Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning, everyone. Welcome you all to the April 6? Eighth. See, that's where I need the glasses.

I can't Sixes and eighths kinda looks the same. April 8 meeting of the Monterey County Planning Commission. Welcome and thank you for joining us. We will have the Pledge of Allegiance now and Commissioner Work, can you lead us please? Thank you, commissioner. Appreciate that. Madam Clerk, could you give us a roll call, please?

Yes. Good morning. Commissioner Getzelleman?

Here.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Here.

Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzales?

Here.

Commissioner Work?

Here.

Commissioner Shaw? Here. Commissioner Deal?

Here.

Commissioner Roberts?

Here.

Commissioner Gomez? Commissioner Monsalve are absent. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, can you give us a brief statement on how people can join us?

Thank you for joining today. And we would like to direct people to the agenda if you're looking at trying to join the meeting remotely. And for today, we do typically have our wordly translation and you can scan the QR code or go to the URL that is on here and select your language. However, at this moment Wordly is not working and we hope that it will be available at some point during today's meeting. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now is the time set aside on the agenda for public comments for items that should be brought to our attention that are not on the agenda. So is there anyone there is no one in the chambers is there anyone online? Madam Clerk, do you see any hands raised or anyone that might be interested?

No hands up on zoom and no emails.

Okay, thank you very much. Are there any additions, deletions or corrections to the agenda?

Yes, for the record we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number three, PLN 250,008 Clark Wesley and Shida Clark Wesley Allen.

Thank you very much. For the record we'd like to note that Commissioner Gomez has joined us. Thank you, Ms. Clerk. And commissioners, are there any requests, referrals or comments that you'd like to share?

No, seeing no one, very good. We'll move along then. To the approval of the consent calendar. So move. Commissioner. Yes. Please go right ahead. Commissioner Deal.

Yeah. I just would question the utility of putting a single item on the consent agenda because you have to have the process step of whether somebody wants to pull something from the consent agenda and all that beforehand. I'm not sure it really gets us anywhere if it's only one item, but it's just a thought. Otherwise, have no issue with this and would be hopeful that staff could clarify that for these matters, we are sending a letter of appreciation to this per people because that's the resignation comment I usually find myself to make needed needing to request.

Yes, and I'm sure this gentleman would appreciate that. Do we send letters? We do automatically don't we? Madam Yes,

the clerk does automatically send those appreciation letters. Thank you for that.

Yeah, thank you. Alright. We have a motion then.

Sorry. I think I got ahead of myself. I believe maybe you need public comment.

Believe I'm not. Do we need public comment on the consent?

Okay. Since there's no second.

All right. Right. A public comment then on the approval of the consent calendar. No one in the chambers. Anyone online? Madam Clerk?

No hands up on Zoom. No additional emails.

Very good. Now, Commissioner Gonzalez.

Move approval of consent calendar.

Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Gomez. It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by Commissioner Gomez to approve the consent calendar. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. Alright, wonderful. Now we have the minutes. Everybody read the minutes. Any corrections, comments? Yes.

The only thing is what I believe I understood, commissioner deal was or maybe I thought I did was that in terms the minutes, would those be able to be placed together in the approval of consent calendar?

Yes, I know it could you get closer to your microphone or turn it on? Maybe it

doesn't work. Hello? Testing, testing.

Yes, that's better. Thank you.

Yes. I guess at least I believe that I understood commissioner deal or at least I thought I did that if we would be able to put in the future the acceptance of the minutes all in one approval of consent calendar. And I'm not sure if that was what was being requested or do we have to have the minutes as a separate entity?

Through the chair? Yes. Is appropriate minutes can be appropriate for the consent calendar. That's correct.

Can be appropriate.

Well, it depends on the taste of the person setting the agenda, but they have been used that way for some committees. Sorry.

Madam Secretary?

Yeah, just for context at this juncture, staff and the clerk had been placing minutes on the consent calendar, but those were routinely being pulled for discussion or correction or or separate vote and therefore changed and started doing minutes in their own separate scheduled items. We do hear the the matter with regard to the consent calendar when there's only one, necessarily saving time. Staff would request that we continue to use. However, the consent calendar for those items, because it is easier to have a standard rule for which items go on consent versus which items go under other categories than change it up based on the number of categories even if for some of the meetings it doesn't save us time.

Okay, thank you. So commissioners do you feel where would you like to see the minutes? Would you like to see them on the consent calendar, commissioner deal?

Personally, I'm happy to have them on the consent calendar, especially with the clarification that if you weren't there, it is not necessary to specifically recuse yourself from that meeting.

Okay.

In the past we've thought that was an issue.

Yeah. Okay.

Counsel has informed us it's not anymore.

Not anymore.

I'd bundle them if it was me.

Okay. Yeah, me too. Anybody else? Nope. Everybody? Me today. Pretty much agrees. Okay. Well, maybe going forward then we can do that and that would save us a couple of steps. Thank you. All right. Did we vote on that?

Not yet.

Not yet. Okay. I didn't think so. So we do have to have public comment on the minutes. There's no one in the chambers to comment. Anyone online? Madam Clerk?

No one online and no hands up on Zoom.

Thank you. Do we need a motion then for the approval of the minutes?

I'll move approval of the minutes.

Okay, thank you Commissioner Gomez. I'll second. Oh Commissioner Work second. We have a motion by Commissioner Gomez and a second by Commissioner Work to for the approval of the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed nay. Very good that passes. Okay. Well in the future then, it'll be a little different, but I think that'll help us streamline. Thank you very much. Okay, moving along then, we move to the first scheduled item for the day, which is PLN number 25008. Staff, when you're ready.

Can we please share presentation on staff right?

Good morning Chair Getzelman, Planning Commissioners. My name is Jordan Evans Palako and I'll be presenting staff's report on PLN 250008, Clark Wesley, Shade Attrest and Clark Wesley Allen. The subject parcels are located at 42 Mount Devon Road in the Carmel Highlands within the Carmel area land use plan. All three parcels are zoned low density residential, one acre per unit with a design control overlay within the coastal zone. The proposed project consists of a coastal development permit to allow a lot merger between three legal lots of record resulting in one parcel 1.56 acres in size.

The existing property lines are shown here in yellow for Parcel A, red for Parcel B and blue for Parcel C. Parcel A is currently developed with a single family dwelling, while Parcel C is currently developed with the driveway that provides the single family dwelling on Parcel A access to Mount Devon Road. Parcel B is vacant. With the proposed lot merger, the single family dwelling and related access improvements will be on the same parcel with no need for an easement. There is no development proposed as a part of the submittal as the project solely consists of a lot merger.

Two of the parcels, parcel A and B, do not meet lot size in accordance to the zoning, but with the lot merger, the resulting parcel will be in conformance by meeting the minimum building site size. The project went before the Carmel Highlands LIUAC on March 2 and was voted five zero in support of the project as proposed. Staff has received several public comments in support of the proposed project scope of work. Staff would like to make an errata and recommend that the Planning Commission adds the indemnification agreement as condition number six with conditions of approval. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to section one five three zero five of CEQUA guidelines and approve a coastal development permit to allow a lot merger between three legal lots of record resulting in one parcel.

This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. Just a really curiosity question. Do we know what the I think it's lot a, the smallest lot was created for? It looks like it might have been related to infrastructure, which is why I'm asking when the subdivision was put in place. Do we have any any sense at all what that was about? It's really small. I didn't find anybody who knew in the neighborhood either.

Through the chair? No, we do not know why such a small parcel was created to point zero two acres.

The only niggling thing in the back of my mind would be that if it were related to, for example, water pumping infrastructure or something of that nature, it would be good to know. I don't imagine it's a showstopper. But that's all. Thanks.

Thank you. Commissioner Roberts.

I have also just a general question. I'm curious to know this obviously was time and expense for the property owners. And I'm curious to know what benefit how how does this benefit the property owners other than having a single lot? Because it's a I I love this project. This is a great project. Just wondering what brings the property owner to doing something like this.

Through the chair, the applicants inherited the land from their parents. And because they're three separate parcels and they're looking for potential options for future development or for selling the land, they thought it would be easier to put them all together.

So basically a personal decision, not necessarily from the county or taxes or?

Yes.

Commissioner Ward?

Yeah, I'm just curious. So we're giving up three league, well, three legal lots and we have a housing problem. So if they wanted to put in an ADU, do they have could they put in two? Because they had three lots, keeping them small. But I'm just trying to tie it to the housing problem.

Through the chair, a majority of the three lots are on slopes over 30%. So it would have an impact on resources, but they would be able to potentially put an ADU if so desired.

Commissioners any further? Commissioner Hartzell.

It was my understanding from the staff report that the zoning in this area would prevent two out of three of the lots from being developed on their own. Is that accurate?

Through the chair, no. But the smallest parcel is so small that I'm not sure development would be plausible on that small acre.

Would development be plausible on the slightly less than half

acre? Through the chair, yes. There's currently a single family dwelling developed on that parcel. With the merger of the lots, they had the potential of renovating or doing an expansion on said single family dwelling if desired, but they would still have to meet the site development standards of the zoning district if any potential development were to occur.

Thank you. Commissioners, any further questions before we go to public, to the agent, applicant? Seeing none, all right, very good. Is the applicant or the applicant's agent, would they like care to make a presentation? There is no one in the chambers, but perhaps online. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody? It looks like they might be.

Yes. We have, Braden Sterling.

Hi. Yeah. Can you hear me?

Very good. We can hear you. You can go ahead, sir.

Yeah. I'm actually the the architect for the project. I'm representing the Sterling Huddleston architecture. We represent the clients. So I'm just here and available for any questions you might have if you need any more additional details.

Very good. Would you happen to know if the if the applicant accepts the conditions of approval? Yes. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Commissioners, questions for the applicant? No? Very good. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate your joining us.

Sure.

All right. Any further public comments? Once again, no one in the chambers? Anything online?

No emails and no additional heads up on Zoom.

Okay. Very good. Staff, did you have anything? I don't imagine you do, but do you have anything you'd like to comment?

Just for clarity, the additional condition that staff is requesting is a self executing indemnification rather than requiring a formal agreement at this

time. There's clarity there.

Thank you for the clarification. Alright, commissioners. Any discussion? Commissioner Diehl perhaps?

No, I was gonna ask the clarification made me confused, but I wasn't sure what it meant. Don't think

it matters. Miss Jensen Didn't quite achieve its goal then, did it?

For additional clarity, the prior indemnification agreements used to or condition used to require the property owner actually record an an agreement. However, that language has since been changed and is now a self executing indemnification against the county unless upon demand of county council an agreement is required. So just slight difference of language, but the outcome is the same.

It just means that the one that's in the conditions doesn't have to have another action from the applicant, right? Correct. Is that what we're saying? Correct. Okay. Cool. I appreciate the education. With that said, I'd like to move staff's recommendation with the indemnification errata change as discussed in this hearing.

The conditions as stated. Commissioner Hartzell.

I second.

Very good. All right. No further comments then. We motion have by Commissioner Diehl and a second by Commissioner Hartzell to approve this project with conditions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed nay. It passes unanimously. Thank you everyone. Well, we're moving right through this today. We have a department report perhaps from the secretary.

If you could just give me one moment, please.

Sure. You can have two.

So I think that the department just wanted to just advise the commission that our next two meetings are looking very full on the agenda. We did make every attempt to try to spread it out, but we weren't able to get more items on today's agenda. So again, if you have time limitations for either of the next two meetings, if you can let the clerk know just so we can ensure that we will have a quorum throughout the day should the items go into the afternoon. And that is all that I wanted to note for the commission. Thank you.

Well, thank you for sharing. Very well then, oh Commissioner Gomez.

Ms. Bredegui let us know why it's so full? Is it No,

we have, so we have a number of long range planning items, plans and policies that are moving. And we the timing on those is is just been a little bit more temperamental than we were hoping just because of timing for various different reviews. So we had hoped to have a policy matter that was coming today, but that has been nudged forward. When we have these larger plans and policies that are coming, we're trying to both accommodate those long range items along with having items coming. So when on those days when those long range items hit, are finding they're a little bit more crowded. But we are not wanting to put them off because they're important discussions to have with you all.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Just one follow-up. Is there any update on the housing element?

Staff has submitted our third submittal.

We

are so that is officially a third sixty day review by the state housing community development department. We are hopeful based on communications that we've had with staff at the department. We are hopeful that we will have no more substantive issues to address with this middle round. And we are staff is actively now working towards we will have to do concurrent rezoning, and we will also have our draft environmental impact report, programmatic environmental impact report that we are, is under review as well. So we still have some steps, but we are optimistic and we continue to keep the pedal to the metal as much as we can on such large policy matters.

Very good. Any other further questions secretary? Nope. Seeing none. Well, thank you everyone for joining us for twenty five minutes this morning and the meeting is adjourned.