where they can learn, play, and grow without increased exposure to cannabis-related activity. I ask you to uphold the denial and put our youth and families first. Thank you.

Thank you.

Welcome. Debido a que más de estas tiendas están siendo puestas, les pedimos por favor que tomen conciencia entre todos y nieguen los permisos para este tipo de tiendas cerca de escuelas y cerca de parques. Thank you.

I think Mr. Sandoval is going to translate.

My bad. Sorry, I got caught off guard. She mentioned that as much rules as you make, there's still a big issue in high school with vaping is kind of the part that I caught. So it continues to be a big concern even at the middle schools as well, and that it's important to make more consideration when there's children close to parks and schools. So please take that into consideration.

All right. Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you. Good evening, my name is Wendy. I am currently in high school student and I am here again to explain my concern about the new smoke shop that is being considered for a permit directly across schools where children get exposed into these type of places. That shop is just steps away from where children aged 5 to 11 across the street every single day. They display tobacco products, babes, and windows advertisements right in front of students' faces. This is not what we want to normalize for the future, especially when parents are not even informed about this and their children could gain access to this type of products. I personally observe people smoking on the sidewalk during school dismissal hours. Parents and teachers should deeply be concerned about the safety of their students and children, which is why we are asking for help to deny or revoke the permit for this tobacco shop. Thank you for your attention. Thank you.

Welcome.

Buenas tardes, señor alcalde y miembros del consejo. Mi nombre es Mario y estoy en el grado 6 de mi escuela primaria. Y hablo hoy para oponerme a la tienda de tabaco que se planea abrir en la calle Sanborn frente al mercado. Rey, esta ubicación está a solo dos cuadras de las escuelas, por donde pasan cientos de estudiantes diario. Según datos de CDPH, el 27% de los jóvenes de preparatoria en California Ya usan cigarros electronicos y tener tiendas cerca de las escuelas aumentan ese riesgo. La calle Sanborn es una zona familiar con mercados y casas. Thank you. Madam Chair, if Mr. Sandoval is going to translate, could he actually read what the young man wrote?

Could you read what the young man wrote? Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the council. My name is Mario. I'm in sixth grade. Today I'm here to oppose a tobacco shop that's being placed by Sanborn in front of a store. It's a few blocks away from the schools where many students are walking. Currently, 27% of young people in school in California use tobacco or vaping products. Sanborn is a family zone where there's many stores and homes, and it's not a place for these type of products to be sold when there's kids around. I'm asking you not to approve the permit for a tobacco store that's by schools. Let's protect our students and our youth. Thank you for taking my opinion into consideration.

Thank you. Are there any other public comments? Anybody on Zoom?

Oh. I'd just like to take another couple. I can appreciate where you all are coming from. I can appreciate it.

Well, just a second. We need to finish public comment before you have your chance to come back up.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, you're the applicant, so you've already had a chance to talk. We're going to go finish public comment, and then you'll be able to come up again. Thank you. Do we have any participants on Zoom with a raised hand?

No comments on Zoom.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and close public comment. Applicant, if you'd like to come up again for rebuttal comments.

Yes, again, my name is Martin Wesley. I can appreciate where folks are coming from. We're talking... five feet when you're measuring property line to property line. I can appreciate what they're saying. We've never sold to kids and minors. We have 24 hour armed security. Our shop has never been broken into. We wouldn't be here if we weren't induced by the city's approval into now what is a $6 million and growing 5,000 a day loss had the city denied it then. But the city said, nope, you're good to go. And the week after we make the final payment, this is months, year later, then we get a notice from the city after we made the last big final million dollar payment that it's not conforming. So this six million plus growing, I appreciate where they're coming from. But this loss, this is going to become damages. So our business was shut down. The city reached out after we made the payment and said, oh, your current spot, and they told our landlord, not us, the current spot is not conforming anymore for some reason. So how is it that we were induced? Now we're $6 million in and growing. And... And... And now we have no place to go. And we've looked. We've looked at dozens of places. So the city gave us something and said we were approved. We could operate there and everything. And the city arbitrarily then decided it wasn't conforming after we had already written all the checks. I just don't think that's fair or equitable.

I also wanted to add that the initial zoning letter that we received stated 1,458 feet from building to building. And then in the new zoning letter that we received in December of 2025, it changed to 1,328 feet, which personally just calls into question the methodology used for the measurements in itself when we were told that there was no change to the adjacent locations, yet the measurements themselves have changed. So I just wanted to note that as well. We weren't aware prior, but our landlord has also informed us that that parcel itself is made up of multiple parts. So if we need to, we can review that as well. But again, the method for measurement, having it change from zoning letter to zoning letter, just calls into question the methods used and whether they're accurate or not. Thank you.

Alright, thank you. So we'll go ahead and close all public comment on this item. Are there any additional questions from the commissioners to Mr. Wiles or city staff? Commissioner Ruck? Any comments? Okay. Questions or comments?

I read the 22 letter and the 25 letter and they're pretty succinct. It's a thousand feet. If I have six million dollars, and I hear where you're coming from, okay, But if I have a $6 million project, I'm a land use person. And if I have a $6 million project, I'm out there with a tape measure myself. I'm hiring a surveyor. I'm going to Google Earth. I'm using every tool in the book to make absolutely certain that my $6 million project fits within the ordinance. I don't rely on any...

I'm sorry, sir, you can't address the commission. Oh, okay.

I don't rely on anyone else. It would be me out there crawling across the street with a tape measure.

Excuse me. Excuse me, sir. You need... Excuse me, sir. You need to allow the commissioners to speak. You need to allow the commissioners to speak. I'm sorry.

And in any land use, it is parcel to parcel because buildings change. They change all the time. They change almost daily. Parcels don't change as much, but definitely buildings change. And I just feel like you are asking for a variance from an ordinance that the city of Salinas wrote. And I don't believe that this planning commission can grant you that variance based on findings and evidence that we would have to make. And I'm just letting you know that. I'm just putting that out there. Yeah, thank you.

All right, are there any additional questions or comments from Commissioner, sorry, I got out of place, from Commissioner Gutierrez to Mr. Wiles or city staff?

Yeah, just a comment. So I'm all pros, small businesses, and I get that. But to kind of piggyback on what Commissioner Rook said is, Just because there was some, miscommunication, misinformation, as far as the business venture. At first, I originally thought you guys were trying to move to get more foot traffic, but that's not the case. And that cleared that up. But I also feel that it is our job to watch out for the best interest of the community. And as much as I feel bad that you guys are going through this loss and everything, I just can't justify in my mind to approve this in that specific section. That's just my personal opinion. I think that it is a large investment you guys have in there and I honest to God hope that you guys can find the right location. I just don't feel like this is it.

Any questions or comments, Commissioner Flores?

Yeah, and in reading this table one zoning information letter, it just seems that from the initial request back in 22, seven sensitive use, and it's gone up every single time that you've applied from seven to nine to now 10. Again, 600,000 yearly in taxes is what we're going to be losing if they, is that what they're putting into?

Mm-hmm.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure what happened in the miscommunication back in 21 when they first applied or put it in, but that's a tough loss and what's gonna happen? Are they gonna leave town and we're gonna lose another business? Again, I'm not saying I'm gonna vote for or against, but we're saying the community is important, but we need businesses to sustain communities, because if not, businesses are gonna leave town and what's gonna happen then? They employ 65 people, I believe is what they said. Probably haven't been working since you closed down. And we really gotta think this over. Again, I'm not going one way or another at the moment, but something happened in the miscommunication and somebody's out $6 million, which is terrible. Thank you.

Any questions or comments, Commissioner Pernell?

I see we have legal counsel here, so if my question is inappropriate, please give me the look and I won't ask it, but can we confirm the statements from the applicant that the numbers from the city actually did change from the 1,458 to the new number that was given?

So is that a question you'd like to pose to the appellant?

I feel bad saying this. Can we prove their statements are factually accurate because it's not in our packet? do we know for a fact the city granted permission based on that 1400 number and we've now changed that number oh god i think that's an appropriate question i think that planning staff can assist with that

I'm not sure if this exact analysis is in the staff report. We'd have to pull individual zoning letters and see what the numbers are. I can tell you how the zoning information letters are put together. The request comes in to the office. The letter request is assigned to a planner, and the planner uses the GIS system to determine distance. I can't explain the variance in the numbers, except for the rule is the 1,000. The number should be the same each time because it's based on a computer. I'm not sure how the methodology would result in different numbers.

So essentially the applicant was approved based on that initial number and then seven days after they signed over this money, the number changed? I guess I'm confused about that variance in measurement as well.

So, so to clarify my understanding, the number that changed was the building to building calculation. And as we've stated, this is based parcel to parcel, not building to building. We provide that because, um, and city attorney, um, Callahan can correct me if I'm wrong. The planning commission can make a determination to use a different point of measurement. Is that correct?

the first part of what you said I think is correct director brinton the first letter from 2022 makes it clear that those measurements are building from building and that' s inconsistent with what the code requires and I think that was corrected in the subsequent letter and I think that' s where the ability for the Commission to do something different from that is limited by what's provided in the cannabis ordinance because subsection 507 27 sub I is specific in terms of Parcel to parcel and the closest point between each and so I think that does restrict the Commission's ability to do something different

in terms of the revenue that was lost would the city become legally responsible if they were found liable for creating that loss so i'm not going to render an opinion on that without having done some more research thank you okay and i have a question because we had um

want clarification so if we how we're we vote on this so if we vote to or you know to leave that leaves it the way that the committee had already decided and then if we vote against then what happens meaning that we don't agree with the committee and what happens

the selection committee is not going to be able to move forward. So then conceivably you' d have to make some findings to grant their request for a major amendment to the commercial cannabis permit. So upholding the selection committee' s denial means they can' t continue but if you want to do something different from what the selection committee has decided I would

okay and then uh... because we had a previous situation like this dot uh... we did not make a decision either way and i went to council so i think one of the concerns i have is that the last time it was because it's a policy issue so when we look at it plainly from our point of view we are limited like you're saying but then if we felt like this should be reviewed by council the policy should change and when you said that there wasn't one before i thought that the last cannabis situation we had that that was the exception was made because they were within a thousand square feet but it was like different scenario it wasn' t as dense the way that santa rita is?

there are different sensitive uses that are outlined in the cannabis ordinance and there are two categories of sensitive uses for which there are no exceptions that is schools generally and then parks and daycare facilities generally but there are other sensitive uses but for which the commission the council selection committee can make some findings that it wouldn't be inconsistent with the cannabis ordinance it wouldn't cause a detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community and that was a situation with that other cannabis business that i think you're referring to that was sensitive use right this is a different category of sensitive uses for which there is no exception okay

And then that was kind of a little side question was going to be, so if we weren't discussing what's being disputed, a five-foot difference, that there are other sensitive uses. So wouldn't we still then be addressing those? That's correct. Or should be addressing those as well?

There are other sensitive uses, and you can certainly make findings that... This commercial cannabis business operating within close proximity to those other sensitive uses is not detrimental to the health welfare or safety of the community. You can make those findings as was done in other circumstances.

Okay. Let me see here. I think that's all I had on legal.

But sort of to your other question, I think that you didn't quite ask, the commission can always just refer this to the city council, right? If you feel that this is entirely a policy decision and not necessarily a cannabis ordinance consistency question, you can just take action to refer to the city council.

OK. Thank you for that clarification. You're welcome. I want to say, from a business point of view, and I know how you feel completely, but I think that the type of business you have is very challenging. And I'm not aware even in obviously why you've chosen this location is there isn't really available locations. So I also feel that part of this challenge is you have a loss that's separate from what we can decide on. That's not our purview, what we're looking at, but that. You know, it is a challenge for all the cannabis business to try to find something here. But that's a policy, in my opinion, that then the city of Salinas needs to change their policy so that these things can flow through administration the way it needs to. And then also for the committee to be able to make decisions, you know, the way it would be. that make sense you know so i'm concerned with not just the square footage uh... familiar with the area and i think that it's it's very densely populated with families i mean just all ages, you know, sure there's a lot of daycares that might not even, you know, be obvious there in that area. So those are my concerns. But I have to call for, do you have any additional comments or would you like to make a motion?

I do have one more question. If that's, okay, thank you, Madam Chair. If the denial is upheld, can they, um, appeal this to the city council.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

You're welcome.

Any other questions or comments? Go ahead.

We, as commissioners, can defer this to city council without taking action. Yes, that's what the city council said.

That is an option available to you as well.

Go ahead, Mr. Gordon.

When this was originally put in back in 2022, we were going building to building, and then they were hit with the 1,000 just this last go-around, or...

No, I think that, to be quite honest, that letter was a mistake. It was never supposed to be measured building to building. It should have been measured parcel to parcel.

So false hopes were kind of given at that time, but it should have gone by the 1,000 feet? Okay, thank you.

All right, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion.

What is your motion?

I would like to make a motion that the denial of this particular application is upheld based on the findings and evidence that is presented in the staff report. Is that an adequate motion? Yes.

Yes.

Staff knows that there is a resolution prepared in the packet for this direction. It's uphold or yes upholding the COMMITTEES DENIAL. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. WITH A FIRST OR SORRY, A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER RUCK AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE?

COMMISSIONER RUCK?

YES.

COMMISSIONER GUTIERREZ?

YES.

COMMISSIONER FLORES? Commissioner Pernell?

Yes.

Chairperson McAvey?

Yes.

Motion passes.

okay so when i'm reading this i'm saying it's affirmed i just want to make sure before i read it off okay commercial cannabis permit 2025-004 ccp 2025-004 appeal of selection committee determination commercial cannabis permit 2025-004 appeal of selection committee denial of a major amendment to commercial cannabis permit 2024-009 to relocate from 1610 Moffett Street to 2033 North Main Street in the commercial retail West Veranda Road at US 101 Gateway Overlay, CR-GW-1 Zoning District. The Planning Commission has just affirmed the determination made by the Selection Committee to deny Commercial Cannabis Permit 2025-004 Any person having standing to do so under the law who is aggrieved by this action or decision may file an appeal within ten days with the Community Development Department located at 65 West Allisaw Street. All right, thank you.

us for Moffett Road, and then we put all this money in. Okay, I'm sorry, sir.

I know, I'm just— We're proceeding. It's already closed. I'm sorry, sir, we're already closed. Thank you.

Madam Chair, should we get the other commissioner?

Yes, let's—hopefully he didn't leave the building. Commissioner Rocamora? There he is. All right, welcome back Commissioner Rockamore. We're now moving on to ID number 26-244, time extension 2026-003, TE 2026-003. Request for 36-month time extension to tentative map 2022-001, located at the southeast corner of the John Street and Abbott Street intersection in the commercial office. Abbott Street Focus Growth Overlay, CO-FG-4, and Industrial General IG Zoning District. Bobby Latino, Associate Planner, will present this item.

Good afternoon, Commission. I WON'T REITERATE THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION AGAIN, BUT IT IS A TIME EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAP THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY PLAN AND COMMISSION IN 2024 IN MAY AND SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN 2024. IT INCLUDED A PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SEVEN PHASED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THAT SEVEN PHASES CONSISTED OF A HOTEL WITH 111 GUEST ROOMS, APPROXIMATELY 108,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, 31,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND 197 DWELLING UNITS. AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WERE PART OF THE PLAN YOU TO DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. IN ORDER TO DO THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE TO RECONFIGURE 14 EXISTING LOTS, WHICH YOU'LL SEE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, INTO NINE. APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE UNIQLO PARTNERS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JOHN STREET AND ABBOTT STREET INTERSECTION. MOST OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE CO ZONING DISTRICT AND THE ABBOTT STREET FOCUSED GROWTH OVERLAY. The time extension is for 36 months, which is, It's a one-time time extension and that's the longest you can do. So, ultimately this tentative map is set to expire June 11th, 2026, but when they applied, they get an automatic extension and then when it's being considered by council, the ultimate decision by council would allow for the extension for up to 36 months. With the tentative map, a final map needs to be recorded and approved by council. That's the map that shows all the improvements that's going to be done with this development. Tentative map kind of shows where the lot lines are. The request by the applicant is currently have like civil drawings in for an encroachment permit for on and off site improvements. And they actually have their building permit plans in for the actual phase one, which is the hotel, which is kind of centrally located. And they're also working on addressing the mitigation measures of part of the mitigated negative declaration that was approved by council with this project. So those things are why they need the extension. They're looking to address this final map here shortly, and we're giving them the full extension to do so. So with that, it is recommended that the commission recommend that city council approve the one-time 36-month time extension for the tentative map 22-001.

All right, thank you. Are there any questions from the commissioners to Mr. Latino or members of city staff regarding this presentation? Commissioner Racamora?

No questions.

Commissioner Ruck? No questions. Commissioner Gutierrez?

No questions.

Commissioner Flores?

No questions.

Commissioner Pernell? No questions. And I have no questions. We will now open this item to the public for any public comment. Are there any comments from the public or on Zoom? Okay, we'll now close the public comment item. On this item, is there any additional questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Racamora?

No additional questions.

Commissioner Ruck? No questions. Commissioner Gutierrez? No questions. Commissioner Flores? No questions. Commissioner Pernell? No questions. Do we have a motion and a second?

Motion that we grant the time extension of 36 months.

I'll second. With a motion from Commissioner Gutierrez and a second from Commissioner Pernell, can we have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Rocamara? Yes. Commissioner Rupp? Yes. Commissioner Gutierrez? Yes. Commissioner Flores?

Yes.

Commissioner Pernell? Yes. Chairperson McAvey?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Okay, so in regard to time extension 2026-003, TE2026-003, request for 36-month time extension to tentative map 2022-001, located at the southeast corner of the John Street and Abbott Street intersection in the commercial office, Abbott Street Focus Growth Overlay, CO-FG4, and Industrial General IG Zoning District. The Planning Commission's action on this item is a recommendation to City Council in support of the request for a time extension. Staff will schedule the matter for the City Council's consideration, at which time a final decision will be made. Okay, and our next item was continued to June 16th. So now we are on to considerations, which I see none. Commissioner comments, reports? Anybody, any commissioners that are interested in sharing things from your district? You're limited to three minutes. Commissioner Rockamora?

Nothing to report.

Commissioner Ruck?

I do have some questions, maybe some concerns. There are now three boarding houses nearby, and people are concerned. Are boarding houses allowed in family residential districts? That's my only question.

In the low density residential zone, I presume that's what you're referring to?

Yes, thank you. It's from Pajaro to like Romy over to Maple and to California.

In that zoning district, there are a number of uses that are listed as conditional use or permitted use. And these classifications are used in conjunction with the definitions. So depending exactly what these uses are, we would have to check against the definitions and the use classifications to properly answer your question.

OK, thank you. Anything else? Commissioner Ruck? OK. No, thank you. Commissioner Gutierrez? nothing to report commissioner flores nothing to report commissioner pernell um and i just have uh i want to say oh the look at my calendar make sure i'm saying the right date here district three we do have the festive tire again this year and that will be june twenty seventh it's the fifth year and they are uh... it's still free enjoy it while you can they've been really diligent about getting sponsorship uh... partnership with the city to make that event happen it's great you have the uh... The Saturday market going, farmer's market in Old Town on the 300 block, and then they shut off the 200 block. They bring in a whole stage. You've got entertainment, vendors. Everybody just gets to walk around and purchase items, listen to the music. They have different other activities going on. So anyway, I'd like to invite the community to that. Yes, that's June 27th, Festa Italia in its fifth year. So it's a piggyback from the one they do in Monterey, which is a great festival as well, but lucky to have brought it here in Salinas. And that's all that I have. Future agenda items?

You mentioned June 16. I think it's June 17 for the next meeting. And yes, that item is being continued to that date.

You're correct, June 17th.

And then also, I have something for the following meeting, July 1. It is a car wash at the Northridge Mall. Those are the only two scheduled items right now.

OK. All right. So by raise of hands, will all commissioners be able to attend the next meeting? It looks like we have quorum so far. And with that, this meeting is adjourned.