Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, good morning um everyone. Welcome to the County of Monterey Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2026. And with that, we're going to go ahead with um uh pledge of allegiance. and Commissioner Getsman, would you please 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, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Commissioner Gestelman. With that, we move on uh to the next agenda item, which is uh roll call. Could we please go ahead and have roll call? Good morning. Commissioner Getsman here. Commissioner Hartzell here. Commissioner Gonzalez here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Monsal here. Commissioner Gomez here. Commissioner Roberts here. Commissioner Shaw here. Commissioner Mendoza here. Commissioner Deal is absent today. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you. With that, um I guess the the next piece uh here would be that um this would be the time for Madam Secretary to inform um the public if they would like to address the commission um via Zoom or via emails. Yeah, thank you chair. Um, yeah, thank you for joining us today. Uh, if you are participating with us and are not here in chambers, uh, you can find the link for today's Zoom meeting on the agenda. It's also on the slide. Um, if you are joining to participate via the Zoom platform and you want to provide public comment at those points during our meeting, you can on your Zoom platform down at the bottom of your screen, look for the raise hand icon in the reactions button. You can raise and lower your hand. On a mobile line, press star 9 to raise and star9 to lower your hand. Another way to participate in today's meeting is to send an email to PCharing comments at county of Monteray.gov. We do monitor that email during the meeting and try to capture any comments that come through that though there is always a chance that we may miss something. Um members of the public, when it is public comment and you do have your hand raised and you are um acknowledged by the chair, you will be given the option to unmute yourself at that time on your Zoom platform. At the bottom, look for the microphone button. Click it on, click it off for mute and unmute. And if you are on a landline or a telephone mobile phone, you press star six to mute and star six to unmute. We also the planning commission happily continues its pilot of uh Wordley. We are continuing that. Yes. Okay. Ofly,

which is um an auto uh a real time live translation tool. Uh you can scan the QR code that is on the screen and or go to the web page that is down on the bottom left. It will take you to the wordly prompt for today's meeting. And once you're in that wordly prompt, uh go ahead and pick the language for translation that you need and you'll get subtitles um live translated for today. You'll also if you're here in chambers, you'll see that translation on one of our screens up front as well. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. With that, um, we're going to move on to public comments. And this is a time set aside for the public to comment on a matter that is not on the agenda. Again, this would be um for a comment that or p a matter that is not on the agenda. With that, is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission? Seeing no one, is there anybody via phone, Zoom, or any emails uh that would like to address the commission?

There are no new emails and no hands up on Zoom. Thank you. With that, we move on to um agenda additions, deletions, and corrections. For the record, we received and distributed an IATA memo from staff and additional correspondence for agenda item number nine, ref2500042, ref2500043, amend vacation rental ordinance.

Thank you. And uh moving on to the next uh agenda item. Uh this is for commissioner comments, requests and referrals. And 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, seeing no one, then we move on to approval of consent calendar. And I believe that's uh items one to six. And so, uh, commissioners, uh, is there anybody in the of the commissioners that would like to either pull or address or comment on any of the six items? See? Oh, Commissioner Roberts,

I guess the only thing um I'd like to ask um Sorry, I was reading um public comments. Um, we're talking about the resignations and right I would I would just like to ask that we send letters of appreciation to each of the members who have resigned. I know at least the ones in my areas have are longstanding and um would like to recognize their um contribution to to the county.

Okay. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and uh open for public comment. Is there anybody um in the chambers that would like to either pull one of these items or address any of this items? Seeing no one in the chambers, is there anybody via phone, email, or Zoom that would like to address any of those six? Um there are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails. Thank you. Uh with that, we would need a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar with a modification.

So moved. Uh Commissioner Gomez made the motion. Commissioner Mendoza uh make the second. Any other comments? Uh all those in favor of the motion so indicate by saying I. I. I.

Opposed. extension motion carries unanimously. So uh thank you again for all those uh com uh members the lug members that uh have provided that service. Uh moving on to approval and acceptance of the minutes and we have approval of the January 14 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Uh so do any of the commissioners want to pull that item or make any corrections or any information on this particular item? Seeing nobody in the commission, uh is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the approval acceptance of the minutes? Seeing no one in the chambers, is there anybody via phone, Zoom or emails that would like to address this particular item as far as the minutes are related?

There are no additional hands up on Zoom or no additional comments. Thank you. Thank you. We move on to scheduled matters and that's item number eight. The county of Monterey Planning Commission. The planning commission will receive nominations from the planning commission nomination committee for a new commission's chair and vice chair and the commission will elect a new chair and vice chair for 2026. Um commission uh commissioner Gomez, would you like to give us your ch chair? My colleague ad advises me that there was no action taken on the minutes. Oh,

we need to come back and vote on the minutes before we go to the minutes. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Well, we can go back to that one. Um, so we uh we would need a a motion and a second for approval and acceptance of the minutes. Okay. Uh we have a motion by Commissioner Monsalv and a second by Commissioner Gomez. Uh any other comments on this particular item? All those in favor of the motion so indicate by saying I. I.

Uh post abstension. Motion carries. Apologize for that. Seems like I was racing through this one. Anyways, we move on to the uh schedule matters and the county of Monterey Planning Commission and Commissioner Gomez, would you like to give us an update?

Sure. Uh the chair gave me the honor to chair the uh committee on uh nominations. A committee on nominations included myself uh uh board member Deal and the chair. Our committee is recommending that we uh appoint uh Commissioner Gelman as the chair and Commissioner Roberts as the vice chair for this upcoming year. I'd like to turn that into a motion.

Okay. Thank you. We have u a motion to accept um Commissioner Gelman as the chair and Commissioner Roberts as the vice chair. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Monsalves seconds the motion. All those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying I. I. Opposed abstensions. Motion carries unanimously. And with that, thank you, sir. Thank you very much for a for a great year. I guess we'll have to change places now, right? Crazy.

Briefly, I just wanted to chair, I just wanted to thank you for serving as chair. You're very efficient. You did a great job and we appreciate your service here. I know sometimes it's a thankless job, but I know we're making a big difference for our community here in Monterey County. So, thank you. Thank you. It's uh all a team effort.

Chair uh Gzelman. So I will be presenting the next item. So we need to have a transition moment and

we need a transition moment. Okay. Very good. All right. Thank you uh Chair Gonzalez. That was very nicely put and I appreciate your service and I want to thank the my fellow commissioners for having at least enough confidence in me to take on the chair for this next year. Thank you. So we will have a brief transition moment. Uh is there anyone going to Oh okay. Oh goodness. Let me get settled in here.

Thank you very much. Now I'm official. Commissioner Shaw, thank you. I don't know if this is the right time to ask this, but um I'm just curious if anyone else is interested in moving agenda item 10 before agenda item nine because I think we're going to be like in the weeds on nine for quite a while. Well, um we can talk about that. Fellow commissioners, do you have any thoughts on that? My thought is the people who are here probably showed up to do that. I mean to do this item first, but fellow commissioners, any thoughts? Any other Yes, Commissioner Mosave. I would agree. And if we have everyone needed for item 10, I would like to hear that one first. Okay. Anyone else? Uh, Commissioner,

I think Steph's already ready to present on following items. So, yeah. Um, yes, if I may through the chair, so I'm sorry, I hopped out of secretary role to present, which is fine. I will go back if you'd prefer to do that. Um, I did just want to confer um happy to put that project first. Um I would like a little guidance then from the commission because based on the prior discussions we'd have the preference was to put the policy matters before project specific matters on our agendas um so that you all could be fresh for those. We are happy to do it as you will but just perhaps in um however you want to do today is fine and perhaps if then you all could think about just uh going forward direction as well for staff. We just want to make sure that the public and you all um

have the right agenda order that you're comfortable with. and I'm happy to to step out and allow you guys to hear that next item. Yeah. Thank you. Um I'd like to hear from a few more commissioners because my preference is also to do it first. Commissioner work, what what do you think first? First. Okay. First, Commissioner Artel, you have any feelings on this one? I defer. You defer an abstension on that end. Commissioner Shaw, we know what your feelings are. Commissioner Mosav, Commissioner Roberts. Uh, I'd like to hear it first. I think

Yeah. Okay. I think that's probably We have a majority then that would probably like to go forward the way we are. So, no more switching chairs. And Miss Beretti, are you ready to present? Okay. All set. Then let's do this, shall we?

Uh, thank you, chair and commissioners. Um, and thank you, Miss Jensen, for being secretary and, uh, stepping in there for this item. Um, Melanie Beretti, chief of planning for County Monterey, here to present before you today the item amended vacation rental ordinances, which is an agenda item number nine on your agenda. So, we're here today so you can hear uh convene a public hearing to consider a recommendation to the board of site uh supervisors considering an addendum together with the final impact report uh that was certified for the vacation rental ordinances. Uh recommendation to the board to adopt an ordinance amending title 7 uh sections related to regulations for vacation rentals. adopt a resolution of intent to adopt an ordinance amending title 20 uh sections related to regulations for coastal zone and to adopt an ordinance amending title 21 for uh sections related to inland vacation rental regulations. Uh I would like to just orient the commission and the public today. Uh the addendum is exhibit C to today's packet. The resolution as well as the clean versions of the draft ordinances presented to you today are all part of exhibit A. Um and then the uh clean regulations are subattachments to exhibit A. Uh there are also well I'll mention the other ones subsequently when we move along. All right. So, just to briefly recap, uh the county has adopted vacation rental regulations that became operative in both the inland and coastal areas countywide, unincorporated. Um and the phase out period for unpermitted

operations has passed both in the inland and the coastal zones. So, those are in full effect. Um and anyone who was not previously uh permitted should uh is now required to be in compliance with the new adopted regulations. I will refer to these adopted regulations as the adopted regulations today um or adopted ordinances to distinguish between the amended drafts that are before you. uh as a part of adopting those regulations, the county is subject to legal challenges and um and as one portion of one of those legal challenges effective December 12th of last year, the county did suspend from enforcement two provisions uh that are being challenged uh related to ownership provisions in the current adopted ordinances. Uh on January 6, the board held a workshop to consider the regulations as they are in effect and in context of um some of the provisions in those regulations and directed staff to bring back amended ordinances for consideration. So that is why we are here before you today. So staff understood the board's direction and overall intent of that direction on January 6th to be to strike a balance um that allows continued opportunity for residents of unincorporated Monterey County and property owners to benefit from the touris tourism economy uh through vacation rentals while ensuring that residential neighborhoods are protected from the loss of long-term housing and potential negative social and behavioral impacts of vacation rentals which are also referred to as uh in other arenas and elsewhere short-term and or transient rentals, rentals that are less

that are 30 days or fewer. So, specifically, the board directed that the staff bring back amended ordinances that prohibit vacation rentals in residential zoning districts with the exception that uh there be consideration in zoning districts. uh in residential zoning districts that do have commercial agricultural operations. Uh that is really the rule density uh residential zoning district that we're talking about today. Um also to provide a ministerial approval process for vacation rentals on lands with agricultural operations. So getting at that concept of helping to facilitate uh sort of farm stays and ways to to better support the egg industry. um through these amendments. Uh and then also specifically to maintain the unique neighborhood provisions that exist in the current regulations to carry those forward for exceptions uh for um neighborhoods that were entitled with the intent of being allowed managed short-term or transient rentals. Monterey Dunes Colony is the um kind of example that we use for that one. So my goal today is if it's all right with the commission is to walk through the entirety of what staff was trying to do, what staff is bringing forward in these amended ordinances and then allow questions and for the commission to come back and spend time on any of the specific provisions or changes as they happen. We can certainly do it otherwise. Uh but that would be staff's recommendation for the presention presentation today.

Fine with me. Oh, Commissioner Roberts, can I just ask one question before you start? Um I'm curious to know based on what you've told us the board directed us to do or directed staff to do um on the January 6 meeting. How much discretion do we have in what you're about to pres present us?

I mean, you as the planning commission need to be able to make a recommendation to the board of supervisors. I think we as staff would hope that that recommendation maintains the the integrity of the core recommendations that were provided by the board. I think as you'll see in these amended regulations uh there are many nuances that were not discussed at the board item at the board meeting and there are nuances that I think there would be value in. So how the commission chooses to uh do that um I you know I think we can maybe discuss once we go through the regulations. Yeah. Um, so, uh, yeah, please.

Oh, I didn't think, uh, Miss Beretti was finished. Commissioner Gomez. Yeah. I think it'd be helpful to really go over what the nuances are and be clear about those so that we could understand if there's any difference. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean either that we have to agree with it. Right. Well, and the nuances will be you will explain those as you go through this. Okay. Very good. Yes. Well, let's get started then.

Yeah. And I really want to emphasize the approach that staff took is we heard the direction the kind of highlevel very clear intent prohibit these in our residential zones and focus them in areas that are not core residential areas and also uh make it easier in in some circumstances because we think that's appropriate and such as agricultural uh sort of that vacation rental on egg lands. So that was really the core that we heard. Staff's approach was knowing that there would be many nuances when you're changing regulations that had been developed over time. We took the um most direct path working from the existing regulations to make as few but necessary amendments to put into effect that direction for the board uh in the simplest way possible. um that uh kind of allows for then relatively um seamless tinkering to refine it from there. So that was staff's attempt. We felt it was more important we get in front of policy makers with with this and have the discussion with the public and policy makers than spend too much time with a few of the nuances. But we think we did actually an okay job. So um so that was the approach that we took today and I will definitely flag key for what's changed and different. uh fundamentally in what's before you today as well as a couple of things that will maybe pop out um as you see how these look um potentially on the ground. So we did go through the um sorry if there are there other just

anyone else? No, let's get let's get started. Miss Brady, thank you.

Great. Um so one thing we did do is we really took a we really went through um and did a number of just clarifying edits and um amplifications clarifications in definitions as well as just some of the the terms throughout uh things that were either missed or with a different lens could be clearer. So there are throughout you'll see some clarifying edits in definitions as well as clarifying edits in some of the terms that remain. Um, we added in terms of being able to look at the the direction to consider allowing for agricultural operations that may be in residential zones, which again we're talking about rural density residential. Um, uh, we needed to add some agricultural definitions and some regulations around how that would go into effect. Uh also because we would now be looking at needing to carry forward the provisions for prior entitled prior permitted as and unpermitted item um vacation rentals that are now coming into compliance under the current regulations. We carry those phase out and um terms forward as well as establish new terms for if and when these new amended regulations were to go into effect that take into account everything that has been permitted or in motion with the current adopted regulations. Um we made uh um again largely because we are now proposing to prohibit in low density, medium density and highdensity residential. So those core residential zones uh we to simplify switched the occupancy limits from being a numeric count based on bedrooms uh with caps to really just being consistent with building health and safety laws. uh felt

that was um it is simpler, more consistent to enforce and um uh as well as uh the occupancy limits had more to do with some of those residential neighborhood impacts. So, uh we also explicitly prohibit events um and make it clear that should you wish to do an event that that would require approval through separate entitlement. Um and also we modify the regulations and add enforcement provisions for hosting platforms. So those are some of the details that we went through and uh did. I will also at this time note that we did include redline versions of the ordinances. There was a lot of markup in there so we understand it's a little hard to follow. Um but title 7 in its redline form is exhibit D. Title 20 is exhibit E. And title 21 is exhibit F. So just refreshing everyone what we are talking about for vacation rentals. So it's more it is essentially the same definition uh with just minor clarification. So it's the use by any person of residential property for transient lodging for re uh renumeration. So that actually was inadvertently left out with the prior definition. We've added that clarification in this one where the term of occupancy possession and tenency of the property by the person entitled to such occupancy uh for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or fewer counting portions of those calendar days. Vacation rental does not include these various things that already exist in our code. So that is the that is what we're talking about. Rentals of residential property for 30 consecutive days or fewer are vacation rentals. So very specifically, the draft ordinances before you prohibit

in low, medium, and highdensity residential zones. So there are no vacation rentals of any sort allowed in those zones in the amended draft ordinances um to put into effect the consideration of a uh potential egg properties that are not in farm or uh in other agricultural zones. Uh the amended draft proposed to allow vacation rentals in rural density residential as an accessory use to an agricultural use as well as um needing to be a vetted commercial agricultural operation. Um what this change in all areas is a reduction in all of the planning areas. This is a reduction of what was allowed with the exception of Carmel Valley. In Carmemell Valley, vacation rentals were already prohibited in rural density residentials. So in Carmel Valley, it's adding this back in with this limited use for agricultural lands in rural density residentials. Um and then of course focusing and allowing continuing to allow vacation rentals in commercial zone districts, visitor serving zoning districts as well as those agricultural zones. Um I will just show you what that means for the regulations. So um these are all of the zones that are allowed in the current adopted regulations. So we simply strike out those uh lowmedium high density residentials. We add the provision for residential uh rule density residential accessory to a use. Um and then all of the other zones we made no changes. Those zones continue to allow vacation rentals as they did previously. So, in again in an attempt to simplify and recognize that since we are no longer talking about core residential neighborhoods having vacation rentals, um it really naturally flowed that we

would uh kind of simplify the approach to um what currently we have as three types. the home stays, which is where the um owner uh and or the owner's um designated representative, as we've amended per a memo, per our memo, um can reside in that home while it's being rented. Limited vacation rentals, which are um three times or fewer a year on uh without anyone residing. Uh both of those currently are unlimited and they're ministerial only approvals. And then the commercial vacation rentals, which would be uh anything that's more frequent uh than three times per year uh or kind of falls out as um of the other definitions. And those are the discretion discretionary versions that require use inland and coastal development permit currently in our current regulations and are capped at 4% uh count of the total residential dwelling units by planning area. So that's what it is today. um the changes that are then proposed and as they come together with the various other definitional um clarifications and modifications that happen is essentially home stays now become hosted vacation rentals. So hosted means a vacation rental in which the operator occupies at least one bedroom while it's being rented. Um I'll note that home stays had restricted to owners that was a very in intentional decision through the policym um now hosted can be the operator that operator is defined as the owner or the person with the owner's permission to operate that vacation rental. So could um but that um for hosted vacation rental it still has to be the operator's primary residence. So, um they do have to live at least 183 calendar days per year in that um in that residence to qualify still for a home stay. Um we

also because this is no longer in residential zones. Uh it's in commercial and otherwise kind of more appropriate zones where you have uh more visitor use or other or commercial type operations. We removed the limit of one rental contract per 7 days. So, home stays in the current regulations can only have one rental contract per seven days uh in an effort to not have high turnover. Um we removed that limit to try to allow a little bit more capacity for a hosted vacation rental to be able to have more rental events uh because they're no longer in residential zones. Um I do want to note that in Big Su with the changes that happen. So currently in big su the only commercial vacations are not allowed in big su. However um home stays and limited vacation rentals are currently allowed in the big su planning area. With these changes big su now only allows hosted vacation rentals um and continues to not allow the more commercial version of um of um whole house rentals. So, we also the limited vacation rental and the commercial vacation rental, we simply merged into one single non-hosted category of vacation rental. So, if if this isn't a home in which somebody lives and it's just being rented as whole house rentals, it's a non-hosted vacation rental. And we have applied to those non-hosted vacation rentals that same 4% cap. So again, the cap is calculated based on all of the single family dwelling units in that planning area. Those numeric counts we're not proposing to change. We're just saying that cap can only be allowed in a more limited number of zoning districts. Um

and then uh those um now again because these are not in core residential areas, we made those non-hosted vacation rentals ministerial approvals uh because they're already in commercial visitor serving zones where that's uh where that is a more appropriate more typical uh consistent use. And please do interject if you do want to ask questions as I'm going through. Um, so in summary, what that looks like is for the inland areas, uh, hosted vacation rentals, again, everything's prohibited in those residential zones. Yes, allowed everywhere with the exception at the bottom in the coastal zone for big su uh in rural density accessory to agg and they are allowed in commercial and visitor serving as well as agricultural zones or those other zones such as watershed conservation and and uh uh that allow agriculture as a principally allowed use. Again, no change. We didn't add any districts. Those were just already the districts that were in there. So I did provide staff did provide a memo anata memo for today. Um what what is a little challenging is it's very clear we had the counts for how many uh single family dwelling or eligible dwellings um that are within the nonresidential zones. Uh so those numbers were uh easy to come by. we already had those counts. It was a little bit more tricky because RU by allowing rural density residential but having that limitation for it needing to be accessory to agriculture and being a vetted commercial agricultural use. Um we in the addendum to the SE in the SQA

addendum when we did those calculations we included all of the residential um single family dwellings within rule density residential to be very conservative for our addendum consideration for SQA. However from a policy perspective we know all of those are not in fact very few are actually uh active commercial agricultural operations in that rule density zone. So, the ORATA memo is what I did is I I presented um kind of a more nuanced policy uh clarification of what would be the allowable non-hosted vacation rentals prop in the proposed regulations. So this is in those limited zones only including rural density in kind of a proxy estimate of how many single family basically how many properties we can say today are commercial agriculture in those zones um compared to what would be allowed in compared to the approved regul regulations. So the left column is again the total number of single family dwellings by area that has remained unchanged throughout the process. Um the number of single family units allowed for these non-hosted vacation rentals at a 4% cap. Previously those were the commercial vacation rentals and the current adopted regulations. These numbers did not change. We're just carrying them forward. However, if you look at the actual zones in which these would be allowed now, there's a more limited number of single family dwellings, residential properties in which it could take place based on what's there today um by area. So, um, and then in that far right column, what you'll see is basically that difference between in those more limited zones, how many single family dwellings exist compared to what is that maximum number of

allowable non-hosted vacation rentals. So, if there's a positive number in that last column, um there's more dwelling units than would be allowed to be rented at that 4% cap. Uh so, basically, we view that as plenty of capacity. There's lots of dwelling units that this activity could take in. What you'll see, however, is there's a number of there's a number of zoning districts. I bolded them just to help them pop that I think are important to consider from a policy perspective where the cap that could be allowed there are not sufficient dwelling units in the more restricted zoning districts to accommodate that cap. So by area there would be a net loss of potential um non-hosted vacation rentals. But you will see at the very bottom there's still a an overall surplus of single family dwelling units across the county amongst all the different planning areas where these could take place. Um and I will note that two of the two of the district two of the planning areas Fort Orard and Carmel Valley um those are inland areas. I'll also note that in Carmel Valley actually um this difference existed exists with the current adopted regulations. Uh it's just quantified here today. So that's not actually a change from the adopted regulations. Um but I will also note that in the coastal zone, Delmani Forest and Carmel area um have those negative numbers. Uh just um so there is more limited capacity in those two coastal areas for the non-hosted vacation rentals. I will also pose and remind pause and just remind that hosted are in all zoning districts where the vacation rentals are allowed in these drop. They're still allowed unlimited with ministerial approval.

Okay. Thank you. Um we have a couple of questions I believe. Miss uh Commissioner Roberts.

Okay. I've got to start with um I'm still confused with rural density residential versus maybe a low density res residential. So going back to the home stays, home stays in the proposed ordinance would only be allowed in rural density residential which is typically an related to an egg use. Is that correct? In the current adopted regulations, in all planning areas ex in all planning areas, rural density residential zoning districts currently allow homeays and currently allow limited vacation rentals.

Okay. But in the proposed Yes. I guess I'm wondering, are we losing the ability to have a home stay in San Antonio? That's what I'm trying.

Yeah. No, no, no. Thank you. No, thank you. Actually, let me It's a good question and actually I think inadvertently you may be so let me just check. So the so yes the in rural density residential in San Bonansio yes you are losing that ability. The so the overall board direction was in all residential zones which are high density, medium density, low density and rule density residential. Those are principally intended for residential uses in all residential zones. No vacation rentals.

Okay. And then that was my next question is and that was the board's direction to remove them from that was they were they the direction was all residential zones not allowed even the home stays even the home they said all vacation rentals yes and then going back to that what you've just showed us in the ARTA memo I guess now I'm confused as to like are you showing um let me see if safer um Carmel Valley. Mhm. This is I'm confused in what's proposed and what is what was I guess where the numbers um I'm not getting my head around these numbers.

Yeah. So I it's probably a little misleading. I don't so the if you look at the third column the the where the total is 4,779 residential properties dwelling unit single family units that column is the total number um dwelling units in the remaining zones in in those zones that are allowed in this current draft including rural density. However, in rural density, we only included uh one count for each property that based on a commissioner's data, we could say there's definitely a pesticide use application permit issue uh here and therefore for sure there's commercial agriculture on those. So this count is a rough estimate is is good estimate for all the zones, a rough estimate for rural density as to how many properties with single family dwellings could have vacation rentals period hosted and or non-hosted. That is what this is showing.

One more question. Yes, Mr. Spencer getting up. So that 4779 That isn't the these are specific properties. No, sorry.

No, no, no. It's okay. No, it's okay. It it it's very Yeah. So, come back to what's allowed. Let me just take a step back. What's allowed today in all residential zones which are high, medium, low, and rule density. um in all areas I will say with the exception and we'll there are exceptions in big su in Carmel Highlands and in Carmel Valley so I'm not talking about the exceptions in all other areas in those zones what is allowed today are home stays unlimited are limited vacation rentals without a cap and then commercial vacation rentals with a discretionary approval and um 4% cap what

you're losing. Nothing's allowed in low, medium, high density in any of those. In rural density, what had been allowed is now only allowed on agricultural that can be commercially vetted agricultural properties. So you are losing a lot of capacity in that rule density residential that was available for non-hosted uh or for commercial limited and home stays. Yes. And I will just emphasize that that was the intent with the direction that um that the board did um approve. The intent was to say we want to really ensure we're treating all properties, all property owners, residents equally. However, we in doing that, we don't want to change the intended outcome of the regulations of really protecting our long-term housing and kind of the the the intact neighborhoods in our in our residential districts. So that was the intent. Um and yes, that rule density residential, it's there's a little bit allowed that otherwise would have been prohibited with that intent.

Right. I think I'm okay. You think you're good? All right. Let's move on to Commissioner Gomez. You know, the at the last meeting I asked about the implications for existing policy in terms of the actual houses that would in the unincorporated that are currently in residential that would be affected. I'm assuming that about twothirds of the houses or more currently are in residential areas that are being used as short-term rentals. Do you have that information?

Uh I would I would actually say that the vast majority of all of the vacation rentals that are operating are in residential zones. um that uh and I don't have that precise number of how many um actually are either unpermitted and coming into compliance or are approved in other zones. But the by far I I would not say two-thirds, I would say the vast majority are in residential zones. So this really fundamentally shifts the nature of how vacation rentals are currently operating while still allowing capacity for uh kind of new operations to take place.

My uh follow-up question relates to these changes as I've read through the notes as a result of litigation. Were there any other options that are considered aso as opposed to outright ban in terms of caps across the board in the unincorporate area? Um so I will say that you know the the the the board was three to two for the direction. Um for the three and for the um direction that was given um it was truly with an intent to make sure that any modifications that were necessary given these ownership provisions to make sure that um especially while those challenges are being worked out to to ensure that any of those modifications we are not opening up our residential neighborhoods to large corporate ownership. I mean that that was always the intent and the board was very clear of was always the intent of these regulations as they were approved and developed for the current adopted to allow for this activity to have a structure that really allowed for it but continued to help protect um our housing and our neighborhoods. Um, so that was very much the intent and there was no discussion of any middle ground. The the direction was no vacation rentals in residential zones.

Okay, this kind of related there's an assumption made, right? I think there's an assumption made I don't know if you have the data that the majority of the short-term rentals and maybe that that's a correct assumption are owned by uh corporations. My assumption is that some of them probably a good percentage of them are owned by folks that live in the community and use that as income to pay their taxes and pay their bills. But again, I don't know if you have those facts.

I'll let I'll let the director say I will quickly say we don't have the precise numbers and I don't believe the the assumption has never been that there's a huge number that are corporate owned or a huge number that are kind of many owned. However, the trend is that that is an increasing trend and we're seeing that transition and have seen that transition. So, Mr. Spencer, are you going to pinch hit

um a little bit? Good morning, planning commissioners. Craig Spencer with Housing and Community Development. I really appreciate this discussion. And I just wanted to step way back and say, you know, what we were, we have had a number of meetings, hearings with the board of supervisors on this. Um, our rules that are in place now are being challenged legally. And, um, in reviewing those challenges and trying to protect the county, we put out a memo that says we are not going to enforce these two provisions of our code. One is that an owner must reside in their home in order to for that to be considered a homeay. Um, and one of it was really about discriminating against people who don't live here. Um, whether or not we would be successful in a lawsuit, I don't know, but we needed to protect the county from that potential. the other was um a actual person versus an LLC. And so that is a problematic distinction to make. So we're not enforcing those provisions of our code. We put out the memo saying we're not enforcing them. We went to the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors did debate whether or not to modify our regulations to codify the changes that were in the memo and ultimately decided to direct us to ban uh short-term rentals in residential zoning areas, but they did want to continue to allow vacation rentals in uh as accessory uses to agricultural uses. So, you were asking about the distinctions. We went as staff back and went, okay, agricultural zoning, residential zoning, agricultural use

does occur in some residential zonings. It does occur in agricultural zonings, but not always a commercial agricultural operation and either. Um, so we're trying to tease out what does that look like? what is an what is a vacation rental accessory to a commercial agricultural use of the property as a farm stay. Um and then we have other kind of technical considerations too that we're trying to figure out. Are we going to continue to allow hosted vacation rentals? Where, how, and why? Um we're saying no, not in residential zones. Um but I appreciate the discussion. Melly is trying very hard in the weeds. So I thought that zooming out g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g giving that perspective might help with the discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Spencer. We have Commissioner Montav.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was actually going to ask specifically about that language because as it's written and I think that was the amendment, accessory to the agricultural use of the property. So, what we're reading here is yes, we're pro the the new direction is prohibiting vacation rentals in all residential zoning districts, but that's not period. And it's not even except for a use. It's this complicated language of except as may be accessory to an agricultural use. That's not a zone. That's not a use. That's a whole lot of other little details to allow for the use of that residential property as a vacation rental. And I'm curious, what does what do these exceptions look like except as maybe accessory to an egg use? What what could constitute such an exception? And then also a vetted commercial agricultural operation in a residential zone. What does that look like? Because if we're talking about residential zones, what's a vetted commercial agricultural operation? Thank you.

Yeah, if I may through the chair. So I do want to I'm I the the I just want to ground in some of that language is our effort to encapsulate generally what's happening and not the exact detail language in the regulations. So I do want to first say anything where we say except as may be accessory to agriculture in a residential zone. What that means in the actual proposed amended regulations is only it only affects rural density residential zones. And we very specifically say we have our list of where vacation rentals would be allowed in zoning districts. What are applicable? It's applicable to rural density residential accessory to agricultural use of the property. So you lead with if you don't have an agricultural use of your property in rural density residential, this doesn't apply to you. It's just not none of these are allowed. We then also and I do uh we did work with the for specifically for rural density residential only. We did work with the agricultural commissioner's office to say how do we allow what we believe the intent of the board direction was to allow these things but really only if you've got a true commercial a operation not for a bunch of workarounds like I bought five goats and now I want to have vacation rental. So the we then added you must also be a vetted commercial vacation rental or excuse me a vetted commercial agricultural operations. So we added some definitions and we added a list of what that looks like what that actually means. I actually would love to defer to the agricultural commissioner's office because they ultimately are the ones that work in this space of how do you define a commercial agricultural operation

and that's the only it it it's yeah we're not looking if you're in permanent grazing we don't look at whether or not you're accessory to egg or no you're just you're in permanent grazing this is a use that was allowed before it's a use that's allowed now The accessory to egg use is specific to the rural density residential zone only and you have to have that egg use and you have to be a vetted commercial egg operation based on the criteria. We're not saying it's perfect that but that was the this was what's before you that draft the best that effort that we could having those two provisions to try to keep it very limited where you could do this vacation rental use in rural density residentials.

All righty. Does that answer your question? Okay. You have one moment. Commissioner Shaw, Commissioner Artsell, one small nitpick.

In the draft board resolution number 11, there's a verd verb agreement typo that I would love to see fixed. Number two, could you talk me through how someone would go about proving an agricultural operation? I read the regulations. I see the list. I see the pesticide permit. I'm having trouble imagining that as being a true limitation if someone really wanted to get around it. And so I'm just looking for a little more detail to flesh that out.

Yeah, I am for this cuz I I think staff alike has that concern. As I said, this was kind of the the best path that we could find. Um, and what I would like to do is I do believe we're joined by um the staff from the agricultural commissioner's office. I know Nadia Choa is on. Um, and I wasn't quite I um I'm not sure if also um the ad commissioners on, but I would like to defer if they could speak to what this looks like, what it means, and what could be some potential uh workaround scenarios because that is an important piece. That would be great. Are they available? Do you know? I did request.

Yes. Through the chair. Uh my name is Nadia Ooa. I work with the agricultural commissioner's office. Um our commissioner is not in today. He's um he's attending um a conference, but um Melanie did meet with us uh recently and um and previously throughout this process. So what we have is um we have a program that we use right now in our office called the ACT pass program. And the program basically um we we would our office vets um commercial agricultural operators in order for them to receive what they what we call an agricultural a pass. It's basically um a badge with a picture ID that um if an agriculturalist um goes through a process of um fire behavior classes, they get this badge and they could potentially use it for um entering into an emergency evacuation area to tend to their agricultural assets. So, um this was a a program that was voluntary and one of the things that we have to do as a commissioners is vet whether the um operators are actually doing a commercial a operation. And really what commercial a means is that um you're farming for profit. So there's um a lot of um ways to determine whether you're a commercial a. It's just not do you have a pesticide use permit with our office. There's actually a whole list of um elig eligibility. Um so it goes from are you do you have a restricted materials pesticide permit? Are you an

organic certified producer? Um are you um in Williamson? That's another um another thing that we can check. So we actually have uh a variety of ways to prove that they are commercial operations through the chair. Yeah, please.

Following up on that, in the draft ordinance title 7 C where there's the list of evidence that can be used to prove agricultural operations. I see that um the evidence can include one or more of the following including a pesticide permit. I really appreciate the ad commissioner's office's explanation that feels like a good and focused way of considering it. But if I was applying for a permit, I would look at this list of evidence and be like, I have one of these. I get it. And so I would ask um staff to just look at what that process might look like and how it would be explained to the public so that it's clear and so we don't find ourselves in some kind of gray area. Um, so that's my feedback.

Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. Um, so could you just make up a scenario? Just make up a farm and explain to me in like what circumstances would we actually be need like need this? Would it be like a here's an agricultural farm and it's zoned a land and then we have this RDR zoning that like absuts it and they have a house on it and they can short-term rental that like h is this really such a widespread thing that we need to address it at this level. So I think so the the policy concern is with the intention of not allowing vacation rentals in our residential zones. The policy concern is that we want to put while excuse me while however allowing if there are legitimate agricultural um such as a winery a vineyard that's in a non-aggricultural zone which that is our rule density residential. So to have those two things true, the policy concern is that we continue to make it essentially not allowable in this residential zone, but only allowable if you can really prove that you are a commercial agricultural operation. So that that vacation use. So the and the best way to do it was modeling out of how the egg commissioner's office determines commercial operations consistent with this other program that we do. So that's what it does. Now I think when you look in reality um and I don't know if Nadia can speak to this because I do know we we had this conversation uh really in detail of the what we're trying what the egg commissioner actually will be the one looking at HCD staff is not going to look at what's provided and say oop rubber stamp you provided this you're a

commercial operation go it is actually will be the agricultural commissioner's office who will be reviewing the material materials um and making that determination that indeed this qualifies as a vetted. So um I think if there if we wanted to think about a couple of scenarios that the concern would be someone trying to make the workound, not someone who's truly in agriculture wanting to also do that. um that we could speak to that also and I think Craig is here who perhaps could speak to kind of the deter the what we do use as criteria for accessory to agriculture. There's not a fixed income level for being accessory to agriculture, but there's also that process and I would defer to um director Spencer if he might want to speak to that as well.

Yeah, I I mean I just thank you Melanie. I I just want to say, you know, most of us know egg when we see it. I mean, there are row crops, there are animals. Um there there is um a lot of work that goes into operating a commercial agricultural operation. How you define that in terms of whether or not you are allowed to have a a vacation rental uh is another thing. So, we've heard the feedback and I think it's it's not clearly defined the way we have it right now. So, I think we need to make a few tweaks and changes certainly open to that feedback and direction um because it is an important part of the direction that we've been given to create this ordinance and say we want to allow vacation rentals accessory the agricultural operation. What is commercial agricultural operation? Can you buy a few chickens and sell some eggs and become a commercial agricultural operation? Is that what we want or do we want truly like row crops, cattle grazing, um vineyards, what you know, it is not an easy thing to define, but you know it when you see it.

Thank you, Mr. Spencer. I think that Mr. Spencer, I think there's a question for you perhaps. Commissioner Artzel, just a response. the we know it when we see it um standard Mhm. when it was introduced to the Supreme Court many years ago has since been eroded. And I think one of the things that would make that better is who knows it when they see it. Can we name that in the legislation? Can we define it? Um that would make me a little more comfortable with it. I didn't mean to invoke any legal standard that Yeah. Thank you. You're not a lawyer and don't cla Don't play one on television. Um, Commissioner Roberts, do you had a question?

Yes. And I think it's back to the kind of big picture question that I'm still struggling with. And um, it seems to me, and maybe you guys can explain to me what the board has said, is it seems to me we are creating exactly what the lawsuits are asking us not to do. We're giving a land this benefit that nobody else has. So, I'm struggling with that. I I I don't understand. I don't understand.

So, the concern was who owns the property and who can own vacation rentals and who has to be residing in a home in order to have a homeay. So, it was more around concerns around that ownership piece. We know as land use we very comfortably regulate what zones is and is not this activity appropriate in um that is very squarely in land use. Um and so saying that this is an appropriate use in certain zoning districts and not in others is actually very much clearly in the realm of what we do as um what we do in our zoning law. Um and so they're they're not the same. It's the concern is really the safeguards that our adopted regulations had to have the achieved outcome of allowing these uses compatibly in our residential zones in a way that also helped protect long-term housing. Um, some of those concerns of lots of money buying up homes for exclusively for vacation use and not for people who live here. uh or whether they be owners or just the residents in the property. That was the policy issue that is eroded and that was the important policy outcome that that ownership distinction mattered in the current adopted. To follow up though, I guess being a native of the Selenus Valley, I mean, a land and housing is so incredibly important, but for some reason we can have vacation rentals in on in a place where we need more housing for agricultural workers. And I understand that typically what we're talking about is one house versus, you know, that could truly house the employees

necessary to use Aglland. I just I'm struggling with it, I guess. And um

I think the only thing if I may through the chair I will um just point out in agricultural zoned lands fundamentally there the only change is now what were uses that could be allowed are now allowed ministerially. That is really the change over what is currently adopted. So, it's not it's not a wrong question, but just to be clear, that is currently you could go through a use permit and do a commercial vacation rental on a an agricultural zone residential property currently. Um, it changes it. Now, in order for you to do that, you could do it ministerially to make it a little bit easier. Uh I will also note that in agricultural zones that the and in other zones except for commercial and visitor serving there is a limitation that only one dwelling can be used. So if you have three dwellings on a property only one of them can be used. Also it cannot be a dwelling that was established as um you know deed restricted as employee housing with a specific permitted use otherwise. though those protections exist in the current adopted and they remain in the proposed amended.

Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner, no. Commissioner Mon Mendoza is good. Commissioner Shaw,

thank you. So, I don't know where I stand so far on like do we go with the board's recommendation or what they asked us to ban them completely or not. I don't know enough yet. Haven't heard enough yet to have a decision either way. If that's the direction that the uh that we're moving in, I am not in favor of creating this exemption for this really kind of obscure land use designation of rural density a use associated. Um I I would not be interested in creating this special exemption um that the rest of the residents are not it's not available to them. So I mean just putting that out there that's where I stand with that. Okay, let's uh one more commissioner hard. One more question

regarding big sir which is has a lot of rural residential just confirming zero commercial unhosted short-term rentals will be allowed there and if you want to host a hosted short-term rental in a rural residential You have to have an accessory agricultural use. Is that correct in interpretation? That is correct. Thank you. Great. Got a good point to move along then. Miss Betty, do you have the rest of this?

I'll go quickly through the rest and again, please interject if you want to have questions or just discussion and points. Um so um so one of the pieces I did mention right this does create an important need to think about all of the operations that are in process now coming in for permits maybe permitted under the current adopted regulations. Uh this is just a snapshot of where we stand currently uh with uh with those applications. Um so we've received to date both inland and coastal 297 applications for vacation rentals including all three types. Um these applications are in various stages. We've had 36 approved home stays. Uh 14 approved limited vacation rentals and um three approved commercial vacation rentals. I will remind for homeays and limited vacation rentals, those are one-year annual renewable licenses. Um, and so those are those expire and need to be renewed on an annual basis. It is the commercial ones that go through that discretionary process. And those permits are issued for seven-year terms. Um, the total applications in coast are pretty much 50/50 split between coastal and inland. Um, just in terms of the distribution of what we're seeing so far. So there continue to be phase out provisions but we did modify them. We do bring forward the phase out provisions. So essentially anyone who is unpermitted as of when our current regulations were adopted. Those unpermitted uh grace periods have passed. So as of December 24th of this last year in the coastal zone and then as of April of last year in the inland area, anyone who is not permitted need to be needed to come into compliance with our regulations. So either needed to cease the operation and

or come in and seek proper permits and then remain in good faith uh able to continue operating as long as they were in good faith continuing to pursue those permits until such time as a decision is made. So we have individuals who are still in that process that a decision may not have been rendered upon when these regulations potentially may go into effect. Um and then we also added provisions for any of those who are have been permitted or are in process a new with the current adopted regulations. So what is proposed is anyone who gets through this process currently with the regulations has their commercial vacation rental either use or coastal development permit. Uh they have the term of that permit which is 7 years from the date of issue uh to continue to operate um and then to come into compliance with whatever regulations are on the books at that time. Um it does however for those commercial vacation rental um operators that are permitted, they do need to come in and continue to get a business have their annual business license, obtain that annual vacation rental operation license and continue to pay toot. So those provisions remain for any individual. Um, for any of the licensed limited and home stays, again, those expire upon expiration of one year from that date the license. If they're in a zone in an area where it continues to be allowed, they may come in and then at that point apply for the new version of what they're doing. Um, if it's no longer allowed, then they would need to cease that operation. um for any applications that are pending in that process upon the time in which regulations would go into effect whether it be commercial limited or home stays. If those still pending, not yet a decision rendered um are still in process and they do not qualify under

the new regulations, uh those may be voided and then in the regulations we proposed that uh those individuals would be refunded their permit fees. Another provision that we added was the ability for an individual to request to extend the phase out period. Um given a claim of unique circumstances, uh this provision would require the written request be submitted within 30 days of the effective date of ordinances should they be adopted and become effective. Um, and they need to include a very clear description of what are the unique circumstances with evidence that demonstrates that investments were made to prepare the property to operate that the phase out period is insufficient to recover reasonable investment. So that includes what's the rental rate, what's the typical kind of rental frequency really evidence for what that an amended term phase out period might be needed to reasonably recuperate investments made. Um and then really having definitive documentation evidence to substantiate the claim. Uh we uh this provision would uh have the director of housing and community development as the appropriate authority to make a decision on that and they would be those decisions would be appealable pursuant to our existing appeals process uh per county code both inland and um coastal

chair could I could I ask a question related to this? Sure. uh the so we would anticipate that about just say probably 90% of these uh the current short-term rental housing would be phasing out eventually in light of the fact that it's on residential parcels in the interpret area. Is that kind of correct?

Yeah. Yes. The effect of this would be the majority would not be able to comply with the current regulations and over time we would see a phase out um with hopefully opportunity for then properties within these other zones to um be able to offer these. Do we know what amount of uh uh permitting sales tax stack what kind of revenue it brings? Aside from obviously the the the fact that it's bringing tourists and spend they're spending money in other places in the community. Do you know what impact it has on our budget?

Um I apologize. I actually removed those slides. I meant to keep them in. I removed them. Um, but what I can say is if you give me one second, I can actually just pull that data up. I'd rather do that.

You want more than a few minutes, Miss Betty? Take. No, but if you would, you're welcome to take. Yes, I think that would be a good idea for us old folk. Let's take about 10 minutes. Shall we use the restroom?

All right, everybody find a seat, please. We're starting. Well, we're going to start.

And we have a quorum. And we will begin with Ms. Beretti. Thank you, chair. I just have a couple more slides. I will pop quickly through them. Um, so we discussed the or excuse me, we discussed the phase out provisions. Uh, just very briefly, I won't go into details. We did amend the regulations for hosting platforms um with a few points of clarity that I won't go into uh but they are on the slide. and then also added a um an enforcement provisions for hosting platforms. We had it's essentially an amendment. We had some enforcement provisions. We essentially created a separate se section for enforcement. Added very um some additional clarity on procedures and remedies as well as adding uh the ability for uh the county to issue administrative subpoenas to obtain information on listings. So, uh, essentially just strengthening a little bit, uh, and as consistent with other state federal laws, uh, regulation of hosting platforms that are, uh, including listings for, uh, vacation rentals. So, next steps, first of all, it's within the clearly within the commission's perview to determine how you wish to direct staff uh, and or uh, make recommendation or otherwise. Once um the commission has a recommendation to the board of supervisors, we would then go to the board of supervisors for a hearing to consider and adopt the regulations um in the inland area from the point in time when the board of supervisors um were to adopt they those regulations in the inland area would become effective 30 days upon um following approval. in the coastal zone, title 20, those regulations would need to be submitted to the California Coastal Commission and then upon certification by the coastal

commission would return to the board for final adoption to then become effective. So, with that, staff is recommending that um the commission adopt a resolution recommending the board of supervisors consider the addendum uh adopt ordinances amending title 7, title 20, and title 21 for regulations for vacation rentals. Staff is available for questions, feedback, input as the commission desires. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Pretty. That's very helpful. Now, I do have one quick question. Um, you brought up the Coastal Commission. In your opinion, um, what do you think, uh, the odds are the Coastal Commission will smile on the these changes? I know I know you can't speak for the Coastal Commission. I understand that. But do you do you think these meet uh most of their requirements for what they would like to see in the coastal areas?

Sure. Um, I won't opine. I will just share what uh we have had preliminary discussions with coastal staff. We have let them know what's in the regulations, what the intent of the changes are, and where that lands. Uh, uh, Coastal Commission staff was hoping to prepare written comments. Um, I did not see any come in, so I think they didn't have time to prepare written comments. Uh, definitely Coastal Commission staff expressed strong concerns with what was proposed, feeling that the adopted ordinances uh were good, were quality, but were just at that edge. um what that means specifically and whether or not uh they could get there for support, I do not know.

Okay. Thank you. That's all I can hope for. Thank you very much. So, commissioners, do you have any follow-up questions that weren't addressed first time around? Commissioner Hartzel, did you have one that we didn't get to? Oh, wow. Okay, cool. Uh Commissioner, go ahead. You're gonna bring out some slides that I requested earlier. Yes, I popped right over that. Thank you.

Oh, yeah. Uh yeah, let me I'll go ahead and share via the Zoom platform. That's easiest for me. If we could There we go. Perfect. So, let me enlarge this. So the trend over the last four years or so with transient occupancy tax is approximately 88 to 90% of transient occupancy tax is collected from traditional hotels, motel, um hospitality in the area and between 10 and 12ish% collected from vacation rental operations. uh since the um and let me go to that number. Uh generally following the trend of 40 38 million 40 million um ranging in there annually and total transient occupancy tax with since this new fiscal year and we've had the effective current adopted regulations. Um total toot in the first quarter of 25 the fiscal year 2526 was 14.1 million um just a little over 12% 1.7 million came from vacation rentals and then you can see a breakdown of those vacation rentals uh between commercial limited and homeays. Uh I will say the non-licicensed operations that 73% of that vacation rental breakdown um that is uh more likely falls in those who are not yet permitted and therefore the data can't track what type of operation they

are. Okay. Any other questions, commissioners? All right. Well, before we open this up to public comment, which we will in just a minute, I would like to call on county council to um add a little clarification on a couple of points that he found important.

Thank you, chair. I just wanted to observe that the reason that the planning commission is having to consider this item today is is due to the litigation and the fact that the board has sent it back down. So, it's a different direction than usually items will come from the ground up. This one's going ground up, then back down, then up, then back down. And I don't know how many times now, I'm sure Melanie and Craig have some opinions on that. But the point is today, my encouragement for the commissioners is to keep the train on the tracks to keep your focus on what's in front of you and making a recommendation with that and with your comments. Uh because we have outstanding litigation. It is helpful to keep a clear record and to not muddle the waters any further. So with that comment, I'm happy to let you all do your jobs, but I just wanted to observe that this is an unique circumstance that you're all facing and so we appreciate the difficulty and appreciate your participation.

Turn that on. Thank you very much. All right, we'll take public comment. We'll begin with those of you who have made the trek here to join us in the uh in the chambers. Uh, so if you'd like to come forward, um, if you'd like to move up into the front row seats, it makes it a little bit faster. And when you do approach, please give us your name so we can have that for the record. And two minutes for the U comments. Two or three depending. Let's just not go 10, shall we? Yeah. All right. Good. Thank you very much. Good morning. I'm Alan Coranji. I'm here with Could you pull There we go. Thank you.

Okay. Ellen Corani. I am here with my husband Robert who's sitting right there. We live on El Camino in Carmel Valley since 2014. We've been to a lot of these meetings the last years and we were extremely happy that last year eventually there was there were new regulations. Uh so let me uh share with you uh not just ourselves but a lot of our neighbors have written letters. We said we will go to the meeting and actually be here and present our concerns. So, I'm just going to read some of these concerns to you. It shouldn't take longer than one minute. Uh, dear planning commissioner, thank you so much for the opportunity. We being us and our neighbors, we very much oppose changing any of the provisions as spelled out in the formalized vacation rental ordinances passed and adopted on August 27 and I think it was September, May, October. Uh it has taken the county a many years, a good amount of money and effort by all of us residents to come up with a welldesigned short-term vacation ordinances. Moreover, the aforementioned ordinances represent a compromise between owners who want to engage in short-term rentals and the residents like us who oppose it. It is already a compromise. It's taken forever to get there. As we understand it, the Montterrey County Vacation Rental Alliance has sued the county on two specific provisions. One is the home stay and the other is the limited short-term rentals. We propose the county goes to court with a strong legal representative to counter this effort to counter the sue that has been made by these people. One of the major reasons is that more and more as to Miss Berett's point, we have seen on El Caminito, there are at least seven homes. Nobody lives there.

There are people that live in Arizona. They purchase homes. They allow the short-term rentals to come in. This is not a good thing. These are commercial endeavors and should not be allowed in residentially zoned areas. It's as simple as that. In addition, the Caramel Valley master plan was designed again after lots of money was spent and many professionals were engaged to keep our unincorporated area rural capital rural valley road and many of our winding narrow unlit um roads cannot really uh carry any more traffic. It's impossible. Providing our workforce affordable housing on a permanent basis is maybe the most stringent reason to not allow commercial enterprises to take over our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Pimp, Miss Melissa, can we give them three? I was being a little harsh, I believe. All right. Yes, sir. Please. Good morning. Uh my name is Fred Falter Sack and uh I've got to say that you have a tough job before you and based on the questions I'm hearing today, some of you really get what's going on here. Um what I'm have before me is basically my observation. It would appear as though based on reviewing modifications to the short-term rental ordinance being presented before you today, the goal is certainly not focused on achieving a fair ordinance for all property owners within the Monterey County, but it's an ordinance designed on one achieving the goal of one supervisor, Kate Daniels, who is hoping to eliminate uh what she considers an overabundance of short-term rentals in the residential zones uh zoning areas within her district. Five. Two. It's achieving the goal of a second supervisor, Glenn Church, who is hoping to make an exception in the ordinance, which would not only preserve but enhance and simplify the application process for short-term rental opportunities in both the agricultural zones and residential zones, including his own land tied to agricultural use within District 1. and three, achieving the goal of creating a legal word play within the ordinance by embedding language with the hopes of preempting all the injustices of this ordinance, which will likely be challenged in a future court of law. I understand that uh this is all under the direction given to county staff by the board of supervisors as a result of the motion passed 32 uh back in January public hearing. I don't fault the county staff as they're only trying to appease the desires of their boss. Um the

opportunity for the planning commission here today is not to appease uh but to take the difficult road of coming up with a fair ordinance recommendations to be ordinance recommendations to be presented to the board of supervisors. Um, and as previously stated, the county would be throwing away about $4 million in toot taxes paid by the uh, short-term rentals. Um, also stated by staff, the ARATA memo is very confusing. I think I heard them say, and the oral presentation by staff today is very misleading. There are negligible short-term rentals operated by corporations, if any. Um, that's really about all I have to say here. Wow, a minute and a half or maybe it was two and a half. Anyway, if you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. I am a per permitted uh owner of a home and operate my personal residence as a short-term rental. Um, thank you very much for your time.

Beautiful job. Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Brianna Tringali and I don't know if my words I'm sorry if I'm nervous. I've never been to one of these things. I've never spoken anything like this. Um, my family has been was born and raised on the Monterey Peninsula. It's not just where we live. It's our home, our history, our future. Our children attend school there. We're actively involved in the community and we're not planning to leave. Like many middle-class families in Carmel, we're doing everything we can to hold on to the place we love. We're hardworking family with three children preparing for college. And because we fall into that difficult middle ground, earning too much to qualify for meaning financial aid, not enough to comfortably afford tuition for college, we've had to be creative and disciplined. Every summer, we move into my mother's home so that we can rent our home out responsibly and put income directly towards college savings. It's not a luxury for us. It's a sacrifice and a strategy to support our children's future in education. We have followed every rule and requirement. We've spent over $10,000. We've had two public me meetings. We were one of the first people to get our permits. Um we've worked hard to operate responsibly and respect our neighbors, uphold the standards of our community. We're a middle-ass family in Carmel needing um to survive here. I respectfully ask you to consider families like ours when making decisions about short-term rentals. We're simply trying to stay in our hometown and give our children the best future possible. Um, we live on an acre. We have had we just rent it out a few times a year. Um, and yeah, I just we're we follow all your rules. I just we just ask you think about people like us who are not commercial people. We're just trying to make it. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. My name is Laura Davis. I'm providing comments on behalf of Landwatch Monterey County. Landwatch supports revised ordinances that limit the number of non-hosted vacation rentals. Landwatch advocates sustainability, equity, and smart growth, including adequate housing for local working families. We have been involved for over 10 years in advocating a vacation rental policy that benefits local community members, people who work in Monterey County but cannot afford to live here. Landwatch supports restricting non-hosted vacation rentals because Monterey County has a severe housing shortage, especially for those who work in our community but cannot afford a home here. Non-hosted vacation rentals take existing housing stock away from the local community. Our county needs housing for people who live and work here. Because of its high desiraability as a tourist destination, Monterey County needs strong vacation rental regulations that prioritize workforce housing. The county has invested considerable resources in a housing element that will promote affordable housing. LandWatch encourages the planning commission to support a revised vacation rental policy that prioritizes housing for the community. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there anyone else in the chambers that would like to speak? Like to be heard. Democracy and action. Nope. All right. Seeing no one else. Miss Melissa, do you have anyone on Zoom? We have on Zoom. Uh Chuck Stain. Stein. Mr. Mr. Stein, your time is now. Mr. Stein, hi. Can you hear me now?

Yep, we can hear you now.

Okay. My name is Chuck Stein. I'm a board member of the Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance. Um uh but today I just speak for myself. Um it's obvious um from the description of the proposed ordinance and the questions asked today how twisted this ordinance has become. For the ordinance on the books today, an EIR was done and found no significant impacts at current STR levels, those current at the time of the study. Yet this was ignored and STRs were banned in residential zones in Big Su Carmel Highlands and Carmel Valley. The idea of banning them further in residential zones and linking them to an agricultural use on residential zones is absurd. The supervisors did not publicly discuss why this is a benefit and they didn't provide data to support their decision. The idea that gatherings such as family and friends reunions or families attending a wedding, being housed in a residential area is not an appropriate use is also absurd. Groups come to be with friends or family, attend local events, and do tourist things on the Monterey Peninsula. They typically don't want to be housed in the hinterlands on a farm, although some might. The EIR was done. The caps are in place. Please provide an option for consideration that removes the requirement for agricultural use in rural residential zones and allows both hosted and non-hosted STRs in low density residential zones which are 1 acre or larger and remove the ban on this in Carmel Valley, Big Su and Carmel Highlands. If you are worried about STR density, then add a maximum

density requirement that is reasonable. The regulation should have consequences for those who break the rules, and the HCC should enforce those rules. This would remove any bad actors that have annoyed residents in the past. To date, the HCD has done a poor job at this, which is one of the reasons we are here today. Regarding the idea that corporations are taking over the STR market, I've done the analysis. As of December 24, about 10% of toot certificates were held by corporations. Most of those were LLC's owned by families. This is a red herring argument and not based on real data. Also, hosted STRs only support a small portion of current STR demand. Most visitors don't want to share a kitchen in a living room with the host and this does not work for groups that have been coming. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Um, is there anyone else? Uh, we have David H. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes, David, we can.

Hi, Super uh, Planning Commission. Thanks so much for listening to us and dealing with this issue uh diligently and patiently over the years. Um I am opposed to this ordinance. I think that banning short-term rentals in this way countywide would be not only devastating to the local economy but also devastating to a lot of the people uh the workforce in the area. Um, I want to focus on one area, which is housing. Um, I really, really encourage the county and this commission to think of other ways that they could provide more housing rather than just relying on a small percentage of short-term rental families uh to be the solution to this huge problem. Um, and I think that that that point really really needs to be taken to heart. Um, I really appreciate all of your time. Uh, I don't I don't think that, you know, some of these houses are 510 million houses. I don't think any of those houses are becoming affordable. Um, so yeah, thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Miss Clerk, is there someone else? Uh, we have uh Desiree. Hello. Hi,

Melanie. Hi, Melanie Beretti said there is a trend, a growing trend for corporations and entities to create vacation rentals. The litigation brought by Monterey County Vacation Rental Alliance was by an entity and an out ofstate person. Interestingly, I think the MCVR tends to focus their actions, including this lawsuit, toward second and third homeowners and corporations and local rental conglomerators. It's a follow the money situation. Being a property owner, I think, doesn't seem to be enough of a free pass. If you are a corporation, an entity, or an outofstate or out of county owner, you are an you are uninvested in our community. as a homeay permit owner. I live here full-time for 45 years on this property and I'm still struggling to make it. And my alliance, this Monterey County vacation rental alliance isn't working for me. Now it seems they're working against me. Thank you for your

Thank you, ma'am. Would it be possible to get your full name for the record, please, before you leave? Desiree. Sure. Desiree Gillingham. Thank you very much. Appreciate that, Miss Clerk. We have R. Matt. R. Are you? Yeah, there we go. Can you hear me? We can hear you.

Okay. I'm Richard Matthews. I am a member of the MCV. Uh we are here because the current ordinances include two restrictions that are constitutionally uh incorrect or can be challenged on a basis of constitutionality. The home stays by must be owned and operated by the owner. And the vacation rental types all must be in the name of a person, not an LLC. Many many people use an LLC just for their liability purposes for other assets they own. I once ran the uh whole issue of keeping track of the owners in MCV. We had about 400 when I was doing it and not one of them were a corporation. Now these constitutional issues can easily be resolved by one designating that the that an operator can operate and live in the homeay. two, by allowing vacation rentals to be titled in an LLC with sworn testimony that neither the owner nor any immediate family owns another vacation rental in the county, no matter how it is titled in proper its property. Had these straightforward fixes been adopted by private previously, we would not even be here. Instead, the board of supervisors chose the nuclear option, banning all short-term rentals in every residential area except agriculture. And even though this exemption benefits agricultural owners, supervisors Allejo and Lopez voted against this nuclear option because they said it went too

far. So today you are considering ordinances that will or will propose to ban this ban all short terminals in residential areas except egg. However, the planning commission you have the discretion to present a second option to the board of supervisors, one that simply resolves the two constitutional issues. I beg you to make those changes and submit that as an option to the supervisor. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We have Susan Jones. I have Susan Jones. Susan Jones from Carmel Valley. Thank you.

For 10 years, uh, this county has dragged its feet on short-term rentals, workshops, ERS, coastal commission battles, lawsuits, endless delays. It's been 10 years of bureaucracy while families wait for clear, fair rules. It's not that hard. We're not corporate hotel chains. We're local families. You've heard from local families today who own a second home, a family cabin, or rent out a room, or a guest house to help pay the mortgage, taxes, college tuition. Our short-term rentals are not taking housing off the market for locals. Most are in areas without yearround demand for long-term rentals or their hosted units where we live on site. These properties would sit empty or be underused without this income. They will not become affordable housing. Yet, your proposals banning non-hosted rentals, prohibiting them in residential zones, phasing out existing operators, tightening ho hosted rules will devastate these families. You'll wipe out supplemental income that keeps people in their homes, forces sales at a loss, or pushes them into foreclosure. That's real financial harm to real Monterey County residents, not abstract policy. Stop punishing families to appease lawsuits and special interests. Recommend something simple, balanced, and humane. Allow short-term rentals in unlimited locations with no geographic or residential bands. Cap the total permitted short-term rentals at 4% of the county housing stock. That's reasonable protection without destruction. and then enforce the basics. Occupancy by a number of beds, strict noise and nuisance rules, and required parking. These people will pay their toot and the county will keep that money. 10 years is enough suffering. Please do the right thing today and

protect families, not ideology. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Trey.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Trey Crop. I'm a resident of Big Su. The definition of hosted in the proposed ordinance needs to be very clear. If hosted means renting a room inside an owner occupied primary residence, that's straightforward. But if hosted includes renting entire houses, ADUs or guest houses while an owner or employee of the owner simply lives somewhere else on the property, then in practice that begins to function as a full-time visitor serving commercial use rather than a residential one. The board of supervisors already expressed core support for prohibiting short-term rentals in residential areas. So clear definitions will be essential to make sure that the policy direction is actually achieved. In practice, a property owner could have an employee living in a small unit on site while the main house operates as a year round vacation rental. That may technically meet the loose definition of hosted, but that unit is isn't truly part of the local housing supply. It's tied to the operation of a commercial use that only exists as long as someone is renting it as a business. That's very different from housing available to local residents in Big Su where housing is extremely limited and much the land is zoned watershed and scenic conservation rather than conventional residential zoning. Those distinctions matter a lot. Without clear definitions, the ordinance can unintentionally allow those non-commercial properties to function as commercial lodging with on-site staff rather than true residential use. Thank you for your commission. Thank you commissioners for your time.

Thank you sir. Lel one more time. Can you hear me? There we go. Yes, we can. Thank you.

Great. Thanks. Thank you. I want to just address a few different things. First of all, um one of our members, Desiree, um who said that that um you know, MCV, um our organization, and I'm a member of it, we represent all homeowners, home own who do short-term rentals. Um I don't believe we have a single member that is a big corporation, not a single one. I would actually challenge um the county staff to come up with a single one of our members who rep who represents a large corporation that owns houses. That is a complete falsehood and it is it the only reason that people hold houses in LLC's is to limit liability so they don't when they get sued they don't by some crazy person that they don't lose their entire fortune. Um that that's the reason why people hold houses and LLC's. We don't have a single corporate member, not one. All of our members are are local people. Some of them are are elderly people that have been renting for 40, 50 years. Some of who I've been on the on the phone with for the past 2 or 3 months crying about the fact that they don't have this income. They're going to lose their homes. They have to go into huge debt when they're 70, 80 years old. It's terrible. These are your constituents. You have to stand for these people. Why does Marin County get this right? Have you have have have the planning commission looked at the Marin County ordinance? It's a fair ordinance that addresses the needs of all people, all of your constituents, not just special interests. You're you're what you're what you're doing is you're pushing all of this income into the hands of outside corporations, theiro hotels, and that's the reality of the situation. And the other thing I wanted to address that Desiree said, the reason she's upset is that she does a homeay, but most of our members do unhosted vacation rentals because I don't know about you, but when I go away with my family, I don't want

to sit in a home with someone else sitting there with me. We all know this to be true. and the the the the idea that a a a vacation rental is a commercial endeavor or that there are there are homes in commercial areas. Do you know how many single family residents do you know of that are in are in commercial areas? The intent of this legislation is to ban vacation rentals because houses are not in commercial areas. So there will be none. And if you if you go and look on the various platforms right now, Airbnb or or or VBO or any of these other platforms and look for a vac a hosted vacation rental on the entire unincorporated Monterey Co coast, there's zero. I couldn't find a single hosted vacation rental. This ordinance has blocked coastal access to the public to one of the most important coastal resources in the world. I'm going to go back to another thing about Desire's point which which I found upsetting is that she's one of our members, but we represent all of our members, hosted, unhosted, homeays, all members. And we're fighting this fight because we represent everyone and we want a fair solution for everyone. Please do your job. Look at the Marin County ordinance. It's a good and fair ordinance. This ordinance is going to light a fire the fire on the litigation. It's not going to stop. Thank you, sir.

Kathleen Lee. Mr. Chair. Yes. While we're waiting for um the next speaker, I just want to say that um comments should be directed to us and not to members of the public and um any other speakers. This should be a safe space for everyone to speak their opinion and uh all opinions should be directed to us and staff. Thank you, Commissioner Roberts. Good point. Yes, Kathleen Lee.

Good morning, Commissioner Gman and the members of the planning commission. My name is Kathleen Lee and I am speaking today representing the Pebble Beach Company. I just wanted to uh thank the staff for working so quickly to bring forward board direction. But I do also want to reiterate uh Pebble Beach Company's opposition to commercial vacation rentals both hosted and non-hosted especially in the Delmani Forest. Um basically our concern is that commercial use of residential property and residential zoned areas. I do want to note that there are a number of commercial vacation rental permits that are going before the zoning administrator tomorrow and also on the 28th both in Delmani Forest and otherwise in the county um which is ultimately I believe going to cause some confusion with if these new rules go forward. We do ask the county for continued enforcement um of the rules that are in place and we further ask that the vacation rental dashboard which is a really wonderful tool but that that be updated to reflect previously approved commercial vacation rentals. Um, notably we are looking at Delmani Forest and there were previously 16 commercially commercial vacation rentals approved in Delmani Forest and today the the dashboard shows one and one home stay with a number of pending. So for policy makers, residents, and for others who are interested in this topic, when the information that's publicly facing isn't um as upto-date as it could be, it really makes it difficult to understand issues like density. Uh again, thank you so much for your work. We know you've been at this for more than a decade uh and appreciate it and just wanted to continue to say that we are opposed to residential homes being used for um commercial purposes in the

Delmont forest. Thank you so much. Thank you ma'am. Annie Martin.

Yes. Thank you very much for hearing me. Um, I own sanctuary vacation rentals and I manage about 250 homes throughout the whole peninsula. I would say that probably 70% are 30-day rentals. I started my business in 2006 when the whole economic turndown happened and I basically tried to save my own home and help save others. All I've ever wanted to do as I built our business is to welcome visitors to the Monterey County and also make it possible for people who have a second home to be able to one day move here and become part of the community. And it's really breaks my heart to hear that corporations and people trying to take away affordable housing is the big issue here because it is really not the truth. Two million-dollar houses are not affordable. And I learned when Pacific Grove we lost 60 homes there. They became they we lost the lottery after being able to um rent these responsibly for years and I would say two homes ended up being sold. The rest became 30-day rentals because these homes are people's dreams and they're trying to share their home with people who want to come here and they want to be able to celebrate, you know, their families, three generations coming together. I really ask you to please look at and weigh out um all of this. I think someone mentioned I mean we I'm part of a whole national organization of vacation rental managers who understand that it's a privilege and honor to have

our homes in these residential neighborhoods and we do everything we can to make sure that our neighbors are taken care of. But being able to put a ban on on our area, I mean, I don't understand how we've gotten to this place. Um, I asked that we go back and we look at where we might be able to have a conversation about it, but it seems like banning was just like a way to I don't know. It just feels very cruel to me. I'm in the process right now of trying to get 40 permits. I mean, first of all, these permits are the most expensive permits in the whole country. They're they're they're like 10 times more than most communities pay for a permit. We've been working with our owners. we're doing everything that we've been asked to and now you're saying no, we can't do that anymore and and there's so many people's lives who are affected here and I do I care about affordable housing here but this is not the solution and also I want to say that I can tell you right now that there's an underestimation of what toot collected because I know what we give

Thank you ma'am. Well I'm I didn't mean to cut you off. Were you finished? Oh, she is finished. Okay. Janet Hardesty.

Hi, Janet Hardesty here. I just wanted to say that if any commercial vacation rentals are allowed, it would be non um it would be the hosted commercial or the hosted com God, I I can't get that out of my head. hosted vacation rentals, but I think it needs a new definition. So, it doesn't include secondary units, guest houses, or caretaker houses or JDUs and accessory dwelling units. Pardon? The it must the hosted vacation rental must take place in the primary single family dwelling unit and no other unit on the property with either the manager in inhouse or the owner in one of the bedrooms at the time that's being rented. because if it's in a different building on the property, it's a unhosted commercial vacation rental. And for um Carmel Valley is has they have two people that do um hosted vacation rentals and those guys are booked solid. One has three in a room. It's basically considered a building and um the other one's just a single room and they are booked constantly. So um it is possible it brings a different type of person but you know

I think in all fairness for housing it should be just the primary dwelling and rewrite the um rewrite the whatever for it and also fill in the loopholes. I there's a lot of loopholes in the thing especially in the vacation rental industry. They are now switching to long term but they're saying it's anyway there's a lot of loopholes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Marcus Foster. Good morning. Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, sir.

Yeah. Marcus Foster here. I'm a full-time resident in Big Su and also the co-founder of Keep Big Su Wild. I wasn't actually planning on speaking today. I was going to let our letters do the talking, but I just need to push back and and uh um talk about a few things that I've heard here today. Uh there's some blame going on to the supervisor uh Daniels for her stance and then this you know really the people being so upset that this this is being proposed but it's only being proposed because it got brought on a lawsuit by the vacation rental alliance. We wouldn't be here today if that didn't happen. We spent a decade of trying to compromise and came up with a plan and an ordinance that people that don't believe in short-term rentals didn't like all all of it and the people that do short-term rentals didn't like and we met somewhere in the middle and we're here today because of the lawsuit. Secondly, uh there's this push that when the county is going to lose toot tax and jobs because of this. People that can't stay in houses in residences will be staying at hotels where they will be paying to tax. Those legal operating hotels will then need more employees because they will be busier and jobs will increase. Thirdly, everybody seems to think that, you know, these big, you know, putting back these big corporations that are buying up houses and I understand that. I don't think that is happening mass scale, but I'll I want to use a couple descriptions of what is happening and it might not be on a corporate level and I don't have much time. I'll use two. Uh we have one house where is owned uh by an out of uh town person. He leases that

house to a company called Nature Villas who has other luxury homes around California where they do vacation rentals and large-scale weddings. So that is an example when you say corporate maybe not it's a business. And then another example is someone who's very uh outspoken about um uh not being able to afford their house, the the affordability for people to stay. This gentleman has five luxury million multi-million dollar homes. Four of which he rents out on a platform with a business name. And it is a business to buy up homes and rent them out as hotels. So it might not be a corporation, but it is definitely a business. And lastly, you know, we can't keep talking about the housing crisis in Monterey County and then just allow for homes, residences to be turned into commercial hotels. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Getman, um I'm going to have to excuse myself. I'm going to have to leave right now, but if I may, just in terms of what I've heard just briefly, I know that um the staff may, you know, looked at the information based on what the the the supervisors gave her, but if I stayed and if I had to make a decision, I'd say for it to be taken back and I would vote no on it just on the based on the information we've gotten. Obviously, I haven't heard all the other information, but anyways, I just wanted to give me give my two cents and excuse me.

Yeah, I'm sorry. We'll be losing you. Thank you. We have uh Doug Clay.

Yes. Thank you uh for the opportunity to speak. Um I'm here today just to speak in opposition of the amendment to the short-term rental ordinance. Um the the amendment is effectively a ban. I I think all the reasons have been stated, right? You you know the the STRs are in residential areas. So if you ban them in residential areas, you're effectively banning uh short-term rentals. We own a home in Pebble Beach. Um we've followed the the ordinance. Um we we are in the application process. Uh we've been operating without complaint or incident. Uh we happen to be part of uh Annie Martin's uh Sanctuary Vacation Reynolds. It's a very well-run operation. We're respectful to the community. Um, our understanding is the purpose of the ordinance, uh, the whole process has been, you know, about improving housing affordability and access. But I think it's been discussed widely that the the number of homes and the type of homes that we're talking about are not going to make any impact on on housing affordability and availability. I think I think the county needs to really think about what programs and things can be done to provide housing starts and dense housing in areas in the price points that are going to help the people you're trying to help. I think this amendment indiscriminately just bans things and it undoes the work that was done for years to create the the existing ordinance. And I'd echo the comments of several of the people both for and against that while none of us love the current ordinance, it's the result of years of work and compromise, there are things in the ordinance that that are are challenging to us. Um it gives uh at least the process, right, gives certain interest groups like the Pebble Beach Company veto power over certain

homeowners. And I think we should really look at whether whether the Pebble Beach Company should really think of us as competition or are we actually enhancing um the the the the you know the the goals of the Pebble Beach Company by bringing additional people into the area, multi-generational families stay at our home, people with handicaps, pets, those sorts of things. and just um the the idea that a group of six or eight as a family is going to go over to Spanish Bay is just not going to happen, right? So, if we ban short-term rentals in residential areas, we're effectively saying to people who want short-term rentals and and to be in an actual home for themselves, we're actually asking them to go somewhere else. So I I I think I think this um and if you go back um Supervisor Daniels did in a holiday newsletter bring this idea up and then brought it. So it's not something that the board really came up with collectively. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. We have a Diane Maz. Diane, you should be able to unmute.

Thank you very much. Um, I've been following this for 10 years and so to the planning commissioners, I know not all of you have been on for 10 years, but I want to thank you for the leadership and courage you demonstrated over a year ago when you advanced a comprehensive short-term rental ordinance to the board of supervisors after decades of work and some really difficult conversations and people were downright mad on both sides. That proposal reflected months of careful work, public engagement, and meaningful compromise. It acknowledged community concerns while also recognizing the important role stirs play in Monterey County's visitor economy and for local families like ours. Our family's owned a home in RDR unincorporated Monterey County for over 50 years. We're not a corporation. We're not a large commercial a operator. We're local homeowners trying to responsibly maintain and keep our family home. Some of the stirs income helps us cover rising costs, maintenance, property taxes so we can preserve a home that is deep personal meaning to us. The ordinance approved by the board of supervisors was not perfect for any one group. But that was precisely why it represented real progress. All sides gave up certain things. Property owners accepted stronger oversight and clearer rules. Communities gained accountability and structure. It was a thoughtful first step towards reasonable regulation rather than elimination. Stews provide, as many people have said, a viable alternative to traditional hotels. They serve large families, multigenerational travelers, and guests seeking experiences in areas where hotels do not exist. They support local small businesses through the county from cleaners, landscapers to restaurants and shops. Some of the provisions of the adopted ordinance were later challenged because

they were not legally permissible under California law. That legal action was not intended to dismant regulation, but to ensure that the framework operates within lawful boundaries. I'm sure that's what we all want. True. It's deeply Diane me.

Hello. It's deeply concerning that this effort to correct legal issues has led to calls for a complete ban on stirs. It appears to be an overly reactive response. A ban would punish responsible local families and visitors while doing little to address the real concerns that led to the regulation in the first place. I respectfully urge you to continue supporting balanced lawful stir regulation rather than pursuing an outright ban. The work you've advanced created a strong foundation. With thoughtful refinement, Monterey County can maintain oversight, protect neighborhoods, and still allow families like ours to responsibly share our homes and remain part of this community. Thank you for your service and your continued commitment to thoughtful, fair planning decisions.

Thank you, ma'am. Linda Marin.

Oh, good after. Is it morning or afternoon? Correct. Um, good afternoon, El. I'll say chair and members of the planning commission. I want to really thank you, Commissioner Gatsel, for being so welcoming to the participants. Um, you know, we're be here today because in 2024 in in the planning commission's efforts to maximize long-term housing, but at the extreme cost of short-term rental community. You recommended to the board of supervisors inland and coastal STR ordinances that overreached into unconstitutionality. And when Monterey County vacation rental defended its members in the only way possible to bring a lawsuit against those ordinances, one of the supervisors expressed outrage at the temerity and ungratefulness of those of us who had um stood to be so seriously harmed by the county's overreach. It it was odd as if the majority of supervisors would have been satisfied to have unconstitutional STR laws on the books if the the latigious greedy MCVR opponents had just accepted them as approved. Um but that's not why we brought the uh the lawsuit. I think you know that MCV has never stood in opposition to the county's efforts to pass effective and affordable and enforcable STR rules. We need those. We've spent countless hours and hours communicating with you in writing and and in these meetings for 10 years advocating for balance and the use of good STR models as you deliberated workable ordinances. And I I haven't heard um any reference to other jurisdictions short-term rental ordinances as models that you've looked at. Um but I think that that's necessary. The current recommendation to amend the

STR ordinances that were recently passed are overreaching farther still. Um, please, I think you're hearing from many of us, help the board of supervisors by not producing another astonishingly out of balance and probably unconstitutional set of ordinances. Um, we would rather not be in a lawsuit with the county. It's time consuming and stressful and it's expensive. And to add insult to injury, we're not only happy to raise money for our lawyers, but for the county's lawyers funded by our taxes. This is especially challenging when the county's current STR ordinances have forced many of us to shut down or pause our short-term rentals. Please bring balance to the next draft um and stop the need for future litigation. And I thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Vanessa. Hello. My name is Vanessa and I'm just wanting to express my concerns about STRs and I just support the Carmel Valley residents in opposing STRs and that's just what I wanted to say. So, thank you. Thank you, Bruce.

Yes. Thank you for taking my information. I do support the current proposed uh resolution to uh ban STRs in residential areas. We see that the efforts Oops. I think I'm sorry, Bruce. I accidentally muted you and instead of unmuting the next person, could you please unmute again? Sorry about that. I am unmuted, I think. Yes, you are.

Um, all right. Once again, I wanted to say I support the uh the the resolution and the effort that you're in. Um, we do have living here in Big Su, we see houses that are empty most of the time. On weekends, there may be a car or two in front of the home, but it's a different car every week. Um this is these are nonregistered STRs. So the county's count um I I appreciate the fact that they have made an effort to uh estimate the number of unregistered STRs. The problems with STRs especially in big SU are their impact on housing as well as their impact on the community. Not only does an STR remove some available housing from the house from the uh market uh making that housing not available for people who work in an area like big su but it also reduces the amount of community that that we have. The people who live here and have lived here for years help out. They volunteer in various ways with the fire brigade, with other areas. And if an STR is put in place of those, that community involvement is reduced because the number of actual residents and people in the community is reduced. So I would like to encourage you to approve this uh this resolution and go ahead. I will mention one uh caution. The provision for STRs uh being allowed in a residential area if there is an agricultural use strikes

me as a loophole and also a part of the res resolution that will beg for le uh for lawsuits uh arguments over whether this is in fact agricultural or not. Unless the county has a legal definition of what agricultural use is, a very strict definition, then you are opening yourself up to many lawsuits challenging this. Again, thank you for your service and go ahead. Thank you, sir. Paul,

yes.

I Yes. Um, thank you to the board for my comments. I've I've operated an STR in in K for for 14 years and I I oppose the ban that I'm I'm hearing. Over 14 years, I think many of the previous speakers have said it. Um we've we've come to after much work, we've come to a very reasonable solution at the end of last year. And I was just shocked to hear that this overreaction uh in in banning all residential housing. I think this will be devastating on the tourism. We're hearing again and again that we're not fully tracking the number of STRs. I think the the the regulations that were put in place last year allow us to to track all of the STRs to bring in the revenue and to greatly benefit tourism to greatly benefit um the employment. I mean we we employ six people on our six families effectively on our on our STR. Uh I I think an outright ban is going to be really devastating for for for the community. I've heard no evidence of um corporate ownership. There was a few stories about how it might be possible. But if we enforce these regulations properly, this can all be closed down. We can ensure that there is only one owner for any property. I think this is a very good suggestion. There's also suggestions for solutions in grandfathering. If you've run your property uh responsibly for many years, why should you be banned? Um and uh the 4% limit that was reached I think is is tough but is reasonable. So I would really encourage you to to uh recommend back to the board of supervisors a a fair and balanced and reasonable uh ordinance for the

community that benefits everyone. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Doris, you should be able to unmute. Doris. All right. Uh, Sophia. Uh, if you mean Sopana, that is me. I believe that's Can you hear me? That That's you then. Yes, we can hear you.

Thank you. I uh I wasn't also I wasn't planning on speaking today but I feel I would feel irresponsible not to say anything. Um I have been in my home I'm a single woman. I have been in my home near Big Surf for over 30 years running the this home and this property on my own. I did long-term rentals for many years and uh I was almost I was about to lose my property. It takes a lot of money to pay all the bills and run a property. I have not gotten wealthy doing the short-term rentals. I just had a better flow of money and I've employed locals and the guests who have stayed here experienced the forest and a family home in a whole different way. I give people art supplies so while they're in nature they can paint. I just think this oneizefits-all uh uh ordinance is very unfair and I know people who have lost their homes now because they just can't can't make it after many years. Uh I'm an the I guess you could say the autumn or winter of my life and I've worked so hard to be here and to provide this for my family as when I leave this world. And I think I should be allowed to um offer a good thing to the public without hurting anybody. No, I don't believe there have been any complaints. And I think, you know, this is my home. I I want to live here. I want to live here the rest of my life and help people and employ others. So, I guess I'm just asking for a much more fair.

Thank you very much, ma'am. Doris, it looks like you um have raised your hand again. Are you able to unmute? Uh can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear.

Okay. Uh so my name is Doris Fabay. I'm sorry I can't physically attend this meeting today. I've been to many over the years. Um, but I just wanted to add my name to the to the opposition of STRs. Over the years, I've come to feel like, you know, maybe I can be okay with homeay STRs where someone is actually on the property with the the renters overseeing everything. But where we live out in Carmemell Valley, there are numerous um no host I guess you'd call them STRs and almost daily we are affected by these properties. So personally I you know we my husband and I didn't buy in a residentially zoned neighborhood uh that costs a lot of money to have renters you know coming and going ne you know in the neighborhood next door to us. And I'd also like I've been listening to a lot of you know these people who you know have these properties that they rent out uh that they don't that is a no host. I want to know how they would feel if they were surrounded by STRs. So, um, anyway, that's my take on it. And I I want to see STRs in Caramel Valley banned alto together, but like I say, I mean, if it comes down to, uh, giving a little, I'll I'll go for, uh, homeays. So, that's it. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. That's it. Are we done? Okay, good. All right. That is uh public comment for the time being. Then Miss Miss Beretti, do you have any uh summation or perhaps

No, I did I did the only piece I did I a couple of different individuals um stated that there was um lack of clarity in the hosted vacation rentals. I did just want to clarify, I did verify in the amended regulations that a hosted vacation rental explicitly says the operator must reside in at least one bedroom within the unit. And the regulations continue to bring forward that only one unit per um and it must be in a single family dwelling, not accessory dwelling units or other such. So, I did just want to clarify um that that is what the actual regulations say. Aside from that, just happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Um Mr. Spencer, did you want to uh do any summation of any kind or are you good? You're good. Okay. Very good. Um All right, then. Let's bring it back to the commission. Uh Commissioner Herzel,

could you just point me to which title that falls in? Yes. So if you look at title seven the definitions which are excuse me I will give you it's 7.120.020 020 definitions and it is M hosted means a vacation rental in which the operator occupies at least one bedroom within the vacation rental while it is being rented and the vacation rental must be the operator's primary residence. The other pieces that I spoke to are under 7.12040 regulations for vacation rentals and it is provision V and W that vacation rentals shall be allowed only in residential property may not be in temporary occupancy or non-habitable structures and vacation rentals shall only be allowed in a single family dwelling. They are prohibited in duplexes, condominiums, multifamily accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, etc.

Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. So, I'm probably going to muddy the water here. Um, can is it on the table that we could just remove the two problematic portions of this ordinance and move forward because we have a cap that seems to be reasonable. It's a compromise. Everyone's said that multiple times that it it's not going to be ideal. We're not going to be able to make everybody happy. Um, while on one hand, I personally don't love short-term rental operations in a neighborhood. Um, I also I'm trying to find the line between I dislike what that creates in a community, but also people should have the right to do certain things with their property as they see fit. Um, and trying to find that middle ground. So, is that a possibility? Can we just get rid of those two things? The LLC thing, which in hindsight makes sense. People are going to use LLC to protect their assets. Understandable. It doesn't mean they're a big business. Um, I know that's not what the board asked for, but I'm kind of listening to some of the other commissioners. I don't necessarily think that we're all on board or even the majority of us are on board with giving them what they asked for.

Yeah. My understanding is we have to um we have to make a recommendation to the board on what you have presented to us not modify what you presented and then make a recommendation to the board. Is that correct?

No, I think so. Staff presented the action today is recommend I think there are different ways in which the commission could proceed. Uh you could say no, we don't like what you've presented. Go back and fix some pieces. you could say um no, we don't support this approach and um and I think I would look to county council how to structure that the recommendation actually being something different to the board. Uh you could say deny this and actually we recommend as a planning commission that you simply go back and correct these minor elements. Um, you could say we recommend bringing these forward to the board of supervisors. However, here are the issues and concerns that we see that we don't

support and I think I would look to county council to maybe help with a little more. I hope council can help us because the way I see it, that would open up a whole relitigation of everything that we've done on this ordinance and I don't want to do that. Uh, county council.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. It's an in between space that's uncomfortable to live in. I think the recommendation, not on the paperwork, but from your from your seat here, is to make a decision about what's in front of you. Are you going to recommend that the board adopt what's proposed or not? If the answer is yes, I think you've explained your rationale, which is that we support what's in here. If the answer is I'm going to make a a vote for no, it might be worth articulating on the record the reasons why. But I don't know that suggesting particular ordinance revisions, code language, etc. is going to be in any way helpful. I think the rationale behind it would be helpful to understand what the big the big policy concern might be if there's a no vote or if there's a concern there. Um, but I think you should focus on the recommendation regarding this particular proposal. Is it a thumbs up or a thumbs down? And then why do you feel that way? I think that's what would be helpful for the board in terms of making their next decision.

Thank you. And I agree. So, does that helpfully hopefully help you, Commissioner Shaw? It does. Thank you. And even though it would be too early, I would be ready to make a motion. Okay. Can you hold on to that? I'll certainly get back to you on that. Uh, Commissioner Hartell,

a peaceful, useful clarification for Commissioner Shaw. What happens if the planning commission votes no on what's before us? What rules are in place under that circumstance and what rules are in place right now? So the adopted regulations are in place and will remain in place until such time as the board adopts new regulations and those regulations become effective.

And the adopted regulations that are in place, do they hold what Commissioner Shaw is referring to as the problematic provisions or have those been suspended? So currently the adopted regulations have those problematic ownership provisions and currently the county has suspended enforcement of those provisions. Is that clarified? Commissioner Shaw. Yeah. Is that good? Okay. Uh Commissioner Gomez, I just wanted to

wanted to speak. Uh, I think this really is an issue of credibility and all that 12 years of work that's been put into this ordinance to develop it and also an issue of fairness. I know that people depend on some of this income to pay their bills. I know that also it provides uh opportunities. I got a good friend who lives here in this area. Came to this area because he was able to afford a vacation rental in Carmel Valley. uh it provides affordability for those people that that don't live there and like to visit that would like to visit that area. He wound up staying here and now he's a a planner for one of our local cities. So, you know, it also creates opportunities for folks. So, uh I I like the idea of going back to the original ordinance with the removal of uh again it' be the the board decision, but the removal of that language that it violates uh the law.

Thank you, Mr. Gometh. Um, Commissioner uh work. Yeah, that would be my question. Is this helping um with the lawsuit or is it making it worse? I don't know who can answer that, but Well, I I think it would depend on which way we vote, but I I get your concern. Council, would you like to uh

I can't forecast as well as I'd like to what may or may not happen in litigation. there are a lot of moving parts and briefs are currently being exchanged on a variety of subjects. So that's an ongoing target that's hard to to hit. Which is why because of that continuous evolution of that legal landscape, my initial comments earlier today were to look a little bit more narrowly at what's in front of you to stay on the tracks and say thumbs up or thumbs down to it. Either way, the board will then have an app, you know, have been apprised as to how did this body react to the proposal, which can help them make their ultimate strategic choices. Um, but I will say you heard from a number of commenters today, including a number of plaintiffs. So, with that in mind, that that I think speaks to the caution that I was suggesting that you guys uh exercise today.

Yeah. Thank you, council. Yeah, it it strikes me as being a to a large extent a political decision that needs to be made by the politicians and they get the big dollars for doing that. Those of us up here don't quite make the money that those people do. Um, Commissioner Roberts.

Um, my question is for staff and I guess, um, I'm curious to know maybe if you can speak generally about what our current enforcement situation is even with the exceptions and what it would look like. I mean, if maybe even if the board has talked about what they see as how to enforce essentially a complete ban in the residential area. that one. Thank you, Craig Spencer with Housing and Community Development. Again, we are enforcing the existing regulations. Um, we have dedicated enforcement staff and we have uh a contract with um a third party vendor who monitors online um postings for vacation rentals. Um, so if someone is providing their home as a vacation rental and does not have a permit or is not working on getting a permit as of the dates uh that are established in the ordinance, they are getting fined um and we have issued a number of fines um and are going to various uh um administrative law judge hearings um when those fines are being challenged. So that is happening. Um that would continue to need to be um some form of enforcement. Um probably the same process um of checking the online listings um responding to um complaints and or um identifying with our existing staff whether or not someone's operating that is not in compliance with our rules. and then we'll use our enforcement provisions.

That that good

that answers my question. Um the only other thing as one of the people as there are many of us in this room today who have been here for this entire process. Um this is a big Groundhog Day I was not expecting. That said, I appreciate the continued public participation in this very important issue in our county. Um I also feel like we had reached a compromise and to but I and but I understand the concerns raised as well. Um with that said um I also will not be supporting this proposed ordinance today but for very specific reasons. One, I am not okay with an exception for any residential areas, a whatever the CA case can be. If the if this board of supervisors are expecting a ban in res residential areas, it is important to me that that is true for any residential area without exception. Um, I also think it's an extreme measure for what the county is currently facing. I I think there may be other alternatives and I don't think that's probably for me to suggest what the alternatives are. And um so for me this this current situ current current proposal is too extreme for me and I'm not okay with exceptions for a

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Herzel.

I really like the original ordinance. I'm sad that it's not in it's not in force with all of its language in place and I understand why that's happening because of the litigation and what has been proposed by staff to me is a fair assessment of um what the board of supervisors requested particularly while this litigation is going on and while we're figuring out what was in place for our original ordinance. I guess what my question is to either to council or to staff is after the litigation, do we get our original ordinance back in some modified way or is this a forever piece of legislation?

Yeah, thank you. Immortals lawyer's words is it depends. So it depends on the outcome of litigation. Sometimes cases settle, sometimes they go to trial. Uh ultimately, if this case were to go all the way through and have a ruling, the ruling would determine what the viability of certain language is or isn't, whether it can or cannot remain. Um, and so you'd have to just have to play that entirely out and so I can't answer it for you, unfortunately. But if the county were to prevail in the litigation, the ordinance would remain as it is. And if we were to make adjustments now and then later prevail in the ordinance, there's nothing preventing us from revising our ordinances. That's one of the benefits of being a legislative body is you can change rules.

Yeah. Too soon then. Okay. Uh Commissioner Munz.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to hear again from council, I believe, a recap on the litigation issues that should be the focus of our discussion. Well, I should let me let me restate that perhaps because I don't think you should be focusing on the litigation issues. Those issues have been resolved or not resolved but rather are within the purview of the board and the staff who've been directed to take action on that. What I meant was looking at what's in front of you in the paperwork today. You have a draft ordinance. You have some proposal with specific language in front of you. And so staying focused on what's in front of you and how you feel about that versus ideas about what it could look like elsewhere. I did appreciate um and I tried to explain it earlier is telling us your rationale for where you're at. I think one of our commissioners just did that and explained why she feels one way. That's very helpful I think for the board. So that's why I'm saying is keep it on to that.

Thank you. Okay. Very good. So Commissioner Shaw, I think it's time for a uh motion. What was the motion? You didn't really indicate. Intent to deny. Intent to deny. All right.

Second it. and Commissioner Gomez seconds. So, we have a a motion, but I'd like to hear from people if they as I read the group, I would say right now probably most people will vote to deny, but if there is a position that I'm not uh seeing, uh please raise your hand. Commissioner Hartzell, would you would you be in uh in deference to the emotion? Because I want your I want if you are, I would like deference to a motion.

Well, you know what I mean? I mean, I want to get your point of view because I think we've Commissioner Roberts did a wonderful job of explaining a position in opposition, but I would like to get a position. If there is a different one, I'd like to get it on the record. I'm in favor of what staff has presented here. And so I would vote against um the motion as articulated and that's part primarily because a lot of the short-term rentals that are

on the docket, they're in district 5. And I have a lot of empathy for the people who can't afford to have their house without a short-term rental. I can't afford to buy a house in district 5 either. I rent and um and I'm grateful for that rental. And so I just I want to protect the housing stock that's in place. I want to do what we can while this is still pending and I want our original ordinance back cuz I thought it was a good one. It was a really good compromise and um I'm looking forward to the day that the legislation is over and we can come back to the table and find something that works. So appreciate my colleagues. Um, and that's my position.

Yeah, thank you. I just thought it was important to get that on the record and I too have spent 10 or 12 years doing this ordinance and I liked it and I appreciated the compromises that we made. I think there is room as Commissioner Roberts said perhaps to tweak it or use policy statements from planning staff that would that would make the board more comfortable with this. But um, I cannot support this. as others have said, it may be a little bit too much of a drastic move. So, so with that, let's um Oh, Commissioner Commissioner Work.

Yeah, I just want to give my two cents. I actually appreciated the agriculture part because I'm in agriculture and we um do a farm stay thing. So, it was nice to see the egg part. Don't know if it's the best language. And um but I'm also not too thrilled with the um total ban. So just wanted to get that on record.

Yeah. Thank you very much. All right. We have a motion and we are changing council but only for a couple of minutes because we're going to take a lunch break at 12:00 if I can. So we have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Shaw, a second by Commissioner Gomez, I believe. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed. Oppose. Thank you very much. So, the motion has passed. And with that, we're going to take a lunch break until 1:00. So, see you all back here then. Mr. Chair, I can't be back until 1:30.

I don't know if that will matter, but I will be back at I'll be back at 1:30. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Let's take a quick vote. How many of you are coming back? Are or not coming back? Are coming back? I will not be coming back. You won't be coming back. Okay. Well, then we won't be coming back. Probably. Well, we'll see what happens. Can we just go through it? Well, let's make a 1:30 though. How about chair? Could we just try to see if we can get through it? I got about a half hour left before I have to leave. Um, same. Yeah. Will we have quorum later? No, I don't think so. Doesn't look like it. Amy, can you stay for a little while? You can't stay. Okay. I think we still have quum with one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Commissioner Artzel, you're good for a few more minutes.

Either way.

Okay. All right. Well, let's let's move on then and get this out of the way. Maybe we can do that. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. All right. There will be a quick change. Yes, Miss Beretti is running up here. Okay. So, what we will do then is we will For those of you who may be staying for item number 10 on the agenda, which is PLN number 23039, we have county council. We have a new county council in attendance. So, we're good to go. And we have staff to present. Staff, proceed when you're ready. microphone. Oh, there we go. Sorry. Um, good afternoon, Chair Gatsman and Planning Commission. My name is McKenna Bowling, and today I am presenting project file PLN 230339 Leon. The subject properties are located at 58 Mount Devon Road in Carmel within the Carmel Area land use plan. Both properties are zoned low density residential with 1 acre per unit density and design control overlays within the coastal zone. The proposed project is a combined development permit to partially clear code enforcement case 23 CE 00194 consisting of a lot line adjustment

between two legal lots of record consisting of parcel A 1.59 acres in size and parcel B 1.36 acres in size resulting in two parcels containing 1.73 acres and 1.22 22 acres, a restoration permit to replant six Monterey Pines and restore development on slopes exceeding 30% on adjusted parcel B, and an after the-act design approval to allow construction of a detached 320 ft garden shed on adjusted parcel A. The subject property received a code enforcement violation in May of 2023, citing development taking place on slopes exceeding 30% and tree removal on parcel B. Since receiving the violation, the owner has applied for the necessary permits to abate the violation and restore parcel B back to original condition. The necessary permits to partially abate the violation are before the commission today. And should the commission grant the combined development permit, a construction permit will be required to fully abate the violation to bring both properties into compliance with Monterey County Code and zoning ordinances as required in title 20. Land clearing violations must be restored unless demonstrated to be unfeasible. In this case, restoration was feasible and a restoration permit has been applied to require replanting of six Monterey pines as indicated on screen with a red star and restoration of development on slopes exceeding 30% for the unpermitted driveway access onto adjusted parcel B also indicated on screen. The location and design of the shed requires an after the-act design approval be applied to asssure protection of the public viewshed and neighborhood character. Therefore, the property owner has applied for the appropriate permits to abate the violations by restoring the disturbed areas on adjusted parcel B to original

conditions and convert the unpermitted accessory structure to a detached garden shed on adjusted parcel A. The proposed project includes a coastal development permit to allow a lot line adjustment between two lots of record resulting in two parcels. the existing adjoining property line shown here in yellow and the reconfigured line shown in red. An unpermitted accessory structure indicated on screen with a red star was inadvertently constructed on both parcels A and B. Rather than relocating or demolishing the structure, the owner seeks approval of a lot line adjustment to establish new property lines that align with the required minimum setbacks for a non-habitable accessory structure. Additionally, the owner seeks to convert the unpermitted accessory structure to a garden shed and obtain an after the-act design approval permit to permit the structure in its existing footprint while conforming to the newly established property lines. There is no new development being proposed as part of the submitt and the resulting parcel sizes continue to meet minimum building site requirements. With implementation of this project, the property will go back into compliance and conform to the lowdensity residential site development standards outlined in title 20. This project was not referred to the Carmel Highlands Land use advisory committee for review due to an ongoing lack of quorum issue at the time. However, today's agenda was distributed to the LUAC members and one member commented on the project as a member of the public rather than a committee member. The colors and materials, as shown on screen, consist of dark brown board and batten siding with stone veneer detailing and brown clay roof tiling with black framing for windows and doors. The structure blends with the surrounding area and the colors and materials match the existing exterior of the residence. Therefore, staff recommends the planning

commission find that the project qualifies as classes 1, 5, and 33 categorical exemptions pursuant to SQA guidelines sections 15301, 15305A, and 15333. And there are no exceptions pursuant to section 15300.2 to and approve a combined development permit to partially clear code enforcement case 23 CE 00194 consisting of a lot line adjustment between two legal lots of record a restoration permit to replant six Monterey Pines and restore development on slopes exceeding 30% and an after the-act design approval to allow construction of a detached garden shed on adjusted parcel A. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions. Thank you very much, Miss Balling. That was very nice. I um learned a lot. All right. Any questions? Oh, Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. Um I don't know if this is something you can answer, but why is it being converted to a shed from a guest house? That just is there like a could it not be permitted as a guest house? Would that be cost prohibitive? Like why what is the process there? It was a lesser entitlement for the owner to seek and because of the size it um it would have needed a coastal development permit had they sought to keep it as a guest house. Um reestablishing it as a garden shed only requires after the fact design approval for the exterior changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hartzell. This was on our agenda last meeting and there was a continuence requested. Have there been any changes to either the um I'm sorry, either the um draft language in the conditions or the um have there been any changes since the last time we looked at this? The conditions would only reflect the different entitlements that have been applied. um the past project when it was previously almost considered, there was information that staff did not um review thoroughly and wanted to make sure the project was fully vetted before presenting to you today. And so the entitlement was downgraded from a coastal permit to a design approval for the garden shed. Um that would be the only changes. there haven't been additional changes to the plans or the condition of approval language

through the chair to also add um there was clarity added to the correct SQA exemptions that staff is recommending um and then also staff would like to add an additional condition the indemnification agreement and that would be condition number nine is not in your packet today but staff would recommend that that is added Why isn't it in my packet? It was inadvertently not included in today's packet, but staff is recommending it as an ARA item. Can you describe the indemnification provision to me?

Sure. Um, the indemnification agreement is a standard condition of approval that is applied to all projects going before a public hearing. Um, it essentially indemnifies the county from any action that may be taken as a result of approving the project.

Got it. And for the trees, we are replanting some trees here. Tree replacement. Is there There's a six month and one year confirmation that the trees survived. That's true. This is my only point of contention on this project is I'm sad that the trees went without permits and um I'd like to consider either adding a three-year check-in or potentially just some additional language in that condition um to ensure that the trees that are get replanted survive. staff can include that language um as updated language to the condition of approval for the tree replanting requirements.

Thank you.

Cool. Anyone additional questions? No. All right. Thank you. Commissioners, um the applicant or the applicant's agent, are they here and would like to make a presentation? Good afternoon. My name is Matthew Sunt and I represent the property owner at 58 Mount Devin Road and uh I've addressed all the conditions and I've heard an additional condition that I'll share with the property owner. It's the indemn indemnification component. That's fine. And all the other conditions are fine and the property owner understands that. And I'll be tracking the process with the property owner to asssure that all the conditions are met. And as I recall, trees to be replaced, planted within six months, and then another year in checkup. And now I'm I'm hearing a thirdyear checkup. Did I catch that correctly? McKenna, is Commissioner Hartzell recommending another checkup at three years?

Commissioner Hartzell, what were you recommending? That is what I'm recommending. Pictures. Three years. Okay. So, so we'll be planting, as I recall, we're planting within six months. It'll be much sooner than that, by the way. We'll check in in a year and then we'll check in in three years and the property owner will be uh glad to do that and the property owner wants this water under the bridge ASAP

and I'm here to represent that and uh also briefly tell you that uh besides giving you my name Matthew Sant urban planner I'm a professional planner I'm still working in the industry I see familiar faces and uh It's I want to recommend I want to uh convey that you guys are doing a great job on on the uh short-term rentals and I'm glad this is finished and we're done and I can walk out of here in about two minutes and you can walk out of here in about two minutes. You're not the only one, sir. Thank you very much. Thanks.

We appreciate you. And so you Yeah, you've agreed with all the conditions. Great. All righty. So, let's u let's open this um item up to public comment. Seeing no one else in the room. Is there anyone on line on Zoom on the interwebs? There are no hands on Zoom and no additional emails. Okay. Thank you. All right. And staff, was there anything in there that you heard that you want to talk to address? No, but staff is happy to incorporate the changes made to the condition text.

Okay, great. That's super. All right, then. Commissioner Gomez, I'm prepared to make a motion with those additional changes that was recommended by Okay, very good. And Commissioner Hartz, I'll second that. All righty. Um, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed.

It passes unanimously. Thank you everyone. Now, next on the agenda is the department report. Sorry, did I catch you off guard? Thank you. Staff does not have anything that they feel salient to update the commission on. And yes, it caught me a little off guard. Apologies, but uh no, I think we are good. Thank you.

Okay, that's great. All right, then let's adjourn this puppy at uh where are we here? 12:15 12:15 p.m. Thank you everyone. Appreciate your help. All your