Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

go ahead and begin the um County of Monterey Planning Commission meeting uh for November 12, 2025. And so um with that um again, I'm calling uh the meeting to order. With that, we can go to the pledge of allegiance. And Commissioner Shaw, will you please lead us in the pledge?

Aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Now we we go to the next U agenda item and that's roll call. Uh could you please go ahead and do a roll call.

Commissioner Mendoza here. Commissioner Hartzell here. Commissioner Gomez here. Commissioner Work here. Commissioner Roberts here. Commissioner Shaw here. Commissioner Gomez here. Commissioner Monsalev here. Commissioner Deal. Commissioner Getsman are absent. Chair, you have a quorum. I don't think you call my name or did I miss it? I heard Gomez twice. Yeah. Anyways, I'm hearing things.

Commissioner Gonzalez is here. Anyways, uh with that, uh this would be the time for um the secretary to go ahead and inform uh the public, those who are via Zoom if they would like to uh address the commission on how to do that, whether via Zoom or through emails.

Thank you, chair. Um also just for the record noting that commissioner Deal has arrived and is at the dis now. Uh thank you everyone for joining us today. If you're joining us um remotely you are able to participate via the Zoom uh meeting for today. Uh on our agenda is a link to the Zoom as well as the call-in information. So, if you want to participate from Zoom or remotely during public comment, you can raise your hand by opening the reactions button at the bottom of your screen and clicking the raise hand icon. If you're on your phone, mobile, or landline, you can raise and lower your hand by pressing star9. You can also participate by sending an email PC hearing comments at county of Monterey.gov. We do monitor this email, which is available on the agenda as well. Uh, we do monitor it in real time. However, now that the meeting has started, there's a chance that we won't capture all uh all comment that comes through the email, but we truly do our best. Um, when it is your turn to speak during public comment and your hand is up, you will be granted uh you will be acknowledged by the chair and then you'll be granted the opportunity to unmute yourself and share your public comment. Uh to do that you can on the Zoom platform at the bottom look for the microphone click it on click it off mute unmute on your phone star 9 or excuse me star six will mute and unmute you. Thank you. We are also happy to continue our pilot program. I don't know how long a pilot goes before we just officially say we've got it. So um but it is officially still a pilot of Wordley. If we can get the next slide on would be great. There we go. So, for those of you who are here in chambers or um joining us remotely, you can either through scanning the QR code

that's on your screen or going down to the bottom left to the Wordley website. Uh you can go to Worly, which is an AI powered interpretation software program. uh when you when it gives you the prompt, you can select the language uh and then that should translate for you. You will also see the wordly translation up on our one of our screens here uh in chambers as well. If you're here in chambers and you do need translation services, we do have headphones and devices for you. Please come forward and uh we can let the clerk know. Thank you.

Thank you. And um with that we move on with the agenda. And the next item in the agenda is public comment. And this is a time that is set aside uh for the public to comment on any particular matter that is not on the agenda. So, is there anybody here in the chambers that would like to address the planning commission on an item that is not on the agenda? Seeing none, is there anybody on Zoom or any emails of individuals that would like to address the commission on matters that are not on the agenda?

There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

Thank you. With that, um, we move on to agenda, additions, deletions, and corrections. For the record, we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number two, PLN2308, Lincoln Green in LLC, and agenda item number five, REF250037, water allocation policy. Thank you. And any of those items that were added are on the desk back there that Yes. Thank you. Um so we move on to the next agenda item. This is uh commissioner comments, requests, and referrals. This is a time set aside for the commission to comment, request, or refer a matter that is on or not on the agenda. So, commissioners, seeing none, we move on to the next agenda item, which is the approval or acceptance of the minutes. And does any of the commissioners would like to pull any of the draft PC minutes for 92425 or draft PC minutes of 102925?

Uh, Chair, Commissioner Gomez, I just wanted to note a correction on um the minutes of October 29th. I was quoted as so I wanted I wanted my quote was a little wrong. I actually work for the county of Santa Cruz. I was talking about battery battery energy storage that the county of Santa Cruz is considering for BESS or battery energy storage systems to provide local control in Santa Cruz County as opposed to allowing the state to do the folks to opt out and go to the state. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Seeing none, uh is there anybody in the public that would like to uh speak to any of the two items as far as the minutes? Seeing none, is there anybody on Zoom or any emails related to this two particular for this particular item with the two two sets of minutes? No hands up on Zoom and no emails. Okay, with that, uh, we would need a motion and a second to approve this, uh, acceptance of the minutes. I'll move approval with a noted correction.

Commissioner Gomez make the motion. Commissioner Mendoza seconds the motion. Second the motion. Any other comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying I. I. All those opposed abstensions. Motion carries. Now we move on to scheduled matters and then we have U PLN 22038 Lincoln Green NLC. So uh will the staff uh please go ahead and make a presentation.

Good morning. Chair Gonzalez, planning commissioners. Just file meter presenting for HCD file number PLN220308 Lincoln Green in LLC. The project is located at 26208 and 262000 Carmelo Street in Carmel within the Carmel Area land use plan. The subject property is currently zoned medium density residential with a density of two units an acre, a height limit of 18 ft, and a design control overlay within the coastal zone. However, the project before you today involves reszoning of the subject property to visitor serving commercial commercial with a height limit of 18 ft and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. This is to be consistent with the land use designation within the Carmel area land use plan. The Lincoln Green Inn was built on the subject property in 1926 and has been in operation ever since. The property received its first zoning district in 1963 as shown on screen. Although the property was commercially developed and operated, the property was zoned residential. In 1982, the Carmel Area land use plan was adopted. At this time, the property received a land use designation of visitor serving commercial. Although the property's land use designation reflected its historical and ongoing visitor serving commercial operation, the property was reszoned to medium density residential. However, the MDR zoning district is not compatible with the underlying land use designation of visitor serving commercial. This erroneous zoning continues to apply to the property today. California Government Code section 65860A states county or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of that city or county. Accordingly, the county is required to correct this inconsistency between the property's land use designation which is enforced by the Carmel Area land use plan and the 1982 general plan and the zoning district which is in the countyy's zoning ordinance. As proposed, the project involves changing the subject property zoning district from medium density residential with a density of two units an acre, a

height limit of 18 feet, and design control overlay in the coastal zone to visitor serving commercial with a height limit of 18 ft and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. In addition, should this reszone be implemented, the medium density residential zoning zoning district's reference to the Lincoln Green in cottages will no longer be applicable. Accordingly, staff recommends that this language from chapter 20.12 be removed. Pursuant to title 20, the planning commission shall act as the recommending body to the board of supervisors for local coastal program amendments, including text amendments and reszones. Therefore, the planning commission's recommendation following the planning commission's recommendation, the board of supervisors will consider the project. Although the county is required to correct this error, the proposed reszone and text amendment do amend the county's local coastal program and thus consideration by the California Coastal Commission is required and will occur following the planning commission and board of supervisor hearings. Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the board of supervisors find that the project qualifies as a statutory exemption under section 15265 of the SQA guidelines. Amend the Monterey County Local Coastal Program by adopting an ordinance to amend sectional district map 16 of title 20 to reszone the property from MDR to VSC and adopting an ordinance to amend the Monterey County Code Chapter 20.12 to remove reference to the Lincoln Green Cottages and finally to direct HCD staff to submit the local coastal program amendment to the California Coastal Commission for certification. That concludes staff's presentation and staff's available for questions.

Thank you. So that brings it back to the commissioners for questions. Commissioners, any questions. Commissioner Deal, thank you. Um, appreciate the staff report. It's it's quite clear. I'm just struggling with I understand the need to reconcile the zoning with the land use designation. Of course, we need to do that. I'm struggling with the notion that absent that change, there could be an intensification proposal theoretically before the county. So if there isn't that change and the pro project would and the property would remain in the uh medium density residential um zoning designation, how would a an additional unit theoretically be allowable? the um through the chair, the MDR zoning district does have a mention which is a part of this project is to remove that mention to allow the Lincoln um green in just due to its historical presence um on the property. So there is an allowance for this specific inn within MDR. Um so that would allow us to potentially um allow the conversion of um the existing building to another unit um should that be proposed. Uh in addition through the chair, given the inconsistency between the zoning and the land use designation, should there be a hypothetical uh project that involves intensifying the property, staff would again look upwards in the hierarchy of planning documents and recognize the commercial or visitor serving commercial land use designation, which would allow for such intensification. Um and so hypothetically, an application could move forward with intensifying the

property absent the reszone. Uh however, staff is recommending the reszone to clean up the record and and show the clear consistency between the land use designation and the underlying zoning district through the chair. Understood. But my point here is to truly understand the options before us to to solve that uh difference of opinion are to change it one way or the other. So I mean we can reconcile it to make it residential. We could reconcile it to make it commercial all whichever one it was. What are the upwards limits of potential intensification under if we make no change? I mean supposing you came forward with a hypothetical application for six more units today uh under the existing designation. How would that be treated and how would it be evaluated?

Uh to clarify the question is that under the existing commercial land use designation?

Well under the existing situation. Um again because of the inconsistency um a intensification proposal uh I believe staff would move forward uh provided it met applicable regulations and site development standards um staff would move forward with likely a recommendation of uh support given that the underlying land use designation would allow for additional units. Um if the property were to be designated residential, that is where additional units would not be supported given it is a residential land use designation um in a residential zoning district and there is a limitation in the existing zoning district to four units

through the chair. What's the upward limit if it's designated commercial? Um it would be compliance with uh site development standards and making the necessary findings of a coastal development permit including site suitability, health and safety um squa uh site suitability and uh public access. There is no specific limitation on the number of units as long as those findings could be made. So it would be limited I guess by water wastewater um and compliance with applicable land use plan regulations. Um but there is no specific unit cap.

So theoretically just this again this is a thought experiment not about this particular um application. Um theoretically should they have water and wastewater they could build a an 18 foot high multi-unit um single room motel. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Hartzell, what are the consequences of remaining out of compliance with the state? Do you know?

We don't like uh sorry through the chair to clarify. So, if we were to just leave the inconsistency between the zoning and um yeah, I'm not sure what the con uh I don't think staff is aware of any real like legal consequences other than there will continue to be an inconsistency um in the record. I saw enough eyes turn up this way, so I'll turn on my microphone. Regali, deputy county council here to assist. The legal consequence would be that you would have the dissonance. You would have two inconsistent parts. I don't know that you could make reasonable findings to approve a project when you're required to find certain consistency. If you have these two things that are out of alignment legally, you are obligated to correct it. And the way that you do it is because someone comes forward with an application and says, "This process took place. The zoning hasn't been amended to reflect the current uh rules. Please amend the rules to be uh up to date and current with what the law is. If, for example, this body didn't do that um and then didn't approve the project, I do believe that would be a type of action that an applicant could take. They could say you didn't follow the law. The law requires you to reszone the property upon a request under these conditions. We've met those conditions. So I would suggest that if you're going to approve the project, you do have to make this clean up because that's what the law has always contemplated was harmonizing the plan and the zoning. So

through the chair, when you say approve this project, what do you mean? vote yes on the staff recommendation. This one, not the one that's coming down the line, the project. Correct. We deal with what's in front of us today. Okay. Is there any viable way to create a designation for these cottages that would not allow the level of expansion theoretically described by Fiona? or could we constrain it to the current use or something like it? Is that at all possible

through the chair? One potential option would be rather than um reszoning the lot to match the land use designation would be to what Miss Jensen mentioned earlier which would be to reclassify in the Carmel Area land use plan um the lot to be uh residential and then it would match the zoning and then that would limit the potential expansion. Um the California government code says that the county or city zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the general plan. So that's why we went this upwards way of change the zoning to match the general plan, but theoretically you could change the general plan to match the zoning. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner Roberts. Um my question is how many units currently exist? Is it four? Four. Okay. And then um if we were to change the designation as proposed today, is the project a discretionary action? A potential future project a discretionary action? Yes, it would be. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Gomez,

you've mentioned that we could change the general plan as opposed to changing the zoning. Um, can you articulate that process and what it means in terms of what we would be doing and the board would be doing? Yes, I I believe that the process would be the same as this process. It would come to the planning commission for recommendation and then it would go to the board of supervisors for final approval and then I believe also to the California coastal commission for certification. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Well, in in amending the the general plan, would there have to be uh beyond the public coming here or not or any any public hearing? Would that just happen here if you were to try to amend the general plan? So making a there's a different process that we'd have to follow if the recommendation is go back and change the general plan um or Carmel Area land use plan um land use designation. Um we would have to go through bring that back as a new item that um would be subject to just the um amendment to the general plan noticing LCP. Um staff would also uh I think we would also if that's the direction that the commission would like to consider, we would also want to consult with coastal commission uh ahead of doing that. Um visitor serving access um for public is an important uh mandate for the coastal act. And so we would also just want the opportunity to consult with coastal commission staff uh just to get a feel as we're going forward with where coastal commission staff might land on that uh proposed land use designation change for this matter.

So would it be a lot more work um for the staff to go that other direction

um through the chair. It would involve amending the draft ordinance before you today to reflect a change in land use designation rather than a change in zoning as well as a text amendment to title 20. Um and then as Miss Beretti mentioned also a uh coordination with California California Coastal Commission staff um as they have given a um verbal level of support for the current reszone project and so we'd want to coordinate with them to ensure that any potential land use designation change would still be in keeping with the uh intent and goals of the local coastal act which includes public access and uh visitor serving access. Thank you. Any other commissioners? commission a deal.

Well, in the realm of thought experiments, supposing it were residentially zoned and it has existing four units on it, can you keep those? Could they be turned into residences? Hypothetically, yes. Those units uh if it was to be designated residential and zoned residential, uh existing on-site visitor serving units could be converted to residential provided those units complied with the underlying density. Um, as well as those existing visitor serving units could remain as uh allowed uses given the existing medium-density residential zoning district has a call out to the Lincoln Green Cottages for four units. So, they wouldn't be legal non-conforming. They would be allowed uses at its current intensity. Um, but any intensification of that um would not be supported.

To be clear, that's a yes. Yes. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing none, then I'm going to go ahead and uh open a public hearing. Uh so at this point, either the agent or property owner would come and make their presentation. Thank you,

Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Joel Panzer with Moren Ruck Planning Consultants representing Lincoln Green LLC. this morning. The property owner applicant, the owners are in the audience today, Kathy Mayers and Joe Walter here. They may wish to address the commission. Um the staff report and discussion accurately reflects what um we noticed when we were processing an application and discovered the inconsistency and raised the issue with county staff about uh state law requiring zoning to be consistent with the general plan. I would also uh and the format because this is just a different thing than you typically see findings and evidence for projects. For the record, I just want to indicate from the Carmel Area Land use plan, there's language um in here that basically says under 4.5 C recreation, visitor serving commercial. It acknowledges major hotel or in accommodations or principal uses. that's what would that's a benefit or in terms of certainty or clarity versus leaving it as medium density residential where there's a less certainty I guess I would say for the owner operator um section 44.3D.1 in the LUP reads visitor serving facilities are presently located in existing developed areas expansion of existing facilities or the location of new facilities within existing development areas is preferred over development elsewhere. And I believe there was one more citation that's worthwhile to note for the record. Uh this is under section 4.3.1 where it talks about existing development areas in the Carmel uh area LUP. It does say existing recreational visitor serving facilities located within residential communities are considered desirable uses and should be continued where potential or existing

conflicts with the with the surrounding residential community can adequately be mitigated. So with that um Mr. Alamita do you have the the site plan? Can you put that up for a moment?

Sure. And I just wanted to bring that up um with respect to commissioner's questioning if it were left as medium density residential. Uh when we can pull up that site plan, you'll see the size of the property, the location of the current units and garages. And I always think if even if you left um the height limits and everything else the same, setbacks become an issue. And it's it's a a charming historic property. You go in, it's like an English garden. If you've not been there before, it really is a lovely experience to have the have it as it's situated now versus thinking, well, if it were demolished and uh a new multi-unit um experience created there. So, if you can bring that up.

Yeah. Can we please share HDMI?

Right. Thank you for your patience while we pull this up. Tell you what, in the interest of time, uh, either Miss Mayers or Mr. Walter can come up and address the commission. And when that comes up, I I would just like to to point out to be responsive to the MDR question that was, uh, raised earlier in the the question and answer session. And we're here to answer questions. Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners. Uh my name is Joe Walter and my wife Kathy Kathy Mayers is sitting next to me. Uh we are the owners of the Lincoln Green End. We acquired the property on October October 30th, 2012. We're honored to have this wonderful asset in the community. We've uh enjoy maintaining a history that it has a lovely place. We get neighbors that walk by taking photos of the English gardens. We make it a point every year to refresh the gardens and keep it very wonderful. And so it's really our um ideal is just to keep the proh property much as it is very lowrise uh cottages that are there that have a historical impact. Um many of our visitors are repeat visitors uh I would say but probably 50 more than 50% of our guests have stayed at the Lincoln Green Inn. We serve the local neighborhood too. Many times we become a place for uh extended family gatherings in the community. So, just to give some comfort about the intensification, we really have no desire to really intensify the property other than the possibility of adding a fifth unit into one of the existing structures on on the property. Um, so our desire would be to really keep this as a lovely garden, a historical building that's uh in this particular neighborhood. If you have any questions, um, I'll be glad to answer.

Commissioner Deal. Thank you. Um, thank you, sir. I just want to be clear that I don't in any way have any questions about the current ownership or vision. This is a for an entitlement that runs with the land. So, we're talking about the future. My question is, is there any historical overlay or historical protection on this property at this time? As far as we know, there's not a specific uh historical overlay, but there has been numerous reports that have been done over the years uh that have highlighted the history of the property and when it was developed and the purpose of being developed as a uh um res or as a place for people to uh stay and visit. Thank you.

Thanks. Any other commissioners? Thank you. Thank you so much.

You're welcome. If I may conclude, I'll be brief. Uh the image up on on the screen now shows how the property was developed. I think it's 1925 or 1926. Uh Kent CV had prepared the historic report that's on file with this um application and a prior application. Um the MDR I believe there's probably a fairly significant front yard setback, sideyard setbacks. it it um so if if anybody a future owner would purchase the property and want to intensely develop it, it would be fairly limited in terms of of what could be accom accommodated on that site, including on-site parking. Um the other thing I guess I would mention, one of the commissioners had asked about uh converting to residential uses. The units are about, I think, 650 square ft in size. Um, and uh, Denny Levette, I want to say there's a a circa 2004 2006 application that went nowhere and that was to subdivide the property for residential uh, uses and there were such uh, concerns from the local neighbors and objections that he withdrew the application. And so I think going the other way and converting these to residential units, a they're constrained by their size, they're historically significant and um there's just that zoning constraint. So those are the other thoughts I had and again we're happy to answer any questions. We'd appreciate it or would encourage a commission to support the staff recommendation as proposed and we're in agreement. Have read the staff report and the um the uh redlinined ordinance and the ordinance. Thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Pancier. Uh with that, uh we'll uh anybody here in

the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular agenda item. Seeing none, uh do we have anybody on Zoom or via email that would like to address this particular item? There are no hands up on Zoom and no additional emails. Thank you. With that, I guess uh I can bring it back to staff if there's any additional information that would you like to share. Not at this time.

Thank you. So bring it back to the commission. Uh any other questions, uh comments, concerns from the commission, commissioners, commissioner Roberts? In hearing all of this, I think the question for me and the commission honestly is whether or not this zoning discrepancy or the difference in zoning designations was intended to int allow intensification of the property or to acknowledge what existed and I suspect it was to acknowledge what existed. And so I think that that's what we have to figure out today is, you know, how how to acknowledge or make that decision. Commissioner Deal,

thank you.

Um, where's the nearest other commercial design zoning designation in Carmel? If you give us one second to clarify, are you looking for other properties that are zoned VSC or other properties that are designated VSC? See,

I'd like to know both actually. Uh within the Carmel Point area, the only other uh zoned and designated commercial visitor serving commercial property is located at the corner of Bay View and Martin Way. Um it is also an in hotel use

and there's no way to display that on the map. Well, that they're working on this odd request. U my thought here is that uh when you have outliers in areas that are not generally involved in the same use, there are other ways to look at designating those to allow them to continue to exist and make modest improvements. In the big sir land use plan where we've been working for a long time we have a designation that's commercial facilities outside of rural centers that particularly identifies pre-existing uses that we know are there and that we think are fine but which are then subsequently not allowed to get bigger over time. And so I'm looking to see whether this in fact is a situation where we have an outlier for a commercial district and perhaps we need to do a little more um nuanced uh way to address its historical ex it historical uses that I don't think I've heard anyone ever have a problem with uh without without providing a designation that lacks a clear limitation except for conditions that we know not to be as limiting as we might like looking at how we've dealt with people that want don't want to do variances to avoid setbacks, variances to avoid whatever have come forward before the commission. So, um my question is and the map would probably be the easiest way to demonstrate it. How do the commercial use areas fit with this application and potentially others within this neighborhood?

Uh, Commissioner Dill, could you please rephrase that question? Yeah. Can you show me on a map where anybody else is commercial in this neighborhood? Uh, yes. Uh, if you can see my cursor here, this property is designated and zone visitors serving commercial. The subject property is located here along Carmelo Street. These are the only two uh designated commercial properties within Carmel Point. And there is a zone come looking to the north of there quite a ways off that is commercial right in the city where the the city of Carmel by the sea the village of Carmel by the sea. I know they'd ate to be correct. Carmel by the sea would have a the downtown district is presumably commercial.

So these really are residentially based residencebased experiences that are not typical of the area. I mean, and and I think to some other points, um, these are the the things that are not u short-term rentals, you know, this. So, this is I've got a lot a real soft spot for folks who went through the the process, but um, you see my point. Do you see any way that we might propose a different designation for them and change to the land use plan that would address their historical and u apparently uh benign if not act actively wonderful existence without placing them in a bundle with commercial development that don't doesn't seem appropriate for this area. Um there's I think two primary options that staff um could see at this junction. One would be to continue to reszone it to commercial. However, add text to the commercial uh visitor serving commercial zoning district that limits the Lincoln Green cottages or the subject property to either existing um number of units or any other units as found appropriate for the site. Uh that would could be one way to limit future intensity and not leave it so open-ended. I I understand that concern. The other could be to designate it residential uh so that the zoning stays also residential. Um and you retain the existing language in the MDR zoning district which limits it again to the four existing units through the chair. What if we if we went the route of a special treatment area kind of

designation that would because I don't know that adding an additional unit by subdividing one of the units changes the intensity sufficiently to be of concern. I wouldn't want to not be able to consider a proposal of that type. It might actually make things more affordable by making them smaller. Uh and to Mr. Panzer's remark, plenty of people live in 630 ft or less. and subdivision is not required for rent rental properties. But leaving all that aside, um what about something like that? What about we we actually provide sightspecific language that would allow us to say that with within whichever category we want to put it that we change both the zoning and the land use plan in ways necessary to provide this and potentially any other commercial unit within the residential area here that required it or that seemed to need it. um as a special treatment area that allowed us to say specifically what we want rather than rely on general categories that don't seem to quite fit.

Uh that's a potential option. Um, I think staff would need to better explore kind of what the uniqueness of the property and what foreseeable and like future development it could support to be outlined in a special treatment area. Um typically special treatment areas are applied over properties where because of um site uniqueness, history, there is something rather than reszoning it, we um apply a special treatment area to allow for historical uses and also typically a change um of similar uses, not exceeding the intensity that's already there, but it's also very sight specific. Um so here again I think either adding a limitation into the zoning district could accomplish a very similar task um and or reszoning it to be compatible with the land use designation. But again uh staff is happy to kind of research and think more about that suggestion.

Thank you. Uh yeah um I I believe Commissioner Mendoza my mic wasn't

Thank you. Um I agree with Commissioner Deal. I think that there might be a way to possibly just to keep the consistency of the of the residential the R1 uh and then and then basically um what you try to do it's um it's legal non-conforming for say you have four units on there. So it's it's they're legal units but they're not conforming to the primary use of of the lot for say the R1. that might be an option because it doesn't meet some of the setbacks from the sides or what have you where if you if you convert it into residential then it's opening up a whole new ideas of what could be done with the property not that they're looking to do that but I believe for the future and then the other situation that I'm thinking about is when they when they purchased this property they kind of said it was like a visit visitor serving um it was designated as that so I just don't know what direction you go. But but you could you can keep it the R1 and then basically legal non-conforming would probably take care of it as well. I don't know if that's a possibility.

Yes, it could remain zoned. um medium density residential the units themselves are wouldn't be considered legal non-conforming because there is an existing uh section within the medium density residential zoning district that does allow for four units on the subject property. So the units themselves are not legal non-conforming. However, you are correct that they would be non-conforming to the setbacks um uh of the underlying zoning district. again their staff would recommend a land use designation change to ensure that there is consistency between the land use and the zoning district. Um and then any future development would be subject to the medium density residential zoning district uh restrictions including site uh setbacks height um and allowed uses on site. Uh, Commissioner Gomez,

I'm looking at uh in the same neighborhood, right? I'm looking at V Vara Carmel, which is at the corner of uh um Martin Martin Way and Bay View Avenue. What's the zoning for that? Uh Bay View and Martin Way. Yeah. Uh that is zoned and designated visitor serving commercial. It's the same as what they're asking here, right? Same neighborhood. There's an existing inn on that site. Yeah. Okay. Just want to get clarification. I thought I thought that's what you mentioned earlier.

Correct. And there would be no limitations on that property other than site constraints for intensification. Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. Uh I'm gonna make my case for Well, I I don't actually want to make this bigger than it is. I understand it. It's just a an idea of cleanup and I think that there are quite a lot of restrictions in this area that would address any concerns in the neighborhood about u about intensification on a practical level. But I want to make my case for not making zoning changes based on a specific single property or specific single situation. And I think that if we're going to look at what to do about standalone commercial uses in the middle of a neighborhood, we've just been through a whole long process discussing how commercialization and visitor serving uses affect neighborhoods. And so I find myself concerned based on that long process about what we would say about a situation like this that would address the history, that would provide some um certainty to both the owner and to the neighbors and that would address the potential for folks coming into this conversation subsequent to now. that didn't have the benefit as these owners did of history and of these other conversations. Your description of a special treatment area approach started out by talking about um uniqueness and history, both of which this particular unit has. Um but it's it is so far distant from other commercial units that zoning it commercial concerns me. And so I would not be comfortable with the change to zoning to reflect the land use designation. Nor do I think that changing the land use designation to match the zoning makes sense given

the history. So I would advocate that we ask staff to look at a more nuanced sightsp specific approach that would be along the lines of a special treatment area that actually talks about this use that allows these the persons who own this property a reasonable array of options for using this property but which doesn't introduce in my mind an official incompatible use at a greater extent than it already does. It actually would in my mind better recognize the unique nature of this situation. Any other commissioners?

Commissioner Hartell, this is really interesting to me. I find myself wanting to support an elegant solution that staff has come up with and like this is easy. It works down the street. Discretion will come up and arise when um if anyone's trying to do anything wild. And then I'm also conflicted because it feels like this will range far into the future. this is going to have some consequences and I have no idea what they are and I just I'm I'm wavering a little bit and wondering about time about how this might affect the applicant if we continue this or ask for something to come back um or sort of just looking for some ways I might weigh the individual applicant's experience on this one and the desire to be super cautious. Does staff have any thoughts on that? Miss Beretti, do you have any thoughts on that? So, I don't I I know that we're act that staff is actively working and processing on the application proposed for adding a unit. Um, I don't know the timing for that coming forward. Um, this item is a recommendation from the planning commission to the board of supervisors. So I think um if if time is a consideration or impact um one thought is planning commission could make a recommendation that staff explore and present some options for a more nuanced approach and then allow staff to proceed to the board. we could bring it back uh

depending on the timing for the proposal um for the application that's moving for the inunit um potentially those could come concurrent. I do know staff wanted to move ahead because there is also the process with coastal commission. So, as soon as the board takes action, it then does need to go to Coastal. Um, and that will um for any kind of nuanced approach that we would do, again, staff would just want to consult with Coastal Commission and make sure that um whatever we'd be proposing would likely receive support uh when forwarded to um Coastal Commission. So, not that that answers it directly, but some considerations for if timing and and kind of process is a consideration. I don't know if it helps for if staff has any indication of where the process for the current application is um and if there's any timing constraints associated with that that could be impacted

um through the chair. The um other project is still working its way through staff's review. Um we're working out some site constraint issues um with the applicant. So that project has not been scheduled yet. Um the board of supervisors hearing for as a follow-up to this has been tentatively scheduled for December 9th. Um I would think that if the recommendation were to go back and rework this that that would likely need to be pushed until into the new year. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Shaw.

Thank you. So, while I would love to be sympathetic to the property owners and um what is proposed, uh I would rather have any loose ends or potential cracks or openings closed at this level. Um because as Commissioner Deal said, uh future owners might not have the same vision for this property. um the board of supervisors can override anything we say. Those uh setbacks can be completely eliminated. I've been on the short end of the stick uh multiple times with the board of supervisors. So, in an effort to make sure that this property is beneficial to not just the property owner, but to the neighborhood it exists in, I would rather take the time to make sure that this specific unique location has a specific unique designation that again is beneficial to both.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner De.

Thank you. I'd like to move to continue this item to look at the potential for an a special treatment area. I am not comfortable with moving it to the board of supervisors with these kinds of questions uh open. I don't mean to reflect on them, but often they haven't the time to go into the details of things that are related to zoning. It's kind of our job. So, I'd like to move a continuence of this item to um if if the staff has a date, that would be great. If they don't, we'll do deal with it that way to look at um not only a recommendation on whether or not we can specifically provide a special treatment area or similar designation that accomplishes the same thing and if so what changes are necessary. But to do that provide that recommendation in the context of should there be other properties within this area that are commercial in nature how we might look at those going forward as well. Um, that's a secondary use, but in this case, I would I'm moving a continuence to either a date, a certain or uncertain, depending on what staff has to say about the issue.

Commissioner Shaw second at the motion. So, we have a motion by Commissioner Deal, seconded by Commissioner Shaw. Uh, any other questions uh from the commissioner? first through the chair. Do we have a recommendation from staff on on timing?

Uh staff would recommend a date uncertain. Uh staff would also like to ask the commission for maybe additional clarity on whether there is a like a a strong concern for intensification that staff should look at or to build into a potential special treatment area. Um it sounds like there is an appetite to remain or have those four existing units remain on site, but clarity around what the special treatment area could build in I think is would be helpful for staff to come back um at a future date. Any other questions? Uh, Commissioner Hartell,

my original question was about the date, but I am curious to hear or if any of the other commissioners have any ideas around what to build into this special treatment area. Um, for me it's I tried to create a chart of like what's the upper limit and what's the lower limit and then what would and what's the potential residential side track just to imagine it and I failed. Um, but that's a piece of information I'm sort of curious about. I don't think it needs to be built into the exploration, but um, it would really help me explore it. Does anyone else have thoughts on what to build in?

I just have um I guess I would just uh request through the chair also clarity. Um I think staff would look at this as um appropriateness for special treatment but would also like to be clear if there are other elegant approaches that might address it if the commission is open as long as it's meeting the criteria. So I think just clarification also on o openness to approach um in addition to making sure that regardless of approach that it addresses the key concerns. Commissioner a deal since you made the motion.

Yes. I thought my motion had included that but if it didn't clearly I certainly agree with with Miss Ms. Beretti. Um, I intend this as a way to preserve the current historical use and u allow for changes to the uses within the existing or similar structures that might provide a little bit of of expansion should that be justified by the conditions otherwise applying. Um, I don't mean it as you can only do the historical thing exactly. That's not what what I was looking at. I think some change is often necessary over time. Um, and in fact, um, smaller making it more smaller units might reduce the price which might make things more accessible to the general public. So I don't know how to frame that but the the limits to me are in the character of the original historical uses um somehow. So again that's that's the elegance of of the professional staff trying dealing with it. It's just um trying to keep this little bit of Carmel in keeping with its neighborhood and with what what it is people care about in Carmel. I I really feel strongly that we don't want to constrain beyond what we have to do to to preserve that because I am so um so impressed with and and um positive about folks who have done this legally. Um this has been something that people have done legally. We've had so much issue with people who have done things by nature that didn't get this kind of scrutiny. So I don't want to punish

people for doing the right thing. And so that to my mind means the understanding that as we are expanding the opportunities for other kinds of visitor serving uses, this should also have some consideration given. So something that is not so stringent that it prevents any intensification would be what I'm looking for. I'm not struggling for a way to say it more elegantly than that. Okay. Any other commissioners? The just Commissioner Mendoza.

Thank you through the chair. Commissioner, do I I guess I I have a question. Um when it comes to to a continuence, couldn't the recommendation to the board of supervisors be kind of with the concerns we have in place? I mean, they're going to be making the decision at the end. And I I'm just wondering, is is that something that is ever done? Like, okay, we these are the concerns we have and we're recommending you to look at these issues. Not that I'm questioning your continuence. I'm just trying to get clarification for myself. Commissioner Deal,

Commissioner Mendoza, the board of supervisors seldom delves into in any depth at all single project applications about which there's not a great deal of controversy. So policy issues are about things like this I believe are are our job and as supervisor Potter used to say the planning commission exists to do the heavy lifting and I think that we could do that but in my mind I would consider that to be punting and I am of the opinion that where we can add value we should and I believe that we work more intensely and collegial with with staff about coming up with an appropriate application format then would occur at the board of supervisors. Um so my personal sense is yes absolutely you could do that and we have in the past done that and in general in my view it has not come to the kind of resolution I would have hoped. So, um, yes, but

thank you for commissioners. With that, um, I do have a question though. Uh, so what happens if this recommendation is for a continuance? Could the um property owner and agent say uh request for this project to go before the board or not yet?

No. Uh through the chair. Um it will need to come back to the planning commission before going to the board of supervisors. So staff will take all the information from you all, put it together, come up with a solution. Um, at a date uncertain, it will depend on how long it takes staff to not only better articulate the solution, but also put together new report and documents and things like that. Um, bring it back to you all. It will then need to go to the planning comm or the board of supervisors and then to the coastal commission.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Uh, Commissioner Shaw, do you um accept the uh recommended is it changes small changes recommended by Secretary? I think Commission uh Commissioner Deal accepted the changes, but I I don't think I asked you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. All those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying I

I all those opposed. Absention motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Yeah. Uh we'll go ahead and take uh about a 15 minute break 15 minute break at this time. So we'll be back in 15 minutes. Thank you. Get out of here.

We'll be starting in about a minute. Okay. Um, we are going to go ahead and start. We're coming back from the break. And so, uh, for the record, all of the commissioners that were here at the beginning are still here. And so with that, we're going to go ahead and move on to uh the next item on the agenda, which is uh PLN25 0114 uh le live by the C LLC. So with that, will the staff go ahead and please make your presentation on this particular item?

Good morning, Chair Gonzalez, Planning Commissioners. My name is Jordan Evans Palco and I will be presenting staff's report on PLN250114 Live by the Sea. The project is located at 3387 Ocean Avenue in Carmel within the Carmel area land use plan. The subject property is zoned medium density residential, 2 acres per unit with a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The project involves a combined development permit to allow the construction of a 2,812 square foot single family dwelling with a 592 square ft twocar garage and a 307q ft covered patio as well as the removal of 24 protected trees. The project meets all required site development standards of medium density residential zoning district related to setbacks, height, and site coverage. As proposed, the project involves the removal of 24 protected trees, including four landmark Monterey pine trees indicated in two different shades of orange and 20 coast live oak trees indicated in green. The lot is heavily forested and thus avoiding tree removal entirely is unfeasible for any reasonable development consistent with this neighborhood. Out of the 33 trees identified on the subject property, nine of them will be retained and 24 are to be removed. 19 of the trees to be removed are within the development footprint and the other five trees are either within grading boundaries or are in declining health with the other five with the proposed impacts to greater than 50% of the critical root zones and are therefore recommended for removal. Two of the landmark pines are proposed for removal tagged as numbers 963 and 977 in

the darker orange shown on the screen and are identified to be in poor condition and with visible evidence of heart rot. The other two landmark Monterey pine trees shown as the lighter orange on screen tagged as 976 and 981 are proposed for removal due to the impacts of grading associated with the retaining wall and garage that will cause the trees to suffer root loss and be unstable. In addition to being impacted by grading activities, the removal of these trees within close proximity to the development also helps reduce fuel loads near the proposed development uh within the residential area consistent with the state fuel management guidelines. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed tree removal is the minimum required under the circumstances of this proposed project development. The project arborist concluded that the subject property is overcrowded and does not have adequate space for the replanting of 24 trees after the construction of the single family dwelling. Therefore, the arborist recommends the replanting of five fivegallon trees of either Monterey Pines or Coast live oaks. Replanting only five trees also ensures the property's fuel loads can be managed adequately. The project would have been referred to the Carmel Highlands land use advisory committee but unfortunately could not be reviewed to the ongoing laca quorum issue within this luak. The single family dwelling will have a contemporary modern architectural style with rural tuskcen finishes as well as exterior colors and materials consisting of a smooth alabaster white painted stucco, copper stone exterior and tricon black aluminum reveal trim and roofing. Map A of the Caramel land use plan entitled local coastal program general viewhed indicates the subject property as not being in an area designated as sensitive or highly sensitive. The subject

property is not along a scenic highway corridor or a scenic viewhed. Therefore, as proposed and conditioned, the project is not in conflict with the surrounding environment or with the surrounding residential neighborhood character and assures protection of the public viewshed and visual integrity. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission finds the project categorically exempt pursuant to SQA guideline section 15303 and approve the combined development permit to allow the construction of the 2,812 ft single family dwelling with a 592 ft two-car garage, 307 ft covered patio and associated site improvements, as well as the removal of 24 protected trees. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you. Um, bring it back to the commission for questions. Uh, any of the commissioners? Commissioner Deal. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate this. The, uh, complete report. I just want to note for the record it and make sure I'm correct. In my packet, the first line describing this project refers to a 3819 foot single family dwelling. The other numbers for 592 and 37 square ft for the patio and the garage are the same. I just want to note that that is incorrect and else and as reflected elsewhere in the packet, the correct size of the house is 2812 ft. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from uh Commissioner Roberts? Um

yes, if you would go back to your first slide of the trees in looking at the um X's. I there's more than 24, so I'm confused as to what or what is and isn't being removed. Um, so the removal is going to be for the 24 in the general envelope of the structure. Um, so the ones that are actually within the yard are to be preserved. Um, and the others within the footprint and within the retaining roll are to be removed. So for clarification, are the green X's trees to be removed? Yes, those are the coast live oaks,

but there's more than 24 seem like

uh staff can pull up the uh arborist report. That's al that also identifies um perhaps a more accurate Okay, thank you.

illustration of the trees proposed for removal. If you can please share staff uh HDMI right through the chair. The proposed trees to be removed are within this building footprint right here. Um, and then the ones to be preserved are within this exterior.

Mr. Chair, one more point of clarification. Um, in what you just kind of outlined with the cursor, I see some X's on the outside of that where it says concrete something wash out and then maybe one outside maybe the boundary and I uh Yes, but the these ones within the concrete wash out are to be removed, but the ones without X's on the exterior right here are to be preserved. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from the commissioners? Seeing none, then um we I'm going to open the public hearing and at this time will either the property owner or agent come and make your presentation. It's Do we have the property owner or agent? Can you come and make your presentation? Oh, yeah. I thought it was soft, but prepared to make make a presentation, but uh I I guess we're building uh about a 2800 square foot house uh uh modern farmhouse style, which kind of fits within the community. Uh we try to follow all the guidelines and make sure the house uh fits uh in the neighborhood and we think it does. Uh and I think that's about it.

Thank you. Does the commissioner have any questions? Okay. Uh thank you very much. Uh uh anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular agenda item? Seeing none, is there anybody on Zoom or through any emails uh of individuals that would like to address this particular item? We do have a hand up on Zoom. It's a phone number ending in 915. You should be able to mute yourself.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Uh, yes, but you're it's not very loud. If you could try to speak up, that'd be great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is this better? Perfect. All right. Thank you. I see that there's an arborist report, but I do not see a biotic assessment. It is. It states it's squa exempt, but I know that often there are solitary roosting bats um in trees in woods like this. Has there been any type of biotic assessment for removal of so many of these trees? Thank you.

Is staff can clarify that please? uh through the chair, the um state requires for a bat and bird nesting survey that is included within the conditions for the project. Thank you. Um are there is there anybody on Zoom or any other emails? There are no additional hands up or emails. Okay, with that, um I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, bring it back to staff for any other clarifications.

Uh yes, one point of clarity, uh staff would like to note there are a couple of trees that are shown here and that's why it exceeds 24 that are uh less than 12 in in diameter and thus not protected by the land use plan. Um so there are a couple of trees that are also being removed that are that do not require the coastal development permit requirement that they're shown here. Um there are a couple of accesses shown on the screen uh that those trees would be retained especially in the front setback. Um but I hope that provides extra clarity. Commissioner Roberts, thank you. We bring it back to the commissioners for comments, questions. Commissioners, Commissioner Deal,

thank you. U I'd like to start by uh appreciating the applicant's efforts to not ask for 1,200 variances. I really do note and appreciate the efforts to comply with the both the letter and spirit of the limitations and I'd like with that said uh and the clarifications we've discussed here I'd like to move staff's recommendation in this matter commissioner Dill made a motion uh com commissioner Hartell do I second that motion okay commissioner Hartell and I believe commissioner Roberts Is that a question?

Yes. I guess the only thing I had a question on was just to clarify that the arborous map is probably the most accurate map in terms of tree removal. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners? Okay. All those in favor of the motion so indicate by saying I opposed.

Abstension. Motion carries unanimously. With that, we move on to item agenda item number four and that's uh PLN 240352 Flores Paul H and Linda SRS staff just keeping it Good morning, Chair Gonzalez and Planning Commission. My name is McKenna Bowling and I will be presenting project file PLN240352 Flores. The subject parcel is located at 577 Monaland Road in Carmel within the greater Monterey Peninsula area plan. The parcel is owned rural density residential with 10 acres per unit density, urban reserve, and design control overlays within the inland area. The proposed project is a combined development permit consisting of a design approval to allow construction of a 6,796qt single family dwelling with an attached 2580

ft garage and associated site improvements including 1,762 ft of new porches and patios and a use permit to allow the removal of 19 protected trees. The development conforms to the site development standards outlined in title 21 and is within the allowable building site coverage. Therefore, the property is in compliance with the site development standards applicable to its zoning. This parcel is a heavily forested lot with a total of 51 trees inventoried as part of the prepared arborist report. The project proposes removal of 19 protected trees inclusive of 12 coastlive oaks and seven Monterey pines. Of the 19 proposed for removal, 17 are within the building footprint and two are outside of the development area. Tree 442 at the top right of the site plan is within the grading limits of the foundation and would be negatively impacted by construction activities. Tree 411 at the lower left corner of the site plan is outside of the building footprint area. However, was determined to be dead and is therefore cited for removal at the recommendation of the arborist. The tree removal meets the minimum necessary as required by title 21 and staff has applied condition number six be added to require that the applicant replant a total of 13 5gallon Monterey pines and 12 5gallon coastlive oaks. Therefore, as designed and cited, the proposed residence helps to minimize impacts to forest resources. The colors and materials for the proposed residence and accessory structures consist of brown concrete, mission tile roofing, cream stucco, and brown trim, and dark brown anodized windows. The Greater Monterey Peninsula Land Use Advisory Committee currently does not have a um have enough members to be considered a quorum and hold meetings.

Therefore, staff scheduled the project before the planning commission today. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to section 15303 of the SQA guidelines and approve a combined development permit consisting of a design approval to allow construction of a single family dwelling and attached garage and associated site improvements including new porches and patios and a use permit to allow the removal of 19 protected trees. Staff would also like to recommend to the planning commission that we delete conditions seven and 13 as they are duplicates and revise condition number two to reflect all 13 conditions as part of this project. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you. With that we bring it back to the commissioners. Uh Commissioner Deal. Thank you. Excellent presentation. Um, one question. What does urban reserve mean in practice? Urban reserve is a design or is a zoning overlay for properties nearby other jurisdictions where we ask for their input during the inter departmental review part of the process through the chair. Can you remind me what they said? There are no comments um from the city of Monterey for this project. Thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners? Uh Commissioner Hartell, are there any conditions addressing followup on the tree replantings? Is that the right place for them or am I barking up the wrong tree? Condition number six, the tree replacement and relocation requires the one-year followup to determine the health of the replanted trees. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't read the last paragraph. My fault. Thank you. Any other commissioners questions?

Commissioner Roberts. Um just as a general note, this is the area if there's anybody um in the public listening that we are actively seeking members of the LUAC um please reach out to us commissioners or staff if you have any interest in serving in your um local area to give us feedback about how projects like this fit in your neighborhood. Um that said, I was had a question for um staff about when the LUATC cannot meet due to a lack of quorum. Are they provided, I guess, an individual opportunity to to look at a project?

No, not at this time. Um it's been practiced that if the LUAC doesn't hold a quorum, then staff is able to schedule that item for the appropriate authority. I guess I would be um in order to keep the members that are there engaged, I would be interested in if it's possible to at least provide them an option to to comment individually and not necessarily as an interested party potentially um versus as a LUAC member um just to give them an opportunity to see what's happening in their local areas and therefore maybe encourage other people to participate. Any other commissioners? With that, then I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing and will the agent or property owner um come to the podium to make a presentation.

Chair, commissioners, staff. I'm Darren Davis. So, I'm the designer of the house for uh Marco on the left, Marco Flores, and uh his daddy is on the uh right. Um

Did I say I was Darren Davis? I am. So, I want to say thanks to the staff. We've uh been working on this project probably for a year and a half or so. Uh we've worked with uh different um consultants um the arborists and soils and this and that and uh worked with the staff. Staff has done a great job. they've really um stayed in communication with us and anytime they had uh questions or issues or needed something of course I did a great job by giving them what they want and um so we're very happy with that. the um the proposed house is yeah it's 60 what was that 6700 ft² the um the actual house itself is 5400 square ft and because it's built on a sloping lot as the lot slopes towards the the north to the rear it creates a an area that's uh like a daylight basement where we'll have mechanical down there and then maybe some kind kind of a hobby room or something, but it's not part of the um the habitable part of the house. So, the house is really about 5,400 ft² plus the garage. I'd call the style of the house. I see me up there, but I maybe if we could get theuh elevations of the house up there that maybe like why I'm getting old. There we go. So, I would I would call it a um Santa Barbara Spanish revival. Those are the types of details we tried to pick up on this house. And uh of course, Spanish uh is something we have we like to see around here. And uh so you can see there on this uh side elevation, the rear portion down there.

That's that daylight basement I'm talking about. So everything else is at ground level. Um the um we are removing some trees. The lot is heavily wooded. The the report uh accounts for about 50some trees that were in the general vicinity of the house, but the lot itself probably has 150 trees on it. So it it's it's pretty well wooded. Um there are some slopes that exceed 25% and we're staying well away from that. And that's how we decided to position the house where it is. Um the the house is consistent with uh other homes on Mon Holland. They're all about this size or many of them. And um the uh we think it's a good fit and uh we would like uh your approval so we can move ahead with uh making a home out of it. You have any questions? Mic is off. Um, does the commissioners do the commissioners have any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your presentation.

Thank you. With that, uh, is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular item? Seeing no one coming forward, is there anyone uh either via Zoom or any emails of any individuals that would like to address this particular agenda item? We have no emails or hands up on Zoom. Thank you. Um, with that, uh, we bring it back to, uh, I guess we could bring it back to staff if there are any other clarifications or comments. Not at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, we bring it back to um to the commissioners uh for any questions, comments, clarifications. Commissioners, Commissioner Deal,

thank you. Uh I want to make one comment which is I would like to say how much I appreciate the detailed and outcome oriented construction management plan. I think that that is just five-star and I hope that that becomes sort of more of a standard approach. I I really appreciated that. I think the neighbors can appreciate that too. It contains a lot of of information about how anybody adjacent to or affected by the property can find out what's going on. So um two thumbs up from me on that. I really appreciate that. It's a It's a huge improvement. That being said, um I'd like to go ahead and move staff's recommendation which with the deletions of conditions seven and 13 and a new and the modification to the number of conditions um as they have discussed in this hearing.

So we have a motion by Commissioner Deal. Do we have a second? Uh Commissioner Monave seconds the motion. Any other questions, comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying I. I.

Opposed. Abstension. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. And uh with that, we're going to take a couple of minutes so that the staff can get ready to go ahead and make the presentation on uh item number five, which is REF 25 0037, the water allocation policy. And at that they'll conduct a will conduct a public uh workshop to review and receive public input regarding policy options for a water allocation policy and ordinance for areas in unincorporated Monterey County served by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and etc etc. And so, um, I just like to also just briefly mention I know that a lot of times, uh, we don't, or at least I don't acknowledge, uh, the staff's work and I know that, uh, we're dealing with people that are pretty good at their job. And so, I expect, uh, respect, their professionalism, and all the work they do. I'm sure there's a whole process where they have to look into the different information to asssure that the policies are being followed here um for the county policies etc. And so uh with that it'll probably take a little uh a minute or so uh before the staff is ready to go ahead and make the the presentation. They'll go ahead and uh do an overview uh first and then uh then we can look at the commissioner's commenting and open for public comment and then we'll move on with a different um uh pieces in that particular um item for that particular item.

So with that staff will inform me when they are ready. I see a thumbs up. So uh anyways with that the staff is going to make a a presentation on that particular item uh that I mentioned uh uh ref00037 water allocation policy. With that take it away.

Thank you so much Chair Gonzalez. Uh good morning planning commissioner. Sarah Wel, principal planner with the advanced planning team. I'm trying to just make sure this is all it's like falling around. There we go. Okay. Uh, today staff will be presenting um and assisting the planning commission in conducting a public workshop um related to a water potential water allocation policy or ordinance in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. And so the requested requested action today is it is recommended that the planning commission conduct a public workshop and review and receive input um from the public regarding policy options for a water allocation policy or ordinance for areas in unincorporated Monterey County served by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District also known as MPWMD and provide a direction to staff. So for our workshop agenda today, what staff is going to do is provide a high level policy uh framework and background on water allocation in the MPWMD management area. Once that is done, we'll pause for uh general public comments and then we'll go into some topic area and options for discussion with the planning commission. uh the planning commission could either uh open public comment after each topic item or they could defer public comment towards the end and we can discuss that a little bit more once I'm done with this portion of the agenda and then after we do the summary of the the topic areas and options uh we'll provide some key topic areas for commissioner and public feedback. Uh staff would like to reiterate that today is just a workshop um and that is intended to get some initial public feedback and planning commission feedback on a policy framework for water allocation in this management area andor an ordinance. Staff will then utilize this feedback to uh refine policy direction, do some additional public outreach and engagement, and um hopefully be returning to the planning commission in spring of 2026 with a draft policy for consideration prior to going to the board of supervisors.

The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District utilizes uh water allocations or water credits to manage finite um water supplies within its district boundaries. On your screen, you have a highle map uh showing and outlined in pink the specific boundaries of what is covered by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Uh this area includes the incorporated cities of Carmel by the Sea, Delray Oaks, the city of Monterey, Pacific Grove, Seaside, and Sand City. And then the areas of unincorporated Monterey County covered by this management, this district area is uh Pebble Beach, Carmel, and uh portions of Carmel Valley. So, some additional background. In January of this year, MPWMD adopted ordinance number 197 allocating 72 acre feet of water to the county. Um, this new water was allocated by MPWMD due to due to the availability of new water from the pure Monterey water Monterey expansion project. And this project consists of treating uh various treating waste water and other types of water runoff and back into the seaside groundwater basin to help uh recharge the aquifer and um help some of the seawater intrusion that is happening in the in the in the basin. Uh it is uh important to also note that the we're not dealing with the cease and disorder desist order from for calam with this process. that is a separate regulatory document and agency that the county does not have control over. Um and while this cease and desist order is in in effect for the CAM service area in MPWMD, uh the water credits are limited to projects with new water fixtures on existing meters. MPWMD is working on getting the CDO lifted. Um but in terms of kind of where we are in the process, it is important to keep that as part of the conversation for today.

So why uh allocation ordinance and a board policy related to water in the MPWMD uh service area? The county doesn't currently have a uh written policy or procedure for allocating water credits to end users. Uh since the 1990s, the county's practice has been to provide water credits to property owners on a first come, first- serve basis when a building permit is ready to issue. We are in a very new landscape as I I know the planning commission is aware related to housing growth and development and directives from the state of California. And so given some of the changes in state housing law and the growth mandates for the county as part of the reena and housing element update process, uh there is a legal mandate to provide uh prioritized water for affordable housing growth. Additionally, um and we did receive some public comments from MPWMD. Uh currently there is a finite allocation of water that's being provided to the county. Um and so being mindful of being able to manage that finite resource, deal with some of the changes in state housing law and then also really formalized process and procedures for prior prioritizing the allocation of water to uses um and development that furthers the county's goals. staff has been starting the process and is again coming to the planning commission today for some preliminary feedback and the public on a water allocation policy or andor or ordinance. And so some of the key water allocation policy topics that are covered in more detail in the staff report um and will again be discussed in more detail as part of the workshop. Uh policy topic one is kind of the starting point of discussing a water allocation process and procedures. There's a few options for the planning commission to discuss and consider as it relates to uh directing staff for creation of either a board policy, an ordinance, or keeping the process as is for um water allocation. Policy topic two goes into purpose uh purposes and goals for a water allocation policy. There's a couple options to choose from in terms

of how prescriptive uh the policy or ordinance should be as it relates to um really outlining the purposes and the goals of uh water allocation in the county. And then policy topics uh three and four have a few more pauses for part of the workshop discussion. Water allocation by use category. So that's looking at some land use categories for potential consideration and for prioritization of water in addition to some getting some feedback on some key definitions. And then policy topic four uh is related to some clarifications and also key definitions in the water allocation policy and ordinance that relate to looking at or getting feedback on potential water fixture maximums or limitations and the t and the length of time associated with u approval or locking of a water credit and if that should be tied to development permit timelines or not. And then in terms of uh some next steps and timing, again staff is requesting from the planning commission um some preliminary feedback on the above topic areas in the water that should be covered in a water allocation policy or ordinance. And then with this feedback, staff will continue to refine a draft policy and ordinance for planning commission's consideration into in spring of 2026. Uh for here, sorry, I'm moving the I'm moving some stuff around. Give me one second. Okay. Actually, I'm going to I'm going to pause here for now for any if the chair would like to take any general public comments and then I'll go into some additional details related to how the the workshop will be structured.

Thank you. Uh with that, first I'm going to ask um if the commissioners have any comments or questions at this point on the overview. Uh Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. I before we talk about allocating this water, I note in the staff report that there's a discussion that other agencies contend that some of it is potentially interruptible and we know that you can't cut off the water to somebody's house once you build it. So, is there a sense of of what percentage of the water that's potentially been allocated would fall into that category? Um, I will take a I will take a stab at answering your question, Commissioner Deal. The 72 acre feet is available to the county as is. The discussion that was included in the staff report um was trying to deal with additional concerns from the Monterey County Water Resources Agency as we continue to think about a water allocation policy. Um, as indicated in the public comment letter from MPWMD, um, with Pure Monterey, they're they're contending and stating that there's gonna there's all this water available, um, that can be allocated to jurisdictions as we as we, um, issue credits to development projects. And the concern from the resources agency and I think this also feeds into why we're coming today with a process or procedure for really managing that resource is that those that future allocation outside of the 72 ft I believe is what would be potentially interrupted or interruptible through the wastewater treatment that was discussed in the staff report

through the chair. Um I'm not clear that that's exactly accurate. Um I'm concerned that um having I think the water resources agency does have some question about this 72 acre foot allocation being fully uh not an interruptible water source. I believe that that does not only apply to potential additional uh allocations. I could be wrong, but I'd really like to understand that before we talk about how we're going to policyize for one of a better word. I don't think you can verbalize anything, but that's close. U that particular 72 acre feet as if it was actually uncontested by anybody because the water resources agency isn't casual. So, thank can you just make sure we know that we actually have some reservations or don't have some reservations about this, not just the future.

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Deal. Um, I'm going to defer. Uh, Craig Spencer I believe is on Zoom and I think he could explain the water situation or that answer your question a little bit better. Good morning, Planning Commission. Greg Spencer, can you hear me?

Uh, yeah. So, great question. We are not the experts in all of this, but the basics of it are uh Pure Water Monterey, Monterey One Water recycles water and at at their power plant or their recycling facility plant and marina. Um that treated water gets pumped into the groundwater basin. offsets the overpumping of the Carmel River that is part of the CDO um the cease and desist order with CAM. Um the sources of water that feed into Pure Water Monterey um and its expansion are are the things in question. So we I can't tell you how much percentage of their treat their treated the untreated water source is um is in question exactly but it there's there's water that comes in through a reclamation ditches um that come from Selenus Valley area um that is currently available to pure water Monteray um and that is something that could be interrupted with for various reasons. Some of it technical um some of it, you know, agricultural practices and and dependent on what flows into that ditch. They have many other sources of water. Um and um you know, how how they measure how much is coming in versus how much they can produce has been a question that we wanted to highlight. Um and so the water resources agency has cautioned jurisdictions. They they've essentially said water management district has done a good job in allocating only a portion of what

they believe is available. Um but water resources agency has cautioned that you know as you said commissioner deal um committing that water to a long-term source uh or user like residential or commercial property um without knowing for sure what the total inputs and outputs would be. um is something that should be considered in and how how much and how we um allocate our water policy. I do know that the water management district allocation at this time is a a small portion of what they believe is available in the production capacity of the water expansion system. I don't know if I answered the question very well, but happy to expand upon some of that if I can. Commissioner Deal.

Thank you, Mr. Spencer. I I think that's really helpful. Um, couple things though. Um, water from the Selenus basin. In the past, we've been cautioned about any intent to use it outside of the Selenus Basin. Is that resolved in this discussion? Is it clear that input from the Selenus basin could make up some portion of the water we would use for this allocation?

Yeah. So this this is where the interruptible um idea comes from. Right now there isn't a use other than through the beneficial uses provided by Monterey One Water for the A runoff. Um and and water uh Monterey One Water has a right to that excess water that comes through that ditch to to take some of that to treat in their facility and provide for injection and offsets uh for the for the water. um not coming from the Karma River. It it is sort of unknown at this point if in the future there may be some other use for it. I think this is the argument or the the sort of uh the questions and concerns that have been reviewed and discussed by water resources agency and the Sen Valley groundwater basin in their groundwater sustainability plans. Um I I think that any other alternative solution is probably years in the future. Um but there is a possibility that at some point one of the sources of input of waste water to the treatment facility could be diminished. Um is is sort of the concept we're grappling with.

Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. Yes. That's my second point is that we don't have the same amount of rainfall every year. So, the runoff from an egg field might vary. Um, we know that even if we're able to use it, but I and I just want to do this at the get-go because it's so important to think about how we allocate water to make sure we know that we have it because it it makes a big difference to me. But suppose we were to say yes, we are going to allocate 72 acre feet of water. Again, entirely theoretical. It's all going to be used to make affordable housing. We're going to give it to affordable housing projects. We're going to give it all to affordable housing. And in this imaginary world of mine, they all get built. Okay? So, we now are facing a situation where the water is committed. It needs to be there. It can't be taken away again. These future issues are resolved. Does that does that make a difference on how those would be resolved? In other words, if you've done that, complying with all of the mandates of the state and the local jurisdictions to try to address this pressing problem and then um it comes back and somebody says, "Oh, well, gee, it didn't rain a lot and we'd really rather use this water for some other use." Um does that predecide that question if we have already committed it and allocated it to this use do you think again this is all this is all theoretical I'm not asking you to commit

yeah so so we would be we we I mean I think housing would be a b a higher higher in the hierarchy of water needs would probably be prioritized. So, you don't want to interrupt that water supply or ration people on it. Um, there would probably be other measures taken if that needed to be, but really what what's happening here is you have a debate between uh desalinization needs, how much water's needed. Um desalinization is potentially another source of water that would could come online um through approved permits depending on mostly legal factors and other factors around building a desolization plant. Um at the at this time the water is being made available simply through water treatment at Pure Water Monteray. Um, so, uh, you know, it's all kind of contingent on is Calam able to find a different source of water that's not that's in excess of their legal rights to pump from the Carmel River basin. Um and uh if if they c if we can demonstrate that which water management district is saying we can through just the pure water monay expansion project there could be modifications or the elimination of the cease and desist order by the state water board. Um, and so if we ever got into a situation where there wasn't enough water available, we could be back in a cease and desist order kind of realm again. Um, but I think that water groundwater management

policies and science have come a long way since then. Um, again, we don't have all we're not the technical experts on all of this. We're we're aware of the concerns, issues, and and uh debates out there, but we don't have all the answers

through the chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Spencer. I guess I would categorize the outcome for me to be a policy for allocation of water, assuming we have it. So that I would res reserve some amount of of concern about whether it is really there or not. And so b I would balance my projected priorities against the timeline to make sure that we um are looking at something that we could actually support over overtime when we decide our priorities. For example, if if we allocated 72 acres feet of water for everybody to get their own swimming pool, this wouldn't concern me at all. I mean, it would and a lot of other reasons, but in terms of if we in fact didn't have that water, they can empty their pool. It wouldn't cause harm to anybody. Um so anyway my thinking and it really helps me to understand before we start the allocation discussion what we're allocating and what the certainty around that is because again we have one agency saying that is of of more limited actually two agencies of more limited scope um being expressing pretty much certainty as far as I can see and one agency that's countywise expressing some reservations about this uh 72 acre So, as you say, we're not the experts, but I think it would be important for me to carry that forward as we look at the allocation discussion. So, sorry to derail you, um, Miss Ms. Wickl, but um, you know, I always do that. You just have to count on it. Thanks. Bye.

Thank you, uh, Commissioner Mendoza. I guess on the treated water that we're it's a water workshop that we're having here. Uh North Monterey County has a lot of our water is treated by Watsonville, which is Santa Cruz County. Do we get any of that treated water back that comes back into our county? Because I mean because it's still it's a valuable resource. So, I'm just wondering, you know, they do get our sewage. I don't know that staff is prepared to be able to respond to that directly. We can certainly look into that. Um, yeah.

Okay. Commissioner Gomez,

I like the idea of the policy. Uh, the I think I I also have similar concerns that that uh Commissioner Deal has in terms of the actual number. I think the policy itself will help us determine even if it's not the 72 uh uh excuse me the 72 acre feet a year it might be 50 acre feet a year it might be 25 if you have a policy kind of helps us outline what our priorities are in terms of how to use that those additional water resources that we might have so I think it's a good idea to have policy but you know in terms of the overall number might be very different from what we're talking about now any other commissioners

and uh just kind of to try to address and and I'm not an expert but to try to address Mr. Mendoza's concern. I know that uh I know that water is recycled and reused uh in the farms in in in Paro in in in Monterey County from the Watson water treatment facility. I'm not sure if it anyway goes to houses but it's used for farming. Commissioner Shaw,

thank you. is so is there any way to accomplish what the state is asking prioritizing utility services for affordable housing developments without having a policy like how would that be accomplished without this or how have you been doing it? Has that happened? So that the and and part of it too is the housing element we are still in the process of getting certified but part of the implementing regulations in that document are related to water and how we can try to prioritize and encourage uh water service and sewer service for affordable housing. Um so one of the re again there's a few factors as why this is coming before you but that is one of the reasons is to try to have a more of a structure with the water allocation and making sure as you've clearly articulated how do we then prioriti prioritize a development type if we've just been doing a first come first serve. So, um, the staff as and we'll go into the the workshop, but staff is recommending some some structured approach as outlined in the staff report related to a board policy andor an ordinance to really clearly articulate um and provide some additional support for prioritizing that uh type of development in the county for water

through the chair. If I could So, what would happen if no ordinance passed? What would be the alternative? So what would continue to happen would be it'd be a first come first- serve basis based on building permit issuance. So if someone has a single family dwelling for example, it's ready to issue um and there's like a multif family housing project that's not at that same point in the process, that single family dwelling would get priority for water credits and would be issued a water credit permit. Thank you. Through the chair, I have another couple questions. Um just can you clarify for me affordable housing includes employer sponsored housing that falls under that category. It

Melanie could you chime in?

Yeah I think so when when the state and when our housing element is discussing affordable housing generally we're talking about deed restricted units that fall below market. So to the extent that employer sponsored housing meets those criteria, yes. So for example, um we we've been able to um count farmworker housing as meeting helping to meet our arena. Um and so absent a deed restriction based on that employer, the employees and their salaries that qualify. So it's not strictly employee sponsored housing. It it would be dependent on then the wage ranges and qualifications of those households that are occupying. Um so it's geared towards helping us meet our arena allocations which are really geared towards moderate and income and below. Thank you. One more not a question. I guess that that would just be my concern though because it's not um profitable or so it's not you know feasible to build the amount of affordable housing that the state wants us to make possible. So that's really just not being bu built. Are we then by passing an ordinance like this, potentially passing an ordinance like this with one of these options, um, just making it just end up prioritizing employer sponsored housing, which is not actually housing people who live here year round? That's often H2A workers. Um, is that the unintended consequence that happens? Well, and one of the things I'll I'll chime in on too is when we get further along into the definition of before you to look at planned housing growth. Um, we did look at some of our kind of development projects in the pipeline, some of the arena allocations and seeing what's being developed. Um, and we're trying to tie some of those affordability requirements to the county's inclusionary housing ordinance and or looking at options through state housing law such as builders rem density bonus law which would be a portion of

the project that's deeed restricted to be mindful of the types of housing projects and multif family that is being developed so that we wouldn't unduly not constrict but because affordable housing can be so challenging to build. trying to look at what we're the projects that we're seeing and the affordability levels that are that are penciling uh part of what and again I'm not trying to go further down the into the workshop but the the other thing the planning commission could consider well I'll let me step back in terms of planned housing growth it would the definition would cover 100% affordable projects but it would also cover the projects with the smaller amount of affordable units that are being deeed restricted to low-income households as a as an option for the planning commission to consider.

I think if I may just augment that a little bit as well. I think the thing that we'd like to remember is that we're talking about a water allocation policy specific to the service area of Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. So where um where we there is some limited agricultural uses there for example um but it's not a water policy um there could be overlaps but we are talking specific about what are the prioritation prioritization criteria for allocation specifically to this water management district area. Um we might consider other criteria and that might be an important thing to acknowledge in the policy for other areas where as you know should we move forward with um allocation policies in other parts of the county where we have different considerations based on the land use and the housing needs unique to those regions or areas.

Excuse me. Any other commission commissioner deal? One final question raised by this. Um, is there an assumption about some sort of policy relating to water allocation in the current proposed housing element? And what might that be if there is? Uh, Commissioner Deal, is this related to We do have some programs that are more generally dealing with and uh, encouraging the county to look at water allocation and prioritization of that resource to affordable housing. Were you curious about the specific management area as it relates to the housing element? I'm curious about what the housing element is proposing to the state that we would have in order to facilitate required housing development in the area we're talking about. So, um is have we already made a statement to them about what outcome we expect to happen in order to facilitate the numbers that we're trying to achieve because like you know that would be important to know. Yeah. And I think for clarity, what our housing element has conveyed to the state is that we will look at a water allocation policy that will help facilitate arena affordable housing. It does not prescribe how we do that. It says we will look into that. It also, you know, again, anything in our housing element that says we're going to look at implementing something that still is a discretionary decision that comes forward, but it is with the intended outcome of some form of policy. even if that keeps it, you know, whatever that outcome is. Um, so we've been general, not prescripted as to specifically as to the how.

Any other commissioners? Seeing none, then um I'm going to open uh for public comment. So, if there's anybody in the chambers that would like to uh come and address the commission on this uh particular piece of the overview of the water allocation policy.

And I think if staff may through the chair um I think what we would like to do is just close out this formal section if we could share the um yes thank you. Um and for clarity what we are looking what staff is proposing if it if amendable to um to the commission and for the members of the public is that we open the public workshop solicit general any kind of public input related to the the policies and issues and then we separately go through some of those policy issues with another round of public input at the end of that for the commission's consideration for those who want to have more specific input. So that's what staff's recommending for now. So this would be the first of what we would propose as multiple two opportunities for the public to weigh in generally as well as more specifically.

Thank you. And so this was the o overview. Uh and so with that, go ahead and morning everybody for public comment.

My name is Daniel Alvarez. I'm a field representative with the Noral Carpenters Union Local 646 in Marina. We represent members all the way from Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, Monterey County, and Sanito. Uh I want to talk about something that affects every carpenters and every working family healthcare. Uh for many of us, we're um we're just an injury away for falling in death or bankruptcy. In our work is tough and physical. We lift heavy materials, use power tools, and work at the heights. Even when we follow every safety rule, accident can still happen. Without good health care, one trip to a hospital could wipe out family savings. It could mean choosing between paying medical bills or the rent. Uh, no one who works hard every day should have faced that choice. That's why healthcare benefits are so important. They are they're not a bonus. They're lifelines. They make sure that we can see doctors when we need them, get treatment if we get hurt. It take carees of our family when times get tough. As a union carpenter, we stand together to protect these benefits. We make sure our members have coverage. They can count on us. It give us peace of mind and let us focus on doing our job safely and well. Responsible contractors understand this too. They know when workers are healthy and protected, they work better. Good contractors invest in people with fair wages, healthcare, and apprenticeship that builds a skill for the next generation. No workers should lose everything because they get hurt building something for our communities, something like affordable housing, something that we need here in the county. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the chambers that would like to address the water allocation policy? Hello. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Renee Panalo. I'm here to comment on staff's recommendations in this matter. The water management district has said there is plenty of water for projects. Miss Stephanie Lockach, I believe her name is. She wrote a letter to the commission. I urge you to take good consideration of that letter. She is the expert. Those agencies are the experts in this matter. As Mr. Spencer pointed out, he's not an expert. Water should continue to be available on a first come, first- serve basis for projects that are approved and permitted by the county. The county must also provide water to all SB330 vested projects and all projects with complete applications under the permit streamlining act. These projects, it's importantly to understand these projects are subject to the existing ordinances and policies in place at the time of vesting. They cannot be subject to any proposed ordinances enacted by the county in the future. Thank you for your consideration. M Miss Sha, you had some good points about the unintended consequences of allocating so such a high percentage of water to areas and development that could potentially never get built. I'd urge you to take more consideration of that sort of thing. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody in the ch in the chambers that would like to address the commission on the water allocation policy? Seeing none coming forward, is there anybody via Zoom or any emails that we might have received regarding this particular item? We have uh two hands up on Zoom and we're going to start with guest ending in 915.

Thank you. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you. Thank you very much. Um, procedurally, I want to make sure that the commission is aware that the state of California in 2002, the legislature enacted a requirement that all developments have to provide assurance that there will be sufficient water to um address the needs of new divi subdivisions for 20 years with certainty. The developer must assess the water supply. Um documenting the the available water supply, the demand analysis, a dry year supply analysis, and a dry year demand analysis. And the time frame for that assessment is 20 years at full buildout. So, if the state is requiring Monterey County to build these um affordable unit subdivisions, there's a conflict here in that if that is prioritized, it could given a a rationing of water or a low supply year, it could preclude other developments that are not affordable if that's the way this county wants. wants to go. But keep that in mind that developers must have documentation guaranteeing there is adequate supply in dry years for new subdivisions for 20 years into the future. Thank you.

Thank you. And then who else is via Zoom? Uh, we have a caller, Dale.

Okay. Good morning, commissioners. This is Dale Ellis with Lombardo and Associates. I assume I'm coming through. Okay.

Yes. um provided a letter earlier today with expressing a number of our concerns which um we're glad to hear our concerns that are been somewhat expressed by members of the commission and the public. Uh first of those is how the commission uh would recommend and the the policy or subsequent ordinance would play with existing applications that are in the pipeline. As we indicated, Mr. Shen uh has an application for development of 29 units on uh lots two and three in the Laguna Secika office park. It's a complete application. uh he has previously had can and will serve letters uh for water supply and the uh we are currently working out some final details with Mr. Shen and the staff before proceeding to public hearing. Uh there are other applications that are in somewhat similar circumstances that we believe uh should be looked at and not only and be protected in this process. But the commission should have a list of those applications and their status uh to as part of making an informed decision on this overall process. Um, we also note that the policy would recommend, and I'm just going to go through all of our comments so I don't have to keep uh repeating myself later. Um, would be for planned housing growth in community areas and rural centers. Um however within the boundaries of the water management district there are no

community centers, community plan areas or rural centers. There are two housing of affordable housing overlays. One is essentially the Mid Valley Shopping Center. Uh some area around it, but primarily it's a shopping center area. Um, and then there's it's the uh what's referred to as the Tarpie Flats area on the south side of u of Highway 68 near Homestead Road. There are numerous u areas we talked about these opportunity sites. Uh unfortunately they are not for the purpose of this report and the discussion so far they're not identified. Um so we believe that the commission should have in front of it as you move forward for your what I'm gathering would be subsequent discussions as to what the reality and the real potential of those sites that would be included in the policy um are the as as staff referred or referred the uh housing element uh has not been accepted by the count by the state yet. Um it's getting closer from what I understand, but the some of the key issues that they have had are the viability of the affordability sites particularly in the Carmel Valley area. Uh so there should be some not necessarily detailed analysis but uh information provided to the commission as to uh where those sites are and what constraints there may or may not be to actually providing uh development uh before allocating specific amounts to water to it. Uh the staff proposes a 5% allocation to existing lots of record, vacant lots of record of which in the

area there are potentially hundreds. Um there's no information provided however as to uh how much there how many vacant lots there might be. Um and the the uh 5% which is about 4 acre feet would be enough for maybe 16 to 20 units uh based on an uh a quarter ac quarter acre foot per year per unit. that sort of detail should be provided to the commission uh in some graphic manner that's easy to understand for not only the commission but for the public as to what the actual potential and the potential impact uh beneficial or otherwise this allocation plan would have. So to conclude uh the application should be existing application should be protect protect excuse me should be protected uh the vector lots vacant lots should be seriously considered u more than the potential 5%. Um we did review the letter from the water management district. Uh we agree with the numerous points in there particularly as it speaks to additions and remodels and those sorts of things that are that require water. Um you know we look forward to working with the staff and the commission as this moves forward. Um and we just have one question that um I don't know that needs to be answered now but should be uh discussed at some point is between what's proposed here and what is drafted in the current housing element draft uh is the intent to carry something like this a policy like this forward on a countywide basis. Uh that should be

known and discussed at this point. So, with that, I'll close. Commission and staff. Thank you very much and be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Uh, with that, are there is there anybody else via Zoom or any emails regarding this uh the overview? There are no additional hands up on Zoom and no emails.

Thank you. With that, uh, we bring it back to the, uh, commission and, uh, actually to the to the staff. Uh, and then they will go ahead and make a presentation on policy topic one, water allocation process and procedures. And then they'll also do the policy topic two, purpose and goals, water allocation. And then the end of those two pieces, they will bring it back to the commission for comments or questions. So with that, staff, uh, please go ahead and make your presentation on those two particular topic items. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Gonzalez. And I just want to acknowledge we have heard um the concerns related to both housing development projects in the in the pipeline. Um there's a couple ways we could address that. And so that's being documented for us to kind of revisit and make sure is memorialized in any future policy or ordinance that goes before the commission and the board. Uh we also um have heard the concerns related to SB330 vesting and other vesting per state housing laws and look forward to working with county council to make sure that's adequately addressed in uh the water allocation policy as well. Okay. And so again, the recommendation is to conduct a public workshop to review and receive uh public policy options for water allocation ordinance for areas in unincorporated Monterey County served by MPWMD and provide that direction to staff. Oh, and then that's my email that will come back up at the end. Sorry, I was moving a couple things around. We're not done yet. Um, so just as a reminder for the planning commission and members of the public, just wanted to to note that there's a more detailed discussion of each policy topic areas in the staff report. Um, some of the attachments for your reference that staff reviewed as they drafted some of the policy options for the commission and the public uh were from the city of Carmel by the sea as well as the city of Seaside. So their water allocation ordinances and respective policies are included for reference. And then attachment four is MPWMBD's water allocation worksheets for residential and commercial uses which helped factor into some of the discussion that will happen later on uh water use uh limitations, water fixture limitations. And so now staff will um solicit if it's amendable to the to the chair um as uh Melanie noted stopping for giving a couple policy topics and the policy topic one and two we'll cover together and then we'll pause for planning commission input and continue with that process and then pause at the end for

public comment. Does that sound uh Chair Gonzalez? Does that does that sound okay for you? Yeah, that sounds okay for me.

Okay, perfect. and members of the commissioner. Is that work for everyone? Okay, great. Let me just There we go. Okay. All right. So, for policy topic one, and this is kind of where the discussion starts about water allocation process and procedures. So, staff have reviewed uh local ordinances and water allocation policies developed by MPWMD, the city of Carmel by the Sea and the City of Seaside. And again, those are attachments two and three. Um both jurisdictions have developed ordinances related to water management in areas requiring water from the district. Uh the ordinances outline a process for the allocation of uh the water resources requiring input from their city councils. In our case, it would be the board of supervisors um to allocate any water that's provided by the district and assuring that that allocation aligns with the needs and goals of each community. and each jurisdiction then uh adopts allocations via resolution. So that's a little bit of background. Um option A, staff is uh recommending development of an ordinance that out outlines the process for water allocation MPWMD area similar to the cities of Seaside and Carmel by the Sea that memorializes the process and the purpose for water allocation. Uh the ordinance would memorialize the county's objectives when considering the allocation of water resources and outline the process by which the board of supervisors would then uh establish water resources available for increased use. The how that direction would be implemented would be through a water allocation policy um which is adopted by resolution for the by the board of supervisors. the allocation policy can be amended from time to time and does not require the two the two readings that an ordinance would require. So if there's any changes in priorities or water um water availability or the goals for the county are changing um it is a more streamlined process for staff to return to the to the board to get uh further

direction and update any uh policy direction. Option B would just look at the creation of a water allocation board policy only. As previously noted, uh this can be amended from time to time um and is adopted via resolution to uh should there be any changes in again priorities or the water allocation that is coming from MPWMD. And then option C would be to just continue to allocate water on a first come first- serve basis without a uh policy andor ordinance. And then I'll briefly cover um policy topic two, which would be purposes and goals for any proposed uh policy or ordinance. Option A is modeled off of the city of Carmel by the seas purpose statement in their ordinance. Uh staff prefers option A and would recommend option A as it provides a uh kind of clear three clear bullet points of the purpose of any ordinance or policy. As it would provide a process for again how the county dedicates limited water resources to new development. Uh establishes a process for determining goals, objectives and land use categories to be served by any policy. And then of course the policy should implement uh the general plan and the local coastal program. Option B uh takes a slightly different approach and has kind of a broader purpose statement and ultimately would just note there would be establishment of a uniform policy for the allocation of limited water resources within the MPM P excuse me MPWMD uh service area. And so I will here for some planning commission input. Uh for policy topic one, staff is recommending option A which would direct staff to develop a water allocation ordinance and board policy. And that would come back again come back to the planning commission after some additional public outreach and engagement. And then for policy topic two, staff is recommending option

A for a uh purpose uh and goals statement. So I will pause here. I'm happy to move the slides around um and uh provide any additional clarification if that's helpful. Thank you. So, uh, Commissioner Deal,

thank you. So, if we are to have if we were to choose option A and have a policy and an ordinance, um, what if, how does that interact with the water management district? Do who decides I mean, what if we come to a different conclusion about whether the water can be allocated or not? what order does it go in and how would that policy affect the district's actions? And then the same question for option B. Do you mind?

So partial response to that um I think the way that staff has been thinking of this is we've we have been told by the water management agency that there is water and that at this time they are or upon timing that they are prepared to give the county and other jurisdictions a certain amount of allocation. Um staff is staff the intent of a water allocation ordinance or policy on behalf of the county would be to help ensure that that water is able to be prioritized because it is a limited resource to projects at least to some extent that serve this broader purpose and and and kind of goals and criteria for the county. Um in the end the water management district issues uh when a water permit comes through when someone is ready to um pull a building permit. That is the point in time when the actual water allocation is that permit is signed and that water goes to the development. In that process, the housing community development um department director signs those permits. And so my understanding of the interaction would be our policy would guide how we would treat projects that are coming through. And then when there different projects are at that point of pulling building permits uh whether or not there is water in the category for which um allocation would be available and we would therefore sign off on that uh permit going to the water management district. That's a very operational understanding of it. I don't know if that gets to the intent of your question overall

to follow up. Um yeah, I think that so my understanding is in option A, the county would receive an application, review the permit, um deem the permit complete, take the permit to hearing, and it would be necessarily have to comply with both the policy and the ordinance. Right? In option B um they would the same would occur and the project would have to would would be have to have some finding saying that we considered the board policy but it wouldn't be required by ordinance how right does that make sense? So that's the difference between those and then only after all of that would the uh permit having already been approved then go to the water management district who would check off the boxes about how the water is going to be used. Is that right?

That under I believe that understanding is correct. Yes. Thanks, Commissioner Shaw.

Okay. Thank you. So, please forgive me for I I'm approaching this from a completely naive perspective and maybe I'm misunderstanding something. I'm possibly a lot of this like really technical stuff is just going right over my head. Option C. Uh what would happen? Would anything happen from the state if we just kept on keeping on doing the same old thing on a first come first- serve basis? Like why was this like a pressing matter that needed to have policy created? I just don't understand. Are we like imminently going to run out of water? Is there so much development that we really needed to craft this policy to deal with it? Can you please explain that to me as just like your average Monterey County resident? Yeah, I can take an I can take a a stab and then um uh again we have Melanie and Craig via Zoom to add additional context. Uh as noted earlier in in some of the earlier discussion, the housing element update again while not certified, there are specific there's specific direction in there that we do prioritize water related to affordable housing development and as part of the implementing process. So when that's adopted and certified, we have to look at the water issue across Monterey County. Right now we're focusing on MPWMD specifically because we did get the 72 acre feet allocation in January and uh wanted to come to the local decision makers, planning commissioners and because we have housing man mandates because we don't have a set policy on how that water is allocated getting that input now as on kind of on alongside both housing element implementation and getting this new allocation of water that's why it's coming be before the planning commission for for consideration. So if we did continue on a first come first- serve basis, as I mentioned earlier, that could be, you know, a single family home if it's ready to issue that they would get the water allocation permit. And so in terms of

implementing the county's housing element and any additional feedback or enforcement from the state of California, that could be a potent that could be potential um in terms of if we're not prioritizing affordable housing or planned housing growth as part for water resources. That's that's a I don't know the full scope of that, but that is a potential with uh a lot of jurisdictions who have their housing element certified um and are doing the implementation process. they are starting to hear from state HCD enforcement.

Thank you through the chair. Um I think I just lost my train of thought, but thank you for that. That was maybe you said it the same way and I just absorbed it better this time. Um but if I'm when I'm reading u Mrs. Lock's letter and she's saying there's plenty of water for decades. um how does that play into this when the actual water demand manager is saying this is not an issue and we should just keep doing it how we're doing it and so the cuz it almost sounds like there's like this eitheror situation like oh this I know this was just an example theoretical um the single family home is ready first and this one that has affordable housing is ready then they would get it kind of to me I'm interpreting that as it's either or but this person is saying that doesn't that's not the case that there's plenty.

I might um ask Craig to speak a little bit to this too because he touched on it a little bit earlier about some of the because with the Pure Monterey project and I think Commissioner Deal kind of got to this question too of the interruptible source so to speak. And so there is has been some concerns raised um with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency that because agricultural runoff is being treated and pumped into the basin, if that water then becomes no longer available, what kind of situation are we in now? if we don't have the kind of tools that are needed to replenish the aquafer and keep that project running and make more water available. But Craig, um could you speak to that a little bit?

Yes, thank you Sarah. I some really good questions coming up. Um, so I I think I think it would help to kind of explain what has happened in the past. Um, and then and then bring it back to where we're at. So in the late 90s, um, cease and desist order went into place. It prohibited the additional um demand on water for you can't set new meters and you can't increase the water intensity. And so the county had a unwritten policy um that we would and we had a certain number of water acre feet allocated to us. And the unwritten policy was we would approve a water management district residential water release form or commercial water release form at the time the building permit was ready to issue to allocate whatever remaining acre feet we had in our bank account so to speak. Um, we came up to a point where Carmel Valley Ranch in particular had sort of reserved 8acre feet through a decision that was made for some things that were happening there that had never come to fruition. Um, but that we took that off the books. So, you've heard this 10 acre feet of remaining allocation. A lot of that is tied up with this previous decision to kind of reserve that for for Carmel Valley Ranch. And then the county started approving permits contingent upon water becoming available. And that's what was

known as the water waiting list. And so um into the early 2000s we had a number of approved residential mostly lots that were had building permits ready to issue but were just on hold pending some new source of water. Um and and so that h that kind of stayed that way that that water waiting list stayed that way for a couple decades. We now have a new allocation 72 acre feet from a water management district. It is a little bit confusing that what is allocated to us is 72 acre feet, but what is being said is that it's unlimited. Um and so so we're now moving forward wanting to have this discussion um and at a minimum have the policy decision makers say continue on with first come first serve policy. Um that way we've had the discussion, we have the direction or to say we ought to have something a little more sophisticated for how we are going to release the water we have in our system. And so we've come up with some options. The outcomes here, if we do first come, first serve, we will be signing the water form, allocating the water at the time the building permits ready to issue until there isn't any water left. What those projects are, don't know yet. It mostly at this point in time, it will be projects on existing meters because you can't set a new meter until the cease and desist order is modified. Um, so that will not be development on lots of

record where there is no house currently unless there's already a meter there. Um, it will not be new subdivisions and residential development until that cease and desist order is lifted. Water management district is saying that they're pursuing a change in that policy. If we have a water allocation policy, we will be allocating water according to that policy and better able to I think describe to the planning commissioner decision makers um and know for ourselves when we're reviewing an application if it relies on water where do we have the water to provide for that development? Is it something that is reasonable for us to provide for that development? Um, and then it will be something that will remain available to them for a certain period of time, not wanting to extend that too far understanding those comments have been made. So, that was a very long explanation. Uh, but there are different avenues to take in how you come up with a policy on water allocation. And really, I think what we're looking for is to have this discussion um so that we're not just operating with what used to happen without any actual written or anyone having actually talked about that as as being the right way to do it. Commissioner Deal.

I guess um based on that great explanation um and and having been sort of closer to the issue over time I think than those that don't have connections within the district. What does the weight list for one of a better term look like now in terms of quantity?

Um it is very minimal. So, uh, that was one of the things we did when we got the new allocation was send targeted letters to those who were on the wait list to ask them if they still were interested in remaining on the wait list. Many of them had found water from other sources. They bought water from Pebble Beach Company under their program. They bought Mal Paso Water. They no longer need the water that they were waiting on. Um, they've moved away. has sold the property. So, we're down to I can't remember the exact number, but it's a handful, no no more than 10 people still waiting um to and hoping that they will get an allocation of that water based on approvals that we've had in the past. Um and uh and so we've cleaned that up. Um we had we Carmel Valley Ranch was included in that. Um and there was under previous uh directions and administrations letters provided to them that essentially vested them with that allocation. Um, so one of the things I think we'll have to grapple with when we get into a policy, if we get into a policy, is uh sort of balancing the checkbook before or as we allocate new water um in some way.

So these are people who wanted to add another bedroom or bathroom to their existing home or something of that nature for the most part, right? Um, a lot of them were new house homes on lots that don't have existing meters. Um, and some of them were additions. Yes. But the existing meter ones couldn't go forward regardless of what we did with an allocation of water at this time. Is that correct? And yes, until the cease and desist order is modified. Calam can't new meters.

Okay. So it would be good to know the diff the two different categories for my thinking I would say. Um and I would just weigh in here to say that I think at this point clarifying a policy is a good idea. We can in a policy if at the very least if we don't have a policy we are depending on the water management district to decide whether or not there's water and to give it whoever gets the permit across the desk at a given time. And I I think we can do better than that um at our end. Whether or not we need an ordinance to implement that policy um isn't is not quite as clear to me. I'd like to but I would like to say that my current thinking is that um I'd like to know I definitely would support a policy and I'd like to know more about what particulars and ordinance might address going forward. So that's kind of the of all the options I'm I'm leaning certainly A or B and certain and and A depending on what an ordinance might look like and it might address and I I would have to know more before I before I was clear on that. And obviously many of the issues raised by the folks who have commented would be something you could address in both a policy and an ordinance should you choose to do so. So that's kind of my just weighing in on the question. That's where my thinking is right now.

And I also wanted to while um Craig was speaking uh note that we do have a policy in the housing element. It's program H--2.Q does note we will actually develop an allocation policy and work with the water management district and other areas of the county as part of the implementation process. And there is a uh the state housing law is SB 1087 which looks to provide or require um utility providers and anybody who's in charge of providing water or sewer service to prioritize that for affordable housing. So that's just some additional context. Commissioner Deal.

Yeah, just to follow up that sounds like option C is not on the table then. I mean if you don't do anything, you don't have a policy then you're not complying with what we said we'd do. So sounds to me like we're stuck with A and B. A or B at this time now anyway. Is that is that right? Yeah, that would be staff's recommendation. Commissioner Hardell

plus one to Commissioner Deal's question as she outlined it. And I'm interested in knowing functionally what would an applicant have to go through if there was a policy versus if there was an ordinance. um would they be wildly different at first? I know obviously over time they can diverge. That's the whole point about the difference between a policy and an ordinance, but if I were going to offer in one more piece of something to be explored moving forward, that's one of them. Um and I just want to identify that I'm coming from a place of real interest in affordable housing and missing middle housing and providing opportunities for concessions if those exist. um and finding a way to prioritize those projects. Thanks. uh some of some additional context as to why an ordinance and a policy is uh as noted staff did look at the city of Seaside and Carmemell and that ordinance again requires planning commission public hearing board public hearing um two readings at the board finalization in the ordinance itself and could outline and have um not it's not entirely stagnant but kind of a firmer process and procedures in the ordinance. And then the implementing regulation of the ordinance would be a board policy which would there'd be that could be amended from time to time as long as it was going through the operational procedures of the ordinance and could have a little bit of flexibility if should some of the county's growth priorities change or priorities related to types of uh water availability for projects andor if we were to get additional allocation of water. So, I don't know if that entirely answered it, but that's just some insight into the staff staff's thinking um on that question specifically and I don't know Melanie if you wanted to chime in. No, I think just noting staff hears the question and the concerns both as it relates to the necessity of ordinance and versus policy and the

distinction for um kind of process and applicants. So, we'll definitely bring that mindfully forward as we consider continue to explore and come back with kind of a more formal recommendation

through the chair. One more. Um, also noting that I have heard feedback that having the wildly disperate policies among different jurisdictions is a challenge in developing projects and that to have that within the water regulations would almost certainly create a chilling effect. Um, I know that it's really hard to unify everything. Um, but I would like to put an eye to that um in getting things done. Thanks. Well, um staff hears that as making sure that we are doing good stakeholder engagement through the process to include um all stakeholders including developers, including um local communities, etc. to help articulate that and inform the process. Any other questions, excuse me, from the commissioners regarding policy topic one or policy topic two, excuse me. So, I don't know if if at this point you want direction as far as to follow up on option A or option B. And

yeah, it's what I'm hearing from the commission through the chair is it sounds like um we're in option A option B territory, but it sounds like the commission would like a little more information about the benefits of option A over option B um and having that be informed through some additional stakeholder engagement and outreach. Okay, is what I'm hearing, Commissioner Deal.

Thanks. Yes, I I think that encapsulates my thinking with the addition that I'd like to know what it looks like when it's on the ground. So, if we have a person who applies for an ADU, what does it look like to them? Do they have to go to the board of supervisors to do that or not? You know, so um just some sense of what the process would be for either of those from this from the perspective of the applicant. So, additional information on kind of how it would be implemented.

Okay. And I will note too, um, this is kind of the starting point for the workshop and we'll go into some of the particulars and that if that does change planning commission direction on this specific item, we're happy to revisit that. Um, because I think some of the particulars we'll we'll get into in a little bit more detail, but thank you for the clarification, Chair. Uh, Commissioner Gomez, just kind of related to that, I wanted to see if you got any more information to share with us or bring back information about how um the two other jurisdictions that have already that have already adopted orders, how how that process has been working out for them and being helpful. That sounds good. We can do that. Thank you.

And and I guess uh for policy topic two, does that is that the same for option A and option B? Uh, could I ask for my staff screen to be shared again? So, I know we went a lot into policy one. So, I'll bring the slide back up for policy two. Please share stuff. Right. So, and again the commission this is more if you have questions, comments, input. Now we can also reloop back before we close the end of today as well. Um so um as you'd like. I did want to do a time check as well while we're working on this. Uh it is noon and so just doing a time check to make sure if the commission wants to continue moving forward or wishes to um at some point break for lunch, however you'd like to proceed, staff's happy to

get it. Yeah. And f first I I guess uh because I believe that part of it was to give direction to staff and I don't know if the AM was for policy topic one but I wasn't sure that it also applied to policy topic two or if the commission would say we're going to go with staff recommendation on option A for policy topic two or leave those two open as A and B. And that was kind of trying to ensure that at least we either uh narrowed it down to A or leave it open again.

One moment,

chair, just so you're aware, um the system is frozen again. So um our media team is not able to share slides um in the room. So it's going to be via Zoom. So the commissioners can use the Zoom button at the bottom of their screens and they will be able to see the presentation and those um attending the med meeting via Zoom will be able to see it. But those sitting in the room um I can let them use my laptop.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I don't think all of us have option to see the Zoom. Is it the broadcast button? Can you promote me to a panelist? Sorry, I joined on the public link. Can you see a PowerPoint? Um, so I guess so staff would like to uh there was a power outage last week and so I think it's causing hiccups with technology. Um, I think perhaps if if we were to take we can take either a brief break here and get printed versions of

the presentation if those aren't available to make sure everybody has a printed version and we can refer to slides just in case or you can tell us how you'd like to proceed. Mr. share. Um, can we ask staff about how much long like in terms of trying to figure out if we're breaking or coming back, how much longer they expect the presentation. So, one thing I would say um, if we go to, so if you go to your staff report, so the policy areas and the options are actually laid out in the staff report under the discussion. So, we've gone through policy area one and two is the purpose. So you can look with the remainder policy areas. Um they're more specific to sort of the allocation considerations. Do how do we want to define or consider it's more the meat and bones within it and some definitional and approach clarifications. So staff could go quickly through it um if that's preferred um and or we could continue to stop for more detailed discussion on each one. So, I think that the length of it is really if you all look at the staff report and can see what the options are, you can direct us if you'd like us just to go through those options and not pause for each one and then have more of a broad conversation.

Commissioner Deal.

Well, just to start, I think policy op topic two is uh irrelevant. We can go with one without further discussion because it's just saying what we plan on doing and you're that's what we're going to do. So it seems like something that doesn't require discussion. Some of these are much meteor which has to do with percentages. My suggestion would be that we're not prepared to do that yet anyway because we don't have all the information that we need. So that would do two and three. I can continue if you like. So, do we want to come back after lunch or what's the pleasure of the uh the commission? Any recommendation?

I have a question for staff. Yes. At the end of this topic, you're looking for a motion that does what? Nothing. No, this is just a workshop.

This is just a workshop and we are looking for direction on each of the specified uh policy topic areas in the staff report. How we were conducting the how the PowerPoint is structured was to pause on what is basically written in the staff report and at certain points ask for feedback and comments. As um Melanie noted, we could go through that relatively quickly and save planning commission deliberation to the end with public comment if we don't want to pause for each one. Um if I were to do that approach, I I'd say maybe 10 to 15 minutes to just get through the remainder and then take questions or comments. And you already have direction on number one, correct? So we're looking at two, three, and four, correct? My suggestion is that we get through those. Okay.

And give feedback at the end. I defer to the other commissioners if you have thoughts on this. Okay. So, we'll So, we'll go ahead and go with that recommendation and then just go ahead and and make sure we have time for at least one more public comment and at the end. Yeah. So, we'll go with with that and then we'll make a at least a recommendation on um topic two, three, and four.

All right. So, let me um for Zoom folks, let me get back to the slide for option two. And so, this would be slide 12 if that helps the commissioner get oriented. Ah. Oh, it's there. Beautiful. Can you see it on your screens now? Okay, great. All right. I will work to be as as quick as I can be. All right. So, that was policy topic two. Make sure it's up. Okay, we have uh let me see if I can do presentation mode. Did that change? No, it didn't. Oh, perfect. Okay, thanks for bearing with us and giving us some direction on how to proceed. Okay, so policy topic three is broken up into a couple categories. The first one is related to use category uh water allocation ratios. So, this is again related to the 72 acre feet. We already did get some feedback that I addressed in terms of um pipeline projects SP330 vesting. We can look into that. Um this is a very preliminary kind of starting point in terms of a percentage breakdown for uh planned housing growth which I will discuss uh show options related to a definition in the next set of comments. Uh economic development development of vacant land accessory dwelling units and 2% of a strategic reserve. And then option B is the planning commission could consider different allocation categories or a different formula for allocation ratios as an alternative option. And again, I'm just going to go through these and then we can come back to areas that the commission has questions. And then for that policy topic, we just want some feedback on options A and B related to the policy or ordinance. Um, in terms of use category definitions, we wanted to get some feedback on a potential definition for planned housing growth. Um, so with planned housing growth, we have some kind of some three key criteria that staff was looking at. Um, is that for

planned housing growth or to be qualified under this definition, you'd be located in some areas that the general plan designates for growth, such as community area, rural center, affordable housing overlay, or be in a housing element opportunity site. uh and there's a compliance with affordability requirements as it relates to the inclusionary housing ordinance for the county or the affordability requirements comply with um various state housing laws such as density bonus law or builder's remedy. Sometimes those affordability percentages are a little different than the inclusionary ordinance and uh look at meeting a minimum density of eight dwelling units per one acre. Again, the minimum density is tied into the affordable housing overlay comp contemplated a minimum density and then the housing element also contemplates that. So, that's just some option A. Option B could be have these categories modified. Um, one of the options too is you could request or direct staff to look at minimum total number of units to be built as part of a project. So, that could be a minimum of eight dwelling units for a housing project be built to be eligible for water allocation under this category. Um or option C, the planning commission could consider not defining planned housing growth. Um staff is requesting feedback on options A, B, and C for this item. For policy topic three and looking at economic development, uh staff looked at the city of Seaside, their ordinance had some interesting categories related to how uh economic development was classified and scored. Uh we also met with the office of economic development for some preliminary outreach and they seem to uh agree with these categories as it related to a project being classified as um being related to economic development. Option B is that the planning commission could consider different categories for classifying the economic development use category. And then option C again the planning commit could consider no categories for classifying economic

development use category. And again, we would like feedback on A, B, and C should the planning commission and the public have any feedback. Okay, now we're into policy topic four. So, this is related to the approval process for water allocation for a board uh for policy andor ordinance. Um, so option A is uh staff does recommend that the policy or ordinance delegate decision-making authority of water allocations to the director of housing and community development. Uh option B is that the planning commission could consider that the HCD director be delegated and this is tied specifically to housing that a certain type of housing project under a certain unit count. That decision-making authority would be delegated to the director of uh HCD and then larger housing projects, example 20 units or greater could require client planning commission approval. And again staff is requesting some input on these options. uh policy topic four. So this is getting into water fixture limitations or maximums for residential projects. Uh this was informed by the city of Seaside looking at the city of Seaside's policies which I believe is attachment three of the report. They do utilize some water fixture limitations for ADU single family dwellings and multif family dwellings to help manage the finite nature of their water allocation. So option A is the city the excuse me the county could look at the same fixture limitation. Option B uh the county could look at a different water fixture limitation. The staff report did uh look at some preliminary numbers for a 15 unit fixture maximum. Uh this looked at providing two two full bathrooms as an example with a dishwasher and or clothes washer and also leaving some additional water left over for some landscaping for a unit. And then option C again would be no water fixture limitation. Um so staff is requesting that uh the

planning commission consider fixture limitations um and then provide feedback on A, B and C as it relates to this topic. And then uh topic the other piece of topic four is a time limit for water credits and staff is recommending that the planning commission consider a time limit for water credits. Some of the concerns um that we've heard both from the district themselves and in some of our outreach and communications with the the public on a preliminary basis is there's concerns with water being locked up for extended periods of time. So the example that was given in the staff report is that um the water credit could expire when an entitlement expires. So, we looked at an administrative permit, which typically has a 2-year time frame of being active after the planning commission or excuse me, not the planning commission, the chief of planning approves that permit. And if nothing was done to extend that permit, the water credit would expire when the administrative permit expires. And that would then um be that credit would be put back into circulation for other kind of permit ready projects. And then we just would want questions, comments, or input on this item, I believe. Okay. So that was the main areas we're looking for feedback. Um and again we just wanted to again conduct the public workshop and get some direction from the planning commission.

Yeah and and thanks Sarah that was fantastic and and we recognize that many of these pieces interplay with each other. So staff's very open to general direction comments questions for contemplating as we move forward as well as if you do have direct opinions on any of these particular aspects. Thank you. Uh with that, before we move along with the planning commission, um I'd like to see if we have any public comment before we move on. So if there's anybody here in the chambers that would like to address uh the commission, you have about three minutes. Uh so go ahead.

Afternoon, commissioners. My name is Patrick Rosco. I am in fact one of the applicants uh on a housing opportunity site uh located next to the Carmel Mission Inn in Carmel. Bless you.

Um I am here in to uh advocate for a couple nuanced changes to some of the recommendations based on the application of uh these policies to our project. Uh and and also want to make myself available um for questions as to how these actually apply. uh we've given a lot of consideration to this particular issue and very much controls our fate. Um the the in answer to Commissioner Shaw's you know implied question yes the water application um or the water allocation is overs subscribed. Um there are too many projects with too many units that are planned that need more in total than all 72 acre feet uh than the county is getting. So it's quite important that um the the county establish this policy to differentiate between applicants as to your priorities um you know considerable amount of time, effort, money has been invested in the housing opportunity uh projects and the the housing element um to meet the state's goals and also to meet the community's goals. So the first point I'd make is that there are community needs, one of which is affordable housing. We can all agree on that. And then there are individual wish wishes. I would love to have a pool in my backyard. Um but is that a community need and is that the highest priority that you have? So to the extent that you are uh tasked with the challenge of u making this allocation, I'd say give as much to clear priorities that the county has established as possible. Um, I would I I'm glad that it seems that there seems to be support for option A. Um, on topic number one, uh, I do think it's important that you incentivize and prioritize these goals. Uh, housing opportunity sites, affordability, uh,

infill, development, density. There's actually quite a few criteria for uh, parsing um, which projects essentially have more merit than than others. Um to that end uh there has been a suggestion that um the definition of a planned housing uh growth um property meet a minimum density standard. And what I would task you with is is to to contemplate the fact that there are affordable there are forms of affordable housing that are not inherently dense because in some cases density comes with added cost. So if there are outlying circumstances that essentially would otherwise disqualify an otherwise good project, I would I would encourage you not to pigeon hole yourself into specific criteria that would otherwise disqualify an applicant, but instead look at the bundle of goods, the bundle bundle of attributes and essentially create a scoring process. So to the extent that you're trying to avoid um frittering away this resource and allocating water to things that generally aren't good enough, I I agree that there there's merit to the idea of creating a minimum score, but there should be multiple criteria that inform that score. Um not just, you know, is it infill, is it dense, um you know, what level of affordability has has. and and I think staff's in a very good position to kind of differentiate between one project and the next. Um so to that end I I also support the idea of empowering staff as much as possible to set these um uh goals and priorities. Um couple points that uh aren't necessarily obvious um in the policy. One, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Um there are to the extent that the water is overs

subscribed there are some very very large projects that have you know need of of water and could use up all of the water that the county has available in one single project. So I'd say set a deadline for the application so you know the water is going to be put to use in near term. Um set clear criteria so that applicants can respond to those those criteria in their application by that deadline and then establish a ceiling uh for a on a oops per project basis as to um how much any one project might might uh receive. Thank you for your I know I'm going a little long here. There's a lot to unpack. Um the idea of use it or lose it is great. You've got that covered. Um one other topic uh in policy number four is the maximum allocation on a per unit basis. Uh the proposed allocation is not enough to do a two-b house. Um so I would suggest that you eliminate the uh maximum unit uh maximum water allocation on a per unit basis. Uh if for no other reason than because the uh most effective uh form of affordable housing that we've been able to identify is a three-bedroom unit because you've got one kitchen, one washer and dryer and so you can accommodate more people, larger families with more bedrooms. Um, but those bedrooms tend tend to have a corresponding number of bathrooms and if you set a cap that is artificially low, you might indirectly deprive yourself of more bedrooms to accommodate more people. Um, what I'll leave you with too is that there are, you know, this is a critical issue. We started with an application of 34 units on our site. Um

with dialogue with staff, we we determined that our site actually met a lot of the criteria that the county had established. We're now at 75 units and those units can accommodate 45 bedrooms of affordable housing right at the right at the mouth of the Big Surve Valley where it's almost impossible to develop affordable housing in an affluent area that is otherwise quite difficult to to accommodate. So anyway, I'll I'll leave it with that. Um, I'm available to answer any questions, but thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the chambers that would like to address the commission? Seeing none, is there anybody on Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission? We have one hand up on Zoom uh for guest ending in 915. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you.

Excellent. Thank you. Um, that was a lot of information to absorb and to try to respond to, but basically again I want to make sure that the commission is aware of the 2001 state legislation known as Senate Bill 610 that requires developments to prove there is water available in dry years for 20 years and this has been upheld in 2007. The California Supreme Court clearly ruled that and this is in the case Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth Inc. versus the city of Rancho Cordova in 2007. The Supreme Court ruled that this must be intact and enforced. So it is a conundrum to have the state also saying that you must build affordable units. I would like to um oh backing up a bit build all of this and expect to have the water for it too when the groundwater levels are uh dropping. I have not heard any talk about the Selenus Valley Basin's uh groundwater sustainability agency or the sustainable groundwater management act that requires the basin to be sustainable by 2040. I would like to ask staff to um to consult to bring to the table uh members from the groundwater sustainability agency in in Montterrey County and get their opinion on this.

Um, I think that your policy could incentivize projects that have um that are located in good areas where there could be what is called managed aquifer recharge in in in uh in essence it is collecting rainwater when it comes and recharging that percolating into the groundwater. um that can be done on many smallcale projects and help offset the problems of groundwater overcharge um overuse. Um we must not forget that we also need to make sure there is adequate water supply for firefighting. We saw what happened in Los Angeles when that failed and we cannot allow our water supply to be on such a fragile level that should there be a large wildfire in this area, there would not be sufficient water. Um the Selenus Valley groundwater basin is overdrafted critically so and um you must pay attention to that in these allocations and not overbuild when there is not enough water. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else via Zoom or any emails? No more hands up or no emails. Thank you. Thank you. We bring it uh we're closing public comment and bring it back to the commission to look at I guess um policy topic 2, three, and four in terms of direction to the staff. So we go to topic number two. Do we have option A or option B or do we still pursue both? Commissioner Deal.

Thank you for policy pathic two. I believe it's necessary to have purpose and goals and I so that's option A. I think it may be possible to provide some clearer language and in what those goals are uh perhaps um less geared towards legal requirements or and more expanded so that we really understand the outcomes. But I would say policy 2A with potential review of language for clarity and simplicity. Thumbs up. Oh, I have an addition. Oh, go ahead. And public input. Thank you. Okay. And so if it's a recommendation, do we have to do anything like thumbs up or is that considered a vote or

no general consensus? Yeah. Unless someone objects I think the bodies being anybody object to that then. Okay. Thank you. So we go back to uh policy topic number three and it has a bunch of areas uh with the water allocation ratios you have option A and B I guess commissioner deal um is commissioner Hartzell do you have want to start I didn't mean to dominate this disc commissioner Hartzell

policy topic IC three feels like one where I have personal opinions about it, but I don't actually have enough information from the constituents in district 5 to give really good substantive feedback at this level. And other than that, I kind of defer to Commissioner Deal's input, but um I feel a little squishy about providing input on this one. Thank you, Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. I I agree and on that one, absolutely. Um, policy topic three, my answer is that I myself can't be sure. Um, I think we are jumping too quickly into a discussion of whether we want to use ratios or not before we really have the discussion of what they should be, what what we're trying to accomplish here precisely. And I don't think we've done that. I mean, I think I would need to see some consideration not only of the categories we've talked about here, but of um how many of each of those there are. Um we know it's a finite area. So, we know how many much uh we have reserved for planned housing growth. We could look at that number rather than a percentage that comes out of some per space as far as I can tell. I'm sure it doesn't, but it feels like that if you're not in the know. I'd also like to see some clarity around what we should reserve for existing pipeline type projects. And again, that's a specific number. We could actually look at the number. I'd also like to consider some allowance for minimal home improvement projects for people that might want to add their another toilet or something. We have nothing in here that would address those kinds of needs thus far. We also talk about planned housing growth and then housing opportunity sites, but they're it's not clear to me which are which and how. So on topic number three, I agree with with Commissioner Hartzel that we're not at the point where I can make a a clear decision between A and B except I think it must be B because um A doesn't make sense to me. So that's my first thought about that. Um the definition of planned housing growth um follows on to that which is that without having really gone through the exercise of looking at these things not in general but in specific I'm going to

back up and say this um this is a specific area. We know where it is. We know what's in it. So rather than starting at the general level, let's start with the specifics and say how many of each thing do we actually know that we have? And then we could look at how we allocate among those requests a whole lot more sensibly and a whole lot less armwaving and potential um unexpected consequences. So in general I would I would appro uh suggest a different approach to that for the next three items. It's hard to define something till you know what it is when it's at home. And that's true of economic development and um the key definitions for these kinds of uses because um each area is different. We know what this one is. So let's go with that. Um with respect to the processing well I guess we were going to start with stop with three. So right that's what my thought about three is that I'd like to suggest additional workshop with some an additional approach. And I think that for me oftentimes providing and this is true for the whole thing providing some theoretical sample exam applications and looking at how those would be considered might help me a lot because it's it's hard to imagine what it would actually I keep saying it again what it would be like when it's at home. So that kind of clarity is what I'd be looking for with policy topic three. And rather than saying yes to even the idea of percentages, we may be able to move towards amounts if we have adequately specific. We may not. I don't know. I haven't got that information.

Any other comments for policy topic three? Seeing none, are there any uh is there any opposition to moving forward with that from the commission? No. Can I summarize what I heard related to policy topic three? Just to make sure I'm aware, it sounds like there's some interest in an additional workshop, having maybe some sample applications, some visualization of what each of the at least for areas around planned housing growth, what that looks like, what's actually in the management district area to better then inform if there is going to even be a a percentage ratio allocation or what approach we want to take in terms of uh managing the resource. Does that sound mostly correct?

Commissioner Deal? Yes, mostly. I think the part for me also I want to know what staff considers to be in each category. So how do you interpret these as they stand now? So what does it look like? If it's not clear, perhaps we want to add clarity to that kind of definition to better reflect the way that you're perceiving it. We don't know. So yeah, so looking at if there is any categorization really clearly articulating and defining what falls into that bucket. how you made that how you made that determination going forward theoretically so that we understand it and can go from there. Okay, perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Deal and Commission.

If I may through the chair, just one point of clarity, I did hear um Commissioner Hartzell, you kind of led off with in part without public input or stakeholder specific input, um you feel a little bit um uninformed to make it. So I guess one point of clarification is would the commission like us to come back here or I'm I'm interpreting and I just want clarity that while taking all of this in we would also do some level of community and stakeholder outreach as well hearing what we've heard preparing some of that information bringing it to some targeted community stakeholder outreach and then coming back to the commission. Is that consistent or would you prefer or are you leaning towards come back to the commission first uh with some of this I don't want to decide that. Um I would say that my real issue is actually around policy two. So the goals that we're trying to reach and like what sits under it. Um and then when you get into policy 3, whether or not we do percentages or not feels like a prequest to anything further down the line. But what I'm really looking for is um obviously I know what's in the housing element. I know what's in the land use plans. There's a lot there. Um, but this just has that extra knife twist that I'm looking for some cover, frankly, some clarity from the constituents.

Thank you for that question, Roberts. I I'm going back to more of a global question as we kind of fine-tune where we're headed. I What how are we currently allocating this water in lack with lack of a policy or what's happening in the interim? Well, we've been doing first come, first serve, but I believe we haven't been allocating any of the 72 acre feet. Is that correct?

Yeah. So, we at this time, uh, we've done first come, first serve with the allocation that of approximately 10 acre feet that the county had previously, we have reached out to everybody who is on that list. Um, but we have not put into play the allocation proposed from the district.

And then I as sort of as a followup, I I still like Commissioner Shaw am having trouble reconciling the water districts unlimited out of resources as they feel versus us tightening this very narrow feels like definitions on who is qualified and who is not qualified. And so obviously water is a political issue and I completely understand that and I guess I just want to make sure that you know we're all headed towards the same goal and end I guess.

Yeah. And I think the the way that I hear that a bit is um and I think this goes back to there is a limited allocation right now. there is limited water but as these projects come on board then real water may materialize the intent of a policy would be to help prioritize in particular during this window while while there is still a limitation at some point if the water comes on and there truly is that water is flowing and then we could go back to a first come first serve so I think that's how staff is also viewing it in terms of we still have a resource constraint uh we some value and prioritize izing and at some point in time as water starts to actually materialize then perhaps that constraint could be um is removed and then we could move away from this type of allocation policy.

Commissioner Shaw.

Uh thank you. So, I agree with uh Commissioner Hartzell's needing to hear from the residents in those districts that are affected by this, but I would love to hear for them from them after um having some sort of like what Commissioner Deal said idea of what this actually looks like in application. So, of course, we hear from larger developers. Um they seem they're more informed, more savvy at navigating this kind of very convoluted process. Um, but as far as presenting this to just a resident who has a low density one-unit lot and maybe wants to build an ADU in the future for whatever reason, what would the how could this potentially affect them? What does the application process look like? When there's some sort of idea of what that looks like or could look like and that's presented to them, then I would absolutely love to hear from people who might be affected by this as well as these larger developers. Thank you, Commissioner Deal.

Looking at this, it makes it really is helpful to have a discussion. These points are really important, but I makes me go back to topic number two where if you read the proposed option A statement, the discussion has been all around priority. The word priority does not appear in that purpose statement anywhere. So um two things that I think would be important to consider are that one of the goals is to establish priorities that will help guide this allocation of finite resources. Another thing would be to say that if conditions change and the resources are no longer finite that we can immediately readress this policy. So um yeah that that's kind of goes back to the plain language thing. I get lost in the discussion and and don't realize that it doesn't actually say what it is we are saying it says if that makes sense.

Any other commissioners on this particular topic item

through the chair? Can I just ask a clarifying question from Commissioner Shaw's perspective? Um so are you in terms of timing and I think we kind of touched on this with Commissioner Hartzell. Sounds like we want to have another workshop with the planning commission. Are you wanting to have some of the additional and this is for the entire commission. Are you wanting to have some of the additional information and discussion in this form before we do the additional outreach with the community or do you want us to do the outreach with the community first and then come back and schedule a workshop with the commission? Personally, I would um just for the sake of not having like many workshops happening um since you would be the ones, you know, doing this uh the actual like nitty-gritty work, what would you present to the public? What would that look like from your you know, knowledgeable professional perspective? What would that policy look like in action? Um, I would I I would be okay with that being presented to the public so that you could get that feedback

um before we refine it because I I I don't think it would change a lot, you know, um between what you present to the public and what we might end up with recommending to the board. So, that's just my opinion. It could be totally different. I'm open to whatever. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Deal. I think that I am I don't quite agree. I think policy two when we're discussing the goals certainly anybody wants to weigh in on that I would be more than than thrilled to hear from them. We get to policy three weighing in before we have some more direction gets to be a little bit unwieldy. I I think that I mean let's remember that a that the planning commission hearing is an opportunity for public input and when we get a staff report if we could just arrange that this that the the staff recommendation was available to the public with more than the usual time um we could start there and then perhaps we could do a more targeted public outreach process once we kind of get through this middle part where I for one wouldn't even know what to take input on at this point.

Does that make sense? Okay. Through the chair if I can. I would just defer to that very experienced and knowledgeable perspective. The public gets tired and if they can't be their info isn't obviously focused, it's hard for them to remain engaged and we really want to hear specifically what they have to say. I think I don't know. I do anyway.

Okay. U any other commissioners on this particular topic three? If not then uh we move on to policy topic four. Any comments uh recommendations from the commission on that one in terms of direction to the staff? Yeah. Let me find Commissioner Hartzell

regarding the approval process for water allocations. Um, the reason option B appeals to me is because I'm kind of hoping that the planning commission would generally see large projects for other discretionary reasons. Um, but basically I don't want to be in the business of allocating water. I feel like I don't have enough information about that and I'd rather defer to HCD. But I'm wondering I'm wondering why I might want discretion. Can you give me a good reason why I would want to put in this option B or some kind of function to put this before the planning commission?

Perhaps Chair Deal has an idea of that. Commissioner Deal. Unfortunately, not the chair. Thank goodness. I couldn't do this if I were. It's hard work, Commissioner Gonzalez, isn't it? Um I thinking so and and we think that that public comment brought it up. Suppose a project was going to uh require a significant portion of the available water and I might feel that that was more important than one that where somebody only wanted to put in an ADU. So perhaps the discussion of a threshold amount or a threshold percentage that was a trigger might be or some kind of approach like that to to require additional review of some kinds of of projects beyond the director

as just in in direct response. But I can imagine things where I want to be sure to see and I I I can chime in too based on Commissioner Deal's comments. That was kind of the perspective we were trying to take with the policy is if we were get and again this was a hypothetical scenario and we can come back with some additional information of what might make the most sense should you want us to explore option B. But part of it we were trying to think of well yeah if there's a project that's going to take up a very large chunk of water maybe there's specific findings that need to be made or it makes sense to go before the planning commission. Should there be other discretionary reasons it would go? And if we went with option A, would the HCD director have discretion within their perview to make those decisions?

Correct. And I will also note if you did go with option A, there would be uh I didn't touch on this when I was running through previously. Um there is a would be an appeal process or procedure that would be outlined should anybody have questions or concerns related to that decision because all direct decisions of the development director are appealable per the Monterey County code. So we would really make sure that that's articulated as well if you went with option A or provided that direction appealable to board or appealable to planning commission appealable to I believe it's commission and then board depending on the type of project. Commissioner Shaw, thank you. Just a quick question. Is that a is that appeal cost?

I believe so. And we would charge it um per our fee schedule and I believe we have a specific cost related to covering some staff time for appeals. Just uh I don't have it off the top of my head, but I think like a ballpark figure that that appeal just for

generally generally the appeals are in the range of a couple thousand dollars. I believe we're getting ready to update our fee schedule and it come forward on that. Um so in general there yes there is a cost for appeal. Um one thing I would say and this goes to sort of the level of autonomy that the director has and or the level of discretion that is retained by the policy makers will also be informed based on how prescriptive an allocation policy wants to be versus a a little bit more suite of factors. So I'm I don't know. So I think what I'm hearing is there's concern to make sure that there's that consideration and and Commissioner Shaw I think from the question is also um that it's perhaps we consider um um also take into cost if it's just an appeal process as opposed to some level of discretion that might come forward. I think that will come based on as we start working out how prescriptive versus general a policy might be in terms of guiding those decisions. I think would inform it future down the line better.

Okay. Any other comments, questions? Commissioner Hartzell

just noting uh wanting to balance exposing HCD to having to make a decision where they're giving a large portion of water to a project that's going to expose them to like a lot of political push back or um to me those kinds of decisions belong in places with public hearings. Um, and for that reason, I would kind of go with option B, unless there was something further up the chain of this is a whole flowchart of options. If there's something further up the option chain that's going to avoid that, then I might change my mind.

Commissioner Deal.

Yeah. Uh, on four, I defin I'm not sure the two options really fit. I think somewhere on a continuum is where I'm at. And I think I'd like to see some provision for a clear decision-making process like a checklist or a matrix or something that would be guiding these decisions that would be understandable to folks outside of the director's office. And I would also like to suggest both minimum and maximum thresholds for things that could be um not ministerial but that would assume be assumed to be in one level of minor process and those that are going to have to go further and some kind of definition around that. So um I guess that's B but anyway somewhere in between those two is is where where I would sit. I I agree with Commissioner Hartzell that there's a benefit to allowing u easy decisions on easy matters, but it's also important not to hang the staff out to dry. So somewhere in between those two would be my thought and and how we might define those could be in my view best supported by clear and articulatable repeatable criteria for the decision. So at least we have some sort of framework that everyone can use for beginning of their decisions.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner Deal? Um and four has got a lot to it. I was going to proceed on four unless we wanted to stop.

Um go ahead. Not commissioner four commissioner policy topic four then goes on to water fixture limitations for residential process and I do think there's de merit in that discussion I am not comfortable with the seaside model itself so um as we go forward limitations for not just residential projects but different kinds of projects I think would be appropriate and that would provide a good guideline and a good process that we've been using for a long time in conjunction with the water management district. But I don't find that the the actual numbers and and ideas that come from the incorporated areas necessarily apply directly. So I would like to think more seriously about what we might like as opposed to what might be appropriate for someplace more densely developed generally than seaside. Um yeah, and so limitations in general I think might really help us out and and then finally um I'm absolutely in favor of a time limit. I think that is a very good idea because soon things have gone hanging since time immemorial and it gets so confusing. Sorry, I wanted to chime in. Commissioner Deal. I know we had some public comment related to the the fixture limitation and we can do some additional stakeholder engagement and outreach to make sure that if that comes back before the planning commission that it's more right sized

and through the chair I think if we do the exercises some sample applications that will also illuminate that question as well and particularly around things that we presume to be encouraging like ADUs you know and the kinds of infill development that might best serve our our affordable housing needs. Thank you. Any other commission? Commissioner Hartzell, just a brief plus one to Commissioner Deal on water fixtures and time limits. I agree with both of those.

Any other commissioners? Any uh is there any opposition from the commissioners regarding those recommendations? Seeing none, does the staff have any further thing to add or questions?

I don't believe so. Thank you again for your time and and giving us this feedback. It's very helpful and and bearing it with us with some of the technology issues and giving me some direction on how to get through just the discussion because I know it's a lot of content, but we will do some additional outreach. We will work on getting another workshop scheduled um to have some of these questions answered in a little bit more detail. But again, really appreciate your time today. Thank you. And just for the record, uh, Commissioner Gomez had mentioned that he was going to leave around 12:15 and so he's not here at the dis since about that time. Um, with that, uh, we have, thank you very much, department reports. I think we have

department does not have a report. I, uh, thank thanks for the report. Thank you for your time. My blood sugar is low and I didn't write any notes down. Uh, and so with that, this meeting is now adjourned. Thank you very much to all. Have a great rest of the day. Great job.