Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

of July 8th. Would Commissioner Shaw care to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Commissioner Shaw. Appreciate that. Madam Clerk, may we get the roll call, please?

Good morning. Commissioner Getzelman?

Here.

Commissioner Roberts? Here. Commissioner Work?

Here.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Here.

Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzalez?

Here.

Commissioner Gomez?

Here.

Commissioner Monsalve? Here. Commissioner Shaw? Here. Commissioner Deal?

Here.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Before we begin with public comments, would the secretary like to briefly tell everyone how they can join us?

Thank you all for being here. We are happy to say that we continue to have wordly available for translation services for any members of the public either here in chambers or joining us online who may need translation services to wish to participate. In order to join the wordly You can either scan the QR code that is on the screen, or you can go to the web page at the bottom left of the screen. When you go there, you'll receive a prompt in Wordly, and you can select the language that you require translation services in, and it should commence from there. You will also... Do we continue to have up here translation? Yes. Okay. We also, when not sharing slides, we should... Share it. of the front here in chambers. You should also see the Spanish translation of today's proceedings as well. And if you are here in needing translation services, we have headphones at the front. Thank you.

Madam Secretary, this is the time set aside then on the agenda for public comments. Members of the public that would like to speak to us about items that are not on our agenda for today. If you have something you'd like to share. Anyone in the chambers? Seeing no one. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online?

We have Commissioner Monsalves hand raised.

Oh, very good. Commissioner Monsalves?

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to again invoke the Just Cause Government Code 54953.8.3C due to a family medical emergency and I have one adult present with me at this location. And I know due to my attendance via this platform, we will have to use roll call for votes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm sure glad you joined us. So thank you. All right. Seeing no public comment then besides Commissioner Monsalves, we'll move along to the addition, agenda additions, deletions or corrections. Madam Clerk, are there any of those?

Yes, for the record, we received and distributed an errata memo from staff for agenda item number three, agricultural and winery corridor plan, and additional correspondence for agenda item number four, PLN 250286, Carmel Reserve LLC, and agenda item number five, PLN 250292, Signal Hill LLC.

Thank you so much. All right. Commissioners, next item on the agenda, do we have comments? Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. So this, I noticed in one of the packets, this was mentioned and I wanted to ask, just get some more information about this. I'm continuing to see that on the LUAC, report that they give us there is no option for them to vote no on a project Still and I know that this was brought up maybe a year ago. It was brought up That the Luaq members didn't like that. I mean, I don't like that Why can't they just didn't say we don't recommend this project at all. I So curious about if that's going to change, can it change? What would be the process for that to change? And if it can't be changed, can they just write in like their own option of like, no, we don't want to support this project even with changes.

Madam Secretary?

Yeah, so there... so we we have the request there is a little bit of history there and to be honest I dropped the ball on following up on it to be quite frankly honest because there was some history where that was discussed previously with my predecessors and the decision was made not to add it and so I had just wanted to make sure that I did kind of a thorough understanding of the why and and where we change it but it fell off of my radar and to-do list so I will put that as a priority to work with our secretary team and our planning management to re-review that and make sure that we have kind of an option that meets the intention for the concerns for why it wasn't there, but meets the needs of the LUAC to have an option that meets their needs as well.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, are there any other comments, referrals? Nope. All right. Very good. Seeing no one, then we'll move along. to the approval of the consent calendar. Commissioners, do you have anything on the consent calendar that you would like to see pulled or addressed? Commissioner Roberts.

I don't know that I need it pulled. I guess with County Council or staff's suggestion, all I would like to say is that the LUACs that I attend and represent are in need of Members, desperately, the Monterey Peninsula and Toro is getting a little bit smaller and so anyone along the Highway 68 corridor from Salinas all the way to Monterey, we are looking for your participation and would love to give you any information you might need to make that commitment.

Thank you, Commissioner Roberts. That's a good reminder that all of our LUACs probably could, I don't think there are any that are overstaffed, so that's a nice advertisement for all of them. Thank you for that. All right then, ladies and gentlemen, are there any other comments on the consent calendar? Any other items? No? Okay. Then we need a public comment. Is there anyone in the chambers that would like to address us on this issue of the calendar? Or excuse me, on the consent calendar? Seeing none, are there any people online, Madam Clerk?

We have no emails and no hand raised.

Thank you. All right, then. Can I get a motion for the approval of the consent calendar? So moved. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Gonzalez has moved, and Commissioner Shaw has seconded the motion that we approve the consent calendar as presented. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. My bad habit patterns that I have. We have to do a roll call because we have one member who is not with us today. Madam Clerk.

Commissioner Getzelman?

Yes.

Commissioner Roberts? Aye. Commissioner Work?

Yes.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Hartzell? Aye. Commissioner Gonzalez?

Yes.

Commissioner Gomez?

Yes.

Commissioner Monsalve?

Yes.

Commissioner Shaw? Yes. Commissioner Diehl?

Yes.

Chair, motion carries.

Thank you very much. All right. That motion is carried. We'll move along to the next item on the agenda. Under Schedule Matters, we have Reference 250009, the Agricultural and Winery Corridor Plan, a workshop. So staff, when you're prepared, please start.

Can we please share your stuff, right? Thank you.

Good morning. Sorry, I just wanted to chime in. I'm Katie Skary. It's our assistant planner who will do the presentation. Just wanted to acknowledge the errata memo that was sent to the Planning Commission and clarify that this is solely an informational presentation today at the request of the Planning Commission prior to the public hearing on August 12th.

Thank you.

Good morning, Planning Commissioners. Katie Scaria, Assistant Planner, joined by Sarah Weichel, Principal Planner, providing an informational presentation on the Agricultural and Winery Corridor Plan, also known as the AWCP. During the Planning Commission hearing on June 25th, the PC requested an informational presentation on the AWCP. We understand that the wine industry has been impacted since the adoption of the 2010 General Plan, and we hope that the implementation of the I-Wine Corridor Plan can help support the industry better. But that is not up for discussion today. This is simply an informational presentation. Today's staff will provide an overview of the CEQA determination, the AWCP corridor map, information on Chapter 9.J, agricultural and winery corridor from the 2010 General Plan, and next steps. This information gathering qualifies for the statutory exemption from environmental review pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15262, feasibility and planning studies. The AWCP area is intended to address viticultural-related uses in three specific planning areas, Toro, Central Salinas Valley, and South County. The AWCP is divided into three segments that make up the broader AWCP, River Road, Halone Road, and Metz Road. The corridor map can be seen on the screen. In April of 2001, the Monterey County Vintners and Growers Association made a presentation to the Board of Supervisors on problems facing the wine industry in Monterey County. The Board then appointed a committee that developed the Winery Corridor Plan to help keep the wine industry economically viable. On October 26, 2010, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey adopted the County General Plan, which is referred to as the 2010 General Plan. In the 2010 General Plan, Chapter 9.J established the Agricultural and Winery Corridor Plan. The AWCP was envisioned to encourage the development of agricultural and winery related uses within specifically designated areas of unincorporated Monterey County. The AWCP is intended to provide additional detail for project approvals in these areas and in certain instances, provide a simplified project approval and environmental review. These simplified project approvals and environmental reviews were identified and analyzed as a part of the 2010 General Plan FEIR. At the time of the 2010 General Plan's adoption, a significant portion of unincorporated Monterey County's agricultural land was utilized for grape production. Wine grapes were one of the top crops by value in the county and continue to be an important contributor to the county's agricultural economy. The plan outlines where facilities are allowed to be processed and up to how many would be allowed in that area. For example, there would be a maximum of 10 new full-scale wineries allowed in the AWCP. The River Road segment would allow for up to five, Metz Road would allow for up to two, and Halone Road would allow for up to three. Facilities within the AWCP that could be developed include artisan wineries, full-scale wineries, winery tasting rooms, restaurants, delicatessens, inns, a business cluster, and visitor centers. The amounts and types of facilities were studied and contemplated in the 2010 Journal Plan's FEIR. Allowed uses at facilities approved under the AWCP located within the corridor include winery adjunct uses, industry wide events, winery related events up to 150 people and private winery events. A ministerial permit would be required for permitted uses within the plan area. Permitted uses subject to a ministerial permit include artisan wineries, events included, winery tasting facilities including catering kitchens, agricultural and winery related visitor uses such as a produce stand, food service facilities, winery related events between 151 people and 500 people, one guest house per winery, one residential unit per winery, up to three employee housing units per winery, and additional employee housing may be subject to a discretionary permit. An administrative permit would be required for some permitted uses within the plan area. Permitted uses subject to an administrative permit include restaurants, delicatessens, inns, on-site with the winery facility, stand-alone inns, full-scale winery, events included. Specific criteria is needed to be met for these facilities to be processed under an administrative permit. The AWCP outlines development standards that shall be applied to the corridor. Parcel size is to be a minimum of five acres, a maximum of 30% building site coverage, excluding parking and landscaping. Structure height may be subject to a maximum height of 35 feet for associated structures, but can be increased 45 feet. A minimum of 100 feet from each property line and no closer than 200 feet to existing structures. Setbacks can be increased in specific areas and off-street parking spaces shall be determined by a developmental plan. At a minimum, a development plan shall include employee parking, tourist parking, and event parking, and noise shall comply with the county's adopted noise codes. Properties within the plan area that intend to hold special events for 500 or more people on site shall obtain a separate permit that involves review with event conditions. Reviewing agencies such as the sheriff's office, fire, public works facilities and parks are authorized to attach conditions deemed necessary as they relate to public health and safety. An administrative permit may be considered for all events that will occur for over a one-year period. No event shall be held without first obtaining an administrative permit from the County of Monterey's Housing Community Development Department. The AWCP includes general design statements and guidelines to be applied on a project-wide basis for structures developed as a part of the AWCP. The guidelines seek to encourage creativity while creating an overall vision for the corridor that is in keeping with the existing rural character. The guidelines are related to signage, kiosks, lighting, access design, architecture, and parking areas. Three points have been identified as gateways to the AWCP. The intersection of Highway 68 and River Road is the main gateway that provides connection to the major tourist area of the Monterey Peninsula. Arroyo Seco and Highway 101 is one of the areas between Greenfield and Soledad that is considered to be the heart of the Winery Corridor. Lastly, the south side of Central Avenue at the intersection of Central Avenue and the south side, south Highway 101 access. The Monterey County Vintners and Growers Association or its successor may work with the County of Monterey's Public Works Department to install up to 50 directional signs in the public's right-of-way. Each business may want to have a sign that identifies the entrance into their facility. Each business is allowed to install one monument sign at the main access of those facilities. The AWCP's implementing ordinance and zoning clearance chapter will be brought forward on August 12th, 2026. Once the ordinance is adopted and approved by the Planning Commission, it will then go to the Board of Supervisors for approval. And that will be presented to the Board in either August or September of 2026. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Fellow commissioners, do we have questions of staff? Commissioner Diehl?

Yeah. Having been present in the drafting of this particular document and part of the discussions that happened around that, I think it's important to note that there's not a huge number of industry representatives here discussing this item. There were. in the past, a number of big delegations from the wine industry actively involved in the construction of this plan. And so we have had a lot of discussions in the context of the 2010 general plan process around both the limitations and the opportunities that this quarter was meant to address. One of the things that was important to me, and continues to be important to me, and I think it's illustrated by the current situation, is that this should in no way disadvantage opportunities to highlight other agricultural industries. In other words, if I wanna have a strawberry tasting, or I want to discuss heritage beans, I should have available to me the same kinds of opportunities that wine should have. And that would, in my mind, was why we added the word agricultural and winery corridor to this section of the general plan. And I know that the way it's written doesn't sound like that's important, but to me it really is. And I think in the current climate, I think you could go right down the different products that we depend upon in this county. We certainly depend on wine, but strawberries are number one, lettuce is number two. We have a significant investment in a lot of leafy green vegetables and a lot of other kinds of things in the South County that might be appropriate. We have beef that people... have a heritage beef, a kind of operation certainly would benefit from connection to the landscape in which it occurs. As we look at the ordinance, I'm gonna be looking that it opens windows for the wine industry, certainly as we intended, and that it also offers similar opportunities for other agricultural crops that we now know might benefit from it. So that's my first comment based on my own thinking at the time, and I think, as I say, it wore well. It is now, as we see, because we know that agriculture has to change and adapt over time. We wanna make sure that that opportunity is still available so that our farmers can do what they need to do and change their minds if they need to. And when we go down each list, I just wanna make sure that these are limitations, but they're not exclusive. In other words, if something's on a list, it could also include other things. So this like says, if it says you can do a wine tasting, Or similar, you could also do a strawberry tasting. I just want to make sure that we don't get exclusive about something in the ordinance as we're implementing the intent, which kind of that's why I asked for the workshop, because it's been such a long time. And I just want to make sure that we don't lose the sight of what we're trying to do, which is to support the agricultural industry as well as the wineries. So that is one thing I wanted to put into people's heads here. And then I also wanted to highlight that the staff report discusses the Agriculture Advisory Committee's recommendations. And I wanted to know whether those are something that the ordinance that eventually comes before us will be taking into account as well.

Yeah, staff removed the Agricultural Advisory Committee's portion from the staff report because then it convoluted what we were discussing today, but it will be discussed on the August 12th PC hearing, and their recommendations were implemented into the ordinance.

So the answer is that what they had to say was reflected in what will come before us?

That's correct, yes. Terrific, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner, appreciate that. Fellow Commissioners, is there anyone else? Oh, certainly, Commissioner.

Yeah, thank you. I had a couple of questions. Excuse me. How is the agricultural commissioner's role in this particular policy? Or is he to enforce it, or what is his basic role in the policy?

I can speak a little bit to that. So, as Commissioner Deal noted, when the plan was adopted, there was a lot of involvement from both wine industry as well as other departments in the 2010 general plan. As Katie noted, part of the process of doing the implementation ordinance, which again, we're considering at a later date, we did go to the Agricultural Advisory Committee to really get focused input on what the draft ordinance would look like. At the end of the day, most of this is mostly land use related Um... land use related, not enforcement, but HCD has most of the purview over reviewing and approving any land use related items. We would coordinate if there were specific issues that required agricultural commissioners review and purview. Typically that's more so related to inspection of crops or other kind of aspects that are under that office's purview. So there's coordination, but this is predominantly would be handled by HCD staff.

Thank you, and if I still have the floor. Are any of this suggested locations and policy have schools been involved uh... in terms of putting input or do they affect any schools in terms of pesticides or anything like that like for example the san lucas union elementary school district or other schools that may be around that i'm sure there are state and federal laws and county pieces, but I wasn't sure if schools have had it, especially if they're close to some of these areas, which I'm assuming there may be, I'm not sure.

at a high level and through the chair, and I may defer to other staff. The role and purpose of the AWCP is as a kind of combining district with a base zoning designation. So most of the uses, and we can have more information when we come back with the implementing ordinance to speak a little bit more to Commissioner Deal's comments related to other uses that could be allowed in the corridor. Predominantly, most of the uses in these areas are already existing ag. in terms of the zoning and what would be allowed. And so at the time of the 2010 general plan, when those land uses were changing and those discussions were had, school districts were involved and notified of that process. In terms of pesticide use, that's typically, I believe, more under the purview of the agricultural commissioner's office. And that's at a high level when I can speak to. And I don't know if the secretary has any other comments.

Yeah, I think so. So I think kind of just punchlining a couple of those things. At the time when this plan was developed, then that kind of full general plan consultation was happening. The implementation of this plan is much more oriented towards just how operationally do we put forward these policy decisions that were already made. The The Agwine corridor, for example, the presence and activity of agriculture already exists. Those are permitted separately. Those are regulated as anywhere else. And so the Ag Wine Corridor uses as this combining district essentially allow additional types of uses that help complement kind of economically viability of those existing ag operations. So I think, so I'm not sure if that gets fully to your question. And then certainly for any I think what we can do is we will, prior to returning, we will look at the implementing ordinance and think about if there's any kind of nexus that could be of concern for school districts through kind of that implementing ordinance and we can be prepared to speak to that when we return with the actual ordinance.

Thank you. And I guess one last, if I may, because I know that there's been a lot of discussion as far as the different issues with forever pesticides and whether it's included in the plan and I heard that there's going to be some communication with one of the committees, but I know that farmers battle pass and community speaks about the rise of health issues in children and adults. So how will that be included? Is something going to be included in the policy that specifically tries to blend some of those issues that the community and both the farmers have. And again, this is a plan, so I would assume that there's the ability to include something within the plan to try to match or blend whatever is existing. And anyways, those are my comments.

Yeah, and if I may just add to that, so the plan already, the plan is already adopted and so staff with our implementation of the plan is not amending anything in the general plan and the AgWine corridor plan. What I would say is with the concerns of kind of the agricultural uses and pesticides and others, those, so what the AgWine corridor plan and its implementing policy allow to happen are activities and types of uses that are complementary to farming agricultural operations. So if anything, you have the chance through implementation of the plan of actually having less acreage dedicated to growing and farming where the pesticide use would be applied in order to accommodate some of these other uses that could help be economic generators on those farms. So again, we'll take a look at it, but we're not proposing to modify the plan. We're simply implementing what the general plan calls for. And the allowed uses would, if anything, reduce and minimize farming operation areas that actually have the pesticide application and use issues in order to accommodate the uses that are allowed and permissible through the corridor plan.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Mendoza?

Yes, I actually agree with Commissioner Deal in reference to where it should be open to other industries, not just specifically the wine industry when it comes to what is being presented. It should also be county wide and not specifically to wine corridor area. So say for instance, somebody in North Monterey County has not quite five acres, but has three acres or four acres, and they want to have strawberry tasting, they should have that available to them. So I'm just thinking it should be open to a lot more other industries. And the minimum acreage, I know that I see like five acres or something like that. It should be reduced. Some people can do a lot with even two acres. Just something to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Deal.

Yeah, this is exactly why I had advocated for the workshop. I think it's not clear in the report, maybe it's something we can do going forward, what the purpose of the Ag Wine Corridor really is in plain language. Basically it's an economic development zone and it's specific to the advocacy of the Vintners and Growers Association's needs to try to change from only selling wholesale grapes to other people who are going to make the wine to being able to highlight the final product in the same way that Napa and Sonoma do. So that was the thing, is we're trying to not export all of our product at a low price. We're trying to be able to capitalize on what's wonderful about Monterey County and get that whole extra added layer of economic development that's related to the place. So it doesn't have a lot of... It doesn't have a lot of general application outside of wine necessarily. But the idea was looking at what is working in other wine-producing areas to gather that economic engine, what is it we can't do here? And they, as a group, came forward with a recommendation that said we need to be able to bring people here and let them enjoy the place, because the place is so important to how much money they're gonna pay for their eventual wine, which if we produce here, we get, I forget what the percentage is, but it's an enormous amount more money per acre if we can turn it into our wine and sell it at prices based on our wine. Because they say, we're really good, we just don't have the chance to do that because nobody will come here. So that's why it came about in the first place. And the main things that were wanted was a way to, like an appellation, designate the area in which it would occur and allow that area to get things like special signs so that people could follow the trail, some discussion of how we're gonna maintain the roadways, how that we could have a certain number of places to stay and a certain number of tasting rooms and that kind of thing, and events. events were important, want to have your wedding in the winery kind of thing. So it really was a, it came about through a time when the wine industry was really looking to change over in the way that it operates. And I will note that it didn't happen in time for them to do that. That's 16 years ago and things are different now. So it does look different now. But I just keep trying to go back to, what was the original intent? It was to give the people who are growing the grapes a better chance to make a go of it. And what we ended up doing was also pointing out that there are additive benefits, and I think you see that in the Ag Advisory Committee's comments. We have artisan cheese that would be really nice to focus in in that same kind of business. So that kind of farm stands were put in there as well, because you don't know what you might be wanting to sell or taste or do at your event. So I just think maybe... Maybe what we're missing here is that 50,000 foot, why did we do this in the first place? And I certainly got a lot of benefit from the presentations of the vintners and growers when we were going through this so that I understood what they were on about. I would kind of be interested to know what they had to say about it at this time to see whether this is, formulated in a way that still addresses some of their concerns, that would be an interesting bit of information for me. But lacking that, the Ag Advisory Committee, I think, illustrates what I'm saying. The appellation for wine wouldn't work countywide. That's not apparently according to, I mean, I think the chair might know better than I, but I don't think that's the way it works. It has to, specificity is important to them and was. And also the environmental review was done on that specific area for the general plan. So at the ordinance, you'd have to scrap the whole thing, go back, do more environmental work to change the physical outlines of it. That's just a long way to say, I think we might be way down in the leaves on the trees instead of the forest. So we just wanna make sure that we talk about the big picture and maybe the description of that. And as I said, I keep going back to not planar language, but really plain language might be informed by the vendors and growers representatives about what they envisioned. And that might be in a really useful setting as we're talking about implementing this ordinance. And I would also go and say that I was very much in support of the recommendations of the Ag Advisory Committee about that, making it exclusive, small size, boutique, because that's the point is you want to be exclusive. You want to get the money you get by being exclusive for whatever purpose the wine is being sold. Anyway, long and drawn out. I'm sorry, Mr.

Chair. No, that's okay. We enjoy every minute of it, Commissioner Deal.

Well, maybe you do, but...

Yes, I was just going to second Commissioner Deal's comments. I mean, I think the importance here is the agricultural element of this, not necessarily the wine corridor. That was necessary at the time. I think the vendors and growers group doesn't even exist any longer to show you how the industry has changed since we talked about this. I think it's important that the winery segment of this stay in there because it is designed as Commissioner Diehl said around the ABAs and those are the important areas but we also need to look at the rest of the county in my opinion and as the As the Agricultural Advisory Committee recommended, there are multiple areas in agriculture that we need to help support. So I'm all for that. Commissioners, anything? Madam Secretary, you needed to jump in.

Yeah, I think, and you duly noted, I think I did just want to acknowledge that the Monterey County Vintners Association does not exist anymore, and that is part of the struggles that the wine industry is having. I think I really want to just re-emphasize, we're hearing all of these conversations, but the scope which staff is bringing forward is... I just wanted to quote this from the plan to just kind of focus it in on the AG one quarter plan is designed to provide a long-range plan for development of agricultural and related and winery related uses within specific areas of the county and provide a framework for the assessment of the environmental impacts associated with such a plan so so what so staffs in agreement that there are other parts of the county and other areas that could benefit from kind of agricultural related we've you know there been various conversations around agritourism and other things over time at least since my time in the county. But at this time the scope that staff is working on is limited to the plan in the plan area that was focused and already had an environmental impact report um we can when we return uh when we do return um with the actual ordinance and regulations we absolutely hear kind of all of these questions comments concerns i think what we will do is uh be what will help us is we'll be a little bit prepared to speak to what is allowed in the other areas um and a little bit of what a process might look like in order to do kind of the broader of what's being suggested because that's really not through implementing ordinances that's Again, these all start from our general plan and flow down. Hearing all of this, we hear it, and we'll try to come back and be as responsive in terms of here's what is here and why it's limited. For some of this other stuff, here's what is available in our current regulations and what a process would look like. POTENTIALLY. BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ADD TO THE LIST TYPE OF THING. SO JUST TO BE VERY FULLY DISCLOSED ON THAT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER.

I WAS JUST LOOKING THROUGH IT BRIEFLY. REALLY IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO the specific numbers were arrived to in terms of, there's a mention of delicacies, restaurants, and inns, and that'd be very useful to have a conversation about that and what that means in terms of land use for those areas, and also to make sure that the key thing that's being done there is still farming, right? That'd be my concern.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Mendoza.

Yeah, and the other thing, people are not drinking like they used to. I mean, I don't know if it has anything to do with the presentation, but it would really be a good idea to concentrate on some of the other ways they can generate revenue, which is like your hotels, like your events, and maybe loosen that where it makes it easier for them to have events or what have you. Like I said, I'm in the business, and I know that... that a lot of people are not drinking like they used to. So that's something that we really, really need to look into.

Yeah, well, you couldn't prove it by me. I seem to be drinking more, but. Yeah, I'm a little strange, aren't I? Commissioner Deo?

Yeah, I just wanted to respond briefly to Commissioner Gomez's comment. Those numbers, we had to have numbers in order to be able to do environmental review. So those numbers happened with a good deal, I would say, of arm wrestling. That's how that came about. There were a lot of folks very concerned about preservation of the agricultural land, and there were a lot of folks interested in developing some economic opportunities. While staff probably wouldn't say this, I can because nobody votes for me, that was negotiated. whether it's successfully negotiated or not, I don't know, but that's where we are right now, is those numbers were in the plan for the purpose of being able to do an appropriate and defensible environmental review, and they arrived at through extensive discussion. I'm looking at those who were there for the 2010 general plan, and I expect that they recall this. So if you're looking for a scientific reason for those numbers, I would not expect staff to be able to come up with that.

Commissioner Gomez?

Yeah, and in light of, I think it'd be important then for me to hear from folks who were involved with the association or are still involved in the wine industry as to how relevant this information is now, right?

That's where we're going to run into a problem because I'm not sure there are anyone left in that particular group, honestly. I think most of them sold, moved on. I mean, the ones that I can remember from that who were really pushing it. Madam Secretary.

Yeah, I think, I mean, I think what staff can do is we hear, and that's sort of a kind of an outreach stop that we can do before actually bringing. We, you know, we went through, we worked through the Ag Advisory Committee. I believe we've reached out to Farm Bureau over time as well. We can, I think reaching back out through the Farm Bureau might be a good opportunity. And we do know individuals who work in the industry as well that we could try to just reach out directly to beyond the participation in the Ag Advisory Committee. I believe, and I'm looking at Katie and Sarah, correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe that the Ag Advisory does have a representative from the wine industry as a part of their membership. Sure.

Yes, they do. And when I presented the Agwine corridor implementing ordinance to them, there was actually someone that was on AAC who was there during the original discussions around creating the AWCP.

Well, good. I'm glad you have that input from those folk.

That's wonderful.

All right, fellow commissioners, anything further? No one. All right. Very good. This is just a workshop, so I don't believe we have to do public comment, do we? No. We will just receive this. Job well done. Thank you very much. And consider it received. Thank you.

Really? Why? Because they could ask questions, just post questions.

Okay, all right.

Yeah, all right. We'll do public comment because we're just not sure. I don't think it, Sarah, maybe all we need is you. There seems to be a little confusion over this, so we'll just take public comment and cover ourselves completely, shall we? Is there anyone within the chambers that would like to comment on this particular item on the agenda? Seeing no one, is there anyone online? Madam Clerk?

Yes, we do have a hand raised from Norm Groot.

Oh, there we go. There's the Farm Bureau. Mr. Groot? Good morning. Can you hear me okay?

Hello?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, thank you. Norm group for Monterey County Farm Bureau, noting that the vendors and growers association has disbanded, but Monterey County Farm Bureau is completely engaged on this plan and generally supports the draft plan that staff has presented at this point. But I have due to points of request for clarification. On section 3.3 permitted uses item 3 states that the site shall contain no more than 1500 square feet of kitchen and dining area, including any outdoor dining area. This seems contradictory to having larger events. If you're going to have a wedding reception, for instance, you're going to need a larger dining area for 100 people than just 1500 square feet. So maybe some clarification on that language please. Section 3.4 also in permitted uses under item a restaurant and delicatessen subject to the following criteria located within 5 miles of an urban limit line community area or rural center. Or within 1 mile of an arterial or collector, I just want to make sure that this language includes alone road and that's roads and those areas surrounding those particular roadways. If they are indeed included as an arterial or collector. Finally, we do agree with comments made on the non exclusivity of events. This should not just be for wine tastings or wine related events. These event areas should be allowed to have other types of hostings. And finally, I wanted to note that pesticide regulations are extensively covered in California. law and regulation and they are outside the scope of this plan, they will be duplicative and possibly in conflict with current state law. So I would advise not including any additional information related to pesticide applications. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Mr group. Do we have anyone else? Madam clerk?

No, no more hands up.

Okay, thank you very much. All right, then we have public comment and we have received the items, so let's move along, shall we? Thank you very much, Sarah. We will go to PLN number 250286, the Carmel Reserve LLC. Staff, when you're ready, you may start. Three new ones that didn't get on the list.

Good morning, Commissioner Gutzelman and commissioners. My name is Taylor Price, project planner for PLN 250286 Carmel Reserve LLC, One Grove Inclusionary Housing. Throughout the presentation, you will hear me refer to the subdivision as One Carmel and September Ranch. The project was previously known as September Ranch, but is now known as One Carmel.

Through the chair. Can I get a clarification on what was just handed out and what we are supposed to do with it? Because I don't know if it's available to the public or if it's, I mean, what is that? You got a nice one. There are a whole bunch of plans here that have been handed out that appear all to be different and they're on the dais and I don't know if they're available to the public and I don't know who gave them to me and I want some clarity on all these things.

Well, I want to know why I didn't get anything.

Because you were busy.

So those are the slides that are actually going to be presented. And those are, they are available to the public because they were beyond the presentation from the agent, I believe. But they just wanted to give them to you guys so you guys can see them a little better.

They're really nice.

So please, if you have one, pass and share up and down the dais, and we'll happily put them out on the table once the commissioners are done for the public. But again, there are slides that are also included in the presentation. So it's no new information, just a physical larger version if desired. Copies thereof. Okay, thank you.

All right, let's continue then. Thank you very much for the clarification.

Project is located in Carmel Valley in the Carmel Valley master plan. The parcel does not currently have an address, but is known as parcel F in the one Carmel subdivision. The parcel is zoned high density residential five units per acre with the design control building site and site plan overlays. The project was previously approved as a part of the September Ranch subdivision, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 9th, 2010, as a combined development permit. This includes the use permits and administrative permits for the affordable housing development project and project site. On December 8th, 2020, the Board approved the final map for phase one of the September Ranch subdivision, which included parcel F for the inclusionary housing. On April 28th, 2026, the Board approved the rezone and reclassification of Parcel F to high density residential, five units per acre. The project consists of a design approval to allow construction of 22 inclusionary housing units comprised of two- and three-bedroom single-family residences in a planned unit development and associated site improvements, including 22 carports. The project before the Commission today is only for the design approval for the proposed 22 inclusionary housing units, which include 15 inclusionary and seven deed-restricted workforce housing units. All other portions of the project have been previously approved and were entitled. The project includes a design that incorporates natural stone and wood materials in a 21st century material-based design that incorporates farmhouse elements, which include clean lines and natural materials that mimic the surrounding natural and rural environment. The project is consistent with the surrounding rural Carmel Valley road character. Colors include cement plaster walls, bronze aluminum doors and windows. These colors mirror the washed out rural nature of the Carmel Valley and ensure they will blend in and disappear to the surrounding landscape. Materials include beige Carmel stone veneer, rustic weathered wood, wood board, and corrugated weathered steel. The proposed dwelling units are clustered on the site to minimize their impact on public view sheds from Carmel Valley Road. During staking and flagging, a small portion of the development was visible while driving south on Carmel Valley Road. In the image on the slide, this was a small portion of 1A and 2A. However, this portion of the development will be minimally visible and substantially screened by the site's natural topography and tree cover. The project went before the Carmel Valley LUAC on February 17th, 2026, where the LUAC unanimously recommended support for the project. staff would like to briefly acknowledge the public comment letter provided by the monterey salinas transit district the design approval before the commission today does not pose any new impacts to the mst bus stop in accordance with the approved september ranch subdivision condition of approval number 77 the applicant is required to provide an improved pullout in each direction on the site and on-site signage at the site entrance showing transit schedule and map Finally, staff would like to note that the county and the applicant will continue to work with the Monterey Salinas Transit District to ensure this condition of approval is met and throughout the construction of the project and that MST staff are notified and included as the final map and subdivision for this project move forward. Today's staff recommends that the planning commission consider the certified final revised environmental impact report for the September ranch subdivision project and find the approval of the 22 inclusionary housing units does not warrant a subsequent year pursuant to seek a guideline section 15 1, 6, 2, and 15 1, 6, 4. And. public design hearing to consider approval of a design approval to allow construction of 22 inclusionary housing units comprised of two and three bedroom single-family residences in a planned unit development and associated site improvements including 22 carports. staff would also like to recommend that the commission remove existing condition number 12 and add a new condition number 12 that reads the prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant shall record the final map for phase one and the the condition action needed for resolution. The final map for Phase 1A shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff recommends removing this existing condition as the project before the Commission today is only for the design approval. The final inclusionary housing agreement will be finalized as a part of the final map for Phase 1A, which will go before the Board in summer and fall of 2026. Therefore, staff recommends adding this new condition to ensure that the building permits for this project cannot be issued prior to the recordation of the final map for Phase 1A, thereby ensuring that the inclusionary housing agreement is finalized as a part of the final map. That concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Price.

Commissioner Hartzell.

I just want to reflect back to you what I heard you say to make sure I understand it. This hearing today is about design approval. The map is not part of what we are considering today.

Through the chair, that is correct.

Is there anything further other than design approval that we need to be understanding fully?

Once again, through the chair, this is just for the design approval.

Thank you.

Commissioner Roberts.

have a question about timing of the phases is this may not even be part of this particular approval but is there a timing for when this is required to be built does it have to be built before any homes are built

Through the chair, staff can ask the applicant potentially to speak on that, as well as potentially Mary Israel or Ms. Jensen.

Through the Chair, there is a requirement for inclusionary housing units to be constructed prior to the full build-out of the single-family dwelling market rate component. The actual number of affordable units before the full build-out, I can't specifically speak to, but we can definitely get back to you, Commissioner.

I guess I was just curious if this is part of Phase 1A, in timing of the overall permit, is Phase 1A required

Completed before a second phase is moved that I guess that was what I was wondering the phase one a final map Which is essentially the subdivision of this affordable housing parcel is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors later later this summer The phase one map for the actual market rate homes has already been recorded Okay, Commissioner Shaw

Thank you. What do the other homes, the market rate homes, what are they gonna look like? Is it gonna be consistent with the design of this section?

Hello, through the chair.

Yep, you're there.

Mary Israel, I'm the project planner for the phase two project as well as the phase one build out. Those will be custom homes, so we haven't seen designs yet. Thank you. They will, sorry, through the chair, they will have independent site review and design review.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Israel. Commissioner Diehl?

I didn't particularly have my hand up.

Really? I'm sorry, my apologies. That was just a reflex action. I apologize for that. I'm sorry. Commissioner Monsalves, you have a question?

We have Darby Marshall with his hand up.

Well, I'm not quite there yet. Oh, that Darby, my apologies.

Through the chair Derby Marshall housing program manager to Commissioner Roberts question. So in the executed inclusionary housing and affordable housing development agreement that has already been signed and reported. Half of the inclusionary and workforce units must be issued prior to the 12th market rate building permit being issued. And the balance of the units must be constructed prior to the 41st market rate building permit being issued.

Thank you very much for that information.

That's the official answer, I'm thinking. Yeah. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Darby. All right, so move along then, unless there's any other commissioner questions. Doesn't appear to be. Okay, so this is the time then for the applicant or the applicant's agent, if they would care to make a presentation. Please come forward.

Good morning. thank you Mr. Chair and members of the commission I don' t have slides it will be a presentation although we do have members from the design team available if there on behalf of the applicant. The approval for the underlying 22 units that are associated with this design approval did occur in 2010. As taylor mentioned this is specifically for only the design of the units. The final map was recorded in the conclusion of what has been a long road to get the inclusionary housing component of this project going. And our team has worked very closely with staff over the past two years or so regarding or through different of the design of this project in order to ensure that the end product is one that is both high quality and consistent with the policies of the general plan and the Carmel Valley master plan, as well as the conditions of approval from the underlying subdivision. The LUAC in February unanimously recommended approval of the project. And with respect to the visual impacts that Taylor had mentioned, on the tentative map, some of the units, a number of these inclusionary housing units were going to be actually located much closer to Carmer Valley Road And as a result of the relocation of these units, all of them to parcel F, there's now less visual impact and it better integrates with the surrounding landscape, which is one of the Carmel Valley master plan policies. So this approach would preserve the public view shed, align with the rural character of Carmel Valley, and that's in conjunction with the actual design of the units which reflect the rural architectural theme. Additionally, parcel F has been zoned HDR, so it is ready to accommodate the 22 units that are proposed in this application, and they have been counted towards the county's progress towards its RHNA numbers and the county's housing element and the general plan. just to address some of the comments that I heard also regarding the design and what the market rate units will look like. The market rate units when we went through the approval and the filing of the final map, we were required to prepare design guidelines that would be used by the homeowners association in approving each individual home. those units are held to the same standard under the conditions of approval for maintaining a rural architectural theme. And we've done the same thing with these units. So it will be a similar aesthetic. So I think with that, I will just mention again that we have other members of our design team here available to speak if any other specific questions come up. But we really do appreciate staff's help and the commission's consideration. And we look forward to getting the inclusionary housing units going. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Diehl, do you have questions of the gentleman?

I do. I have a question for Mr. Phillips.

Sorry, you don't get to just walk away from this one. Sorry.

Nice try. My question is that in the discussion and evaluation of the visual impacts, was the need for fire clearance considered? Because we find often that the screening vegetation is critical to a lot of our evaluations and it is important to make sure that we know some of it's gonna get cut down. Because this is, as we all know, a very high fire risk area.

Yes, yeah, I mean, certainly all standards that are required by CAL FIRE, the clearance, the vegetation buffers and all that, those will be maintained.

I understand, but the point is that you can maintain the buffer and once they limb up everything to the FIRE standard, the visual sensitivity changes. I want to know if that was considered in the design because we've had some history where it was not.

Hello, my name is Katie. I'm a project manager for the development. We did not specifically consider the fire clearance, but what we can do, the staking and flagging is still there. I can go out with our civil engineer and confirm the limits based on the edge of the building and how far we would need to clear. My understanding is the existing trees would be outside of the clearance requirement, but we will confirm that, and how would we follow up on that item?

Yeah, it's an ongoing problem. It's just that fire clearance within the footprint where you have to have fire clearance is understood and I assume that was considered. But CAL FIRE is gonna come in and limb up every tree in the vicinity because you want your insurance rates to be reasonable. That means that if any of those trees are being depended upon for screening from Carmel Valley Road, they will do less screening than we anticipate. So that's what I was hoping we could just make sure we had in the equation here for our evaluation of visual sensitivity in this design.

We did not remove any trees to evaluate this as well. The area the parcel this is in is extremely forested, so we would need to do additional investigation on that.

I would just mention also that in looking at the site plan, if you look at that parcel F, the it is true that it's heavily forested but the limbs that you're mentioning that would need to be removed or cut back in order to maintain the buffer and ensure the reduction of fuel would be towards the interior of the parcel not towards Carmel Valley Road so the the of the tree would remain the same from a visual standpoint as you're coming down Carmel Valley Road. The reduction in vegetation and trimming would occur on the interior of that Parcel F. If you look on the backside of Parcel F, there is no, so the north side of Parcel F, any screening from that angle is not, there's no impact from Carmel Valley Road because that's on the north side. So as you come up Carmar Valley Road, we're only talking, I think, about the southern edge of Parcel F, the forested area there. Removal of branches and limbs would take place on the interior of the parcel, and the exterior screening would remain.

Mr. Price, did you have a comment on that?

Through the Chair, if we could share staff right, I think we may have some images that would help.

Yeah, again, I was exploring the discussion that we were gonna depend upon some of those trees to ameliorate the view from Carmel Valley Road.

And if I recall correctly, the CAL FIRE standard for clearing is also the bottom 10 feet of the tree need to be limbed. These trees are much taller, so it would not impact the visual screening.

Do you have a map for us, Mr. Price? Could we please share HDMI?

Thank you. So just to kind of first get general bearings. So the parcel is very heavily forested as you can see kind of in this back area. The trees for screening are mainly in this portion of the parcel. There's a decent amount of space here that is grasslands.

And I will now move to

Let me zoom out a little bit.

So during the, when the planner was visiting the site, as you can see here, so this is kind of a view from across the streets. You can see the tiny little portion up there zoomed in. This is the portion of the site that was visible. So these trees are on the lower slope and they're significantly higher. further from the parcel. These trees are not proposed for removal or for cutting as they're farther from the sites. And once again, just to go back to the site map, the trees that are being removed and trimmed are all in this area where you can see the parcel is very heavily forested in here.

Does that help, Commissioner Diehl? It does. I guess my first question is that, our first request is that we continue to coordinate those two considerations with design because we have historically been caught out by that. Secondly, I would say fire clearance requirements include fire clearance around roads. So I wanna make sure that the access road fire clearance is not gonna impact the visual of the project as this map clearly shows. at least to me, the majority of the project is in the canyon, you're not gonna see it anyway. And what happens back up there with those trees will not affect the design or the visual, in my view, from Carmel Valley Road. For the people there, it will, unless they go crazy and go up the slope. But they're saying things like 100 feet on a slope, depending on the amount of slope. People are taking that as a mission to go and make it shall we say mineral soil further than I would prefer because CAL FIRE requirements are the floor not the ceiling. I don't believe that's the case here but I want to make sure that going forward we do coordinate those two considerations because we continually get caught out saying that the road had to be made here we had to clear around the road we took out these trees we were depending on them for screening now we don't have the trees now we're seeing the project and the public goes berserk. So that's basically, I think this probably given that the tree cover, you're looking at the crowns of trees that are lower probably is fine for the structures. The impact of the road is also still a visual impact. So I just want to make sure we look at that.

Sorry. That's okay. We got it covered. Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. How many parking spaces do each of these two and three bedroom homes have?

Through the chair, if you could give me one second, I will pull that up. So through the chair, the project is required to have 22 covered parking spaces, which it does. The project has a total of 54 spaces, which exceeds the required 50.5. And those are also inclusive of the guest spaces as well.

Yes, Commissioner Tsao.

Thank you, so I believe I counted, there's like maybe like six or seven guest spaces, so each people can park in front of their own home, correct? Okay, I'm seeing they're nodding in the back, thank you.

Okay, anyone else? Questions, comments, questions of presenter? All right, thank you very much. We're gonna move along then to public comment. Is there anyone here in the chambers that would like to speak to this item? If there is, please come forward. I see no one. Madam Clerk, do you have anybody online like to talk to us?

We have no additional emails and no hand raised.

Okay, very good, thank you. It's time for an applicant rebuttal. I'm not sure, sir, did you hear anything that you'd like to address? Clear up, you're good for now, huh? Very good. Staff, anything? Oh, I'm sorry. Please, this is your turn if you'd like to talk to us.

I was instructed since I handed out the posters to you all that we should put them on the screen so the public can see them, even though they are in the packet.

They never came up.

They are in the packet, but would you mind bringing the design presentation up?

Through the chair, if we could please share HDMI, right?

I'll just go through two or three of them. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm Amrita Tehillani. I am one of the project managers for the inclusionary housing. Okay. So just to show the overall, which is one of the posters that you saw. So this is what the overall development looks like. And those different pictures that you see are the different colors represent the different layouts that we have. So there's four different layouts, two different ones for the three bedroom and two different layouts for the two bedrooms, two bedrooms and the three bedrooms.

Okay.

So these are the main materials and we've tried to mix it up a little bit so that they all don't look cookie cutter when you're there. So you can see that we have the stone and the wood slats on some and then we have kind of the dry stucco and stone on others so that we have like kind of a varied building aesthetics. And this is what you're gonna see on one of the sides. This is actually, if I look at the view, yeah, the view from there. So that's one side. And these are the other two bedrooms. I think this is 1A, is this 1A and 2A? Yeah, and that's a picture of the carport that you can see. So that's also nice, because it's metal, fire resistant. So each unit will have a carport and be able to park also.

Through the Chair? Yes, please. Can we go back to that last screen? Fire clearance. You're showing pictures of things with trees very close to them.

I know, I don't think this is, remind me, Ching, this is just a rendering. So it's not actual, so it's just a pretty rendering. Okay, let's make it clear that that doesn't represent. That does not represent what it would be like. I think we can go, I think we went through all of those. And then if we just go to the site map quickly, I'll just point out one thing that are towards the end. Yeah, that's good. That one you have up screen. So just a couple of things we didn't mention. You can actually see two parks at either end. And one is focused on age two to five, which is the one on that north side. And the one that's closer to the entrance is for the, I think it's five through 12, five through 10 park, five through eight park. So the older kids park. So it's gonna be nice. And we plan to have some trails and benches as well. So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks nice. Commissioner Shaw. Oh, do you have questions for this lady?

I do. Now that she mentioned the parks, do any of these units have any kind of fenced-in area if they have children, which it seems like you're planning for, or pets, or are we just dependent on these communal parks?

Right now, we just have the communal parks that we are looking into, but I think we're working on that in terms of the CC&Rs and how to set expectations for fencing for those reasons. but they're not in there right now because they'd be up to the individual owners.

One more question. And I don't know if this would be covered in the design approval of the street. Will you be having any kind of calming measures on that street to help slow traffic down?

On this street? Yes. I think it's a private, I mean, I don't think it's an issue.

It's a private driveway, so I don't think there's going to be that much traffic.

Just that one road going up, it's still in the private development.

Okay. I mean, I just say that because I have neighbors, and they're wonderful neighbors, and they still drive like maniacs sometimes. So it would be just something that was on my mind. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Hartzell?

I don't see a fire mitigation plan or a landscape management plan in the conditions. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to place them. Just asking staff, is that an appropriate thing to do?

Through the chair, those will be a part of the final map approval, and there is a fire management plan with the September Ranch subdivision that was already approved.

Same with landscape?

Yes.

Great. Then I would just echo Commissioner Diehl's desire to make sure those are coordinated in this project and in projects moving forward. It is one of the issues that we're running into, especially in Carmel Valley. So we just want to make sure that we're thinking it through all the way.

Noted.

Okay.

The other thing I just wanted to mention is I took a look, I looked for the staking and flagging and was really had a hard time seeing it because when you're driving by you're really more looking at all of the equipment that's right by the road and just asking that area right by the road that's not part of this project, is that going to be full of buildings and houses? What is that?

So are you referring to the new entrance?

I wasn't part of the original hearing so I'm a little bit in the dark about the whole project but I'm just talking about there's like roads and water tanks and big stuff by the road that's much easier to see. I'm just wondering what that's going to be.

So we do have an entrance. There's a security fence, some wood rail fence along the frontage, landscaping that will start. There was a design approval, I think, two years ago for that. So that project, it will just be landscaping, fencing. The construction equipment you're seeing, the water tank you're seeing, that's all temporary.

Mm-hmm.

There will be no homes in that lower area. There is a future equestrian center at some point. We do have that approved as part of the overall development. So we'll have a separate design approval for the equestrian center when we're ready. But for now, in that area, just planned is landscaping and the security gatehouse security fence.

All things that might draw the eye away from the inclusionary house. Exactly, yeah.

Understood.

Thanks.

Okay, Commissioner Diehl. Yeah, I just, this is a request to staff that design approval should be how it looks. And so I need that landscaping plan and fire control plan where it might impact how it looks.

Thanks. Okay. Ladies, thank you. I don't believe there's any other questions for you. Thank you very much for your time. All right, Mr. Price, is there anything that you saw that you, or heard, I'm sorry, that you'd like to reply?

Through the chair, nothing to add.

Okay, very good. All right, commissioners, what do we think? Commissioner Deal, do you have thoughts?

I can also move.

Whoever gets their microphone on first.

I was trying to respond to what Commissioner Shah was trying to correct me. I was doing something wrong. I'm not sure what it was.

Just ignore, that's what I do.

I would be happy to move staff's approval of the inclusionary housing because I'm thrilled to have it. And my comment would be how soon can we have it? Because I would really like to see this after all these years happen.

sooner rather than later. Commissioner Hartzell?

I second.

All right, very good.

Noting I second with the staff changes on condition 12.

Okay.

Agreed.

Commissioner Gomez?

I just wanted to comment. I think this is the kind of project that I like to see throughout Monterey County. Yeah. This is for an affordable housing project. It's an incredibly great project.

All right, very good. Madam Clerk, then we'll need a roll call vote. We have a motion by Commissioner Diehl and seconded by Commissioner Hartzell.

Commissioner Getzelman?

Yes.

Commissioner Roberts?

Aye.

Commissioner Work?

Yes.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Yes.

Commissioner Hartzell? Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez?

Yes.

Commissioner Gomez?

Yes.

Commissioner Monsalve? Yes. Commissioner Shaw? Yes. Commissioner Diehl?

Yes.

Chair, motion carries.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, do you want to open this can of worms? No. Very good. All right. We're going to take a quick break for about five, ten minutes. We're gonna get started in a few minutes as soon as we get everybody back up here, so bear with us everybody.

So we need to request...

All right, thank you everyone for your patience. We're all back. We have one change in the agenda. We're going to switch the two items, the last two remaining items. We're going to take the last item now, item number six, and we'll work on that one first. We have then PLN number 230053. It's the Tedford Jeffrey Project. I guess it must be Jeffrey and Donna Tedford, probably. Staff, when you're ready, please begin.

Good morning, Chair Goetzelman, planning commissioners, and members of the days. I'm Mary Israel. I'm presenting the Tedford Project. That is PLN 220053. The Tedford project site is in the upper area of an approximately five acre parcel on Highway 1 in the northern end of the Big Sur Coast land use plan area. The parcel is zoned watershed scenic conservation, residential district, 40 acres per unit with a design control overlay. The project is a major remodel of an existing dwelling such that it will be more than double in size. The project involves demolitions and additions that infill the development footprint of the house and outbuildings. The remodel and associated development is estimated to require 130 cubic yards of cut and 105 cubic yards of fill. The project is within the critical view shed area of Big Sur and is within 750 feet of known archeological resources. A phase one archeological report was prepared for the project that concluded that no resources would be disturbed. The existing house was built in 1998 and is of a rustic architectural design that will be fully updated. On another section of the lot, there is development on slopes in excess of 30% and within 100 feet of environmentally sensitive habitat area or ESHA that was done without benefit of permit. This slide shows existing conditions. The house's west elevation is now shown. There is also patio, driveway, fence, and gate, and a barn and minor accessory structures on site. There is extensive ground cover of non-native succulents, some disturbed coastal scrub, cypress and pine trees, and a drainage control system and golf putting green. On the left side of this slide, I show an aerial image of the project site and surroundings. Highway one is to the west, and now there is a red box around the main dwelling. Now there is a pink box around the barn on the property. This yellow-orange arrow indicates the approximate point on Highway 1 where a passerby traveling either south or northbound at posted speeds would glimpse the main dwelling's right half of facade for a second or so, looking up the ravine. The view from the northbound Highway 1 at this location is shown now on the right side of the slide. And there is now a red box around the existing facade with staking and flagging visible just above the first, the front roof line. Further south on Highway 1, there is a less than second view, time-wise a second view of the south side of the existing roof line when traveling northbound. The view from that location is now shown on the right side of the slide. There is now a yellow box around the existing southern elevation with staking and flagging in place. It is not distinctive from this location. Other angles were assessed along Highway 1 and the project was not visible from them. Oh, I wanted to continue talking about it with this slide on, excuse me. The property is subject to critical viewshed policies of the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan. I'll call that the LUP. The LUP section directs staff to complete an objective determination of the visibility of proposed development following policies in Section 3.2.3.B and reviewing with criteria from the Coastal Implementation Plan. Policy 3.2.3 allows replacement or enlargement of existing structures within the critical view shed to be permitted on the original location of the site, provided that no other less visible portion of the site is acceptable to the property owner, and provided that replacement or enlargement does not increase the visibility of the structure and that the reconstruction and additions that are proposed demonstrate an equivalent or reduced impact to the viewshed. Staff found the impact to critical viewshed predicted by the staking and flagging to be minimal to non-existent because the actual height of the residence will be the same as the existing residence, and the new structural bulk was carefully redesigned to avoid new visual impacts in the critical view shed. The Big Sur Land Use Advisory Committee made a site visit on December 9th, 2025 with staff and saw the staking and flagging that was previously proposed. They recommended redesign of the previous proposal and for more natural exterior colors. The meeting was continued to late May of this year. The architect presented updated plans, colors, and materials, and the LUAC recommended the Planning Commission approve the current design. Projects are to be recited or redesigned as needed to conform with the critical viewshed policies. So between that December 2025 site inspection and the May 2026 site inspection by staff, the owner redesigned the project to address the potential to conflict with the critical viewshed policies that had been identified. Here are proposed north and east elevations. The red lines show how the project had been designed prior to application completeness. And as you can see, bulk was moved around and the height was reduced. So we're now looking at the north and east elevations. Here are the south and west elevations. Generally, the west elevation would be the one toward Highway 1. The dwelling's facade would be approximately 640 feet from the western property line. It is evident the height and bulk on the left side of the west elevation has been removed. And you can see that it's transferred to the backside of the south elevation, which is obscured from view. Colors and materials are beige hardy siding, brown painted cedar trim, and beige and brown stone veneer accents. Windows and doors would be dark bronze. The residences inside the gated community of the Victorine Ranch subdivision and the neighborhood character is eclectic. Here are a couple of pictures staff took of neighboring homes. These photos are taken from the private road at an earlier site visit. The proposed project conforms to neighborhood character. So on to the, going back in time to winter 2022, the owner responded to erosion and drainage hazards by having approximately 7,640 square feet of stabilization done. This included 5,140 square feet of stone-lined drainage, terraces and retaining walls installed on natural and manmade slopes greater than 30%. A geotechnical analysis recommended the stabilization materials be retained to protect the area from erosion during storm events. These recommendations conform with the Big Sur Coast LUP hazards policies. So the area of this drainage control system is now shown in red here. with this red arrow. The lower end of the stabilized area includes a large putting green and the swale of the drainage system is landscaped with invasive non-native pride of Madeira and non-native succulents. The LUP recommends county and residents preserve natural rugged Big Sur environment and not install golf or invasive plants. So staff recommends that this 2,500 square foot gulf putting green be removed, the land be recontoured to support the drainage control, and the site be planted with native plants appropriate for the location. The area is shown in bright green on this slide. Much of the area around the drainage control system is now bare ground or highly disturbed and staff recommend the approximately 12,500 square foot area to be cleared of invasive non-native plants and native coastal scrub plants be planted following a qualified biologist's restoration plan. The whole drainage control system and the putting green are within 100 feet of known Esha on a neighboring parcel. A biological report that's attached to the staff report concluded that although there is Esha on the next parcel to the north, there were no impacts to Esha for the drainage control and associated development. The biologist recommended the many invasive non-native plants be removed. So a native tree fell down in the general area around the same time in those storm events and was later removed. The owner is willing to replant it. The replanting will help with hillside stabilization and will also reduce visibility issues with the existing barn and a neighboring structure behind the existing barn. This is approximately where the previous tree was and this location would be anticipated for the new tree location. The tree is included as part of condition number four, restoration with natural materials. Finally, there is a scenic easement for vegetation and slopes in place on the parcel from the subdivision's final map. The approximately upper extent area, the actual upper extent area is now shown in this blue line. And pursuant to LUP ESHA policies, condition number five requires the existing scenic easement be expanded to encompass the restored native vegetation areas below the widest part of the drainage system. So this is a rough sketch of what that would be. That would be an area that would be estimated with help from the restoration biologist after restoration. So, or after the restoration plan is delivered to staff. So thus, as conditioned, including this 15,000 square feet of restoration to previous site condition and additional preservation, the after the fact development of 5,140 square feet on slopes can be supported. The residential use of the parcel shall be subordinate to the resources of the site in keeping with the purpose of watershed and scenic conservation residential district and the after the fact development is brought into conformance with the LUP. So I just wanna highlight that this restoration requirement has more to do with the after the fact development in that area near Esha and on slopes than it does with the remodel. So therefore staff recommends the planning commission find the project categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to sections 15301 for existing facilities, 15302 demolition and rebuild and 15333 small restoration projects. Those come from the CEQA guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the combined development permit and including the design approval to allow major remodel resulting in a 7,071 square foot dwelling. 189 square foot storage shed, 385 square foot loggia, 581 square feet of terrace and 112 square feet covered entry and associated site improvements with the four associated development permits. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

Excuse me. I forgot to turn that on. Very good. Thank you, Ms. Israel. I appreciate that. Commissioner Diehl, this is when we're going to have questions for staff. Commissioner Diehl, do you have questions?

A couple of questions. First, I was a little confused because there was a good deal of discussion of comparing the previously proposed design with the current design, which I appreciate has reduced its potential impacts to the visual character. But I'm not sure I caught the comparison to the existing condition. Is there a screen there, a comparison that shows what you can see visually now and what the current proposal would do?

Through the chair, that is why staff included the photographic exhibit from the site visit and there's some discussion of it in the resolution.

Can you show those slides again for me just because I'm old and I need to be reminded? Sure. Thank you. Okay, so the view of the project is as it is currently built, right? So not the view of the project that's proposed, it's the view of the site currently?

Correct, this photograph A includes the staking and flagging, and a little bit of the flagging can be seen above the roofline of the existing structure. And the photographs I was explaining that we would refer to are the exhibit to the staff report. which I could also bring up.

If you're referring to a photograph, I'm a visual person, so it really is helpful.

So this is the view as shown with the letter A is the closest. It's just down the ravine. It's a little over 650 feet away.

Okay, let me just stop you for a second there, and I'll try to give you the key to where we're going so we don't have to spend too much time. The standard for review in the Big Sur Land Use Plan is that structures should not be visible from Highway 1 or any designated viewing area. And it should be considered in terms of normal unended vision in any direction for any amount of time in any season. So it's not a question of how long. The discussion of how long it's visible for wouldn't be determinant in this case. So the standard that I'm looking for, and I believe it's covered here, but I just want to make sure and I want to have a good clear photographic record because this is all about visuals. Is this going to make it better or worse? Because we're supposed to not make it worse, even if it's trivial.

Thank you. Through the chair, this will not make it worse. This will be equivalent. equivalent in height and bulk in the view shed for any length of time when someone is on Highway 1.

Well, it looks to me as if the staking and flagging shows that it's going to be taller. I mean, even though it's not very much. And this is more about Big Sur in general, I think, than this project. But it's important to clarify the standard of review that we're going to use for everybody. So run me through your reasoning about how that is not additional visibility.

The reasoning through the chair, the reasoning of staff is that on site, this is a very difficult angle to even catch this. It's peeking through the trees at about 45 degrees up at about like over 650 feet away. So even catching a view of the existing dwelling was difficult. then there is a little bit of staking and flagging above it. There was significantly more staking and flagging above it in the design that was on a table for decision at completeness.

But that's the past. We don't have to talk about that except to appreciate the change.

Well, the reason that I bring that up is because redesign is required when there's any potential that's part of the policies around critical viewshed.

Yeah, but redesigned to the standard, not just redesigned for the exercise. So I'm looking at the standard here. So... My concern here is not, again, so much with this project. It's with the notion that somebody would ask for something that is non-compliant and then somewhat reduce it, and then it's okay because it's better than the one they didn't get. It's not very clear, but I think maybe you can understand what I'm saying. I don't, and again, it's hard to see is not the same as you can't see it. The standard is you can't see it. So again, Victorine Ranch is what it is. It's got a bunch of these glimpses here and there over the years. I understand that. I understand that it might not be something you'd see from the car, but at any speed means pedestrians, means bicycles, means you could stand there and look. Can't use your binoculars, that's important to remember. So the reasoning here for staff is critical to me. I wanna understand that staff is not falling victim to the thought that because it was worse and they made it better, it's okay even though the standard is not completely adhered to.

Through the Chair, no. Staff is adhering strictly to the critical viewshed policies for the proposed project, and staff found that it was equivalent impact, that it was not worse visual impact than what is existing.

And that was determined subjectively? Is it's less visible because there's less space if you take these two options and add them together and one's better and one's worse?

No, it's through the chair, it's an objective estimate based on the site visit in May of this year, as standing at the side of the road on both sides of the road and looking up the road up the 45 degree angle over 650 feet away, catching a glimpse of this house.

Thank you. All righty, Commissioner Hartzell.

If that's the case, is it possible to update the findings that are so focused on the driver's side or description of looking at it from a car so that we can ensure that we're describing this adherence to the policy through the language of the Big Sur Land Use Plan?

Through the chair certainly we could update that and remove driving posted speeds and just.

Nail it.

Nail it.

Thank you.

Cool. Commissioner Roberts.

I just wanted to compliment staff on their discussion in the findings and evidence about the 30% slope development because I was concerned about that and concerned that we were, after the fact, approving something we may not have approved to begin with. However, the way it's written and the way it's been presented, it's very clear that it was non-structured development and that we now, my concern was that we have, non-independent engineer telling us that it was required, but based on what has been presented to us, it seems like this would have been approved to begin with, and so I appreciate that very detailed discussion.

Thank you. Anyone else? Nope, no more commissioners. Alrighty then, the applicant or the applicant's agent care to address the group, the board, the commission?

Good morning, commissioners, planning staff, June Saliano. I'm the architect for the pro-Stedford residents. First of all, I want to thank Mary for working with us for almost a year on this project and for her guidance. I just want to answer a few questions that was asked earlier. Commissioner Deal's question about the critical view shed. Mary, do you mind putting up that picture where we stood on the road and endangered our lives trying to get to that point? That map to the left, that aerial map to the left, or aerial shot, is a curving road. There's no parking in that area. Mary and I had to walk from, if you see that upper, picture on the left side, that's the parking area. She and I have to walk down very dangerous Highway 1 just to take this picture. So as far as someone driving or riding in a car, I don't think you'll see this. The only reason we saw it is because we put our lives at risk to stand there and make sure we can take these pictures. so that's that and then with regards to height uh we redesigned the project to match the existing building heights so and obviously as mary presented earlier we push back away from the potential critical viewshed area and push it back towards the property and to the south so we don't have any question of any critical viewshed uh Regarding the 30% slope, it's unfortunate that this happened. Owners didn't know what they were doing then, that's before our time, but he accepted it and he's willing to abide with our approval conditions in regards to development at 30% slope. Should this project be approved, We have reviewed the staff report and approval conditions and we do concur with them. I just have a request regarding condition five, easements and scenic conservation, that it be submitted prior to final instead of prior to issuance of building and grading permits. This is consistent with what we have done with the county in past projects where we still, the county still hold fine loan in a project, but it takes time to prepare these easements. Thank you, and any further questions, I'm here to answer.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Diel has a question for you, sir.

Thank you. Did I hear you say that the current project proposed is the same height as the existing project? Yes. So that would cover all of the discussion of critical viewshed in and of itself. There's no portion of it that would not be correct about?

Yes, because that's part of the redesign.

What's the flagging and staking showing?

that same height of the existing buildings.

So we see some of it, but it's not higher?

Yes.

But it would be correct to just keep repeating this because there's a whole big finding here that's really problematic that could be replaced by the current proposal is the same height as the previous proposal. That would... No. To solve my issues. The previous proposal. Not the previous proposal. I mean, forget the previous, but I'm talking about the existing structure.

Yes.

Yeah, so thank you. That's very helpful. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. We're good? Okay, very good. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it. All right, let's move along then to public comment. Is there anyone else in the chambers that would like to share their thoughts with us? Seeing no one, anyone online, Madam Clerk?

We have no emails and no hands raised.

All right, very good. Then there was no comment, so I don't think the applicant has any rebuttal. I wouldn't think so. Staff, did you hear anything that you would like? Oh, I know, the condition, was that acceptable? I mean, the change in the condition? that the applicant spoke of?

The change in the condition is acceptable, but for just the stage at which they present the recorded deed. The way that the condition is currently written, it says prior to grading or construction permit issuance, each step has to occur, but staff does anticipate we would get a draft plat and legal description of the new easement area prior to issuance of those permits. The step that we would allow to come at final would be when it gets recorded. And that is very much how we operate at this point. And we're updating that condition for across the board. So it would be the third step of that condition.

Sir, would that be acceptable?

Yes.

Okay, very good. We have that worked out. All right, everybody, then let's bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Fellow Commissioners, your thoughts? Commissioner Hartzell.

Just wanting to clarify with staff, this is accurate that the proposed structure that's before us today is not any taller than the existing structure?

To the Chair, that is correct. The staking and flagging does look like it's above it because of the angle up that 45-degree hill. But the actual structure will be the same height as existing.

Commissioner Diehl?

Okay, I would be much more comfortable with a critical viewshed determination that says that, and that it would be no more visible than the existing structure, removes all discussions in here of the place you took the, how fast they were going, where you were standing, because I'm sorry to report, but people do hike along Highway 1. They do ride their bicycles along Highway 1. We have to be prepared for that. So all that discussion about anything that quantifies the view, I would like out if we could do that. I'm comfortable that the actual project isn't going to degrade the visual situation from the existing structure. That's what I would like it to say. And all of the discussion of the redesign kind of muddies that water. And it is important to say we appreciate that, but it's not really important in the findings of this project with respect to its visual impact. It is what it is now. So I'm not sure what staff would like to do, but I couldn't support it until we corrected the findings and evidence to better reflect what I've just said.

Okay. Do you need a few minutes, Mary, to massage that? Would you like about five?

Chair, are you asking to see live edits? Because staff could accommodate this request independently after the hearing.

Oh, okay. I would like to see the edits because of the existing condition.

Okay. Let's give it five minutes then, everybody, and we'll get back to this.

Through the chair, at least outline the approach.

Okay. Okay. Let's find a seat and we'll move along. All right, just for the record, you know what? We probably should take a roll call just to be sure that everybody's back and that we can do this officially. Madam Clerk, would you mind doing a roll call for us, please? Yes, of course.

Commissioner Getzelman?

Here.

Commissioner Roberts?

Here.

Commissioner Work?

Here.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Here.

Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzalez?

Present.

Commissioner Gomez?

Yes, I'm here.

Commissioner Monsalve?

Here.

Commissioner Shaw? Here. Commissioner Diehl? Here. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. And now that we've taken our little brief little break, Ms. Israel, do you have a rewrite for the group?

Yes, Chair. Could I please have staff write through HDMI?

Nope.

Thank you for your patience. A little technical difficulty with the HDMI, but I'm now sharing via Zoom.

There we go.

So this is the finding number two, critical viewshed and design. Staff has... proposed edit including removing the discussion of first proposal to second proposal in evidence A, and just stating succinctly the proposed design is substantially behind the existing roofline, the proposed maximum height is the same as the existing, consistent with the key policies. And then in the critical viewshed determination section, I removed the description for traveling and just ended the sentence, the second sentence at Ravine. Can we take off the one in front of it too?

There is minimal.

Thank you.

Okay, so everything now reads like it's a static view and I'm there as a pedestrian or something else, okay. So the existing residence sited approximately 650 feet away from property line closest to Highway 1 and is visible from Highway 1 when directly alongside the ravine. It took out everything talking about modifications and went straight to neither the existing structure nor the staking and flagging create a silhouette against the sky. The proposed height is the same as the existing project height and due to two-story additions behind the one-story existing dwelling, the staking and flagging of the remodeled enlarged residence was visible and extends above the existing roof line. removing everything having to do with travel times. And that ends the sentence. And then I moved down a sentence from the previous paragraph, the existing driveways are not visible due to the topography. Mr. Chair, back up.

Yes, please.

I know writing by committee is really a pain. The staking and flagging of the remodeled enlarged residence was visible and extends above the existing roof line. What does that mean?

As shown in the visual resources photographs, you can see a little bit of the flag above the roof line because the front roof line is one story. They're proposing a two story addition behind it. So you do see a little bit of the flag from that 45 degree angle.

So if that's the case, then the rest of this wouldn't be true.

My understanding was that the flag is there in the front, but the actual structure was proposed for the back of the house. Is that accurate?

The staking and flagging is accurate to the proposal, which as redesigned is behind the Yeah, there's a flagging for the front remodel, and there's also flagging on the rear two-story remodel through the chair.

Yes.

So I think I could, through the chair, I could say is approximately, the proposed height is the same as the project height. Maybe what I need to say is approximately the same.

Mr. Chair? Yes. I have a question. I'm actually more confused now because if the proposed height is the same, but there's a two-story addition, the two-story addition is what I'm confused by because that seems like it's more higher than...

Through the chair. When you look at the thing, is it moved forward on the lot though, right? So they have a two-story home. It looks like the flaking and stagging is moved forward. So it's the same height, but it's moved forward. So then therefore it looks, is that what I'm seeing?

There are, through the chair, there are sections of the existing residence that are two story and it has a peaked roof. So the front remodel would be one story. The rear part of the remodel is two story. Staking and flagging is slightly visible above the existing. We're going from a peaked roof to a flat roof. But the overall maximum height is the same.

And the staking and flagging shown in the photos, is that where the boundary of the new construction would be?

Through the Chair, yes, it is.

Yeah, still confused. Commissioner Deal, are you any more, are you any clearer on this, any more clear?

I'm trying to under. Yeah, I know. I'm trying to understand. Bottom line, this statement says that it's more visible, the way this sentence that we're working on right now. And so if that is the case, then everything else we're saying isn't true. So that's what I'm struggling with.

Yes, maybe the applicant's agent can help us.

I think that sentence, the stake in the flying of the remodel in large residents was visible and extensive of the existing roof line. I agree with Commissioner Adil. The fact that we're saying we're designing to match the existing roof line, I think that last phrase should be removed. With regards to the two storey sections, in the photo that you saw earlier, it's the south side staking that you see. I'm not sure, Mary, if we see the one in the back. The one we saw is on the right side, which is the south side, correct? The building height doesn't change. It's the angle of inclination that makes it look taller. But if you measure it from a datum line to a datum line, it's exactly the same.

can i ask a question is is it true that the bulk and mass is bigger is that also what you're trying to describe in the that the roof line that the height is the same but the bulk and mass of the front of the project is something that you might see visually the right side addition yes

The left side, where Mary described a single story, that whole mass has been removed. It's put in the back in the same line as the existing two-story residence. So imagine, I'm sorry, a roof like this. We're doing it this way. Am I making sense?

It sort of makes sense, except that... I think what county staff is struggling with is that they know that the visual is different than what it currently exists. And we're trying to write it in a way that says it's the same. And I think that that's where my brain can't unwind.

That's why I suggested that sentence should just basically say the stake and the flagging will match the height of the existing residence.

Well, that may be true, but I think we're trying to show that there is a difference in what is happening to the visual perception.

I don't know, is this like religion where you just have to accept it on faith?

Aren't you funny?

Pardon?

Aren't you funny?

I thought I was, yes, thank you.

I think through the chair. I think we're better, if we go back up there, Ms. Israel, I think this is better, but I think we need a modifier for the part we're keeping there that says the staking and flagging of the remodeled enlarged residence was visible and extends above the existing roof line, but does not, for some reason, maybe, But is balanced by reduced visual mass or is balanced and I don't know what the wording should be But we need a modifier on that to explain why that isn't an increase But the overall visual impact is not increased or something maybe the overall overall is a word that is pretty mushy, but But the overall visual impact is not increased or something like that. I don't know, I'm happier with that, but just that modifying we need.

I think we wanna avoid going into details there.

But the overall visual impact is not increased, because we gotta get to that point at the end if we believe it to be true, and I think I do. You think you convinced me about that, period. Does that, am I reading this to make a whole sentence? I think it does.

Okay, are we good then? Yeah. Okay, we gotta move along here, because we're getting behind ourselves. We're getting behind ourselves, we're getting behind. Yeah, yeah. Madam Secretary, do we have a motion? No, we're looking at the staff thing. Yeah, I know, but I thought we were interrupted by that.

Through the Chair, the last of the edits, we didn't get past the upper section, so just continuing. So with modifications as discussed here, proposed height is approximately the same as the existing project height. The staking and flagging of the remodeled enlarged residence was visible and extends slightly above the existing roofline, but the visual impact has not increased. The existing driveways are not visible due to the topography. Everything else is deleted down to existing sentences as discussed below. Revised colors further subordinate the remodeled main dwelling to natural environment. And then, and overall, Just to close out the section, the C evidence, the project is consistent with LUP policy 3.2.3 , which governs replacement and enlargement of existing structures. I made no changes to the CIP criteria. And actually that is the appropriate place to keep this comparison between the original design and the redesign, because that's the section that specifically says, if there's any possibility that there would be an impact in the view shed, that it must be redesigned for a reduction. So with that, hopefully through the Chair, this is acceptable for decision. Hopefully. Is that acceptable, Commissioner Deal?

It is to me, yes. Oh, great. I much appreciate it.

Oh, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Israel, and thank you, Commissioner Diehl. Everyone else, good? Oh, yes, Commissioner Hartzell.

Was that a motion, Commissioner Diehl? It could be. Could be. I'm willing to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation as edited.

I would like to second it with thanks to the LUAC in particular, as well as staff and to the applicant for the redesign.

And yes. And speaking of that, sir, are you okay with the conditions as we modified them? You okay with everything that went on here?

Yes, Chair.

Okay, very good. Thank you. All right, let's vote then. Let's have a roll call vote. The motion was made by Commissioner Hartzell and seconded by Commissioner Diehl to approve the project as noted with changes. Madam Clerk.

Commissioner Getzelman?

Yes.

Commissioner Roberts? Yes. Commissioner Work?

Yes.

Commissioner Mendoza? Yes. Commissioner Hartzell? Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez?

Yes.

Commissioner Gomez?

Yes.

Commissioner Monsalve? Yes. Commissioner Shaw?

Yes.

Commissioner Diehl?

Yes.

Chair, motion carries.

Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone, and thank you, Ms. Israel, for working so hard on that one to get through it. Thank you very much. All right, the next item on the agenda is the item we moved, which is item number five, which is PLN number 250292, the Signal Hill LLP. And when staff is ready. Oh.

Hello. Hi. If I may, through the chair. So, state law is changing. Staff is continuing to evolve our understanding and applicability with state law as it relates to many provisions of housing. For this item today, which is... PLN 250292 signal hill consideration of a 798 square foot accessory dwelling unit and other considerations. Normally this type of project would come to a hearing and pursuant to our CODE CHAPTER 20.76 IF REQUESTED AS WAS IN THIS CASE BUT AFTER CONSULTATION WITH COUNTY COUNCIL AND FURTHER REVIEW OF APPLICABLE STATE LAW IN PARTICULAR GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6639 SORRY staff has determined that adus are different the legislature appears to have intended them to be staff level decisions like non like we handle them in non coastal areas and the only difference is staff has to consider coastal act issues with coastal adus so to be conservative and ensure that we're not running afoul of state law staff wishes to pull the item and instead refer it to the chief I will note that when items go before the chief, there is notice that goes out and opportunity for public comment and input through that process that the chief does take into consideration, but it is therefore still at a staff level determination as appears to be the clear intention of state law.

Okay, question? Certainly.

Is it appealable? So it is clearly not appealable to California Coastal Commission and I will let County Council take that question with regards to local appealability.

I hate to say this, but it's not clear. We're still sort of studying it. The practical impact of the law is that it may not be based on our code. There is still a 60-day approval or denial requirement, even for the coastal ADUs, and as a practical matter, that makes the timing pretty difficult. It's also the case that the statute says that there cannot be a required requirement uh you cannot require a public hearing and so it's something that we're studying as to whether an appeal would effectively compel a public hearing because at least under our code um public hearings are required for most appeals if not all so Preliminarily, it does not look like it would be, based on my reading of the law, but we want to take a little more time and verify that before drawing a firm conclusion. But as a practical matter, it looks like it will be approved if the 60-day timeline isn't met as a matter of law. So at least for this one, the timing would be pretty difficult.

Does that answer your question, Commissioner Diehl?

It answers a question that we don't know. In this particular situation, it just reminds me that the people involved in this project on all sides have been happy to go to court. And so I'm happy to have staff careful about the steps that we take in processing it.

I just was curious about the rest. All right, very good. Do we need a motion to, you guys pulled it, that was it. Do we have, no, go ahead, please. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. Nothing, just gone.

No, there's no item, staff is pulling it.

And we don't have anything to talk about then. What are all these nice ladies doing here then? ever waiting for next steps.

Just in case something happens. That's wonderful.

All right, well, that was the last item on the agenda, I believe, unless we have a staff report. Yeah, department report, I'm sorry.

Yeah, we do have just a very brief department report. And if you will, let me just pull my notes up, cause we're a couple of pages past them. very short I the I had made announcements at the prior at the prior commission meeting that still hold so I don't need to repeat any of those I did however want to alert the follow-up with this commission that yesterday the first appeal of a vacate commercial vacation rental approval from the ZA was heard by the board of supervisors and that item was continued until August 18th so that appeal will be heard again as a continuance on August 18th. In general staff was recommending a denial of the appeal as deeming the ZAs the zoning administrator's approval with the condition, because it's in Pebble Beach and there are CC&Rs and private road issues there, but according to our code, the appropriate requirement is to put a condition on that says resolve that issue before you begin the use. When the appeal and the board was considering this, because they basically had not been hearing all of the other to the zee a number of questions came out just wanting to really clearly understand how ccnr's private agreements how private road access actually plays out in the code there were some other questions that came up that they just wanted to fully understand and because it was at the end of a very long afternoon they just did not feel they had the time to appropriately kind of ask their questions for clarification to then make the decision so staff will be returning with that and providing a little broader context for vacation rentals so just noting that staff does anticipate that it may prompt some future conversations of policy refinements and with that we did also advise the the board and I believe we've mentioned this to this commission but staff is intending to come in the fall with an update as to implementation and enforcement of vacation rental regulations in the county to look at exactly some of these issues of how are we implementation going, how is enforcement going, any kind of issues that we've seen that have come up or that have been raised by the commission or board. So just wanted to really alert that'll be a good discussion with the board and then more to come.

Yes, please, Commissioner Herzog.

Thank you, I look forward to that report. Just adding in one additional question that hopefully will come up, which is I've received an outreach from a constituent noting a high density of applications in their neighborhood. Not that they've been approved, but that there's a high density of applications. So just putting that into the pot of questions on how is that getting resolved and handled, that'd be great.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? And we have canceled the meeting for the last one in July, right? Correct. Very good. So I won't get to see you guys. I'm really sorry about that, but I won't get to see you in two weeks or three weeks, so. Sure, if you'd like to, go for it.

Yeah, so if I may comment that I really did want to just take this opportunity since we won't see you at our typical second meeting because we are not holding one to give staff a break and the administrative team. I really did want to thank you all for that. I've had... A couple of staff members say multiple times how nice it was to have a break from processing to planning commission because we would already have been reviewing all those reports, et cetera. So I just really did want to extend that thank you to you all and wish you all to enjoy a good few weeks without commission matters and see you after we return.

Thank you. And we appreciate you all also. All right, saying nothing else then, we are adjourned at 11.52 a.m. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate all of your help.