Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone. It's 9:00 and time to begin. Welcome to the May 13, 2026 Planning Commission meeting for Monterey County. It's somewhere in there. And we're going to begin with the um pledge of allegiance. Uh Commissioner Hartzel, would you like to lead us? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stand.

All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hartzell. Madame Clerk, can we have a roll call, please? Good morning. Commissioner Getsman here. Commissioner Mendoza here. Commissioner Hartzell here. Commissioner Gonzalez here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Deal here. Commissioner Shaw here. Commissioner Monsal here. And I am invoking the Just Cause Government Code 54953.8.3 8.3 due to a family medical emergency and I do have one adult present with me at this location.

Thank you. Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner Gomez are absent. Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Madam Secretary, would you like to um give us a little bit of housekeeping?

Yeah, thank you for joining us. If you are um here in chambers or on Zoom, you can have the opportunity to have translation through our Wordley program. So, you'll see here in chambers that on the screen um at the front, you're right. Uh you'll get the uh bilingual English Spanish version. Um, and you can also scan the QR code or go to the web page that's displayed uh, and go to Wordlely and then select the language for today if you require translation services. Uh, and it will give those translation services. Uh, if you require um, headphones here in chambers, do we have them? I believe they're up here. Thank you.

Thank you very much. appreciate that. So, this is the time set aside on the agenda for uh public comment, but public comment that are that you might want to share with us that are that is not about any agenda items. We'll get to the agenda items during the meeting, but if there's something some thoughts you'd like to share, anyone in the chambers? Seeing none, uh madame clerk, is there anybody online? We have no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

Very good. Thank you. Are there any um agenda additions, corrections, or deletions? Yes. For the record, we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number one, REF2500037, water allocation policy. Agenda item number two, PLN030204, amendment two extension one, UCP East Garrison LLC. And agenda item number three, PLN240141, Northern California Congressional Retirement Homes, Inc. Thank you. Fellow commissioners, do you have any uh comments, requests, or referrals you'd like to share? Nope. Seeing no one. Very good. Let's move along then to schedule matters. The first item on the agenda under scheduled matters is um RF number 250037. It would be the water allocation policy. Staff, when you're ready, please share. Oh, we're good. Uh, could you share staff right, please? Good morning, Chair Gatsman, members of the planning commission. Sarah Wel with HCD principal planner. Uh today staff will be presenting on the water allocation policy referral number 2500037. And this item was continued from April 29th uh planning commission meeting to today's meeting.

The requested action is that the planning commission consider and provide input on a draft water allocation policy for areas in unincorporated Monterey County served by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. The presentation will consist of an overview of the following topics. A highle summary of the feedback received from the planning commission at the April 29th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Uh overview of the public comment that's been received to date uh since that last meeting and distributed to the planning commission and interested parties lists. Uh someformational follow-up items specific to SB 330 and Housing Accountability Act projects and how they would intersect with the policy. Uh discussion on fixture maximums, some additional background on the plan to housing growth category, a review of the water waiting list which has been revised since the last planning commission meeting and water remaining for allocation to other projects. a discussion of the draft policy and water eligibility or eligibility for water allocation and some discussion of options for the planning commission to consider regarding water allocation reservation and then timing and next steps for the policy development process. At the April 29th planning commission meeting, uh staff heard the following items for uh heard the following feedback as listed on the screen. staff did provide a clean and redline version of the water allocation policy at planning commission's request. Uh this is provided in exhibits A and B. The clean version is all the edits from last the last meeting. So that included the rott memo edits. So that's the clean version. And then the redline version had some minor updates to try to address some of the numbering related concerns. Some discussion about additional extensions for time for affordable housing projects as well as some discussion on some policy changes at the

service district area in the background section. Also, this presentation will cover some additional context on the use categories in the draft policy. Uh there will be some discussion and uh information provided related to complete projects in the service area. Uh requests for information related to the fixture maximums in the policy and a better understanding of uh the remaining water allocation after water is allocated to projects on the waiting list. Again, there was the request for information related to how the policy applies to h projects under SP330 which is part of the housing accountability act. And then some additional clarity was requested on how when how and when projects qualify and reserve water allocation and how that ties into the draft policy. M multiple department letters were received. Uh specific ones included comments from Landatch, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the Monterey County Association of Realators, and other uh public comments that had some key concerns and question raised. Um and most of these topics were discussed in in our last planning commission meeting. Specific concerns were raised around the fixture maximums, the amount of water being allocated for planned housing growth, how uh vesting works for SB330 projects as it relates in this policy, clarifying edits to the draft policy were provided by the management district for consideration. And uh questions again were raised related to when water is reserved in the allocation process for projects. So for housing accountability projects, specifically projects utilizing SB330, um those projects are that provision of state law allows for projects to be vested in the rules, policies, and regulations in place at time a prelimary application is filed with the county. Um and so applications that were filed under that legislation or with that process uh prior to the adoption of the policy would not be subject to the

categories and mixture limits in the policy. like this. Is this better? Thank you. Um, and so for fixture maximums, again, there's no changes with this policy. The 25 fixture units for single family dwellings, um, and 12 fixture units for ADUs is still what is proposed. Uh, staff continues to recommend those fixture maximums. and we thought it might be helpful to look at the kind of worksheet that is filled out by applicants and kind of provide a little context as to where the thought process came for the 25 fixture units. So on your screen you'll see the total at the bottom is roughly 18 fixture units. This is looking at indoor fixtures and you'll see towards the top of your screen um three again there's how you do this worksheet and with this fixture maximum you could get anywhere from two and a half to three bathrooms in a single family dwelling. Um staff did look to add some additional fixture units um for landscaping or for additional fixtures in the home. How the policy is written is again for single family dwellings this maximum is inclusive of indoor outdoor indoor or landscaping uh water requirements. Uh but ultimately wanted to try and give property owners the flexibility of use utilizing those credits and in whatever way is seemed fit in those situations. And then for the 12 fixture units for ADUs and JUS again these are for indoor fixtures. And if you look again at the top of your screen and through the worksheet, you can still the thought process was to have two full bathrooms, uh, a closed washer and a dishwasher. Um, there is a credit that's provided uh for instant hot water access systems. And again, that gets to the total of the 12 fixture units that are proposed in the policy. Again, staff does recommend these maximums. If projects were to exceed these fixture limits, they could potentially ask for water through the

strategic reserve cal category in the policy. uh which would require approval from the board of supervisors for planned housing growth. Give me one moment. So after water is allocated to the water waiting list, approximately 80% of the remaining allocation would be dedicated to planned housing growth in the draft policy. Uh the following government code section and state and state housing law do require jurisdictions to prioritize water and sewer services to housing units that are affordable to low-income households. Uh and staff also went back and confirmed some of the numbers that were discussed at the prior planning commission meeting. This is a conservative estimate, but there's approximately 1300 units in the service area. The housing element looked at about 20 fixture units per dwelling and that would equal about 269 acre feet of water. Um so ultimately again just to provide some context given that there's this amount of need in planned growth in the both in the housing element and in state housing law that is what factored into the 80% of the remaining allocation be being dedicated to planned housing growth and that's still staff's recommendation in the policy in terms of the water waiting list. So exhibit C was revised since it last came to the planning commission a couple weeks ago. Uh this was due to some policy changes that were discovered when going back and reviewing some of the water district um rules and regulations as it relates to water. Previously uh the understanding was water for projects in the Ryan and Bishop Ranch subsystem areas would come from a separate pot of water which is called the seaside adjudication. But with the update to rule 33 that that water or allocation to those projects, so specifically the approved project was a Macintosh project near Laguna Secika Office Park. That water now has to come out of the

county's allocation. So that since that project's approved, it was added to the updated and revised water waiting list in exhibit C. And so this is a a table to help illustrate kind of the differing levels of priority related to the water waiting list in addition to the acre feet that's remaining um once we take out some of the projects from the the approved projects on the water waiting list. So as you'll see on your screen there's a total of approximately 82 acre feet available. 19 approximately 19 acre feet is going to go to approved projects on the water weight list. And then with that remaining 80% so about 50 acre feet would be going towards planned housing growth. 9.5 acre feet rough approximately would be first come first serve and approximately 3 acre feet would be for the strategic reserve category. Staff's recommendation for the water waiting list is that um that exhibit C be recommended as is, which is just including approved projects that would be taken off the top of the county's water allocation. As noted in uh section four of the policy, staff will continue to regularly review the policy and assess for any changes needed to the policy based on the demand for water in various use categories and/or if if and when uh the county receives additional water from the district, which the district's made it clear in their comments that they have intentions to provide water to the county once the um allocation that we the county currently has is exhausted. However, the timing of that is currently unknown. And then one of the big discussion topics was related to water eligibility versus water reservation. So as the draft policy is currently written, eligibility is not reservation of water. It's rather it's notification to

applicants at the completeness stage of the development review process that they meet the requirements of the water policy and upon either approval by the appointing authority for a land use entitlement. So, approval by the planning commission or approval for a building permit, that's when the water would be reserved, issued, vested. Um staff also noted in that procedure section that information would be regularly updated and made available to the public uh on HCD's website at regular intervals of update that would note in real time the availability of water, the number of projects that have been been determined eligible with the policy um and any water that's been um approved and issued. So there'd be kind of three different categories that would be tracked once the policy was previous was originally drafted. staff believe that this earlier notification in the process assisted um in providing some certainty to applicants a little bit earlier in the when they're submitting applications to the county for review. However, concerns were raised at the at the April 29th planning commission meetings meeting, excuse me. Um and staff did hear these concerns. Uh ultimately the concerns raised were that eligibility is not reservation of water as the policy is written and that reser reserving water and and kind of locking it in or holding it earlier in the development process would help with financing of pro projects and approval certainty. Uh staff's main concerns with this approach are to find ways to ensure that meaningful progress is made towards construction of uh projects. That should say projects. Apologies for the typo. Um and or by the appointing authority. And so here staff is asking for some feedback from the planning commission and some options to consider. Staff does a as the draft policy is written and staff would recommend that the eligibility of water be provided at

completeness review. However, the planning commission could direct staff um to revise the policy and note that applicants can request water as part of completeness review and reserve the water at that time. The one thing staff would recommend if the planning commission provides that direction is for staff to continue to work through um appropriate performance metrics. So to ultimately those performance metrics would ensure that staff members of the public as well as applicants are making their due diligence and moving through the process versus water being locked up and kind of stuck in that completeness review phase for for years at a time which is I think staff's main concern in terms of next steps and timing. Again, staff will take today's um input and recommendation from the planning commission onto the board of supervisors, make any necessary policy changes uh for with the target of going to the board of supervisors in early June for a policy adoption. And staff's recommendation is that the planning commission consider and provide input on a draft water allocation policy for areas of unincorporated Monterey County served by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Staff will transmit the planning commission's recommendation to the board of supervisors for the board's consideration of the policy. Uh while no formal recommendation from the planning commission is required for this administrative board policy, the commission's feedback to date has been incredibly helpful and is integral to the implementation of the policy and the feedback of the planning commission is val very valuable to staff. And so that concludes staff's presentation. uh happy to answer any questions the planning commission may have and I believe uh HCD director Spencer is also in attendance with us today to help provide any additional um feedback. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Very complete. Appreciate that. Commissioners, do we have questions? Commissioner Deal?

Yeah, excellent presentation. Thank you very much. Um, couple of questions about starting with some of the received correspondence from with the letter from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Is there anything in that letter that staff believes would uh would need to be taken into account in our current updates? And I use examples of for example uh that letter globally changes the word released uh allocation to release uh things like that in their redline version. Are there things we should be taking into account at this time?

Uh yes. So I I believe there are some minor uh and again we received some of this correspondence late yesterday. So I'm we did staff did go through it and there are some minor clarifications that we could include in the policy to make the terminology correct. I know one of the other things the district flagged for example was making in some cases making reference to their rules and regulations versus a form just in because those policies can change and so while that's not in the draft uh staff would like to make some of those clarifying edits.

Okay. So staff, this gets back to my first question, which is what is staff's current recommendation to the board because we have the two versions yet again. We have the clean and then we have an additional red line with some other minor changes as I understand it. Plus, we now have some input that we propose to incorporate. So what would staff's recommendation be at this time? Do we know? staff's recommendation would be to so we have the clean and the red line versions are the same. And the red line is just showing the edits would be to recommend to the board approval of the of that what's attached for the planning commission's consideration and then if um in provide direction to staff and incorporating or excuse me let me clarify authorize staff to make any clarifying edits or changes in response to the public correspondence that was received. And then if there's additional input specifically related to um staff asking for feedback on various policy options, making sure that's included as part of the recommendation to so authorization to staff and providing any feedback to clarify. Let me think a little bit more if I can articulate that better for you, Commissioner Deal. I'm kind of thinking on the fly, so let me let me think about that if that's okay and I will

absolutely clarify the recommendations at some point. Um and I'm perhaps it's after public comment. We'd like to know I I would like to know what staff's current recommendation would be in as completely as we can so that I'm I'm aware of what we're discussing. Uh and then I have just a couple of questions that continue to baffle me. And one of them I know has I've had asked and I think we all have seen in public comment and that is if a builder's remedy uh project has been submitted now in this service area what are the rules relating to water for that proposed project. What I mean it says it would be the rules that are in a plate in in effect now. What rules are those? And you know, as far as I know, unless they have water already from some other reason, there isn't any water. Is that the rule we're talking about? I mean, what happens now?

I can take a stab at answering the question and then I may refer to the secretary or uh HCD director Spencer. So, what we tried to do, staff tried to clarify in so for projects that are vested and approved without a policy, there is no policy. past practice and what has been done is those water requests would be considered by the appointing authority if there's a land use entitlement or a use permit or and would be approved through that or would be approved by the HCD director for a construction permit or designate. So essentially it would go through whatever the past practices prior to the adoption of the policy. So none of for example the fixture limits wouldn't apply to those projects because that's not currently in effect. So with the fact that there is and has been no water till now be in effect or is this water in play for all the builder remedy projects this proposed additional water that we're trying to set a priority on do they have access to that or do they not

my understanding is they would have access to this water but let me defer to Secretary Brett

yeah I think I think so so the nuance is that yes correctly new policy changes would not apply to vested builder remedy projects. Um however uh this is the water that is available and so as projects would come forward um through the allocation process then they would be need to take into account um and water would be need to be allocated out of the water that we have to allocate. So, um, and I want to apologize. I don't know if this is in the policy. I I can't remember if staff added it, but the intention is, um, individuals with builder's remedy could come through and work through this policy as well. Um, but they would not be required to and then we could process them separately through past practice. to follow up. So that in my mind means that it's entirely discretionary. In other words, it comes forward not under this priority. A builder's remedy project comes forward and requests water from this available water stash. If we were to say um decide that it was all affordable and we wish to give them uh the recommend that they get that water release or allocate or whatever the word is, uh we could do that. In other words, or conversely, if we didn't think it was a project that was according to our priorities, we could with our discretion without reference reference to this policy say no. Is that true?

It would be a discretionary decision and I know um Director Spencer has his hand up and so I think he may want to add some additional comment clarification. Director Spencer, would you like to share with us?

Yes, thank you, Commissioners. And I think I think Sarah and Melanie covered it well. I uh I just we have a situation where an application filed under a build of remedy would be subject to the rules in place at the time they filed. That's by statute. So they would be subject to no rules because there were no rules for the allocation of policy. um we would need to determine essentially in discretionary decision um whether or not to allocate water to those pro pros. I think the comment that has been received um believes that it would be on a first come first serve basis. Um, in the past practice, which may come into play here, the planning commission, zoning administrator, appropriate authority, whoever that might be, um, essentially approved entitlements with the thinking that they would be added to a wait list at one point in time. Um, and there were a number of building permits, ministerial permits submitted um, that didn't have water and were added to a wait list as well. So, um, if there was a discretionary permit, that would have to be part of the decision making as part of the review of a project, and you would not apply the rules that we're putting in place today. But the rules that we're trying to put in place today do reference projects submitted prior to the adoption of this rule go through, you know, a discretionary decisionmaking process if one applies. So that's that's I think how we're handling it. And it is it's a little bit fuzzy because we can't apply these rules

um to a builder remedy application. But we would need to determine as part of the review of the project if they have an adequate amount of water and it and if they're asking for water from the county's allocation from water management district. We would have to decide on that. absent a policy. Did that help, Commissioner Deal? I

I think it confirmed what I thought, which is that we at that point um could make a decision on the merits. So, we would just have to support it with appropriate findings and evidence, whatever that decision might be. Um so, that certainly is is u in my view really helpful. Um, and I want to move on to the waiting list because we saw the revision of the waiting list to include three projects that have already been through the process, but there's no reference to the other people that the director just talked about who have been put on a waiting list for uh commercial or residential expansions or things of that nature. Is there nobody on a list waiting to add a bathroom anymore? they've all done it or they all gave up or what because for a long time that's how we did it.

Um I can take uh again another stab at answering that question and then may defer to to HCD director Spencer. So in the staff report there was a brief discussion about the water waiting list that HCD inherited for the water resource from the water resources agency. Um, and there was a waiting list of approximately 60 people waiting for water at one point in time. Over the last few years, staff has reached out to those property owners who were on the waiting list um to determine both interest in remaining and waiting for water or to confirm if other water had been received, water had been received from other sources. So what is before you today, the two that were previously included were the two remaining uh owners or prop properties that were still waiting for water did not obtain it from another source. Um so that includes the Carmel Valley Ranch project and there was a letter included as reference related to that. I think it's exhibit D. And then there was one single family dwelling that was still waiting for water. So in terms of the waiting list that HDD was uh maintaining, these were the two final people that were on that specific waiting list. And then the additional project was again the project, the Macintosh project which is in the Laguna Secika office park. It's an apartment project that was added as a in response to the changes in the district. Uh rule 33

wasn't the residential one for a new a new home. It wasn't for any of the people who have been waiting to add a bathroom. So, we got believe it was for a new home. Yeah. So, we got none of this the the smaller little guys. None of those people who had been waiting to my knowledge for 20 years or whatever it is um are on any list anymore? I do not believe so. Uh SP Director Spencer, is there anything else you'd like to add related to Commissioner Deal's question? Uh yeah, if if it's uh acceptable to the chair. Um, of course.

Thank you. There's uh I think that the the flaw we had in our our draft was calling it a water weight list. Um what we're looking at are approved projects, commitments to um you know authorization to build something with water fixtures that need a water management district permit. Um the water weight list as as Sarah mentioned it began when the water resources agency was the agency tracking the county's water allocations the Peralta prealta allocations that we had in the '9s. Um and uh projects were approved or um went through our system and we're ready to issue um and if there wasn't water allocated to them, they were added to the weight list. We have other scenarios um where we have now approved projects that weren't on the water weight list that now need water. Um and then we have people who are interested in adding water and are either in the process of get trying to attain obtain a permit or just generally interested in having the water to do something um and may have sent an email or letter at one point. There isn't a list of interested people who are out there wanting water for one reason or another. Um there is this old water weight list which we have verified that only one truly still remains just because of the amount of time that's

passed. Um the water has been obtained from other sources like Mal Paso water credits or something along the lines. The owners have sold the property and moved along and are no longer interested. So we've we've whittleled down that water weight list to one single family dwelling in Delmmani Forest that is truly still waiting for the water to be available. The prior commitments to Carmel Valley Ranch that still remain valid and now adding the approved projects in the Laguna office park um to what has been approved and now needs a water allocation. So those are approved projects not that as a combination of water weight list and which is also approved projects. It's not those in process who want to request that the water be made available to them um because that decision has not been made yet. The policyy's not in place and we don't have a list a comprehensive list of those yet. We also don't have a comprehensive list of people who have expressed an interest but haven't applied. So I would say that what we're looking at in terms of what staff's presenting are approved projects that have an entitlement to build and need a water allocation. That's the right term. It might not be um self allocation to build um and and to pull to get the water permit in order to get the building permit and begin building.

Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Commissioner Deal, do you have a followup?

I do. Um yes, thank you. I get that. I know what we're talking about, but I also know that if you were a person within this district that went in to provide to to apply for an administrative permit for an expansion of a half bath, you were told no, go away. And so, you didn't get on any list. And I'd really like to have some consideration in the policy going forward that would u address the fact that people were not allowed to even get in the door to make the request because it wasn't a discretionary project to begin with in many cases. Um and it would have certainly not been discretionary absent any difficulty getting water. So, um I really just got to keep speaking out for for the ordinary people and um right now we've I think seen staff done a really diligent job with the larger projects and the discretionary projects, but we've already ruled out a whole class of people who have been trying for a long time to do some work. And I just would like to have some um some way to address that need that isn't documented because it wasn't allowed to be documented. That's all. And then and I have hoping that public comment will address most of my other concerns. So, thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Deal. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Uh Commissioner Hartzone,

thank you. Um, picking up on that conversation about the water waiting list. Um, under section two background, there is a water waiting list in quotations in the red marked on the bottom paragraph of the second page of background. And that's all lowercase. And then under the policy there is capital capital capitalized in quotes HCD approved water waiting list in the one two three third or fourth paragraph depending on whether you count the numbers. I find that to be quite confusing to have those referred to as I can't tell if they're the same thing or not. And what I just heard from Director Spencer was maybe that doesn't exist at all. So, I I would like a little information on what you're referring to in those two places and maybe help me help me as a lay person understand what you're talking about. Quasi lay person. Sorry, I'm just taking taking a peek here. Um bottom of page 23. Yep. Yeah, I see the the in quotation red line and then the red the quotation below and then I see in the policy the HCD approved water weight list. So yes, that is that is confusing.

Um I think the the intent the intent is for I believe both of those to read the same or have to have a have a consistent naming convention. Um, so if it's um, staff would like to propose to make that clarification as cleanup as part of the red lines to make it make them all be consistent with each other.

And when I'm looking at that consistent term, am I referring to a piece of paper maintained in Director Spencer's office or is this kind of a esoteric concept? What is the weight list? the the weight list previously was held by the HCD director or designate. Um now in terms of us going through that and providing it, it it would be referred to now as the exhibit C in the staff report. So that's what's kind of the most current publicly available up-to-date waiting list. The background was trying to was attempting to contextualize the practice and the fact that there was that larger waiting list. Um and so now the current iteration is what is attached to the staff report as exhibit C.

And when you say it's publicly available, where is it publicly available or how?

Currently it is part it is on we have a water allocation web page that does need to get uh updated with this packet. Uh so staff will note that that will happen after this meeting. Um, but in the future and as it relates to the policy draft and kind of some of those updated that staff updating of availability of water information, we would be looking to do a standalone web page and do some kind of public outreach to make sure that people knew where it was available and the frequency at which it's being updated. So, there's still a little a little bit of work. It is currently included as the packet. It would be on the project web page. Um and then we would be creating a separate page with all the information related to again the weight list and then also ongoing updates as it relates to this policy once the policy is adopted.

Excellent. That really I love that transparency. Thank you. I just have one more question. I saw a lot of public comment about the fixture units and um in looking into those comments and I anticipate some so I'm not going to try and get ahead of those comments but I did feel some confusion about where landscaping fixtures fit into the 25 count um and looking at the district rule 142 which explains landscaping features which I know is not our responsibility here but it is confusing to me on what is a landscaping sure what falls into the 25 unit count. Could you just explain that to me before we hear public comment?

Sure. So, in terms of the 25 unit again, um what staff was looking at with that was and I think and I'm trying to remember if it was one of the past iterations um staff was working on with the policy first. And when we came in November, we talked about fixtured limits for incorporated jurisdictions. Got the feedback that was too low. So then we increased it to um the 18 fixture limit which would accommodate up to two two and a half to three baths and upon further review that was really looking at indoor fixtures. So, in terms of the 25 that is in the policy draft as you see it, um there would be a seven additional fixture units and ultimately that's up to the discretion of the homeowner of uh and that's inclusive and I believe we updated the policy but we could clean it up even more if it if it would help to put in parenthesis landscaping and indoor fixtures or to total fixtures I think is what it said. But that seven um those seven fixture units would be for landscaping andor any additional um plumbing fixtures inside the house. So if someone wanted to have four bathrooms and have less landscaping, they would have that flexibility. At one point we did think about like do we want to chunk out a limit for landscaping, but thought that it made more sense to have that larger number um be at the discretion of the homeowner so that gives them a little more flexibility of of design of the both the home as well as landscaping. I don't have any recommendations on that yet. I'd like to hear public comment, but I will say that reading rule 142 was really informative for me, particularly around the gray water, storm water, and recycled water things and the kind of credits that homeowners can get for using those types of water on landscaping features. So, when this goes to the board, I would say refer added as an exhibit or something. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner.

Very good. Commissioner Shaw, you had comments? Thank you. I have a question. Um, prior to the first iteration of this, what was was there any like meaningful conversation with the actual people who facilitate building of the housing that we're looking for? Um, developers, real estate professionals. I asked this because every single letter that's in this packet that we've received disagrees with the scope of this um, policy. And so I'm wondering uh what opportunity did they have prior to this actually coming to us? So for the last planning commission meeting um and let me try to get my dates. So we had the workshop in November. Staff went and did some refinement of the policy. During that time frame, staff did meet with um development community housing providers to give them a pass at some of the draft ideas and get some feedback um which then informed the policy that came at the end of April. Uh staff also did make the draft available for a two week. Sorry, I'm like echoing myself. Um for a two-eek comment period in early April, I believe it was April 8th to April 22nd. So, we did try to make the the um draft publicly available. Did note some of the public comment coming from the Monterey County Association of Realtors related to their key concerns seem to be related to fixture maximums. Um and specifically the planned housing growth category that and that seemed to be kind of a consistent theme throughout the the comments from the individual outside of the real estate association's letter. And so part of what staff was trying to do with the presentation today was to provide some of that additional context for planned housing growth and specifically the housing that's planned for in the housing element in addition to other needs around housing to substantiate why the 80% was previously recommended for staff for planned housing growth. And then also wanted to

walk through some of those fixture work sheets to give some context as to um where staff was coming from with the recommendations for the fixture maximums in the policy.

Thank you. I have one more question. um just completely like as as a lay person, just a regular person living in the county, um not a professional of any sort. Did this I just don't understand why this needs to be as restrictive as it is or so much control. I mean, is there do we need to reinvent the wheel with this? I'm trying to understand where the need to have this be so indepth with so many little points of control. Um, based on the letters that I'm seeing, there's so many wonderful ideas of a more streamlined approach that would be less restrictive. Um, even from somebody who from a a group like Landwatch, who has been famously in agreement with what the county is doing, um, has a lot of disagreement on some of the points. So, I'm wondering, couldn't we have just copied another city? Maybe like Monterey, Monterey, the city of Monterey has been brought up instead of it being like this, why is it so extensive? Sure, I can take an approach at answering the question, Commissioner Shaw, through the chair. Um, so historically, the county had no, it was first come, first serve, and um, county received an additional allocation of the 72 acre feet last January. And given again keep saying talking about affordable housing, planned housing growth, changes in state housing law, the fact that we had such a a kind of finite number of water that was being allocated to the county, staff was attempting to create a framework of structure where there were previously was no structure. Um, I think when staff came to the planning commission in November, staff threw a lot of out ideas out at the planning commission and I think some of the feedback that was provided to us both from the planning commission and the public was hey this is too granted it's still a pretty robust policy but at the time even when we were thinking hey this is too much

and and staff was looking at city of Carmel as an option um in terms of what they've done related to water allocation city of Seaside as well um but again some of the framework for an incorporated city is really different than an incorporated county. And so I think it required a little bit of staff taking a step back and really trying to understand and note, hey, this is a really small amount of in the grand scheme of things, this is not a lot of water, which is why we tried to land on kind of the three use court categories and tried to clearly articulate depending on if you're a construction permit or a discretionary permit, here's what your process would look like um to provide some framing. And staff also ended up and we came to the planning commission with hey do we do a board policy? Do we do an ordinance? Do we do both? And upon trying to simplify staff thought that doing a board policy would allow us to say hey here's a framework staff can go and regularly look at this. We can update it in response to changes in water demand. if the water district provided additional water. If water's not an issue, we can go back, go to the board, I mean, and work with the planning commission of course, but we have a more of a direct shot of trying to modify the policy landscape in real time to be responsive to the changes and what we may see on the ground. So, um, in terms of some of the public comment received, staff, again, a chunk of it was received yesterday, has been going through it. I think there are some staff thinks there are some kind of clarifying edits and cleanup that could happen and be carried on through the board especially some of the clarification from the water management district. There is some items in the land watch letter specifically. I think there was some items related to planned housing growth category where staff was like, "Oh yeah, that actually I think makes a lot of sense. Like why don't we add this in?" And so there's still some of that fine-tuning and I know it's hard and I wish it could be more complete, but this policy has been so kind of iterative in response to the public, in response to planning commission comments. It's it's a it's I think it's closer to being, you know, we're at that point of wanting to

provide that direction and recommendation to the board, but there's still a little bit of work that may need to be done. So that may have been a long-winded way of attempting to address your question. Um but ultimately again with this board policy if things change and we're getting that feedback we can come back and we can modify it relatively um quickly which is um I think a preference for staff to be responsive to both to the decision makers as well as uh the public. Thank you Commissioner Commissioner I'm sorry Director Spencer did you want to add to that perhaps?

Actually Sarah did a great job. Um I just I just wanted to rephrase the conversation a little bit. Um and this is I Sarah mentioned it's an iterative process. So you know some we have to start somewhere. We came to the planning commission. Um we talked about some some options and paths. We put something together and I think it's not all criticism of what we put together. It's suggestions for how to improve it and it's been iterative back and forth in ways in which we can improve it. I just want to make that point because it's it has been a collaborative effort. We've listened to a lot of the feedback. We've we've made tweaks. We've come back with those tweaks and we're here again as part of a public process in front of the planning commission to get the feedback and the public input to tweak the project again. So, I I just wanted to rephrase the the discussion so that it's not staff being overly restrictive. It is we're trying to start at a place where we're trying to develop a policy that makes sense. Those restrictions that are in question, 25 fixture units, um whether that's the right number or not is something we can debate and change if needed. So, uh, I just wanted to add that piece and and thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. Um so my framing of this in my mind is that we are being asked to recommend a policy to the board and this is going to be the board's direction to our staff on how to consistently go about allocating a small amount of water that we've come into. Okay. So it's what we're asking the we're suggesting the board do is in faith in in place of nothing they're going to make a direction to the staff and I think that giving the staff a good firm direction personally seems like a good idea in something as contentious as water pretty much a critical idea. So um in that framing the amount of specificity in a policy can be changed by the board when they feel if they run into a friction point they could say ah yeah well we're now going to direct you to do something different. I'm all over that. I think that's the most flexible we can be while providing staff with some sort of a framework. So um that's why my was stressing on what is staff recommending because they're they're saying what do we need? what would we like to have so that we can consistently apply some sort of of policy kind of a thing so we're not just left out there guessing and having everybody uh question our guesses. So I guess the only other thing I was going to ask the staff besides for when we get to the end what their recommendation as a result of all this is going to be is any of this required in order to be to help us along with our housing element issues.

Yes. So there is a policy in the housing element through the chair. I'm getting used to saying through the chair. I apologize. No, that's other jurisdictions. I have not done that. Um,

so the housing element does have a policy. I cannot call the policy number off the top of my head or program number where uh county does need to prioritize water and sewer services and have some policies and procedures in place. So again, we're focusing here today on the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Uh but as staff goes through implementing the housing element, we're probably going to have to look at similar policies in other parts of the county where water and sewer are very, you know, crucial and vital resources for housing growth and development. So this policy is assisting in implementing the housing element um as it's uh the the draft housing element. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mendoza.

Uh yes. The question I have on your fixture count a total of 25 and you're saying I believe 18 for inside the the house. I know that's actually pretty easy to enforce because you go through building and you can get that count. Now in reference to your landscape uh you have seven additional for the landscape. How is that enforced? I mean I I get my water allocated to me and I own a couple acres and all a sudden I want to put in a swimming pool. Is that a fixture? Uh, another question. Now I want to put in a garden. How do we enforce the amount of water that I could actually use? Cuz I could use a lot more water than the residence would itself. So I'm just looking for enforcement. How do you enforce it?

I will take a stab at that um and then defer to other staff through the chair. Um, so what's also part of what we have to be mind or what staff is continuously mindful of is there is this interplay with the district. I believe in the district comments they had some reference to potential um including some language related to enforcement of fixtures and water use. And so there is through the building permit process andor project process depending on where we land for reserving that water. This the table that staff showed previously would need to be filled out and articulate kind of anticipated water usages and that would be the baseline for this is what you're getting approved for through the policy and this is what you would be issued through from the county and then there's some work that happens with the water management district as well. Um, I may I think I will defer to Director Spencer because he has a little bit more knowledge on this piece, but I think there's a I believe enforcement authority may be under the water district in conjunction with the county's code enforcement division if there's issues, but I I'm not 100% certain on that. So, um, Director Spencer, can you provide clarity on that?

Yeah, thank you. I so I think we all sort of understand and agree that you could have water use that's not related to water fixtures. But we have a system where water permitting occurs through the water management district that relies on a water fixture count. And there is a a multiplier as Sarah kind of showed um that ends up giving you a number somewhere between you know somewhere around 25 for a house for instance. Um, according to water management district rules, that translates to 0.25 acre feet per year and we've been given an allocation in acre feet. So, we're doing this math through the water fixture calculations because that is the system in place. It's not it's not about how much water is actually being used, but someone could add fixtures without a permit. And then we they if they were to go through our normal code enforcement process um because there's been a report or we've discovered that some work has been done without a permit. Our code enforcement staff would require that they either get a permit or remove the work they did without a permit. That's generally how our enforcement works. If water management district staff does an inspection and finds that there's fixtures that were added that weren't permitted through their water permit system, they would file a notice of violation and they would rely on us to

enforce the code. in the same way that we would had we had water management district not instigated that report. So um and if we don't enforce they can deduct from our allocation that um that amount of water that covers that fixture unit that is there illegally and hasn't been enforced upon to be removed or permitted through the normal channels. Did that answer that answers the question? Yeah. Does that answer that question for you?

Yes and no. Uh I I mean I do understand what you're saying, but in reference to um the amount of water that is going to be used outside like in the gardening per se or the landscaping, I think that's very very difficult to to put an amount on how much water somebody can use. I mean, if it's a landscaping, I can have two acres of landscaping that will use what, you know, 10 houses use, cuz we we don't we don't we don't put in plans for I I think landscaping is an ongoing thing. You know, today I like a plant here, next day I want it there, and then the following day I want them in another place, and now I don't like them, I tear them out and replace them with new plants. I I think it's just difficult to enforce, and that's the that's the problem I'm having. Um I'm just trying to understand that. Thank you.

Thank you for trying. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yeah, and it's um kind of s uh similar questions because I was looking at the application especially a part about um is uh a water meter needed which that means to me and my assumption is that if somebody says no uh then they wouldn't put up a meter but in all this process I'm assuming that not everybody has to have a water meter Is that correct? Or uh because again it goes back to the issue about it doesn't matter how many fixtures you have whether you have 25 30 or 35 somebody has to use a bathroom here or a bathroom there or a third bathroom you know whatever water you're going to use you're going to use it and it's more for convenience. So I was a little concerned in terms of u the number of um of of uh where the water um fixtures and so I guess is where is it required and I guess and where is it not required as far as a water meter because you can add different fixtures inside the house and less outside but you can always connect the hose and use a lot of of water. So is it required in what areas and what areas isn't it?

Want to try that one

uh through the chair. So, one thing to note, and I think the prior iteration of this policy, um, we did some slight tweaks to move a couple things around, but the policy does not trump the current cease and desist order with Calam, which prohibits the setting of new meters. And so, how the policy is written is it's referring to properties and projects that already have water meters. Um, now when the time of that cease and desist order is lifted, that would change the discussion. It may warrant some changes to the policy, but we tried to clean up the policy. So that's at least some context in the background section versus like relying on that um cease and disorder in any of the approval the procedure sections or other sections.

Thank you.

Did that answer Yeah. Good. Okay, everyone's good. Very all righty. Great. Well, let's u let's open this up to the public now for anyone in the audience who would like to make a uh like to share their thoughts with us. Come on down and give us your name, please. We'll have that for the record. Um, good morning chair and and members of the commission. Um, I have a handout that I'd be happy to put on the screen. Uh, I don't know how to work this if someone can help me with that. Um I want to first thank you for acknowledging the importance of uh allocating the water. Um at the time that the application is deemed complete. That feedback to to staff was very important and helpful. Um in communicating with staff, it was our understanding that staff was looking to you to provide additional color and direction as to specifics um on how and when that allocation would occur. And so we took a stab at u proposed language uh with specificity as to those issues. So I'm going to read this um and then there's one other comment I'll make. So as to the process to allocate uh water at such time as the uh application is deemed complete. We would recommend the following language. For both ministerial and discretionary permit qualifying projects, the county shall reserve water the water allocation necessary for the project at the time that these conditions are met. A the county determines the project

application is is complete. B. The applicant has provided the county with satisfactory evidence uh of the project's ability to receive an allocation such as documentation of an existing Calam water meter or a will serve letter. C a schedule of fixture units in the the total water allocation required for the project. and D, the reservation shall become effective uh upon the three items above along with payment to the county uh of the applicable county established entitlement processing fees. And to editorialize that, um the context here is that the county receives fees in order to advance a project. and and the nexus between what we're requesting and and that last issue is that if you're receiving fees to process a project, those fees are otherwise at risk um be if the water is not reserved. Um so we think that it's important to to highlight that given that you are collecting fees, there is evidence of the of the applicant's sincere intent uh to proceed with the project. essentially helps to collateralize that commitment of water. Item two, as to the the milestones that um we would suggest for consideration in order to make sure that water is not hoarded, um a water reservation approve a water reservation approved pursuant to this policy shall remain valid subject to the following deadlines and milestones. The applicant shall diligently pursue the processing of the application following its completeness determination. B. The reservation shall remain valid for 12 months with a one-year extension following the date the application is deemed complete to allow for processing of planning entitlements. If the HCD

director opts not to extend the reservation, the applicant shall have the right to appeal that that decision to the planning commission. If project approvals are challenged through administrative appeal or judicial action, all reservation deadlines shall automatically be told during the pendency of such challenge. and D. Following the approval of the required planning entitlements, the applicant shall submit a complete building permit application within six months. Sorry, I wasn't paying attention to the screen. Excuse me. Um, following submission of the complete building permit application, the reservation shall remain valid for an additional 12 months while the application diligently pursues the permit issuance. Water rights shall then vest upon issuance of the first building permit for the project. Construction shall commence within 6 months following the issuance of the building permit or the reservation shall be forfeited. The applicant again may request an additional six-month extension and if denied will have the opportunity to appeal that decision to the planning commission and then h add additional extensions may be granted at the discretion of the planning commission. So these extensions and the timelines are in in place essentially to make sure that people are advancing a project through the process. 12 months for a planning entitlement is you know uh optimistic in most cases. So it's there's an extra 12 months for the extension and then as to after you receive the planning entitlements 6 months is a reasonable amount of time during which you can make application for a building permit. 12 months uh is at times particularly in complex projects necessary to obtain the actual

building permit. And then the last check and balance is that the construction must complete be completed. And we added that last uh suggestion in order to address circumstances like COVID where there are interruptions in business activity that would represent extraneous circumstances and not be at the fault of the applicant. Um the other points are relatively self-evident. um essentially that there are extensions and I won't read the specifics and then there's a forfeite uh process. So trying to effectively help fill in the blanks. Uh we are an applicant for water on a housing opportunity site that will add 15 affordable units. Um those 15 affordable units are in fact dependent upon the allocation. Um so this will be put to good use if if applied as such. The last comment that I make uh just globally is that in prior meetings uh directing staff on policy um you made the recommendation that um the water not be allocated all to one particular project. Uh and staff responded with a cap of 15 acre feet for any one project which if you look at the total amount that's available is a very considerable amount. Uh even so, it's possible that uh one mega project could use up a 100% of the water that is available uh based on its ability to get in front of the line. And so we would ask that the planning commission again direct staff to please uh reinstate that uh per project maximum of 15 acre feet which you know should should succeed in developing a very considerably you know large number of of pro of of units. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. We didn't get your name though sir. Would you mind?

My apologies. Uh Patrick Arasco. Thank you very much Patrick. Thank you. Mr. Roscoa, my apology. We uh we're going to put a threeminut limit on this so we can move through these if you don't mind. So just give us your name please and start in.

Good morning commissioners and staff. My name is Adam Pinterz. I'm on behalf of the Monterey County Association of Realtors representing over 1300 real estate professionals serving thousands of clients across Monterey County. I want to first recognize a key component staff absolutely got right. The city of Monterey policy is to sit on their allocation until the state CDO is modified or lifted. This water is meant to be used, not squirreled away. So, thank you staff for that. Thank you staff also for the clarification on the number pertaining to fixtures and the distinction between single family residents and ADUs in followup to my written comment submission. Uh that's really helpful for us all to be on the same page. following my district with the convers with uh my conversation with the district. All the same, we still believe it best to remove fixture regulations from the policy. Please ask yourselves, does the fixture cap do anything to actually create more housing? I posit it does not. Please leave the conservation to the experts at the district. We agree with the staff recommendation that affordable housing needs needs to be granted additional time. As the previous public commenter mentioned, the reality of building is that delays happen. We should not punish affordable housing developers for not being able to meet deadlines. We also agree that the feedback that reserving credits earlier in the development process makes it more likely that a project will actually move forward. Accountability makes sense to make sure that they are making progress, but they need the confidence to move forward in the first place or else accountability doesn't even matter. The district has repeatedly advised that more water could be allocated pending the use of current allocations. So, please focus on deploying these current allocations as rapidly as possible. We understand the desire to prioritize affordable housing. However, predetermined allocation categories are problematic. In reference

to the city of Monterey, uh based on their experience in actually approving and starting to build affordable housing in their jurisdiction, their staff urged their council to prioritize the most shovel ready projects quote for these allocations because otherwise much of the water would go unused. So, please, I urge you again, remove the fixture limit. It doesn't help with the housing problem. and remove the predetermined categories. We need to move forward with whatever projects are viable and will actually proceed. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, sir.

Good morning, chair, commissioners. It is a pleasure to be here. My name is Rose Clark. I am a local and I'm also a realtor. Very impressed to be here for the very first time. So I was not going to speak but on and one of the questions that I have is on the people on staff. How many of those people have ever owned a house to know how much water is really needed in a house and make recommendations to all of you? We realtors live these questions on a daily basis. A house is a house whether it's inside the city limits or an incorporated area. Builders are afraid to come to Monterey County because of all the restrictions. Housing is a big problem in our county. Please, please, I ask you to be one of the solutions. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate you're sharing with us. Anyone else that would like to share?

Uh, good morning. My name is John Anzini and uh I live in Carmemell Valley. Um, I'm just sitting here listening to this discussion. Uh I'm here for the Carmel Valley Manor project that's uh going to be on. But I've been a builder in this area for um since the 70s. And um my comment is if you have a certain size piece of property and that certain size piece of property has a certain uh x amount of water allocation. Um, like if you have a a quarter acre plot and uh you have a single family house on that that plot, it should that plot should be allowed a certain amount of water. Of course, you could put 20 families in one house, which could cause a problem. But if each plot has a certain amount of water allocated to it originally, which could be modified depending upon the size of the project that you propose for the development of that project, um then once that limit is reached in the water usage for that specific piece of property, you could turn the water off or monitor it and then send code enforcement to see that changes are affected to uh correct the uh problem. Uh if you have 10 acres um and you put a 40story building on it and it has enough water allocated for that piece of property, then you kind of eliminate the the problem of counting fixtures and doing this that and the other thing. if in the original proposal all of those things are considered initially. So maybe you should consider uh some kind of a solution that would affect uh everybody's property uh on the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Valley, wherever you know uh to um make

specifics as to how much water they actually have. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else in the chambers want to share? Seeing no one else, uh, Madame Clerk, is there anyone online that would like to share with us? Yes, we have Irene Long through Zoom. Thank you, Miss Long. Go right ahead. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, and staff, good morning. I have two scenarios I'd like to understand. Hi, Irene. Um, Irene, we can barely hear you. Are you able to speak up or move your mic? Um, is that better?

That's better. Yes, a little better. Okay. I have two scenarios. I'd like to understand how they would be impacted by this policy. Um, I live in a home that was built with a tankless water heater and yet for generations, the water heater has been most households backup emergency water for a disaster. So, if I were to want to put in an inline storage tank. Oops.

Did we lose Miss Irene? Irene, I'm sorry. We can't hear you. Could you check your mic? It looks like you're muted. Muted. Yeah. Okay. Now it's unmuting me. Okay. Yep. There we go.

Okay. So, the first scenario would be I want to put just the tank in line in my water system before it gets to the heater because I have a tankless water heater. And that the purpose being to fill it up, have the water flow through it so that when a disa disaster happens and the water manes all break, that storage would be there. So, I think of it as a pool that wouldn't have evaporation. Okay? Because it would be enclosed in the system. The second would be to use that on a larger scale because our school children, 5.8 million in the state of California, are on campuses that do not have disaster water supplies. So part of the mission of a project that I'm working on is to put disaster supply water on every campus because not only do those children need to stay there until they can be relieved, but the community disaster plans without a doubt also call on everyone whose house isn't safe to use the schools for shelter. So we have a double impact on our schools of a lack of water. And so, um, I want to know what, if any, impact would this policy have on those goals.

Thank you. Do we have further um, anyone else on Zoom? We have no more hands up on Zoom. Okay. Thank you. All right, then. That will close public comment and we'll bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Deal, do you have something? Yeah, unless staff wants to No, I'm seeing a nod from Miss Wel. She doesn't have anything she wants to add. Is that correct? I don't have anything to add. I was going to whenever it felt appropriate, take a stab at what staff's recommendation is.

Thank you. Um, I was in just actually noodling around the the point brought up by Mr. Danzini because it's always been on my mind that what we ultimately like to do is to allow people the most possible flexibility within limits so that everybody has a fair shake. So if I only wanted to have one bathroom and hydroponic tomatoes, I could do that. Or if I wanted to have uh three bathrooms and only have sinks and and toilets in them and no shower, I could do that. uh or whatever so that people would have that kind of ability to make those decisions around their own property. We get our allocation in acre feet. The district is already fixture count heavy. I mean they're they're going to go in and do their fixture count thing. Is there any way that we could, as Mr. Enzini discussed, say, "Okay, for a single family residence, you get a quarter acre foot." Um however you want to deploy it, you got to get your water district permit. They'll deal with all that, but as far as we're concerned, uh we'll allocate that much and um and u proceed from there. Um I see some enforcement problems. I can hear environmental health saying you can't cut off people's water. So that is uh if people are going to ask forgiveness rather than permission, I can see that as an issue. Uh and I can see an issue with with failure in infrastructure. But is there any what has staff's process been around trying to look at that way of allocation rather than trying to follow through with the fixture count approach applied by the water manage man management district in this case already I guess is the best I can do a concise version of that

uh through the chair. So, the the fixture count process, I think staff was trying to utilize some of the existing forms that the public's already aware of in terms of kind of calculating the number of fixtures that could be um allocated to uh not fixtures allocated but in a fixture unit count because there is a conversion factor from fixture units to acre feet. We could change how the the policy is written to note what the fixture count because I believe the fixture count cap of 25 would be a quarter of an acre foot of water. I could be wrong because there's some math that needs to be done there. Um and so ultimately we're trying to think about the policy in a user user friendly interface of this is the form. This is how you would fill it out. These are the numbers that based on this form that you would be entitled to under the policy. One of the things I will also note is the water management district in their comments did provide some additional context on kind of usage that they had seen from a fixture perspective um with an average usage for single family homes about 0.29 it was I think about 029 acre feet which I think translates to about 30 29 fixture units. So, as director Spencer noted too, and part of the input that could be provided by the planning commission is some additional direction on should we have a fixture limit limit that's a little bit higher. Should we not have one? I mean, I know that's some of the questions you're asking, Commissioner Deal, but not but and just wanted to provide the context of why it's written with fixture units versus an acre foot per unit type. Did that help answer your question or create more questions?

No, it's very helpful. Thank you. Um, so my to to carry forward that conversation, uh, I wonder if there's a way to say this is the fixture count worksheet that tells you how you get to a quarter acre foot. If you want to go get to a quarter acre foot some other way or less, that's fine. If you don't get to a quarter acre foot, you still have a quarter acre foot because that's the other half of what the district does. The district does says however many fixtures you have, that's many you get. and if you only have, you know, two, um, we're not going to give you any more. You have to go only down because that's their that's their approach. So, I'm wondering if we could could look at connecting the two more explicitly perhaps and leaving the restriction side to the district, which will then change how it governs based on the restrictions that are that are in front of it. So, that was just one thought. Um, I was very interested in Miss Long's comment about reserve water for emergencies. That seems to me to be an interesting discussion and if you have any thoughts of it, I' I'd certainly be interested in hearing that. Um, my my intuitive feeling is that storing water doesn't use water, but it kind of does. Um, in terms of that question, I I'll be frank. I feel a little less prepared to answer that on the spot. I don't know if Director Spencer has any thoughts related to that. If not, we may need to do a little bit more research.

I think I don't need to have it answered. I just think it should be in the conversation going forward. So, we we make a a note to talk to the emergency service providers and see if there's any thing that maybe needs to be considered. And then um I just want to make a comment about my understanding about what the fixture count does to add housing. And from my point of my understanding of what we're trying to do here is we're trying to look at adding housing that is going to be more likely to be affordable. And that's kind of pervasive through everything we're doing these days. And when you start looking at housing that wants to have four or five bathrooms, those are not generally affordable units as an individual house. And so I'm supportive of all the ways we can think of to encourage production of housing that will be more likely to be affordable by design rather than having a regulation that says how much something costs, which I don't I don't think is a preferable way to go at it. So that was just in response to the issue um raised I think by Mr. Pincher about what does it do to add housing. I think it in my view I'm hopeful and maybe staff has a different view but that it kind of is a way to prioritize building things that are more likely to be affordable and not the I mean we have a we have a pretty good supply of high-end housing in this district uh in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District given that it incorporates uh a number of neighborhoods like Pebble Beach and Taha and those sorts of things. We have a pretty solid supply of a high-end housing and we're trying to say the remaining water we would like it to be for for maybe less affluent families. So it's it

certainly is possible that people would like to use more water, but am I correct in saying that this is sort of a way to prioritize and encourage housing that we hope will be affordable uh through the chair? That is part part of the intent of the fixture fixture maximums how the policy is currently written. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. And through the chair, if there unless there's a further discussion, I would like to hear Miss Wel's dis what she would be recommending at this time. And and me too. I'm very interested in that. But it is 10:30 and time for a break. Miss Wel, would that be okay? That is perfectly fine with staff. Thank you.

Very good. Five minutes, everybody. We'll be back.

All right, everybody. Welcome back. Find yourself a comfortable seat and we will begin in just a minute or two soon as Commissioner DL joins us. Very good. Welcome back everyone. And I believe that um we were just to the part where staff was going to sum up for us their understanding of uh hopefully the direction we gave them. At least we hopefully have given them something good. So staff when you're ready.

Yes. So staff wanted to clarify the the recommendation today and there may be a little bit of input or clarification that staff's requesting from the planning commission as part of this. So we have our standing recommendation which was noted earlier of considering and providing input um staff's recommending consider and provide input on the draft policy for areas in an unincorporated Monterey County served by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District with specifics on uh staff's requesting that the planning commission authorize staff to incorporate uh incorporate clarifying edits from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District letter to ensure consistency with the rules and regulations of the service district. Uh specifically provide any additional input or direction on fixture maximums. Either noting to staff that the draft policy is acceptable or provide staff further direction of uh changes to that discussion in the policy. Um provide some additional direction to staff on any if any changes to the policy are warranted related to water reservation versus water eligibility. And then if there's a and then the last piece would be in response to both the the written and verbal comments that were provided to the planning commission and staff today. Um if there's specific areas that aren't covered in those three kind of buckets of areas to provide further direction to staff on how the policy should be modified. Ultimately wanting to get the planning commission's input and get the authorization to make changes as needed prior to going to the board. Um, and the key kind of areas we came into today and that seem to be decision points are related to fixture maximums as well as uh reservation of water.

Thank you, commissioners. Um, Commissioner Gonzalez,

thank you. And just maybe for clarification, I know that as far as the proposed policy amendment submitted by Mr. uh or osco regarding reservation of water allocation and reservation term and milestones etc. Are some of these pieces already in what is currently written or is it something that could be added or not added? Uh, so I wasn't sure and I know that maybe we haven't had time or for uh or for you to look at it. U but I guess my question would be are some of this already in there in place or are there some modifications that could be added based on some of the letters that we received and based on some of the proposed policy amendments whether they may be good or not. uh through the chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Um most aspects of this amendment are not necessarily addressed in the current policy. Um upon quick review of the comments from Mr. Rosco, um aspects of this do seem could depend on the planning commission's direction of wanting to allow for reservation of water at the completeness stage. Um what staff noted in the staff report is that was specifically focused on um land use entitled projects requiring a land use entitlement. If that is the desire of the commission to authorize uh staff to make those changes, there are probably aspects of this letter that we could look at for some inspiration on how to identify appropriate milestones and metrics for um ensuring that projects move diligently through the approval process.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. Okay. Uh I am going to suggest that we add at least a comment about the emergency question so that we have something in the policy that says emergency reservations of water, emergency supplies of water need to be considered separately. um that staff include the idea of reservation for one of a better word uh for projects along the same lines as suggested by land and Mr. Rosco uh so that we have a running tally of things that have been deemed complete and that they have benchmarks for uh moving those projects along. I liked the tighter timeline if that's feasible, but I understand that it may not be. So, but the idea being that we would I would want us to recommend that we do provide some certainty at the completeness point along with some pretty strict accountability for progress so that we don't tie that water up as I think others have said. And I would as we've just discussed um I'd like staff to consider first off I want to say I don't in any way feel staff has been been arbitrary in the fixture count question. I I mean that is the opposite of arbitrary and it's also something that the district does very diligently. Um, but I would like for us to say something that makes it easier on our side given that we have the backup on the district's side saying this is your worksheet. You if you want a single family how dwelling, you're going to have to come in under 0.25. I don't care how you do. Here's a worksheet to do that with and you have to get your permit from the district. And if you're going to build an ADU, you need to come

in under whatever that number is. However you want to do it, you still have to get your permit from the district. So um in other words to give our let us be the people who have a pretty uh pretty simple-minded for one of a better word process and number and we can keep count easily because then we would take our quarter off of our our available water rather than be the the district which does its job own job pretty well and changes according to the legal landscape in which it finds itself operating. So um I with those those are three suggestions I would have to add to this uh editorial comment being uh I'm going to move approval now and in the hopes that in the understanding that in the absence of the board providing specific direction to staff the staff is left making political decisions and that is not their job. I really want to see the board step up, make the calls, give staff some operating room and guidelines to work within if those guidelines are imperfect. I mean, heaven for fend we should put something forward which is not perfect at first try. I mean, my goodness, that never happens. Um, it is a policy. The board can change it. If someone has a worthy project they want to bring forward that doesn't conform to the guidelines, they can go to the board. the board can change that direction in that case. So, um, with the recommendations that I've outlined here, assuming staff has any clue what they are, um, I would like to move staff's recommendation

that we we recommend what they're recommending with those modifications. I guess we recommend what we just told them to do. Well, what they just told us they'd like to do. Okay. That Can I just briefly summarize for the chat? Make sure I'm hearing. Yeah. help me understand it if you would please.

And thank you, Commissioner Deal. Uh so insert some additional discussion about emergency reser kind of emergency water related uses and how that would tie into the policy. Do move forward and make the changes to the policy to allow for water reservation at time of completeness and look at comments from land and and Mr. Rosco um to further refine the procedure section and and help staff understand also the implementation side because some of this may be more implementation some of it may be more policy changes and then lastly for the fixture limits discussion clarify it and really at a high level note just the acre feet usage for for single family dwellings and um ADUs Jadus and clarify that there's still permitting requirements for the district

almost and I think it's in there somewhere with the reservations. The part that I w want carried forward is the reservation at the time the application is deemed complete is a worthy thing. But the progress benchmarks are critical and we've have a couple examples of those and I would assume that staff would have its own thoughts about what those might be. But that uh going forward if we are going to move with completion as the as the initial thing we we can't let that slide. Those have got to be tight. That's got to be the projects are moving. We've had projects that sit for decades and this is not something that we're after in this case. So, it's

understood with that. I think yes, I agree. Good. Commissioner, we'll we'll start with the young lady and then we'll go to you two guys. Commissioner,

just want to reiterate I like the Arasco timelines particularly because they have plain language and they're easy to use. I'm not tied to it, but I do like the plain language. And I'm stumping here for slightly more affordable housing in our district. And I do like the fixture limits for that reason and I'm sticking with it. Other than that, I'm happy to second. Thank you, Commissioner Mendoza.

Just a quick question uh through the chair. The only question I have um based on the water we have available what is the possibility that once 50% of the water has been allocated for whatever projects or what have you u has been allocated if it can come back to the planning commission uh to kind of do an analysis to see how it worked out to see if there's any adjustments or what have you that u might need to be done at that time you know because right now we're allocating all the water um if if If we get it right, that's great. At 50% of the water's been allocated, then at that time, we'll look at it. And if it if it's working perfectly fine, then we continue doing what we're doing. If we need to adjust anything, at that time would be the time to adjust it. Uh not when all of it has been allocated. There's really not a whole lot you can do at that point.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Work. No. Okay. Commissioner Gonzalez or Commissioner Shaw, any further comments? Nope. Anyone online? No. Uh, yes. Can I just add one? I You may in fact through the chair. Thank you, chair. Um, I just want to also clarify. I know Commissioner Hartzell identified some clarifying edits. Those would be included and cleaned up as part of staff's recommendation. Thank you.

All right. Um, I think this is a reference. We don't need to vote on this, do we? I don't believe so. If I may through the jur, you do not have to take formal action. However, if you wish to convey um a consensus vote or some form to for staff to carry forward in support of what the direction was, then you can choose to take that. But no formal action and vote is required. We don't seem to have consensus quite so I'm not sure we can do that. But but staff does have they feel they have enough information to take it forward to the board of directors. Commissioner Deal.

I do have a motion on the floor and I believe a second and I would like to we can clarify exactly what it is. I would like the board to understand that we're not completely split and it's not like everybody for themselves. So even if we don't have consensus, I I would I would continue to like to have a vote on this. Okay. And I I would and with respect to clarification on Commissioner Hartzil's, I'm not proposing we do away with the fixture discussion. I'm just simply saying going to say that um if you, you know, if you can get more fixtures in there without getting over a quarter of an acre foot, I'm still all right with that. So

I don't think you can, but if you can, you can. Um, so I'm I'm not it's a question of whether you call it a limit or not. I don't care. So, yeah. And and there's also, as you pointed out, still the fixture count that you have to jump through for the district. Correct. Yeah. So, we got that there. All right. Well, let's uh there is a motion in a second. Um, so we will take a vote. Those in favor of the motion, uh, Commissioner Deal, would you mind summarizing your motion again for me so we make sure everybody knows what we're voting on? Okay. I would like to support staff's recommendation with the is with the um additions and corrections that we've come to in this hearing.

Okay. Very good. And Commissioner Hartzel second, I believe. Second. Very good. All right. All those in favor of the motion as stated signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed? Nay. We have Commissioner Monsali. So, oh, darn. I forgot about that. Uh, pardon, Commissioner Monsalves. Because of uh we have a remote member, we have to have a roll call vote. So, we're going to have to go back and do this a little differently. Madame Clerk. Commissioner Getsman. Yes. Commissioner Mendula. Yes. Commissioner Hartzell. Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez, yes. Commissioner Work,

yes. Commissioner Deal, yes. Commissioner Shaw, yes. Commissioner Monsal, yes. Motion passes.

Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. Thank you for your input. We appreciate everything, all the help we've received from the public today. And we'll move along to the next item on the agenda, which is item number two, PLN number 030204, the UCP East Garrison LLC. Staff, when you're prepared, you may begin.

Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Um, thank you, Chair Gatsman. Uh, staff received the request for extension and payment of fees on discretionary extension and therefore prepared agenda item two staff report to bring the decision to you, but it has come to staff and the applicant's attention since noticing that a term in the development agreement with UCP East Garrison states that extensions are automatic until 2035. Therefore, staff requests to remove the decision on agenda item two from the scheduled hearing agenda and deal with the extension request at staff level. Thank you. Thank you very much,

Commissioner Deal. Yeah. Um, can we have council let us uh give us some thoughts about what we do about the discontented public part of this because we've gotten a good deal of public comment about it and um clearly there's only limited action anybody can take. But but is there any possibility we could inform those who are concerned about how they might best register those concerns going forward? Um I would Oh yeah. What's that? I think it's more of a general staff and you tell me if legally I go right.

So yeah, so staff has received quite a bit of public comment um or the commission did on this matter. Um because this was an item that was on the agenda. Um and this has come to staff's attention and we do have members of the public here wishing to comment. um the commission could uh allow for the public to share their public comment and where to the extent that staff is able to respond to questions uh just regarding status and other information we could provide that information. I would note that staff is um separately presenting at the East Garrison Community Services District meeting this evening. And so many of the questions and and concerns that the public may have um can also get addressed directly through community members participating in that meeting this afternoon. I would also say that um communicating general questions, comments, concern as the community has been through um their supervisorial district um is another venue uh that um staff does meet regularly with uh district 4 supervisors team uh as well to make sure that we're keeping um providing responses and information to the community.

Commissioner Deal,

thank you. I I didn't think we should get people's hopes up if we're going to have no ability to take any action. So, um I would however go back and and subject to what the district representatives think. I do have a concern that the recommendations, the requirements that we made during our last consideration of the affordable housing uh piece of this development are not being met. And so there's got to be some way to get at that. But um I I don't I would not be inclined to support a discussion that has no ability to have any action attached to it at the planning commission. And it sounds to me from staff that we have no handle. There's no reason for us to be to be to weighing in.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. We need Oh, Commissioner Shaw, I apologize. I missed your hand over there.

Thank you. I just have a question. Um, can someone explain to me what that extension like how did this happen? Um, what did why do they get an auto automatic extension? Just I I'm very confused. So there are provisions in state law that um allow for development agreements to provide for automatic or other term extensions um during the duration of the life of a development agreement. The county does not have many active development agreements. Um and so frankly uh this was something that was simply missed both by applicant their team and staff. um the provisions and the decision the development agreements were entered into in 2005. Um in I don't recall the precise in 2020 the um there was an amendment to the development agreement. So the board at that time supported at that time an amendment that added some fees that went away with the dissolution of the Ford reuse authority. So some fees were added and at that time the development agreement was extended to 2035.

Yes, please. Another question. So, so the de development agreement that allowed this automatic extension to happen can be amended. Is that what I'm understanding or am I totally wrong? Yes. So development agreements may be amended by ordinance and with approval of the board of supervisors.

So uh another question then. So, what would be the process to amend this considering what I'm seeing here? In my opinion, warrants um the county stepping in at a in some sort of way and not just saying, "Oh, well, it's till 2035. What can we do?" Is that a possibility that like the public could uh petition in some way to have that amended? What would that process look like? Um, I actually don't want to respond to that because I don't know about petitioning changes to development agreements as those are agreements that are heavily relied upon and entered into, but yes, could be changed. So, I'm going to look to county council. Would you like a little

I did however want to respond on a couple of items in terms of just in terms of the status of the development and in particular with the affordable housing components. So with the approval of amendment two which um adjusted some of the final phase uh that approval um did realign a number of development triggers that ensure for example that the town center and those public benefit portions with the stacked affordable rental housing that must move forward before a certain too many of the market rate houses could be built. so as to ensure that those public benefits are moving forward concurrently with the um the private uh single family homes. Also there um and the developer and Chispa which is the nonprofit developer for the affordable housing in the town center are actively moving forward with um designs for that portion of the project. Um the other affordable components are a part of so that is the workforce housing as well as the moderate income housing those are part of the phase B. So town center and um the rental affordable housing need to be completed before phase B can commence. Those additional affordable components are embedded in the phase B of this final phase um that again must move concurrently. none of the none of the kind of and all of the conditions are triggered upon um meaningful development steps such as recordation of final map etc. So at this time the developer has primarily been working on the conditions of approval related to parking which was one of the greatest concerns that came up through uh the board of supervisors and that um

that information is imminent to be released for the public. um in the next couple of weeks and then a community meeting the second community meeting as deemed per that um condition will be held. Um that is an important condition in order for the remaining development and design work to move forward. So it has been a slowed process. It took quite a while to move forward with that condition but otherwise there are activities happening um and that is imminent to come out for the community. Commissioner Sean, did that answer your questions?

Thank I think I felt like I know you're probably going to repeat that at the meeting tonight, but I definitely appreciate that information um that clarification. I still have the other question though. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Herzo. Oh, that nod was that I don't have any questions. Oh, I presume you're looking to me at this point. Yes.

Oh, so yes, the development agreement can be amended. It can be amended a number of ways. Um I'm not sure whether you'd find support at the board level for that. That that would be where I would start at a discussion whether that's like a referral or just a conversation that you have to determine and gauge interest. Um because obviously the board has the authority to amend the agreement. Um, and I should also point out that uh a development agreement is a legislative act, which means in California it's subject to referendum, which meaning that if there was the will, uh, you could by an amendment, you could by referendum again amend the agreement, which is basically the power of the people, right, to circulate a petition and to get the kind of ground swell of agreement as to what that amendment would be. Um, I will tell you that of course that creates a lot of complications for the county because uh when you enter into an agreement like this, people tend to invest and rely on those agreements in order to make progress on things and if that's all shifted um people do suffer sometimes losses and they seek contributions and and recovery for those losses. So, it's a sticky question, but the the black and white of it is yes, it is subject to being amended.

Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Did that do it for you? Cool. Any commissioners? Commissioner Deal, anything for you? No. So staff, what you'd like us to do is a continuation of this item. Was that No. No. So officially staff is pulling the item because there is no action before you today. Okay. Very good. Thank you for clearing that up for me. All right. Very good. We'll move along. Secretary needs to leave. So, there'll be a swap, but I'm sorry. I need to move. So, we're going to swap. Oh. Oh, you mean I get somebody new to talk to?

How nice. All righty. We're going to we're going to take just a second to uh exchange secretaries and then we will begin. I think members of the public would like clarification why the commission did not public comment because um that's what they're requesting. Oh yeah. Do do you want to adjust? No, I think it's just adding that clarification to the public about the public. A lot of people showed up too.

So because there was no action and the planning commission did not um did not open um for public comment. There won't be public comment on that prior item for East Garrison. We have all of your questions, comments, concerns. I think the discussion was here to try to give some indication of where the public could potentially send send those questions, comments, concerns productively forward. And again, staff will be at the CSD meeting this evening um and we'll bring some clarification and as much information as we can at that time. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Benet. Did you bring your locker and we welcome Miss Jensen. the new secretary. And so we will begin with item number three on the agenda, PLN number 24141, the Carmel Valley Manor. Um, and staff, when you're ready to begin, please do. I am ready. Thank you, Chair Getsman and Commissioner Steve Mason to present PLN240141, the Carmel Valley Manor Project. Project site is located in the Carmel Valley Master Plan area approximately 5 miles inland from the intersection of Highway 1 and Carmemell Valley Road located on Carmel Valley Road. Carmel Valley Manor was established or rather opened in 1963 as a fullervice retirement community. Staff would point out that this project is entirely consistent with the parameters established in the use permit as approved by the planning commission in 1960. for your consideration. Today is a combined development permit which will include an administrative permit and design approval for the demolition of three residential units, seven guest units, four carport structures, a wood shop, and the construction of 19 residential units, eight guest units, a 12 bed memory care facility, and additions to the existing fitness center and meeting house. There's also a use

permit for development on slopes over 25% and a use permit for for the removal of 61 oak trees. This site plan points out these structures to be demolished. Labeled is number one are the three residential units. Two of these are in a duplex and one is a single family dwelling. Number two are the seven guest units. Six of these are consolidated in the northwest corner in two triplex buildings. Number three are the four carport structures and number four is the wood shop building in the southeast corner of the property. This site plan shows the proposed construction. Labeled as number one are the two sites for the new residential units. In the northwest corner would be 10 condominium style units. In the southeast corner would be the nine duplex units with attached garage. These are known as the hillside duplex units. I'll be referring to these again in a moment. Number two are the eight guest units also consolidated in the southeast corner. Number three, the memory care facility. Number four, the expansion of the fitness center. This would be a 1980 square ft expansion. The existing building at number four, the cross tash section is the existing building. The solid blue would be the new addition. The same holds true for number five, the addition to the meeting house, 1650 square ft. And in the southeast corner number six would be additional parking and the relocation of the dog run in the community garden. So the net changes resulting from this project would be 16 additional independent living units bringing the total to 169 on site. Note that the original use permit allows for 172 independent living units. one additional guest unit for a total of eight on site and 12 additional assisted living beds for 72 um beds so to speak on site and these

are broken into three different categories. 36 are skilled nursing, 24 assisted living and the 12 new beds would be in a memory care facility. Also 60 additional parking spaces bringing the on-site total to 334. As you'll note from the staff report, this was formerly the site of the null Sullivan estate, which had a very interesting history. Most of the structures unfortunately burned down in 1962. These uh originally were planned to be integrated into the manor, but the fire ended that plan, although an adobe cottage and a small chapel made of stonemasonry did survive, probably by the virtue of not being made of wood, and these remain as is. Skidmore Owings and Merrill or S for short are a very well-known Chicago based architectural firm. They designed the original structures for Carmel Valley Manor. Some of their better known projects globally are the Sears Tower in Chicago which was formerly the world's tallest building, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai which is currently the world's tallest building. Also the Disney headquarters in Burbank and the terminals at Chicago O'Hare airport among many other projects. They typically specialize in modernist design and modernist typically features functionalism, minimalism and subdued or no ornamentation. Most of these original structures are centralized with an area known as the core campus area. There are four residential clusters highlighted by the four yellow stars and these all contain a central courtyard surrounded by four residential buildings. This is a view of one of the residential buildings from the courtyard. shows some of the noteworthy noteworthy design features matching roof pitch, paired mass, paired massing, and pass through walkways. Staff would note that all of the demolition and nearly all the new

development will occur outside of this original core campus area. The meeting house is one of the signature buildings on site. It's used for plays, musical performances, and such. And this proposes, this project proposes a bump out to the rear section of the structure which is the least visible area and this is to improve functionality for a backstage area and additional storage. A fitness center addition is proposed and staff would note this has been redesigned at the suggestion of the historic resource review board to include paired massing and matching roof pitch features. staff would point out this is not meant to meant to mimic the original structures, but rather to be more compatible with them. The majority of the tree removal and the development on slopes will occur in the southeast corner to accommodate the eight guest units and the nine hillside duplex units. Specifically, 53 of the 61 oaks to be removed would come out at this location and 31,000 square ft of development and slopes would occur here. These are highlighted in red in the site plan to the right. There's no real feasible alternative to this site as the only other open area on site which is relatively level is compromised by the 100 ft structural setback from Carmel Valley Road and the existing maintenance yard. Staff would also point out that the footprints have been consolidated to minimize impact. The photo on the left is from 1963 when the manor opened. the photo on the right from approximately the same angle from last year. You'll notice the 1963 photo has very few oak trees and this is because most were cut down during construction and replanted with seedlings at that time. The arborist is recommending 43 replacement trees for the 61 removals and this is due to the fact this is approximately 2 to three in lie of the

standard 1 one and this is due to the fact the trees on site are already very dense and there are concerns about fire related fuel loading risks with more trees or more density of trees. The manor has adequate water credits and will be served by an existing connection to the public sewer system. According to the transportation study commission for the project, the manor currently generates approximately 715 daily trips. This project would generate an additional 65 daily trips. The three closest intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of service and will not require signalization. This is a view from the side of the hillside hillside duplexes. The closest construction to Carmemell Valley Road facing towards Carmeal Carmemell Valley Road. Notice the flagging and staking in the upper left. There's not a really a direct line of sight because of the trees um fronting Carmel Valley Road. And this is a reverse angle from Carmel Carmel Valley Road facing towards this flagging and staking. You notice there's a very narrow window of sight, a direct line of sight. And really for um all intents and purposes, most of the structures in Carmemell Valley Manor are not visible from Carmel Valley Road. And this may sound counterintuitive, but I think in a sense that's kind of too bad because it's very unique architecture. Anyhow, a mitigated negative declaration was circulated from March 1st through April 2nd. All the mitigation measures in this document have been carried over to the conditions of approval in their original form. As for general plan consistency, land use policy LU1.9 prioritizes infill of vacant lands in existing developed areas, which basically summarizes this project. The project also directly addresses two of the policies within the housing element, specifically H2.1

recommending that we plan new resident residential development, including housing for seniors and policy H5.3 to provide equal access to housing and supportive services to meet the special needs of seniors. staff would point out that the 2020 census indicated approximately 90,000 seniors aged 60 and over in Monterey County and this figure is expected to approach 110,000 or 25% of the county population by 2030. This project was reviewed by the Carmel Valley LUAC on July 21st of last year at which time they recommended approval of the project 5 to zero. two minor amend addendums rather to the resolution. One would be under finding two consistency site development standards evidence F should include the passage highlighted in red and this this is pointed out already in the staff report uh on page 10, but that there is a 1T8 in pertinance above the 30-foot maximum height to accommodate an elevator shaft on one of the structures. But this is allowable pursuant to code section 2162030 which allows height and setback exceptions for mechanical impertinances. Also a correction to finding six tree removal evidence A should indicate three landmark oak trees to be removed and not two. One additional item I would point out condition number 15 and condition number 17. Those are the Carmel Valley master plan area traffic mitigation fee and the regional development impact fee. The applicant is currently in discussion with the public works department as to whether are these fees are going to be necessary according to fees previously paid and credits for some demolitions. It's a fairly complex matter that is being worked out as we speak between

public works and the applicant. So staff per the applicant's request would add if deemed necessary to the front of both of these uh the body of both of these uh conditions. And so including these two changes to the conditions and the two changes to the resolution, staff would recommend that the planning commission approved the combined development permit, including an administrative permit and design approval for the demolition of existing structures and the construction of 19 residential units, eight guest units, a memory care facility in additions to the fitness center and meeting house. use permits for the development on slopes and removal of 61 oak trees and adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. This concludes staff's presentation. I'll be available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Mason. Do we have questions from Mr. Mason? Commissioners, Commissioner Deal. Yes, thank you. Uh I'm not finding it right now, but I think we received a letter from MST with respect to bus stops. Um yeah, it's hard to find. I don't know. I I must have put it in the wrong place, but um I just wanted to have know ask if staff had a chance to look at that and make sure that uh we address any concerns they may have for continued good bus coverage. I know a lot of employees use the buses to get to that uh that place

through the chair. Is this in regard to one of the comments on the SQA document or is this a letter that was received? I I'm not immediately familiar with this. I believe it was a letter that I I think I saw it last night uh via email and I can't find a copy of it here today, but that could be cuz I'm confused. The chair has a copy. Yeah, it was on the dis when I got here. It's the one with the yellow thing on the front and then if you flip it over it, the letter from MST is printed on the back side.

If we can give Mr. Mason a copy of it. I just want to highlight it so that it's addressed uh in the course of this hearing. Yeah. It was it was part of a mental acuity test they did earlier and I failed utterly. So thank you

through the chair and I'm just reviewing this very quickly but on the subject of what I believe this covers I would point out there are shuttle services already provided by the manor and um excuse me I'm scanning this very quickly to see if there's a specific question here and through the chair. Um staff has read the letter and it it does MST is just requesting that it be noted that there is a um nearby bus stop line 24 that does service this area um and is within walking distance of the manor. the staff doesn't feel there's any additional changes or um amplification needed, but is happy to make minor edits to the resolution if desired. And it does appear they're requesting for some future communication um going forward and staff can take that request.

Thank you. I took away from it that there was a concern around disruption of their bus stop during construction. And so I'm wondering if that could be just mentioned in the construction management plan that we'll make sure that there's a bus stop. Thank you. Duly noted.

Okay, cool. Anyone else? Commissioners, fellow commissioners, anyone? Nope. Very good. All righty, then we will open up the um program program open up the hearing to uh public comment.

Mr. Chair, members of the commission, uh Joel Panzer with Moren Rock Planning Consultants here this morning to represent Carmel Valley Manor and DBA or vice versa of Northern California Retirement Homes Inc. Um attending today and available if questions do come up are Jay Zimmer, president and CEO, John Hop, the director of capital planning, Chris Rian, chief operating officer. Uh with us also from Perkins Eastman uh is Ashley Chung, our architect and project manager, as well as Amy Chang and Kathleen Vent Ventamelia. Hope I haven't butchered that. And she's also a board member. Um as evidenced by the staff report, there's a number of elements with the master plan project we would like to present. We ask the planning commission for their indulgence to grant us the adequate time to be able to do so, but we will be mindful of our time uh to keep you uh um on a good lunch schedule, I guess. Uh so with that, let me introduce Ashley Chung.

Hello. Good morning. I'm Ashley Chung with Perkins Eastman. Uh again, we appreciate the opportunity to review the project together. We will be walking through the master plan with special attention to three use permit requests for your review. We'll be touching on the use permit request for planning commission's design control approval as we walk through the proposal and conclude on overall site level use permits for development on slopes greater than 25% as well as tree removal. I'll now pass it on to Jay Zimmer, our president and CEO of Carmel Valley Manor, also referred to as the manor to introduce the project and the community.

Thank you, Ashley. Chairman G getsman, commissioners, thank you for giving us the time to present our project today. Um, I'll be very brief. Uh the the one the one key missing component on our campus uh has to do with the the memory care uh unit, the 12 beds that we're recommending. There's a critical shortage of memory care beds in the county. Uh and having these 12 additional beds will will help to reduce uh you know or increase that capacity uh significantly. um our residents seeing the need for me memory care or acknowledging the need for memory care um on their own uh took up a capital campaign and raised $5 million uh toward the construction of that unit. Uh so it's you know it's very high on our priority list and hopefully you'll agree the other the other sorry the other um components of of the plan the additional apartments uh we have a we have a two-year waiting list uh at the manor and this will help to reduce that that weight list uh significantly with the 19 new apartments uh adding the amend ities at the m at the meeting house uh will allow us to to make that ADA access that building ADA accessible and um the expansion of the fitness center will allow us to uh you know bring a more modern state-of-the-art uh wellness center you know onto the campus. Um Joel already has uh introduced our you know our our team. Uh all of our consultants are are online should you have any questions this morning.

Uh we've been a a good neighbor and a and a significant employer uh over these last 63 years and moving this project forward will allow us to u become sustainable for hopefully the next 60 years. So I thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions later later in the presentation. Thank you sir.

Thank you Jay. And so as um our planner Steve has so kindly given a very comprehensive overview of the project, we'll take a step back in time um to the 1960s. The project was actually constructed between 1962 and 63 with the 60th anniversary three years ago. This is actually a postcard from the 1960s. And these are photos taken right after construction in 1963. The zoomed in version is actually a zoomedin version of the northeast view on the back side of the meeting house highlighted here. It shows the presence of several pine and conifer tree types and very few oak trees present at this area of the property. We'll circle back to this area at the end of our presentation. The project was originally entitled for 172 units and as the units adapted to growing resident needs and wants the manor currently stands at 146 units today. This is an aerial of what the manner looks like uh present time. The manor still remains committed to offering resident needs and levels of care across independent living referred to as IL assisted living AL skilled nursing facilities sniff. As Jay had mentioned, the level of care that the master plan recognizes as a need to provide for the community is memory care. At this moment in time, I'll also point out the loop road which I've highlighted on the presentation. Um, this is a key element in how it connects the entire campus. It's the main entryway and the exit point onto Carmel Valley Road towards the south. The loop road also circles the core campus. Um, and it's the historic spot where all of the common amenities are. We have the existing onef flooror fitness center as well as the meeting house which will be upgraded and

expanded as part of the master plan. And going count and going clockwise, we have the Hillcrest AL assisted living health center, Sniff. And we also have existing single family homes off of Los Arbles Road, which will which will remain as they are presently. And with the majority of the IL units encircling the loop road. The dash lines here will illustrate existing access to the Los Arbalis properties and they connect the residents to the larger campus. Vehicular access to Carmel Valley Road will be only available for the residents and staff off of Los Aubber Road and the rest of the campus only possible through the loop road and out onto Carmel Valley Road. So the main reason why we're here today, this is a snippet from the original 1960 use permit. Um, given present- day unit and campus standings, the manor would like to come closer to the original entitlement of 172 independent living units from their current 146. We've also come to the planning commission to request design control approval of the buildings included as part of this presentation. The master plan proposal is guided by these goals. At number one and in magenta we have the proposed sighting of the memory care building. For two and three we have the fitness center and the meeting house additions. And for number four to meet market demands and to rebalance our unit count we have similar IL unit configurations at the hillside and the upper sites highlighted in orange. To address goal number five, the guest units for friend and family visitors of residents have been consolidated at this southeast portion of the site. This is also where we will have new parking, relocated dog run and gardens, storm water treatment, and also a new trash

enclosure. As Steve had mentioned earlier, this is our proposed demolition plan with all of the key elements highlighted in gray. And this is the final proposal. We'll be walking through the presentation as guided by a proposed phasing diagram. We'll go through the memory care in blue and then we'll go through the IL units together at the hillside at the upper site. And then we'll circle back to the southeast portion for the guest units, the relocated dog run in the garden, and finish with the fitness center and the meeting house additions. This is what the campus currently looks like from above on the bottom right corner. It's a cohesive collection of ele of buildings and they resemble a medieval village with shed and gable forms. It's really stark and it's really beautiful in contrast to the mountainous landscape and it's a very beautiful beautiful campus. They also have the similar and consistent stuckle material and color across all of their buildings and the same asphalt roof shingles. As part of the master plan proposal, we will be designing all of the buildings to match the existing campus with regards to exterior building materials. This will allow them to blend in within the overall fabric of the campus. We'll begin with a proposed phase one memory care. This is a site plan and its location is taken into consideration with the ex adjacencies of the existing skilled nursing building as well as the AL building. It'll be it has been cited with respect to the overall campus layout and a duplex will be demolished to make way for the building. Next, we'll have Chris Regan, our director of operations to come up to speak on the importance of having a dedicated space and program for the memory care.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, good morning. Um, I affirm with Jay that our campus recognizes the value of having a standalone memory care unit. I imagine many of us are not not all of us have been affected by those with memory challenges and recognize um the unique needs of those individuals. We aim to uh treat our residents all with dignity and respect and we feel this would enhance and give us the opportunity to do that. Um we know that in our programming dementia care um memory care programming is important. We can utilize do that specifically in that space. uh programming like music and memory, um art therapies, uh pet therapies, um the design that you will see further on. Uh we value uh biofilia, the idea of getting individuals from the inside out or having natural light come in. That's important to us. We are a blue zones approved work site, so we value wellness, therapy, getting outside. Um so truly um in my work I'm a nurse as well and I see over and over how dementia really affects families, individuals um and we aim to treat with dignity and we feel like this memory care unit will do that for our campus. Thank you. Are there any questions or wait till last? Thank you.

Thank you Chris. And this is a slideshow for all the proposed elevations that go along with the plan that we just looked at. Next, we'll circle back to the loop road um to talk about the IO housing. It's a community amenity that goes and encircles the campus and it um is where the residents will often walk along for exercise and it's also the means through which they may end. They exit their independent living units. They cross the road and then they go into the core campus where all of the wellness amenities are such as fitness and dining at the main pavilion. Maintaining this immediate connection off of the loop road for all of the independent living units for the sighting of the hillside and the upper locations were of utmost priority for our master plan. The existing IL units are duplexes with gable roof forms and the proposed building forms will be in duplex or triplex configurations to echo the original so plan soom master plan logic while balancing site needs. We'll take a closer look at the southeast corner of the site where the hillside units are. Um, it currently has a very steep grade, so it will have to step along with the slopes to navigate them. And there are gable roofs that will be maintained, as well as individual entry and garage access immediately off of the loop road. On the bottom is a perspective elevation of what those units may look like off of the loop road. A preliminary plan and accompanying elevations are shown for the far right triplex configuration. Despite stepping up the grade, this array of units in this duplex or triplex configurations will help it read cohesively at the hillside location. Next, we'll move on to the northwest portion of the site to talk about the upper IL units location. This is the existing connections from

Los Arbus to the loop road at these two current locations highlighted. And for the upper IIL site, we will be proposing two twostory structures in a triplex and duplex configurations. The unit size will remain consistent and uniform with what we've proposed at the hillside location to be in alignment with master plan goal number four. The plan organization also echoes existing twostory unit plans on campus and the shed roofs will angle upward toward the mountain to maintain consistency to the form. We just talked about the upper IL units at this northwest location and it currently is where existing guest units are. As a result, we will be consolidating all of the guest units at the southeast portion of the site. This is a preliminary plan and elevation of those guest units and they again will be for family and friends of residents. This will also be the site of new parking as well as relocated dog run and resident gardens. To the north of parking will be a new recycling and trash collection site. This concludes the second and third proposed phase of the master plan project. For the final proposed phase of the fitness center and the meeting house additions, we must first look at the wellness programs at the manor. At the very beginning of the master plan process, we actually did a survey to see what the residents may want or need in terms of wellness programs in a total 25,000 square feet, which um with respect to the scale of this campus is very quite large and out of scale. And so after this analysis, it was determined that all of the wellness programs actually need to be dispersed within the campus, but specifically around the loop road. Let's take a closer look at the existing

fitness center location highlighted here with respect to the addition that we are proposing. We have a campus diagram. What's highlighted in yellow are existing circulation paths and in green are the courtyards that are created. So, so there's two levels of courtyards that are created. Firstly, there are two independent living buildings that come together to form an internal courtyard, which I'll highlight here. And then pairs of buildings will come together in a pin wheel formation to create an even larger community space. To complete the diagram across from the first floor fitness center, we've proposed an L-shaped twostory addition highlighted in red. This is located with respect to adjacent building footprints and to avoid overlap. In three dimension, we can see the existing one-story fitness center with its gable roof uh within the context of one-story and twostory IIL buildings. Um you can really see how these pairs of buildings each have a shed roof and they come together to form a larger gable unit. In discussion with the HRRB subcommittee comments and their feedback, um rather than only renovating the interior of the fitness center, which is existing one story, a portion of the roof line will be sloped up and so that together it can not only mitigate the height perception and the scale of the twotory addition, but it also works together to create one larger form. This is the accompanying plan proposed with those elevations. And then we'll end the walkthrough with the meeting house edition highlighted here. This is the historic building from the original S Soom campus. It's integral to the community gathering and function where exercise classes are held, line dancing, lectures, and theater performances.

There are currently three access points to the meeting house, and the addition is located off of the back side. This is tucked away within an upward slope so as to minimize this secondary form as much as possible. After receiving the HRRB subcommittee's comments, our massing proposes to pop up the back portion which is a back of house green room area and it will be held to match the rest the existing roof line. There is a connector piece which will be held at a lower height and it will serve as a hyphen between the old and the new. This hyphen is also seen in plan. I've highlighted it in blue. This will be um the connection between the meeting house as well as the back of house and green room areas as part of the proposal and to expand community usage of the meeting house. The platform will also be deepened which will benefit any future performances. Previously you could only access the platform via two steps. So now we will be proposing an accessible ramp, also make accessible the bathrooms and introduce a pantry program so as to warm food for future dining functions. In our 2D elevations, we can see the hyphen connection highlighted in blue. It's held below the roof line as well as the higher massing of the green room beyond. This concludes our walkthrough of the master plan proposal with special attention to use permit request of design control approval. Next, we have our second use permit requests for development on slopes greater than 25%. They're highlighted in this red color and it totals an area of 0.66 acres. A lot of the slope areas for this use permit is concentrated at the memory care site. the hillside IL guest units as well as the upper IIL units.

And lastly, we have the use permit requests for tree removal at those exact same three sites. 61 oak trees have been identified for for removal, although 35 are less than 13 in in diameter at breast height and 11 of which are currently in poor health. So to circle back to the original construction photo, um these oaks to be removed are not naturally occurring. And this is a snippet from Rob Thompson, our arborist's report. Um we've noted that these oaks are not previously planted, are not naturally occurring. And to summarize with um Steve's overview, we will be um requesting the reduced number of 43 oak plantings for mitigation at the 2 to3 ratio. And so this concludes our review of the master plan proposal and I'll now pass it on to Joel for any concluding remarks. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioner, for your indulgence. Um I just wanted to then conclude from a planning uh planners perspective. Um we did submit u an applicant letter with someata I think for the purposes of of what my comments today uh in the resolution uh and in the conditions of compliance there is one assessor parcel number that is missing. Um just to make sure that everything is really clear in the record we ask that that one APN be added. Uh the site acreage um should reflect 25.75 acres. So we want to just tidy that little detail up. Um finding number seven, uh it would be helpful um elsewhere in the resolution. There's a a reference to the 25% slope evidence. um with the uh infill development and so forth. It might be worthwhile to reiterate that in that uh specific finding is um uh again we've uh let me finding seven and then following my notes I've got condition seven which goes back to trees. Um it talks about trying to minimize roots and uh soil disturbance within trees. We do have, as you saw in M. Chun's presentation, a fairly con condensed site, and I'm just wondering if that can be clarified to not exceed disturbances to root zones in more than a third of the drip line. That's sort of similar to criteria in Monterey County Code section 21.64.260. D1, where it talks about not trimming more than a third of the live canopy. I'm not saying that we want to impact trees, but I I think that there may be instances where just given the nature of of the site and the proposed construction, we might need a little bit of a leeway. So, I'd ask your

consideration for that. Um, uh, condition 16 and 17 were in agreement with staff's recommendation. In my research, you know, I found about 180 units, permits, building permits issued for 180 units on the totality of the site that we've been discussing today. The proposed project, um, as Miss Chung noted, uh, will bring that number down to 169, although there were consolidations over time, and I think the current unit count might be 148. So, that's a discussion we're going to have with the public works department. you know, what's the baseline and against that baseline, where do you charge fees for new residential construction? Interestingly enough, page 11 of exhibit A of the staff report um provides staff's impression on uh compliance with the inclusionary housing ordinance and it says because the 1960 approval predated the establishment of that ordinance, it's it doesn't apply here. Similarly, um, in 1992, the county adopted the Carmel Valley traffic impact fee. In 2018, Tamy adopted their regional traffic impact fee. So, that's a conversation that uh, Mr. Mason was referring to in terms of us pursuing with public works. So, we're we're fine with his proposed solution to that uh, by adding if applicable to those two conditions. Uh I did also want to know um some of the conditions have a timing or mitigation monitoring compliance step uh that tells us what to do. I just wanted uh to reiterate for the public record that there will be various project phases. So individual construction management plans and other other actions will take place piece by piece by piece. So it wouldn't be like

we'd have one master um solution for the entirety of the project. It'll be broken up by phases when we con uh comply with conditions down the road. Um, two other things and then I'll conclude. Condition 23, item number three has a recommendation for installing acoustic blankets and quilts. Uh, I I would just state that that's not feasible. A number of the buildings are about 30 feet in height. um constructing and trying to maintain a 30- foot high sound wall, it's going to be expensive. When you have wind, depending on the time of the year that we we're doing this, that's problematic. Um depending on where they're installed on the upper IIL units, we might block um solar access. So, uh I'd ask if the commission would consider deleting that. Um, and then there's a reference to Carmelo Preschool, which sits like 15 ft below the hillside units. So, a an acoustic sound wall wouldn't really buffer the sound from from the school. And then finally, condition 23 and 24. Um, I can read the black and white and interpret it two different ways. What I think staff is saying is that we need to avoid the drop off and pickup times at the school, not try to avoid construction or sound generating uh uh activities while school's in session. School's in session from 7 7 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and it operates from uh August through June. So that's pretty limiting. I just want to for the again for the record clarify if we're just talking about managing our our internal construction to avoid sort of the peak commute times if you will um we're in agreement with that but but I just wanted to have staff respond to that. And then finally, what I think the MST letter is intended to say is if if

our construction traffic interferes or or causes traffic delays, um they're asking the applicant to co coordinate with MST. We're not doing any work on Carmel Valley Road. We're not touching affecting the bus stops. We're not proposing of a stop. So, I think that's what MST staff is asking for. So, with that, I'd conclude by saying we've read the staff report, uh, the draft resolution and conditions of approval. With our clarifications today, uh, we're in agreement, and we would ask the planning commission to approve the project with a minor amendments, we've suggested, adopt the mitigated negative declaration, approve the project. Thank you. Uh, if there's any public comments, we'd like to respond. And, uh, other than that, we appreciate the diligence Mr. information has gotten to get this project uh to hearing in a very timely manner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Panzer. All right, then let's move along uh judiciously and we'll go to uh public comment. Is there anyone in the room that would like to comment on this project in the chambers? Just give us your name if you would, sir.

John Anzini. Uh I'm a neighbor directly to the uh southwest of the Carmel Valley Manor and um we had a little bit of controversy when the project was first proposed and I would like to uh thank the manor for working with the public to uh maintain the rural character of Carmel Valley by choosing not to demolish several of the residences on Los Arbles Road. And my further comment is um at the bottom of Los Arbles Road where it connects to Carmel Valley Road, there's a bus stop that was put in by MST. Uh during the course of uh the construction of that bus stop, there was a an existing drain line that went uh across the old Carmelo school across the fire department and went um into a drainage culvert that goes to Carmel River. Uh since that work has been performed and that bus stop installed, flooding has occurred at the base of the road where Carmel Valley Road hits Los Road. Um, I know that they're going to do some work down there, but um, it seems to me that, uh, if they reinstall the culvert the way it used to be or modify it in some way, shape, or form, it would, uh, prevent flooding at the base of the road because a lot of cars uh, that are very low nowadays that are going through there, it doesn't bother my truck or anything, the trucks or anything like that, but uh, it causes flooding uh, that is elevated to the point where it could enter uh a car that's very low. So if uh that would be uh taken into consideration in uh whatever bus stop situation applies to that area um I would it would be greatly appreciated by

the the uh people uh who live on Los Arblaze Road which is directly adjacent to the manor. Um other than that thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you, sir. Anyone anyone else in the chambers that would like to comment? Seeing no one coming forward, madame clerk, do we have anyone online? We have no hands up on Zoom. Oh, now we do. Oh, now we do. Okay.

We have Brian Clark. Mr. Clark. Good afternoon, planning commission. Thank you. Uh, I was really just curious, uh, Carmel Valley Manor has been purchasing several adjacent single family homes to the manor and incorporating those, I guess, obviously, into the manor. I was curious how their use permit uh looks at buying adjacent single family homes and uh in essence extending service into private residential neighborhoods and absorbing those single family neighborhood into the manner. Uh thank you.

Thank you. We have Caramel Valley Manor guest. Whoever you are, Carmel Valley Manor guest, it's your turn. You are able to speak as you're not muted. Well, maybe they changed their mind. Maybe they don't want to talk to us after all.

We're trying to unmute you. Can you hear us now? Oh, now we can. Yes. Very good, sir. Go right ahead.

Thank you. There's three of us here. My name is Lawrence Finch and I moved to the manor 11 years ago with my wife who passed away six years ago. The manor has been a responsible wonderful place for us and the new apartments and dimension center will offer modern attractive living for the seniors in the community who are on our waiting list. The resulting income will add to our financial position and allow us to continue to upgrade and improve campus facilities and ensure the man's long-term future. Thanks for your consideration in this matter. And I'll turn that mic over to Mary Sas who is a member of the board of directors of man and a long-term resident.

Thank you, sir. Good morning. As Larry said, I'm Mary Sy. I'm a past president of the resident council and currently the resident representative to be directors and I have been almost 11 years which I consider a real privilege and I'm delighted to be here. I wanted to comment a couple of things. One is that by increasing the number of units we have, it would be very helpful because we have a two-year waiting list and that certainly would have some effect on that. Also by enhancing our amenities uh would give a greater opportunity for those uh generations that join us for additional uh active living. Each generation seems to be maybe a little bit more active than the previous from what we're observing. And and really most importantly in my mind is that the addition of the memory center will really assist us in transitioning to different uh aspects of the manner in providing the most comfortable and supportive living conditions for whatever stage of life you have reached. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Pass it off. Dr. Jack Inbomb who's a resident here at the mayor.

Good morning. Uh I'm John Inbomb, a retired physician and a resident of Cari Manor for 12 years. um in support of the memory care unit. Uh as you've already heard in a remarkable display of generosity and community spirit valley man residents have come together and raised an impressive $5 million for the memory care center. This achievement reflects the deep commitment to the of the residents to the support of those affected by memory loss and ensure that Carmel Valley Manor continues to provide vital care, innovative programs, and conc comprehensive services.

These contributions will help fund a new facility and will have a lasting impact on countless lives. The dedication of Carmel Valley Mana residents truly illustrates the power of collective action and the importance of honoring those touched by memory related challenges. Um and having been a a resident and patient in the health center and wrapped us up by a wife who has as well I highly recommend uh support for this area. Thank you very much. Back to me. Thanks very much for hearing our message and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much, sir, for joining us. All righty. Very good. Is there anyone else? I'm sorry I didn't move on too quickly there. Was there anyone else? No. Hands up on Zoom. Okay. Thank you. Mr. pans here. Did you have anything that you wanted to reply to um or make comment about in that?

Uh yes. And again being mindful of the time uh let's see to go back to response uh to Mr. Clark's um comment. So the the 1960 if we can get the overhead slide up uh please. Yeah, there we go. So the 1960 approval anticipated uh a density scheme of 7 and a half units or density of seven and a half times the number of acres contained in the area of land. Um now and and that's why one of the purposes of me speaking earlier is the campus is is grown as Mr. Clark has pointed out. um the ultimate density. What this permit will do is is it'll memorialize, if you will, the six adjacent properties Carmel Valley Manor has purchased. It's still under the 172.5 or 171 172.5 um units. Uh so it it's really intended, you know, who knows how things occurred over time, but it's really intended to bring the current campus master plan back into full conformance of this permit. Um and presumably if the c if Carmel Valley Manor purchased adjacent properties, they'd have to come back before the planning commission or housing community development to ask for an amendment either by acreage or by a unit. But that was really one of the underlying attempts was to sort of really clean things up here and and get it back into conformance with the original approval. So I hopefully that was responsive to the gentleman's comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, please. Actually, it's left me confused. Mr. Panzer, don't confuse us. No, I'm sorry. Um the the listing of acreage varies and we have a listing u in the in the letter from Carmel Valley Manor says um there's an exhibit that says it's 22.57 acres and it's a typo and it should I think say that it's 25.75 acres which is more than 23 acres. So now I'm confused

that yeah that that's correct. So what what's occurred over time as you've heard from speakers and Mr. Zimmer, there's just been a demand for um accommodations at the facility. So when adjoining properties have have come up and and I think this goes back to the 70s, uh another property in the 80s and and more recently, I think two properties last year, they've taken the opportunity to acquire them. And and one of the intents of this use permit is to memorialize, if you will, what that acreage is. Um, so the 60 permit anticipated uh, how do I want to say land acquired by the applicant up to a total of 23 acres. We're letting the planning commission know as it stands now the total acreage controlled by uh Northern California congregational home homes is uh the 25.75. So, I would think that there would be an amendment, if you will, for me to sort of think out of the box here to memorialize that's the current acreage. But in terms of density, we're still at or just below the um approved density from 1960. Uh so that was the what 172 units and we'll be at 169. So, it's kind of um you know, over time it's been 65 years. The conditions have changed. We're trying to wrap that up and make it nice and clean through this permit application. Hopefully, that was responsive to the question.

I'm still confused. Plain language here says up to 23 acres. If it's now more than 23 acres, you can't make it consistent with the original use permit without addressing a change in the original use permit, which I didn't see here. So, that's why I'm confused. I mean, we're looking at the language right now.

Well, yeah. So, I'm I'm in agreement. So, the the acreage is increased. The number of units are consistent with the 1960 approval. And again, um I I would suppose that it's the commission has the ability to update some aspect of the 60 permit to make it consistent what the master plan that's been described to you today consists of. Thank you. I'll ask I'll leave my question for staff.

All righty. Any other questions, Mr. Panzer? No. I'm I'm sorry, sir. We've closed that part of the meeting. Sorry. Anyone? Nope. Okay. Staff, do you have any um would you like to respond to anything that the applicant u any

through the chair? Yes, I would. Thank you. Um, first of all, regarding condition number seven for the tree removal or the drip line around tree removal, I'll just quote my direct I've already responded to these. For that, I would say circumstances which do not allow for full protective fencing around drip lines are not uncommon as most if not all county approved arborists are aware. The key language is that said protection be approved by a certified arborist. Put another way, we would not expect protective fencing to block a roadway or a driveway or something to that effect. This is this is not uncommon and all the arborists that approve the uh drip line protection or rather the tree protection are aware of this. Second number 23 regarding the soundproofing and I quote, "Neote that this generally refers to soundproofing around noise emanating from groundbased equipment. 30-foot sound walls are not expected nor will they be required. Condition number 24 regarding Carmelo school. The wording quote where feasible is included in the language already. High noise quote high noise activities near Carmelo Preschool Child Development Center should be where feasible scheduled outside of regular school hours. Also, construction hours are noted and one day um 7 am to 7 pm Monday through Sunday, Saturday rather. No work shall occur on Sundays or holidays. And I added it is not expected nor inferred in the condition that construction cannot coincide with Carmel School being in session. And as far as the density and the acreage, staff is aware, um the site has been over the original 23 acres for for many years now, but we are still predicating the maximum density. And I included all of the owned contiguous single family dwellings in the unit count. And this is pointed out on page two of this staff report

discussion. They do own nine contiguous parcels at 28 acres. However, the density is still predicated on 23 acres times 7 and 12, whatever that is. Okay, very good. Commission. Oh, Commissioner Hartell,

could you just point me to where we are memorializing that in the materials? So, where are you going to put down the density? Where are you going to make it nice and clean as Mr. Panzer puts it? There he is. Through the chair. This is under consistency uh finding number two section B. at points. It talks about it's in there the maximum build out according to the 1960 use permit quoting the number of units predicated on 23 acres. So it's under um finding two consistency evidence evidence B.

And is there a way to clarify that so that the fact that they have more than 23 acres never impacts the density analysis here through the chair. I think we want also want to clarify that density um is really for residential units and not typically applied to assisted living facilities. So I think the concern is the number of maximum buildout of units which is um 72 per the original use permit. Um so staff would encourage if not already in included in the resolution the limitation of the total number of units rather than a um a living unit per acreage uh density calculation if that's desired. Okay. So the fact that we've got 169 units happening and that 172 are allowed are the only things we're looking at. the additional acreage is not relevant since we're going off of a use permit that was issued at 23

through the chair. The additional acreage that acreage has been exceeded since at least the 1970s. And um so I I think we could maybe come up with some kind of wording that we've increased the o overall acreage, but we'd have to actually do that without increasing the allowed density as well. So would it have to be reformulated? So I think we could do that but it might take a few minutes.

Okay. I'm trying to make it easy to understand instead of more confusing. So please note that that's what I'm aiming for in this language so that we don't have to see that math before us again. Um, while I'm at it, a couple of additional arata. Finding 7D, if you could just make sure that that refers to the correct number of conditions. Finding 25, make sure it refers to the correct geotechnical report. And then the count baseline is the only other one that I want to make sure. As long as I'm being nitpicky.

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I got finding seven evidence seven evidence D and then after that was finding seven evidence D refers to three conditions. I think you only want to refer to one. Um and then finding 25 you're citing a geotechnical report that's got a different name than the other ones. I think it might just be a typo, not a just Very well. Thank you, Commissioner. You're very good at that nitpicky stuff. You're welcome. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Deal.

Yeah. Um, back to the calculation. I'm just looking for something that says as simple as his historic acquisitions have resulted in an overall parcel size of 25 whatever. However, 172 units is still the maximum allowed under this roof permit or something. Just plain language like that. um regardless of the density thingami. Um so that would be a suggestion as you are thinking about that and then I do have just a question about the aa and that have been outlined in the applicants letter of the 8th. Um have those all been incorporated into the document we're looking at now? They had a parcel number and a grading amount and stuff like that. They can be incorporated. The reason I did not do that is I quoted I cited the two parcels where the only actual activity is occurring demolition and construction. Technically I would have I could I would list all of the six parcels on Los Arbbley. They own nine parcels overall if you go to page two of the staff report. So, um, the third parcel wasn't listed because nothing is there's no construction, I don't believe.

Demo, but there's is it demolition? Okay, then duly noted that. Well, that is noted. That is the second parcel. I can add the third parcel, though. There's no harm done.

I guess I just wanted you to to address the different ones that have been raised and see whether we're incorporating them or not. the acreage one we're addressing separately. And um with respect to the 25% slope, I'm in favor of as much ammunition as we can possibly add to why we would do that. uh because we're wanting to be consistent in all things and um certainly seems to me that um there is there is a finding appropriately made uh better better fulfills the requirements of the plan or something like that. Uh I forget the words but uh it clearly seems to me to do that. Anyway, so I'll stop and just let you give a little bit of thought to clarifying the acreage thing because I'm like Commissioner Hartzell. I'd like not to see it ever again. And the next person 25 years from now, I'd like them not to be grappling with that issue.

Fellow commissioners, are there any other while they grapple with that? Um, Commissioner Mendoza, Commissioner Gonzalez, anything? Nope. and Commissioner Shaw. No questions. Okay. Well, oh, Commissioner Hartzel

with clarification on which of the items from Mr. Panzer's letter are getting incorporated and clarification on the acreage site number, number of unit dance that we're doing. After that, I'm prepared to make a motion. Okay. Commissioner Sean,

really quickly, um, just because I don't think it's going to be covered in this application, that drainage area that's causing flooding at the bottom of the road. Um, can anybody give this gentleman direction on who to contact about that or what the process would be if it's not going to be addressed through this Uh yes, I would recommend contact contacting County of Monterey Public Works. Okay. And should Commissioner Hartzel make a motion, I would be prepared to second it.

Well, well, I'll just sit and wait then. While staff is working, I might just ask, can I ask Mr. Panser a question? Sure. The staff feedback on the noise. Does that work for you? It clarified the concern. Yes. Thanks.

It works. Thank you. Okay. Soon as Mr. Mason comes up with an answer. No pressure at all though. Very well. here. Uh this is what I've this is again finding to consistency under perhaps tailing at the end of B establishment of use adding no more than 172 independent living units shall be operated by Carmel V Carmel Valley Manor regardless of overall acreage owned. Is that get it? What we're trying to accomplish?

I don't I don't know. Is that what you're trying to get out? No, I'm trying to get at what's established by that use permit. Oh, the original use permit. You're super close. And I'm willing to defer this to you and Fiona at a future time. Nope. Commissioner Deal is not. We're going to wait. Nope. Not going to wait. Simply because we are where we are. You know, they're both planners. They have an an allergic reaction to plain language some days. I find that hard to believe.

Well, I guess we'll All right. Something to the effect that although this is not in conformance with the original I could cite the 1960 use permit. No more something leading up to it like that. with that pointing out that this isn't exactly word for word inconformance but the density something to that effect. Can I try? Sure.

Sure.

How about we just take um we're already talking about the the U 1960 use permit. So the number of housing units for lessie residents constructed shall not exceed seven and a half times the number of acres on said land and any continuous land acquired by the applicant up to a total of 23 acres. Period. Historically an additional X number of acres have been acquired. However, based on 23 acres multiplied by 7 and a half units, 172.5 housing units are allowed. Period. So, you're addressing that we have more, but we're using the original density.

I like that. And if should someone come back with a new use permit, that's a different conversation. Yeah, that's another time in another place. Would that work for you, Miss Jensen? Yes, I would probably recommend adding an additional sentence clarifying that it still is 172 regardless of the acreage. Um, because we're recognizing now two different acreages. So, it still maintains the historical allowed of 172. Sound good? Good. Good. Good. Okay. Then now I've forgotten which Oh, Commissioner Hartzel. I can articulate it for you.

Yeah. Thank you. I move to approve staff's recommendation with the amendments that we've just discussed. And Commissioner D will second. I do. Very good. And we need a roll call vote on this particular item because of our uh person who has joined us on Zoom. So, Miss Clerk, would you mind please? Commissioner Hartzell I. Commissioner Getsman I. Commissioner Work. I. Commissioner Gonzalez. Yes. Commissioner Mendoza. I. Commissioner Deal. Yes. Commissioner Shaw. Yes. Commissioner Monsal. Yes.

Motion carries. Passes.

Thank you very much. Very good. Thank you. Everyone have a lovely afternoon. Uh we have one item left on the agenda. That would be the department report. Miss Jensen's going to share something with us. Thank you, chair. Um staff just has a couple of items that we want to share with the commission. Uh first being for the upcoming May 27th planning commission item or hearing. We only have one item scheduled. It is a uh CIP item more of as an FYI rather than a formal action taken by the commission um proposed by public works. So staff is wondering if there is concurrence from the commission to hold that one item. um on May 27th.

Well, for those of us who have to drive a long way and driving up here for one item doesn't sound like a very good idea, the rest of the commission agree, disagree, agree. Okay, looks like you have that agreement that it is not a good idea to do one item. Okay, not an agreement. Thank you. And that means that the following week's the following agenda is going to be robust and people should prepare themselves accordingly.

Correct. And I'm not sure if then timing aligns with the planned CIP item to come back to the planning commission as a um informal recommendation or an FYI item. It may just directly go to the board of supervisors. What's the plan CIP item? Sorry, Gon. Yeah, I guess we need to know. What are we missing? What are we passing on? Let me see if I can find that out for you, Commissioner. What does CIP stand for? A capital improvement plan. And it's a CIP program by the county. Correct.

And your next question is, why are we doing that? No. I'm new here. Maybe you should ask that question. Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to help. Oh, director Spencer, how good to hear your voice out of the out of the heavens.

Yes. So uh to answer the questions, the capital improvement plan comes annually to the planning commission before it goes to the board because there is a U planning and zoning law requirement that we do a general plan consistency u determination on those projects that are planned in the five-year capital improvement program with usually one year being the funded projects for next fiscal year that the planning commission's recommendation on the general plan consistency of the county's capital improvement plan usually goes then to the board for final action with the C the CIP itself.

Did I explain that for you, Commissioner Artzel? Didn't we just do that? Yeah, I thought we I thought we did. Is this the second is this the second time around, Mr. Spencer? It it comes around it feels like more often than once a year, but I don't know that we'd have done it for this year. Okay. It just feels like it.

Maybe we did last year's late or something because we we've it's important to look at for us. I I would hate for us not to be able to at least give it a once over with respect to the general plan consistency because that's where we've been particularly able to focus on uh recommending or supporting priorities that we've then carried forward. It is I mean you know that is our job to make that recommendation. So I'd hate to miss it. Yeah. But I don't know that it's worth a whole meeting to come in when you have to drive for hours and hours either. But I should hope that there would be some compromise in there.

Is there a compromise? Do you think, Miss Jensen? Well, you said you didn't know if there was a time frame involved in this or not, right? Craig, do you know? I mean, Mr. Spencer, do you know there is a time involved in this? There's a time frame involved. We will check with our counterparts in public works. Um it it we'll we'll figure out the timing. It may not work to delay the planning commission review prior to the board, but we can still bring something to the planning commission for review at the appropriate time if the timing works out that way.

Okay. All right. We need a little more information then. That would be great. All right. Very well. That's in advance until we find out some more information. Miss Jensen, you have anything else?

Uh, yes. Just yesterday, staff received its third review of the findings from the California um housing and community development indicating that the county's draft housing element is um consistent with state law. And so staff will be making a letter publicly available uh shortly after this. Um, and then finally, there have been a couple items that were considered by the planning commission in I believe April or February that have been now considered by the board of supervisors, namely the uh four properties reszoned in Lockwood were approved by the board of supervisors um a few weeks ago as well as the reszoning of the September ranch affordable housing parcel. Um so that's just circling back on a couple of items the commission recently considered.

Thank you. Thank you. It's always nice to know what happened to stuff we do. Is you have more? Just wanted to ask what happens to the housing element next. It goes back to the board or does it what? It still requires certification. Um, so there's still a couple of steps in process, but this is a major step forward. Oh yeah. But we wanting to know what the other steps are and what we could be looking forward to in terms of of action here. What happens after that? you just by whom I can sorry that was that the book

I could jump in there again if it would help. So uh the next steps involve completion of the environmental documentation SQA and uh we are actively working on the draft EIR for the housing element and um in order to be deemed in compliance and consistent the the the plan itself as it's drafted now and is statutoily meets the requirements according to our state reviewers that will have to go through a formal general plan adoption process with the SQA documentation. So the next step is release of a draft EIR 45day public review and comment period followed by the completion review and a review of comments determination on uh the SQA front which will include at least the preparation of a final EIR with response to comments. um that with the plan and the mandatory reszoning of the housing opportunity sites will come before the planning commission and finally to the board for adoption before it's resubmitted to state HCD at there also be a uh a requirement at that point to transmit those part those reszones and on the properties in the coastal zone to the coastal commission. Uh but that won't hold up our um our determination of consistency from the state level.

So that sounds like the better part of a year. I our our target is September for board action and submittal back to the state and then it gets submitted and there's a timing a waiting period after that or not? Uh I I if there is it'll be a short period. There's no statutory time limit on that. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Miss Jensen, that is all. Thank you. That's all. Very good. All right, everybody. They gave me a gavl. So

this I know. Huh. I feel very important all of a sudden. So, we are calling this meeting adjourned at 12:27 p.m. Thank you everyone.