Monterey County planners, LUAC members press for clearer site-visit, notification and ADU rules

The Monterey County Planning Commission and representatives from the county's Land Use Advisory Committees (LUACs) met Jan. 29 to review recurring problems that volunteers and planners say have impaired neighborhood review of projects, and to receive training on public-meeting rules.

Commissioners, LUAC members and county staff focused most heavily on three operational problems: arranging reliable site visits (especially for gated properties), ensuring LUACs receive consistent notice and follow-up about projects after they submit recommendations, and confusion about new state and county rules for accessory dwelling units and short-term rentals. County staff and county counsel promised follow-up work and procedural clarifications rather than making any regulatory changes at the meeting.

Why it matters: LUAC recommendations are an early source of local information used by planning staff and the commission. Members said gaps in access to sites, inconsistent project descriptions and weak post-review feedback limit the committees' ability to identify neighborhood impacts and provide usable input — problems that can affect later planning‑commission decisions.

Commissioner Diehl opened the item by stressing how commissioners use LUAC minutes as “a first pass” when evaluating projects and urged committee secretaries to record concerns carefully. LUAC members from Big Sur, Carmel Valley, Del Monte Forest, North County, South Coast, Castroville, Toro, South County and others then each listed up to three issues from the past year.

Site visits and access

Big Sur LUAC member Steve Beck said his committee “request[s] site visits for pretty much everything that we do,” and that difficulty obtaining access to gated properties or timely site visits has forced rescheduling and hampered review. Carmel Highlands members and Toro LUAC representatives made similar complaints: planners sometimes schedule site visits immediately before meetings, making it hard for members to view the property and return in time for the on‑record discussion.

Planning staff acknowledged those problems. Melanie Spiretti, identified in the meeting as chief of planning, said staff will revisit procedures for arranging site visits, including when applicants own gated properties and when visits must be agendized so the public can attend. County counsel Robert Breyer clarified that agendized site visits that are open to the public and posted with the Brown Act notice do not themselves violate open‑meeting rules; unagendized private meetings with applicants increase the risk of appearance‑of‑bias and should be avoided.

Notice, project changes and feedback

Several LUACs said they received project referrals late or never saw subsequent changes. Leslie Noble (North County LUAC) described a project that arrived with one scope and later was substantially amended — she said the final proposal before the planning commission permitted twice the number of events her LUAC had evaluated. Carmel Valley members noted inconsistent project descriptions and a recent case where a short‑term‑rental fee was reduced, which they said created community concern.

Spiretti told attendees that the department follows Resolution No. 15‑103 (the board resolution that governs referral guidelines) and the county's adopted procedures for LUAC referrals. She promised to review specific cases raised at the meeting and to work with planners to ensure LUACs are added to interested‑party lists so volunteers receive follow‑up notices when projects move to hearing bodies.

ADUs, short‑term rentals and parking

Discussion of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and short‑term rentals (STRs) drew technical clarifications. Spiretti said recent state housing law changes and the county's updated local coastal rules have created confusion, especially in the coastal zone where Coastal Commission certification is required. She said the county had prepared updated coastal regulations for ADUs and planned to present them to the Board of Supervisors before sending them to the California Coastal Commission for certification.

At the meeting, Commissioner Diehl stated that ADUs may not be used as vacation rentals under county rules. Spiretti added that state law limits local parking requirements for ADUs in many cases, but the county's coastal regulations map a limited set of coastal areas where parking can still be required to avoid interfering with coastal access.

LUAC membership, outreach and area plans

Multiple LUACs reported low membership and slow appointment processing. South Coast and Del Monte Forest members asked for clearer guidance on how prospective LUAC volunteers are vetted and appointed; Spiretti said staff is refining the appointment materials and the Planning Commission liaison process to reduce lag time. Several speakers raised concerns about the 2010 General Plan update and how some area‑plan material was consolidated into the countywide general plan text; Commissioner Diehl and staff said that consolidation was discussed publicly during the 2010 update and was intended to reduce duplication and clarify which rules apply countywide vs. locally.

Other issues raised

- Plantings and view obstruction: Big Sur representatives said planted trees and invasive species (for example pampas grass) planted along Highway 1 are increasingly blocking views that the Big Sur Land Use Plan had intended to preserve. - Fire safety and home hardening: Del Monte Forest members urged consideration of incentives and procedural changes to speed defensible‑space and hazardous‑tree removals in high‑risk areas. - Enforcement and compliance: Members asked how to report suspected unpermitted commercial activity; staff said those reports go to code compliance and can be tracked through the county’s enforcement process, which may take time because it follows due‑process steps.

What the county said it will do next

Staff and county counsel did not adopt new rules at the meeting but offered multiple follow‑up commitments. Spiretti said she would review the specific project examples LUAC members cited, work with planners to improve notification and interested‑party lists, and clarify procedures for agendized site visits and the availability of planning documents in formats LUAC members can use. County counsel provided a training refresher on the Brown Act, conflicts of interest, due process and the Public Records Act and advised LUAC members to disclose ex parte communications and to recuse themselves where a disqualifying financial interest exists.

Ending

No formal actions or votes were taken at the meeting. Commissioners and staff framed the session as both a training and a listening exercise: staff pledged procedural follow‑up and reiterated that LUAC input is valued primarily for the local, neighborhood perspective it provides early in the review process.

Quotes (selected and attributed to meeting speakers)

"We request site visits for pretty much everything that we do," Steve Beck, Big Sur LUAC, said as he summarized his committee's concerns about access.

"If you have a conflict of interest, recuse yourself and don't participate in the decision," Deputy County Counsel Robert Breyer advised LUAC members while reviewing due‑process and conflict rules.

"We will revisit the process to make sure we're catching things versus where they're one‑offs," Melanie Spiretti, chief of planning, said in response to multiple LUAC complaints about inconsistent project descriptions and notifications.

Ending note: County staff and counsel asked LUAC members to provide specific project examples and contact staff directly so planners can audit the referral and notice process and return with proposed procedural changes.