Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Check one, two. Checking. Checking the mic. One, two. Check mic. Mic check. One, two.

6. Mr. uh uh Mr. Gman, can you lead us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. With that, uh, can we have roll call? Commissioner gets here. Commissioner Deal here. Commissioner Hartzell here.

Commissioner Gonzalez here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Monsalev here. Commissioner Gomez here. Commissioner Mendula, Robert and Shaw are absent. Chair, you have a quorum.

Okay. Thank you. And with that, I guess this would be uh the time where uh we would inform the public on how they would be able to communicate uh with the commission via Zoom or via email. So with that, uh there'll be some information that is given right now.

Thank you, chair. Uh good morning. Thank you for joining us. Uh and if we can get the slide for directional information if that's possible. Uh thank you for joining us. Um if you are joining us remotely via Zoom either on a computer or your telephone um you are able to or if you're just joining by video you are able to um there's a link for Zoom on today's agenda if you'd like to join. Um, and if you'd like to participate during public comment and you are not here in person, if you're joined by the Zoom platform, you can raise your hand by opening the reactions button at the bottom of your screen, clicking on the raise hand icon. On a mobile or landline phone, you can raise and lower your hand by pressing star9. You can also participate by sending an email to PC hearering comments at county ofmonter.gov. Uh this email is live uh is actively monitored by staff. However, we can't guarantee that all comments are received in a timely manner, but we do do our best to capture any emails that have come in during the items being considered. Uh when it is your opportunity to be granted permission to speak during public comment, uh you may mute and unmute yourself on the Zoom platform by uh at the bottom of your screen clicking the microphone button to mute and unmute. Also, if you are on a mobile or landline, you can press star six to mute and unmute. Thank you for part for your participation today. Uh we also do we have wordly We also continue with our um extended pilot for Wordley and in just a moment we'll get a slide that has the QR code and web address that you can go to. So if you require require translation for today's um today's meeting, you can

scan the QR code or go to the web page at the bottom left of the the um slide that's on the screen. If we can see it in Spanish would be great. Uh you can then you'll get the Wordly um prompt. You can then choose the language that you wish to um that you wish to listen in. Uh and Wordley will have you join from there. If you are here in chambers, we do have u microphones so you can come to the front to the clerk if you have any needs for translation in chambers. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we move on with uh public comments. And this is a time set aside uh for the public to comment on a matter uh that is not on the agenda. So if there is anybody here in the chambers that would like to come and address the commission on a particular item that is not in the agenda, this would be the time to do it. Seeing no one here in the chambers coming forward, is there anybody via Zoom or emails that would like to address the commission on this particular uh agenda item? There are no additional emails or hands up on Zoom.

Thank you. Uh moving on with uh the agenda. This says uh agenda additions, deletions, and corrections. So uh would you please uh give us some information on this particular topic item? For the record, we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number two, PLN24369 ASCAR and agenda item number three, PLN2339 leoton. Uh those have been provided and they are on the table here in the front.

Thank you. And uh with that uh it. We move on to the next item of the agenda which is commissioner comments, requests and referrals. So again, this is a time set aside for the commissioners to comment, request or refer a matter that is on or not on the agenda. Commissioners, Commissioner Deal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I wanted to share a series of conversations I've had with with uh, folks about the LUAX and the quorum and what the staff has done to help. We've had a couple of items recently where the LUAC that would have reviewed the item was not at the level where they were allowed to do that because they didn't have enough people. And I spoke there's there's a couple that I've run across and I think Commissioner Work and I spoke about this as well saying that we really regretted not having that input. And with that in mind, I asked u Miss Bowling for one item this morning if she would and she would refer to staff. request that when we have an item and there are not enough people in the LUAC to comment officially that we go ahead and take the step of providing the staff report for the planning commission to directly to each of the LUAC members who is present. So they have an opportunity to comment in public comment to the commission even if they didn't have an opportunity to weigh in at a LUAC meeting locally. And I wanted to say that now because I think that you'll see uh at least one letter in the packet or in the in the new correspondence that is from that as a response to that particular course of action where someone who had been has who serves on the LUAC uh without the opportunity to to talk about a particular item there has provided public comment to the commission from that perspective. So, I wanted to thank staff for helping me me with that and hope that we'll continue to do that until we solve the LUAC problem so we can still have that important local public input.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner Gelman.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Um yeah, I was hoping also um on that same subject because we ran into the same issue at the uh South County Luak to get uh a definition from maybe the secretary on exactly what how they considered uh a quorum constituted if that makes sense. Evidently, what they were told at the South County Luak was that it took five because 10 was the number of uh LUAC members that were supposed to be in the commission. But my understanding was that it was um quorum would be the majority of those who were appointed because sometimes we have considerable trouble filling 10 positions on a LUAC board. So maybe clarification would be an order if that's possible. I'm going to have to look to those Luak bylaws and I don't actually have the available copy. I don't know if staff have that with them at the moment, but I'm happy to take a look at that and get back to you. It shouldn't take me long once I have the governing document in front of me.

Yeah, same. We'll verify we'll verify that language from those bylaws. Um, and I will, if it's acceptable, I'll work with county council to clarify and bring back during department report response for that. Yes, it'd be fine with me. Uh, Commissioner Deal, I think, has something too. Uh, Commissioner Deal.

Yes, I do. Um, pretty familiar with the LUAC guidelines. Uh, it's not a quorum per se. It's you have to have five people in order to be constituted as a LUAC. So then the quorum of whatever you have would be the quorum of however many people were constituted. But you couldn't have a LUAC with just three people and have it be a LUAC. It has to be five people in order to be an existing body according I believe that's the way it looks. But at anyway it's something along those lines. I think I used the word quorum incorrectly. You just have to have a minimum number of people in order to have a committee and then the quorum would be the majority just as you've said of whatever that number of people was. If you had, you know, seven, you'd need four or whatever that would be. Five, you'd need three.

Okay. Well, then just some clarification on that would be super. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing no one, um we are moving on um to scheduled matters and this is uh the county of Monterey planning commission nominate nomination committee and uh I believe that in the past it doesn't have to but u the chairperson would be one of the members in the planning I'm sorry in the

so the chair appoints to nominating Committee members. We just got clarification. The chair appoints the two nominating committee members and I thought it was three three. Okay. So myself you want to be on it. Yeah. Because in the I think in the past there's been three people. So uh is that correct miss still? Yes. Three people and then the commissioner the chair has served exeicio. So there's a committee of three and then the chair is

Thank you for the clarification. I'm not sure the if the uh if if the bylaws say something different, but anyways. Um so I will be I guess one of the the members in the nomination committee. And so we would need uh two other people to be in the nomination committee. And with that, I guess we could get for a couple of volunteers that would like to participate in the nomination committee since we already have onethird said. Commissioner Deal.

Yeah. Um, it's a little difficult because we have a tradition of rotating our chair and we don't have in front of us whose turn it is. So, you wouldn't want to appoint that person to the committee. And my if I wasn't clear, I meant it was three members of the committee plus the chair exeicio. So that was what we have done in the past. But you don't want to appoint a person to the committee if they're the next up because they might say they don't want to and we don't allow that. We just got to draft them.

Correct. But they could volunteer. But also the also the bylaws indicate that uh at least as to how I read them. Um or that it would be for example uh the nominating committee shall consider the commissioners who have served the longest without being chair and vice chair of the nomination committee. So if somebody's been here for a long time, they've already been chair or vice chair, then we would consider the ones that have been here the longest without maybe three or four years that without being chair. So does it to me does it or people can decline so maybe they can either volunteer or not volunteer.

I'd be glad to serve on that committee. Miss okay M deal commissioner deal I'll be glad to serve on the committee too.

Okay Mr. Gomez. So we have uh three now. So with that uh in terms of of of the process uh should I is just an appointment or do we have to have any particular motion or so then therefore uh um I'm going to go ahead and appoint the three commissioners uh mentioned Commissioner Gonzalez, Commissioner Dal, and Commissioner Gomez uh to the nomination committee. and then we'll figure out when we meet and then for the next meeting that's when we'll I guess kind of decide. Commissioner Deal,

could we ask staff to pull up the chart that shows who's served, how long we keep that as a matter of course and just generally it might be a good idea to put in with this item in the agenda. That usually is really helpful. Thanks. through the chair. The clerk is working on getting a document available to share. Yeah, I in the past uh Chair Gonzalez, I think that uh that information typically provided to the subcommittee and the subcommittee reviews and then makes recommendations.

Do we have a hard copy by the end of the day? You know, I don't think it's necessary for right now, but maybe before we we leave if it's possible and not just email it to us. Um, it' be great if we could have it today. Yes. Perfect.

So, let me see. Where are we at? Item number two, we have uh Escar Cameron F and Zori Flora Taleb. And I'm sorry if I slaughtered those names. Uh so we should be able to have a public hearing uh to consider the construction of a 3,750 ft single family dwelling. And with that, etc. And with that, the staff are going to go ahead and make a presentation on this particular item number two. Can we please share staff right? Thank you. Good morning, Chair Gonzalez, planning commissioners. Just fa presenting for HCD file number PLN240369, Ashcar. The project is located at 2972 Coloulton Road in Pebble Beach within the greater Monterey Peninsula area plan. The subject property is zoned medium density residential with building site six design control and recreational equipment storage overlays. The project involves a combined development permit to allow the construction of a 3,750 ft single family dwelling with a 777 foot attached garage and associated site improvements as well as the removal of 12 trees. The project meets all required site development standards for the medium density residential zoning district as related to setbacks, height, and site coverage. As proposed, the project includes an application for the removal of 12 protected trees. Pursuant to title 21, an arburous report was prepared to evaluate the health, structure, and preservation suitability for each tree within or adjacent to the proposed development. 12 trees would be removed with implementation of this project, including seven coastlive oaks and five

Monterey Pines, as identified on screen by the red X's. The lot is forested and thus avoiding tree removal entirely is unfeasible for any reasonable development consistent with the neighborhood. All trees to be removed are directly within the development footprint of the main residence and/or the driveway. Removal of these trees is consistent with the recommendations of the prepared forest management plan. Further, the single family dwelling while large is consistent in size with other single family dwellings within the surrounding neighborhood. No trees outside of the development footprint are proposed for removal and therefore staff believe that the proposed tree removal is the minimum required under the circumstances of this case. Condition number seven has been applied which requires all removed trees to be replanted on site at a 1:1 ratio. The project was reviewed by the Delmman forest lack on January 15th, 2026. The LUAC recommended approval of the project by a vote of 7 to zero as proposed. The single family dwelling would have exterior colors materials consisting of light yellow painted stucco, natural stone, a terracotta tile roof, and light brown exposed wood posts and beams. The proposed exterior finishes would not detract from the surrounding natural environment and would be consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood character. A standard condition of approval has been applied to ensure that all exterior lighting is downlit, unobtrusive, and harmonious with the area. Staff did receive public comment regarding the compatibility of the proposed project with the neighborhood as it relates to height, size, and location. Staff reviewed surrounding developments and found that there are several two-story homes along Colton Road and within within the greater surrounding area, including one of the immediate neighbors. Additionally, while the proposed 3750T residence will be one of the larger homes in the neighborhood, staff still believes it is consistent with the neighborhood, which consists of homes ranging from 1,700 square ft² up to 3,500 ft². Finally, as stated before, the home is consistent with all site development standards for the MDR zoning

district, including site coverage and setbacks, as well as height. Therefore, staff finds the proposed project consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to see guidelines section 15303 and approve a combined development permit to allow the construction of a 3,750 ft single family dwelling with associated site improvements as well as the removal of 12 trees. That concludes staff's presentation and staff's available for any questions. Sorry. Uh bring it back to the commission for any questions, comments, clarifications. Commissioners, seeing none, then this would be the time for me to open a public hearing. And so with that, will the either the agent or the owner of the project uh if you'd like to make a presentation, you're welcome to do so. This would be the time.

I believe they are on Zoom. Um I believe Mr. Ashcar is on Zoom. Might not have his hand raised. No. Mr. Ascar, if you would like to speak right now, you're available to do that and you're you should be able to unmute. Yes. Uh sorry, I had trouble to unmute myself. Am I audible now?

Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Perfect. And I wish I could enable the video as well. But uh good morning everyone. Thank you Joseph for the presentation. I am looking forward to be one of the resident on the Colton road and uh I have nothing to add unless there is the question to me.

Okay. Thank you. Uh let's the commission uh bring it see if the commissioners have any questions. uh uh commissioners. Seeing no one from the God bless you. Seeing no one from uh the commissioners, then um is there Thank you. Uh is there anybody here in the chambers that would like to address this particular item? This would be the time to do it. So, seeing no one in the chambers coming forward, is there anybody on in Zoom or via email that would like to address the commission on this particular item?

There are no emails and no hands up on Zoom. Thank you. With that, I guess uh we'll bring it back to the commission for any other comments, questions, clarifications, motions. Uh uh Commissioner Hartell, this question is for Mr. Alamita. Um we received a letter um from a local resident discussing the light pollution from windows in the upper stories. I'm not familiar with any is there anything we can do about that? Could you speak on it?

Yeah, the staff has as you know added the condition for exterior lighting. um staff does not have conditions regarding light exposure from internal lighting. Um and I do not believe that that's something in terms of light pollution that that's something that is reviewed by the county by planning or building. Got it. And could you also speak to the size and location of the lot um also mentioned in the letter? I heard you say that it was in in line with local character, but just wondering like on the street, is this just a particularly bulky um proposed front of lot?

Um staff reviewed other developments around the area. There there are several one-story and smaller homes. Um the homes in the area seem to be match the size of the lot. Um, so smaller lots have some of the smaller range homes and then some of the more moderateiz lots such as this one have homes in the 3,000 foot range. Um, per staff's review of the neighborhood, this home seems to be consistent with uh what the neighborhood character is regarding size and they are within their allowed height. They also are not the only two-story home on the lot. However, there are several one-story homes um in the neighborhood as well. Um so staff per staff's review and the LUX um recommendation the home we believe the home to be compatible with the neighborhood.

Okay, one more. You still have the floor. Thank you. Just to mention that I noticed that the big reason that this came to us is the trees um and the design removal and I took a look at the trees and I don't have any questions about the removal or the replacement at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Deal. Thank you. Um, just want to double check that it's not a requirement, but it's always interesting to know this item did uh go through the Pebble Beach Design Review Committee review as well. Correct. It did prior to going to the LUAC where it received a unanimous recommendation of approval. That is correct. Thank you.

Other commissioners. Seeing none, uh, Commissioner Hartell, no further comments, but I'm prepared to make a motion to approve this project as recommended by staff. Second. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Hartell made the motion and seconded by Commissioner Deal. Um, any other comments, questions, discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying I. I.

I. Uh those all those opposed extensions. Motion carries unanimously. So we're done with uh item number two. And so we're going to the next item on the agenda which is um item number three PLN 230339 Leon Michael Guy and Tracy Piaza Leon. And again, uh, this is the staff's time to make the presentation on this particular item.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Gonzalez and Planning Commission. My name is McKenna Bowling and today staff is recommending a continuence of this item to February 11th after having received information that will require updates made to both the project description and draft resolution. Okay. Thank you. So I I guess that does it for this particular item or yeah consider the continuance to action on it and have public com the commission for the Yeah. Okay. So I guess uh uh this is bring it back to the commission and for comments, questions, clarifications.

Commissioner Deal. Yes. I maybe I wasn't listening. Is this a recommendation for a continuence to a date certain or is commission a date uncertain? And if date certain, what date are recommending? Staff is recommending to a date certain of February 11th if there's availability on that agenda. Thank you. Um, I'd like to confirm that there is availability on that agenda. I just checked.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? With that, I'm going to have to open up public appearances. The commission uh spoke a little bit about it. And is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address this particular items? It's it's been agendaized and discussion. Seeing no one in the chambers. Um, is there anyone via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission on this particular item? There are no emails and no hands up on Zoom.

Thank you. With that, I'm close going ahead and closing the the public hearing and bringing it back to the commission. Commissioner Deal. Thank you. I'd like to move uh continuence of this item to a date certain of February the 11th and uh as recommended by staff. Thank you. It's been a motion has been made by Commissioner Deal and seconded by Commissioner Monsalv. Any other further questions, comments from the commission? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion so indicate by saying I. I.

Uh all those opposed abstension. Motion carries unanimously. So then we move uh on to the next item on the agenda which is uh item number four. And item number four is uh PLN180441 uh AMD1 Selenas 101 LLC. And so with that, uh staff will go ahead and make a presentation on this particular item. staff.

Good morning again, Chair Gonzalez and Planning Commission. My name is McKenna Bowling and today I am presenting project file PLN180441 AMD1, the Selenus 101 LLC soil company project. The subject property is located at 101 Solar Road and Harrison Road within the greater Selenus area plan. It is 17 and 12 acres in size and zoned LC or light commercial. In November of 2023, the planning commission approved a combined development permit consisting of a standard subdivision investing tentative map, general development plan and use permit to allow mixed commercial space including retail buildings, quicks serve restaurants, a fueling station and motel, a use permit to allow construction of a pylon sign, a variance to allow increase in allowable height of structures on parcel 7, and a variance to increase pylon sign dimensions. The site plan on screen is the approved vesting tenative map. After its approval, the applicant requested modifications requiring an amendment to the vesting tenative map and combined development permit. Additionally, the vesting tenative map and combined development permit were set to expire in November of 2025 and therefore the applicant is also seeking a two-year extension. The applicant now seeks to modify the size and location of previously approved buildings and parcels, remove the previously approved car wash from the scope of work, add a three truck fueling station, and realign portions of Harrison Road to modify driveway access for the subject property. To implement these changes, an amendment to the previously approved general development plan, combined development permit, and vesting tenative map is required. All other project components of the previously approved combined development permit remain the same as proposed. The amended vesting tenative map complies with both title 19 and

subdivision map act requirements. Specifically that new no new parcels are proposed. No new environmental impacts are anticipated. There are no conflicts with county code and the amendment is in keeping with the original project's purpose. The previously prepared traffic impact analysis identified that under existing plus project buildout conditions, the approved project would result in traffic operations that would be in conflict with the county's level of service standard. As a result, the previously approved project included off-site circulation improvements as mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a level less than significant. The proposed amendment continues to include these on and off-site improvements, but makes certain additional modifications to better accommodate the truck fueling stations related traffic. The improvements included with the amendment modify intersectional traffic at Harrison Road, pedestrian improvements, redirections of trucks to enter the project site from the northern access driveway, and implementation of truck bypass lanes to eliminate truck queuing. Off-site impacts beyond the project frontage have already been analyzed as part of the original study and are not projected to change with implementation of this project. Environmental review for PLN180441 included the preparation of a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to section 15164 of the SQA guidelines. The adopted mitigated negative declaration found that impacts on air quality, biological, greenhouse gases, noise, and traffic would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. While other environmental factors were found to have no impact, nine mitigation measures were adopted to reduce the severity of these potential impacts.

None of the conditions described in SQL guideline sections 15162 have occurred and therefore staff prepared an addendum to reflect minor changes to the previous project. The project takes place in substantially the same footprint with minor changes to include reintroduction of the previously considered truck fueling component, modifications to the location and building footprints of approved retail and fast food restaurant buildings. The amendment also includes realignment of Harrison Road to accommodate truck access at the main project entrance, ensuring safe traffic operations. As designed, the proposed project is comparable to the bulk and mass and architectural style of the previously approved project. Removal of the car wash will reduce water demand by approximately 4 acre feet per year. The proposal reduces the overall potential impacts and does not alter the analysis or conclusions reached by the previous environmental document and all nine mitigation measures were found to still be applicable and have been carried forward with this project. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission consider an addendum with the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15162 and 15164 and approve an amendment and two-year extension of a previously approved combined development permit to include amending the vesting tenative map to allow for reconfiguration of parcels, amending the general development plan to include three truck fielding stations and altered building footprints and modifications to Harrison code. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you uh for the presentation. Now, with that, we bring it uh back to the commission. Commissioners, um commissioners, any questions, comments, concerns? U Commissioner Getsman. Thank you, Chair. Um generally speaking, would you say that the project has been improved? Is it a little better than it was? I mean, I know that's a judgment call. I understand that. But still, I mean, it sounds to me like it's they've made it a little better. Would you say that's the case?

Staff would agree it's a reduction in environmental impacts and um is the proposal is better than the original project considered. Okay, good. Thank you. That's the same impression I got. Thank you very much, Commissioner Deal. This is just a a personal question which is I don't quite remember perhaps someone can remind me why we have conditions that specifically call out one uh one vendor one actual company. So is is tractor supply company the owner of this project?

Um no tractor supply is not the owner. um that was the only business that was committed to when the original proposal came through. All others um are still um in discussion with the property owner. Um and that that use or tractor supply continues to uh be proposed to occupy occupy one of the larger retail buildings. I would just be more comfortable if we had the condition for the outcome unrelated to a specific business because businesses can change over the life of a commercial development. So if we could consider a way to make that those conditions assuming that they are important to the traffic analysis which I think that they are uh related to the business in that location whether or not it be Tractor Supply or any other company that may subsequently occupy that space during the life of this development.

Understood. I believe the conditions and mitigation measures uh perhaps you're referring to deal relate to noise that were very specific to the trucks that would be occupying or um visit visiting tractor supply company if that business were no longer um occupying that space those mitigation measures wouldn't necessarily be applicable. So it is a little specific to the operation, but staff is happy to u make it a little bit more broad should any larger commercial business that requires um heavy truck use. Um

with with respect through the chair um no that's not right. Um if tractor supply is sold to somebody else and has a different name then it is no longer appropriate to apply a condition that is applied to the business name tractor supply could do all the same things. So that is my point is you have a purpose-built outcome that's great but the actual business that owns that is not relevant to the county's consideration and should in my view be cited in our development permit.

If I may um we can staff can take a look at the language. I think the um the intent would be perhaps we could do clarifying language that it it was analyzed and these are mitigations that apply to commercial operation that is consistent with a company such as um tractor supply because it was very specific to tractor supply as that key mark. So it wouldn't restrict future companies to be tractor supply but it would be clear that um the analysis was related to an operation that is similar in intensity um and operation to such. So something like that perhaps could get at both both issues if acceptable for the chair. I'm I'm not telling you how to how to fix it. I'm just saying that that that kind of condition is not a good idea and I'm not comfortable with it and um as a as a way of doing business. I assume that people have deliveries and Tractor Supply has particular deliveries and others might as well. So if you want to just say Tractor Supply or any business similar of you know doing similar stuff or you know whatever um however you want to tie it together is fine. I just if it's an impact, it's an impact because of the activity, not because of the specific business. That's all.

Great. So staff will um take that into consideration and pending any kind of motion will make sure to refine just refine the language for the conditions to be clear that it's that type of that company or a similar such uh with similar activities. Thank you. Excuse me. Commissioner or Hardell

for my education. Um, condition 20 seems to me to be about I'm going to the same one that Commissioner Deal was discussing. Seems to me about the operation of the businesses. Is it normal for business operation to be considered in the planning conditions and the construction conditions? Um, yes. Uh, Commissioner, this is a standard um operations and maintenance agreement that's applied to all standard subdivisions um to ensure that there is adequate maintenance of uh subdivision improvements uh over its lifespan. And so you always ask to see the leases and the operational hours and things like that. Correct. Thank you.

Other commissioners see Commissioner Gomez, this is more of a general question uh in terms of the analysis regarding noise. uh the the change in use would that in your analysis would that decrease the uh is that improve the and reduce the noise levels or is it make it worse because we are going from maybe probably a ton of cars are getting washed to a few big trucks that might be having a lot of breaking it doing a lot of breaking so I'm not sure what would that would mean for that neighborhood so checking in with that

the analysis is under the previous document remains the same with the change in use proposed. It's not going to have um a substantial reduction or increase. We view it as a similar noise level proposed with this project today. The second question relates to uh traffic and just the nature of I think you're going away from essentially cars to trucks and semis, right? Uh is that does that have a different traffic impact and is that analyzed to any degree in light of the change suggested change

through um the modifications made to this project? We do have a daily trip reduction in the previously proposed trip reduction count. So arguably it would be either the same as the noise reduction if it were cars versus semis if not a reduction due to the modified scope of work and um the traffic improvements will help with any of the queuing or bypass lanes that have now been added to accommodate better access and safer truck operations. I think if I may, I did just want to add the applicant did work um quite extensively with the public works department to review both the reconfiguration um and the queueing and other items uh related to tra potential for traffic impacts. And so certainly if there's more detailed questions, we could speak with Armando Fernandez who's on the call. Um but they did work extensively to address those issues prior to coming in and making their formal submitt for uh for this amendment. Um and it is consistent. And I think I will also just point out that in the general development plan um the general development plan contemplates fueling station um doesn't specify is it truck is it vehicular um and so again the specific impact staff did evaluate and and re and looked at the the updated analyses they are reducing impacts. Um, also it's a bit more of a nuance, but in the new location, it actually further reduced just some of the traffic flow issues based on the location where now entrance into the truck fueling station is as opposed to the original approved project. So, um, yeah. So, I think just reiterating that overall it it it addresses some general um issues um and uh fully addresses any truck queuing issues and there's no new and in fact there are reduced environmental impacts

or similar to the approved project. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing uh Commissioner Hardell,

last one, I promise on this um tractor supply, is there a condition requiring the submittal of the same operations plan for businesses that have not yet committed? Um to to clarify, commissioner, um condition number 20 is specific to the uh storm water control maintenance in operation um not necessarily the operation of individual tenants.

Okay. And then condition number 30, prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit. Um condition number 30 is specific uh given the um earlier and later anticipated uh loading dock activities at the tractor supply company or any future commercial use um that does have to be incorporated into any lease or future sale. Um and staff is working on those revisions now. And then other uncommitted businesses.

Um yes, this condition as modified would then expand to any other commercial use that required earlier or later um louder vehicle trips um to comply with the same condition. Thank you. Other commissioners seeing no one with that then I'm going to go ahead and um open a public hearing. Uh and with that with will the agent or the owner uh and come and make a presentation if you have one.

Good good morning chair and commissioners. Uh, I'm Brad Soul, the uh the owner of the project Selenus 101. And um I stood before you on November 8th of 23, most everyone except Commissioner Hartzell. Um and um other than a few more gray hairs, everything is going well. And um staff has done a great job uh making this presentation and working with us to uh allow our um future tenant to have truck fueling and um to do uh uh some modifications on the site with our just moving some buildings around to accommodate uh the truck fueling. and um and and extending our our tenative map. So, if I don't have anything other to say, they did a great job presenting uh what we're here for unless anyone has any questions.

Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions of Mr. Sobel? Seeing perhaps just confirming the conditions and discussion for them uh with the modification. The only thing is that are the slight conditions or modifications acceptable to you or to the owner? Uh the modifications of Oh, there was uh

sorry for clarification. Just the conditions of approval that are associated with the project with the discussed changes to um not solely reference where appropriate tractor supply company, but tractor supply company and other operations similar. Yes, that's acceptable. Thank you. Uh commissioners, any other questions? No. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Is anybody here in the chambers that would like to address uh the commission on this particular agenda item? Seeing no one in the chambers coming forward, is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address this particular item?

There are no emails and no hands up on Zoom. Okay, with that then I'll go ahead and bring it back to the commission for comments, questions, discussion. Seeing no hands up, uh then I guess uh what's the pleasure of the commission? Commissioner Gelman. Yes, thank you. I'd like to move uh for approval of the project as outlined by staff with the recommended uh uh changes to the uh conditions.

We have a motion by Commissioner Getelman and a second by Commissioner Monsalves. So, uh any other comments, questions? Seeing none, then all those in favor of the motion so indicate by saying I. I I opposed. Uh abstensions. Motion carries.

Chair. Yes, sir. I um I have a conflict of interest on this next item, so I'm going to have to recuse myself. I'm related to the uh one of the people named as the uh applicant. So, I'm gonna have to be leaving you for a few w for a few minutes.

Okay. Thank you. And then with that, we move on to the next item on the agenda. And the next item on the agenda is number five, which is uh REF 26001. And the end is uh PLN250139- DAP and PLN 1 190243 South County Area Plan and Central Selena's Valley Area Plan Amendments. So with that, the staff we're is going to go ahead and make the presentation.

Yes. Thank you, Chair Gonzalez. Uh can it please share staff left via HDMI? Thank you. Uh, good morning again, Chair Gonzalez and members of the planning commission. Fiona Jensen presenting HCD planning file number RAF 26001. Uh, Monterey County Code requires that all general plan amendments be referred to the planning commission for early assessment. The goal of early assessment is to give the commission the opportunity to provide input and feedback on proposed amendments before the projects are formally referred back to the planning commission for recommendation and ultimately before the board of supervisors for consideration. As a reminder, uh for general plan amendments to be considered, it must not conflict with the goal, policies, or objectives of the general plan. And there is substantial evidence demonstrating that there is an error or oversight in the general plan. there's a clear change of facts or circumstances or the amendment better carries out the goals and policies of the general plan. With that said, before you today are two draft general plan amendments. PLN250139-D proposes to redesate and reszone four 5acre parcels in the South County area plan. PLN190243 uh proposes to apply a special treatment area over a property within the central Selenus Valley area plan. Staff will present the first project, seek planning commission input and welcome any questions and comments and then proceed with the second project. Pan 2550139 proposes to amend the South County area plan, specifically figure LU9 in sectional district map 79, by redesated redesating and reszoning four 5acre parcels from light commercial to lowdensity residential, one unit per

acre. This is shown on the right. These properties are located just south of the intersection of Lockwood Helone Road and Hone Road along inner lake uh road. The subject four properties first received their zoning in 1976 except for one commercial property at the intersection of Hone and Inner Lake Road. The rural density uh sorry rural district was applied to the incorporated area sur unincorporated areas surrounding Lockwood and allowed for residential uses and limited commercial agricultural uses. In 1978, the four properties continued to be zoned rural district and just north and surrounding the intersection of Hone and Inner Lake Road, a 160 acre area was reszoned to transitional district. Later in 1993, the light commercial zoning district was established and applied to 155 acre area surrounding the intersection of Hone and Inner Lake Road and extending south along Inner Lake Road to include the subject for properties as shown on the image on the right. To the west and east of this commercial area, properties were reszoned to lowdensity residential. In 2006, a 20 acre parcel was subdivided to create the subject 5acre parcels, which are shown as parcels 5 through eight on the map on the left. Staff has reviewed the zoning maps in effect at that time and confirms that these parcels were zoned like commercial at the time of the subdivision. However, the adopting resolution for these this subdivision recognized the newly created parcels as low density residential. Further, the prepared amended mitigated negative declaration analyzed foreseeable impacts of developing these parcels with residential uses, not commercial uses. Accordingly, reference to LDR1 in the planning commission resolution 06014 appears to be an error or an outcome of

an internal interpretation that was never implemented into the land use map. Although there was confusion whether these properties were commercial or residential, the properties continued to be zoned like commercial with adoption and implementation of the 2010 general plan. To add to the confusion, the properties covenants, conditions, and restrictions describe the primary use of these properties as quote for residential and agricultural purposes only and prohibits commercial storage buildings. The current light commercial zoning district allows for residential uses provided that the gross square footage of the residential use does not exceed the gross square footage of a commercial use. Accordingly, to develop parcels 5 through 8 with single family residences, the property owners would also have to construct and operate an equal or greater sized commercial business. Although the county does not enforce CCNRs, it is recognized that the operation of a business on these properties may conflict with the private restrictions of the property. In addition to this conflict, the owners of parcels 5 through 8 have informed staff that it is very unlikely for a single business, not to mention four businesses to survive, let alone flourish given the sparse population of the remote location. parcel uh owners of parcels 5 through 8 have also expressed the desire to develop these properties with single family dwellings but cannot do so without a change in zoning and land use designation. Therefore, staff believes there is a demonstrable error or oversight in the 2010 general plan which was caused by an incorrect recognition of these parcels as lowdensity residential in 2006. Additionally, staff believes there is a change in circumstance being that the development of these parcels with residential uses rather than a commercial uses is more viable and supports the county's housing demand. With that said, I will pause and welcome any feedback and input on this draft general plan amendment.

With that, um, commissioners questions seeing no one. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Gomez. It's just generally how are these mistakes often not not caught I guess is really the question right and uh obviously this is probably the public hearing to try to correct them right that's correct I don't know if I have an answer for why it wasn't caught but uh we've done so now and this is the process to um consider a change

any other commissioners seeing none then go ahead and guess go to the next one or do we would the commission like to hear the uh applicants presentation on this or wait until the end? Um I don't I'm not sure since they're both they're they're they're both on separate applicants and related. So I'm sorry. Oh, they're Yeah, they're they're come together but they're separate.

Okay. because I saw them in the same particular item. But if they're separate, then we will go ahead and hear from the applicant at the at this time. Uh if the applicant or the agent, Commissioner Deal, thank you. Just to be absolutely clear, um staff is recommending the change in this item to correct an error that they believe has been brought forward and that is why we want to do it. Right. Correct. Um yes. Thank you.

Okay. Um anyways uh if the agent or the owner of uh PLN250139 or in this particular item if that individual is here we you know if you would like to come under as a commission on this particular item.

Hi um my name is Paula Esri. Um I don't really have any questions. I do thank you for taking your time to look at this issue. Um, it has been a headache because, you know, I know you guys don't have anything to do with CCNRs, but it's a remote area. Um, it does have a store there currently that is not um, in operation at the time. Um, and I, you know, the types of businesses that would be required out there for a thousand people are just not in line with the current population and we would just really like to build a home and we can't without a business. So,

okay, thank you. Commissioners, have any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Uh and then with that, uh do we go ahead and hear the other piece or do we because they're both in the same on in five. So that's a new one for me.

So if I may, I think staff's intention was to be able to present each separate item. They are clustered together. um but present each separate item so that you could ask questions and um provide any thoughts that you wish on that item before moving to the next. It's to the it's up to the commission's um discretion if you'd like to provide any direct feedback or input now on the project or wait till you've heard both and asked questions and do that at the end. Okay. Through the chair, sorry. Um I don't believe a formal action or vote is needed on this as it's only providing input. Um, so it's just seeking input or feedback on the projects. Um, but the commission is also welcome to do that at the end of both items.

Well, I'd rather just go ahead since they we've already heard and the commission has spoken regarding PLN. Maybe we can go ahead and make the presentation on the other one. Great. Thank you. Can HDMI left please be shared? Chair, I'm sorry. There's a hen over there in that site. I thought you were gonna press Commissioner Work. I was just curious if Mr. Councilman can come back up for this next item or does I don't know if he's part of I I don't think so. I think is part of that whole piece of it. So, thank you though.

Go ahead. Thank you, chair. PLN 190243 proposes to amend the central Selenus Valley area plan to create a special treatment area over APN 420 uh 063 01400 0 to allow outdoor cannabis uh commercial cannabis cultivation. The property is located at 500 7 5700 Thompson Road um in King City and is zoned permanent grazing. For some background, in June 2019, the board of supervisors adopted chapters 20.69 and 21.69 of the Monterey County Code to create a pilot program for limited outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation in Big Su, Carmel Valley, and Kashawa planning areas. In 2020, and per the direction of the board of supervisors and the cannabis committee, HCD staff prepared draft ordinances to amend the outdoor cannabis cultivation program by modifying energy and setback requirements, extending the program's expiration, and adding the central selenus valley area plan. The agricultural advisory committee later considered this draft uh ordinance amendment and recommended the removal of the south the central selenus valley area plan citing concerns with crop incompatibility an unknown number of location and location of permites in the area plan water availability and potential impacts on cattle grazing. In April 2021 the planning commission considered the draft ordinance. During the planning commission's hearing, members of the commission had questions about whether the agricultural advisory committee's concerns um raised concern about the excluded num limited number of central Selenus Valley area plan residents who cultivate cannabis and wish to legalize their operation and reiterated that the purpose of a pilot program is to attempt to address concerns and questions which

will then better inform an ultimate ordinance. During this hearing, a central Selenus Valley Area Plan resident, John Cummings, expressed his desire to be included in the program. After public testimony and given the Jan uh July 1st, 2021 deadline to find the ordinance statutoily exempt from SQA, the planning commission recommended approval of the ordinance um without the central Selenus Valley Area Plan. The amended uh draft ordinance was then adopted by the board of supervisors in May 2021. No operators have sought permits through this pilot program as of date. Since Mr. Cummings property is located within the central Selenus Valley area plan, it is not subject to the outdoor cannabis cultivation pilot program. Accordingly, there are no existing regulations that would allow Mr. Cummings to establish an outdoor cannabis cultivation site. Therefore, he now seeks adoption of a special treatment area. A special treatment area is intended to be used in conjunction with the underlying land use designation. Its purpose is to facilitate a comprehensive planned approach for specifically designated properties or a single property where a mix of uses is permitted and or where there are unique natural and scenic resources or significant recreational and visitor serving opportunities. In this case, the proposed special treatment area would essentially recognize the uniqueness of this property and allow the owner to cultivate cannabis. Uh, subject to meeting requirements of title 7 and, uh, obtaining necessary licenses and permits from the county of Monterey cannabis program. The special treatment area would be added as a central Selenus Valley area plan policy, specifically policy 1.8, 8 stating uh the Cummings Ranch shall be designated as a special treatment area to allow up to 20,000 square feet of outdoor cannabis cultivation provided the operator obtains commercial uh cannabis business permits and the operation complies with the requirements

of the pilot pro program except for a location. Should the special treatment area be adopted, the cannabis proposal would involve 378 plants with a total canopy square footage of just over 18,000. The outdoor cannabis pilot programs regulations uh were used as guidelines to better determine whether Mr. Cummings outdoor cannabis proposal is appropriate. Although not required, the applicant's operation plan does demonstrate that the cultivation proposal would comply with all pilot program requirements except for location. Further, the applicant is committed to obtaining necessary licenses and permits from the county of Monterey cannabis program. The primary reason the central Selenus Valley area plan was removed from inclusion in the program was due to pesticide drift concerns raised by the agricultural comm uh commissioner and agricultural advisory committee and the limited time to take advantage of a statutory exemption. Although no additional time um by staff has um been spent to better analyze pesticide drift in the central Selenus Valley area plan um Mr. Cummings has demonstrated compatibility with the program's requirements again besides location and confirms that it will not impact any nearby grazing vineyards or can uh crop cultivation due to distance and size of the operation as well as Mr. Cummings owning the neighboring I believe 14 parcels. Mr. Mr. Cummings is the only cannabis cultivator in the central Selenus Valley area plan who has contacted HCD seeking a path forward to legalize limited outdoor cannabis cultivation. In this case, staff believes there is a change in circumstance being that the pilot program is soon to expire in June of 2026. Research to better determine whether the program should be amended to include the central Selenus Valley area plan has yet to occur. No cultivators have taken advantage of the program and the subject property meets all program requirements but is simply excluded due

to location. Additionally, creation of the special treatment area uh staff believes better meets the goals, policies and texts of the general plan by promoting economic development and allowing the property owner to increase the agricultural viability of his property. With that, staff welcomes any input and feedback on the project. And this concludes staff's presentation. Thank you. With that, we bring it back to the commission. Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Deal? Yeah. How many participants are there total in the pilot program to date?

No operators have um obtained any permits for that program as of date. So, the pilot program has no data of any sort anywhere at this point in time. That is staff's understanding. Yes. Okay. Um and in this case we have you talked has this project been brought to the agricultural advisory committee for their thought?

Uh staff was planning to do that at their February um meeting. Unfortunately that will be um all general plan amendments must be referred to the planning commission for recommendation in February. Um unfortunately the next available agricultural advisory committee meeting is just the day after the planned commission date. So staff is recommending to bring it there but it would be post planning commission recommendation but prior to the board of supervisors consideration.

Huh. We should talk about that because I would certainly appreciate the input from the agricultural advisory committee on this matter. It seems really uh since it's the only pilot program application that we are moving forward with at all seems to be of pretty strong importance.

Stuff can independently obtain um hopefully the agricultural commissioner's input on it um rather than being referred to the uh and or andor in addition to being referred to the agricultural advisory committee. But um staff does apologize for the unfortunate timing on that. Would there be an action we could take to postpone consideration of general plan amendments uh in this particular round to the to a meeting that follows the A advisory committee. potentially the planning commission could consider um the item in late February and continue it to a date certain to then allow the agricultural advisory committees um meeting at the next date. Um or staff can also um consider a special work with the agricultural commissioner's office to see if a special meeting prior to February 25th can occur. From my point of view, one of those options would be really helpful because we know that's the discussion that uh is going to be, you know, most relevant to this consideration having heard it before. Um, and just want to check my math. So, we're talking about a little less than half an acre,

correct? Ground. So, the special treatment area would be for a small area of about what what's the lot size that we're talking about? the subject uh parcel is approximately 120 acres. Um and the draft language does apply to the entire assessor's parcel number. So the 120 acres, but it um staff could um modify the language to make it very specific to

No, that I didn't mean that at all. Um I'm just mindful of the long prohibitions against what we used to call spot zoning. um in terms of enshrining something in the zoning ordinance that applies to a single parcel for a single reason, we're often cautioned to take that very very seriously uh and have a really overriding reason to to do such a thing. I mean, separate from this consideration about this use.

Understood. And and to clarify, a special treatment area does not modify necessarily the underlying zoning or land use uh designations, but it is additive to it as it's um a policy in the it would be a policy in the general plan, but understood on the concerns. Thank you. The commissioners, Commissioner Gomez, the I guess cannabis cultivation is considered agriculture, right? Correct. Okay. And the the only other question I had to do that I have is relates to water use. The water supply would come directly from that parcel too. Correct. Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Hartell, this special treatment area runs with the entire parcel. So if Mr. Cummings were to sell that parcel but not the surrounding 14, it would still be an allowed use. Correct. Um staff and can staff can come back with this in February. Um, assessor's parcel numbers don't always indicate legal lots of records. So, this parcel may be a part of a larger couple hundred acre property that he owns, but that can we can research that and come back. But, uh, to your question, hypothetically, if this individual parcel was a legal out of record and separately sold, uh, future owners would benefit from the same special treatment area.

Thank you. I'd love to see that next time we Commissioner Deal. So, it's a little little convoluted. So, the purpose of considering this would be to allow this to be part of the pilot program or part of an ongoing operation completely separate from any consideration in the pilot program scope.

It would be separate from the pilot program. Uh staff is not recommending that the pilot program be modified to include a single property. Um instead staff is recommending that a special treatment area be applied that considers the requirements of the pilot program without enforcing them um and allowing the operator to operate independent of uh the pilot program's existence or not. So that would mean that this individual person could grow up to half an acre of cannabis outdoors in perpetuity

regardless of anything else that happened with the uh zoning land use side. I suppose there could certainly be licensing or other sorts of issues that might apply. Correct. There's licensing locally and through the state, but that is correct. is and there is no place else in the county that would have a similar situation anywhere.

There could be um I think at this time this is the only operator who has sought a path forward to legalize a cannabis operation. Um again I think there was some input from the commission back in 2021 to research the viability of expanding the program to the central Selenus Valley area plan. However, that is not uh was not I I don't believe any formal direction is yet to occur and again the pilot program is set to expire unfortunately this summer. Okay. Well, let me have some thoughts about it now that we've clarified it, but I'd like to hear if anybody else has thoughts about it as well. Commissioner Gomez.

Yeah, I think that raises the issue that you brought up earlier. I think it makes even more sense to delay the vote on it in light of the fact that it's not part of the pilot program to wait to hear from Apac. Commissioner Deal. Yeah, I don't know if there's any public comment that we'd like to take in about that before we come back and talk. And I I would like to speak a little about both applications at that time.

Okay. Thank you. So with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on if the agent or owner of this particular item come and address the commission or present your information. Go ahead. I'm up. Go ahead and thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is John I am the applicant for PLN 1 190243. The HCD has into gone into great detail as far as water and things of that nature are concerned. Environmental concerns. So I ask you all to refer to that. I want to be very clear with everybody here that I was instrumental in the uh the development or the start of the outdoor pilot program from ground from the ground up. Unfortunately, as you all know, the central or district 3 was not included in it. Regardless of that, I still did um uh I'm not sure if the terminology is correct, but I I I applied for and was given PLN 190243. Took a number of years to try to get the pilot program amended and then I was advised to uh set up or start the special treatment area accommodation. So, I'm here today to answer any questions or I could do that through the uh uh HCD and at the end of today I'd like to make a special uh recommendation statement and thank you statement but uh I'll I'll wait for that. Thank you.

Okay. Uh thank you. With that I bring it back to see if the commissioners have any questions. Commissioners commissioner work.

Yeah. Could you um if you were instrumental in the um the first round, is was the hemp and cannabis part of the same program, the pilot program, or was it just cannabis? It let me put it this way. In in 2012, I had a family member that was diagnosed with um breast cancer for her treatment. She wanted to use cannabis as part of her her treatment process, but she couldn't find any clean cannabis. So, I went to a dispensary in Santa Cruz in 2013 and asked the folks there for some if they could locate some clean product. They eventually found product out of um Humbled and um I would go back periodically and pick up product for her. The company owner asked me if I would ever consider growing cannabis and I looked at him like he had four eyes and the answer, "You got to be kidding me." I told him about myself and where I lived and my property and he asked me if I would ever consider growing it on my property. He says at that time there was a initiative called the California state um correct me if I'm wrong here uh medical marijuana initiative which allowed folks to grow a product for medical reasons. I decided to start growing or cultivating cannabis under the California medical marijuana initiative. I supplied a dispensary or distributor in in Sand City. I grew product or cultivated a product from 2014 to 2020. At near the end of the California initiative, the state made the indication that they

were going to turn regulations back over to the county to the various counties. I approached my district with the advice of the uh um chief of staff at that time who's now a supervisor. We started what was called the outdoor pilot program. And that's just me. I'm talking about all the folks of Big Su and and Kosawa and and that area. The program was developed. The requirements were extremely um tight. Once I looked at the requirements, I realized that I met and exceeded all of them except for my district and zoning. And here I am today. Thank you.

Any other questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Gomez, I know that other jurisdictions such as Santa Cruz County allow outdoor cultivation. What have you studied anywhere else? Have I studied outdoor cultivation any as far as me? Yeah. Yes. Excuse me for interrupting, sir. I'm a fifth fourth or fifth generation Monterey County resident. I have no no desire to move. I will not move. This is my home. Thank you, Commissioner Deal.

I would add San Bonito County allows it as well. Um, but more to the point um when you were involved in the uh in the pilot program discussions and I speak as a big sir resident. I have a lot of neighbors and and a lot of neighbors in Koshawa. And I note that the the pilot program has resulted in a a very ill feelings among those groups of people. see that feel that they were uh working very hard to accomplish a goal that was then made inaccessible to them because of the level of regulation and cost related to it. Um so my I am extreme extremely sympathetic on two counts. One of them is that in my sense that the pilot program has shown one thing very clearly which is that um it is it has pushed people back into the underground rather than allowing us to have the legal oversight and industry that actually can come forward into the daylight. And the second one is that I happen to work in San Bonito County on an operating outdoor cannabis grow growing farm and I'm quite familiar with what the operations look like and uh what exactly is required by them. So u from my point of view what's been happening with cannabis here has been extremely arduous for anybody attempting to do the right thing. And I just want to express my absolute appreciation for you to continue that the quest forward even though um the time taken has certainly done things to the potential market. I I just I I think that the fact that you're here sticking

with it after all this time is remarkable and and I do want to thank you for that. and um at the same time I'm a planning geek and the kind of a result that we're looking at here is from a planning perspective troublesome. So I I I want to express that to staff. I want to express that to the public and I want to express that to you is that from my point of view and I've been quite open about this. My preferred mechanism would be that to consider outdoor cannabis an agricultural operation consider it's adequately licensed and overseen by other entities and let the egg commissioner do its thing um and get it out of land use entirely. But I haven't been successful in that discussion throughout the many many years of it. So, it's just me speaking to you to say I I couldn't be more sympathetic. And I still have some recommendations, some reservations about the mechanism proposed in this case. It's not about the outcome. It's not about cannabis. It's about planning. Um, so I don't know that it's a question, but I did want to say it while you were there.

Thank you. May I comment on that? Sure. Go ahead. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. San Bonito County and some of the other counties. Uh, Santa Cruz, their outdoor is what I would call rowcrop outdoor. I've been involved with the agricultural business in Monterey County for decades and they have what's called rowcrop. My operation, we like to refer to it as outdoor mountain open air. It's not um it's not it's not involved, you know, in conjunction with the row crops. And I know that the planning or the agricultural committee that was a main concern and I understand that. I've been there before and I understand that. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh any other commissioners? Seeing none, thank you uh for the information and uh thank you you can go ahead and I guess there are no other questions. You can go ahead and sit and sit down. Thank you. Thank you.

And with that, is there anybody here uh in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular item? Hi, good morning. Michelle House. I currently serve as the cannabis program manager for the county of Mterrey. So, I just would like to say um I respect um commissioner some of the things you have said about big su and the fiery hoops as I call them that must be jumped in order to begin the work. So I want to acknowledge that publicly and understood. What I do want to say is I have been working with John over the last year. I've been in this position about a year and a half and I've been working with him over a year to help him realize his goal or mission. I currently serve as the regulator. I work very closely with the ad commissioner on other issues. He does not handle cannabis. I do from a regulatory standpoint. So my job is to ensure that once he has jumped through these hoops that my team will go out several times a year to ensure he's following the rules and regulations set forward by our um 7.9 which is the part that I regulate and then the department of cannabis control and make sure he's also in alignment with those rules and regulations and then the department of cannabis control will visit him periodically. So, as a regulator, if you have any questions, I can answer that.

Thank you. Uh, commissioners, any questions? Thank you. And you you can go. I don't see any. Oh, Commissioner Gomez. I guess oftentimes this change in policy comes at the direction of the board of supervisors. Is there is there any uh any uh any any thoughts at all by the current board about expanding cannabis cultivation to uh beyond the the uh green houses since Monterey County? I haven't heard anything. Just checking.

Sure. So the board historically had moved forward with the outdoor pilot and it is true that the outdoor pilot project does expire in June and we would go back to the board if so. Um and remember I as I said regulator and I serve also um as part of a team to the cannabis committee. So, all of these things would move from cannabis committee to the board if we are um and I would work with Craig Spencer because I do not um regulate outdoor in that way. In other words, I'm the regulator, but that ordinance for pilot is not under my wheelhouse, if that makes sense. I'm the regulator of all things rules and rigs um for cannabis. I would work with Craig to move it forward. If the board has a flavor for extending, then we would. So, I am beginning conversations with Craig and HCD to see if we are going to move it forward. I think that's what your answer is is, are we going to extend beyond June 30 at the outdoor?

Okay. Commissioner Deal. All right. Um, I'm gonna not speak like a regulator. I'm going to speak like a citizen representative here. Perfect.

The political reality of this is that the outdoor growing community worked very hard, felt they had achieved some traction and were put into a situation where the outcome was publicly yes, we're going to try this and practically it's going to be impossible for anybody to do. So, we've now shut them up for several years and said, "Yeah, yeah, we we hear you. Yeah, yeah, we're going to do what you want to do." But prevented them from in fact actually doing it. So, the question of discerning the political will is kind of complicated here. We can't figure out whether anybody actually means what they appear to have said because the outcomes would indicate that that is not what they wanted to have happen. In the meantime, we've had a loss of almost a whole generation of folks in big su who were expecting to make a living out of this. We've had a number of young people who thought they might be able to hold up there and make a make a go of it. Had to move out um with that and the fires and situations that occur in that in that neck of the woods. Koshawa the same way. Kosawa has experienced a bunch of environmental difficulties with the fires there. Um, so people are experiencing actual disillusionment on a scale that I think has not been voiced as often or as publicly as it should be. I know the cannabis committee has these discussions, but it is no longer a place where folks who feel this way feel comfortable and feel that their voices are going to be heard. So I don't know what the way forward is. And I consider this particular case to be the the uh the the people that have given it the most thought, an effort, a a herculean effort to try to write a wrong um and perpetuate a little bit of justice in a

place where it has not been perpetuated. But it's a one-off. And unless we have some way of saying this person u it was appropriate to be heroic to help solve the injustice in this case and nobody else was. I have trouble with that and I just think people should say this more often because uh we said we were going to help a whole bunch of people and we didn't help them and they now no longer believe that an effort to try to do anything to get themselves on the right side of the law is worth it. So we pushed them out of the trailer. We no longer we no longer serve those people in the same way that we used to. And while I would welcome the opportunity to serve anybody at this point, uh discussion of a pilot program that has been successful in deterring any outdoor cultivation in the county of Monterey strikes me as an abject failure and should certainly um from the point of view of practicality not be considered a program so much as a barrier. So I know that's again I work on a working row crop high high uh volume for cannabis farm in San Bonito County among my other things that I do and I myself uh from that experience cannot see why this is such a big darn deal. I mean, it it isn't an it's not as much of an impact as garlic, which takes forever. Um, so I'm sorry to to like be that, but somebody's got to be the voice for the people who no longer have a voice. And um my background in that in in this whole thing comes from a place where the one thing that I wanted out of the cannabis regulations in Monterey County was a pathway for people to become legal participants in the economy and stop running outdoor illegal grows

in the back country covered over with machine guns and pesticides um threatening the lives of me and the people I care about because we wandered into the wrong canyon. um cutting up the enforcement used to come in and cut up all the illegal irrigation and just throw the plotter pipe down into the creek. We've got snags that are still held together by uh leftover irrigation pipes. My promise was we were going to go legal so that it was no longer practical and economic for these illegal operations to occur. that was going to get them out of the back country and help the people who wanted to do this and have been doing it for that matter for generations become parts of our community who were legal. None of that has eventuated. This particular program in particular is seen as a fraud and a and a actual ploy. Um and so yeah, I I don't like it. I I think that's more than abundantly clear. And we have someone here who's gotten all the way to this point that we're trying to help. But why didn't we help anybody else? I mean, why about what about the numbers of people who originally applied to be part of this program and then fell out because they couldn't deal with all the fiery hoops as you said. Um, anyway,

I appreciate this is feedback about this the the thought of this. We're not actually in the hearing on the understood. I would be happy to speak with you offline around ideas and the fiery hoops. Um, as I said, I have been here a year and a half, so I'm witnessing what I see now. And I have ideas and things to think about that, as I said, would have to be shared with Craig Spencer as this is in his wheelhouse. And my philosophy is never say never. We don't know what could happen and what could be, but I would be happy to speak with you offline if you wish wish to.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? The chair. May I respond? I I'm actually less interested in speaking offline than I am in speaking in public in front of people. Um I'm not an expert in what the rules for cannabis should be or what the history has been. Yeah. The

But unfortunately, we've alienated all the experts that we didn't have. So, um, from what I can gather, the fiery hoops have to do with the land and water and other issues that again are not under me for, shall we say, um, the regulation piece. It's the blocks that come with the land use and working with HCD and those involved in planning and other departments because they have to move through the to clear the property of of things for land use

and that is not under my house shall I say. Um I'm not a planner. So thank thank you. Any other information from the commissioners? Uh, Madam Secretary.

Yeah. And if I may just for this item through the chair. Um, so you know I I think at this time um it's speculative there. HCD has not received any direction to discuss or consider um extending the um soon to expire pilot program. That does not mean it cannot come on the edge. But regardless, the decision um kind of the pre-conultation here is for a special treatment that would allow for cannabis outdoor cultivation and a limited extent with or without a pilot program in general. So, just reminding the commission that that is actually what is before us today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

You're welcome. Yeah. Uh oh, did you have a question? I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Hartzell. Oh, did you have a question or I don't have a question for the public hearing. I have a question for staff. So, I can wait until you move to that. Okay. And and thank you. Now, uh with that, is there anybody here um anybody else in the chambers that would like to address this particular item? Seeing none, is there anybody via Zoom or any emails that would like to address this particular item? PLN190243.

We have no emails and no additional um hands up on Zoom. And if I may go back um I think I missed a uh a step on PLN 2550139. Is there anybody via Zoom or any emails on on PLN250139 that would like to address the commission on that particular item? No hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

Thank you. Now that we've addressed both, uh the staff have any other comments or information? Not not at this time. Thank you, chair. Thank you. So, with that, we'll bring it back to the commissioners uh for the different options. Commissioner Deal, Commissioner Hartzell's holding a question for staff. Oh, Commissioner Commissioner Hartell,

could you give me I know you went through this and it's in my packet, but one more time, why was district 3 left out of the pilot program? uh from listening to the the uh planning commission's hearing back in uh I think it was April um of 2021. Um it there was a time constraint to consider the ordinance statutoily exempt that was upcoming. Um so that appeared to have pushed the the decision um in light of not having then adequate time to research the pesticide drift that may occur in the central Selenus Valley. Um so there was an effort to find it statutoily exempt um given some other time constraints really. Um and then there were broader concerns about the potential crop incompatibility in the central Soyus valley given the um typical agricultural uses there that are maybe different than the other planning areas that were considered in the pilot program and that needed more time than what could be accomplished to still find the ordinance statutoily exempt if that makes sense. And if we were going to ask for input on those factors, the agricultural commission or committee would be the right place to get that.

Correct. Um during that hearing, the a commissioner said absent any very specific planning area research, he suggested that a two-mile buffer around ag uh cannabis cultivation could be appropriate. Um, this property I believe is a a mile just over a mile and a half from any other nearby sensitive receptors as the property owner owns the majority of the surrounding land. You still have the floor. Thanks.

Um, and just could you give me clarity on both of these amendments? What is the standard that we're going to be asked to consider them under? The items will be um referred back to the commission in February um next month. And for a general plan amendment to be considered, it must uh demonstrate that it's not in conflict with uh any goals, policy, and and objectives of the general plan other than those proposed to be amended, and that there is substantial evidence demonstrating either there's an error or oversight in the general plan. There's a clear change in facts or circumstances, or the amendment better carries out the goals and policies of the general plan.

And in the case of the Lockwood, that's correcting an error. And in the case of the special treatment zone, what which one are we putting it under?

Um, Stuff believes there there could be a change in facts or circumstances given kind of the fruition of the the pilot program. Um, and the clear applicability to other a single property that can't be considered. Um, and potentially carrying out uh better carrying out the goals and policies of the general plan, increasing agricultural viability on a large ranch. My only feedback on that would be when we hear this again, I'll want to like pull out and trot out the standard that we're applying to the facts of the particular changes. Um, and I'll probably ask a lot of questions about that. Commissioner War,

um, I'm curious about the rowcrop um, operations. Did they have to get a special treatment plan for their zoning? That's the part I'm having trouble with is would it have be easier just to say add the open canopy to the rowcrop policy or whatever so it would just tie in so it could just deal with the eye commissioner because I'm having a hard time this being a planning issue. I agree with Mrs. Dal on that. I just don't uh seems like an egg thing to me.

Understood. Um the county zoning ordinance title 21 does regulate outdoor cannabis cultivation. Um and given those existing regulations um and the lack of applicability to this project is why it continues to be a land use um function as well as a title 7 um or cannabis related regulations. Um so yeah, the the exceptions potentially through a special treatment area um are con can be considered to allow properties to amend um certain regulations that may not be applicable to them or establish certain regulations.

So is that probably what San Bonito County did? I'm just curious if say that particular place that she works, did they have to get a special treatment to grow there? I'm not familiar with San Bonito County requirements. I can speculate if the commission desires. I I'll take a speculation. Um, I presume it may not just be regulated through their zoning ordinance versus the county has established regulations for outdoor cannabis control in the zoning ordinance.

I think if I may through through the chair, um, certainly staff when bringing this forward could provide some context for what this looks like in in surrounding jurisdictions. Uh, fundamentally, however, in the way that Monterey County has chosen to regulate and um, excuse me,

do we stop or since we don't have a quorum right now, I don't know. We only got So, we're going to take a a five minute recess and then we'll be back in about five or so minutes. Thank you.

break. So, with that, we're going to go ahead and uh I'm sorry. Oh, but no, he's still on. Yeah, he's still on. Oh, but the the six commissioners that were present before the break are are still here. So, with that, we're going to go ahead and start and will madam secretary continue with your information.

Uh, thank you, chair. I think all I was saying prior to the break was just was just um yes staff can look at the regulatory structure in other areas, but regardless the way in which cannabis has been established here, regulations for cannabis here in Monterey County, it is handled through land use um and allowed through land use. And therefore uh this is an avenue uh to do so that is perhaps different from other um from other how other counties have handled it. Sorry, I was just asking here if this was uh an item for action or if it was a preliminary. So, uh was that I'll ask uh uh commissioner deal.

Thank you. um when it comes back before us, one of the things we often find in these kinds of situations is we have to make a finding that this is not a grant of privilege to one property especially. In other words, it's not just and not everybody else. I forget the wording of it. Um so that idea is what I am struggling with with respect to a special treatment area. We'd want special circumstances clearly delineated that would make sure we weren't and it's hard because we kind of are um doing something for one person that wouldn't be the case for everybody anywhere in a similar situation. What we're doing is we we're we're circumventing the zoning consideration or the regulatory situation that included this kind of zoning. But that's a finding. So if it comes back forward, it would be important to explore that. I think make sure you staff know the one I mean I I can't remember the words for it. I think what I think what Commissioner D you're referring to is actually a finding for a variance for zoning which is different from the findings that need to be made um for general plan amendments. Um and those are um so those are very specific and perhaps if um it would be helpful Miss Jensen could share that slide again in terms of the specific circumstances that need to be met and findings need to be made to support um for a general plan amendment.

Always. Thank you. If uh HDM my left can please be shared. Thank you. God bless you. You're still searching or

uh Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. I appreciate that those are the statutory requirements. Um, I guess what I'm saying is I also have the concern that we don't make general plan amendments based on individual situations randomly. It's it we need to know how this would be it even if it's not in there. Um, I don't know. Well, I look forward to seeing the discussion of the u change in facts and circumstances that we feel would be the reasoning behind this u application going forward. Um and that being the case from my point of view it would be vital to have the input from the agriculture agricultural advisory committee to determine whether they believed that was the case as well. Um I would also with that in mind say that input towards the change in circumstances would be really important and also point out that because of the way things are there's not a strong factbased experience in the agricultural advisory committee with respect to the cultivation of cannabis outdoors. So when we do receive the information back from that group, I think it would be important to remember that some of the concerns that were expressed in earlier discussions came from the perspective of those on the A advisory committee uh who have other operations who had concerns related to what the impacts of cannabis might be on them up to and including um concerns by people who were interested in growing hemp that cannabis

might contaminate their product with a with too much THC that they would then have to have their product condemned. uh people who were growing wine that were concerned that the odor of cannabis might impact their wine production and the the pesticide drift issue was and I I do want to say this publicly because it's been it comes across as if cannabis is a project a product that requires a lot of pesticides and for the most part in my experience it is entirely almost or all entirely I certainly my knowledge entirely very controlled with respect to organic chemicals that can be used in its production. It's entirely because of the use of it uh kept super clean. this pesticide drift problem and it came forward in the egg advisory committee previously was that if some other operator growing some other crop was using pesticides and those drifted onto the cannabis crop, the cannabis crop would have to be condemned because it wouldn't be clean enough and the person whose pesticide drifted onto the cannabis would have to pay for it and cannabis is really expensive. So just the perception is really important for people to understand. It's not the impact of the crop itself. It's the concern on people around it of things that might affect them mostly economically. So when we're talking land use, we need to be aware that we're talking land use. When a advisory committee is talking about agricultural operations, we need to be cognizant of their perspective which at the moment has not been been run through a filter that contains a strong voice for what cannabis actually is in it. So, um yeah, I'm advocating for my position.

And I always do that, but I just want to make sure that when our staff is speaking carefully and correctly, as they always do, uh the impression isn't left that the the operation itself is responsible for negative impacts in those areas uh that we know of. Um with, you know, so when we're talking about a buffer, that's not what the buffer is about. Uh when we're talking about the distance off another crop, that's not what we're talking about. It's not because the cannabis does something. It's because of other people's fear of what cannabis would do to them. Um, and not the product, but their operation. Um, I don't know if that's makes any sense and I I don't know that it's absolutely relevant here, but it it it affects my thinking about it and I just want to at this discussion phase make sure that we're as broad in our conversations as we can be to set the the context for how we look at this coming forward. And I tell you from the cannabis perspective um it it is not our business but from the land use perspective the mechanism is our business and that's the problem for me.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing none, uh, Commissioner Gomez, I'm going back. This is more of a procedural question about this amendment because there's one I think it's clear just a correction, right? I I want to make sure that we could take two separate actions, right? Maybe one on the original uh first recommendation that came before us and the second one bring back in terms of a a decision. I just want to get guidance from our attorney or from Melissa here

if I may. I think I think so again today is today is a preliminary consideration. So there's no direction. Staff and applicants hear the conversation, the questions, the input from the commission. Um and then that informs uh when we do formally bring forward uh the proposed general plan amendments. Uh I would say that we've gotten a lot of good we and we in this case are hearing the feedback specific to each item. Um, and so I think I would just request that for the commissioners if they do have any other additional thoughts or considerations that they want to be sure that are taken into consideration as these items are processed and subsequently um considered to come back before the planning commission for recommendation to the board. Uh, now would be that time, but there's no formal recommendation or action today.

Okay. Any other commissioners? Uh, with that, I guess this item will be brought back in February and then at that point you'll go ahead and make a decision one way or the other um based on either STE recommendations or commissioner thoughts. Uh, with that we go to other matters and I don't believe we have any other matters at this point but we go to the department report. Uh, thank you. Yeah, the first item under department report is the referral matrix and I would just like to um note a couple of items on the commission's referral matrix. Um so as as I do I have made any changes or updates uh consistent with bold to help those jump out at you all. Um specifically I wanted to flag that give me one second. There it is. um referral. So it's line 13 referral 24.7 which is um a report regarding the process for consideration of enacting a moratorium on new visitor serving units in the big s coastal lup pending comprehensive update of the big sir lup. Um so staff has provided an update and at this time um the staff is recommending that the definitions of a rustic campground and consideration for those facilities are appropriate are appropriately to be addressed through the big LUP update. um and that an interim interpretation or

moratorum or other is not the appropriate mechanism and therefore would suggest that we deem that complete and or transfer that uh that referral for tracking the definition of rustic campgrounds in particular to that uh to the update of the big star lup process. So I just wanted to flag that one. Um and then also uh for oh and Mr. Getsman you're welcome to rejoin us on the dis. So for the record I'm sure the chair would say let it reflect that m commissioner getsman is back on the dis as well for this item. Um so for line 14 um referral 24.8 which is information and status regarding regulations and enforcement to curb unpermitted food vendors. So, I wanted to flag that the Environmental Health Bureau um does plan to bring forward to the board of supervisors a discussion um on February 3rd for this item um providing an update and I believe requesting additional resources to provide for enforcement um um in particular of some of the uniqueness related to unpermitted food vendors in the county. Uh so staff would just like to provide that as a verbal update. I will note that um the planning commission a letter has not been formally prepared. Um I would ask if or just note that should the commission wish to prepare any kind of short note or a formal uh letter to the board for its consideration for the third um it would be a short turnaround time but it could be submitted as a public comment if desired. Um, otherwise, uh, I'm happy to reach out to the Environmental Health Bureau staff just to make sure that

they, um, that they make a point to reference, uh, this referral and the commission's general consensus support for, uh, resources to, um, curb unpermitted food vendors. Thank you. Any comments, uh, questions from the commission? Commissioner Deal?

Yes, thank you. Uh, I want to talk about line two where the staff proposes to bring back a comprehensive disaster recovery note and just clarify that what my what my uh referral was about. Um, and I was responsible for the wildfire rebuild section of that referral. My referral is asking for the number of structures that have were lost in wildfires since 2015. the status of rebuilds including um any applications the status of any applications and the number of completed rebuilt structures and so that's for all wildfires countywide 2015 to present and I the reason for the the information in my mind was intended to inform a conversation around streamlining rebuilding processes to help people who find themselves in that situation. So just a comment that says, "Oh yeah, well we lost some pe some things and we have had x number of rebuilds wouldn't provide the information that was going to be useful. We need a little more granular data to understand where if any there might be a place to make it easier for people in that case that may or may not apply to the disaster recoveries from floods. I think the general principle certainly has some bearing, but I don't know that the specifics would be necessarily the same.

If I may, for clarification, if I may, Chair, go ahead. Um, for clarification, do you prefer that we not combine the two or simply be mindful as to the differences of diff the nature of different types of disasters? Um I think staff's staff's impression staff's thinking is there are some processes that are common to any disaster and then there are unique unique steps and processes and barriers depending on the nature of the disaster. So is there is there a concern with combining them as long as we maintain the uniqueness of the different type of disasters

through the chair? I guess what I don't have any particular you know dog in the fight of how you present the information but what I'm looking for is to pinpoint potential roadblocks for you know facilitating these things. So however that is most easily circled around that would be helpful but a support that says oh we have this many applications this many are incomplete or these that doesn't help what I need to know is what's the holdup you know if somebody and and it may be in some cases that people haven't applied because they don't think it's going to work I want to know all that stuff so however you choose to present it is fine with me if you think there are commonalities and those roadblocks can be discerned um collectively ly, that's great. More that more we can fix in one fell swoop, that's, you know, fine with me. I just we've had a couple reports that didn't get at the meat of my concern and I'm just trying to get ahead of that and say this is really what I I'm trying to accomplish, the outcome I'm looking for is a discussion of what do does this information tell us? So a report, drop it on the table, put it in the addendum is not really the answer. The answer is an agendaized item that says we've discovered these issues and we have thoughts, recommendations, concerns or maybe none about what we could do to make things better. In my perceptive perception, things are not good. So I would prefer they were better. Staff will make a point to be very outcome oriented with the report for pinpointing specific opportunities or areas where improvement can or could be should be made. Thank you.

Particularly where those include the planning commission doing something. Okay. Any uh other commissioners? Seeing none, then we're going to have a public comment on the department uh reports. Uh is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission and the items so discussed? Seeing nobody coming forward then uh is there anybody via Zoom or emails that would like to address the commission regarding this particular items discussed uh under department report.

We have no emails and no hands up on Zoom. Thank you. Other than that uh

Go ahead. Yeah, just a couple couple other brief department report items. Um, one I just wanted to alert the planning commission that we have staff has sent notice and does plan to bring forward amended draft vacation rental ordinances at its February 11th meeting. Um and uh just a reminder that uh land use fees update is scheduled to go before the board at its February 3rd meeting uh which is just coming up next week as well. Um the other I did just want to loop back and just to close the loop formally with regard to the discussion of um Luax. So, um, if I may, I would just like to share my screen so we can close the loop and get everyone on the same page with regard to, uh, LUAC and quorum requirements. So, um, are we able to share and see the broadcast for Zoom being shared? Perfect. Thank you. Um so according to the to the guidelines for land use advisory committees so correctly as miss as commissioner deal did say the LUAC must consist of not fewer than five members and not more than nine. So in any circumstance where we have fewer than five members, those are where um the LUAC is not in should not convene, does not have sufficient membership to take a collective consideration and action. Um and then a quorum is the simple majority of all the members at any given time. So as long as they have five, not more than nine, the

quorum is the simple majority of the number of members at that time. Thank you. Are those all the department reports? Uh any comments, questions from commissioners? Seeing none, then I'm going to go ahead and have a public comment on this particular items. Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular items? Seeing no one in the chambers coming forward, is there anybody via Zoom or email uh emails that would like to address the commission on the last aforementioned uh information?

There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails. Thank you. With that then uh this uh plan county of Monterey planning commission meeting is now adjourned at 11:18 a.m. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful rest of the day.