Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to the August 12th meeting of the Monterey County Planning Commission. We'll call it to order at 9 o'clock and we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Shaw, would you lead us please? Thank you, Commissioner. All righty. Madam Clerk, can we get a roll call, please?

Yes, 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 Diehl?

Here.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Now is the time set aside on the agenda for public comment. That would be anyone who wants to share something with us that is not on the agenda for today. We are limiting the public comment to other areas, so anything not on the agenda? Anyone like to come up and make a comment? Chair? Nope, doesn't look like it. Madam Clerk, is there anybody online that might want to do that?

We have no additional emails and no hands up on Zoom.

Thank you very much. Maybe as long as we have you on the speaker or on the microphone, maybe you could share the agendas, additions, deletions, and corrections with us.

Chair, would we like to go over the wordly first?

Oh, sure. You can do that now. That would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. While we wait for that to get up on our screen, welcome, everybody. Thank you for being here today, whether you're joining us in person or in Zoom. If you're here in chambers and you need translation services, please come up to the front. You will also see here in chambers throughout the day we have our Wordly, which will be doing Spanish translation active on the screen up here for anyone who needs. If you want to join via Zoom or if you want to join the translation remotely, you can scan the QR code or just scan the QR code. There's no web page here. So scan the QR code and it'll take you to the web link for the Wordly where you can select your language of choice and get live translation. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Now, on the next item on the agenda is we ask the commissioners if they have any comments or requests or referrals that they'd like to share. Commissioner Roberts.

Thank you. While we have members of the public in the audience and presumably online, I just wanted to take an opportunity to invite anybody interested in participating in a land use advisory committee in their neighborhood. We are always seeking people to participate. Those local Those land use advisory committees typically meet maybe three to five times a year. They provide really important feedback about projects that happen in your neighborhood. We have LUACs that represent all areas of the county, South County, Carmel Valley, Highway 68, North County, and each of those LUACs almost always need members. You need zero experience, just an interest in providing feedback about your local area. And I know as planning commissioners, we take that local feedback very, very seriously. We have a couple LUACs right now that don't have enough members to meet. And so when we receive a project from that area, we don't get the local area's feedback, which To me is a shame. So if anybody ever has interest in participating in one of these land use advisory committees, please speak to staff, speak to us. It's a one page I'm interested and it's a very low commitment, but with a very significant impact.

Okay, thank you very much. That was not a paid political announcement, right? That was absolutely from her heart, and thank you. Yes, please, that's always, always appropriate to have the input of the public in what we do up here, and we appreciate anything, anywhere you can help, and LUACs are certainly one avenue for you. Evidently I was informed that I went ahead a little bit too fast so we're gonna have to go back in time a bit and ask the clerk to share any additions to the agenda deletions or corrections.

For the record, we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number 3, PLN 220125, Monterey County Sheriff's Posse, and agenda item number 4, PLN 240358, Clay Douglas and Clay Heather. Copies have been distributed on the dais, and there's also copies there on the first table, as you want.

Thank you. Now, back to where I was. Commissioner Shaw has something she'd like to share. Sure.

Thank you. It's also about LUACs. I had the pleasure of attending North County's LUAC meeting last month, and I just wanted to extend my thanks to staff for their presentation and hearing the concerns that I've expressed about some of the information being REALLY HEAVY AND HARD TO UNDERSTAND AND THE PAPERWORK THAT THEY GAVE OUT WAS PHENOMENAL. IT WAS A REALLY GREAT MEETING, REALLY PRODUCTIVE AND I WANTED TO THANK THE NORTH COUNTY LOAC MEMBERS. I WAS BLOWN AWAY BY THE LEVEL, THE KIND OF SKILLS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE, THE VARIETY OF SKILLS, THE DEDICATION AND WE HAVE A FULL QUORUM. THERE'S NO OPENINGS AND IT WAS JUST A REALLY AWESOME LOAC AND I'M SUPER STOKED THAT IT'S IN MY DISTRICT. I JUST WANTED TO THANK THEM FOR THEIR VOLUNTEERING.

Alrighty, thank you, Commissioner Shaw. Anyone else wanna share something? No, okay, we're good. All right, we're gonna move along into basically item number one on our agenda, which is the approval of the consent calendar. Do we have any discussion on the commissioners? Nope, none. No? I guess we needed a motion then for the approval. What? Oh. Okay. All right. We need to take public comment on the consent calendar. Anyone? No? Seeing no one here. Anyone online?

No hand raised. No additional emails.

Okay. Very good. Now... If there's no further comments from the Commission, would someone like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar? So moved.

Commissioner Monzaves.

Thank you. And second? Commissioner Monzaves. It's been moved by Commissioner Gonzalez and seconded by Commissioner Monzaves. All those that we accept the consent calendar. all those in favor signify by saying aye aye all those opposed nay that's been approved so we'll move along now before we start today the staff has requested in order to make a little bit better use of their time We're going to do something a little bit different. We're going to, there are two items that have been requested continuance, and we're going to move, we're going to deal with those first. And the two items that have been requested for continuance are item number four and item number six. So asking the commission, those two items have been, the staff has asked to continue those. Does anyone have an issue with it? Oh, do you want them to do that now?

Yes. Okay.

I'm sorry. We're going to do a little bit of a presentation, and then we're going to ask for comments from the commission. So please, staff, when you're ready.

My name's, thank you. My name's Jacqueline Nickerson. I'm principal planner with the Housing and Community Development Department. This item is for PLN240358, the clay project, also known as agenda item number four on today's agenda. Staff is requesting a continuance on this item to August 26th. There is a separate application for a commercial vacation rental on a separate property within the Pebble Beach area that has been appealed to the Board of Supervisors on a similar topic. And staff would like that item to go before the Board prior to this appeal going before the Planning Commission. And therefore, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on this project to August 26th.

Thank you. Commissioners, what are your feelings? Anything? Oh, Commissioner Hartzell.

No opinions. Do we need a motion?

Well, if there's no opinions, then I suppose we do. Although I think you would like to do the other one, too. Yeah, and we'll do that. Okay. All right. We have to take public comment on the continuation of this item if there is no other comment from the commission. So we need public comment on item. Those of you who were here to talk about item number four, if you have a thought on us continuing that item until August 26th, please come forward and give us your thoughts. Ah, there we are. Yes, sir.

morning chair and commissioners my name is sean murphy i represent the applicants doug and heather clay i'm not familiar with what is up on appeal before the board of supervisors however as you know there's an administrative process that applicants have to go through appeal file their application have a decision by zoning administration appeal to the planning commission and if necessary appeal to the board of supervisors There's no requirement that the Commission wait for the Board of Supervisors. You can hear this matter, you can decide it, and you may resolve it today. So there's no need to go before the Board of Supervisors. I understand staff's recommendation. Only issue is, you know, we're here. The applicant came from parts of Northern California. I came from Southern California. And quite honestly, the 26th doesn't work for me because I'm in trial in San Diego at that time. So we would oppose the request and ask that you consider it today.

Certainly understandable, sir. Thank you for sharing that with us. Commissioners, with that information in mind... Your thoughts, Commissioner Diehl?

There's nobody else in the public that wants to speak? It doesn't appear so. Okay. Well, I understand that. I am sympathetic to staff's recommendation, although we'd want to pick a date that was something that the applicant could participate with. So I don't want us to make a decision that keeps the Board of Supervisors from having a clear understanding of what it is that they are approving in terms of precedent. So I'd very much Regret that we haven't had a chance to communicate with with the applicant and the public earlier about this but since we have I would be sympathetic to a Continuance and willing to make that motion if we had a date that was acceptable to the applicant and would allow them to fully participate Good point and and maybe the secretary can help us fill in a little more information for mr Murphy if because he was a little concerned

Yeah, I think so. Thank you. I think just a couple of items for consideration. Staff did reach out to the applicant and representative in advance. We do understand they had planned to be here. And so we did reach out in advance, acknowledging that we were going to be recommending that the continuance, the recommendation is really because of the relation between similarities between the two appeals and that the nature of the questions that the board had related to the other non-related appeal, but there's some similarities in the CONTENT IN THE ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE CONTINUED SO THAT SHOULD THERE BE ANY POLICY CONTEMPLATION OR CONSIDERATION OR CONCERNS OR PRECEDENT THAT COME OUT OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN ADVANCE SHOULD IT RELEVANCE TO THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. I AM LOOKING PRESENTLY AT OTHER MEETING DATES. AUGUST 26 WAS JUST THE EARLIEST THAT WOULD GET US BACK IN FRONT OF YOU, NOT DELAY THE ISSUE TOO LONG BUT BE IMMEDIATELY AFTER WHEN THE OTHER APPEAL IS BEING HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I CAN SAY THAT WE HAVE VERY FULL AGENDAS FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER. So we can either discuss with the Planning Commission if the applicant does not wish to go beyond the month of September we can look at maybe doing a date certain or a date uncertain with the direction of as soon as possible to give staff some flexibility to see if we can move things around on agendas to be heard otherwise October 14th we absolutely have availability on the agenda.

Mr. Murphy, could I get your input a little bit, please, sir?

The 14th works- 14th? For me, and it also works for the applicant.

Okay, that's great. Thank you, sir, for being so flexible and understanding. We appreciate it. Certainly, thank you. Thank you. All right, so there we go. We've worked out the details now. We'll get back to the continuance. Commissioner Deal?

I'd like to move continuance as recommended by staff to the date recommended by staff.

Very good, thank you.

Second.

I'm sorry? Yeah, I got confused. So then we have that motion in front of us. We have a second by Commissioner Hartzell to Commissioner Diehl's move moving the continuous, almost messed that one up, moving this item to continuation. Does that make sense? Anyway, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed? Finally got through that one. Yes, thank you very much. Now, staff, we have item number, you must represent item number six.

Commissioners, my name is Kayla Nelson, project planner for item number six, which is PLN 260014 for the William residence. Staff is kindly requesting a continuance of this item to a date certain of August 26th. The application before you was for improvements to a driveway to accommodate development of a single-family dwelling. However, additional information came forward prior to this hearing. So staff is working with the applicant to incorporate any changes into the project that might be required prior to bringing it back before you for a decision.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner deal I'm confused. There's a an existing permit for a single-family residence That doesn't include the driveway or there isn't a permit for a single-family residence. Why are we taking this in pieces?

that so that's the reason why we are recommending a continuance this Particular property is located in the Tehama subdivision. There was a previously graded driveway to access the building site the The review of the single-family dwelling wouldn't necessarily come before the Planning Commission to make a decision. However, with impacts to slopes and tree removal for the driveway improvements, that kicked the application out for you to review the driveway improvements. it was staff's understanding that the driveway improvements were needed in order to access and do testing at the home site of the house for the single-family dwelling. However, an application has been made. The plans have been complete for the single-family dwelling and have been submitted. There was minor development on slopes that we found on the plans, so we are working with the applicant to either Remove development from slopes of the building site because then that would need to be considered in your decision with development on slopes So the applicant is electing to revise plans and then I'll be back before you for the driveway improvements Yes, please commissioner

I would be uncomfortable with any partial permit. I think this should come forward as a development proposal for the entire lot. If the position of the building were to change, the driveway requirements would change. They're related. I'm very cautious about doing things in pieces when we think we don't know what's going on. So if it comes back as a full application, I would support it. If it comes back just as a driveway, I will not.

Through the Chair, staff would like to request that we move the item then to a date uncertain to work with the applicant further before we bring it back before the Planning Commission.

Very well, thank you. Commissioner Diehl, that answers all your questions? That tells me what staff is recommending, yes. Good, thank you. Anyone else have questions? No? Is there any public comment then within the chambers of continuing this item? Anyone? Maybe? Nope. Seeing no one. Anyone online? Nope.

No hand raised.

Getting a shake of the head there. No? No one there? All right, then. Can we get a motion for the continuance? Commissioner Diehl? I'd like to move continuance of this item to a date uncertain. Thank you. Second?

Second.

Commissioner Hartzell. All right, very good. We have a motion then from Commissioner Diehl, a second from Commissioner Hartzell to continue this item to a date uncertain. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. very good that passes all right thank you very much everybody for for bearing with us while we help staff a little bit now they can go do something constructive not that they don't do things constructive i apologize for that comment all right let's move along then to the uh... regular scheduled items which would be item number two which is uh... our will reference number re f two five zero zero zero nine And staff, when you're prepared, I mean, when you're ready, you can just start.

Please share, Staff Wright. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. Katie Scarrett, Assistant Planner, joined by Sarah Weichel, Principal Planner, presenting on REF 250009, Implementation Ordinance for the Agriculture and Winery Corridor Plan and Zoning Clearance Chapter. This item was continued from June 24th, 2026 PC hearing to a date certain of August 12th. Today, staff will present on the following project recommendation, a determination for the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA, review project history, corridor map, an overview of the AWCP as a whole, project outreach, definitions, proposed amendments, and the zoning clearance process and next steps. Today, staff requests that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors find the project is consistent with the scope of the previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2010 General Plan, pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162. Adopt a draft ordinance amending and following amending and adding the following sections to the Monterey County code to implement the agricultural winery corridor plan of the 2010 general plan which includes the following. Amend chapter 2106 definitions. Amend chapter 2108 which establishes and designates of zoning districts. Amend associated zoning sectional district maps. to add the AWCP Combining Zoning District to associated properties, add Chapter 2151 to the Monterey County Code, which are regulations for the Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan Zoning District as a combining district to Title 21, and add Chapter 2171 to the Monterey County Code, which are the regulations for zoning clearance. Pursuant to section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines, no subsequent environmental review is required for this ordinance. The combining district was analyzed in the 2010 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and no substantial changes to the project have occurred. This project is consistent with the scope of the previously certified FEIR for the 2010 General Plan pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162. In April of 2001, the Monterey County Vintners and Growers Association, which is now dissolved, made a presentation to the Board of Supervisors, also known as the Board, on problems facing the wine industry in Monterey County. The Board then appointed a committee that developed a winery corridor plan to help keep the wine industry economically viable. The main purpose of the AWCP is to create a planned approach to how the county and the wine industry develops and encourages wine-related economic growth in the Salinas Valley. The AWCP is designed to provide a long-range plan for development of agricultural 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. On October 26, 2010, the Board adopted a comprehensive update to the County's General Plan referred to as the 2010 General Plan. At the time of the 2010 General Plan's adoption, a significant portion of unincorporated Monterey County's agricultural land was utilized for great production. At the time of adoption, wine grapes were one of the top crops by value in the county. Today, wine grape consumption is down, but other crops continue to serve as a valuable contributor to the local economy. Although wine grape consumption is down, staff hopes this ordinance will allow for a more streamlined approach for development in the plant area and further support the agricultural industry as a whole. In April of 2025, staff presented a draft version of the ordinance to the Agricultural Advisory Committee, also known as the AAC. In July of 2026, staff presented an informational presentation to the Planning Commission, during which we received comments and questions from the Commission and members of the public, which will be addressed later in this presentation. The AWCP area is intended to address viticultural-related uses in three specific planning areas, Toro, Central Salinas Valley, and South Monterey County. The AWCP is divided into three segments that make up the broader AWCP. On the screen, you'll see each segment in a different color. River Road is green, Halone Road is pink, and Metz Road is purple. In April of 2025, staff presented a draft version of the implementation ordinance to the Agricultural Advisory Committee. They made recommendations based on square footage limitations, provided clarity on the original intent of the visitor serving uses. Their feedback was contemplated and included in the draft ordinance that you see before you today. Hope. On June 24th, 2026, staff presented a request for a continuance to a date certain of August 12th. The request was made to allow for staff more time to finalize the ordinance. During the request for a continuance, Planning Commissioners requested an informational on the AWCP. On July 8th, staff presented an informational presentation on Chapter 9.J of the 2010 General Plan and received questions and comments from the Planning Commission and members of the public. Throughout the presentation, staff will highlight where changes occurred as a result of those questions and comments that were received. Staff received comments and clarifying questions from the Planning Commission. The PC requested staff to provide a high-level overview of the AWCP, which staff provided at the beginning of this presentation to explain the intention behind the creation of the AWCP. Additionally, the PC emphasized the need for agricultural uses as a whole to be highlighted and not just wineries and grapes. Staff looked into the PC's request and some modifications were made to visitor serving uses to be allowed without a winery on site that are in keeping with the character and nature of the AWCP, which could be approved through an administrative permit. Staff is recommending definitions such as winery, which is already codified in Monterey County Code, to be amended. Additionally, staff is recommending that definitions related to industry-wide winery events, agricultural and winery-related visitor-serving uses be added to Chapter 21 added to chapter 2151 to provide clarity and implement edits we heard on July 8th. The Monterey County Farm Bureau also made comments and asked clarifying questions on portions of the chapter. Staff met with them and provided clarification. Staff received a letter of opposition from a member of the public as well. Establishment of a new chapter of Title 21, Chapter 2151, Regulations for the Agricultural Winery Corridor Zoning District. Adding and amending various definitions in Title 21 for agricultural and winery related items to ensure Title 21 compliance with the 2010 Journal Plan and Chapter 9.J, which is the agricultural winery corridor plan. An example of this is the term winery, which is defined in Title 2106, but staff is requesting to amend the definition as proposed because it would allow for the distillation of other types of spirits outside of wine grapes. The definition would encompass such uses as producing hard-siders and various other spirits. The proposed ministerial process was modeled after other jurisdictions and formatted to be consistent with the structure of existing county regulations. Updating the zoning sectional district maps to reflect the creation of the AWCP's combining district. The Agricultural Winery Corridor Plan is broken up into four sections. The introduction identifies regional settings for the AWCP, project background and a plan objectives. The project description discusses purpose and intent of the corridor, a description of the geographic extent of the winery corridor, development potential and circulation constraints. development standards and design guidelines, sections of the AWCP that defines allowable number of facilities, uses allowed, uses requiring a ministerial approval, uses requiring an administrative permit, development standards, regulations for special winery related events for 500 or more people, and design criteria for development within the corridor, and the implementation section that provides information on general administration, review and approval of projects within the corridor, environmental review for projects that are consistent with the AWCP, and financing options for the AWCP. Adding various definitions to Title 2151 for agricultural and winery related items. For example, the term agricultural and winery related visitor serving uses is called out in the 2010 general plan and allows for these uses but is silent on providing a definition. As part of the draft ordinance, staff brought forward a definition to the AAC in April of 2025 for input and guidance, which INFORMED THE PROPOSED DEFINITION YOU SEE TODAY. THE PROPOSED DEFINITION ATTEMPTS TO ADD CLARITY AND INCLUDE OTHER SUGGESTED EXAMPLES BEYOND JUST PRODUCE STAND AS NOTED IN THE AWCP. ADDITIONALLY THE TERM INDUSTRY WIDE WINERY EVENTS IS CALLED OUT IN THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN AND DRAFT ORDINANCE. STAFF INTERPRET THE DEFINITION TO ALLOW FOR EVENTS THAT ARE GENERALLY PROMOTE THE WIDER AGRICULTURAL WINERY CORRIDOR IN ADDITION TO BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY TO THE WINE INDUSTRY. Carry forward the applicability where the AWCP governs if it conflicts with the other portions of the Monterey County Code, the 2010 General Plan and associated area plans. Establish uses allowed with a ministerial process and administrative permit, objective design standards and design criteria for signage, the special winery-related event permit to create a clear approval process and standards for special events with 500 or more people. The plan outlines where facilities are allowed to be processed and up to how many would be allowed in that area. For example, there is a maximum of 10 new full-scale wineries allowed within the AWCP. The River Road segment would allow for up to five. Metz Road segment would allow for up to two. The Halone Road segment 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 a visitor center. The amount and types of facilities that were studied and contemplated in the 2010 General Plan FEIR. Allowed uses at facilities approved under the AWCP located within the corridor include winery adjunct uses, industry-wide winery events, winery-related events for up to 150 people, and private winery events. Some examples would be winery-related events, advertising fundraising events, winemaker dinners open to the general public, and weddings. Some private winery event examples would be a company holiday party, employee-related private events, such as a harvest celebration. A ministerial permit would be required for permitted uses within the planned area. Permitted uses subject to a ministerial permit include artisan wineries, events included, winery tasting facilities including a catering kitchen, agricultural and winery related visitor serving uses such as a produce stand, food service facilities, winery related events between 151 and 500 people, one guest house per winery, one residential unit per winery, up to three employee housing units per winery. Additional employee housing may be subject to a discretionary approval. 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 a winery facility, stand-alone inn, full-scale winery, events included, and the addition of an ag wine visitor serving uses without a winery, which is feedback we heard at the July 8th Planning Commission Informational. 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 plan area. Parcel size is to be a minimum of five acres, a maximum of 30% building site coverage excluding parking and landscaping. Structure height is subject to a maximum height of 35 feet for the associated structures but can be increased to 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 cases, off-street parking spaces shall be determined by a development plan. At minimum, a development plan shall include employee parking, tourist parking, and event parking. Noise shall comply with the county's adopted noise codes. The AWCP includes general design statements and design 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, architectural, and parking areas. Gateway signs. The three points have been identified as gateways to the AWCP. The intersection of Highway 68 and River Road is the main gateway as it provides connection to the major tourist activity on the Monterey Peninsula. Arroyo Seco and Highway 101 is the area between Greenfield and Soledad is considered to be the heart of the wine corridor. Lastly, the south side of Central Avenue at the intersection of Central Avenue and the 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. 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 of 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 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. Chapter 2151 includes new regulations that govern the granting of a zoning clearance for uses in the AWCP that qualify for a ministerial process. The addition of Chapter 2171 would create that process. Establishment of Chapter 2171 regulations for zoning clearance to allow for issuance of ministerial approval. to be considered for zoning clearance an applicant will submit a zoning clearance application the appropriate authority in this case it would be the chief of planning would review an application complete any zoning clearance issued under this under the terms of this chapter shall be valid until the date of expiration stated on the permit if no date of expiration is stated on the permit any permit which allows a use excluding a use which contemplates the construction of building on other structures shall expire two years from the date of granting the permit unless use of the property has begun within this period. The appropriate authority may extend zoning clearance upon receipt of an extension application from the applicant, provided such extension applications is to be made at least 30 days prior to the extension of the zoning clearance, the expiration of the zoning clearance. Minor amendments may be made to zoning clearance applications subject to 2171. The AWCP's Implementing Ordinance and Zoning Clearance chapter will be brought forward to the Board of Supervisors for review. The AWCP's Implementing Ordinance and Zoning Clearance chapter is tentatively scheduled for September 29th, 2026, Board of Supervisors hearing. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt A resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors find the project is consistent with the scope of the previously certified FEIR for the 2010 General Plan pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and adopt a draft ordinance amending various sections of the Monterey County Code to implement the Agricultural Winery Plan of the 2010 General Plan. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. You got through a lot there. Thank you. Commissioners, looks like Commissioner Shaw has a question.

Thank you. I apologize if I missed it. Do we not have the letter of opposition that was mentioned in the presentation? I don't see any mention of it in the packet, and I can't find it.

Through the chair. So the letter of opposition was received and forwarded to the Planning Commission and interested parties during the July 28th or July 8th meeting, excuse me. So it was received at the time of the informational item. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Deal, you have a question? I do. I have several.

First off, what is a zoning clearance as opposed to an ordinary permit? I mean, why is it a different thing and why are we... Anyway, what is it?

Yeah, through the chair. So the zoning clearance is the same as what I've been referring to as a ministerial permit. And so what that is, is something that would be a process that makes it easier for applicants to get approval from our department. So there's these allowed uses that they can apply for zoning clearance with us. And those allowed uses would be expedited.

Why is that just not an administrative permit?

So through the chair, I can elaborate a little bit too. The ministerial permit process and zoning clearance, and there's been a lot of both. There's the 2010 general plan. There's outside of the Agwine corridor, a lot of changes to STATE LAW RELATED TO PERMIT PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS WHERE WE'RE LOOKING MORE AT OBJECTIVE STANDARDS SO THAT THE, AND WITH THE AGWINE CORRIDOR SPECIFICALLY IN THE INTENT OF THE MINISTERIAL PERMITS IS TO STREAMLINE AND HAVE PLANNING STAFF REALLY LOOK AT SPECIFIC CRITERIA IN THE AGWINE CORRIDOR PLAN IN ALMOST LIKE A CHECKLIST FORMAT. SO IT'S LIKE, OKAY, YOU'RE A WINERY, YOU MEET A SPECIFIC SIZED REQUIREMENT. YOU'RE MEETING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS OUTLINED IN THE ORDINANCE AND THE AGWINE CORRIDOR PLAN. And there's no, with ministerial permits, there's no discretion, which is a little bit different than administrative permit with the administrative permit process. While it is approved by the chief of planning, we still do noticing to properties. There is still some discretion from the chief of planning to make very specific and sometimes subjective findings, which again is part of the land use process, but the real intent with AGWINE was to allow for a more objective, streamlined process where you could come into the HCD counter, you could fill out a checklist application, there'd maybe be a 30-day review process, and then you get your land use planning approval at a staff level.

That sounds like a ministerial permit. Correct, which is... Why do we have a different name? I'm really fighting this different name unless there's a substantive difference.

The, if I may. Yes, thank you, Secretary.

Yeah, so the terms discretionary and ministerial have more to do with, those are actually ministerials actually defined in CEQA. And it has to do with whether or not you're subject to CEQA. The process for and kind of the nomenclature for the different permit pathways. So this is a ministerial permit pathway. The nomenclature for zoning clearance is to be very specific that it... items that will be subject to this particular ministerial pathway are really coming through and being judged on a non-discretionary manner whether or not they meet the standards and objectives related to the zoning and the zoning that they're in and the criteria that are in that zoning code so zoning clearance is the name be for that purpose we also it's also Because it's clearing basically that you meet all the criteria for this particularly allowed use in your zoning district.

So where else do we use this?

So this is an entirely new process in the Monterey County code and so the other thing I'll note too is in the research staff did related to ministerial permit approvals because a lot of other counties and cities have this process zoning clearance was typically the nomenclature and process that was used and we tried to model the zoning clearance section on other jurisdictions while also trying to make it similar to other, how other permitting is structured in our code. So it's not entirely different. I mean, it's different in terms of the process as the secretary noted, but we tried to make it read similar to other sections of our code.

If I may. General plan very clearly established ministerial approvals and objective criteria in the case of the agricultural wine corridor, which is generally not something we do. In the larger perspective, and we are today implementing the zoning clearance as a permit pathway Currently, the only projects that will be subject to a zoning clearance are projects that meet those criteria in the agricultural wine corridor. That being said, there's quite a bit of state law that requires ministerial review and approval or objective review and approval of certain housing projects. And so we do anticipate and we do have as a part of our housing element development and implementation and our analysis through the programmatic environmental impact report acknowledgement that there are certain types of housing that will be when we have an adopted housing element that will specifically qualify as long as you meet all those objective standards for and would be appropriately permitted through a zoning clearance as opposed to the existing discretionary processes that we have. So It is not currently utilized for anything else, but we do anticipate that this will be the ministerial permit process as a zoning clearance for those objective ministerial housing projects that come post adoption of our housing element.

Did that do it for you? No. I'm sorry, but we are establishing an entire new process and a name right here in this permit that appears not to have anything to do with that. And I'm going to ask if there is a definition of this in the code generally being proposed as part of this. So in other words, are we adding a definition to the larger Monterey County code that would cover this process?

So this is defining by defining the process and naming it zoning clearance is the deficit. So it's not a separate definition. This is similar to we define the process for what we call an administrative permit, a use permit, a coastal development permit. This is going to be similar in our zoning code to this is another permit type. It is a zoning clearance and the zoning clearance is as described in 21.71 is the process, which is what's defining it. So there's not a separate definition. It is establishing it as the permit type and process.

This definition of which you speak would be in the general zoning code. I'm sorry, I don't speak numbers. So would it be applicable to any project that would fall under those particular circumstances? If we were to recommend this, that would be part of it. Would we be a larger recommendation of our code to include this new process?

Correct. We are recommending this new process, this new permit type, which is a zoning clearance, which establishes a ministerial land use permit process that does not exist currently. In our code, the way in which our zoning is established, In our zoning, and I'll just use one example, in our Inland Code, for example, you will have permitted or allowed uses. You'll have allowed uses with administrative permit, allowed uses with use permit. And so there will be in, similar to there, we will be identifying what are allowed uses with a zoning clearance. And so in time, should there be future allowed uses that are allowed with a ministerial process, which is our zoning clearance, then they will be added to each respective zoning district as this allowed use with a zoning clearance. So it's consistent with our existing structure, but it is adding a new permit type and therefore a new permit permit pathway option in all of our zoning districts as new types of projects that could utilize it. It will not apply to anything that is not specifically identified as being subject to a zoning clearance. It does not apply to anything that is existing in our code. It will only apply if, should Planning Commission recommend today, it will only apply as we're proposing the modifications to Title 21 to the Agricultural Wine Corridor.

Right, so we're establishing a new chapter, which is a new process and new regulations, and we are going to then subsequently recommend that this plan would be subject to those processes as would anything else that we subsequently decide is appropriately subject to those processes, right?

certain project types that are outlined in the plan. And yes.

But again, I'm talking about the larger establishment of the definition of the plan itself. We're going to go back and talk about that in a second. All right. So just to be clear, we are, this is a big deal change. This is important. And we should certainly think about it and hear comment about it. Can we put page 14, I think it is, up of the presentation again, following up on that, please? Okay, so I'm going to go back onto the pages. So this says ministerial permit. So that is different from a zoning clearance or the same?

Those are the same. It's just called in Chapter 9.J of the 2010 Journal Plan, which is the Agricultural Winery Corridor. This is pulled directly from there, but it now has the proposed Monterey County Code that we would have it under, and so we're just using the exact same language that we have in that 2010 Chapter 9.J.

If I may, if I may, so this is the slide. If you actually, and I don't know if we can pull up the ordinance, because I think looking at the actual ordinance will be much more helpful, at least in this. In 21.51, It is actually adding, so 21.51050 are uses allowed, and there's a specific list of those uses. 21.51060 are uses allowed, zoning clearance required in each case, and then it refers to Chapter 2171. And so these are the list of projects that in the ordinance are clearly defined as subject to a zoning clearance.

2151 and 2171 are different? Because they're both different numbers.

Correct. 2171 is...

This is confusing me. All right. So what you're saying is that this is... I don't like it when we have a ministerial permit standalone word and we're discussing this new process, which may or may not apply to it. Is everything that is here going to be subject to a zoning clearance process? Can we include something that ties those two together so we don't have a separate title that leads us to believe they're separate things? Because I, for one, got quite confused with that.

Yes, staff does hear that input. We can't update our materials here, but for purposes today, anywhere where the presentation or discussion refers to ministerial permit, we are saying zoning clearance.

Okay. I don't have any issue if it says and or also or aka or whatever. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I just...

Yes, no, we understand. So just for absolute clarity, our zoning clearance, which is what we are asking to establish today, establishes simply what is referred to as a ministerial process.

Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. I'm sorry to bear down on this, but it's an issue that is larger even than the corridor, which is a pretty big issue. Okay, so now if we get to the substance of it, between this slide and the next slide, these are the ministerial... It's a checklist. We don't have any judgment-involved items that go to this corridor. And we look at that compared to slide 15, which is the next one. I am concerned about that last bullet point. I still want to hold out for my carrot-tasting facility. The sense that if we look at page 14, we see some... What happens if you want to build something that's not related to wine and you want to move forward with your product, whatever it is, you're going to highlight... Something, I don't know. But definitely have no intention of ever producing wine on this facility. You simply want to produce the best strawberries in the world, you know, or very fine carrots or, you know, whatever.

Sure, through the chair. Could I, I think I have the ability to share my screen. I was going to pull up the code because I think it might help to look at some of the language. Give me one moment.

I guess in the more global sense, rather than argue the point particularly, I'm concerned about places where it appears that that consideration has been subsumed in the language. So when you get all the way through this and you want to look at industry-wide ag events, if I want to highlight my grass-fed beef or maybe I get approved for hemp and I want to highlight my hemp shirts, you know, I can't do that equally as well. And I think Given the history of this issue where we had an industry that was really predominant in the area that's now less so, we want to provide that opportunity for the flexibility for agricultural people to do what they do best, which is adjust, adapt, and figure out how best to... move their product. So I don't want us to be so specific where we get lazy going through this and say, I can't have an industry-wide carrot event. I can't, without the level of permits that would be appropriate had it been in the wine corridor definition to begin with.

Sure. And then I might need to, can we share staff Zoom screen? I'm seeing just the presentation still. I can speak a little bit too. So when we did take the do the informational item on July 8th we really tried to hear the Planning Commission in terms of Hey really take a look back at the purpose and intent of the AG wine corridor as was shared to staff There we go. Perfect.

Let me just zoom in a little bit Okay, so

We kind of went back through, and as Katie noted in her presentation, we tried to clarify for the winery definition to be consistent with the 2010 general plan, and that definition specifically calls out other produce types, and I can scroll through there too, but it's not focused solely on wine. There is the flexibility within the definition to allow for the different types of spirit production or processing of products. potatoes or apples to create a spirit. And so staff would interpret in terms of being able to qualify for a ministerial permit for a winery, it's not just grapes, it's other types of production. And that's not the only one, but that's just an example of how we tried to look and see if there was some Not ambiguity, but just some wider applicability related to ag in the corridor as a whole. In terms of the ag winery visitor serving uses addition to, so this is 21-51-070. This is administrative permits. As we discussed a little bit earlier, administrative permits do allow for some discretion from the chief of planning. It is still a streamlined process. It's not requiring planning commission approval. There's some noticing, again, that happens. But what we tried to do here, and again, we had the AG wine definition that the AAC provided a lot of input on. They provided some additional context as to what felt applicable in that definition and what made sense. How the corridor plan treats uses without a winery, it allows for some other visitor serving uses like inns, restaurants, and delis. And if you're just doing some of those without a winery component, you can get an administrative permit through the chief of planning. What we tried to do here is acknowledge the definition, but also give the chief of planning some ability to work with applicants to look at other agricultural visitor serving uses that are consistent with the intent and encourage visitation or encourage investment in the ag wine corridor plan. And so... With the administrative permit, again, there is that flexibility for staff to work with applicants and say, hey, we understand that wine or agricultural is that are serving uses or other items aren't. the circumstances are changing, how can we work with you? Still through a streamlined permitting process to keep you going and have something that focuses attention in these specific areas as identified in the general plan. This also allows for still some CEQA streamlining as allowed under the FEIR, but if staff needed to work on specific studies or had specific concerns, we're able to do that work with the applicant and still get them through the process. The other definitions we looked at Tried to clarify where the industry-wide events so there's some discussion in there and I can pull it up if it's helpful where Yes, there's some mention of wine But there's also an allowance for industry-wide events that just again encourage visitation to the AG wine corridor So that could be other produce types that could be your carrot harvesting event Again allows for a little bit of a wider applicability for events in the AG wine corridor

Am I missing a definition?

I think those were the main three.

Those were the main areas we tried to allow for some additional, or looked, really tried to focus and amplify in the code for how staff would interpret those in working with applicants. And I can share other sections of the code as helpful commissioners too.

I don't think anybody much cares except me, as far as I can tell, because I was the one who introduced it into the general plan and have been following it ever since with interest for the last 20 some odd years. And events are so clearly illustrating what the concern was. And it wasn't just distilling. It was anything. If you want to make cheese, if you want to make whatever. Commissioner Hartzell? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to keep you from speaking.

I just wanted to interrupt you and wonder how food facilities fit into your question. I saw that those definitions were included in the ordinance.

I'm not sure I understand, but...

I thought that the food facility definition might include cheese processing.

I think at least for the visitor serving, and Katie might be able to speak to it a little bit more in terms of how the definition was clarified, there were specific types of facilities in conjunction with a winery specifically that were called out as examples. I know in other sections of the Code 2, specifically in the ministerial permits, and I realize I'm still sharing my screen so I can still scroll around. Okay, hold on one moment.

So I will briefly say the food facility is an operation that stores, prepares, package, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level. So that is actually a definition that relates to you can prepare the food there, you can store it, you can package it. So I believe that would, but it's according to the California Uniform Retail Food Facility Law.

If you look at that, it says with a winery-related facility, and that's the part where I keep having all the problems. It's like, no. I mean, what if it's a cider-producing facility or a beef-producing facility or a cheese-producing facility?

So if I can shed a little bit of light, what's before you, and I think what staff may need is... The ag wine corridor, what was included in the general plan and what was analyzed in the environmental impact report very clearly, for example, relates items to wineries. Wineries by definition include, by definition, it basically includes taking any produce product and turning it into some form of alcohol at its base. That is what the definition of winery, it doesn't have to be grapes, but it does very clearly state that that's what it does, and that is how our general plan defines it.

May I just stop right there and say this is not the winery corridor. This is the agricultural and winery corridor. We added that very intentionally.

And respectfully, I understand that what I'm trying to get at is what is actually in the general plan, what staff is trying to move forward with implementation, and where staff did feel that based on the way the ag wine corridor plan and everything was analyzed, we could amplify and push it to feel like we were clearly consistent with the analysis and the assumptions. We are not saying that there's not opportunity to go beyond that. And I think that's where what staff wants to do is understand it a little better and then Beyond that, we will have to take a little more time to review and analyze how it fits and if there's additional environmental work that we may need to do. So what's before you today is implementation of the Egwene Corridor as it was framed and written and defined in the general plan, with amplification and clarity for where staff sees very clearly other products that are not just grape wines, with a few areas where staff felt comfortably we could add to those definitions to go a little bit further and clearly include other products, that's what's before you today. Staff is very open to getting feedback on what is missing. TO TAKE THAT BACK AND THEN REVIEW IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND OTHER ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE MADE TO CONSIDER THOSE ADDITIONAL EDITS AND OR ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE CODE.

OKAY.

ARE WE GOOD? WELL, I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GOING IN CIRCLES. Yeah, I think that as a person who was very present during the statement of the intention and who was involved with the scoping of the environmental work for this, I would respectfully disagree. I think that's where I would leave that, although I don't think at 26 years after the concept it's going to make a difference one way or the other to moving forward at this time necessarily. I guess the only other thing I would ask is do we have any sense of, if we're confining the clarity around the signage to the successor organization for the vintners and growers, do we have any clarity around what you'd have to do to qualify to be that? I mean...

I mean, at this time through the chair, no, we have had some discussions, again, as it relates to the informational item and interest with the Monterey County Farm Bureau. And so we could continue to work with them and get some additional information or identify them as a successor for the interim. But we don't have anything set in stone, but we have been in discussions with the Farm Bureau.

I would guess I guess where I'm headed is that since we don't know who the successor is maybe some criteria as to what would constitute an appropriate successor organization might be a good thing to throw in there.

Very good. Are we good now for Commissioner Deal? Commissioner Hartzell, did you get your questions answered?

I have more.

Oh good. I mean good.

21.51.020 with the definitions. In A, you talk about the agricultural and winery corridor. In B, it's agricultural slash winery. Why are they different? Page four of the exhibit B.

Let us pull up the 2010 general plan chapter because they might have pulled from there and or the glossary of the 2010 general plan. So let's see.

And while we're looking that up, if I may say just in reading that briefly, regardless of what the general plan staff would interpret that as agricultural or winery related.

And B.

Yes, in 2151-020B. I would interpret that as agricultural or winery-related visitor serving uses. And we could certainly simply write it that way.

That's my recommendation. I think the slash is confusing. Yeah, I don't think in that case there's any concern with it.

No, and I will clarify it was written that way in the actual Agwine plan of the 2010 general plan. It had the slash, but I would agree we could add an order to make it clear in the definition section of the code.

I think it might get you closer to what you're trying to create in this conversation with Commissioner Diehl. If you're looking for agricultural uses that aren't related to a winery, I would start by using two different words if I was trying to figure out how to use it. That's my only question for now. Thanks.

Excellent suggestion. Thank you. Commissioner Gomez, would you like to jump in?

I guess really the intent, really the intent of this corridor, Ag Wine Corridor, is really to help the industry, right? When, I guess, when... Is it not? When you're doing all this construction on ag land, right? That's what it would be. When is it detrimental to ag, I guess, is the question. And then what's the balance? How do we make that determination, especially if a lot of these things are going to be allowed to be permitted through an administrative process? Or now we're talking about a zoning clearance process.

I can speak a little to that. In the 2010 general plan, there is some reference and clarity around making sure that the uses are consistent with any Williamson Act contracts. So that's one thing we would look at as part of the review process is we would review any existing easements or contracts to make sure the uses are consistent and compatible with one another. The other thing that's important to note, too, and I think this question did come up at the informational presentation, is the combining district is really to work in concert with the existing zoning. So most of these properties are already zoned for farmland or agricultural-related uses, and a lot of the uses in... The zoning districts contemplate some of the uses that are contemplated in the Agwine corridor combining district that's being considered by the planning commission today. However, the combining district, again, studied additional environmental impacts to allow for some streamlining of those uses a little different than the current process if you were to just go through the base zoning district. So there was some look at that as part of the 2010 general plan drafting of the AWCP.

I believe that discussion's in the implementation

or no, it's in the purpose, kind of the front end of the plan. And I think there is some discussion in other general plan policies as well related to making sure that those uses work together.

If I can amplify that just a little bit. One thing I really want to be clear on, the general plan made the decision and did the analysis for all of the uses that are in here that are streamlined, right? That already existed. So we're not adding beyond what the general plan already put into effect. We're memorializing it in zoning. We are trying to add some clarity and we are creating a proper permit pathway, the zoning clearance, that doesn't exist. Because when we have internal guidance documents for how do you process something, outside of that. So just for clarity, that is the case. The other thing I will really emphasize and amplify is that the general plan and the I-Going Court are very specifically identified. We wanted to encourage the growth into these specific areas so as to not impact agriculture and farmland, etc., kind of beyond that. So it had both kind of that attraction support of an industry of you know kind of agricultural tourism in general and a focus of this additional development in a more limited physical area of the county for that purpose as well. So that was all kind of contemplated and baked into the general plan itself and how this was established and staff is not proposing that we are going beyond those bounds.

Is that good for you, Commissioner Gomez? Okay, great. Anyone else? Commissioner?

Yeah, excuse me. I had a couple of questions and I guess with this implementation of the ordinance, will it speed up the process as far as development? Let's say I want to develop a particular restaurant or whatever that case may be or housing for the workers. Will this help speed up the process for that development?

Through the chair, yes. So for certain types of uses allowed with the ministerial permit, staff on the HCD planning side would look at development and is developing kind of an intake checklist. And as noted in the Agwine Corridor Plan chapter, If you, one, are a certain type, for example, employee housing up to three units, if you meet the site development criteria of a parcel of a certain size, that there's a winery on site, that you meet setback requirements, et cetera, you're consistent with any development standards, then the chief of planning or designee would basically be able to say, hey, you're approved, you're good to go. Granted, the zoning clearance does not absolve applicants of getting other permits. They'd still need building permits, construction permits, et cetera, but it's at least... THE INTENT IS TO SHORTEN THE FRONT END PROCESSING WITH PLANNING FROM A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PERSPECTIVE SO YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD AND GET THOSE CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. THE INTENT IS FOR THERE TO BE THAT STREAM LINING. I WILL ALSO NOTE, AGAIN, THIS IS ALREADY IN EFFECT AS OF THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN. WE'RE IMPLEMENTING IT IN OUR ZONING REGULATIONS. So someone could come into the counter and say, hey, I wanna do X, Y, and Z, and we'd have to do our general plan zoning consistency and take them through kind of an administrative process to review that proposal. So we're really trying today to clarify where we can in the zoning regulations to make it easier for applicants who want to do that streamlined approval process for them to be able to look and understand what's required from our code and also clarify that approval process for staff. So yes, and while it is the agricultural and winery corridor plan, when we did go back through and do our really kind of our pass after informational presentation, a lot of these streamlined approvals through the ministerial permit the decision was made at the time of adoption to tie most of those to a winery. Now, this administrative permit process, which is still streamlined, it's still through the chief of planning, is somewhat discretionary in nature. Those uses without a winery component the uses, so your other ag visitor serving uses, inns, restaurants, et cetera, can still qualify for a streamlined approval process where potentially, for example, our existing code may have looked at a use permit through the Planning Commission. You can now get an administrative permit if you meet the criteria in the Ag Wine Corridor Plan through the Chief of Planning. And so, again, The overall intent, and you'll see here too in the Agwine plan, there's nothing called out related to planning commission approval, which again, that decision was made to try to keep things as much as possible at either a staff level or with some input allowed for the public on very specific projects to try to keep the process and investment moving in these specific areas of the county.

Commissioner Shaw? Oh, I'm sorry, you have another one?

If I still have the floor. Anyways, my other question is, if my memory serves me right, I believe you mentioned something about emulating some of the documents or at least some of the language or information from other... I guess counties and have based, did you communicate with any of the counties to find out if the policies or that information has helped them in terms of speeding up the process for approving or completing a project?

Through the chair, as far as I know, I don't know if we had specific conversations with other jurisdictions, but we did look at, for example, like the counties of Napa and Sonoma, where they really have that robust kind of, again, streamlined approval for winery-related uses in those areas to model some of our regulations and definitions after. So we did try to, in terms of modeling the regulations, look at other jurisdictions, but my understanding is we didn't have those conversations directly.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Shaw, did you have a question? No, staff answered it with their previous. Okay, very good. Yes, Commissioner Deal?

I hear that tone. So I'm looking at 2171.080 about the zoning clearance because I'm still really trying to make sure we grapple successfully with this new thing. And It talks about the things you're going to need one for. And it looks to me as if I were going to modify my building permit or go for a grading permit, particularly going for grading permits, which is normally you go get a grading permit and pay your money and go. Now I'm going to have an additional permit step there at an additional cost and potentially as additional time. So is that the case? Are we adding another permit to things that typically had a permit already? already, and now we're going to do this as well?

And I just want to be clear, Commissioner Dillon, through the chair, this is 2171.080 effect? Is that the section you're looking at? So through the chair, typically we do require, so applicants need to get some sort of planning entitlement or approval before getting a building or grading permit. So has Typically, for example, they'll come to the planning commission for the use permit, combined development permit, and all that stuff needs to be approved, the design approved by the appointing authority, and then you can get the building or grading permits. What this section is really just trying to be really clear on, since we have this objective ministerial planning process, which is different than our current regulations, just being abundantly clear as, hey, you got HCD's planning approval, but you still need to, which is the same with our processes for other projects where we do require the planning approval you need that planning approval before you get a grading permit or a building permit so it's not in terms of how staff would look at this it's not being additive to existing requirements it's just memorializing for this new process hey you still need your planning approval which is how we conduct business for all their projects with planning that require planning approvals

And I think I'll just add a little bit of amplified clarity to that. All of our permit types are structured similarly. And the way in which this effect section, what it basically says is for any uses that require this permit type. So in this case, it's a zoning clearance. It's just a standard statement that we included all of them. We make it clear that for any uses that you're required to have this zoning clearance. You have to get your zoning clearance prior to getting all these other permits It doesn't mean for any other uses or any other of these permits that you don't need a zoning clearance for it doesn't apply to them So it really only applies to the uses that require the zoning clearance period and this is the standard structure for all of our permit types I guess my

glitch in my mind is that if I'm going to go maintain my three mile long driveway and I'm going to get a grading permit because it's going to be over the minimum amount, I don't usually have to go in for additional permits.

Nor would you in this case unless that driveway per zoning required a zoning clearance, in which case... Well, how would I know?

It says here it does.

So I think the reason is... So... We don't typically here at the Planning Commission look at our code for how we define and establish our permit processes. And so I feel like that is a little bit of what's getting confused here. Where you look in the code is in your zoning and your zoning in your area. zoning district, what are uses allowed, what are they not? If you want to do a use that requires a zoning clearance and you want to say, what is this zoning clearance? then this is the permit process. All of our permits for any of them, whether it's a uses allowed with zoning clearance, uses allowed with administrative permit, or uses allowed with a use permit, they all are structured the same. If you wanted to do a use that requires an administrative permit, The section that talks about our administrative permit process reads nearly identically. It just is simply saying if in your zoning district, this is an activity that you require this specific permit, you can't do all the subsequent permits without first ensuring you have the proper land use entitlement. So it doesn't change the overall way. It's just we haven't added a permit type, but this is how all of our permit types work.

I think I'm just struggling with that you've added a permit step to some things under that definition. And I understand that we don't usually look at this, but on the other hand, we're recommending a new section, a new chapter into the code, and we need to know what we're recommending. And I'm hesitant to recommend something that makes it even more complicated because even after with all that explanation, I still don't get it. And I think that that is... a problem with our overall permitting structure. So the goal that we all have to make it simple, understandable, clear, and all of that, I know that that's what we're striving for here. And my concern is that in this case, it's a good example of why that is not working for me. And it sure, reading this, looks as if many kinds of uses that are routine uses that do require permitting on the building side would now require an additional HCD step. And if it is not the case, that's true. It says no permit shall be issued unless you have the zoning clearance in that. And I don't think that language exists elsewhere. So that's where I feel if we're adding an additional step, we should talk very specifically about how that fits in and how that's going to impact the overall ongoing difficulty we have with with timely application and review of permits. I mean, it seems like it takes things that would just normally be building and requires an additional planning side to it as well. And, you know, it could be me missing, and I don't want to monopolize any more of the time here, but I do believe going forward I would recommend that we potentially separate out this provision to look at in more depth than as ancillary to the Agwine corridor plan application.

Yeah, thank you. I can see us going a little bit in circles here, and we're coming up against 1030, and I take breaks at 1030. So we're going to do that. Perhaps, Commissioner Deal, you can speak with the secretary. No, don't want to. But we're going to do this before public comment. What, you want to finish up? I don't want to go circle.

I just want to do one other thing. So in all other parts of the county, for example, if you wanted to do an assemblage of people, so if you want to do a special event that had 150 people, that would trigger a use permit. And so in your zoning you would look it up and it would say you need to do a use permit. If you actually went and read how our use permit is defined it says very clearly in the effect that per building or construction or other permits shall not be issued nor any use conducted prior to granting such use permit that requires this permit. So What it does, however, is it now says you don't have to go through a use permit. Where the simplification is, is you need to get a zoning clearance. And the zoning clearance is what makes the process simpler. And so I'll leave that at that just for anyone else. I don't know if it gets at it, but yeah, that's the best I have.

Good. Okay. Then we're going to take a break, everybody. We'll be back in 10 minutes. Thank you everybody. All right. I didn't mean to cut anyone off inadvertently when we began this break. Commissioner Diehl, are you good with your, I mean, where did we leave that with you? Are you good with where we are? I will wait and see what happens with the remainder of the discussion, sir. Great. I love that. Commissioner Hartzell?

One more question in clarification before public comment. Under section 2151070G, I see agriculture or winery related visitor serving uses allowed in section 2151060 without a winery on site. which to me suggests some discretion in the administration of the zoning clearance for things that might not have a winery on site. And I'm just wondering how that fits into our conversation about agriculture,

without alcohol development? Sure. Through the chair, I can speak to that. So the section reads agricultural slash, and we'll clean up the references based on prior discussion, slash winery related visitor serving uses allowed in section 2151060, which is referring to the zoning clearance uses allowed section, without a winery on site and other agricultural visitor serving uses that are in keeping with the character and nature of the AWCP. Okay. So this also relies on the definition that the AAC helped provide some input on for agricultural slash visitor serving uses, which is in 2151 further up. I forget which subsection. We have a lot of subsections. But that one clearly articulates a winery component, which is kind of in keeping with the nature of the ministerially permitted uses with a zoning clearance, emphasizing that there's a winery component on site. Again, however, and as we've discussed, the agricultural or winery-related visitor serving uses is pretty silent in the actual 2010 general plan. So what staff, through this part, and we might be able to clean up subsection D to make this clearer, is to allow both for whatever is mentioned in the definition, so boutique cheese processing is one of them. If you wanted to do cheese processing without a winery component, you could get an administrative permit, and that could be the only use on site. However, there's this statement that says, and other agricultural visitor serving uses that are in keeping with the character and nature of the AWCP. And so what that language allows for and how staff would interpret it is that applicants could work with planning staff as well as the chief of planning to allow for other agriculturally focused uses that are not wine or viticulture dependent We could look at that and issue an administrative permit with the chief of planning. So that could be, again, the carrot harvesting processing events. It could be fully just a produce stand without a winery component. It could be other agricultural events that are really focused on, you know, artichokes or other key crops in the corridor plan area would be an allowed use without a winery component. So the intent there was to try to carry forward some of the discussion from the prior meeting to allow for some of that additional flexibility that was envisioned in the plan and in the discussion. However, how the plan ended up being structured is all these ministerially approved permits really focused on wine. We did have this ag, again, ag visitor serving use piece And with input from the AAC and wine representatives in 2025 and looking at the code, that the ministerially approved pieces require a winery and staff would still recommend that based on how everything else is structured. But we are recommending and proposing that there be some additional flexibility through an administrative permit process to focus on other product types within the corridor that further investment, visitation, et cetera, in the corridor plan area.

Got it. So the special zoning clearance checklist requires a winery, but there's space for additional discretion under an administrative permit for agriculture only that doesn't involve a winery or an alcohol production facility.

That is correct. And again, if there's feedback from the commission on how to better clarify that section, staff would welcome that feedback.

I don't have that yet. I'm going to think about it. Thank you, though. That's helpful.

Okay. Yes, Ms. Secretary.

Yeah, I think if I may through the chair, just we've heard a lot and questions as well as other things. I think one thing for the commission and before you open public comment, I think one thing that is very helpful as I'm hearing this is sometimes it's harder to explain what something does and it's easier to hear what do you want to be sure that this does or are you not sure if it does or how it does it? And so I think hearing from the commission really clear What types of things do you clearly want to see that either it's not clear you could do them or you want to be clear how you can do them? That will really help us because staff can kind of take that a little more clearly and go back with these regulations and our existing regulations and be clear, okay, what's already allowed with what type of land use entitlement. How could we modify for things that aren't allowed to let them be allowed or that are already allowed, but to let them be allowed with a simpler entitlement process? I think those are the two things. So if you can just have that in mind, I think that will be one way that I can see that might help us kind of move forward to a next iteration where we're a little clearer on what you want to be really sure could happen here so that staff's thinking correctly about what kind of use the planning or members of the public who want to be speaking today.

OKAY, THANK YOU. FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT? NOPE. OH, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

YEAH, I'M NOT SURE IF FOR THE RECORD WE NEED TO STATE THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS CAME BACK FROM THE BREAK OR DO WE NEED TO DO OUR OWN CALL OR SINCE NORMALLY WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST SO I WASN'T SURE. JUST A QUESTION.

I DON'T THINK SO. WE JUST TOOK A BREAK, I THINK, RIGHT?

Anybody?

No. Okay. I see nothing from anyone around here who looks with more authority than I, so we're going to say that. All right, let's move on to public comment then. Anyone in the public here in the chambers who'd like to speak to this item, please come forward and give us your name, please, if you would.

Morning Chair and Commissioners, Norm Groot for Farm Bureau Monterey. And I want to start by thanking staff for their engagement on this particular ordinance and the ability of them to respond to my multiple questions and emails related to some of the language. A lot has changed since the 2010 general plan was adopted, including the economics in wineries themselves. And so I appreciate the flexibility that has been built into this to allow for not only adjunct uses for wineries, but in the case that a winery is not on site. So I think we're satisfied with that language. I do have some specific language clarifications that I would like to ask for, and this is not just generally wordsmithing, but I think it's to avoid some future confusion that might come up for those who don't have reference to the discussions that we're all having here today. I'm going to start Excuse me, under allowed uses, this is in 2151.050.050, where it states that weddings are allowed uses. And I think we should have a clarification that it's weddings and associated receptions. And the example I'm using is I'm going to a wedding this Saturday where there's a two-hour gap between the wedding ceremony itself and the reception starting. And so I would like to see that we don't get into a situation where a wedding requires an approval and then the alternate reception, if it's delayed, is then a separate application process. So just to clarify, it should include weddings and associated receptions, just for clarification in the future. Then under 2151 60 also allowed uses on the zoning clearance It states that 1500 square feet is the limitation for the kitchen and the dining area Excuse me That seems very limiting and I believe in discussion with staff that that is really coming from the general plan and the sequel that was done at the time but 1500 square feet is very limiting if you think about 150 people and you have a reception and After a ceremony where you have sit-down seating that takes up a considerable amount of space, and then you have a reception with tables afterwards, I would like to see that we design some sort of administrative process that allows the winery or the facility to go through a single one-time application process to approve additional square feet, and that that would hold for all events that they would apply for in the future. And then finally on item 21-51-070, also administrative uses under the administrative permits. The language there clarifies that it is not necessary for a family to be in residence with the inn when an inn is established. I would like to add that we clarify the language to say family and or manager. Many times it's not necessarily a family who's managing the inn but it's a simple manager in a single position. So to clarify that that a manager is not required to be on site as a resident at a 10 room guest inn would be very important I think. So appreciate the consideration today and all the discussion that you have been having but would ask for those clarifications in the language. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Those seem reasonable to me. Is there anyone else in the chambers that would like to speak to this item? Seeing no one. Madam Clerk, is there anyone online?

Yes, we do have a public comment on Zoom from Rick Aldridge.

Please go ahead.

Go ahead.

I thank you. Good morning. I guess it's still morning. This is Rick Haldinger. I am the chair of the Government Affairs Committee for the Monterey County Hospitality Association. First of all, I want to commend you, applaud you for addressing this issue. We all know that the wine industry is struggling at the moment, and anything that we all collectively can do to improve that situation is very much appreciated. I am a little confused as well, and please forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but I think I'm getting a handle on it, but I just want to be sure. There have been some recent updates to event permitting process, particularly regarding temporary event structures like tents. And these changes have increased the time and complexity of that permitting process and have also dramatically increased the cost of that process. This seems certainly contrary to the intent of this ordinance, and it's unclear to me if this proposal grants any sort of exceptions to these types of requirements or if that is a separate area of the permitting process. If there is not exception to this, I think that's something that definitely should be looked into. And then also, if this new approach that we're looking at and talking about today, if that is good for the wine and ag corridor industries, wouldn't it also be very beneficial to all visitor-serving areas, hospitality industries in general, countywide? And again, maybe it already is, and I just don't understand that, but that's certainly a question that I have. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

Madam Clerk, anyone else we have?

No hand raised at all.

Okay, very good. So staff, having heard what you have heard, do you have any comments you'd like to share?

Yes, thank you, Chair. So in terms of Norm Groot's comments from the Farm Bureau, in terms of the weddings and associate receptions, and then there was some language requested for inns, staff can further review that at a first pass, it seems like it would be in keeping with the corridor plan, but we're happy to do a little bit of a review to accommodate those changes. The one item I'll note for the food facilities is Norm was correct. So the limitations in the ministerial permitting section for food facilities in conjunction with the winery does have a square foot limit that was contemplated as part of the 2010 final environmental impact report, and that was what was studied. As we discussed a little earlier with Commissioner Hartzell's comments related to the ag visitor serving uses and that kind of larger discussion of Ability to keep you know products and and uses keeping with the intention of that going corridor we could I think the staff would interpret that section to allow for Staff to work with applicants to get an administrative permit for food facilities that are larger than that 1500 square feet staff would typically So probably the best use of everybody's time is to have a full business plan and look at kind of that permitting in a longer term phasing versus on an event by event basis. But I think there could be that flexibility with how the regulations are drafted. In terms of Rick Aldridge's comments, the Agwine corridor has specific provisions for special events outlined in the general plan chapter that is referenced in the code. That's a little bit. DIFFERENT AND MORE SPECIFIC THAN OTHER TEMPORARY EVENT PERMITTING FOR OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTY. HOW THE SPECIAL EVENTS WOULD WORK IN THE AG WINE CORRIDOR. CERTAIN SIZES WOULD REQUIRE WORK WITH OUR SPECIAL EVENTS TASK FORCE WHICH WE HAVE TO GET PERMITS AS WELL AS SOME COORDINATION WITH THAT TASK FORCE FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT. Some of the concerns related to temporary structures are more so tied to construction permit issuance, which is a little bit different than land use entitlements, but I will defer to the secretary to speak a little bit more to that. And again, as we've discussed, the Agwine corridor that we're looking for a recommendation to the board on today is very specific to certain geographic areas of the county for hospitality visitor serving uses. An effort to look at these permit processes and procedures countywide would require additional staff time, additional environmental review, and would probably, again, be folded into the long-range work program for the planning team, among all the other things that we brought before you earlier this year as priorities. So I think that would conclude staff's comments. I'll defer to Katie if you have anything else you'd like to add.

I have no additions. Thank you, Sarah.

Okay, thank you. Madam Secretary, did you want to add anything? You were referenced in that.

No, I think the only thing, just to Rick's comment, what you are talking about, some of the added, so for example, building code and health code, those are outside in separate requirements for events, outside of the land use and kind of planning entitlement so what i understood there were actually some added cost delay and process that are more related to other other areas of code state and local law that are outside of land use and kind of what's within our purview here okay thank you all right let's bring it back to the commission then commissioners comments on what you've heard what you think going forward

Hmm. Oh, good. Commissioner Deal. Yeah, I was waiting for the District 3 people to speak up.

Because a lot of this is in District 3.

Were you looking at me, were you? I was looking at you. Yeah, I kind of thought so.

Because you, like, know about wine a little bit. At any rate, I really appreciate the discussion. I have offline made my suggestion, and I think as well in the hearing, that the matter of the zoning clearance does need to be delineated separate from the egg wine corridor in some manner, so it can be understood that it is a a change that would affect more than this particular section were it to be implemented. So I think that's really important. I do think that anything that talks about a particular organization, the successor organization language, or anything that refers to any organization ought to have some criteria related to what happens if that particular organization is no longer extant. I think that it's really important to me that we engaged again in the whole discussion of flexibility, making sure that we're not closing any doors when we're trying to keep them open. So making sure that... Mr. Groot and the Farm Bureau think that that flexibility has been preserved. It goes a long way towards making me feel better about it. On the face of it, the suggested changes or areas to address that Mr. Groot brought forward seem reasonable to me. So again, without additional analysis, in case there's something in there I'm not seeing, I would just generally say that I feel that he made a good case for them. And just going back to mr. Aldinger's comment about the countywide impacts That's really the point of taking in my mind looking at the zoning clearance separately so we all understand how it can help facilitate and make easier some of these other things besides wine. Given that this has been in place since, I believe, 2001, I think it was one of the first things I heard when it came on the commission, I would be prepared to go ahead and support bringing this forward to the Board of Supervisors with the comments that I have just made and Maybe there's some people that have other comments as well. But again, this is a recommendation. I think I would be comfortable making that recommendation for them to deal with.

Very good. Thank you very much. Commissioner Gomez.

I am prepared to second it with the... I'm not sure. Just so I understand, Commissioner Deal, in terms of the zoning clearances, you're saying that that should be discussed further, right? Just to make sure that I understand.

Through the chair? I'm saying that I think it is integral to this proposal. So they can't discuss this proposal without discussing the zoning clearances. My hope would be that we could have the zoning clearances item as it is pulled out and just heard before the other one. And if the Board of Supervisors were to say, no, we don't like this zoning clearance idea, we think you should go fish, then that means that the agricultural wine corridor proposal would need to be continued pending the outcome of that discussion. But otherwise it wouldn't. I mean, I think once I wrap my head around it, and I think staff can help us simplifying and clarifying that, Yeah, it wouldn't be to take this back, do it again, because we couldn't move forward without it, and I don't think it's really that necessary.

Yeah, we've worked through a lot of this.

So yeah, I'm prepared to second it.

It's adequate.

Because I think the one question we always ask is, how is this going to affect housing production? I mean, that's true for everything we hear. So this does have a bearing on housing, so we need to discuss it, I think.

Okay.

That's just me.

So we have a motion, and I believe, was that a second, Commissioner Gomez? It was.

Any further comments from commissioners? Anyone?

Anyone? Nope. Very good. All right, then. We have a motion from Commissioner Diehl to recommend moving this along to the Board of Supervisors with the noted changes that have been talked about a lot. We have a second from Commissioner Gomez. And...

Can I just ask, can staff ask a clarifying question? Oh, of course you can. Please, thank you. I just want to clarify in terms of the zoning clearance, is the motion requesting that it come back to PC or that it's heard separately at the board? Okay, so that the board can make that call and incorporating all of the comments we've heard today from the Planning Commission as well as public. Okay, thank you very much.

So the board gets a chance to look at it as a standalone item.

Sure.

And then goes forward.

Thank you, Commissioner Dillon, Chair.

So they can do the heavy lifting on that one. All right. Well, let's have a vote then. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, nay. Very good. That passes unanimously, I believe. Thank you, everyone. I appreciate all your help with that one. So let's move along, I think, to the one everyone's been anxiously waiting for. I believe that's why we have a crowd in the chambers today. We'll move along to... Let me put my glasses on. To item number three, which is the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse PLN number two two zero one two five And when staff is prepared you may certainly begin Mr.

Chair I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE CAN GET A SHOW OF HANDS OF WHO IS WANTING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM IN TERMS OF TIMING AND LUNCH BREAKS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. You mean get them all in before lunch? Well, it may help us. Yes.

Okay. What time did everyone want to go to lunch then? Do we either have an hour or do we have an hour and a half?

We may only have three speakers, so that's what I was trying to figure out.

Oh, gee, golly. Those of you who would like to speak to us today and give us your thoughts on this item, can you just raise your hand real quick? Except for you, Mr. Lombardo, I know you want to. Everybody else? Okay. We may have to cut the time down that you have, so if you would collect your thoughts so that we don't drag this on too long. Thank you very much for showing me, and thank you, Commissioner Roberts. Let's begin. Staff.

Good morning, Planning Commission and Chair Gutzelman. My name is Taylor Price, Senior Planner. Today I will be presenting PLN 220125, Monterey County Sheriff's Posse Grounds. The proposed project site is located north of the city of Salinas in the greater Salinas area plan. The project site is zoned public quasi-public and is surrounded by agriculturally and residentially zoned parcels. The Sheriff's Posse Grounds has been holding events since 1939 and was previously known as the Salinas Rodeo Riders and Sheriff's Posse. The facility was created to inform, educate, and provide a facility that supports rural, western, and agricultural heritage of the Salinas Valley. The facility hosts barbecues, livestock, equestrian, and other public and private events. In 1992, the County of Monterey issued a letter in response to meetings with the owners of the facility that clarified their historical uses. The letter acknowledged the facility could continue to host the types of events that have historically occurred at the posse grounds up to 100 days per year. However, concerts were not allowed without a use permit. Staff would like to note that this 1992 zoning administrator letter is included in the documents before the planning commission as exhibit B. In 2022, the applicant submitted an application to allow concerts at the facility. THE PROJECT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TODAY IS TO GRANT A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S POSSE TO HOST UP TO EIGHT CONCERTS PER YEAR AND MEMORIALIZING OF THE EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RECREATIONAL EVENTS, EQUESTIAN AND LIVESTOCK EVENTS AND FAMILY GATHERINGS AT THE MONTEREY COUNTY SHERIFF'S POSSE GROUNDS. THE PROJECT DOES NOT MODIFY OR ALTER THE PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AS RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY IN 1992. The Monterey County Sheriff's Posse Grounds has a suite of event management practices in place to ensure that impacts from the events are minimized for the surrounding residents and neighbors to the maximum extent feasible. The facility's operations plan and incident action plan have been included as Exhibit A3 and Exhibit A4. SOME OF THE FACILITIES EVENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE MEMORIALIZED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ENSURE CONTINUED COMPLIANCE WITH THESE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SLIDE WHICH STAFF WILL NOW REVIEW. THESE INCLUDE CONDITION NUMBER 6 WHICH REQUIRES CAPACITY LIMITS FOR CONCERTS AND THAT EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EVENTS COMPLY WITH THEIR HISTORICAL USES AND INTENSITY. THIS ALSO MEMORIALIZES THE FACILITIES EVENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHICH which include the requirement that all events operate with the facility's operation plan, keeping records of all events and the number of attendees for each event for at least two years. Ensuring that events with more than 100 attendees have at least one security guard per 50 attendees. Ensuring that events with more than 200 attendees have portable toilets and sanitary facilities. And ensuring that events with more than 400 attendees complete an incident action plan and have at least two qualified staff to manage traffic control points. Condition number seven requires notifying the Monterey County Sheriff's Office of all events occurring at the facility. Condition number nine requires compliance with the Special Events Task Force process for all concerts and all events that sell alcohol. These event management practices have been reviewed by HCD, the Environmental Health Bureau, the Monterey County Sheriff's Office, Fire Department, and Public Works. These have been included and memorialized as conditions of approval for the project to ensure continued compliance with these best management practices and minimize impacts to neighbors and the surrounding community. Title 10 Chapter 1060 exempts outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows, and sporting and entertainment events that are held at commercially or institutional premises from compliance with Chapter 1060. However, the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse has mitigation measures in place to ensure that noise at the facility created from events occurring at the site is mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Events at the facility generally occur between 7am and 9pm. The facility has noise mitigation measures in place to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 85 decibels at 50 feet from the source. Any violation of this decibel limit are brought to the attention of the event promoter and are immediately dealt with. The project had a traffic analysis report prepared and the report identified no new impacts from the facility hosting up to eight concerts per calendar year with a maximum attendance capacity of 3,000. The concerts would not create additional notable traffic or impacts to the level of service of the surrounding intersections. As a part of the best management practices, large events are required to have traffic management staff in place to manage the flow of vehicles before and after events to ensure traffic flows and intersections are not impacted. The facility has significantly more parking than is required by Title 21, Chapter 2158. The facility is required to have 750 parking stalls, but provides 3,125. During the June 10th, 2026 hearing, the Planning Commission requested that staff follow up on questions regarding the Special Events Task Force and its relationship to the current application. The Special Events Task Force is the process used to review special events in the unincorporated Monterey County to ensure these types of events are appropriately reviewed and permitted. Staff would like to note that the special events process is not a permit, rather it is a process intended to ensure that all other relevant regulatory agencies review the proposed event to confirm that it complies with the relevant regulatory requirements. When HCD receives an application for a special event, staff review the parcel zoning and land use and checks the SELA, HCD's permit and entitlement portal to ensure the property has no active code enforcement cases and to better understand the property's permit history. The Monterey County Sheriff's Postal Facility is somewhat unique in that HCD excuse me, HCD allowed the facility to continue operating as long as it was actively pursuing a use permit to authorize concerts at the facility and comply with the special events task force process. This is why it was allowed to continue operating concerts despite not having the benefit of a use permit. The commission requested that staff research noise complaint reporting process and the Monterey County Sheriff's Office for incident reports relating to the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse facility. Generally, if a member of the public calls 911, the universal emergency number, with a noise complaint, the member of the public is first routed to the County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department. emergency communications dispatch center where an incident report is created and then the call is routed to the appropriate law enforcement Agency in the case of the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse It would be the Monterey County Sheriff's Office the Monterey County Sheriff's Office responds to calls based on current staffing levels and call volume while violent and other types of crime take priority over noise complaints the Monterey County Sheriff's Office Monterey County Sheriff's Office recognizes that calls about noise impacts both the community at large and residents, therefore they respond to them as they are able. Staff contacted the Monterey County Emergency Communications Department and the Monterey County Sheriff's Office to obtain complaint information about calls within the immediate vicinity of the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse. The County of Monterey Emergency Communications Department notified staff that there were 13 calls, mostly for suspicious vehicles. There was one noise complaint and the Monterey County Sheriff's Office and Monterey County Emergency Communications Department keep the records for three years. As previously mentioned, the 1992 zoning administrator letter outlined the legal non-conforming uses at the Sheriff's Posse facility, including the number of events per year and that events should keep to their historic intensity and not expand beyond what has historically occurred. Since 1992, the facility continued to operate outside of its existing legal non-conforming uses. Staff has received historic and current neighbor and community concerns regarding the facility's legal non-conforming operations and concerns that the facility is not operating in line with the historic uses and intensity, despite no noise complaints being filed with HCDE. Further, staff is aware of multiple instances of the facility not complying with the required timelines and submittal materials for the special events task force process. While the application that HCD received was for only eight concerts per calendar year, staff believes that it's important to memorialize the historic legal non-conforming uses that have occurred due to its past non-compliance and the facility's history of operating outside of its legal non-conforming uses. The appropriate authority has the ability to designate conditions with the use permit as it deems necessary pursuant to Title 21, Section 21-74-050C. The memorialization and application of conditions of approval for the legal nonconforming events ensure that the facility is in compliance with its historic uses and the 1992 Zoning Administrator Letter. These conditions of approval will also ensure compliance with health and safety requirements and best event management practices associated with the operation of events at the site. Today, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the project qualifies for a class one and class, excuse me, class 23 categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 and 15323, and that no exceptions pursuant to section 15300.2 apply. And that the Planning Commission approve a use permit to allow hosting of eight concerts per year and memorializing of existing legal non-conforming public and private recreational events and equestrian and livestock events and family gatherings at the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse Grounds. And that the Commission modify the title of Condition 9 from County of Monterey Special Events Permit to County of Monterey Special Events Questionnaire. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That was very thorough. Appreciate that. Now we have Commissioner questions. Commissioner Roberts.

Yes, my question is related to, I guess, the definition of events versus concerts. My experience with the Posse Grounds is probably from 1992 and attending a Big Hat barbecue where they have live music. Is that considered an event or a concert?

through the chair. So that historically has been considered part of their legal non-conforming uses and not one of the new concert events, because that has been historically occurring at the facility.

Then I guess for everyone to think about, my suggestion would be to somehow define amplified music versus events and or concerts. I'm guessing what we're going to hear today is the amplified music. in any way is the issue. And so if we could somehow think about that, I guess, or maybe you already have thought about that.

Do you have thoughts? Through the chair, staff would maybe like to hear other commissioner comments as well as public comments and then potentially respond to that with the benefit of those additional comments. Makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Commissioner.

Yes, please. Thank you. And I'm assuming the other part might be related to traffic. And I guess, let's say somebody wants to have a dance or a fundraiser. And would that be considered something different?

So through the chair, the traffic analysis that was completed as a part of this project analyzed the existing impacts from the existing legal nonconforming uses. So those could be dances or other events that were not concerts. and then contemplated the potential increase in the impacts of the proposed eight new concerts. So the existing dances or other types of existing legal non-conforming events were contemplated in the traffic analysis report.

Thank you. Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. I just wanted some clarification. So I'm looking at exhibit B, page 45, the letter from Mr. Robert Slimmon Jr. And the last paragraph on page 45 is really difficult to read. I just wanted to clarify that this was established in 1992 that they were not allowed to have concerts, but that has continued until 2022 when they first applied for the permit, correct? So for 30 years, it continued.

Through the chair, so staff is aware that they have intermittently occurred between 1992 and 2017. Staff was provided information from the applicant that between 2017 and 2024, they had an average of, I believe it was six concerts, excluding the COVID years. So that is the information that staff has for concerts.

Thank you. One more question. So considering that the staff report says that they did not comply with submitting the questionnaire or whatever that paperwork was, oftentimes not submitting it at all, most of the time a day or two in advance of the project, was there any enforcement at all during that time period?

So through the chair, there was review of the special events questionnaire. Staff would always try to review those as quickly as possible, recognizing that if the event was scheduled to occur, you know, the next day or something that there would likely not be full time to review that. And it is because of this kind of weird. limbo situation where, you know, they have an active application and they were actively pursuing that application, but they should have been complying with the required timelines as a part of the special events questionnaire process.

Thank you.

All right. Very good. Anyone else? Commissioners? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Oh, Commissioner Gomez.

To the My question more relates to the, I know that we talked about how long the posse grounds have been out there. Has there been any new construction, any new development out there next to the posse grounds, new housing or anything like that during the past 50 years?

So through the chair staff is aware that the parcels were The sheriff's posse grounds was in existence before the residential homes went in around it And the information that staff has was the subdivision of the residential parcels occurred in February 1946 Okay

We're good then. Let's move along then. The applicant or the applicant's agent, would they care to make a presentation?

Morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Anthony Lombardo. Can we put up my PowerPoint, please? There's a clicker, sometimes not. Not.

Maybe we can. It might have been censored, Mr. Lombardo.

Let me start while we're getting it brought up. The Posse grounds was built there in 1939. That's actually even older than I am. And there were no houses anywhere near it, which I'll show you in an aerial photograph. The subdivisions and housing, as well as other agricultural uses, came in around the property after the posse grounds was built. There we go. Great. Next slide, please. So here's what it looked like in early 1947. Still, you can see the property, the orchard is part of the posse grounds. And behind it, you can see what looks like dirt track and some buildings shielded partially by trees. That's the original posse grounds facilities. Next slide. THIS IS A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ABOUT THE POSSE GROUNDS AND IT WAS ATTACHED TO, YOU CAN SEE IT'S HARD TO READ FROM HERE BUT IT REFERENCES THE SIZE OF THE GROUNDS AND THE FACILITIES AND IT HAS A CAPACITY OF 5,000 INDIVIDUALS. SO THIS ARTICLE FROM THE EARLY 1940s INDICATES THAT THE USE OF THIS POSSE GROUNDS WAS CERTAINLY NO less than what is being proposed for these few events every year now, including the one on the right from 1947 shows that they were holding an air show on the Posse grounds. I don't know exactly how that worked, but they've done quite a lot of things over the years. And you can see the large loudspeaker at the announcing stand and the crowd there. Next slide, please. This is what it looks like today. Outlined in red is the posse grounds. You can see where the area going back to the 1930s, 40s, where the concerts are occurring and then the parking is located adjacent to old stage.

Next slide, please.

This is the area where the music events are proposed to occur under the use permit. Next slide. As staff mentioned, The events have been ongoing since the 1930s. The county in 1992 recognized the events. Actually, 40 isn't the right number. That's a typo. It's 90, almost 90 years going on there, 87 years. And the Posse Grounds is not a for-profit organization. It's a charitable organization that donates the proceeds from the events to various community groups and scholarships. Next slide, please. The application is for aid. As staff mentioned, in 1992, the county made a list of recognized activities, which did not include concerts. The The county special events process has been used to review the events. The prior management, I guess if you want to call it that, of the Posse grounds was not necessarily good at making sure that those reviews happen in a timely fashion. Current management and going forward understands the necessity and the correct process to go through to do this. The county four years ago, made a point of saying you need to get a use permit for these activities, and they filed the application four years ago, which gets us to today, where we're seeking a use permit for those eight events, those eight concert events. Next slide, please. The use of the Posse grounds is a legal non-conforming use. The activities do not require a permit for the activities listed in 1992, do not require a permit. Those events have not generated complaints, nor were we able to determine that there were any complaints related to activities from the Posse grounds over the last three years. There are several complaints in the neighborhood over the last three years related to non-posse activity, grounds activities, including large musical events happening on the parcels that surround or are in vicinity of the posse grounds because the posse grounds events end in the early evening, do not go late into the night. Next, please. We had concern in discussions with staff about the language they used in the use permit about this permit for the eight concerts memorializing the non-conforming uses. There is no provision of the Monterey County Code which describes or permits the county to memorialize non-conforming uses, that term does not exist in the Monterey County Code. However, in discussions with the staff about their goals and our goals and recognizing the uses that have gone on up to now, historically and those that are proposed to go forward we think that we can agree to the language that the staff has proposed and the description they've given of the of the uses that have gone on since the 1930s at the site with a couple of minor modifications to the conditions of approval. So if we, for the purposes of our discussion now, if we leave condition one as written, again, this is sort of last minute, I was unable to speak to Mrs. Brady about it since this only developed over the weekend. So we can live with the language of condition one. Condition five, which has to do with an outdoor lighting plan, there is no outdoor lighting. They put up temporary light trailers for the cars to leave. in the evenings if it's a time of the year when it gets dark early. So I guess if it's understood that's what the plan would be, we can agree to that one. The condition number six is the one that with the revisions made at the uh... when the staff report came out are acceptable to us and then the last condition condition number seven has to do with notifying the sheriff's department and i i think possibly the sheriff's department made an error because the way they submitted the language they're referring to anything any activities going on at the posse grounds and so we'll we'll work i've spoken to to uh miss nickerson about this and we'll the sheriff's office to see if what they actually wanted because I you know I doubt they wanted to be notified if there's 20 people at the posse grounds I I think it should be in keeping with the language of condition number nine which is that they would be notified for all concerts events and any event that sells alcohol so but staff has assured me that we can work out the details of that with the sheriff's office so the only other item was the traffic fee we've because this is a non-profit we've requested a waiver of the county traffic fee and we'll work with TAMC on the payment of their traffic fee so with those modifications we would support the staff recommendation even though as I said it's it includes what I would say is an unusual if not unheard of condition to wrap in non-conforming uses in with the use permit application, which was only for the eight concerts. But the Posse Grounds wants to work with the staff, work with the county, and we think we can, with the conditions as they're currently worded, we can make this work. And then I'll turn it over to my clients to talk about their activities. Thank you. Very good. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Goetzelman and Honorable Commissioners. My name is Mike Kanelakis, and I am here on behalf of the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse, a 501c3 nonprofit organization established in 1939. We are here this morning to request that our application for eight live music concerts during the calendar year be granted. These events are about much more than music. The funds raised allow us to give back to the community we proudly serve, supporting youth rodeos, local 4-H groups, community events, college scholarships, and the preservation of our community's heritage. We have no paid staff. We're all volunteers open to membership by anyone who wants to be a member and who shares our vision of preserving the Western heritage and way of life. All the revenue we generate goes back into operating and maintaining the posse grounds while providing financial aid and support to the community in the form of grants, scholarships, and the use of the property. These concerts provide approximately 60% of our income and allow us to operate as we have been for the past 87 years serving the residents of Monterey County. We have several buildings, including horse stalls, barns, offices, residential quarters, an equestrian arena, rodeo tower, picnic tables, an awards stage, parking, and a clubhouse. And some of you have probably been there and seen this firsthand. all of this takes money to maintain and keep up these concerts allow us to do that while providing a venue where families can gather in the afternoon to enjoy their music in a safe environment this application has been a long arduous process that began four years ago and with the continuous turnover of county staff we have had numerous requests for information which did not involve the requested concerts in the original application. To our surprise, we received a letter from the county four years ago alerting us to the fact that we were not in compliance with the allowed uses of our property because we were holding these concerts. We immediately filed this application. hcd advised they would work with us and assured us that as long as we were pursuing a remedy in good faith we could continue to operate business as usual which we did and at no time were we ever told by hcd or anyone in county government that we should cease and desist until a permit was approved. As stated in the staff report, there has been one incident of a noise complaint in the past three years and notes that there were 13 complaints in the vicinity of our property. None involved our property, but it gives the impression that the concerts may have been the cause of the complaints that they were not. As an example, just this recently, on Saturday, August 1st, there was a large gathering late at night across the street from our property on Old Natividad Road with over 100 cars, a large tent, live music, and strobe lights, and most likely we will get the blame for it. These types of unpermitted illegal pop-ups are rampant throughout District 2 and present a well-known problem for law enforcement. We are the antithesis of these type of events and provide a safe and secure location for people to enjoy their music with family and friends on weekend afternoons. You may hear testimony from those who will complain about our afternoon concerts, and yet there have been no recorded complaints over the past three years. We have complied with water analysis, sound studies, traffic and engineering studies. We have submitted operations plans, incident action plans, evacuation plans, and parking plans more than once. And with that, we have paid all our fees and continue to comply with the county special events office for each qualified event. For a small nonprofit, these expenses have made it very difficult for us to operate. And if we lose these concerts, it will have a huge impact on our ability to operate. In fact, since these concerts account for some 60% of our income, and without them, it will directly impact our ability to provide scholarships, grants, and supporting community and private events. We also are alarmed that the continued recent downturn in concert attendance due to rumors of ice raids within the Hispanic community will also continue to impact concert attendance. We want the Posse grounds to be a haven for families free from today's worries where they can safely enjoy an afternoon and escape the realities of the problems of the day. in closing I would like to make it clear that we have sound monitoring equipment and are aware of the sensitive nature and the impact the music has on our neighbors. We are not now nor have we ever been a nuisance to our neighbors in the area. We constantly monitor all events for compliance with county ordinance one zero point six zero point zero three zero which regulates noise producing devices. We want to be good neighbors and stewards of the land while providing a valuable community service. I humbly ask that you favorably consider our application and grant us a use permit. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate that.

that was the applicant and the applicant' s agent. Now what we' re going to do is open this up so the rest of you can have an opportunity to share your thoughts with us. One thing I would like to mention, I' ve heard a few people while others have been speaking with us. If you would, please keep your comments to yourself if you could. If you want to share with us, you'll have your time and opportunity to come forward and do that. But let's have some respect for the people who are talking to us at the time. All righty, can we have two minutes on the clock, please? And it's on a, oh, we do have a speaker, we have one speaker slip, excuse me, because someone went to all the effort to fill this out. We'll let them go first. Tim Baldwin?

I get to go first as I follow the rules? Yep, that's right. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Tim Baldwin, and I'm here as a resident of District 3. I live off of Old Stage Road, so I'm not an immediate neighbor to the sheriff's posse. I'm neither a neighbor nor a member. But over the years, I've spent a lot of time at the Sheriff's Posse attending different events. And I will comment that I was there in the early 90s back at the Big Hat. It's not quite the same as it was back then, but I'll second your remembrance of that event back in the day when we were much younger. I'd like to ask that the that the Planning Commission approved the use permit for the eight concerts As submitted by the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse and for a very particular reason Generally, I'm in support of course of their their mission and vision and share that But more importantly as a as a resident of district 3 off old stage We deal with unpermitted parties on a regular basis and I mean it is we had a neighbor that was charging to have folks come to a party and It took a lot of time working with the county and code enforcement to get that stopped. We need to have these events in a permitted fashion on property that is zoned appropriately. That's what this application is about. Give folks an opportunity to come to a place where it's safe and secure and gather in a way that's conditioned. Address the concerns of neighbors directly through the permit process, but I ask that Instead of spending all the resources of the county and frustrations of the residents in the rural area of the county in dealing with these unlawful parties, permit the gathering through these concerts and this use permit. So I ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Baldwin. Appreciate that. All right, now, if you do want to share your thoughts with us, while someone's speaking, if you can work forward and maybe sit up in the front row, get ready to give us your thoughts. So who would like to be next? There we go. Very good, sir. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Carl Pacheco. I'm a 37-year member of the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse and currently the president. Since 1939, our mission statement has been to provide and promote the Western way of life and a safe environment where the public can come and use our facility. For 85 years, many organizations have used our facility for various reasons. Churches, grade schools, high schools, company picnics, quinceañeras, weddings, anniversaries, celebrations of life, business meetings, dog trainings, rodeos, team roping, barrel racing, and all sorts of equestrian events. For some of these organizations, we are their only source for their fundraisers. The concerts are an important part of our income. Without these concerts, we will be unable to continue to provide the posse grounds to the public. Please consider this in your decision. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Who would like to be next?

Good morning. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Peter Chang. I am a 37-year resident of Monterey County. And I arrived here after my pediatric residency training at UCLA. And I had chosen Monterey County because of the rich mix in culture, the thriving agricultural community, the open countryside, and last but not least, the Western way of life. These traditions support in part by the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse. Although we're all very busy, I think it's important that I in particular come and show my support for Monterey County Sheriff's Posse and their continued work. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Good morning. I'm just sharing a letter that was given to Buzz Nelson. He had to go today. He's the scholarship chairman for the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse. This letter was from the Hartnell College Foundation. I'm just going to read the letter from the scholarship. Dear Buzz, on behalf of those whose lives have been touched over the years, I want to extend our deepest gratitude to the Monterey County Sheriff's Posse for their extraordinary generosity and commitment over the past 23 years. Your consistent giving and partnership has made lasting difference, opening doors of opportunity for students who might not otherwise have access to resources and support they need to succeed. Through your contributions, totaling more than $54,500, you have played a direct role in shaping futures, strengthening our community, and investing in the potential of Harnell students. Over the past 23 years, your support has helped over 20 students pursue their goals and build a brighter future. Each of those students represent a story of perseverance, growth, and achievement, made possible in part because of your generosity. Beyond the numbers, your partnership has been invaluable. Your long-standing commitments reflect not only generosity, but a deep belief in power of education and community. It is this kind of dedication that creates meaningful, lasting change. Thank you for standing with us year after year. Your impact will continue to be felt for generations to come. With sincere appreciation, Jacqueline Cruz, Vice President of the Hartnell College Foundation. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Hi, my name is Jerry skillet. I'm a resident of the posse and you have a copy of a petition signed by all the residents around the posse grounds. And there's also a letter attached there from 1993. where we met with the posse, because they were having concerts a couple years prior to that, that they stated they would not have any more concerts put on by promoters. It went fine for a while until about 10 years ago, and it started up again, a few here, a few there, and it's getting more all the time. And now they want to have eight a year. That's eight weekends out of a year that we have to put up with the noise and the traffic. We, the neighbors support the posse. I go to some of their events. The Big Hat, weddings, company barbecues, the rodeos, ropin', we all support that. The only thing we don't want is concerts. They bring in their own stages with big speakers that just blast ya. Anything they have on their stage they built where they have a regular band playing like the Big Hat, we have no problem with that. It's fine. And as he said, there was no houses built out there when the Posse grounds got started. I've been out there for probably 45 years. And when I moved out there, we didn't have concerts. It was fine. Nobody complained. It's just getting out of hand. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning. My name is Gary Peterson. My wife's Candy. And we've lived out there for about 45 years. And I am right next to the posse grounds, right next to the posse headquarters where they have the bands and stuff. as you're going up Old Natividad Road. So you know that I'm very close. This has been going on for a long time. This all goes back like they've already been spoken about at 92 or whatever. When we first moved out there for the first few years, there was nothing. It was just like God's country. But then they started having these bands. This even goes back to when Mark Del Piero was supervisor. We started fighting it back then. and this noise. All we are, we don't care how many barbecues they have, how many weddings they have or whatever they do, they do a good job for the kids and everything else. The main thing is what we're up against is the noise. You cannot believe it unless you live out there or you come out and stay with us. We'll invite any of you guys. When they're having it, it is noisy. Now, they say they have equipment to tell how the sound is. They don't because I do, and I've had the sheriffs out, and when they say only one noise complaint, that's totally false. I don't know who's keeping the records, but I've complained myself. I even call 911, which I shouldn't. I even call 911 to complain because it's so damn noisy. And it just sits there and booms and louds, shrills, noise all the time. So, and it goes on. It's not set for normal concert. It's like you'll go and have it go to a concert. It's three hours or so. This one is all day long. And sometimes two, they'll have two stages, one in the arena and one in the front. So one quits, the other one goes. Last one they had there, it went from 12 at noon to nine o'clock at night. So thank you for the time. But anyway, that's my situation. Also, real quick, I'll say that the posse also made this little weekly a couple weeks ago. And it said in there then that they weren't complying with the permits. So it's not just us that live around there know that. There's a lot of people that know that they haven't complied with the permits and stuff like they should. But thank you very much for your time. Thank you, sir.

Well, yeah.

You just said you're an effing liar.

Oh, come on, man.

He said it to me.

Let's, let's. Is that really necessary? No, it's not necessary. Sir, please.

Yes, please, go ahead. Good morning. My name's Dave Dunn. I live on Old Stage Road. I've been out there close to 30 years. I, too, support the posse and a lot of the things that they do, but these concerts are truly out of hand. When you sit in your living room, try to watch TV, and you can't because these... excessively loud concerts are going on. It's just not right. I believe we have a right to our peace and serenity out there. That's why we live out there. Years ago, I went round and round with the administrative part of the sheriff's posse, and I got them to slow way down, but they're ramping up again. And it's just, you can come to any of my neighbors and knock on their door and ask them how they feel about these concerts, and they'll all tell you the same thing. It's too loud, it's too much, and it's a major, major nuisance to the folks that live around that area. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Hello. My name is Dave Reed. I live out in Old Stage Road. In fact, my next-door neighbor is the man who just spoke, Dave Dunn, and I just want to back him up. There isn't a neighbor out there that feels comfortable on Saturdays. Usually that's when the concerts take place. And we all have problems with headaches. It's a natural process, especially the high bass. You know, they turn the bass way up, and you have to sit there. This is where you live, okay? So you have to sit there and listen to this bam, bam, bam for hours. Hours. I mean, it goes on all day. Causes headaches by the evening. You can ask any neighbor, like Dave was just saying. It's something that has to be dealt with, whether or not you're dealing with canceling some of these things or just simply turn the volume down. That's all that's really being asked here. We're not talking about trying to curtail what clearly looks like pretty good work that's going on. We just need to be able to live in it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning. I'm Daniel O'Malley. I am not a Posse member, but I have been influenced by the Posse since I was a kid. I am, you know, fruits of the labor from the Posse. I've been part of the Posse, and the Posse has been a part of me since I was a kid. It's brought me my hobbies, my friends, and my family's I'm not the only person that has been influenced by the posse in a positive manner. And for that, I hope the posse does get a permit, especially when they try and be compliant. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kirino Vasquez. Good morning, everyone. I would like to support, give my support to the Cherry Passy Ground for two reasons. The first, they support our traditions, Mexican traditions. We get the opportunity to work together with families, full families, big families, in a good time. The promoters or the people who do the event help more than 40 people with work. Legal work. They pay for that. It's good. It's good for us. And I really support that. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Good morning, and thank you for your time. My name is Jennifer Galindo Cole, and I'm the president of the Tri-County Writers. We are a nonprofit gymkhana club that has been lucky enough to call the Posse grounds our home for almost 20 years. We hold almost every month an event there that lasts two days. Due to them, Due to their great grounds, the parking, the facilities, the management, we host usually 100 plus riders each day. That equates to usually 200 to 300 bodies on site enjoying the facility for the equestrian events that it was meant for. We are one of the direct... beneficiaries of these concerts as well. Due to the income that they generate for the posse grounds, I don't have to pay a market rate for that arena. Times are tough for everybody right now. If you own horses, you know how really tough it is, because not only do you have to feed them, you have to care for them, but the price of fuel to get them places. Our club has been in existence since 2007, promotes a low-cost family friendly place to go with your kids. Get them off their phones, get them out in nature, get them riding their horse, getting them to be part of the community. Most of our kids start out with Gymkhana, move on to rodeo, move into leadership roles. They see what we do, they see what Posse does, and they want to step into those roles. These concerts make it possible for us to offer this. So with that, I would really like for you to approve this and allow them to continue so that the Western lifestyle and the mission statement of the posse, as well as my club, can continue.

Thank you, ma'am.

I was going to say good morning, but good afternoon almost. Thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Anthony Lane. I'm the owner of the Fox Theatre. My company also runs a theatre up in Pittsburgh, California, another 1920s theatre and one in Antioch. And I do assist the cities up there with concert promotions. I've never done anything at the posse grounds, but as a promoter and as a person who owns venues, I have to tell you the costs in the past five years are just... Excruciating on myself as a building owner and event planner Booking bands is very costly so I can feel the pain with the posse grounds is talking about and as the owner of two historical theaters I think that the posse grounds is not just more it's just a piece of property that they're a part of the history and the character of the salinas valley i do understand there always comes complaints when there's live music and events but i think if you take a look we come to this fork on the road where you have to take a look and make a decision that the costs are just a lot there's there's there's no exceptions to the rule today insurances have gone from 23 000 80 000 for me for my buildings it's horrible it's tough so all i'm saying is i think we need to keep an open mind And we can see the benefits that the Posse grounds does for the community as people came up here. I know people are going to complain, but we need to keep an open mind that these events are good in producing money to keep an absolutely beautiful venue, a historic venue alive for more years to come and for the children. And again, after COVID, if we can get our families and children out together, I think that's one of the most important things that we should look at. I thank you for listening. Thank you, sir.

Anyone else?

I just want to let them know that we're not against the posse. All of these people make it sound like the neighbors are against the posse. We're not against all the things they're doing. Do they really have to have eight concerts? Eight concerts to make it work? That's a lot. I don't know how much they make off of these concerts, but maybe they should charge more. You know, I mean, it just has to... There should be something fair for us. They've never mentioned anybody that lives out there. It's all of the people they're helping other places. So I just want you guys to think that we're not all bad. But we, if you, like my husband said, if you'd like to come out here to our house when the next concert is, you're welcome. We're 449 Old Natividad Road. And you can see what we're talking about. And they make it sound like we're bad, but we're really not.

All righty. Thank you. All righty, we don't see anyone else. Do we have anyone? Well, we have one more person.

Hi, everybody. I gave a letter to the staff to one of the people who had to leave earlier.

Okay.

I asked if they'd read that.

Um, it's in the public record by submitting it. It, we, every, everyone sees it and it's submitted as part of the public record. Okay. Thank you.

Is it this one? Uh, yes, it is like that. Yep. We have that, sir. All right. Well, so give us, give us your thoughts. Yeah. Of support for the Monterey County Sheriff Posse and the Western lifestyle they promote. And also that, uh, I understand the FFA 4-H club, all that benefits from that. So I'm just asking you for support to let them do what they do. They've been doing it since 1939. They've got to be doing something right. So thank you. Thank you.

All right, and before we move along here, is there anyone on Zoom? We have some Zoom commenters. I'm assuming nobody else jumped up here in the chamber, so I'm assuming we can move on to the Zoom. Please, Madam Clerk.

We have two hands raised on Zoom, and we're going to start with Santos Quintero.

Go ahead.

Good morning. So this is Santos Quintero, one of the event promoters. We've been doing the events, the concerts, and the Sheriff's Postal Grant for the last seven, eight years. And I think, even in Salinas, we all know the Sheriff's Postal Grant has been a historic place in the area. We know, even when I was younger, that we went to the Sheriff's Postal Grant to dances, concerts. So it's been a part of the community for such a long time. And I just want to also point out that we go through all the process to get the permits, the special event process to get the permits. We go through the fire marshals, the sheriff's department, the food and safety office. We put together a medical plan. During the day of the event, we also have the audio engineers as well as ourselves checking the the noise and checking the noise levels. We understand that's a concern for the neighbors. Like I said, we constantly check that as well. The staff on the Sheriff's Postal Ground, we all come together, check the noise level, trying to make it reasonable and be under what's the code for the county to be on that level. We understand that's a concern, but again, we follow all the right regulations, the guidelines that are put by the county when it comes to those events. We also have safety guards on that day. Again, all of those numbers are put by the Sheriff's Department. They let us know how many people, how many guards they need to see on those events. So we do our best to make sure that we put together an event that's going to be safe to the community. If you go there, you're going to see all the way from kids, babies, families together, grandparents that come to join those events. There are... All ages are welcome to our events. We put those events with pride. We wanna make sure that we provide a safe place for the community, a safe place for people to come and enjoy music and live events. Again, just the last thing I'm asking is you support, we support the Sheriff's Postal Ground to grant their use permit. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, and the next speaker is iPhone Guest.

Please go right ahead. Please go right ahead.

Hello, my name is Daniel Jurado. I'm also a promoter, and I work with the posse. We've been there for a while. So we're trying to help out the community. We follow all the rules, the policies, the guidelines that the posse, that the Monterey County has offered us all the time with security, the sound levels. We always try to keep the... neighbors in a comfortable area. Yes, there's complaints. I mean, but there's always going to be complaints, whether it's your neighbor that's having a loud barbecue, whether it's a car with the loud music. And I mean, it's only a weeks i mean eight concerts out of the year that we're trying to help people in that community that we have people working for us that we're all those money all those proceeds are going towards all these um non-profit organizations through a posse and we want to work with the neighbors we want to work with the posse and with the county to stay within the guidelines so we can HOPEFULLY APPROVE THE PERMITS SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO HELP THE COMMUNITY AND KEEP ON HELPING IN ANY WAY WE CAN AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MADAM CLERK, ANYONE ELSE?

NO ADDITIONAL HANDS RAISED. OKAY.

VERY GOOD THEN. THE APPLICANT'S AGENT OR APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE HERE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DISCUSS WITH US AGAIN?

MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU. The county has a noise ordinance that sets the standards for the amount of sound that you can generate at your house or at your hotel or at your property, at your posse grounds. And that has decibel standards. And that doesn't mean that whatever you do at your house or at your hotel or at your posse grounds will not be audible to someone. In other words, there's a noise standard that noise standard is not, you can't hear anything. So the Posse Grounds has and continues both the promoters and the Posse to monitor the sound with sound monitoring equipment to ensure that it doesn't exceed the county's noise standard, which is the acceptable amount of noise that can be produced on a piece of property up to a certain time of night. If the commission wants to add a condition that requires that that monitoring be cataloged or, you know, written down and tracked to make sure that if anybody has a question about what was the noise at this time, at this day, that information can be provided to the county or to any law enforcement, anybody who wants to come and measure it, the posse would be happy to do that. They operate within the noise levels that are allowed by county code. Again, that doesn't mean it won't be audible but it means that it's not considered to be objectionable by the county code and these do these do not go on till late at night they stop in the late afternoon early evening and go home so uh i i'm certain that the neighbors will hear the music and hear them and hear activities whether it's the loudspeakers from the 1940s or this it will be heard but it will not violate the county's ordinance and we respectfully request that you please grant the use permit which also memorializes the non-conforming pre-existing uses so that they can continue this work which seems to be good for our a good thing for our community and we will make sure that those noise standards are met and not exceeded.

Thank you. Staff, do you have anything that you would like to address before we bring it back to Commission?

Through the chair, just to Commissioner Roberts' question about the amplified noise. So the amplified noise for concerts is presumably a little bit greater than the amplified noise for like the barbecue or the big hat events. But both of those would need to comply with the existing regulations for Chapter 1060, if that answers your question.

Commissioner Roberts Honestly, I think that the public's Testimony today helped me understand that they aren't necessarily concerned about what my experience at the big hat was that it's this additional amplification and In hearing Mr. Lombardo to speak. I don't think the question is about the amplification and the decibels. It's been years, but we had a really fascinating discussion here about amplification. recording decibels. I believe the sheriff came in and gave us an example of what things sounded like from where they were supposed to be. And it was honestly fascinating to see that, you know, the amplification, my voice here may not reach or may be reaching the decibel level but standing right there suddenly it's not reaching the decibel level even though we know you can hear me standing in the back of the room. So it was a really fascinating discussion and I think the question really is whether this site is, whether we choose to allow this new use or newly approved use at this site. I think that's the question.

Yeah, and thank you, staff. Okay, that's great. And that segues into Commissioner comments with Commissioner Roberts, thankfully, just started for us. Is there anyone else that would like to comment? Commissioner Shaw and Commissioner Diehl.

Okay, thank you. So for me, I just want to expand, clarify for myself, the question is not necessarily, do we allow this new use? Because I do think that it needs to be, everyone needs to compromise in this situation, in this kind of mixed use, conflicting land uses situation. So maybe for me, the question is not, are we allowing it at all, but how much are we allowing and what are the constraints that we can legally place on them? Because I guess I do have a question. My understanding, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE IN DISTRICT TWO AND THE NOISE ISSUES THERE AND THE LACK OF ENFORCEMENT THERE AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THE BOARD IS THAT THEY'RE COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM THE NOISE ORDINANCE SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT. CORRECT?

THROUGH THE CHAIR, 1060 I BELIEVE IT'S 030C DOES EXEMPT AND LET ME JUST FIND THE SPECIFIC. language really quickly outdoor gatherings public dances shows and sporting and entertainment events that are held at commercial or institutional premises however the posse grounds has added additional like noise monitoring devices that they if if approval of this was recommended by the commission is included in a condition of approval that they would apply those decibel limiters as discussed

Thank you. I guess I have another question and I don't know if there's somebody qualified to answer it. I'm curious about what kind of noise measuring tools they have or plan to have. And just doing a quick Google search, what I found is that the... base is incredibly hard to measure accurately unless everything is set exactly to these right frequencies so before even moving forward with this new use at all even whether it be four times a year five eight times a year I would be curious to know what you know measures are put in place so that it is not impacting the neighborhood at such a level that we've heard today.

Okay, Commissioner Diehl.

For me, I think that my thoughts center around what exactly is a concert compared to other uses. Reading condition six is really confusing to me. I understand that concerts are bigger, that they can go to a maximum of 3,000 attendees. I understand other than that, I don't see what it is we're permitting. Is it some kind of activity that otherwise wouldn't take place? What is the difference besides the size?

Through the chair, so the staff is primarily relying on the 1992 zoning administrator letter that prohibited concerts and staff could clarify that potentially um if that was the desire of the commission to add maybe more description around what a concert specifically is because title 21 does not define a concert and so if that would be something the commission desires staff could do the primary purpose for the Use permit is to allow the concerts which are primarily noise generating events as staffs understanding. That's the primary focus of them They're not like dances or other events that are held at the facility And concerts also have the greater attendance numbers So I'm actually Confirmed that I don't know what we're being asked to approve.

I The definition of the eight concerts is not clear to me. Reading the condition six, any language that talks about average maximum and tracking that is not clear to me. I find that more confusing than useful. Because a dance would have music, you know, a dance could... So for me, a concert... The impact of a concert would depend on what it actually is. We've heard testimony here today that when you think of a concert, you think of people coming and they play music for some given amount of time. So duration would be important for the eight days? Year and make sure that's days the number of stages certainly never occurred to me that a concert might include more than one stage So all of that I think you know additional amplification beyond what? technically what beyond what was established in the Other uses I mean, I guess that's anybody that brings anything on on the site that is a little confusing and So I think it's a very praiseworthy application. I appreciate people trying to get right with the law a lot. I think it's helpful, but I don't see how I could be informed for actually making a decision if I don't know what we're saying. The only thing looking through all this that I could see was if you take away the average maximum language, which confuses me, and just said maximum attendance, then a concert is everything between 2,000 and 3,000. because the maximums for anything else doesn't exceed 2,000. So there was something there, but then it was occluded by the average language, which I don't see as enforceable, certainly not on an individual event in the course of a year. So that's where I'm sitting right now, is that I couldn't support an application for something I don't know what it is.

Commissioner Gonzalez.

And maybe I understood it a little bit, but if we support the recommendation, or let's say the commission voted against it, does that mean that there wouldn't be any more concerts? I'm sorry, like if the Commission were to vote against this proposal of the eight concerts based on whatever policy is already in place, does that mean that there wouldn't be any more concerts at the Posse Grounds?

So through the chair, if the use permit before the commission was not approved today, the posse grounds through the 1992 zoning administrator letter would not be allowed to operate concerts.

And if it is approved, that means basically that they would have the opportunity to have eight concerts out of the year.

Through the chair, that is correct, up to eight concerts.

So they would or wouldn't, basically. And I thought I heard somewhere along the line that let's say there are going to be eight concerts, and what's a maximum allowable decibels in a concert? Is that different than it would be? let's say on a wedding or a quinceanera or something like that.

So through the chair, the sheriff's posse has in place limitations for all events. So the decibel limit is for all events, and that is ensuring that noise levels do not exceed 85 decibels at 50 feet from the source. However... COUNTY CODE SECTION 1060 DOES EXEMPT THOSE TYPES OF EVENTS AT THE FACILITY. SO THE SHERIFF'S POSSE IS OFFERING ADDITIONAL NOISE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT COUNTY CODE REQUIRES.

AND THAT WOULD BE ON if we approved this particular eight concerts that would be there. But if it's not there, then let's say it wasn't there, that their decibel limitations could be higher than that based on county policy.

Through the chair that is correct though. The sheriff's posse has communicated to staff that they apply this The 85 decibel limit were kind of consistently. I mean they're currently doing that Okay Thank you.

I might have some other questions later like for example. Well, maybe a statement you save those Commissioner Shah I

Thank you. Okay, so just to pick up that thread, just to be clear that these are self-imposed decibel limits because they're exempt from the noise ordinance. And what would be the neighbors, excuse me, those affected would be depending on is basically a good faith agreement that, hey, we'll enforce it. And there's literally nothing legal that it's, we're just depending on them doing us a solid basically, like, hey, it's too loud, it's above 85. SO THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THAT. TWO, I WAS WONDERING, DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT 85 DECIBELS WOULD SOUND LIKE? IS THERE SOMETHING COMPARABLE THAT I COULD JUST, IS IT A LAWN MOWER, IS IT A JET ENGINE? WHAT IS 85 DECIBELS COMPARABLE TO, PLEASE?

THROUGH THE CHAIR, STAFF WOULD MAYBE LIKE A MINUTE OR TWO TO FIND THAT, BUT I DO BELIEVE IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT WE HAVE SOME EXAMPLES, SO IF YOU GIVE STAFF A MINUTE OR TWO, WE CAN SEARCH FOR THAT.

THANK YOU. Commissioner Gomez?

The current status quo, are they having concerts now, I guess? I think if we don't do anything today, it'd still be the status quo, right? Are they allowed to have concerts now?

Through the chair, they are technically per the 1992 zoning administrator letter not allowed to have concerts now because the applicant was diligently pursuing an application to allow for concerts. The county has allowed them to continue to operate from 2022 when the application was submitted to today.

Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you, that reminded me, I have a question. The county special events process, is there an exact number of days that they're supposed to submit that questionnaire for review? Is that established anywhere?

Through the chair, that is established. On the county special events page, it's generally between 60 to 90 days before the event occurs.

Thank you. So to clarify, they've been submitting it, if they've been submitting it, one or two days ahead of time. And this is not obscure implied information. We have an actual 60 to 90 days.

Through the chair, that is correct.

Okay. Commissioner Roberts, you look like you have a question.

Well, I'll just add that I agree that concert isn't defined, and that was my original question, is I didn't understand what the difference between that and the Big Hat barbecue was. Hearing what the public has described, I now have a picture of it, but I also would not be comfortable approving something that said concert without a very clear description of what a concert is. That also said, what I heard from members of the public again was that they were generally okay with some of the other events that happened and that it's the length of time, it's the amount of exposure in a given day, and that that's the actual problem. I personally, based on our presentation from the sheriff years ago, am not comfortable with relying on decibels. It was very subjective based on where you were standing and the way the wind was blowing. And it just did not quantify what was actually happening on the ground. And I don't want to put the neighbors in a situation of, hey, I can't live here with this. And the sheriff or whoever saying, oh, it's fine. Our meter says that it's fine. If I don't know what's happening today, but for me, I would like to see parameters on length of time, you know, exposure and some kind of other more qualifying parameters.

Through the chair, if staff may just answer Commissioner Shaw's question, that's about 85 decibels is about the equivalent of a vacuum cleaner.

Ah, thank you. Appreciate that. All right.

What kind of a vacuum cleaner?

Wait, can I just... Mr. Chair, I just want to add, in a very quick Google search, it says 85 decibels is the universal threshold where sound begins to damage human hearing with prolonged exposure. And I don't know that a vacuum cleaner would damage human hearing.

the commissioner deal yeah uh... that really is very helpful everyone thank you uh... i understand better what my concerns are and i think that uh... the discussion of noise is really uh... interesting because noise is always been extremely difficult for people to understand how to measure it what the measurements meaning i would point out that the eighty five decibels is entirely dependent on it said fifty feet from the place where it's produced. So if that's the case, that's a part of the definition. All of those definitions need to be included in our permitting material, otherwise we don't, in fact, we want to make sure they're adopted and they're not just in some document somewhere that people have the right and privilege to change as they see fit. So from my point of view, I think maybe we're almost there, but it's not fully baked yet. And I would suggest that, first off, I just have to make an editorial comment, which is any time we talk about somebody depending on Acela for updates, we should qualify that, which the fact that Acela is very seldom up to date. So it can't be the final arbiter of these things. There's got to be another condition. But I would like to see this come back with the definition and understanding of what the concert really is fleshed out and included the permit and conditions relating to noise fleshed out and included in the permit and However, you know have technical people are going to have to figure out how best to do that But I don't want it to say it depends on some other ordinance I don't want it to say it depends on some operating plan. I really want us to include that in our in our definition and with that being the case I I would suggest that continuance would be in order. I'd be happy to move that to a date as suggested by staff.

I think that would be great, except Commissioner Roberts has something that she would like to add.

I'm happy to second that, but I would also... be hopeful that staff and the applicant and potentially the public could talk about parameters on time just so there's an expectation that a concert is a four hour period or a six hour or whatever. Again, if I'm a resident in that neighborhood and I'm generally okay with this happening, I know I can get from 12 to four and I'm gonna be okay. Or I can leave the house from 12 to four or whatever the case is and so, I would like to see that considered. Yeah.

excellent and through the chair i i did earlier talk about what the definition should include and i do believe it has to have a maximum number of people it has to have discussion of the kind of amplification in to what extent it has to have a duration and it needs to talk about whether there's going to be more than one point source for the the news among other things i'm sure you'll find more if you look at them so my motion is intended to include that not exhaustive list.

Yeah. I liked your analogy of half-baked. I think that's about where we are. We just need to finish this thing off a little bit. Don't mess this up. Commissioner Gonzales? Thank you, sir.

No, and I'm not sure if we would be able to look at it when it comes back, but I know I heard also a piece about maybe the number. I'm not sure we could move it maybe from eight concerts to six concerts, or if we keep it to eight and then bring it back in a year to see how that works, or two years, but at least to have more input, more from the... Neighbors surrounding the surrounding area, but I know that was one of the issues that maybe instead of having eight could we have six seven something like that and and If not, that's fine, but at least look at that possibility and maybe we can look at it at that time Thank you Thank You Commissioner Gonzales Commissioner Montalves

Thank you, through the chair. I wanted to add that I feel for the neighbors that are sitting in their homes, in their sanctuaries, and not only hearing the music, but possibly someone mentioned the bass and feeling the vibration in their walls. And I wonder if it's been considered, looked at, not only by the posse, but also by staff, that although that 85 decibel standard could be adhered to, the bass itself is a different frequency that is traveling much further and is coming across at higher than that 85. So that if perhaps the bass could be regulated, maybe the sound at 85 still could be respected without the bass causing that harm to the neighbors.

Thank you Okay Great no more hands. We have a motion from Commissioner deal to continue this item staff if we continue it if we When do you think you?

Through the chair, staff feels we would be ready to move forward on August 26th. It would be a tight turnaround, but staff believes the commission has provided fairly clear direction and staff can work with that if that is acceptable to the applicant as well.

I know there's a motion and a second, but under discussion. I'm not sure if there's going to be information like there's discrepancies in terms of how many people have put complaints in regarding the noise issue versus the residents say that a lot of different people have complained. about that. So I'm not sure if there could be something in it that specifies what's the process in terms of like individuals saying, you know, we're going to call and how does it get to, you know, get those discrepancies better because obviously there was one, others said, no, that's not a fact. There were a lot more complaints, but some were along the line. Either they didn't get recorded or didn't get reported or whatever that is. But maybe there needs to be a clearer distinction or definition or how do people around there, you know, put complaints in. So anyways, thank you.

Okay. I was just about to get to a vote. Commissioner Monsalves. Yes.

Thank you. I just had one quick question for staff, and this is regarding something I noticed in Condition 7, and it says, you know, contact email addresses, but those are for specific staff, and I wonder if there were a changeover, a turnover in staff, is it possible to have something more generic that's not? unique to one person, or in this case, two. Thank you.

Yes, through the chair, staff can reach out again to the Monterey County Sheriff's Office and see if they can give us additional contact information. Great, thank you.

All right, let's vote on this. Shall we, ladies and gentlemen? We have a motion to continue this item to August 26th or 8th, I forgot. 26th? 26th. Close enough? Okay, good. 26th. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay. We have that moved forward. Thank you, everyone, for your testimony. Thank you, applicant, for showing up. I will go through this again in a couple of weeks. Well, four weeks. All right, everybody, when do you want to come back? Oh, who's going to come back? Everybody coming back? Anyone not coming back? Anyone not coming back? Nope, everybody's coming back. You want to give it an hour? You want to give it a half hour? Okay, about 1.30, huh? Thanks, everybody. So, we have all, well, we have not all returned. Let's have a quick roll call just to make Commissioner Gonzalez.

Commissioner Getzelman. Here. Commissioner Roberts. Here. Commissioner Work.

Here.

Commissioner Mendoza is absent. Commissioner Hartzell. Here. Commissioner Gonzalez.

Here.

Commissioner Gomez.

Here.

Commissioner Monsalve. Here. Commissioner Shaw. Here. Commissioner Diehl.

Here.

Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. All right, everybody. We're going to start to continue, I should say, with our hearing today with a public hearing to consider the combining public and private water systems into regional public water systems to be operated by the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District. That's why we're here. We're going to talk about that. So, staff, when you're prepared, please begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Goetzelman and Planning Commissioners. I'm Kayla Nelson, the project planner for HCD Planning File Number PLN 250159 for the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District Regional Water System Consolidation Project. The project area spans both inland and coastal portions of North County, located along San Juan Road and Railroad Avenue in Pajaro, which then traverses down to Salinas Road and Highway 1. then goes over to Stone Ridge Drive, Hilltop Road, and Elkhorn Road within the Royal Oaks area before connecting to Jensen, Bluff, Trafton, and Struve Road in the north of Moss Landing area. The Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Springfield Regional Consolidation Project would combine the Pajaro, Sunny Mesa and Springfield water systems as well as two state regulated water systems, nine small water systems and the decommissioning of contaminated private wells in the north of Moss Landing area into one regional public water system. The project would primarily be supplied with water from three sources comprised of Pajaro wells number one and two and Springfield well number two. The two Pajaro wells would operate on alternating days to meet the average daily demand for the consolidated water system. Additionally, the Sunny Mesa water system wells number one and two would be retained as standby water sources for an overall total of five water sources. The proposed project is necessary to address long-standing contamination and vulnerability issues within the existing systems. The project would provide new service connections to eight parcels through a sphere of influence amendment and service area annexation requiring local agency formation commission approval as a condition of approval for this project. Although the proposed project would expand the district service boundary through annexation, the purpose of this expansion is to replace and rehabilitate existing failing and unsafe private water systems currently serving existing homes and businesses. The areas proposed for annexation are already developed, and the project does not propose, authorize, or facilitate new residential or commercial construction. Once the consolidated system is fully operational, the project would serve approximately 967 total connections. The project requires a combined development permit consisting of a coastal development permit and use permit to allow improvements to the district's water distribution system and coastal development permits to allow development within 750 feet of known archaeological resources, development on slopes in excess of 25%, development within 100 feet of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and the removal of two coast live oak trees. Denise Duffy and Associates prepared an initial study for the project, which identified potential impacts to biological, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise and utilities and service systems. 24 mitigation measures were applied to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level, which have been incorporated as conditions of approval for the project. A mitigated negative declaration for the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa consolidation project was adopted by the Board of Directors for the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District in February of this year. As a responsible agency under CEQA, the Planning Commission is asked to consider the environmental effects contained in the adopted mitigated negative declaration, agree with the conclusions, and find the mitigation measures are consistent with Monterey County Code and general plan policies. The project covers a large portion of North County, which could be broken up into two components referred to as the North and South. The North component consists of the Pajaro water system iron and manganese treatment system, the Pajaro tank rehabilitation site, and the Sunny Mesa water system tank site upgrades as shown in the hatched area on the right. These project components are located within the inland area of the county. The south component consists of the Sunny Mesa Water System transmission booster pump station, Bluff Jensen Road tank and pump station site, Springfield Water System expansion, and the north of Moss Landing area to the left, which are all located within the coastal zone. The project components would be located on multiple parcels with various zoning and land use designations. The project is public, quasi-public in nature, and the majority of the project will occur at existing facilities and within existing right of ways. The zoning districts affected by this project all allow for public utility improvements. The overall project would be constructed in two phases. The project will utilize funding from the State Water Resources Control Board Expedited Drinking Water Grant for phase one and from the California Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund for phase two. Phase one of the project focuses on connecting the existing public water systems and improving infrastructure already owned and operated by the district. This includes the Pajaro iron and manganese treatment system, the Pajaro tank rehabilitation site, and the Sunny Mesa tank site upgrades highlighted in yellow on the screen. I would also like to note that this phase would also include parcel annexations and establishment of easements for the long-term maintenance of the infrastructure. Phase 1 requires the installation of a 14-foot-tall, 10,000-gallon tank and treatment system to remove high levels of iron and manganese in the existing Pajaro Well No. 1, located off San Juan Road. Treatment of this well would provide the consolidated water system With an additional and reliable source of potable water, sludge generated from the treatment system would be discharged into the existing sewer line located within the public right-of-way. Additional modifications to the site include demolition of existing piping, fencing, and a light pole, and construction of a new 9-foot-tall, 1,808-square-foot structure for chemical and electrical equipment. It would also include an access ramp retaining walls and approximately 2,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces at the northeastern corner of the site. The new facilities at the site will be constructed above flood elevation level and the new drainage management features will be installed to manage on-site flood flows. All other existing equipment would be protected in place. Phase 2 also includes the modifications to an existing Pajaro tank and booster pump station located off Railroad Avenue in Pajaro. Alterations to the site would support installation of a bypass valve, the replacement of an existing 10-inch electromagnetic flow meter, and the rehabilitation of an existing 600,000-gallon steel water tank. All proposed improvements would be made within the existing developed site. Sunny Mesa tank site is located off Stone Ridge Drive in Royal Oaks. Improvements to the existing tank site include instrumentation controls and communication system improvements to integrate site operation into the proposed centralized supervisory control and data acquisition system, also known as SCADA. These improvements would occur entirely within the developed site and would not result in impacts to visual resources given the existing fence screening around the tank site. The construction of a new transmission booster pump station located off Elkhorn Road at the existing Sunny Mesa well site are included in phase one. The new station would transport water from the Pajaro water system to the Sunny Mesa water system, then pump water to the Bluff Jensen Road area and then down to the Springfield water system. Other project components included bypass valve, on-site security improvements, relocation, of the existing water meter and lateral from the adjacent property to the north, replacement of the existing driveway access and installation of approximately 150 square feet of new impervious surfaces and 2,350 square feet of replacement impervious surfaces. This site would retain the existing Sunny Mesa well number one and two to serve as standby water sources. However, this portion of the project would require the removal of two coastline oak trees and minor development on slopes exceeding 25%. In accordance with the North County Land Use Plan and Monterey County Zoning Ordinance for Title 20, A coastal development permit is required for the removal of coast live oak trees greater than 6 inches in diameter. The project proposes to remove a 10 inch and 16 inch diameter oak tree within the transmission booster pump station site off Elkhorn Road. The tree removal would accommodate the necessary site improvements to the existing pump station. A biological report was prepared for the project by Denise Duffy and Associates, which also analyzed tree removal. The two trees proposed for removal are the minimum amount necessary to implement the water system upgrades. All other trees on the site would be protected in place. The project was designed and cited to minimize the removal of protected trees to the greatest extent feasible. The sole purpose of the tree removal is to relocate existing infrastructure to higher ground and out of the FEMA floodway zone AE, which is subject to periodic flooding events from the adjacent stream along the railroad. The site slopes downward and relocating the infrastructure elsewhere would either block driveway access, cause further development on slopes, or be within the lower-lying portion of the property close to the floodway. Therefore, the relocation of infrastructure to the proposed new location requires the minimum amount of tree removal necessary to provide flood protection to the existing public water system. The project includes minor development on slopes exceeding 25% in accordance with the applicable policies in the North County Land Use Plan and Title 21. The project would require a coastal development permit for such work. Approximately 600 square feet equating to roughly 100 cubic yards of development will occur on slopes for the water system upgrades. The areas containing slopes will be on Bluff Road for the installation of service laterals to the existing residences. One service lateral on Trafton Road and the Sunny Mesa Transmission Booster Pump Station site improvements off Elkhorn Road. Construction of the pipelines and service laterals will have trenches no deeper than four to four and a half feet. The trenches will be backfilled once the new infrastructure is installed. Grading at the booster pump station will accommodate a building pad for the relocation of the existing generator to be closer to the proposed enclosed structure that will house the booster pump station. Given the minor and somewhat temporary nature of the development on slopes, this is the minimum necessary for the water system upgrades. Additionally, there is no other feasible alternative for the placement of the water system upgrades as the areas of the replacement pipelines and service laterals have been previously disturbed. Some portions of the project are located within FEMA floodplain zones. Standards for utilities pursuant to Chapter 1616 of the Monterey County Code require all new and replacement water supplies be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the stream and discharge from streams into floodwaters. Furthermore, a setback of 200 feet from the top of bank of a river or 50 feet from the top of a bank of a water course are required to be established where encroachment would be prohibited. The proposed infrastructure upgrades are... designed to elevate existing and new equipment out of the floodplain for the purpose of providing safe and reliable water supply to the district customers. Therefore, the project is found to be consistent with the development standards for flood hazard reduction outlined in Chapter 1660. Phase two of the project expands water service into the north of Moss Landing area and require proper deconstruction of contaminated wells. This portion includes the Bluff Jensen Road tank and pump station site and Springfield water system expansion. The project would install new service laterals and connections and distribution piping for a total of 235,000 linear feet of pipeline that again would serve 967 water connections. The Springfield water system well number two at the Moss Landing Middle School site will be equipped with improvements including a new submersible well pump, chlorination facilities, two new 110,000 gallon water storage tanks, and a new booster pump station. The booster pump station will include a hydropneumatic tank and four pumps to provide fully redundant domestic and fire service. the springfield water excuse me the springfield well number one and the existing well at the moss landing mobile home park would be destroyed in accordance with the locals local and state standards replacement of existing springfield water distribution system will also include new water laterals and installed service meters to provide connection to each resident. I would like to know as staff that if this image looks familiar to you, I was before the planning commission in March of 2023 for the Springfield water system improvement projects. This project before you today is hooking in all the improvements and connecting with this improved water system. In the north of Moss Landing area, many homes depend on small water systems or private wells with nitrate, arsenic, seawater intrusion and other contamination problems. Some systems are already out of compliance with state water drinking standards. The county is required to identify and have property owners repair or destroy wells that contribute to groundwater degradation. Water wells that cannot be repaired are required to be destroyed in accordance with state-regulated standards in Chapter 1508 of the Monterey County Code. The Environmental Health Bureau has conditioned the project, acknowledging that if property owners intend to maintain their well, they must provide evidence that the well is functional, can be used on a regular basis, and does not act as a conduit for contamination of groundwater. The project proposes to convert 0.4 acres of farmland from a 10.6-acre parcel for the construction of the Bluff-Jensen Road tank and booster pump station. Pursuant to North County Land Use Policy 2622, conversion of agricultural preservation or agricultural conservation farmland from non-agricultural uses to agricultural non-agricultural use shall be permitted only where there is an overriding need for the public health and safety. The location of the tank will be placed closest to the corner of Jensen and Bluff Road to minimize conversion of farmland to the greatest extent feasible. Relocating the tank site would cause greater disturbance to the row crop production and make it difficult to maneuver harvesting equipment around the tank pad furthermore simple and direct access from jensen road allows for easy maintenance of the site rather than relying on the existing dirt roads used from the farm workers utilizing access from jensen road will also reduce potential safety hazards for those working in the field Given the water quality issues in northern Monterey County, conversion of 0.4 acres of farmland is the minimum necessary to provide a safe and reliable water supply to an underserved community. The Bluff Jensen tank site requires the construction of a new booster pump station and water storage tank. This system component would transport water from the transmission main into the Bluff Jensen area while providing water flow for fire prevention. The pumping facility consists of a 24-foot tall, 125,000-gallon potable water tank and Four vertical turbine cam pumps, a hydropneumatic pressure tank, backup generator, and construction of 229 square foot chemical and electrical building housing, a tank mixing, and chlorine residual control system. Site access would be provided by a new 20-foot wide driveway. With a rolling gate on Jensen Road, other side improvements include an eight-foot-tall security fence and a transformer. The project involves development within 100 feet of environment-sensitive habitat areas. In accordance with the applicable policies of the North County Land Use Plan and Title 20, a coastal development permit is required for this type of development. Site surveys were conducted by the project biologist within the evaluated project areas on four separate occasions. The biologist did not observe any special status plant species during focus surveys in 2024 or 2025. However, the survey identifies suitable habitat for several special status species that are known or have the potential to occur within or adjacent to the evaluated project areas. Pursuant to North County Land Use Plan Policy 2328, where development is permitted in or adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat, the county shall restrict the removal of indigenous vegetation and land disturbance to the minimum amount necessary for these structural improvements. In accordance with this policy, the project has been designed to avoid riparian habitat, which includes habitat for special status wildlife species to the greatest extent feasible. Now, the districts adopted a mitigated negative declaration, identified potential impacts to several special status wildlife species, particularly within small riparian areas present within the Transmission Main easement just north of the intersection of Highway 1 and Springfield Road. Additionally, habitat was found north and south of Werner Road, west of Hilltop Road near agricultural facilities. and east-west of Elkhorn Road associated with Werner Lake. Adjacent to the bluff Jensen expansion area habitat is also present near the terminus of the distribution pipeline along Trafton Road as well as adjacent to the Springfield expansion area during construction of the project a qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys be on site to monitor the potential potential presence of these special status species and implement best practices to avoid or mitigate impacts. The project was referred to the North County Land Use Advisory Committee and the Agricultural Advisory Committee, which both recommended approval of the project as proposed. However, one North County LUAC member expressed concern regarding the amount of grading in the proximity of sensitive habitat and archaeological resources, which they felt were not completely studied or reviewed. Staff responded to these concerns at the LUAC meeting by confirming that the project applicant prepared and had circulated an initial study negative declaration which thoroughly analyzed POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO THESE RESOURCES. PROJECT IMPACTS HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO A LEVEL LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH HAVE BEEN APPLIED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO THIS RESOLUTION. DESPITE STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE ANALYSIS WITHIN THE ADOPTED INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE LOAC MEMBER RECOMMENDED TO DENY THE PROJECT. Staff would like to propose an errata to condition of approval number four of the draft conditions to the resolution from requiring recordation of a new mitigation monitoring or reporting plan to only requiring payment of a condition compliance fee. The Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District adopted their own mitigation monitoring and reporting plan but the county included condition number five requiring proof that the adopted mitigation measures are being implemented during all phases of construction. Also prior to Coming before you after lunch, it was brought to my attention that there was an error made in finding number one, evidence D of the resolution. So staff would like to remove the language that says that the district is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. That statement is incorrect. They are actually a nonprofit, so they are not regulated by that commission. So upon review of the submitted project application with accompanied environmental document, staff finds the proposed project fits the criteria of allowed use. Staff recommends the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Springfield Area Regional Consolidation Project initial study and mitigate a negative declaration. approve a combined development permit with the proposed errata changes to allow improvements to the water distribution system based on the findings and evidence before you today and this concludes my presentations and I am available for questions thank you very much we appreciate that all righty commissioners do we have questions of staff

Commissioner Shaw.

Not a question, sorry. I just had a member of the public message me and let me know that, I guess on Granicus, I don't know how to pronounce it, the item is mislabeled with the wrong description. And that was all, just forwarding that.

Thanks, whatever that means, huh? Yeah. Commissioner Deal.

For one thing, it means that there are people who are actually trying to pay attention to what we're doing who are not here in the room. I think that's very exciting. I just want to make sure I understand the errata statement that was just made, because I hadn't seen that before, probably wasn't looking. So we have a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan ourselves. We have conditions that implement some kinds of measures, right? But we are not in, there are not very many of them, and we don't need to have a separate MM&R plan of our own. We're going to rely on somebody else's? Is that what we're saying? Because there are definitely, we definitely have a number of conditions. Some of them are including things like restoration for pavement and things like that.

Yes, through the chair. So the initial study mitigated negative declaration was previously adopted by the Paros and Emesa district. That included an adoption of a mitigation monitoring reporting program that would implement the mitigation measures outlined within the initial study. There are still conditions of approval that are applied to this project. We're just not adopting a subsequent mitigation monitoring reporting program. since one has already been adopted by the district. But we are ensuring that we add a condition that they comply with that program that has been previously adopted.

So my question for you is, are all the conditions that we have here covered under that plan?

Through the chair, the conditions I believe you're referring to are either standard conditions put on by the county or might have been a special condition. But those conditions wouldn't necessarily be part of mitigation measures that were previously adopted by the district.

I guess what I'm getting at is, maybe I should back up. I'm always finding out that's a good place to start. We're being asked to weigh in on the physical impacts of this plan as I understand it and the impacts to the outside of the applicant of the physical development. We're not being asked whether it's a good idea to consolidate or not. That's not our business. We're not being asked about the conditions and infrastructure that's actually being proposed here about whether the pipes are the right size. That's already been taken care of by somebody else. So the question before us has to do with the physical impacts, right? And so my question is, am I missing the mitigation monitoring plan that I should be looking at that contains all of those? And how does it interact with the things like tree, you know, like a replacement that we see here?

Through the chair, the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan was attached to the project resolution as exhibit. Give me a moment. I can pull that up.

It was a big packet. So I apologize if I missed it. I see the initial study, but I don't see where it says all of these are adopted in this manner.

It's included as Exhibit F as the project resolution. Let me try to share.

Well, anyway, I'll let things go forward, but I just don't quite understand What impact we need to actually look at? I mean, the fact that somebody else adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, does that mean all of the impacts that are identified in that case have already been dealt with and we shouldn't examine them? Are they off our table? I mean...

Through the chair in part of the action We're considering the previously adopted mitigated negative declaration and finding that those mitigation measures that have been implemented as part of that adoption are sufficient enough to carry forward to reduce any impacts outlined to a less than significant level the conditions that are being added are relative to the resource impacts that then trigger an entitlement for the project. Some of these also resources have been identified already within the initial study, so they go hand in hand. They're just subsequent conditions that are required by our regulations.

I'm still confused, but okay. It's just hard for me to know what impacts I'm supposed to be considering and whether I should assume that it's been dealt with or I should look at it and be sure that I'm comfortable that it has been dealt with, and those are not It would impact what I wanted our documentation to say.

Through the chair, can I make a comment and a question to our team? Could you maybe just summarize the key triggers for entitlements and why we're here today before the planning commission and then how the mitigation and monitoring reporting plan may help take care of the issues that typically the planning commission would review? So the tree removal, are they replanting trees? What is the development on slopes looking like? How is that being resolved in the MMRP or if we needed to apply standard conditions?

Yes, give staff a moment, please. So through the chair the entitlements that were triggered that I had gone over on the slides was development within 750 feet of environmental no excuse me of archaeological resources the development on slopes which even though is minor is still triggers a coastal development permit and With development within 100 feet of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, which through the previously adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, the district had identified 14 mitigation measures just to address impacts to biological resources in and of itself. Here, let me try to pull up another image.

One second here.

Can we share screen? Okay, so the mitigation measures that were outlined in their mitigation monitoring and reporting plan had addressed biological resources, cultural resources requiring monitoring during construction, making sure that these resources are either being avoided or reducing impacts to a level of less than significant. There's also noise reduction measures that were added to the program. And then addressing any hazardous materials and any impacts to hydrology and water quality have also been included as well as tribal monitoring during construction. Condition of approval number five that county staff has added to the project essentially acknowledges that these mitigation measures will be upheld during construction. It's tied to the project in that We conditioned the project to require evidence of these mitigation measures, but that a new mitigation monitoring and reporting program would be redundant and not necessarily the path forward to require an additional recording of a program that is going to be the same. Okay.

And through the chair, so the Parajaro-Sinemesa district adopted a resolution that also then adopted the initial study with the mitigation monitoring reporting program. The impacts to those resources that were identified and that are identified on the screen are reduced to a less insignificant level through these mitigation measures and therefore makes it consistent with the general plan and the local land use plan and then compliance with the special condition that staff is adding for a condition number four to ensure those mitigation measures are implemented will be appropriate for record keeping to ensure compliance.

Through the Chair, that was really part of my concern is that the mechanism we have had for accountability with respect to mitigation monitoring and reporting plans has been that plan. It's been based on that plan. We're not taking this particular project and saying we're not going to do that. So we're going to do something else. We're going to allow some other agency's certification that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing to stand in for our record keeping. And I'm finding that a little concerning because... I mean, that's not the way that we usually do it. And when we step outside of the way that we usually do it, in my experience, sometimes we lose track of the real part of that. The other part of it is we're saying, I'm assuming that these are all adopted as they're written in the initial study. I frankly did not go through and look at all of them in the initial study to make sure that they actually addressed the concerns of the general plan. So I'm a little operating on faith there. I assume staff has done so. So it's like other people's interpretations of the planning documents probably are fine if we're clear enough in how we write the planning documents, but you need to check. And we've taken the mechanism I know of that keeps us accountable out of the picture. And that concerns me a little bit because then we're in a special case. And special cases have not always turned out well.

And through the chair, typically the county of Monterey is the lead and responsible agency for implementing the mitigation measures. And in this particular case, we're the responsible agency and not the lead agency and therefore are not adopting any mitigation measures. And because there isn't any mitigation measures for us to adopt, a mitigation monitoring reporting program wouldn't be a part of that.

Okay, but we just stick to our conditions and don't worry about anything else.

Through the condition that requires them to ensure that they're implementing the mitigation measures, that would then ensure that they are compliant and consistent with their policies.

And how will that be illustrated?

Through the chair, let me walk, let me pull up the actions so we could read them then to the commission.

I know it says on an ongoing basis they'll provide proof, but that's not the same as our system. Anyway.

I'm trying to share screen, and it's not. Oh, here it is. Okay. So this is the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that was adopted. And it has, and this is attached to the project draft resolution as well. There are multiple mitigation measures that would address impacts. Let's see. Did you want to make it?

through the chair so the action on the condition staff would if the chair would allow or the Commission will allow would be recommending a change to ensure that prior to the issuance of any construction permits or grading permits that the applicant then provide evidence demonstrating compliance with the mitigation measures as adopted through the initial study, which would provide the timing to ensure that they comply with the mitigation measures as appropriate during the implementation of the project.

I'm still confused, but what Not all the mitigation measures that are identified are prior to project commencement, for one thing. So you have to be careful about that. But I guess I'm just saying, how are they going to know they've done the right thing? There's no performance standard here. So how will they know that they've given us the information that they're supposed to give us? It just says they're supposed to prove it on an ongoing basis. It's not like... every quarter you're going to give us a thing, or you're going to do some of these things before and some of these things after. Again, that's all part of the mitigation monitoring plan normally. So I'm sure that this has all been thought out, but on the other hand, I also have an item in front of me that mentions the consolidation as something that is relevant to my consideration. And as I understand it, it's not. I mean, we're not deciding on whether or not these systems are going to consolidate. We're deciding on what the people eventually are authorized to run this eventual water system, however it looks, are allowed to build. So it's a confused, I'm just confused. I'm just confused about what exactly we're supposed to be doing here. I'm also confused about how the county will fulfill its responsibility to ensure that we don't get on the wrong side of mitigation measures that either didn't do the job or weren't being implemented. Not that I think this organization has any tendency to do that, but we have had that happen in other cases in the past in the county.

Through the chair, would it be more appropriate to require the recordation of the new mitigation monitoring and reporting program with the county to satisfy the concern?

That's above my pay grade. I just want to make sure that we have a way to be sure that we're tracking this in the same way that we do our own. So whatever that is, you guys would know, Steph would know way better than me. It's just this, I don't like conditions where I'm not absolutely clear on what's being required of the applicant. So having been on the other side of that, how do you know if you did the right thing? How can you plan? So that's where I'm at is like, Normally, we would just have a chart of these. We would look at these. There would be a plan for continuing to monitor these. That is not the situation because Pajaro, Sunny Mesa, or the subsequent agency is going to be doing that. How are they going to tell us they did it in a way that we can be sure we get it? That's all. It's not a showstopper. But we'll also go back to the other point, which is I want to be sure we're doing what we're supposed to be doing. And as far as I can tell, it's just actually looking at the construction. We're not looking at any of the organizational part. Or for that matter, the design of the infrastructure, insofar as it works or doesn't work for water, because we wouldn't know.

yeah through the chair the the improvements to the water systems do require a use permit or coastal development permit so that is part of the action before you today and yes those improvements would include structures which are also what the county looks at as far as project parameters and making sure that they are compliant with our code and then with all the potential to impact resources it was those resources were analyzed within the initial study that was circulated and so If the commission wishes to apply each to require a new mitigation monitoring reporting program, talk with the applicant on that.

I don't have a stand on that. I don't have any authority or thoughts on that. For me, I'm really stuck looking at what we are saying we are reviewing and what we are, as we say, approving. As long as we're clear that we are not basing an approval on something that we didn't actually look at in the course of approving it, and we aren't actually sure it's going to be done, I'm fine. And I think, I mean, in general, I believe that to be the case. But in terms of process, we've departed from any process with which I am familiar, so I need to understand how this then works. And I need to go back and double-check the findings and evidence to make sure that we're not using any of our... language to provide any holes that somebody else can subsequently drive a truck through.

Okay.

May I chime in briefly?

You sure can. Through the chair. And then Commissioner Gomez wants to jump in.

I think what might be helpful for staff is to hear any additional planning commission questions and feedback, any discussion from the applicant or members of the public. And then I may suggest looking at that condition number five and taking a brief break for staff to get some additional language for what's being proposed to see if we can add any additional clarity based on Commissioner Deal and or any other commissioner comments.

Cool.

Commissioner Gomez. No, I just wanted to say, I think, I understand what Commissioner Dewey was saying. I think we just want to make sure that it complies with our rules, right? And how do we do that? It's really, it's, you know, I think it's how do we monitor that as staff, I guess is the question. Secondly, I wanted to just say, I think that this, I think what Paro Valley Sunning-Pesa is doing is real critical. I know that there's a real need out at, out on Springfield Road. I know that there's, there's, hundreds of homes out there that don't have water service now. And I know that this project will help solve some of those issues that they have. People can't take showers at their own home. Water is brought in. So I think it's a great project. I think it's going to make a big difference for the hundreds of, if not thousands of residents that live in that area.

Okay, cool. Anybody else have any questions for staff so we can move along here a little bit? Nope. Okay, good. Good? Good. Everybody's good. All right. That deals with that. Then, is there an applicant or an applicant's agent that would like to make a presentation?

Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Judy Vasquez Varela. I am the general manager for Pajaro-Sinemesa Community Services District. We are a public water system that owns and operates nine separate water systems for communities in the north of Monterey County. We are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board. The purpose of the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa-Springfield Area Regional Consolidation Project is to address critical water quality, reliability, sustainability challenges by consolidating the Pajaro, the Sunny Mesa, Springfield and water systems to one reliable system. The project will address exceedance of hexavalent chromium, nitrate, and 123 TCP in northern Monterey County. It will ensure drinking, it will ensure potable drinking water in the project area. The project area will also benefit residents in the Bluff-Jensen area who currently rely on private or shared wells. Importantly, the project is intended to benefit existing dwellings only and not intended to facilitate new development. The project will be funded through a grant from the California State Water Resources Control Board Expedited Drinking Water Grant Program, providing funding to address these urgent drinking water needs. This is an important investment in the community's future by consolidating three separate water systems and the residents along Bluff and Jensen roads. We can address longstanding water quality concerns, improve reliability, and provide safe and sustainable water supply to existing residents. We appreciate the Planning Commission considering and supporting this project to move forward. I'd like to introduce Robin Chaconas with Community Water Center.

Good afternoon, my name's Robin Chaconis. I'm a water projects manager with Community Water Center. We're working with the district on this project and we are a environmental justice nonprofit that works to provide the human right to water across California. So CWC, or Community Water Center, we first opened our Central Coast office in November of 2018 and immediately started organizing in this Pajaro-Sunny Mesa-Springfield community then. By February 2019, we had helped the community to create a community-based organization to not only advocate for funding and resources to do this type of project, but all the necessary steps that have got us to this point today. and since July 2019 have advocated alongside that community to provide interim solutions in the form of bottled water and also a 123 TCB pilot project so that folks could shower in their homes safely. So for the last seven years we've been helping to provide this interim solution. So this is a really momentous step to be able to provide a long-term sustainable solution to this community. and really working with historically underserved and disadvantaged communities And it means a lot that we've gotten to this place knowing how long these projects take to move forward and the challenges with state funding and even federal funding challenges around this getting here today. So we're excited to see the robustness of community support in favor of this project and have about 67 participant consolidation agreements from residents signed. So showing that support to see this project moving forward. So thank you for carrying this forward and supporting this community that will be impacted so positively from this project. And I will pass it to Denise Duffy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Denise Duffy, Denise Duffy and Associates. And I wanted to just let you know that we're here today. Connor O'Toole, the Deputy Project Manager for the Environmental Studies and the Permitting is here with us in the room. And then we also have, as resources online, Robin Simpson, the Deputy Project Manager for the Environmental Document. and Jamie Coley, who prepared the biological resources report and is working on permitting with the state. I also have online Jordan Areola from the engineering department, engineering that worked on this project for the last four years as well. One comment I'd like to make, we appreciate all the work from the staff. We appreciate the conditions. We are comfortable with a condition that requires us to, if needed, record the mitigation monitoring program. This project is... a very layered project. There are requirements from the state on down, federal and state on down, in terms of mitigation, monitoring, implementation proof. We have to provide reports through our construction monitoring and reporting to ensure that each of the mitigation measures are in fact implemented as required and that goes through the state State Water Resources Control Board, Environmental Unit, Division of Financial Assistance, Environmental Unit, Environmental Sciences. They require every three months, actually quarterly reports for implementation requirements and proof of implementation. So we're happy to provide those as well to county staff, and we're also happy to have the mitigation monitoring program recorded. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Duffy. Very good. All right. Thank you, everyone. Are there any public comments? Do we have anyone in the room that would like to speak to us? Doesn't appear so. It looks like we've heard from everybody in the room almost. Is there anyone online, Ms. Clerk?

No hands raised on Zoom. Okay.

Thank you. Very good. All right. So is there anything, staff, that you have heard that you'd like to respond to? It hasn't been very much, but there might be something. Nope, I see blank stares.

Okay, very good.

Then we will move along to... Oops, got to put my glasses on. Sorry, everybody. Okay. Yes, Madam Secretary.

Chair, if you feel it's appropriate at this point, but open to more commission deliberation if that feels needed, I'd like to propose that we take maybe a five-minute to ten-minute recess so staff can take into account the public comments we heard from our applicant in addition to the feedback from the Planning Commission and look at that condition.

That's fine with me. I could use five minutes. Thank you.

Can I, just before you go? Condition 5- If that could integrate Ms. Duffy's suggestion of quarterly reports or annual reports that have also been submitted to the State Water Resources Board, I'd be interested in some version of the county CC on this. Just putting that forward.

You have room for the paper. Okay, now we'll take a five minute break. So after our 5, 10, 15-minute-ish break, thank you very much. We're all back, and we're going to begin again. Honestly, I kind of forgot where we were. Would you help me remember, Madam Secretary?

Yes, through the Chair. Staff had some proposed language to try to answer some of the questions from the Planning Commission for some minor updates to the resolution for evidence as well as condition number five. And then we're open to additional questions or feedback related to that. So, staff, whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you.

All right. Through the chair, staff has heard all the feedback thus far regarding this project and would like to propose the following changes. Okay.

Okay.

So we're proposing to add one new evidence under finding number one that states as demonstrated in finding number eight, which is the CEQA finding that the adopted initial study and mitigated negative declaration has been reviewed and found that implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program will achieve project consistency with the resource protection policies and regulations contained in applicable general plan, area plan, local coastal program, and zoning ordinance pertaining to impacts to archaeological resources, biological resources, tree removal, development on slopes, And in addition, the mitigation measures addressing hazard water quality and noise impacts will ensure consistency with public health, life, and safety requirements contained in the applicable general plan, area plan, local coastal program, and zoning ordinance. And then in response to the assurance... Can we talk about that one first?

Yeah, let's... Or do you want to do them all?

No, it's okay.

go ahead how would you how would you like to do it one at a time or all at once we can do one at a time okay through the chair okay i understand what you're doing here this is excellent but i think it also needs to say that the adopted mmrp is adopted by the pajaro sunny mesa water company and not us because this is what gets us into the mud, is it just says adopted, they're gonna go look in the file, where the heck is it? So that is one thing there. And then I would think that somewhere, perhaps you're doing it individually, it needs to say, it's been independently evaluated that these are gonna, or we accept their conclusion or something, Because otherwise we've got to go back and scrub the findings and evidence. Because there's a lot of findings and evidence where we review some of the mitigation measures as being effective to alleviate our concerns. But it doesn't actually say that we're doing them. So from this, I think it's important to say any place in here where it says the adopted MMRP, it says previously adopted by... and incorporated herein by reference or something like that, that says that's the one we're going by, you wanna know what's in there, you need to go look at that one. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense. We have just updated the additional finding to say that the previously adopted initial study by the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District, so it does mention that they had previously adopted the MMRP,

Oh, apologies to the chair. She's sharing the screen that shows the new text. That was the old text with the added language.

Okay. So with those edits, we've also decided to include additional clarifying language within condition of approval number five, which requires that the district provide us with evidence of the implemented mitigation measures. So the added text here is in red. So prior to issuance of grading construction permits and as specified in the timing identified in the adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, which we should say by the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa. So we'll also make that clarification here. The Pajaro, so the district shall provide evidence to us that the mitigation measures adopted for the project have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District and as outlined in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Additionally, on a quarterly basis, the district shall submit reports and demonstrate compliance with the MMRP until such a time of the project completion.

You're so quiet just missed that altogether my apologies Commissioner Hartzell Am I reading this correctly that they're certifying that they have met these conditions to their own satisfaction I

I don't believe that that was the intent. Give me one moment, please.

And I'll, through the chair, I'll just also suggest where we have the reference to Pajaro Sunny Mesa and the adopted mitigation monitoring reporting program that we refer to the state clearinghouse number as well, because that allows for easier lookup of the document.

Through the chair.

Yes, please.

Is this a place where we also might incorporate the reporting to the State Board? So maybe the reports referred to in third paragraph might be... Assuming the State Board looks at all that stuff, I don't actually know.

Yes, through the chair will clarify that these are the reports that are required to be submitted through the State Board.

The one, through the chair, the one thing I'll chime in on, again, since the Pajaro-Sunny Mesa Community Services District is the lead agency, I think there should be some mention to their satisfaction as they're certifying the compliance with the MMRP, but there could be language related to HCD planning in there that we're reviewing and in concurrence with that as it relates to approval of the kind of land disturbance or use permitting issues that are relying on the MMRP for compliance. satisfying our resource related concerns.

And through the chair, we had switched out that language to in the condition before you to the satisfaction of HC planning and as outlined within the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Yes.

I would just get rid of the to the satisfaction of HCD planning and just say it had been implemented as outlined in the MMRP.

Okay.

Because we already say they're going to give the evidence to HCD planning. All we want to know is they did what was in the MMRP, right?

Right.

Right.

Cool. Is that it? Have we run out of red?

I was like Commissioner Hartzell looks like she had a question.

Yes, Commissioner Hartzell.

Does the timing work?

This says it's prior to the issuance of the grading and construction permits. Just want to double check with the, no? Perhaps the applicant can speak to this to make sure we're not creating conditions that are going to.

I think that's a great idea to have the applicant.

I was going to say have them chime in.

Chime in.

Thank you, Denise Duffy on behalf of Pahorosani Mesa. So prior to the issuance of grading construction permits works for those ongoing or prior to construction permits. I mean, there is a timing issue, which we hope we may not be able to figure out specifically in terms of wordsmithing, but obviously we won't be able to send in the construction monitoring elements prior to construction. And there are some elements of them in the mitigation monitoring program. On a quarterly basis, submitting the report as required by the state, And this, you may want to add and this mitigation or and this condition because our quarterly reports to the state start during construction. So we would be happy to submit the MMRP compliance report to Pajaro, Sunny Mesa, and then to the county as prior to the construction. We basically are doing that anyway. So if that would work.

Can I ask a question? So Pajaro Sunny Mesa is the applicant.

Pajaro Sunny Mesa is the lead agency, the applicant, and a public water agency. And they are the North Monterey County Water Agency.

And when you say when we submit it to Pajaro-Sanimesa?

Thanks for that clarification. When DDNA, who's preparing the MMRP information, et cetera, and our biologists and cultural consultants, et cetera, when we submit it to Pajaro-Sanimesa and they officially submit it to the state, Pajaro-Sanimesa or their consultant will submit it to the county at the same time.

My goal here is really just to create a public record that is accessible to show that we did our duty in making sure this is happening.

As with every other project, and we understand that we work often with the county, we're more than willing, happy, and able to do that.

So I just want to confirm that what we're discussing here makes sense to you.

With those clarifications, those are the only two items I think we had a question about. Okay, cool. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Commissioner Dillon, you have a question?

I was going to ask Ms. Duffy about saying construction permits or as specified or as otherwise specified in the timing. So there's, I think in the MMRs, they do say on some of them what point that mitigation is supposed to be implemented, right?

Yes. Thank you for that clarification. We would like that as well.

Yeah. Yeah, so that way, yeah, anyway.

We thank you for all the work on this. We appreciate moving this forward.

Yeah, let's try to do that. Are we at a place now where we can move forward? Commissioner Deal.

I'd like to make sure we've heard from staff. Have you got additional material to share? Because I do have one other issue here. I don't want to move off until we've finished with this.

Yes. Through the chair, I just want to make sure, can you see the screen in front of you with the red highlighted text? Yes. So trying to add more additional clarifying language here. So prior to the issuance of grading construction permits or as otherwise specified in the timing identified in the previously adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, The district shall provide evidence to HCD that the mitigation measures adopted for the project have been implemented as outlined in that plan. On a quarterly basis, the district shall submit reports as required by the state and the county that demonstrate compliance with the monitoring program until such a time the project is complete.

Okay. Next question. Did you have something else? I'm sorry.

I do have another condition I wanted to inquire about. Okay. This looks good and I think solves my major issue, although in the future I would really want us to think about the findings and evidence so that we don't end up creating a confusion about whether we're describing the mitigation measures that we wish to have followed in the findings and evidence and making our decision based on that or whether we're referring to more specific conditions that have been adopted elsewhere. And that's kind of where I think we got into some confusion here. I think you've closed the door and I think it's going to be fine, but just as an ongoing thing, maybe... One or the other would be my hope. But my final question, I promise I'll stop after that, I promise, is the condition number, I believe it's 15, about the LAFCO application?

Yes.

As I read that, it says that if they were to drop an application on the desk, then they'd be fine. It doesn't say anything anywhere about it being approved. Is that important to us?

Yes, it is important to us through the chair.

And through the chair, we would like to add an errata change for this action that prior to the final or the water system going online that the applicant then demonstrate that the annexation has been fully completed with LAFCO. So we would add a subsequent action that the annexation is completed.

So your opinion is it would be okay to complete all the project activities prior to the annexation?

Yes, as long as they continue pursuing the process with LAFCO. And during the construction, it would be prior to them going online for the new water system that we would want to see the annexation to be finaled.

Really? Because what if, heaven forfend, LAFCO says no? Then where are you? We got to assume LAFCO has some kind of ability to make a decision here, even though we certainly, I think, I hope they wouldn't oppose it. But they have some discretion and could happen.

Through the chair, yes, I hear what Commissioner Deal is, what her concerns are. We can go ahead and add additional clarifying timeline condition language here. In talking with the... applicant they are already in the process in having those engagements with LAFCO on these eight particular parcels and perhaps maybe the applicant has additional information to share on the progress on that but as County staff we're happy to add that Strict language that provides that it needs to be annexed prior to and we'll have to set that time limit Yeah, miss Duffy.

What's your thoughts?

Thank you. I think we'd be Happy to have language regarding the LAFCO board approval there's subsequent steps after the LAFCO board approval that involves the Department of doing all the tax transfers, Department of, I forget, and Board of Equalization, that would be the final. We would like to be able to start construction. The district would like to be able to start construction, has the funding for starting in May 2027. So just to be safe.

Is that okay with you? Through the chair, yes. So my understanding is that if you had to wait for LAFCO approval before you start construction, that would be okay?

It would be okay, I think, because we could make that time frame. There's also elements of LAFCO that you can have administrative approval for an out-of-service extension request. So I think that they would work with us. They've been amenable. Thank you.

The answer is yes. I guess my main thing was, again, technical. It's like you can't have a condition that says that the way to fulfill it is to drop an application on somebody's desk. That's not a complete condition, in my view. In other words, to translate, whatever it is you say that is the complete, and I'm okay with that, just as long as we have one.

Okay. Madam Secretary, you look like you wanted to jump in.

I had a thought and then it flew away. So I don't necessarily need to jump in. I think I was just going to say that staff's comfortable with having that clarifying language and just having some indication in the condition related to LAFCO, either board approval or whatever appropriate steps are necessary from them to authorize construction. That still stands in alignment with Commissioner Deal's direction with the condition.

Except you don't need to go into detail. A lot of times planners continue to go into great detail when you don't need to, and it just makes it worse. So if you just say until the annexation is approved, that's easy. If you say you have to do X, Y, step Z, go to there and do this other thing. then maybe you didn't get it right. And it's a whole big bunch of work that you don't need to do. I just need a definite, how do we know when it's time? And right now, apparently it would be time to start now. And I don't think that's what the intent is.

I think we're comfortable with a more simplistic approach and you bring up a good point. Thank you.

Okay. We're good. Everybody's smiling.

Yeah. Good.

Okay. All right. Commissioners, are there any further questions of staff before we move?

No? Oh, Commissioner Gomez. I'm prepared to make a motion with that additional direction that we approve.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there any discussion before we move along then? Commissioner Deal.

I'll second it.

Oh, good. Thank you very much. All right, we have a motion for approval and a second by Commissioner. Oh, a motion by Commissioner Gomez, second by Commissioner Diehl.

All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, nay. We're approved. Thank you very much. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, staff, for all your hard work.

Would the staff or the applicant care for the packet back? It's a big packet with plans.

Yeah, you want those back? We have a lot of them up here if you'd like them. Amy's just an overachiever. She's almost as bad as Commissioner Hartzell. She's almost that bad. Except Hartzell's younger. Overachievers, I'm surrounded by them. Are we ready? Oh, you have a report? Oh, I'll be darned. Okay, everybody, we have a staff report today.

I promise I'll keep it quick as I know it's after three o'clock and we appreciate the commission's time today and all the deliberation. So first I would like to introduce, we've had some new staff start and some returning staff to our planning team. We've had three senior planners start recently, which is very exciting for us in the planning department. So I wanted to introduce Brendan Coy. He started with us two weeks ago, roughly, two weeks ago. And then we have Jonathan Olivias, also two weeks ago.

Welcome.

And last but not least, Anna Jeanette is back with us at the county, also two weeks ago. We're really excited to have them. We're, I think, the highest staffing in our planning team that we've been in a couple of years, which is really exciting. And that's why you're seeing lots and lots of full agendas. So thank you for bearing with us. So yeah, they're here. You'll be seeing them soon with projects. And again, really excited to have them both new and returning members of our team. Speaking of agendas, we do have some pretty full agendas, specifically the first and second meeting of September at this point. Given some stuff moving around today, the next meeting might also be full at the end of August. So please work with the secretary team if you're anticipating any challenges with staying into the afternoon specifically, because we probably will go into the afternoon on those dates later. just so we can ensure we have quorum for all the items that we'll be considering. So please reach out as soon as you know anything about your schedule. Two other items. One, the planning team has released a draft environmental impact, programmatic environmental impact report for the housing element update. That was released on July 17th. The comment period is through August 31st. It's on our web page. We got it all uploaded for the project web page by chapter, so it's a little easier to look at. It is a very long document, as is the housing element. So again, August 31st is when that comment period closes. And then last but not least, as you noted earlier, or as was presented to the commission, we did have the water allocation policy for MPWMD approved by the Board of Supervisors in June. We do have a new web page up and running on our permit center landing page that has how-to guides and required application materials for property owners to start submitting requests to county staff. We have an email inbox where we're receiving those and we're reviewing them as part of the application process as outlined in the policy. But we are starting to start seeing requests, which is exciting. It's been an area that hasn't had new water for a long time, and the Planning Commission put in a lot of work with getting that policy in really good shape for the board. So again, thank you for your work. And that's up on our webpage. And I think that's all I had for department report.

Great. It was a wonderful one. And thank you and congratulations on having your staffing where you want it finally, maybe. That's wonderful. All right, everybody. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you. It's been fun. I'm going to call this adjourned at 3.13 p.m. Thank you very much.

Thank you.