Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Harto, would you mind leading us pledge of allegiance, please? Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner. That was very nice. And now we have the roll call. Madame clerk, would you call the role, please?

Yes. Good morning. Commissioner Getselman here. Commissioner Mendoza here. Commissioner Hartzell here. Commissioner Gome Gonzalez here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Deal here. Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Monsalv here. And if this is the proper time, I'd like to invoke the Just Cause Government Code 54953.8.3C due to a family medical emergency. And I do have one adult present with me at this location. Thank you. Thank you,

Commissioner Gomez. Commissioner Shaw, and Commissioner uh Roberts are absent. Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Oh, she's just walking in right now. Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Roberts just joined us, so we can't count her as absent. Welcome. All right. This is the time set aside on the agenda for public comments. Uh that items that are not on the agenda that someone in public would like to bring to our attention and light up. Okay. Oh, all right. All right. Um, you want to do that right now? Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Go ahead. Um, if we may get the slide up for um Wordley.

Um, thank you everyone for joining today. Uh, we continue to have um we continue to have the opportunity to have our wordly translation uh services offer offered. You will see the bilingual translation up on the screen to your right in chambers today. For individuals who may be joining online or here in chambers that require uh translation services, you can scan the QR code or go to the um to the web link page that is at the bottom left of the slide that is posted. You can then get the wordly prompt, go in and choose your language um and go ahead and enter in for live translation services. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Would you mind um now that we're going to public comment, would you just remind us quickly about the Zoom features?

Yes. For anyone who's joining us today remotely, uh you can during the public comment periods in today's meeting, you can participate by raising your hand using the raise hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom platform or by pressing star9 on your um on your telephone. If you want to participate uh when it's your turn, you can use the microphone button on the platform to unmute yourself or star six on your phone to mute and unmute. Uh and we also have the PC hearering comments email pcaring comments at county of Monteray.gov uh that you can submit comments and we do monitor that and try to capture all comments that come in through the email. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, back to public comment. Is there anyone here in the chambers that would like to address the commission? No, no one seeing no one and no one's coming forward. Um, do we have anyone on the internet that might want to talk to us? There are no emails and no hands up on Zoom. Very good. Thank you very much. We'll move along then to agenda items, deletions, and corrections. Madame Clerk, do you have something for us?

Yes, we do. Uh for the record, we received and distributed uh an ARA memo and from staff and additional correspondence for agenda item number three, REF250037, the water allocation policy. Additional correspondence for agenda item number five, PLN250355 Beck and agenda item number six, PLN241 05 D Carmel Rio Road LLC. There are copies uh distributed on the dis and also in the front part of the room here.

Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any requests, comments, or referrals for the group? I see anyone. Commissioner.

Uh yes. Um it it's it's a question for staff, something possibly that we can put on the agenda for the future. In reference to North Monterey County, we've have thousands of eucalyptus trees being removed. Um, I would like to know if there was an environmental impact report created prior to the removal because they've been there for very very long time. And furthermore, those those hills are pretty bare. I mean, there's nothing on them. Um, one of the concerns would be erosion. And if restoration is also planned for those places where those eucalyptus trees were removed, because we're talking thousands and thousands of them. So there's nothing really keeping that that um earth where it belongs per se. Thank you.

Thank you. You want to address that?

Yeah. And I'll just say briefly I staff's not prepared to respond so we can come back, but I did just want to say briefly the county did have um the county did receive some funding to do a eucalyptus removal pilot program in North County. And so we some of the eucalyptus removal I do know was completed through that. I am also aware that um Calire and other fire uh entities are have also I believe utilized um different uh I believe the governor's exemption to do fire fuel management as well. So staff will look into what we can identify and know and try to bring just through um I'll have it be a referral to provide some information on that and bring that back. Um but each of those programs um for anything that was done through one of the formal programs would have contemplated uh potential environmental impacts and the potential for um with vegetation removal for reveation etc. However, I don't have the specifics but generally speaking they should have contemplated those and I will bring it back.

Thank you. Anyone else? Nope. Seeing no one, then we'll move along to the approval of the consent calendar. Uh the approval includes the planning commission minutes uh for March 25th. And are there any comments or correction? Oh, Commissioner Dal, thank you.

Thank you. First, I want to comment that I don't really think I should be this isolated, but u perhaps it's something I said. Um, I wanted to ask if I could uh pull exhibit B of item one for comment. That would be the draft special joint meeting LUAC minutes. Okay, we'll pull that for comment. Anyone else? No. Seeing no one else. Commissioner, I'm sorry. Chair Gelman, just me. Oh, Commissioner Monsavves.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to request to pull um item C, minutes from April 8th. All right. Thank you.

We'll pull the minutes for April 8th. Um and the uh LUAC. Anyone else? All righty. We would include then I understand as part of this. No, that's separate, isn't it? The appointment of that young lady. All right. Very good. All right. Let's pull those items then and do we discuss those now? Is that the procedure? Yes. All right. Very good. Commissioner Deal, would you like to address uh your concern with the item that you wish to have?

Yeah. I I asked to pull exhibit B which is the minutes of the joint meeting with the Luax because I don't think it's ready to be approved. I believe that uh there should be a listing of the concerns that were raised by the land use advisory committees under the action items. people came to the meeting and made, you know, took the time to state their concerns and I would like to see those recorded on the record on the on the uh in the minutes so that there was some sense that they hadn't wasted their time. So, I'd like to ask that we ask staff to go back and record at least a summary of the concerns that were raised before we approved those minutes. That would be on um action items number one under exhibit B.

Very good. Madam Secretary, can we do that? I mean, do you have that information available to you? I guess would be my question. I the clerk will have to go back and listen to the minutes to capture those key items to add it. So, um so we'll uh deem that as a removal. Um we'll continue it and bring them back. Okay. Very good. Then we'll bring those back when they're so um changed. Um Con Commissioner Monsave, would you like to address your concerns? Thank you, Chair Gelman. My only concern is that I wanted to abstain from voting to approve the minutes of 48 since I did not attend.

Oh, all right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Commissioner, would we ask council to comment on that? I one of the reasons that I um was in favor of the minutes being on the consent agenda was my understanding was it was not any longer necessary to abstain if you weren't at the meeting, but maybe I got that wrong. Oh, thank you. Good point through the chair. That is correct. Um you you do not need to have been at the meeting to to vote on on minutes. You just have to review them. Uh but that's correct under the Brown Act.

All right. Very good. We have the abstension on the record anyway. So uh except for the minutes then that are being pulled to for revision. Could I get a motion to approve the minutes as uh submitted? So moved. Thank you. Is this for the entire consent agenda, Mr. Chair? Um my understanding was that the other was separate. Is that correct, council? the appointment of the uh advisory committee member. I thought I thought last time we decided we needed to do those separately because they it's listed under consent on the agenda.

Yeah, it is listed as a consent item on the agenda. So let's Yes, that was based on direction from the prior commission meeting to put those under consent. Oh, okay. And that as As a general point of comment, we do send we do send the uh thank you letters of gratitude for I remembered I remembered it absolutely in the opposite direction from that. My bad. All right. Very good. The consent agenda then would include the appointment of Tara Evans to the big su land use advisory committee. We have a motion from commissioner uh Gonzalez and a second from

Sorry, chair. Did we take public comment on that item on the consent agenda? Do do we need to have a roll call vote on this too? We do also. All right. Very good. All right. So, we need to have public comment then on the consent agenda items that are we're about to vote on. Is there anyone in the chambers that would have any objection or like to comment? Anyone online or on email? Did we get an email?

Commissioner Monsalv. Thank you. Yes. Just as a point of clarification, since I do not have to abstain from the approval of the April 8th minutes, then I'd like to withdraw my pulling of those minutes from the consent calendar and therefore any motion can include those without my objection. Very good. Thank you. All right, then. Um, where was I anyway? No hands up on Zoom and no additional I appreciate I appreciate you're helping me remember. Thank you very much.

All right. So, we have public comment and we have no objection or any comment from the public. So, let's um have a roll call vote then on the approval of the consent agenda items that are left. Madame clerk, would you mind doing that? Oh, and um someone needs to explain why we're doing all these roll call votes. Would you like to do that? Yes. So, because Commissioner Monsalv um is participating remotely today, that then per the Brown Act invokes the need to do roll call votes for um the votes today. Thank you. All right. So, Madame Clerk, maybe we get the roll call vote, please. Commissioner Getsman, I.

Commissioner Mendulsa. Hi. Commissioner Hartzell. I. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner Work. Hi. Commissioner Deal. Hi. Commissioner Roberts. Hi. Commissioner Monsalv. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you everyone uh for suffering through that with me. Um we will now begin the regular scheduled items on the agenda which began which begins with referral number 250037 the water allocation policy staff when you're prepared to begin please do thank you chair Gtzelman. Uh could you share staff right please? All right. Good morning, Chair Gatsman, members of the planning commission. Sarah Wel, principal planner. Uh, I will be providing or staff will be providing a presentation on the water allocation policy draft that's under consideration today by the planning commission. The requested action today is that staff recommends that the planning commission consider and provide input on a draft water allocation policy for areas in unincorporated Monterey County served by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. So for a brief overview of today's presentation, staff will do a highle summary of the November 12th uh planning commission workshop and work completed to date to get to this point and then uh staff will go into an overview of the draft policy and uh with that also discuss some of the redline edits in response to public comment. So that would be exhibit A was the water allocation policy. This is exhibit A attached to the staff report that was made available for public comment. And then the AADA memo has a redlinined version of exhibit A in response to public comments with staff comment bubbles to help track some of the edits in response to public comment. And uh also in the ADA memo is a updated version of the water waiting list that was updated after conversations with the the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. um as the one attached to the planning commission packet had um projects that had ultimately been able

to get water from other sources. So the list was shortened and then we'll discuss next steps. So we came to the planning commission back in November to just get some preliminary input and feedback on policy options or directions for water allocation. Uh in that workshop we covered a lot of ground, a lot of conceptual ideas, but ultimately heard pretty clearly from the public and the planning commission that a little bit more structure and simplicity would be helpful for the policy. And so staff has been talking with members of the public also in refining the policy direction and approach to in response both to some of the planning commission feedback as well as feedback from uh members of the public. And again, the context for why we came to look at a water allocation policy is um both the county's housing element update that's currently under draft and in review with state HCD. Um changes in state housing law are necessitating water resources be allocated to affordable housing development uh which was necessitating the question from staff on a more structured approach to deal with some of those state law considerations. Uh there's also currently um a finite amount of water made available to the county. So really trying to be mindful of how that water is utilized. Uh and then the other piece of the equation too is we did receive addition the county received additional water 72 acre feet in January of 2025. So that's kind of the landscape that got us to the workshop. and then up until today um some of the policy developments since the workshop occurred again working to simplify the approach and moving with a board policy instead of an ordinance. The board policy is a a policy tool that will allow staff and the board of supervisors in addition to the planning commission to provide additional feedback and changes to approach of allocation depending on how water uh if we get more water the county gets more water resources from the district or if um you know the initial

approach to the policy how we're seeing it actualize or work in reality is a little different. This gives us a little bit more flexibility to be responsive to changing in conditions. Additionally, there was additional outreach and public comments uh that were received. So, staff did speak with members of the public throughout the policy development process and take some of that feedback into consideration with the policy. Uh staff also held a focused housing stakeholder engagement meeting in late March which informed the public review draft that was made available from April 8th through April 22nd. And so during the public comment period, some of the key concerns raised ultimately there's still a little bit of confusion in the policy. Some of those redline edits in the Ara memo are trying to clarify, for example, that the county's tasked with water allocation and doesn't necessarily deal with water credits. Those terms were used interchangeably. There is some confusion on process and procedures for ministerial and discretionary projects. in addition to um clarifying all the categories in the planned ho um planned growth category uh which I'll go into more detail through the presentation and then lastly just some clarity around fixture maximums and how multif family dwelling unit or MFD projects are treated in the policy. Okay. And so the uh staff will now go over do an overview of the draft policy and the responsive edits in that were provided via the AA memo. The has a specific structure due to the fact that it is considered a board policy. Um and so the board policy memo structures in a very specific way. Um ultimately section one had a high level purpose for the for the policy which was ultimately to just have a uniform policy of how water is allocated in the in the district service area. Section two background had some edits as you'll note I tried to note give an overview and then note that the kind of summary of edits that were made to the policy. Um so the background section is really to memorialize kind of best

practices as it related to water allocation and also provide some context on the alo suballocation process. So the Arata edits tried to clarify references to the district and again clarifying water allocation which is what the county is tasked with and that was in response to some district comments. There was a new figure inserted to clarify the service area and also clarify where Calam relates to the greater service area of the district. uh moved some discussion on the cease and disorder from procedures into the background section and then ultimately wanted to acknowledge that 2025 allocation from the district. Section three focuses on again the policy in four key priority areas. So how the policy is structured is we did have that water waiting list. Um and so those I think I believe with the Arada in exhibit B there are two projects that are waiting for water. So those projects would be prioritized and then the remaining percentages would break down into three key categories which are planned housing growth and that higher percentage is indicative of the county needing to provide prioritize water resources for housing growth and affordable housing. Uh first cur first come first serve and then a strategic reserve category which is subject to board approval. Uh the AATA edits in this section were mostly minor edits for clarity and again that um those revisions that were done to the water waiting list. And then section four, the definition section. This is where those use categories are more clearly defined and articulated. And again, the three main ones outside of the water waiting list are for planned housing growth, first come, first serve, and strategic reserve. I'll also note in the front part of this section prior to diving into the use categories uh there is discussion on some county process and procedures that will be implemented including maintaining a list and making that publicly available of water that's

been allocated or requested as part of the construction permit or land use discretionary permit entitlement process. And also uh a note that staff will work to notify as part of the completeness review of a project if projects are eligible eligible pursuant to this policy. So that's to ultimately assist and try to give some earlier notice to folks that are investing time and money and resources in our permitting process that there is water available and that reading the um use categories in this policy for planned housing growth. And we discussed this topic in a little bit of detail at the workshop. There's still an emphasis for um on housing projects that will further the county's affordable housing goals and be an areas planned for growth. Um but through the policy development process um and what was clarified via ADA memo uh is separately and also classified in this category would be ADUs and JDUs that meet certain fixture maximums as well as single family dwelling units on vacant lots of record that meet fixture maximums. The ARA edits work to modify those fixture maximums from for clarity and in response to public comment. So looking at um for ADUs for example that clarifying that those fixture units are specifically for indoor fixtures because typically the larger lot of record would have um landscaping already in place and water allocated to the single family dwelling. Um and then the single family dwellings on vacant lots of record. We did increase that fixture maximum to allow for flexibility for homeowners in addition to account for landscaping. And then there was also some uh information clarified regarding multif family dwell uh developments that meet the definition of planned housing growth. So if it's an existing project and they're looking to expand, that would qualify under this category as well. The first come first- serve category is ultimately a catch-all for remaining

projects that do not meet the definition of planned housing growth. Uh there are still carried through here fixture maximums for residential uses and no maximum for commercial or industrial uses and the Ara edits were carrying through those fixture unit changes to the planned housing growth category to be consistent in this category um and provide some clarity on single existing single family dwelling units um and existing multif family dwelling units and how the policy applies to those. So one of the things we may need to work to clarify a little bit more. The intent of this section is to not allow existing projects to have an additional 25 fixture units of water, but looking at an existing home. And if they're at that limit, then um then adding or getting additional water is not going to be as uh wouldn't be permitted. For example, the strategic reserve category did not uh have any edits. This is a smaller allocation pool for allocation available be made being made available and approved by the board of supervisors. And then there's some exist specific findings that would need to be made by the board to allocate the water specifically tied to looking at design of the project um and really minimizing the amount of water needed if the project complies with county's adopted policies and regulations and if the project would provide affordable housing, create new jobs, or have a public benefit. And then each of the use categories to help clarify a process and procedure splits out um procedures for ministerial projects. So that's typically construction per permits, projects that don't require a land use entitlement. The authority for these is the HCD director designate. Um and then the AAA edits did remove acre feet maximums that the HCD director can approve. And I'll explain that a little bit more in the next slide because those edits carry over to the discretionary process as well. So if a project requires a land

use entitlement, so use permit, combined development permit, the approving authority would allocate the water as part of that process. Um, and looking at the discretionary permit uh approval as a whole. The AATA edits here removed the ability for the HCD director to forward ministerial projects that exceeded certain acre feet maximums to the planning commission. there's some concern related to uh SQA review process and procedures for ministerial projects that then become discretionary or treated as projects under SQA. So we were trying to simplify the process um related to both ministerial and discretionary approvals. And then there's some remaining subsections in section 4 that I'll go into in a little bit more detail. So while that fixture maximum was removed from those other sections in the use categories, um ultimately the HDD director still can forward as allowed in various parts of the county code currently um certain projects to the planning commission for discussion or excuse me decision. Clearly I can't see that far. Apologies. Uh and then the AATA edits in this section just removed one of the findings based on a public comment that was received. In terms of the uh so the purpose of the time limits kind of discussion ultimately is to try to align water allocation running with approved permit time limits as outlined in the Monterey County code. So, for example, if an administrative permit had a 2-year approval time frame without grant getting an extension granted, then the water allocation would run for two years, and that's how long it would be tied to the project once the appointing authority approves. If there was no extension granted, then that permit lapsed, then that water would be returned to the county's bucket and be able to be allocated to other projects. What we did do, what a county staff did do here to clarify time limits is to note that the amount of time that water could be held by a project inclusive of

both the original project approval and any additional time extensions is that the water could be held for a maximum of 5 years. And this is to again help encourage and make sure processes are moving projects are moving diligently through the development process. Uh new subsection five was added. So some of this discussion was already in the background section, but since it was creating a procedure for how to deal with allocation for projects requesting WA water prior to policy adoption, we staff relocated it to the procedure section under subsection 5. Um and this clarifies the procedure for both ministerial projects, so again those construction permits being approved by the HCD director um or designate and that discretionary projects would have the water allocated through the discretionary permit process. Uh lastly the annual review of the policy. So this is um a section that requires HD review the allocation on a regular the allocation policy on a regular basis and the review of shall consist of specific topics. Ultimately this is to make sure that the policy as much as possible can be reflexive and responsive to changing conditions as it relates to water allocation. The AATA edits clarified that this isn't necessarily an annual review process. It's going to be an ongoing process with HCD and it was to clarify the title be more consistent with what the language of the text is below in this section. In terms of next steps and timing, since this is a board policy, the board is ultimately responsible for adoption. Um, and staff is anticipating that uh we would continue to move through the process and go to the board of supervisors for uh a meeting in early June for policy adoption and approval. And ultimately, it's staff's recommendation that the planning commission consider and provide input on the draft water allocation policy ser for areas served by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. It'll um it is important to note that

staff will transmit this planning commission recommendation to the board of supervisors for consideration as they consider adoption of the policy. For board policies, no formal recommendation from the planning commission is required as it's an administrative policy approved by the board. However, the planning commission's feedback is integral to the implementation of the policy and their feedback is really valuable to staff. And that concludes staff's presentation. Um, happy to answer any questions that you have. I believe we also have Craig Spencer, director of HCD, um, available via Zoom for questions as well. Very good. Thank you very much. Commissioner Deal, do you have questions? Yes. Kind of figured you would.

I do. I I first want to commend staff for their responsiveness to the u outreach that we requested. I really appreciate that that has been so diligently done and so obviously included. I think that's hugely important to the acceptability of the policy. So I appreciate that. Um, I want to note that from my point of view, um, I have not had sufficient time to decipher the latest IATA memo, redline comment document. Um, it's difficult for me to make a a real read of a policy as a whole unless I can see a final without the edit copy to begin with. And then to go on with this is as it's late breaking got some editorial issues and so those distract me from the from the substance personally. Uh it's a personal failing I know but that is just the way it does. Uh when you read a sentence and the sentence is not complete um it's an issue for me. So this from my point of view this is responsive and latebreaking and subsequently um I don't know that I can make comments on the entire document that are specific to the outcome of the policy as a whole. I do have some very general and probably probably uh very elementary questions in general and I I just think it would be it's kind of it's kind of a obscure and yet it's a very important issue that a lot of people are going to be very concerned with. And one of them is just a I think more for the the average member of the public that may be interested because I know they've contacted me. What does this mean for

people who have been wanting to put in a new bathroom? Um, so the main thing with how we were trying to treat I I'll give a pass and then let other staff chime in as well um in their experience with the county. What we were trying to do with the policy itself is specifically for new residential units in the planned housing category have a fixture limit to ensure that there's not or fixture maximum, excuse me, to ensure that there's not excessive water fixtures um and that we're we're really focused on trying to preserve and get the most bang for our buck as it relates to the existing allocation. What again in terms of the first come first- serve category which is where a project where an expansion or a remodel would most likely be permitted or occur um there is still that water fixture maximum in play. And so if there is a house or a project where they're not at the 25 fixture limit count that they would be able to apply for a permit and get water for a minor expansion or remodel. um for projects that are exceeding that um the policy is not necessarily prioritizing those projects at this time at least how it's currently drafted. Um I don't know if secretary or

is it prohibiting putting I mean there are a lot of people have been waiting for that for a long time. They've applied they've been denied. So the waiting list doesn't include any of those folks that have been u certainly interested in that for a very long time. Um so are they still procluded from doing that? how the policy is drafted. Um if they don't have if they already are in exceedence of the fixture maximum they would not be eligible to add a bathroom. Okay. U question two with that is suppose they wish to add a JADU are they then able to do that for example to convert a garage or some other attached structure.

Yes. So what we tried to do and this was also in response to some of the public comment and also acknowledgement of ADUs and Jadus are part of the housing element. they are a way for some of our smaller lots to further further housing development or growth. And so under the planned housing category, which is that larger bucket uh ADUs and J8US would be eligible and that's on I know I'm trying to walk so that's uh procedure section 4 that's Roman numeral one housing growth uh subsection B. So I'm trying to walk folks through it. Uh, so ADUs or JADUs that would meet 12 indoor fixture limits and we tried to that's roughly I believe two bathrooms um would be able to do an ADU or a JADU.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Um, I wanted to I'm not going to go into editorial comments because it's just too confusing. Um I wanted to also just ask that we received a a letter um on the dis here about SB 330. Wanted staff to address that letter and in terms of whether or not we felt it had been sufficiently covered in the existing policy recommendation. So staff did have a chance to review the letter. Um given that it's SB330 is a bit of a complex legal matter um and that we received it last night, staff doesn't feel prepared to uh answer that at this time.

Very well. So, with that all of that being uh said and with my ongoing issues on not feeling as if the policy is entirely gelled yet, um I'm going to just state at the outset my thought that we might want to take another look at it before we try to say what we actually think about the outcome. But, um certainly that's subject to further discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Deal. Commissioners, Commissioner Hartzell,

the numbering structure in this is it inherited from board policies? Generally, the section numbering I believe is in terms of the like the larger headers, but the other numbering is not. We might be able to tweak it and make it a little easier for readability or cross referencing. I find the double use of the capital Roman numerals really difficult to work with.

Also, um just one more typo. Section 4 one Roman numeral 3 section B discretionary process. There is a sentence in there that doesn't make sense to me. Okay. Um, I had the same question about section or SP 330 and just wanted to check on with county council. Any information you can provide us on how that would apply

through the chair? Uh, my answer is not much different than staff as it was received late. Um, I need to look at it more closely. I understand the legal issues, but I need to look at the county's policies and and see whether the argument applies here. So, I'm going to do that and work with staff to get an answer soon. I don't feel like I have to be the person who reviews whether or not that applies here, but I just want to identify it as a I hope someone does. Um, I think that's all for now before public comment. I'm going to hold the rest until we hear from folks.

Okay. Very good. Fellow commissioners, anyone else like to Commissioner?

Yes, thank you. And uh again, thank you for addressing some of the comments that the public has uh brought forth and I'm sure well uh are we going to continue? I'm assuming the answer is yes. um to address some of the issues that were raised based on a few of the letters that we received and also on some of the information that we received uh via emails or additions. So the AA memo carried through uh comments that were provided during the public comment period and so we again are in receipt of additional comments that were received both in the agenda distribution and as we continue to move forward to uh the board adoption or again pro getting additional input today staff will take those um comments back into consideration as we continue to refine the policy.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else? No. Very good. All right. Well, let's uh move along then to public comment and we'll open that up. First of all, anyone here in the chambers would like to speak to this agenda item, please come forward. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Joel Panzer. uh just happen to be here today because I've got another matter. Um staff had uh commented on and I've been doing land use and planning in Mon County peritting the county for about 40 years. So staff had a comment about investing time, money, and resources in the permitting process. And I think one concern I have when I when I review this is that um I've had projects that have taken two, three, four years to get to hearing for a variety of issues. And I've had seen other applicants that have come through that have filed a permit a year or two later that kind of sailed through. So you find yourself in a situation where you may invest, let's say, $50,000 or more to chase a permit and you get to the end of the road and the water is not allocated until you have a land an approved land use entitlement. So I wonder if you can factor that into the cons consideration. I don't know if there's a no pun intended, but a pool of water. Could people get penciled in because they they've faithfully initiated an application process but they can't control timing or outcome etc etc. So that's one thing to think about. The other thing I just bring to your attention is it's sort of um I don't want to say unfairly but people in the coastal zone are on in an unequal footing. Um, if you can't count on uh portable water, if you're in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District area and you propose to drill a well, that's a pretty significant

expense. But on permitting standpoint, you file for your coastal development permit application. One of those is the ability to drill a test well to then find out if that test well can produce. Then there's a second permit, if I remember correctly, to then say, okay, the well has proved that you have water to do it. if there were a way not to have an applicant go through that tremendous cost and this is for brand new residential construction presuming it's 0.25 acre feet or less. Um so it's just I I I think I see that as a fault in in the policy and the way it's written. Uh so I just thought I would bring that to your attention. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Panzer. Good morning, chair and members of the commission. Uh Patrick Arasco. Um we are developers of uh single family and multif family housing. Um here on the peninsula, we've entitled several hundred units in the last couple of years and have uh other projects in the hopper, including uh two projects that are designated as um housing opportunity sites. Um Mr. Mr. Panzer picked up on the key issue that I wanted to reiterate uh which is that um projects of scale uh typically are several hundred,000 uh dollars into just the preliminary application um and at sometimes millions of dollars into the final application or the approval process u by the time uh they're eligible as the waters as the policy is presently written. And um I would advocate that um applications once deemed complete, which assumes that the property uh owner has control of the property, which typically costs considerable amount of money. Um has spent a considerable amount of money uh satisfying all departments after several rounds of comments. uh that that be the time at which uh water essentially is set aside and earmarked for that project and that staff work to identify milestones that are reasonable and consistent with the historic amount of time that it takes to get through the process so that uh what Mr. Panzer identified does not happen, which is the applicant does everything he should and puts the project in the county's hands and then even though they're being diligent in pursuing that application, uh find that they get to the finish line after the water has been used up. Um, second point I'd like to make is that

the the reservation list uh from the applicants from 2015 uh I don't I don't have much color on on circumstances there, but I'd like to suggest that they be held to the same per unit uh cap uh that new applicants uh are being held to at 0.25 acre feet. Um the 12unit subdivision by example is requesting uh 75 uh uh acre feet per unit which is three times the amount that new applicants are requiring. So the net result is that that water could be used for between 26 um at the 0.25 uh maximum and as many as 100 additional units in the case of a multifamily development. So the county has an opportunity to stretch their water water further. The last comment I'd like to make is that the maximum allocation on a per project basis uh was in all prior drafts. Um and it looks like it was taken out in this most recent draft. Um I would like to suggest that the water not be earmarked for a single large project. uh there's going to be a considerable amount of competition uh for this water and to the extent that the county can leverage it and spread it out. I think that the original 15 acre foot um uh allocation on a per project basis was extremely generous and and remains appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Rosco. Appreciate your comments. Good morning, Chair Gatsman and members of the commission. I'm Cody Phillips from Anthony Lombardo and Associates. Um, and we want to thank everyone for the opportunity to uh comment on this draft policy. Um, we have a number of concerns with the with the county's policy and it's our hope that the issues that are raised by us and our in our letter which we sent yesterday evening as well as other members of the public are taken into account and considered when the uh updated iteration hopefully comes forward and whenever you guys see it again. Um, we did send a letter yesterday, so I won't go through all of the the points, but um, I do want to hit on a few things that were partially addressed in the ARA. Um, but but still I think may need some further explanation. Um, I think f first of off first off like uh Mr. Panzer and Mr. Rosco. Um, we do have significant concerns about the lack of asurances for specifically, I think, complete applications, applications that have been deemed complete and are in the pipeline. Um, we have an example uh in our office, Mr. Yuan Shen's application, which is PLN210253. Um, it's a 29 unit uh uh project in the Laguna Sake Office Park and it's been complete for a long time, but there's no guarantee or there would be no guarantee under the policy that that project would uh have the water necessary for uh actual development of the project uh at the time that it eventually gets approved. And as such, we would urge the

commission to prioritize water allocation for complete applications. Um, and that would protect the investment that developers have to make in order to to get through the process and would ensure you know some level of fairness in that degree. Um, additionally with respect to the actual allocation percentages, the 80% for the plan housing growth, 15% for um, first come first served and then the strategic reserve, we don't see a clear rationale that's been set forth in the policy as to why 80% goes to planned uh, housing growth. And uh, we would uh, request an explanation for where that that calculation came from. Um, there's also several references to the affordable housing overlays and the housing element opportunity sites in the policy, but there's not really a lot of information as to the size, number of potential units and uh the the actual development constraints for the development of those affordable units on the properties that are identified in the housing element. Um, and I think if we had some kind of a a table or um or maybe a map, some kind of a graphic showing where these are and explaining what development constraints are applicable for those sites that would help inform decision- making and it could even be references to the upcoming housing element that's uh that's going to be certified by the state. Um there have been some changes based on the Arada to the number of fixture units that or the minimum uh fixture units that would be allowed for single family residences and for ADUs. We appreciate those adjustments and think they're uh more realistic, but they may they still may not actually reflect the needs of

the community and think it would be helpful to have the commission maybe review some or or maybe staff can bring to the commission some examples of real world projects that have been approved recently. the amount of water that those projects have utilized. Making sure that whatever limit is put in place is um realistic and reflects what actual development uh needs. Um and then finally there are some procedural aspects within the policy regarding appealability, the distinction between ministerial and discretionary uh approvals and the appropriate authority um for the appeals. And some of that was cleared up in the Ara, but we think that regardless, there may be some changes to the code that will be necessary as a result of the the uh what's been put forward in the policy. So we would suggest that when this comes back it would be accompanied by um draft ordinances to update the code to to ensure that the policy can actually be effectuated um on a on a code basis. So um I think that that's basically our comments. I would also uh however Mr. Rosco made a comment about the 12 lot subdivision in Carmel Valley and the water that was allocated the uh the 8 acre feet. That project specifically has a uh long uh sort of complicated history which involved a purchase of water from the water management district years and years ago. The vesting tenative map was approved with the eight and some change acre feet and uh and that amount of

water specifically was confirmed as being allocated to the project as recently as just a few years ago when the subdivision would was extended for four years. So anyway, with with that I will conclude my comments and thank you very much for the opportunity again. Thank you sir. Anyone else in the chambers like to comment on this item? Seeing no one, Madame Clerk, do we have anyone online or Zoom?

Yes, we have uh Laura Davis. Miss Davis, please go ahead.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Laura Davis commenting on behalf of Landwatch Monterey County. Thank you for your efforts to craft a water allocation policy that will best serve the community, specifically when it comes to building affordable housing. An effective policy needs to balance the county's interest in avoiding allocating water that then goes unused and developers interest in receiving asurances of a water allocation early enough in the process to eliminate uncertainty and to secure funding. We don't know what the right solution is to balancing these interests, but we encourage the planning commission to consider comments from all sides and to continue to engage in a robust discussion with developers about what time frames would most facilitate muchneeded workforce housing development. Land supports including language that would place a water allocation on hold, stopping the clock that would otherwise run in cases of litigation challenging a project. We also support some form of a use it or lose it approach to water allocation once final permits are issued to ensure that projects are built and if not that the water will go to another developer who will use it. Whatever approach the county takes those time limits should be clearly outlined in the policy. We acknowledge that there is a trade-off between the risk of hoarding water and the risk of disincentivizing investment in the entitlement process. A number of factors go into balancing the two sides. For example, it should probably be possible to reserve water for projects that need discretionary approvals earlier than when those approvals are granted because builders may otherwise not be able to secure financing for the approval process. On the other hand, developers may need to demonstrate more skin in the game than required by a preliminary application to justify an allocation and prevent hoarding. Again, we don't know where the sweet spot is. So, we ask that the planning commission carefully consider and weigh all sides in crafting a policy that supports facilitating housing for local working families, an

objective that we all share. To achieve the county's ambitious housing goals in the six cycle housing element, it is important to acknowledge that 85% of all housing in California is built by private developers. Consequently, we recommend the county continue to collaborate closely with housing developers on policies that impact housing formation, especially water allocations. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Do we have anyone else online or Zoom or was no additional hands up on Zoom and no emails?

Very good. Thank you. Staff, can you um can you clarify any points for any of the public comment that you heard? I'm just looking at my notes briefly. Yes. No, take your time. We're not trying to rush you through this.

Yeah. Um I do think and we heard both in the written correspondence and in public comment today the the questions around being able to reserve uh water earlier in the process. So staff, that is something staff can think about and digest and I can defer to the secretary as well as our HCD director if they want to provide additional input on that approach. What we tried to do in the procedure section was at least have a note to provide at the completeness stage eligibility. I understand that's not the same as reserving or holding water, but we were trying to strike a balance as well of notifying developers and individual community members that are investing in time, money, and resources into the development process that if if they're eligible or earlier in keeping with the policy, but also trying to strike a balance of not wanting to lock up water for extended periods of time. So, um, that was something in the policy that was included, but we're open to, uh, thinking through that process a little bit more. And I don't know if, uh, Craig or or, uh, Secretary have anything to add to that.

Do we have anything from the secretary? No. Mr. Spencer, do you have anything you'd like to add, Mr. Spencer? Um, good morning. Good morning.

Thank you. I I heard a few comments that I could respond to. Um I I think one of them being information about housing opportunity sites and their constraints. We do have a a large amount of information in our draft housing element in that respect. Um, and uh, I heard several other comments, but uh, I don't think I need to respond to them unless there are questions from the commission at this time. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Spencer. Commissioners, do you have any questions, Mr. Spencer, or further comments?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

Can I make one more? Um, we were also again trying to hear the planning commission and members of the public trying to acknowledge and and again there does need to be structure. It's a policy but trying to simplify as much as possible the implementation process and being able to explain that to the public and also acknowledge that we do currently from the district. And we did receive correspondence that and the district spoke at the last uh workshop that more water will be made available to the county as we continue to move through the 72 acre feet that was was allocated in addition to some remaining amounts that the county still holds on to. So we were again trying to be mindful of all the pieces of the puzzle while striking a balance and acknowledging we do at the end of the day at this point in time have a very limited amount of water. Um, as Craig Craig noted, the housing element does have a very robust analysis related to water constraints in the throughout the county and will be probably as part of the implementation process looking at policies for other parts of the county as well as it relates to water and prioritizing prioritization of utilities. So, that will be forthcoming in the future. Um, but we have a lot of housing opportunity sites and growth planned for in this service area and the 72 acre feet is not enough is not enough. Um and so just wanting to be frank about that at a high level. Again, we are trying to prioritize and balance all the needs of members of the community that have been waiting for a long time, trying to provide that certainty to developers who are doing h housing and projects in the service area. Um but also trying to be realistic with what we can do with this policy at this time. So that's just some additional context I wanted to provide in light of the public comment and um some of the comments Craig provided. Thank you. Um, thank you. Commissioner,

can you provide a explanation of where the percentage the 8055 came from? I remember it from the last workshop, but I'm just wondering if you can spell it out for me.

Sure. I can I can uh provide a highle kind of summary and then I'll let any other staff add if they have additional context. um that I'm missing. So we went with again the 80% or the larger bucket of WA. We were trying to find a way to ensure there was prioritization of water projects without again over complicating the policy. I think at one point when we came back to the commission previously it was like oh do we score projects? do we have this B? And it just got really conflated. And so that's where staff and the continuing to review the policy still wanted to show kind of a good faith effort in keeping in line with state law and also bucketing a larger percentage which is the 80% the number came from for given the amount of water and housing need as identified in the housing element. that was a partial driver in addition to some of the other projects that we that staff thought made sense to lump in and acknowledge that again property owners have had vacant lots for a number of years they haven't been able to do x y and z with them so including those single family homes as well as the ads and jadus and so given that that category is trying to do a lot and has a lot of need that is why staff dis um the 80% and then the 15% first come first serve again there is still a lot of need in that category too, but trying to balance again the planned housing growth, other types of projects, and then the smaller strategic reserve category um gave a smaller bucket for those projects that really have a a larger community benefit that the board of supervisors could approve. Um, and I also want to say we did look at I don't want to misspeak but I I do feel like as we were doing some research on how other jurisdiction did it. There was this smaller kind of reserve bucket that has always been held by a jurisdiction agency or entity for those projects to have a little bit more flexibility for

projects that don't fit into specific categories. So, that's a summary that I think hopefully partially addresses your at least partially addresses your question. Is that good? Are you satisfied? I would love to hear what the secretary has to say. Oh, well, wonderful. I think just more of for me just a little bit more of a a truncated reminder of this policy is can you is it all right? Sorry. Usually it does a better job at capturing my louder.

Thank you. Um just I think one reminder is this policy gives guidelines. It's based on what our allocation is today trying to balance a number of things. It does a couple of points because it's a board policy. Um that's a part of why staff's recommending it be implemented as board policy because it can be amended. We will be tracking if we look like we're going to run out of our allocation if by reserving 15% for those needs. we can come forward and say do you want board to move some of the water to make it available. So we staff has that ability and we will be monitoring it. Uh the other thing I did want to say is what this what this policy is trying to do is is set a policy so that as much disc as much um ability can be transferred to HCD for projects where needed that are consistent with state law, ministerial approvals, etc. to allow those projects to move. There's discretion for all projects that would be discretionary. Those will they they will need to come forward discretionarily anyhow. And for any other project that doesn't fall in that, it simply reserves the right for for the board to be able to weigh in on whether or not we make and how we make water available. So, it it just adds a layer to that process. And again, that can change over time should should the board determine that um water is what it is or more allocations become available and it become less critical to to meter it. So I think I just wanted to reiterate the highle intent and purpose and structure of this policy at that 15,000 foot and how then those details play themselves out.

Thank you. I want to acknowledge a knowledge gap that I have. Um, so I hear the county saying we have more planned housing projects than we have water for. I hear the water district saying something different than that. That our that our like structure is incorrect. And I hear Mr. Lombardo's office in their public comments, but also kind of woven throughout the public comment that um everybody wants it and everyone wants wants it somewhere else. Um and I don't know how to decide who's right because I don't have those numbers in front of me and I'm not spending a ton of time looking into that. But as someone who's trying to give you public or feedback information on where those percentages came from as related to the housing um what we just sent to HCD would be useful in responding to the county's position on this. That's one. two is I've heard the developers in this room say that res reserving water earlier in the process is important. I heard Landwatch say we know there's a sweet spot. I want to help find the sweet spot and I don't know how. Um and so information or examples that could be brought before us that would help us illustrate that would be incredibly valuable to me if I ever have to look at this again. Likewise, the suggestion on um looking at a project and the amount of housing fix fixtures that are required either for indoor or both indoor and landscape would be a useful piece of context in trying to give feedback on what's in this policy for me.

I'm all done. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Roberts. I have a question I think for staff about how um the allocation is reserved and I think in reading it it looks like it's when it gets to construction level. Um is that true? Uh so how for the discretionary permits once say the planning commission makes a decision it would be held by the project at that approval point and then issu the we would have a construction permit they'd go through that process and then they'd get the water at that time and then for construction permits when it's when a permit is issued they would have the water.

Okay. I guess based on what I've heard and from my experience it would also be important to me I think that that reservation is made earlier in the process. Um, maybe it's a time limit, maybe it's a, you know, maybe there's something attached to that reservation, but I agree with what I've heard today and from my own experience that a applicant has to know whether or not they have water early in the process. Otherwise, that's just not a reasonable thing to move forward without. So hopefully when when we see this again, there there will be some kind of um adjustment for that. Um, and that that's my feedback.

Okay. It Commissioner Deal,

thank you. It's a It's a really important issue. I mean, I don't in any way want to to seem uh as if I don't think staff's done an excellent job. I really do. It's hard to make this clear. I think transparency is super important here because of the way we feel about water in Monterey County. My mind keeps going to a visual. Uh I would feel better if we had a chart that said we have this much water. We have this many projects that are entitled to this water at this time that have not yet been built but have already got the water. So this much is left and that that chart was continually updated. In this day and age of computers it would be not all that complicated to do. That brings me to the question that I think I've heard my colleagues talk about and that I that I'm really compelled to address, which is my experience tells me that such a graphic could reflect that an application was complete. That could be done. There could then in the policy be benchmarks for progress towards building that might be able to provide us with protection from getting your reservation in and then sitting on it. I mean kind of like a hotel. If you don't show up at 6 p.m. you don't get your room. Um, but I keep going back to the thought that it's very complicated and and you saw me heard me talk about just being a little baffled by having this latest draft. I hadn't had a chance to think about it and the older I get, the more time I need to think about things. Um I really think that a simple present visual presentation of

how much water do we have, how much water has been allocated, you know, and where those are in the line. You can actually have two that says these people are building this water's gone. These people have a completion that water is reserved. And you know, so you could you could visualize it so easily that people would know where we stand and that makes it easier for some other agency if they have a different opinion to weigh in because that we have a common frame of reference. So I I really want to advocate overall for as I have been all along for the need to be as super clear which I think we've made great progress on with this um and to be um mindful as my colleagues have have stated already about the need for u for earlier clarity on whether or not a project is going to be buildable because as we've heard from the public there's no possible way to get financing if you're still in limbo about whether or not there's going to be water when you get the project through. And uh that doesn't help us with speed. It doesn't help us with getting these projects built. Um even something as small as an ADU. So um I really want to say that for my mind, a project being complete is a huge milestone. It's not like we just complete it because you filled in a checklist. In most cases, maybe with an ADU it is, but on the other hand, that's a good checklist. So, by the time a project of any scale has been deemed complete, the number of things that have had to be checked is just monumental. Um, and as as we've heard and and as I know personally, it can cost millions of dollars. So, um, I think that's a good benchmark to at least start a reservation from listening to all the people who are talked here. I wasn't wanting to highlight the comment

from land witch watch about clarifying a clock stop for litigation because of the litigus litigious nature of our community. Um and um um let's see I had another note here the draft of implementing ordinances. So, I want to ask staff if they felt that there would need to be significant implementing ordinances based on uh board's policy direction in this matter or whether they were attempting to use it as direction that would, as the secretary said, be relatively flexible in the event it proves to be uh necessary to flex.

Um, I can speak to that briefly and then if the secretary can chime in. Um what we were trying to do with the policy and part of the cleanup we did with the Arada edits was to be in be able to use some of the existing structure of the Monterey County code related to appropriate authority procedures etc. So, initially, uh, staff was not anticipating any major code changes or amendments would be necessary. And so, part of the part of the cleanup was to also try to get better in alignment to rely on the existing structure of the code um, and then have the policy be flexible as needed to deal with different buckset or use categories. That was originally the intent. That's something we can again take a look at um, as we continue to refine the policy, but we were not anticipating any code amendments. So maybe a process map that just says how it all works so people know what the what what the road ahead would look like.

Yeah. And and one of the things too that's not before you today, but we do we are working behind the scenes with our our staff on ter in terms of processing and having guidance documents as well as road maps and and visuals available both on the website and then to be handed out to members of the public once this comes online to help walk people through the process. So that's something that's happening happening more internally as we're continuing to look at um continuing to look at and refine the policy. But the policy is not intended to specify that at this point. Correct.

Okay. And then my final comment was I I noted here um I think it was Mr. Arasco's note about um the large project cap. Staff want to comment on that? It is a change. Um part of the reason that yes one of the AA memo edits so previously the public review draft did have the cap for ministerial approvals of acre feet the director could approve um for planned housing growth in addition to the first come first serve. Part of the reason that was removed via Arada was the the concerns related to forwarding any, you know, ministerial project to a discretionary hearing and potential SQA implications related to that. Um because if there's ministerial and discretionary components of a project, it is then a project subject to SQA. So it kind of it was an unintended consequence that we needed to tease out it to clarify. So that was part of the reason that that was stricken from the policy. I didn't understand that.

So for so for example, say there is a project that just needs a construction permit and they're requesting 16 acre feet. Um how the policy was previously written is it would become it would come to the planning commission for review and approval. The point of part of the process with a ministerial permit is it's not considered a project under a squa state squa guidelines. So there isn't environmental review for construction permits, for example. If that was then forwarded to the planning commission, it would become a project under SQA. So you're telling me that there could be a project that could come in that would need nothing but a building permit that needs 15 acre feet of water.

If I may, if I may, through so state law as well as implementation of our housing element will result in certain projects being byright and ministerial. Um and however housing element implementation is going through its EIR. So some of those changes will come through that and then when those policies go in place. So yes, it is possible that at that when we go through and make those updates and we establish a byite u ministerial approval process which will include criteria that are evaluated as a part of our housing element ei programmatic e um could establish then a very clear checklist and opportunity for ministerial approval of certain say 100% affordable projects on housing element sites that meet certain criteria. So it is as we're setting up these policies, the policies today do not do that, but as we set those policies up, that will establish ministerial approvals. Water will be a piece of it. So um when we're setting up our policy changes to establish those ministerial approvals for these by right projects, we will address water in that. Um but we cannot through this policy add a discretionary layer to something that is ministerial.

So we're writing the policy to acknowledge that currently no but we will be putting policies in place that will may and may allow such a thing to happen. However, when those policies go in place, it will clearly contemplate and that is a part of our um kind of through that implementation, it'll clearly contemplate all these other criteria. So if that so this policy says if if if there is a project that is deemed that it is ministerial, water is also a part of that ministerial approval process. If there is some,

if there is some, there's none. We can't help that. That's If there is some, does that does this policy then say if there is some within the 80% or is there is it if there is some at all within the 80%. But what staff would do for example is if we identified a project that was coming through that we could go and request from the discretionary portion that more be transferred to that. We are limited by water. Projects can't move forward. And that'll be very clear. You can't get approved for a construction permit for a project that would require water if you can't prove you have the water. So, it's

Yeah. And if we have the transparency, then we can see whether it's there or not. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. I was confused. It is a little confusing. And thank you, Secretary.

Thank you, commissioners. Any further comments? Commissioner Mendoza. Uh yeah, just a quick question in reference to the water um policy they were working on here. Um there was a there was an apartment complex in in Paro that was like a farm worker housing project. It had like 36 units being built. However, they did not go forward with it. It got approved. What would happen with the water from a project like that per se if they're not if it's not being built and not moving forward with it? Now they're trying to sell it as that type of project. What what would the situation be? Would it um expire in 5 years? The water allocation that was for that project or is it forever?

Do it.

Um if I may. So So one thing just distinguishing the project in Pahro is not subject to this water allocation policy because this policy only relates to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's um service area. So any project that's outside of that, it would not apply. um and in other service areas um however those approvals were put in place and then that is what would stand. So we'd have to look at the entitlements for that particular project. So in this circumstance um there are not um I don't want to misspeak but there any project that has been approved through a discretionary process had to demonstrate that it they had water and they were a and that water was able to be provided either through existing you know water credits like mal paso water credits that existed or through existing wells um and rights that existed. So it's there it's a different scenario um that in this man water management district given that there's been a cease and desist order and um for as long as it has um doesn't relate directly.

Okay. Did that answer your question Mr. Commissioner Mendoza? Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yes. And I know as it's dealing with the uh Monterey Peninsula issue as far as relates to water does the the and I believe the deselination uh plant uh has been approved uh somewhere in seaside or wherever that is. Does this take into consideration whether some of that water is going to be used for that area or is there a potential for it to be used in that area? I'm not sure if there's a I thought I read or heard somewhere that the deselination there's supposed to be a desalination plant. Um I can at least speak to part of the reason the county received this additional acre fee and that the district itself is saying hey we have all this amounts of this water available um is through the pure water Monterey expansion project. And so that's the key source that is making the additional acre feet of water available at least in this service district area. I'm not 100% sure how the desalinization plant comes into play for the this district. Um but just wanted to provide that context that the pure water Monterey Pure Water Monterey expansion project tongue twister sorry about that. Um is what is uh making this acre feet of water available.

Yeah. And just adding to that that Pure Water Monterey project utilizes recycled water. Um, and so that is very separate from any future water source that may include desalination or other. Um, staff's I staff's not prepared to speak specifically to the status of the approvals for the proposed desalination project, but that is going through the the process. But any water should that in the future be fully approved and come online would be separate and independent from what we're talking here but could provide additional water allocation in the future if there's additional water source.

Okay. Thank you. And if if I still have the floor

um and uh I guess as uh far as within the realms of possibilities and I know in terms of some of the comments that were made uh as far as u projects being uh brought forth that there's thousands if not you know thousands of hundreds of thousands of dollars um being spent and so again I would like to see within those realms of possibilities that whoever is going to be building should know you know way in advance uh to see if they have uh water allocated uh to them or to that particular project uh because I just see it as a a waste for individuals in terms of spending a lot of money and I don't know whatever the policies are whether we can or cannot but at least if we're able to look at at those possibilities And so the other piece is um I wanted to you know and and appreciate that we you know we're trying to create a policy uh that's uh to refine it in terms of being flexible as as flexible as possible. And so I guess one of my other questions would be whether uh is the is is this draft policy also being presented to the board of supervisors to get direction uh some direction from them as to what they would like to see. That would be one question and the other question would be as far as uh it's related to um is the board of supervisor requesting for this policy to be brought to them by a particular date and time.

Uh I can answer a couple of those questions. So ultimately the the intent is to bring the policy to the board for adoption and and move forward the planning commissioner's input. Um, and I will I'll propose this but from with confirmation from the secretary as well as we could look given the feedback we've received today, we could come back at our next planning commission meeting. I think there's some availability to try to better provide some of the information the planning commission and the public is requesting. We are looking to try to get to the board in June. Um, just because we have had this water for an extended period of time and I get calls, HCD gets calls, you as planning commissioners get calls of, you know, when will this be available? When can we start submitting permit applications? So, we are wanting to move relatively quickly, but we also want to acknowledge as much as possible again the and and extend appreciation to members of the public who've provided comments, our housing developer stakeholders who've given us really helpful feedback to getting us to this point. Um, but we do want to acknowledge and hear that some of the questions and additional information that might be helpful. So, that is something I would I will potentially put on the floor, but I want to make sure that the secretary um agrees with that. Yeah,

Director Spencer has raised his hand. We'll defer to refer to Director Spencer. Director Spencer,

Mr. Spencer, need to unmute yourself.

Thank you. Sorry about that. So, uh there is not a specific direction from the board with a timeline for bringing this forward. There is just a general sense of urgency to get something in place so we can start allocating the water that is currently in our our account I guess from that has been given to us from water management district. So we are sitting on this water and uh the longer we don't have a policy the longer we sit on the water ourselves and not suballocate it to those who can then actually use it to build housing. So that's where the a little bit of the urgency is coming from, but there isn't a specific date and yes, we do intend to go to the board. I also wanted to just briefly go back to what question I heard and I'm hearing a lot of questions that might be answered in in this sort of response. I hope um we in developing this policy had uh we have a current allocation. We have a historic a smaller pot of historic allocation but we were given 72 acre feet from water management district. Um water management district claims that there is more available and there's lots of reasoning behind that. Um we we went through it some at the workshop last time. They have indicated that more water is available to allocate to jurisdictions as needed in the future. But at this point in time, we have 72 acre feet. We don't know when and how much we will be allocated in the future. We know based on our housing element and just general correspondence with u folks we work with, there is a demand that exceeds the 72 acre feet we have. So, one of the

reasons we put in percentages in terms of categories for allocating is we don't we didn't want to use exact numbers. The we did our best and it is something the planning commission can weigh in on um to clearly put an emphasis on planned housing growth by making that the largest pot um within the policy. It is required element of it is a required rule of housing element law that we prioritize utility services for planned housing growth in our housing. Um it's part of our programs in our draft housing element. Now it's not adopted. The other thing is and that this was covered well is another rule or law of the housing element um general plan requirements is that we approve ministerially multifamily housing projects meeting certain criteria on our housing opportunity site. So the way we've set up this policy is by putting 80% towards planned housing growth and defining what that is which is comes kind of from our housing element. It's housing opportunity sites. It's our general plan priority growth areas. It's existing vacant single family residents lots Jadus and things of that sort. Um, so then there's the other bucket which is catching everything else including commercial and res commercial and other residential uses not defined as as housing growth. And then there's a reserve for things like county facilities or board priorities. Um, that is all something that is something the planning commission can weigh in on, but

that's the reason it's structured the way it is. If we get allocations in the future, that allocation will be made according to the percentages and we will be reviewing those percentages to see where the actual demand is and if we need to shift any of any of those percentages or water categories one direction or the other to accommodate where the demand is. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Thank you. My did that answer your question?

My Yes. And my last question, um I guess um it seems by some of the the comments that as far as water allocation for different projects that and again it seems that we're putting um as the saying goes, the cart before the horse instead of the horse before the card. And what I mean by that uh is that I I'm not sure if we have an answer or we would have an answer right now if we would be able whether we include it in this particular policy or whether it's non- ministerially whether an application for a particular project if they would be able to be given uh that they do have or not have a water allocation because it seems like to me then there would be a lot of waste of time from the individuals and I'm not sure if we would have an answer

uh based on whatever policies we have today or we'd have to wait that is my last question very good

I think if I may one thing because we're hearing you uh commission don't feel like there's some questions still getting closer questions and clarifications absolutely hear that and understood hearing from the public the name. Um, also, yes, there is this sense of urgency because we are sitting on this water and and we want to move forward. Um, I think I don't know if um, one thing I did want to put out there for the commission's consideration. Um, I think at least my sitting here and with staff, I think we've heard some good feedback which, um, I think there's a couple of key policy areas that really honed in on that I think we can we heard clearly that as staff we could go back and either clarify the intention, clarify what's in the policy, and or present a couple of options with a little better clarity. Um, a few elements where I think it's just procedural and clarity on how is this going to work based on what's in the policy. Um, one thing I did want to say is that your next agenda is fairly open. Um, and staff given the importance of this policy, we are trying to keep our focus on this policy. And so, um, one option might be to consider I think we've heard the public input. any other kind of questions, concerns, considerations from the commission with a possibly a continuence to the next meeting. That would then give staff time to take the draft we currently have, either incorporate some additional changes and or present some clearer policy options and clarifications um that we would publish then a week in advance of the next meeting to give time to kind of digest from here um if that were or if that were something that was of interest. So I just wanted to put that out there seeing it sounds like we are not there. The other thing I did want to clarify going back to this is ultimately it is a board policy. We have not had a water

allocation policy. So this is something that is new to all of us. Uh but water is limited. Um and uh so some guidance for how we give this out to provide some asurances to the community etc. if and until there's just an unlimited influx of water that none of us are seeing exists. So I think that's you know again we want to as staff get as much flesh out as much of this policy as we can here with the commission but ultimately we do need to get it in front of the board because it is a board policy um and you know there they do need to be able to kind of weigh in on it. So I think if that is just something I would put out should the commission wish that might be an approach and I think from staff's perspective um I think that that is something that we could reasonably do and I think it would give time to digest time for us to hear and come back with a little greater clarity and some articulated policy options or information to help better inform especially those key questions and areas that we've heard today.

I I think that would be an excellent idea. Commissioner Deal, I agree. I I think that would be terrific. Um, I'd like to make that into a motion if it's appropriate, but I also want to add a list of of things that I I heard and am thinking if that's time. Um, unless Commissioner Hartzel has Yeah, we'll let Commissioner Hartzell give us your thoughts.

I'm with Commissioner Deal on making that into a motion. And I also just have like more specific questions from my general questions now that I've been listening. Maybe it'll be useful. And since I have the mic, I'll give you those. One is I heard you refer to water eligibility and water reservation. And I see the water reservation in the ministerial process under section procedure for planned housing growth. Um, and so if there's an eligibility step somewhere in here, I'd love to know where it falls. If it's before that, and if you know it and you can write it down at some point, that would be great to know. Um, and then I will hand it back to Chair Deal or Commissioner Deal.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Deal.

Um, great. I wanted to just ask that we receive a clean copy as well as the redline copy. So, that would really help me um particularly where there's just clerical typo kinds of things. I'd like to ask that we work with council to review the SB 330 letter and make sure that we've taken appropriate notice of that. Um, and then I think for me one of the important issues that I heard and I agree with is the further exploration of the timing of the water reservation for one of a better word. And perhaps to help that, if it were possible to show what the current completed applications would take up of this um applica of this allocation if we were to go that route. Um that would be useful to me if it is something we can get just kind of to relate reality to the theory if that makes sense. Um I kind of like practical examples. So if we said today that if you have complete application then that'll be reserved until not not at this point exploring the end time for that which I think is also an important feature of that approach. um would where would we stand with our with our uh existing amount of water that we can allocate and the kind of the same let's get can we get a little more clarity and practical examples of the fixture count discussion because we did hear some concern that it wasn't realistic. So, if we could just get a a couple of examples of what fixture count looks like and whether the numbers in the that are proposed in the policy make sense in our area. That would be great. Um clarity of the administrative process

we've already discussed and I think that will will be useful to everybody. And um I heard a lot of concerns about quote unquote pipeline projects. So, um, for me, I'm not quite sure where that stands. I I am I think Commissioner Hartzel's point about eligibility and reservation might just fix that. But, um, a project that isn't complete doesn't strike me as being real yet in my book. So I don't under I wanted to just clarify what pipeline project meant in terms of this policy to us so that we can then discuss it more intelligently. So that was my checklist of things I'd love to have in the when it comes back next time.

Yeah. Well, that's a that's a very complete list that covers all of my subjects. Commissioner Roberts, anything? No. Anyone else? Very good. You were going to make a motion then for a continuence commissioner deal to the next meeting as discussed. All right. Second. Second. Thank you. We'll have a roll call vote then. And if I may, just for the good of the commission and the public, the next meeting date is May 13th. Thank you for clarification, Madame Clerk. Commissioner Getsman. Yes. Yes. Commissioner Hartzell. I. Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yes. Commissioner Work. I. Commissioner Deal. Yes. Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Monsalv. Yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much. All right, everybody. We're going to take a 10-minute break. We'll see you back here in about 10. That would be 10:49. Let's say 10:50, shall we?

mic check. Mic Okay.

One, two, 3. One, two, check. Check. One, two.

Hello. Microphone check. Microphone check.

We have a better view of everybody. Okay, everyone. Welcome back. I don't believe we've lost anyone. Do we need to do a roll call because we still have Okay. All righty. Madame Clerk, would you do a roll call? Everybody is see who's here still. Commissioner Getsman, I'm here. Commissioner Mendoza, I'm also here. Commissioner Hartzell here. Commissioner Gonzalez, present. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Deal here. Commissioner Roberts here. Commissioner Monsalv here.

We have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. We will now move along to item. It's listed as item number four on the agenda. It is PLN number 220308, the Lincoln Green in LLC project. Staff, when you're ready.

Yes. Can we please share staff right? Thank you. Good morning, Chair Gutsman, planning commissioners. Joseph Alamita presenting for HCD file number PLN 220308 Lincoln Green in LLC. The project is located at 26208 and 262000 Carmelo Street in Carmel within the Carmel Area Land use plan. The subject property is currently zoned medium density residential with a density of two units per acre, a height limit of 18 ft, and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. However, the project before you today involves reszoning of the subject property to visitor serving commercial with a height limit of 18 ft and a design control overlay in the coastal zone to be consistent with land use designation in the Carmel Area land use plan. The Lincoln Green Inn was built on the subject property in 1926 and has been in operation ever since. The property received its first zoning district in 1963 as shown on screen. Although the property was commercially developed and operated, the property was zoned residential in 1963. In 1982, the Carmel Area land use plan was adopted. At this time, the property received a land use designation of visitor serving commercial. Although the property's land use designation reflected its historical and ongoing visitor serving commercial operation, the property was reszoned to medium-density residential. However, the medium-density residential zoning district is not compatible with the underlying land use designation of visitor serving commercial. This erroneous zoning continues to apply to the property today. California government code section 65860 states county or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of that county or city. Accordingly, the county is required to correct this inconsistency between the property's land use designation, which is enforced by the Commer land use plan and the 1982 general plan, and the zoning district, which is in the county zoning ordinance. As proposed, the

project involves changing the subject property zoning district to visitor serving commercial with a height limit of 18 ft and a design control overlay. The reszone and title 20 zoning ordinance amendments were previously considered by the planning commission on November 12th, 2025. At that time, the combined development permit proposing to allow the after-hat conversion of a garage into an additional visitor serving unit was still under review and was not ready for consideration. However, both elements of the project are now ready for consideration and have been incorporated into the project's scope. Staff will first present the reszone proposal and then after commission action on that, staff will present the conversion for decision. At the November 12th hearing, members of the planning commission raised concerns about the potential intensification that could result from the proposed reszoning of the property from MDR to VSC. While any intensification of the property would be subject to separate discretionary and environmental reviews, the planning commission expressed a desire to recognize Lincoln Green's historical and ongoing operation and limit future intensification through the use of a special treatment area or another planning mechanism. A special treatment area is intended to be used in conjunction with the underlying land use designation. In this case, while a special treatment area could be utilized to recognize the historical and ongoing visitor serving commercial use of the property despite its residential zoning, it would not resolve the property's land use designation and zoning inconsistency. This is because the special treatment area would be used in conjunction with the property's visitor serving commercial land use designation and would not supersede or change its inconsistent residential zoning district. Through staff's analysis and input from county council, the only way to resolve the inconsistency would be to either change the land use designation or zoning district to be compatible with the other. Given that the property's historical use is compatible with its visitor serving land use designation, staff believes it is more appropriate to change the zoning of the property rather than to reddesate the property to residential.

To address the planning commission's concerns regarding intensification of the Lincoln Green in and needing to maintain a density and intensity that is appropriate for the residential neighborhood, staff recommends two amendments to the text of the Carmel Area Land use plan and the coastal implementation plan to limit Lincoln Green in to its current intensity. The proposed project includes amending the Carmel Area Land Use Plan policy 4.4.3D 4.3 point D shown on the left on screen and the coastal implementation plan section 20.146.12 point B.3B shown on the right which establish maximum intensities for various sites to include the language five visitor units for Lincoln Green in as shown on screen. These language additions would limit specifically the Lincoln Green in to five visitor serving units. To further address the planning commission's concerns regarding future intensification of the site should the Lincoln Green in cease to exist, staff has identified existing site and code constraints which limit the development potential of the site. The site is and will continue to be with the proposed reszone subject to an 18t height limit per the applied zoning overlay which theoretically limits the potential for any development greater than two stories. Furthermore, the VSC zoning district limits projects to a maximum 50% building site coverage and requires a minimum 10% landscaping coverage. Both of which limit the potential intensification of the relatively small lot. Additionally, per title 20 setbacks for the visitor serving commercial zoning district where a general development plan is not required shall be established by appropriate authority through the project review process based on surrounding land use, provision of adequate parking and landscaping and other site design features. Therefore, any future intensification of the site other than the Lincoln Green Inn would have limited development potential set by the decision-making body overseeing the proposed project and further limited by said proposed project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the site is further limited by on-site parking requirements as parking along the road is not permitted and there are all therefore all required

parking must be contained within the relatively small lot. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the board of supervisors find that the project qualifies as a statutory exemption under sequest section 15265. Amend the Monterey County Local Coastal Program by adopting an ordinance to amend sectional district map 16 of title 20 to reszone the parcel to visitor serving commercial with a height limit of 18 ft and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. Adopting an ordinance to amend the Monterey County Code Chapter 20.12 to remove reference of the Lincoln Green Cottages. Adopting a resolution to amend policy 4.4.3D.4 of the Carmel Area Land use plan and the policy the relevant policy in the coastal limitation plan to add reference to the five visitor serving units for Lincoln Green in and finally to direct HCD staff to submit the local coastal program amendment to the California Coastal Commission for certification. That concludes this portion of staff's presentation and staff's available for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Almeida. Commissioners, do you have questions for Mr. Almeida on this project? Nope. Oh, Commissioner Herzo, we received a letter from a public commenter asking if we could use a conditional use permit in this circumstance instead of the changing to the zoning. Um, and I saw your answer that that would not resolve the um, inconsistency that we're trying to resolve, but just wanting to double check that that is remains your answer to that even if we changed the other half of the equation.

Yes. Uh, through staff's analysis, there are planning solutions that would recognize the use of Lincoln Green in on the MDR lot. However, that's not the um the issue that needs to be resolved. The needs to be resolved is the inconsistency between the zoning and the land use. And the only way to rectify that would be to change one of those two.

And if we change the zoning, the the this option is to change the zoning to match the land use designation. But if we match if we change the land use designation to match the zoning, where would we be at that point? Uh then you would need to do um some something like a conditional use permit or a special treatment area to recognize the legal non-conforming use and continue to allow that use of the Lincoln Green in on that site. Got it. So it would be a two-step. It would be changing the designation and doing a special treatment area or other mechanism to recognize the Lincoln Green in um versus what staff's proposing which is just to reszone. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Almeida. Commissioner Roberts,

I have a qu I have a question about um finding for um the violations and it says that there's no active code enforcement cases, but the violation regarding parking exists and and then the evidence kind of documents how that's going to be resolved with this potential permit. Um, my only question is it it looks like there's been public complaints about parking and spillover in the rideway and I'm wondering if you have a map or just something to show where parking is currently, what it's going to look like after um this permit.

Yes. Through the chair. Um after the planning commission takes action on the reszone, staff will present the conversion and in that piece uh staff will further explain and show maps of the proposed parking. Okay. Thank you.

Very good. Commissioners, further questions? Nope. Seeing none, then uh would the applicant or the applicant's agent care to make a statement or presentation? Excuse me. Members of the commission, my name is Joel Panzer with Morin Rook Planning Consultants representing Lincoln Green LLC, the applicant and property owner. Joe Walter with Lincoln Green LLC is present today as well. Um, understanding that we're bifurcating the two projects or or the two components of the project, I'll speak to the reszoning piece and then um we'd like an opportunity to to talk about parking. Um um Mr. Alamita did a terrific job, so I want to compliment him on his work both in the staff report and the oral presentation today. Um this is um I I just want to say it it does accurately reflect I believe what needs to be done in the Carmel area land use plan. There's a number of policies that support this use and the rationale for um not flipping it and trying to change the LUP designation to fit the the zoning. I think um as Mr. Alamita described state law says that zoning must be consistent with the land use plan designation. So for the record there's LUP policy as it relates to Lincoln Green and as it relates to visitor uses. Um this would would be the action being recommended by staff would be consistent with land use plan policy 4.3.1 as mentioned in the staff report uh policy 4.4.3.D.1. D.1 there's also 4.4.3.4

and then there's also uh discussion in section 4.5C. So, um, in my mind, all those sections that I've cited in the land use plan support the staff recommendation today to, uh, change the zoning and modify the text to reflect, uh, the current conditions at Lincoln Green in. Um, understanding again that we'll that we'll be able to then comment on the actual conversion which would respond to the letter comment and to parking. I'd just like to ask the planning commission to support the staff recommendation for this first piece and uh approve that element so we can get to the second piece. And again, we'll we'll step back up to the mic, both Mr. Walter and myself, when we get to the the conversion component to address some comments. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Pandere. Okay, Mr. Secretary, and I think staff just wanted to be clear that this is an item where um you can choose to take action on on this portion of the item now. Um staff wanted to pause. The action does this action does need to be acted on before the next action. But should you wish to hear the entire presentation before making any of your formal recommendations, we can also proceed that way as well.

Yeah. How would you like to do that, Commissioner Roberts? Sorry, I was just going to say that I guess I'm a little confused in the process only because if we're if our first action is on the findings and evidence in front of us, there's information in there that isn't being presented to us, specifically the parking. And so, I mean, I don't Yeah. Um, Commissioner Deal, you're our parliamentarian basically. I would suggest we go ahead with the rest of the presentation and come back and take two separate actions if that's what's required after we hear the the totality of the matter. But that's just me.

Sounds good to me. Any objections? Nope. Seeing none, Mr. Almeida, then would you like to finish this up? Yes. um through the chair. Uh Commissioner Roberts, I will clarify that the um staff is happy to proceed with the second element of the project, but also the the resolution for the reszone um is attached as I believe this is exhibit A um and does not appear to include language about um parking violations. There is a second draft resolution for the the conversion piece that will be touched on in the next presentation. Thank you. I was looking at exhibit B. Thank you. For the

Did you want to say something, Commissioner? Okay. Right. Uh for the draft resolution under exhibit A, is it possible to reference the Caramel Area Land use plan as being supportive of this? A finding that the Carmel Area land use plan is supportive using any of Mr. Panzer's references or is that inappropriate for a draft resolution? That is appropriate. I I see it in 13 on D. Yes. Uh staff is is happy to add some more specific um policy language. I thought I had done that. Thank you, Commissioner.

Okay. Thanks. All righty, Mr. Almeida.

Okay. The project also involves the after the fact permitting of an existing 394 ft detached garage that was converted into a visitor serving unit approximately 30 years ago. The VSC zoning district allows hotels, motel, and ins, including the intensification of existing visitor serving facilities as a conditionally permitted use subject to the granting of a coastal development permit. The project involves the after-act authorization to increase Lincoln Green End's units from four to five through the conversion of the existing garage as highlighted in yellow on screen. The project also involves a coastal administrative permit to allow development within 750 ft of existing archaeological resources. Pursuant to title 20, the required parking for ins is one space per unit plus two spaces for every three employees. The proposed after the fact conversion does not alter the existing operation of Lincoln Green in. According to the project operations plan, there are no full-time on-site staff members as contract services are retained for landscaping and room turnover which are conducted twice a week after guest checkout times. In general, contracted services are not typically considered permanent employees for the purpose of calculating the number of parking stalls per title 20. Here, there are only up to four contracted employees and such employees will only be on site when guests check out and vacate their respective parking stalls. The county is in receipt of complaints regarding vehicle spillover into the 60oot public rideway. Pursuant to title 20, parking must be located entirely on site. Accordingly, the property is not currently in compliance with the county's parking standards. However, as proposed, the storage and check-in office would be partially converted back to allow for one parking stall within the structure, and the property's frontage would be modified to allow for four additional on-site parking stalls. Reconstruction of a landscaping wall, removal and replanting of landscaping, and the removal of one non-native tree would need to occur to implement the parking modifications. Therefore, with the implementation of the part of the project, the property will come into compliance with the

required parking stalls and provide the five required parking on-site spaces as shown on screen. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the board of supervisors find the project categorically exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15303 and approve an after the fact combined development permit to allow the conversion of an conversion of an existing garage into a fifth visitor surveying unit within 750 ft of known archaeological resources. Staff also recommends the addition of the county standard and demification agreement as condition number five. That concludes staff's presentation and staff's available for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Omea. questions. Uh, Commissioner Deal,

just want to reiterate, Mr. Almeida, can you tell us what when the exist the the twocar garage was converted again? Approximately 30 years ago. Just to be clear, this is not somebody just did this last week, right? Yes. This is an after the-act conversion recognizing it's like way after the fact. It's not an existing twocar garage in any It has been been used as a visitor serving in for quite a while. Just wanted to clarify that on the record. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Mr. Panzer, did you want to um speak to this?

I would. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Joel Panzer again representing Lincoln Green End. Um on the conversion, I I I think you've sort of heard my my formal comments. Um, so I'd like to talk about a few things uh in response to some of the commentary or questions from commission. Uh, the planning commission in February 13th in 1985 heard a project at Lincoln Green in PC5276. Um, those and that was 40 years ago. Those plans uh did not show it showed it as a garage at that point in time. So Mr. Alamita is correct. At some point in time afterwards, it was converted. Um, Mr. Walter can tell you when he bought it and it was it was bought like that. It wasn't converted under our ownership or Mr. Walter's ownership. Um, so that's one aspect of the conversation. Um, it's also, as noted by staff, it's it's a delightful historic property that's been in business or operations since 1925. Uh, Mr. Alamita, could you put up that site plan? Um, what's interesting is in when it was built, uh, there you go. That's good enough. The two garages, one's highlighted in in sort of a yellowish color, which is the unit proposed for conversion, and on the opposite side is the second garage. Each of those had two bays. Uh, there's zero lot line um garages. So, I can only imagine that parking on the street has has occurred for a long period of time. Um, and you know, we we hear about complaints. Um, we've never seen any evidence on it. It's just sort of word of mouth. Oh, people are complaining. Uh, I believe in 19 I want to say 1962, and Mr. Alamita can correct me if I'm wrong. The county

adopted a no parking ordinance. It goes almost from the the beach down there and a block past Lincoln Green. If you look at consist con existing conditions, there's parking all over there. The county has not maintained a a clean road right of way. Um, and we're being asked to to correct that condition. I understand the rationale why. So, I don't I don't dispute that. Um, what has occurred before and has been managed by the owners uh for the units there has been head in parking. So, not knowing the dimensions of a car or vehicle or parking stall, I'd say, you know, a third to a half of the vehicle is parked on Lincoln Green in um with part of it hanging out um into the road right away. But but again, as I pointed out, I think where those garages are, that would have been a condition that would have existed for a very long period of time, unless everybody that used to use that for up until that ordinance was adopted parked in those those garages. Um, so take that into consideration. Uh and then the other thing I would just mention about that you'll see um and maybe could you go put up the parking ex? Yeah, there what this would entail would be as Mr. Alamita described relocating a fence, removing shrubbery. It's a beautiful English garden that would be impacted by what's being requested. Um, so I don't know if the commission's got the authority to take all that into account and allow the parking to to exist. Again, with 60 feet and if you've got six or eight feet of a vehicle in there and other people next to us and down the street are all parked in that that same zone, I don't think we really cause a health issue, cause a safety issue, cause a traffic issue. Uh, but you do have the complaints. So, if

you would would consider that. Um, on the the letter, uh, Mr. Walter can speak to that. I I, uh, the the preface of that letter was, "Hey, they're great neighbors. It's a delightful facility." Their concern was, "Mr. Walter sells, let's say, and I'm imagining this is the concern. Somebody wants to demolish that building and build a, you know, a a brand new hotel complex." Mr. Alamita's I think talked very effectively about the constraints that would would minimize those cons or be responsive to those concerns in terms of height. Then you've got setbacks. You've got LUT coverage. Right now there's no room to put in like a a gift shop, a restaurant if if that's the concern. So I think staff did a great job addressing that. Um and I guess my last comment would be uh because we talked about water. This is an instance where we applied for a permit four years ago. We're just getting to hearing because, you know, it it's taken a while. But in this case, Mr. um Walter had the the presence of mind to purchase Mal Paso water. So for the modest amount of water that's needed for this facility, he purchased in 2017. Acre feet. So this project does have water. Uh so I think with that, uh Mr. Walter would like to address the commission, but I'd encourage the commission to again uh approve staff recommendation for approval, and if there's other questions or comments, we'd be happy to respond. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Panzer.

Good morning. Um, my name is Joe Walter and uh, my wife Kathy Mayers and I have owned Lincoln Green in for a number of years. We bought it in 2012. Um, it's obviously, as you know, is has five cottages. Um, but the the gardens are what makes the property very special. We've got over 8,400 square ft of garden area on the property and it's very notable. it it's kind of a unique resource. We find that people will walk by, they take photos of the gardens. Uh it even is even a stop on a organized bike tour from time to time. And so uh it is kind of a a wonderful resource I think in the neighborhood. We put in substantial capital improvements over the years. Our most recent one was to upgrade the HVAC system with uh high efficiency heat pumps combination of Mitsubishi and Bryant which produces virtually no notable uh noise uh at all. Um we get a high number of return visit visitors. Many of the uh people living in the area use it as an overflow hotel for guests and it has uh it is enjoying its 100th anniversary of operation and we hope that we'll have another hundred years as well. So it's a lovely place. I hope all of you if you haven't had a chance to drive by will do so at some time. I want to thank Mr. Alama and his staff for all the work they've done as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you Mr. W. Mr. Panzer, are the conditions um are they acceptable to the applicant? Except for those that you noted, I would assume. Uh I I didn't see any conditions in the the staff report. So if there are uh I didn't it wasn't in the agenda. Okay. I think the what was presented were the adoption of the two resolutions uh etc. So Okay. Very good. Thank you for correcting me. Sure. I'm lost. All right. Thank you.

If I may, there are attached to exhibit B for the um the action for the um coastal development permit. There are attached conditions. There are five conditions attached. All righty. Well, we'll continue. Um, Commissioner Roberts,

I have a question about the parking and I'm curious to know um I don't know if staff has images of what exists and what's proposed or in just doing a quick Google search. It looks like depending on the photo, there could be way more than three people parked um I guess it's I don't know parked in front of it. Um, I guess I'm curious to see maybe more visual on that to see the necessity of it and to understand what currently exists.

Yes. Through the chair, we we could pull up um Google um images if if that would if the planning commission would like that just to give an explanation of the situation.

Um they have historically parked on the street. Uh as Mr. Panzer said, there are portions of the cars that are on that are with outside of the rideway. the majority of the cars are within the rightway. Um there is a ordinance that the county adopted that specifically does not allow parking on certain streets within Carmel. Um staff is taking a second look at that, but our original interpretation was that that included Carmela Street, so no street parking would be allowed. Additionally, Title 20 parking requirements require parking to be on site. Um and so staff has worked with the applicant to get to a place of parking, all required parking being provided entirely on site. Um parking requirements in title 20 could be modified via a coastal development permit um and subject to the planning commission's findings. Um that has not been applied for but in this case, but could be added should the planning commission find it fit to not require parking on site um given circumstances. However, um there is that extra piece of that ordinance which specifically does not allow parking on on certain streets that um staff believes includes this street um which I am unsure and would look to the secretary to see or other staff members to see if that ordinance could be amended through commission action to allow on street parking.

That's a good question. uh through the chair. Um a coastal development permit could not amend an ordinance. Um I think staff needs to look at the actual ordinance language. I'm reading one now that in my opinion only applies to Scenic Drive. Um but I do believe there is one that does apply to Carmelo. So, um, yeah,

as separate from the ordinance, however, there is the title 20 requirement that all parking be provided on site, and that's why staff has requested that the parking be provided on site, and the applicant has demonstrated to staff that that's doable via this parking plan. There's also a separate condition that would require a formalized parking plan separate from the one we've seen here that would show all five sites being provided on site. Perhaps while staff is pulling up the um Google Earth just so that we can um kind of see the image of the site itself. Everybody's off. Okay. Sorry, I heard an echo. Um I think I think I started to get a little confused there. I think it is and perhaps I could just ask for a little clarification. Is the concern that even with placing the parking on site that there could still be some overflow concerns that we want to see how they're addressed. Is that the nature of the question? I

I think honestly in hearing the explanation and and sort of understanding this property, I guess I'm questioning the necessity and whether it actually solves the problem.

Okay. And I think so I think for consistency with our code, the necessity staff feels is supportable to ensure it's fully on there. whether or not it fully solves the problem. Um I think we can maybe looking at the the site um it will better address the situation in that any parking that does happen in the official spaces will be fully outside of the right ofway. Um, I don't know that it prohibits other than if there's by ordinance, which would be enforced through separate separately whether or not there's parking prohibited or allowed on the street and whether or not any overflow parking would be able to go there. I think that's separate and not affected by this permit necessarily.

Zoom out a little bit.

Commissioner Deal. Yeah, I'd like to to express a slightly different point of view, which is I'm not convinced there is a problem. I mean, I think it's a historical use of some magnitude. Uh, it has certainly, to my mind, not been responsible for a significant number of accidents or concerns over the years. Um, my guess is that the surrounding property owners, very few of them have been there for 100 years. Um, and I understand the desire to address our ordinances, but I also desire to make appropriate provisions for history. And in this case, that garden is history. It's important. And um I would like to hear from staff opportunities to address a special case where that resource might be of sufficient importance for us to make an exception to whatever requirements appear to be uh asking us to do this parking plan.

Mr. Chair, yeah, kind of extenduating circumstances. Commissioner Roberts, if I can add to it, that's exactly what I was also my also my concern is I if we if there's this huge problem that we need to solve, great. But based on what I can see and what my limited experience with this area is, I'm not sure it is a problem and whether or not we need to require the applicant to you remove something that is kind of a public benefit in some at some level. Yeah. in the historic context. Um, Commissioner Hartzell,

the converse of that is we are making a pretty substantial change to the zoning and it is in a residential area and while we love Lincoln Gran and the way they're using the land, this property could pass to someone else with a visitor serving zoning that's not going to constrain them the way that this property has been constrained so far. Um, so I just I have that concern.

We'll just have to make sure we don't do that. All right, staff. Do you have any thoughts or do you need a little bit of time? Should we go to public comment and you think about this a bit? Do you want to get into it now, I guess, is my question. Uh, through the chair, I'd suggest uh you open up to public comment. Yeah. Very good. Thank you. All right. Let's open it open this agenda item then to public comment. Is there anyone here in the chambers that would like to speak to this item? Please come forward. No. Seeing no one, Madame Clerk, anybody online with a hand up. We have no hands up on Zoom and there's no emails for this. Okay. Thank you very much.

All right. Well, um, how about a fivem minute recess, Mr. Mr. Chair, before that, would it be possible to have either staff or the applicant talk about what we're seeing here and if that's a typical parking situation and Oh, yeah. A little history perhaps. Mr. Panzer or Mr. uh Walters, would you care to address that for the commissioner? Um Mr. Alamita, is it possible to zoom in a little bit? Uh I can see two of the Okay, there's the garage bays and garage.

Yeah. And so where the the two cars are by the garage. Um so that's a unit to be converted. Um you can see the the the cars. And do you have a date on this in terms of um is this a recent image? Do you know

2026? Um so as I mentioned there is room. You you can see there's a a little bit of a um how do I not divot but a little little spot where beyond the the corner of the garage the the edge of that garage is at the edge of the rightway. So the cars are currently parked partially on the Lincoln Green in property. Uh so that's and then there's also a very large tree there. The other thing that would occur and I've given Mr. Alamita a letter on that that tree would have to be removed. Um and it may be you know removed for other other reasons but if if this parking comes through that tree's got to go away to provide room. So those are my two observations and then unless you sort of b sort of pull back out to see other street street conditions. Um you for 60 ft rightway that there's been a lot of development in there and and I don't know I want to say the parking ordinance dates to 1962ish. Are are those conditions still existing that makes that parking ordinance even necessary? So those are my comments. But let me have Mr. Walter is the owner. He can tell you exactly how they manage that because it is a managed condition and he's been responsive to conversations he's had with neighbors. So, let me just turn it over to him from for his perspective.

And thank you.

As you can see, the cars are angled in the right away. We make it a point to have one of the staff that's on duty um go out with the guest and make sure that the car is parked very obliquely so that no part of the tail really sticks out in any way that it might get hit. We obviously don't want our guests to get to have their car hit, nor do we want to create a uh a nuisance for uh the neighborhood. In the 13 plus years that we've owned the property, I have never had a complaint sent to me about parking and my staff says they have not received any complaints. So, I'm not sure if it's just a matter of people have written to the county. Um, we we try to be very responsive. If any member of the community has problem, we we try to address it right on the spot and make a make amends for that. So, it's really has not been a problem during our period of ownership. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Walters. I have I have if I can one question for Absolutely. the property owner. Um the the diagonal cars I can see, but then there's also two cars parked in front of the garages. Yes. Is that something normal? It's not often for the guest period. We generally have cars park at the oblique angle. Uh at times we might have deliveries or people sometimes will park in the rightway right in front of the garage. So it'll be effectively 8 plus feet um in the front of the face of the garage. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you, sir. Any further questions? Nope. Say nothing. Thank you very much, Mr. Rollers. Well, staff, we've tried to kill a little time for you, Mr. Chair. Oh, Commissioner Deal, I apologize for missing you.

I'm trying to to vamp for staff to think. Um, no, I just want to continually remind us that there is in fact no change in use here. We are we are looking at the buildout now. Um so the the technical need to come into compliance is of course important but it's been extremely longstanding. So the recognition of the ongoing circumstances and the fact that we haven't experienced a safety or or other concern at this point seems to me to be very reasonable. Um, and given the change to the governing land use plan to limit the intensity of future activities, I think that seems quite uh quite protective. I agree it's possible somebody could want to level everything and put a high-end restaurant in there, but I don't think that that would be absent other permits. I think that should were you doing that that we would then have the opportunity to weigh in on the parking requirements for such a use in other circumstances. So I continue to want to to formulate a special exception for the on the historical use that has not presented a problem over the period of time that it's been in existence and has provided this historical resource which I'm here to tell you is not they've understated that particular the value of that resource from my personal knowledge for people who go there on purpose to look at that garden. So um I'm a little passionate about about the the historical piece because um I have seen a tendency in Carmel for people who have I say this politely have come more recently to be less engaged in the history of the

area than those that have been there longer. And I would like to make sure that they have a chance to learn about the place before they decide to remodel it. I would also say that deliveries parking in the middle of street in Carmel is not an unknown thing. Anybody's ever been there? Um, so, so that's my my opinion statement and my hope that staff can help clarify that this is a to my mind pretty much a unique project and there should be a a way to recom to uh reconcile uniqueness um with policy somehow. Thank you, Commissioner Deal. Mr. Panzer, did you think of something you'd like to share?

Um, I echo uh Commissioner Deal's thoughts about it. uh you know, I just hate to to see the the beauty of that property diminished just for sheer compliance. Um now, in speaking to Mr. Walter. Now, if if the commission would so desire, because we're taking a number of action steps here, if you also wanted to put an HR zoning overlay, have the applicant condition approval, applicant request in writing to have it reszoned, HR, if uh and that would address the other comment about neighbors. If somebody wanted to do something on the property, not only would it have to get a coastal development permit, it would be HR. And if you tried to change a historic resource, then you're into sequin. You know, I I think that would um further preserve the resource. Uh and then I I thought I would step back up. Uh the planning comm was kind enough to give me exhibit B and we saw those conditions of approval including that, you know, keeping it under one ownership. I think that would be helpful. Um and maybe depending on the outcome of this parking thing, maybe condition I think it's four could get modified or removed. So those are our thoughts.

Okay. Thank you. That addresses the conditions. Thank you, sir. You still need a little more time. Staff don't

um Yes, staff has found um and I'll allow Miss Jensen, she has it pulled up, to maybe speak a little bit more specifically to it, an ordinance that specifically bans street parking on this street. Um staff's understanding is that that ordinance would need to be amended in order even if you even if the planning commission modified the parking requirements for this specific site through a coastal development permit, that ordinance would need to be separately amended to allow parking on the street. Um, my understanding is even if the planning commission determined that the conditions of that ordinance no longer applied, the formal process of amending that ordinance would still need to be gone through in order to allow parking on the street. Um, the the parking requirements of title 20 could be amended through a coastal development permit. The ordinance is a separate piece. Madam Secretary.

Um uh so in 1963 the county did adopt um or amend an existing no parking ordinance to include that uh there's no parking on both sides of Carmelo Street. Um and this is is currently still in effect. Um, so I think there there's been good discussion about like the longevity and historical kind of parking along Carmelo. I think there's a potential there's a couple of different options that uh the planning commission uh staff is happy to explore with the planning commission and ideally get a recommendation from the planning commission today to then incorporate um as a recommendation to the board of supervisors. Um, one of those options, um, could be given that the land use plan and, uh, associated coastal implementation plan technically supersede zoning ordinance, um, could include language that recognizes some parking on Carmelo associated with this use. Uh an alternative uh if timelines aligned um could be recognizing a legal non-conforming situation that isn't changing with implementation. Um and or the last one amending the ordinance. Um and I any of those I would probably suggest the the planning commission and ultimately the board consider a coastal development permit recognizing those um those changes to the parking standards. But there there are some options. Um I'm happy to go into any details.

Some options. Commissioner Deal, you have thoughts on options or do you want Commissioner Hartzel has a real thought. Commissioner Hartell.

Uh one is that I've been convinced by Commissioners Deal and Roberts to be cool about this. So there's that. Um I'm most attracted to the legal non-conforming use. I feel like amending the parking ordinance is going to be a hurdle with the constituency. Um, but I would defer to the board of supervisors sort of if they really want to do that. They should know that they should. Um, but those are my two kind of feedbacks. All right. Yeah, Commissioner Deal.

That's great. I I'm think that the idea of illegal non-conforming use is a reasonable one given that this this uh ordinance has been in effect for a number of years, more than longer than many people have been alive and has apparently not been enforced. So, I think that kind of adds a lot of weight to the idea that it is a legal non-conforming use, an existing one, and even um even a legal concern about whether or not taking something that they've been doing all this time and nobody's enforced for that much period of time doesn't make it real. I mean, in the history, it has. So, um yeah, I would strongly support recognizing it that way. I think the idea of writing it into the land use plan would be a sort of a second choice for me. I'd rather we didn't have to do that. It seems like the kind of thing I would prefer to avoid if possible, but it was also seems like it would work in a way that would require some sort of an ordinance exemption, but it could be specific to the property in question since we're changing the land use plan with addressing with that particular item already and say in and would be a simple sort of a change that says, "Yeah, we recognize that they have five visitor serving units and existing parking standards can apply or something of that sort. Um, I I appreciate the the uh discussion of the his historic resources, but that's another administrative thing. Um, I I hate to do that. Uh, I hate to do that to people when they're trying to do something as simple as get straight with the law. So, um, anyway, that's my thoughts and I I assume that that would I you have been discussing with the secretary. I'm assuming that they would like a chance to memorial staff would like a chance to memorialize this in a continuence. Is that correct?

Madam Secretary, would you like to address that question?

I think there's I think there's a couple of ways we can do this because ultimately this item goes to the board of supervisors. Um the commission can make a recommendation which through their motion to recommend with um an action that would um preserve the uh ability in existing parking. Um how we do that that we would like to what I heard is the priority is to recognize it as legal non-conforming. Um and uh alternatives could be to then enforce it, but the preference is to do it in a as much of a way that protects it as an existing use um going forward. Uh that would take time to just get clear and I think staff would like a little time to work that out and discuss with county council the best approach there. Um so one can be a motion that we carry that intent forward with your recommendation to the board. Alternatively, that's the direction and then we continue the item and return with an amendment for then the commission to consider for its formal recommendation to the board. So, we can go both directions

either way through the chair. Yes, please. I'd like to move a continuous on this item to the next available meeting. That would be your preference. Yes, sir. Thank you. Was that that was a motion. Commissioner Deal? Yeah. Commissioner, I will second that. Plus the things that Melanie said. Yeah. Again, my framing is um I'd like to see it recognize. We probably need a little clarification.

There's an existing historical use, existing and ongoing historical use. We're no change. I want to just make it real clear in every all of our discussions that there's no changes to existing conditions at all that are being proposed by this application. Somehow that's really important to me. Okay. Well, commissioners, any comments on the motion? Uh, Commissioner Mendoza,

not not so much on the motion. What's the possibility of having like an encroachment agreement with the applicant since it has been historical use where the the county would come up with an agreement with the applicant that would allow them to use the parking per se? Is that a possibility? Sounds sounds like a county council thing, doesn't it?

No. I I think I I think it's it's I think all of these are viable options. I think the best approach and how to do it in the most kind of legally defensible that provides the most recognition to the existing use. Um go ahead.

Um no, I I would agree with Miss Berettes. Um, given an ordinance strictly prohibits parking along Carmelo, I think an private or separate agreement with the property owner to then modify that wouldn't be the appropriate mechanism to do so. Um, I I hear some pretty clear direction from the commission about recognizing the historical and kind of current conditions. Um, looking at the general timeline because the no parking ban was put into place in 1963 and the garage was converted in the 80s9s, legal non-conforming timelines don't really align, I guess, right? Because technically parking would have been forced onto the streets in the '9s. Um however um there is still a way to address this in staff's opinion and that would be adding some simple language to the land use plan and coastal implementation plans which are already proposed for modification before you today. Um so I do hear a motion on the table for a continuence but also um I have clear direction and I'm happy to incorporate that directly to the board of supervisors if the commission would um if the commission desires that. Okay.

Thank you for that staff. I appreciate that. All right, we do have a motion um before us. Um Commissioner Harold something before then.

I would like to double check with the motion maker. Miss Jensen just suggested that the best way through this is not legal non-conforming but rather change to the land use plan allin one. I would like to give staff and the applicant a chance to chat. I think legal non-conforming may still be applicable because the garage didn't house all the cars to begin with. It only housed some of them. So, I think there may be historical use suggestions and it also may be possible for the applicant to find a parking place for one of the cars in that in the one garage. I don't know, but I just don't want to.

Okay. I think that there may be an opportunity for a conversation here and I'd like to allow for the room for that, but I definitely um understand and appreciate that that may be necessary and and would after that conversation, I'm sure staff can come back and tell us what's what's their best recommendation. Then I'm happy to second the motion for continuence with a clarification. Thank you. Clarification. Uh very good. A continuation then is on the um on the to a date certain and I'd like it to be soon. Yeah. So with that in mind, um, Miss Secretary, would do you have any thoughts about dates?

I think if I can take a moment and look at staff from the dis. We do have room on the May 13th agenda, but that is a very quick turnaround time. Um, there are um staff is offering the opportunity to trail the item uh since we do have a couple of matters which may bring us into the afternoon. So that could give staff time to consult with the applicant as well as um county council. So that's another option. U perhaps we could trail the item per staff's request and then when we come back should the resolve be satisfactory then there could be a potential motion and should more time be needed then we could contemplate a or the commission could contemplate continuence needed.

That would be an option. I'd be happy to withdraw a motion based on that recommendation of uh trailing the item. Yeah. Okay. I'd like to hear from Mr. Panzer or Mr. Walters. Um do you do you think you can resolve this in the time we have two or three hours if you had a chance to talk with staff? I I just don't if there is a solution and continuing it is the way to go then I'd rather do that now if you think there might be issues that would take a little time to resolve. So, what are your thoughts?

Hearing uh Miss Jensen's uh thoughts on that uh in terms of having to go to the board with some language clarification, it would seem to me that the LUP takes precedence over a parking ordinance. If I understood your your thinking about that, uh we've discussed the parking on several occasions with Mr. Alamita. I I think we if we're trailed, we could have that conversation um during a break or or before you come back and it'd be preferable to get it done today, then come back for a third time because I think we'd be stuck behind the water discussion again. Yeah, probably would. Thank you. I appreciate your input. Okay, Commissioner Deal, you've re we've withdrawn your motion.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Well, let's trail this item then. I think I can make that decision. We'll take it to the end and we'll come back to it. And in the meantime, we give people a chance to talk. Very good. All right. Thank you everyone. So the next item on the agenda is item number five, which is PLN number 24355. It would be Beck Garrett Andrew. Not sure exactly what that means, but that is the title on the project. Miss Jensen, when you're ready. Good afternoon. Um, Chair Gettleman and members of the planning commission. Fiona Jensen presenting on behalf of Kayla Nelson, the project planner for HD planning file number PLN240355. The project site is loc is an undeveloped 10acre property located off of a private driveway at 146 San Bonansio Road in Selenus uh which is uh within the Toro area plan. The parcel is zoned resource conservation with a 40acre minimum and a design control overlay. The project involves a design approval to allow construction of a 1,000 square ft two-story single family dwelling with an attached 630 ft lower level garage, 600 ft of uncovered decks, 720 ft of a covered balcony, and associated site improvements, including the removal of one coastal oak tree. The project also involves a use permit to allow development on slopes in excess of 25%. Associated site improvements will uh would also include a driveway, site

retaining walls, installation of an on-site wastewater treatment system um and a treatment system for the existing water system. Here um are the proposed floor plans for the single family dwelling with the garage on the lower level, the elevations. The proposed colors and materials of the single family dwelling would include an olive green board and batten exterior sighting with dark brown trim, composite brown shingled roofing, and redwood decking. Um, the proposed exterior materials will be fireresistant and blend in with the surrounding environment and be consistent with the surrounding residential character. San Bonansio is known as a scenic corridor pursuant to the Toro area plan. The project is situated on a parcel over 700 feet from San Bonansio Road. The site was uh the property was staked and flagged and staff per performed a site visit to uh determine whether the project site would be visible from San Bonio Road. The project site was found to not be visible as it was naturally screened from public views by existing development, steep slopes, and mature vegetation. The proposed single family dwelling will also have a comparably smaller footprint than the existing residences in the vicinity. As proposed, the project assures protection of the public viewshed, is consistent with the neighborhood character, and assures visual integrity. The subject parcel is constrained by slopes in excess of 25% which are shown in purple on the left and an existing conservation and scenic easement shown in green on the right which are conveyed over um portions of the steeper slopes of the property. The proposed development was carefully cited and designed to be outside of these easements but cannot avoid development on steeper slopes. Additionally, the parcel is served by an inactive shared two connection water system. Water quality testing identified

arsenic exceeding the uh required levels and therefore a condition of approval has been added to require installation of an approved arsenic treatment system. A conceptual treatment system has been provided to the environmental health bureau who reviewed it and raised no con concerns. Um, adherence to county standards and conditions of approval would ensure that the proposed development meets water quality and capacity requirements. The project uh requires a use permit for development on slopes in excess of 25%. The single family dwelling uses a stacked design placing the livable space directly above the garage. In comparison to a single level house, this this design minimizes the amount of development on assoc on slopes associated with the residential footprint. Further, the residences the residence is cited on the lower elevations of the property, thus only requiring a short, simple, direct driveway. Building on higher elevations of the property would require a longer driveway, which would increase the development on slopes. The on-site wastewater treatment system was specifically designed to accommodate steeper terrain through the use of contour aligned leech fields and controlled effluent distribution. Given that the uh the sloped nature of the property, staff believes there's no feasible um alternatives building site that would allow the property to be better in compliance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the 2010 general plan and Toro area plan. The project proposes the removal of one coastlive oak tree. Pursuant to title 21, the chief of planning may approve the removal of no more than three protected trees per year without a use permit. An arburish report was submitted and indicated the removal of an 11in tree located within the proposed driveway configuration. A 20 20-in oak on the neighboring property was also identified but would be protected through uh during construction and with conditions of approval. As mentioned before, the driveway short, simple, and direct, and location of the house was

cited away from trees, thereby limiting any additional tree removal. Conditions have been added to require on-site replacement and protection of nearby trees. The project was referred to the Toro Land Use Advisory Committee on March 23rd, 2026. Questions were raised regarding site suitability in the proposed tree replacement. As previously mentioned, staff believes the proposed residence is cited in an area that minimizes development on slopes and only one tree will be removed, which will also then be replanted. As recommended by the LUAC, uh the exterior color was changed to be more harmonious with the surrounding environment. The LUAC unanimously recommended approval of the project with a vote of 520 to zero with one member absent. With that, staff recommends that the planning commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines and approve the design approval to construct two-story single family dwelling and associated site improvements, including the removal of one oak tree and development on slopes in excess of 25%. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you, Miss Jensen. Commissioners, do you have questions of stuff? Uh, Commissioner Roberts, one question I have um that I may have missed in the summary is the LUAC brought up something about um this site being the home being off the grid and using solar and potentially a generator. Is that something that we're considering today? um property owners may seek alternative meth methods of um know get getting electricity and solar and off-grid is an acceptable approach and would be reviewed during the construction phase but it's not necessarily a discretionary matter.

Okay. I just was wondering only from the um generator aspect if there was a noise issue or if that was something that um the generator would be considered a site associated site improvement. Um, so it would be part of today's action. Um, though in staff's analysis, generators are typical of kind of rural properties. Um, and isn't inconsistent with other residential. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone? Nope. Nope. Very good. Is the applicant or the applicant's agent u with us today? Please come forward. Give us your name, please. Chair, Commission, um staff. I'm Darren Davis. I'm the designer of the project for uh Mr. Beck. Um I'll keep it uh brief so we can get out of here. The uh if any of you have been out to the site, you go out uh Sammonio and turn right on Samansio, the private road, and go on up. And that's where this project is. the uh it's a tricky site and um we picked the location of the house uh based on we wanted to get it as close to that road as possible so we could limit the um the driveway uh length and the excavation and and make it easier for emergency vehicles to get to the property which they can just pull right up in front on the road and they can into the driveway because it's not too steep now. And the house is proposed right there. It's not a real big house, very modest. Um, it's a,000 square ft with a wraparound porch that's got a roof on it and then there's a back deck and the garage is on the main level. Uh, it's kind of kind of has a feel of a treehouse by the time it's done because it's not real big. the um we've um staff has done a great job and we've worked with uh both Fiona and Kayla. Uh Kayla's the official planner here, but I think Fion did quite a bit of work too and uh they they did a great job. Um we have uh you know a geotechnical

engineer that designed the uh septic system and it's all good and uh our arborist uh has made recommendations on the trees and how to uh protect them and we will uh replant um a tree for the one that's been removed or going to be removed and Um, I think it's a good project and it fits on this site and we would really like approval. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Did you have a chance to look over the U conditions of approval? Yes, and we agree with all. Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you.

All right. Let's open the project. Let's open the discussion on this project to the public. Is there anyone here in the chambers that would like to address this item? Seeing none, uh, madame clerk, do we have anyone online or email? No emails. No hands up on Zoom. Okay. Thank you very much. Staff, anything you want to add before we go to discussion? No. Thank you, chair. Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, what do we think of the project?

Anyone jump in there? Um, I'm happy to support this project. I It's uh always fun to see a project that comes out of this area that the LUAC unanous unanimously supports and um that is obviously a very reasonable pro reasonable project in size. So, with that, I'd like to make um a motion to support sta staff's recommendation. I'd like to second it.

Okay. And I'd also like to just add that I don't remember ever seeing a 1,00 square foot single family residence as the primary residence on a site. I want to congratulate the applicant for being able to figure out how to live modestly in a house that looks to me like one that will be very pleasant. So I just really appreciative of this opportunity.

Yeah, me I'd like to echo those thoughts. Thank you, Commissioner. Just a client for clarification. Sorry. Uh question for clarification. And as far as the minutes for the Toro Land Use Advisory Committee, um in item number three, you have approval of the minutes. So all that information under that, that's for the March 9 minutes. Is that correct? on the on the minutes on the Toro Land Use Advisory Committee.

Commissioner, I'm not sure I'm following your question. Um,

okay. on on item number three uh for the Toro Land Use Advisory Committee of March 23rd, 2026. On number on number three, it says approval of the minutes of March 9. So, I'm assuming that all that information Schwarz Hooper, whoever was present or abstained are for the March 9 uh minutes. The March 9th minutes were approved at the March 23rd meeting. Um on the I think if we look at page five of 8 is where the proposed project was considered

page uh yeah so these are so yeah so these are the minutes from the March 23rd meeting which included approval of their March 29th. This is the detail for their discussion and approval for this project.

Okay. Thank you. Now I was just looking at that particular page 55 on that simple question. Thank you. Excuse me. Sorry. I was I was I was sorry. I was in I was in consulting with the county council. I'm sorry. So, we worked that out. Commissioner Gonzalez, you've worked Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good.

Fine. Wonderful. All right. Then we have a motion and um we have a second motion the commotion the motion by commissioner Roberts and the second by commissioner Deal. Thank you Commissioner Deal. All right we have to have a roll call vote. So Madame Clerk would you help us please? Commissioner Gelman. Um I Commissioner Mendulsa. Yes. Commissioner Hartzell. I. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner Work. Hi. Commissioner Deal. Yes. Commissioner Roberts. Hi. Commissioner Monsalv.

Yes. Chair. You have a motion. Thank you very much. Very good. All right. Fellow commissioners, we now have a choice of going to lunch now and coming back or Thank you. or if it'll only take a couple of minutes perhaps. I noticed that Mr. Panzer is back and Mr. Almeida is back. Have we uh Pardon? After lunch. You'd prefer to do it after lunch? Yeah. For the item that was trailed, staff does still need a little more time. All right. Great. And then there is one more scheduled agenda item,

right? Yeah. Well, and we'll get those after lunch then. All right. Let's be back at 1:00 then. Okay. Okay.

The team's back. I was covering for you, man. Yeah, she was doing a tap dance. That's all right. All right. All right. Welcome back, everyone. I think we have a roll call to make sure everyone has returned or if we have any new or lost anyone. Madame clerk, Commissioner Getsman, I'm here. Commissioner Mendoza here. Commissioner Hartzell here. Commissioner Gonzalez here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Deal

here. Commissioner Roberts here. Commissioner Monsalv here. Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. All right, we're going to begin with the next item on the agenda, which would be item number six. Oh, man. PLN24105, the Carmel Rio Road LLC project. Staff, when you're prepared, please begin through the chair. Um, would you like to consider item five that was trailed? Staff does have an update there. How long would that take, do you think? Quick.

Quick. Oh, well, if it's quick, sure. Let's do it now.

Great. Um, thank you, chair, um, and commissioners for the continuence or the trailing of the item. That was very helpful. Um, so there's a couple of, um, kind of state provisions that come into play here that staff was not previously aware of. Um the so the California street and highway code uh prohibits public right ofways to be reserved for private use. And so in this case, Carmemelllo Street is a public right of way. Um so whether parking has historically occurred there or not, it would still be in conflict with state requirements. Um there are some options there that could resolve that. that would have to be either privatizing the road. Um that's actually one of the only options to kind of get around that. And so staff has talked with the applicant and they are agreeable to the conditions that were attached to today's staff report, which would be putting the parking on site um and then um and then um yeah, putting the parking on site to comply with county standards. So staff does recommend given the state requirements that the planning commission recommend to the board of supervisors the project as previously presented.

Okay. Well, thank you, Madam Secretary. I noticed you might want to say Nope, you're good. Okay, very good. All right. Um, commissioners, uh, Commissioner Deal, I I know you have thoughts. Can I hear from the applicant? Oh, okay. Let's hear from the applicant.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Deal. Um, yeah, we had a a pretty healthy conversation with staff. Uh, we like the way the direction the commission was going, but understand that now the streets and highway code. Um, so we're agreeable. Uh, for the record, I have read the conditions of approval and it would be our understanding that when the staff report goes to the board of supervisors, staff would uh reflect the the discussion from the commission relative to parking and the historic garden and so forth. And if we want to plea ple plead our case to the board of supervisors um we could do that but for the purposes of moving this along uh we go along with staff recommendation. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Panzer. Now Commissioner Deal. Nope. Anybody want to say anything? I'd make a motion if it's appropriate like to move staff's recommendation this matter. I second. Very good. We have a motion from Commissioner Deal and a second from Commissioner Hartzell. And a roll call vote I believe. Commissioner Getsman. I. Commissioner Mendoza. Hi. Commissioner Hartzell. Hi. Commissioner Gonzalez. I Commissioner Work. Hi. Commissioner Deal. Hi.

Commissioner Roberts. Hi. Commissioner Monsalv. Yes, Chair. We have a motion. Motion passes.

We have a motion. Good. And I think it passed too. So that's wonderful. We will move along then. Thank you very much, Miss Thank you very much. And thank you staff for putting that together on such a quick turnaround. Just for the record, the the motion staff interpret that interprets that to be inclusive of staff's recommendation that came up a bit earlier in the resolution with regard to the um the amendments to the land use plan and CIP that would add a little bit more specific policy language uh with regard to the project. So staff interprets that as a part of this rep.

Let's let's ask let's ask let's ask the lady who made the motion. I'm not sure what that is. So I can't say yes or no. Oh.

So during the So again this was a two-part action. The first part action was the LUP language and in that it was a particular bullet within the resolution. I believe bullet number 13 related to the policies of the Carmel area land use plan that further support this reszone and the handling of it and staffs um in response to the discussion on that item said yes staff can incorporate those uh in those policy amplifications in the resolution. I'm so sorry. The additional the additional citations. Correct. Yes. That's okay with me. That's okay. Okay, we're all good then. Thank you everybody.

Thank you. Now we'll finally move along to item number six on the agenda. PLN24105, the Carmel Railroad LLC project. And staff, when you're ready, please proceed. Can we please share staff HDMI? HDMI left. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Gtzelman, Planning Commissioners, Joseph Alamita and Fiona Jensen presenting together for HCD file number PLN24105 Carmel Rio Road LLC. The project is located at 26500 and 265 Valverde Road in Carmel within the Carmel Area land use plan. The subject properties are zoned low density residential with a density of one unit per acre and a design control site plan review and residential allocation zoning overlays. The project today involves the subdivision of four existing lots into 60 residential lots and five open space and street parcels. the construction of 59 single family dwellings ranging from 2790 to 3,930 square feet and 15 1 square foot affordable town home units for a total of 74 residential units. A design approval to allow the use of a pattern and design book and development within the Carmel Valley flood plane and development on slopes in excess of 25%. Today's project is subject to the state housing accountability act, specifically the provision referred to as builder's remedy. Under builder's remedy, a local government must approve a housing development project that complies with all objective rules in the general plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and design standards unless it makes written findings based upon a prepoundonderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific

adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot be mitigated without lowering the density or rendering the project unaffordable. To be objective, a rule or standard must not involve personal or subjective judgment by a public official. In short, builder's remedy projects are only required to comply with objective health and safety standards. All other objective non-health and safety standards shall also be complied with, but cannot be used as valid grounds to deny a housing project and cannot be required if it reduces the project's density. Staff's review has determined that the project is consistent with applicable objective and subjective standards subject to the granting of three waiverss to modify certain site development standards which will be discussed later. Pursuant to state density bonus law, because the project is providing 20% of the proposed units at a low income rate, the project is eligible for three concessions or incentives and an unlimited number of waiverss. A concession includes a reduction in site development standards and/or regulations when such regulations potentially make the project economically infeasible for the developer to build. Waivers, on the other hand, are reductions or modifications of any development standard and other regulations that would physically preclude the development of a project at the density permitted and with the allowed incentives or concessions. In this case, one concession was requested by the applicant. However, staff determined that the concession is not needed to make the project consistent with county inclusionary housing ordinance. Three waivers have been requested to modify the required minimum building site size, density maximum, and building site coverage. These will be discussed next.

The project involves a subdivision of four parcels and uh containing 12.5 acres into 60 residential lots and five open space and street lots. The project meets all required findings of the subdivision map act and title 19 of Monterey County code. As proposed, the project would provide approximately 1.68 acres of park parkland and open space including shared areas, private gardens, um sorry, private yards, and a community garden park, play equipment, and a community green space along the southern portion of the property. This exceeds the county's requirements for open space. A homeowners association would be created to own and maintain parcels A through E. These are the street and open space parcels and the affordable housing units. The project complies with all site development standards except for three as shown on the table on the right. The applicant has requested waiverss for those three inconsistencies. The underlying zoning district requires lots to be 1 acre. As proposed, the lots would u be sized between 5,000 and 8,000 square ft. If required, the one acre per building site would physically preclude the construction of the proposed number of lots as shown as the underlying zoning district would only allow for 12 lots. LDR zone lots are also limited to 35% building site coverage. The proposed residences would have site coverage of up to 56% and the proposed town homes would have a site coverage of 40%. Complying with the required site coverage would require each lot size to increase which would thereby limit the number of residential lots. Similarly, decreasing the number of or size of town homes and residences to comply with the 35% site coverage could render the project economically unfeasible. Finally, the underlying density would limit the project to the construction of 12 units on a 12.5 acre of site and therefore would not support the proposed

74 units. While a waiver is not required to modify the density of a builder's remedy project, staff recognizes the applicant's request. In short, because strict application of the zoning district site development standards would preclude the density and scale of the project, staff recommends the planning commission grant these three waiverss and find the project consistent with all other applicable site development standards. Under builder's remedy and the county's inclusionary housing ordinance, a housing development project must provide a minimum of 20% affordable housing units. Consistent with these requirements, the project provides 15 on-site affordable units which will be be deed restricted and for sale to low-income individuals. The affordable town home units will be located on lot 60 and will be managed by the HOA. HCD housing has reviewed the proposed inclusionary housing and confir confirms that it complies with the county's inclusionary standards and other county standards and provides meaningful low-income housing by offering two and three-bedroom options. Carmel Valley master plan policy CV 1.1 requires that development follow a rural architectural theme to preserve the rural character of Carmel Valley. Further, policy CV 1.20 20 of the Carmel Valley master plan requires that materials and colors be consistent with the rural character of the valley and compatible with the immediate surrounding area. Consistent with these policies, the project would incorporate three architectural styles, Spanish uh colonial, transitional, and traditional. The proposed colors and materials consist of earthtone colors and the materials are complimentary to the area. These architectural styles can be found in the surrounding communities and would be complimentary to the area. The proposed architectural styles, colors, and materials make up the project's proposed pattern and design book. Approval of this pattern and design book would essentially serve as a blanket design approval over the subject res uh

subject subdivision and allow the proposed single family dwellings and town homes to be constructed without future individual design approvals. As conditioned, a homeowners association will be created and would enforce the pattern in design book guidelines going forward. On March 16th, 2026, the Carmel Valley Land Use Advisory Committee voted 5 to zero to not support the project, citing concerns with development within and the introduction of occupants within the Carmel Valley flood plane. Members of the public raised concerns about evacuation adequacy during emergencies, development within a flood plane, removal of trees occupied by nesting birds, and the need to introduce and reintroduce native plant and u tree species. A member of the LUAC also commented on the project impact on local roadways and another member of the public requested that a community garden be implemented into the project plans. The pro plans have been updated to include a community garden. Um and all other comments have been addressed in the draft resolution and will be touched on later in this presentation. Um staff would like to note the LUC did not provide county staff the opportunity to address these comments at the hearing. However, staff does feel that they have been adequately addressed and is happy to go into further detail.

Monterey County is lead Monterey County as lead agency prepared an initial study and mitigated negative declaration pursuant to ZQA guidelines. The county identified potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, and tribal cultural resources. However, the applicant has agreed to implement nine mitigation measures that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of less than significant. No members of the public commented on the initial study. However, five public agencies did provide comments. These agencies included the California Department of Conservation, Monterey Bay Air Resources District, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Transportation, and the State Water Resource Control Board. Minor applications and clarification changes to the draft ISM and D were made to address these comments. However, recirculation was not warranted and no additional mitigation measures are required to address those comments. Within the Carmel Valley master plan, Carmel Valley Road and Laurelis grade are recognized as a scenic corridor and those views of the Carmel River or the distant hills as seen from key public viewing areas such as Garland Ranch Regional Park are protected. The proposed development may be visible for limited instances along a 500 ft segment of Carmel Valley Road, but would be partially filtered by existing vegetation. It would not block views of the Carmel River or the distant hills. The proposed structures ridge lines would be at or below the surrounding tree canopies. Due to distance, the proposed development would not be visible from the Relis Grade or Garland Ranch Regional Park. The project uh site includes three on-site wells which draw water from the Carmel Valley aluvial aquifer. The site has historically dam demanded approximately 35 acre feet of water. This figure represents the applicant's riparian water rights. As proposed, the project uh would demand approximately 15.72 acre feet per year, but has been rounded up to 16 acre feet per year for a conservative estimate. Therefore, the project would result in

approximately a 19 acre foot per year reduction of water use compared to the historical demand. Given limitations to create a private water system and the site not having existing Calam meter, the applicant proposes to enter into a wheeling agreement with Calam. A similar wheeling agreement was utilized for the adjacent Rancho Kinyatta subdivision project. Under the proposed wheeling agreement, the applicant would transfer or wheel approximately 16 acre feet of its riparian water rights to Calam to serve the project. Calam would then draw 16 acre feet per year of raw water out of their existing wells located within the same aluvial aquifer. Would then treat that water at an existing treatment plant and distribute it back to the project site within existing infrastructure in Valverde Road. All on-site water wells would be abandoned as they would no longer be required to provide domestic or landscaping water to the property. Callam has issued a conditional can and Wilserve letter confirming this approach. As conditioned and per the state water resource control board's request, the applicant will also formally dedicate the remainder of the riparian water rights approximately 19 acre feet per year for beneficial instream uses in the Carmel River. This will help improve the river's instream flows and provide multiple ecological benefits. This wheeling agreement proposal was confirmed by the state water resource control board to not be in conflict with the cease and desist order. The project as proposed and conditioned has demonstrated that there is a long-term adequate water supply to support the proposed 74 units. A traffic impact assessment was prepared for the project. The existing daily demand along Rio Road east of Carmel Rancho Boulevard is approximately 1,160 daily trips. The project would add approximately 685 trips with 48 being in the morning and 66 being in the evening peak hours all entering and exiting via Rio Rio road. This is consider

considered a conser conservative trip generation estimate given the project's proximity to services and goods. The TRA uh traffic report analyzed 10 roadway segments to determine level of service or LOS conditions. Per the 2010 general plan, a project would have an significant impact impact on LO if it worsens the LO by one letter grade. Under existing conditions, three of the 10 roadways have existing acceptable levels of service. The project would not impact or change the level of service for these segments. The seven other analyzed segments currently operate at um unacceptable or failing levels of service. While the project would add trips to these segments, this is not recognized as having a significant impact given the existing failing LOS status. Accordingly, the project would not cause the intersections LOS to degrade below acceptable levels of service or have a significant impact on an intersection intersection that already operates below standards. However, based on a change in intersection performance, staff has applied mitigation measure T1. This mitigation measure requires that the applicant con convert the existing northbound left through at the intersection of Carmel Rancho Boulevard and Car Carmel Valley Road to a northbound right through. Um, this will improve the level of service from failing to acceptable. Additionally, the project has been conditioned to pay into the Carmel Valley trafficked impact program, which would support additional improvements within the Caramel Valley Master Plan. The countywide average vehicle miles traver traveled per capita for residential projects is 11.4. To meet screening thresholds for a less than significant impact, a project must equal or be less than 85% of the county average or 9.7 vehicle miles traveled VMT per cap capita. Based on project

location, VMT per capita for the site is 11.3. To reduce VMT, the project as proposed would implement various transit demand management strategies or TDMs. Seven TDMs uh have been proposed and would result in a 14% reduction in vehicle miles traveled and result in a project VMT per capita of 9.7 thereby meeting local thresholds. HDD planning engineering services and CALR have reviewed the proposed TDM measures and concur with their applicability and the related reduction percentage. The proposed measures include transit sub subsidies for the low-income units, a travel behavior change program, carpool vanpool facilities, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, EV chargers, and the on-site affordable housing. Many of the TDMs would be managed by the required HOA. Monterey County GIS identifies the project site as having high archaeological sensitivity. An archaeological report was prepared and and concluded that there is no surface evidence of potentially significant archaeological resources. Although the potential to encounter historic or archaeological resources is low based on a sight specific study, construction of the project would require ground disturbance such as grading and excavation in an area of regional sensitivity. Therefore, mitigation measure CR1 has been applied and would require an on call archaeological monitor and a preconstruction cultural awareness training to be conducted. HCD planning initiated consultation with local tribes on January 9th, 2026. Representatives of the Esland tribe of Monterey County requested the on-site presence of a Native American monitor to observe all ground disturbing activities associated with the subdivision improvements and development of the site. Planning staff respectfully disagrees with the extent of the requested monitoring as grading and construction related to the residential structures will only impact soils that have already been disturbed and therefore monitored by initial

subdivision improvement grading. Therefore, staff believes the further monitoring is not warranted unless the disturbance exceeds the depths of initial grading activities. Mitigation measure TR1 requires a tribal monitor affiliated with the area to be on site for all initial ground disturbance for subdivision improvements and for any further development that requires ground disturbance at depths deeper than what what has already been monitored and excavated. Despite the disturbed condition of the site and the surrounding development, implementation of the project could impact habitat for special status species, disrupt nesting birds and or alter natural habitat. However, implementation of mitigation measures BIO1, BIO2, BIO3, and BIO4 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Pursuant to title 21, development within the Karma Valley flood plane is permissible, provided that all structures, including related utilities, shall be so located and constructed so as to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and dis discharges from the systems flood waters. Limited portions of the project site are within the Carmel River flood plane. These FEMA flood hazard areas would be occupied by the project's bio retention bases. These basins meet or exceed the required capacity required to accommodate a 95th percentile storm event. A limited portion of three residential parcels lies within the 100-year flood plane. All other residential parcels would be located outside of the flood plane. The portions of lots six, seven, and eight within the flood plane would serve as rear yards and would be graded to direct flood flows away from residences and south towards the bio retention basins. Furthermore, as shown on the attached plans, lots 67 and 8 would have pad elevations of 37 ft, which is 1 to 2 feet above the identified 35 to 36 ft base flood elevation. Additionally, finished floors would be an additional 10 to 12 in increase of freeboard. Further, while the southern portion of Albert Drive and Rio Road are within the

flood plane, in the event of a flood, there is additional emergency eress to Carmel Valley Road from the northern portion of Albert Drive, which is well outside of the flood plane and is shown by the red arrow on screen. The site contains approximately 1,800 square ft of man-made slopes in excess of 25%. The steeper slopes are on the perimeter of the property's cultivated area and drainage ditches along portions of Albert Drive, shown on screen in the red. Implementation of the project would require grading of the entire site and therefore will involve approximately 1,800 square ft of development on slopes in excess of 25%. In this case, there is no feasible alternative that would allow the proposed 60 lot subdivision and 74 unit housing development project to not impact slopes in excess of 25%. Primarily the impacts to slopes are occurring as a result of required road improvements to Valverde Drive which are being required to provide adequate ingress and egress to the subdivision as well as meet the access requirements of the fire department. Of the 12.5 acre project site, approximately 11.2 acres are designated as prime farmland. This project would convert the entire 11.2 acres designated as prime farmland from the current agricultural use to non-aggricultural use. A land evaluation site assessment was prepared to quantitively evaluate the project's potential impacts on agricultural resources. This assessment concluded that the project site would have a less than significant impact on prime farmland because the site is isolated from other important farmlands and does not function as part of a broader agricultural landscape. The Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner's Office reviewed the proposed project and concurred with the less than significant impact determination. The subject properties and surrounding areas are known to be exposed to flood risks from overland flows from current drown from the current downstream end of a relatively large northern bank tributary known as county drainage area 27 which is shown on the left. Flow

paths within DA27 are well defined in the steep canyons north of Karma Valley Road, but essentially disappear south of the road, where a small ditch carries flows for a short distance before ending approximately 700 ft north of the project site. From there, the modeling shows that the flooding associated with DA27 generally flows in a southwesternly direction across the project site towards the Carmel River. The extent of and potential solutions to DA27's flooding were studied in the county's CSA50 report. Recommendations to address flooding associated with DA27 include constructing uh per perimeter protection and conveyance of DA27 runoff via pipeline or drainage ditch from Carmel River to sorry Carmel Valley Road to the Carmel River. None of the improvements recommended in the CSA50 report have been installed as of date. However, the adjacent property, the Rancho Kinyata subdivision project is currently in the process of installing an 84in storm drain pipe along its western property line. This is shown here in orange. The storm drain pipe is adequately sized to receive and distribute all runoff from DA27 to the Carmel River, but will only be installed for the length of the property. Therefore, although this pipe is expected to be installed this summer, it is not connected to the runoff outlets at Carmel Valley Road. Therefore, it does not properly function without a pipe being installed between it and Carmel Valley Road. The county may construct a conduct a connecting pipe uh but capital improvement plans, funding sources, and timelines have not been approved. Therefore, the project's hydraologists analyzed overland flooding impacts under current conditions. Based on the CSA50 report, the site would be inundated by approximately 0.5 to 1 ft of overland floods. In accordance with title 16, the proposed finished floors of the residential lots will be 1 to three feet above the projected ponding depths. Therefore, as designed, the proposed residential

development will not be impacted by surface water flooding associated with DA27. Title 16 also requires that the projects ensure that the development will not significantly affect any other property by increasing flooding depths. Therefore, additional on-site drainage improvements are needed to manage and reduce impacts from overland floods of DA27 that may result in increased off-site flooding depths. To ensure compliance with this requirement, condition number 24 has been applied. This condition requires that the project ensure DA27 run on received on site is routed through the subject property or otherwise controlled in a manner that ensures one on-site habitable structures are safe from overland floods and two off-site properties are not not adversely impacted or subject to increased overland flooding depths during 20-year and 100red-year storm events. County staff has met with the project uh applicants or the applicants engineers as well as hydraologists who are actively working to finalize drainage plans and satisfy this condition of approval. In the event that a county uh the county does install a storm drain pipe connecting between Rancho Kinyatta and Karma Valley Road prior to final map approval of this project. This condition would require that the applicant pay a fair share contribution to this solution. The project site is located within a moderate fire hazard severity zone, but is not located within a state responsibility area. All new structures and utility infrastructure will meet applicable fire safety requirements. A fuel management plan for the project was prepared and reviewed by the Cypress Fire Protection District, who did not raise any concerns or indicators of inconsistencies with applicable requirements. Per the fire district's request, additional emergency egress points from each prospective side of the subdivision have been incorporated into the project's design and are shown on

screen in red. A condition has been prepared to require that the applicant prepare an emergency action plan. The emergency action plan will provide to each homeowner and will include before, during, and after evacuation procedures, specific duties of tenants, transportation arrangements, and evacuation guidance checklist, as well as a site plan illustrating emergency exit routes and areas of refuge. At this time, uh, staff also recommends two minor changes to conditions number 13 and 24. Specifically, the timing of condition 13 to reflect prior to final map and, um, modifying the condition of, sorry, the action of condition number 24 to match the performance language of the condition. And with that, staff recommends the planning commission adopt the mitigated negative declaration pursuant to section 15074 of the SQA guidelines. Approve a combined development permit investing tenative map to allow a 60 lot subdivision and the development of 74 residential lots within the Karma Valley flood plan and on slopes in excess of 25% and a design approval to allow the use of a pattern and design book and as well as adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. This concludes staff's presentation. staff is available for questions.

Thank you so much. Very well done. I appreciate that. Alrighty then. We will have Commissioners, do you have any questions at all? Oh, Commissioner Hartzel, would you please pull back up your slide on the builder's remedy? I'm going to ask some questions because I'm new around here and I just want to get the standard perfectly correct. So what I understand from this slide and from my own research is that there's limited discretion under the builder's remedy and that has to do with health and safety squa. That's it. Can you reflect that back to me and give me any additional details that I should be thinking about there? Yes, Commissioner. I would say in um in a sentence that is correct. Um projects are shall be held to only objective health and safety standards and do need to comply with SQA guidelines. I will say in this case the staff has uh staff's review has found that it's the project is consistent with both objective and subjective standards. Um and then has also complied with SQA requirements. When I look at health and safety, I see traffic, flood plane, and overland flooding as the three biggies that you described to us. And I'm the most concerned about overland flooding among those. Um, so I would love to explore that one more time a little bit slower. Um, and specifically the condition, the stuff in condition 24 about who constructs what and when. Um, can we go back to that?

Sure. And and to that list, I would also include um water availability and and sewage capacity as public health and safety standards. Great. So there is somewhat significant volumes of water that can be conveyed over the subject property as well as surrounding properties as a result of um currently inadequate drainage conveyance from a tributary known as drainage area 27. Um you can see on the left that it's a fairly large drainage collects all of the runoff comes down through a small uh covert and then as shown on the right in the yellow arrows kind of disperses southwest based on existing topography

that floods the properties just north um kind of traverses through the northwestern portion of the left side of the property and then continues to inundate um Rio Road and the associated uh Barnyard and Carmel Rancho shopping center. There was a concern that developing this project site would essentially create um like an island effect and therefore displace waters elsewhere um and therefore negatively impact off-site properties.

Title 16 requires that development both keep on-site residences safe from inundation but also not significantly impact off-site properties. And so condition number 24 has been crafted to essentially require that the drainage that would otherwise occupy the site continue to be conveyed through the site and controlled in a manner that keeps on-site residences safe but then doesn't increase the issue the flooding depths for off-site properties. Um so the hydraologist I believe is on call and they have some um preliminary solutions to that and the condition essentially requires the compliance with that performance standard because Rancho Kinyatta is actively putting in that 84inch storm drain pipe. Um staff has worked with public works and is aware of a general desire to connect that storm drain pipe to Karma Valley Road because currently once it's installed it wouldn't serve any real function because it's not connecting to the drainage outlet. Um so there to staff's knowledge will be a push to install that pipe but the timing is unknown at this time. So it wouldn't be appropriate to rely on a future solution that hasn't been committed to and that's why the condition requires improvements be designed to public works and county standards uh prior to final map approval. But in the event that the county does move forward and actually fund a connecting pipe, then the applicant would pay into that solution as the as on-site improvements would no longer be needed. And so the timing essentially requires prior to final map, the overland floods either be addressed through a connecting pipe or on-site improvements or any other means that would kind of address the issue um and to the satisfaction of public works.

So the land as it's currently existing is sort of holding storm water because it's farmland and so sometimes it's just fine with being flooded. Is that yeah what's going on? Yes. While the sub well the subject property is zoned low density residential. Um there is a residence on site but it it does convey overland kind of sheet flow water that is all being conveyed in a southwest direction.

Okay, my last one just to go back to builder's remedy. So under builder's remedy objective health and safety and squa requirements we aren't applying the zoning requirements of lowdensity residential. That's set aside in in a waiver. Where is that set aside?

Yes. So there the builder's remedy requires that um non-health and safety standards that are objective still be adhered to. So you could think of site development standards um some of which could be argued as health and safety um some maybe that are not. So in this case, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with most site development standards, but there are three site development standards that the project does not comply with being minimum lot size, building coverage, and density requirements. Because the project provides 20% lowinccome deed restricted units, they're eligible for three concessions under state density bonus law as well as an unlimited number of waivers. So, the applicant is um invoking density bonus law to essentially wave those three site development standards that the project doesn't comply with. As staff noted in its presentation, we don't believe that a waiver is required to modify the density requirement because that's very that's very clearly in uh builder's remedy something that the county cannot modify, but this applicant still did request it. One sub question. Are there parts of the land use plan that are applicable to this project that we should be pay I I know that the general plan rules apply. I know that some parts of the land use plan apply. Can you just draw that line really clear for me? Any general plan or Karma Valley master plan policy that is objective would need to be complied with but again would need to be waved or not held to the same standard if it would otherwise modify the density of the project or render it in afford unaffordable. The one policy that staff did find the project would be in conflict with was density um and that the a waiver request has already been submitted.

So and also through the chair just to clarify even further. So while yes, there are only specific standards that we could apply, staff's review has been that the project is compliant with all standards objective and subjective in um the relevant plans regardless of if they could be held to that standard or not. Staff has found that the project meets those. So there we didn't take the relevant plans and go these are the ones we can apply, these are the ones we can't, you're fine with the ones that you can apply. We just did a general consistency determination knowing that there are some we couldn't recommend denial on and found the project consistent with all of those outside of density which in this case can't be applied. That's really helpful. Thank you

commission commissioner deal. Thank you. I just want to say that that was an excellent overview presentation. Thank you very much. It's complicated project and I know has been a lot of work and it really shows. Um, couple of some clarification things. We can go back to the the overland flooding map we were just looking at. I like that one. Can we please share staff um or HDMI left? Thank you.

Thank you. Um I'm looking at at Valverie Drive which is underneath a yellow arrow I believe. Is it not? Um, and I believe that it's also designated as a potential emergency egress. Um, in the event of overland flooding, how does that egress work? I I'm sticking to health and safety here. I think emergency is part of that, right? I mean, I don't want to get off topic, so please let me know if I am.

Sure. Um, yes. Um, Valverde Road has two points of ingress and egress. The primary primary point of ingress and egress is off of um Rio road down here. If you can follow my cursor under a 100redyear storm events, which is a 1% storm, um portions of Rio Road could be inundated based off of this legend to maybe 2 and 1/2 ft. Um well, maybe shallower shallower to like maybe a half foot. And then there is secondary ingress and egress going north to I believe this is a senior care facility. Um there is a fire access lane here that would be opened up. Um and the ponding depths there based on the legend are about a half foot maybe a foot. Um so there would be inundated roads but not at depths that staff has been indicated would not be could not be traversed out of. um and further the on-site residences as designed would be safe from those inundations, but does staff does recognize that there are the roads would and could be inundated in those situations.

My own experience with the aptly named Rio road is that that would not be passable in in a significant flood of which we have more and more and more frequently given climate change. Um the road to the north also floods pretty significantly. Um, and I know that there's a possibility of opening the gate to the emergency gate to Carmel Valley Road. I know that the senior center went through all that. But I also know that when we did the senior center, we took into account that it might be necessary to evacuate people. There is possibility that in a flooding event, it may be necessary to evacuate people because 100 years is not the only number and floods are getting worse. So, um I think I I would probably be joined by uh many local residents in saying the long awaited and I I I applaud staff for not counting on when it will be completed extension of the drainage pipe is the solution to all of this. Um, but in the meantime, if we are assuming that there's nothing we can do to to move that process along to its obvious necessary conclusion, I don't think that saying it's not likely to flood more than half a foot on the backup emergency is a good is a good number. I don't think that's safe and I don't think saying you won't need to evacuate is safe and I don't believe Rio Road is going to be passible in that kind of a situation. So, I continue to hold a concern around emergency egress in the event of flooding, primarily from overland flooding sources. And I I see what everybody's done here. I appreciate it. And um I'm really and truly just concerned that that's not realistic with the conditions that we know have in the past already existed, particularly as we get more impervious surfaces with additional development. So, I have a concern about that. I want to register them, hoping that that the applicant

will be able to potentially address it further. Again, it's really annoying to continually have to say there's a solution. You just have to do it. There's a pipe that needs to go in. It's halfway done with Rancho Kinyatta. Let's get this taken care of. But right now, it hasn't been. Um, okay. So my next question is a simple one which says that there's an HOA that's going to be in effect with respect to the inclusionary units. There would be an HOA that um is for the entire subdivision. However, that body would manage the um common space of the the affordable town homes. Those units are for sale. So individuals could buy a unit, but any common space area would be managed by the HOA. In the past, we've been concerned, and I remember this again on the NE nextdoor Rancho Kenyatta subdivision discussion, that HOA fees rendered inclusionary units unaffordable. Is there any protection or guarantees that this is not a case where that might be a concern?

Um, not specifically to staff's knowledge, but I I'm sure the applicant has an answer for you. I I'd appreciate that because it is is really a big deal if we're trans if they really need to be affordable. I guess all I'm saying and that in the past has been a concern. Um, with respect to the HU, I know we can't require this, but I might as well give fair warning to the applicant that in the Rancho Kinyatta villages discussions, one of our concerns was the high um high likelihood that people might be interested in this area for second homes or vacation homes. And one of the things that the applicant there offered and you know voluntarily offered was a 120day minimum rental for through the HOA to try to encourage long-term residential use. I know that from my point of view the idea of getting long-term residents in that in that neighborhood would be really something I wanted to support. Just like to put it out there as a possibility that the applicant might consider such a thing in furtherance of that. I think probably mutual goal looking at this project. Um what other if any improvements are uh considered for Valverie Drive just through the project or south of the project or I missed that part. I didn't get that.

Sure. Um there would be improvements widening Valverde Road um to required two-lane standards as well as some drainage swells and improvements for the extent from the northern property line all the way to Rio Road and all that's the rights of way are in order and all that. So that goes through the intervening property. There's no concerns around that. Correct. Um and then and then that that traffic goes out through Rio Road and then run me through just if we have visuals it would be great. The off-site traffic improvements that are cons uh being considered as mitigations.

Sure. Um mitigation measure T1 if you follow my cursor this is the intersection of Carmel Valley Road and uh Carmel Rancho Boulevard. There is currently two left lanes that turn left onto Carmel Valley Road with that center lane being also a through. As proposed and mitigated, it would require that middle lane to be converted to a right through, allowing essentially two lanes to turn right onto Carmel Valley Road. I have a picture of that. I'm not I mean I go there every day and I don't know what you're saying to me.

Sorry. Yes. Uh give me one minute to pull it up. So, we have the project site here. Uh, following my cursor, um, daily traffic would go south along Valver Vverde, west along Rio Road, um, and could go wherever vehicles would like to go, but the improvements proposed would be to this intersection here. And so currently you can see there is a left turn lane. This center one is a through left and then there's a single right turn lane. This intersection currently has a failing level of service. Essentially people are waiting too long to turn right. Um and so the mitigation measure would require that this lane signal be flipped to be to allow for through traffic as well as right turns. um that would require some modification to the signage on the intersection um but would improve that level of service from failing to acceptable.

That's counterintuitive to me as a person who goes through there. I mean I wait to turn left a lot and so do a lot of people. So that's I got to say so far I am unconvinced that that would address the existing conditions in that area at all. Um, and I would also ask, is there an off-site consideration at Rio Road and Highway 1? because that's a the Rio road highway one crossroads melee where people have the ability to go into Carmel and then uh or in and out of the crossroads or wherever that is gets backed up all the way to the Rio road I mean the Rancho Boulevard solidly impacted frequently and I see this as an issue so particularly if there's people here who would be working in Carmel in the hospitality industry so is there anything dealing with with that intersection or that road segment and we can go back and look at your at your uh picture if you like. I think I may be more familiar with it than most people but I don't think but many are unfamiliar with it.

Uh thank you commissioner. Yes, I am familiar with the intersection and I'm just pulling up the traffic report to look at the specific recommendations and analysis there. While staff's doing that, we'd just like to note for the commission and public that's exhibit J to today's um to this uh packet. I'd like to just weigh in and say that traffic reports are so hard to understand. the the traffic assessment found that um the intersection of Rio Road and Highway 1 currently is uh failing within LOS of E during the AM and peak uh AM and PM peak hours. um and concluded that because the project would add less than 1% of existing volume of trips to the segment that it would have a less than significant impact to that. It's also under um CALR jurisdiction. So there's limitations um on what could be improved without further CALR coordination, but the the traffic assessment and county public works didn't recommend any um off-site

improvements to that intersection.

I would take issue with that. I think that in one what we have to add into the consideration here is that ours is a visitor economy and so the peak is not the normal peak hours. The peak has to do with visitation and during any kind of heavy visitation period that section of roadway is impassible and by which I mean it can take you an hour to get from Rio road to highway one going south. So um the fact that we have any finding that that doesn't require attention I find objectionable from a standpoint of traffic. Uh I don't know what to say except that u any objective observation would I believe bear that out. Um so if those that's the the I don't understand exactly what they're trying to get at with with the Carmel Valley Road improvement but whatever. I think it's backwards. I don't think that's really what happens. Again, due to the fact that our peak movements are visitor related. Um, we have also got of course people who are going in and out of the valley for their own reasons and going to the school, but uh, man, I've been backed up trying to turn left on that more than once. Um and um the fact that there's no way no intention to address adding a bunch of traffic to Rio Road is of great concern to me from specifically a health and safety standpoint. Um, that being said, I just wanted also to I had received a comment from someone I think we all did about pedestrian circulation and I know that that had been addressed. So, if we could just review the pedestrians circulation for people who um might want to be part of a

larger pedestrian circulation effort in Carmel Valley and see how that would fit in. That would be really helpful to me just to do that. Here in the hearing, we have some maps that might visually address that. And please give staff one minute to pull up project plans. If staff left, HDMI can please be shared. The project site um would include pedestrian um DG paths along Valver Vverde for the extent of um from Rio Road to Valverde. And then as conditioned there would be a new sidewalk installed from the intersection of Rio Road and Valverde to where the current sidewalk ends just in front of the COD um building. So that would ensure that the on-site residences have a safe means of pedestrian um travel to the nearby goods and services.

Are they connecting up to the paths to the school? No, they are not extending any improvements north. Okay, thanks. I mean safe routes to school is a thing. We do encourage pedestrian traffic. There is an existing trail there that people use. I believe even a recognized trail to the west at the east rather. But okay. Anyway, thank you. I wait and listen to what the public has to say. Much appreciated. Commissioner Robert, sorry it's been so long I forgot what I was doing.

Um, I also have questions about traffic. Um, and as a refresher, I think I understand that CALR uses uh BMT and that the county uses levels level of service. Is that true? The state of California um the office of um planning and research requires that SQA only analyze vehicle miles traveled. However, the county's 2010 general plan still does require LOS standards to be looked at.

Okay. Um, and then I think I also heard a discussion that those or that an intersection, and I'm not clear which one is at level of service E. Um, and similar to Martha's experience. I mean, the the Rio Road intersection is just I mean, well, I will say that reading the a little bit of the um traffic report, they did use traditional um peak times, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 400 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. And on a Saturday afternoon on that intersection, it could be from 11 to 6 is peak volume. And I guess I really so my question is one what which intersection had the level of service E and then because it seems to me that one trip out of this new development unquestionably increases adds to this already level of service f um situation. And so I guess I'm trying to get clear on where what we're considering and what we haven't considered and whether we should be considering other intersections as well.

Sure. Um the Rio road state route one at to car uh to the crossroads boulevard intersection that has a failing level of service during the AM peak hour and then a level service E during the PM peak hour. And then State Route One Rio Road to Ribera Road has um a level of services E throughout the AM and PM PM peak hours. And so is the criteria for failing one new trip? I mean that one new trip significant um level of significance. I'm wondering

the level of significance threshold is the change of a le um a letter grade under the general plan. And so that um staff's understanding it can be a percentage of the trips that that intersection actually receives. And so in this case, the traffic assessment found that based on the additional trip generation in those intersections, it didn't change the letter grade from E to F. And then for other intersections that were already at F, it you can't decrease the letter grade anymore. So the county requires in all instances then to pay into the traffic uh improvement or the uh regional traffic impact fees as well as the Carmel Valley traffic impact fees.

So there are instances with this particular project that we increase past F. Correct.

Okay. And um I think I also read that there's they're estimating at least 110 trips out or on these roads. I guess I'm really trying to understand how we can't increase it to a level service F in those areas. That's E. Um I I'm not understanding that rationale based on the numbers that I'm getting. And maybe we have a traffic engineer or someone here today who can talk about that. Um but that's what I'm struggling to understand. And I just, you know, we've talked about much smaller developments that trigger a level of service that basically makes it uh, you know, not a viable project. So, I I I guess I'm not understanding how a project this big isn't also doing that unless it's math that I'm not understanding. Um, so I if you guys know that answer, great. If not, maybe an engineer or whoever's here can help me understand. The only other question I have is um regarding the water counts. Um I think I saw that there's the historical use is um 35 acre square feet and this is going to use 16 or something like that. And I'm just wondering what the historical use was. Was it the A operation?

Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Oh, a voice out of the out of the sky. Please just wanted to uh piggyback on Commissioner Robert's remarks to saying that the county's level of significance is one additional trip if the level of service is F. That's the adopted level that you know the county requires. That's their definition of a significant impact if something is at level of service F. So I happen to know this. We won't go into why, but uh one additional trip on anything that's rated F is considered a significant impact. There's no percentage. There's no nothing else. That was a county adopted standard. I could probably find it somewhere if we need to.

Thank you, commissioners. Any further questions for staff? Nope. Seeing none, would the uh applicant or the applicant's agent care to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. give us your name, please.

I was going to say good morning, good afternoon. Um, my name is Are you gonna Okay, perfect. Um, so thank you, chair, vice chair, and commissioners for being here today. I'd also like to thank Fiona, Joey, Craig, Melanie, Bora, and all the various folks that have worked with me throughout the years. Um, my name is Pamela Salas Niding and I'm vice president at City Ventures and I'm also a planning commissioner in my hometown. So, I know the love um of your home and the dedication that it takes to be here. Next slide. For those of you who don't know much about City Ventures, we are a sustainable California builder that primarily focuses on infill developments. Sustainability is of great importance to us in our homes. include all the things that you would expect such as Nest thermostats, EV charging, and standard solar panels. But we also do things that you wouldn't expect such as designing creatively to use less lumber, designer storm water systems, use infiltration, concrete mixes with less Portland cement and solar battery charging.

Oh, next. Thank you. When given the opportunity, we strive to have our efforts reflect in beautiful architecture. As sometimes sustain the sustainability and engineering efforts are the things that while very important go unseen. I'm going to touch on both of those elements today, but I wanted to give you a few images of some of our most recent projects. The approximate 14 acre site is located 26500 Valverde Drive. Um an infill site. is located.3 miles to the Monterey Selenus bus stop route for routes 521 uh 5 and 21 which connect to the regional transit system that extends to King City, Santa Cruz and via MST regional routes where riders may access also VTA Cal Train and other and other greater Bay Area services. At only a half a mile is the Barnyard Shopping Center and the Crossroads Shopping Center where residents can visit local shops and restaurants such as Carmel Valley Coffee, Rio Grillil, various grocery shops and other local businesses. And at 1.2 miles is also the Palo Corona Regional Park. Before I dive into the project, we were very honored in being able to work on the three county housing element sites that make up this project. I know that the county has put an incredible amount of effort to put together the count the county's housing element and this property always had a place in that effort. Believe it or not, but these three sites started out with a combined 213 units when we first came into play. Now, these sites have evolved to reflect this very project that is before you today with a much smaller unit cut in 74 and it's now included in the county's third draft whose final and I believe it's going to be final draft was submitted back to HCD most recently in March. So, the goal for me today is to breathe life into the vision that the

county has had and has been working on for this site long ago. A quick preview of our site. It contains 74 homes consisting of 59 single family and 15 town homes. We are providing the 20% affordable housing that Fiona said, but at a 60% AMI, which is a deeper affordability than the low AMI, which is typically at 80%. The goal is to allow participation in the housing market. Now I should say to answer one of the questions that the calculation of the below market rate units is dictated by expenses. So it includes utilities, HOA fees, property taxes, financing, etc. before the actual price is set to ensure that affordability. Valverde Drive is also the spy in the project allowing access to the wast and east neighborhoods that each have their own green space elements and amenity. When approaching the site, one will be greeted with treeline streets, DG path, and a strong entrance that welcomes residents and visitors alike. As one looks to the right, a detached landscape area flanks a path with lower vegetation that allows a peekaboo to a green space that provides an amenity area for residents with a playground, botchi courts, and picnic area. For enhanced connectivity, we're also extending the sidewalk from our site to the existing Rio Road and approximate 900 linear feet of improvement. And to add for traffic, we are providing seven transportation demand management or TDM measures that I know our um traffic engineer is also on the line that can explain in addition to completing intersection um striping improvements and paying close to $2.5 million into the Carmel Valley master plan area traffic improvement impact fee as well as the regional development impact fee. All these images show these beautiful designs, but in our case, this

property for this site plan, it's just more than aesthetics, flow, and beauty. This required a deep understanding of the site, the history, the people, and everything that created the environment, which was the foundation for the site. While the site went through rigorous engineering design that incorporated sustainability measures, we knew that there was two important items that I did want to touch base on, which is water and storm drainage. The issue of water sustainability and overall protection of the Carmel Valley River has been in discussion since 1995. One of the biggest questions when I joined was how to proceed with the housing element site that was within a countywide cease and desist order. After taking a deep dive into the history, we engaged the state count the state, the county, the water management districts early on in the process. My goal as a licensed civil engineer and the proponent of this project was to deliver a project that provided a net environmental benefit not just for the site itself but on a local and a community level. We are honored as Fion and Joey mentioned that we received concurrence that this project was going to provide a net environmental benefit from the state water board. Let me explain more. It was an iterative two-year process. However, a three-part environmental benefit plan was proposed for the benefit of the Carmel River wershed and supported the intent and heart of the Carmel River wershed in heart of the Carmel River flood plane restoration and environmental enhancement project which you all know as a CRE. The CRF free project will be one of the largest and ecological and flood management projects in Monterey County. Designed to reconnect Carmel to its historic and stabilized hydraulic state to provide a benefit to the Carmel Lagoon ecosystem that encompasses a large watershed of Carmel and Carmel Valley. Such improvements include flood control, restoration of habitat and

flood plane. Part one that I was able to provide was community benefit days to support this very important CRF free day. Part two include funding three years of CSA50 funding to support the CR free project. And part three includes on-site hydrogeeological restoration via measures to recharge the aluvial aquifer. This three-part curated plan made a way for the state water resources control board to approve the project, finding it delivers a net environmental and community benefit. The other important regional item of the site that was reviewed in context with the project design was storm drainage. water and storm drainage from an engineering perspective are actually strongly connected and as such the county put an incredible amount of effort into studying the lower Carmel River storm water management and flood control report in the CSA 50 flood flood control report which Fiona had up earlier. This report reviewed and discussed flood risk and most importantly identified regional improvements required. While no one site can engineer a solution for a regionalwide item, there have been great strides taken by other developments to ensure that every project, every new project is playing its part to support the efforts of the county. Our water resources and civil engineers took great care of incorporating the work within this flood control report into our own modeling. We completed a hydraulic and hydrarology modeling for all on-site storms. 2, 5, 10, 2500year pre and post storms events, including analyzing local, regional, and flood plane management, as well as impacts to the Carmel Valley River. As a licensed engineer, I can tell you that it took an incredible amount of effort um working with our county engineering and planning staff. But the design while it being something that can't be called beautiful

like our architecture, it's a foundation to the project. So this site and its infrastructure was designed to manage this this DA27 by becoming a natural conduit to provide conveyances to protect structures. What it does and I do have our hydraologist on the phone is that it will break up the runon from DA27 into two separate proposed watersheds which is what the site is already doing. and it enhances the on-site infrastructure including drainage channels, HDL driven street sections, etc. to manage this item. And I know that when we looked at the images earlier, just a little piece of engineering that it looked like it was all red, but I want to make sure that we understand that flooding is much different than a peak flow. Because what we're looking at here are peak flows that are fast. They come in and out. So it's not something that is inundated and flooding and ponding for a very very long time. So I just want to make sure and I know that our hydraologists are on the phone that can explain that further. On March 13, 2026, we also had the opportunity to present at the LUAC. There were comments regarding flood which I just discussed and so did Fiona as well as trees and the existing farm use. The county did a beautiful job of um summarizing all of the flood related items, but I did want to discuss the changes that were made as part of feedback from the community, including a local resident, Miss Paola, who um met with me after the meeting. We decreased lot sizes in order to incorporate a community garden and took a second look at the trees to incorporate additional native options. While we were limited to water efficient species that aren't prone to diseases, I hope that this effort addresses the feedback of the LUAC to bring the community together and to honor the heritage of the land. Now, we know that architecture here had

to be intentional to maintain the valley's essential character. It takes our architecture takes inspiration from the valley and caramel by the sea with the Med Mediterranean and Spanish influences. All these inspirational elements lead to the simple yet intentional material specification elevation you see before you today. For architectural articulation, the project is proposing elevation steps providing individuality, different materials, stucco, vertical sighting, brick, veneer. The palette is leaning towards mid-century modern with earthy neutrals as the foundation of the color palette. There also pops of saturated midtones. These stone earthy elements were also carried to the landscape items with the curated fencing and entry monumentation. There's additionally an amenity area that's both passive and active for all. And also you have rustic items again for that nod to the heritage out in Carmel Valley that you can see also in our landscaping and off-site items in the open and green space.

Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Oh, Commissioner Deal.

Yes. Thank you. Please stay for a second. you know, and thank you for all your work and especially for your engagement with the community. It's really helpful, I think, for people to have a face to go with all of their uh natural concerns that we know they are going to carry forward. A couple of questions that you might be able to help me with or not, and they certainly feel free to say not if you care that. How does this property have riparian rights? It's not on the river. I'm not a hydro geologist, but what I can tell you is that riparian rights have to do in a two forms. It's the legality of it kind of like mineral rights. So, the project has riparian rights by way of title rights, but it also has proven water usage rights, which all and that um that confirmation of water comes directly from the water management district. And so it was

I'm aware. I just wondered how it is that it they they had this and whether there had been continual cultivation through all that time. I don't it's been a long time. So we know that there have been issu instances where lapses in that use have resulted in questions about riparian rights with the state board particularly as they are prone to want to consolidate those and for the benefit of the river. So, I'm just wondering how it had riparian rights. It's more of a yeah,

long-term big picture question than it is about this project. I'm sure it does or they wouldn't have said so. Um, and this is a question that's I think on on my mind in particular, but I don't know that you have an answer of it yet. Can you estimate how much market rate units are going to cost in this development? Yeah, it's so funny because I got asked this question at the Luak and I'm an engineer and I do more development and so my answer was um I gave I think it was actually Miss Powell that asked me that. She asked me how much the affordable homes and so for the affordable homes are going to be about $100,000 is what we're calculating. And then the market rate homes are driven by the market which I'm seeing about $3 million or so. Um because this is not Carmel by the Sea because those homes are incredibly expensive.

$3 million. That's what I'm seeing at least in the area. If you The only way that I'm able to look at comps is literally by looking at Red Fin. And so that's what I'm seeing around that area because this is not Carmel by the Sea. I'm a little confused. Um, you you're telling me that the single family dwellings on in this subdivision are going to be uh probably in the range of $3 million a piece. That that is what the current existing surrounding homes are being sold for, but they're not on lots like that. They are on actually bigger lots which would actually have probably make our home sales even less.

I know. Okay. Well, so we're talking about we're going to gain how many inclusionary units? We're going to gain 15 low units 15 inclusion $100,000, right? And for that we're going to give up u how many acre feet of riparian water for a bunch more multi-million dollar homes? 59 of them. There would be 59 single family homes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, any further questions? No. Well, thank you very much, ma'am. Doesn't appear there's any further questions, but thank you.

All righty. We will um open the project then to um public comment. Is there anyone else in the room that would like to um in the chambers that would like to speak to the item? Nope. Seeing no one coming forward. Uh, Madame Clerk, do we have anybody online or not? Yes, we have Paula on on Zoom. Okay. Miss Paula, would you Is she unmuted? Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Okay. Uh well, how long do I have to uh give my my comments? Is it two or three minutes? Three minutes at least.

Okay. Thank you. Well, I wanted to first say I appreciate the fact that they've incorporated uh some of the concerns that I brought up. Um and I should also say that I am not in support of this project. um as evidenced by my letter that I prepared, but I I tried to strike somewhat of a uh compromise if you want, which in this instance also doesn't feel good. But anyways, I'll just read what I've written here. Um it's a real shame the county does not have an approved housing element. Because of this, several Carmel Valley master plan policies are allowed to be overrun by the builder's remedy for this project. uh no amount of variances, use permits, mitigations, number ratings or justifications for the development makes this obstruction of prime organic a land and habitat okay. Since City Ventures prides itself on sustainability, it would be a real feather in their cap if they preserve part of the prime egg land through a conservation easement as the Department of Conservation suggests could be done. Additionally, saving at least that one redwood would be another feather in their cap. Um, and I'll just step back from my letter for a second. Uh, I noticed that the roadway in, uh, a lot of those willow trees are going to be coming out. At least that's what it looks like. And that's habitat there. Um, anyways, with regards to the native plants, Karma Valley master plan policy CV310 states predominant landscaping shall consist of plants native to the valley. uh when the developers plan was presented to the LUAC, at least twothirds of the plants in their vegetation plan are exotic non-native plants. I went through that whole long list that they have in there. Um and it was an arduous process to do that, but I wanted to get a better idea of what is really being planned. Um these plants do not support the food and pollinator habitat needed to sustain local and migrating birds, moths, bats, butterflies, and many other insects.

Birds and insects around the world are in steep decline due to human-caused impacts. Some of the birds in that location are deemed climate endangered and climate threatened by Oddbond society. It's crucial to follow the Carmel Valley master plan policy CV310 to help bring them back once the development has been established. With regards to trails, that also has not been fully addressed. Uh there are two trails leading from Carmel Middle School area to Valverie Drive that school students use regularly. How will the development adhere to policy CV 314 and policy CV 319 and incorporate such trails in the development? And I'll just read this one policy 314. Wherever possible, a network of shortcut trails and bike paths should interconnect neighborhoods, developments, and roads. These should be closed to motor vehicles and their intent is to facilitate movement within the valley without the use of automobiles. Um, and then I I'd just like to also say I really appreciate all the comments u made regarding traffic uh and uh flooding um all the comments that have been made by the commissioners at this point. Uh I would like to have those you know included in the record that I support those questions and wondering how that's actually really going to work. Thank you. Thank you very much, ma'am. Do we have anyone else?

Yes, we have Brian Clark. Mr. Clark.

Good afternoon. I'm unmuted, I believe. Uh I'm Brian Clark. I am been an associated involved with this property since 2008. Uh in the big picture, uh a lot has changed since 2008. Uh respect to Mrs. Deal's comment about railroad and uh flooding. Uh we know we have the free project to the south going in. That's about a $33 million flood mitigation project where the one river when it reaches flood stage will go into two alternate rivers and out underneath Highway One into the lagoon. So when that project is completed uh you can expect that the flood zone again will be shrunk or headed to the south and the existing lines that cut across two corners of the property. right now it's really floodway fringe. It's really not uh flood zone meaning there's a house at 26500 Valverde and that's on the very south uh of these lots and by FEMA who notified me you do not need flood insurance for that home. So, in fact, as it is, you do not need flood insurance for the property. As it relates to paths, uh going north or to the middle school, um again, since 2008, well, I can tell you yes, the road is used by some children. Uh but have I ever seen more than 10 children on any given day using Valverity to walk to middle school? I have not. So it is very very very low use by children in the neighborhood to get to the middle school. Uh as it relates to CA50 in water coming off of the hill or north side of uh Highway 1, excuse me, Karma

Valley Road. Uh since 2008, I understand these are modeling uh flood modeling, surface modeling uh flood examples. Since 2008, have we ever experienced surface flooding on the site? We have not. It doesn't mean that the water does not leech down, but as is uh the middle school bought about 10 acres next to the middle school, their athletic fields. So, as an overflow, it has that 10 acres to leech onto. Then there's another 5 acre open lot which it leeches onto. Then they have the ball park fields at the middle school where the water also leeches to. So at the moment, yes, they have the proposed extension of the underground pipe to highway 1 that Kenyatta is putting in their section. But in a big picture again since 2008, the modeling is beautiful. But have we ever experienced surface flooding? We have not. Uh so other than surface flooding, the Rio road once the free project is finished will again reduce flooding going north of the river. And other than that, uh from this site, if you had no car, no car, uh you're less than a block to the post office. You're half a block from Schwab. You are within blocks of three grocery stores. you have a hundred public serving businesses that you literally literally do not need a car if you live at this site. So, as an infill development next to existing commercial uh barnyard and crossroads, it's a spectacularly low impact site as it relates to vehicle miles traveled. And

that's the end of my little spiel. I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Clerk, we have uh Tim Broadman. Mr. Broadman. Good afternoon. I hope you can all hear me. Yes. Uh thank you.

Uh thank you commissioners for uh your your uh your work. Um I've been a longtime resident for uh 60 years on Valverie Drive. My parents named the road back in 1953. Um, I'll make my comments short and sweet. Um, we have experienced surface flooding on uh the front of my property and on the properties across from me. Our parcel is just to the very north of this development property line. The flooding occurred in 2024 and it is uh uh uh it hasn't still has not been addressed. Um that is a concern. It should be a concern to everyone especially for the the safety of the existing families. Currently there are three families residing on two parcels to the north of the development. uh seven children. Also addressing the use of the paths um on a regular basis, the the public and the residents in the units uh to the south of this proposed development walk a circular path that's about a mile long. uh the people that attend the medical offices and the law offices walk a circular path on a daily basis in the morning and then in the afternoon the school children

use those two paths that emerge uh just to the north of of my property. So, I think if more time was spent uh observing what what the use is, the the development could maybe improve what they're planning to do for uh improvements on Valvery Drive by just stopping the the sidewalk to the end of their development will not not satisfy the needs of the community. Um my main concern that I wrote in a quick letter had to do with traffic currently just uh discussing two of the major intersections. They are compacted, impacted uh and congested and every day there there are problems. you haven't looked at the additional intersections that are going to be created and impacted that are going to have to be addressed and that is the Carmel Rancho Boulevard intersection with Rio Road. There was no discussion concerning that uh intersection which already uh is impacted just from the low use from the the developments that are already existing. Um, we're not considering yet the developments that have occurred or are are occurring at the Rancho Kinyatta Village, which is going to add quite a large impact on the Carmel Valley Road. And what I'm hoping for is that that will not also impact Rio Road. There's some proposal that the emergency eress uh to that proposal will be punched through where Rio Road currently terminates. Uh those are mainly my my concern just from you know off the off the cuff. I haven't spent very much time uh discussing some of the finer points with with things that I object to. Uh as for wildlife, we've got nesting uh golden

eagles on our property in a large tall redwood. So if you're removing trees on the current development, you're affecting wildlife. Um and and again there's a lot that could be improved upon in this development. Um my specific concern is my property line to the south which will adjoin this proposed development. I would like to know what the height of the the buildings that will be built there uh and whether they will block my view. Uh if if uh if that can be answered by the developer right now, I'd sure appreciate that. But uh the other major concern that my family's uh addressed for years and years and years is the the fact that uh current zoning is is very minimal and you're now upping a density level that is beyond carrying capacity for me many things both uh uh

Thank you, sir. You've um you've gone over about a minute now. Okay. Well, I'm I'm also you want to sum up real quick? Yeah, I'll I'll sum this up and that is thank you for your time and your efforts and I think there's a whole lot more that needs to be done to make this project uh feasible. Okay, thank you. We have uh Max R. Welcome Max. You have three minutes.

Okay, I'll make it quick. Um, I just want to let you know I came to live on Valverie in 1999 and I concur with everything that Tim Broadman just said and Paula. Um, we live in a very special place. There's four of us that are full-time residents on the street right now. We have a very vibrant equestrian community that is of great historic value to us. All of these things will disappear if this uh project is to go forward. I definitely want to say also and concur with Tim, yes, my property and has flooded to the south and the north of my property and it will also um the buildings I'm wanting to know if they will be seen from I'm on the north side. So, um, I was evacuated in 24, uh, with my family. I had two other sisters. We had to get them out with wheelchairs. It was horrendous. Um, and there was more than plenty of feet of water at Rio Road that uh, but right up against Balberty and also in the fields across from us where the um, the planning the all the cement will be was completely flooded out. So we have dangers on all accounts. Um so I am very concerned and I really also want to speak for the preservation of the wildlife, preservation of the kids being able to go and I I see kids in the morning and I see kids in the afternoon. Lots of kids going down that street. It's a quick, easy, and safe walk for them to get to school. Um, so all I want to say is please deny the project and thank you all so much for your help in being here today. And I

speak for um my my neighbor Stan next door to me and anybody else on the street that doesn't want to see this happen, but you know, just please consider some of the facts. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We have Michael. Michael, you have three minutes.

Michael, Michael, you are unmuted.

Can you hear me now? Yes. Thank you, Michael. Um so yeah, my name is Michael Lumis with KDson and Associates. Um I was the one who did the traffic study for um this project. Just want to clarify a couple things. Um Oops. Michael, did we lose you? Afraid so. You still have Michael there on your screen. Michael, you're still unmuted, but we cannot hear you. You can't hear me. We just heard you now. Okay. Okay. All right.

I'll start again here. The intersections um Yeah. So, what the report's saying, the intersections analyzed, they were analyzed during the weekday

um commute times, you know, as mentioned, and really didn't show that they were operating poorly during those times in particular. We looked at the roadways um as mentioned they were um over capacity the Rio road and along Highway One there. So kind of validating some experiences there. Um but we found that the project traffic itself even without reductions um for other modes of travel didn't really change the the operations along the roadway. Um I think what the project does for those larger transportation issues in the area paying into the fees you know for the Carmel Valley master plan uh to make those more larger improvements and then the project then invested more on how do we you know reduce the reliance on vehicles uh by the the TDM strategies that were mentioned building sidewalks you know to connect to have bicycle storage and repair on site for people to to use and to pay for transit fairs. for uh residents themselves. So um the intersection that was mentioned was the one that you know there was um a change in operations shown in the study that change to the right turn was based on the the volumes and the operations about twice as many people people making that right turn rather than the left turn at that intersection. Um that that striping change um showed improvement there. So um just kind of wanted to highlight a couple of those of what the study was showing. Um so there was again kind of validation of yeah there are there are congestion in the area but the project itself is not really changing how things are operating out there. Okay is that it Michael?

Yep. That's it. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate your input. Madam clerk, do we have anybody else? No hands up on Zoom. Okay, very good. Thank you. All right, commissioners. Commissioner Hartzel. Thanks. Remind me again. Well, actually I saw a letter to CH from CHP maybe

that said that they were not able to analyze the traffic information. They asked for something from the county and the county responded, "No, it's not SQA." Help me remember this.

Sure. Um, the Department of Transportation, CALR, did request a copy of the traffic assessment. um they did receive it during planning's review. I think it's a difference of um CALR staff reviewing documents that go through the environmental state clearing house versus the Calran staff that county staff work with through projects. So they did have a copy of the traffic assessment. Um and there was uh the desire to better discuss LOS um impacts within the environmental document and the county's response was SQA doesn't analyze LOS. Uh there was a discussion because there are county policies that regulate LOS but again it's not a SQA threshold so it wasn't um analyzed for significant impacts under the uh draft mitigated negative declaration. Has CalFire or CHP had the opportunity to comment on the traffic impacts?

Um yes, CHP did comment on it and they raised uh general comments about existing congestion along specifically uh state route one and the project worsening that congestion. Um a similar response from county staff was prepared that congestion being LOS is not analyzed under SQA and then but is it analyzed as a health and safety impact? Perhaps county council wants to answer that question

um through the chair. I would just I don't believe that traffic congestion is generally considered to be a health and safety impact in the context of the builder's remedy, but it's but that is just an that's based on just some educated guessing because there's not a lot of case law in this matter so far. Um I I can imagine situations in which um roadway conditions could affect health and safety, but traffic generally I don't think has been considered a health and safety impact um under uh applicable law. I'd have to look deeper to be sure, but that's my general understanding.

I do not want to be a stick in the mud, but I am actually worried about emergency services being able to get to these homes and people being able to get out. And I just want to pose that to both the applicant and the county as I'm worried about it and I'm not convinced that it's been covered by either the traffic changes proposed or the traffic mitigation efforts that um this project is proposing which I think are really commendable and I would love to see this community start using transit and other things. Yay. Um, I'm just concerned about building a project like this where an ambulance can't get to it because there's backup between every end of every road. Um, so that's one concern and I'm looking for something in this large pile of materials to alleviate that concern

through the chair. Um, county staff did have multiple um, interactions with the Monterey County Regional Fire Protection District. Um, they did provide some comments specifically about secondary means of ingress and egress and those modifications were made to ensure that each respective half of the subdivision has a secondary point to get to Valverde. And then they did confirm that there is the secondary access north on Valverde as well as um, going south to Rio Road. The firehouse is located less than a mile from the site and they didn't raise concerns about um serving the the subdivision though it is recognized by staff of more of the regional issue of congestion along those major thorough affairs.

The firehouse would be impacted by the level of service on Rio road would it not?

The um I'm happy to confirm but my quick read of the traffic report is the intersection of Rio Road and Carmel Rancho is not failing. Um, so actually accessing this site and then the Rio road and Valverde intersections are also at at acceptable levels. I don't think my read is that there is no impact to get to this site. It would be for on-site residences to get off their existing regional congestion issues. And so the service level D on Rio Road that the fire station would have to interact with that would be made worse by the people moving in here. That doesn't have any impact on how we can an analyze this project.

The only intersections between the firehouse and the project site. Oh, I'm thinking of back out to Highway One. Just like the level of service on that road, not to the site. Um so there is um I think some nuances that I I failed to provide earlier and I apologize for that. Um so there's three different kind of thresholds depending on the level of service for the intersection. Mhm.

For intersections operating at A, B or C which are generally accepted as acceptable. um if those were to degrade to D, E, or F, that would be a significant impact only if that degradation would change the volume to capacity, which is essentially the intersection's performance by 1%, so 0.01. Um, so that's what occurred at the Carmel Valley Road in Carmel Rancho intersection is that it is currently at a D. Mhm.

Um and so the project would add over point or 1% of the intersections trips and therefore that's why the mitigation measure was triggered was because that would then reduce it and actually improve it to acceptable loss. Um however for intersections that involve state routes such as highway 1, the acceptable level is not C. it actually gets decreased to D because CALR no longer utilizes LOS to analyze impacts to its roadways. Um so the traffic report actually finds that Rio road and car um sorry State Route 1 currently has an LOS of C. Um so I apologize for previously indicating that it was E and F during different peak hours but the current overall loss for that intersection is C. Um, and then the report found that it didn't decrease it to D, but the performance standard is D. And so that's why the um

I don't understand the difference between the performance standard of D that I'm looking at right here and the level that you're explaining. Will you say one more time? Yes. Sorry. Um, the performance standard um, essentially the acceptable level of LOS for the intersection of uh, Rio Road and State Route 1 is D. Typically, it's C through the Carmel Valley master plan, but because it's a state route intersection, that's why um the acceptable level is D. Yeah.

Um and the current intersection based on the traffic report has an LO of C. So, the traffic report finds that it's at an acceptable level, but I see D. The performance standard uh so the acceptable level is D. While if you go to the actual analysis on the blue page,

sorry, let me pull up for the traffic engineer. I wish this had page numbers for next time. And perhaps it may be helpful if uh the traffic engineer wants to speak to this if the commission desires. Um but I am looking at let's see um this is page 24 of exhibit J. I'm also happy to share screen.

Yes, share screen. Yes, please. Mr. Chair, while they're looking Oh, yeah. I have my question either for the engineer staff is um when was this uh traffic survey done? I he said peak hours during the week. It looks like it might have been June 24th. Is that correct? Uh updated in December of 2025. So, the traffic counts were done in December of 2025.

Correct. I believe Commissioner Roberts is implying that summer weekends would be a more appropriate time to do a peak hour review. Correct.

Yes. I didn't want to interrupt, but in seeing in in seeing the numbers, it looks like they are estimating that there will be 685 trips a day coming out of this subdivision. And there's just no way 685 trips a day coming out of the subdivision doesn't make these intersections level service F. And so I'm frustrated in now hearing that we did traffic counts in December which are not representative of what happens 80% of the year out in those intersections. Perhaps um Michael with KDson and Associates can speak better to when the actual traffic counts were done. That would be great. Is Michael still with us? Michael?

Yes, Michael, go ahead. Yeah, I'm still here. Um, yes, the study was done in December, but the traffic counts were completed in May of 2025 during a weekday. Can I ask were they were they on one day in May? Can you tell me what when the traffic was collected, counts were collected? Yeah. Um although it's either Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday is a typical day that we collect periods. Also look at what specific day, but we'll do um kind of that. So yeah, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Thank you. Which one off the top of my head?

I think that's also why we're seeing that a right-hand turn was needed because that might have been school traffic, which isn't probably the reality of I Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner. Are we We're still working on something, right? Or did you get your question? I'm waiting on a screen share. Uh, if staff left HDMI, can please be shared? We're good. You're good, Commissioner Herz. So, no. Staff left HDMI can please be shared.

So, here showing the current uh level of service analysis and it shows the Rio road state route one intersection to be currently operating in a level of service of C. The prior mentioned D uh or sorry E and F were for specific roadway segments, not the intersection segment. So I apologize um for the confusion. Got it.

The bolded ones here are the ones that the project um this is the one that the project impacts by more than a 0.01 um volume to capacity ratio and is therefore why the mitigation measure has been uh is suggested. I'm Thank you for showing me the thing. I'm going to stop harping on Rio Road and southbound Route One. Wait, bring that back. But I'd like to emphasize what Commissioner Roberts said about the right turn on Carmel Valley Road. Um, it seems to me like this mitigation measure might actually make things worse there in the reality of the visitor serving economy that we live in in Carmel and that at the time when we are most impacted, it's going to make it much worse to get back onto Highway 1, which is what most people do on the weekends around there in my experience living nearby, you know, less than 20 years, but still I'm there um in the current circumstances. And um I'd just like to know if there's any way we can look at it again and ensure that we're designing a project that is actually going to help and not cause more harm. That's one question. Second question, it seems like there's a lot of work that the county is going to have to do to make this possible. and I see contributions included from this project included in the conditions, but um I'm just wondering if we can have a careful look at those because I'm seeing big traffic changes that might need to happen. I'm seeing big flood plane, not flood plane, overland flooding issues that are going to need to be addressed. And I'm just hoping that that is balanced. First one, can we have a different

traffic study? Is that within my range of discretion around here?

Madam Secretary, would you like to address that?

I think what the question is the standards for traffic studies. This is a residential use that is adding residents to the area and so the traffic study is done as a standard for reflecting those typical road usage times of residences. I'm also hearing anyone who knows because the real problems on these roads come on weekends come on evenings in the summer because of all of the visitation traffic. Um, I don't know that I'm not I'm not sure if we can request an additional traffic study if we can request um I think in this circumstance and I'm looking a little bit at staff and wondering if um Director Spencer is here. I think one of the questions that comes into my mind in terms of the lithmas of public health and safety. Um, yes, the roadways are bad. Yes, there are impacts to them. A lot of the regional roadway and those impacts are mitigated through regional impact fees and projects that take their time to make their way in prioritization through. Um so I don't know well enough if that changes if what would be the request that could potentially change the outcome. I think there's more information. And I think also the concerns are during these peak hours regional regional concerns of worst case scenario disasters happening and evacuations in those time. Um again that is not typically something that individual projects bear the burden on. Um and so I think that that that creates a challenge in this case as well. It's acknowledged that's a concern. Um it's not helpful in this case, but I will note that as a part of the county's

housing element PEI, uh environmental impact report as well as update to our safety element. We do look at um safety. There's new evacuation analyses that will include these general regional areas and concerns that will come through those. But again, those are more kind of countywide regional issues and solutions that individual projects typically um you know, do not bear on. I hear you. What I hear you saying is consider this project in the context of an imagined version of the world that might come under our housing element, which is really hard to do. Okay, that was not my intention. It was my intention was mainly to say that individual projects and the analysis we can do and how state law may or may not apply is different from different policy mechanisms that we have to try to get at some of these regional issues. So that was the only distinction not to think about it in the context of this project's before you today. We're thinking about this project as it's presented today.

I'll get off my horse. What I hear from staff and from Secretary Beretti is that while these traffic impacts may not have been looked at when they're most difficult, a significant change in the LOS on the weekend wouldn't actually change the outcome of this builder's remedy conversation. Is that is that fair? Fair.

We don't know. I think that is the overall question impression um that I don't know the fixed answer to and I don't know that I think back to sort of county council and from a whether or not traffic congestion and these levels of concerns raised to health life safety issues um or objective health life safety standards that could be grounds for denial. I that's where I am. It is a new area and I am not sure. You have any thoughts council?

Well, I through the chair I can't be sure either, but I would share I do share the secretary's concerns. Um I do think that the emergency access issue is different and I want to clarify that. But while traffic congestion is a real and important problem, not to minimize it at all, um the cons the constraints of the builder's remedy are quite quite significant and um you need really strong robust findings to deny a project on health and safety grounds. Uh so without knowing for sure, without looking more deeply into this analysis, certainly it would be something I would be concerned about having defensible findings on if that were the way the commission wished to go. So, I'd say it's impossible to say if a different traffic study would would have yield a different outcome, at least from my point of view, not being a traffic engineer, but it is worth the I guess the better question is is would it change anything that that would affect the county's ability to deny the project consistent with the builder's remedy under state law? And I don't know, but I'm doubtful.

Yeah. Thank you. That probably sums it up, Commissioner Roberts. I also obviously have no idea what the answer to that question is. Um my concern is I was surprised not to see a statement of overwriting conditions. And so then I was looking for what we were needing to do um the remedies that we had that didn't require a statement of overriding conditions. And I just I'm not convinced that the analysis that has been done is reflective of the of the current situations. So I'm not sure that we are we could certify a an environmental document that doesn't reflect the conditions

through the chair. Just to clarify a couple things. Um, a statement of overriding considerations uh is only with an a full environmental impact report. This project only has a mitigated negative declaration. So, it's not practically speaking an option. But more fundamentally um the SQA concern that would justify a finding of unmmitic impacts to have such a policy statement um would have to be predicated on BMT because that's the SQA metric now, not LOS. So just to all of which is to say from just a legal point of view that's not a road that is available. That doesn't mean that your concerns aren't valid but I don't think from a SQL point of view you could get there um short of well short of something VMT driven and a full environmental impact report which we don't have today.

That help yes but I think that's my point. I don't I think that we are using something a vehicle that isn't appropriate for this project in my opinion. Okay. All right. Commissioners, Commissioner Deal.

Yeah. Um so we have heard evidence today and some of us have evidence of our own eyes of significant overland flooding that is dismissed by various people as this case for reasons that somewhat elude me. Um, and I'm not talking about to the site or it its particular uh development. I'm talking about to the access to and from the site and to the neighbors. We also have evidence on the record today um that the observed traffic conditions are significantly different from those that have been analyzed and discussed here. Um, and where they impact health and safety is I would point out that the chomp the nearest hospital is about three and 3.2 two miles away I believe and during a summer afternoon it can take you an hour and a half to get there. Um that is in my mind relevant with respect to um describing why the discussion of emergency response might be an issue and why adding to the current um conditions on particularly state route one but the intersections we've discussed previously may be of a concern more than just shall we say a cosmetic level. So those things um continue to be in my mind on the record concerns that seem to be appropriate to any kind of public hearing where you're supposed to take into the circumstances of the case and think about what your best recommendations would be as a result. So, I came in here today reading looking at this and hoping that the answer to a number of these uh concerns, particularly the traffic ones, um would be that they had maybe they're going to build a helicopter platform and take people to hospital. I don't know. but that there

was going to be a way that this project was going to address traffic by providing workforce housing that would allow people who would otherwise be on the road to not be on the road because they'd be closer to where they worked. concept that we used to use in development of the general plan which called the jobs housing balance which is one of the things we extensively looked at when we were designing the affordable housing overlays and the housing opportunity sites as trying to provide housing opportunities near places where there was a significant centers of employment like the crossroads in the area that this looks at. And I remember at the time being uh particularly an advocate of designate designating a housing opportunity site in this particular area between the school and the crossroads as making perfect sense as a place where if we could put some housing in and people could live near where they would work, we'd get some cars off the road. That to my mind is really the only solution that makes much sense. Not to mention it would be so community centric. So, I'm extremely happy to hear that this proposes a number of of very affordable inclusionary units. That number, I believe, would be 19. Um, so that's 19 units that we don't have right now. So, that's a good thing. There's no question about it. But that the rest of our resources here, including the degradation of our overall regional services, are going to be given to 59 multi-million dollar homes doesn't sit well to me. that seems like we're sucking up our resources for things that we don't need because multi-million dollar homes are not where the shortage in our community lies in my view personally. um nor do I believe that's the kind of house I don't maybe the market model works for some maybe increasing supply works in the overall scheme of things but in our particular

peninsula we have an infinite demand and a limited supply and I don't see us affecting that market price by adding supply. I hope to goodness I'm wrong. So, I don't see these homes as likely to in and of themselves to provide places where workers could be near where they work and thus reduce the traffic, which was my whole sense of how are we going to deal with the traffic issue, which is otherwise pretty overwhelming. So, I'm stuck here saying, "Okay, the builder's remedy was meant to to help us make housing, but this it doesn't sit well that we should use up our scarce resources for that, not for the housing that we desperately need." And I I would I'm sitting here really struggling with the fact that I don't know apparently the concerns we have about health and safety related to flooding to relating to getting any place on the roads that might help you in an emergency whether you want to get in or out. They're not relevant. Um apparently we don't really have any any recourse to that. Um so I mean is are we saying yeah okay 19 homes that's better nothing. and we'll just give up everything else that we might be able to build on that property. I mean, think about it. That's a lot of water. You could do a lot of things with it. But, um, I don't I don't quite know why at this point there's even a hearing if none of our concerns and evidence can be addressed. And so, um, I'm hesitant to to provide a check in the box saying, "Yeah, yeah, whatever," when I have all these concerns. On the other hand, I don't think there's any point in delaying anything if you can't if you can't do anything about it. And that's what I'm being told is we can't do anything about any of this. It's like, yeah, there you there concerns, but no, they're not any longer relevant. So, I mean, I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Um, I still can't

support it. I don't think it's appropriate to u I can't support the fact that they're not going to be homes designed to help us with our critical community problem. Um even though I know people have the right to make as much money as they want. Uh I personally just can't do it. So I'll get off my horse as it were. Just best will in the world. I was hoping I could support this um and that doesn't seem to be possible and I I'm sad.

Well, fellow commissioners, your thoughts down there on that end of the um dis thing we we just can't sit here and stare at the paperwork on the desk. So Oh, okay. Commissioner Mendoza. Um, I agree. I mean, it there's um several questions in reference to this this project and it's um but but a couple of things that that get me. When it comes to traffic, there's always going to be an impact. No matter what you do, there's just no way around it. I mean, that's the reason why it's so difficult to get just about anything built because we're we're so concerned about the traffic. And it went to the it went to the experts, the people that that take care of her traffic situation. This went to the fire department. The fire department signed off on it and they say, "Okay, yeah, we have these concerns and we want you to do these these things. We want all these homes to have sprinklers on and we want to make sure that they have fire hydrants within a certain distance." And so all these things are addressed by the experts. When it comes to to to the flooding, the same thing it goes to the experts and the experts say look this is what you have to do to mitigate the safety element of it. You know, if you do these things, it will make it safer. But, you know, it it's so darn difficult to be 100% right on everything that it's impossible. There's no possible way to to to overcome all these obstacles. Only thing we can do is try to make them 99% better. But but it's out of our reach. I mean, we can only do so much. So, yeah, the the $3 million homes, you know, I

don't know if they're three million. They they sound a little bit on the high side just based on the area. Uh but the 19 uh units at 100,000 sound great. And uh so so that's kind of where I'm at. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Roberts, you had some concerns. You want to weigh in on this? Nope. Okay. Well, we have to do something with this kids. We either have to turn it down or pass it along. We can't. Um, and I need a motion from somebody to do something. So, who's going to speak up first? Could I request to speak with the applicant for a moment, please? What? With who?

Applicant. Oh, you want to talk to the applicant? Sure. I don't see why not. Hi. Hello. Hi. Um, I'm obviously experiencing all the fun of builder's remedy here as a newish planning commissioner. I'm putting that aside for a moment and just wanting to talk to you about hoping to get the best possible circumstances

out of this development for our community. Commissioner Deal mentioned um HOA fees and potential constraints on the rentals, the rental period in this HOA. Um this is obviously voluntary. I can't require it. I'm really constrained. But is that something that your organization would be open to both constraining the rental period to 120 days or longer or um if you could just describe to me also the HOA fees for the um the inclusionary housing that would also be helpful.

Yeah. So um the CCNRs which are the rule book if you will for HOAs we already incorporate to limit any sort of short-term rentals. City Ventures is not in the business to try to create homes for second, third, and fourth homes. If you look at the primary markets of who City Ventures is, the idea is to be able to get that missing middle income. A lot of our products is actually attached. That's really what creates City Ventures. In our case, what we need to do is be able to balance the climate for what we're building in. and for here when I saw the 213 units that was on the housing element from the county I thought to myself that's not sustainable and that's how between the county and our team we came back we rolled it back to the 74 homes and so we already include that in our CCNRs to not have these constant people we want homeowners to live in there and then for the HOA fees um the market rate homes are going to um bear the burden and the cost of the transit subsidies that each resident of the BMR units are going to be using. And if you notice, there was a letter of a recommendation from the Monterey Selenas Transit recommending this project because the whole point all the TDM measures that we're putting is to try to get a new set of behavior out there so that people can actually use transit. And I know that for the workforce housing, I can say that personally speaking because I am a Peruvian immigrant and our family came here from Peru. If somebody gave us a transit subsidy, we would use it to be able to get to school, to get the education, to get the job, to get to the work. And that's why when I had that slide about where we're located, the extension of

the sidewalk and where you can go, to me, that was important. And that's why I also noticed and I also noted that that uh market rate that pardon me the the below market rate home in that calculation I included everything from the down payment the financing the property taxes everything all of that had to flow up in order to be able to then calculate that maximum home rate because it wouldn't be fair right for that worker such as my family was when we first came to this country to be able to say how how am I even supposed to afford a BMR our unit. Um, and I wish I just had a little bit more time with our traffic engineer and our hydraologist, Schoffen Wheeler. They're a brilliant hydraologist. They've been on the phone since 9:00 a.m., but she had to go to a meeting. The amount of incredible effort that went into addressing the DA27 with regards to the drainage ditch. We have all that information. It's incredibly complicated as you noted, even the traffic report. So I would ask for us to at least have the opportunity to be able to create some sort of like very easy way to see do you remember um commissioner I had talked about some of the things that you can't see and I said you can see aesthetics but you can't see that sustainability the engineering we've done that work and in my heart I hope that we have the opportunity to show it to you and I know the position that you all are in because I am the chair of my planning commission and I would never accept a project that not did not um pass muster and so we have that information. If there could just be some way where we can show it maybe in just like clearer terms perhaps because I know you guys had a lot of concerns. Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you. I wish we could see it too but we're at the end of the day and I can feel my colleagues being really ready to get out the door here. question. Yeah. Does a does a continuence make it another public hearing on our count or not under builder's remedy? It does. Okay. Yes, it does. And we are limited to five and we've had two. Is that correct? Today's the second hearing. Okay. I do encourage you to create that website for whatever you face in the next hearings so we can all see.

Commissioner Deal. and and I wanted to just follow up with the applicant. So, uh about the short-term rentals, are you still willing to come back up and talk about that? Um because we share your concern around uh trying to encourage permanent residents. I mean, of course, that would be the whole goal, but we found that given our uh local climate, um we don't allow a lot of short-term rentals in this area. So no renting out one's homes for vacation. So the workaround is that um transient occupancy is 30 days. So we got a significant problem where people will rent something out for 30 days and do that at least 12 times a year. Um, and so that was the concern that led to the Rancho Kinyatta Villages adding an HOA concern or agreeing or volunteering to add a HOA concern to provide a longer requirement for any rental within their subdivision.

So, it wasn't just we don't we know we all understand the concern of short-term rentals, but it's kind of what are short-term rentals these days, particularly in things of that caliber. So, I just wanted to bring that to your thoughts. So to make sure that we were clear on that point. Got it. Thank you

through the chair. Yes.

So I'm I'm not exactly sure the best way to say this, so I'm going to be as blunt as I can be and hope that people understand. It's been a long day. Um this is a complicated issue. The concerns people have raised are real and I certainly don't want to um minimize them at all. Uh the builder's remedy was created as I understand it specifically to constrain uh our the county's authority and and other local agencies authority to disapprove projects that could create affirm um create affordable housing and the objective standards part of it was partially was intended specifically to avoid um the kind not again this is not a criticism from anyone here. Um, I understand that the way that most decisions are made involves a lot of subjectivity, a lot of personal experience, anecdotal evidence, and that kind of thing from what you guys have seen on the ground. And I'm not trying to undercut it, but it's not objective evidence. And what we have um in front of us has to do with a traffic study from a an engineer. uh it is certainly uh dealing with objective standards and and dealing with how they've satisfied them. There's a lot of issues here that have also been discussed that are more on a not on a project level but I think are more on a larger uh regional level which I think the secretary tried to address a bit. There are concerns about the mitigation uh limitations under the constitution if the requirements of the applicant were expanded disproportionately with their impact. I'm not saying that's necessarily happening here, but it's part of the things that could be implicated um when we're thinking about this problem. Uh unfortunately, under SQUA, we don't have uh really much to do about the traffic issues. Um if the fire district is satisfied that their standards have been met um for emergency access uh and there's and we're not

talking about VMT, but LOS impacts, SQA isn't really uh implicated in any meaningful way. So, while I completely understand everyone's discomfort with this project and and specifically not with the project, but with these issues with the project, I should say, um I don't know that there is a defensible path to a denial here with the constraints that the builder's remedy places on the county. And so, I would urge you to consider that. Um I I wish I could give you advice on a on a specific path forward to address them. Um, but I think that from what I've reviewed, the um the documents provided um do do seem to do satisfy the county standards uh and are based on objective studies. So, I think they'd be uh difficult to take down from a from a subjective or anecdotal or at least non-objective fully objective perspective. Um, and I just want to clarify one thing. Um thank you uh Commissioner Hartzell for this question which is can we require an EI. The problem with that is is that SQA does not address uh LOS anymore. Now, we can talk about SQA got rid of LOS for VMT um in the past 10 years specifically because um they believe the legislature believed that and SQA experts believed some of whom I've talked to that level of service and traffic was not an environmental impact uh and that vehicles mile traveled more accurately reflected the impacts to the environment from vehicle travel. Uh so this project is only subject to LOS based on county standards and EIR wouldn't address that issue at all unfortunately. Um there's been a VMT study done I believe in with the transportation study and analysis and uh it looks to be sufficient. So I'm not sure what the basis for uh an

environmental impact report would be. Uh it's SQL wouldn't be the way to get there I guess is what I'd say there. So the only way to get there, pardon me, sorry, excuse me. No, sorry. Um, simply because Sequin doesn't cover level of service, so it it wouldn't deal with traffic uh improvements specifically. All right. Well, thank you. And I think Commissioner Roberts has to leave us because she has a a a medical appointment. Um, Commissioner De. So, I think the motion I would make is that we need to pass this along to the board of supervisors. Yeah.

And I think that we need to say that we uh would approve staff's recommendation in substance. We believe they've done their work. We believe that the um all of the findings and evidence are are reasonable findings and evidence and that we continue to have uh concerns around health and safety observables and that we don't know how to get those into the record. But it would be staff's recommendation with a note to the board of supervisors that uh in particular um the health and safety impacts of emergency access egress and the impacts of traffic of actual traffic on those appear to us to differ from the studies even though we are not experts. So if we could add that if we could add that proviso um I would be happy to make a motion to

Can we do that? Approve staff's recommendation with those statements added. Let me clarify to approve staff's recommendation as outlined in the uh Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cool. if if I may um because on this case the planning commission is the appropriate authority and it would go to the board of supervisors upon appeal and so um this is not a recommendation to the board of supervisors. So, what I'm wondering is if the motion is intended to defer the decision, elevate it to the board of supervisors given the lingering concerns rather than the commission taking action on it.

Can we do that? I do not know. I'm I'm sort of posing that. Can we do that? Can we just kick it down in the intent of I feel like what is desired to happen? I'm not sure through the chair. I don't know. I'm given council's recommendation. I don't know that they could do anything different. Uh it doesn't sound as if there's an avenue for anyone to do anything different. Just tell them we're deadlocked. So just the the staff's recommendation because we have to. Can we do that? I don't know. Let's ask this guy right over here.

Well, I'm not sure what the procedure vehicle for that would be. There'd have to be a resol there's a resol draft resolution here that um makes findings based on the evidence presented. Um I don't know if there's a procedural way to do this. I mean if I have to look, it's been a while, but I know there are specific rules about what happens if there's a deadlock vote um and no decision in which case I suppose uh the board would have to take it up. I I I'm but I guess the only other way I could think to do something would be like that would be well I'm not even sure I you know it could be a vote there could be something in I guess in a draft resolution but it'd be tough to defend a resolution if it wasn't appealed that said we don't really believe any of this stuff we're just appeal so I'm I'm struggling with a good way to do it if it were to go to the board for sure I guess then I don't know if it would be appropriate or not but maybe in theory somebody the people folks from the planning commission could show up as members of the public and express concerns that way. But I don't think that gets at what you want to achieve either. So I'm this is a kind of an a tough one. Um

it's a very tough one. Commissioner Deal, I

I know I'm just struggling with serious personal discomfort with the builder's remedy, which is beyond the scope of any of us here. And so I I realize and recognize that. Um, I hadn't realized somehow or other that we were the final appropriate authority should it not be appealed and and I don't know why it would be and I don't know that the board of supervisors has anything any tools that we don't have. We have as good counsel as they do. It's kind of the same voices. Um, I guess my only lingering concern for future reference is to ask council to check into at what point does evidence that is presented during a public hearing matter in a public in a builder's remedy situation if it can all be deemed unobject unobjective. So what is what would be the point of a public hearing at all? Um, so that's just like a lingering question since if something is raised at the hearing and you can't take it on, what is the point of spending everybody's time in this discussion except as I hope to have a conversation with the applicant in the hopes that it will illuminate ways to make even a better project. I mean, that's what we all strive to do all the time. But that being the case, I'm just going to move staff's recommendation in this matter.

And a second from uh a motion from Commissioner Deal to approve staff recommendation as uh outlined in the uh on the agenda item and a second from Commissioner Mendoza. So we do have we still have a quorum. We have six people. So we need a roll call. Oh, and we have uh Commissioner Mendoza uh Commissioner Monzave is with us too also. I'm I apologize Commissioner for forgetting about you. So, we will need a roll call vote. Um Madame Clerk, Commissioner Hartzell.

Hi, Commissioner Gelman. I Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes, Commissioner Mendoza. Yes, Commissioner Deal. Yes, Commissioner Monsave. Yes, Commissioner Work. Yes. And Commissioner Shaw Gomez and Roberts are absent. Chair motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. And thank you for show for being with us today. All right, everybody. We're just going to any anything on the

right here if just be patient please Commissioner Hartell. All right. Now the referral spreadsheet. Any questions? I want to go on record along I believe with Commissioner Deal saying I can read this now and I really appreciate that. So thank you very much whoever did that. Are there any questions, comments, commissioners on the referral spreadsheet? Anyone? Anyone? Nope. Doesn't look like it. Madam Secretary, anything you want to mention about it? No, thank you. Okay. How about a department report? Anything there at all?

Wow, my brain just went really blank. Okay, well that's good. We'll go with that. I just want to make sure that we take public comment on the commissioner referral item. just to make sure. Oh. Oh, okay. Thank you very much for catching that. We do need a We do have a scheduled item that we kind of I kind of skipped over and I apologize for that. Were there any public comment? There's no one in the chamber so I doubt that. Anyone online or on Zoom? Chair, there is no one online but thank you. No, thank you. All right. Department report. anything do you think madam secretary or

yes thank you it took me one quick minute and thank you director for also shooting it my way so I think one notable update is just to inform the planning commission that the board of supervisors have submitted uh there were two new board referrals uh that came before um were introduced at yesterday's board of supervisors meeting one is with regard to developing multifamily basically regulations for Um, I don't want to describe it because I'm not looking at it. Uh, please refer to the referrals themselves, but one addresses multifamily housing, uh, and helping to facilitate better facilitate multifamily housing. And another includes, um, no parking on Highway One. And I do not recall what segment of Highway One.

Vicinity of the Bixby Bridge. Vicinity of the Bixby Bridge. Thank you. Highway one. And then the housing is to look at objective standards for ADUs, JDUs, duplexes, and triplexes. Um, and the housing one can likely readily fold into our housing element uh implementation, but again, we'll come back and bring a formal preliminary response to that. All righty. Thank you, director.

This time of the afternoon takes a lot of brains to get this thing down the road. All right. Thank you everyone. I think we're going to join we're going to join this thing. We're going to adjourn this meeting at 3:32 p.m. Thank you everyone. Appreciate you all staying. Oh, and for showing up today, too. Thank you.