Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Vice Chair Woodson. Commissioner Barron. Commissioner Rana. Chair St. John. Commissioner Simmons. Commissioner Chang. We have quorum.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Okay, moment of silence and congratulations. to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Mike. Do we have any special announcements and communications from the floor?

Yes, we do. We have a special guest here. Sonia from MST will be giving a presentation about the MST public participation plan. So I'll ask her to come up.

Thank you. Welcome, Sonia.

Good evening, chair St. John and members of the commission. My name is Sanjay Darius and I am the civil rights officer and title six coordinator for MST. I'm here today to spread the word that MST is seeking public comment on the draft of our public participation plan. Before I speak on the public participation plan, I want to briefly mention Title VI because it is why we have a public participation plan. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. MST receives federal funds, so Title VI applies to MST. As a transportation agency, MST must provide non-discriminatory service, which includes the services we provide and any services of our contractors. We must have a public participation plan, which I will discuss shortly. Next slide. We must provide language assistance services to limited English proficient individuals. We must conduct an equity analysis for major service changes like fare increases and significant route reductions. We also must have a Title VI program. The public participation plan is an important component of the Title VI program. Next slide. Now let's talk about the Public Participation Plan. It is a transparent framework for gathering public input, evaluating community needs, and ensuring equitable access to transit planning. Community members are able to voice their opinions and help shape transit decisions. It outlines specific procedures MST will utilize to engage the community, especially those communities that we know are traditionally underserved, such as low-income and minority community members and the limited English proficient or LEP community. Next slide. The public participation plan includes a demographic analysis of the Monterey County population. Those are our stakeholders. So that helps us to identify our stakeholders. It also contains an outline of MST's strategic approach to public participation. It describes MST's baseline methods for how we will conduct public outreach, and it also includes a summary of the outreach that we have done since the last Title VI update, which was three years ago. Next slide. To assist MST in achieving its public participation goals, we utilize the following guiding principles. MST will identify impacted stakeholders. We will identify the outreach methods, meeting locations and frequency, and timelines. We will notify our stakeholders of issues under consideration and provide them with opportunities to participate. We will provide relevant information, materials, and the potential for influence. We will evaluate public input against financial, regulatory, or administrative constraints. MST will integrate public input into the final transportation decisions as appropriate, and we will always inform our stakeholders of the evaluation process and why final decisions were made. Next slide. MST invites anyone who resides, works, has an interest in, or does business in an area potentially affected by transportation decisions to read the public participation plan and provide any comments. Next slide. Public engagement gives the public an opportunity to provide relevant information to MST to raise concerns and to share their perspectives with MST. The public is a rich source of ideas and community members know the issues and challenges that should be addressed. Next slide. I want to close by reminding everyone, if you believe you have been subjected to discrimination and violation of Title VI when accessing our services, you have the right to file a complaint with MST's Civil Rights Office, that's my office, or by contacting a customer service representative. Next slide. You can contact a customer service representative by calling 1-888-MSTBUS1. You can file a complaint online or you can go to any of our customer service where they are located and you can file a complaint. Next slide. You can also contact my office and let us know if you have a complaint. I also want to remind individuals that you can access the draft of the update on our website and that the comment period ends August 6th of 2026. Thank you.

we have any questions from commissioners from the report out there as there were some submitted questions i let me check i believe they were from commissioner chang but let me double check and if commissioner chang if you just want to verbalize your questions i can go right ahead so

All right. Thank you, Krita. And thank you, Chair. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. I look at the package and discuss mainly on Monterey County as a whole. but contains very little information about Marina. So my question would be, can MST provide Marina-specific riderships statistics? For example, the daily boarding, annual riderships, growth over the last five years, projected growth, and CSUMB riderships, and also veterans.

I was able to get some of that data for you. And as far as Marina is concerned, the daily average boardings were 544. The annual ridership in 2025 was 168,610 riders. The growth over the last five years, marina ridership has increased 20% since 2020 when 140,521 boardings were reported. The projected growth, 207,595 boardings are expected in 2023. That's a 23% growth excluding surf. And then CSUMB student ridership, it's not Marina specific, but the ridership for CSUMB is 104,405. Now, I know there was a question about veterans. I was able to gather some information. As far as our taxi voucher program, there were 482 trips taken by veterans. We have 526 veterans enrolled in the program. And Marina has 282 individuals that have registered Marina as their address. Also in the TRIPS program, we have eight registered as veterans and 6,179 TRIPS have been taken by veterans. No Marina residents are listed. That's the information that I was able to gather for you.

Okay, the reason I'm asking, so, you know, Marina City is a growing city. If more houses are built and more residents, I do see a lot of people moving into Marina. So, I just hope that MST do consider the growth and able to provide the needs for the people here. And that's a question. That's why I'm asking the questions. The second question is, I'm going to talk about the SURF. And we did talk about the SURF in the package. I mean, in the package, you did talk about it, but how successful, how do you measure the successful of SURF project? How do you measure it? I wasn't able to. Yeah, sorry.

I'm sorry. I wasn't able to gather any information regarding the SURF project.

Like, for example, the traveling time saving, the ridership increase and the vehicle reductions and CO2 reductions and the customer satisfactions. Is there any way to measure it?

I'm sure that there is. That is something that at a later date, I'm confident that we can come and do a presentation on. It's just at this time, I wasn't able to gather any of that information for you.

Okay. I think it's good to share the information with the public so when they try to provide any feedback, at least there's something to base on rather than speculations. I appreciate that. And just to let you know, thank you very much. That's all I have.

Yes, I truly appreciate the questions. In fact, I ask that you invite us back at a later date. And there will be someone who is far more knowledgeable about the SURF program that would be able to answer your questions for you.

All right, thank you. That's all I had to say. Thank you.

A comment from the chair. I think that question is a little premature considering that the SURF project is deep in the construction phase and it's impossible. Right now, it would just be speculation as to the answer to most of those, if not all of those So it's better to defer those questions until, say, after the first year of operation would be a fair time period to do this type of analysis, if that would be appropriate for MST?

Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, we have one more question here.

Yes. Thank you. As compared to other cities, based on the numbers you quoted, where does Marina stand for voting?

I don't work with the numbers on those kinds of statistics. I got the questions in advance and I was able to go to the planning department to ask those, those specific questions. So if you do have some questions and you'd like some answers, maybe you could pass them along to me and I could get them to the planning department so that they could let me know. Cause I don't work with the numbers to know them, but if you let me know, I can ask.

Okay. Just an unrelated question that we had an MST on-call service which is available to other cities but not to Marina. So the reasons?

I'm sorry about the service?

What is the reason that this MST on-call is available to other cities but not to Marina?

I wish I could answer that. As a civil rights officer, I don't know the answer to that question. But I can get you an answer. If I could get those questions, and then we could do some follow-up.

Thank you. Guido, the questions are open. Could you just document those and take those down and email her? Would that be appropriate or not?

If there are follow-up questions, if you wanted to send them to me, and then I can work with Sonia to get those addressed to the Commission. If you wanted to send your questions to me, we can follow up on those.

Thanks, Guido.

Do you have any other questions?

I think Mike was first.

I'm going to give you the softball questions here only because I didn't hear your annual ridership. I've got you at, you said 168,610. I did not catch the year.

The annual ridership was for 2025.

Was that also true for the projected growth? No, it wouldn't be true that you said 207,595 projected growth. What year was that for?

It's expected in 2031.

And then again, CSUMB ridership, I'm going to guess that's 2025, the 104,405.

I'm going to assume that because they did not give me a date. The annual ridership is the only one that gave me the date and the expected projected growth. They gave me 2031. Okay.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you for coming today and thank you for letting us put you on the spot on numbers because that's always a game. And we know that you're not necessarily yet, but you just became the convenient target. So thank you.

I was glad I was able to get the numbers for what I was asking advance. And like I said, I'm sure we are more than happy to provide you with the information.

it's a hard it's a hard thing and everybody's asking about it and we've had there's obviously a contentious project still floats around here uh that said i have no questions on ridership actually all of my questions deal with title six because i figured well that's probably more up your lane than numbers um so my first question is um currently within our limited english population um I'm assuming that that wouldn't necessarily call it limited English population because we have English and Spanish as two permanent ones. Do we support Hmong? What other languages does MST support?

Well, we have the ability to support all the languages. For our safe harbor languages, we have two, Spanish and Tagalog. But if there are individuals that speak other languages and they are requesting, we utilize LanguageLine if we need interpreters. And if we need any translations for individuals, they are more than welcome to come and ask us.

That is very fortunate to have LanguageLine headquartered in Ryan Ranch. Yes. We are probably one of the few communities in the country that has such a wealth of experience there. I mean, MPUSD uses them too for conversion testing.

Yeah, our coach operators, they carry the flyer that Language Line gives you that lists all the languages. So individuals, we also have cards that they can give to the public. So it has the number to call customer service so that they can reach out to customer service if they need assistance as well.

Okay. I was curious at where it's sort of, like on California Alliance for Health, Tagalog is not primary, but they do support Hmong, interestingly enough, across the county. Understand both, understand why it's there. But to me, actually supporting both is there. Next question I kind of have is, How do you, I guess part of it you just answered, which is the drivers all have the capability and have FAQs in cars they pass out. What other outreach programs do you currently run right now to support the community overall to reach our minority and low-income communities?

Well, our customer service representatives are involved in a lot of community outreach. They are all over the county. In fact, within the public participation plan, it lists activities that we have participated in. For the past three years. So there are a lot of activities that are listed in here. That's another thing. Anytime that we're doing like with the surf, we put information out to the public to make sure on a regular basis that they know what's going on. We're doing a study for the Salinas, a new Salinas location. We're getting that word out to the public with regard to that as well. So whenever we're involved in all these things, we're getting that information out to the public because we want them to participate in those activities.

So would it be, not to put words in your mouth, would it be fair to assume that you and your office then sit on the majority of the regular project planning kind of teams that exist at MST to ensure that that is always integrated in a positive manner? Or is it more, now I'm just curious, is it more, oh, sometimes you have to reach out and remind them that you exist?

No, we work well, we all work well together. It is a collaborative, so when there are things going on, I get the information about what's happening and where we are, and we have regular check-ins.

um kind of building on community let's see underrepresented shaping um so if if a writer i think maybe maybe that's it maybe it's just i know it's in the presentation of the points of contact but when a writer if a writer has a an issue um that's a title six related kind of discrimination complaint or any issue for that matter how do how would they especially if it's our a non-english speaking audience how would they what's the methodology to ensure that they can easily access you and the MST kind of customer service process?

They can either go at one of the stations to one of the customer service representatives. They can call the 1-800-1888 number, and they will get a customer service representative as well. And I do see the ones that are – Related to Title VI, they get forwarded to me, so I'm able to then touch bases with those individuals to look into what their complaint is with Title VI or EEO. I would handle any of those. So, yes, and that information is posted everywhere.

I see. I guess more. To me, they make sense because I'm working in tech. They make sense to me, but I know for a lot of our community, especially newer residents to our region or to our country, won't necessarily have those ideas, but when something comes up, we want them to be able to reach on that. I mean, it's the same thing in the city here in the point, which is how do we how do we ensure equitable coverage across all of our citizens, whether it's Marina or Monterey as a whole. I guess my last question is from a plan update, and I know we've got the public plan right now, participation. How often, I mean, this is a major update rewrite. And so we always, I mean, in city, Marina, and planning committee, we have it too. We have the general plan, vitalization. We have multiple things that have major rewrites on it. How do you handle the in-betweens? So like the annual ones. You don't annually go through and update this whole plan. How do you ensure that you keep relevant and keep that updated with all the changes that are coming out at a national and state level?

Well, especially now, since there are changes that are going on, I wait all the time. I check all sources to see because we look for guidance because there are changes and some things you anticipate, but nothing's been said about it. So you just it's a sit and wait approach to see what guidance comes from that. But we do take a look to see. I take a look to make sure that, as you mentioned, about communicating with the other departments that are going out and doing the outreach to ensure that we're continuing to do that outreach. Checking even as far as checking buses to make sure that we have information related to filing the Title VI notices, make sure they're all posted and getting out there. And so I do look at the plan to make sure that everything is still – As specific as it is, it's not so specific that it typically doesn't apply because what doesn't change is the source, you know, looking at the demographics. Now, the demographics may change a bit. And so we would take a look at that. And obviously, as I said, even those languages where they're not a part of the safe harbor, if someone were to request a translation or interpretation, it's available to them.

last question because i i take they they know this you just get the benefit of me always asking lots of questions is if you had to kind of if you looked at standing here in front of the city of marina right now what what is it that we the city of marina can do and what is or what is your biggest challenge that you come across that affects the ridership across communities but specifically that affects marina that you that really we could engage on as a city to to help make the customer experience better yeah it's like a job interview question what could the city marina do to help improve right what is your biggest what is tell me what is like your your biggest challenge maybe well we will not limit it to marina

To me, I think it's just making sure that we get the word out that the office does exist and that if they do have concerns, that they should reach out to us so that we can assist them with whatever it is. I may not be the right person, but I can find out who would be the right person. So we just want to make sure that our customers know that they can reach out to MST if ever they have any questions. And we're there for them, whether it be how to get to where they need to go, if they have issues with one of our employees, if they have issues with somebody else on the bus. to notify the coach operator, who will sometimes notify operations supervisor, or they will let them know, give them a number to contact customer service, you know, because what I don't want is customers feeling like we were unresponsive to their needs.

Okay. I thought that was my last question, but it's not. My last question. Now I'll put my engineer side back on. From a kind of performance indicator perspective, what is the planned turnaround time that you have when a complaint comes in on first contact back with the customer versus follow-up? Follow-up can always be short-term or long-term based on the complexity, but that first chance of getting back to the customer, what is it that you shoot for?

Depending on the time of day that I get that complaint from customer service or from the individual, I like to reach out to them as soon as I receive it because it's important that I get the information while it's fresh on their minds because I want to make sure that I get all of the information that I can that's going to assist me. and looking into that. So that is my goal. So if customer service sends me a complaint from a customer in the morning, I'm reaching out to them shortly after that to see if hopefully I can resolve it as quickly as possible.

Okay. I appreciate that. I appreciate that answer. What I would suggest on the back end of that is that if that is a metric that you're kind of keeping with your department, that maybe put that out there into the public plan to let the public know that, hey, when you respond to it, there is a response that we try to respond to you within a business day. um or whatever whatever the criteria is that way the public has an idea of what you think of course that puts a restriction on you but um at the same time at least it gives them an idea of what the response of what you're going to try to respond against yeah sometimes it takes a little longer because depending upon the incident oh no i i try to make the phone call i only say this because sometimes it may be something i need to take a look at a video first

Um, before I talk to them and I want to make sure that I know I'm able to see what happens. So then when I talk to them, I have a frame of reference. So, cause it's sometimes when it's hard, when you're talking to the customer and they're telling you a scenario, but you don't really know what happened. So when you, when I know what happened, I'm able to go to them and they'll tell me, well, this is what happened, et cetera. And I've been able to look at the video. Sometimes it takes a little longer to get the video. I talked to the person first. It really just depends.

Oh, no, and I completely get it.

Yeah, no, but I hear what you're saying.

Our team run customer service, I think, for some of their work. I deal with Medicare and Medicare. So I deal, our teams on the back end, not mine specifically, we deal with a lot of questions. come through. So I think just kind of however you decide to frame it, it's just framing it so that the public knows that we would like to respond within 24 hours, but due to the complexity, sometimes it may take us a couple more days to review it, to however you want to phrase it, so that the public just knows that we are trying to be responsive and we're trying to get back to you. It circles back to the original questions from the rest of the commission on the numbers that a challenge that we have had in the past at times, uh, us and other, other public groups and communities and cities has been getting a little more clarity on transparency on the numbers of ridership and where they're documented to, which just leads to mistrust. And it may be that it's not there or the number doesn't exist or it's not framed the right way, but that side of it where you come in and you're like, Oh, I've already researched it. And you bring that, that you, uh, Like, okay, you're bringing a different side of the equation tonight than other MST folks have brought to other meetings and events that I've sat in on over the last three to four years. So I appreciate your time, and I appreciate you putting up with my questions. That's all I have, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you much, Chair. Any other questions?

Chair, can I ask another question?

Oh, Commissioner Chang?

Yes.

Do you have a follow-up?

Yeah. Is it okay?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Thank you for coming here and presenting this MST public participation plan. I feel if you want the public input, I think you have to give more information to the public. I don't mean to dig into the numbers, and I think it's very important for the public to know, and especially on performance analysis, and still just give them the numbers, but there's no performance analysis, for example, the route utilizations. If you could include all this information into the package, I think people were able to see. And the route utilization is very important. For example, the average passenger per trip's identity, identified demands, the peak load factors, the off-peak utilizations, the weekend ridership, evening ridership, for example. And all this information, when the public see it, they're able to see how the route are being utilized and that will help and i know the CERB program is very premature to talk about it but i just feel maybe when it completed and it's good to have those information that i was asking that's all i have to say thank you thank you commissioner shank

Sonia, thank you very much for your presentation, and it was enlightening on the Title VI scope and how MST is approaching that. Anyway, this was very knowledgeable for us, and thank you for coming.

Thank you for having me.

Okay, we're going to move on to

We didn't have minutes from the study session, correct? But we should have had meeting minutes from the last meeting before.

We did have, we do have, and that's coming up very shortly on the agenda. Okay. Okay. So right now, the next item is if any of the commissioners have had ex parte communications, especially for our public hearing this evening related to that topic, now we need to hear from you. nothing okay that's good so next item is the approval of the minutes from our last meeting so

Chair, I make a motion to approve the minutes as written.

Yeah, that would be the meeting of July 20. July 9th. 9th.

Okay.

Do we have a second? Commissioner Reina seconded.

Vice Chair Woodson?

Yes.

Commissioner Barron, Commissioner Rana, Chair St. John, Commissioner Simmons.

Yes.

Commissioner Chang.

Yes.

Motion passes. Thank you.

The next item is public hearings on...

Hold on for a minute. Actually, Guido, since I wasn't there at that meeting, even though I went back and looked at it, can we change my vote to abstain, please?

um you are allowed to vote on minutes even if yeah but yeah um i mean technically you're supposed to revote the motion unless that if the commission's okay with that we can just take out his vote as a abstention i just i wasn't there i just wanted the last meeting i just want to change it to abstain versus vote yes i'm fine with that as long as the chair and the commission are okay with that you're okay technically you're supposed to revoke just say yes be the opposite

Yes.

All right. They don't quite get it. Just leave it yes. Just leave it yes the way it is.

The minutes were included in your package. You've reviewed them. If you have not reviewed them, then maybe it's appropriate that you say. So if you want to be honest.

We don't just leave it the way it is. It's fine.

I understood. All right. Public hearing. The first would be the presentation from staff on short-term rental issues, amendments.

Thank you, Chair. And hello, Commissioners. My name is Brian Kim. I'm the Assistant Planner. Tonight I'll be presenting on the short-term rental amendments. Next slide, please. So on May 19th, 2026, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2605, amending Section 1742.170, short-term rentals. And this was a very long process, and I'm sure all the commissioners remember. But if you don't, some of the key changes, but not all of the changes, they included 50 permit cap, maximum of 189 rentals, rental days. Parcels with ADUs and JADUs are prohibited, except the ones that are pre-2020. There's also a 55-foot zone of exclusion But this prohibition was deferred for existing permit holders until June 30th, 2027. Additional primary residence requirements were added, including homeowner exemption requirement. And there was also a requirement for a nuisance plan. Next slide, please. So we're here today because on June 3rd, 2026, the Monterey County Superior Court issued a tentative ruling in Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance v. County of Monterey, which tentative ruling holds the potential to impact regulations related to STRs. As recently adopted by Marina City Council, the subject case concerned a Monterey County ordinance whose home state category required an STR to be titled property owners, personal residents with no comparable pathway available for non-owner occupied properties in that category. The court found that that particular feature of the county's ordinance standing alone raised concerns under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution. So as a measure of precaution, we are here today amending two definitions of STR owner and primary residence. Next slide, please. Additionally, following the adoption of the ordinance, staff received many inquiries and complaints from former STR permit holders. The complaints included concerns regarding the prohibitions on parcels with ADUs and JADUs. Staff recommends maintaining this prohibition. As mentioned in previous meetings, ADUs and JADUs are intended to provide housing opportunities And staff is asking direction from the Commission regarding this prohibition. So if it's retained, should the prohibition for the STRs on site with ADUs and JADUs begin immediately or deferred until June 2027? That is to ask. Next slide, please. Additionally, permit holders also indicated the requirement was too soon after the adoption of the ordinance. Because the ordinance was adopted on May 19th, it became effective 30 days later, which is June 19th, and with the renewal date ending June 30th. A lot of the permit holders didn't have adequate time to renew, so there were some concerns regarding that. So the ask for the commission is, does the commission support a 90-day implementation period following the final approval before enforcement began, or should it be immediate? Next slide, please. So we received some questions from the commissioners. The first one was that the staff consult with our legal representative regarding the proposal. And the answer is yes. And then the second question was regarding the deferment of the issue of the ADU provision and the implementation of the ordinance. Will the deferment apply to the single provision or to an entire ordinance? and how to clarify this in the motion. And to answer that, it will just be this provision. And we have also clarified in the motion. Next slide, please. So another question were, how many STR applications in Marina since 2020 have involved properties with ADUs? And here's a chart of the years. As you can see, there was a big jump in fiscal year 2024 and 25, jumping from three to nine. And that pattern also happened the following year, jumping from nine to 13. Next slide, please. So another question we got was to balance the important public objectives, preserving long-term housing and supporting Moreno's tourism economy. And the commissioner recommended providing a performance report with the following categories and various statistics. And because the ordinance is to be reviewed after three years after its adoption, at the time staff will bring these requested statistics and performance measures. Next slide, please. So staff also receive public correspondence regarding the reconsideration of the 100 night STR cap. As mentioned in previous meetings, this 180-night limitation was intended to support owner-occupied STRs. If the homeowner's exemption were to be removed today, primary residence will be harder to verify, and removing this 180-night cap will allow STRs to operate year-round and not be able to verify whether people live on properties. Next slide, please. And here's the recommended motion, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Brian.

Okay. At this time, we will open it up to commissioners for comments and questions to staff. So I have Commissioner Simmons.

Just a few questions here, I hope. So first of all, I'm going to kind of work backwards here, I think. 180 nights, I'm curious as to why that number was selected when I'm looking at the list, and it doesn't seem to be anything more. Brian, I thought I heard you say something

why and and i quickly so uh when we deliberated on this issue as the planning commission the idea was that um somebody should live on the property and that for no more than half the year it should be rented out and the primary purpose was to ensure that the ordinance was not making these properties into full-scale commercial developments but that somebody is has boots on the ground for at least half the year so that's the general idea um okay i understand that by prohibiting um homes with adus or because was it uh or junior adus um

That would kind of well, it might not be fair to the other homes though, because they would kind of answer that question is a property. I think that somebody with boots on the ground are there, but somebody. It still has a facility to rent though. I do have an issue with that. I see there's a significant jump over the years on those, and it kind of appears to me that that jump is, they're seeing this as an ADU is initially to provide housing that's more affordable, inclusionary to the public, but this is now being used as an attempt to run a business. I don't think that's, you know... ADUs are much easier to build than a home, permit-wise and everything. So I don't see that as a fair play for the rest of the community. The 55-foot zone, again, just curious where that came from.

Um, so once again, that came through the deliberation with the commission council, and the idea was the direction from the council was to do our best to protect the neighborhoods. And so if you have an over concentration and 1 call to sack or 1 neighborhood that kind of defeats that purpose. So if you have one, you have a buffer zone around that you could generally support the STR permit holder, but not have a high concentration.

So what I would also add to that was, let me make a point of order on for consideration. of the commissioners there if we drive draw the four corners of the issue for tonight the first is the definition revisions that are recommended by legal and by staff to bring our our str regulation into more closely into compliance with the county judge's latest uh determination on property ownership and title so we have to fix our definition so that's one of the corners another is the issue of short-term rentals whether that provision that's in our codified STR item, that provision goes into effect immediately or if it should go into effect as another provision in June of 2027. or anything else, like a 90-day after. So we are not here tonight to re-litigate the entire STR program. We've done that, and the next opportunity is whenever it hits back onto the agenda.

Okay, then I guess we do not want to look at the questions that have come in from the public, then, is what you're saying?

Well, we can, but... That's what I'm doing. Okay, but not with the intent of re-evaluating the, we can explain to the public why.

I think that's what just happened.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

a vice chair if you kind of come back to the the 50 feet 55 feet is that we looked at it and at the time um so there are two there are two issues number one center mass Um, which is generally a radius that's how we generally calculate the distances and then what we looked at and said was, well, that's not realistic because it's really kind of more of a bubble. Based and we looked off of the 4 corners of the property and then the 2nd assumption that we made when we were discussing this. And I thought you were part of it at 1 point. Maybe not was, um, that. The 50 feet was looking at kind of the average frontage. And average road with. On properties, if there's a sidewalk across the street. So that the idea was that you would at a minimum at a minimum, you would create a checkerboard type of pattern if you wanted to have multiple so that you weren't just having next to each other or directly across the street from each other. And so we had to set some type of limit and we looked at the 50 feet. to 55 feet and it's about just kind of a mathematical if we if we make it about 55 feet that in almost every case across the city is going to ensure that we don't get residents next door to each other thank you okay vice chair woodson you're like his own yes okay um so um I'll come back after we have public comment and provide more kind of commentary on this. But what I will say is I generally agree that I think we should answer the questions from the public. At the same time, I do agree with the chair that we have spent Arguably, if we add it all up between the planning commission, the city council, the planning staff, the time for now, 5 different meetings, um, we have spent. Probably 3 to 400 hours discussing this amendment on an update and it's gone all the way to the city council and technically. this would not have been even coming before us tonight had it not been for a timing a coincidental timing issue that there was a court case that came out in between the time that the city council approved the final str based on our recommendations and then their discussion and updates and requirements and when it actually just went to get staffed for execution As a result, it made sense to adjust the main item, which was the legal case. The rest of it we can talk about. I am generally in concurrence that I am not necessarily willing or desirous of reopening a very long, very involved process where we had lots of public comment. to tailor and update our adu amendment and if we do make changes if we want to make changes on those side of it i would rather wait a year for the next update before we look at realigning a lot of the core policies that we've created and spent a lot of time on this council on this commission and at the council adjusting to try to make it equitable for everybody. So I think at a high level, that's my process. My question that I have is, I think my biggest one is, from a fairness perspective, when we discussed this previously on implementation of the ADU part, We initially discussed this in January or February. I think at the time the idea was June 30th is the annual date when the fiscal year starts in California. So that July 1st was the date of implementation. Just because of timing, um of when it went through planning commission with the council when it went back just the negotiation process of creating updating legislation in this in the city that we we got within 45 days of july 1st by the time it was all approved and so i sympathize and i empathize with anybody who is affected by the changes that were made and i think from my perspective I mean, whether it's the implementation, I'm in favor of postponing that, whatever the dateline. I mean, I'm to me at 180 days because I think some people may have to make some significant changes in their properties and what they're doing and in the market and everything else that's going on. if I even put it into the worst case, that somebody was forced to eventually have to sell one of their properties. I'm not saying that that's there, but if they had to make that decision, they would have to get it up for sale. They'd have to get it prepped. They'd have to get it... All the stuff that goes with selling a property. And I think that could take easily... having literally just gone through that in one of my properties, my house in North Carolina, it took four months from start to finish. We tried to do it quicker, but it took four months to get through the entire process to get it ready to list. And so I think that from an implementation on the ADU portion of it, having a at 180 days for that to me is reasonable. I even wouldn't, I'd even willing to give them just a year and say it's there, but 180 days. And then on the full fledged, I would, I would support the 90 days, but I almost, again, think moving that to 120 days is a little more, I mean, that gives a third of a year. I think that becomes a little more fair to some of the STR owners who, may not be positively impacted by the changes that have been approved by the city council. And again, what we're asking to be done today is what the city council approved with really an amendment change based on the legal certification, which I believe is the right decision. Because if that had been made three weeks prior, it would have gone before the planning commission. We would have said, sure, let's make that change to your compliance with that. And then that would have gone to the city council. And I believe in their conversations, they would have approved this also. And I think that we have an obligation as the planning commission here, because this is not something that's going to go back towards the city council. that we have to understand the intent and context of what the city council approved for for the str update and we have to keep that in mind and try to implement exactly as close as possible to what they approved back in may all right that's it that's that's my comment right now thank you yeah thank you vice chair woodson commissioner rata

Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions on the analysis part of the staff report. When we say the recommended revisions, residency-based eligibility, long-term leaseholders, long-term, how long is the condition?

I think the verbiage says, let me just read it. a lease or rental agreement that it doesn't specify so can we add some duration or um we could i'd have to ask our deputy city attorney if that's consistent with the court ruling or not but um so okay i i i can weigh in if you want or i we can wait until you've asked all your questions commissioner

The next one is that the property tax exemption document is not required for the approval, but the long-term lease requirement with eligibility to sub-lease will be included as a document.

Once again, I'd have to defer to our deputy city attorney.

Yes, like I said, I can weigh in now or I can wait till you finish with your questions, whatever you prefer.

Okay. The next one is that 90 days pause suggested is based on consideration of DECA technologies to create the portal. If it is done earlier, so this 90 days pause may not be necessary so they can start the implementation even before that.

Yes, that's true.

Thank you. That's all I have.

okay let's get the comments from legal sure so i think the first question was um we add something about how long the lease agreement has to be um So first, the intent of that addition is to, as you've all understood by now, bring our ordinance into compliance with what the court cases and most recently the Monterey County Superior Court case say. The idea, in case it isn't clear to anybody, is that the court found that a requirement that STR owners live in the home as their primary residence unduly restricts interstate commerce, because by definition, someone who resides outside the state could not live in the home. And you might say, well, that restriction applies to someone who lives elsewhere in California as well. So is it really discriminatory to interstate commerce? And the court nonetheless has found that it is. So we are simply complying with the court's analysis. That court and another court have said that by allowing long-term renters to STR the owner's property when the owner lives out of state, you're therefore, thereby leveling the playing field, right? Because now someone who lives in say Vermont can rent out their home short-term in Marina because they have a long-term renter who lives in the property. So it depends on what the commission considers someone, you know, living in the property as a primary residence being, like how many days that is. I think Guido, a few minutes ago, referred to half the year being the threshold for primary residence. So I think if you wanted to be explicit about that, you could say that in the ordinance. Right now, I think it's sort of implied. But yeah, it means you have a long-term renter who uses that as their home, right? The place they return to on a regular basis. Hopefully that answers the first question. The second question I think referred to the homeowner's exemption. So we removed that because one of the cases specifically found that that was unconstitutional because when that document was required, it effectively meant that the homeowner had to live there. So all of a sudden you have the same problem I just described, right? Someone who lives in Vermont cannot get a homeowner's exemption for a home they don't live in in California. So we just struck that. They still have to show two other forms of proof from the listed menu that they live in the home. So we just didn't think the home exemption was required. We could put it back in if you wanted to as one of many options, but we can't require it. The long-term lease, which I think you sort of contrasted with the homeowner's exemption, that's different because it's not requiring that the owner live in the home. It's requiring that a renter live in the home. So we're comfortable with these changes. And I guess if the commission wanted to further define them, that's up to the commission.

One subsequent question.

that for a long-term lease, somebody has sublet the accommodation for STR. And the person is in violation of some of the provisions of STR and gets the notice from the city. Does that become a ground for the property owner to annul or cancel the lease on which is the contract between the renter and the owner.

uh i i can't speak to tenant landlord stuff uh but i can speak to the commission and council did add a provision that if you are in violation of the ordinance and it's a you know documented justified violation that the ordinance has written does allow us to kick somebody off the str program for up to two years but in terms of how that affects somebody's lease with the property owner i can't really speak to that so yeah and the uh if i made the um

I believe the ordinance, it makes a long-term tenant, if they're the one that is renting out the property short-term, it makes them the responsible party for the violations. And so the city would pursue the permanent occupant of the property, whether it's the owner or the long-term renter as the responsible party, whatever civil dispute that may give rise to between the landlord and the long-term tenant, as Guido said, is sort of not the city's business.

Thank you.

I've got a follow-up to that with the attorney. If I understood you correctly, so if the lease, what the leasee violates is does an STR and violates one of the policies and the city decides to take away their permit. Okay. Does that open the door, I suppose, to all of a sudden if they had a spouse or somebody living in the home that all of a sudden becomes the tenant? So you've got a new tenant and now they can open up the permit portal and try to get a permit under that. Or would the permit, if it was revoked, would it be against that particular parcel or address?

it would be for the property okay so that that eliminates that okay thank you is there any other follow-up questions from the commissioners at this time because i'm going to reopen it to commissioners chair raise my hand mr commissioner chang please thank you i didn't see your light

I should be there. My question is to Brian. Could you show us the last slide you show about the ADU permit that have been increased? The number of ADU, yeah. 24, 25 is 9, and 25, 26, 13. Are you planning to set a cap on this permit?

So the commission and council voted to put no more than 50 SDR permits for the whole city. So that's what got voted on. That's what's in the ordinance.

Oh, yes, we voted. Okay. My question is why 15? I think since we voted, then it's done. And the other question is about the consultant DECO technology that... you know, the city council director start to contract with DACA technology to streamline the permitting process. Is it possible that DACA technology to provide, also prepare information for the city, the Airbnb listing and the VRBO listing and occupancy permit and also the TOT compliance.

Yes, once we get the portal up and running, we'll have a lot more detailed metadata. We don't have that for you at this time, but yes, that's part of bringing DECR technology on board.

And the other question is on the STR, other than paying the permit fee, do they also have to pay the TOT?

Yes, and that's part of the advantage of bringing a separate firm that data mines all the sites. They will help us with enforcement, ensuring that the TOT is properly paid for, which right now it's a little bit of a manual labor exercise by staff.

And one more question. Am I right to say the ordinance currently prohibits STRs in ADU and JADU approved on or after January 1st, 2020? That's correct. So how many assisting ADU would actually be affected with this amendment?

Well, I think the chart just showed there were 13 last year.

All right. And there will be an extension to January 30, 2027. Is that correct?

That's what the commission voted on. So or providing a recommendation is. Does that does the commission want to recommend to the council that that provision take effect immediately or to give some relief to former STR permit holders that that that provision kicks in on June 30th of 2027?

Okay. And how many of the ADUs are currently occupied as SDR versus sitting vacants? I'm not sure what he's asking. No. How many of these ADUs are currently occupied as SDR?

Okay, so once again, there's a distinction that the ADU should not be used as an STR for the ADUs built after 2020. That's state law. The provision that got added said, if you have an ADU on your property, you shouldn't have an STR permit for the whole property. So that's the distinction.

So those who have the ADU after January 1, 2020 will be affected. They basically invested on ADU and they cannot use it for SDR. Am I right to say?

Right.

And how many of these cases we have right now?

I think the chart once again showed there were 13 from last year.

Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. That's all I had.

Thank you, Commissioner Chang.

Chair, if I may ask a question?

Yes. Yes, go ahead.

I apologize for not noticing this earlier, but it just occurred to me that Commissioner Chang is joining remotely, and I don't see his location on the agenda.

So we need to... His address is on the packet. He's in Chicago right now.

Okay.

He's on the agenda.

Got it. It's on the agenda. I see it there. I see it there. Okay. Thank you so much. Sorry. No problem.

Okay, no cookies for you today.

Hey, so at this time, we'll open the floor to public comments on this issue. If you'll turn the microphone on, give your name, and we will limit the comment time to three minutes.

Sure, no worries. I'm Sean McDonald, Marina resident, a long-time educator in the community. I have a vacation or a short-term rental permit and participated in this conversation with you all. number of times and I mostly just want to comment and thank the Commission for the work that you've done to work on this very important subject matter for us and our family and obviously there was a lot of meetings and then it went to City Council and the the result for us was not ideal but we appreciate how thoughtful all of you were I'm not asking for anything to change I think the the relevant legal matter is really of the substance that um should be discussed uh diving deeper into it after having done that not just this time but going back to 2018 2019 um when i came before commission and city council on the same issue um it's probably not the best idea um for our family, for other families that are involved. So we just appreciate and understand why this has come to commission again so quickly after. And thank you again for your work. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. Everyone. My name is and I'm Marina resident. I just respectfully ask the council if they can do the grandfather existing permit in a new ordinance only to the future. Uh, my, like, I'm talking about mine that was already exists when I purchased my home. just a couple of years ago and I did not build anything. The only thing that I just legalized from the good faith that I just make the paper right and it looks like I feel like I get punished to just go and I just choose to do the right thing by legalizing it and obtain the permit. So we made a significant financial investment based on the CDA loans and changing those loans or place unfair burden on our family and then we acted in a good faith. As an immigrant, we work hard, my husband and I, to just achieve to get a home ownership. And this home represents years of sacrifice, hard work, and all the financial responsibility. We love our home and we want to remain in Marina. So losing this income could maybe affect us badly. And we cannot afford the mortgage. So there are only a handful of permits that ADUs short rental in Marina. And eliminating them will not have a little effect on the city. but it will have a major impact on the families who own them. And I'm like, my family is one of them. If the city wants to change the policy, please apply to the new permit. Just at least give the people heads up that if you want to do ADU, you cannot do that. But after the fact that we invest on the home, that is, it really will affect us. And short-term rental, just the gas that supports marina economy, they stayed in our home. And they spend money throughout the city at the restaurant and the coffee shop and grocery gas station and retail store and all the local attractions that visits or help support local business and. Generate tax revenue for the city as well, so it's kind of 1, 1 situation. So we're not asking to a special treatment, we're just asking for a fair solution that protects existing permitted operator while allowing the city to implement new policies for the future properties. At least consider the human impact of this decision. Behind every permit is a family that trusted the city's process, followed the rules and invested on the community and simply wants the opportunity to keep the home that they worked so hard to achieve. My last comment on the 2020, the cutoff date is unfair for the homeowner for purchase after 2020. So home prices is increasing significantly after 2020, meaning that many of paid substantial more money and invest on this home and the mortgage. At the same time, for our home and mortgage, the homeowner who purchased it after 2020, they have already had years of opportunity to benefit from the SDR, had years of opportunity to, so based on the purchase, creating eligibility based on just on the purchase date, it's unfair.

um for my opinion so it's favor group of home homeowner unfairly favors through both others and thank you thanks for hearing just just a quick clarification if i may yeah is your if your str your primary residence or an adu associated with your residence

Yeah, the ADU, it was when I purchased the home, they called it garage or carport. They name it differently. Okay. But they already has the bathroom. It has everything in there. What I did is I just follow the city guidance by just make that right by just put the paper on.

Okay.

So which affects my main house that I'm using it as STR.

Right. So just stay there for just a second. Guido. Do you know when the piece of your property, which now we're calling an ADU or perhaps a JADU, which I guess depends upon how many square footage, whether it's J or not, or just the standard AU, was it built before?

2016. It was built in 2016.

So is the 2016 January 2020 provision related to ownership or building?

I'm not sure what you're asking, Chair.

Okay. If her ADU existed prior to January 2020, even though she was not the owner, but the property was ADU'd in 2016,

Yeah, well, my understanding, I don't know if we want to get into the specifics of your, my understanding is it wasn't fully made into an ADU.

Carpool, garage, and they have all the city records that they have the permitted bathroom and kitchen, everything gets on the city with a permit, but we did not name it ADU.

Well, I think, yeah. Okay, so I think you need to discuss that with the city. Because I don't think we will change anything because it's an argument on whether or not your ADU existed prior to the cutoff date. Right, yeah.

Yeah, it's probably best if we help you for your fact specific, because I think the goal today is to adopt an ordinance that kind of is a universal rule, and we would have to make a specific determination about the specifics of your property. So today, I'm glad to help you, and I give you my card, but today is really about the overall SGR ordinance. Thank you very much.

Next, please.

Good evening, everybody. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today. Thank you for being willing to reopen the discussion. I basically stand before you today just not to oppose the direction or to weaken the ordinance. I support protecting our neighborhoods and holding the bad actors accountable. But I'm simply here to ask to consider a small number of homeowners whose situations represented unintended consequences uh in this ordinance like myself my name is mina i live and i work locally i'm a pharmacist work locally here at cvs when i purchased my home i purchased it and i immediately moved into it it's been my primary resident and it's the only uh basically my only primary residence or my only the place where i live And then on 2024, I obtained every requirement permit and legal to convert my garage into a that costed me 120,000 dollars combined with all the mortgages, which actually now comes up to 7 grants a month that I have to. basically take care of. With a highly paying job, I'm barely staying afloat. So my junior EDU, and that's my point, my junior EDU has never been used as a short-term rental. And let's just make that clear. It's never been, and it will never be. But the one point that I respectfully struggle with is How does having a long-term tenant in a legally permitted junior EDU while occasionally renting my primary resident as short-term rental half of the year like you folks are suggesting, how does that change it to commercial lodging operation? And the other question is, Or the other point is, if I am renting my junior as a long term unit. I believe that that serves the city. Intention for housing, and I'm increasing and I'm contributing to the stock housing stock. So why. just because I relied on the regulations and the rules that existed and they were legally, why does that now get or cause me to be taken for my short term permit to be taken away from me when all I did is I basically just complied with the city. My property is basically exactly doing what the city intended, adding a long term housing while helping me basically meet my financial obligation. I understand the city is after the bad players, which I support and I would like for the process to be really fair. I would like to comply with what the city has in mind. Another question is that why does this policy need to reach back to 2020? What's the significance and the rationale behind that? People in the cut off time, people that built that bought the houses that did everything before 2020 about it when it was cheap, lower interest rates. Now, what I did personally, my situation in 2024 was the complete opposite. So I feel like I'm getting penalized. for doing something legally where actually i do live in the house it's my primary residence and i'm also having a hard time understanding how could we allow somebody that lives far away that has a long-term rental inside of the house the short-term rental the house when i'm not allowed to just because i built an edu that is permitted if that makes sense um i'm sorry um okay had i i'm sorry the last part i i i'm sorry i may not have a chance i understand yeah i'm sorry i may not have a chance to do that and like i said i'm not opposed to the ordinance uh but i really would like you guys to uh um just consider that had i known that i would have invested my money somewhere else for that and again i didn't invest it To be short term, but I planned on it and I support my family. I'm a highly paid paying, have a highly paying job and I can barely flow because you would imagine to pay $7,000 a month, you would have to come home with a lot, a lot, a lot more than that. And I don't, and I don't have a chance to get another job because I do a lot of, I'm sorry, but you're over the three minutes.

So.

it's up to the chair if he wants to have i just i i'm sorry i may not have a chance to talk to you guys again and i appreciate it it's up to you if you'd like to let me i think i'm i'm fairly done but it's i think it's just a valid point of why does that get taken away from me um when i'm doing everything really legally and i i consent to that and i you know you're allowing somebody that lives far away to short the long-term.

Let me see if I can shorten it to my understanding. Please. Is that your situation is that you have a JADU on your property. Yes. And your property is your primary residence and you live there. Yes. And your JADU

has nothing to do with short-term rental absolutely not you're renting out another piece of your home site yes you're a room or two or whatever yes exactly and that's my uh the only point i'm not here to oppose it i'm not here to i know they're doing a great job you folks have discussed it but i'm just really having a hard time and i feel like i'm being crushed and getting getting crushed under the weight of this ordinance for doing absolutely nothing

matter of fact for doing something legally um right okay so i understand your your laundry yes and trying to understand why it happened so that's our

Our job, yes, so thank you then for your may I thank you appreciate the only thing that I would just add is if you would be kind enough to at least look into that specific point of maybe grandfathering and the people that are. Again, not bad violators, not bad players, but people that are honest acted in good faith. that are just basically trying to stay afloat and doing by doing everything legally if you can grandfather then just like it happened to the people that built it before 2020 i don't see a point of making it you know creating two different treatments to people when we can just make it fair for everybody um and anyway yeah we'll take it under advisement thank you appreciate it thank you

Chair, Vice Chair, Brian McCarthy, speaking as a resident. I spoke to someone the other day that said oftentimes it's just better not to speak at all because things tend to get confused. So I just want to be clear that I'm super supportive of staff's recommendation today. The comments that I'm about to make are more kind of just Thanks for you to consider, I think, because I think there's a lot of misinformation and maybe confusion about some of the different situations that are happening. Just to kind of uplift what the previous speaker was saying, another way to think about kind of what I think he was saying is that each one of you can short-term rental your residence right now, assuming you either have a long-term lease and are allowed or you own your home, right? if you want to add housing stock under ministerial approval by building a JADU or an ADU, all of a sudden you, all of you will no longer be able to short-term rental like a bedroom in your house as you can today. Just kind of think about whether you think that really makes sense. I don't have the answer for you. I don't want to speak for you, but that's one of the issues that I think was trying to be articulated. And I just kind of wanted to uplift that because it kind of resonates with me. Likewise, you could be in a situation like me that has a prior ministerial review ADU. So I'm allowed to short-term rental that ADU. But if I add a second ADU, JADU, again, adding housing stock, all of a sudden, which I would never do because then I would lose the ability to short-term rental my main house, short-term rental the ADU, right? Like I couldn't short-term rental anything under this law. And so just, it's a little bit confusing. I think you could rectify that if you wanted to by just simply saying, First of all, I think the date is a little bit of a misnomer because ministerial shouldn't be confused with approval of an ADU on a certain date. In theory, you could still seek approval of an ADU in a non-ministerial way if If the code in Marina allowed that or if the planning department allowed that. Right now, I don't think they support that. I don't think that's ever happened. But some cities do. They say, okay, we have this ministerial process. But also, if you want to build an ADU, let's say over the 500 feet or whatever that maximum criteria is, we're also going to keep this legacy process that goes through planning commission. Let's decision makers decide whether they want to do that. And I bring that up because just long-term, as you do the work that you do, you might want to think about that. Like, what does it mean to not have that non-ministerial review process that you kind of lost back in 2020? Again, I'm super supportive, so I'm not trying to throw a wrench into your decision-making process. I'm supportive of staff's recommendation, but there kind of really is a lot here, and some of the comments resonate with me. Again, I think in my own situation where Currently, I'm allowed a short-term rental permit. I could add more housing stock to Marina if I wanted to, but at this point, I never would because then I would lose my rights to have a short-term rental permit. And that's, for me right now in my life, that's not something that I would want to do. So something to think about. Thanks for your time, and thanks for being here tonight.

Thank you, Brian.

Anyone else from the audience? What about online greet home?

Chair St. John, we have one person who's raised their hand online.

Okay. Can you acknowledge them?

P Perez, that's the... Go ahead.

Hi, thank you, everyone. I appreciate everyone taking the time to have this as a discussion again. And I know there are very specific terms that were discussed from a legal perspective, but the 180 component is really, I think, what is difficult for my specific family, especially with the new change coming to now encompass leased properties. It really kind of puts that 180 in limbo. Although my specific property doesn't fall under the lease component. It does fall under me being a local owner. It puts the predicament of, okay, do we STR because most, leases are one year, and it really puts that kind of number in a very difficult limbo. I understand the boots on the ground. Like I said, I am a local owner. I'm local to the area. But I think a quarter of the year would still suffice, which is why I'm requesting that it be reconsidered, especially with the new legal component of now opening it up to people leasing their properties. Typically, a home is not leased for six months, but rather a year capping it at 180. I think the population that it lends to is like the big investors who can afford their house to be vacant six months. I can't afford the house to be vacant six months. So it really puts those smaller families who rely on the income to in a very difficult position. So I'm asking that to meet the city's request of boots on the ground and having someone locally or owner go and take a look at their property and not just have it swarmed by investors and not caring of the neighborhood and the area of the peninsula, but still meeting the guidelines within just one quarter. Whether it's, you know, the first quarter, the last quarter, or however the calendar gets rearranged, I think that would maybe suffice your families who rely on this income that are smaller, that are not big investors, like I said, that can afford to have their homes vacant for six months. Because ideally a home doesn't necessarily just get rented for six months out of the year on a long-term basis. But it also suffices just having it one quarter, it also suffices it know to meet the need of the city and it may not make it as difficult from a regulatory perspective um and the you know planning division to to enforce it um and you're trying to figure out you know is it 180 182 days are you at 190 are you at 170 you know just trying to kind of muddy all that out um increasing it gives a little more more cushion as well and i think would meet all all elements that in essence are important here. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, we understand.

Can I ask a question about HRSA? Yes, go ahead. When you're talking about quarter, are you then talking about 270 days of occupancy and 90 days of non-occupancy? Yes, 270 of occupancy. I just wanted to make sure that you were, that we understood what you were saying.

Yeah. 270. Cause I think your intent is to, like you said, have someone look at the home, set eyes, um, and being able to take care of the neighborhood, take care of the home. Um, but then with the new legal component that just is being discussed today of now opening it up to people, subleasing or leasing, which again is not my case. I think now. the city puts themselves in a situation where you're looking at one year leases and the reality is that that may be difficult. Just that specific number I think can become a challenge. So if it were to be increased, I think it would suffice both intentions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

Okay, at this time, We'll open back up to commissioners for further discussion.

Chair St. John, we don't normally have a lot of people attend our meetings, but in this case, you need to actually make a motion to close public comment. We should be doing that by practice, but we're fortunate to have a lot of guests here today, so we should probably formally close public comment.

So at this time, we will formally close public comment section. So now we're back to commissioners for our deliberation. Okay. Let's take this one issue at a time. The first was the definition revisions that are recommended by legal to put us into compliance with the very recent court case. Other than Commissioner Rana's wordsmithing, do we have any other recommendations for the terminology suggested by The staff on the modification to the definition.

I'm fine with the recommendation from staff.

Commissioner Rana, do you want to. Try to change the definition from staff at this time.

No change in the 2nd recommendation, you're hearing a lot of the tax exemption. and including the sub-lease document with eligibility to STRs.

Legal is very strong on eliminating the homeowner, the assessor's, tax assessor's, homeowner's exemption. So we don't want to mess, we want to go ahead and scratch that to put us in a stronger compliance position. Then what you want is the next section. Can you tell me what the words were that you're proposing?

The long term lease agreement with the authority to sublease the property to be included as a conditional.

So what it's written now is just simply a lease or rental agreement, and you want to broaden that terminology and the ability to Now this is just... How do you want to change the wording? I'm sorry. That that lease agreement must have definitive language that the leasee has the authority to sublease. Yes. Why? Why do you want to... interfere with the lease or in the leases agreement.

As a property owner, somebody might have objections that I do not want my property to be sublet.

And so you want our, you want our STR to control that.

So I got, it's already there just to be clear in, in section five. Yeah.

So that was my question. I thought we already had it written into the. That it had to be approved. And this would just extend into that, but I'm not.

Under the subsection five under STR owner and list what an owner means. It means a person individually, jointly in common and a living trust whereby the trustor or trustee are the same person whereby such property is under single or unified control under a fee interest or a leasehold interest authorized sublease.

it's already there so right so i think the overarching definition of of an owner allows for a delegation of that to do this to at least i think we've so i think under the primary definition we've already got it addressed right versus addressing it separately underneath right so i think you're covered with a question around but i mean is that when my that was the way i was reading it seth is that the primary definition includes a tenant relationship, a designated tenant relationship in the definition.

Yeah. So that's the definition of the definition of owner. That's right.

Okay. So commissioner Rana is clear in an agreement with the staff wording. Okay. Now we come to the more sticky issue on The real question in front of us is whether to accept the enforcement of a property that has a ADU right now the way our our uh short-term rental is limited to properties with adus cannot get a str permit is that correct

That's correct, unless it was built before 2020.

So do we want to get into a revision at this time of that section, or do we want to defer the enforcement of that section or the application of that section till June of 2027?

i actually was when you got started with the first part um i think one of the things that might be a little bit prudent is to take a look at some of the questions that were asked by the public here and see if we can't maybe answer at least why at this point and then come back to the ordinances uh here um I think the biggest one that I think I can address is why I think it was and forgive me if I'm saying the name wrong but Mina okay was why somebody far away you know that owns a home here why are they able to get an STR but somebody that's close to me can't live here I can't and I think Mina just answered your question and council can correct me if I'm wrong but that was the the the change the the the courts ruled that they because they're they're a tenant i guess now on that so that's uh if i am correct in that what i'm saying that's out of our hands that's that's a court decision that made that uh for it um you know

Public comment has closed. It's up to the chair to reopen it. But at this time, they're deliberating as a commission. So that's that's up to the chair and vice chair. So.

The other thing I had is from, and again, I was writing, I think it was Shireen. Did I get that name right? Can we grandfather ADU exclusions? Well, one of the things I think that needs to be understood is we don't make the ordinances here. We might rewrite recommendations for the council to go on. And I think it was well put said. by Commissioner Woodson earlier about the amount of time that was spent on this. And I was not at that time on the commission for so I was unaware. My initial comments early on were simply to be able to address some of your to know that you're being heard and address some of those questions. Now, whether we can choose, it's to try to tell the council to change, but we don't get to make that decision on that. And I think the chair did point out that today what was brought to us is just the rewrite of What we're looking at now, again, if he decides and we decide to look at everything, that's up to the chair and everybody else here, I think, on that. But anyway, I just wanted to point that that out on there. And I think Mr. Rana's question got answered about the lease long term because on that. So. At this point, that's all I really have to say.

So then when I would add in the, the reason the 2020 date. Is because that's when the state law changed on it's. It literally is, there's a clause in there in the state regulations when that. When the long literally changed, and so we are, we default back to that date is literally is a different situation. And that's why that's why it exists right wrong or indifferent. chair can if he's done can i yeah so okay yeah you have a floor it's a difficult situation that we're in right now and as i said before the challenge that we have here and i think commissioner simons again emphasized the challenge that is before us at the moment um there were some decisions that came out of the planning commission that had a different interpretation than that, that favored some of the, that treated some of the residents who had STRs differently coming out of the commission than what the city council negotiated and discussed. And they, they had a very long discussion about this themselves. And I was here, I listened to the whole thing. And I, Whether I agree or disagree with where they're at necessarily, that's their prerogative. They do set the policy guidance for the city. And we can, as Commissioner Simmons said, he can make those suggestions. And we have a lot of ability on our planning commission, but there are times when we default back to this and this would never have come back to us today if it had not been for that issue on the Monterey County side. And technically it probably didn't have to come back here. We could have just let it sit out there and then somebody could have sued us. And then the city would have had to address the lawsuit. And then we would have had to spend money on it. And then we would have been right back where we are today. So we're trying to preempt and get things right the first time. It doesn't mean that we necessarily do. With that said, I will again default to. The changes that we're making are really meant around addressing a specific item that came through the court system. That's what we're here for tonight. We have the ability to address the second issue on implementation and how we want to implement it and when we want to implement it based on changes. And there are two different ones, ADUs and then overall regulation. And I am in favor of providing number one deference to the city council because they are the elected body that represents all of us in the city. And I'm not necessarily in the mood to, or feel that it is our right to override what the city council literally voted on less than a month ago. That's just not our prerogative on the overall STR and the way that it's been rewritten. They were the ones who initiated the ask for us to relook at this. They're the ones who have provided input multiple times also. And so I think that that's there. Um, That in mind, I think that at the same time, we now have before us a very complicated problem for a limited number of our residents in the state or in the city. They have a projection of how they're going to survive pay the bills cover what they own and what they have and as i said before it could take a while to make those changes and in the case of some it's not easy it's not like it's an adu or another whole str piece of property that they own that they could just get rid of it literally is a jadu that's in their house they can't just cut the house away to something else So, what I am more leaning towards at this point is recommending that the Commission consider a stay of implementation of 270 days across the board for both implementation of ADUs and implementation of the actual follow through of the entire regulation. And it has two-fold reasons that I'm suggesting 270 days. That gives, we're already into the new fiscal year. I mean, we entered it three weeks ago. That gives time for us as a body to continue to look at this without the pressures sitting on our current STR owners to buy some time. It doesn't eliminate the stress. because there's still a deadline, but it gives us some time to actually put in place what we spent a lot of time trying to codify and correct and update based on the best intentions. It then allows the staff to take consideration some of the comments that came up tonight, some of the issues that came up during public comment tonight, and say maybe there is a constantly evolving process of strs in the state of what we're trying to achieve is there necessarily some another way to necessarily look at it and i will be honest i am not necessarily in the mood to have another two or three planning commission agenda items where we spend two or three hours discussing str there are a lot of things in the city that are there however i do respect that it's a key issue for our community And if that's what we have to do, and that's, I think the right thing to do. I think that's, I mean, overall, if I had to look at this, that's where I'm leaning towards right now is accept the wording on the first two items as is, but then change the implementation date to put us a stay on implementation to give time to, for us to consider potentially if we do want to readdress this before the end of the fiscal year into next year for 2027. And at the same time, give a little breathing space to our current STR owners who, in some cases, could be very significantly impacted in the short run right now in a very challenging economy. I don't think it's the best of both. I don't think it's a great solution for anybody because it does go somewhat against what the city council wants, but we are. It also keeps the city council's intent in context of what they wrote intact.

Okay, thank you, Vice Chair Woodson. Guido, let me get one clarification. The staff recommendation for the ADU consideration was to defer the implementation of that until June of 2027?

That's correct.

So it was.

And I'm fine with that.

Even more generous than.

It's not, but not on the full implementation of.

No.

The part. And the only. I'm fine with that. I would. I'm fine with a year. I mean.

So we're clear. The rest of the ordinance would proceed. except for the adu str provision would get stalled until june 30th 2027 which if you add 270 days to when the council is going to act on this in september that basically gets us to june 30th That gives the ADU property owners a little bit of time to amateurize the money they put into the property. But as Commissioner Woodson said, doesn't contradict what the council just voted on.

Right. And theoretically sometime in 2027,

revisions to the str can come before the planning commission again i hope not but so but it's possible it's possible i hope that we did right into the ordinance that three years after adoption we would come back to commission and council so i'm hoping we don't i mean but obviously we do what the council and commission and city manager wants us to do so okay so

can we get consensus on staff's recommendation for the deferment of str section until june 2027 the later of 270 days only because you never know if it gets hung up i'll get a possible approval i could sit there for two months and all of a sudden we get

I want to give them at least basically to June.

I respectfully, if we can just keep it to June 30th, because the permit dies every year. And if we bleed into the next year, then we have the same set of problems where, yeah, we're just, we're, we're trying to give some relief to people, but make it very clear. So we don't get into disputes with customers that that would really help out the staff. So.

Right.

Okay.

So can, I have a motion now to close this out.

There was one final piece to this that let me just pull up the motion that Brian prepared. Okay, so the first part is the base motion, which sounds like the Commission is moving towards adopting looks like the second piece, the Commission's recommending the third piece which is because we're still building out the portal and we've had issues with getting everything squared away online and to add further relief to current permit holders we were asking for does the commission want us to pause enforcement on the entire new ordinance for 90 days after final council action just to give current folks a little bit more relief and that's completely up to the commission's recommendation any

Enforcement of the complete ordinance.

Revise everything. Make sure it's all put out right. We've strung along for an extended period of year. And what I don't want to do is put us with so many other items that are going to help the staff right now. Because there are a lot of big issues coming closer. 90 days to where it just takes you to

Yeah, so we basically have the portal almost built out, and it's like within a couple weeks of being completed. So from a staff perspective, if we were to give people 90 days, if they already had bookings, that they're already on the books, that they are already going to get people, that we wouldn't be penalizing those folks. that seemed a great deal of grace period. We don't really need a full year because the portal will probably be up and running by September 1st. So that's the thought process.

so if and that's arguably in this community november december sorry then i would at least like to get it through the holiday period um to maybe to make the january 15th that way it kind of clears

that's completely within the commission's discretion to make that recommendation to council. I just need a clear date or a clear archive. So when Marissa does code enforcement that she can say, this is the cutoff, don't make any more bookings. You have to write all that stuff, right? It has to be very clear to people. So whatever the commission will carry that recommendation forward.

All we're really talking about here, I think, primarily is the portal.

So there's building out the portal, which Brian and Marissa are taking the lead on, people submitting the paperwork, us verifying everything's legit, and then saying, here's your permit. Be on your way. Right.

But I'm saying is the time delay is I mean, we're because I know it's a whole new ordinance. So we're going to stick with the June 30th. It sounds like we'll take a vote here. But June 30th, 2027 for the ADU, because that gives them, like we said, almost a year on that. uh commissioner woodson was was saying well what about the portal let's just make everything that date but i understand i hear what you're saying about well the portal's up and you know it's going to be running but you know on that uh so we could change that so the if we said okay we make this ordinance go into effect um january 15th if that's what we so choose um the the um everything else is still june 30th that's correct the changes i guess here um

yeah i think about january january 28th is tuesday after mlk again

I would just propose it January 31st instead of trying to pick out a national holiday. Yeah. I mean, January 31st, which is the end of a calendar month.

Right. Yeah.

with another 20 I mean, 15 days or so of Okay.

Okay.

So Guido is updated the work the the wordsmith it's up on your it should be up on your screen.

It's up on our screen. So can we have a motion?

speak into the microphone so that it is recorded i moved to adopt pc resolution 2026-08 recommending that the city council adopt the proposed amendments to title 17 article 4 by amending section 17 dot 42 dot 1 7 0 short-term rentals The proposed ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section and 15061 B3 of the CEQA guidelines. The Planning Commission recommends retaining the ADU or JADU provisions in ordinance and further recommends that enforcement begins on June 30th, 2027 to maintain consistency with the 55-foot exclusion zone provision. The Planning Commission also recommends that enforcement of the final ordinance commences

january 31st 2027 following final approval by the city council i've second yeah we have a roll call vote vice chair woodson yes commissioner barron yes commissioner rana yes chair saint john yes commissioner simmons yes commissioner chang

yes motion passes thank you anybody who bet on the date for today on online betting of what the final date would be would not have probably won today hopefully that helps you as owners i know it's not ideal but it gives you something and what i would suggest is again Don't give it up. Just kind of go back, look at this, and then look with Greedo and discuss it and try to figure out if there's anything. And again, it's something that really comes up and the council wants to address it again and a couple of them are willing to do it. Bottom line is we're going to have a new mayor in November. We're going to have a new council member in District 4 because of just the changes and where the process is right now. And so there is a change coming. That doesn't mean that it's going to change any of the final decisions, but there is going to be a change. So just kind of keep that in. That's there.

Okay. So that will close out item seven, public hearings for tonight. And we have item... WE DON'T HAVE AN ITEM ANY LONGER.

WE HAVE SOME INFORMATION.

It's just reminding the commission, as commissioners, you are required to do your ethics training and your sexual harassment prevention training. And I am waiting for Commissioner Woodson and Commissioner Rana to complete their training.

It just hasn't printed the certificate yet. But I only have to do the ethics, or no, the sexual harassment, not the ethics. It gave me both, and I was like, wait, I already did one, so I'm not going to do it.

Yeah, I apologize. Yeah, sexual harassment prevention training, Commissioner Woodson, Commissioner Rana.

So I've completed the training. I went to try to download the certificate again yesterday. It just didn't download, so I've got to try it again tonight. But it is done. I just have to prove it to you.

It's a weekend homework.

Okay, that sounds good. Do your best for this weekend.

okay and there is no tree committee update for this meeting okay it is a it is a interesting survey the way that it is running on survey monkey it is the navigation procedures are not necessarily the cleanest i'll just leave it at that But it is online. It doesn't take long. It's just the way it refreshes on mobile devices does not refresh well and easily.

Yeah, so for the rest of the commission, the tree committee did ask phil who's the staff member. To look at to update the ordinance to make it a little bit more less removal of trees or what can the city ordinance do to preserve trees. To look at what kind of trees the city would recommend being replanted and as part of that process, he did prepare a survey monkey, which sounds like we need to do a little bit of work on. Um, and so if the commission wants to provide their input, great. Ordinance will eventually go to the tree committee and to the planning commission and city council for adoption. So.

Well, the only thing and I didn't take the survey my wife did was telling me 1, I think 1 of the survey questions was an arborist. having to have an arborist report on removing a tree. I would find that to be a little bit difficult, perhaps. I know I have a tree in my front that I need to replace.

I just added it to my resume and said I'm an arborist.

I have to take that out. Anyway, whatever.

I just took you off topic on that one, didn't I?

Bearing low.

What would be- Bush league.

Guido, what was the informational item, ADU information?

Yeah, so I'm organizing an ADU summit. I've got Seaside, Pacific Grove, Monterey, Salinas, a couple other cities. Their staff are going to be here. I have a list of people who've been from our city as well, trying to pull current ADU property owners and builders. And we're having HCD come speak. um so that'll be september 17th from 4 pm to 6 pm the commission is invited to come and it's really just a form of what's working region-wide to support building adus and what can we do to streamline their review and development to help property owners out that can be kind of an open house thing where they present and then there's kind of question answer or how we're trying to have some focus groups of adu builders and pre-owners and then trying to glean some lessons learned that we planning commissioners council members and staff members can learn from people who have gone through the process if i mean i would i would say if you've done the planning commission side it would be great

if there's a small group section within that that deals on planning commissions and how we view things because that's there are the ideas of the planning commissions across the peninsula right now across all eight communities is somewhat varied and it'd be i think it'd be interesting to just learn hey invite all the other people do not leave without taking cookies over there there's cookies and fruit No cookies, just the fruit. That's what your mom said.

We can certainly have a planning commissioner focus group for that meeting. That's something I could definitely do.

Thank you. Okay. And the PC training update was specifically for Commissioner Rana, Commissioner Woodson.

Right, right. Okay.

So we're clear on that. Any announcements?

The commission did ask the CSUMB staff to come back. So at the next meeting on August, what is that, August 13th, The commission asked for an update on the master plan. So as you're aware, CSUMB adopted a master plan about three years ago. The commission asked for an update on that. So Matt from the campus will be coming back to kind of share what's the overall vision for the campus and what they've been doing the last three years. And if you've been to the campus in the last six to nine months, they're building quite a bit. So I think it would be an interesting meeting for the commission.

Could you on a couple of things to focus on when you talk to him? um transportation grid eighth avenue and then the second avenue corridor from eighth to light fighter as two kind of focus areas of how they see that because that was a eighth street was supposed to become the the bypass to the main containment area down of the campus because they were trying to make the main campus walkable space and not drive through that was part of the plan at one point so i'm just kind of eighth street and what else i'm sorry a street and then second avenue from eighth street to light fighter and then um that's one area the second is kind of what they actually really believe is feasible within the state comptroller's office to support the big parking lot between eighth and eighth and sixth uh streets Because that's changed and we know that it's changed over time and it's always going to change. And then really if they have a community outreach partnership agreement that they're from a planning development perspective of how to better engage their student body, especially in the Schoonover neighborhood with the greater Marina community as a partnership. Because I don't think we do a good job of having the campus become a part of the city.

I can certainly have Matt focus on that stuff on August 13th. Thanks.

8th Street was going to be passed through. Yeah. I just heard, just heard 9th Street, you know, because it's 8th and 9th.

We're working on 8th Street right now. I don't want to get too off topic because the attorney will tell me I'm not on the agenda and we shouldn't talk about it.

It may be 9th. It's the main road that cuts down to the bridge too. It cuts straight across the street. It may be 9th.

I can bring these up and then we can talk about them on August 13th.

I think you're right. It is 9th.

That's it, Chair St. John in terms of announcements from staff. Okay.

Just internal announcements just to further the new custom that Vice Chair Woodson started. I didn't realize that was an approved commitment by the commission, but who is the next meeting's host for?

Mike Simmons.

Why don't I take those home and save them then?

Yes, you're fine. Mike has to do it because if Mike is running for council and then he actually gets elected.

Okay.

because I don't want to, we can't play favoritism here. If he did, then he wouldn't leave the, he could, if he got the council, he'd leave the commission and then he wouldn't be here and he would be able to escape from not having to provide food. So we don't want that to happen.

No, no, it's up to you.

I thought you had already decided a Hawaiian theme.

Then because Commissioner Jacobson is not here, we can say he would follow?

Yes. We'll just do it in order going down.

Right. And then we will just follow along the chairs. Commissioner Chang, if you can hear me, you're... Yeah, I hear you.

We'll post the schedule.

We'll post the schedule. I'll be next, next, next.

And then when it gets to me, then it goes back to Greedo.

Okay. All right. All right. So it is now 614, and the meeting is 814, and the meeting is adjourned.