Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Three, four, five, six. What time is it? 9:01. Okay. Um, we're going to start the meeting in about 30 seconds. Do I need to think? [snorts] So, um, with that, um, we're going to go ahead and start the, uh, County of Monterey Planning Commission meeting of January, uh, 14, 2026. And, uh, with that, um, we'll go ahead and begin with the, uh, pledge of allegiance. and Commissioner Monsal will do lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Please to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Uh, with that, we're going to go ahead and continue with a roll call. Good morning, commissioners. Commissioner Hartzell here. Commissioner Getsman here. Commissioner Shaw here. Commissioner Gonzalez here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Mendoza is absent. Commissioner Deal is um running behind. She should be um here shortly. Uh, Commissioner Roberts is absent, Commissioner Monsave here,

and Commissioner Gomez is absent. Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you. With that, uh, this would be, I guess, a time uh to inform the public if they would like to address uh the commission. And so, uh, you would be able to communicate, um, uh, the commission to some of the information that's about to be given to you at this moment.

Thank you for joining us today. Um, if you are joining us via Zoom or through your phone via the Zoom, uh, you can find the information on Zoom on the agenda. Um you can participate in today's public hearing during public comment uh from a remote location uh by raising your hand during the public comment on the item of interest. Uh if you are on your Zoom platform you raise your hand under reactions raise or lower hand. Um on your phone it's star six uh to raise it star six to put it back down. No star nine. Star nine RA I need my cheat sheet. [laughter] Thank you. Star9 Star9 does the hand lowering and raising. You can also participate by sending email to PC hearing comments at county of Monterey.gov. Uh we do monitor that live during the um during the meeting. Uh but there's no guarantee now that the meeting has started that we will capture all public comment but we do our best. Um when it's your opportunity to speak during public comment when you've raised your hand uh you will when it is your turn you will be granted permission by the clerk to unmute yourself uh to participate. And at that time, if you are on your Zoom platform, you use the microphone button uh at the bottom of your screen and by phone star six to unmute and star six to remute yourself. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh let the record reflect that Commissioner Gomez has joined us. Um that's for [snorts] the record. And uh with that we move on to uh public comments. This is the time set aside uh for the public to comment on a matter that is not on the agenda. So if anybody here um [snorts] in the chambers that would like to address the commission on a matter that is uh again that is not on the agenda. Seeing no one, is there anybody via Zoom or anybody with any emails that would like to address the commission?

There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails. Thank you. With that, we move on to agenda additions, deletions, and corrections. Chair, there are no agenda additions, deletions, or corrections for today's agenda.

Thank you. We move on to the next item on the agenda, and that's commission uh commissioner comments, requests, and referrals. And this is a time set aside for commissioners to comment, request, or refer a matter that is on or not on the agenda. Commissioners, seeing no hands up, uh we move on to approval or acceptance of the minutes. And so, commissioners, and that's the approval of the December 10, 2025 planning commission meeting minutes. And so, does any

motion to approve? Okay, there's a a motion to approve. But before I I move on, I believe uh in this particular case, I might need public comment if it's a Is it on consent? No, it's not on consent. Yeah, there's Yeah, it's in a separate item, I think. Yeah. So, just request there's

Yeah. And so at this point, if anybody in the chambers would like to address this particular item. Seeing no one, is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the approval of the December 10 minutes? There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails. So again, we bring it back to the commission. And so we have a motion by Commissioner Monsalv. We need a second. A second. Commissioner works work seconds the motion. [snorts] Any other comments, questions, discussions? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion so indicate by saying I.

I. I.

Motion carries. Commissioner Gomez abstains. Then we move on to approval of consent calendar. And then we have uh the appointment of Antonio Diaz to the Castraville Land Use Advisory Committee. The appointment of Seria Shankar to the Carmel Unincorporated Highlands Land Use Advisory Committee. And the appoint Judith Riley to the Toro Land Use Advisory Committee and appoint Ethan Dunton Coburn to the South Coast Land Use Advisory Committee. And I apologize if I slaughtered a name or two, but anyways, uh does any of the commissioner would like to address any of this individual areas or make a comment or anything like that? Seeing none, is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address during public comment any of this u particular appointments or approval of consent calendar? Seeing nobody in the chambers coming forward, is there anybody via Zoom or emails that would like to address it?

There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails. So with that, we need a motion in a second. Motion. Okay. Uh we made made a motion by Commissioner Straw, seconded by Commissioner Monsal. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying I. I. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Chair, for the record, Commissioner Dill has arrived.

Thank you very much. And moving forward, I'm sorry. Okay. um through the chair. Um just before we move off of appointments um for that item, just wanted to take a moment to really um do a shout out and appreciate to our um clerk and secretary team. Um uh Miss Carol in particular did a lot of outreach, worked with media to really push it out and we got a number of our um LUAC appointments made. Uh so I believe we are close or at quorum for all of our LUAs at this point. So I just really wanted to make that personal shout out and thank you. Well, thank you to you and your staff and those people who uh volunteered uh to be in the uh land use advisory committees. It does make a difference. Again, thank you. Uh moving on to the schedule matters uh uh item number six, consider and adopt the 2026 planning commission meeting schedule. So, we have a staff report on that particular item. Yeah, thank you chair um commissioners. So, we had discussed at a prior meeting that staff was um interested in um coming forward with uh an alternative schedule beyond the typical regular schedule uh that proposes just one additional meeting uh be removed from the calendar. That would be the second meeting in July. um we provided in the staff report we tried to provide information as to um kind of our reasoning for how we think that that can actually really improve processes and afford kind of a mid-year opportunity for both our administrative team and our planning team to have a brief checkup uh kind of catchup uh at the midyear and focus on process improvements. So, we just, you know, staff will work with uh whatever calendar and agenda uh the commission wishes to adopt. Um and I'm

happy to answer any further questions on that uh kind of new additional uh request to remove a meeting. Um also, I wanted to just take a moment as we've been looking at calendars moving forward. Um and in particular since we are proposing to um since staff is uh requesting to remove one additional meeting in the summer, we are looking at being very um aggressive when we are able to fill agendas and um it's been a while since as a commission I think we very rarely go into the afternoon. Um, and so I did want to let you all know that it is our intention, especially with some of the policy items and and planning long range planning items that are anticipated to come in this year. Uh, we're looking to kind of pack the agendas a bit more where we can. Um, and so being mindful if uh when we're looking at quorum and letting staff know if you are if you have a set stop time in the afternoon or at lunch for any given meeting. That would be important for us to know going forward just to make sure as we do that uh we can ensure that we have a full quorum into the afternoon on those days where we anticipate them to be uh particularly long um in an effort to um uh get more done on days where we have more to go. Thank you.

Thank you. And so I guess with um that um since we're on adopting the planning commission meeting schedule was a recommendation at least what I understood would be for for um for B item number B is that yes staff's staff's request would be to um adopt the alternate schedule um and see how it works for this year uh as as a possibility for moving forward which would be exhibit B or can I ask a question?

U I just need to clarify something. Exhibit A is the alternative 2026 meeting schedule ex so exhibit A alternative meeting calendar is the one that u removes the second meeting in July additionally. Okay. Okay. And so, yes sir. Now you can Gomez. So the difference is just a date, one date, right? Is that the major difference?

Yeah, that's correct. The Yeah, the regular calendar um adjusts at the end of the year a few dates and the um and the alternative takes the regular proposed calendar and just also removes the second meeting in July. And this this works if we can our goal is to align that with the board's uh summer recess. And we're also making the same proposal to the zoning administrator and the AP. So we really are trying to give our administrative and planning staff just a brief break. It's not much of a break because items continue to process and prepare for subsequent, but it not having to [clears throat] manage a meeting during that time does allow us to focus on kind of that midyear catchup. Thank you. So, uh, Commissioner Monsal,

thank you, Chair. I wanted to just also point out that there's a change in the one November meeting, and I sure all noticed it, but I wanted to voice it aloud that instead of our usual second Wednesday, the schedule sets it up so that we're meeting the third Wednesday of November. That's correct because the Veterans Day uh holiday falls on the second Wednesday. So staff proposed to just move it to the third Wednesday for that one month because there is only one meeting in the month of November. Okay. Uh any other commissioners?

So as as far as because this items are fall under um they they uh exhibit C also I think falls under this particular area. So are we would a motion [clears throat] be to approve the or whatever that motion either exhibit A or exhibit B and and ex exhibit C. So exhibit C which is just the planning commission rules is just attached as a reference because in there it includes what the bylaws indicate as the regular meeting schedule and approach. So they're just that's just attached as anformational.

Okay. Thank you. So com uh Commissioner Monsal, I also wanted to voice that I support trying out the alternative schedule if my fellow commissioners are in agreement and I'm happy to make a motion.

Uh yeah. Well, before before we we do move on, any other commissioners have any other comments or questions? With that, um I'm going to go ahead and open it for uh public comment and uh is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular item? Seeing no one in the chambers coming forward. Is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission on this particular item? There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

Okay. Then bring it uh back to the commission. And again um if I may ask again the staff is recommending exhibit A staff is requesting exhibit A which is the alternative calendar which is essentially the regular calendar with one additional uh July 2nd meeting in July removed from the schedule. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, any comments, questions, motions?

I'll move I'll move alternative A. Okay. Uh, Commissioner uh Gomez uh has made a motion to accept the exhibit uh A or alternative A and Do we need a second? Second. Commissioner work uh seconds the motion. Any other comments, questions, discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying I. I. I. I.

And I guess um since exhibit C with the planning commission rules for transition of business, um is this a meeting where we're supposed to uh appoint somebody for or three members of the of the commission? No, that will come or that would be will come at a subsequent meeting. We'll the last the last Wednesday or

um we'll yeah we'll agendaize um I believe at the next meeting we agendaize um appointing a committee for uh deciding the chair and then at the subsequent meeting in February is when a chair will be appointed. Oh, because I think like because I was looking at the rule four, but that's that's fine that it says at the first regular meeting in January, the chair shall appoint a nominating committee to nominate a chair and vice chair, but we can push it back to the next meeting. That's fine. If it's since it wasn't agendaized, it's not something that we can that we can do. Okay. Yeah. Apologies, Steph.

No, that's fine. But since this was in agendaized in there, I thought [laughter] as the bylaws uh let me see where where where I'm at.

It's agenda in the it's agenda. It's in the bylaws. [laughter] turn my microphone on. We move on to uh item number seven. That's PLN2302235, the Pebble Tree LLC. And so uh the staff will go ahead and make a presentation on this particular item. Good morning, Chair Gonzalez, planning commissioners. Just file me presenting for HCD file number PLN230235, Pebble Tree LLC. The project is located at 1266 Porto Road in Pebble Beach within the Delmoney Forest Land Use Plan. The subject property is zoned low density residential with a maximum gross density of 1.5 acres per unit and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The project involves a combined development permit to allow the construction of a 5,22 ft two-story single family dwelling with an attached 831q ft garage, construction of an 869 ft accessory dwelling unit with a 100 ft covered patio, and the removal of up to 34 trees. The project meets all required site development standards for the lowdensity residential zoning district related to setbacks, height, and site coverage. The project includes an application for the removal of up to 34 protected trees. Pursuant to the Deloney Forest coastal implementation plan, a coastal development permit has been applied to

this project for the proposed tree removal. This coastal development permit allows the removal of 23 protected trees and authorizes the removal of up to 11 other protected trees that may not successfully be protected in place through construction. Pursuant to the Domony Forest coastal implementation plan, an arborist report was prepared to evaluate the health, structure, and preservation suitability for each tree within or adjacent to the proposed development. The report identified 149 trees on site consisting of Monterey Pine and Coastlive oaks. 23 trees will be removed with implementation of this project consisting of five Coastlive oaks and 18 Monterey Pines, all identified on screen by the red circles. The 23 trees proposed for removal are directly within the development footprint of the single family dwelling, the accessory dwelling unit, or the driveway. 11 other trees adjacent to the development were identified in the arbor report as being potentially impacted by construction and are identified on screen by the yellow circles. Condition number 11 requires that an arborist be on site during all trenching, grading, or any other digging or soil removal that is expected to encounter tree roots. This monitor shall ensure that trenching for retaining walls or footings located adjacent to any tree shall be done by hand or practical and any roots greater than 2 in diameter shall be bridged or pruned appropriately. If significant roots are identified that must be removed that will destabilize or negatively affect the tree. The arborist shall halt work and determine whether removal is warranted or additional construction design approaches to minifies minimize effects can be implemented. As proposed in condition, the proposed tree removal is the minimum required under the circumstances of this case. The lot is heavily forested and thus avoiding tree removal entirely is unfeasible for any reasonable development consistent with the neighborhood. The single family dwelling is consistent in size with other single family dwellings within the surrounding area. As cited in design, the proposed

development occurs in the least forested location within the developable area and utilizes a two-story design to avoid having an expansive development footprint that would impact more trees. In addition to being impacted by grading activities, the removal of these trees within close proximity to the development also helps to reduce fuel loads near the proposed residential development, consistent with state fuel management guidelines. Condition number 10 has been applied to require replanting of 19 trees as recommended by the arborist. And this condition also addresses replanting or other mitigation requirements should the up to 11 other trees be negatively impacted during the construction. This project did warrant referral to the Delmman forest land use advisory committee because it involves a design approval subject to a public hearing. Accordingly, staff attempted to schedule the project for the Delmani Forest Luak for review. [clears throat] However, all Deloney Forest Luak meetings for the months of November and December of 2025 were cancelled due to a lack of a meeting space. Therefore, the LUC did not make a recommendation on this project. And to ensure timely processing, staff scheduled the project for the planning commission hearing. The proposed single family dwelling will have colors and materials consisting of a terracotta tile roof, warm white exterior plaster, and natural cut stone door and window trim. The proposed development's colors and materials are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character and will not detract from the immediately surrounding neighborhood. The proposed exterior finishes would not detract from the surrounding natural environment and would be consistent with the surrounding residential character. The subject property is not shown on figure three of the Delmmon Forest land use plan as being within the viewshed from Point Lobos State Natural Reserve. Therefore, as proposed in condition, the project is not in conflict with the surrounding environment or with the surrounding residential neighborhood character and assures protection of the public viewshed and visual integrity. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15303 and approve a

combined development permit to allow the construction of a 5,202 ft two-story single family dwelling with an attached 831qt garage, construction of an 869T accessory dwelling unit with a 100 foot covered patio, and the removal of up to 34 trees. Staff would also like to recommend the inclusion of the countyy's standard indemnification agreement condition [snorts] of as approval of approval as condition number 12. That concludes staff's presentation and staff's available for questions. Thank you uh for the presentation. Um bring it back to the commission for questions or comments. Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. Uh Mr. Alamita first question is and this is more general perhaps somebody else can help me with. We used to get a sum project summary sheet that showed things like the amount of cut and fill and the other kinds of details that would let us evaluate the need for specifics in the construction management plan. I find in this project I'm referred to the uh civil engineering drawings to determine I mean I don't think it's a big deal but you know if we could make sure that we include information like that in the package and the summary sheet worked really well for me um I just like to request that that happen. Do you happen to know if cut and fill is balanced on site for this project?

Um let me check. staff is just verifying on the actual plans themselves.

Okay. Uh, as I say, I don't anticipate that it would uh would require any specifics in the construction management plan looking at the site, but I just want to double check because uh I didn't actually find the civil numbers. So, um my uh next thought or thing that I wanted to suggest was I'm really sorry the LUAC didn't look at this. Um it's a very standard colonial design. I don't see any neighborhood likelihood of issues with that, but I think they might have said something about the white exterior had they been doing it because of the uh way they've in the past approached wanting colors that were more earthtoned or more in the tan range. So, I'm not the design review person, but um I really would like to put a push in to say that in in all of the Delmani Forest, uh it seems to me there could have been a meeting space if we had aggressively assisted them in pursuing one. And not having the benefit of their input on this project um is a loss to me. That would have been one place where their specific neighborhood e expertise would have been useful and it certainly would have addressed the uh concerns that I sometimes have about expectations where people want to know what's happening and there's some way that their neighbors can inform them. So just express my concern on that and I'm not going to I'm I'm not the aesthetician. There are a lot of people here better qualified to do that. But I would say that that um general approach of of blending in is always appreciated throughout our area. So I think white even quote unquote warm white is not really that. Um

let's see. I also just wanted I don't think it's again looking at the plants I don't think it's a huge problem here but it's not on the um it's not on the drawing is visible on point loos however one of the things we've noted in the past is that when you can see point loss from the house when the house site which you can um we have sometimes had glare issues with sunsets in those windows so I just want to confirm that we are aware of that and we've considered that and in the future we don't dismiss that as a concern because of the drawing. It's still a concern um because of the way it lights up the the I don't know if any of you all have seen it but the sun sets hits the windows it looks like there's a spotlight on. So we just want to make sure that isn't happening here. I doubt that it is but uh again something I just wanted to bring up. Um yes through the chair. Um in regards to your first question, there will be an export of slightly over 1100 cubic yards. Um and for the LUAC piece of it, uh staff, yes, staff agrees with you. Um we try to get LUAC review for every project, particularly ones, um in sensitive design areas. Um I believe staff did attempt to locate a meeting place several times for the LUEX so that those meetings would not have to be cancelled. Um that that attempt was unsuccessful. However, we recognize the concerns of projects not going to Lux.

Perhaps I might suggest that we u look continue to look for an alternative when we're not in crisis so that we have a backup plan should something like that occur again. Yes, that LUK is um just for the record that LUK is back on schedule and we'll be meeting again uh tomorrow back to their regularly scheduled meeting.

Yeah, it's a community service district. It's a lovely setting. I know they love it. They've got better tech than we do. Um but we really can't just stop and bypass them without expecting to have some concerns. Um 1100 cubic yards is way more than I thought. Why so much? What's the deal here? Um they have that's what 110 10 yard trucks. They have a cut of um 1,440 cubic yards, a fill of 320 cubic yards for a net export of 1,120 cubic yards.

Okay. I not going to I assume it's not a problem but again um that information would be helpful so that we're sure we understand the construction management plan issues the export of Phil has in the past been one of the concerns with respect to traffic impacts um at the gates so again I'm assuming y'all looked at that but I just want to raise those issues and then the final question I have is can you confirm for me that the only reason This item came to the planning commission is because of trees. Really? It's really just about trees. Correct.

Thank you. I wanted to echo Commissioner Deal's concern about this not going to the LUAC and just confirm that since this is uh requires a design review is the planning commission meet hearing the design review. Uh you all do have the authority on the design. Um even for projects that have gone to the LUAC, you all have the final authority on the design of projects. And if anyone else had a because this is a duly noticed meeting, if anyone else had comment on the design review but couldn't do it at the LUAC, they would need to do it through this meeting.

Correct. Okay, Commissioner Shaw. Thank you. Um I could have just missed it. It could also be something that doesn't need to be mentioned, but I've seen it in other um packets before where they've mentioned that there was specific non-reflective windows. Um and I didn't see that mentioned in here. So is that something um that should be put in because this can be point loss can see this house where people in Point Lobos

um per staff's site visit the project location uh was the the development itself would likely be limited visibility due to intervening location and distance. Um however in terms of a reflection um I don't believe that as of now we have anything requiring non-reflective windows. I believe that is something we can uh condition should you all uh choose.

Thank you. I I just that's something that I personally would choose. I don't know how everyone else feels. Um I know that I can see reflective windows like way in the mountains when the sun hits specifically. They're like a beacon. Um so that might be something to consider. Any other commissioners? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and open the um public hearing. And uh with that, um is um the agent or property owner here to make any comments u regarding this particular project.

Greetings. My name is Tom Meanie. from the architect on the project and I'm here with the landscape team and our arborists as well and we're available to answer any questions. I'd like to make a couple comments. I mean the project did go to the Pebble Beach Design View board and they approved the project and relating to the grading issue. So we are doing very very little grading outside the footprint of the house to basically preserve um the trees in the context of the site. But when you're building on a site like that, you have to over excavate six feet and recompact. And we've got crawl space underneath the house. And part of the garage is cut into slope as well. We do have dirt that's generated from the construction of the crawl space. And really there's no place on the site to dump dirt because of the tree issue. We have plenty of area to do that if we if the trees weren't there. But we're trying to preserve the trees as much as possible. And by minimizing the footprint of our construction and minimizing the footprint of our grading is one of the efforts we've been making to preserve the trees as much as possible.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Seeing none. Well, thank you very much for the information. [clears throat] With that, uh, we'll continue with the public hearing. Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to come forward and address this particular item? Seeing no one, uh, then we move to Zoom or via emails. Is there anybody via Zoom or any emails that would like to address this particular item? There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. And I guess we don't need to bring it back to the staff since um you know, there were not other comments or questions. So, with that, I bring it back to the commission for comments, questions, motions. Commissioners, Commissioner Deal,

thank you. I I would like to address the uh applicant's representative to say that I have no concern about the grading per se. It's the impact on traffic from exporting fill that needs to be addressed in the construction management plan. And the number there is my my quick back of the envelope is always it's a 10 yard truck. So that's 110 trucks. And so that's a difference than if there weren't exporting fill. So um that's why uh for me I I use that as a way to look at the need for specifics in a construction management plan with respect to hall routes and times and things like that. Uh I don't actually think this is going to make a difference in that neighborhood knowing the other kinds of things that are going on there. So my concerns alleviated as much as it can be by the construction management plan the standard construction management plan that we have included in the conditions. So, with that, um, I do appreciate Commissioner Shaw's comments about the non-reflective glass. My comment on that is that windows generally look at the view. And if I can see Point Loos from the window, the Point Lobos can see the reflection from the window. Uh, going back the other way and that's a sunset view. That's what they're looking at is like the beautiful beautiful u aspect of that. So I would like to ask that windows on that side be a be required to be non-reflective just because of past experience when we didn't we wished we had and with that change I would be comfortable in moving staff's recommendation with the appreciation that there are not a lot of variances and there's good tree numbers and we've made a good provision for potential trees. Okay, with that uh we have a second.

Commissioner Commissioner Hartell seconds the motion and [clears throat] followup comment actually comment. Thanks. Um just want to comment that there was no public comment and no letters submitted on this um matter which is making me a little more comfortable about the fact that Lak didn't review it. Um but just digging my toes in the sand about that issue and that um I really appreciate the efforts to minimize the impacts to trees. I looked closely and um that's why there's no questions. And with that I second uh Commissioner Deal's motion.

And with that uh do we have any more comments, questions, concerns from the commission? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion so indicate by saying I. I. I opposed. Objections, abstensions. Uh motion carries. With that, we go on to other matters. There are no other matters for the agenda. Okay. And moving on to department report.

Yes. Thank you, chair. Um, happy new year to everybody. I think this is our first meeting of the year, so I hope everyone enjoyed the uh got some rest. Uh, a lot of good family and friend time over the holiday season and new year. Um we are I did want to briefly just um comment in with regard to general comment with regard to the LUAC for Delmani Forest. Um I didn't want to add to the item in particular. Um staff will work with the clerk to um we will reach out uh to see if we can identify some standard backup locations in Delmani Forest. Unfortunately, uh there was a extensive effort uh by the team to identify an additional or backup location. Um but every location required a fee. And so um it's something that will uh we can take a little time to work maybe with Pebble Beach Company or other entities if we can get an arrangement to have a backup that's uh that's available that also maybe can accommodate not having to pay for it. So we will look into that for the future. But just uh as a followup in terms of um what did happen and then a reminder we are um incorporating into our processes going forward when there are items that have been or should have would have gone to the LUAC if they had a quorum or meeting. uh we will include uh the LUAC members in the public uh in the notice uh when the item comes to the planning commission. So even if they don't meet uh they will have the opportunity and know to come for public comment. So we will also uh reemphasize that moving forward with our um with the team as well. We do very much appreciate that. Um and all right, just a couple of other

things. Uh just looking forward did I think I may have mentioned it uh at our last meeting, but just for the public and the commission uh housing community development is bringing forward our land use fee article for update. We are scheduled to go to the board of supervisors on February 3rd. [snorts] Um, also we have already had an eventful beginning of the year. We um went to the planning or excuse me, the board of supervisors staff presented on January 6 uh a workshop to consider the vacation rental ordinances in light of the um the measures that were taken in December. uh where the um where the county staff has determined that there are two elements of the current regulations that we will be sus that we have suspended enforcement of related to ownership provisions uh in the current regulations. So to be clear moving forward we continue the current vacation rental regulations both inland and coastal are in full effect. The transition period for unpermitted operations to come in and come into compliance and make an application has passed as of December 24th in the coastal zone and long past in the inland area. And those are the regulations with the exception of the suspended terms that we will be uh not enforcing temporarily until resolve of the uh legal issues. Um those remain in effect until such time as there is a board decision to adopt and something comes into effect a new. Briefly what the direction from the board was was a request for staff to go

back and um bring forward amendments to the vacation rental ordinances specifically that prohibit vacation rental use in residential zones. um and with some other um kind of general direction in terms of how we allow them in commercial and a zones which would be generally the remaining zones that they'd be allowed in. So this item will be staff is trying to do a quick turnover. This item will come before the planning commission. We are targeting dates in February uh to bring draft ordinances forward to the planning commission for consideration recommendation to the board. And with that, um, the planning commission meeting.

Wait, wait, questions. Questions, questions, commissioners. Commissioner Deal. Thank you. Um, I've had a lot of questions about the uh vacation rental issue, as we I'm sure all have. So can can you explain more clearly what suspending ownership requirement provisions means in practice? Yes. And if you'll just give me one minute, I'd like to bring up on the screen the memo that we shared so that we can um be looking directly at it as well.

Any other commissioners? I would like to [clears throat] see what gets pulled up before I ask my question. Thanks. Any other commission is going once, going twice, sold. Anyways, we're waiting. Oh, for questions or for journey? For information. Oh, she's answering the question.

Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, what that means is, so this is the memo that was put out by Housing Community Development on December 12th. The specific provisions that have been suspended um are clauses for treating non-resident property owners differently for homeays and um clauses that treat corporate or other non-individual entity owners differently from natural person owners for all types of vacation rentals. So what this effectively means is we are by suspending enforcement of certain provisions means that under the homeay regulations, currently the homeay definition reads in the ordinances that the homeays is a vacation rental in which the owner occupies at least one bedroom and the vacation rental must be the owner's primary residence. And then there's also a definition of owner's primary residence. So for purposes of the vacation rental sections, we interpret owner to mean the uh owner or their design designated representative. And the same is true under owner's primary residence. So, what it means is as long as someone either the owner or someone with legal permission on behalf of the owner resides in a um in a dwelling, they may be eligible for homeay and that applies coastal and inland. And then also with regard to the um disperate treatment of corporations and non-person individuals as um in our ordinance, we had a provision that

applied to all vacation rentals in terms of that indicated that the owner of the vacation rental must be an individual except if it's held in trust and sorry I have to there we go. in which case the trustee may apply for a license to operate on behalf of the trust beneficiaries. So that provision that was added um is essentially stricken and does not apply which means we don't look at who the owner is whether or not it's a corporate entity, an LLC, a trust or an individual as long as they have legal ownership of the property they may apply for any of the vacation rentals. So, so what it means is that for the time being, individuals who now meet these criteria may come in and apply and we will accept their applications and process accordingly.

Any other uh Commissioner Hartell? And if after the amendment occurs, these permits are no longer in compliance, will there be a backward-facing look um to bring them into compliance? So, similar with um how for so we will need to afford an amortization period. So any permits that are issued under the current regulations, the new regulations will provide for what an appropriate amortization period means. How long can those existing issued permits operate legally before they have to come into compliance with the new regulations. So um with the current regulations what the provision is is for any prior permitted uh any prior permitted uh under the old regulations the current regulations afford a seven-year amortization. Um so it's either the expiration of the permit or 7 years from the effective date of the regulations whichever is later. Uh so we could expect something similar. Uh but again not yet drafted.

Commissioner Deal. Thank you. Uh Miss Betti, when um the when the item comes back before the planning commission, I understand there's a direction for a different approach. Is there also a direction for an opportunity to correct any defects in the existing ordinances like this, which seem to me relatively minor? I mean there are ways you could approach these issues to clarify the original intent it seems to me as well as just going back for to a different approach.

Uh yes. So going off memory very generally the so the the big change was to not allow vacation rentals in residential zones. um to also there was also direction to for what remains in the regulations to correct these legal issues so they are no longer there uh which may and which staff interprets to tighten up if we need to uh as appropriate. Um also um so just furthering a portion of the direction as well was considering um potential for ministerial approval because we are now limited to only uh commercial and egg zones. So that al that was also a part of the uh direction consideration and those were the main points and absolutely we also will any anything else that were potential issues that in their minor corrections or anything we can certainly capture uh with this round commissioner Gomez the the application of uh not allowing short-term rentals on residential zones. Is that countywide and incorporated countywide or is it limited to the coast?

So that direction from the board, the motion it was a 3-2, but the motion the the direction was um for unincorporated county. Um it is recognized that anything we adopt locally needs to for the coastal zone needs to go forward to coastal commission and is subject to coastal certifications. But the board did in their discussion they did acknowledge that um they would like the regulations to be as we would like them to be local and then should Coastal wish to see something different to have that process in the coastal zone happen separately rather than try to pre-negotiate. That was the general consensus uh with just approach recognizing

how many current operators at that effect I don't have those numbers off hand could you share those with us later

um yeah and when we do come back we will come back very clearly you know at this time the the the last that I looked which was about a week ago we had approximately 200 180 applications that have been made both inland and coastal about a 50/50 split between the two for vacation rentals in general, the three different types. Um, so at this time, I believe the majority were in residential zones. So, at this time for applicants that are in the process andor have been um made applications, it's approximately I'll just say approximately currently 300 who are in the process that this could impact. Um

that's a separate number from people that we're actually collecting taxes from, isn't it? That's correct. Um and I'm looking for both numbers. It'd be helpful to have both. Yeah. Yeah. I will go back and check. Um, I don't like to go off memory for how many were operating. Commissioner Shaw,

thank you. Um, not addressed right now, but maybe when it does come back, I'm curious to know for those that have, you know, done what they're supposed to do, what we asked of them as far as paying for these, you know, applications, are they going to get their money back if they no longer can operate? Um, how is that even in in our purview? Just how would that be handled? I'd be curious to know. Thank you.

Yeah. So, the regulations will the any new amended regulations will have to have provisions for how we handle applications that have been approved. Right? That's the amortization. And then any application that's in process that has not been approved prior to that effective date, the regulations will have to be clear on how we address them. So I um and staff has had some thoughts in terms of if you've paid and have not been able to move through forward in the process um seems unfair that we would capture those fees and [laughter] so that will be a part of the discussion and we will have to consider that with the regulations being amended should they be adopted. Thank you, Commissioner Deal.

And just for if you could could confirm um just for the public that enforcement will continue on the regulations that are passed and in effect today. And so we're not going to see any any um stepping back of the enforcement efforts that have been waited for a really long time. Is that true? I can tell people that enforcement is still happening.

That is correct. We uh our code compliance team continues to move forward with enforcement uh reminding everyone who is an unpermitted operation that the grace period windows have passed both inland and coastal. So if you've not come in and aren't in our process, uh that would be an unpermitted operation that our enforcement uh would be moving. That includes uh advertising. in it includes advertising. It includes um yeah all compliance uh operators now need to be in compliance with our new regulations and the prohibitions for advertising and other prohibitions. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Seeing none uh then this um meeting. Huh? Did you do public comment on this one?

No. Public. Okay. Um, so I'm going to uh go ahead and do public comment on that particular one since there was a lot of information. So is anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission on uh the department report? Seeing nobody in the chambers, is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission regarding that partic particular item? There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

Thank you. And uh with that uh this uh County of Monterey Planning Commission meeting is over at 9:59 a.m. Have a great new year everyone.