Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It seems like it went through.

Choose your sky in this town.

Yeah. Just drive five miles. Yeah. It was like last week when I went out for a big serve at all the week, but the friend's barbecue.

And it was really overcast. It's like it's a nominated party for all the experts. Look what he's doing.

What the heck is that?

Almost.

going on at Apple time. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Zoning Administrator Hearing for Thursday, June 25th, 2026. We are conducting the meeting as a hybrid meeting with some people in attendance in the chambers here and some people participating by Zoom. If you're participating by Zoom, if you can keep yourself muted, we would appreciate it. That eliminates any background noise for the hearing today. If you want to be recognized to speak and you're on Zoom Store 9, if you're on a phone to raise and lower your hand and star 6 to mute and unmute yourself. And if you're on a device you can use under the reactions tab there's a raise hand button to be recognized and the microphone icon to mute and unmute yourself. Thank you. We'll move into our first agenda item which is a roll call. I'm Mike Novo acting today as zoning administrator. We have a Brett KenCairn, Or a kaya and arm blanca from our public works section colors auto from environmental health. Brett KenCairn, And that's the extent of our staff. Brett KenCairn, On the panel today. Brett KenCairn, Our next item is public comment if anybody would like to speak on a topic that is not on today's agenda and a topic of general interest now be the time to recognize to raise your hand and do that. Seeing now, I'll close the public comment period. And we'll move on to agenda additions, deletions, and corrections. Are there any such items, Madam Secretary?

Yes. Through the zoning administrator, there was two correspondence for the following items. Agenda item number 4, PLN 260045, and agenda item number 6, PLN 260045. And that was distributed to the zoning administrator and all interested parties.

Thank you. Our next agenda item is acceptance of minutes. We have the minutes for June 11, 2026. Does anybody have any comments on those draft minutes? John Gerstle, So none, I will accept the minutes of June 11 2026 and we'll move into scheduled items are first is PLM 240045 for Pietro family investments, this is 26307 Isabella avenue and Carmel and. John Gerstle, turn it over to staff for presentation.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. Just follow me to presenting for HCD file number PLN 240045 PHO Family and Benefits. The project is located at 26307 Isabella Avenue in Carmel within the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. The subject property is a medium density residential with a density of two acres per unit and a design control overlay as well as an 18 foot maximum height limit in the coastal zone. On July 25, 2017, an application was received by HCD Planning for development of the subject property. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, or MMD, and recommended conditions of approval were prepared in accordance with CEFA guidelines and circulated for public review from September through October of 2018. On April 23, 2019, the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors adopted the prepared MND and approved PLN 170611 to allow the construction of a single family dwelling and attached garage on the subject property. An appeal of the Board of Supervisors decision was filed with the California Coastal Commission on June 6, 2019. At a de novo hearing, the California Coastal Commission approved the project with special conditions to policies related to archaeological resource protection, grading minimization, and landform protection. As a condition of approval, the proposed basement was required to be eliminated. The applicant applied for construction permits with HCD Building Services, but did not receive construction permits or start construction before the Coastal Commission's decision expired on November 13, 2021. The applicant submitted a new application with HCD Planning on February 21, 2024, which included the development of a 2,707-square-foot single-family dwelling and associated site improvements. On March 13, 2025, the County of Monterey Zoning Administrator considered the Combined Development Permit application. That application included a condition, condition number 15, which required the establishment of a conservation and scenic heat should they be found through construction. The project applicant did not agree to the condition as it may prohibit the future development of an accessory dwelling unit. The project was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to revise the plans to include an accessory dwelling unit prior to the potential establishment of the conservation and scene easement over remaining portions of the property. The project today consists of the construction of a 2,700 associated site improvements, all within 750 feet of known archaeological resources. The project site is located in an area, Carmel Point, that contains well-documented archaeological resources and is known to be within multiple archaeological resource boundaries. A total of four archaeological reports were prepared by four different archaeological experts for the previously approved project on the subject property and the currently proposed project, as well as an addendum which analyzed the proposed ADU. No cultural resources were identified, and the probability of encountering below-grade cultural deposits is determined to be low. All recommendations contained in the four archaeological reports outlining measures for protecting inadvertently discovered resources, including a project-specific archaeological monitoring plan, a pre-construction cultural resources awareness and response training program, and on-site archaeological and tribal monitoring, have been applied to this proposed project as conditions of approval. Additionally, if Native American remains are uncovered during construction, and if they will stay buried on site. Condition number 15 requires that the applicant record a conservation easement over the subject property, except those portions develop with approved structures and landscaping, as recommended by the project archaeologist. These protection and avoidance measures provide compliance with Carmel Area Land Use Plan Policy 2.8.3, which requires that all available measures be explored to minimize development on sensitive prehistoric or archaeological sites. Therefore, as proposed, designed, and conditioned, the project will minimize potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources. On April 23, 2019, the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors adopted a mitigated negative declaration for the construction of a single-family dwelling and a task garage on the subject property. This MND recommended mitigation measures to mitigate impacts to less than significant level, to properly identify and manage recovered human remains and artifacts, and to establish a process by which a conservation easement may protect resources in perpetuity, if necessary. An addendum to the previously adopted MND was prepared pursuant to secret guidelines to reflect changes in the project that did not cause substantial changes or new information that would require major revisions to the adopted MND. In comparison to the project scope analyzed by the previously adopted MND for the previous PLN, the proposed project today omits a 1,366 square foot basement and includes a 1,126 square foot ADU. The remaining scope of work for the proposed project remains the same. The changes in project scope do not increase the severity of previously identified environmental impacts, will not create new environmental impacts, and will result in reduced impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources. Conditions number 12 through 16 of this project are the previously approved mitigation measures that have been incorporated as conditions of approval. Therefore, none of the conditions described in section 15162 of the CEBA guidelines calling for preparation of subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. On January 21st, 2025, the Carmel Highlands Land Use Advisory Committee reviewed the project. A neighbor in attendance expressed concern impacts to an oak tree. The applicant agreed to move the drainage to prevent impacts to the tree, and though the county does not protect private view sheds, the applicant agreed to implement additional vegetative screening on the upper deck in consideration of the neighbor. The LOI voted 7-0 to support the project with those changes. Colors and materials proposed include beige stucco and stone, horizontal wood walls, metal frame windows and doors, and a flat green roof with wood soffit and aluminum fascia. Therefore, staff recommends the zoning administrator consider an addendum together with the previously adopted MND pursuant to City Guidelines Section 15164 and approve a combined development permit consisting of a coastal administrative permit and design approval to allow the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling with attached garage and associated site improvements, a coastal administrative permit and design approval to allow the construction of a 1,126 square foot ADU, and a coastal development permit to allow development within So the scenic easement conditions triggered only if there's human remains found.

Most of the property is either landscaped or understructured, maybe all of the property. So really, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, I don't see any reason to include the landscaping in the exception for the scenic easement. We can allow some landscaping or artscape even in scenic easement areas. I'll talk to the applicant a little bit about that as we get into the hearing as well. In the past, we've had a condition when properties go right up to the setbacks allowed by the district to make sure that there's a condition imposed that they do a survey to make sure that the foundation is poured in the correct location. Would that be applicable in this case? I believe I read that this goes right up to the setbacks in some areas. Yes, it does in some cases. Okay. So if the applicant can Talk about that too when you open the hearing. All right. I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present?

Good morning, everyone. My name is Hannah Miller. I'm an architect with Eric Miller Architects, and I'm the representative of this project with Eric Miller here as well. Eric Miller. And we want to thank staff for the presentation, and we concur with all of staff's findings, and we're here to answer any questions you may have.

Did you hear what I asked about for the scenic easement project? I don't have any problems with allowing hardscape or landscaping within St. Giesemann's. Usually it's done through a mitigation plan with the archaeologist and the director of planning here. Do you think that would be acceptable to your clients?

Yeah, I absolutely think so, yeah.

Definitely. And how about the surveying condition where we make sure that when we start forming a foundation, it's in the right location? No problem.

It's just a matter of the surveyor coming out and certifying it for the latter. Yeah, just like every other time we've done it. So yeah.

Yeah, you're already doing it for a height verification on this project anyway, so.

Okay.

Any other comments you wanted to make?

No, no, I think that's it.

Okay, thank you. We'll see if anybody else would like to speak, and if so, then you'll have a chance to respond. Thank you. So anybody else like to speak on this application on Isabella in the Carmel area? Seeing none, I will close public hearing. Anything else from staff?

Yes, through the zoning administrator, staff is requesting that the zoning administrator trail this item to after item number two to speak with the applicant regarding some design of the plans in order to be consistent with the proposed, with the required site development standards for the accessory dwelling unit.

Okay, on this project. Okay. I have no problem with, can you do that outside? Yes. Okay. All right. I'm going to trail this item. We'll come right back to it. Let's move on to item number two on today's agenda. And let me look at that item. That is PLN 250042. This is a 3038 Alta Avenue in Carmel. And if staff can give me a minute to open up my hearing items.

Okay, I'm ready whenever you are. Thank you. Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Jose Mendoza, and I will be presenting staff's report for PLN 258042, Curran P. Wiley. This application is for a combined development permit located at 3038 Alta Avenue, Carmel, California, in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Subject property is zone medium density residential with a maximum gross density of two units per acre with a design control overlay within the coastal zone. The proposed project involves a combined development permit to allow the relocation of a 143-square-foot shed and a construction of a 604-square-foot accessory dwelling unit with associated site improvements and the removal of one coast live oak tree. The project meets all required site development standards of medium density residential and building site zone being districts related to setbacks site coverage. As proposed, the project involves the removal of one protected within the building footprint alternative placements and site configurations were evaluated however each alternative would result in greater site disturbance or require additional tree removal carmel cip section 20 states that removal of native trees shall be limited to that which is necessary The project offers recommends the replanting of one tree with the minimum planting size to be a 15 gallon container with 5 being acceptable if 15 is not acceptable within the location to be determined by the final group landscape plan. While also meeting condition number four, which is a one to one replanting ratio of trees within the same general location as the tree being removed. The proposed colors and materials consist of redwood, lat brown siding exterior, and natural wood roofing. These colors and materials are consistent with the existence of single-planet dwelling. The property is surrounded by mature black boats and other mature vegetation, further helping to ensure that the proposed project will not create any adverse visual impacts. The project went before the Carmel Land Use Advisory Committee on June 15 to 20.6 for review, receiving a vote of 3-0 in support of the proposed project and for the replanting of one coast black oak tree. Therefore, staff recommends the zoning administrator finds the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15303A and improve the combined development permit to allow the relocation of an existing 143 square foot shed and construction of the 600-more-square-foot accessory dwelling unit with associated site improvements, including the removal of one post-black oak tree. This committee staff presentation staff is available for questions.

Thank you. I think I only had one question, and that had to do with the roof. I noticed that it's a wood roof. And of course, we're trying to be very aware of fire standards in this county. Are they doing anything to treat the wood roofing to make sure it's fire resistant? Yes, they are treating the wood. Okay, thank you. I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present, please?

Yes. I'm representing the Kearns. My name is Jeff Workman. I'm an expediter for both The contractor grows a construction and Wiley Curran, the applicant.

Have you read the conditions recommended by staff and are they acceptable?

Yes.

Usually we have... I think there's an arborist report in this case and the arborist report has quite a few recommendations built into the report. So usually we just put on a standard condition called the notice report condition that you will do what the arborist recommends that you do. Would your client be acceptable to have that condition as well?

Yes.

Okay. And also, this property also goes right up to the setbacks in a couple locations. Just like the last one, we do a surveying report or surveying condition to make sure that the foundation is poured in the right location. Would your client be acceptable for that as well?

Yes, they would.

All right.

Thank you. Thank you.

And we'll open up to the public if anybody else testifies, you'll have the chance to respond at the end. Thank you. Anybody else want to talk? Speak on this application on Alta Avenue and Carmel?

Yes, sir. Morning to you. My name is Graham. I'm from Carmel. I'm not sure of the procedures over here for planning, but perhaps you'll forgive me if I've overstepped the margin. the windows in one elevation of this proposed property, can we establish how far off the ground they are and how high they would go? The elevation faces my property. The one elevation.

The plans are in the public record. Have you looked at the plans?

Well, unfortunately, I've been... hospitalized and been unable to do that. So that's why I wanted to see the, I mean, those plans are fine. I can see where it is now. I'm just wondering what height the windows actually go to.

It's as shown on the plan, so.

It seems to be. So there's a picture of the windows, the proposed windows. I mean, is it a standard height here? Is there a standard height? No. There isn't. So did you have an issue you wanted to bring up? It's just they look straight into the garden, into our garden. Presumably, it's the same as in Britain. You don't have a right to a view. Is that correct?

Yeah, I don't want to get in a long... No, no, no, no. Usually we just, we want you to testify and say what your issues are and then we'll try and resolve them if we can.

I understand. Yeah. I understand. So it's just really the two windows in the, I don't know, is it a north elevation?

Do you want to bring up the pictures of the structure again? And you'll be able, you can talk to the planner after the hearing as well. I understand. If you want to understand more about it. Thank you. Thank you for that.

Yes. Great. So the one, the bottom right-hand corner, those are the two, that's the elevation facing over our garden. And I just wanted to know what position they were, how high they go and whether they're relevant and

John Gerstle, As I said, there is shown on the plans and it depends on how your properties topography is in relation to this how it's going to impact you and whether there's.

John Gerstle, So i'm just saying.

John Gerstle, But we don't protect private views, as you noted.

No, I understand. John Gerstle, Thank you very much indeed so.

John Gerstle, you're welcome no no worries anybody else want to speak on this application. Seeing none, maybe Mr. Workman, did you want to respond at all to the neighbor?

Well, my understanding is that for the accessory dwelling unit, it met all the, you know, obviously setback and height requirements. So I'm sure that, you know, the windows, um, architecturally, as far as planning and the county is concerned are, and the builder are in the correct place, um, you know, for earthquake safety and, and all the other mitigations that those include. So, uh, and I also think that, um, its elevation would not be obtrusive, um, as that, um, any, additional planting that needed to be done in that area could be, you know, additionally added. It's quite a well manicured garden area there. So I'm sure they're going to, you know, maintain that aesthetic. So.

All right. Thank you.

Yeah.

All right. I'm going to close the public hearing. Does staff have anything else to add on this one? PB, John Gerstle:" Okay, it's gonna be my decision to find that the project is categorically exempt and approve the combined government met. PB, John Gerstle:" we're going to add the surveying condition on this one, as well as the notice of report condition which will refer to, I think, was the arbor support um. Just to make sure all those recommendations are built in. And with some non-substantive changes to the resolution, the project is approved. And Mr. Mendoza, if you want to meet with this gentleman outside, you guys can show him plans and see what his concerns might be. And perhaps talking between the neighbors, you can work out some landscaping to help with privacy. But that's all done voluntarily. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Thank you. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Our next agenda item is PLN 240303. This is for 3152 Spruance Road in Pebble Beach. And staff, give me a minute to open up HAB-Jacques Juilland- hearing items. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Oh, I'm sorry. We're going to trail item one. So I'm sorry, let's stack up and go back to item one. Any updates from staff yet?

In order to resolve the chair, in order to resolve a issue

to the main residents. Staff will revise the project resolution to reflect this minor change, as well as condition the project to include plans prior to issuance of construction permits showing this structural connection.

Okay, I was just going to look at the plan real quickly.

As currently I illustrated in the plans, the ADU and the carport that's attached has a setback of 21 feet, currently subject to a 50-foot setback. And therefore, to resolve it, there is an exception in the code that allows for an accessory structure to be subject to the main structure setbacks, provided it's structurally connected.

Did you talk about how you're going to structurally connect them at this point, or...? Is it a substantial structure or just really just some kind of structural connection that ties them together?

Yes, we talked about a connection through a walkway. And if the applicant is willing to further elaborate on the area of location as well.

Yeah, since it's not before me today, would that be handled through a counter design approval then? Staff is that structure?

Staff is recommending that we add a condition of approval to provide the revised plans prior to issuance for staff to review and analyze to ensure that it meets the standard.

OK. Thank you. Did you want to speak on this?

Yeah. So we would like to connect it with a structural trellis. design of the thing. And so we're fine with that. I'd like to presume that we can do it through staff relative to its, you know, drawing and design.

So thank you. All right. I'm going to close the hearing again. And it will be my decision to find that the project is, no, this time again. John Potter, I did consider the denim I reread the initial study which was long. John Potter, But I did consider it and i'm going to prove the combined development from that subject to the findings and conditions recommended by staff we're going to add the surveying condition a condition to connect the two structures and we're going to I want to just condition 15. PB John Gerstle, To ensure that landscaping areas may be included in senior keys when that that's to be worked out between the archaeologists in the planning department. PB John Gerstle, And. PB John Gerstle, Some non substantive changes to the resolution and with that the project is. Thank you. PB John Gerstle, All right now we'll move on to item three. PB John Gerstle, PLM 240303. John Gerstle, At brown's road in the beach. John Gerstle, You know, the kind of stuff you made me open up my agenda items. John Gerstle, Give me a minute my computer is not. John Gerstle, quite cooperating with him. Okay, I'm ready when staff is. Thank you.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Taylor Price, project planner. Today we'll be presenting PLN240303 drivers. The proposed project site is located at 3152 Spruance Road, Pebble Beach in the Del Monte Forest land use plan. Parcel is zoned low density residential with a density of one unit per 1.5 acres and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The project consists of a 730 square foot addition to the existing single family dwelling and detached garage, resulting in a 4,375 square foot single family dwelling with an attached 910 square foot garage and the construction of a 1,100 square foot accessory dwelling unit with an attached 600 square foot exercise room and golf simulator. Associated site improvements include the replacement of 3,045 square feet of impervious driveway and the construction of a 1,180 square foot impervious patio. Finally, the project consists of modifications to illegal non-conforming land use in the Pescadero watershed for impervious coverage. The subject property is approximately 2.2 acres and is identified in its current configuration as two separate lots of record. County recognizes the subject property as two separate legal lots of record. The owner proposes to have the existing single family dwelling remain and agrees to add a condition of approval, condition number four, that these two legal lots remain under common ownership. Although the existing single family and ADU comply with current site development standards and are almost entirely on board law. The property is within the Pescadero Watershed and currently has an existing legal non-conforming impervious site coverage. that shown on the project plans for the original 1971 construction. The project includes no expansion of the existing 13,140 square foot impervious site coverage and will accomplish this by converting a significant portion of the driveway to impervious surfaces and add some patios and blockways. This can be seen on the slide where staff has listed the existing impervious coverage and changes that would occur as a part of this project. The design of the project, including the addition in ADU, will conform to and complement the existing single-family dwelling with the same colors and materials. The addition in ADU will have cement plaster siding and dark wood shingle roof and black frame windows and doors that will mirror the existing home. Today, staff recommends that the zoning administrator find the project qualifies for a exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15301 and 15303 and that there are no exceptions pursuant to section 15300.2 and approve a combined development permit consisting of a coastal administrative permit and design approval for the construction of a 730 square foot addition to the existing 3745 square foot single family dwelling With an attached 810 square foot garage resulting in a 4,375 square foot single family dwelling with an attached 910 square foot two-car garage. Coastal administrative permit and design approval to allow the construction of a 1,100 square foot accessory dwelling unit. with an attached 600 square foot exercise room and golf simulator and a coastal development permit to allow modifications to a legal non-conforming land use for the Pescadero watershed impervious coverage. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you. 2A there on the slide is the way I would like the resolution to read. It doesn't have the resulting end. And I thought it'd be good for future staff that's going to be working on this to make sure they have that information clearly. If we can change the resolution to reflect more of that language, that's perfect. Condition number 4 talks about removing all structures before or when they remove all structures that they can use this as two separate properties. I have no problem with that, but I think it's overkill. I don't think they have to remove all structures. If we can adjust that condition and just say that all the structures have to meet PB John Gerstle, That once all the structures meet the development standards that they can recognize it as to legal lots so sad except all the staff, yes. PB John Gerstle, I like to add or to open the hearing is the applicant present place.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator Speer, Mike Noble, and staff. Thanks for the presentation. I'm the architect Robert Hayes for the project. We have no further comments to the staff report. I think it's done quite well and meets our clients' desires and so forth. So I will be here for questions. If there's any questions, I won't add more to the dissertation here.

Did you hear that I wanted to change condition for to kind of soften that up a little bit?

That's actually great, Mr. Novo. That's an appreciated change.

PB John Gerstle, Thank you, and if anybody else speaks on this application yellow chance to respond okay thanks. PB John Gerstle, So anybody else like to speak on this application at 315 to spawns road and pebble beach. PB John Gerstle, We stopped sharing just if there's anybody else. PB John Gerstle, Seeing none i'll close public hearing anything else from staff.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Through the through the zoning administrative staff did come up with the draft condition for for condition number four if we would like to review that otherwise.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, If you're able to share it on the screen that would be great. Just so the applicant can look at it and see if it's... Is it the draft resolution that was in the staff report? No, this is a new condition for... Sounds like you came up with some language. So the area in red is the new language?

Yeah, that's fine.

Thank you. Thank you. John Potter, All right, my decision to find that the project is categorically exempt under the California environmental quality act and approve the combined development from that subject to the finance and conditions recommended by staff with the change the condition for. John Potter, And putting the change that you showed on your slide about the resulting and we'll add that to the resolution as well without the project. Thank you very much. So our next three hearings are related to commercial vacation rentals. As some of you may know, the Board of Supervisors adopted vacation rental regulations last year, and the county is processing numerous applications. The county's process of adopting those regulations occurred over many years with extensive public participation. The Board of Supervisors' intent was to strike a balance that allows Monterey County to benefit from the tourism economy while also minimizing loss of long-term housing and ensuring that residential neighborhoods are protected from potential social and behavioral impacts of vacation rentals. So part of the board's determination is that the community is better served by having limited well-regulated vacation rental uses rather than ongoing illegal rentals. So to achieve this balance, the board placed a maximum limit of 4% of homes for use as commercial vacation rentals in the county's planning areas. The regulations ensure that each side is managed and responsible to respond to any issues. In addition to the zoning regulations, the county code has a section, chapter 7.120, which includes among other requirements prohibitions on outdoor amplified noise and requires a sign be posted at a visible location along the street that provides the property manager's contact information. So these applications are considered here by the zoning administrator where the CA determines whether the applications meet the adopted regulations in the county code. We do have one application today in the Pebble Beach area as well. The county code does not prohibit commercial vacation rentals within Pebble Beach, but does have requirements with regard to the use of private roads. We have an ordinance that handles that situation. So after the board's adoption of vacation rental regulations, the county received a blanket objection to vacation rentals from Pebble Beach Company, which controls the private roads within that community. Applicants need to be fully aware of Pebble Beach Company's objection to allowing these access to its private roads for commercial uses of housing. In response to this, the county is processing permits with a condition that the private road issue be resolved with Pebble Beach Company prior to beginning the commercial vacation rental use. So with that, we'll start into the three applications we have today. And if staff can give me a minute to open up my agenda items. Our first one is agenda item four, which is PLN 260045. And this is at 26392 Isabella Avenue in Carmel. And again, if you can give me a minute to open up sharing items. Okay, I'm ready whenever staff is, thank you.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Jack Sorensen, project planner for PLN 260-045, MAML. This application is for a commercial vacation rental located at 26392 Isabella Avenue, Carmel, in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. The subject property is a medium-density residential, two acres per unit, an 18-foot height limit, and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The property has two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, and two on-site parking spaces. There are carbon monoxide and smoke detectors in every bedroom and fire extinguishers in the kitchen. Pursuant to Title 20, CVRs must comply with the parking requirements of Section 20.58.040. Pursuant to the code, single-family dwellings are required to have two spaces per unit. This applicant meets this requirement. The property has a maximum nighttime occupancy of five guests and a maximum daytime occupancy of seven guests. These occupancies exclude infants zero to 12 months and are set for pursuant to chapter 7.120, which establishes the requirement for the vacation rental operation license. The applicant submitted a certified home inspection, which was completed by a certified home inspector. The property has a local property manager who will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to respond to complaints or concerns that arise at the property. The property manager will be able to arrive on site within 30 minutes of receiving a complaint or concern. The operations plan provides addresses and contact phone numbers for the police station, fire station, and hospital. This information is also included in the informational notice to individuals staying at the property along with flight hours and notification of emergency routes. Condition of approval number three prohibits the property from hosting corporate or private events unless the property has a separate entitlement for such use. The property must comply with MCC section 10.60 or the operator can face escalating fines if they do not comply. The approval of this CVR would not allow any tree removal or development to occur on the parcel. Note the requirement In section 20 requires that the owner of the CBR shall only have an ownership interest in one CBR in unincorporated Monterey County. The regulations allow the same property manager to manage multiple CBRs. The regulations allow up to 118 commercial vacation rentals to be approved in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. If approved, this would be the 28th approved in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Staff finds the project qualifies for a class one categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 and no exceptions under section 15300.2 apply. And staff recommends the zoning administrator finds the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 and approve a coastal development permit for a commercial vacation rental operation use to allow the use of a residential property for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer.

this concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions thank you i don't have any questions so i'll open the hearing is the applicant present for this one yes good morning administrator novo my name is chris gorley you're joined today by mark the owner i'd like to start by expressing my appreciation to planning staff

expeditious processing of this application. I'm happy to answer any questions. I think this application set out to do. Mark and Nancy are part-time residents who spend half the year living in their home and they've been renting it as a vacation rental while they're away. And with zero complaints from neighbors over the years, both to share this beautiful part of the coast with visitors and to help offset the real cost of owning a home in the area. The letters of support we've submitted from neighboring property owners reflect the kind of trust built in this community. And I think that says everything about how they'll carry out this permit. We accept all conditions as they are proposed. And thank you for the opportunity to speak through the chair or through the administrator. I'd love to give Mark the opportunity to say something as well.

Short version, I've been coming out here since the early 1980s when I was in training. I'm a retired doctor. And finally in 2011, I figured I'd better buy something if I want to be here. My wife and I are California residents, and we are in the summertime back in Minnesota where our children and grandchildren are. And we do appreciate the opportunity to make our home available. I like having people there, so it's not sitting empty. And it does help offset the cost of maintaining the property out here, which we love. So, again, I appreciate all your consideration. I'd be happy to answer some questions if anybody has any. Thanks again.

Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on this application at 26392 Isabella Avenue in Carmel? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Anything else from staff? At this time, something been shared. All right. So it would be my decision to find the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the Postal Development Commitment for the Commercial Vacation Rentals subject to the findings and conditions recommended by staff. Thank you. Thank you. John Potter, Our next agenda item is peeling 250231 this is that 53060 pine Canyon road in king city. John Potter, While staff setting up, I do want to disclose that I have. John Potter, A relative that lives within 2500 feet of this property. but I would kind of work through the Fair Political Practices Commission website on conflict interest to make sure I didn't have a conflict interest and I don't. So just wanted to disclose that, put it on the record and if staff can give me a minute to open up my agenda items, I'd appreciate it. Okay, ready whenever you are.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Jose Mendoza, and I will be presenting staff reports for PLN 250231, Casey Richard, and Sharon J. Casey. This application is for a commercial vacation rental located at 53060 Pine Canyon Road in Lake City in the central Salinas Valley area plan. The subject property where the vacation rental is zoned is low-density residential with a rest of the property deems on rural grazing with a maximum gross density of 10 units per acre and permanent grazing with one unit per 48 acres. The existing single-family dwelling consists of 2,100 square feet single-family dwelling. The two sheds, farmland below and barn, is not included in the vacation rental. The property has five bedrooms and two bathrooms and ten parking spots. There are carbon monoxide and and fire extinguishers in the kitchen. Pursuant to Title 20, CVRs must comply with the park requirements municipal code. For single-family dwelling units pursuant to Section 20, they are required to have two spaces per unit. The applicant meets this requirement. The property has a maximum nighttime occupancy of 15 people and a maximum daytime occupancy of 10 people. These occupancies exclude infants 0%. rental operation license. The applicant submitted a certified home inspection, which was completed by a certified state of California general contractor. Property has a local property manager who will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to respond to complaints or concerns that arise at the property. The property manager will be able to arrive on site within 30 minutes of receiving a complaint or concern. The operation plans provides applications This information is also included in the informational notice to individuals staying at the property along with quiet hours and notification of emergency routes. Condition of approval no. 4 prohibits the property from hosting corporate or private events unless the property has a separate entitlement for such use. The regulations for long-term vacation rentals allow up to 66 commercial vacation rentals to be approved in the Central Salinas Valley Area Plan, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 21. If approved, this would be the second approved commercial vacation rental in the Central Salinas Valley Area Plan. The property is accessed through Pine Canyon Road, County-maintained public road, and therefore is not required to comply with Municipal Code Section Title 16, which regulates private roads in Monterey County. The county finds that the project qualifies for a class one category exemption pursuant to CEQA guideline sections 15301 and no exemptions under section 153001 to apply. Therefore, approval of a use permit for commercial vacation rental is appropriate to go about the use of residential property for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer. This concludes that presentation staff question.

Thank you. I don't have any questions on this one, so I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present, please? Yep. Good morning. Good morning. Did you want to make any comments for the record? No. I don't have any specific comments. Thank you, staff, for what they've done. They've done a great job. Did you want to state your name for the record? I'm Richard Casey. This is Sharon Casey. Have you read the conditions recommended by staff, and are they acceptable? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak on this application? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. It will be my decision to find that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the use permit for the commercial vacation rental subject to the findings recommended by staff. Did staff have anything to add? Sorry, I forgot to ask.

Yes, do the zoning administrator staff is recommending that we had a condition to ensure the applicant provide a complete operations plan to include it in the resolution. Currently, there isn't a complete one attached. So staff is recommending the zoning administrator.

I was going to include that in my discussion that we're missing the first page of the operations plan. But yeah, I didn't know if that was just printed out for our website or anything, but we definitely need that for the resolution. So if we can work on getting that done quickly. But just to finish my thought, so we are approving the use permit for the commercial vacation rental with that change to the resolution and some non-substantive changes to the resolution. So thank you. Our next item is PLN 260078. And this is the 1273 Lisbon Lane in Pebble Beach. And staff can give me a minute to open up my items. Okay, I'm ready whenever steps. Thank you.

And morning zoning administrator know both. My name is Jay Mason and I will be the staff support on PLN to 60078 me This application is for commercial vacation rental operation use three coastal development permit located at 127 three was the plane within the Del Monte forest and he spent The subject property is low density residential with a maximum density of 1.5 acres per unit, net density, sorry, design control overlay in the coastal zone. The existing 2,744 square foot single family dwelling has four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a kitchen, living room, and an attached garage, along with four onsite parking spots outlined in red on the site plan. CBRs must comply with the parking requirements of Monterey County code. And as such, single family dwellings are required to have two spaces per unit. This project exceeds the requirement by two spaces. The property has a maximum nighttime occupancy of nine people and a maximum daytime occupancy of 13 people. These occupancies exclude infants between zero to 12 months. And the applicant submitted a certified home inspection, which was completed by a certified home inspector. The property has a local property manager who will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to respond to complaints or concerns that arise at the property. The property manager will be available to arrive onsite within 30 minutes of receiving a complaint or concern. The operations plan provides addresses and contact phone numbers for the fire station, hospital and clinic. Although CHOMP does not meet the required emergency response times, Cypress FPD provides advanced life support and paramedic staff to provide emergency medical services. And both fire and medical services are available at various times of the day. This information is also included in the informational notice to individuals staying at the property along with quiet hours and notification of emergency routes. Condition of approval number three prohibits the property from hosting corporate or private events unless the property has a separate entitlement for such use. The regulations for CVRs allow for up to 57 commercial vacation rentals to be approved in the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan, pursuant to the Monterey County Code in blue. If this is approved, this will be the third approved CVR in the area. And the proposed CVR complies with Monterey County Code regulations and standards and is consistent with the LDR zone designations. This property is accessed through Lisbon Lane and Private Road in Pebble Beach and thus is subject to the Monterey County Code chapter in red. The original deed contains deed restriction language that can be interpreted as a private road agreement. Therefore, the project is classified as a tier three category pursuant to the Monterey County Code in red, which means this deed restriction language constitutes the private road agreement. The property is within the Pebble Beach area and is currently managed by the Pebble Beach Company. which is the legal established governing structure for the private roads used to access the subject parcel. Pebble Beach Company is authorized to make determinations regarding the use, maintenance, and related matters regarding the private road. The object letter, the objection letter states that Pebble Beach Company believes that the plain meaning of the CCNR language bans short-term rental, sorry, short-term vacation rentals in the Del Monte Forest. The applicant believes CBRs are allowed to use the private road pursuant to the plain language of the deed restrictions. Due to the substantive dispute in regard to the deed restriction language, staff recommends condition of approval number six to the project that restricts the project from committance use as a commercial vacation rental until such a time that the private road dispute has been satisfactorily resolved. Aside from the Pebble Beach objection letter, public comment was submitted to the county with concerns of noise and community compatibility. The property must comply with noise control regulations under Monterey County Code 10.60, and the operator can face escalating fines if they do not comply. The county prepared an FVIR for vacation ordinance projects, which identified and addressed noise, neighborhood compatibility, and other potential impacts of CBRs. The FAR did not identify any significant impacts to CBRs up to the cap specified for each planning area and identifies the regulations were developed to ensure compatibility with the existing residential uses. The proposed CBR complies with Monterey County Code regulations and standards. Staff would like to clarify the language in the resolution under finding one evidence N to reflect the underlying language on the screen. Staff recommends the zoning administrator consider the revision as evidence. Therefore, staff recommends the Zoning Registrar Your Finding project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 and approve a coastal development permit for the commercial vacation rental operation use to allow the use of residential property for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you. The Pebble Beach letter asks us to not take action or or to deny these applications. As I pointed out earlier, we're just, we apply the regulations here at the zoning administrator level. But I did want to ask, has the board taken any action as talked about in the letter about adopting new regulations or a moratorium for me to stop processing these applications?

Through the zoning administrator, no, no direction has been provided to staff.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present, please?

Yeah, I'm Shailesh Mani. I'm present on Zoom. I'm sorry I could not be in person due to work meetings here in Palo Alto.

That's okay. We appreciate you participating. Did you have any questions or comments you wanted to make today?

Just a comment that we bought this house as a retirement house in 2021 when COVID was there and we were staying there for a long time. But as the work from home restrictions have been removed, we have to sort of be in office. So that's why we want to sort of rent out the house to offset the cost. We do stay at the house several times in a year. Typically once a month we do stay there. Yeah. And then I think the main reason for renting it out for short term is to offset the cost. Both me and my wife are 55 and another five or ten years, this will be the home that we want to retire into. So another five or seven years is what we want to at least offset the cost of owning the home till we retire.

And do you understand the conditions recommended by staff in particular, the condition that you need to work out the issue with Pebble Beach Company on the private road access?

Yes. So that one, I think I have to talk to Kathleen Lee, I guess, to understand what is the way forward. So I'll reach out to her.

Okay. Thank you. Just want to make sure you're aware of that. All right. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this application? Yes, Kathleen Lee.

Good morning, Mr. Navajo, and I appreciate staff distributing our letter to you and you raising that question. We understand that the board has not taken action on a moratorium, but I did also want to raise a question in regards to the count of the number of units that would be, if this permit was approved, Staff stated that it would be three. And we submitted a question to the county at the commercial vacation rental permits that were issued prior to the adoption of the current ordinances. Those do not appear to be counted in the current cap. And wondering if staff can take a look at that calculation and make sure that those that have been previously approved in the Del Monte forest be included in both the coastal and inland caps. Otherwise we will be exceeding that 4% cap. That's all and I'm happy to reach out to the applicant that my contact information is in the letter there and happy to connect him with the appropriate people here at Pebble Beach Company. Thank you.

Thank you. And I believe that Staff is, well obviously they're tracking the coastal portion of Pebble Beach Company or Del Monte Forest and the inland portion separately. And I know the numbers in the inland portion are much higher because of all the earlier permits. But yeah, hopefully you can continue to work with staff on that question. So thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else want to speak on this application? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Does staff have anything else to add?

No further thoughts. Through the zoning administrator, staff would just like to confirm that the number reflected for the Del Monte Forest area is the correct number of approved commercial vacation rentals and includes any previously approved, if any. So that number is correct.

Yeah, I do happen to know that in the coastal zone, we did not allow applications for commercial vacation rentals until these ordinance regulations were adopted. So the coastal zone numbers are much smaller as far as at least the legal ones. So thank you. So we by decision to find that the project is categorically exempt and approve the coastal development permit subject to the change to finding one evidence and recommended by staff and some other non-substantive changes to the resolution. And with that, the project is approved. Thank you. Our next agenda item is other matters. We do not have any, so we will adjourn at 1033.