Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

thank you very much. thank you everyone to the august 26th meeting of the monterey county planning commission. Thank you, Commissioner. All righty, we will proceed then with the roll call. Madam Clerk, would you do that for us, please?

Yes, good morning. Commissioner Goetzelman?

Here.

Commissioner Roberts? Here. Commissioner Work?

Here.

Commissioner Mendoza? Here. Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzalez? Here. Commissioner Gomez? Here. Commissioner Monsalve? Here. Commissioner Shaw? Here. Commissioner Deal? Here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, would you like to tell everybody how they can communicate with us if they care to, online and such?

Yeah, thank you everyone for joining. We are happy to, as we get our slide shared, for our wordly interpretation services for today's meeting. If you're here in chambers and require translation services, you can come up to the front and get your headset. And if you are joining us online, you may scan the QR code and which will bring you to the Wordly and you can then select your language of choice and you will receive live translation. We also have during the meeting, usually on the screen up front, we have the Wordly live translation into Spanish as well. Thank you for joining us today.

Thank you very much, appreciate that. This is the time that's set aside on the agenda for those members of the public that either here in the chambers or online that would like to share any thoughts they have with us. Public comment, these are on items, if you'll limit yourself please to items that are not on the agenda. If you'd like to share with us, please come forward. No, seeing no one here in the chamber. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online who wants to join us?

There are no hands up on Zoom. Thank you very much.

As long as we have your input, do you have any additions, deletions, or corrections to the agenda for today?

There are no agenda additions, deletions, or corrections.

Great. We're moving right through this. All right. Commissioners, do you have or would you like to share any comments, requests, or referrals with Commissioner Diehl?

Two things. One of them is I want to thank everybody for reaching out with concerns about the fire and assure you that we're having, so far, pretty good news because no one's home has been destroyed. lost thus far and nobody has died. Both of those are exceedingly good things and we're very grateful. Obviously it's a tense time and we just want to appreciate firefighters wherever they are. All the work that they're doing is amazing. But I wanna mention here something about the Car Week Fire Interface because the HCD is one of the people, one of the organization's agencies groups that coordinates the Special Events Task Force. And the Special Events Task Force has not been adequate to our needs thus far. We note and appreciate the large events that have participated. People like the concourse itself at Pebble Beach have clearly made huge improvements and when faced with an emergency like the fire on their route promptly changed that route in order not to interfere or take a chance of interfering with firefighting efforts on that congested bit of roadway. But we also note the proliferation of non-registered or non-involved events and the inadequate amount of law enforcement supervision despite their very best efforts to control what I can only respond to is complete insanity on the road while we had firefighters trying to get down there. And that really brings me to say we have got to get a handle on which events are allowed, which events are not allowed. If people have any plans for more than a few cars on the public roadway, We need to have a way to interact with them so that their events can be rerouted or relocated if it's an actual event. And we need enough law enforcement, as we see, to really cover areas that are as far flung as Big Sur and Highway 1 to control the road incidents which resulted down there in the loss of one of my neighbors. So there's definitely been great efforts by all involved to make this work, but it isn't happening. And it's apparently also, and I don't have details, but was told that there are interactions with the Coastal Commission outside of the Special Events Task Force that have authorized some activities on the coast as well. And so I put out a plea to fold everybody in there and find a way that these events can cover the needed support so that we have law enforcement to make the road usable not just for residents to get to and from work, which I know is a problem everywhere in the county, but so that there's a plan for emergencies and we can flag off things down there that don't need to be in the way and really manage in case of emergency operations to have these things stopped. It was over the top. We have, I'm sure many of you have seen many of the videos, but we have got to do something about it. It's an untenable, unsustainable situation, and whatever it is the Planning Commission can do to help with the event side, if there's anything there, I would certainly want for us to do it. Thank you.

Thank you. For those comments, I'm sure they're welcome. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment? All righty. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner Deal. We'll just move along then. The next scheduled item on the agenda is PLN. Whoops, let me put my glasses on. PLN number 220125, the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse. Staff, when you're ready, please begin.

Good morning, Commissioners and Chair Goetzelman. Staff has had subsequent discussions with the applicant and staff would like to recommend that the item is continued to a date certain of November 18th, 2026.

All right, thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions for staff before we? Anyone? No? All right. Very good then.

Mr. Lombardo, do you have thoughts? Morning. Anthony Lombardo on behalf of the Posse. Yes, we're working with the staff to develop a condition or conditions to address the the noise limit issue as Commissioner Shaw pointed out last time. We're not just doing a solid here, I think was the term he used. We want an enforceable condition with objective standards that can be measured by anyone, third parties or the applicant or both, in order to make sure that the county's noise limits are maintained. So we're getting some expert assistance on that. The county's going to need to review that information and confirm that we're not just going to do a solid, that we're really going to have a condition that's enforceable. So November 18th is fine with us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lombardo.

there any members of the public yes please sir come forward and give us your thoughts hello my name is Dave Dunn I live on old stage road and I have a few points I'd like to make our area out there is zoned rural density residential our rural infrastructure cannot handle the circulation of hundreds of concert goers vehicles this area This creates a severe public safety hazard by blocking evacuation routes and emergency vehicle access. RDR and LDR zones are designated for single family homes, small livestock and agriculture uses, not commercial entertainment venues. Reoccurring constitutes an illegal commercial use of residential land. Introducing a commercial concert series fundamentally conflicts with the rule, quiet character the general plan promises to preserve. Commercial activity directly violates County Code 10.60, past events have breached the daytime 70 DBA limit, excuse me, and bass frequencies remain plainly audible deep into our properties, disrupting families and local livestock. Old Natividad Road is a unlit, narrow, two-lane road. While the county is spending millions on the Buronda Road Congestion Relief Project, installing roundabouts to fix heavy congestion nearby, allowing massive, uncoordinated event traffic to dump onto Old Natividad completely undermines the county's regional traffic planning. and blocks vital emergency routes for rural residents. While the Posse grounds are an established arena for traditional equestrian events, historical commercial concerts operate like a commercial stadium. The use permit or special event permit should only cover historic low impact uses of the venue like rodeos or community barbecues or such. Turning the site into a reoccurring commercial entertainment hub violates the intent of the surrounding rural zoning. I would also like to point out that at the last meeting, There were statements made about only one complaint and I can assure you this is, I don't know why they're not getting recorded, but this is not the case. I've spoke to several of my neighbors and they are all in agreement that this is just becoming a huge nuisance to that community. So I appreciate your consideration in this, and I hope that you take the surrounding neighborhood considerations seriously. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate your input. My bad, everybody. We really need to be talking about the continuation itself, and I didn't make that clear before we began. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online? Now we're talking about the continuation now.

There are no hands up on Zoom.

Okay, very good, thank you. All right, so Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. So I'm curious to know for the neighbors, how they would know that this item was requested to be continued. So I understand that time before this, it was kind of very, we're gonna continue an item in the morning, but this one obviously was requested to be continued. And we knew about this last week, cause we got our packet. How would someone just in the general public find that out?

Through the chair, staff will plan to notice, similar to a normal Planning Commission item, for the continuance to ensure that all the neighbors get the notice.

Thank you. So they would get something in the mail letting them know that it's not going to happen and they don't need to come down here? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Roberts?

Just to piggyback on that, is there a possibility of, I know sometimes our notices don't reach all the neighbors just based on where they are. Is it possible to add the people who spoke and the gentleman here today to an email notification? I don't know if we have that information for this November hearing.

If members of the public would like to be added to an interested parties list, they can reach out to myself, Taylor Price, the project planner, and email me, and I can ensure that they're on the interested parties list. Thank you.

If I may, that email is priceT1 at countyofmonterey.gov.

Very good. Thank you. Appreciate that information. All right, fellow commissioners, then let's discuss this continuation question. We need a motion if we're going to do this. Commissioner Gomez?

I'll move the recommended action, which is continuation of this item.

Okay, thank you. To the date certain? Yeah, thank you. And second by Commissioner Mendoza. All right, very good then. Let's have a vote, if you will. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those against, nay. It passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lombardo. Thank you, sir, for... Coming by. All right. Well, we have a change of staff. We will move along to the next item on the agenda, which is PLN number 220358, the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County. Interesting, I'd like to find out what this one's about. Staff, when you're ready.

Good morning Chair Getzelman and Planning Commissioners and members of the days. My name is Mary Israel and I'm presenting PLN 220358 DEP. This is the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County. It is the Environmental Enhancement Streamlining Program, which I'll call the ESP. This is a program to streamline county permitting for environmentally beneficial projects. Here's an overview of the presentation. There will be two pauses for questions related to the previous sections. The program includes 13 practice types, as listed on this slide, which are based in the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, technical guidance for 30 of their standardized conservation practices. The eligible projects of the master permit are executed for outcomes that are environmentally enhancing and improve the health of watersheds. It would be up to five covered per year, coordinated by RCD with oversight by state and federal agencies. County of Monterey provides a final determination on project availability for processing under the master permit. These are the actions on program permits that are the entirety of the master permit. You also would adopt a mitigated negative declaration and a mitigation monitoring reporting plan and consider a fee waiver today. Projects approved under the master permit would occur on property located throughout County of Monterey, and the subject properties would be within a variety of zoning districts. The vast majority of the eligible projects would occur on parcels in the inland areas with farmland, rural grazing, or permanent grazing zoning. These and other zoning districts allow for soil-dependent agricultural uses, water system facilities, and other uses of similar character density and intensity as allowed uses. So that's why you don't see an administrative permit for the environmental enhancement projects for inland areas. Restoration practices of the EESP are similar to those soil-dependent agricultural uses, such as the restoration of agricultural swales, and the environmental enhancements such as installation of water collection, diversion, and level control systems are similar to water system facilities. Therefore, the basic application for the program practices are allowed uses that don't require a planning permit. However, projects in the inland area may also require development on slopes or in the Carmel Valley floodplain, which does require a use permit. These are included in the permitting under the combined development permit that constitutes the master permit. Projects in the coastal area would similarly mostly be allowed uses with the coastal administrative permit, which is the top one listed on the right. because they're in agricultural zoning districts, agriculture conservation, or coastal agricultural preserve, which allow all soil-dependent agricultural uses as principal uses allowed. The EESP projects may involve development that would require one or more of the coastal development permits listed on this slide, and I'll go into those in a later section. So now we're looking at the program processes for the planning process of each permit. RCD will intake and review project permit applications for inclusion in the EESP, which would include site evaluation and review of the submitted project design, consultation with federal and state agencies, and doing their own consistency determination against federal, state, and county regulations. The agencies include those offices that might issue permits and responsible agencies such as the Coastal Commission. RCD will reach out to HCD planning at the fourth step on this process to ensure they understand that they are looking at coastal parcels resources from the perspective of the land use plan and criteria of the coastal implementation plan and to discuss other potential issues. RCD draft pre-construction notices, which I'll call PCNs, that demonstrate that a project will conform to county regulations and meet the program requirements. And they outline which conditions from those identified within the EASPP, which are programmatic general conditions, there are 102 of those, as well as program conditions of approval that are attached to the resolution and the mitigation measures recommended in the programmatic mitigated negative declaration, which could be applied to a project. Once a given year's potential set of projects are identified by RCD, RCD will provide the PCN as well as a cumulative evaluation memorandum or memo to the regulatory agencies. The memo will assess all of the projects for the year and previous years across the county's geography, as well as any other major projects adjacent in the RCD watershed improvements that could create a cumulative impact on a given watershed. The memo will flag if any potential cumulative impact is possible and recommend project modifications and timing or intensity to avoid cumulative impacts. This is the rest of that process. The planning process PCNs are accepted or commented on by respective state and federal agencies and RCD adjusts the pre-construction notifications as needed prior to submittal to county. RCD loops back with the landholder or manager to ensure there's still interest and ability to proceed with the updated project. So when RCD has deemed the project applications complete, they will batch those PCNs into one package and email them to the HCD program lead no later than May 1st. So due dates are indicated on the right side of this slide. RCD will email the memo and updated PCN to county. The PCN shall include regulatory agencies review comments and incorporate their responses to the memo and PCN. HCD staff review the application package within one month and make a final determination that projects proposed meet the standards and criteria of the program. HCD staff may hold an inter-agency review meeting with other county staff and may include Coastal Commission staff in those meetings. That meeting would be held within that month to discuss particular projects and county may hold a meeting with RCD to clarify the details of the submittal. No later than June 1, HCD will communicate which of the EASPP projects proposed for that year are eligible for the program and which might require separate permitting. Eligible projects shall be reported on in an annual report that would be due to HCD no later than March 1 of the following year. Okay, so that is the program structure and the conservation practices. Are there any questions on this section? So this slide reintroduces the full list of program practice types. As a reminder, before I go into the resources that require discretionary permits. An east biological resources assessment was prepared for the master permit by Kelly Camara and that's dated December 2022. The report identified that species and habitats known to be environmentally sensitive may have the potential to be impacted by activities of the program. However, the report states that, I quote, if significant adverse environmental impacts are expected to result from a project, the land user is encouraged to consider alternative actions or may be directed to prepare a project-specific environmental impact statement. RCD and NRCS staff rarely pursue projects that require an EIS. If an alternative suite of practices is not possible, individual permits will be required. So that's just to say within RCD, they're already going to jettison projects out of the program if they think that there's any potential for impacts that couldn't be mitigated through the PGCs and the mitigation measures.

Chair.

Yes.

I'm sorry.

Could you just cite that for me? Where did you get that quote?

It's in Kelly Camara's biological report, library document 230006.

Thank you. My apologies, Commissioner Hartzell.

Thank you, I totally understand. I can take questions at any time. Anybody else?

Nope, okay. I guess we're done, Mary, for that part.

Thank you. For those potential projects that do not have a significant adverse impact, RCD tailors them to be consistent with the program by designing under program practice type thresholds and applying biological and other programmatic general conditions, PGCs. The biological PGCs are listed here and A mitigation measure was identified in the initial study mitigating deck that would align the PGCs to county standards with a biologist on the county consultant list preparing the reports that are required and providing a copy to county. And a second mitigation measure ensures county receives a comprehensive annual reporting on projects after implementation. So that's because the application that was reviewed in the initial study just described that there'd be a summary of projects at an annual basis. Oh, I want to say one more thing. So although projects may be located within 100 feet of environmentally sensitive habitat areas or ESHA, if they are included in the EASPP, there are no special status species or habitats significant adverse impacts. The RCD planning process includes careful design with consultation involving Coastal Commission to avoid and minimize potential impacts. And RCD obtains any state or federal permits required prior to implementing the projects. Coastal development permits or CDPs that allow such work can be supported to streamline the projects as they are environmentally beneficial to watersheds. Projects may be located within 750 feet of known archeological resources. All the PGCs listed on this slide would be applied as needed to ensure that in each case, there's a less than significant impact by program design. Two mitigation measures were identified in the initial study, MND, that would align the PGCs to county standards with the archaeologist on the county's consultant list, preparing the annual reports that are required, and providing a confidential copy to county, and providing county with an annual report on the projects after implementation. As proposed and mitigated, the program provides full protection of archeological and cultural resources in both inland and coastal areas. This is a crowded slide, so I didn't title the two pictures on this slide. They show the before and after of an intensive removal of arundo, demonstrating program practice type one, restoration of rare and declining habitat, one of the practice types that may disturb soil within 750 feet of archeological resources. Projects processed under the master permit may include development on slopes exceeding 25% inland or 30% coastal. RCD oversees the planning process and consults county policies and codes while doing so. Therefore, the projects would only include development on slopes where there is no feasible alternative and the environmental enhancement practices are limited by existing uses on the site. The ESP includes many PGCs for engineering standards, erosion control, revegetation, and long-term habitat improvement that ensure the best practices for stabilization of slopes that are affected. One PGC I'd like to point out is EM1, minimize ground disturbance and vegetation removal, which requires disturbance to existing grades and vegetation, be limited to the actual site of the conservation project, and necessary accessory access routes. Even with the highest standards for design and PGC application, if HCD receives a PCN, pre-construction notice, for a project that calls for significant development on slopes and pushes the envelope for small environmental beneficial projects, the PCN would not be authorized for processing under the master permit. This slide includes a photograph of one of the program practice types that would likely require development on slopes, critical planting area. Projects processed under the master permit may include development in districts that require design review, site review, and protection of public views. Most projects would include program practice types that are part of ongoing agricultural activities within agricultural districts in the inland areas, then therefore exempt from 2010 General Plan Viewshed Policies, and I list that as GP Policy OS 1.9, that is the exemption. However, it is possible that projects will be located in other districts and in the coastal zone where avoidance of impacts to visual resources would be ensured through RCD's review of the subject sites against the guiding policies for the location during early design. Application of PGCE-M, minimize impacts to VISTA points, and through early location review with HCD planning. As an example of the program practice type that could construct in a public viewshed, the illustration in this slide is for program practice type three, upland wildlife habitat management. Cattle are fenced out of entering a pond or wetland so it can be restored. And in turn, RCD constructs a watering facility for the cattle with a 5,000 gallon water tank. During project planning, again, just wanna highlight, RCD would ensure any structural element that requires coverage under the master permit design approval incorporates appropriate natural colors. The application or PCN would include colors, materials, and elevations so that staff can also verify. I just wanted to also address the Big Sur Critical View Shed. The likelihood of projects being proposed with structure in the Big Sur Critical View Shed is very small. However, HCD does make the final determination that a project can be processed under the master permit. If a final PCN is routed to HCD planning that proposes developments such as water tanks and fencing in an area that is in critical view shed, the HCD program lead would request chief of planning and building official to be included in the review session. reviewing the design against standard criteria during PCN review. If the design of a given future project demonstrates potentially adverse impacts on public views, it will not be eligible for processing under the master permit, and it would be separately permitted to allow LUAC and separate public hearing review. The eligible projects may include alteration of vegetation and river channel modification within 200 feet of the Carmel River and its corridor. A use permit is required to allow these restoration activities within that distance of the Carmel River or within its floodplain. The EASPP includes many PGC that require erosion control standards, and that's EC1 through EC5, Hazardous materials and spill prevention, there are nine of those PGCs. Least environmentally damaging action, that's LIDA 1 through LIDA 4. Limitations on construction equipment, there are six of those PGCs. And EM6, avoid thinning in riparian stands. Limitations on herbicide use, there are three of those PGCs. And there are 12 PGCs under the heading of limitations for work in streams, wetlands, floodplains, and permanently ponded areas. All told that in each case, development near the Carmel River can be authorized. The criteria to allow development within the Carmel River floodplain is that the development will accommodate sufficient setback to avoid erosion and be within the approved project's exclusion set. In the case of the EASPP, projects would demonstrate that they're very minor in nature and that such projects could have no negative impact on the river, its visual appearance, habitat values, or stability. The criteria to grant the required use permit has been met as the east practice types rely on conservation standards already vetted by the NRCS and by design, projects are environmentally beneficial for the watershed. Any potential adverse impacts are controlled by those PGCs I listed. Title 20 outlines the cases in which environmental enhancement work is not exempt from coastal development permit and placement of riprap or concrete in a coastal stream or removal of vegetation and areas of natural vegetation near water bodies are among them. SOME ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS INCLUDE THESE PRACTICES. TAKE FOR EXAMPLE THE REPAIR OF AN OLD CULVERT THAT WAS INSTALLED TO ALLOW FARM VEHICLES TO DRIVE OVER A STREAM. THAT'S PICTURED ON THE TOP HERE. Improvements to the site may require placement of concrete to allow the stream to be open to the air. That work would require a CDP. As the EAST practice types rely on conservation standards already vetted by the NRCS to be best practices, and EAST practices are environmentally beneficial to the stream's watershed, any potential adverse impacts are controlled. Also wanted to note on that slide that there's a PGCCC1 that requires RCD to obtain approval from Coastal Commission for work in state tidelands as a separate permit. So as I mentioned a few slides back, tree removals are not common in RCD's project set. But in the case that they are, a use permit and CDP for tree removal is included in the master permit. Tree removal would be minimized to the fewest required to complete an environmental enhancement project. RCD would oversee the project design to re-site and avoid impact to native trees. Should a project require tree removal, PGCEM 5 requires tree removal and replacement at standard ratios. Staff added a condition of approval to the program for a forest management plan to be prepared in accordance with the coastal implementation plans should native tree removals be required in the coastal zone. And that is condition number five. Similarly, a project site may be located within a site review district overlay. Site review is inherent in the east planning process. Many PGCs direct development to minimize site disturbance, avoid slopes, avoid impacts to native vegetation, and avoid impacts to natural drainage patterns. Although likelihood is very low, In the odd case that a project is proposed in the S district that does not demonstrate adequate site review in the PCN, when HCD reviews the project PCN for conformance with zoning during the implementation, a PCN that does not conform with S district would not be authorized to be processed under the master permit. The illustrated program practice type on this slide, stream habitat improvement, is an example of a project that would potentially require tree removal to implement. I understand that the first picture before fish passage burial removal, there was a sycamore tree that was required to be taken down because its roots would have been impacted by that work. So the aim of overall and long-term improvement to stream health and resulting watershed quality would outweigh the immediate loss of a tree, which would be replaced in kind at a nearby location. Are there any questions on the resources section?

Commissioner Hertzell.

Two questions. First on ESHA. I heard you say that prior to review by the county, there would need to be any required state or federal permits would need to be obtained. I see that represented in, I see ESHA represented in finding 11, but I don't see where it says the county will turn down something that doesn't have the required state or federal permits. I could be wrong but if you could point me to where that's covered, maybe it's somewhere else in the findings, that would be very helpful. Maybe the end of D. And the concern I'm trying to address here is just, in general, approving such a big permit for non-sighted projects is exciting. I really appreciate the work of RCD and also I want to make sure we have the findings and evidence that make this work and sort of capture what we're saying here because it's covering a long period of time and might be administered by different people. So I just want to make sure that HCD's review is kind of outlined in these findings.

All right, to the Chair, we do identify that very specifically in the EASPP document, which is going to be attached to the resolution. It is not specifically stated in the finding for ESHA, but it is part of the program.

The program, who drafted the EASPP?

To the Chair, I did.

And where is it identified in these? Page 19.

So if I may, through the Chair, because, so the way in which we organize this is we have the resolution, we include the east program description, which includes all of the programmatic, really memorializes those PGCs, Programmatic General Conditions, which are incorporated by design. It also memorializes the process, and just to try to simplify, and to make it clear that the entire program is part and parcel to the approvals today.

Got it, so it's the second to last paragraph on page 19 where it says, if you haven't gotten the permit, you have to explain yourself and we won't issue, got it. Thank you, that covers my needs there. I liked the quote from the bio report 23-006 that I asked you to cite. Is that in the EASPP or somehow attached to the resolutions?

Through the Chair, I do quote it in the resolution.

Great, where? Sorry, thank you. Not sorry. Just appreciative.

I believe that is finding two evidence seeing F where it says if significant adverse environmental impacts are expected to result in the project the land user is encouraged to consider alternative actions or may be directed to prepare a project specific environmental impact statement is that the quote you're looking for Commissioner yes it was or we won't consider the way I interpreted it was

What I heard was that the RCD won't consider projects that are so outsized that they would require. Yes.

Through the chair, yes. Section I of site suitability discusses all of the bio PGCs that are applied and I specifically quote the Kelly Camara report the same way that I did to you in the hearing today in finding I.

Signing, sorry, aye, number two. Yeah, evidence aye. Signing two, evidence aye. The application supporting materials submitted by the program applicant

Sorry, it is still evidence F of finding two, and it's the latter half of the sentence I read, which says, if an alternative suite of practices is not possible, individual permits will be required, typically for small conservation projects. The assessment indicates that there are no significant adverse impacts or long-term beneficial impacts outweigh the short-term adverse impacts. The conservation planner is directed to proceed with the plan of work.

Alternative student practices. Thank you. I think that covers my ESHA questions, all of which are to say the county has a robust process for reviewing for ESHA and will confirm that state and federal permits are met. And even though I don't have that checklist, which I really wanted to see, I can be sure that it's in the findings. Unfortunately, I have messed up my papers and I lost my finding 13 question. Just a minute here. Okay, finding 13 for the critical view shed. Ms. Israel, I heard you say that if a project, quote, pushes the envelope for critical U-shed and what qualifies for development on slopes, that it won't be approved. Roughly, I'm paraphrasing. Could you just point me to where that is represented in findings and evidence?

one so evidence J under finding 13 includes statement about HCD oversight lost in which it does indicate that staff will make the final determination that they meet all related that projects meet all related criterion eligible and are eligible for processing under the master permit if a project clearly conflicts with applicable County Code then it is not eligible

And applicable county code includes the land use plans? Yes.

Okay.

Good. I feel comfortable with that. Those are all my questions so far. I have one more, but I'm going to wait until the end of your presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any fellow Commissioner Diehl?

Thank you. I wanted to join in and say in general, it's extremely complicated and the language is extremely technical. I understand the need for that and would advocate for additional simplification summary over it when we report it to the public. Because with a nested document like this, it's really hard to tell what really is allowed. So with that in mind, I really appreciate that the critical viewshed section in Big Sur, which is unique, is differentiated clearly from the general statements regarding VISTA points or any other kind of viewsheds that might have separate standards and that those standards will be executed by the county. We can hope to know what they are, which is not something we can hope from everybody else. I have some issues, some questions about the places where these are allowed. There's a lot of language in various findings that I find that say that it will be mostly occurring in these kinds of zonings or primarily or to a large extent. And those are not the kinds of languages that make me feel we're clear, particularly with respect to the question of environmental review, which has been raised at least in some conversations apparently by Fish and Game. So are there places where the staff can see the way clear to specifying the zoning districts or saying only or saying not or something that addresses the use of language that isn't solid and contains a lot of judgment in it.

Through the Chair, finding one, there's a subsection for inland and there's a subsection for coastal. In the coastal, it says, due to the development types within parcel zone, coastal general commercial, Moss Landing commercial, institutional commercial, projects authorized for inclusion under the ESP are not anticipated to be located within them. Therefore, they're not reviewed herein.

Yeah, that's a good example of the language that I would wonder if it's going to be sufficient with respect to environmental review should questions about that arise. Because if you don't know where the projects are going to occur, it's really hard to make definitive statements about their impacts. So I just raised that as an issue. Back to vegetation removal, and I appreciate the fish passage barrier discussion of the tree. One of the impacts, particularly in, again, I'm big surf focused, you'll have to forgive me, my mind is kind of down there right now, as it often is. One of the things that happens is vegetation removal reveals views of existing built structures. We have that going on with fire clearance all the time. When we make that analysis, I just wanna make sure that staff is comfortable that we're looking at the larger impacts of any such proposals that would include its impact on existing viewshed elements that are perhaps screened by that. We're fighting that on fire clearance where we have two competing priorities and it's really important to know which way to come down in a permit that's gonna be given in a way to do these things more efficiently. Let's see. The fire break discussion was interesting to me, and I wanted to know if there had been an opportunity to discuss that with the Coastal Commission. I know that these are fire breaks for small burns that would have impacts on the environment, on environmental restoration projects mostly. But we are in conversations with them about what is necessary to approve that kind of activity. And I'm wondering if the language here has passed muster with them.

The application was routed to the Coastal Commission and they did not raise issue through the chair.

Did they respond at all? Do we have any correspondence from them?

Yes, through the Chair, we did have conversations about the program. They were generally very supportive. And they also mostly wanted to make sure that their definitions for wetland and lineation were included. It didn't raise issue with the fire breaks.

That makes a lot of sense. Great. I was looking for that correspondence, I should say, and didn't see it. And then my final question at this stage is that as we go into the program overview and we list the 13 types of projects that are covered under here, is that a definitive list? Is there any intent that it would be or similar, is there any kind of or similar language in there? This is the list that is a definitive list of projects. And I didn't miss anything about,

Through the chair, yes. And for staff's comfort in having a program that doesn't know the exact locations in future, having a definitive list of what the program practice types will be is how we can lock in with some assurance that there's control within the program so that it's mitigated by design wherever it is. And particularly with two levels of determination of whether a project could be included in the program. we feel quite confident that we'll be able to ensure that only eligible projects on locations where there's no cumulative impact possible would be included.

And I would add that staff's comfort is the comfort of the public and the rest of us too, so we appreciate that very much. Yes, I just wanna check in and say that with such a complicated permit, are we clear it's really streamlining? I mean, what are we streamlining?

Through the chair, there will be a presentation by the applicants that outlines a project that would have qualified for this program and they go through the four years of planning, permitting, processing at county that was required to get the planning permit And they had a lot of fees and cost and lack of a part of the streamlining is having an applicant come forward and having them have some surety, some knowledge that they're going to get over the finish line within a within a short amount of time. So they have buy in to work on, you know, rills or or agricultural runoff that needs to be treated.

Personally identify with that, but I don't. I lack confidence that the number of steps that are outlined here can be done in a short period of time, I guess is what I'm saying. I appreciate that there are many other benefits, but as we go forward, I hope to know more about that.

All righty, anybody? If I may, through the Chair, and I will look forward to the applicant to explain that as well, but one thing I think that, just reiterating, much of the planning process that the Conservation District undergoes with the applicant, potential proponents for projects, much of that planning process, they undergo regardless The difference is that their planning process now will also incorporate added layers that meet the criteria and standards of our process as well. So it's the... incorporating into their planning process, which is already thorough and comprehensive, our standards and our expectations as well under the program that provides some of that underlying streamlining. I think we will see with any program as we implement it. We really recognize that it will be the support documentation and ensuring that the staff who are reviewing understand the program and really adhere to those timelines of the program that will assure that it maintains a streamlined approach. That is how staff is viewing it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mendoza? Yes, I do have a question. In reference to a master permit where, say for instance, you enter into an agreement with Cal Fire for firebreak, and basically they go in there and they start providing that fire break and they might be cutting trees that are a little bit on the larger side or what have you, how is that enforced? Or is that something completely different? Because if they get a permit to, say for 30 acres, they're gonna go out there and do a fire break and then they, how does the property owner control, or what liability does the property owner have in reference to what they're cutting and they're not cutting? Is there other experts per se?

Mm-hmm.

Well, through the chair. I mean, it's more clarification than anything else.

Mm-hmm. Through the chair, staff would anticipate that the site plan that's provided with the PCN for that project would include an aerial image and would indicate like with specific lines on a map where the fire break would be going so that we could consider all of the impacts that are involved with that before okaying inclusion under the ESP.

If I may add to that, I think the thing to also reemphasize is the program does not authorize a fire fuel break. the purposes of just fire fuel break it only authorizes limited footprint fire fuel breaks as necessary to safely implement a controlled burn for habitat restoration management purposes so it's coupled with the purpose and the intention along with physical footprint limitations in through the program so that's what will help distinguish it is is that linkage, and we wouldn't, this absolutely would not be in this program, simply fire fuel breaks for fire management purposes. They would absolutely not be eligible under this program.

Is that good, Commissioner? Anyone else, questions that may have occurred to you? Nope, looks like we're good, Mary.

Okay, great, and I did wanna point out that the attachment that is the ESP that will be, attached to the resolution. Page 35 goes into those details on Firebreak if you want to look at them while I continue. All right. Slide 16. A draft mitigated negative declaration, MND, for PLN 220358DP was prepared in accordance with CEQA and circulated for extended public review from September 11th, 2023 through November 9th, 2023. The document reflects the independent judgment of the county. Potentially significant impacts were identified in the areas of aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazard and hazardous materials, hydrology, water quality, noise, transportation, traffic, and tribal cultural resources. EAST projects will be required to implement RCD's PGCs that, as discussed, ensure that most potential impacts remain less than significant. Five proposed mitigation measures will reduce the effects to a point where no significant impacts will occur. Two comments were received. One was from Paul Robbins, Executive Director of RCD, requesting minor edits to one mitigation measure. Those edits were made and we discussed them with the applicant prior to hearing. The second letter was from California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 4 CEQA team support team. Their comment letter expressed that the initial study was not specific enough for them to provide specific feedback on potential direct and indirect impacts to resources. and they wished the CDFW to be specifically included in the early design of projects before they are noticed to County on the East PCNs. Lastly, the CEQA Region 4 staff found the name of the program as it was written in the application, which was programmatic restoration permit to be misleading because they do not classify drainage basins as restoration projects. HCD planning staff met with Region IV CEQA support team upon receipt of the letter to address their overall concerns and discuss their 12 specific comments. The CDFW staff wished to see their early involvement in project design. more explicitly described in the EASPP and they suggested how and when. The CDFW staff raised the possibility that an environmental impact report would be a more defensible environmental review document for a program that does not specify project locations. Staff considered the mitigation by design of the program. and that NRCS conservation practices that are the foundation of all program activities are already vetted and approved by the state, and that RCD has intended to include CDFW early in the planning process, but it wasn't highlighted in the initial study text. So in sum, staff found that comments were best handled with responsive errata edits in the text of the IS initial study and clarifications of biological mitigation measures. The responsive edits are in the red line version of the ISMND. It is this version which staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt. A separate discussion of the edits to the ISMND is attached to the staff report. When RCD applied for the master permit, the HCD director did not require HCD to pay for a combined development permit in the application process. The director reviewed the proposal against director level criteria and found that RCD could qualify as a not-for-profit agency proposing to provide public benefit. But he did charge standard-level fees for preparation and circulation of an initial study and $3,000 for staff to work on extraordinary development review. The RCD expressed an interest in all related fees to be waived, including construction and encroachment permits, except for county inspection fees and fire protection district fees. The full request is outside the criteria of the Board of Supervisors' direction for director review. Therefore, the fee waiver request was elevated to the Planning Commission for decision. So the 2010 County of Monterey Open Space and Conservation Element Policy OS 5.15 directs the county to implement a fee waiver program for environmental restoration projects. Staff reviewed the request and found that waiving of planning permit fees is inherent to the program. That's part of the streamlining that we're trying to achieve. But waiving of construction permits such as grading permits and building permits is a bit more nuanced Staff, including planning and building services leadership, support a portion of the grading and building permit fees to be waived. However, due to the challenging fiscal environment throughout the county and nation, our assistant director did not support the request from RCD to waive all grading and building permit fees. Rather, staff recommend waiving 50% of all future grading and building permit fees, as well as encroachment, which is less than the almost full... than the almost full fee waiver requested by RCD. And the reason is this was an ongoing fee waiver expense that impacts HCD's budget throughout the next five years. The number of hours required to inspect and guide any remedy of issues is not known in advance and is generally anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, staff recommend waiving 50% of construction permit fees, encroachment permit fees only, The most expensive construction permit pulled by RCD would normally cost approximately $2,600. So half of those fees would be waived. So our last slide is the recommendation from staff. Staff does recommend that you adopt a mitigated negative declaration. pursuant to section 15074 of the CEQA guidelines and approve this combined development permit to allow the east to function for five years without separate planning permits for environmental enhancement activities, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and approve a fee waiver of 100% of combined development or master permit fees and 50% of all other related permit fees. This concludes staff's presentation. Thank you for your patience and I hope you enjoyed.

Thank you so much, Ms. Israel. That was very nicely done. Commissioner Deal.

Just a quick question. I didn't see the five-year or and then what? Can they renew? If it works, I assume.

After the fifth year, when it comes to the close of the fifth year, the RCD can request an extension of the program and that is memorialized in one of the conditions of approval. The process would be that they would submit a summary report that includes the annual reports and all the cumulative memos that have come forward and then a summary report on top of that for the full period and demonstrate that through their own independent research, they see that there's no changes in the baseline and no changes in regulation or listed species at that time, and it would be reviewed by staff, and staff would make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission would have the opportunity to make the decision.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Hartzell.

Would you please walk me through the reasoning from the county on doing an IS instead of a different type of CEQA document?

Certainly, through the Chair, the eligible projects are executed for outcomes that are environmental enhancements and improve the health of watersheds. The program's projects, number one, design with consultations and application of programmatic conditions that mitigate by design. Number two, there are two levels of determination, that environmental enhancements fit within the program parameters. And number three, there's this cumulative impact evaluation that was added to the program after we discussed the concerns of the CDFW CESA office. So with the cumulative impact evaluation circulated to all of those agencies, including their office on an annual basis, they have an opportunity to comment and share any concerns before county includes a project in the program. So all of that put together ensure the program would not have any impacts that are not addressed within the program itself. County would prepare an EIR if there were any impacts that could not be fully mitigated, but that is not the case here.

So I hear it fits and it's going to the state and federal agencies that are appropriate to review prior to county reviewing it and that fits our requirements for CEQA.

I think the important pieces is also the cumulative impact analysis that will accompany it, that was in part in response, which is very critical to one of the, and part of why we limited how many projects could come per year and the footprint and scale of projects are limited by design in the program, all of which are attempting to build a matrix that would avoid any significant impacts to resources. So it really is all of those components brought together and it's really that cumulative impact analysis which is going to help ensure that we are evaluated on an ongoing basis to truly ensure that any project that goes forward in the suite of projects that have gone forward do not have any significant impacts that would need to be analyzed separately and therefore different moving forward. That's also why we did a five year trial period. We view it as a five year permit term, but we viewed it as a five year trial period to ensure that indeed all of those programmatic and environmental criteria as designed truly do avoid any kind of significant impact in order to then analyze the potential for continuing or extending that master permit.

And the cumulative impact study that's done by RCD and reviewed by the agencies and that's all prior to county review. Yes, thank you for that.

Thank you. Fellow commissioners, any other questions of staff? No, seeing none, I understand we have an applicant. Do we have someone that would like to speak with us on their behalf? Please come forward, sir.

I'm Paul Robbins. I'm the Executive Director for the Resource Conservation District. I'm very grateful for staff and the guidance you all have provided. It has been definitely a rigorous and careful and very conscientious process and gauging from the level of and quality of review you all are providing. I'm doubly grateful for how good you guys do your homework. The whole purpose of this is to help get conservation work on the ground more effectively and in a streamlined manner. We have good examples from other counties, most notably Santa Cruz County and the RCD in Santa Cruz County, and they provided very helpful guidance and sort of direction from their experience. The state and federal agencies that we work with routinely have generated their own respective permit specific streamlining processes such as the cutting green tape initiative. I think you all may or may not be familiar with. And this environmental enhancement streamlining program is a product of a similar vigorous and collaborative effort and county personnel have been great to work with and very patient as well. This has taken a while. I want to note that I'd like to bring on a couple of the RCD team who work the most closely with staff in developing this. They'll give you a run-through of what the process has been like without EASPP, and how this will definitely provide a benefit. And those two people, if they can be brought up, are Megan Barker, our environmental scientist, and Adrian Carter, our civil engineer. And Mary, I think you're running the Zoom. Thank you very much.

Are we ready?

Megan and Adrienne, when you guys are ready, you have the floor.

Thank you. I'm just curious about the PowerPoint. This is Megan Barker. Can everyone hear me?

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Megan Barker. I'm an environmental scientist with the Resource Conservation District of Monterey County. I'm gonna be presenting to you an example of the type of project that would come through the program using a past project example. So this is a project, stormwater detention, pond project, and moss landing, so in the northern coastal zone. And please, next slide. So this project, and Adrian will go into the background a bit more later, but basically we were contacted by a rancher, landowner who had a small man-made pond that he wanted to provide habitat. for wildlife and that was also receiving a lot of agricultural runoff from surrounding fields. You can see that the pond in this picture is receiving the sheet flow with the arrows towards it and then going off into outletting into the Elkhorn Slough. So the goal of the objective of the project was to improve stormwater quality by retaining some of that sediment and also while simultaneously providing aquatic habitat and deterring the non-native bullfrog colonization. Next slide. This is just a zoom out, another photo of the area just to show the slough off to the right, so the proximity of the pond to the Elkhorn Slough. Next slide. So through this program, using this kind of hypothetical example, we will be, as Mary explained, doing early consultation with all of the regulatory agencies, which is something that we already typically do, but this really memorializes the consultations that will be completed. So that includes CDFW, both the Lake and Streetbed Alteration, Habitat Restoration Enhancement folks, as well as the CEQA Division and CESA Division to make sure that all of the various CDFW staff that could potentially have concerns over jurisdictional areas or impacts are unaware of the project. We will also be reaching out to the other state and federal agencies, including NOAA. I didn't include NOAA on this slide, but we will be reaching out to NOAA as well to notify them even just about our program. if a project does not have fish or fisheries related resources. And this is really just to make sure that we have a consistent way of consulting with the agencies and that we are not making the determination on their behalf without speaking to them. So we're not making that assessment. It gives them an opportunity early in our project design to let us know if they have concerns and what those issues are to be aware of so that we can incorporate it into our project design and other project considerations. And I also wanted to mention about CEQA. that typically the projects that we do qualify for either categorical exemptions such as minor alterations to land or habitat, small habitat restoration, or statutory exemptions for land statutory exemption for restoration projects, which is the new streamlined CEQA process for restoration projects over five acres. So I just wanted to point out that these are projects that kind of already would have likely received an exemption or statutory or categorical exemption. Next slide, please. So this is this is a timeline for this example project. This is the actual timeline. So we in 2020, we did. Consult with the county via an informal development review committee, which was which was really helpful. We took the concept. level plans to them. But one of the things that we encountered was just we did not anticipate for the four-year timeline that we'd be encountering. We didn't actually anticipate that an initial study would be completed. And we also didn't anticipate that we'd be working with so many different planners at no fault of the county. It was, you know, I think it was some people, you know, left the county to go into new places, staff turnover in whatever capacity, promotions, reassignments, workloads. And so really it became a four-year process to receive the CDP. And the CEQA initial study expanded that. So kind of through this program, there will be a known timeline that we're working with, which will be very helpful because we are typically grant funded. And sometimes, well, often we have deadlines that don't allow us to extend this into a multi-year process. So it's much more efficient for us to know what we're facing and required to do. to adhere to in advance and so that's kind of one of the the streamlining parts for us as an RCD. Next slide please. So in terms of like how we see the benefits of RCD, as I mentioned the CEQA, the environmental review is already completed so we have a known timeline and we already know what the programmatic general conditions and mitigations measures are. So it's clear to us what we are responsible for in advance. And the coastal development portion of things, again, the timeline's known. And through our nine-step planning process, which Adrian will explain a little bit more, because our project draws on the NRCS planning process. We have what is called the nine step planning process that Mary touched upon. Basically, as part of this project or process, we are doing early consultation with all of the state and federal agencies that we discussed and the county and Coastal Commission. And this is all going to happen at least six months prior, probably earlier. And this is so that we're aware of any issues that we need to be aware of early. For example, If there's any issues related to that APN, public access, trust rights, lot line adjustments, outstanding violations that need to be addressed, as well as the coastal land use plan considerations that we need to be aware of, like viewshed, either critical viewshed or otherwise. And then this ASHA sensitive natural communities is usually what we're going to be addressing addressing as well as coastal wetlands. We did include tree removal restrictions because of the variability that can occur between the different four land use coastal land use areas. But I did want to note that we typically do not remove native mature trees if we can avoid it. And so just for example, like in my 10 years here at the RCD, we've never applied for a tree removal permit because it's just something that we do not do. We're not going to do that if we can avoid it. And so Another benefit of the project is that, as Melanie said, the protection measures are built into the program so that they're clearly outlined and included in every project. And so that... That in some ways makes it easier for us to address all of those things up front and make sure that we're building a project around that from the beginning, if you will. And we believe that that will reduce the staff time for the project applications because we will be documenting that we're complying with all of the resource concerns in our project application and through our consultation. Next slide, please. Adrian, do you want to take over the planning process?

Sure.

Just checking you can hear me.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you. I'm Adrian Carter. I'm an engineer. I work with the RCD. And for this example project, I was involved in the planning. So I wanted to kind of compare and contrast what a project like this, this multi-benefit project, how it would move through the EASE process. We have included this nine-step planning process and the step terminology are based on NRCS's nine-step planning tests. So the terminology is coming from, it's also laid out in this very chronological method. However, in reality, as we're planning projects, while we complete everything in these steps, things may be a little more iterative or there may be some steps happening concurrently. But for simplicity's sake, we start with step one. The landowner reaches out to the RCD, and so this landowner was, as Megan had mentioned, interested in improving water quality and saw an opportunity for potential habitat. So in step two, we worked with that landowner as well as the NRCS to determine objectives. So we wanted to agree on what's the best outcome for this site. And we agreed on taking that pond and converting it into more of a stormwater basin and simultaneously expanding the habitat value. And step three, with the inventory of resources, this begins as a desktop-level review. The RCD checks the county GIS parcel report. We also work with the NRCS soil conservationist and engineer on this project. We also consulted with county-approved biologists and archaeologists as part of that desktop-level review of what resources are at this site. Once we identified what was there, we go to step four of analyzing that resource data. And so the goal there is to analyze the quality of each resource. And so here we saw that there was soil loss, we saw that there were water quality impacts, and there was potential for increasing the habitat value. Through this process, RCD would then alert HCD of this project potential and provide the APN. This project, as Megan mentioned, was in the coastal zone, but it was not in a view shed. And that point, RCD begins consultations with US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Water Quality Control Board, CDFW, Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA, and the Coastal Commission. And so that's where that early consultation starts. And as we've talked about already, This planning process is not a fast planning process. You know, this is happening, this project actually, I think we maybe even started planning it in 2018. So a lot of this stuff was happening before, you know, working with the landowner, talking to agencies, trying to get, you know, goals and criteria really determined. So after that consultation, and we're getting input and feedback from the other agencies on step five, we formulate the range of design solutions. And so here, RCD would itemize the impaired water quality, the potential loss of soil, the potential for improved habitat. and identifying which practices in that ESP set of practices could be used. And we here looked at the practice seven, which was the water and sediment control basin, and practice six, which is an underground outlet, a piped outlet for the basin. And we look at those for potential positive or negative effects. We don't want to propose something that could potentially have an unintended negative impact to some other resource. So we are looking at the site holistically. In step six, we're evaluating the range of design solutions. So in this example, RCD evaluates the potential designs. Maybe the basin wants to be larger and take up the entire footprint within the fenced area that the owner had identified. Maybe the outlet structure is a simplified perforated pipe, or maybe we put in a weir. We're looking at those. It's basically an alternatives analysis and looking at what are the results of each of those. And we selected design that results in significant positive improvement in all of the resource problem categories. And so for this example, we actually had proposed a much larger footprint, but because there had been some native grasses and plants, we wanted to make sure that we got as much benefit from ponding the water without having increased impacts to the rest of the site. So we actually reduced the footprint. And then we installed the weir to allow us to have an extended hydrologic period to support the amphibian breeding. so after we have our optimal solution we take it to the client in step seven so the client then agrees to the selected design and again benefits of the east is now we know both um the timeline of when we can get the work done because of our PCN submittal, but we also have an understanding of the programmatic general conditions. All of those protection measures, we can provide those to the landowner as part of the full design, the full proposal. And so those are all known as the landowner is agreeing to this type of project. RCD completes all the permit applications and submits the pre-construction notification, the PCN, to the county. And then we have our permits in hand, we have the PCN submitted, and maybe we've talked to the county or the county has approved it. And so in step eight, the client implements the plan with required oversight. So in this project, RCD provided oversight. We had county inspections, we had a biological monitor, and we also had a tribal monitor. um and then uh step nine what we would do is evaluate the plan results so once the project's completed we would include the project and the results of that project in our annual report and again that annual report becomes one of the building blocks of the cumulative report that we submit at the end of the five-year period And next slide. So these are those programmatic general conditions. Again, we can lay these out very cleanly. We're anticipating them. It helps us with funding. Maybe we need to make sure we have funding for the biological monitor, those sorts of things, as part of our full proposal for the project implementation. Here you can see we would have quite a few programmatic general conditions to ensure resource protection, both for the problem resources as well as other resources on the site. Um, and the next slide, thanks to, you know, diligence of RCD and county and our landowner, we were able to implement a beautiful pond also has multi benefits for stormwater detention, water quality improvements and has habitat value. And that concludes my slides. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your presentation. Right. Questions and fellow commissioners, anything that you saw? Commissioner.

Yes. I was on the upper... Do you guys coordinate with the Upper Salinas Los Tablas? Because 20 years ago, we did this same thing. I'm curious if any of them are online, too. I don't know if their program is still going or not, but we did this...

Yeah.

Quite a while ago. And it was a great, it worked, I know, when I was there.

Yeah, I mean, we take examples from wherever we can get them. Upper Salinas Las Tablas had one. And I think it may have lapsed. I'm not quite sure.

Yeah. Yeah. I didn't mean to interrupt. I did look online and they have a program that sounds like it and it said 2026, but I also just heard that it might elapse.

Yeah, that was specific for ag land projects, as I recall. And it was basically the RCD assumed some regulatory responsibility which is different in this case. I mean, we're carrying permits for folks, but we're not the one that are providing the permits, so to speak.

Because our place is part of it. We're Monterey County, but we're in that district. Thought I recognized your last name. Hopefully, we can bring them on board soon.

Oh yeah. Is what I'm getting at. I know they're interested as well. We're all, resource conservation districts statewide constantly sharing notes. So, thank you.

Very good, thank you. Yes.

If I may, I think one thing maybe that you're getting at is because you are within Monterey County, this master permit, programmatic permit would apply to you. However, because in this case, the RCD of Monterey County is the applicant and the permit is non-transferable. there would have to be a collaboration between those two where ultimately the RCD Monterey County were the one assuring but it could be a collaborative if their coverage areas are different so the permit would apply because you're within Monterey County and then it would just be kind of those two in their overlap of coverages to ensure that our city of Monterey County has proper oversight of any project that might from that geographic vicinity come through this program for streamlined permitting.

Very good, thank you. All righty, I see no other questions, then we should move along to public comment. Do we have anyone in the chambers? It doesn't look like it, perhaps. No, seeing no one then, anyone online? Madam Clerk?

Yes, it looks like Trey. I'm gonna unmute him right now.

Trey, when you're ready, please.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Trey crop. I'm a member of the Big Sur Luwak and I understand why this program is being proposed. The county permitting process can take far too long and legitimate restoration projects shouldn't have to spend. Years getting approved, but there has to be a balance between streamlining that permit process and cutting the public out of that process. I have two minutes today to comment on a project that could occur in Big Sur over the next five years, projects that none of us even know about yet. These projects can involve vegetation removal, grading, rangeland improvements, native trees, ESHA, and the Big Sur Critical View Shed. When those actual projects are proposed, Where is the public notice? Where is the local review? Where is the opportunity to raise concerns before work begins? That process isn't just bureaucracy, it's safeguards. People who live here in these communities know the things about the properties, its history, its resources, and that's an important part of the application process. There's a reasonable middle ground, I feel. Bring the public back into this, have LUAC review, but streamlining the technical review, streamline the paperwork, but don't streamline the public out of the process. Thank you. Thank you, Terry.

Is there anyone further? Madam Clerk?

There is nobody else online.

Okay, very good. Would the applicant care to make any rebuttal statements to what you heard and comments? It's up to you. You don't have to, Mr. Jones. If you wanted to address what the gentleman said, you have that opportunity.

I mean, I appreciate the concern, and I think one thing we don't want to do is not be sort of open and honest with the public in terms of our process. So for me, that's something that I would use to inform how we may communicate how projects advance, and just in how the RCD does the process. I don't know if that necessarily changes the ESP. It's how I'm committed to working. and staff can speak to this probably much more elegantly than I can. I think, you know, Commissioner Diehl, you mentioned that, you know, how is this streamlined? It's extremely complicated. And honestly, we all ask the same question. And I think when you think of streamlining, you think of something that's, you know, a sort of a one-stop shop. I think that was the line 20 years ago when folks were starting the permit streamlining programs around the state. And actually, that was first modeled here in Elkhorn Slough. But it is more complicated than that. And we do wanna make sure, we wanna reassure the public that we are protecting resources and we're not just giving ourself a pass for doing the Lord's work. I think what we do is we're absolutely committed to the resources and we're also committed to a better way of life in Monterey County and in California. So I don't wanna undermine that by sort of compromising trust, because that's how we work. It's relationships and it's consistency. It's doing what we said and hopefully learning from the process in these next five years so that when we get to the turnaround time, we have some improvements that make it better. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. And staff, did you want to add anything?

Certainly, through the Chair. Staff understands this concern. Trey is welcome to put in a records request for the PCNs every year and review them independently and make an appointment to come in and speak with the program staff about individual projects and our assessment of them. And then secondly, on the idea of visual impacts, aesthetic impacts, understand that's a very sensitive thing in Big Sur area. If a structural element for a proposed project must be shiny metal or brightly painted in a design control or VS district, for example, RCD would alert HCD staff early in that review around that step four that we discussed in their nine-step planning process. They would alert HCD staff that they think it might require a separate design approval. If the design approval can be processed immediately, the rest of the permits required would be streamlined under the EASPP through the normal PCN submittal and review process, but that design approval would be separately decided on and would go to the LUGAC and then would go to a public hearing. So I hope that assuages concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, then let's bring her back to the commission and then we'll discuss this. Commissioner Roberts.

I have a question for Ms. Israel. Is there an opportunity in this permit to add interested parties if a member of the public is interested in knowing when a project like this that's sort of quote pre-approved happens?

I think if there's a desire to do that, staff would want to just be thoughtful about how that might work in the process and work with the conservation district as well. I think, so I do think we could have an interested parties list. One possibility might be that at the time when, at the time, just trying to think off the cuff, we could spend a little more time discussing it, potentially at the time when the rcd would be alerting us of proposed potential sites locations and concept projects that may be happening for the year i think that perhaps could include a as well a kind of public distribution list so that if the public do have questions comments concerns that they'd like to contribute I think that would be the best point in time to let that be heard by the RCD and again and we would can also have that public distribution notice for in for annual kind of the annual reports that come in so that everyone is getting kind of that disclosure of what's going in as well those are just some thoughts I have off the cuff but again I will also kind of look at I think one thing As well as, again, we did try to be sensitive to some of the different area resource concerns, including in particular some of the visual considerations. And I think one thing is also the majority of the projects that would be processing under this wouldn't be subject to LUAC review under our current regulations. But that doesn't mean none of them wouldn't have otherwise risen to a level that a LUAC should have some feedback in. So those are just my thoughts for maybe adjusting the process to help with that public input. And in particular, if any LUAC members would like to have that feedback and commentary early in the process.

And just to follow up, I think that however the public can be included and at least feel like it's a transparent process would be important to me. Because while I think I understand that most of these projects are projects that are for the public benefit and for our environmental benefit, I do completely understand the question of whether... that is true or not. And so for the public to be able to also view them themselves throughout the process would be important to me.

Thank you, Commissioner Roberts. Good point.

All right, Commissioner Diehl. Just wanting to highlight one of the things that I heard from Mr. Cropp, which was a mention of the benefit of public input for a project like this ahead of time, not a report afterwards. But I do know that some of the local knowledge that is carried by not only LUAC members, but others in the area might be of immense benefit to the planning of a project that was a restoration project. It might also highlight some other opportunities for restoration that were related in the ever related web of restoration. So it occurs to me that we have placed upon LUAC agendas an item that says no harm, no foul basically. So that's an applicant or prospective applicant could come to the LUAC without a special agenda item and just mention what they're thinking about doing and hear what people thought about it. And we put that there to help bridge the gap between formal applications, when people have already put in a huge lot of time and effort, and conceptual conversation with your neighbors, which might benefit the project subsequently. That might be a tool that could be used in cases where there would be some potential impacts to the outside world, I guess, if you wanna say from the actual property itself. Not only view shed, but with respect to drainage, I know we've had a lot of really good help from neighbors of projects that we talk about here. with respect to drainage concerns that we might not have been aware of or special status resources or anything of that nature. But I wanna point out that this is not a report after the fact that I think anybody's looking for. It's an opportunity to participate in and hopefully make these projects better. And that's one mechanism that just occurs to me off the top of my head that's underused and might be a good place for something like that.

Thank you, Commissioner. Good suggestion. Commissioner Shaw?

Just along those same lines, though, that when I read in the report that it didn't have to go, this whole complicated, super hard to understand packet didn't have to be reviewed by any, the Land Use Advisory Committee didn't have any input, Agricultural Advisory Committee didn't have any input. I was really disappointed because I would have really valued hearing with all of those different people had to say it was such a diverse group even just in the North County LUAC and the skills and knowledge that they bring to the table would have been really valuable to me to hear what they thought of this. So I would not, I would only be comfortable and I know I'm just one vote but I would only be comfortable moving forward with this if we somehow incorporated those committees back into this process and not as an after the fact like hey we're gonna tell you what we're doing and so you know about it that doesn't i don't find that to be very valuable whatsoever um having been on the other side of this dais before and okay great my comments went on the record and they didn't really do anything so except for go on the record i would want them to have more of a voice in this process thank you commissioner gomez

I like the idea of trying to streamline good projects that benefit both the environment and the community. I also understand the need for public input, so there's gotta be a balance. What I also would ask is that, since it is a new program, that we be provided with a report, at least after, I would say, I don't know, after the first year, after maybe two or three projects are completed. The progress of this this new process Okay

I just want to identify that the RCD is a very special and particular type of applicant. We wouldn't consider a project or a permit like this for an organization that wasn't part of the community and kind of responsible in its charter for responding to the community. And I expect an RCD to behave differently well with relationship to its neighbors. And so I'm a little more open to removing discretionary processes from this particular type of permit because of that. I'm just offering that as kind of a balance point because I also really value the LUACs and the other discretionary bodies that we have that give us really good advice. And I expect the RCD to be taking good advice when it implements projects like this. So I'm balancing this.

Thank you for the balance. Commissioner Work.

I was just wondering if maybe you could explain what makes up a Resource Conservation District Board? It's usually landowner.

Yeah, probably the applicant might be the best person to.

by the County Board of SOUPS. And they are all folks that are, at least by law, either local landowners or designated sort of proxy for a landowner. And yeah, the key is we work with neighbors. We pay critical attention to how one person impacts another, but also that sort of local wisdom and experience is factored in everything. I would expect that we could have our projects as we're developing them brought before our Board of Directors in public meeting, and we do invite public comments as part of that process.

Good. I have one more question before you leave. Did I lose it? I'll come back to it, sorry. Okay.

Oh, oh. Yeah. Commissioner Mendoza, did you catch the idea? No, I'm just kidding. Go ahead.

No idea here. Quick question. What are the other counties doing in reference to the waiver of fees?

Through the chair, we'll have to look that up.

Yeah, my recollection, Santa Cruz, there was a complete waiver. But I don't know how that's evolved over time. I think they had, basically the fees were reduced over time as they saw the performance and the reduction of workload for county staff. But yeah, better to check the facts.

Commissioner Wirt before you, I remembered. Awesome. Do you still have the best management practices as part of the?

Oh yeah, it's built into everything.

Built in. So maybe you could explain that a little.

Sure. I think in the description that Mary provided, we talked about sort of mitigation by design. One, the projects themselves are designed to treat an environmental issue or concern. But as part of every project, we have to anticipate the temporary impacts during the work, and we definitely have to address those in the context of the state and federal permits. So yeah, any temporary erosion, other impacts, we anticipate through other compensatory measures.

Very good, all right. Commissioner Diehl, do you have your finger up?

I do, thank you. Those are really good questions. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the concern around balance and I think it's important that we spend this kind of focused attention anytime we're basically giving up some of our discretion to another body. And I think that's what we're doing here. It's not taking away these processes. We're simply moving that responsibility to another public body. Members of the public who are concerned might wish to become conversant with that and sign up for information for those meetings and see what's going on there. It's certainly an opportunity to do so. I know that I am less concerned because the list of projects is specific. So it's only the list of projects that is being covered by this. You see the list of 13 things they can do. And if you think about those things, they are things that make sense and should be able to be accomplished within the guidelines provided here in my opinion without trampling over any of the concerns that we carry so deeply. We do have to depend upon both the county and the RCD to know things like the specifics of the Big Sur critical viewshed policy being different from everything else, basically make it invisible. But, With the ability to transfer responsibility, it was important to me to be super specific what responsibilities we're transferring. I think this proposal does do that for me, all the way down to what are we gonna do and who's gonna do it. And I... And I must say that given that it's going to another public entity, I feel I can support the fee waiver in the hope that it will cut down on our expenses at this side, clearly transferring them to the other side, but other people's money is a lot easier to spend. So I would like to express my support of this particular proposal and my appreciation for all the work that's going into it.

Very good. Is that a motion? Yeah, I was going to say, is that a motion?

If discussion is completed, I think we've been having a really good discussion.

I don't want to cut short. I've been keeping a close eye on people, and I don't appear to have any more comments. Let me make sure I'm right about that. Anyone? No?

I would just comment that I appreciate this discussion and these alternative balancing viewpoints and the questions that have been asked that I think sometimes these commissioners ask them and they already know the answer, but they're asking so that people who don't know the answer can hear that. So I just wanted to thank you guys for that.

You're very welcome, I'm sure. Commissioner Diehl then, would you like to make a motion?

Yeah, I'd like to move staff's recommendation in this matter. I don't recall any amendments. I think staff's recommendation is as written here. So that's what I'm gonna do. I move staff's recommendation.

Okay, thank you. A second? Commissioner Hartzell?

I second.

Okay, very good. We have a motion. Oh, I should note, Commissioner Gonzalez has left the dais. He had to leave us a little early. So, oh, okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Diehl and a second by Commissioner Hartzell. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. All right, we're going to take a five-minute break, everybody. Get a cup of coffee or... We did the motion, right? Yep, that's all done. Let's move along then to the next item on the agenda. With my glasses on, I'll tell you what it is. It is PLN number 210139. Chenard LLC, I believe. When you're ready, staff, please feel free.

Commissioners. Oops. Good morning, Chair Goetzelman, Planning Commissioners. My name is Jordan Evans Polacco, and I'll be presenting staff support on PLN 210139 Chinar LLC.

Sorry, we're having some technical difficulties.

Excuse us, technical difficulty time. Kick it. Hit it with a bigger hammer.

I'm glad it wasn't just you this time.

So for those of you following along on the podcast, technical services has arrived and we're about to solve the problem. Maybe. Three of the best minds in the business working on it. Yep. Congratulations. Now we begin.

All righty. Again, good morning, Chair Goetzelman, Planning Commissioners. My name is Jordan Evans-Palacco, and I'll be presenting staff's report on PLN 210-139, Chinar, LLC. The project is located at 1905 San Juan Road in Aromas within the North County Area Plan. The subject property is zoned low density residential with a maximum gross density of 2.5 acres per unit and a visual sensitivity overlay. The project involves a combined development permit to allow the construction of a 3,230 square foot single family dwelling with an attached 1,045 square foot garage and associated site improvements, which includes 815 square feet of development on slopes in excess of 25%. The project meets all required site development standards of the low density residential zoning district related to setbacks, height, and site coverage. The site plans included in this project illustrate an approximately 783 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit. Pursuant to Title 21, Section 2164030 and Government Code Section 65852.2, construction of an ADU shall be processed ministerially. Although a planning entitlement is not required and approval for the construction of an ADU is not a part of this discretionary application, the ADU is dependent and accessory to the single family dwelling. Therefore, the ADU remains in the plans. As mentioned prior, the project involves an application for a use permit to allow the development on slopes in excess of 25% as required by Title 21 and General Plan Policy OS 3.5. The parcel is subject to a specific building envelope that is imposed by the original subdivision map that was recorded in January 2008. Sporadic areas along and within the property contain slopes in excess of 25%, as shown in green on the civil plan. The proposed single-family dwelling itself is not sited on steeper slopes, as its currently proposed position is within the most open area within the building envelope. but the proposed single-family dwellings entrance sidewalk, driveway, and septic system leach field involved development on slopes in excess of 25%, with only 815 square feet of grading occurring on slopes. While there is a gap between the slopes in excess of 25% shown on screen in the light red that could be utilized for the driveway to provide more direct access to the proposed single-family dwelling, The grade of that driveway would be greater than 15%, which would exceed the maximum grade of a driveway standard set by the fire department. Due to the size of the required leach fields, location of steeper slopes and native trees, there is no other location that would allow leach fields to occur on less steep slopes. Given the existing constraints, the development of the proposed septic system leach field is best suited in its current location. What is currently proposed to be developed on slopes prevents not only the relocation of the proposed habitable structures from impacting slopes, but also prevents the removal of protected oak trees and negative impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat, therefore better meeting the goals and policies of Monterey County code. The subject property is shown on Figure 15 of the North County Scenic Highway Corridors and Visual Sensitivity Map as being in an area designated as sensitive. The subject property is not along a scenic highway corridor or in a critical view shed. Site conducted a site visit to determine that the project will not have an adverse visual impact as the stake in flagging was not visible from any angle of San Juan Road. And therefore, only an administrative permit and design approval are required in this case pursuant to Chapter Title I, Section 2146. The property is surrounded by mature coast live oaks and other native vegetation along with nearby residences. The proposed development will blend in with the surrounding residential neighborhood and the natural colors and materials that exist in this community. Therefore, as proposed in condition, the project is not in conflict with the surrounding environment or with the surrounding residential neighborhood character and ensures the protection of the public view shed and visual integrity. The project warranted referral to the North County Land Use Advisory Committee because it involves design approval subject to a public hearing. On July 1st, 2026, the North County LUAC voted six to zero in support of the project with a recommendation to adjust the location of the septic leach field to not impact as much slopes greater than 25%, which the applicant followed through with. The single family dwelling will have a modern classical architectural style with rural elements, including stone veneer, off-white stucco exterior, charcoal horizontal exterior siding and trim, and a mixture of dark gray metal and composition roofing with plywood sheathing. The exterior finishes are compatible with the surrounding environment, will not detract from said surrounding natural environment, and are consistent with the residential neighborhood character. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission finds the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15303 and approve a combined development permit to allow the construction of a 3,230 square foot single family dwelling with an attached 1,045 square foot garage and associated site improvements as well as a use permit for development on slopes of 815 square feet in excess of 25%. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you very much. Very thorough. Commissioner Roberts.

I'm wondering if you will put one of the maps back up and point out specifically where the septic system is, the sidewalk, and the driveway that will be built on slopes.

If staff's presentation could be put back on the screen, please. Through the chair, the sidewalk that is proposed to the single family dwelling that will be on slopes is where the cursor is right here. There will also be development on slopes for this portion of the driveway up here, just to follow through the natural grade. just the green on this portion. And then the septic system leach field will occur on development on slopes on this portion right here and then right here.

To follow up then, I think what I'm not really able to clearly see, and some of these maps may show it, I don't know what the sidewalk is. I think I understand the need for the driveway where it is, but the sidewalk, I can't really tell where that is and how much it's in the slope, I guess.

Through the chair, the sidewalk is briefly coming off of the driveway and up to the main entrance, just right up through here where the entrance to the single family dwelling is.

Can we use one of the maps that are included? It seems like I think I see the sidewalk on some of the other maps.

Yeah, maybe. As shown here, so the kind of hardscape connecting the auto court kind of turnaround area of the garage, then connecting to the front door of the residence, that kind of straightaway hardscape area would be on slopes in excess of 25%.

So is it a gray bar that goes basically from the edge of the... Yeah, that's what I'm imagining, the sidewalk?

Yes, and then also just the driveway apron on the private road.

Okay, and is the entire sidewalk in the slope?

Not in its entirety, no.

Okay, so then I guess my only other question in this is, it seems like they did an amazing job with the actual residents not being in slope. Was there not a way to set it back just a little bit to move that? Was that even considered?

Through the chair that was not considered.

Is it feasible? I mean we're making a finding that there was no feasible alternative so I guess that's what I'm trying to get to.

So shifting the residence, what would be, I think it's west but up on this image would then result in the rear half of that residence, especially the top right corner encroaching into steeper slopes. So right now the residence is bordered by steeper slopes on the north and then steeper slopes kind of partially within that hardscape walkway area and then south of that along the property line. So that's without making the residence smaller or I think fully relocating it to another portion. This is kind of the option that staff believes best balances the resources on site. And the hardscape itself Is pretty minor on the steeper slopes.

It's really the driveway apron that has some of the 815 as well as portions of the leach fields through the chair there's also a Protected oak tree that is directly behind the residents as well. And if it would be shifted more Northwest of the property where its current proposed location They would have to remove the tree

I appreciate all that explanation. I guess we may need more evidence in the findings then. My only concern is about the sidewalk. We've been really hard on some projects, and I guess I need to understand, is it three square feet that they can just eliminate? Hundred of those square feet. I don't know We've made exceptions for the driveway seems to be very well documented as to why it should be there We've made exceptions for leach fields. The sidewalk is one of the things we've made people move decks and things in the past So I want to make sure that we are consistent

Commissioner, there is a line in the development on slopes finding that does identify that relocation of the residents would impact steeper slopes and or protected trees. But staff is happy to elaborate on that if desired.

Yeah, I guess for me in particular, specifically related to the sidewalk.

if I may, for staff, because I don't know the answer, is did the applicant look at an option that pushed the sidewalk closer to the residence and would therefore result, I think, in a sidestep entrance up onto the porch as opposed to a front step entrance? And I think that would be the only kind of design alteration that would potentially keep it off of slopes, but I don't know if that was looked at and if there's a reason that was not.

No, that was not looked at. not being an engineer, it does look feasible that you could have a kind of hardscape that hugs the footprint of the residents a little bit more. It would require kind of a different orientation to entering the residents. But yes, like as Ms. Peretti mentioned, it's kind of like a side step into the porch rather than a front entrance.

Again, my point is only to be consistent in how we look at these projects across the county. And I know we've been very hard on others.

And what I would encourage, if it's the desire of the Commission, is there could be a condition of approval added should all other elements of the project be found satisfactory. That does require the alteration of that entrance to minimize, if not avoid, steeper slopes.

Again, for me, we're making a finding that there's no feasible alternative. And so I don't want there to now be a creative solution for no feasible alternative because we haven't allowed that for other people. So I'm not sure what the best way to address that is.

You want to think about that?

I guess that condition could achieve, Commissioner Roberts, what you're trying to get at is to avoid and better demonstrate that there is no alternative in bolstering the findings that say, you know, all the hardscape improvements are localized around the residents and shifting that in entirety would have greater impacts to neighboring resources.

I guess for me, to me, I don't know what the width of a sidewalk is, but it doesn't seem huge. And so if it's a more narrow sidewalk, if it's setting the house back two feet instead of, you know, I don't know what the alternatives are. Maybe the applicant will have an, you know, perspective on that.

Yeah, probably a place to go with that. Commissioner Monsavez.

Thank you, through the chair. I'm just wondering if it's feasible to... shrink the sidewalk to not touch the slope and still have the expectation of proper access through that entryway. If you're coming in with furniture, if you're coming in with a wheelchair, I'm trying to picture that walk up to the door and then that turn and fitting with whatever you're trying to go into the building with. So I just want to make sure that if we're talking about feasibility, well, it's got to be feasibly accessible to whomever's going to live in there. Thank you.

Well, for the applicant, maybe we can ask them that. Commissioner Roberts?

That's fine. I just wanted to follow up that we've made people reduce the size of their homes by a foot or two to make those things feasible.

Yeah, it seems silly for a sidewalk, but that's up to the applicant, I suppose. Let's ask them when we get there.

And through the chair, sorry. No, go ahead. The entire width of this sidewalk is on steeper slopes, so the only alternative to, I think it would be minimized, but not able to fully avoid, would be to have hardscape that follows the perimeter, of the residence. Again, there could be a change to how you're entering that front porch, but if there is still a desire to kind of have that front entrance, you would then have to kind of wrap around. So it would be a longer configuration, but it could reduce some development on slopes.

Can I ask one more clarifying question? Yeah, please. Given the map that's on here, is the dotted line above the gray area that looks like the sidewalk, is that where there's not a 25% slope? Generally. So in theory, the sidewalk could be moved up?

Yes, so if it kind of followed, if it was the same width but followed the perimeter of the residence, actually hugged the residence, that portion would avoid. There may be elements on the southern kind of width of that hardscape that may be on steeper slopes. This illustration doesn't have those differing layers, but it would reduce it.

Okay, very good. We'll also get to the applicant with that. Any further questions, commissioners? Nope, all right, seeing none, then let's move along to the applicant. Is the applicant with us, perhaps on Zoom, online, somewhere? Somebody introduce the applicant for us then, if you would. Who are we gonna be talking to?

Daniel, you should be able to unmute now.

Thank you.

Yes, can you hear me okay?

Please start when you can. Daniel? Is someone there? Hello. Here we go. Yeah. Yeah. Are we having technical difficulties?

Daniel, if you'd like to present, you're able to do that now. We can't hear you though.

Okay, I'm gonna try and call in.

Okay.

Can you hear me at all?

Yes. We can hear you now.

We can hear you now. Okay, sorry about that. Yes. So you guys have some questions and I think you guys had kind of touched on. I mean, we did kind of try to pin the house. Best way possible to 1, get the driveway. To me, you know, fire requirements and, you know, the house. You know, with the 1 tree, and then kind of. Being you can see if we did push the house back where we're into the. You know, the slope behind us, the sidewalk, I mean, 1 action, and I don't know if it makes a difference or a preference to you guys. But 1 thing that I'd also propose is that we could even. Do more of a paper walkway. I mean, if that changes anything for you guys. But we could also move it closer to the house. I just think that is. Not as desirable 1, because it's ideal to have landscaping up against the house. And then also, I'm thinking as far as people coming up into the house, they're walking right up against the house. And the windows that you have there in the front. And so, so having some separation, there is a little bit more desirable, you know, even. You know, someone to use the example of, you know, wheelchairs or even moving furniture into the house being right up against it. Is it was preferred to have some space there and I think architecturally speaking looks much more desirable. So, I understand the. Guidelines you guys have, but I think the most practical. Instances where it's at, you know, if we change the material. If that makes a difference to more of a paper product, but. Not sure where you guys stand on those options.

How does the. material that the sidewalk, well, should we call it a walkway? I'm not sure what we should call it now. How much of a difference does the material composition make in that?

It's just thought, I mean, so typically, if we're doing paper, it's there a little bit, you know, the permeable and a little bit more friendly to drainage and access. Um, but, um, it's. In a sense, it's kind of a bit more of a preference, but. I just didn't know from the commission standpoint if you guys had a preference or how much of a difference that made. Do you have an answer for Mr. Daniel?

Through the chair, the material doesn't matter in regards to the walkway. It'll still be considered development on slopes.

Ah, okay. Okay. That answers that question then. Thank you. Daniel, did you get the answer? I did. Thank you. Okay. Would you consider moving it next to the house then?

I mean, if we don't have an option, yes. I mean, like I said, going back to just what's desirable and what's most common and what you see in almost all residences, it's not normal. But I mean, if that's the basis for this project getting approved, but I would say it's definitely more desirable to have it off the house. And aesthetically, it looks... Better.

Okay. Commissioners, do you have thoughts? Is the applicant, I think Daniel, Daniel, is that pretty much the end or did you want to share something?

If that was all the questions you guys had, but yeah, I mean, as far as kind of the positioning a house and it sounds like we're just down to. You know, where we put that walk again. If that's where it has to be, but I would definitely say. It should be where it's located. But if that's the only way we can get it approved is moving it, then. I mean, just going back to even moving furniture and stuff in trying to get to that porch and then turn a couch around and. They're going to have to walk. They would have to walk where the sidewalk is to get something like that in. Um, but. So there's two different ways is one what's practical and what the other one is what you guys will approve. So we would prefer it to be located where it is because it's kind of where it needs to be. But obviously, we want to get this project approved and built. So that's the only means doing it is pushing it against the house then.

And you're willing you're willing to go along with that, huh?

I mean, we don't have another option, so yes.

Okay. All righty. Is that pretty much, did you want to share anything else with us, though, before we move on to our discussion?

At this time, no. I mean, if you guys have more questions, please let me know.

Oh, we will. Yes. Thank you, Daniel, very much. All right. Now, commissioners. Public comment.

Oh.

Oh, all right. All right, let's move along then to public comment on this item. There is no one in the chambers, for those of you who aren't with us today, so I doubt that there's anyone here that wants to talk about it. Is there anyone online, Madam Clerk?

There are no hands up on Zoom.

Okay, very good. Now, we'll bring it back. Thank you, Commissioner Roberts, for reminding me of that. Now, Commissioner Roberts, did you want to follow up at all on this now?

What I think I heard the applicant say is that he's willing to make modifications to the sidewalk. I don't know if, I guess what I was gonna say is if they're able to move the size of the house slightly smaller to make the sidewalk in the same visual location that he wants to put it in, but not in the physical location so it's out of slopes, I don't know. I'm okay with this project. Without a sidewalk in this slope based on what I've heard. That's however that happens.

It's I'm okay with Commissioner deal What if there was a finding that says that and I think it's reasonable given what the applicant has told us that the dry the sidewalk needs to be where it is for accessibility reasons and I mean, it's a question of the finding not providing a blanket exemption, you can do this because you think it's nicer. I would also just mention to the applicant that with zone zero coming, it might not be too bad to pave right next to your house, they're not gonna let you have foundation plants anyway. But as an example of perhaps the finding could address the fact that the feasibility There may, it may not be feasible to do that without making the change that would cause other issues. Because I don't recall, I don't recall this level of intrusion into a slope, which I assume is a natural slope. I'm assuming that you would have told us if it wasn't. Telling us we needed to reduce the size of the house. I think that would be a heavy lift.

Anyway. Okay. Is there a way, I can see the wheels turning, is there a way that Commissioner Diehl's suggestion might be worked into this?

Through the Chair, I can't really tell from the drawings and I didn't go look at it or anything. Is there a curve that'll fix it? I mean, can you, is it throughout that or is there an alignment that change that would work?

Thank you, Commissioner. If HDMI can please be shared, HDMI, right? So maybe this is a better illustration. So the red line and everything south of this with this orientation would be development on slopes. I chose a poor color, but the yellow could hypothetically be a real line kind of walkway that gets to the proposed location of the covered porch. Again, it would kind of change how you're entering and becoming straight in. Oops. Versus kind of coming up on the front of the residence. So this is a design that Could all avoid development on slopes for that that walkway if there is a continued or a desire of the Commission to have then you know loop back around through the development slopes to have the same entry that that's also that would be minimizing but I Hope this helps as better illustration of the kind of constraints in that area. I

It helps me a lot. Commissioner Roberts, did that help a lot?

It doesn't help my concern, but it helps visually, yes.

It helps visually. Yeah, I meant visually. Commissioner Diehl, does that help clear up anything?

Yeah, it removes a lot of my concerns about realigning it. I don't have an issue with the yellow lines. Daniel, are you still with us?

I am here. You see what we're seeing on our screens right now? Are you viewing the presentation? I am. Could you live with that? The yellow lines moving it back? And as Commissioner Deal said, you might be in a better position fire-wise, I think was the implication. Would that work for you?

And again, going back to, like, the fires, like, I mean, yeah, as far as like, yeah, that would be like a, you know, some more drought tolerant type plants. I mean, it's not going to be anything. Yeah.

No, that was that was only an aside that perhaps that would help with some of those issues. It's an aside because we've adopted new guidelines. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh, I mean, even if that was just like gravel stuck in there to me, it's just having that barrier and the buffer between the house. Cause again, I, I just thinking somebody's when they're moving in, you're, you're bringing in a couch in a fridge up that, I mean, and you got windows right next to it. It's just like in the same thing, when your guests are coming to the house, you don't technically want them like walking right next to the house, but, uh, it sounds like that's the only way we're going to get this approved. So if that's the case, then, you know, we, we,

Okay.

Good.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Based on the train out there, how the properties are, most of them are on slopes. And being that the customer or the applicant kind of feels that it's a better position for the sidewalk to be there, I don't think it's that much of a difference. I think that we're trying to avoid slopes as much as we can, but it's actually, it's not that bad the way that he designed it. And most of the houses out there are probably, I think that if we look at most of them, because it is a development, there's several lots out there, it was a development of several, I think that there will be more than just one that has had that benefit. So... Yeah, I think it's fine where it's at.

Commissioner Gomez.

Going back to Commissioner Diehl's point, maybe, staff, you didn't want to answer, but she did ask a question about whether or not we could make a finding that limits it to the issue of ADA accessibility to address the issue of being on a slope.

Thank you, Commissioner. So there's... General plan policy OS 3.5 has two different findings that can be made. They can be made independent of each other or they can be made together. The first is that the project as designed, there's no feasible alternative that would allow for it to be on less steep slopes. and or that the project as designed better meets the resource protection policies of the general plan and affected area plan um so typically it is limited to resource better balancing resource protection policies but i do want to remind the commission that the feasible alternative finding does not need to be made it can also be supported with just um better meeting the goals and policies of the resource protection being typically avoiding tree removal or policies that are intended to avoid mass disturbance of visually sensitive hillsides.

Thank you. Commissioner Roberts, do you see anything in there that would help you with your concerns?

I'm happy to support a project with the sidewalk out of the out of the slope.

Out of the slope, you mean the yellow lines, is that what you're talking about? Okay, good. All right, any other further discussion? Nope, okay. Oh, Commissioner Diehl.

Yeah, for me, I recognize and respect Commissioner Roberts' concern about us saying something that isn't true. So if we say there's nothing feasible and there is something feasible, doesn't matter what it is. We've said something that isn't true and we know it's not true. The resource protection piece, doesn't seem to apply to me. I mean, it's not, it doesn't make any difference for the resources that are listed. Maybe it does for aesthetics and it's possible that it does for accessibility, but I don't know. But I don't see either of those as being something that I can say and have it be true in this case. That's really the fundamental problem. It's not whether it's a good idea or not. It's whether we're saying something that isn't true and that could come back and wouldn't be something we would say in another case, because perhaps we don't care for the alternative. So Commissioner Mendoza's right. I'm sure other people have done this, but question is that we today would have to say something that isn't true. I have trouble with that.

Yeah, that's the issue, isn't it? That is the O, Commissioner Monsalves.

Thank you, through the Chair. What is the width of the sidewalk and then the image that staff put up with the lines, the width of the entryway as well? Please.

I'm measuring it at about five feet. It might be plus a foot or so to that. The width of the entryway would be about eight feet.

Does that help with your thinking?

So the sidewalk where it's currently situated has a width of five feet approximately. And the the entryway porch is about 8 feet. Can we see that image that you had put up before with the lines please? Thank you.

Can I add something to that? Sure. Yeah, so if you come in from the side of that, you know, we push it up against the house coming in that direction. That's only 3 and a half feet. between the column and the house. And again, we wouldn't be able to push that out because if we push that porch out, then the structure would be going into that slope. So we would just have to push the walk up against the house and just have a smaller walkway.

Okay, I think we're waiting for that. Trying to come up, I believe.

Sorry, if you could give me one minute. No, that's okay.

We'll just talk amongst ourselves for a few minutes. Smoke them if you got them.

No?

All right. So it's an old army thing. I'm sorry.

If staff HDMI right can please be shared. So Commissioner Monsalve, this might help. The depth of the porch is about five feet. What could be a realigned walkway would be about three and a half feet, as the architect mentioned, or applicant, and then the proposed width of the walkway is currently four feet.

Yeah, please, Commissioner Monsalves, when you're.

Thank you so much. This helps a lot. The four feet, that's a pretty wide sidewalk. And the four foot porch is a pretty narrow porch. And I'm looking at accessibility I don't know what ADA requirements are. I just know from personal experience the space that I need to turn a wheelchair around. So if I'm coming up that sidewalk and I'm gonna make a 90 degree turn on a four foot porch to go in that doorway, I'm not sure I'm gonna pull it off. If I'm walking up the walkway along the house, with furniture, a sofa, and I'm gonna make a 90 degree turn to go into the house, will a four foot porch suffice for me to make that 90 degree turn? Depends on the sofa. But that four foot walkway where it is currently seems huge. And I'm having a hard time justifying that you need to cut into the slope for a four foot walkway.

Through the chair, if I may. Sidewalks and walkways per California building code that was effective since January 1st, 2026 should be 48 inches clear width unless unreasonable existing conditions, the enforcing agency may allow 36 inches, so three feet.

Yeah, okay.

Commissioner Roberts. I'd like to make a motion to approve this project with the sidewalk outside of the slope area.

Next to the house.

I don't care where it is, just outside of the slope area. Outside of the slope area.

Commissioner Shaw.

I'll second that motion and add though that there's like plenty of other entrances on this house to bring furniture through like giant entrances. So I don't know that. So for me, that's not a factor in this sidewalk debate.

Okay. Yes. I'm sorry. I thought I was being whispered to you know, I apologize. All right. Well, we have a motion and we have a second What oh Oh miss Fiona. Yes. I'm sorry.

Thank you chair. I Would suggest the Commission consider a condition of approval so the staff can review those construction plans before They're submitted that it does incorporate the modifications as the attached plans to the resolution. Don't illustrate that I

I'd amend my motion to include staff's recommendation.

Thank you. All right. Any further? Staff, anything else? No? And commissioners? Nothing. Okay, very good. We have a motion then and a second to approve the project as so noted. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. We have approval. Thank you very much, everyone. All right, so the last item on the agenda is a referral, a report on a referral, I believe. Okay, is Connor online? So we have Connor, we have- I am. Very good, there you are. Wonderful, would you like to share with us your report for this referral item?

Yeah, absolutely. I believe I circulated the memo to Melissa McDougall. Melissa, are you able to share the screen?

Yes, and we have it here in front of us also, I believe.

Perfect.

Connor, just give us one minute for those on Zoom. We're just waiting to get the environmental health memo shared visually with the group. And it is a part of the agenda packet as well.

If stuff right, HDMI can please be shared.

Excellent, thank you very much. Good morning, planning commissioners. I received this referral regarding the use and permissibility of composting toilets and other self contained wastewater units. I've prepared the memo in front of you outlining Monterey County environmental health stance on what are referred to as waterless toilets. Ultimately, the Monterey County Local Agency Management Program, the LAMP for short, was approved by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors in 2018, as well as the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Our LAMP outlines the wastewater criteria specific to Monterey County and the way we're able to issue permits basically to tackle the receptacles that receive wastewater. So typically in California, the method of removing wastewater falls to regional sewer or private utilities in the form of a septic system. Our LAMP outlines in Section 5.3 that composting or incineration toilets are not currently considered a viable option for sewage management for sites that preclude the use of a conventional or alternative outs Outs is an industry preferred term for a septic system, an onsite wastewater treatment system. And this is because a greywater system intended to handle wastewater from a laboratory or shower would be restricted by similar site constraints as would a conventional outs. So what that essentially means is that while we're talking about these composting toilets as a potential way to remove wastewater generated from a toilet, we still have wastewater being generated from showers, sinks, laundry, dishwashers, and that's primarily classified as gray water. Monterey County doesn't exactly have criteria specific to greywater systems, so we refer to the state's California Plumbing Code Chapter 15 and Chapter 15 does outline provisions for greywater systems to include overflow or diversion arrangements so that when the greywater system is offline, full or under maintenance, that wastewater can be conveyed back to the building sewer or septic system. Furthermore, in my research, out of 58 counties in California, I identified only 10 counties that actually have codes specific to the use of waterless toilets. And of those ten, nine of them mirror Monterey County's stance. And what that stance is, is that we don't prohibit composting toilets or incineration toilets or other waterless toilets. We just do not allow them to be used as a means of demonstrating wastewater feasibility for whatever project is proposed, residential or commercial. And included in this memo are the relevant sections of Monterey County Code 15.20, our sewage ordinance that outline any exceptions for things that are similar to composting toilets, such as a Holloway system. We do have code and criteria that would allow for something like a Holloway system to be possible in certain constrained site situations. Aside from that, I'm available for questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, do you have questions for Connor?

Commissioner Diehl. Yes, thank you. I believe I made this referral first in 2000 and something with only one digit, like five or four or some number like that. So I'm very, very grateful to have it come forward. And I would note that it reflects quite clearly what the county's current stance is. The reason for interest is because in remote rural locations where we're depending on the development of accessory dwelling units as possible housing for the people who live there, this requirement has been so stringent as to be prohibitory. And so looking at alternatives that might be safe for ADUs becomes important in those cases. So I'm really, I'm really, I mean, I see what's there. I see what you got. I see that that is the rule that we're under.

I also see the good deal of that is under our own jurisdiction.

And I want to know if there's any possible way with the technology that exists today that we could look at something that is currently a barrier to the production of housing and change it so it isn't. So that's my question is that are there, given technology improving over time, Are there any possibilities where we might, whether or not anybody else has done it, because of course that's helpful but not determinative, determinant, I'm sorry, can't talk today. Is there any way we can look at ways to make it easier to deal with these situations where the alternative for sewer is not available and septic might suffice as a way to treat gray water, but certainly wouldn't if you add toilet waste. So that's my question. Is there any room to consider changes to the existing regulatory structure that would still be useful?

Yeah, thank you Commissioner Deal. I I do think that this is a slow pathway, but in my time I've been working for Monterey County since 2019 and when I started in this county there was actually sections of this same sewage ordinance. This Monterey County code 1520 that prohibited 80 use if they were to be built on a property that was less than two acres of land that used septic systems and. I have been here long enough to have worked through that code change. When Governor Newsom had changed the state housing laws, we found a way to basically allow for that type of development in the form of supplemental treatment units. And unfortunately, the conversation surrounding these supplemental treatment units is typically the cost. They're very good at what they do, but they are about two to three times more expensive than a conventional septic system. And with these sites in Big Sur, typically we're dealing with steep slopes. I think that that's typically the biggest site constraint that we're trying to overcome with these septic systems. And the way to do that right now is through the beans of what is called a drip dispersal system. It's instead of installing a conventional leach field, you're allowing basically a very shallow discharge of wastewater through what looks very similar to garden tubing, irrigation tubing. And you can install that on steep hillsides up to about 60% slopes or so. And so that is something that, you know, is a viable pathway forward for a lot of these projects. And I do understand that the cost behind them is what is prohibiting more development as a result. But that is to be said, you know, I think that, again, in my time, we received proposals from these supplemental treatment companies where every year, you know, the technology on these treatment units gets a little bit better, a little bit more effective, and a little bit more cost effective as well. So, I mean, it's my hope that, you know, in the near future there will be technology that isn't so cost prohibitive to allow this type of development. But ultimately, we are leaning on the state water board. You know, our lamp is technically our agreement with the state water board for what we are and are not allowed to use. And I do not believe the state water board is looking at composting or incineration toilets right now as a viable pathway forward for this kind of development. without the existing septic system infrastructure there as kind of a backup. That's been our stance for now is when people call and ask about these, we advise that as long as they have a functioning septic system or connection to regional sewer, they are absolutely allowed to install these composting toilets or incineration toilets under the proper building permits. But we don't see a lot of them because obviously once you install that septic system, you're probably going to use it.

And you don't see any path forward to looking at alternatives? Are the alternative dispersal systems allowed under our current code should somebody wish to afford them?

They are, absolutely.

Okay, all right, thanks.

Good, questions further? Further questions?

Either one of those two?

Commissioner Gomez.

You mentioned that several counties have similar

rules on this and are she's mentioned but you'd mentioned that one might be a little different can you explain that one if there is one that's different yeah absolutely um commissioner gomez i was referring to uh yolo county actually um of the 10 counties that have code specific to them we've got alameda butte humboldt mariposa nevada sacramento san diego siskiyou sonoma and yolo And Yolo County is actually the only county in my research that I found actually defines a waterless toilet as part of their code and allowing that certain criteria for waterless toilets. And I didn't fully, you know, tear into their code to look at what all of these exemptions would be, but they classify it as special circumstances. So they still don't necessarily allow it as the, you know, a pathway forward in place of a septic system. I think that they would have to demonstrate, you know, a conventional septic system is not feasible here first, and then they would be able to look into the use of a waterless toilet.

Very good.

Through the chair, I like that. Can we do that?

Well, there, yeah. All right. Any further questions, comments? All right, Connor, it appears, oh, Commissioner Gomez?

I would just kind of concur with Commissioner Deal. I think we should look at this issue some more, including looking at what Yolo County's doing and other counties are doing. I know that Santa Cruz County's doing something. I'm not very familiar with it. I just relatively knew it. I think it came up after the CZU fire in Santa Cruz County, especially for designated areas where we've had emergencies. Okay.

Well, Connor.

Yeah, and I am a part of a septic system technical advisory committee. I'm more than happy to reach out to my contact over at Yolo County and kind of see exactly, you know, how they've been able to navigate this in their county and go from there. Great. Absolutely.

When you find out something exciting, would you get back to us?

Yeah, absolutely. I can definitely do that.

All right. Well, thank you for the presentation. We appreciate it very much. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Then we need to move along to the department report. Madam Secretary, do you have a department report?

Thank you, thank you. Okay, we have quite a bit that's been going on happening and that the department would like to alert you all to. The first up, just reminding public and commission that we have our programmatic environmental impact report of our six cycle housing element update. thank you. thank you. that public comment closes on monday august 31st so just encouraging anyone who would like to submit comments and review that to please do so. We will be moving forward airport land use Commission was able to support the rezoning of the housing element sites that are within the the airport purview and including the proposed by right ordinance with modest modifications so that was a big hurdle for for our housing element happy we got there and thanks to the team who got us there also We have been accepted the county and housing community development by Cal Poly in San Luis Obispo. They have a couple of upper division courses that can participate and support elements of community planning and urban design work. And we've been accepted for this calendar year, both the fall and the spring semesters, for those students at Cal Poly with their faculty members to do some work with our Pajaro Community Plan. And so we will be getting going on that I did want to just flag for our commissioners that are that share in district 2 in that North County will be reaching out because we've been invited both to participate in an introduction course with the class as well as there will be some site visits and so just extending the opportunity so you will get a separate email for that we're just just working to finalize the details Yeah, happy about that. All right, we have a couple other things. Okay, we have an urgency ordinance that the board is considering for a detention facility. I do not have any additional information on that, but should you, I believe Director Spencer is still on and he could answer questions if you have them. We also recently the Board of Supervisors adopted a tax sharing agreement for the Vista Lucia annexation project in Gonzales and that annexation is coming before the local agency formation commission very soon. If you've been following or wish to follow that process. We do want to acknowledge that given the fires in Big Sur and the community as well as county supporting those fires, our Housing Community Development Department is supporting, helping to staff the Emergency Operations Centers in support of those fires, and our Land Use Advisory Committee meetings have been put on hold during that fire. So we're certainly thinking of our community and all of our responders who are working actively down there. The board also recently adopted a point of use, point of entry ordinance for water treatment. Again, I don't have the details of what was in that and should you have questions or wish additional information, we can point you in the direction there. And we also have a new board referral for regarding parking at Point Lobos looking to further prohibit or somehow modify given the ongoing kind of safety concerns and issues with roadside parking along there. And staff is looking to provide an initial response to the board in mid-September. I do have a couple of other items, but I wanted to pause there if you guys have any questions on those. Okay, not seeing any. Just a couple other items. I did want to do a follow-up with this commission. If you will recall, staff did come before you recommending a, excuse me, a continuance on a commercial vacation rental appeal. that was coming before this commission staff had recommended that that item be continued to a date later than yesterday August 25th because that's when we returned to the board for the appeal for a commercial vacation rental that went to the board. So the appeal coming to the planning commission will return in a day certain that was decided at the time and I don't want to misquote however I did want to just update you that the board did was able to rehear that appeal and did did support staffs recommendation to deny the appeal We will explain a little bit of that detail, but that there was no other kind of change other than discussion about it has prompted some questions in terms of areas where we may want to look at possibly refining the regulations. and so again separately staff is going to be returning to the planning commission and the board in another month or two with a review of the status of implementation code enforcement and some policy discussion matters to inform so just that update there and when that appeal to the commission does return we will remind you all of this as well. With that, thank you all very much. Very happy to wish you all a good rest of your day.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, we'll all remember Dolly Parton on our way home. Maybe put on a Dolly Parton song. And we are adjourned at 12.09 p.m. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate your coming and helping. Really? Yeah, I just saw that.