Complaint,Petition: ROSSEEL, GEERT, et al. vs. MONTEREY COUNTY, et al.

On January 22, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Geert Rosseel, Tracy Powell, and Monterey County, Monterey County Board Of Supervisors, for Writ of Mandate Unlimited (02) in the District Court of Monterey County.

Preview
MELISSA H.D. BALOUGH (SBN 323806)
1
SCALE LLP
2 548 Market Street, STE 86147
San Francisco, California 94104-5401
3 Telephone: 415.735.5933
Email: melissadb@scalefirm.com
4

5 Attorney for Petitioners Geert Rosseel and Tracy Powell

6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
MONTEREY COUNTY

8 GEERT ROSSEEL; TRACY POWELL Case No. _ _ _ _ _ _

9 Petitioners, PETITION FOR WRIT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS (CCP
10 vs. §1094.5)
11 MONTEREY COUNTY; MONTEREY
12 COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS;
and DOE 1 through DOE 100, inclusive,
13

14 Respondents.

16
Petitioners, Geert Rosseel and Tracy Powell, petition this Court for a writ of mandate under
17
Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, directed to Respondents Monterey County and the Monterey
18
County Board of Supervisors, and by this verified petition alleges as follows:
19

20
1. Petitioners are the owners of 282 Corral de Tierra Road, Salinas, California 93908, and
21
bring this petition as contestants to the denial of their administrative permit application,
22
PLN220054, by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors (“Board of Supervisors”) on
23

24 October 24, 2024.

25 2. At all times mentioned in this petition, respondents have been and are now the entity
26
charged with hearing appeals of decisions of the Monterey County Planning Commission.
27
(Monterey County Code of Ordinances § 19.16.020.)
28

____________________________________________________________________________________________
1

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
3. On or about November 20, 2022, Petitioners submitted their application for an
1

2 administrative permit to allow transient use of their residential property for remuneration. The

3 application was deemed complete by the County on December 22, 2022.
4
4. An administrative hearing to consider the application was scheduled for March 15,
5
2023. During the noticing period, a request for a public hearing on the application was received.
6

7
By County ordinance, when a public hearing is requested, the County Zoning Administrator is

8 designated to hear the application. Yet, on or about April 25, 2023, the Board of Supervisors
9 voted in favor of a recommendation by the County’s Housing and Community Development
10
Department that stated that all short-term rental applications in supervisorial District 5 are a
11
significant public policy concern, and thereby elevated the hearing authority to the Planning
12

13 Commission.

14 5. A public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on April 12,
15
2023. On that day, the matter was continued to May 31, 2023. At the May 31, 2023 hearing, the
16
Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the application because the Alta Tierra
17
Association (“ATA”), calling itself a Home Owner’s Association (“HOA”), had objected to the
18

19 application. There were no findings made regarding site suitability or injuriousness to health and

20 safety.
21
6. Petitioners timely filed an appeal of the denial on June 16, 2023, arguing that the
22
ATA is not a HOA, and had acted well outside of the scope of its authority. The next available
23
day for a hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors was on July 25, 2023. Under pressure from
24

25 the planning office, the applicant reluctantly agreed to extend the 60-day timeline for
26 consideration of the appeal to September 19, 2023. Petitioners did not agree to any further
27
extensions.
28

____________________________________________________________________________________________
2

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
7. In its Board Report, Planning Staff recommended that the Board of Supervisors
1

2 grant Petitioners’ appeal. The Board Report stated that the ATA was not a HOA, and

3 recommended approval of the application subject to a condition that Petitioners would be required
4
to demonstrate that they have the right to use the water for the proposed use prior to
5
commencement of the use. There was no mention in the Board Report of site suitability or
6

7
injuriousness to health and safety.

8 8. As the Staff noted in their report, much of the deliberation on the application was
9 focused on whether the property is subject to a homeowner’s association. The property is subject
10
to an agreement, recorded on October 29, 1963, which established the ATA specifically only to
11
manage the shared roadway and the shared water system. The ATA provided the County with a
12

13 resolution, objecting to the use of water as not falling within the listed uses allowed in the water

14 agreement—specifically noting that the use of water for a property permitted for transient use for
15
remuneration is “commercial.”
16
9. Petitioners’ appeal was wholly focused on the status of the ATA as an HOA and
17
the extent of its authority under the road and water agreement to do anything other than manage
18

19 the shared roadway and shared water system because that was the only basis for the Planning

20 Commission’s denial.
21
10. Petitioners’ argument in front of the Board of Supervisors was likewise focused
22
on the issues of the ATA as an HOA or the fairness of requiring Petitioners bear the burden of
23
seeking judicial assistance in proving that they have the right to use the water because that is all
24

25 that was mentioned in the Board Report. Petitioners were told to present first.
26 11. The hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors featured public comment by
27
Petitioners’ neighbors complaining that the road (that the ATA is charged with maintaining “in a
28

____________________________________________________________________________________________
3

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
good and serviceable condition at all times”) was far too narrow and dangerous for vacation
1

2 renters to traverse safely. They also made mention that the water basin underlying the property

3 was overdrafted.
4
12. After public comment was closed, upon the motion of Supervisor Root-Askew and
5
seconded by Supervisor Adams, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to adopt a motion of intent
6

7
to deny the appeal and the permit, and told Staff to return on October 24, 2023 with written

8 findings for denial of the permit. County Counsel made it clear that the hearing was closed and
9 no more evidence would be taken on October 24. The matter came back before the Board of
10
Supervisors on October 24, 2023.
11
13. A true copy of the Resolution is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated in this
12

13 petition.

14 14. Respondents’ decision, Exhibit A, is invalid under Code of Civil Procedure
15
§1094.5, for the following reasons:
16
a. Respondents proceeded in excess of its jurisdiction, in that the final decision
17
was rendered more than 60 days after the time of the filing of the appeal in
18

19 contravention of Monterey County Code of Ordinances § 19.16.045(E). While

20 Petitioners acceded to the County’s request to extend the time to September 19,
21
2023, they did not stipulate to any further extension of time.
22
b. Respondents failed to grant Petitioners a fair trial in that there was new evidence
23
inserted into the final findings by Staff after the public hearing held on
24

25 September 19, 2023, and Petitioners were not afforded a fair opportunity to
26 rebut or refute such evidence.
27

____________________________________________________________________________________________
4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
c. Respondents failed to grant Petitioners a fair trial in that Respondents did not
1

2 afford Petitioners a fair opportunity to rebut or refute evidence presented at the

3 September 19, 2023 hearing including, inter alia, conclusory and
4
unsubstantiated statements regarding numbers of vacation renters, behavior of
5
vacation renters, and effect of vacation renters on the neighborhood.
6

7
d. Respondents failed to grant Petitioners a fair trial in that there was new evidence

8 inserted into the final findings after the public hearing held on September 19,
9 2023, that were post hoc rationalizations for the Board of Supervisors’ decision,
10
and Petitioners were not afforded a fair opportunity to rebut or refute such
11
evidence.
12

13 e. Respondents failed to grant Petitioners a fair trial in that Respondents did not,

14 until the very end and after Petitioners had presented evidence and argument,
15
give any indication it would base a denial on site suitability or health and safety
16
reasons, thereby denying Petitioners a fair opportunity to present evidence and
17
argument on those points.
18

19 f. Respondents failed to grant Petitioners a fair trial in that while Respondents

20 required Petitioners to “set forth specific facts of the matter in sufficient detail
21
to notify interested persons of the nature of the proceedings, and to place
22
interested persons upon notice as to how any proposed action may affect their
23
interest so that they may formulate their defense or opposition without being
24

25 subjected to surprise” (Monterey County Code of Ordinances § 21.80.060),
26 Respondents performed a bait and switch on the basis for their decision,
27

____________________________________________________________________________________________
5

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
leaving Petitioners without a fair opportunity to present evidence and
1

2 argument.

3 g. Respondents committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion because:
4

5 i. Respondents failed to proceed in the manner required by law because the

6 initial public hearing was held by the Planning Commission rather than the
7
Zoning Administrator. Pursuant to the Monterey County Code of
8
Ordinances § 21.04.030.F, the Zoning Administrator and the Director of
9
Planning must find that “an application” (emphasis added) before the
10

11 Zoning Administrator involves a matter of significant public policy. The

12 Board of Supervisors had no authority to elevate all applications from a
13
certain District to the Planning Commission in contravention of Monterey
14
County Code of Ordinances § 21.04.030.F.
15

16
ii. Respondents failed to proceed in the manner required by law because
17
Monterey County Code of Ordinances § 21.64.280, as applied, imposes an
18
unconstitutional durational residency requirement, in violation of equal
19

20 protection, the right to travel, the dormant Commerce Clause, and the

21 Privileges and Immunities Clause.
22

23 iii. Respondents’ decision is not supported by the findings:

24
a) The findings found in the final Resolution were post hoc
25

26 rationalizations for a decision already made, and thus insufficient.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
6

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
b) The findings, particularly Finding Nos. 2 and 3 are conclusory,
1

2 boilerplate, and mere recitations of the governing ordinance, and

3 thus insufficient.
4

5 c) Finding No. 2 of Respondents’ decision, Exhibit A, is not

6 supported by substantial evidence or the weight of the evidence
7
because the evidence is contradicted by other evidence in the
8
record; the evidence is not reasonable in nature, credible, or of
9
solid value; the evidence is based on conclusions and assumptions
10

11 not supported by anything but opinion; and/or the same or similar

12 evidence was adduced in another permit hearing in which the
13
permit was granted.
14

15 d) Finding No. 3 of Respondents’ decision, Exhibit A is not
16
supported by substantial evidence or the weight of the evidence
17
because the evidence is contradicted by other evidence in the
18
record; the evidence is not reasonable in nature, credible, or of
19

20 solid value; the evidence is based on conclusions and assumptions
21 not supported by anything but opinion; and/or the same or similar
22
evidence was adduced in another permit hearing in which the
23
permit was granted.
24

25
15. Petitioners have exhausted the available administrative remedies required to be
26
pursued by them, as follows: Petitioners appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the
27

____________________________________________________________________________________________
7

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors denied the appeal and denied the administrative
1

2 permit on October 24, 2023.

3 16. Petitioners do not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course
4
of law.
5
17. Petitioners are personally obligated to pay their attorney for attorney services to
6

7
prosecute this action. Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney fees as provided in Government

8 Code §800(a) if they prevail in this case on the ground that Respondents’ decision was the result
9 of arbitrary and capricious conduct as follows: The whole course of the proceedings considering
10
this application have been a denial in search of a rationale. A group of neighbors, headed by a
11
former Planning Commissioner and the former head of the Planning Department for the County,
12

13 noisily objected to the application, and Respondents acceded to their baseless objections. Similarly

14 situated properties received permits. The County allowed itself to be swayed by baseless
15
conjecture and political pressure to deny Petitioners their administrative permit. The evidence
16
presented that Respondents relied on in making their decision was not credible and was not based
17
in anything but opinion and rank self-interest. The County did not follow its own rules (as detailed
18

19 above), nor did it conduct the proceedings so as to comport with fundamental principles of due

20 process and fairness.
21
18. On December 14, 2023, Petitioners, through Petitioner’s counsel, requested that
22
Monterey County Counsel provide Petitioners with an estimate of the cost of preparing the
23
administrative record. As of the date of this filing the estimate has not yet been received. Upon
24

25 receiving it, the record will be requested. A true and correct copy of the record will be lodged with
26 the Court before the hearing date.
27

28 WHEREFORE, Petitioner pray that:

____________________________________________________________________________________________
8

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
1. A peremptory writ of mandate issue, under Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5, directed to
1
respondents, and compelling respondents to set aside its decision dated October 24, 2023.
2
2. Petitioners recover their costs in this action, including attorneys fees under Government
3 Code §800(a).
4 3. Such other relief be granted that the Court considers proper.
5

6
SCALE LLP
7 DATED: January 22, 2024

8
By: ____________________________________
9 Melissa H.D. Balough
Attorneys for Petitioners Geert Rosseel and
10 Tracy Powell
11

____________________________________________________________________________________________
9

PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS
EXHIBIT A
Legistar File ID No. RES 23-196 Agenda Item No. 45

Before the Board of Supervisors
County of Monterey, State of California
In the matter of the application of:
ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054)
RESOLUTION NO. 23-444
Resolution by the County of Monterey Board of
Supervisors:
1) Denying an Appeal by Geert Rosseel of the
Planning Commission’s denial of an
Administrative Permit;
2) Denying an Administrative Permit to allow
Transient Use of a residential property for
remuneration; and
3) Finding that denial of the project is statutorily
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15270.
[PLN220054 ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL
TRACY TRS, 282 Corral De Tierra, Toro Area Plan
(APN: 416-351-005-000)]

The ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS application (PLN220054) came on for
a public hearing before the Monterey County Board of Supervisors on September 19, 2023
and October 24, 2023. Having considered all the written and documentary evidence, the
administrative record, the staff report, oral testimony, and other evidence presented the
County of Monterey Board of Supervisors finds and decides as follows:

FINDINGS

1. FINDING: PROCESS – The County has processed the Administrative Permit in
compliance with all applicable procedural requirements.
EVIDENCE: a) An Administrative Permit to allow transient use of residential property
for remuneration was submitted on November 20, 2022, and deemed
complete on December 22, 2022.
b) An administrative hearing to consider the application was scheduled for
March 15, 2023. A request for a public hearing on the project was
received during the noticing period.
c) When a public hearing is requested pursuant to section 21.70.060, the
Zoning Administrator is designated as the appropriate authority to
consider the project. However, the Board of Supervisors has deemed
short-term rental applications in supervisorial District 5 represent
significant public policy concern, and in so doing, have elevated the
hearing authority to the Planning Commission (MCC section
21.04.030.F). Therefore, the project was scheduled for a public hearing
before the Planning Commission.

ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054) Page 1
Legistar File ID No. RES 23-196 Agenda Item No. 45

d) The Planning Commission considered the application at a public hearing
on April 12, 2023, and continued the matter to a date certain of May 31,
2023. At the May 31, 2023, hearing the Planning Commission adopted
a resolution denying the application, finding the project inconsistent
with the applicable regulations for the transient use of residential
property for remuneration; specifically an objection from the Alta
Tierra Association, and alleged Home Owner’s Association.
e) The applicant filed a timely appeal of the denial on June 16, 2023. As
both the applicant and appellant, the applicant agreed to extend the 60
day timeline for the consideration of the appeal, and the matter was
scheduled for a de novo appeal hearing before the Board of Supervisors
on September 19, 2023. As a de novo appeal hearing, the Board of
Supervisor’s considerations are not limited to the Planning
Commission’s basis of denial, and the Board may hear all such
testimony and evidence on the entirety of the application as may be
presented by any person at that appeal hearing.
f) On September 19, 2023, upon the motion of Supervisor Root-Askew
and seconded by Supervisor Adams, the Board of Supervisors voted 5-0
to adopt a motion of intent to deny the appeal and the permit, and
provided direction to staff to return to the Board of Supervisors on
October 24, 2023 with written findings for denial of the permit.
g) The matter came back before the Board of Supervisors on October 24,
2023.

2. FINDING: SITE UNSUITABILITY – The site is not physically suitable for the
proposed use.
EVIDENCE: a) The site is a developed residential property which contains an existing
2,500 square foot single-family residence. The site is in a rural area in
Corral de Tierra zoned Rural Density Residential with a density of 5.1
acres per unit and a Design Control Overlay or RDR/5.1-D.
b) Narrow Rural Road. The property is served by a narrow rural private
road, which does not provide appropriate infrastructure for a short term
rental in this location as detailed in subsequent evidences “c” and “d”.
c) The property is served by a private road established by a road and water
agreement recorded on October 29, 1963, in Monterey County
Recorder’s Reel 245 Page 326. This agreement established the Alta
Tierra Association to manage a shared road and water system and
entitles each of the property owners of nine parcels, Parcels A-D as
shown on the Record of Survey in Book 6 Surveys Page 194, Parcel 1-4
as shown on the Record of Survey in Book 6 Surveys page 193, and
“the property conveyed to Robert V. Antle and Sue M. Antle in the deed
recorded August 15, 1962 in Reel 85 Page 282” to “equal use of the
road constructed on the easement for right of way across property of
First Party and Second Party herein,…”. Staff do not have access to
either this deed or subsequent conveyances. Regardless, staff reviewed
Monterey County GIS, and from that review, determined that the road
appears to serve the properties from the referenced Records of Survey as

ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054) Page 2
Legistar File ID No. RES 23-196 Agenda Item No. 45

well as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 416-341-034-000, 416-341-033-000,
416-341-032-000, and 416-351-018-000. Therefore, the private road
likely serves between nine and twelve properties.
d) The narrow private road has no turn-around, potentially diminishing
emergency access. The applicant and their representative contend that
while they did not believe the road was unsafe, if it was, it would be the
Association’s responsibility to correct this issue. However, in evaluating
a proposed land use permit, the County must consider the existing
conditions, not which entities could or should widen a road or otherwise
improve its safety. The short-term rental would cause additional
delivery drivers, guests, and staff potentially unaware of the
neighborhood and pedestrian use of the narrow rural road, to traverse it.
The site is therefore unsuitable for a short-term rental use.
e) Mutual Water System. The water system which serves the site is strained
and a short term rental use would not be appropriate for this strained
infrastructure as detailed in evidences “f” through “h”.
f) The property is served by the Alta Tierra Mutual Water System (System
ID No. 2701412). Based on the listed parcels from the Environmental
Health Bureau’s website, this system serves ten properties. The system
does not currently meet the primary drinking water standards for
arsenic. A sample was collected on November 3, 2021, and found to
contain an arsenic concentration of 13 ug/L (micrograms per liter),
exceeding the maximum contaminant level of 10 ug/L.
g) Additionally, in 2007, Geosyntec consultants prepared the “El Toro
Groundwater Study for the County. The study evaluated existing
hydrogeologic conditions in the Toro Planning area, and concluded that
the primary aquifer system in El Toro is in overdraft, and groundwater
quality was poor in all areas.
h) As the subbasin underlying the property is overdrafted, and based on the
water quality issue discussed above, the proposed short-term rental use
would be unsuitable. The neighborhood relies on this system to service
their needs, so utilizing this strained system for a visitor serving use
would be inappropriate. Further, a potential increased use from a
residential use to a visitor-servicing enterprise could both strain the
system and make critical supply unavailable to residents.
i) Neighborhood Character. The property is approximately 7 miles from
the intersection of Highway 68 and Corral De Tierra Road. Corral De
Tierra Road is a rural two-lane County road containing mostly low and
rural residential developments, agriculture, and scenic open spaces.
Most of Corral De Tierra lacks streetlights. There is a small market at
the corner of Corral De Tierra Road and Highway 68, which provides
the nearest access to goods. Recreation opportunities at Toro Park or
Laguna Seca are several miles beyond the market. Oral testimony was
heard from several members of the public about the inherent
incompatibility of a short-term rental with the peace, tranquility, and
comfort of their rural residential neighborhood based on noise, traffic,
and/or other nuisances such as litter. The use proposes 10 occupants
with a maximum of 6 cars, which would be more than a typical

ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054) Page 3
Legistar File ID No. RES 23-196 Agenda Item No. 45

residence, which has an average of 2.6 residents and only requires two
parking spaces.

This location is both close to several other residences, raising nuisance
concerns, and 0.4 miles from the public road network, which would
make enforcement of the proposed operations plan or any conditions
intended to address nuisances more difficult, making this a particularly
inappropriate site for the proposed use. Either a more urbanized
neighborhood where urban noise and traffic levels are anticipated, or a
more remote area where the use would be further away from sensitive
receptors would be more appropriate for the proposed use than this
property.
j) Oral testimony from concerned members of the public, and deliberation
of the Board of Supervisors at the hearing.
k) Written comments received prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing
expressing concern regarding the project.
l) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted
by the project applicant to County of Monterey HCD-Planning found in
Project File PLN220054.

3. FINDING: INJURIOUS TO HEALTH AND SAFETY – The establishment,
maintenance, or operation of the project applied for will be detrimental
to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use,
or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County.
EVIDENCE: a) See also Finding No. 2 discussion of the narrow rural road, mutual
water system, and incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
character.
b) Fire Risk. The property is in a State Responsibility Area with a high fire
risk. Homes in the area are surrounded by vegetated hillsides and
canyons. Concerns were expressed at the hearing that visitors would be
unfamiliar with fire warning systems and emergency access routes in
Monterey County. These concerns also support denial.
c) Oral testimony from concerned members of the public, and deliberation
of the Board of Supervisors at the hearing.
d) Written comments received prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing
expressing concern regarding the project.
e) The application, project plans, and related support materials submitted
by the project applicant to County of Monterey HCD-Planning found in
Project File PLN220054.

4. FINDING: CEQA (Exempt) – Denial of the project is statutorily exempt from
environmental review.
EVIDENCE: a) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section
15270 statutorily exempts projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves.

ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054) Page 4
Legistar File ID No. RES 23-196 Agenda Item No. 45

b) The Planning Commission’s action to deny the project fits within this
exemption, the County is a public agency disapproving of a project.
c) Statutory exemptions from CEQA are not qualified by the exceptions
applicable to categorical exemptions in CEQA Guidelines section
15300.2.

5. FINDING: APPEAL – Upon consideration of the documentary evidence, the staff
report, the oral and written testimony, and all other evidence in the record,
the Board responds as follows to the Appellant’s contentions:
EVIDENCE: a) In accordance with Title 21, section 21.80.040.D, the Board of
Supervisors is the appropriate authority to consider appeals from
discretionary decisions of the Planning Commission.
b) On June 16, 2023, Geert Rosseel timely appealed the Planning
Commission’s decision. Mr. Rosseel contends both that the findings or
decision is not supported by the evidence and that the decision was
contrary to law, primarily because the Alta Tierra Association is not a
homeowner’s association under the Davis Sterling Act.
c) Applicant’s appeal arguments begin on page 4 of a letter from Melissa
H.D. Balough of Scale LLP representing the applicant dated June 16,
2023. Through page 5 and the sentence ending on page 6, Ms. Balough
argues that the Alta Tierra Association should not be considered a
homeowner’s association. The Boards decision on the application does
not rely on a determination of the Alta Tierra Association qualifying as
a Home Owners Association.
d) In page 6, paragraphs 1 through 3, applicant all claims that the Alta
Tierra Association has not complied with various provisions of the
California Civil Code, including disclosures, filing statements of
information on the California Secretary of State’s website, and
distributing annual budget reports. None of these arguments are
relevant to this appeal, and hence, none were considered.
e) Page 6 paragraph 4 states “The Alta Tierra Association is not, and has
not acted as, a homeowners association. Moreover, even if it were, this
resolution objecting to the Appellants' application is far outside of the
scope of its powers. As I noted above, while the Planning Commission
made its intent to "stay out of it" clear, the County is not "staying out
of it" by putting its imprimatur on the actions of an out-of-control
group of neighbors, manipulating the provisions of the code to their
benefit. The Agreement provides the Alta Tierra Association with a
very limited purpose as noted above. It cannot repurpose itself simply
for the purpose of killing a neighbor's short-term rental permit
application. Indeed, by making this finding that is contrary to law and
not grounded in the evidence, the County is calling into question the
property rights of all of its constituents who may live in a
neighborhood with an agreement like the Agreement here, who do not
know they may be subject to the whims of a neighborhood group who
need only lobby the appropriate people to exert unlawful authority
with the blessing of the County.” The Board is acting to deny the
permit on matters unrelated to whether the Alta Tierra Association is

ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054) Page 5
Legistar File ID No. RES 23-196 Agenda Item No. 45

categorized as a homeowner’s association, so this argument is not
relevant.
f) Page 6 paragraph 5 states “As a homeowners association or not, the
Association owes its members, which includes Appellants, certain
fiduciary duties. This includes not acting in bad faith. The resolution
objecting to the permit application is fully outside the scope of the
Association's authority, and the Association passed it anyway. This is
not an honest mistake made by the Association. The Association is
operating with "furtive design or ill will." They should not be
rewarded with getting exactly what they want. Their failure to
properly inform their members of what they consider their scope of
power, their failure to make the lawful disclosures to new purchasers,
and their failure to conform to any of the laws that govern common
interest developments and associations, must prevent the County from
acceding to their wishes here.” The Board is acting to deny the permit
on matters unrelated to whether the Alta Tierra Association is
categorized as a homeowner’s association, so this argument is not
relevant.
g) Page 7 paragraph 1 states that the short-term rental permit terms have
been “arbitrarily and capriciously shortened”, from in perpetuity, to
seven years, to three years. The relative merit of a time limitation
condition and its duration are not relevant in this case as the Board is
denying the permit.
h) Page 7, paragraph 2 summarized the points made by the appeal. There
are no new arguments in this paragraph not addressed above.

ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054) Page 6
Legistar File ID No. RES 23-196 Agenda Item No. 45

-DECISION

NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings and evidence, the Board of Supervisors does
hereby:
1) Deny an Appeal by Geert Rosseel of the Planning Commission’s denial of an
Administrative Permit;
2) Deny an Administrative Permit to allow Transient Use of a residential property for
remuneration; and
3) Find that denial of the project is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15270.

PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 24th day of October 2023, by roll call vote:

AYES: Supervisors Alejo, Church, Lopez, Askew, and Adams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

I, Valerie Ralph, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Monterey, State of
California, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of an original order of said Board of
Supervisors duly made and entered in the minutes thereof of Minute Book 82 for the meeting
October 24, 2023.

Revised Date: November 16, 2023 Valerie Ralph, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
File ID: RES 23-196 County of Monterey, State of California
Agenda Item No.: 45

_______________________________
Vicente Ramirez, Deputy

ROSSEEL GEERT & POWELL TRACY TRS (PLN220054) Page 7

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

January 23, 2024

Case Filing Date

January 22, 2024

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Complaint,Petition: ROSSEEL, GEERT, et al. vs. MONTEREY COUNTY, et al.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties