Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Excuse me. Well, good morning again. Welcome to the County of Monterey Planning Commission meeting of 12/10/2025 that we're gonna go ahead and and start the meeting. And so if we can go ahead and do the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Hartzell, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. And with that, we move on to roll call.

Commissioner Getselman?

Here.

Commissioner Mendoza?

Here.

Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzales?

Here.

Commissioner Work?

Here.

Commissioner Roberts? Absent. Commissioner Shaw? Here. Commissioner Monsalve? Here. Commissioner Deal? Absent. Commissioner Gomez is absent. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you. With that, I guess this would be the time to see if anybody that is not present that would like to address the commission on any item or not on the agenda via Zoom or via emails. And this would be the time to give up give that information. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. Yes. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. If you are here in chambers and you have public comment during public comment, you can just come up to the dais.

But for those who are joining us via Zoom or remotely via phone, there are opportunities throughout the hearing for you to be able to provide public comment. And a slide should show shortly. But on the agenda is the Zoom information for both logging in and calling. During the public comment period, if you wish to make a comment, you can raise your hand by pressing 9 on your phone and pressing 9 to lower it. On your Zoom platform at the bottom of the screen, you can select the microphone button to mute and unmute yourself during that public or excuse me, to raise your hand under reactions and lower your hand to be recognized.

We also monitor during the hearing. We monitor the email, which is PCHearingComments@countyofmonterrey.gov. Again, this is on the agenda for today. We do monitor those live time. We do the best we can to capture those for items.

But because our meeting has started, there is no guarantee that we can capture all comments. Also if when it is time for public comment and you are recognized, you will be given the opportunity to unmute yourself. You can then use the microphone button on the Zoom platform on your computer to mute and unmute. And on your phone, you can do star six to mute and star six to unmute yourself. Because we are today in different location, we do not have the Wordly translation capabilities pilot that we've been doing, And we apologize for that and look forward to being able to continue our wordly translation services when back in chambers.

With that, I'll pass it back over to you, Chair.

Thank you much. Before we do move on, let the record reflect that Commissioner Roberts is present and Commissioner Deal is present. And with that, we go to the next item on the agenda, which is public comments. And again, this is a time that is set aside for the public to comment on a matter that is not on the agenda. And so if there's anybody in the chambers that would like to come and address the commission on a or comment on a matter that is not on the agenda, this would be the time to do it.

Seeing none, is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission?

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

Thank you.

So from there, we move to the next item on the agenda, which is agenda additions, deletions, and corrections.

For the record, we received and distributed additional correspondence for agenda item number three, PLN240202, DEP, Rancho Canada Venture LLC. There is also copies on the table in the entrance of the room for the public.

Thank you. So we move on to commissioner comments, requests, referrals. And this is a time set aside for the commissioners to comment, request, or refer a matter that is on or not on the agenda, commissioners. Commissioner Shah?

Thanks. I just have a question. I'm assuming it's because I didn't respond to the email. There was an application for a Castroville Luak person, and I don't see that on the agenda to nominate or because I didn't email you back. Sorry. So can we I guess we'll do that in January then?

Yes. If you'd like them to be nominated, we would add that to the next agenda. Awesome. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Seeing none, we move on to the approval of the consent calendar. So this would be the time if any of the commissioners would like to remove this item for discussion or would like to ask any questions or any information versus this particular item, which is to appoint Steward Boulter to the Carmel Unincorporated Highlands Land Use Advisory Committee. Commissioners? Commissioner Deal? I'd like to

go ahead and move the consent agenda, please.

Thank you. Before we get a second and move on, would anybody in the chambers like to pull this item or make a comment or discuss this particular item? Seeing none, is there is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address this particular item?

No hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

Thank you. Then we have a motion by commissioner Deal. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. Commissioner Hartzell seconds the motion. Any other comments, questions, discussions? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion shall indicate by saying aye. Aye. With that, we move on to the approval, the acceptance of the minutes. This is the approval of the 11/12/2025 planning commission meeting minutes. Would any of the commissioners like to make any corrections to the minutes or make any comments? Commissioner Deal?

Yeah. I just wanted to, first, I wanna know if there's any way we can get more light up here. Some of us have trouble reading in the dark, because we're old. But my my comment on the minutes is that on page three of four, item number three, immediately before the vote, I moved it was moved by me and seconded by commissioner Hartzell to the following vote, but it doesn't say what we moved. And I'd like to ask that staff put something in there saying that we moved to approve the project or whatever the correct wording is for that. Because it just says we, moved something, but we didn't say what we moved.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing none, then gonna open it for public comment. Anybody in the chambers that would like to make a comment or address item number two? Seeing oh, seeing seeing none With that, is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission via via Zoom or via email?

There are no emails and no Zoom. So

seeing none, then we need a motion and a second to go ahead and have the approval and acceptance of the minutes. Commissioners? I you called on me. I'll

make a motion to approve the minutes.

Okay. Commissioner Hartsell has made the motion.

I'll second if it's if the motion includes with the correction.

It does.

Okay. Thank you. With that, Commissioner Salve has seconded the motion. Any further comments, questions, discussions? Commissioner, none. All those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries unanimously. With that, we move on to scheduled matters, and that's item number three. We have PLN240202, Deb Rancho Canada Ventures LLC.

So the staff is going to go ahead and make a presentation on this particular item.

And if I may, through the chair, I just want to note for all here, Ms. Israel has two items today. She's been ill. We thank her for participating via Zoom. So she is going to be able to present. And then we'll, here in chambers, help support as well. So thank you. And Ms. Israel's ready to go on Zoom.

Thank you.

Yes. I'm very sorry I couldn't join you. I have my holiday sweater on, but you can't see it. So I am starting with PLN $2.04 $0.02 $0.02 d e p. This is Rancho Kenyatta Venture LLC. And good morning, chair Gonzales and planning commissioners.

Good morning.

This affordable housing was planned for Parcel A in the previous subdivision of the western side of former Carmel I'm sorry, Rancho Kenyatta Golf Course. Parcel a is indicated in this vicinity map. The zoning of high density residential 10 units per acre with design and site review overlay was set for the parcel by the board with the combined development permit for the subdivision in 2021. The combined development permit included blanket site review administrative permit. So this design approval is the only planning permit required for construction of this affordable housing.

Design approval to allow the construction of four two story apartment buildings totaling 40 units with shared parking and improvements are proposed to meet the inclusionary housing requirement of the Rancho Kenyatta Village subdivision. This includes 28 moderate income level units and 12 workforce units. Building 1 is of 8,128 total square feet, and it's the model C layout in the plan set. Buildings 2 And 4 are of 8,688 square feet and are of the model b layout in the plan set. And lastly, model Building Number 3 is 13,448 square feet and is the model a layout.

Each building has associated carports that are now shown in orange and trash enclosures now shown in brown. On-site parking includes 40 covered and 48 not covered for a total of 88 spaces, which meets the county regulations. Building colors and materials consist of deep tan stucco body with brown vinyl window and trim and brown concrete roof tile. Associated carports consist of matching beige wood, steel, and roof mounted solar panels, and the trash enclosures consist of beige concrete. Here is how Building 1 would be built.

As mentioned with the model c layout, it is planned to be 26 feet and 3.5 inches from average natural grade, which meets the 35 foot height limitation for main structures in HDR zoning. Here is Building 1. I'm sorry. Here's the Model B layout, which would be how Buildings 2 And 4 would be built. Model B would be 26 feet and 3.5 inches maximum height as well.

Here's how Building 3 would be built with model a layout. As you can see by the elevation, Building 3 is the largest building. Building 3 is also 29 feet and five inches from average natural grade, which meets the 35 foot height limitation for main structures. Staff would like to correct the staff report, which only described the maximum height of the other three buildings. However, heights are not specified in the resolution.

And the plans with heights will be attached. So no, staff is not recommending an edit to the resolution. Inclusionary housing requirements apply to the previously approved subdivision, and that is PLN 4061 AMD 1. Were for 20% inclusionary or 28 units of the total residential development per ordinance fifty three sixty. They were allowed to be moderate income level units.

Another 12 units that are within the proposed design are workforce units. The required inclusionary housing agreement or IHA has been fully signed and recorded. The PLN 040061 AMD 1 project condition number 12 for the IHA required that of the 28 moderate income units, eight will have a minimum one bedroom and 20 will have a minimum of two bedrooms. Of the six workforce one units, two will have a minimum of two bedrooms and four will have a minimum of three bedrooms. And of the workforce, two units, two will have a minimum of two bedrooms, and four will have a minimum of three bedrooms.

So I'm quoting the IHA there. And as you can see on the screen, the proposed project floor plans include eight one bedroom units, twenty four two bedroom units, and eight three bedroom units. The design complies with bedroom counts and total unit counts, and therefore conforms to the entitled project description and the inclusionary housing agreement. The project was referred to the Carmel Valley Land Use Advisory Committee for review as a public design approval. The project review took place on 11/03/2025.

There was a layer of support from I forget the name. Sorry. I'm not feeling great, but I can pull up the letter. I believe it's MBEP. Yes, it's MBEP wrote a letter of support.

And MST suggested that they find out about the dimensions for any bus locations nearby. And with that, the LUAC discussed supportive comments from the public and voted five ayes, zero noes, with two absent to support the project as proposed. The certified second final EIR concluded that the subdivision would have potentially significant environmental impacts related to land use, But land use compatibility impacts were mitigated to less than significant level with incorporation of mitigation measure AES one for aesthetic impacts. Major vegetative buffering on the periphery of the subdivision that is required by this mitigation measure shall be installed after construction of subdivision improvements. The affordable housing design incorporates mitigation measure AES one by including matte neutral colors and materials, downlight lighting features, and a draft landscaping plan that has tree and shrub screening.

Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the certified Rancho Kenyatta Village second final EIR, and that there are no changes or impacts that were not previously analyzed and approve this design approval to allow construction of the four two two story apartment buildings consisting of the 8,128 square foot, two eight thousand six hundred and eighty eight square foot, and a one thirteen thousand four hundred and forty four square foot, fourteen forty unit affordable housing buildings. Thank you. Steph concludes this presentation and is available for question.

Thank you. With that, we bring it back to the commission for questions, comments. Commissioners? Commissioner Hartzell?

Could you clarify the HOA requirement that was mentioned in the staff report? Just I read it and understand it, but I'm just trying to understand what that means on the ground. Like does this need to be added to the HOA for the whole project? And if so, kind of what's the issue there?

It's a minor issue. It's just for staffs thank you, to the chair. The staff had not processed a proposed subdivision for this parcel that would have delineations of property lines between the buildings, and then would have its own, you know, HOA or or similar entity for the area of this subsequent subdivision of Parcel A. And since that is not in place yet in the case that the owners do not pursue that subdivision, wanted to make sure that there is an operations plan in place that would meet the, you know, the the needs of the affordable housing and also care for the landscaping in common areas. It is possible that that could be, as you could see in the details of that condition, it says just explain how it interrelates with the inclusionary housing agreement marketing plan.

So it might point to the original HOA if necessary. But in all likelihood, there will be a subsequent subdivision, and there will be an HOA or similar entity for the full area.

It sounds like you know how to what you mean by that, but just noting that I had a hard time understanding how to fulfill that condition when I read condition in the staff report. So I just want to ensure that everybody understands that.

Okay. Maybe Fiona, would you mind helping? Because I'm not feeling too well.

Through the chair?

Yes.

That wasn't a request for updated language. It was just like a an obscurity for a new planning commissioner. If everybody understands what it is and what it's supposed to be, that's fine. I just needed the clarification.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Deal?

Yes. Thank you. This is a comment that this has been a very long time in coming. We've been all looking forward to this and, hope that this kind of planning that doesn't require exception language or variance reduction language or any kind of language that would indicate it doesn't follow the rules as they're presented and does provide affordable housing is more than welcome in my mind and very much needed and long time coming. And I wanna just recognize that a lot of people have worked extremely hard to bring this forward, not only the developers, but the community.

And, that I appreciate all their efforts and really hope that that we can clear the way so that this project can be a model for other projects like it, appreciating that the staff has done the due diligence to make sure that we have a a description in place that we can, all refer to so that we know what we're getting. I just wanted to express that thanks and and say it's as I say, if you haven't been following the politics of that local area for long, you will know that this is numerous decades incoming and thus a very great moment. I'm surprised we don't have more people to note that. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. And with that, either the agent or the property owner, could you come and address the commission?

Morning, mister chairman of the commission, Anthony Lombardo. I've working on this

project about 40% of my

entire life. Believe it or not, that's how long does it take in. Oh, there you go. I can yell loud enough. See, I certainly appreciate commissioner Deal's comments as does to mister Williams in Eastwood who have been working on it with me most of that time.

The question about the homeowners association is a little bit of a misnomer because there aren't going to be any homeowners. These are rental indeed restricted rental units. But the thought is that local employers may want to buy a portion of the units to make the units available to their employees working in the immediate area, which is part of our inclusionary housing agreement. And so if there ends up being different owners of the buildings, then they need to have an agreement to how you're gonna pay for the landscape maintenance and those kind of things. So that's that's really what it is.

It's more a property owners agreement than a homeowners agreement because it's really not homeowners. We also received a letter, I guess, of support, this housing defense fund. I've never heard of them before, but we appreciate what appears to be a letter asking support or asking you to support them, but it's kind of a a strenuous way of putting it when they wrote it. So, anyway, end of a long road. This is a design approval today. The project's already been approved. Today, we're just looking at the design. I think mister Williams, who's born the brunt of the last twenty five years, would like to say a couple of things.

After twenty some years, I've gotta say something. Clint Eastwood and I bought this from Tony's dad twenty years ago with an It's 240 units. Nick and I discussed on the Carmel Valley master plan years ago that we needed housing for employees. So his dream was to create a 140 employee housing units, inclusionary housing units, a 140 market rate units. When he no longer could proceed, Clint and I picked up that gauntlet and tried to get that approved.

The community didn't want that much housing there. And twenty years later, I stand with a 105 in market rate units and 40 inclusionary units. And I only have 40 inclusionary units because I was down to a 140 total. And the CVA, Carmel Valley Association, stepped in to help me get from 35 inclusionary units to 40 because they like the proposal of what you're approving today. And I think the history of what you have before you today is important because it went through a four or five year elevate evolution of what the community thinks may be appropriate.

So we took a five acre site that you can find almost in any corner in Monterey County and created a nice home for 40 home 40 families that can live there comfortably. So this could be located anywhere within the county. It can be built by other developers who haven't met their fair share. I have through the through my eighty years in Monterey County, and I will in this subdivision. So with the with the Carmel Valley Association's approval, we got all 40 approved.

They've support this particular project, and we're looking forward to set up a model where the employers will own the property for their employees similar to what we did in Double Beach, and they will they will have make this housing available to their employees. And if they don't have enough employees, it'll make it available to other employees in the area. I can tell you with employers outreach, I only have four buildings. It'd be an employer owned LLC. I have more than enough employees who would like to invest in this right now that I could sell this building by this project five times over.

That's the need for employee housing on the Monterey Peninsula. Tony and I are right now trying to free up somewhere between twenty and twenty five acre foot of water that we're gonna be giving the community, Monterey County and the rest of communities, for inclusionary housing. We have a little excess water leftover and golf course. We gotta get through a process to do that. So the housing the the additional 100 housing units that I didn't get to build here, I'm challenging Monterey County to get it built because they're giving you the water to build some 200 housing now units elsewhere in the county.

I look forward to getting this approved today and hopefully getting a shovel in the ground. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we're gonna continue with the public hearing. Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular item? Seeing

I wanna speak on that. Good morning. My name is Jesus Vega. I'm with Carpenters Local Union six four six. We represent Monterey County and requiring employer provided health insurance for workers and their families.

The California Department of Industrial Relations approved the parental program in a livable wage for carpenters and related crafts on the Rancho Canela Village subdivision. It's an opportunity for Monterey County to set a strong standard when workers and their families have dependable health care. We see safer job sites, fewer delays, and more stable focused workforce. BAR approved apprenticeship programs help grow our own local, highly skilled workforce, something our region urgently needs, and ensuring a level wage affirms value of the men and women who build this community from the ground up. Adopting these requirements, the planning commission can ensure higher quality construction, long term workforce stability, and a project that truly reflects Monterey County's commitment to responsible community minded in development. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the chambers that would like to address the commission? Seeing none, is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission?

There are no additional emails, but there is a hand up from Brian Clark.

Okay. Thank you. With that, I'm closing the public hearing and bring it back. Oh, I'm sorry. Brian,

you are unmuted if you would like to speak.

Alright. Good morning. Brian Clark. I I look forward to seeing, as the developer is saying, the shovels in the dirt. Missus Diehl, thank you for your comment about she's surprised more people out there.

I think there are more people there because so many have died over the last thirty years. So the travesty of this is, yeah, it's great. It's going forward, but it should have been done ten to fifteen years ago. So as Albert Einstein said, those that created the problem cannot fix the problem. The planning commission has been woefully, woefully, woefully of guilty of not stepping up to the plate and not bucking the threat of litigation from Carmel Valley Association.

So as we see with the current round of new regulations, the governor had to step in and said, look. We're not gonna play we're gonna strip down the ability for local planning commissions and supervisors to play fast and loose and with politics, politics, politics, I e, and no housing affordable or otherwise. So unfortunately unfortunately, most of the businesses we'd like to save with housing and affordable housing, they've already left the area. The McGraw Hills have left. The getting good doctors at the hospital, they don't wanna come here because of the housing.

So we have thirty years of carnage of getting nothing built. We have thirty years of litigation. We have thirty years of nothing happening. So, thankfully, this is moving forward. Unfortunately,

I

think because the developer wants to just get this done and in now, he didn't get to look at really interesting and fun architecture. So I would be remiss to say that I would have liked to see, you know, much more interesting architecture with something that doesn't look so much like military barracks. But at this point, after dragging the poor developer through the mud for decades, how should I say, please do something more interesting with the architecture? So it's totally out of my place. I'm glad to see it's going forward, but I think that you stroke yourselves that you've been such a great planning commission and move this forward is really a travesty, and the timeline tells you the planning commission has been failed failed failed miserably for the entire community.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any any other person via Zoom or any other emails that would like to address the commission? No. There are no other hands up on Zoom. Thank you. With that, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the staff for any additional comments, clarifications.

Thank you, Chair Gonzalez. There are no comments at this time.

Thank you. And with that, I bring it back to the Commission for any other comments, questions, clarifications. Commissioner Deal?

Thank you. Couple of things. So one of them, of course, is mister Clark's comment that the Planning Commission is responsible for building or not building, which I wasn't aware that we were. And were we able to build things? I think, the world would be, quite surprised because I don't think we have the expertise to do that. At least I don't. And I just wanna say that the issues here have been intractable physically. We have not had water available. We have had definitely some community difference about their vision for the area. But that does not, in fact, begin or end at either the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors.

Generally we've ended up with approvals that went to court. And partly due to infrastructure issues, but in general due to the fact that in the 5th District, a lot of projects are, both proposed and and opposed by people for whom money is not an issue with respect to their point of view. So they carry things to the extreme, and we end up in court with things that have, should normally take a whole lot less time. Think the way that this planning proposal is coming through, the design approval, is a great example of one way we can help make that better, which is that there are no outstanding issues, requests for variances, as I said before, or outsized circumstances that would cause us to worry about health safety or infrastructure. Those have already been addressed.

And when that is the case, we we lay down a proposal that actually can go forward without the kind of opposition that causes the delays that we all regret. Can't change the past. We really honestly can't. But I do think that we at least can honor the past in that I personally remember hearing Nick Lombardo talk about this affordable housing project in the '90s, I think it was, to the great, great consternation of the neighborhood. He was he was not met with a great deal of support, shall we say.

I I I think it got pretty loud. And now that whole not only are we getting development there, which I think we all wish could be more affordable by design than we can in the climate that we find today, but we have this opportunity for something different, which can be a model. And I would say that the process model is also important as well as the design model. And the process model is there's not a lot of exceptions. There's nothing out of the rules.

That is the way forward quickly. We can all look at that and say that we had a system, we had a process, we followed it, and that we got to the end. So, I I expect to see that array of sunshine from mister Lombardo at some point during the day if we we approve this project, which I hope we do, and we'll be ready to move to do once the discussion has been completed.

Any other commissioners? Commissioner

Roberts?

I just want to add, just very briefly that this has always been one of the most exciting parts of this project, and I'm happy to see it before us today.

Thank you. Commissioners, any if not no more comments, then we need a motion or a second.

I'd like to approval of this project as presented by the staff.

K. Commissioner Deal has made the motion.

I second.

Seconded by commissioner Hartsell. Any other comments, questions, discussions by the commission? Seeing no hands up, all those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Abstention? Motion carries unanimously. Merry Christmas. With that, we move on to PLN210348, and that's Nayid Devang and Desai Rupa for Coastal Star LLC. And so with that, we're gonna go ahead and have staff members, make the presentation on this particular item, item number four. Mister chair?

Mister chair? I'm sorry. I'd like to add to start by just I wrote a note to miss Israel not realizing she was ill yesterday about, not seeing any notice for this project posted, and I wanna know if we can clarify where it was and how I could have missed it when I went to look at the project. Also didn't see any flagging and staking, but that just might have been because it was invisible, which would be a good thing.

Commissioner Dale, Eric Miller, the applicant, did inform us that he reviewed the site and that one of the postings was removed at one point. We're not sure what time that was, but was replaced. And I have photos of all three of the notices posted at the site. And they were posted on time, but it looks like one may have been removed at one point.

Was unable to see any on my visit yesterday. So if I could just see where that was, I would appreciate it. I saw none of those because I looked in those locations.

Chair, did you want to hear from the applicant?

Right now well, right now, if the staff has any other clarification.

If I may, through the chair. In speaking this morning with the applicant and their represent and their representative, the the photos they have were they sent someone down this morning to verify that sign that posting was still up. I don't know. I I think it might be helpful to hear from if we wish to hear from the applicant if there was a timing issue at a point in time when Commissioner Diehl went by that postings were not up that were then replaced. But staff's understanding is that from the applicant's verification and knowledge, The two signs on the fence had been up the whole time.

And the one sign at the gate is the one that had been removed and I believe was subsequently replaced. So I'm not quite sure where to go, but it could help from a timing perspective, perhaps, if the commission wishes to hear from the applicant.

Commissioner Deale?

Through the chair, I think we have evidence that the applicant posted it. I merely would note that my personal experience was such that and that was yesterday morning around eleven. So it wasn't long time ago or a different period of time. So I don't see this as a controversial project. I believe it's been through the LUAC extensively. It would have been been noticed for that. And I'm assuming that any flagging or staking that were required was there. Although, as I say, I didn't see it, which might be a function of it being a good project. I don't know. So all that being the case, I'm not raising an objection. I'm merely remarking that I didn't, and that is a flaw.

Thank you. And then either the property owner or agent can address a little more information on that when we open the public hearing. And so with that, staff can anyway, so I'll just leave it at that at this point, and then let the staff go ahead and make a presentation.

Thank you, chair Gonzales and members of the DAIS. This project for decision is PLN210348. I wanna make sure you can hear me now. Naik and Desai. Okay.

The property is located at 36240 And 36242 Highway 1 Big Sur. The 2.9 acre parcel is zoned rural density density residential with a density of 40 acres a unit and a design control overlay. It is in the coastal zone. The project proposes demolition of an existing 2,860 square foot one story, three bedroom single family dwelling and construction of a 6,556 square foot two story four bedroom single family dwelling inclusive of a seven seventy five square foot garage and 1,000, roughly 500 square foot basement with approximately 4,800 square feet of associated site improvements, as well as a detached 800 square foot two bedroom accessory dwelling unit with an attached three thirty three square foot mechanical room and approximately 880 square feet of attached stairs, landing deck, and jacuzzi. The project would require approximately 3,440 cubic yards of cut and a 120 cubic yards of fill.

It includes voluntary restoration of disturbed areas with native coastal scrub plants. Portions of the site are within the critical view shed. Development is proposed on-site slopes in excess of 30%. The project is within 100 feet of an environmentally sensitive habitat area and requires up to three cypress trees to be removed. It is within seven fifty feet of known archaeological resources,

and

the project is within 50 feet of a coastal bluff. The existing conditions of the subject parcel include that it is already developed with a house built in 1963. The application included an historic resource report, and it was not found to be an historic resource. This photo that's showing is approximately what commissioner Deal would have seen. There is a little bit of staking flagging that is at the level of the existing dwelling when viewed from across the street.

And otherwise, this sticking and flagging is the same level as the existing house. Also in view is the existing gate, existing fence, and the planted cypress trees. So here is an image of the topo that was done by a surveyor, and it shows that existing house, the patio that's existing, the driveway, and several retaining walls that would all be removed. There's also a flattened area with an old corral from a previous use that the corral fencing would be removed. Okay.

And also on this slide, I wanted to share how succulents and other non native ground cover have been introduced to this site through landscaping and other sources, and have disturbed the coastal scrub on the land in the property. And this photo is a great capture of how there is an encroaching coastal bluff such that new construction at the current house sighting is not recommended by a geologist. This photo actually came from the application package and was not taken by staff. So the project does include a design approval. This slide shows the proposed single family dwelling elevations on the east and north.

These would be the ones most in any public viewing area. And the underlying zoning district's maximum available height of main structures in this particular location is 14 feet. The proposed main dwelling and attached garage will only be nine feet six inches above natural grade. The design is modern with a flat partly green roof. And as shown as the in the east elevation, only windows that would be obscured by landscaping trees are proposed to face Highway 1.

This side now shows the proposed single family dwelling elevations on the south and west. By constructing into and tiering along the existing slope, the proposed structure heights are low. This slide shows the elevations for the accessory dwelling unit. The proposed height of the ADU is six feet above average natural grade, well below the maximum height limit, and is sited such that it is behind the existing cypress stand and does not create a silhouette against the sky or sea. The homes in the Rocky Point to Kaiser or Kastler Point, depending on the map that you're looking at, area are varied in architectural design and generally out of the public viewshed.

But some are not. Photos shown here of the residences to the immediate south of the project sites, seen on the aerial image to the left, are generally hidden from view by planted cypress trees. And to the right, a photo of a neighboring house to the north can be glint shows that it can be glimpsed through the trees with unaided vision.

The

project's exterior is proposed as beige with darker beige stone veneer and black window frames and doors. The plans indicate very limited exterior lighting and specifications for down lit low intensity fixtures in accordance with the Big Sur coastal coastal improvement plan or CIP, staff applied condition number 18. And we'll review the construction plans to enforce that off-site glare is not produced by the project. The last thing I wanted to share here before we move on to the coastal development permits for the project is that the project meets the setbacks for rural density residential zoning. In compliance with the CIP, a biological report was prepared for the project and was updated as the project design was updated.

The coastal scrub communities are predominantly invaded by carpobrotus and other nonnative plants. No special status species would be directly impacted by the project as proposed, although some sea cliff buckwheat and lomatian individual plants are found in limited numbers on the parcel. As shown in this slide, an ambitious restoration is proposed to restore ecological function to 20,075 square foot of highly disturbed coastal scrub. Coastal Commission staff biologist visited the site with the project biologist to review how the project defined restoration areas. Staff found the draft landscape plan has some proposed cypress tree planting that could block public views of the ocean.

So condition number 16, final restoration plan and landscape plan is applied, and staff will review with a site visit to ensure no cypress trees shall be planted in the restoration area. And I just wanted to highlight that when you look in the plan set, you see that three types of restoration practices will be done to ensure native plants are not disturbed where they are found on this property. Finally, there is a conservation scenic easement deed requirement that will protect both the ESHA as restored, as well as coastal bluffs and remaining areas of slopes greater than in excess of 30% on the property. In compliance with the CIP, an arborist report was prepared for the project and also was updated with project design. Most of the trees on the parcel are planted cypress.

The stand is outlined in blue here. Two trees are required to be removed to accommodate the development. Both are in the opening of the stand where an existing path would be widened into a driveway. Only one of the trees is protected due to size. And two other protected trees are likely to fail and will be protected in place and monitored.

If either fails due to impacts due to construct during construction, they shall be replaced in the arborist recommended replanting area, which is over here where it would just be in, like, the northeast corner of the property. And coastal development permit that is part of today's decision shall cover those additional removals if they have to take place. This coastal development permit can be supported as the minimum tree removal required with sufficient replanting, and no additional coastal development permit will be required for those extra trees if they fail. Archaeological resources are located within seven fifty feet of the project, so a coastal development permit is required. However, the archaeological report for the project site found negative resources.

So a standard condition of approval requiring work to be stopped if any resources are encountered is applied. As I mentioned before, the cut and fill is high for the project. And this cross section of the development helps demonstrate that that is due to excavation into the slope that is planned to reduce potential visual resource issues. As that cross section suggests, development on slopes in excess of 30% is also high. Approximately 2,090 square feet of area that is a combination of man made slopes and natural slopes would be impacted, and that is the orange area of this site plan.

Slopes in excess of 25% are shown in blue. A geotechnical report was prepared. The geotechnician found that the project could be constructed as proposed. And the project can be found to have the minimum development on slopes required due to site constraints that are already before us. The demolition of the existing houses within 50 feet of a coastal bluff.

A geological report was prepared in compliance with the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan hazards policies and the CIP. New structural development will be built such that there's a hundred year setback from the cliff that is respected, and that setback is shown on this slide in a dashed purple line. There was a geologic, as I mentioned, a geologic report. The geologist estimated Coastal Bluff Retreat at roughly 10 feet per year at this location, which is less than bluffs in other areas of the Central Coast. There is a notice of report condition applied to this project as condition number 20 and a coastal hazard steed restriction applied through condition number 15.

As conditioned, the project can be found to have the minimum impact related to coastal bluff, and the coastal development permit required can be granted due to site constraints. Visual resources are very precious on Highway 1, on the corridor along Big Sur Coast. Public views were a primary concern when the project was first staked and flagged. And staking and flagging at that time was visible from the southbound lane in the in the area above the existing dwelling when viewed from beside the property on Highway 1 and also in the southbound lane in the area that's indicated with the at the base of that yellow arrow. There's a turnoff there at the base of the yellow arrow.

So right now, we're looking at the view of the project site from that southbound turnout, and staff is now gonna add these boxes to emphasize the visibility of the top of the main dwelling and the ADU at that time. However, after staff recommended a redesign and also later the LUAC, Land Use Advisory Committee, recommended further redesign in relation to potential viewshoot impacts, the applicant brought the ADU back behind the Cypress stand, and both structures were updated to the tiered design that's now before you for decision. So this new photo on the right is staked in flag, and it is not taller than the existing dwelling. In addition, strategic tree replanting that I'm now gonna pop in there is and the use of an earthen berm along the east elevation will screen the development without disrupting the view of the ocean. Staking and flagging photographs from Highway 1 beside the project have already been on this slide deck, but I want to show them again.

Showing the reconstruction would not add height or bulk to the viewshed for the public. Therefore, the design of the proposed project assures protection of the neighborhood character and protection of the public viewshed. As mentioned, the Big Sur Coast Land Use Advisory Committee were very helpful in transmitting to the owner the importance of the public view shed in this area. After two site visits with the LUAC and continued public meeting, the LUAC gave the updated project unanimous support with proposed changes that are incorporated into the project design for you. And those are for darker colors.

And there was a slight modification to bring that ADU just a couple of feet further back. There was one public comment received by staff by phone after noticing of this hearing. The person had attended the LUAC's second meeting and felt that the darker beige stone that was recommended by the LUAC and agreed to by the applicant is not necessarily showing on the three d renderings in the plan set, which still appear to be light colored, like previous versions of renderings. Staff explained and shares now that the color described in the design approval and listed on the colors and materials sheets will be used for review of the construction permit plans, not the three d renderings. So that's part of our condition comply you know, just compliance review when a planner looks at the entitled project against construction permits and signs off on it.

That's how that will be controlled and policed. Staff recommends the Planning Commission find this project as categorically exempt from CEQA as a demolition rebuild and a small restoration project in the robust regulatory environment of the land use land use plan. And no mitigations were proposed by project reports, and there was no evidence that mitigation would be required during CEQA evaluation. Staff recommends the approval of this combined development permit for demolition and construction of a single family dwelling, construction of an ADU, and the many coastal development permits that are required due to location and site constraints, which each have findings that are supported by substantial evidence. Staff would like to conclude this presentation with two minor errata edits to the resolution.

They are changes in finding eight b and finding 11 f. In both locations, staff meant to but not edit out the description of the new I can show it right now. Description of the connection to the Garapata water water system. So here's finding eight. I'm trying to make it bigger.

Can you oh. Can you see this small red line edit? The the moratorium is on the total amount of acre feet per year of the Garapata Creek system. It's not that they couldn't have a new connection. So here's a minor edit here, and this is in finding eight and then finding 11 that's specifically on the ADU has minor edit that the Garapata Water system has a moratorium on total connections, and one new connection shall be made with this project for the ADU.

This was reviewed. This project was reviewed by the Cheryl Sandoval, supervisor of Drinking Water Protection Services Program at Environmental Health Bureau. And she confirmed that this ADU would not trigger a water system permit amendment due to availability of connections. We also received a letter from CalAm, who operates the system, that verified there are no objections to the new connection. So this now concludes staff's presentation. We're hoping that you will accept the recommendation of staff with these minor errata. That concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for comments or questions.

Thank you for the presentation. And with that, we bring it back to the commission for any comments, questions, clarifications. Commissioners? Commissioner Deal?

Thank you. I appreciate the report very much. Can someone remind can you remind me, miss Israel, someone where the cut is going? I know there's a berm proposed, but how much is gonna be exported off-site? And if so, do we know where it's going?

There through the chair, we do have a condition of approval requiring a pretty elaborate construction management plan for all of that to be declared. I do not know where the final destination is of the cut. I can share my presentation again to look at the site.

Or perhaps the applicant can talk to us about that. The construction management plan, as I reviewed it, didn't seem to specifically refer to the cut material, but perhaps I missed that. It's just that it's a it's a fairly large amount, and that Highway 1 can be a little problematic that sometimes we have some people on that road upon occasion. So just wanted to know there are not a lot of route choices. There's not any way to address that except timing as far as I can figure out, but perhaps the applicant has a a mechanism for it.

So I wanna raise that issue for that condition. Couple of other comments. One is to general to staff is I'm happier with maps that have the north up, so that's always just a a general request from from my me. I'll talk a little bit about cypress trees. Cypress trees don't do us any good down there.

They're not supposed to be there. Especially as lammed up by the fire department, they provide little or no help with visual impacts, because shade, potential for trees to drop, they're flammable as all get out. And so cypress trees, for any use whatsoever or except, like, being attractive to look at upon occasion, are problematic and becoming more so. If you look at the pictures of the cypress grove that we have in front of that house, you'll note not only that the trees, these large trees are are getting towards the end of their lifespan, but limbed up as they are, they provide no visual screening to anybody. So when we talk about using Cypress trees for visual screening, I'm really concerned about that because the way that they're maintained with respect to fire danger renders them pretty much, unusable as screening.

See, the cypress trees are there. They when they were short, they did some screening. Now they don't. So that's just a personal concern. I don't know how we can depend upon them unless we have some kind of of assurance that they're going to remain with some lower limbs that provide the screening.

It just doesn't make any sense. And so I actually can say that there is a proposal for the upcoming land use plan that cypress trees won't be protected because of that, then irregardless of their size, that they don't need to be there. But I don't know whether that will ever happen. Anyway, just want raise the issue of cypress trees as a visual mitigation. It is completely understandable given the state of things as they are in Big Sur.

But looking forward and looking at the way fire maintenance has affected their appearance, I think we should really reconsider them in the future. I would like also to include just the comment that this area between Rocky Point and Garipata Creek is technically designated as an area with limited exemptions to the strict critical viewshed policy of invisibility. So this area is not actually treated. The critical viewshed isn't the same critical viewshed as it would be if we were in an area outside of that particular designated area. In this case, I think that the applicant, with with all the input that they received, has done what we would expect this exemption area to require, which is to reduce the visibility as much as possible.

And that would be an appropriate standard from my reading in this place, but not necessarily everywhere. Just a comment because I'm a land use plane geek. And then a final completely personal editorial comment, is putting in an ADU, and we are desperate for first responder housing. We have sheriffs that are dying for a rental. So if there's any possibility that the owner would be open to considering renting an ADU to someone who works in the area, in particular our our first responders and our sheriff's department, I would be glad to introduce those people to each other to further that discussion.

As as I could could make the case, there might be some advantages to having a sheriff living on-site. So anyway, as I said, lots of editorial comment, but it is my neighborhood. So thanks.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? Commissioner Roberts?

I have two sort of minor questions, and one is regarding the fence. And if we've talked about it, I it was I missed it, and we got because I was buried in the details. I'm curious to know if this fence is being proposed for replacement. And I know that in Pebble Beach, we've talked about putting grape staking fences to kind of allow for more view and wondering if that's a consideration on this property or if it's come up. And then the only other thing that I have is in the findings and evidence, it looks like in reading about the view shed, it looks like maybe a couple sentences were duplicated.

And I don't know if it was intentional or if a date was supposed to be different. And I just wanted to point that out so staff can take a look at it. It's on page eight of the findings and evidence, and it's the I guess it's the second it's the beginning of the paragraph, and it's just talking about the site visits from the LUAC. And I think that a couple of those sentences were repeated or a date may need to be changed.

Okay. Through the chair. The fence is not proposed for change. It's the same fence as the existing dwelling has. And I will look at finding the finding and evidence about the LUAC review on page eight and see if I can make some minor changes right now.

And to follow-up with that, this is more, I guess, also for staff. If the fence were changed, does Big Sur have a similar consideration like Pebble Beach to make it slightly more

visible?

Through the chair, yes. Generally, if especially in this area, as Commissioner Deal mentioned, there are exceptions to critical viewshed policies. So I don't believe staff would encourage opening up of fence lines to expose existing or proposed structures. However, if there was an opportunity to replace more of a solid fence with maybe a grapestake fence or something that could allow for visual pass through to increase ocean views or those views considered the critical viewshed, then that

would be encouraged. Thank you.

Any other commissioners? Seeing none, we go to I'm opening the public hearing, and I guess this would be the time for the agent or the property owner to come and make a presentation.

Yeah. Thank you. My name is Eric Miller. I represent the project as the architect. I do have a PowerPoint that I think I would like pulled up.

First of all, I wanted to state that we began this project in 2023, and we met Luac in March 2024. And the project was bigger at the time. I think we had a great partner in Luac because they really, love the land as we do, and we spent some time with them to make sure that the house, was not visible from Highway 1 or it got had a reduction in in the exposure. We removed the swimming pool, and we think the impact of the houses because of Luwak's help on this is much less than it would have been. So go ahead to the next one.

So you could see the house in the the middle there. Go to the next one. So the shaded area is the property, and go to the next one. So you can see the existing house, and the green area is the survey. So let's go to the next one. So we're taking out the parts that we can't develop. So we can't develop in the side yard setback. So go to the next one. Can't develop in the hundred year setback. And you can see part of the house existing is in the hundred year setback.

And then she went on, showed we can't develop in that area where the trees are and next. So this is the area we can't develop because of the visibility from Highway 1. And then one more slide. Next one. Yeah. And so that lower part is an area we can't develop because of the coastal bluff. So this this is what we're left with, relative to the new house. So go to the next one. So you see the house is in that gray area, and, is really, no more visible than the existing house. And then to the north of that, you see the garage in a dashed line, and you see the ADU in a dashed line.

The only reason we can build those there is because we push them underground, so you really don't see them from Highway 1. So go to the next one. So this is a section through the buildings. Go to the next slide. So you could see how our back is to the ocean in this in this slide, and you can see the ADU and how much we really pushed it down into the ground.

If you're looking, straight ahead, that's, Highway 1, and behind us is the ocean. So I just wanted the planning commission to see how, how much I worked with, the LUAC to make sure that this was really pushed in. And, Martha, your comment on trees, we tried not to rely on the trees to you know, we wanted a mechanical solution, so we pushed everything down. And you can see from the section, it's eight foot below there, and it's 16 feet below the maximum height than the other one, and that we only were able to achieve that by pushing everything in. So go to the next slide, please.

So this is the natural site, and it's that same section where we just showed the house. And you can see the build the house that's currently there, they did a cut and fill. So they cut on the red area, and they filled on the other area. The natural grade in this area is really 21.26%, and that's where most of the, you know, 30% is. So it's on, man made, man made slopes. So we go to the next one. So this is a video. Might as well play it. I think it's oh, can you go back one? Okay. So, actually yeah. Go back. I thought that video was there. Okay. This is traveling on Highway 1.

This is going north. You could see you don't see anything. The berm itself, keeps you from seeing the house, and you see it for just a fleeting moment as you're driving by. So this is going south on Highway 1. You can see the house. You can see the chimney, when you're coming down, but the new house fits within, that, existing building envelope. So if we go to okay. So this is the slide. So you can see the the house here. I don't have my laser pointer.

It's right there. So we're gonna fade in and fade out. When she goes to the next slide, you see how we're opening up the view shed because we're removing that part, and the new house won't be built back in that location. So can you go back to the house? And then the and show us yeah. That so that's a huge, you know, advantage relative to the views being more natural. So let's go to the next slide. So this is from Kessler Point. You can see the house here, and this is a place where people stop and take pictures. And I spent a lot of time with Luwak in that location.

So can we go to the next slide? So you could see how the, reduction of the visibility of the project really does help, especially from when you're standing there on Kessler Point looking, south. So we go to the next slide. So we also, this area right here, that was what Luwak saw, why we still but we reduced that to load it two feet so we wouldn't see anything because, we had a guardrail on that. And because there's only solar panels behind that, we reduced that height to one foot to hide the solar panel.

So, can we go to the next slide? So that's what you'll see, in the from this location. So that's the proposed house and then back one, and that's the existing house. So we won't see those flags anymore. So let's go to the next slide. So you can see, the building's naturally protected. Here's Highway 1, and this is part of the berm. And, really, the visual subtended angle is, I think, really quite safe. And then we also are doing a living garden in those two areas that show a sloping line. So even when you're in the auto port, you'll see a roof garden.

And you know? So I think it's, we spent a lot of time trying to make sure that this house, fit in that Big Sur area. I grew up down there too, and I appreciate everyone on that that's fighting to keep the keep the visual impact down. So so the next one. So that's that's our presentation.

I have mister Lombardo here to answer any questions. We would like to keep the current fence that's in the application now. The cut fill is all handled in the construction management plan. We're gonna it'll wind up in the dump and marina, but there's a lot of rules behind the construction management, and I I guess we can get into it more if we need to. And we we're not really only relying on a cypress screen as you could see by the drawings. We push the house down into the ground. Any questions?

Who was gonna address the original issue about the postings? You or mister Lombardo?

I'm happy to talk about that. We did post it, and we have photographs of the postings. And I sent one of my employees down this morning when I heard that maybe one of the signs wasn't up. And sure enough, for some reason, someone had removed the sign on the gate, but the other two postings are still there. So we originally had three. When Martha went down, obviously, the one from the fence was gone, so we sent someone down this morning to verify that. And there is a missing posting at the fence, but it was up there when we did the posting. And I was up there recently because I was down there last week, But there's still two up. And I think mister Lombardo looked at the regulation on posting, and I think he could speak to that if he wanted to wanted more information.

Commissioners, any other questions from if not oh, commissioner Deal?

You do know that fence blows down all the time. Right?

Well, we're gonna put new posts in. I thought maybe. So yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. So is that I guess is that it, mister Lombardo, anything to add? Thank you. With that, we're going to continue with the public hearing. Is anybody here in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular item? Seeing nobody in the chambers, is there anybody via Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission?

We have a Brian Clark with his hands up on Zoom. Can go ahead and speak, mister Clark.

Hi. Brian Clark again. Thank you. I've walked that, site line. I've walked that stretch of highway. I've I've looked at it from several several different angles and, look reviewed the plans. So the the, blocking of any site issues, anything to do with the visuals from from one zero one is is a nonissue. So I would ask you to just simply, let them move forward. And a lot of the talk, of course, again, here centered on views from my perspective of looking at it innumerable times given the berm, given the dirt, earthen berm, the the ability of the trees are going excuse me. The cars are going around the curve.

So just paying attention driving, you're not really scanning, the ocean. You're trying to stay on the highway. So I would, say that the applicant's done a fantastic job. View issues and corridors are a nonissue. Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have anybody on Zoom or via emails?

No additional hands up and no additional emails.

Thank you. With that, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and then bring it back to staff if there are any other comments, clarifications.

Yes, chair. Through the chair to commissioner Roberts, I wanted to share the minor edit. Really appreciate that you caught that. Looks like there was just an accidental copy over. So this whole section will these two sentences will be removed. They are a repeat from above, and that will make this a slightly shorter 25 page resolution and also be clearer for reading purposes. Thank you so much.

Thank you. With that, bring it back to the Commission for comments, questions, clarifications. Commissioner Roberts?

Thank you. And thank you, Mrs. Riel, for taking that out. That was wonder I was wondering if that was all that was. And after seeing the applicant's presentation, I was reading the view shed again to see it seems like, except for directly in front of the home, that they've actually removed any construction or any visibility of the home from the lookout point.

And I don't see that written in the findings and evidence. I may have missed it, but to me, that's pretty significant in the intention you know, in the intention of the applicant, I guess.

Sure. Through the chair. Because the staking and flagging is at the level of the existing dwelling, because staff was standing at that turnout and could see the existing dwelling, staff assumes that that portion could be visible through the limbed cypress trees. So for total, it's not required to be made invisible because it's a demo rebuild within the Kaiser Point area. And as Commissioner Deal said, can be followed with some exception to critical viewshed.

But we wanted to put it on the record that we're not state that we're stating that it may be somewhat visible. And that's part of why additional the the replanting of the trees that's required for our tree ordinance are recommended by the arborist and by staff to be covering up that gap so that it will build toward less visibility in the long run.

Thank you.

Commissioner Deal? Unless there's further discussion, I just wanna start by by highlighting the excellent work on the design. I think that in this particular area, we're seeing a lot more of the green roof approach, things that are low, things that are really designed to blend into the landscape coupled with intelligent restoration of environmentally degraded areas. So those seem to me to really carry the spirit of that exemption forward. It's not that it has to be invisible.

It's just that it's got to be better. And we think we are consistently making this little point better in that respect. And I also just wanna highlight not only the design work that started this, but the spirit of collaboration and the work of staff and the LUAC and the community to help the applicant come with the project forward with a project that that I can feel enthusiastic about, and I think that really addresses the vision of the land use plan in the neighborhood. So with the changes, the editorial changes discussed in in this hearing by proposed by commissioner Roberts, I'd like to propose staff's recommendation on this matter.

K. Commissioner Deal has made the motion. We have a second. Commissioner Monsal will second at the motion. Any further comments, questions, clarifications? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, so indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Motion carries unanimously. And so we'll take, what, ten or fifteen minute break. What does ten? Ten? K. We'll take a ten minute break.

We'll be back. Thank you. Congratulations. Start the meeting. And so one, two, three.

I just

Everybody's here late. Yeah. And just for the record, all the commissioners that were here at the beginning of the meeting are present. And so with that, we will move on to item number five, referral 19.01 semiannual report of affordable and workforce housing applications within the county. So staff, please go ahead and make a presentation.

Morning commissioners. Darby Marshall, housing program manager. This is in response to a request from the commission to have a semiannual report on affordable housing and workforce housing. I do wanna point out at the outset that there there are some challenges in the in the county's permitting system. So I typically have focused only on files that originate on the planning side.

So if there is, for example, a duplex or a a fourplex that meets all the requirements and doesn't need a planning permit because, say, it's in Castroville, I may miss it because it's a building permit, and we're not it's much harder to track those. So I focus on the planning side primarily. Today, we're here to receive an update on proposals, applications that we have received since April or changes in application statuses since April. The only thing that has really changed is we had some builders' remedy projects that expired because they did not submit the required documentation within a hundred and eighty days. But we do expect them to be resubmitted at some point as long as the county is is subject to the builders' remedy requirements.

PLN 25020255 is new. It's a 24 moderate unit all affordable project in Carmel Valley. This is a project that is in replacing it was like a an 11,000 square foot single family home with an ADU and a j ADU. I'm not sure. I'm it's in the process.

They have applied because it's all affordable. It's it it could go very quickly, but I'll have to defer to to the folks with the actual planning background on that. While I was working through the list, I did come across PLN zero seven zero one nine two where the project approvals had actually expired back in June 2017. So we have removed that because they had not been working to clear conditions of approval. Also not on here are PLN 240344, PLN 250004, and 0005.

These three builders' remedy projects are all proposed for the same parcel. And so the applicant putting them on grossly inflates the pipeline, but they will result in somewhere between seventy five and two hundred units with 20% of them being moderate income affordable under the builder's remedy. We did find some errors, and and we do need some to do some cleanup. It it's always challenging to track these because, especially in this county where the vast majority of our projects are are what I call finished lot custom subdivisions. And so Santa Lucia Preserve, Rancho Kenyatta or, excuse me, Montero Ranch, Pasadera, where the the commission and the board will approve a fixed number of parcels, and then the developer will go out and do the the horizontal infrastructure and then, over time, sell lots.

It can be very challenging to figure out what is still available in the above market pipeline. And we typically have to just go through real estate listings because, again, there's nuances in what happens when you do a subdivision that make things challenging to track when the planning commissioner, the board approves a a project on a subdivision that may have had one AP assessor parcel number, and all of a sudden, there are now, 50 or 75 parcels, there's not a clear link back to that original approval. So it gets to be challenging, and we have to we do our best. There are going to be some changes to how what we have to report in the in the next few years. The biggest one that you will notice, and it is probably going to be of greatest concern to you is the state is now requiring our annual housing element annual progress report to report on acutely low and extremely low.

These are very difficult to serve and very expensive units because not only do you typically have the development cost associated with them, but you typically also have to have some kind of social services to help integrate these folks back into housing, and developing the life skills to remain in with independent living. We're also going to have to start reporting, when a unit has some kind of a historic resource designation and what it may have been. So that's going to be a a very challenging thing to capture because as we saw with the last project, you know, you have to do an independent archaeological survey of of the property to determine if it is historic, or we have to figure out how to digitize all of our historic records and tie them to APNs and generate them as auto reports. Otherwise, it's, again, going through manual records. And then last, starting in the seventh housing cycle, so this is, still about six years away.

We're going to have to start looking at where projects are, in regard to what the tax credit allocation committee calls, opportunity, zone designations. And, basically, what this is, the tax credit allocation committee issues what are called tax credits to affordable housing developers, primarily multifamily rental. And they give you bonus points if you are in what's called a high opportunity area. In Monterey County, that would be Pebble Beach, the mouth of Carmel Valley, Carmel Valley. Pretty much everything else is a moderate or a low opportunity area.

It's a a function of household income, education, educational attainment, and job classification that's all put together by the census. And then the the state tax credit committee kinda looks at amalgamates it into what they where they wanna see affordable housing go and prioritize it. And with that, that the last one that I have is back in April, we did tell you about the apartments at Laguna Seca right there at York Road. They have since pulled a building permit and have started their horizontal work, so that project is moving. That's the one per construction project I can tell you is moving right now.

And with that, staff is available for questions. Thank you.

K. Thank you. With that, I bring it back to the commission for any questions. Commissioner Deal?

Thank you. I I really appreciate that we are going through this exercise, and the one thing I think we could well, a couple of things. The one thing I would really like to focus on is can you share anything that could be done to make it easier to track whether people are completing you know, where we are and and and all these projects? I mean, you've outlined a huge difficulty in figuring out what we're doing. Is there anything that we could do to support changes to make it easier to track?

Through the chair, I'm I'm working on it. I'm I'm trying. I can tell you that one of the things that I did is I I've gone through planning commission, zoning administrator, design approval meet boards to look at projects that single family projects. And I can tell you I can ferret out the planning area. I can tell you how many accessory dwelling units, the average size, how many single family homes in the average size. I wanna say we had

working through.

My staffer put disappeared. We had, like, 10 ADUs concentrated, and I wanna say it was, like, five planning areas this year at an average of, like, 957 square feet. So they're not huge, but they're also concentrated in Greater Monterey Peninsula and Permanent Valley. We we are looking at how we the how to digit how to to make the the link between planning files in our in the computer system linked to two building permits. And if we can ever get that straightened out, because they're essentially two separate systems that don't necessarily talk to each other, and have different underlying parcels where they're they're built or approved for.

So you have to have a a crosswalk that says, this is what was approved, APN one, and APN one created APNs two through 20. So I'm I'm trying to work with our our seller gurus to figure out how we do that.

If I may just add through the chair. I think some of the take home is that we are limited by technology and the staffing ferroding that has to happen to develop these reports is challenging. We, as a department as a whole, are trying to work with improving our utilization and functionality of the software that we utilize to help address some of these issues. One of the direct ways in where there's opportunity is just many of these items require resources to have our underlying consultant with the technology providers actually make those updates and functionality. So on occasion, one of the direct ways is just supporting any improvements we're trying to make to our technologies that would help streamline reporting.

And this is critical because with the housing element implementation, with all of the new state law, we're moving more and more towards ministerial approval of items, which makes it that much difficult when there's not always a planning nexus with it. So I think that's just a little more directly one way in which just continuously supporting when and where we need some technological advances to and or just the funds to make that functionality active would be helpful.

Commissioner Adeel? If I

could just follow-up by saying I don't know anybody who feels that Acela serves them. Anybody at all. I think the average hotel website is better suited to actually being accessible, useful, be able to be modified in a way where you could tag an approval and have a way to try to trace it all the way through. I mean, that just is like a spreadsheet. You know?

If you have a tag that says use this, it goes into populates everything all along. And the fact that we are using software and fighting with software that won't do that is an underlying problem that I'm gonna continue to raise at every opportunity. I think it's not the software that we need, and I'm not sure there's any chance that it could be made that way. And the more we we rely on it for transparency to the public, the less transparent we are because it is not intuitive and accessible. And it's not updated because it's too complicated to do that.

So I really feel for for this, but I I think it is is as miss Baretti said, it's it's utterly critical that we are able to track. And that goes down to my fundamental issue here, which is when we look at the pipeline project, we see projects in, I'm looking now at the at the the big sheet, the pipeline sheet. We see projects where we have applications, that have been completed and the entitlements have been granted, and it says active construction, and the date is 1997 and 2002 and 1995 and 2004 and 2005. And it is unclear to me I mean, a good example here would be the Post Ranch employee housing, which talks about 24 employer sponsored units. Are those in existence?

And if they are not in existence, what mechanisms do we have to go back and pick up the things that are intuitively, obviously, due and not apparently completed?

Post Ranch is a is a a good example of one of our challenges. I believe that they have all been built at different times. Because this project is goes back so far and the requirement was put in place, I believe, in in 2010 or 2012, When we were not capturing that data, it's harder for us to go through the Acela system because we never captured it in the first place. And then we capture I don't wanna say it was 2015 when when Post Ranch built 24 units of employer sponsored housing on-site. And we do have an agreement, but we've never pinned down where the other two units are because they owed us, I believe, was four.

And we've confirmed that they built as them all, but we have never pinned down which four units are are burdened by the county's inclusionary housing agreement. So we that's just something that we need to go back and clean up and try to figure out.

Through the chair, though, those are not planned units then. They're existing units that we can go down and look at. So you can actually count the units. So as it looks as a pipeline is concerned, it wouldn't qualify, I would think.

Again, it's a matter of us having the time and the resources to go back and and verify that they did in fact build all of the employer sponsored housing units. And we we again, because of when they did it, we were not tracking it. And so what I have found is it appears that they may still owe to, and it's a matter of time and resources to go back and and clean the data up and scrub it. And that's and and I and that's one of the things I pointed out. We have found data errors just because we try to scrub things.

And sometimes even during the scrubbing, you end up making mistakes. And so it's it's not something I really wanna hang a hat on and say that it is a 100% accurate, I I would give it probably 75% confidence that it's accurate. But we're I with with the resources that we have, it's about the best that we're gonna be able to do at this time.

Through the chair. I I honestly gotta say it sounds like it'd be a whole lot easier to go down and count them than worry about your computer system. And the ones that are existent currently would not qualify as pipeline. So they're not gonna be something that colors our understanding of what we are expecting to do in the future if it's something that's already there. Is the same thing true with the San Luis Obispo?

San Jose Preserve. So you'll you'll note on San Jose Preserve that there are about 68 above market rate lots left. They have no outstanding inclusionary units due. In December they're all blending together. I it was either December 2023 or December 2024.

The board amended the inclusionary housing agreement with, Santa Lucia Preserve to eliminate the on-site requirement, in lieu of a payment of $4,000,000 that was to come from the sale of the former inclusionary parcels. To date, we have not received any money.

And,

we we don't have a way to verify other than calling San Lucia Preserve and and running title reports to verify that no lots have been sold. So they do as far as I know, they still have about 65, 68 above market rate lots to sell, but they have no affordable lots. I think that what's what's more concerning is the only true multifamily projects that we're seeing right now are builders' remedy projects. And and these multifamily projects are extremely few and far between in in the unincorporated areas. So when we're when we're talking about a couple of units at Post Ranch, it's it's not really gonna move the needle either way.

It's we're not seeing the kinds of projects in the unincorporated area that would yield affordable housing. And another example would be Gonzales is currently going before getting ready to go to LAPCO for their Vista Lucia subdivision and annexation. That's gonna be a a 3,000 unit project that will not be built out anytime soon. They're that's they're talking about a 100 units a year of absorption. So that's a thirty year build out for 3,000 units.

And if we look at the city Of Salinas future growth areas where the city has already done extensive community planning for for how many units and the types of units and the amenities that are gonna be required, they're still looking at twenty five or thirty year build outs on projects on on properties that the city studied and and rezoned ten or fifteen years ago. That to me is the concern with the pipeline is how long how few of the projects are coming through. And even in areas where we have a lot of capacity for residential development, how long it's slated to take. And that's a a function of the cost, the economy, labor availability. But to me, that's the real issue with the pipeline is it's not these individual projects.

It's this larger issue of in Monterey County, we just don't see a lot of them. And in the cities where they have the capacity, they're they're not looking at quick development turnaround.

Great. If I may, through the chair, augment on a couple of those. One thing I am hearing is in terms of some of these at least one or two of the pipelines where our numbers, the way they're tracked because of the data issue, where they're large chunk numbers, I think maybe we can add clarification in that data and kind of a difference between built but pending verification as opposed to truly unbuilt for those large ones. I think that's probably something we can can readily do. I think one thing also just in terms of trying to improve our tracking of units over time.

Today at the Measure AA Committee meeting, which is looking at allocating funding to help from the Measure AA, it's at noon today. In that meeting, one of our Housing Community Development departmental requests is to get housing software that will help with our tracking of affordable units. So we are looking at it. So there's a few kind of fairly simple things. I think as Mr.

Marshall is saying, this larger issue of getting entitled projects that take decades to move the needle and get built, that is more largely a market issue that that we've tried to understand. And some of the the way some of the kind of more immediate ways in which staff we are trying to look at helping to move that needle, especially as we're looking at builder remedy where, you know, laws making it that much easier for you to get these projects entitled. But there aren't necessarily hooks requiring construction within a timeline. One area is, for example, in the water allocation policy. This did come up where we are trying to look at where we may have some policy triggers or discretionary ability to tie and incentivize quicker turnaround timing on those affordable units in particular linked to some of these approvals.

It's not a Pandora's box, but those are a couple of the tangible ways and where staff's looking at where we do have some of these opportunities to try to tip the needle a little bit. And I think one thing the board has given direction through kind of our the conversation around trying to update our inclusionary housing ordinance where that keeps coming back around to is that's only one piece in the puzzle. And really what it is looking at and this is something that the department and Darby, perhaps you can speak to it is looking at more importantly is how do we amend a more comprehensive affordable housing program? Like what are those key facets of our overall affordable housing program? There had been some direction, Darby, to potentially bring on a consultant to look at providing support for some of that.

I don't know the status, but perhaps you could speak a little bit to what because that's that's kind of right now separate from housing element implementation, which we also hope will make some of the especially the affordability become quicker, easier by right to some level. But I think if you could speak just briefly to kind of that overall effort and kind of timing that's expected to help get at some of these bigger questions with an overall look at our affordable housing program. There

is mixed interest, I guess, from the board on developing a more comprehensive approach to affordable housing. We did have a proposed consultant scope of work that the board was not interested in at the June, but they have redirected us to go out and start considering it. A huge piece of it in my mind is how do we approach it not as Monterey County unincorporated, but as Monterey County with all 13 land use jurisdictions. The the sad reality is is most of these multifamily projects, once you get outside of places like Castroville, maybe Chular, if they can solve some of their wastewater and their water issues or other already developed communities that have horizontal infrastructure in place. Unincorporated areas not adjacent to a city or one

of these

communities, it's cost prohibitive to build much housing just because you have to drag infrastructure, water and sewer primarily. So we

are I'm

still lobbying board. We really need to take a a regional look at this. We do hope to have a consultant on board, have better direction, have a consultant selected, and then try and have something by the end of next calendar year, certainly no later than the the 2027. We are sitting down with all five members of the board to get their views on affordable housing and what needs what the priorities need to be in looking at how we amend the inclusionary housing ordinance. I know that some of the supervisors are are very clear.

It's just how do we increase the velocity of housing construction and especially of affordable housing. For others, there is now the question of what affordable housing do we want to target? Are we talking about the traditional affordable housing, which is less than 80% AMI, and that's where most of the state and federal grant funds are available to fund it? Or are we looking at what's called the missing middle, which is 80% to a 170% AMI? And and it's a very different type of product that and that's where you start to see some of your opportunities for affordable by design to come in.

So we are working on that. And like I said, I'm hoping to have something wrapped up by the end of next calendar year or the 2027.

Okay. Commissioner Hartzell?

I've heard water mentioned twice, and I'm wondering if you can tie what's a potential affordable program to the water allocation policy we saw last meeting to maybe even the water allocation mentioned by the Rancho Kenyatta folks. Just kind of help me understand how that all might tie together or might even tie together into a program or a process for requesting concessions or how does it all fit?

I don't know if I can answer how it all fits. I will do my best to kind of take a stab. Is so one of because water is a limited resource, and in particular in the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District area, which is also happens to correspond with our highest resource areas in the county, which happens to correspond with where we are trying to, in particular, achieve greater, permanently furthering fair housing and affordability for folks who are working in those areas. There's a lot of policy, including state law, that there's state law housing element policy that also directs jurisdictions to prioritize affordable housing for water allocations. So there is a nexus nexus in a lot of what's coming, I guess what I would say, from the state to help and leverage and direct kind of the requirement that there's some prioritization for affordable housing to get and obtain those water when water is available.

And because water is a limited resource, that is you know, we don't have unlimited allocations, so that is very directly a part of our conversation. Some of and and this is something which we took as a key take home staff from bringing our water allocation policy forward. So water allocation policy would apply to new water that has not yet been committed to a project. So that is separate from, say, a project and a property that has right to water that is looking to redirect it. So those are kind of two separate things.

That's more of a private level. And we can work individually with that at that private level for how to prioritize the redirection of that water if it's made available versus kind of a general allocation. So definitely one of our key outcomes that we are looking at for our water allocation policy is to put in some criteria that will help ensure affordability and affordable projects. What that exactly looks like is going to depend. And and back to so so that's kind of just the the broad context that we're working in and where we're aware we don't quite know how to do it yet, where that's a part of the developing the draft.

And, you know, because if you say we want to prioritize affordable units, well, we have an inclusionary housing requirement. And most builder and any builder's remedy, all projects essentially are coming in and having to satisfy some level of affordable housing along with all of the market rate housing. So how we balance how much of the water goes just to the affordable housing and how much do we need to provide water for the rest of developments to help get that construction, that'll be really key to make clear in that policy to help ensure that we get that affordable housing and that gets built sooner than later. I don't know if it answers your question, but that's sort of the overarching. Also, when we have surplus lands, occasionally there's water allocation that comes along with surplus lands.

Also looking at, for example, the, you know, some state entities have water associated with lands that they may be looking to dispose of. So it all comes to having an overarching policy of trying to get that water and prioritizing it in the different venues that we have to do that. So I don't know if that answers, but that's generally the context that we're operating in. And I don't know, Darby, you have anything that you wanna add there? Thank you.

Commissioner Deal? Thank you. There's a lot of moving parts. But I was thinking when was things we could do here, I look at projects that have come over the many years that have had affordable housing requirement components, and we move forward to something like the more recent approval of September Ranch where we were clear and East Garrison's a good example, where we are clear on the phasing of when you have to have the affordable component completed in the progress, and it was more aggressive than it had been in the past. It wasn't like when you finish selling all the all the lots, then maybe we can talk about it.

It was before you get to do x number of market rate locks, then you have to have the affordable component completed. I think we've been doing better at that, but that's a a specific way that when we have the opportunity, the planning commission could be on the alert to assist the staff and and being clear about that kind of requirement. Right? Isn't that something I know we've improved that over time.

Yes. We have improved it over time, And and I have heard from some of the supervisors that they would really like to see us be much more aggressive in in having the affordable units pushed to the front of the production line. So that's something that we will look at. East Garrison is, by the way, a very interesting case study in what a large project's capacity is. Right now, the last time I checked, the the affordable units up to 80% AMI in East Garrison had to do a I think it was a 188 of them.

And two thirds of them have been built at no cost to the developer. They they were sufficiently sized that they could flip a five acre lot to Mid Peninsula Housing and Chispa and rely on those two nonprofits to go out and do the fundraising to construct those units to the tune of a I think it was, like, 57,000,000 for both projects to be built. And that comes back to that's money that the developer didn't have to raise and costs that the developer did not have to pass on to homeowners, which keeps the the rest of the units marginally more affordable be because the the nonprofit was able to do the fundraising. But we just don't see a lot of projects that have the capacity to spin off enough affordable units that a nonprofit could step in and do that. That's one challenge that we do see.

If I could, mister chair, to to follow-up on that, you keep coming back to the fundamental question in front of the county planning commission, which is that and and I agree with you. Most of the unincorporated county is not an appropriate place for affordable housing construction. It's not designed for it. It lacks the infrastructure. It's not near where people need to be.

That's not what the unincorporated county is about, with some exceptions. And the general plan process that we went through over decades was really quite clear on where in the county was unincorporated but was more developed. And that goes back to my absolutely boring and continually consistent discussion of community plans and community planning documents where every community area needs a community plan, which talks about the development of infrastructure and streamlines the development of housing so that each project isn't saddled with individual infrastructure planning requirements. It clears the way for it where we do want it. Those community areas I mean, and we talk about Chularg, Castroville, we talk about Pajaro.

Buranda is sort of more related to the city of Salinas, I think, than anything else. But we talk about those, but we also don't talk about that. Once we finish that, we have some rural centers we designated where we have the potential. There's some employment. There's some infrastructure.

There's the possibility that we could move to those. But we can't get past step one. We can't get our community areas and we can't do two things at once because we're under resourced. But we need to I think, as the planning commission, maybe our role is not as yours is to look at the projects themselves and how they have to be financed because, because, I I mean, I've got to say I get hit over the head with the market every time we turn around here, except when it works the other way. But we talk about how to how to clear planning pipe you know, the pipeline is about planning.

We talk about clearing the path, about about making the opening the door, making the the the way clear so that the kind of housing that we need is the easiest to move forward with. Right now, it's probably easier to build them. We saw just recently in outside of Monterey. It's easier to build a, god, 10,000 square foot house than it is to use that same lot next to the city to build something that would house more than one family. And so it's it's easier, and it's more profitable.

So what I'm asking when I ask the question of how can we help, because I'm really focused on not making somebody bring us a report for no reason. It's like, so what is it that we could do here? My current list of things is just to really advocate strongly for that overall planning effort to try to get the process for community plants moving so we can build the housing that we need where we need it and to continue to remember that we have the opportunity for rural centers as well. If we have to wait, we have to wait, but there's no reason if we were talking about how to allocate resources. So that couldn't go on the list of things to help make it possible to build some more of the kinds of housing that we want in places we want it rather than to incentivize building the kind of housing that we don't have a shortage of here, which is the extremely large high end market rate housing.

We if you have enough money, there's a place to for you to buy a house in Monterey County. It's just a question of whether you have enough money. So I'm trying to be really clear about what I'm looking for

is that where can the planning commission be of use besides just to sit around and make people come with a report? So if I may, I would really like to emphasize staff's hope to get really good policy guidance and support from the commission as we are bringing forward our rezones, our implementing policies for our housing element, especially and in particularly as those policies relate to clearing the way for opportunity sites and clearing the way for projects that meet certain affordability thresholds. And to help us get those policies and implementing programs and regulations in place sooner than later, I think that is where we as staff are looking to try to prioritize. I mean, we have a huge implementation program for our housing element. We are trying to look at how do we prioritize what needs to be done in order to achieve these outcomes.

But many of those will be individual policies and individual ordinances that will be coming forward. So really over the next months to year, the Planning Commission is going to have a real opportunity to help directed support staff and kind of help relay things from kind of workshop Planning Commission recommendation to the board to get put in place to help achieve some of those focus. That I think really is going to be one of the most effective measures that we can do and that will be and implementing policies and programs that will be coming before you all. So I will make that direct plug. And I think also helping to helping there will be it's a very new playing field to allow things ministerially while still putting in some policies and regulations that protect the key resource issues that we do need to protect.

So I'll just stop there, but that's one very tangible area. And I think in as much as we can help now that we're getting further once we have our housing element and programs laid out, one thing I would like to do is have just a discussion workshop with the Planning Commission of what to expect over the coming year with regard to housing element implementation. That is another thing we are actually asking for Measure A funds to put funding in place to try to bring in a consultant who can work really closely with staff and try to bulk our housing element implementation to get those targeted added resources for that. So that is one really tangible area. And as much as also letting us know how we can better prepare you for what might be coming so that then when those items are before you, it it's not as novel and, you know, you it still needs to have its fair hearing.

So we would like I actually would like some input on that. As you all know, some of you who were here with general plan implementation know kind of some of the back and forth that can happen. And so I think helping us prepare to be most effective when we're bringing that forward to the commission and ultimately for recommendation to the board is also helpful to staff.

Commissioner Adeel?

Thank you. That's exciting. But does am I hearing this as you should let go of the community planning process because we're going to do it based on recognized opportunity sites instead? I mean, do we need to not be doing both so that we can focus on one or the other?

What you are hearing is we absolutely, to stay in compliance with state law and not fall back out of compliance upon getting through the housing element, we absolutely are prioritizing and it will take a substantial chunk of time from staff to implement our housing element. We included in our housing element programs the importance of getting certain community plan getting community plans in place. So it's not supplanting it. What you are hearing, though, is we have a significant bulk of very large planning efforts that are underway right now. And staff's ability to start, say, another new community plan, along with a large effort to implement housing element, there is going to be just a very real capacity issue for these larger community planning efforts.

And so we are trying to really stay focused and push forward what we have on our plate and keep that moving effectively. So it's not derailing, it's not to replace it. But it is you are hearing correctly, like, recognizing that housing element implementation is gonna take a huge amount of effort. It's gonna do a lot and go a long way, but it isn't gonna replace community planning. But for achieving housing, at least for that for those areas and the thoughts, and will help with housing in some of the communities. That'll be key. And my hope is that if we can get consulting resources on board, you still need a substantial amount of staff time even if you have consultants. It's it's our policies. It's our communities. It's our regulations.

So it doesn't make the staff effort go away, but it does really help taking a lion's share. So no. So it doesn't replace it, but it it is recognizing. And that'll be a part of our conversation of when we come forward with our overall long range work plan and general plan implementation, we'll be super clear about. Here's where we're at.

Here's what our priorities have been. Here's what they continue to be. Where does all of this housing element implementation fit in? And then but it's more related to clarity for when we would have realistic capacity to initiate another large planning document because that is one thing we as staff don't want to initiate with any of our communities unless we can continue to stay focused and get it done, because we have done a disservice to communities in the past for that.

Any other commissioners? With that, I'm going to go ahead and open it for public comment. Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to address the commission on this particular item five? Seeing none, is there anybody in Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission?

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

So with that, thank you for the discussion and the information. With that, we move on to referrals. And so referrals, that's Planning Commission referrals.

Yeah. Thank you. I wanna just I wanna remind so attached as exhibit a to the referral item in the in the agenda is the actual referral matrix. So again, I do updates where I try to bold any text or updates that are new for your attention. One thing that I would like to highlight for the commission that I am wanting to do between now and into the first part of next year is for a number of we've discussed for a number of these referrals how kind of the intended outcome, and therefore how we frame them and what we bring forward.

It isn't as clearly articulated here. And so one thing I did want to flag for the commission is, for a few of these, I am wanting to I will look to reach out individually, to the commissioners who are the ref who have made the referral to help work with me to kind of refine the language around the referral and a little better clarity on what the expectation is going forward for kind of helping staff to prepare for what we want to bring forward. We've done it verbally, and I have the notes. I really want to get that incorporated. I'll do my best to I don't know that I'll get that fully between now and the next time you see the referral matrix, but please know.

And if I do reach out to you, I actually it'd probably be easier just to have a conversation for it so I can get that. With that, just any questions, comments that you all have or anything related to the referrals and the referral metrics, please let me know. I'm here and available.

Any questions, comments from the commission? Seeing none, gonna go ahead and open it for public comment. Anybody in the chambers that would like to address this particular item? Seeing none, anybody on Zoom or via emails that would like to address particular Planning Commission referrals?

No hands up on Zoom and no additional emails.

Thank you. With that, we move on to department report. Oh, sorry. Department report.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay. I have a couple of items. One, I just want to remind the commission and the public that the County Of Monterey has its eco recess that comes up through the holidays and New Year.

During that time, the county is closed with exception of certain key critical health, life, safety operations. So please know that eco recess for housing and community development will commence December 23 through Thursday, January 1, with the first day back for business on Friday, January 2. And the numerous other county departments, Certainly, officially, the holidays and eco recess is December 24 through January 1. Also, I wanted to just remind the Commission and the public that on December 19 is the effective date at which the new coastal accessory dwelling unit regulations become effective. Staff is actively working on developing templates, forms, etcetera, to help support the public with those.

So just be advised it's coming. And we do look forward to, after the first of the year, holding a broad public webinar to understand those regulations. We're focusing on internal preparation right now for those coming forward. Additionally, just a reminder to the Commission and the public that on December 24 is the compliance date for coming into compliance with the new effective vacation rental regulations effective in the coastal zone. Also, I wanted to take this opportunity to play a couple of items.

My handwriting is awful. One, just noting coming forward in January, we are looking to bring an update to our land use fees. They will look substantially different from what they look now. We brought in a consultant to really go through. Those will be going directly to the board, but it certainly impacts all involved with processing and and moving forward land use items.

So just an information heads up on that. One item that I would like to request some thoughts if you have any initially. I've been working with our planning managers, and we for planning year round, we have constant hearings, constant hearing bodies. There really is no kind of break, especially for our planning managers, from being in that constant review of reports. One thing that we have been considering and we wish to bring forward to the Commission as well as the zoning administrator and myself as chief for administrative permits, is if we can potentially identify a window that perhaps corresponds with when the board goes dark during the summer.

It's been three weeks to a month in typically around the July to August area. That's a very nice break because there's no need to manage hearings. Our entire operation is really impacted. And if we could core and there tends to be, with vacations and all, kind of lower volume that moves. So basically, this is something we're looking into that we might want to pilot in the next year to see how it could work. And so I just wanted to get any feedback or input or concerns that you all may have. We our goal would be we would bring something forward as sort of two alternative potential calendars for you to consider along those lines. But any thoughts or concerns or or yay. Please do it. We like the break too.

Anything that you have would be grateful at this time while we consider that.

Thank you. Commissioner Deal? I do have a question, which is, are what is our planning backlog looking like? What's the prototypical processing time for people? Because normally, those are the public comments that I receive or how long stuff takes.

So if there's a how are we doing? We've seen light agendas at the planning commission all year. Mhmm. And I know that there are projects that have been in the pipeline or working for a very long time. So this kind of a proposal, if it came forward, I I would I would hope it would come with some recognition of that issue and how it could help address it rather than, oh, we just want to take more time off. That's going to be hard for the public to stomach.

Yeah. Thank you for that. Yeah. We one of the reasons why more items haven't been coming to the Planning Commission is because we have a number of more kind of junior staff. We've had new hires and typically we've really increased our volume to administrative permits, to zoning administration, but you're not necessarily seeing that volume increase.

So for projects that come before the Planning Commission, we do still have a backlog. And those often are managed at the more senior level of which we are we that backlog is pretty consistent at this time because of staffing deficiencies. So I appreciate that input because I do that will be important and I do want to present it's not just for that break. It is also for us to be able to focus some of that break time on certain processes and things that we can do internally to help improve our overall processes and timing for moving things forward. So I appreciate that comment, and we'll make sure to be prepared to discuss in the full context, not just we want a break, do you want a break?

Because that's not the intention of it. It's break that so that we can focus on things that will help also improve operations. So thank you.

Any other commissioners? Case. Commissioner Hartzell?

Very quickly, I have really liked having the projects that we see at each meeting grouped by geographical area or planner. Just wanted to offer that in calendar creation that that's been useful for me in thinking about how we do things.

Can you clarify that? Because we don't intentionally do geographic area clumping, so can you clarify for me what is actually helpful in the event that we can be

mindful of? Maybe it's because they're all in District 5, but maybe it was but you're grouping by planner, like the main planners that are coming into the meetings. There seemed to be, like halfway through the year, there was seemed to be a reorganization of how the projects were being considered.

No?

I think that there wasn't anything most so let me just take a step back. What is planned in coming forward to the commission is more dependent on project and staffing timing and kind of capacity of when is staff ready to bring it forward. That's that's kind of what's coming to you when. In terms of specific agendas, I do try to work with the secretary team for organizing individual agendas. Generally, if something was continued, we try to allow those to go first since they've already been heard.

Items that we expect are going to be more controversial, we try to put those later in the agenda so that others so that there can be more time for the discussion and not derail. We don't always know. And then of course with policies, depending on what that policy discussion is, whether we recommend putting it in the afternoon or later versus having it first off, whatever's kind of more beneficial for your input in the public. So that's actually the criteria we use. So I think whatever you're observing may have been unintentional. But again, if there's some element of what is helpful or feels helpful to you that we can be mindful of, I'm happy to. I'm also glad that it feels organized to you.

Yeah. It feels organized and helpful in, you know, reading the land use plans, but, you know, I'll do it anyway.

Okay. Perfect. Okay. So let me just finish my note. So bring forward the

off

time with

Any other commissioners?

I do have one more department report, and it does relate as well to future agendas. I did and also a little bit of thoughts for feedback. So we have a number of items that are moving with our long range work program. Yay. We are really trying to push some items that have been in admin draft and draft forward out to get to public draft that haven't come before the commission or are returning to the commission.

So with that, just as a heads up, we will have we're in 2026, we will have a draft environmental justice element. That is a brand new element that does not exist with the county. We are looking to schedule a workshop here at the Planning Commission when that is available for public comment for your consideration and for the public's discussion. We also have some implementing policies that are coming forward. We've been kind of in the background with consultants updating our SMARA, which is surface mining and reclamation ordinances to be in compliance with state law.

Not anything on necessarily on people's radar, but important, and that's been happening. So that 'll be coming forward. We're getting there, it's almost there. And then we're also looking at bringing forward the agricultural wine corridor implementation in zoning along with the consideration of creating a zoning clearance or a ministerial approval process, because we don't have one of those currently. That process will actually be important to have in place, especially with much of the housing element that and state law implementing policies and regulations that require ministerial approvals for things that are planning, not building processes.

So just a heads up, those are coming forward. One of the questions I have for you for something for something that we anticipate a lot of public interest or the importance of having that in the past and often what we would our preference is that we plan on having a full morning with then scheduling the item for the afternoon to ensure that the public knows when to show up and they aren't having to sit through a couple of hours of other items. Another way in which we've done that is we can schedule that first thing, those types of hearings and workshop first things. Then individual applicants do need to wait, but for the public it's better. And so I think I just wanted some input from you all just as we're thinking of putting getting those on placeholders coming after the first of the year.

If you have thoughts or preference or just general considerations for us moving that forward or just work with the chair when you have individual items. Just wanted the opportunity to get your feedback.

Any commissioners? Commissioner Deal?

Yeah. I have appreciated the workshops first thing in the morning with a time certain close. I thought that that really helped everybody know when to be where and what we were gonna do. And in the event that we didn't finish within that time, we could do another one. I I thought that was so far the most useful management style that I've seen.

Thank you. Any other commissioners? Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and have a public comment if anybody in the chambers would like to address the commission on the department report. Seeing none, do we have anybody on Zoom or via emails that would like to address the commission and the department reports?

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

Thank you. With that, I wish everybody have a happy holidays, merry Christmas, and a happy New Year until we see each other again next year. And with that, this meeting is now adjourned at 11:36.