Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Everyone, good morning. Welcome to the uh Monterey County Planning Commission meeting of October the 29th, I believe. And we will begin with the pledge of allegiance. Uh, Commissioner Work, would you lead us, please? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation, indivisibley and justice for all.

Thank you, Commissioner. May we have the roll call, please? Commissioner Getsman here. Commissioner Mendoza here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Roberts here. Commissioner Shaw here. Commissioner Gomez here. Commissioner Monsalv here. Commissioner Deal here.

Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Harts are absent. Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Now, um, is this time that you give the instructions? It is, in fact. All righty. Miss Secretary, would you tell us how people who want to remotely access this group?

Yes. Thank you. Um, thanks everyone for joining. So, if you are joining us remotely, either via computer or phone, uh, we invite you to participate during the public comment portion of the day. Um you may during those times just a reminder the um link and information for today's Zoom is on the agenda and is on the screen a in front of you. Uh you can raise or lower your hand on the Zoom plat or on your landline by pressing star9 on your Zoom platform. Go to the bottom of your screen to the icons button and select raise hand and lower hand. Another way you can participate is sending an email. We do um monitor the email which is PC hearing comments at county of Monterey.gov. We do monitor that during the meeting. Um however, now that the meeting started, there is no guarantee but that we will capture all public comment, but we're usually pretty good. So, please feel free to send emails. [snorts] Um members of the public who do wish to comment during the public comment section uh will be granted permission when it is their turn by the um clerk [clears throat] of the commission. Uh at that time you may mute or unmute yourself on the Zoom platform by selecting at the bottom of the screen the microphone button which will mute or unmute you. And on your phone it is star six to mute, star six to unmute. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm sorry. We are also sorry that I did sound like I was done. We are also happy to continue our live translation uh via pilot program with Wordley. On the screen in front of you is a QR code or at the very bottom is the um uh internet page pathway that you can go to uh follow those to the wordly uh to the wordly and select your language. Uh you will then receive live translation. Anyone here in chambers, we do have um headphones for ability for live translation as well. Thank you very much. Now I am dead.

Now it's my turn. Okay. Thank you. All right. It is now time uh that's been set aside for public comments for items that are not on the current agenda. And in fact, we have one uh speaker slip for Mr. Fay. It's your time to shine.

Uh good morning, chairman and members of the com planning commission. Um apparently the only thing that will shine is the top of my forehead. Um the last time I was here, uh Sharon Parsons was the chair and I believe the only remaining person from that group is is Commissioner Deal. So nice to see you again. That was 25 years ago. great memories. Um, my concern is, uh, back then I had a citizens group, the River Road Concerned Citizens, and our campaign was safe, rural, and scenic. Uh, we turned in several petitions to the board of supervisors during the general plan update back then. And recently, I attended a Berry Drive residence meeting uh, arranged by, uh, Supervisor Daniels. And apparently Sacramento has legislation allowing up to 15 felons recently reduced from Solidad Prison or other prisons to just move anywhere willy-nilly without your uh oversight or local jurisdiction oversight. And uh I witnessed River Road strong like never before. or the re residents of River Road came out in mass and opposed this uh because there's no infrastructure out there. It just makes absolutely no sense to do something like that to a rural community. So, I would hope that in the future you could do something to change that. Uh uh it was uh Senator Larair's staff that was there. He was an assemblyman back when I was involved 20 years ago. And somehow or another, this has happened at Sacramento, which is terrible. And I'd hope that you could lean in and find out more about it and prevent that from happening to us. And also, there is the solution to homelessness, mental illness, and and becoming felons in the first place, and that is the health care component. And I asked Supervisor

Daniels and the HERS representative if they were allowing functional medicine in our health care system to to help these people that are are struggling. And they said no. So again, when you're talking to your health department representatives or people involved with the homeless and mental illness, please ask about functional medicine. It is how you diagnose people and heal them. It's how you use food as medicine and it's how you keep our community safe and and uh thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate your viewpoint. Are there any other members of the room? No. Seeing none, uh madame clerk, anybody on the We have no additional emails or hands up on Zoom.

Okay. Thank you very much. Moving along, then we move along to agenda additions, corrections, or deletions. Do we have any of those? For the record, we've received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number one, PLN 2200088, the Ranch Club. Agenda item number two, PLN200047, amendment one, new Michael and Michelle. And agenda item number three, PLN220348 Omni Resources.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, it's now your time to request, refer, or make a comment. Um, Commissioner Shaw,

thank you. Um, I don't know if this needs to be a referral. Uh, I'm wondering if we can have before the like hardcore rainy weather sets in somebody from Perf Mud to give us some sort of update on what's been going on with the levy. Uh, I know for a fact that some of the homeless encampments were actually digging into the levey and creating like rooms into the levey system on the Monterey County site. Obviously, um, one even stole a excavator from a friend of mine down the street and drove it down the railroad tracks to the levy and was excavating. Um, so I wanted to make sure that those construction projects were being dealt with before the river got really high in the wintertime. And I know that there was some sort of official something happening out there, not a cleanup, but there was like a skid steer and stuff out there. Um, so I don't know if they're actually dealing with some of those things.

All righty, Miss Secretary, can you um help that lady with that?

Yeah, I think if I may, um, we can always invite, um, the Paharo uh, Flood Management Agency to come and give a presentation. Um, our agendas are fairly full through the end of the year, so I'm not sure on the timing for that. Um, I wanted to make sure because I can also follow up where staff is happy to also just follow up and flag some of the questions and concerns specifically and and just get a more direct response if they're aware of and if they're being addressed if that would satisfy. And so I did want to make sure that I captured it. I did hear that there were some concerns with homeless uh individuals who were um digging into the levy. And then there was a second one that I didn't quite catch to write down that there was some activity or something that I think you had a specific question on.

Oh, it was uh it was maybe like a week and a half ago, two weeks ago. There was actually some official project happening down there behind the um the car wash and I don't know what they were doing. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. So, we'll try if it's if it's acceptable, we'll just try to get direct um comment and response on those in a timely manner. Thank you very much. Other commissioners, any anything? Anyone, [clears throat] Commissioner Gomez?

It's more like uh just wanted to say I as many of you know, I work for Santa Cruz County. I chief of staff to a supervisor that represents the Watsonville area. And uh we had a meeting. I know that Monterey County is talking about it. So, I just wanted to put it out there. We had a meeting about developing a local battery storage uh ordinance, a county ordinance. Uh I think it's [clears throat] the right thing to do. It provides local control and uh I think that it's the right direction. It also uh obviously uh you know it also it also uh you know I think encourages I don't think it forces but it would encourages uh folks to use a local process as opposed to the state process for battery projects. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Nope. Doesn't look like it.

If I may, Chair, just provide a just brief information. Yesterday, the board of supervisors did hear a referral, new introduced referral um from super uh Supervisor Church uh requesting a moratorium on new batteries um while we look in while the county explore options for local regulation for the smaller types of battery storage. Um, so I will definitely um flag that for you and note I believe the response will go back to the board of supervisors within 30 days in terms of a preliminary response from staff.

Yeah, the just to respond I think the concern that I would have is that uh what would that mean if you have more term in terms of allowing existing facilities to make improvements to make them safer? Yeah. Well, hopefully we'll get involved in that if it comes uh comes to it. All right. Thank you very much. We'll move along then to the U scheduled matters. Seeing no one else, um our first matter, our first uh scheduled item on the agenda today is PLN number 2200088, the Ranch Club, Inc. And staff, are you ready?

Yes, there. Uh thank you, Chair. Getelman. Um, good morning, Planning Commission. Fiona Jensen, presenting HCD planning file number PLN 2200088, the Ranch Club Incorporation. Um, the project involves the installation of a driveway to allow community access to a redwood grove on an adjacent site within the Santa Lucia Preserve. Um, the intention is to allow organized events, celebrations, and activities to be held on an adjacent property that has historically been used for such uses. Uh staff met with the applicant uh midocctober and requested that additional information be provided to clarify the scope of work that was just submitted to staff yesterday. Accordingly, staff recommends the planning commission continue this item to a date uncertain. Um and staff will return with a draft resolution reflecting the clarified project scope. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you very much. Are there Okay, agent I mean um applicant. Yeah, thank you. Oh, wait a minute. Miss uh Miss Deal is going to help me out. Yes, please.

Thank you. I I was You were doing fine. I wasn't having anything to do with you. have a question for staff which is that the agenda item is about uh changing map boundaries on the final map and it um says it would to allow construction. So the actual project as shown here doesn't act doesn't isn't about the driveway, it's about the map. And so I'm wondering that when if and when u this comes back in in a similar form, the Santa Lucia preserve is not does not use the same kinds of descriptions for zoning designations as other portions of any place in the world as far as I know. So, I'm hoping it would come with a translation. So, each of those if and anytime we use one of the specialized descriptions of what's allowed and what's not allowed, we we would I would benefit from a reminder of what exactly that means because that was a question that came up to me when I was looking at the project description because we're not just looking at the driveway. We're looking at the subsequent potential for development that we might or might not be talking about when we change a map. So that was my request. So if that could happen when we come back, I would appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner Deal. Any other questions of staff? Seeing none, is the applicant or the applicant's agent care to make a presentation? Yes, Mr. Penzer.

Morning, Sher Getsman, members of the commission. Joel Panzer with Morin Ruck Planning Consultants representing the Ranch Club, Inc. Um, before today's hearing, I had a chance to speak with Miss Jensen. Our concern would be, uh, when you think about the phrase to a date uncertain, it means there's no certainty. Uh, so we were hoping for a December date. Staff had thought about January. Um, in speaking with Miss Jensen today, I withdraw my email request for a specific date. Her thinking is if by any chance um she's able to finagle staff and there's an opening in the December planning commission hearing date um we could come back that early otherwise hopefully it'll be in January. So I withdraw my objection to the the date uncertain now understanding how staff is approaching it. Um and then the just the underlying thing is um Santa Lucia Preserve is a 1999 use permit that established under the zoning ordinance country club uses for the main property. Staff just wanted to have a better understanding of what those consist of because this property was purchased by the ranch club uh for for future um uses which we'll get into when we uh come back at the scheduled date. So, we're now in support of the uh staff recommendation. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Very good. Are there any other uh [sighs] Okay. Uh let's open this up to the general public.

Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Um, county council just reminded me that the u the discussion now is around the continuence we're having, not about any other issues. So, if there's any any members of the public that would like to comment on the continuation which has been requested, uh, please come forward or madame clerk, is there anyone you see pop up online? No emails and no hands up on Zoom. Thank you very much. All right, staff. I'm sure how how what's your feeling about the re uh retraction? Is that everybody's cool with that?

Uh yes, staff has no additional comments. Great. All righty. Uh Commissioner Deal. Yeah. Given that, I'd like to move staff's recommendation that we continue this item to a date uncertain as they recommend. Thank you very much. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Deal and a second by Commissioner Gomez for the continuation of this item. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, nay.

All right, it passes. Thank you very much. So the next item on the agenda then for everybody as soon as I turn the page will be PLN number two 047. I think I have enough zeros in there. AMD AMD II or one um Michelle and Michael Clump. It looks like staff, are you prepared? Please begin. Yes, I am. Give me one second to pull up my presentation. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Getsman and planning commissioners. I'm Kayla Nelson, the project planner for uh ACD Planning, file number PLN 200047 AMD1 for the NP uh amendment project. The project is located at 120 Country Club Heights Road in Carmel Valley, which is guided by the Carmel Valley master plan. The parcel is zoned rule density residential 10 acres per unit with a design design control site plan review and residential allocation zoning overlays. The project involves an amendment to a previously approved combined develop combined development permit that allowed a lot line adjustment between two legal lots of record construction of a single family dwelling a detached accessory structure guest house and associated site improvements including rgeline development and development um on slopes in excess of 25%. This amendment proposes the removal of

six coastlive oak trees with a trunk diameter of 14, 16, 24, 29, 32, and 40 in to accommodate the necessary road improvements to allow fire truck access to the main residence. The county of Monterey has established the required findings needed to justify tree removal. Those findings are here on the screen. um and they require uh that it is the minimum tree removal required under the circumstances of the case. Removal will not adversely um would not create environmental impacts. And furthermore, if if the tree is disease, injured, in danger of falling too close to an existing or proposed structure, creates unsafe vision clearance, or is likely to promote the spread of insects or disease, then uh we would accept that as a candidate for removal. Pursuant to title 21 of the Monterey County zoning ordinance for the protection of oak trees, a use permit is required for the removal of more than three protected trees in a one-year period, and [snorts] a forest management plan is required for such tree removal pursuant to this section. The project site consists of heavily sloped terrain in excess of 25%. The existing dirt driveway access to the main residence is long and narrow with oak trees growing close to the grading limits of the necessary improvements to allow firetruck access in the case of an emergency. The project planner and the applicant discussed alternatives that may reduce or avoid additional tree removal. However, the applicant explained that a redesign of the driveway would not be possible given the steep topography of the project site. The planner met with arborist to examine the trees proposed for removal and to

verify the site constraints. The planner's observation of the driveway confirmed how narrow the existing access road is and that a redesign in this case is not feasible. Therefore, the project has been designed and cited to minimize the removal of protected trees to the greatest extent feasible. A forest management plan was prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates, which recommended the removal of six coastlive oak trees, including three landmark trees. Trees greater than 24 in are considered landmark trees which require a 2:1 replacement ratio and a 1:1 replacement for trees under 24 in. One of the proposed trees is in poor condition and is showing signs of decay with the presence of fungal conchs which uh are while the remaining five trees are in fair condition but will be heavily impacted by the road improvements. The necessary cut and fill of the road to install soil stabilizing retaining walls would significantly impact tree root systems, potentially leading to hazardous conditions. Without the necessary cut for roadway improvements, the road will not meet fire code standards. The forest management plan recommends replacement plantings of 15 5gallon coastlife oaks sourced from a local nursery in locations with the greatest openings um to minimize competition and maximize sunlight. Um staff would like to note that the 15 trees include a 1:1 ratio for the removal of uh three hazardous trees that were approved under a separate permit and two additional trees, one of which is a landmark tree under a separate tree removal permit. The spacing between trees is recommended to be at least 8 ft. Watering for the

establishment of um the replacement trees within the first two months shall be at least once per week. then every two weeks during the late spring, summer and fall for two years. Furthermore, the replacement trees uh whose critical root zone was within the areas impacted by construction will be monitored annually by qualified arborist for a period of no less than 5 years. Um if any noticeable decline in the health of any trees is observed, additional trees um shall be planted on site at a 1:1 ratio in a suitable location determined by the qualified arborist. Upon review of the submitted information, staff finds the proposed tree removal is appropriate for the site. Staff recommends the planning commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to the SQA guidelines and approve the amendment to a previously approved combined development permit to allow the removal of uh six coastlive oak trees based on the presented findings and evidence. This concludes staff's presentation and I am available for your questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have questions? Commissioner Amy. [laughter] Um I think the only question I have um and you may have covered it is why the why this wasn't anticipated in the original design

uh through the chair. Uh in the initial uh submitt through the original entitlement, there were five trees that were suspected to be slated for removal. But the um the project engineers were confident that they could protect those trees in place. But after the grading permit was uh issued and uh grading was had commenced, it was um observed by the arborist that it was not feasible to save those trees and therefore an amendment had to come back and that's before you today just to make the necessary uh site improvements to allow fire access.

Thank you. Yes. My apologies, Commissioner Roberts.

Uh Commissioner Deal. Yeah, I struggling with the same issue because if we have an expert, we tend to rely upon those people. Um, I would have I would have liked to have had this discussion when we approved the design for the driveway because one of the one of the considerations that made this project so acceptable to me was that it had been designed to best ability save landmark trees. we now come back for a permit to go ahead and take out some landmark trees. This is troublesome. So, I don't know whether there's a procedural way to address it um in terms of engineering coordination with uh with tree people or some such. But um it it's it feels like being asked to do something for which there is no choice after the fact when we would have liked to have considered that going in might not have had any different outcome. Uh and the only other thing I'll say is that I personally have observed conchs on live oak trees over the past 35 years without the tree falling down. So, I'm I'm personally not accepting of that as a short-term diagnosis for a coastlife oak tree on its merits. So, u just observation tends to trump deduction for me personally. So, thanks

Commissioner Montavis.

Thank you. I'm struggling with the same thing. But also in my reading, it says that five trees were already removed. So, we've already had three trees that were deemed hazardous and removed without a use permit. um hazardous tree removal, five trees in total in any case. And the first three staff said yes. The next two were part of three that can be removed also without some kind of permit. So they went ahead and removed those two. So that's a total of five gone. [snorts] And now you're back for another six total to be removed. when initially there were none to be removed and now there will be a total of 11 through the chair. Correct. Um also through the chair um Monterey County Code if uh trees are deemed hazardous they can be removed um without it's documented but it doesn't need an administrative uh tree permit for those removals. However, in one given year um in the inland area, uh three trees are allowed to be removed um under approval of the director of planning. Uh so that's where those two trees were removed. However, additional trees needed to be removed. In this case, this is a very long driveway. I don't know if you're familiar with the site, but when I went on site, it was very clear to me

um how necessary this is uh to allow fire access. Uh and so I wanted to capture the uh six additional trees that are requested to be removed under this use permit, but to distinguish that any hazardous tree is allowed to be removed. three trees within one year period and anything after that would have to be before you today.

And that brings me to my final comment that every time we see, oh, this one's hazardous, it doesn't matter [clears throat] because they don't need planning commission approval to remove a hazardous tree then. So it comes before us as justification for the request, but you just said and I've read that if it's hazardous, it doesn't have to come before us for that approval

through the chair. Um any hazardous tree needs a tree rating from a qualified arborist and the justification is within the arborist report to us. So documentation needs to be provided. we analyze that information before us and then um if it's an issue where it's like a health, life, and safety um hazard, then we're not going to wait to take that to hearing if it's going to jeopardize anyone's safety.

Understood. So, a total of 11 trees, but there just happened to be six that couldn't be justified without coming here first. So, five were able to get removed without coming here and now the last six have to come here. Where were those five were they where were those five removed from that? Where could we see those on the on the drawing? Absolutely. Yeah. Um, give me one second.

Thank you. try to share this. Give me one sec. Alex, can you share stuff? Right. Here we go. Okay, let me zoom out on this. So, this was a site plan that was provided to me um by the arborist. Can you see it? Okay. Um, so closer to the residence, um, there was a Okay, this should help. Um, so the residence is located at the top of a very steep hill. Um, there was a hazardous uh, coastlive oak near the residence. Um actually two of them.

The other the uh 48 in was removed under a um administrative tree removal permit. Uh this 16-in was approved under that same administrative permit. And then this 30-in uh was deemed hazardous according to the arborist report. Um according to Monterey County Code, um it does not mention that um does not mention um it allows up to three tree removal permits or I mean three trees to be removed under one single permit. Um, so that's where those two were removed. The arborist had deemed those three other trees hazardous by a tree rating. Um, and as you can see, this is a very, very long road leading all the way to the main residence. Um, and the engineers of the project tried really hard to uh protect the trees in place. And after commencing the grading, that's when it was discovered that it was not feasible in this case given the narrow um road and the steep topography of the site.

Okay. Commissioner Deal.

Yeah. U so [clears throat] the tree is not hazardous when it's standing in the middle of the forest by itself and we aren't developing anything. So under this reasoning, setting aside this project for a minute, if we approve a project and go through the careful process of examining trees to make sure that we're taking we're authorizing the minimum number of removals, then any tree deemed hazardous once the project is built because it wasn't before that can be taken out with a permit. Three healthy trees a year can be taken out indefinitely. So why do we even worry about it? It's like people can what are the standards by which we uh attempt to move. I'm not saying that these aren't reasonable. I mean, I'm I'm troubled by the fact that it uh that their u ambition was greater than their ability in the initial permit. But that seems kind of moot if it doesn't really matter because you can take out three a year anyway. It's like, okay, I want my three for 2025. It's 2026. I'd like another three. Um, the ar they're they're hazardous because I just built this new driveway and this tree that was perfectly fine before is now near this new driveway and it's not doing really well. So now I want to take it out. So it seems like you could you could again separate from this project not alleging anything about these owners um just work your way through any trees that happen to displease you indefinitely. And so that being the case, I I wonder at all the care that we put in to try to determine the minimum that we believe could be taken out, it just seems it seems frustrating.

Thank you, Commissioner Deal. Commissioner Mendoza.

Uh yes. The only question I have would be um when we first received this project, there was an arburous report that basically said like like we just said earlier, x amounts were to be removed and the fire department also looked at the project and they mentioned that that was acceptable as far as the w and everything else. So what has changed? I mean if if we don't remove these additional trees, do we still have a project um or do we not? And then the other question would be um basically in reference to using the the hazard mentality or or code, every single tree that is close to the road would be a hazard. So are we going to remove every single tree down our highways? Makes absolutely no sense. Um it it almost sounds like those trees just happen to be or grown or or they grew in the wrong part of the the property. But u whether they're a hazard or not. I mean, I have several oak trees in my property and they're going to fall. You know, whenever they fall, there's no control about it. And there's trees that you probably won't think would not make another winter turn. They're still standing. So, I if if the width and everything is acceptable for the fire department and I think we kind of have to work around the trees. That's just kind of my opinion. And if the width is there and you still have a project that was what we approved earlier, I I don't see why we would have to remove additional trees. Thank you.

Did you want to reply? Yeah, through the chair. Um, so I would like to emphasize that the road is existing. However, in order to put the retaining walls in to make the road safe and to allow that fire access, you have to grade down. And that's what's going to impact the roots of those existing trees and it will eventually lead to a hazardous condition of those trees. They will not survive.

Thank you, Commissioner Deal. Yeah, but that's not a surprise. We knew that we had a permit for fixing for for building that driveway. So, it's not a new situation based on the original request for a driveway that satisfies the fire department. You know, you're going to have to grade build. We talked about retaining walls. So, that's not a new situation. You know, it's just just to be clear. Um I think perhaps what I'm struggling with is the the rule underlying rule but um I I do feel in this case as if the initial application was flawed. So, we're correcting something. I don't think we have a choice. Myself personally, unless somebody can see differently and tell me, but I feel as if the initial application was flawed because creating all of the engineering u support work for a driveway to support the fire department is in the plans already. Those are the plans we originally saw. Anyway, as you can tell, I'm grumpy. I'm not sure it has any any practical application to anything.

Welcome to my world. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, are you gonna give us a summation?

Um, yeah. I just wanted to um Chair Gettsman had just asked a question in terms of the permit, the tree permit for up to three per year. And I did just want to clarify that there are still findings that need to be made in order to um to get that permit um administratively as opposed to coming for a use permit. And if those findings cannot be made, we do refer it for a use permit removal. So it doesn't fully address the concern, but just for clarification, there is still there are still some findings in Alithmus even for that up to three per year that you can get that tree permit for. Thank you very much. All right, then we are um any further questions? No, not from the commission. So, we are to the point then where we'd like to have the presentation from the applicant or the applicant's agent on this project. [snorts]

Very much for this opportunity. Um um I really appreciated the conversation discussion we had on this and we do have some um diagram maps that we can maybe answer a part of the uh some part of the questions and we I'm my name is Tai Tang. I'm the architect representing the applicant today uh from Studio Shans and we have our civil engineer Richard Weber. Sorry. We have our engineer Richard Weber from uh Witson uh engineering uh who's here to answer questions. We also have the arborist um Patrick Krabacher from uh Denise Stuffy via Zoom to answer any uh technical questions we would have from arborist. But uh I'd like to uh first thank the uh Monterey County for doing this presentation and allow my uh time here. Um so this this uh amendment is to for the to the addition of the uh tree removal for the six live trees. I would like um if you can Kayla to pull up the the diagrams we have there's four short sheets. I would like to u clarify some of the questions if you can share the screen.

Alex can you please share stuff right HDMI? Thank you. So um this first map diagram shows the location of the six trees that we are requesting for the additional removal which is along the lower part and the mid part of the almost two mile long driveway. Um and we already mentioned you know the number of the trees and if you can move to the second page. Um so the photos you will see um on all these six trees, six trees we have um added protection and our initial attempt is to save uh when we can. So the protection is in place and our our um initial trial to save it. But if you can see on the map above um Caleb, if you can zoom in on the on the road where the red arrow is pointing uh to the to the right to further to the right a little bit more. You see the bubble the blue bubble shows where the the tree is where it is encroaching into the road. The driveway which is a firetruck route requires to be 12 ft and over here we're at 8 ft. And we our initial attempt is to save the tree to narrow the driveway conflicted with the fire truck route that is indicated here. Um I'm sure that uh our civil engineer Richard can explain better to that. Um and um I kind of just want to point out this one tree. The scenario is where all these six trees are really close to the driveway where the tree root system Kayla had mentioned also will have impact which I'll explain a little bit later. So if you can move to the second page.

So this page shows the four trees that's almost together two and two. Tree four and tree are together. Tree five and tree six are together. And we also had a protection on them to try to save them. And upon reviewing with um the arborist and it was understood that these trees because the nature of the road is on a cliff side where that's the only place we can have the road because the steep angle and with the 12 ft minimum requirement from the fire marshals we are the trees becoming so close to the to the the driveway as you can see the driveway is right next to them the nature my understanding of the tree up on the hill on the incline, they the roots grow upwards to anchor themselves into the grade. But once we start carving down, adding retaining walls, compacting the earth, it impacts more than 50% of the tree roots. That's where the tree would likely to fail. And when the tree fails, it'll topple down and push the earth up. So the driveway would be blocked off where would impede on any fire trucks route to to move through. So that was the later difficulty. We found out that these trees have become what we call hazardous which I understand if we don't create this route we definitely won't have this problem. But when you know this is the only route we can create within the existing premise of the road to make it feasible, make the fire truck accessible, it becomes the um uh uh become a a a potent potential for danger danger and and within that within the four years we're developing this project, several trees have fallen near the road. Um that's due to storm. So these trees are not really stabilized.

Hence the arborist did a thorough report on the trees tree um the health of the trees as well. And if you can show the last page similarly on the last uh the last tree is also um right next to the route the previous five trees that was approved. Three of them are were in the direct path of this road. It's right inside of the road that we had to remove and two trees that near the house side where Kayla pointed out where the trees right at the very steep top with root hanging out. We had to add retaining walls to that. By adding that retaining wall, they also impact those trees. Hence, we were very uh clear that those are the trees either in poor health or directly in the route or on the um retaining side we applied for removal. And these six trees as you can see with the protection in place we intended to save them with the construction trucks moving on you know on site and offsite we tried to avoid them but it was later learned from our uh our burst both our burst is our civil engineer and the fire marshall that the width of the the firetruck route had to be maintained. Hence we're applying for this amendment. So this is my uh presentation on that. any questions might have. I believe uh Richard Weber from our civil engineer can answer. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Good morning. Uh Richard Weber with Witson Engineers. Uh I'd just like to speak to some of the questions that came up and they're very sillient questions regarding why these trees weren't identified originally. Uh usually our intent or typically our intent is to avoid and save as many trees as we can. The owner's preference was to try to preserve these trees. And I will mention this road is flanked with oak trees throughout throughout the length. These six happen to have a root structure that does not allow us to kind of bridge the root zones uh due to the soil conditions at these six individual trees. So this this road is maybe a mile and a half long I would guess. And during that you you encounter different soil conditions and different root structures with every tree. So we try as our best to identify which trees, you know, we're not going to be able to save and which trees have the are possible candidates. And in this situation, we even worked with the fire department to narrow the road at a couple locations in order to try to preserve these trees. As you get into construction, you start zeroing in on the actual locations with everyone with the soil types and the root structures for each one because we can't see that during design per se. And so these six candidates because where they're growing along the road and below the road and the root structure and the soil conditions all culminating in one did not allow us to really bridge these areas uh and provide a adequate fire route through through this area. So that is my best attempt at trying to answer your questions of why we didn't identify these originally. Our goal is to try to minimize impacts and sometimes you get into constructions and you realize with your best efforts you can't do it just because of what you find as you open see what the soil conditions are in the root zones. So that's that's kind of where we landed with these six unfortunately. Um,

but there there are occasions and on this road there's many trees that that line the road that we are able to bridge over the root zone safely and not compromise compromise the tree or the or the road. So, thank you. Thank you, sir. Can you hang just for a minute? I think Commissioner Deal might have a question.

I I do. Thank you and thank you for coming to talk about that. I certainly understand on the ground versus design and I'm looking at tree protection here. That is is this what we are talking about when we're talking about tree protection because I'm used to protection that considers potential root zones being in place as tree protection. So is this a normal I mean did you does this is I assume part of the civil engineering process is protecting trees that you may be able to save this is the extent of protection that you would normally provide on a given tree. I would normally let the arborists answer that but from my experience. Generally when you have a road over an existing you usually you try to flank the the foliage the drip line of the tree and those are usually in natural states. In in this condition, the the road actually exists. So the road is already built underneath the canopy and through the canopy. So usually the the tree protection zone is actually protecting the bark the the trunk itself from being hit because the the construction zone is adjacent to the tree. So you wouldn't necessarily fence around the the drip line of the tree otherwise you couldn't construct anything. That answer your question?

Yes. Although I I guess another question for the arborist is once you've identified trees in that condition, they should be in my view considered as potential removals because you already know they're there, you already know there's an issue and the the backside of that would be that if you could save them, you would. But it would seem to me that in the initial consideration of the project, which is what's creating the issue here, the existing road was the existing road didn't didn't have retaining walls and engineering structures that would potentially provide for additional impacts. Um so my again going forward my preference would be to identify at risk trees, discuss the efforts to save those trees, make every effort to save those trees, but to prov to do that upfront. Uh so you end up looking like a hero rather than somebody who's trying to weasle through something that we might not have otherwise said, which I don't think would have been the case here.

You know, it's just it sits wrong this way. It sits wrong. Everybody's coming in and say, "Oh, yeah, you know this. We always knew this. You you this is going to happen." And and that's that was initial. Not the tree didn't just grow. The road didn't change its location. All those things are previously understood conditions. And and that's where my heartburn comes from, not from any of the conditions on the ground with this project.

Yeah. I guess the my rebuttal to be fair about that, there's, you know, 30 or 40 trees that flank this. So, if we identified 30 or 40 trees along the entire route, uh it's uh it makes it a challenge, right? Because we we we're not they they could be identified as maybe potential takes. Um I I don't know how youident address the reality take versus potential tank and then the tree removal plan that shows, you know, that you take out the 40 trees and that's usually the very first item that happens is the tree removal guy goes in and clears it out. And so yeah, there's there's that in between of how do you assess that at the soil types, the root structures, all that all at once. And it's it's that's a challenge. Yeah.

Through the chair. Yes.

I have great faith in engineers and tree people to meet challenges. Personally, I I hold that faith closely. Um, but it would be it would sit better to me if we came in with this per thing that says we may need to reduce to remove 40 trees. We're going to do our best not to. We know we're going to remove this many and we have the ability to save some of these others maybe, but we we guess some of them not. Um, so that I had that in front of me when I was being asked by the people of Monterey County to approve a finding that says we have approved the minimum removal of trees in this case because if we don't know that finding is is not honest. And so that's where I'm after is if and yeah, you're right. Somebody could come in and take all 40 down. They do that. This this applicant has not done that. That's great. But we we should know that that could have happened here with a less competent engineering staff. They could have come in and said, "Oh, yeah, this and and believe me, we don't see very many trees that are healthy that need to be removed. They're always in some way damaged or suffering or ill or hazardous. It's like the main ill illness appears to be that they're in the way." Um, so I understand the challenge here, but I'm saying the challenge has has got to be met in a way that provides the worst case scenario to the decision and not subsequent to the decision when we're already committed to the project

as we are in this case because then there's no choice. It's not really a decision. It's just a formality. Yeah. You know. Okay. Yeah. and I don't like coming back and I also avoid I don't want to take out 40 trees. So I have to push back on clients too to say well if we take out 40 there may they may take out 40. I'm trying to I'm trying to preserve them too. So

and I I I think we rely on on our local contractors to to provide that all our local contractors to provide that local knowledge that that's really important and and you're missing in a big value of your property if you're from somewhere else where you don't value that. I mean, so there's an awful lot of unspoken stuff that is important in development, but when we get down to what we're saying, we got to say the truth. And if we don't have the information, we're not saying the truth. And that's where I get in. I mean, you know, we do sit up here. We Yeah, we can do this for a long time. Thank you. Any any other commissioners? No.

All right. Very well. Thank you so much. We would like to open open the uh discussion now to the uh general public. Are there members of the public that would like to speak to this application? Please come up. Give us your name, please. Douglas Fay, uh River Road resident, Parker Road. Uh my concern is uh my father was an ocean lifeguard. I'm a professional uh emergency first response instructor and uh Commissioner Deal pointed that out that uh professionals should be professional from the get-go. My main concern is fires and being 2 miles up a road in uh where our ranch is off Parker Road. We're two miles up a dirt road and I pride myself in getting the bumps out of that dirt road and reducing erosion. And during the river fire, I can tell you that when that lightning strike hit uh Toro Park, I called my neighbor Steve Dorance, who was there on site, and said, "Steve, what's happening?" He says, "They've got it under control. Don't worry." I said, "Steve, prepare for the worst." And he kind of didn't uh heed that uh advice. And sure enough, it flared up. And then the fire department uh somebody did a back burn and um we lost 50,000 acres. We lost the Parker House, a neighbor's historical residence. Our ranch that's been there in the family for over a hundred years. I called Toro Fire Department and said, "We need a fire drop. We don't have fire protection." They replied that it's in CDF's hands now. We can't do anything. So, uh, I pleaded and pleaded and pleaded. We got one fire drop. Luckily, we saved the

structures and we lost everything else. And the problem with putting homes two miles up a road and not having a swimming pool or some sort of water source is you're putting people's lives at dangers and structures at dangers. And here you are having a lengthy conversation about trees. Um, it's a flawed process because you're not looking at the elephant in the room and that is fire protection. And it's uh it's tragic that you're putting all these homes in in these rural areas and higher fire areas and you're not thinking about the folks that have been there for decades, if not generations. My family's been in this valley for six generations and uh we were not given uh fire protection when we needed it the most. So you have to think about that element when you're having these lengthy discussions about fire protection. And also uh I was in LA during the Palisades fire. I called three friends in the Palisades bowl if you're familiar with that area. Uh they got out in time. They lost their homes. And again, the only people that saved their homes were the people that had swimming pools and a water system and they stood and and fought and uh they could have lost their lives, but everyone who evacuated lost everything and uh people don't recover from that. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone any other members of the public uh anyone here in the room like to comment? No. Madame Clerk, do we have anybody online? No emails and no hands up on Zoom. Thank you very much. Staff, do you have any comments? Any summation you'd like to make? Staff does not have any additional information at this time. Okay, very good. Let's bring it back to commission then for discussion. and Commissioner Roberts. [cough]

I think my the only thing I the only problem I have with this um amendment is that we didn't get the opportunity to consider it originally. However, hearing the testimony today, it sounds like the intent was to do the least possible. And in reading the conditions of the original application, there is a condition that says um that talks specifically about the trees and I believe it's talks about the five trees that we're considering today. Is that true? Is are those the same five trees that it's it's uh or maybe it's it's trees that were also previously removed. I don't know. But there's it says um after consulting with engineers and the arborists that all five trees may be retained through pro protection and avoidance. Therefore, the county has applied for condition 7 blah blah blah. Um [clears throat] and I guess my conflict is I appreciate this applicant trying very hard to red to not eliminate trees and we're kind of scolding this applicant for [laughter] not asking for 40 trees. and but I also understand the the need to be able to consider the project as a whole in its um original form. So this is a complicated one for me. I think there's no there's no question in my mind that these trees need to be removed at this point. Um, and so I'm happy to support it, but um I I always have a little bit of um difficulty scolding the applicants who are trying to do the least possible. So, um I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Thank you very much, Commissioner. Commissioner Deal, I'm sorry if it felt like scolding the applicant. I was just struggling with the process. Um perhaps going forward if we have, as you said, we identified some trees that they were trying to save. Perhaps we could identify we're going to try to save them, but we might not be able to do so. Um and if we can't, we'd like to get that permit right now because it may well be that they won't make it. Maybe some process like that would would sit better for me. Um, but again, no, I I appreciate this applicant and I'm happy to move that we approve the project as recommended by staff.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Deal. We have a second. Commissioner Monal's second. So, I would just like to say yes. I think what you're hearing is just some frustration from from the commission and that uh we were uh just we felt we were blindsided. I that may not be the case at all if we had read more carefully, but um that was the feeling and I think that's what you're feeling is the frustration. So let's vote on the measure then um Mr. Chair

on the motion. Yes. Can I just add one thing piggybacking on commissioner deals is that I guess for staff if this had been the same five trees I don't know if it was um if they were and they were identified originally in the application then maybe that's where we bring those are brought to light like hey these five trees may not be able to say be saved and this is how we're going to address them without having to um do this amendment yes thank you madam secretary

yeah and I want to thank you for the discussion we actively while you all are discussing are going back and looking at the plans, looking at the approval process internally to see if and where there could have been some better communication. [clears throat] Um we've also actively um been increasing our communication with fire as well in the review process because um uh because there are subsequent permits that come uh there are subsequent approvals. So I think there are a few we just for this commission to know and for our applicants um we I think there are a few places where we can also look to just improve and have a little more transparency um and flag more of that transparency specifically when we bring items forward that helps address this the sort of necessary disconnect between what we can tell during the planning phase every intention but there are still these kind of on the ground and construction level uh potential. So, we'll we will definitely bring that back as lesson learned for our staff as well. Uh to carry this conversation forward and hopefully the next time we have a circumstance, we will um yeah, it'll be a little more transparent and will feel a little bit less like um something was not shared up front.

Thank you. Yes, I I think that's all we need is just perhaps just a little bit more information included. Not not to get carried away. We don't want to be buried in paper, but on the other hand, a little more information would be helpful. All right, let's vote then, shall we? All those in favor of uh well, we have a motion by Commissioner Deal and a second by Commissioner Monsave. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, nay. Unanimous vote then. All right. Well, being an old person, um I'm going to call a fivem minute recess so that we can u have a little break. Thank you.

We have we will we will exense. Oh, there's Commissioner Deal. Uh we'll dispense with the roll call. Uh we have the same group that we had the last time. Everyone's here as before. Commissioner Deal will join us in just a moment after she gets

Oh, sorry. You're [snorts] listening. She's paying very close attention. So, we will begin with the uh third item on the agenda today and then PLN number 220348, Omni Resort Resources LLC. staff, when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Gettleman and members of the planning commission. Fiona Jensen, presenting Omni Resources LLC, HCD planning, file number PLN 220348. The project site is located at 3 Coral Dutier Road in the Toro area plan. The property is zoned light commercial with a B8 overlay and design control overlay. The property was previously developed with a fueling station and convenience market from 1966 to 2002. In 2002, the fueling station operator was notified of the need to remediate the site's contaminated soils. The site's fuel pumps and underground storage tanks were removed and the contaminated soils were remediated with regulatory oversight from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. In March 2020, a closure letter was issued indicating remediation and corrective action had been completed and no further action is required. [snorts] The proposed project includes construction of a 12 pump fueling station with a 4,860 ft canopy, a 377 ft convenience market, and a variance to reduce the side and rear setbacks to 1'4 in and 1t 11 in. Associated site improvements include a 265 foot trash enclosure, on-site parking with light poles, landscaping, a fuel price sign, roadway improvements to Highway 68 and Coral Dutier Road, and three underground diesel and gasoline storage tanks totaling 40,000 gallons. The fueling station and convenience market would be open 247 and provide food, drink, basic groceries, personal care, etc. for local residences, residents, visitors, and the traveling public. Currently, there is no fueling station between Stone Creek Village Shopping Center in Delray Oaks and the Sarah Village in Toro. Consistent with general plan policies that encourage commercial activities to serve the public and be located in convenient

areas. The proposed project would serve the existing population of the county and specifically nearby communities along Highway 68 which include Corell Detira, San Bonansio, Amler Park, and Pasadera by providing a convenient and reliable fueling option in an area that currently lacks one. [snorts] The project's four driveways would be located um would be closed with implementation of the uh project. All access to the project site would be provided by three off-site driveways and internal access roads that were approved with the adjacent Karateira retail village. The retail village has yet to be constructed, but the owner is currently in the process of complying with the retail villages conditions of approval and mitigation measures to obtain a construction permit to install these three driveways. staff has applied a condition of approval to the proposed project to ensure that these access improvements are installed prior to operation of the gas station as proposed and designed. The project includes roadway improvements to Kerala Tiierra Road and Highway 68. A median would be installed on Kerala Tiierra Road in front of the first driveway and a dual lane turn lane would be added into the center of this road. The proposed project also includes Highway 68 modifications uh that include elongating the westbound left turn lane by approximately 127 feet and shortening the eastbound turn lane that currently serves five uh private residences. This improvement is proposed to accommodate the project's two to four additional uh vehicles that would use this turn lane during the AM and PM peak hours. Calr has reviewed this improvement and has not raised any concerns. Uh highway 68 is designated as a uh state scenic highway and Curald Tierra Road is a locally designated scenic corridor. The project is rural and uh the project area is rural and the only other development visible from the

project site is an ex uh adjacent existing convenience store to the west and a church to the north. Pursuant to Toro area plan policy T3.1, new development in visually sensitive areas such as the subject property may be permitted if the development is located and designed in such a manner that enhances the scenic value of the area and that the architectural design is consistent with the rural nature of the Toro area. The primary facade of the convenience store would include green brown board and bbatten with vertical natural wood facades, composite dark gray roofs and awnings, and a metal uh dark metal window trim. The side facads consist of an off-white board and batten exterior. The proposed convenience store would be of similar height and massing to nearby residences and other buildings and would include a similar exterior uh features as other visible structures from Highway 68. Finally, the varying height between the convenience store, 25 ft, and the canopy, 18 1/2 ft, would break up the perceived bulk and mass of the property's structures, specifically when traveling along Highway 68. The project's design uh would be visually consistent with Toro area, and the development will be subordinate to the natural features of the area. The proposed canopy over the fueling station would include lighting to illuminate the pumps and provide customer access to the convenience store. As designed and conditioned, the canopy lighting will have reduced lumens from dusk to dawn with motion activated sensors to increase lumens when can uh vehicles enter the canopy area to ensure that canopy lighting does not glare onto nearby roadways. Condition number 13 requires that the lighting fixtures be full cut off and recessed into the canopy. Torah area plan T point uh 3.3 requires a 100 foot setback um on lots adjacent to state and county designated scenic routes such as highway 68 and Coral Tierra. Accordingly, the subject property has 200 foot set front setbacks

which is shown here in red. The property is also subject to a 21 and 20 foot side and rear setback shown in green and blue. Pursuant to policy T3.3, the 100 footfront setback may be reduced for existing lots of record that have no developable area outside of the setback. Strict compliance with this subject property setbacks would result in a building area of only approximately 4,000 square ft or approximately 14% of the lot. As proposed, the convenience store would be located outside of this 100t setback, but the fueling canopy would be located entirely within. The fueling canopy is located in the only appropriate area that allows for adequate on-site circulation while also allowing the site to be developed with a convenience store. Additionally, the fuel canopy is an open structure that will meet the intent of the policy to ensure views of open space and landscaping areas. based on the site's constraints, the required setbacks, the openness of the fueling canopy area, and the planned functional unity with the um foreseeable village retail center. Uh staff has determined that there is no developable area that would accommodate a reasonably size sized light commercial use on this property. Thus, staff believes that a reduction of the 100 foot setback is appropriate in this case to allow construction of the fueling canopy. [snorts] In addition to the reduction of the 100 foot setback to accommodate the proposed fueling canopy, the applicant is seeking a variance to reduce the required side and rear setbacks to accommodate the proposed convenience store. The light commercial zoning district allows a 50% site coverage and allows setbacks to be based on surrounding land use, on-site parking, and site design. Essentially, if deemed appropriate, other light commercially zoned properties such as the property just located west could be developed with minimal or no setbacks without the granting of a variance. However, the subject property is not afforded this privilege because of its B8 overlay,

which enforces the setbacks of the B4 overlay or 20 ft for the rear and 10% of the lot width. The subject property as well as the adjacent lot under common ownership and plan for the retail village are the only two commercially zoned properties in the Toro area plan with the extra setback requirement of the B8 overlay. The required setbacks encumber 86% of the subject lot. Further sighting the convenience store towards the rear of the property allows for better functional unity and visual unity with the planned retail village and allows for it to comply with the 100 foot setback requirement. Consequently, the subject property due to the restrictions imposed by the B8 overlay and the resulting significantly smaller building area is deprived of a reasonable opportunity to support an economically viable commercial use. Accordingly, staff believes that the granting of the proposed variance would not be a special privilege given the size, sight constraints, and more flexible setback requirements of all other light commercially zoned properties in the Toro area plan. Additionally, improving access to fuel for residents, commuters, and local businesses, and reducing the need to travel longer distances for basic services does not constitute a special privilege in this case. The subject property's commercial land use designation dates back nearly 50 years and is reflected in both the 1982 and 2010 general plan. The site was developed with a fueling station in 1966 and then transferred to the subject owner's family in 1974. The B8 overlay was enacted in November 1992 due to concerns with groundwater supply in the Toro area. The B8 district was primarily adopted to present prevent new parcels from being created in the Toro area, but also restricts new development and/or intensification of land use where it would be detrimental to groundwater supply and to the health, safety, and welfare of residences in the area. The B8 district does however allow for construction or expansion of

commercial uses where such expan uh expansion can be found to not adversely affect the constraints that cause the B8 district to be applied to the property. To determine whether the proposed project would be detrimental to groundwater supply, staff det um analyzed the project site's proposed and historical water demand data. Since the prior gas station was in operation in 1992, its water use at that time would have been accounted for in the baseline water conditions that established the B8 overlay. The prior fueling station and convenience store demanded approximately 1.2 acre feet per year. The proposed project would demand approximately 84 acre feet of water per year. Accordingly, the proposed project would not exceed the sub property's water demand at the time the B8 district was applied to the property in 1992 and would instead reduce the historical water demand by.37 acre feet per year. Given the continued commercial use of the property and reduced water demand when compared to historical water demanded by the site, staff's analysis has concluded that the project complies with the restrictions of the B8 overlay. According to the project specific traffic assessment, the project is estimated to attract approximately 3,181 vehicle trips per day with 193 of these trips being in the morning peak hour and 221 of these trips being in the peak uh evening peak hour. However, most of these vehicles will already be traveling um to and from the project site as pass by trips as um they're already on Highway 68 or Coral Tier Road and they are just choosing to make a stop at this site on their way to their final destination. Therefore, a pass by trip reduction rate was applied to the project's projected trip generation to account for the existing trips along these local roadways. With the pass by trip reduction rate applied, the project is estimated to generate only 73 new vehicle trips in

the morning peak hour and 97 97 trips in the PM peak hour. In addition, these new trips generated by the project are assumed to be locally serving and less than 3 miles in length due to the proximity of other gas stations uh along Highway 68. The projected trip generation will not significantly affect level of service operations at Highway 68 intersections near the project site and will not cause Highway 68 intersections to degrade below uh acceptable level of service. Over the past two years, county staff has coordinated with CALR staff to confirm that the proposed project will not conflict with the planned highway 68 roundabout project at the subject intersection. The image on the right illustrates the full buildout of the subject property as well as the retail village as well as the preliminary design of the roundabout demonstrating compatibility. The project was referred to the Toro land use advisory committee for review on May 28th, 2025 at which the LUAC recommended support of the project and requested that project the project scale be reduced and earth tone colors be incorporated. In response to these recommendations, the convenience store height was slightly reduced and the exterior colors were changed to reflect a more rural and rustic character as called for by the Toro area plan. Members of the public raised concerns related to lighting, the number of fuel canopies, uh, fuel pumps, historical versus proposed height of the convenience store and canopy, sale of alcohol, and hours of operation. Separately, staff has received numerous letters of support citing the introduction of a needed service into the community and the thoughtful architectural design. Members of the public opposing the project have raised concerns related to the scale of the project versus the historical fueling station, access to the project site from Highway 68, and the need for environmental review. ZQA guidelines section uh 15183 allows for a streamlined environmental review

if a project is consistent with the development density established in a previously certified general plan or community plan environmental impact report and there are no project specific peculiar environmental impacts or more severe environmental impacts than those analyzed in the EIR. Projects that meet this criteria these criterias are subject uh to a statutory exemption established in public resources code section 211083.3 to determine the project's eligibility for this statutory exemption and streamlined environmental review. HD planning staff prepared a SQA guideline section 15183 consistency checklist. This checklist is attached to today's staff report as exhibit C and concluded that the project is consistent with the development density of the light commercial zoning district and B8 overlay and the project would not result in any significant effects on the environment that have not already been analyzed in the 2010 general plan EIR or that are more um significant than those previously analyzed or that uniformally applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate. staff recommends um some revisions to the draft resolution. These include incorporating reference to the public resources code section 218 83.3 clarifying the timing for the reduced canopy lightings to dusk to dawn rather than dawn to dusk. Correct the proposed roofing material. Clarify that the variance and reduced front setback apply to specific structures, not the entire property. Clarify the timing of condition number 14 and other minor edits. Staff is happy to share the revisions if needed. Additionally, staff is recommending modifications to condition number 13 to add additional performance criteria to the canopy lighting and modifying condition number 14 to only require that access improvements be installed prior to inspection um final inspection of the proposed project. With those changes, staff recommends the planning commission find the project

qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to SQA guidelines section 15183 and public resources code section 2183.3 is consistent with the development density of the 2010 general plan and there are no sight specific significant effects which are peculiar to the site. Additionally, approve a combined development permit consisting of a use permit, administrative permit, and design approval to allow construction of a fueling station and convenience store and associated on and off-site improvements and a variance to reduce the required side and rear setbacks. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions. Thank you, Miss Jensen. Do we have questions, commissioners, for Miss Jensen? Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. I really appreciate that clear and concise report. I'd like to go back to slide number um let's see I think it's five might be six if we could. I'm I'm talking about what it's going to look like. So it's either slide five or slide six. Yeah, that'll do. Okay. So two things that I want to ask about. One is the rendering is showing the uh background of trees which clearly would not occur on the site. So, I'm wondering if if this rendering accurately gives a feeling for what the impact of the development would be from the road based on the the de proposed development of the village behind because um seems to me that would all be off-site landscaping that we don't have now and wouldn't have in the future. What do you think? We can ask the applicant as well, but if it certainly would change the view if there were no background of natural vegetation behind that in my mind, given that this is a scenic corridor and we have an extraordinary interest in the view, this isn't something you do all the time every time. But are those trees actually either present or proposed at this time? I guess it's a question for staff.

Uh, Commissioner Daly, your comments are correct that the the visual simulation provided here does um include the planned retail village and associated landscaping. Um, there are trees in the um on that rear property um and may be illustrated but perhaps not to the density as shown here. Well, looking at the uh phase 1B drawing that includes the roundabout that was provided in our packet as page two says at 263 of something I don't know what down in the bottom right the that shows the um the proposed development in the context of the shopping village and what backs the proposed development in this is parking. There's no landscaping shown on that drawing that's in the in the vicinity of the proposed project. Am I reading that wrong?

Uh there there would be um parking lots uh directly adjacent to the subject property uh should the retail village be constructed. Um there is also uh quite extensive landscape landscaping requirements of that permit. Um so the accuracy of the visual simulation as it relates to the landscaping um I wouldn't be able to confirm at this point but the both the subject um property as well as the adjacent property are required to be landscaped especially along the frontage of Highway 68 and Karate Road.

Right. But am I making my clear? My my concern has to do with the view from Highway 68 across this property and whether it is an unobstructed view of the shopping village through the canopy or whether there's going to be trees behind it as shown in this depiction. And I'm from everything here the trees are imaginary that I see. I don't see any way to to see the trees. So perhaps the applicant can address that. So since visual impacts are so important in this case, I just want to be clear about what the expectation is. And if it's going to be it's going to look like this, then we need to have some assurance that this is actually going to happen. And I don't have any way of seeing that right now. Which also goes to my second question, which has to do with signage. What signage is approved for this and how would it uh interact with the proposed um structures that we see here? Because signage is going to be important. That is a great great question. Um the applicant decided to uh defer the signage um application until a later date. So at this time there is no signage proposed with the project. Um a separate use permit subject to the planning commission's review would be required. The only um required signage at this point would be a fuel price sign um in accordance with state requirements, but there is no signage proposed for the canopy or the convenience market at this time. Can you show me what explain to me what are the sign allowances in this corridor that they might uh potentially implement?

Yes. Uh please give me a minute. through the chair. Um, title 21 section 216110 establishes the sign regulations for projects within a design control and visually sensitive zoning district such as the subject property. Um in the cases where there are more than one establishment um exists uh such as a gas station and a convenience store um signs would be allowed up to 35 square feet for each use um and can be dualsided but with the aggregate of 35 square ft. So uh simply the convenience store would uh be allowed to have a 35 foot sign and the canopy would also allow a 35 foot sign subject to the planning commission's review. So through the chair. So there would be the potential for two 35 square feet signs which uh would are not illuminated or they are illuminated. uh illumination would be allowed but would h we would have to ensure that such illumination is consistent with the exterior lighting requirements of uh the 2010 general plan which include um down lit lighting and limiting the amount of back lit lighting uh from the from the

signs and that would all be part of the review of the future use permit. But those are the allowances under which the design would be presented. Correct. Okay. And does that uh include the price gasoline required gasoline price sign or not? That does not. That would be additional and that's the standard sign we see with the numbers that light up that you put somewhere near the road. There will be additional design um considerations for the fuel sign. Um at this time there isn't a design presented. So it's only that the the sign may be established but the actual design needs to be finalized through that future use permit.

Do we have a location? Um we don't have a specific location. It would be along either the uh highway 68 or corral tier frontage um but not towards the corner to ensure that there's proper line um sight distance for traveling public.

Okay. So what I'm getting at is I'm having a little trouble looking at that and I think that page five was a good example understanding what my expectations for what this eventual project is going to look like. So I'm just going to put that on the table and perhaps the applicant can continue to discuss it. However, um it would be in the context of what is actually proposed in this and um putting future elements that are determinant to off to another date uh another hearing reminds me of the last hearing that we just had.

So, I I really would like to get my head wrapped around what I would see when this project is complete all at one time, all at the beginning. And that would include in my mind at least a visual representation of where signs might be located. Um what's the what's the what's the vision for that? Um particularly as I look at this the circulation is complicated uh to get in and off safely from Highway 68. So, I I'm anticipating that there potentially some signage associated with successfully navigating this circulation so that you can get there. Um, and that brings me to my second point which is there s some offsite development proposed here. Um, and as part of this in order to to implement this project off-site things are required. One of them is appears to me to be uh improvements to Highway 68 that would then go away as soon as we if or when they do this other roundabout project. Is am I am I correct in that that those would become um obsolete at the moment when they actually get to the roundabout. So I mean we don't want to write a condition that you have to have this improvement and then this improvement goes away. I mean that seems we should certainly mention the potential for that.

Uh yes, you are correct that the proposed improvements to Highway 68 would become obsolete uh should the roundabout be installed. Um given the the staff has coordinated with CALR on the general timing and it is believed that the proposed project should it be approved would be constructed in advance of the roundabouts construction and therefore would be required to implement um the proposed changes to the turn line. But should that not be the case, then they wouldn't. Correct. And does our condition correctly reflect that? We don't want to make them do something just for the heck of it. Seems silly. And that clarity can be added.

Cool. Um, so I guess I'm just back on on I'm hoping we can get some clarity around the Well, I just should also disclose for the record that I happen to have an electric truck. So, I have a question about that, but it's not really important. Um, but I have my main question has to do with clarifying the expectation of what this would look like in this scenic location. And I feel as if the application as it's been presented to me right now is a little unclear on that point. And so, I'm hoping that we can achieve clarity and should we achieve it, we can record it. So, that's where I'm at right now.

Okay. Very good. Commissioner Roberts. I had the opportunity to attend the LUAC meeting on this hearing. So I have a little bit of information about this project and I believe the question was asked at the time um about the canopy and whether or not that's a requirement a state requirement that a canopy exists over a over gas pumps and I believe the answer is yes. Is that true? Uh staff would need to confirm that. Okay. Um, second, in your presentation, I think I understood that the property immediately adjacent to this property to the west is not in the B8 district. Is that true?

That is correct.

Okay. Okay. I didn't realize that. Then that may lead to my next question. Um, which is the findings in several places talk about in finding six and finding seven talk about um future projects that may benefit in a way that this project wouldn't benefit that uh I think it's it's regards to the setbacks and that future projects um uh let me see if I can find it specifically. Oh, it's finding yeah six and seven. Um, the subject property due to the restrictions imposed by the B8 overlay and the resulting significantly smaller building area is deprived of a reason. Oh, um, maybe it's just before that, but it's referring to that other other properties are able to potentially benefit from setbacks that this property is not. And so I needed I was looking for clarification on that.

Sure. Um the light commercial zoning district allows for setbacks to be established through an approved general development plan. That general development plan uh would look at surrounding land uses on-site design, on-site parking, and other site restrictions to determine what the appropriate front side and rear setbacks could be. Um, so the subject [snorts and clears throat] property because it also has the more restrictive B8 overlay, it must require it must um comply with the B4 uh overlays uh side and rear setbacks as well as the front 100 foot setbacks from Corral and Highway 68. Um and so other properties they could if we take the commercially zoned property just west it is also subject to two front 100 foot setbacks but it's side and rear setbacks could be reduced um hypothetically to minimal if not zero should the there be war justification for it but for the subject property because of that additional overlay a variance is needed to reduce the required setbacks of that overlay. Okay, that I I completely understand that now. When I read it, I don't think I understand it understood it. So, I'll go back and see um what I didn't understand at the time. Um the Thank you for that clarification. Um the other question I had was the permit allows for 24 hours a day operation of both the pumps and the convenience store. And um I guess I'm just wondering I mean it seems obvious that the pumps would probably be open because people can pay you know without a person being there. Um I'm curious maybe the applicant can tell us about um the intent for the convenience store in a 24-hour operation in this um rural area. Um and then the last question I had is in regards to the visual sensitivity. the applicant has had this flagged and staked for it's probably been at least a year now. Um although I think recently

um they they aren't up there. So the community has had a lot of opportunity to really kind of see what this is going to look like and um how it fits in the in their neighborhood. And one of the questions, my own personal question is in seeing some of those old photos of the previous gas station, the canopy roof was pitched the same way the convenience store roof was pitched. And um I'm wondering if that was something that the applicant considered or whether the county has had input into the design aspect of the canopy because because the canopy really is the question to me and I think even in listening to the LUAC one of their questions they also had other questions about the size of the convenience store. Um, but for me personally, that canopy is kind of the big question. And if we can make it as visually sensitive as possible, I guess that's uh would be my hope and goal [snorts]

through the chair. Um, staff hasn't been presented with um any alternatives to the canopy. Um however the design was uh the applicant is proposing the design um at about 18 and a half feet in height to accommodate for larger larger recreational vehicles that now um are often on highway 68 or crowded here versus the historical fueling can be couldn't accommodate those and I um according to the applicant was consistently hit. Um so the additional height is to accommodate larger vehicles that are now on the road. Um should a a pitched design have been proposed? Um, I think there there hypothetically could be some visual compatibility between the two structures, but would again increase the height, the ridge height of that to still allow for a below height of 18 1/2 ft to allow those larger vehicles. Um, it would still be within the allowed height of 35 ft for the light commercially zone uh property, but may increase the perceived um scale of the project.

Thank you. All righty. Commissioner Mudaves.

Thank you. I think I heard in the presentation that the water usage proposed for the new gas station will be less than the water usage for the gas station that closed in 2002. How many bathrooms will the new gas station have and how many did the old one have? The interior layout of the convenience store has not been uh finalized and and would be upon um the property owner getting a tenant for the building. However, it's my understanding that there would be at least one restroom for employees uh potentially one for the public. Um historically the water demand uh was was in part based on um not having low fixture or low water use fixture requirements in the 60s and so that has contributed to the uh the difference in um water demand even though the proposed structure is getting larger. Um I don't have the details of whether or not there was a bathroom in the original building but the property owner may be able to speak to that.

Thank you. So, I read that there's no public bathroom anticipated for the project, and I'm wondering how a 12 pump gas station on a commuter road on one of two main entrances to the peninsula is going to accommodate all of that traffic for 12 cars of gas at once, but no bathroom usage. And I hope that the applicant will address that as well. Thank you. All righty. Well, hope hopefully we'll be able to get that information. Commissioner Deal.

And a question for staff. How is water use analyzed if we don't know if there's a bathroom or not? I mean, that's [clears throat] my concern. If somebody says, "Oh, I'm only going to use this much water, but I'm not going to tell you whether or not I'm going to have a bathroom." And if we say I I share the concern about bathrooms. I'm old. But that's just following on Commissioner Mons's comment. And then I wanted to go back to the offsite issue because I forgot about the shed. I'd like an explanation of the proposed development on the next door property that appears to be the shed relating to this development. And um what's up with that?

Uh there is a proposed uh trash enclosure with a covered trellis um proposed on the adjacent property um which is planned for the retail village. Um it is subject to the planning commission's consideration today um and would require a um use permit and design approval um given the underly or sorry administrative permit and design approval um given the underlying uh zoning districts. Uh so it is part of the proposed scope. It does meet required um setbacks for accessory structures um and would not uh affect the allowed lot coverage of that adjacent property. through the chair. I I remain a little confused because the adjacent property has an existing plan, right? Is this in that plan?

It is not. Um the location where um the the trellis and trash enclosure are proposed uh was slated for a parking lot. Um and so the project would uh slightly modify some stalls of the planned project, but the interior layout and parking layout of the adjacent retail village um allows for the flexibility of moving around stalls

and it's just we're not considering the adjacent property. So when they say they're going to have to move stalls around, we're assuming that by do if this is a necessity of the project we're looking at now, then we need to have an agreement that someplace the county says, "Yeah, you you can have that. You continue to have your trash there. That's where the trash is going to be. We've got a agreement with the adjacent land owner that that's where the trash is going to be." However, if it impacts the other property, we don't have the ability to say, "Well, do they have plenty of parking? and if so, are they moving this? And if so, you know, is is it still going to have enough? And I mean, that's an existing plan that we're not looking at. So, at any rate, I'm just a little puzzled about, again, since I don't know what it looks like, and I'm hoping the applicant can help us um what we what we're approving. If we're approving something on adjacent property, normally we would get some kind of agreement or easement or some kind of a thing um in the remote eventuality that these properties would be under separate ownership at some time in the future. They're they're fully separate now in terms of technically correct and through the chair. There is a reciprocal parking and access easement conveyed over the uh approved interior uh access or um parking lots and access improvements on the adjacent lot. Um so with the concern of potential change in uh future ownership that AC existing access easement would allow for uh the access to the subject property to remain as well as other improvements done.

Okay. Okay. But, you know, you're looking at the only way in and out of the gas station is through a good bit of the neighboring development. So, it looks to me if I was going to want to get to the gas station um from Highway 68 going west, I would need to go to take the first entrance to the north part of it on this map. If that's north, I never know on these maps. Um, and I would go past the parking stalls and then past the other parking stalls and then over along the side of the large building down to get to the way to get into the gas station immediately before I got to Coral Road. That's through a good bit of that parking area. Um, and those are not looking like major roads. Those are looking like lines between parking. Um so the circulation as it appears without the shop the neighboring property development and the s the um access as it appears with it seem puzzling to me. I'm continuing to puzzle about that. Um which gets me to the bottom line of these projects are obviously actually in the real world related and we are only looking at this piece of it. And so I want to try to understand what it is reasonable for us to look at as well. If you look at the the access drawing without the shopping villa, it looks much clearer than it does with it to me. So I I'm I'm still puzzled about that. [clears throat]

All righty. Very good. Commissioner Mendoza, did you have a comment? Uh yeah, I was going to make a comment in reference to the canopy uh pitch. having a pitch roof opposed to a flat roof. In most cases, they end up putting solar panels up there. So, if you have a pitch roof, you they would be very visible and that's the way they offset some of their electricity use for se. So, that's why they'd rather use a flat roof than a pitch roof. Thank you. All right. Seeing any further questions? No, don't see any. All right. Thank you, commissioners. Um, would the applicant or the applicant's agent care to make a presentation? Just give us your name, please. [clears throat]

Good morning, uh, Chair, uh, Getsman and members of the planning commission. My name is Eric Phelps. My family has owned this property since 1974. I wanted to clear up a few items that that came up during the discussion before I get into my little presentation here. the the design that we saw in the rendering on the right of where the canopy is uh is that big oak tree, the two big oak trees that we saved as part of the village process. There was a total of I think four big mature oaks that were saved during that process. There's also quite a big large hill behind not only this gas station but the village and there are uh a lot of trees on that hill uh that you would see looking past this gas station even the village uh the village there's only one two-story building within the village. So that hill is very dominant backdrop to this to this property that is a rendering. It's not perfect, but that big oak tree that you see to the right of the canopy is is there and it and you'd see it. Um there was uh about the signs, you know, the tenant, there's going to be tenant requirements. We don't know what that tenant's going to require today. We're not hiding the ball. We're just not wanting to commit to something much like the hearing or the the thing just before this. We don't want to promise something and then change it, right? We don't want to show you something and then the roundabouts come in and that changes our sign plan. So, we thought it'd be best to have all the facts, know what we're doing before we present that. Uh the there was something else. Precious uh water closets. Okay. Toilets. We plan to have restrooms in this. We have to have restrooms in today's uh sea stores with with within a gas station. Uh we uh the previous gas station had a women's bathroom and a men's bathroom. Uh they all had the older fixtures. We use plan to use the waterless urinals and uh water saving in the new bathrooms, but

they would be for the public. They would be clean. They would be uh for the customers and they would be used. Uh improvements to Highway 68, that's really dictates from CALR. These driveways, no uh property owner ever wants to give up driveways. We have four driveways, two on Corral existing and two on 68. That was all done by CALR and public works that came up with the design of access um 24-hour operation. If the use is there and the people are using it, then it'll be open. That's really going to be up to the operator. If it's not being used, then they would critique those hours to see what the use was. the canopy we did look at I mean we spent hopefully you appreciate the design that we came up with but this design took years to come up with and in the when a part of the canopy creating a pitch which is something we looked at it only creates the height to be that much taller and so we did the best we could to give enough height so it wasn't getting hit by RVs and trucks uh but yet to to keep it minimal so it was you could still see the sea store see the two-story building within the village and the big beautiful mountain with trees in the back. So, I uh and and that's it. I think I answered most of your questions. Uh if I didn't, uh our language attorney Matt Francois will will answer that. But again, my family's own the property since 1974. I live in the tour area. I've raised my family here and I understand what a special place it is. As as a result, we're very excited to be here to present this project for your consideration. I want uh I want to start off uh sorry it's been 50 years we've been working on this. I want to start off by expressing our sincere thanks to county staff particularly Fiona. Uh her knowledge, her professionalism and diligence was deeply appreciated by our entire uh project team. Next uh can we get the slides up please?

Sorry little nervous. Okay, we'll go to the that's okay. Back on this corner of Karate Road in 68 isn't just another commercial parcel. It's a place with long history of serving this community for decades. Am I doing something? Okay.

[clears throat]

This site was home to the old Exxon station and market. For generations, neighbors stopped here on their way to work, to school, or the ranch. It was quaint, familiar, deeply woven within the rhythm of daily life. What we're proposing today isn't a new commercial use. It's a return of what was always here, but done thoughtfully, carefully, and in a way that respects the rural landscape and the community identity. The fueling station market was originally approved by the county in the 60s where remediation was required. We cleared the site, remediated the soil, and prepared it for this moment. The tanks were removed, environmental approvals were completed, and the property has um patiently waited for compatible low profile development. The proposed project mirrors the original use, a convenience market, same number of fueling positions, a simple rural design that blends into the setting. This isn't a modern highway stop. It's a neighborhood station built with board and bat pattton siding, earth tone colors, alone low canopy, and landscaping that softens its presence along the scenic corridor. Next slide, please. this project uh next slide. Actually, one more time. This project design also ties directly into the crowd retail village. Approved by the board of supervisors in 2012. The village was envisioned as a neighborhood scale center serving the Toro area residents. This gas station site has always was always that vision. It shares access, circulation, and design language. So when both sides complete are complete, they'll look and feel like one cohesive rural village, not a strip center. All lighting will be warm,

low-level, and shielded. No harsh glare, no spillover into the scenic corridor. Structures are pulled back, screened, and scaled down to fit with the land rather than dominate it. We the trash enclosures were brought up. Those originally were in front and as part of the planning and trying to get with out of the 100 foot set back. We placed them behind the building just to to preserve that rural feel that that you get commissioners. This property has been a family uh dinner table discussion for us dating back since 1974. my brother Tony. Uh my sister Wendy and her husband Mike are in attendance today. Mike and Wendy have lived in Tor area uh for 35 years. Now both her children and uh six grandchildren live in Toro Park. From day one, our family has committed to bringing um something generations of our family and neighbors can be proud of. With that being said, I'm going to turn it over to Orlando attorney Matt Fra Matt Frw. Thank you very much, Eric. Uh, good morning, Chair Gatslman, members of the planning commission. My name is Matt France and I'm the land use attorney for the applicant. Just to follow up on some of uh, Commissioner Deal's uh, questions. Um, in terms of the ER, Eric was correct that the tenant hasn't been identified yet, so the signage will be subject to a separate future um, planning application. But if you in the plan set that's in exhibit B in the staff report on the cover sheet, it shows the proposed location. It's highlighted or outlined with a box there for the wall sign for the tenant. So, we don't know who the tenant is, but the location of the sign is identified on the cover sheet. And then on sheet EP1-0,

somewhere in that same packet, um it shows conceptual locations of the fuel signs at the corner of the site and a potential monument sign, uh at 68 and Corral. Obviously, all that would have to be reviewed by your staff subject to a future application. Make sure that it's consistent with your high design standards and line of sight uh uh requirements. I also wanted to answer the question about water in the Witson engineers report which is exhibit H to your packet. Um when calculating the water demand of the prior use there was a note referenced there that an ex the existing station had uh gallons per uh flush toilets. So those assumptions are factored into the analysis there that uh is reflecting that existing station. And I'm happy to answer any other questions as we work through. If I missed any that weren't addressed by Eric, I want to make sure that we address all your questions as we go through the presentation. And Fiona, if we can get the previous slide, please. Going a little backwards here, but uh you Fiona did a great job. So, I'm not I'm going to try to not cover this in great detail, but this just to emphasize that this site has been planned and zoned for commercial uses for over 50 years. It was never identified as an open space parcel. It was this this commercial designation was I goes back to at least the 1982 general plan and was reaffirmed and readdopted in the 2010 general plan. And that the commercial zoning of course allows for convenience markets and stores and service stations. So the of course the because we're consistent with the zoning it does require a use permit for a gas station use. The county previously granted a use permit for the Exxon station, but the applicant's not asking for a zone change or a zone amendment or anything as drast drastic as that.

Instead, he's trying to fulfill the land uses this the county has planned all along and of course in a way that respects the land, the views and this very sensitive and important uh neighborhood. Uh, next slide, please. So, Eric showed you the slide and you have seen the visual simulations. Um the project design is architecturally compatible with the retail village as well as well as a semi-ural and natural setting of the Toro area. You can see that through the earthtone colors and the clean simple board and batten design. Um Fiona talked about the changes that were made to that design in response to the Luak's good comments. Um, just to highlight too that while the zoning allows for a 35 foot tall building at its peak there in the the roof is 25 ft. So 10 feet underneath that highlight and then while a 0.5 F or 50% coverage would be allowed on the site about uh 14,000 square feet of development, this project is coming in at half that half the allowed amount 25% or 7,000 square feet. So, we think we're trying to be very sensitive, consistent, and compatible with the development standards that exist. Fiona did a great job of talking about the lighting and how it will be uh carefully designed to be downlit, not spill off the site. And then even the canopy lighting uh will have cut off features um from dusk to dawn uh that will um shut off and only be activated if a car is in the area. So again, trying to uh demonstrate a sensitivity to this this visual corridor and making sure that the development fits in with it. Um Fiona also discussed, I said I wasn't going to repeat, but here I go, that the uh there were plenty of discussions and I'd really like to thank Fiona and staff um Armando too for leading those discussions with CALR staff to ensure that the project would be compatible

with the future hybrid uh roundabout designs. And CALR has gone on record in writing. We submitted comments on their EIR and they confirmed that uh these designs, the fueling station designs that you have before you are compatible with their future um development plans. Uh next slide, please. So, we we believe the project provides several community benefits. It it provide it'll provide necessary goods and services that do not currently exist in the Toro area, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled. We talked about how with the modern uh water fixtures and less uh uh water for landscaping, it'll reduce water demand by about 30% compared to the prior service area. No significant traffic impacts and then that thoughtful rural scale design. Um but don't just take my word for it. Uh next slide, please. The the project does enjoy broad community support. There were you have at least 18 letters I believe in your packet as exhibit L of various members of the community each individualized letter uh demonstrating why they support this project. Um and we believe that that's compelling here that it's this is a convenient uh located gas station along our route home and would greatly reduce unnecessary travel, save time and ease congestion in other parts of town. That's a carol's uh statement on this. Uh Rodney Meeks says, "This is a project that reflects careful planning and investment in our community's future. It'll generate local jobs, increase county tax revenue, and ensure that fuel and essential goods are more readily accessible in emergencies. Uh we appreciate the comment from uh Mr. Hoover that it may be one of the most attractive stations in the entire county. Uh and we didn't pay him to say that, but we're we're appreciative of that uh nice comment." And um Marggo Daniels has talked about the vision, the

aesthetics of the project as well and how it will fit in with the neighborhood um shopping village. And then Rick Derpa, the project will enhance the convenience, character, and overall livability of the Corral Dutier area. And last slide. So, in conclusion, uh we believe the project fully complies with the county's planning and zoning designations. It's been carefully designed to be compatible with the Toro area and adjacent retail village development. It has numerous um community benefits, which I've discussed. And so, we'd respectfully ask for your I vote. And if possible, I'd like to reserve a minute or two for rebuttal after public comment. But in the meantime, I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you very much, commissioners. Uh, Commissioner Deal.

Yes, thank you. Um, I really appreciate the presentation and agree it's been cussed and discussed for decades. That being the case, what I am most concerned about is because of its extreme visibility that we set the expectation for what the eventual project will look like as clearly [clears throat] as possible. now because the public is better deals better with things that don't surprise it in my view. So can you point me to a visual simulation of we have here on on figure uh sheet A 1.0 zero, a series of viewpoints of the existing site. And we have seen simulations that include the convenience store, but the overall picture of what it looks like with the canopy uh with all of the ancillary structures, I'm not finding. Can you point me to some indication of what it will look like from similar viewpoints to the ones shown here once everything that's proposed has been u implemented?

And Commissioner Deal, you're correct. There's not one visual simulation that shows the entire development. When the retail village was approved by the board back in 2012, there was a series of conceptual elevations that showed the design of the retail village. I have one in my packet, but I don't have one because they weren't entitled at the same time. I don't have one that shows the entire complex, but I can show you. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about the retail village. I'm talking about this particular project which has a canopy in front of it with pumps and the gas signs and so that I I didn't mean that. I'm sorry.

That's fine. No, no. I I apologize for misunderstanding. There actually two visual simulations. I forget which exhibit it is to your staff report. So, there's that close-in one of just the convenience market, but there's also a visual simulation of the entire um development of the entire fueling station development. Maybe staff can help me.

Uh yes. Uh through the chair, um I believe Commissioner Dal, you're asking for just what the proposed project will look like absent any planned uh development of adjacent properties. Is that correct? All I'm looking at is from the points that we have outlined that we took our views on for the existing situation. What's the gas station complex project that's before us today going to look like? I mean, it we know there's going to be additional background. We just I don't have none of them have the canopy on it. It's it's exhibit M of of your staff report are the visual simulations and there there are two of them and the first simulation shows the canopies. Okay.

On this on the screen before you does illustrate the canopy. That's the one I want to see. That's perfect. Thank you. I'm sorry to be so dense here. And there will be some signage associated with that in the case of the convenience store similar to the outline within the area that's been designated or thereabouts and something similar um on the canopy for the gas station. That is correct. Um okay.

As well also staking and flagging photos uh that commissioners may have seen if they've driven by the property site in the last couple of years. Um you can see there is uh dense uh trees in the background that will um partially be blocked along Highway 68. And then um along if I can find the other photo along uh when you're coming eastbound uh this is the view from um just entering into the intersection. You can see the canopy here as well as the ridge of the uh convenience store in the background.

Understood. I'm just worrying about the fact that the cover sheet could be interpreted as as not showing the whole project and u I don't want to hear that come another day. Uh and especially with questions like signs and lighting and all of that jazz. So, this is the sheet I wanted and I would uh apologize for not actually finding it and um encourage its wider dissemination when we're talking to the public because that's the one that most closely provides an an idea of what to expect. Thanks.

Thank you. Uh just one moment, sir. Uh Commissioner Molave, thank you. Just one more question on after all that. Is this image that we're looking at Coral Dutier Road or is this Highway 68? Uh that is Highway 68. Okay. Thank you. Excuse me, Commissioner Roberts.

I have a question for staff and potentially the applicant's representative. Um, I had also read somewhere that the bathrooms were intended or maybe it was an older document intended for employees and hearing Mr. Phelps statement that it's for the public and and honestly the prelim preliminary operations plan says that there's bathrooms, it doesn't specify for um public or private. I'm just my only question about that is whether or not staff and applicants agent believe that that was considered in the water calculations as a public use.

Have Rich Witson, our civil engineer who prepared the calculation who can confirm that. But uh yes, I'll let him speak to that. And just to to your point about public versus private, if the plan wasn't clear, our intent is that they're public. If the plan needs to be amended to make that clear, we're happy to do that.

Good morning. Again, not talking trees now, but water. Um, yes, they we use the uh Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's uh methodology for estimating water use, which includes both the convenience center and the gas station and the number of pumps. So, both um uh Monterey Peninsula Water Management has factors for both those uses and they have an outline to say, you know, when you have two use on a single property, you combine those use and that's how we came up with our estimated water use. And again, just to clarify, the bathrooms as being calculated for public use. Yes, that that's factored into the gas station per pump number. So based on the number of pumps, they estimate a an expected water use based on that. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any other questions, commissioners? All right. Thank you very much. The conditions then are okay with you all? The conditions for the project? They are. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. All right. them. This would be the time for public comment and we have uh a few referrals that we'll take first and then we'll open up to the general. Mr. Mike Weaver.

Oh. Um Mr. Weaver, three minutes, please. Yeah. Can I get the overhead on first before my three minutes start? Yeah, we won't we won't try to do that, do you? [snorts]

Alex, could you please share the overhead? It's pretty It was there. I saw it. The cavalry Those of you listening on Zoom or on phone, we're working on techn technical issues at the moment.

[snorts] This is a good point then to take just a quick break while we work out these techninal issues. If you'd like to, let's take about three or four minutes and do this. Thank you. Oh, there we are. Oh, here we go. I had this like, oh, no, now it's kicking in. I was gonna turn to

We have uh we have liftoff, do we? Congratulations.

I know we have Mr. Weaver. I can see him. We can hear you. We just need your Ah, there we go. Now we have your visual. Yes. Do you want these? I mean, do you save these at all? Hello. Are we on now? You can hear me now. Did you hear what I said before? You No, we won't count it against you. Go ahead. Say it again.

Well, I thought this would offer some perspective. This was this was a an overhead done by Caprock which attempted to clean up the uh contamination on site. Um this is the old building of the old Exxon gas station and the canopy compared to now. This is significantly smaller and set back. Um anyway, it was about 20 feet high. Um the final environmental impact report I bought my copy today. you can't have it. But for the shopping center, I read it again. Um, anytime this gas station issue came up during the hearings that went on, it was, "Oh, that all comes later. The gas station is a separate property. We're just concentrating on the shopping center. Now, down the road, we we will be doing the gas station site." There's no environmental review on this. what's before you today. Um the uh uh there's a 24 to 26 ft burm that's required along Carol Road. So they're going to have to put a burm in uh 24 26 ft wide about 6 ft high and then you go down and you turn through the burm and you go back to the gas station. Um the uh uh uh the I was at the hearing where the zoning administrator approved selling chips and cookies and such. That was Dale Ellis. Some of you may remember zoning administrator at the time. It was approved as a little convenience store selling things incidental to the driving public. Later they applied for a beer permit to sell beer on site. The permit was finally issued. It was never implemented. They never did sell beer on site. It was closed down because of ground w contamination. Uh the tanks were leaking. A tank was leaking and it sat like a festering

wound for years like that. Um I brought the [clears throat] issue back up when I had my well tested. I did the testing and there was MTBE in the well at the bottom of my driveway. Where did that come from? It's never really been determined, but it was not. The station across the street was tested, no contamination at all, clean as a whistle. This had contamination, and it sat for years festering. Um, that's not brought up. It needs to be identified and talked about in an in an environmental document. Um, the regional water quality control board uh ordered it shut down. Um when it went when they went in to clean up the back hoe that was digging up the soil made a report I did a public records request with EI with environmental health dug up the records as deep as that backhoe could go there was the smell of raw gas. The inspector of the day left for Monteray he had other things to do that way day as as well as inspecting this. when he was gone, a call was made by one of the people there to environmental health, talked to Mr. Ramirez, and [music] said that the um uh the digging is getting close to the existing building. He was instructed to, "We don't want to endanger the building. Cover it up. Just cover it up." They put soil, the contaminated soil back in the hole where it sat for more years. That's why the station stayed closed. the contamination was it was it was cleared by uh uh environmental health um and and the state saying okay it's probably going to dissipate over time but I ran a test last week I don't want to show you

but yeah quickly Mr. here if you could please quickly quickly if you can see this and I'm turning all this in for you. Uh the MTB contamination at the bottom of my the well at the bottom of my driveway is 5.6. Last time I tested for it was 2019. It was 2.8. It's twice what it is now. Don't know where it's coming from, but it's contaminated. You need to do an environmental review and get more on this. It has not been done. It was excluded from the shopping center one. Thank you. And thank you all for you. Thank you, Mr. Weaver. Thank you, Melissa.

All right, we have uh the next speaker slip I have is for Mr. John Church. If you'd come, if you care to come talk to us.

Good morning. My name is John Church. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts. Um, the primary uh reason I'm here is that in the middle 1960s, federal legislation and and I believe state as well was passed to beautify the highways. Ladybird Johnson, I believe it was 1967, came through and dedicated the Selenus Highway corridor as a scenic rural road. Now, I have I my family has been here since Father Sarah. I'm a rare bird. So, I have deep deep deep roots. Uh, I've lived here all but 10 years of my life, which was spent working for a major corporation throughout Northern California. So, I was away for about 10 years. I have watched traversing Highway 68. I believe I believe the the closest development in my youth was Blanco Road. Now, it's oozed out almost to almost to the Selenus River. urban in urban sprawl becomes urban infill and it's certainly not in the nature of a rural signic scenic highway to have a you know this this shopping center and I won't say service station because there aren't any anymore. It's a Twinkie stop. This stop is like attacking a house fly with a sledgehammer. If you look at the air aerial plot plan that was on display a little while ago, it's crammed, jammed, it's urban sprawl, it's urban infill,

and it's not in the character of the area. I also might want to address without fear of liable, Mr. Phelps has made or his family has made a number of incorrect representations this morning that are false. That facility on the east side of Karachur Road was never a convenience store. You hear that? Never. It was a typical service station of the mid60s where they had a Coke machine and a rack of cigarettes. Now over time they expanded that into more soda pop and a few other items. It was never a convenience store by today's standards ever. So it's not a grandfathered in use. It's, you know, a falsehood. So I think you've heard enough of me. Uh I pardon my inability to communicate effectively in public. I have never been trained in public speaking. So, thank you so much for your time and attention and I hope I won't be ignored.

Thank you, sir. No need to apologize for your public speaking. You did great. Better than me, I think, today. So, we have one final uh speaker slip, although we'll move on to anyone else in the audience. Uh Mr. Fay, you have three minutes, sir. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Douglas Fay. Uh, where do I start? Uh, my great-grandfather came here in 1895. Uh, so my roots are deep as well. Uh, I went to every Toro Luak meeting during the general plan update in the early 2000s. I was appointed by this commission to the greater Selenus area ad hoc uh, land use advisory committee. So, I've read every general plan, every area plan. I'm understand I have basic understanding of squid and I've also worked uh at an automotive service station uh starting at age 15 back in the 1970s. This site had six gas pumps, three different grades of gasoline. Now it's proposing 12 pumps uh with four different grades. That's 48 pumps. It's much much huger than what was uh traditionally there. And as Mr. Church pointed out, it had two lube bays. It was a service station. It wasn't a convenience store. And here's the applicant, a great family, the Phelps family. They've been here forever. Having two separate properties with two separate projects, and they're peacemealing it. It should have been all done at once. Uh that's how environmental review is done. It's a huge huge convenience store that could have been done in the shopping center. And again, uh it's making your job difficult and it's not rural. It uh it's [clears throat]

the scenic corridor will be impacted by it. It's not a what you would expect on a scenic highway. And I can tell you on River Road, I used to shop at Ed's River Road Market and then that closed down and we have a a gas station convenience store. I never use it. I go to where I can buy fuel at the best price. That's what most rational people do. This is going to be a dollar a gallon more than anywhere else. Uh that's what happens when you're stuck out in the middle of nowhere. You get fleeced. It's not with the character of the Toro area. And when I used to shop, I used to go to Mario's gas station across the street. Anytime went to Luga Nikka, you go see Mario, you buy a little gas and say hello. That's what you have in a rural area. The problem here is the environmental review. This needs environmental review. They're peacemealing and the MTB is a huge huge concern, especially with the Toro and the aquifer. My father had a PhD in biochemistry. So I I understand MTB is a toxic legacy chemical. It doesn't disappear. It just migrates. And apparently it's migrated towards Mr. Weaver's well. How many other wells is it has it migrated to? So you need to look at the everything with the other project. It needs environmental review and uh I hope you thank you for my comments.

Thank you, sir. I'm a little nervous, too. Yeah. Yeah, that's okay. Thank you, sir. All righty. Is there anyone else in the audience uh in the room that would like to speak to us? Ah, very good. Just give us your name, please, ma'am. My name is Tamara Schwarz and I am on the Toro Luac committee and first thing I want to make a comment. I appreciate the change of colors of the building. Uh that was just a moment. Um excuse me, Miss Schwarz. Um are you speaking for the Luak or are you speaking for yourself personally? Uh for myself. Okay, very good. Thank you.

Um I just wanted to make that comment. I appreciate them working with us on that. Um, my concern is definitely the signage and if there is a franchise going in, which I'm assuming it would be, um, that there is probably some type of requirement from franchises as to the size of the the sign or if it's backlit or whatever. So that that would be my biggest concern of of you know what company is going in the aesthetic uh value of it and also you know I'm hearing concerns about the wellwater and that's I'm I'm very concerned with that as a you know somebody that lives in the Toro Park area and I appreciate the beauty of Highway 68 and um I think that, you know, hopefully that we can come to some type of arrangement where we can maybe even downsize some of the uh gas pumps because I see that it's pretty big undertaking there, but um I'm concerned about more so the aesthetic part of it and also the toxins in the Well, thank you.

Thank you very much. No, I'm sorry, sir. I know. Terrible, huh? Not enough time. You get one. Do we get one shot? But you did a great job. [gasps] Is there anyone else in the uh auditorium? Sorry. Anyone anyone on uh online that would like to comment? We have no emails or no hands up on Zoom. Oh, I'm sorry. We just got one. Oh, [laughter] yeah. Yeah, Mr. Stump.

Mr. Stump, you're live. Go ahead, sir. [snorts] Mr. Sump, you should be able to unmute yourself. There you go. There we go.

All right. Thank you. Uh, yes. I also have concerns about the size of it. I think the proposed station is three times the size of the previous station and the application seems like it purposely misled uh to state that there were 12 pumps when actually there were just six with 12 nozzles but only the ability to serve four vehicles at a time. So as stated before Mr. Phelps. The station is not similar in size as the original and this is going to be serving 12 stations and is a huge increase. The Highway 68 scenic corridor uh is going to be definitely impacted by this tall 247 brightly lit structure which is in direct view of the road and not the usual 100 foot setback or any trees masking it. uh the trees behind it aren't as important as something in front of it so that it would mask it. The other st two stations on Highway 68 are essentially not even visible from the highway. Uh there's no store needed. Uh there is a station and a convenience store at just across the street and it's a thriving market. So therefore, the convenience store is not needed and the new owners of the uh gas station across the street is planning to reopen that existing station that was referred to as Mario station before. Plus, there's another gas station at the Toro Park 7-Eleven that is only 3 miles or 6 minutes away. So, there's really no need. And if there was a need, the previous Exod station, which only was servicing four vehicles at that site, would be open today if the demand was actually there. I also really uh feel that the environmental impact report must be done given the size increase of this and with the contamination that uh

is uh noted already here. Uh so that needs to be done and there really is no reason why the gas station can't be reduced significantly in size, put behind the the uh the 100 foot uh setback and be much more hidden from the scenic visible view. Uh, thank you. And I wish you'd reconsider going ahead with this size of a project and make it more compatible with what the rural area really is and why we all moved here uh to have a rural setting without a ga gas leak station in front of us uh every time we drive by on Highway 68. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Madame Clerk? No. Seeing no one. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh yes, uh applicants agent, if you would like. You've got a few minutes here to talk about that.

I appreciate that. Uh chair, uh just to to briefly respond to some of the comments. First and foremost, the old gas station had 12 fueling positions. This station has 12 fueling positions. It is true that the sea store is larger than the old sea store. That's largely a result of the need to have accessible uh aisles and bathrooms which didn't exist in the '60s when the old structure was built. Uh in terms of the overhead perspective that Mr. Weaver uh uh had shown, that wasn't an architectural drawing obviously, but um he was indicating that there were 20 foot tall uh uh canopies. This project is 18 1/2 ft, so it's less tall than those canopies. and also that that convenience store and real estate office and service station were within the 100 foot setback. This convenience store is completely outside of the 100 foot setback. There was a reference that no environmental review had been done. That's not accurate. Uh in exhibit C to your packet, there's a 135page carefully prepared environmental checklist by the county's consultant. not we paid for it but it's not a consultant that we had any influence over that fully complied with SQA and the law by looking at your general plan EIR and determining whether there were any peculiar impacts that approach has been reaffirmed by our legislature by our governor over and over again that SQA isn't supposed to generate paper it's supposed to analyze impacts so if there aren't any impacts document that and move on it's been reflected in two uh at least one recent uh California court of appeals decision out in 2024 out of San Diego County where the court actually ruled against a board of supervisors for not relying on the exact checklist that your staff is telling you to rely on here. Um let's see that in terms of the empty uh the

hazards and that that is obviously a significant issue. This the Mr. Phelps talked about how the site had to be closed down the tanks removed and cleaned up. Exhibit J to your packet which was not mentioned by the speakers is actually the case closure le letter letter letter from the regional board indicating that remediation and corrective actions have been completed and no further action is required. So again, that's not something this this is the agency tasked with hazards, making sure that those are cleaned up, and they've signed off on this. And of course, we'll need further permits before uh we can do any grading or movement work to make sure that that's still the case. Um let's see if I had anything else. I the signage and the the comment about the franchiseor wanting perhaps or franchisee wanting larger sign than your uh county codes require that that is a non-starter. uh any franchisee here unless you know they're asking for some extraordinary variance which you would have complete discretion over will have to uh provide you signage that complies with your sign requirements. So that that is just the rule and they will have they can't do anything other than that because those those are the county code requirements. Um, we we do believe that we've u we've talked about how we've tried to carefully design this in accordance with your code in the retail village in this sensitive location and I would be happy to answer any other questions u that you may have.

Thank you staff. I do we have any questions? Doesn't look like it. Nope. Looks like you're good. Thank you very much. Thank you chair. staff. Miss Jensen, did you have any final comments before we move to discussion?

Uh, yes. Um, I I want to reiterate that the um, as just mentioned, the regional water quality board case has been closed to the standards acceptable to the state as well as uh, local environmental health bureau had monitoring wells on site to ensure that soil and groundwater uh, investigations were uh, completed and up to par with local and state requirements. Um environmental review has been completed in its accordance with uh California Environmental Quality Act. Um and uh the proposed project before you uh staff believes is qualifies for a statutory exemption. Um the proposed project uh regardless of the prior gas station is developed at a uh scale that does comply with the light commercial zoning district requirements. Um and as noted prior, the any future signage is subject to a separate discretionary permit um including design approval review and staff is happy to incorporate um that language into the draft resolution to add extra clarity andor condition um that the project any future signage be um subject to a use permit as our existing code already requires. [snorts]

Thank you, Miss Jensen. You can I think you can probably add that language. I don't think everybody would be unhappy with more clarity. All right, commissioners, let's bring it back up here. Um, anyone like to start? That would be Commissioner Deal.

Yeah, thank you. Uh I'm going to speak from having heard a lot thought a lot about this project for as I said decades uh and heard from the community about it for decades and I would say that this is the least contentious hearing about this project I remember attending. Um, I would also say that issues and concerns raised here are not substantially different than those I have heard in the past. Uh, and those have been processed through a great deal of administration over a great many years. So only some of this is really something I feel is is being heard. I actually don't think much of it except the design is being heard for the first time. The specific design of this project is in its details new to me. The idea of it is not, the location of it is not, the setting of it is not, the underpinning policies are not. So, um, given that I really respect the public process that's gone on and I have historically made my concerns known about the larger situation over a number of years. Um, and my views did not in most cases prevail and I respect that and I think that this is a a good faith effort to do what we now have said is supposed to be done and when the time comes I would be happy to move approval of this project as presented with the changes as presented by staff in their ARATA and the additional condition that we have just discussed.

Thank you Commissioner Deal. Commissioner Mendoza, I'll second that motion. Oh, okay. I guess you made a motion, Commissioner Deal. Who knew? Yeah, it's not me. Uh, Commissioner Roberts.

Um, I I echo Commissioner Deal's comments. Um, I also, um, struggled with the original project just for its size and scale and basically everything everybody has mentioned today, but the applicant has spent decades literally um, getting to the point that we're at today. And I also um will support this project as it's proposed. Um I do have a question though for staff. I'm going back to the findings um that I just felt maybe with clarification I will understand a little bit further. My concern in the finding six um finding six evidence B and finding seven evidence B is similar. One sentence says, "If deemed appropriate, these and other commercial lots may be developed with minimal or no setbacks." And there's another sentence kind of similar to that. And I understand based on the presentation today what was suggested. My only concern with that is it almost feels like we are preapproving a project that it doesn't exist. And so I understand the intent of that language and I think it's important. I don't know. Um I would like I I would like it to read in a way that doesn't look like we're preapproving a project that doesn't exist. And I don't I'm not positive how to do that. It's that sentence and then the sentence in evidence B um in finding seven that says um essentially if appropriate for the specific site a one two or even zero foot rear side and setback could be authorized on another LC zone property without the granting of variance. Again I I understand it's showing that a similar property may not need a variance in the same situation.

I don't I don't know how I don't know how to get around what

you want to help. I guess a question I have is this something that you would like staff to work on perhaps with uh to refine the language here or would you like to incorporate in the action that staff work with county council to try to refine that language so as to not uh read as precisely fine if staff works separately with county council to resolve that language. Um, you may find that it doesn't set a pre-approval for another another property, but that one in reading it for me, I I was concerned in both those situations.

Okay, we'll do that then. [clears throat] All right, Commissioner Deal. Just saying it's fine with the maker of the motion. Okay, wonderful. Then unless there's someone else, uh, the Okay, we have a [clears throat] Commissioner Shaw.

Okay, thank you. So, um, I guess I'm just going I'm going to be the outlier here and say that, uh, I think it's a really pretty building. It looks lovely. Um, but looking at this independent of the other develop proposed development, um, that has yet to be built, um, I do think this strays quite far from the rural character and scenic drive on 68 that I'm used to seeing. I think it is, um, bulky. Um, I understand the setbacks um and the need to reduce them, but I I just everything else I see on 68 is screened very well and this is not I think the canopy is is a lot to look at. I think that it's just in my opinion too much and it's not something that I can this design that I can support at this time.

Okay. Thank you. Seeing no one else, then let's um let's have a vote on the uh motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed? Nay. No. I'm sorry. Those kind of blended together. Do you guys need a roll call vote? No. You got it. Okay. I believe it was two nays. Commissioner Shaw and Commissioner Monsavves. All right. Very good. Thank you so much, everyone. Motion passes. So, um, the project will move forward. All right, Madame Secretary, are you going to talk to us about the um referral packet

or not? Um, I have nothing to add other than a reminder that um I have gone through and highlighted or bolded new updates or changes in that referral matrix should the commission have questions or comments or concerns. I notice you got rid of my referral. Does that mean it's been completed or does that mean you just got rid of a thorn in your side? Can you remind me? I am positive it was completed, but could you remind me which referral that is? My co-chair will remind you. Telephone tower. Cell phone towers. Beautiful. No, that should not have been removed. If it is not on the list, that was simply an error. Um, so I thought you were just trying to tell me something. No, still on our plan. No.

All right. So if it is, it was inadvertent and I will go back and ensure that just to punish you then. How about a department report? Well, I feel like that's more punishing to you all. [laughter] Um Oh my gosh. I Please excuse my apologies. I went from focusing on that last item intently to forgetting uh to jot down my notes that I wanted to share with you all. So I think I [laughter] don't have to share anything. You just have nothing to share. Yeah. I just [clears throat] put it off.

Thank you. Thank you. No, the the one um the one just significant update I did want to provide to you all was um yesterday uh staff did present a status update on the housing element uh to the board of supervisors. In that meeting, the board of supervisors reaffir reaffirmed support to continue forward with with uh with the proposed approach that staff is taking for responses. Uh and so we are continuing to be responsive. We will be having uh we will in the coming month to two. We are targeting to have both um an updated third submittal to the state which would have a seven-day public review period prior to formal submittal uh to the state and then also we are working on our public draft of our um programmatic environmental impact report as well and hope to have that public circulating u by the end of the year as well. Um so that is the main update I wanted to provide. I mentioned earlier uh that the board did have a new referral with regard to a temp uh emergency moratorum on battery storage while um looking into uh potential for local regulations and that will return within 30 days for a preliminary response to the board. I'm sure there are other things but that's what I've got for you now. Thank you so much.

Uh just one quick question for me. The board referral on battery storage commercial or private? What what were they where were they thinking? Were they thinking commercial? If you will allow me, I would like to pull that specific referral up, which is what I had intended to do. Yeah. I just didn't know if it was going to impact, you know, people putting battery storage in their garage or if it was intended to be like Moss Landing. It's intended to be more commercial scale, but I am not positive it had specific definitions. It was not intended to regulate individual personal private.

Well, I'm the one who brought it up and I'm I'm now running along. So, what I'll do is I'll go look it up if you would prefer and answer my own question. I can work with you. Okay. And we'll answer it. So, other of us might be interested to know. What's that? Others of us might be interested to know the answer to your question. Oh, really? Yeah. Thank you for your support, Mr. Chair. While she's looking that up, I wanted to point out that she does still have the telecommunications uh wireless communications. Is it on there list? Yeah. Really? Where did I miss it?

Um page Yeah, it's at the bottom in small print. No, I [laughter] It's um page two of six, number four. Oh, my apologies. I apologize. Happily accepted. Um, and I did want to let me just read the language. It is specifically a referral title is urgency ordinance adopting a moratorum on battery battery energy storage systems best facilities in unincorporated Monterey County while regulations for BES operations are developed. So those battery battery energy storage systems are not individual um private home private. Yeah.

Okay. Cool. Thank you. All right. Sorry I've kept everyone longer than No, I have a question. I'm going to keep it longer yet. Oh, okay.

It's a quick question. Any idea how many builder remedies project builders remedies application we've had uh at this point given the housing elements um timeline? So yes, as a matter of fact, um one thing I will say is that the number of builder remedy applications that we have has changed over time because um because we still do not have compliance. Some pre-applications that were placed in which their sixmonth or 180day window to submit a formal application has passed um they've not resubmitted. uh and some of those may still uh be in the works but just nothing formally. Also, there are a few properties where we have multiple applications. Um so I did just look yesterday. We do have at this time seven properties that have on our records active builder remedy applications. Some of those properties have multiples uh such as 7-Eleven VJO road has multiple applications. Um as does uh Oak Oakshshire Oak Oak Circle in Carmel Valley have multiple applications still.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else questions before we go? All righty. Then we will journ the meeting at 12:07 p.m. And thank you everyone.