Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the February 25 meeting of the monterey county planning commission. We will begin with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Roberts, would you lead us, please? Thank you, Commissioner Roberts. Madam Clerk, would you mind doing a roll call for us, please?

Good morning. Commissioner Getzelman?

Here.

Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzales?

Present.

Commissioner Work?

Here.

Commissioner Monsalve? Here. Commissioner Gomez?

Here.

Commissioner Roberts? Here. Commissioner Shaw?

Here.

Commissioner Deal is absent. Commissioner Mendoza is absent. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, would you mind reminding everyone how they can participate in these meetings electronically, please?

Certainly, thank you chair. Thank you for joining us. If you are with us remotely today either on your computer or by phone shortly, we will have a slide display hopefully with some additional information. On today's agenda you can access the Zoom link for today's meeting. And you can participate in today's meeting opportunities for public comment.

If you're able to go back one slide, not the word least slide, but the slide that just has the participation. And if not, anyone who is looking, please just ignore temporarily this slide. We'll get to it in a moment. And I'll go off my memory. There we are. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. So you can participate. The contacts here, it is also on the agenda for today during opportunity for public comment.

If you are using the Zoom platform on a computer, you can go down to the reactions button and select raise hand. You can use the same to lower your hand. If you're on a phone, star nine will raise and lower your hand. You can also participate in public comment by sending emails to PChearingcomments@countyofmonterey.gov. We do monitor this email and do our best to capture comments that come through, though there is always a possibility once we're that there could be delays and we could miss something now that we're underway.

When it is your turn to speak during public comment, the clerk will give you the opportunity unmute yourself to do so at the bottom of your screen on the zoom platform select the microphone icon to mute and unmute and on your phone you can do star six to mute yourself and unmute yourself We also continue our, I don't know if it's still a pilot or if we're just officially doing Wordly, but we happily have translation services through Wordly, which will be the next slide that will pop up on the screen for those instructions. We do have our Wordly, there you go, our Wordly, so the QR code, you can join Wordly for translation services by accessing through the QR code or through going to the web page that is noted on the bottom left of this slide. Once you go in there, select the language of choice and click to attend the meeting. And you will receive captions. Also, those in chamber, you will see up on the screen to your right, you'll have those the Spanish translation through Wordly for today's meeting.

Thank you very much, appreciated.

Thank you Madam Secretary. This is the time set aside on the agenda for public comment. Public comment meeting items. Oh, Commissioner Deal has joined us. So good to have you with us this morning.

Yeah, you shouldn't interrupt an old guy. Okay, public comment. This is a time set aside on the agenda for public comment on items that are not on today's agenda. So, if someone would like to, if someone in the chambers or someone on Zoom would like to bring something to our attention, this is the time to do it. Anyone on Zoom?

Yes, we have a Linda on Zoom.

Okay. Would you please join us then?

Thank you. Yes. Well, good morning, Planning Commission and Chairs, Dean Landgetzleman, I guess. This is Linda Marin. I'm an STR owner with a 1997 era permit in Carmel Valley.

I've been operating without incident or complaint since 2000. And I'm grateful for this chance to speak with you about vacation rentals in Monterey County when they aren't on the agenda, and to reflect on the conversation we had about them when they were on the agenda February 11. First of all, thank you for rejecting the Board of Supervisors' most recent version of an STR ordinance that would have virtually banned them in all areas, except RDR zones with agricultural accessory applications. Today, I'm focusing on the county's overriding concern that corporations already are or will soon be taking over Monterey County stock of second homes, rendering neighborhoods nearly devoid of local community members, actual residents, and our neighbors. Recently, when Commissioner Gomez asked if STRs weren't owned by people, Melanie Baretti admitted that they are mostly owned by people, but she added corporate ownership was trending upwards.

I hope some of you wondered what that statement really means. It sounds scary, but what number is Melanie referring to? The latest numbers MCVRA was able to purchase from the county last year showed as of December 2024 that out of seven sixty two STRs paying TOT, corporations owned nine of them, and that's 1.18%. And I want to emphasize the percentage of corporations that are not individual or family based LLCs or trusts was 1.18%. When Melanie says corporate ownership is trending upward, is she referring to that number or another number?

And if it were now, say, at 1.19%, and it would be good if we all had the most recent numbers, would that count as trending upward enough to create STR ordinances that literally turn real people, neighbors, residents out of the homes they are operating here as visitor serving units for the tourists who cannot afford 300 plus dollars a night on corporate hotel rooms? Now that I'm this old, I see that we humans often create the things we're most afraid of in order to face that fear, you know, to conquer it. I suspect that is going on with the county and short term rentals. A majority of the supervisors have, in their minds, villainized STRs as corporate monsters, and they'll do everything possible to eradicate them. They'll succeed in pushing out the mom and pop vast majority of us to make our homes available to the market.

And who will be the most able to buy those relatively expensive homes? Well, possibly corporations. Well, thank you for listening. STRs will come around to you again, I know. Keep asking good questions.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the chambers that would like to talk? I'm sorry. I apologize. My apologies. There's someone else who'd like to talk to us via Zoom. Please go ahead.

Dear planning commissioners, my name is Fred Voltrusak, and I just wanted to thank the planning commissioners for recognizing that something was just not right regards to the short term rental ordinance revisions presented to you two weeks ago. Up and down the entire California Coast, there are dozens of counties and hundreds of cities with robust tourism, which their elected officials have passed reasonable ordinances allowing short term rentals in residential zones and seldom have those ordinances ended in litigation. I've been a homeowner in Monterey County since '97. While I initially owned in Carmel By The Sea, in 2018, I chose to sell and find a home in Carmel Valley. And while the warmer climate and more elbow room was a contributing factor, my main deciding factor was the county ordinances allowed me to rent out my home during periods when I was not personally enjoying it.

I found the perfect home with a beautiful history and began the process of obtaining the necessary permits, gladly paying Transnet's occupancy taxes, and throughout the permitting process found the entire staff with the planning department very friendly and helpful. Thank you. After settling in, I began to hear more about new short term rental ordinances in the works. I learned my home was in an area called District 5, which seemed to have this long history of county supervisors who were very anti short term rental advocates. I felt as though if they had their way, short term rentals would not exist in District 5.

But when that was not likely to happen, they pushed for an ordinance which would effectively accomplish that goal. While district five supervisor Mary Adams, who was at the in office at the time, was busy orchestrating this newly over restrictive ordinance, she was also busy grooming a planning commissioner, Kate Daniels, to take her place. Now with Kate Daniels in charge, she's trying to finish the job making District 5 safe from owners like me who choose to short term rent. But to accomplish this, she feels she must take down the entire county. To complete this, she only needs a slim three two majority.

So why not get that support by allowing another supervisor the opportunity to carve out an exception that would allow short term rentals in residential zones with an agricultural twist, which just so happens to be predominantly a benefit of District 2. I just ask you all to continue focusing on the bigger picture. Times change. These changes include how we live, how we travel, how we vacation, and we how how we choose to enjoy our lives on this planet with our family and friends. Thank you for listening to me, and have a good rest of the meeting.

Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else?

No more hands on Zoom and no one

to share emails. And

no one jumped up last time when I mentioned anyone in the chambers, so we're going to move along then.

Are there any

additions, agenda additions, deletions, or corrections that we know of?

For the record, we received and distributed additional public comments and a memo from staff for agenda item number five, REF 250,038, cannabis consumption venue ordinance and agenda item number six, REF 260,001, Plan amendments to the South County area plan, Carmel Valley master plan, Central Salinas Valley area plan and Greater Salinas area plan.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any requests or referrals that you would like to bring to the attention of staff? No one? Alright, thank you very much. Let's move along then to the approval of the consent calendar.

We have, let's see, one, two, three items. Yeah, three items. Three items on the consent calendar. The appointment of Robert Johnson to the South County Land Use Committee. The appointment of Valerie Gaino Bear, I believe, to the Carmel Valley Land Use Advisory Committee, and the acknowledgment of the resignation of Barbara Varian from the South County Land Use Advisory Committee.

Are there any comments from commissioners or do you wish to have any of those items pulled from the consent agreement? I mean, calendar? No? Alright, seeing no one. Thank you very much. We'll move along then, and we will take comments on the approval or the acceptance of the minutes of January 28. Okay. Alright. My apologies everyone. I'm learning this job as I go along.

We need public comment on the consent calendar. If there's anyone on Zoom or within the chambers that would like to comment or would like to find exception or comment on the acceptance of the consent calendar. There's nothing. I'm getting the nod from the clerk and anyone on the commission have any comments? Seeing none. Okay. Do we have to vote on it?

I move approval of consent. We have to vote.

Okay. I'll

second it.

All right. We have thank you very much. No, that wasn't it. I was just trying to figure out where I was in the process.

Sorry, my microphone was a non burn again. Move approval of consent calendar. Thank you.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Commissioner Gonzalez and a second by Commissioner Gomez. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed nay. Passes, thank you. So then we will finally move along to the acceptance or approval of the minutes of January 28, I believe from the last time. Any comment? Any commissioner have any issues or find any corrections they'd like to make?

None? None? Okay. Can we have a motion then to accept or not? So moved. So moved. Commissioner Gonzalez moves and Commissioner Herzog seconds. All those in favor say

Before we do, Commissioner Gomez make the motion.

I got it wrong again? Gosh, sorry guys. Alright, Commissioner Gomez made the motion and Commissioner Hartzell seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Alright, thank you very much everybody. So we can move along to scheduled items. I think this is the fun part for the day. The first item on the agenda then under scheduled items is reference number two five zero zero three eight, the cannabis cannabis consumption venue ordinance.

And we are fortunate enough to have Mr. Novo presenting today. Would you begin whenever you're ready, sir?

I too am learning the system here. Thank you. Good morning commissioners and chair Gelzelman. I'm Mike Novo, management specialist for housing community development and I'm going to be presenting for the workshop today. We also have in attendance our cannabis program manager, Michelle House, and we should have representatives from the health department, and I'm not sure if there's other county staff that are also participating either in person or Zoom.

I can't see behind me to see who's here. But, we've had a group of different departments, the sheriff, the fire departments, health program, environmental health, county council, and myself, and the cannabis program involved with helping develop this ordinance. So, today's staff requested the Planning Commission conduct a public workshop to review and receive public input regarding options for allowing cannabis consumption in the unincorporated area. The draft ordinance attached to your staff report is a beginning point for discussion. As we pointed out in a separate memorandum, the ordinance is presented in red line format with proposed new language underlined and language proposed for deletion in strike through format.

The Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare an ordinance for cannabis consumption. And last fall, Board's Cannabis Committee asked that we prepare this draft ordinance and hold the workshop here at the Planning Commission. The ordinance is fairly complete as it's patterned after other adopted ordinances from other jurisdictions. However, we want to make sure the ordinance reflects local desires in shaping our regulatory environment for commercial cannabis consumption venues. The purpose of this workshop is to receive input from the public and the commission, and direction from the commission on the draft regulations.

During the workshop, staff will present options for several topics that we've identified, and we'll be seeking direction on those topics. Other topics also may be raised during the workshop and staff would hope for direction on those topics as well. We're here to help have those discussions. So today's staff will begin with a brief on existing cannabis regulations in the county. We then intend to present several topics to solicit feedback from the commission and public.

As I pointed out in the staff report and a minute ago, we've identified several topics already for consideration. Staff would like to reiterate that today's workshop is intended to get initial public input on the framework for cannabis consumption venue ordinance. Staff will utilize the feedback to refine ordinance direction and will be gathering additional public input and return to the Planning Commission with a draft ordinance and environmental document for that ordinance. So staff recommends that the commission conduct a public workshop to review and receive public input today. And find that the workshop is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.

So as pointed out in the staff report, our County code includes regulations that allow cannabis retail facilities in five zoning districts. Two zoning districts are located in the coastal zone and three are in the inland area. To open a retail facility, a discretionary permit must be obtained with regulations, findings and conditions of approval as outlined in the current ordinance. Through our existing regulations, eight retailers have obtained discretionary permits to operate commercial cannabis retail facilities. And again, this is the unincorporated area.

We do not have jurisdiction over the cities. The locations of the eight permitted retailers are shown on the slide. We have one in the coastal zone and seven are in the inland areas. Our County code does not place an overall limit on the number of retailers as some jurisdictions have done. We do have setback requirements to ensure that they are not located close to identified sensitive land uses and also to each other.

In addition to retailers in the unincorporated area, many cities also allow cannabis retailers, and several in this county do have retail uses. As we point out in the staff report, there are no cannabis consumption venues allowed yet anywhere in the county, including the cities within the county. In addition to obtaining a discretionary permit, the county code established a cannabis program through the CAO's office that also enforces a set of regulations found in Chapter 7.9, and they also issue annual permits for cannabis activities. The program includes a staff dedicated to regulatory oversight of this industry and conducts inspections along with other county departments on a regular basis for all operations. This is a map of the entire county, so I know it's small scale and hopefully it's somewhat informative.

This shows the areas where retail cannabis facilities are allowed in the five zoning districts. So, you can see they are dispersed fairly, maybe not evenly, but they are dispersed throughout the county and can occur anywhere. At this point, all eight licenses are in the northern part of the county. The orange shaded text depict the locations within the coastal zone, the two coastal zoning districts that allow commercial retail cannabis. And the purple highlighted zoning districts, the three zoning districts that allow commercial cannabis retail in the inland area.

So the existing County Code requires that any retail facility be set back a certain distance from specified land uses that are included in the regulations. Those uses are listed on this slide. The use is highly regulated and the county has its own cannabis program team that focuses on this use, including retail, growing, manufacturing and distribution. In addition, HED, health, sheriff and fire are also involved with conducting necessary inspections. Taxes and fees help support the program costs for the county, and security of product is handled through a robust set of regulations already in the county code.

We're not proposing any changes to those regulations. As we pointed out in the staff report, consumption of cannabis is allowed only on private property. A lot of people, including renters and visitors, cannot legally consume cannabis where they reside. A cannabis consumption venue can provide a location for that segment of the population that cannot find a safe and legal location to consume cannabis. I want to point out that you received a letter of correspondence from Mr.

Stoney, I believe yesterday, and that letter, I think, did a very good job of pointing out the reasons why a cannabis consumption ordinance would be of value to the general public. County staff meet regularly with the industry to understand their needs and hear any concerns they may have. The industry has informed us that allowing consumption for some of the retailers would allow better education on the safe and proper use of cannabis. Some existing retailers have expressed a desire to allow consumption at their retail locations. Through these conversations and in conversations with the Board of Supervisors, staff was directed by the Board to develop such an ordinance, and that's why we're here today.

So staff prepared a staff report that includes a discussion of the key areas related to this ordinance work and identifies six topics for discussion in this workshop. Attachments have been provided that show initial draft ordinance changes recommended for consideration and discussion today. As stated earlier, these draft ordinances are presented in red line format. We've also attached a map of the zoning districts where the retail locations are allowed. The ordinance amendments prepared for this workshop are based on information we have gathered from other local agencies that allow cannabis consumption already.

A few of these ordinance have been attached to your staff report as attachments. I want to talk a little bit about the letter you received again from Mr. Stoney. I don't think I could have laid out a better set of reasons why this type of ordinance would be important to the public to allow these types of uses to allow people the opportunity to legally consume cannabis. I want to point out that we did have it on our list to add the food services that he identified in his letter, but I just ran out of time and didn't get it into the version of the ordinance that's before you.

We do anticipate adding that as part of our final draft that comes before the Planning Commission. So, will now move through each topic area and ask for commissioner and public questions, comments, and input related to each of these topics. It's up to the commission how they want to do it, but I had planned on maybe taking one topic at a time, allowing public input. If that's okay with the Commission, that's how I've structured the PowerPoint.

I think that would be fine unless there's any objections from Commissioners. No, thank you.

Thank you. So, slide points out the six topics that we've broken out and identified as staff on things that we could use direction on to make sure we're heading in the right direction on this ordinance. So the ordinance prepared by staff is set up to allow cannabis consumption paired with cannabis retail facilities. That's a requirement of the law actually. Existing retail facility would have obtained a discretionary permit already to initially open.

This topic seeks direction on the process that would be used to allow cannabis consumption as a land use or to not allow it within the unincorporated area. Canvas retail uses had to meet a long list of regulations, including setbacks, parking requirements, ensuring that required findings could be met, and they have conditions of approval associated with each of their permits. In addition to the zoning ordinance process, regulations and permit requirements, cannabis retailers have a long list of regulations that they have to meet out of Chapter 7.9 of the County Code as well that's run by the cannabis program. The draft ordinance attached to your staff report establishes a process where cannabis consumption use may be added to an already permitted retail facility with products products we

we a of

required by the County Code and no changes are recommended have. For that. Option B would eliminate the ministerial approach and would require that a consumption venue be added as an amendment to the original discretionary permit. Option C requires that a cannabis consumption venue obtain a separate discretionary permit to recognize this as a new and separate use, although they cannot legally operate separate. Option D would involve a recommendation from the Planning Commission that we not allow cannabis consumption in the unincorporated area of the county.

In essence, that wouldn't leave the county code as it is. Staff recommends option A, but this topic has important aspects that need discussion. When discretionary permits were issued for the cannabis retail facilities, there was not an ability to have consumption be part of the use. So anyone that participated in those earlier permit deliberations were not able to provide their input on whether a site is appropriate for consumption value. In addition, an applicant for a new retail facility use could potentially propose just a cannabis retail location and then later add a consumption venue through the ministerial process.

So, if the ordinance is adopted as proposed, it would be important to ensure that any new retail facility that comes before hearing body for a discretionary application, that it would be analyzed for the potential to also have a consumption venue. Staff still recommends option A, as we have sought to identify potential land use issues and we think provided regulations or sufficient regulations to address each of those issues. Adding a discretionary permit process is expensive, time consuming, and provides no certainty to an applicant. When we prepare new ordinance, try to identify the simplest path where we can one, identify land use issues and two, provide regulations to ensure the public health and safety is addressed for each of those issues and determine whether there is value in requiring a discretionary process. Typically, discretion is needed where location is an important variable that could lead to a decision that the use is not appropriate in that proposed location.

Discretionary permits are also important if customized conditions are needed to address significant land use issues that could create land use incompatibility with neighboring uses or where resource issues could affect the project. For cannabis consumption venues, the county has a rigorous set of regulations in both the zoning ordinance and Chapter 7.9 that address land use compatibility and provide significant regulations to ensure the use is secure, protects the public health and safety, and the locations are all in commercial zones where resource issues are rare. So, staff recommends development of an ordinance that will allow cannabis consumption venues through the ministerial permit process, again, which is option A. We now request that the commission open the workshop for public input and for commissioner input and provide direction to staff.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Novo. Commissioners, let's start with us. Commissioner Shah.

Thank you. I just the quote something you just said, resource issues are rare when you're speaking of the districts. This would be allowed in. Can you tell me what resources you're speaking of?

Yeah, I'm talking about there are a few of the commercial areas that are kind of out in rural areas that may have environmentally sensitive habitat, for example, nearby. And we do have regulations in the county code already that address those types of issues. So if they were to let's say they wanted to actually add on to their structure in the coastal zone, as an example, We would look at whether that construction itself triggers a discretionary permit that's separate than the ministerial process for the use, but the construction itself might trigger an issue. And then if it's located within a certain distance from environmentally sensitive habitat, for example, or if they're removing trees, those would trigger discretionary permits as well. So you would look at the overall process.

But if they're going to use existing facilities or are not encroaching into areas that trigger a discretionary permit, then the ordinance wouldn't allow them to move forward with a ministerial permit process.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Novo. Commissioner Deal?

Thank you. I really appreciate this and and the very complete staff report. I I find it, really helpful. Couple of things. I'm gonna start at the beginning, which is have we an identified goal for an ordinance? As the board of supervisors for example identified what they wish such an ordinance to accomplish should it be approved is this something you just came forward from the public or do we have like we're trying to do this thing and if so what is the thing

The direction from them was to allow this as a land use within the county. So the goal is to allow consumption. They didn't get into the details, at least the meeting I was at. And perhaps, Michelle House knows more about the details because she is the staff for the cannabis board committee and so participates in all their meetings. So, don't know if she wants to speak on this, but their goal is to allow this as a use to realize that there's kind of a hole in the legal environment for cannabis consumption, that people cannot consume cannabis legally, and so they do it illegally right now. And so, the goal is to provide that opportunity to have legal consumption areas.

I don't think I need the details, but thank you. I appreciate that clear statement because from my point of view, that tells me our directive would be to how to figure out how to do this safely and appropriately for the public. So not whether, but how. So that's really what I was looking for. I also also just want to ask you how, when we talk about this particular use, it's highly regulated at a number of levels and you've given a good description of the local regulations.

Can you just remind us the level of regulation that occurs at the state beyond and above everything that we've said? This was as I understand it a change in what was allowed from above before we even got to the county. Is that correct? Not very clear, it's correct.

I'm not an expert at all the state regulations again, hopefully. But, are a bunch. All of our state regulations are what is called state enabling legislation that allows us to regulate these types of land uses at the local level. We have to be consistent with state law. There are a bunch, as you just pointed out. Yes, they have complete control of this. There's a regulatory process. They've set up different categories of cannabis as we have in our local ordinance as well. They do that at the state level as well. And it's a highly regulated industry. Can I leave it at that?

Thank you. And yes, that's what I'm after, which is that given that there are a large number of requirements and many things that we look at in the granting of a discretionary permit for a retail venue, as in extremely many and I'll go into that in a second. What additional impacts have we identified from consumption beyond those that would be already considered within the many state and local regulations that govern a retail facility now.

Yeah, and the issues we've identified mostly have to do with odor. We're going to have a concentration of an area where smoking could occur if it's a consumption venue that wants to do smoking, and not all of them are going to do smoking potentially. Some may just do other types of applications, if you will. But so we have the ventilation requirements, significant ones, to address that issue. Of course, we have our standard land use issues about parking noise, construction if there were new construction to occur.

We think our current regulations address all those issues appropriately and don't think we need to make any changes to those sections of the ordinance yet. We might hear different today, but we think that we have adequate regulations. In the coastal zone in particular, we have all the coastal implementation plans that address resource issues, as Commissioner Shaw was asking about. So, we think that we have an adequate regulatory landscape already to address the typical land use issues that would be associated with any land use, and this is just another land use. But the odor issue is a significant one that we think needs regulations.

If I can continue.

Sure. Certainly.

Thank you. One thing that occurs to me is that as people stay longer in a venue, there's a need for bathrooms. And so that brings up water and wastewater. Are those something that we feel can be appropriately addressed through a an administrative process and if so how and who would do that

yeah they were well they were just as part of the discretionary permit application for retail facilities as you point out this would allow people though to congregate on-site and would do that. So we do have our County Code, trying to think through all the potential variables that could be affecting that. But we do have our County Code that addresses those issues. There are certain areas of the County where we have water use fixture limitations. Of course, those regulations would apply.

There are well and septic limitations if there are more rural areas, and so we have the regulations for that. So, I believe that we have the ability through our ministerial process. When somebody comes in for a building permit, for example, they're subject to all those regulations for water and wastewater. And we are able, through our ministerial process, to make sure they have adequate facilities for everything.

Similarly to a bar or a deli or a restaurant?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. And then, I really appreciate that, but I am going to go back to something that's slightly off topic, but not entirely, which is I am in favor of simplifying regulations to accomplish what we really want to accomplish and not a bunch of other stuff. And as a result, I continue to be significantly upset about the fact that there is no potential for any retail cannabis consumption or selling in Big Sur which is known for people who want to go there and now a center for illegal use. So, from my point of view, whatever restrictions are that render it impossible for a retailer to set up and subsequently to apply for some use like this that make it impossible for that to occur within Big Sur.

I want somebody to take a good look at that and say that is without question inappropriate and unhelpful and counter to the goals we've just talked about. Because what it means is people are parking along the side of the road, it's the only place they have to go, smoking, consuming and then driving on Highway 1, which is not my favorite thing to do. Or potentially not driving on Highway 1 and lighting a campfire, another of my not favorite things for them to be doing. So if the goals are there as expressed, I think it is my point of view an absolutely essential goal that whatever the limiting factors are that are preventing that opportunity from being extended to the people for whom many of the products are named throughout the country. I think that that's significantly inappropriate and needs to be addressed and should be done at every level and every opportunity that we have.

That's my editorial comment.

Thank you. I would want to point out that and maybe I don't know if there's a special prohibition, but we do have a zoning district in the Big Sur community that does allow retail sales at least by the zoning. I'm not sure if there's any special limitation in Big Sur, but I can check into that.

Once you say ESHO, we're out of business. You have to be clear and specific about what you mean by that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you Commissioner. Commissioner Hartzell.

This might be a question for the secretary, but could I have an outline of how best to give feedback on all of these topics and options? Are you looking for something specific? Are you looking for what are you looking for?

I'll let Mr. Noah as well chime in, but generally, so today's a workshop. Right, there is a draft ordinance because sometimes it's nice to start from a starting point and staff did take an approach of given this direction, what is kind of the most streamlined process. I believe the way that it's organized, there's a number of topics, and I don't remember the count, maybe five specific topical areas. And I think the intention is that we would, and again, this is kind of at the purview of the commission, is that we could take each topical area one by one.

If there's a preference to perhaps have general questions, comments, hear general public feedback from the community, and then go through the topic areas, that's another way to organize it. So I think some of that is just for the Commission's discretion. Any, again, it's a workshop, so any feedback, questions, comments and input that staff receives will be heard and taken in. We fully anticipate that there will be subsequent iterations of what's before you today.

Yeah, and just to expand on that just a little bit. So, if you look I guess the slides aren't up right now, but we have several options for each of the topics. And if and there's probably a lot of nuance options in between those as well. But if you at the end of the hearing, after you take testimony from the public and deliberation among the commissioners, if the commission can arrive in consensus on one of those options and provide that direction to staff. That's what we'd be looking for.

Did you just say if the commission can provide consensus on the options?

Yes.

Noted. Thank you.

Alright Commissioner Gomez?

Two

questions. One relates to because I I really didn't see any language that addresses these issues. I know that, when you go to a bar or you go to a restaurant, there's kind of rules that prohibit the limiting your ability to serve people that are intoxicated. Is is that being considered, is that something that's going to be added to this ordinance in terms of just generally safety for the people that sometimes might not have control of what they consume?

Yeah, I think you'll hear from the industry about how they do that. But we do have, kind of in the ordinance, have some educational components because we think that's one of the best, this is one of the best reasons for these venues to be approved, is to allow that opportunity to educate people on safe and responsible use of cannabis. I don't want to talk about liability of an operator, but they may have liability issues if they serve somebody that should not be served. So, we could add something to the ordinance if there's something that you know, County Council hasn't really weighed in on this ordinance yet, and I know they will be. There's definitely going to be some edits coming out of this from the county council's office, and that might be part of what they also contribute.

One option might be to look at limitations in terms of how much they could sell, right, to individuals. But, again, it's really a decision of this commission and I'd like to hear from the folks that are in the industry true about it. Secondly I wanted to ask about the issue of really too many approving and I'm not familiar with all the locations, proving a concentration of too many consumption launches within a certain distance of each other. So that's a concern. I'm not sure how that's been addressed.

Our existing ordinance already has a separation requirement, although it does allow opportunities to change that separation if there's certain factors involved, such as they're in a I think a regional shopping center, I think, is one of the categories where they can have more than one cannabis retailer. So the same regulations would apply to these cannabis consumption venues. But as I pointed out, we do not have a numerical limit. You know, alcohol industry is completely different from the state standpoint. They have the number of licenses based on census population and each census tract.

That is not the case with cannabis at this point.

Thank you. Commissioner Robert?

I have a global question and I'm just curious if cannabis is still a cash based commodity? Maybe.

Okay. Yes, I don't know. So I'm sure somebody will tell us.

Okay. The other question I have is if we can see the slides again, if you're looking for collective feedback on our options. I was curious to understand with the existing seven or eight that currently exist, I think I understood that they would require not necessarily a discretionary permit unless it triggered the need for that. I guess I'm trying to understand the difference between just, you know, how do the existing operations fall into whatever we decide?

So, the existing operations did have to get a discretionary permit to begin retail sales. So, they've been through that process. And as I pointed out, one of the points of discussion for today is, yes, but when those were issued, nobody thought that cannabis consumption was going to be added. If we're going to do a ministerial process, it would be added without public input. So is that public input important? Is this a significant enough land use issue that we should have a discretionary permit on this? We are not recommending that. We think we've identified the significant land use issues, and we think they can be regulated. And we'd like to approach it that way if that's at all possible. So that's our recommendation.

I'm not sure if I'm answering your question, though.

No, that was exactly what I was asking because I was curious to know what staff's opinion on what currently existed, whether you'd considered that, I guess. And so it sounds like you have, and so they were looking for our feedback on these next steps. Are you looking for that now or at the end after?

I think after you hear from the public on each of these topics, and then hopefully get direction on this topic, and then we'll move on to the next one.

Thank you.

Very good, thank you. Commissioner Shah?

Thank you. Let me ask you if this is coming later in your presentation, you going to be speaking to the live music, the potential for that element later on and then I'll hold off till then on that?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. So I'm going to hold that question. Maybe I'll also hold this one off. You said that you the county has consulted with all these different entities, but I didn't hear I heard the sheriff, but I didn't hear the Highway Patrol chime in, and I was curious about that. And I was curious to know as far as odor, which you noted that that was of a significant concern, and when we're talking about potentially having outdoor venues, who would enforce any odor complaints? I've had a lot of interaction with Embard. I don't know if that would be the entity that would enforce odor complaints. And even with the county and Embard, there's just not a lot of weight behind it. So I don't know if that's something you're going to discuss later, or should we go down that path right now?

We can go down that path now if you like. Yeah, that's there is a little bit of discussion later on in one of the slides or one of the topics about how to address odor. But as far as complaints, because we are a permitting agency, both HCD and the cannabis program, we would be responding to complaints. Our health department would be involved as well. So, we would have a team that would respond to any complaints to try and analyze whether there's a significant odor issue associated with any operation, not just a consumption venue.

So, we have those in place, but they are not easy to address. Know, odor can be in the eye of the beholder, I guess, the nose of the beholder, if you will. It's not clear that a significant odor may exist to one person and another person may think it's just overwhelming. So, it's a difficult issue and we do have people from the health department representatives here, so I don't know if they are online or in person, but if anybody from health can chime in, I'd appreciate that.

If I may, through the chair, we do. We are joined by Edward Moreno, who's the I'm sorry, don't want to mispronounce his and he is a panelist. And I don't know if his hands up are available, but we do have health staff available.

Hi. Good afternoon. Good morning, Commission Ed Moreno, public health director with the health department. I'll I'll maybe be brief because I know we have Elaine who's also in the chamber with you there. But as far as odors, I would defer to Environmental Health if there's one person on the panelists list for Environmental Health on odors.

In terms of the I wasn't specifically asked in terms of the smoke. There we do understand there is some concern about there may be some concern about exposure secondhand smoke exposure in a consumption lounge where smoking is permitted and list of individuals that might be subject to secondhand smoke would be the environmental health inspectors themselves who work generally from have regular hours eight to five and their inspecting hours are generally during working hours of of the establishments which would be more likely from nine to four. Would need to go in to complete their inspections and then also anyone else who goes in. On behalf of the retail establishment, including vendors, contractors for repairs, for example, and farmers. So those are with regards to generation of odor and smoke, those are some of the public health concerns.

And if Elaine has anything else, which is in the audience, she is welcome to add to public health's comments. Thanks.

Did that answer your questions, Commissioner Shah?

Thank you, but probably not really. I don't know if they are answerable. I'm going down a lot of my questions are based not because I have a problem with cannabis and perimenopause. I use cannabis, like, please, like, it's wonderful. It's through enforcement, and realistically, we can create this perfect ordinance that tries to close all these loopholes.

But if we don't have any enforcement happening and there are effects, negative effects on the community that these are in, and I live probably I don't know half a mile from one. It's not a problem, never an issue. Nothing's wrong with it, But there are lots of high school kids who walk by, there's lots of people who walk through there. I don't want to smell that, I wouldn't want someone else to smell that. And if there's no enforcement, it's not controllable.

I mean I'm very experienced with having a legitimate complaint, which we'll also talk about the noise complaints later on, and not being able to do anything about it, where the county just is basically like, we've done all that we can do, and you're just SOL. And I would so that's why it's really important to me that we minimize the potential for that while still respecting the rights of these business owners to have So I do have that other question also, though, about the Highway Patrol and if they were looped into any of this, because I did reach out to the Highway Patrol and spoke with an officer about this.

Yeah, they have not been involved with the discussion so far, so we can certainly add them to our working group of County staff.

Oh, through the chair. Thank you. I brought that up because I was not expecting, just to kind of put this out there, the feedback that I got from an officer was not what I was expecting. I was not familiar with how many people are pulled over who are driving under the influence and how much additional work it is to determine that when it's not something as simple as alcohol. They don't have a breathalyzer, there's not this predetermined standard.

So hearing about the process of testing, so to speak, the legal process that they have to go through was just a huge amount of work that I was not prepared. I had no understanding of that. I ask about this because putting this added use into communities, so unincorporated Monterey County, obviously this is still a possibility in our cities and incorporated areas. This is not the whole of Monterey County who's never going to have it if we say no. But we're putting these venues into the areas with the least amount of resources, a different kind of resources that we were talking about earlier, to address concerns.

We're often far out away from county people. All the offices are here in this town. They're not in Pajaro, Moss Landing, way out in South County. We don't have law enforcement oversight. We don't have CHP officers who are able to respond in a timely manner into these communities. So those are some of my concerns, and that's why I would love to have CHP looped in on this.

Yeah, and we will reach out to them. I just want to point out, you know, our approach on this is that right now cannabis is a legal drug. People are using it. Right now, a lot of people are using it illegally because they do not have a place that they can consume in a legal environment. So, the idea here is to provide at least that opportunity to have a legal area where they can consume and hopefully get some education as well while they're there from the staff at these facilities.

Alrighty. Oh Commissioner So, Deal.

I think Commissioner Shah did you want to follow-up?

Thank you. It was just kind of I feel like that I mean to be blunt that's kind of a perspective of wanting this to be accepted. I mean, people are gonna use illegally, they're gonna use it legally. I've literally and I know I do jiu jitsu. I know so many people who smoke pot. They're gonna do it when they're gonna do it. I don't think I've ever run into someone who's like, my gosh, I don't have a legal place to do this. What am I gonna do? It happens all the time. I don't know that this necessarily fills the need other than recreation.

It sounds like a nice thing. I think of the venue down the street for me, and aside from noise and odor, seems like a cool place for people to meet up and something to do and something that will bring a little bit of life to the community. I just don't think that that doesn't move me in any way. Maybe it moves others that, oh, it's addressing a need that is gonna be filled based on legality. That doesn't sway me whatsoever.

Commissioner Deal? I'm glad

I let her talk because she said exactly what I wanted to respond to. That may be true for for residents, but in a community where we have a vast, number of visitors who are staying in visitor accommodations is not true. And many of the visitors who come, again, I'm speaking from the perspective of Big Sur which is not included in the potential for these outlets, They don't have any option and they are on recreational time. And if there were another way to deal with it, I believe it might be more effective. I would hold up the example of alcohol on ships, which is my background.

We, in American ships, alcohol is prohibited. You're not allowed to drink on ships. This does not mean alcohol is not consumed on ships, by the way. But it did lead to in in when I was running the ships a lot of problems with people using it in their own room out of brown paper bags excessively that resulted in in difficulties and challenges. Other countries, I'll I'll use the British example as one, can have bars on ships.

And the rule is you may not consume alcohol except in the bar. And that allows some level of sociality and some level of control over consumption. And if you're outside of that, absolutely have the benefit of not only the authorities but other people surrounding you to enforce that behavior. I don't think it's completely the same, but it is the part that I would put forward as my general idea that such a thing makes a lot of sense to me. I also just had a question because I think weirdly.

We do have cigar vaults and cigar bars in the area that have odor issues. Is have we looked at how they deal with the potential for secondhand smoke and odor control? I mean it seems like that's a pretty pervasive odor and those uses do happen in pretty close quarters and I don't remember them being an issue otherwise. So just again, as I say, crossed my mind and wondered if we looked at that as a potential resource for how to deal with the odor issue specifically in this instance.

Commissioner Gonzalez?

Thank you. Yeah. I know that you mentioned that I guess that people don't have an area where they can consume legally. If there was a certain legal consumption for those individuals that use it, where would those be?

They'd have to be partnered with a retail facility. Eight that we have licensed currently, they would have to consume in those areas.

Is that the only area they would be able to consume?

Well, mean, they could get another operator could get a new permit to open new retail facility with a consumption venue as well. So anywhere in the zoning districts that I showed you on the map, those allow cannabis retail facilities. Those would also then if this ordinance is adopted also allow cannabis consumption venues.

Would they be able to consume in their own private homes? Yes. Would the law allow for that?

Yeah, the law does allow for that. It's just public areas that you cannot consume legally.

So then there are legal areas where they can consume

product? For much of the population, yes. But there's a lot of the population, maybe just as much, I don't know, that live in apartments or that have roommates that don't want smoking in their unit, in their hotels, things like that, that do not have a legal place to consume.

If, let's say, family member of mine or a friend, they own their own house, I don't live there. Would I be able to consume it there?

If they said yes, yes.

Thank you. Just wanted to clarify for myself. The other piece is, did this particular ordinance or in terms of changes or the recommendations, is this something that the industry, the retail facility is requesting from to be created or is it something that the community came forward and said, we would like for this to be changed or is it a combination of both. So I'm not sure since it's coming up whether it's coming from one sector of the community or two sectors of the community or three sectors of the community, whatever that may be because it would truly help me kind of look at that because I think that's an important piece. Where is it coming from?

Yeah, so I'd, for me it was, it came from the Board of Supervisors. So somehow it came to the Board of Supervisors. I'm not sure of all that background. Maybe some of the other staff is aware of how it got to that location. The industry is interested in this, certainly, and we've had discussions with them. So I'm sure once you hear from the public input today, you'll get some more clarity on that and maybe some other staff know as well.

Yeah, I think we will.

Yeah, if I may just briefly to that background. So this is something that has come up with the industry and it had come up and was a discussion point, I want to say a year ago, if not two, when staff brought forward our long range work program. And so as a part of the discussion around our long range work program, there was a desire and general board support that we include consideration of cannabis lounges. There, And however, it was also recognized that staffing resources was limited, is why also the department is working with our retired annuitant, Mr. Novo, to help carry this particular topic forward.

So it did come through. It was a discussion that came from the industry and that the requested come through the supervisors and it came up through discussion and request through our general consideration of our long range work program to look into basically the mechanism and how we could allow for such a use for cannabis.

Okay, thank you.

Thank

you. Do I still have the floor? I still have a couple of more questions. Of whom? Thank you.

My third question and I guess you can do this with alcohol, whether it's in a bar or a lounge or something, whether in terms of those individuals that do drink more than they should and then they drive off and then they have a very tragic accident one way or the other. And so is there any information in looking at other different localities that might have some type of a policy, etcetera. Do we have any information in terms of the and I guess it's been addressed a little bit here in terms of safety driving. I know we talked about education, but we can educate individuals, but will they be willing to follow the information that is given to them in the educational process. But do we have any information or have we researched any information as far as safety driving information, are there increased accidents in those particular areas or close by of any type of accident might have occurred with those individuals that may have been using cannabis in those type of lounges.

I'm not sure if we have looked at that or we haven't looked at that or if there is any research that specifically speaks to if there is any increase in that or not.

I haven't found any research yet about that, but we can keep doing some more digging.

Okay. And my next question has to deal with timeline and in terms of discretionary permits, would those have a particular timeline, let's say that one way or the other those that recommendation of plan A was approved. Do we have anywhere in there that let's say we find out that there has been increase in accidents and deaths in particular areas. Is there like a timeline that would be placed for that particular area in terms of use and then let's say three years, five years and then reapply for it again? Is there any type of timeline embedded in that?

I can speak to our existing county code which we're not proposing to change requires an annual permit to the cannabis program manager. I think they're called commercial cannabis permits. So, they're renewed every year. So, we would have the opportunity to, if we have new information that's a dangerous operation for some reason, we'd have an opportunity to not renew a permit. But

the permit is for the overall operation, not for the specific piece of use within that locality. Is that correct?

I'm not sure I understand, but the permit is for the retailer currently and then there would be a permit for consumption. It would be a separate permit is what we're envisioning.

Okay, thank you.

All righty. Any other questions? Commissioner Montalves.

Thank you, Chair. My first question is, when you speak of odor, do you basically mean smoke? Or is there an odor related to cannabis use other than smoke?

I don't know the answer. I'm assuming smoke in my world, but perhaps some of the public can educate all of us.

Okay, thank you. So, following up on that, it seems to me that if the concern is smoke, then wouldn't it be the same as the concern for cigarette smoke and vaping smoke and cigar smoke? And couldn't the regulations be similar to whatever regulations we have in place that limit the exposure of nonsmokers to that secondhand smoke? Also, while you think, I'm not familiar with all our liquor licensing regulations and all those specifics. However, I have been at commercial venues, bars, restaurants where you can have wine but you can't have hard liquor?

Is it possible to have commercial licensing where you could consume the nonsmoke cannabis and allow retailers that I think you said ministerial permit. Because if the concern is people's behavior while intoxicated, it would be the same concern as when they're drinking alcohol. And if the concern is the smoke, it would be the same concern as where places as those places where people are using cigarettes and cigars or vaping. Couldn't the limitations and regulation for cannabis consumption run parallel, perhaps, to cigarette use?

They can. I'm a land use planner, so I deal with land use issues. So you're getting a little bit outside of my expertise. But we do have people from the health department here. One thing they pointed out to me in the discussions internally that we've had on this is that edibles, they have a different effect than smoking.

They take longer to take effect and the effects can last longer. So, hopefully, if you have any questions about that, they can chime in on that information because it's, again, it's out of my expertise. We just think that having a cannabis consumption venue provides the opportunity to educate people. I don't want to repeat over and over again, but I think this is an important land use, even though, as Commissioner Shaw points out, people are still going to do things illegally. We know that.

But we think having an opportunity for those that choose to try and follow the law, we think, is a better approach. And we think, because the way we're constructing the ordinance includes an educational component, we have the ability to say, you know, here's proper dosing. Hopefully the retailers will have the ability to do that. And I know in talking to them, that is what their intent is, to kind of educate people how to properly use and legally use and safely use cannabis. So, it's in their interest to keep their customers safe as well. So hopefully you'll hear from them soon.

Thank you. So in follow-up to that, one more question. Do we have research for those regulations as far as dosing? Here's how much you can sell to one person and control?

I haven't reviewed any of that yet. I did notice that one ordinance does have a limit, I think it's ten milligrams of THC limit on, I think it was edibles. So I had a question for other county staff, is that an important thing we should add to this ordinance? We haven't talked through that yet. So we may have some limitations in the final version of this ordinance, but we're looking at that very topic.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Okay. Very good. Alright. We will open it then to public comment on this item. It's not that you can't speak on any other item, but I'd appreciate it if you limit yourself to this particular subject because we will be going through all of them. So whoever would like to come up, please give us your name so we can have that.

Hi. Robert Roach. Good morning, mister Gitzelman and miss Baretti. My comments are kind of general in nature. First, my background. Retired from the agricultural commissioner after thirty plus years working in regulatory enforcement. Following my retirement in the 2018 and 2019, I came back and worked for Joanne Iwamoto of the cannabis program as, where are you, Mike? What was I? Yeah. Retired annuitant, a management specialist.

And then in 2020, I was asked to become the executive director of the Monterey County Cannabis Industry Association. So I've been following the issue. 2023, I went to Palm Springs on a family trip, and Palm Springs has a number of consumption lounges all along the main street. I visited four or five of them. I talked to the owners, employees. I wrote that all up. They were very happy with it. And my takeaway was it wasn't that hard. It's some ventilation with the entrances. Their ordinance was very short.

So I sent all that to miss Iwamoto in 2023, in the summer. It took the 2025 before its county got moving on this. So one of my themes is don't delay this anymore. The county regulates cannabis very strictly. I was on the team that wrote the ordinance. I thought it was too strict. I didn't like code enforcement being involved, but that's what we got. Cannabis regulates very strictly. In the beginning, the county had a 5 plus million dollar regulatory program, but they're getting 15,000,000 in taxes, so that was okay. But now, have about a $3,200,000 regulatory program, and they're hoping they cover it with the taxes.

We used to have a 100 plus cultivators. Now there's 37. That's not all the county's fault. I'm not trying to suggest that. There are bigger issues at play here, but the, excessive regulation didn't help. And then they tried to then they basically, they extinguished our growers in Big Sur. I mean, that was our legacy. That was our history. That goes back to the diaspora. And I'm running out of town, so I move on.

That was bad. They designed a regulatory program that no one can meet. They went back, they tweaked it, they still couldn't meet it, no one's been able to meet that program. Hemp, they did the same thing with hemp. Our hemp growers went to San Benito County because they couldn't do it here. So we've over regulated everything with cannabis. So please don't do that again. And hearing some of the comments, we're concerned about what you might do. We really don't need to overthink this. It's not that difficult as successful in many other places. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Ditto what Bob said there, but good morning, commissioners. My name is Aaron Stoney. I'm the owner of Big Sur Canyon Botanicals, and thank you for holding this workshop. I did email my comments, so I won't repeat all those. And hopefully, I did have a chance to read them.

I do want to start off by recognizing the staff has done a great job with their due diligence over the past several years with drafting the proposed ordinance in front of you. I think their recommendations are thoughtful, balanced, and focused on community protections. You say to keep to the subject, I think we covered a lot of different subjects. It wasn't really to the one that we were talking about in the first option here, which was keeping it simple. Option A is what staff is recommending.

Just we already have gone through an extensive process to have a retail location. I think they're putting things in place that would cover most of your concerns and allow that as a discretionary permit and not have us come through this discretionary permit process. Again, you know, I've been in business almost nine years. It's been that long since I was in front of you. Some of you are still here, and I commend your commend your dedication to to the commission.

So to the subject, staff's recommendation, option a. If you'd like me to address any of the concerns and questions as far as legal use, Commissioner Shaw, Commissioner Deal, you're both right. The legal use people are going to use it where they're going to use it. But for example, just yesterday, I'm leaving my shop at 06:00 in the evening and there were some tourists that came through. They had no other options and I could see them on the far end of the parking lot, you know, take taking advantage of where they could.

Right? And so it it is a big deal to have an opportunity for people to have a legal outlet to consume cannabis. And, of course, they can go in their own homes. They can do that. But for our tourists mainly, they don't. Also address there's a lot of things to address, but I'll I'll keep just to a few. I did bring this forward probably over four years ago, to supervisor Adams. We had a lot of discussions about it, and that was really brought forth for a number of reasons. I I was getting a lot of people coming in, you know, asking where they could go to do this. So there was requests from the public, not only, from our tourist public, but from a lot of local people.

They just want somewhere to go. They might not enjoy going to the bars and being around what alcohol brings. They they enjoy their cannabis use and would like a social environment to be able to do that. Know, so this has been a long process. So I'll just leave it that. I can address any of your other, concerns and questions that were brought up. If you would allow me to do so as we move forward.

Alrighty. Thank you. If we have something, I think we'll certainly call on you, sir. You see? I

have a question.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mister Estonia, thank you.

Well, have a question for Mr. Stoney.

Oh, Mr. Stoney. Okay. My apologies.

Normally in bars where they sell alcohol, they have alcohol consumption. Normally they sell you maybe a beer, whatever at a time or two at a time and for your use. And then after you had one too many, and you're already way intoxicated, they're able to see and be able to figure out whether you can continue selling them or not. We said mentioned the issue of then driving off and hitting a tree or killing somebody else or killing themselves in some tragic accident. In this particular case, if let's say I'm a user of, cannabis or and I buy, I'm buying a certain amount, then I can take it out or wherever that facility is to be able to use it.

How is the company or the people who are selling that be able to determine whether a person has already had smoked too much and then drive away? Is there going to be some type of a system to type of kind of a person that says I'm sorry but you know at what point does it become too much and how do you control that?

No, I understand your question. Absolutely, mean it's I mean first of all cannabis is very different from alcohol. Alcohol you know again there are strict parameters, or I guess not parameters, but there's blood alcohol level that determines your intoxication level. Some people, a bigger guy can handle a few more drinks, a smaller person, not so much. Cannabis is a lot different.

People have different tolerance levels naturally. For example, if I have a ten milligram gummy, I'm going to probably be in the corner of my room hoping to go to sleep soon. Someone else can tolerate one thousand milligrams and not even feel it. So as far as determining what the appropriate dosage for one person is, is really an individual kind of parameter. Other than that, those signs of intoxication, yes, we would anticipate that businesses that wanna do this will train their staff to look for these visible signs.

You know, falling asleep, I guess, on the couch would be one of them. You know, just you know, it's not it's not the same as alcohol. Right? There there's there are so there are some difficulties there. I I will concur. But it's not impossible to see. You know, the eyelids are maybe a little a little more closed. I mean, there there are things that that we can try to do to determine if someone's over intoxicated. But at the end of the day, you know, we're just asking for the the chance for adults to be adults. You know, you have to plan ahead.

When I'm going to a bar and I know I'm gonna have more than two drinks, I'm gonna call an Uber. I'm gonna get a taxi. I I know my my levels of intoxication, and I hope as as an adult person coming to a facility to use cannabis, they understand their personal levels of intoxication. And we'll have the recommendations, we'll have the relationships with the Ubers, the Lyfts, the taxi cabs, there's buses, there's designated drivers, there's lots of opportunities for people to do it responsibly.

Thank you.

Commissioner, Roberts.

Thank you. I just was curious if you were able to tell us about the, way people can purchase cannabis? I'm just curious if it's an all cash or how that

So different facilities do, depending on how you're interpreting the law, I suppose. There are banking regulations. Do have a bank. All all my business practices are done with checks and my ATM card and things like that. I I write checks to the state to to for taxes and things like that to the county. We do have an ACH program. You can sign up and do things like that. So there all are alternatives to cash, but cash isn't as much of an issue as it

used to be. Thank you.

Thank you, mister.

Anything

else? You. Any other commissioners, questions? No. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate your help.

Hello, my name is Valentia Pichinini and I'm the owner of Synchronicity Holistic. We are the only cannabis destination in California who's ever featured a pharmacist in RNs. I've suffered from multiple sclerosis for thirty two years. In 2010, I wound up at Stanford Hospital, who I had four broken ribs and a torn rotator cuff and recommended that I go to Santa Cruz and see a cannabis doctor. Now, at this point, I've raised seven children.

I've sent three to treatment because I thought cannabis was a gateway drug. My brother was a stoner, and now I know, looking back, he had social anxiety, got into a group of kids where he fell to safety, and was self medicating for his anxiety and depression. In 2010, I went to a cannabis doctor, had a recommendation written, and then proceeded to attend every cannabis state that I could. I wound up in Israel, and I met the Department of Israel Ministry, the universities, the chemist Doctor. Raphael Moshulam.

They were fascinated how I progressed from a wheelchair to a walker, a cane. And many of you remember, I rolled a walker for over ten years. I just attended a class at UCLA. This is their quote on cannabis. It is a phytonutrient we will be using for age management and wellness for the rest of our lives. It is cumulative. The longer we're on it, the more transformative our health will be. My cognition is better than it's been in six years. I couldn't have run a cannabis store six years ago with the regulation and the multitasking that you have to do. What I can tell you is we've seen over 16,000 patients.

The medical community supports synchronicity. Doctor. Santorin, who is a local neurologist, sent all of his ALS, Parkinson's and MS patients to synchronicity holistic. We're proud of the education. There's a couple of questions that I hope that I can answer by explaining the different levels of delivery. Inhalation works in a minute or two, only works for about two hours. Tinctures go through the mucosal membrane, which is under the tongue, works in twenty to thirty minutes, peaks at about an hour, completely out of your bloodstream in three and a half to four hours. Tinctures are probably the most bioavailable that we start most of our seniors on. My demographic is 55. My eldest is 94.

They're using it for pain, sleep. Oh my gosh, so many uses. It brings blood pressure down. It levels out insulin levels. But what I can tell you is the patients that do sometimes spend, my average basket is $300 I talked to Mary Adams about this.

When you are sick and someone convinces you to buy cannabis and you haven't had the opportunity to ingest it while you're on-site, they may walk out with $300 I'll call them forty eight hours later. We got scared. Just say no was still in our head. The only way I can educate people is to get them in my store, have them feel the feeling of the anti anxiety effect that it has, and watch their gait speed and their mental clarity increase. I urge the Commission and the public to support this, because if you're I'm right next to the barnyard it says no vaping first.

Are you kidding me? There's no scent with vaping. Inhalation, I'm an asthmatic. I probably won't have inhalation on-site, but there's so many other important deliveries that we have to educate. When people come in and say they've been smoking pot for forty or fifty years, they've been self medicating, like my brother was. Thank you for your attention.

Anyone else in public like to speak on this topic? You'll have many, in fact four more opportunities I believe to speak. So is there someone on Zoom? Okay. I'm sorry, ma'am. Let's let's take the yeah. Please come forward, ma'am. Please. I'm sorry. I didn't.

Okay. Hi, good morning. I'm Michelle House. I serve as the cannabis program manager for the County Of Monterrey. And I wanted, I know public health is also in room, think, behind me. Think, I think. There they are. Okay, so I want to address a little bit about the public safety because I do think that's important. And one of the things that public health has been working on are QR codes that can be scanned. And our thought is that this would be a great item to have available inside the lounges.

And the other thing to keep in mind is public health is working directly with our dispensary members to come up with ways to address this in a public health manner. So the idea could be a coaster or something that's sitting at the table. I understand I may have consumed, as Mr. Stoney said, really keeping our eye on the public and understanding that they may be new to the cannabis conversation and have over consumed, could use their phone or get help to do so, either call the ride scan, and the ride would come up and they would receive a $10 discount coupon for that ride to get them safely to their home. Their car can be left there or to their hotel.

Because as we said, if you are a tourist, you may not consume in your room, and you are not allowed by state law to consume in public. So this will give that place of safety and a way for the industry to kind of monitor how they're doing. And then they will be able to get home safely by either the ride or the QR code. And that's really important, especially if you're new to the cannabis conversation. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Yeah, if there's anyone else that would like to speak, come on forward, please.

Yes,

definitely. But it's a little hopeful there is someone who knows they would like to talk to us to come forward and sit in the front row, it's a little bit more convenient for both of us. Thank you. Yes, please.

Good morning. My name is Elaine Narciso. I'm a program supervisor with the Public Health Department. I oversee our cannabis education program. I wanted to add to some of the comments that my colleague Michelle House had shared. So, she had pointed out, our program does do education. We do a lot of education in regards to drug driving here in Monterey County. We have a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. We have had this grant for a couple of years. One of the big initiatives that we've had is

Can you just pull the microphone so I can be sure to hear you? Thank you.

Is that a little better? One of the initiatives that we launched under this grant is our lift discount voucher program. So actually have an example of what it looks like. So we actually worked with our dispensary partners in putting these voucher up. Oh, okay. We can pass it along. And essentially as Michelle had pointed out, the scan at the end of $10 off from a Lyft. Thank you. From a Lyft ride, we've had these we've made these available at our different dispensary partners, including Cannabotanicals. We also work with our industry partners to develop some of the educational material that we have in regards to drug driving.

We do recognize that cannabis is something that is legal to consume, and so we do want to ensure that when we're trying to do education to those that are 21 and up and making the decision to consume, that the messaging that we develop is appropriate and that it meets people where they are. And so we will get input from our dispensary partners in crafting messaging that's most appropriate and that will resonate with their consumers. And so our program does education. We've passed these out at Cali Roots, for example. We've been to pride festivals.

We do work with CHP to do education on drug driving. We're out at the high schools. We're at the community colleges trying to get the word out. So we anticipate continuing the work with any of retailers that do decide to form or to establish a venue to continue this drug driving education. We do keep track of traffic safety data to see if we notice some of those spikes and to address any potential gaps that may come up. But if there's any questions in regard to some of the education that we do, please let me know. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Any questions? Oh, ma'am? Commissioner Shah has a question for you.

Thank you. I did see it mentioned in here this coupon program and you said it

was funded by a grant. Is that correct? What I just heard? So we had initially started under a grant currently. We are using local funds to support it.

So local funding would be taxpayer dollars, correct?

No. Please correct me. Public health allocated funds. We don't receive any cannabis tax funds in the cannabis education program.

Sorry, so where does the public health funding come from? Just to be perfectly clear.

It's part of our if the program manager for public health is on, if you can hop on to better explain this answer than me. It's funding that's allocated to the health department. We don't get any funding from local cannabis tax to support any of the initiatives that we do.

Thank you. Maybe I could clarify better, though. So would this funding be from maybe someone else know from that cannabis tax going to the health department eventually ending up with these coupons?

No. The tax money doesn't go to public health for this.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, alrighty. Anyone else within the chambers before we go to Zoom? No? Seeing no one. Is there anyone, madam clerk, on the Zoom?

Yeah. We have Ricardo Diaz, Jr.

Please go ahead. Thank you so much. Yeah. I just my name is Ricardo Rick Diaz. I'm elected trustee for North Marner County Unified School District and on a couple of commissions appointed by and I'm on a lulu luac for Castroville, but I'm speaking as an individual.

I could see some pros, to this, and it's probably inevitability. I do probably have a question later if you guys could answer about is are any of these going to be in cities and not just unincorporated? But, also, the pros I was talking about is, you know, definitely a place to to hang out and consume, and I could see, you know, bands, and I have no problem with that. And, you know, like, vid you know, video games, movies, you know, what whatever, you know, is is is the business owners might have. And I know food was talked about in in in past meetings and stuff like that, but that's a different, part of it.

I guess yeah. I wanted to also say it's just just some cons of of of of the smell and and if, like, secondary smoke for cigarettes is is not allowed or or or or not wanted. I just just think a regulatory thing where it can't be smelled at all whatsoever in the places. Besides that, I might have some comments later. Thank you for taking my

Thank you, sir. Is there someone else?

Joey Espinosa.

Please go right ahead.

Malcolm?

Hi. Can can everyone hear me?

Very well, sir. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Perfect. You know, I know there's a lot covered here, and I I wanna kinda breeze through it. Not to be, you know, just fast on this, but there's a rapid fire I wanna kinda help with. I have a company that actually consults and helps come online with these sort of businesses in a proper way and considering the communities as well as independent operators and license holders. And so one thing I wanna mention is I'm actually based primarily in Las Vegas.

As you know, the casinos here allow tobacco consumption and and smoking to happen in their places. And one of the things they they go off of that helps with that is extremely, you know, filtered heavy with charcoal HVAC systems that, in all honesty, are a burden a business owner has to take on because it's a pretty penny to get those installed. And so a lot of that falls on the operator to make sure that they practice that. As well, in terms of the education side of this, just like in a restaurant, I have a hospitality background my whole life, just like you would educate a staff on wine service or any other sort of amenity driven, you know, sort of programming in your place, you would have questions or discourse like you would when you're selling a bottle of wine to understand the experience inside of this and help identify people that you maybe need to keep an eye on a little bit more heavy in terms of what their consumption experience is and and levels of tolerance. Just going really quickly to the the driving aspect and the transportation, I think safety is probably the number one, you know, thing that we really need to be aware of here.

A lot of everything that everyone said about partnerships with Uber or rideshare, that's fantastic, those were. But also having something like a no tow rule for twenty four hours, that's always helped where if there are people who have driven to come off-site, that no one is penalized for leaving their car at the appropriate parking over a certain period of time. That's proven very effective as well. The other thing I wanna mention really quickly is looking at this from the business owner's side, and this might be one of the more important aspects outside of community and safety. The cannabis industry has struggled so much, and this is a a possibility and potential shot in the arm in a positive way for them where they have another revenue stream that's activated for them.

It's been very difficult to 80 e, and we're reversing that now with going towards rescheduling. But this is an amenity that they can add that is a serious revenue stream essentially and especially when you add food and beverage service treating this like a proper restaurant. I see this no different as a regular hospitality business. It's just we're replacing liquor, which I think people are gravitating less towards and more towards what we call Cali Sober for people who are more into cannabis consumption and seeing that as maybe a more healthier viable route for advice or something they like to do to blacks. The last thing I will say is there's a weird loophole that's kind of happened with how we've regulated cannabis in in the majority of jurisdictions where we've allowed for people to purchase, and we've allowed for people to take it off premise, but there's no in between of, again, how everyone's mentioned where someone can consume.

I recently stayed in the Airbnb where they literally was in a thousand dollar fine. If you were smoking, not even inside, but outside and around the premise, they had cameras and and everything to enforce that. And so we need to give people a safe space where at least we can control something that the black market has gone rampant with forever. So it just gives another sort of ability for us to keep people in check, educate the consumer as well as a staff that's working in these places. And there are spaces, again, when you look at West Hollywood, the last point I wanna make, they usually reserve a certain percentage of the business for the consumption space.

They don't just allow it to be everywhere and people just it's spoken, a plume of a cloud of smoke everywhere. It it really is something that they are conscious about and want to get people who maybe don't consume cannabis, but their group or their friends, they do. And they wanna have a place where they could still all have a common ground for meeting. And, again, hospitality at the forefront of that. So I I wanna be, you know, cautious of the time here and everyone respectful of everyone's allowance, but this is something that has just a a Whitney, a myriad of benefits in terms of weighing to the cons.

I'm sure people would love for cannabis smoke to not be on the streets and sides of where there's families, and Carmel in particular is a huge vacation area. I went there a year ago with my family. I loved it. Thank you. Thank you. Nice if there's a controlled environment.

Thank you, sir.

We're gonna try Joey Espinoza.

Morning. Sorry about that. I lost connection. Good morning, commissioners. I I'd like to bring us back to the the topic, that we're on and suggest that we we look at option a. You know, we've had we've had regular dispensaries regulated dispensaries in Monterey County now for nearly a decade, and many of the fears ten years ago, just it didn't end up materializing. Our our local operators have proven they're professional. They're highly regulated, and that they are and want to be good neighbors. Given that we have this structure in place, I feel like option a is the the most logical choice. These businesses are already in approved zones.

They already have existing security. They're already away from any sensitive uses such as schools. So option a doesn't really invent the wheel. It it allows existing businesses to to offer a safe indoor space for their current customers. And I I agree that if we do this, there still will be people who who don't follow the rules and and still smoke in public, but I don't think that's the reason not to do this.

I think that anytime we can encourage a more regulated and safe environment, we should do that. And as was mentioned, we have been working closely with the health department and the safety committee for quite a while. So you do have not only operators who wanna do well, but you have local staff who are working with them and and working together to collaborate on how to do this well and how to keep everybody safe and educated at the same time. And I think that's that's a pretty unique thing and something that gives me a lot of confidence to go forward with this. So I'll keep it short. I I hope that the commissioners would support option a. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Christabel Saraga.

Hi. Good morning. So on behalf of our health department, I just want to thank Mike, the commission and the staff and the retailers, of course, for their thoughtful and collaborative approach on this. This has required a lot of coordination across multiple departments will require a lot more collaboration coordination as well, to make sure that both our community and our, operational impacts are thoroughly looked at. Regarding driving under the influence, I just wanted to piggyback on some of what's already come up in my colleague Elaine brought up.

So driving under the influence of cannabis is illegal, just like driving under the influence of alcohol or impairment, really, of the substance. Cannabis, can affect the reaction time coordination, our depth perception, our attention, and our decision making. Unlike alcohol, as several in the room have already mentioned, the impairment from cannabis is not easy to measure, and the effects are going to vary widely depending on the methods of consumption, the potency, and and also whether other substances are involved. So the edibles, present some unique risks, because the effects are delayed and they can last for several hours. So while a person might not feel the impact or the impairment right away, they might consume more and then maybe experience, some stronger than expected impairments later.

So community wide public health education remains essential in something like this as we're considering this. I think the message to drive in our community is pretty simple. It's basically if you feel different, if you feel slower, if you feel high, you need to plan ahead, schedule that ride, a designated driver, rideshare, an ordinance or the proposed changes to our ordinance don't change the responsibility that we all have, basically, to keep our roads safe. Regarding the Lyft coupons, this is not cannabis tax revenue, so we do not our public health education program does not receive funding from our cannabis tax revenue. So the source is is other health department funds, and I'd be happy to trace that back if needed and and get that information to the commission or or to Mike.

But, we we don't receive, public health, sorry. We don't receive cannabis tax revenue. Thank you.

Thank you very much. One more.

Brian Flores.

Thank you. Good morning, planning commissioners, members of the public. This is Brian Flores, chief of parks for the County Of Monterey. Kind of coming late to the to the discussion here, but I wanted to throw something out there that may pertain to the ordinance redraft. And that is for cannabis events or events that include cannabis such as music festivals and such.

A few years back, the county had moved forward. The Board of Supervisors gave approval to move forward with a cannabis oriented music festival at Laguna Seca. Unfortunately, the promoters couldn't pull it off and it fell through, but they were supportive of the idea of having a festivaltrade show that did have a cannabis both sales and consumption component of it. So I'm hopeful that if this is the direction the Planning Commission would like to go that some thought may be considered or put into discussing events that are not necessarily tied to a dispensary or an existing establishment. So that's that's all I had to say.

Thank you very much, mister Flores. Miss Clerk? Nothing else? Okay. We're gonna take a five minute break because old guys need that.

So we'll be back here in five. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to restart with topic number two from the presentation, is to identify if and how cannabis consumption, a cannabis consumption venue may expand cannabis retail facility footprint. Okay. I don't think I read that very well, but Mr. Novo.

Just a point of clarification. Do we want to take get Planning Commission direction on topic one first and then go to topic two or do want to do them all?

Would you like it that way?

It's really the Commission's discretion. I'm good either way.

Mr. Chair, I say we clear the plate. Let's talk about this and move on.

That's fine with me. Any other comment? Any other thoughts? Commissioner Deal, you got thoughts? Oh, that's true. That was a silly question.

Are they useful? Totally different question. But, with respect to the current topic, it would seem to me, as much as I like the clear the plate analogy, this is the general question and I would think that would be better answered once we'd had the total discussion of all the points. So I know what I think now, but it is possible I could change my mind.

Yeah. You you could do such a great job, mister Novo, that you might change your mind. Are there any other thoughts, commissioners? Commissioner Work?

Yeah, I just have a thought on the land use part. Did I understand correctly that it'd be like similar to opening a bar?

Yeah, yes. I mean

Okay. Yeah. I just have issues in permanent grazing zoning with being able to open a bar. That's just my take on that end of the county.

Down there where nobody lives. Commissioner Roberts, would you be okay?

Good with whatever the group

Okay. Wants to do. We have one vote one way, one vote the other way, and okay. All right. Let's go through them in order then. Mr. Novo, if you don't mind.

Thank you. And, if I can have the slides back. So, we'll move on to topic two, which is identify if and how a cannabis consumption venue may expand the retail footprint. So, we're anticipating that adding a consumption use to an existing retailer may, in some cases at least, require expanding the retailer's footprint. Some retailers may be able to accommodate the use on-site, especially if they're doing a smaller scale consumption model.

The ordinance has been crafted to allow expansion on the same property or within the same building through a ministerial permit process as I pointed out earlier, or within an adjacent outdoor space with a discretionary permit. That's option A. Special setback requirements from sense of land use would still apply and they would be one of the factors that both the cannabis program manager and housing community development check when they're reviewing the application through the ministerial process. We'll be checking all the other factors of County Code as well to make sure they're consistent with all County regulations. So, all consumption customers would have to access the area through the retail area controlled by the retail staff.

For option B, this would require that cannabis consumption could be allowed only within the existing permitted space utilizing the ministerial permit process. This would not preclude necessarily that somebody could expand, but that would mean that a discretionary permit would be needed to amend their existing permit to allow the expansion. Option C would clearly just set up a new discretionary permit process to allow any expansion. This would ensure public participation in the process through requiring an application notice and opportunity for hearing. Discretionary applications, and as I pointed out earlier, they involve significant costs and time to process with the applicants having no certainty before they apply.

As we stated earlier, our philosophy is that if sufficient regulations can be established and we can identify the land use issues, staff is trying to recommend a ministerial process approach for this new land use. So, we recommend development ordinance that will allow cannabis consumption venues to expand the footprint using a ministerial process option A, and we asked for public input and commissioner input at this time.

Commissioner Herzl.

For the,

first I want to clarify because I saw this come through in a letter and I've seen it in your packet but just saying this out loud that this ordinance applies to the unincorporated county because the cities have the ability to regulate this themselves true

true

thank you I know we have eight facilities in the unincorporated county that currently have retail permits and that this would apply to them. I and that seems reasonable to me. Where I start to feel a little squishy is to think, like, somebody else might open a retail facility and then want to expand into a consumption without having talked about the consumption during their discretionary permit process because I'd like to see people planning ahead, and I'd like to see the public process around the discretionary permit, if they have to get one anyway, to include the issue of the consumption lounge. It just seems fair to have public input if there's an opportunity to do that. I know it's splitting hairs a little bit, but that's kind of how I feel about it.

It's actually not. It's something staff has talked about as well, and we think it would be important that we, for any if this ordinance is adopted as structured, meaning a ministerial process, we think it's important that any new application for a retail facility assume and really analyze that that consumption use could also occur at that site. So that would be part of that discretionary permit discussion and analysis. So I think maybe a positive statement in the ordinance about that would be useful, But, that is the thought behind staff's approach.

Okay, good. Commissioner of Tawitz.

Thank you, Chair. Of the eight businesses we already have, how many would fall under option one, two, or three from the slide? I don't remember if it was ABC or one, two, three. But of the eight, how many would the staff's recommended option serve or would be able to take advantage of?

They would all be able to take advantage of it.

Of the one that staff is recommending?

Of any of them. I mean, what this ordinance allows, unless we decide that cannabis consumption venues are not allowed, back to topic one, any existing retailer would be able to pursue whatever path this ordinance adopts.

Could we see that slide? I'm not expressing my question well.

If you can put the slide back up. You want me to go back to topic one or? Two. Okay.

We're on. Option A is the one staff is recommending, right?

Yes.

Of the eight current dispensaries, how many actually have the adjoining space within the same building or adjacent outdoor space to accommodate the cannabis consumption venue?

I can't answer that because I don't know what their business model is. So, that would be something the industry would have to tell you. I know that one applicant wants to expand, but the other seven haven't told me anything about their plans.

So, we don't know what space they're in?

This would limit it to being within the same building as far as expansion through the ministerial process. If they go outdoors, they need a discretionary permit. This would also allow potentially them adding on to their building to allow it under option A.

If I may through the check, is what you're asking is were the commission to go with option B, for example, only within existing facilities, would individuals have the opportunity? Or are you trying to get or are you trying to understand?

I'm trying to understand of the eight dispensaries we already have, how many of those eight would actually be able to benefit from Option A? How many are have the retail space available?

Well, option A actually allows them to expand. Option B is the one where they could not expand. So, I would think that all eight could expand either indoors or outdoors. And, again, outdoors will require discretionary permits. But, I would think that all eight could. But, I don't know the details of all those businesses.

Okay, Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Shah?

Could be completely misunderstanding things. Are other businesses allowed to expand their facilities? This is showing my complete ignorance about owning an actual brick and mortar store, without getting a discretionary permit. They can just build a whole another building maybe or put a whole another floor on it. And if you have other neighbors that might have an impact on the surrounding businesses or surrounding communities, it doesn't matter. There's no say in that. If they can just go ahead and do that, other businesses are afforded that, correct?

In some circumstances, yes. I mean, it's more nuanced. Some do trigger discretionary permits when they're expanding. Others, you can expand. I'm not sure how to answer it other than it depends, which is unfortunately one of the answers planners use way too often. It depends on the type of use, the permits that have been issued, and if it's an allowed use versus a discretionary use. If it's an allowed use, then typically somebody can just expand by getting a building permit. If it's a discretionary use, then typically you would have to amend the discretionary permit.

Okay. Thank you. I guess I'm thinking of the so I'm in District 2 where seven of the eight I believe seven of the eight places exist. And I'm trying to think of the ones that I know of offhand or the one that I live near, and the impacts building out to some degree might have, and if the community or the neighbors would have the opportunity to have input on that, and that would affect my decision on which of those options I would be comfortable with in the event that we're moving forward. So I guess just a statement, not really a question.

Okay. Commissioner Gomez?

I like the idea of providing the discretionary permit, but I also like the idea of being able to see if we, because I know some of these businesses are struggling and that's partly why they're considering doing this consumption stuff. I wanted to see if there's any precedent for us waiving fees for that. As part of this part of a motion.

Okay. When we get there. Mhmm. Alrighty. Commissioner Deal Excuse me. Did you have your hand up? I'm sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt.

We were discussing location trying to Oh, thank you. Threw something out. But, I did have, if it's time, I would be happy to say that that my lens here would be to try to treat this business as if it was any other kind of business. So, if there were to be an expansion and that expansion were in a say a mall where the business could normally take on another unit move into the other unit with the appropriate permits without any further discretion that would be fine. If it triggered some kind of additional permitting for any business to expand, I would I would expect that for this business.

But I I would generally, my lens is I think it should be treated like other businesses of a similar nature. That would be you know, wants to put in a, I think, I'm sorry that Commissioner Mendoza is not here. Somebody wants to put in a place to eat next to their store on the road if they want to put a picnic area. This would be a similar kind of thing as long as the impacts we've talked about are dealt with. And we've already said what those are.

Those are basically concerned with smoke and odor. And if there's a need for additional parking, water, wastewater, or those kinds of things related to the increase in intensity of use. So, I just whatever we do, my lens is what would we ask anybody else to do in any other business.

And that's an important distinction, if I may. When I was answering Commissioner Shah's question, was thinking about shopping centers. I didn't answer it at that point, I thought about it after. And then, Commissioner Deal's kind of bringing up the topic. You know, some of ours are in shopping centers where if somebody else, a business, a donut shop, is operating there and they want to expand and take two retail spaces, they can just do that with a building permit.

That's the concept here as well. I would agree with Commissioner Deal. The whole idea here is to treat them just like any other business. If they need to add on to a building, that would trigger, in some cases, discretionary permits. So, I'm afraid I can't answer in all circumstances, but we're envisioning, I think, going into expanding adjoining spaces, more as existing adjoining spaces in a shopping center. That would be the easy circumstance where we would say, yes, this should be ministerial. There may be circumstances where it's discretionary. So, I know that doesn't give you a straight answer, but it depends on all the circumstances.

Thank you.

If I may, it might be helpful just for just midway through the brief refresher that these retail cannabis operations are only allowed in certain commercial zones. They're not allowed in any of our other zoning areas. And I think that comes to common and commissioner work. And so what this would propose is if within that commercial zone an activity to expand, which would be similar for any other business, were to expand a footprint, it would trigger other discretionary approvals. Or if the expansion would require additional consideration for capacity for their sewer or septic, septic in this case.

There are other discretionary permits in place. And so I think that's just for this commission and public to remember these are only allowed in places where it's already deemed appropriate that commercial uses and thus this retail facility is there. And then the proposal as it's drafted by staff would have our existing structure where discretion has already been determined appropriate for other businesses would trigger. But otherwise these would be expansions of a use similar to other businesses.

Thank you very much for that clarification. Any further comments from commissioners? Then we'll go to the public. Is there someone who'd like to speak on this kind of narrow subject about location? Oh, mister Stoney. Good. Just

to keep it brief, yeah, think the discussion kind of worked out some of the concerns there. Know, their their you know, commissioner deal is right. We we would like this to be just treated as any other particular business does want to build a whole new section on their building, I would think that that would trigger other discretionary permits that would come in front of you to allow for that additional building. So I again would like us to see to go with option A staff's recommendations. We have so many regulations and so much oversight already that I think that you would be in safe hands to allow it to go in that direction.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the public? Anyone here in the chambers like to speak to this? Okay. Seeing no one. Anyone on Zoom? No? Alright. Mr. Novo, under our new format we've adopted, we would like to kind of move on to the next one then, if you would, please.

Thank you, Chair. Topic three is the hours of operation for cannabis consumption venues. Existing regulations require that cannabis retailers close by 8PM. The draft ordinance envisions that some cannabis consumption venues will operate as more of a social gathering location and possibly include entertainment, as we'll talk about in a few minutes, along with the significant cost to establish a consumption venue that allows smoking, which is one of the uses anticipated to occur, staff is recommending that the hours be expanded to allow sales to occur until ten p. M.

With the business to close by midnight. This is a topic that also needs also needs some discussion about process and equity, allowing a retailer with consumption be open later than a site that solely does retail means that the hours operation will be different for each. Edible consumption can have delayed effects that may be longer lasting than smoking. So that's kind of something we have to think about in how these places operate. Concerns related to overconsumption, impaired driving or other community concerns, as we've talked about earlier, can arise from late hour consumption venues or operations as well.

So we can anticipate where a retailer that wants to extend their hours can propose a minimal consumption operation just to expand their operating hours as well. So we'll throw we'll grab a closet and we'll put a label on it that that's our consumption area and now we want to expand our hours to 10PM or midnight. So, we want to make sure we're not opening the door for I guess, working the system to their advantage without really doing what they want to do, which would be a consumption venue. So, option A would allow the expanded hours, and that is what staff is recommending. Option B would maintain the existing limit of closing at 8PM, and option C would allow consideration of expanded hours through a discretionary permit process.

And we'll be ready to take comments from the public and commission.

Very good, thank you sir. Commissioner Roberts.

Just to clarify, option A is extending consumption hours or extending selling hours for everybody?

Just for those that have a consumption venue as well. One of the sub options, if you will, is we could talk about expanding them for everybody.

Yeah, and then I guess to follow-up, would there be a reason not to expand them for everybody?

I'd have to talk to the rest of our staff team to figure out if there are reasons for that, but if that's what the commission wants us to look into, we can certainly look into it.

Thank you.

Very good, thank you. Commissioner Monsavis?

Thank you, Chair. Was there a present, were there slides related to that option? We didn't see any, and if so, we hold on the slide?

Sorry, yes. I have to tell the folks in the room. If you can give us the slide deck on the screens, we'd appreciate it. There you go. Sorry about that.

Commissioner Gomez.

I'm assuming that we could do a hybrid where we maybe extend it and then stop consumption. So if the issue is letting people reduce the effects of whatever they consume while they're there, we could maybe extend the hours and stop consumption at a certain time. Obviously, there's this issue of entertainment too. Maybe the because we do have a in the intercorporated, we do have a noise ordinance, right, that goes into effect after eight p. M. So, maybe you do some sort of hybrid combination of the different rules that we have so that we make it work. But I think what's critical of the goal really of the extension of it is really to allow for people to be prepared and not drive impaired afterwards and maybe stipe consumption at a certain time.

Okay. Commissioner Oantabies again.

Thank you. Since we didn't have the slides, when you went through the details of the options, can you repeat those? Because I think what my colleague here suggested is option C, but you also spoke of consumption until eight and then closing at ten or consumption until ten and closing at midnight. Thank you.

Thank you. So, option A will allow expanding hours, which would be selling until ten p. M. And consuming until midnight and closing the business at midnight. Option B would be keeping the hours at what they currently are, which is limited to all retail facilities and therefore cannabis consumption venues close by eight. Option C would allow it to be considered on an individual basis with a discretionary permit for each operation to expand their hours if they want to go past 8PM.

Okay. Commissioner Artel, did you have a question?

Yeah. How are alcohol consumption facilities treated in the county? Do you know?

From a land use standpoint, we have locations just like this zoning

Sorry, I just mean the hours.

Just the hours, okay. As far as I know, it's 2AM closing. I believe that's probably state law. Hopefully, somebody can correct me. I'm not an expert at this. So, I believe if mean things like bars, if you mean liquor stores, obviously they take it away and don't consume it there.

I'm looking at the ordinances that you provided from the other counties. It looks like Santa Cruz kind of does what commissioner Gomez said, is stop consumption at ten. I'm kind of interested in that. I'm also wondering about if we could wind down retail sellers sales but keep the consumption open? I don't know if those I know they go hand in hand.

I can see why that might not work together. But if you're looking for a fairness answer, I could imagine if we need retail sales to wind down by eight, maybe keeping that in place and allowing the other use for a specific something. Sorry for the vague language.

Think that was just a comment, not a question.

Yes, sorry, wasn't a question. It was my commentary on the hours.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Deal? Nothing?

Just gonna wait and hear from the public on this one.

I think

there are people that know more than I do.

Great. Well, then, sorry Mr. Stunny. Someone took a while to make their mind up. Commissioner Gonzalez.

Yeah, after finally making my mind up to speak for a moment or ask a question. As far as some of the other counties, let's say where consumption stops at 10:00, do people normally leave after consumption ends because like if I said okay, can't consume anymore, why am I staying here? So I don't know if by saying that you stop consumption at ten, if people are going to stay there longer period of time to say, okay, now I got to relax for thirty minutes or an hour before I leave or do people normally leave. Do we have any information on that because then if we'd be saying consumption is intent, I think it would not necessarily do what I believe that the retailers are intending to do is to increase revenues by those individuals staying there a little longer. So, wouldn't mind one way or the other going with option A on this one or at least a consumption ends at eleven.

So at least it gives them to twelve. But by 10:00, I would think that like if I'm a person that's at a bar drinking some beer and then they or they close at ten or eleven then I'm going to go look for the next go bar hopping to the next bar that might close at twelve and then I say okay let's go to the next one that close at 2AM. So my assumption would be that if we say 10:00 and then it's just an assumption that people are going to be gone. So I wouldn't mind option A or even if we modify it if it's going to work to 11:00 or just leave it open at twelve. But I don't know what other counties do with that or if people just leave anyways.

Alrighty. Input then. Oh, Commissioner Deal.

Yes. Thank you. I just want us to keep in mind that this would be the outer limit and a retailer doesn't have stay open till ten if they don't want to. I mean, if there's no reason for them to stay open further, they could close. So remember, this is just the window. This is not a requirement for anyone. So it would be the maximum available and possible. And then relying on on the people who are running the business to know what works.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Commissioner Montsavies.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, chair. I remember from back in the day where if you go to a bar, they have last call, and then they stop serving alcohol, and people start trickling out. And considering that the one of the concerns here is people being under the influence and hitting the roads, would it be helpful to consider stopping consumption at a certain hour and then requiring the business. If you're gonna serve until a certain hour, then you must stay open another two hours to give people who consumed at that hour time for this to pass through their system before they must leave.

Just a suggestion. Thank you.

Okay. Any other input? Alright. Very good. It looks like the commission's finished. Mr. Stoney, if you'd like to make your address.

First, I'd like to say I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here. You guys have very good questions and concerns. Just to clarify the state allows retail sales until 10PM. Most of the jurisdictions surrounding unincorporated Monarch County, Seaside, Monterey, They actually adopted state law, so they all do sales until 10PM. In the county, we're only allowed till eight.

I actually closed my doors at seven, even though I'm allowed to be open till eight because in Carmel, there's just not that much activity happening after seven everybody's done for the day. In regards to the consumption venues, again great conversation, very thoughtful. I'm going to go back to Commissioner Deal. I don't think that you should place limitations on the establishments that want to do this. They are just parameters.

Again, I can be open till eight. I choose to close at seven because that's what my level of business dictates. Would also go back and consider, I think Commissioner Roberts, was it you that said, why not just allow any retailer to be open till ten and that would allow them, if they wanted to be open, know, whether whatever jurisdiction they're in to compete with their neighbors and be open longer and sell longer regardless of having a consumption venue. But back to staff recommendations being able to serve until ten. I think a lot of the places that do serve until ten have a last call at 09:45 even in the retails because it takes time to complete that transaction and the transactions have to be completed by 10PM.

Can't be 10:01 or 10:02. And as a cannabis business, know most bars probably aren't that as tightly regulated, but we have to send in information and it shows on spreadsheets when our last sales were, right? So we can't go beyond that. So really being open till ten, last call for sales is at 09:45, consumption again going back to adults need to be adults. Mean, it's really the bottom line.

Yes, we'll have preventative measures for driving under the influence. Yes, we'll look for signs of people that show over intoxication while being there and we'll take preventative measures to have them get on the road safely. But adults need to be adults and especially if these venues have any type of entertainment aspect. I don't know what we'll get to that I guess. I don't know if you have a comedian there or a piano player if they're required to stop at ten.

I I I don't know how that works, but I I I envision these operations being that, hey, got my last call at 09:45. I enjoyed it, especially if they have food and and, you know, nonalcoholic beverages and non infused foods, that they might choose to because the inherent side effect of cannabis use is wanting to have something to drink or something to eat, and so they may just decide to stay longer anyway and kind of sober up if you will or again have that opportunity to call cab, call Lyft at 11:00. Don't know if MST is running but there are options, call a friend. Anyway, option a as staff recommended.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your input. Mister Reich.

Hi. Robert Roots again. When I went to Palm Springs, I saw that people had different business models for their consumption lounges. One was in a converted bank building and they had like the a stage and they had music and they had arcade games and pool tables, and it was I don't know. It was like a place where they they would probably wanna be up until ten. And then other places, they were like your living room. You know, it was just a comfortable space with seating and snacks and board games where people could hang out and be together. So I think you need to have flexibility. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else here in the chambers like to, speak? Seeing none. We have no one on Zoom. And then we better get that verbally instead of shaking heads. We have no one

on Zoom.

No additional emails or hands up on Zoom.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Commissioner Deal?

Yeah, if we got a state law, don't know why we don't just use that. Seems easier. I agree.

All right, take care of that. Maybe we just solved the whole problem. All right then, Mr. Novo, would you like to move along to number four?

Yes, I can have the slide shown on the screen again. Thank you. So, this is the topic is identifying if and how live entertainment is allowed within a cannabis consumption venue. While customers may choose to expose themselves to smoke, entertainers would also be exposed to the smoke effects. Doctor Moreno brought that up early in today's workshop.

And perhaps would be in the venue for even longer period than customers. So the staff report identifies current regulations related to allowing live entertainment in commercial zoning districts. That would not change. What we want to specifically address in this topic is whether we should allow live entertainment under the existing rules, which would allow consumption venues to include live entertainment or require that a separate discretionary permit be required to allow live entertainment or to specifically not allow live entertainment within a consumption venue. So these options can even be further refined to distinguish between consumption and smoking operations.

So this is a topic where we would be working with County Council also to ensure that we are providing any required legal protections for anybody that's in the venue that's not a customer of the venue, not just entertainers, but I think somebody brought up earlier, you know, electricians or somebody that has to work in there, or county health inspectors coming into these venues. So, we have to think about all those things in developing this ordinance. So, the ordinance is crafted to allow live entertainment, option A, with the recognition that an entertainment would understand that the atmosphere that would be in they would be in assumes that they would be exposed to smoke for a smoking consumption venue. Option B would require that live entertainment be allowed only with a discretionary permit so the conditions of approval could be added to address any health concerns we might identify. And option C would simply be that we would not allow live entertainment.

So I'll turn it over to the public and commission for comments.

Thank you. Commissioner Herzog.

The reason we're addressing live entertainment in this ordinance is because of the health exposure of the people participating. Is that accurate?

Yeah, I think so, because our ordinance already allows live entertainment within commercial zoning districts, with some restrictions if they're too close to residential districts. So, yeah, this is partly to make sure we have clarity also about whether we want to have live entertainment in a place that has smoke. So yeah, I think it's mostly about protecting the health of the entertainers.

Don't have a perfect solution for this, but it does seem strange to me to address live entertainment specifically in this ordinance. When I'm looking at the other drafts you provided, I noticed that only one other county addresses it. I just wonder if this doesn't belong in health and safety code or some kind of more overarching code that addresses retail land uses with live entertainment rather than this specific.

And actually, our recommendation is not to adopt any special regulations, just to allow the existing code. That's option A. We would have a statement in there to make it clear that live entertainment is allowed, subject to all the other provisions of the zoning ordinance. But we would not have any new regulations. That's our recommendation.

Got it.

Sorry. Go right ahead. Oh, you're done. Okay. Very good. Commissioner Shah.

Okay. Can you clear something up for me? These are considered venues already. Correct? Or they would be considered a venue. So you're stating in option A, the existing regulations have served our communities well over many years. One, in District 2, that has not served us well at all. Two, my understanding of the noise ordinance is that it does not apply to these commercial locations. Is that correct though? That it's not going to apply to these at all anyways?

When it comes to live music, the noise ordinance would not apply. If we had an outdoor venue or indoor venue and they had a band and the music was loud as it usually would be, It doesn't matter if we have a noise ordinance because they're exempt from it.

I'll have to open up the ordinance, but I thought our nighttime noise ordinance did control for noise at property lines. I'm not sure if it identifies sensitive locations, or if it's I thought it was countywide but

Through the chair if I recall when we had the Red Barn discussion that's where that was in the staff report that the noise ordinance does not apply to venues and that's why we had to add different conditions of approval.

It's being looked into as we speak.

Thank you.

Commissioner Gomez?

There is six properties that currently have retail venues in North County. Out of those six, how many are within the sensitive residential area?

None, they can't be.

Well, are within, but I think you mean proximity to proximity.

Yeah, the problem really is. Excuse me.

I'm trying to think of all the venues and what's surrounding. I'd have to really zoom in, using our GIS system to give you a detailed answer on that. But I think most of them have are not standalone commercial properties except for the one on 156. What do call it? Simons? I can't remember the name of business out there. But that doesn't have residential that close. But I believe all the other ones have surrounding commercial properties around them, but I'd have to double check for sure.

The reason why I asked is that I do live near three of them, and those three do have a residential within proximity of it. I would want to understand what the implications would be for them, for those residents in those areas.

Yes, so under this category that we're talking about live entertainment, if they're within 200 feet of a residential zoning district, they would have to get, to do live entertainment, they would have to get a use permit. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary? You haven't come up with an answer yet. You'll let me know. Okay. Commissioner Deal.

Yeah. I just wanted to add to Commissioner Shah's comment by asking it more generally. Have there been issues with the existing rules and incompatibility with surrounding uses that we can pinpoint now? So if we were to go with option a, namely, let's not make new rules specific to cannabis, let's use the rules we got, are we identifying any particular rules that have been problematic? Do we have we looked at that?

I think as Commissioner Shaw knows, enforcement is the issue. The rules are in place and so it's really about making sure that we have the ability to enforce them. I don't think that we've identified any rules that need changing as a result of this, if that answers your question.

Well, to follow-up on that, yes, it's about enforcement. But enforcement is about clarity. So, the question I'm asking is, is the our enforcement issues that were were coming across, because there are always enforcement issues, Do we can we say whether those are related to the inability to enforce something because it's not clearly defined which is a significant problem or it's defined in a way that doesn't really address the problem, which is a significant problem. I mean, significant issue, if you don't get the right definition in there, you can't enforce it. Or, is it because simply people aren't there to enforce it, which is a different that's a resource allocation problem.

I might let miss Baretti or miss House talk in response since I've been kinda retired for ten years.

But You don't do a very good job of that, mister Nova.

But all

no, I fail. But all three of those, in my experience, three of those are true.

Where where this proposes relying on existing ordinances, I understand that that might create some concerns on the part of people who've experienced these failings and it does present an opportunity for us to ask that larger question about if there is a problem with enforcement of this sort of thing, can we refer that to get corrected. Everybody's going to need it. It's not just going to be cannabis, it's everybody.

If I may just answering the question with regard to our existing noise regulations and how it applies to commercial properties which again all of the retail must be within commercial zones. So the provisions of our noise control ordinance, which is chapter ten sixty of county code, specifically states that it's not intended to affect and shall not apply to outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows, and sporting and entertaining events provided such gathering dance or events is conducted on commercial or institutional premises pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and zoning restrictions, and in compliance with all permits and licenses issued. So there is a little bit of a loophole, wouldn't say loophole, but yes, the way that our code is structured, these would fall under on commercial. I do know and this is where I don't want to go too far out on the limb there are provisions within the cannabis business license that specifically indicates that an operation cannot pose a nuisance, a public nuisance. And yes, enforcement is still so I'll just leave it at that.

I'll just leave it there.

Through the chair, can I respond a little bit and expand Sure? On Thank you. So I guess that thank you for that. That does answer my question in that this is unenforceable, really. Speaking from experience in District 2, Facebook our local communities have our whole Facebook page to address amplified noise in District 2, and the complete lack of enforcement and disregard by law enforcement.

I've said this before. I'm just going to say it again as a reminder. If you call about a noise complaint, something really ridiculous, not just so I can kind of hear some noise, Unless you ask for a callback from the sheriff, they will delete, they will disregard your request. It's as though it never existed. It goes to nobody.

And how is one supposed to know that short of spending our time investigating, joining these groups, being our own advocate? It puts this burden on the community to have to chase down enforcement. There just isn't enforcement. And so to kind of exit this, once again kind of going off topic here, my problem is that we're putting this burden on communities that have the least resources to enforce and regulate any of it. I am a total fan of cannabis. Use it. It helped my husband get through chemo successfully without wasting away. It is amazing. I have no issue with it. I have an issue with impacts of odor.

I have issue impacts of noise. And if those are unenforceable, then I would say I'm gonna go with option c on this one. I don't want to hear a bunch of noise that I can't do anything about. I live thirteen oh seven feet from the local the closest facility. So, you know, we're putting this burden of CHP officers, of sheriffs, of county, has its own special person who works after hours.

I think her name's Wendy. And I'm calling her, I'm going, can you drive out to such and such place because the noise is really loud? And she's getting calls from all over Prunedale and Aromas to try and enforce this noise ordinance, and then we can't even do it for these places. I just it really bothers me, how this was worded in the report. And I don't mean any disrespect to you, because this hasn't been clear to anybody unless it's something you've dealt with that this regulation doesn't apply to these businesses. Sorry. I'm going off on a tangent. I'll Thank you. Alright. Commissioner Govitz.

Those are real concerns because the sheriff who usually does the informants enforcement says that they're all caught up in the jails all the time and don't have staff to go out there. Even when sometimes we have real emergencies, all these are noises in emergency, but we have accidents. It might take over an

hour, an hour and a

half for them to show up. So that's a real concern. Secondly, I wanted to ask, I think Commissioner Deal asked about it briefly, but really I wanted to ask about the issue of the current record of complaints specifically on any kind of complaint that we've seen related to the cannabis retail facilities. Is there anything like that or is there any record of that?

I'm assuming our cannabis program manager, Michelle House, could respond to that.

Hi, I think we're still in the morning. So hi, Michelle House, Cannabis Program Manager. No, I have not received any complaints regarding my dispensaries. But remember, we're not talking about music or any events. We're talking about locations that sell product and then close their doors and go home. So I have not received complaints about minors, unruly guests, nothing. No. And keep in mind, I do go out with my team every four to six months and have a look and make sure all is well, front house, back house of these stores. So I hope that answers it. Wait, one more. Yes?

Oh, Commissioner Tsai, you have a question?

Just a quick question that Yes. I was just curious. When you go out every four to six months, is this like an appointment, or do you just show up?

We show up.

Awesome, thank you.

Very good, thank you ma'am.

You're welcome.

All right.

If I may. Oh of course. So just on this topic, a little bit of just coming back to the way in which the regulations are kind of constructed and a little so again current regulations apply to any business any business if they were to do music understanding that there are enforcement challenges. I think one thing just again in this case really the the it would be indoor venues that would be ministerial outdoor venues. So if we were talking about including live music or others as a part of an outdoor venue operation, that is recommended to be a discretionary permit process, not ministerial.

Also, it is proposed in this that the entrance to the venue is through the business. Of course, there would be emergency exits and other things in terms of for music to escape. But most businesses, there's not actually an unincorporated county business license program for most businesses. So most businesses actually don't have even that level, whereas I think to the point for cannabis, you still in order to be able to operate, you still do have to maintain your annual business license as cannabis. And so it does have a heightened layer that no other business has that provides a revocation or we won't issue if there's repeated complaints about your venue that other businesses don't necessarily have.

So it doesn't address the issue forward but fully but I think just to again put in light a little bit of just reminder for how this is structured and what exists the little bit of difference regulatorily where the county does have some abilities that do not apply to other businesses and commercial areas.

Thank you. Commissioner Deal.

That's very helpful. Thank you. So just to clarify for me, if I have a coffee shop or for that matter a shoe store and I want to have live music, can I do that?

Yes, if it's incidental to the operations and it's not within 200 feet of a residential zoning district.

So what would I have to do if I want to have a band at my coffee shop? Do anything? Do I have to get a special permit from anybody or let anybody know at all? No. Okay. So, and same is true for, as I say, a shoe store or a drug store or something like that. I want to have a wonderful band that's going to celebrate testing your blood pressure at the CVS. Can I do that?

Yes. Again, if as long as it's not within 200 feet of a residential district, and I think the other thing is, because I think when Melanie read the ordinance, or if it's prohibited by the permit that was issued for whatever the operation is or that building.

It would be prohibited, not allowed. So, we have to specifically say no, UCVS may not have this.

Yeah, there would have to be something in the permit that addresses noise. Otherwise, it's subject to the County Code and would be allowed.

And then if there were an issue with that noise that's when these provisions would take effect? We have. You'd have to be basically you'd have to report a problem before anybody looked at it? Yes. And that goes to Commissioner Shaw's issue. So we know and I think can continue to refer to staff the ongoing concern with regulations that don't mean anything because we can't enforce them. But anyway, thank you. That's really clear to me is that what are the allowances for any business? Appreciate that.

Yes. Thank you. Absolutely. Regulation and enforcement is an issue for so many ordinances. Commissioner Hartsell.

Coming back to that, in the draft ordinance 21 dot 67 dot zero four zero, number g, affirmatively allows live entertainment in cannabis facilities. So as mentioned, It's there. My legislative hygiene neurosis makes me want to remove that because this is a retailer and the regular rules should apply. And that was the point I was making before, I just want to note that, that it seems like it would add an extra layer of why do we have this in ten years. I'm just trying to prevent that.

Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate that. Looks like the commission is good. Alright. Then, public comment. Mister Stoney, I assume? Yeah. Why not?

Okay. I tried to make some notes there. It was interesting. I wasn't really expecting to speak on this one as much because it sounds like you have a much bigger problem in the county than what allowing potentially half a dozen more businesses to have this opportunity. To strictly prohibit us from that opportunity doesn't seem like a good route, doesn't seem fair.

I don't think that would be the intention of of the commissioners. You know, someone mentioned amplified versus non amplified. You know, what's the definition of nuisance? I mean, there's there's a lot of things that I'm sure you already address in the current problems that you're experiencing. I'd also point out that I like what secretary said about indoor versus outdoor, some kind of discretionary permit to be outdoors because that sound does carry.

In our in our cases, we're not talking about Cali Roots or like mister Flores said, doing something at Laguna Seca. Right? I mean, you have people that live five miles away from Laguna Seca that are complaining about concerts at Laguna Seca. So you're always gonna have issues with somebody. And and also just point out that the difference between your patrons at a cannabis consumption venue and at say the running iron or the bar that used to be at Moss Landing that closed down.

It's just it's a different crowd, it's a different volume. Maybe that again back to what your secretary has said to you know find that balance between indoor and outdoor. You know if I want to have a piano player in there during the evening kind of like the Mission Ranch does down the street, you know who's that going to bother. Know if I want Metallica to come in and play and I want to open all my doors, I I can see how there's an issue there. But again, it sounds like it's a much more broader problem that here and and I don't see how a few of our venues would really add to that.

And I just ask that you don't prohibit us from what's already allowed in the county for other businesses. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the chambers? No, seeing none. Ms. Clerk?

No additional emails, no hands up on Zoom.

Thank you very much. All right then. Mister Novo, I believe we're at 12:00. We have to decide, commissioners, do we want to take a break forty five minutes for lunch or do you want to power through till we get through this particular item, which could be as long as one, I'm thinking. It's 12:00 now. Do think we can wrap it up in an hour? Commissioner Deal, you've been doing this a long

time. Well, we started, we had a number of commissioners who were dealing with diabetes. So, we were very strict about meal times.

And I'd be willing to go back to that.

I don't. Yeah. And it also provides a certain degree of predictability for the public. Okay. So, I'm generally of the opinion that unless you're in the middle of a heated conversation that needs to be wrapped up.

This doesn't appear too heated. No. No. In fact, it's very collegial. I appreciate that. Alright. Well, it it's 12:00. Let's take an hour lunch, and then we'll be back here at 01:00.

Mister chair, can I just ask one question? I don't the only thing I would be wondering about for the members of the public if I guess, I know we have a fifth topic, I didn't know if there were people waiting to participate on that fifth topic. But then No. But maybe that's neither here nor there.

Yeah. It There's actually two two more topics. Yeah.

Two more topics. Okay. And it appears Mr. Stoney is going to be with us after lunch, are you? Okay, cool. All right then. Well, I'll be back here at 01:00. Thank you. Well, I think we probably need to have another probably need to have another roll call because a few of us have not returned. So, madam clerk, can we have another roll call, please? Welcome back.

Commissioner Getzelleman? Here. Commissioner Deal? Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzales?

Here.

Commissioner Work? Here. Commissioner Monsalve? Commissioner Gomez?

Here.

Commissioner Roberts? Here. Commissioner Deal, Monsalve, Shaw, and Mendoza are absent. We still have a quorum.

We still have a quorum. Yeah. Thank you very much. That's what we were looking for is a quorum. And in fact, here comes Commissioner Diehl now. She's just joined us. So we can let the record reflect that, and we can begin with Mr. Novo and his fifth topic of conversation for the day.

Thank you. And if I can have the slide showing on the screen as well. So, it's the other laptop I was using, or not the laptop, the PC that I was using earlier.

Over here, Mike.

There we go.

There we go.

So we are on the topic five, which is considering the appropriate locations for cannabis consumption venues, assuming we are going to allow them. So, staffs prepare to draft ordinance based on the inland zoning ordinance, but recommends that the ordinance also be crafted for the coastal zone. We do not see any reason to distinguish this land use based on coastal resource protections or any other reason associated with the coastal zone. The commercial zoning districts in all areas are found in either urban areas or rural commercial centers.

That's the

same inland or coastal. The issues that we have identified with this use are mostly operational in character. Any resource protection issues would have been addressed on the construction of the buildings or with the original discretionary permit for the retail use. This is perhaps one distinction would be in the coastal zone, some construction may trigger some additional construction may trigger discretionary permits, where in the inland area it may not. So there is a distinction there, but we have all the regulations in place in our coastal implementation plan that already address that.

So staff is seeking direction on these two options, whether we're going to do this for the inland area for the coastal zone for both or for neither. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Novo. Commissioners any comments questions for Mr. Novo? Commissioner Deal.

Both please.

That's it.

That's

it. Think she that's her comment.

That's it? Yeah. Both, please. Yeah. Cool. I like that. Commissioner Hartzell.

Could but I noticed there's two light commercial areas sort of back away from 101 on the map that you provided to us. Could we talk about how those got to be light commercial and what it might be like to have a cannabis consumption venue that far from services.

Sure. If you're talking about South County?

Correct.

Okay. So, there's a couple out in the Diablo Range up in the foothill or actually in the mountains. One's in Parkfield and one is on the road to Kalinga, Highway 198. Those are old commercial properties. The town of Kalinga was actually laid out with a map.

There's several commercial parcels in the town not town of Kalinga, town of Parkfield has several commercial parcels identified there. There's a Parkfield Cafe and a Parkfield Inn. I haven't been out there for a few years, so I'm not sure if they're still operational. And then, on the road to Kalinga Highway 198 is an old restaurant, perhaps bar, I can't remember, that kind of serves the, the air, that rural area and also travelers along 198 going on that long road to Colinga. So, that's the genesis of those two.

They've been around for decades and decades. And they're just old uses that have historically been there. Now, if somebody wanted to open a cannabis consumption venue there, they would also have to get a discretionary permit because they aren't there now. So, they would have to get a retail use discretionary permit and that would then then they could add the cannabis consumption through that process to the retailer. But they would have to go through that whole process and we look at all the circumstances during that discretionary permit review.

I heard my fellow commissioner express concern about having facilities in permanent grazing areas, and I'm just wondering if that addresses the concern. He says he's good. Thank you. That helps clarify for me. I appreciate it.

Okay. Commissioner works good. Everybody's good? Looks like it. Cool. Alright. Then we need to hear from the members of public if they have any questions, comments, or well, comments would be most appropriate, I suppose.

I'm Stoney. Just to stay consistent, both make sense to me as there are establishments in both zones.

Thank you Mr. Stoney. All right anyone else in the chambers? Do we have anyone on zoom or an email to any effect?

No additional emails. No hands up on Zoom.

Okay. Very good. And for the record, commissioner Monsaviz has returned. And oh, oh, oh, someone made up their mind late, so that would be correct. Commissioner Herzog.

Just a clarifying question. If we allow this in the coastal zone, is this gonna have to go through any additional layers of administrative approval, or is this a county? Does this go to the Coastal Commission?

Yes, it would go to the Coastal Commission for certification. There were almost always additional layers, yes.

Double checking, thank you.

Kinda count on it actually. Alright everyone, anyone else? Now we'll go to got sidetracked. Anyone on Zoom or email? No?

No hands up, no Zoom.

Very good. Alrighty, wonderful. Let's move along then to topic six.

Thank you. So, if I can have the screen again with the slide deck. Thank you. So, this is topic six, which is the level of detail in the ordinance for ventilation system regulations. And, staff has proposed a detailed set of regulations in the draft ordinance to address ventilation systems.