Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's a little.

Yeah. Yes, you can leave after number five.

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Zoning Administrator Hearing for Thursday, August 27, 2026. We are conducting the meeting as a hybrid meeting with some people participating by Zoom and some people in attendance here in the chambers. So for people participating by Zoom, if you can keep yourself muted to avoid any background noises, we would appreciate that. If you want to be recognized to speak, if you can raise your hand and you can mute and unmute yourself. If you're on a phone, you can use star six to mute and unmute yourself and star nine to raise and lower your hand. If you're on a device, you can use the microphone icon for mutings. And under the reactions tab is the raise hand function. So our first agenda item is roll call. I'm Mike Novo acting today as Zoning Administrator. We have Representative for Environmental Health, Corinne Au. We have Representative from Public Works, Flora Kaya. And we have Representative from Environmental Services, Jesper Everson. Our next agenda item is public comment. If somebody would like to speak on a topic that is not on today's agenda, an item of general interest, if you can raise your hand and now would be the time to speak. Seeing none, I'll close the general public comment period. And our next item is agenda additions, deletions, and corrections. Madam Secretary, do we have any such matters?

Yes, we did receive correspondence and a memo from staff for the following projects. PLN 240366, PLN 260135, PLN 260127, P.L.N. 260100, P.L.N. 250069, P.L.N. 260138, and P.L.N. 260103. All correspondence was received and distributed to the zoning administrator and all interested parties.

Thank you. And I have received it and read it also. I appreciate that. Our next item is acceptance of minutes. We have minutes from August 13th. John Gerstle, zoning administrator hearing does anybody have any comments on those draft minutes. John Gerstle, Seeing none, I will accept the minutes of August 13. John Gerstle, scheduled items our first schedule is PLN 260157 I know we have a request just to recognize that this item has been withdrawn does staff have any comments they wanted to make on this one.

Staff received a withdrawal letter from the agent on August 12th, 2026, after this project was due and staff is requesting to remove this item from the agenda and for the zoning administrator to consider it as withdrawn.

Okay, thank you. So anybody here that wanted to speak on this application at 6 Vista, Cielo, and Parmel? Seeing none, we'll just recognize that it was withdrawn. We'll move on to schedule item two, which is PLN240366. This is for steel at 1463 as I've described in Pebble Beach. We have a request today for a potential referral to the planning commission of my staff. We'll talk about that procedurally today. I'm not going to get into the substance of the project itself, but we'll get into whether it should be further. So turn it over to staff for presentation.

McKenna Bowling Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is McKenna Bowling, and today's staff is requesting this item, PLN240366, steel, be referred to the Planning Commission to a date uncertain. The steel project consists of a replacement of an existing driveway with permeable pavers and landscape improvements to construct a privately used putting green in the front yard of the subject parcel. The current set of plans with the proposed scope of work was submitted in January earlier this year. However, staff was still in discussion with the applicant regarding tree removal and inadvertently overlooked the project's proposed development on slopes in excess of 30%. As currently proposed, the project includes 22,544 square feet of development on slopes throughout the property and around the trees that are to be protected in place in order to construct the putting green. Pursuant to Title 20, Section 2064-230D, the Planning Commission shall consider projects involving a coastal development permit to allow development of succeeding 30%. Therefore, with the project as it is currently proposed, staff recommends the zoning administrator refer the steel project to the Planning Commission to a date uncertain. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions. Thank you.

So what are the entitlements needed for this project? I see design approval. I think I saw a coastal permit for the development on slopes. Are there other entitlements as well?

It is, at this point, a combined development permit consisting of a coastal administrative permit and design approval for the recreational feature updates in addition to the driveway replacement. A coastal development permit for the development on slopes exceeding 30% and a coastal administrative permit for development within 750 feet of a known archaeological resource.

Okay, thank you. Is the applicant present please? I'll open the hearing and we'll hear from the applicant or representative.

Mr. Panser with Maureen Rutt, one of the consultants representing Rick Steele, who's present today with us, as well as Ralph Foster-Wing, our arborist, is in the audience. I recognize you've got a busy agenda, but I would like to speak specifically to and the request for additional time.

Okay.

So page 2 of the staff report indicates that if the staff needs additional time to ensure the project is decent with the general plan, land use plan, and coastal implementation plan, staff report provides no clarity on what specific aspects of consistency staff is struggling with to request more time. Ms. Bowling just indicated that there's 40,000 square feet of 30% slope. that's on the property in its entirety. This only involves about 4,000 square feet, 40 by whatever the dimension is. So that's inaccurate. And I hope you'll give me a little latitude to get information on the record as it relates to this two specific requests before you today. On the planning commission referral request, public hearing notes that this is a coastal administrative permit. Section 20.1 as the appropriate authority, states that the director of planning or the zoning administrator appropriate authority to consider coastal administrative permits. That same section says the zoning administrator is the appropriate authority to hear and consider coastal administrative permits if the matter is referred to public hearing. Exhibit F of my August 24th letter includes an email from the planner indicating the matter was moved to the ZA because a grading cut and fell in 30% slopes, and we were just made aware of that I think that email was August 3rd. And so that's a year into the project. We were made aware of that. Section 20.76.060.A of Title 20 provides the criteria for referral to a planning commission or to a public hearing. So that would include public controversy, public opposition, staff recommendation for denial, not being categorically exempt under CEQA, public hearing and writing, or if there's zoning violations. None of those conditions exist, but here we are today. Staff report, again, provides no information as to why this was referred to a public hearing in the first place, and it also indicates it's categorically exempt. All the regulatory criteria in the zoning ordinance indicates the zoning administrator is the appropriate authority to designate all matters related to the CAP And given your background and experience, Mr. Novo, we believe you're fully capable of addressing consistency issues and evaluating the project and also evaluating the amount of time it's already taken to process this application. Given the scope of work, we consider it to be a front yard landscaping project. True removal, we'll talk about that in a minute, but driveway replacement with pervious materials. So It's our position to request to refer this matter to the Planning Commission as without basis or authority should be denied. Section 2.48.060 of the Monterey County Code, powers and duties, indicates the function and duty of the Planning Commission is to prepare and adopt a comprehensive long-term general plan for the physical development of the county. So if HCD is looking to amend either the 1982 general plan, the Del Monte Forest land use plan, or the Del Monte Forest CIP, that should be handled separately. You know, we've been at this for a year. Mr. Steele's front yard landscaping should not be held up if there's some greater matter that staff is considering. Again, we don't know what the issue is. I would also say Monterey County Code Section 2.48.060 also grants the Planning Commission such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by law But as I stated earlier, it's very clear in Title 20 what your authority is as the zoning administrator, and it doesn't mention 20 at all. With respect to the request for additional time from staff, the project was filed on July 24th, 2025. The project was deemed complete on August 22nd, 2025. And for coastal administrative permits, Chapter 20.7, whereby certain coastal development permits can be considered at an administrative level. That section further states the purpose is to expedite workflow, reduce time needed to process and consider certain applications, dispense with public hearings, and decrease the impact on time, materials, and cost in processing certain discretionary permits. And now you have before you a request to say, we need more time, but the staff report doesn't say more time to do what. Again, it's a front yard landscaping project for a historic residence. It's been there since 1925. Since the project was completed 12 months ago, and we've actively been engaged with principal planners since early December 2025, I would suggest that the request for more time is inconsistent with both the Permit Streamlining Act and Monterey County Code 20.76.01 update. And give me a couple more minutes. I'm just about done. Further evidence to deny the request from the signature line on Ms. Bolling's August 22, 2025 email that transmitted the complete letter. That in the signature block contains the following statement. It says, once deemed complete, The consistency review team will prepare the application for consideration by the appropriate authority. That was 12 months ago. So why is more time one year into it being needed to do a consistency review on what should really be a minor application? As I mentioned earlier, the Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code Section 65950.5 advises the lead agency that if a project is CEQA-exempt, The project should be approved within 60 days after a completeness determination is made. As I mentioned earlier in verbal communications with Ms. Bolling, she had intended that to occur in December, and here we are in August of 2026, and we're going to continue this to a date uncertainly. We had hoped to start the landscaping work last spring. We filed in July of 2025. I figured it would take six to nine months to get a permit, and now we're in sort of the black hole of permit processing. And I would also just say on the timing piece, and this is anecdotally, but I think it's instructive. I recently, in April, completed a non-coastal approval for a project in Carmel Valley that consisted of a brand new memory care center, eight guest units, facility expansion, construction of 19 residential units, removal of 61 oaks, and 31,000 square feet of development on 25% slope for the residential elements. So if you take out the CEQA component, you know, the routing and circulation and public comment, and I had two hearings before the HRRB, it took that applicant 14 months to get that permit. With this project, and you've heard it described, it worked 13 months. Stonie Cooper- It just, it makes no sense. Stonie Cooper- And then, with respect to consistency in my letters to the zoning administrator and communications to the planning department when we were aware of certain things we did provide consistency information. Stonie Cooper- So I think that sort of summarizes it and if you'll involve me there's one other aspect of this, I think that I would like you to consider. The coastal implementation plan exempts a coastal development permit for tree approval. And that's CIP section 20.147.050.8.1. And I've raised that with the principal planner going back to December on several occasions. That's memorialized in my August 24th letter to you. And we can't get there. I'm just wondering, just if there's a way to simplify this, if somebody, maybe the zoning administrator can recognize, yes, that exemption exists, then we're down to just talking about 30% slope, the minor amount of development, and then the archeological piece. So there's two prior projects, there's a negative report, but because we're in 750 feet, obviously we've got to get that permit. So to just about conclude, if I may bring up Ralph Osterly, just to talk about that, because, the sort of the focus of this conversation since, I believe, November. And again, here we are in August, we're still talking about it.

Is it relevant to the request for going to Planning Commission?

It's more relevant to one of the items that they want to go to the Planning Commission on, which is the coastal tree waiver. So we're not talking about the project today. We're just talking about other aspects. So Mr. Osterling, if you would, please.

Good morning. My name is Ralph Osterling, for the record. I am registered professional forester, state of California, license number 38. And I was going to try to save forestry for over 60 years and working here with Joel and the property owner to effectively enhance this and redo his front yard And Joel just passed out an aerial print from an aerial photo that I put together, which clearly shows it's not a forest. The trees are not of sensitive or vegetation species. They're not landmark trees by regulation. It's not located in a environmentally sensitive area. Notice that residential development on all around, including on the lower left of the image, there is a ranch or farm there that is raising goats. And it's not within 100 feet of any environmentally sensitive areas. I think to note, please, the two palm trees down in the lower central right-hand part of the property were probably installed with the original development 100 years ago. And then there was a large eucalyptus, which was in poor condition and that was removed. And now there's a, or there was a heavy stand, a forest almost, of acacia. And I, I hope that when you went out and made a field inspection, you could see that the acacia along Cypress Drive, which is Cypress Drive, goes from off the image at the bottom and up to the intersection. And on the left of that, there's a yellowish green stand of overgrown acacia. That was planted probably with the second ogre, I'm guessing. And then the acacia also is scattered along the property line by the goat farm. There's, I think clearly, are there sensitive species here? No, we do not have a pine forest. We don't have a cypress forest. And it's re-landscaping of what originally, maybe 200, 300 years ago, I'm guessing, was grassland, looking at what images that are at the historical society. And are there landmark trees? No. Is it within a public view share? No. It's a private property. And the Cypress hedge that is along Cypress Avenue to the, as you look at the image to the right of the palm trees, provides almost 100% screening. And the property slopes very gently up to along by the driveway where I'm surmising that it was regraded to create a pad for the residents. And over on the left side, the Johnson property looks down over Mr. Steele's property. And those large cypress trees that are there are being retained. They're being thinned and properly taken care of. And the deferred maintenance that has occurred throughout the property is being corrected. And I think that the net result of this, in my professional opinion, is its land improvement. And taking almost an abandoned landscape, certainly deferred maintenance, and bringing it up replanting oak trees and taking care of them is in the county's best interest. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Foster. If I may conclude, I'm just Beth, and so Based on our testimony, granting a referral to the Planning Commission is not consistent with Title 20, Sections 20.76.030 and 20.76.060.A. The zoning administrator has complete authority in this matter, so we're asking you to deny that request. Hopefully, for the hearing record, you can acknowledge that based on the testimony of Mr. Osterling, The project is eligible for a waiver of a coastal development permit for tree removal, which is coastal implementation plan section 20.147.050.8.1. That would really ease the processing of this thing, which, again, has been going on for more than a year now. We then ask if... that were to occur that the 30%, the archeological waiver could come back to your schedule for the September 10th CA meeting. Again, per the permit streamlining act and zoning requirements for processing of coastal administrative permits, the data uncertain is very concerning to us. And if that's the intent, I just think they've had a year to review and process this. And so for what that's worth, There's no basis for denial of staff report. It doesn't state what the request is for. So I think based on what we know today, there's no reason that you're not fully capable and have the ability to sort of analyze the project, develop findings and evidence, whether or not you choose to approve it, that's really a subject of the future public hearing. So we'd be happy to answer any comments, but thank you for indulging us with a little extra time today.

Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this application?

Good morning. Good morning. My name is . I'm a resident of Bell Beach and reside at Padre Lane. That's a block above the steel residence. Also, I am vice president of the Domani Forest Property Owners Association. Remember the money for architectural new board. Number of the county news advisory committee from Pebble Beach and past secretary of the money for his conservancy. I know his position for years, some for 10 years as all have seen him do many. Post projects and in the force, including this one can I ask you one question are you speaking for any of those groups are just as an in no I'm just letting you know OK. Put my background so you can evaluate. In these different boards and organizations, certain issues that we, the Mormons, truly try to promote, encourage, enhance, or modify projects. Be competent by looking into protection of the environment, critical native plants and trees, prevent code setbacks or height violations, address any adverse effects on neighbors, and allow reasonable usage of the property by the owner. And then for one very rare occasions on the state side properties of some. Wrong use to push you through its main thing will have a beach was formed but it's famous for. Normally it's very different woman that in this case might not be part of the military changes to address resolve the issues are entitled is responsible usage. I'll note and pass the last issue easily. Both more fits Pebble Beach image than the golf course and golf holes. As a nearby resident, I noted that he also was a longtime representative of the concerns of the people of Pebble Beach. I proved this well thought and attractive that the Del Monte Forest and please ask it is the same.

Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this application? It's in Cypress Drive in Beville Beach. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I don't see anybody online. Make sure I jump. Okay, anything else from staff?

Yes. The zoning administrator is here today due to a procedural error within the appropriate authority to recommend to make a decision on this application. The application as stated by the applicant does include development on slopes pursuant to Title 20-64-230. The appropriate authority to consider such application is the Planning Commission. As staff noted, there are several entitlements that then would consider this a combined development permit pursuant to the combined development section. If there is any part of that permit that would be considered by the Planning Commission, then the entirety would be considered by them as well. Therefore, staff does recommend that the zoning administrator refer this application to the Planning Commission, in which will be re-notified once a date is set.

Thank you. Actually, I was going to ask about those code sections. As Mr. Panzer pointed out, I've been here a long time and I started with the coastal zoning code and know it pretty well. And I was wondering about the combined development permit section as well as this development slope section, which both point to the Planning Commission. The combined development permit section here really is controlling for me more so than the issues Mr. Panzer pointed out, where it says, well, it talks about the combined development threat, including any print normally associated by the Planning Commission, then the Planning Commission shall consider it at all. There is some nuance in the code, There's other sections where it talks about where the primary permit being considered under the Combined Development Permit section. In this case, because there's no structure, I do a lot of 30 percent slope here because of incidental for construction of houses and things like that. But in this case, that's the primary permit that I see for this case, and that is to be considered by the Planning Commissioner for the code. My decision to recognize that uh staff's position and recommend that this go to the planning commission i will encourage you uh the applicant and staff to talk about a good schedule because this is a long way in the process so so let's get this to the planning commission so these people can be involved in projects so but with that uh it will be referred to the planning commission thank you So, I'm going to make a few comments about commercial vacation rentals. Some of our next few hearings are related to commercial vacation rentals. As some of you may know, the Board of Supervisors adopted commercial vacation rental regulations over the last couple of years, and the county is processing numerous applications. The county's process of adopting the regulations occurred over many years that extends to public participation. The Board of Supervisors' intent was to strike a balance that allows Monterey County to benefit from the tourist 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. Part of the board's determination was that the community is better served by having limited, well-regulated vacation rental uses rather than our ongoing illegal rentals. 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 site is managed and responsible to respond to any issues. In addition to the zoning regulations, the county code also includes regulations in Chapter 7.120, which includes, among other requirements, prohibitions on amplified sound 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 we determine whether the applications meet the adopted regulations in the county code. The zoning administrator will also be considering an application today in the Pebble Beach area. The recently adopted county code does not prohibit commercial vacation rentals within Pebble Beach, but does have requirements with regards to use of private roads. After the board's adoption of the 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 access to its private roads for commercial uses of housing. In response to this, the county is processing permits in Pebble Beach for the condition that the private road issue be resolved with the Pebble Beach Company prior to beginning the commercial vacation rental use. So with that, With those kind of background, we'll go into the first of our applications. Stop and give me a minute to get to my items. This one is PLN 260135. This is a 24790 lower trail. We did have a... John Potter, The hearing on this two weeks ago here we have a site visit last week out at the site, so that I can understand the context for the neighborhood and so. John Potter, We have had a lot of testimony in this already so i'd asked for people not to repeat what they've already provided, but i'd like to open the hearing first let's hear from staff if they have any comments today.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator. My name is Jacqueline Nickerson, Principal Planner with the Housing and Community Development Department. This application is for PLN 260-135. As the Zoning Administrator mentioned, this was continued from the last August 13th Zoning Administrator hearing. A special site visit was then agendized last week to This neighborhood, this application is on 24790 Lower Trail, zone MDR with a maximum of two units per acre with a design control overlay within the Carmel area land use plan. Through the application, there are several that are approved within this area already highlighted in blue. There are pending commercial vacation rentals highlighted in the yellow stars. Through the site visit, staff did find that this neighborhood is unique in terms of parking and constraints regarding the access roads and the width within this neighborhood. The single family dwelling is legal non-conforming as to parking, which provides one site or one parking on site where our codes require two. As you can see here, there are The county regulations do not or prohibit parking from the right side. However, you will see a vehicle park there. Parking is allowed on the left side, but that is public parking potentially within the county right away. So parking in front of the neighborhood or the proposed commercial vacation rental could potentially create a nuisance and or safety concern for line of sight when entering into the area since it's so constrained. Oh geez. Here you can see additional photos through the site visit that this is coming off into the neighborhood as you make a left onto lower trail. If additional vehicles were parked on the curb, as you can see here, it could create a potential line of sight concern exiting and entering the property. As outlined within the draft resolution prepared for the zoning administrator, staff is recommending that in this particular case, due to the number of bedrooms and allowed maximum occupancy outlined within our regulations, that condition number six would be added to limit the number of vehicles per rental agreement when the home is being used for commercial vacation rental. Parking would be required within the existing garage if feasible, and if not, parking would be in front of the house within the public parking area. Additionally, staff would like to add an errata to add finding five, which would be the public access finding as required for the granting of a coastal development permit. This does not substantively change the recommendation or the evidence outlined within the resolution. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And with the condition and the added errata SAP would recommend as any administrator find the project categorically exempt and approve the coastal development permit as presented today and that the August 13 administrative air.

HAB-Terry Palmos- Question on your post condition sex and thoughts that says if feasible and i'm not sure why it would say that is there is that a constrained garage in some way.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- The garage is smaller than your what you would typically. Um, see, although it doesn't the required parking size for garage. However, if there are two vehicles or a vehicle that does not fit within the garage, um, and there's two parking spaces in front of the home that would be available to the rental to the renters.

But the garage is does meet the required with size or typical requirements.

Yes.

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

Yes, sir. This is Xingyi. I'm here.

Did you have any comments you wanted to make today?

Yes. So thank you again for the staff to spend time and visit our sites and trying to find common ground for both sides. I want to say that our garage may seem small, but we've parked a Rivian SUV before. So it's a decent size. It's doable. And overall, I'm not going to repeat what I said two weeks ago, but just want to say that we're taking care the feedback from neighbors seriously. And also we're taking it seriously to make sure we're in compliance with the county. We respect what county recommends, what's the best for the neighborhood and for the owners around the area. And we will do our best to enforce it. Lastly, again, I think what will be most effective to address those parking issues is really Find a way to find to put no parking or speed limit or red line those type of legal enforcement solutions. So we can really enforce as a neighborhood, not just per house because we're not the only one who's bringing cars to the neighborhood. We're not the only one who's driving in the neighborhood.

I did have a couple questions related to your application. It talks about in the operations plan that you have 12 people that come and work on the house. I'm just wondering why you have so many people coming in to clean or do landscaping, I assume. I'm not sure why you have that many people coming. Can you explain that?

Yeah. So we have gardeners. Usually they come in and out three, four people because they wanted to do it fast. And the gardener actually, you know, work on many houses on the on the street. That's how I actually found them. So they come here, work on a couple of houses on the street and then they leave. It's more cost efficient for them and for us, too. We also have cleaner to come three, four at a time also. We have jacuzzi people to maintain our tub. And we also have pest control people come monthly to maintain a house. I have local property managers, I have three local contact to make sure we have good coverage in case, you know, any of them are out of town. So I do have, you know, people maintain and not the same time, but come come to maintain the house.

That's part of my question was whether they come at the same time. For the clean, the cleaners, do they come in one or two or more vehicles?

The cleaner, usually they come in one vehicle. Yeah. And then they also clean at least two houses on the street. So they come in once and they can clean both houses or, you know, at the same time.

And I think I saw neighbors talking about a fire pit. How are you going to control that for the rentals? They are not allowed for commercial vacation rentals.

Yeah, so we've removed the propane tank. So then the table is there, the chair is there, but there's no propane tank for them to use. And then we do plan on moving all the furniture, outdoor furniture, including the jacuzzi, like I mentioned last time, to the backyard. So away from the street and the houses around us, closer to the Carpenter Street, which has a lot of noise already.

Thank you. You'll be able to respond if anybody else testifies on your application. Thank you. Is there anybody that would like to speak on this application? on Lower Trail, 24-7-90 Lower Trail.

Yes, I would like to speak. My name is Dr. Michael Moeller, and I live diagonally across from this application. It seems like the applicant has taken some means to control some of the problems that we have. But the main problem is it's a narrow road, one lane, and probably should not be appropriate for STRs, period, just like the highlands, like the Big Sur. And I think that should be taken into consideration. People walk their dogs, kids are in the street. We have, you know, suddenly running some type of businesses that are administered to people from all over the world, none that know our traffic, know that we need to park off the road, difficult getting fire, ambulance services, and that has been a problem in the past where the road's too narrow for them to bypass. And I just think this area is not appropriate for short-term rentals, period. The other thing, changing the neighborhood, over the past two or three years, no homes have been sold to families. All have been bought by short-term rental people, people from out of the area, San Francisco, New York, San Jose, nobody local. And they want to make a buck. and they're doing so on our backs, they're ruining this neighborhood. It has changed this neighborhood. I discussed this with the Board of Supervisor Kate Daniels, and I think we're going to try to address that. But at this point, I would not approve any further short-term rentals in this area. And until this can be further looked at, and probably should not, there should be, if this one's approved, there should be no more in the upper lower trail region because we just cannot handle them. And we'd like to have all these short-term rental people, you know, sell their properties to families. Well, basically we had a meeting last night and everybody's 60, 70, 80 years old. There's no, very few people with kids very few young people moving into the area. And this is one area that they could, because the prices are, you know, reasonable enough, but not Carmel prices necessarily. And the homes are bigger. And that's my piece of basically, you know, where the neighborhood has been ruined over the past two or three years. We'd like to reverse that by saying no short-term rentals, no businesses, for the hospitality industry that is not appropriate for our neighborhood. And it was not appropriate when I moved in and it's still not appropriate to run a business in our neighborhood. In the past, someone started a business, we ran them out. Where you at? Not now.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this application? Seeing none, did the applicant want to respond at all?

Sure. So I just want to say that like many of us, many of you, This is our home. This is my primary resident. We're renting at the time at the Bay Area. Jobs not allowing us to stay there full time, but that's our home. The worst for us is to have people to trash the place, ruin the neighborhood. It just, you know, we cannot allow us to be there full time. This is our home. you know, temporary solution. I'll be there this weekend with my family. So I'd be happy to meet and discuss if you guys have any concerns, but you have my numbers, you know, anything that you guys have in mind, we'd be happy to hear.

I forgot to ask you, have you read the conditions of approval and are they acceptable?

I will implement it and respect the decision from the commissioner.

Thank you. Let me close the public hearing. Does staff have anything else to add?

Yes. Staff would like to, should the zoning administrator approve the project, staff would like to request an updated operations plan to reflect 10 overnight guests and 15 during the daytime. Right now it has 11 and staff would just want to be sure the documents are correctly matched with the resolution.

I have that note as well. Thank you. We had a lot of discussion last meeting and some more today about this application. Field trip was very important. As the neighbor pointed out, we have a narrow constrained road out here. that unfortunately is not unique in the county. Everywhere we have commercial vacation rentals, we typically, not everywhere, but most places we do have constrained roads with either parking issues, no sidewalks, narrow roads. So it's really not unique for this neighborhood, but this is a very constrained neighborhood. I feel like staff's done a good job working with the applicant to trim this down to fit the property. since we only have the one onsite parking space and the one in front of the property. So it will be my decision to find that the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and approve this Coastal Development Permit with some non-substantive changes to the resolution. I'll check it now. John Potter, yeah there's a couple just little typos. John Potter, I would like to take out the if feasible and condition six, I want to make sure that that that garage is available for people that are running the place and. John Potter, will recognize the change from the memo as well without the project is approved, thank you. John Potter, Good. John Potter, Our next agenda item is PLN 260127. This is for Evers and 202 Estrella de Oro. John Potter, Your staff can give me a minute to open up my agenda. All right, never steps, but thank you.

Thank you. Good morning zoning administrator Novo Fiona Jensen presenting HDD planning file number PLN 260127 the Evers project. The project site is located at 202 Estrella de Oro, Monterey within the greater Monterey Peninsula Peninsula area plan. The property is owned low density residential with building site six and design control overlays. The project includes the construction of a 4,127 square foot single family dwelling with an attached garage and associated site improvements, including a driveway, patios, and retaining walls. The applicant is also seeking allocation of 0.525 acre feet per year from the county's first come first served category. General Plan Policy OS 3.5 prohibits development on slopes in excess of 25% unless a use permit is first obtained or the project only involves minor development on steeper slopes. In this case, the project development footprint is over 7,000 square feet and proposes 498 square feet of development on steeper slopes, thus complying with OS 3.5's 10% limitation and not requiring a use permit. Members of the public have raised concerns regarding whether the proposed building footprint appropriately fits the topography and the constraints of the lot, and whether appropriate erosion and drainage control measures have been taken care of or have been implemented.

Before you move on, is that the existing topography pretty much there?

Yes. Thank you. And this also may be helpful. Northwestern half of the subject lot is generally flat with limited irregular areas of slope in excess of 25%, whereas the south and eastern portions of the lot consist of a steep hillside shown in red. When taking into account those topography constraints and the required setbacks, the residence is sited in the only feasible location. Geological and geotechnical reports were prepared for the project and found that the project location did not include any unsuitable soils. All recommendations contained in those reports will be incorporated into the final construction plans pursuant to Monterey County codes. Additionally, a final erosion and drainage control plan will be submitted and reviewed by appropriate departments with the construction permit. The project has been reviewed by the Environmental Services Department and Monterey County Regional Fire Department, both of which did not raise concerns with the project. The property is within CalAMS water service area, but does not currently have water credits or allocation. The project site does, though, however, have an existing water meter. The applicant is proposing a single family dwelling with a total fixture unit count of 25, and therefore also requesting 0.25 acre feet per year from the county's water allocation. The project does comply with board policy number G269, In that it will not exceed the quarter acre foot of water and is consistent with the allowable uses under the first come first served category for water allocation. The proposed single family dwelling would have a Spanish architectural style with mixed materials consisting of earthy tones. including a beige semi-smooth stucco with dark brown trim and clay roof and a black front door and iron gate. The proposed colors and materials are compatible with the commonly found colors and materials of the surrounding neighborhood, which also include earth tone materials and clay roof. Neighbors have raised concerns about the massing and bulk of the residents. The proposed 4,990 square foot single family dwelling inclusive of the garage would be two stories with a ridge height of 23.6 feet. The two adjacent residences, both zone low density residential are one story and they're shown on the right and have respective heights of 17 and 22 and a half feet. And these properties also range between 4300 square feet and 5200 square feet in development. These properties, however, approximately 23 to 25 feet below the existing terrain of the project site and therefore results in the proposed development appearing to be much larger. The adjacent medium density residential multifamily development does consist of primarily two-story structures with similar or taller ridge heights. Again, the general topography of the property results in the proposed residents appearing larger than others, but in staff's review and site visit, we believe it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood relative to colors, materials, bulk, and massing. So with that, staff recommends the zoning administrator find the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15303 and no exceptions apply under 15300.2. Approve a design approval to allow construction of a 4,127 square foot two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage and associated site improvements and approve allocating 0.25 acre feet per year from the county's first come first served Category pursuant to board policy number G269. That concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for questions.

Thank you. In finding two evidence B, if you've got the resolution in front of you, thoughts about in the geotechnical report, that the proposed development will not involve any excavation on or beyond the steep exterior slopes. So we're just saying they're pretty much staying within the path that was created during the subdivision? That's correct. OK. I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present, please?

I'm Darren Davis, the designer of the project. Thank you, Mr. Novo and the staff. And I'd like to give a special thank you to Fiona. She took over this job from the previous planner, and she's been very helpful and done a great job. Let's see if I can cover this. Getting old, I can't read. So as she mentioned, the proposed house, is there any way we can throw something up there? The site plan maybe on the- Yeah, we'll get that. So it's a vacant lot on the upper edge of Pasadena on the northwest edge. And there's only a few lots of their houses. This will be the third in a row of houses. I think there's another vacant lot up there. And then across the road, there's a subdivision of houses that were built by Pasadena. As well. So you can see by looking at this site plan the This is the how this is the garage. This is the house. This is the driveway. This is the back patio. This is a courtyard. That's north. So these are all the steep slopes. That And this area here is generally slopes between about 2% and 20% with some 25% up there where the black is. The proposed house is what I would call a Spanish Mediterranean, fits right into what what we've done out in Pasadena. And it is what Pasadena HOA rules require. This is not my first house I've done out there. I've done many homes in Pasadena. This house, it'll have... Spanish clay tile roof, stucco finish of course, deep set windows. The second story of the house is only, it's about a third of the square footage and it's in this general vicinity right here. And it's set back from the lower level. The way we designed the roof, it's a hip roof generally with generous overhangs, with exposed rafter tails, copper gutters. So from below, which is mostly what you'll see when you're looking up at, when you're down below, you'll see these exposed tails. It's going to be very nicely detailed. I've done a couple other houses over the years for Mr. and Mrs. Evers out there and they're great builders and they pay attention to detail. Just since we're looking at it, this is a garden wall or a privacy wall and this is a gate. and through the gate is an open courtyard, and then you get to the front door of the house. So the outdoor living space for this house, in the afternoon, this is the west side, that's where you're going to get the sun, so they'll spend time over here. But it's very private, it respects the privacy of the neighbors that are across the road, and it respects the privacy of the people that are gonna live in the house. On the other side of the house, which is facing the golf course, There's an outdoor patio there. There are no patios on the sides of the house facing any of the neighbors. The Pasadena Homeowners Association Architecture Review Board had approved the site design and they approved the preliminary plans, the ones you're looking at now. They found that it was compatible with the character of the neighborhood and the association. The proposed height of the structure is 23 and a half feet above average grade. And it's in that two story sections. Everything else of course is lower. Maximum I think is 30 feet out there. So we're well below the height limit. You can see the existing grade line, that dotted line under the house. So we're kind of balancing the grade there, cutting a little, a little bit of fill under the garage, but it's a small amount. Setbacks that we're proposing to the garage is 30 feet from the front. The rest of the house is set back a little further. On the south side, which is this downhill side over here, The minimum setback is 20 feet. There's a house down here. I believe the Sharps live down there. So we're sitting at 35 feet with the garage. This is the kitchen right here. So the kitchen's about 50 feet. Then the second story is set in even further. So it's generally about 55 feet in this area. On the sharp side, their house is sitting at about a little over 20 feet from the property line down here. So there's a good 50 to 70 feet between the two houses. Due to the topography and the shape, you can see the shape of this lot. And none of this is developable. This is very steep headed down to the golf course. But due to the shape of the property and the topography, this is the best place to put a house. There's no question. The finished floor of this house is about 20 feet above the finished floor of the house below because the topography is so steep the way it comes up from one to the other, the transition. So we really feel we've gone the extra mile to make this house fit the property. As for grading and drainage, it's all designed. We've already submitted a grading and drainage plan for this permit. It's been reviewed by the geotechnical engineer and it's been reviewed by the architecture view board for the homeowners association. all properties in Pasadena, all the drainage has to go into a common drainage system and then they process it for their golf course water. And so all of the developed area, the stormwater will be collected from the roof gutters, the patios, the courtyard, the driveway, discharged into the Pasadena storm drain system and down to So we will actually be fixing a problem with water coming this direction, but we certainly won't be intensifying any water headed for the neighbors. As for staking and surveyor, this property was surveyed by Frank Lucido. Everybody knows Frank. He also staked out the house for us so we could put the story poles up. So where the house is staked out there is exactly where the house is going to be built. We know that the neighbor to the south, as I mentioned before, is concerned with the height and the massing. But I believe we've done a really good job. And we worked with the HOA on this as well. HAB-Jacques Juilland- You can go back to that picture. HAB-Jacques Juilland- By setting the second story back from the first story it creates a lower roofline. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Is your modulation to that wall. HAB-Jacques Juilland- As for you give me the next page that has the other exterior elevation on it. HAB-Jacques Juilland- I don't know what she does. HAB-Jacques Juilland- All right. You can just talk about it. You don't have to kill yourself on it. The southern elevation of the house has, on the second story, there are two bedroom windows from one bedroom. There's a bathroom window. That's it on the second story facing in that direction. On the first story, the kitchen is down there, but there are no kitchen windows. We didn't place any windows facing the south. from the kitchen, we have a small window from a pantry and then going from memory, there's another window down there. I don't remember what room that is. But we tried to keep the windows to a minimum on that side of the house. Yeah, so there's two garage windows there. So the only bedroom windows are for one bedroom above And we couldn't place those windows on the front due to the way the roof is shaped. There are some small windows on the front of that bedroom, but they don't need the coat for us. So I think that covers it. We believe that when this is done, everybody around is going to love this house. And we would like you to approve this.

Is the property owner going to speak as well or just you?

Rose is here.

I did want to ask, you know, I don't know if you saw we got a petition this morning from a lot of the neighbors and I just want to see if you have any responses to that.

That was quite a welcome to the neighborhoods that it was. I know things are hard for people to accept when things change in their neighborhood. I am the property owner. I think that we've done everything within the Monterey County guidelines, working with the planning department and the expertise of Darren. We've built two other homes in Pasadena that have been lauded and still have relationships with the people who bought them of that same elk, same style, classic California, Hacienda. Like Darren said, we pay great attention to the detail And we really create landmark homes. We don't do it very often, but when we do it, we do it right. Kind of ironic that a second story is being debated and petitioned by homes across the street that are two-story homes. It's fine for the neighbors who live right next door to build a one-story house. That was your choice. The guidelines give us the opportunity to build a second story. As Darren explained, the property itself is very limited. I mean, I could go on and on, but I respect that you guys are busy. When I first saw the drawings for this house, I said that is one of the most beautiful houses you've ever designed for us. I think the neighbors will really like this house when we're finished and they see how well we do it. Maybe they won't, but we really will be adding value to the neighborhood. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Does anybody else like to speak on this application?

Yeah, I'd like to. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm a neighbor to the property. And I'd just like to make sure that consideration is really taking the size, mass of this property. It stands out.

Did you want to state your name for the record? You don't have to.

Michael Sharp. I'm the neighbor next door. The house is fairly large for the property. They're putting a large house on a on a lot that has a relatively small building footprint. Hence, it's pushed way to the edge of the property up against very steep slopes that run all the way down to the golf course and to adjacent properties. And the structure will be very prominent in the area. It's gonna sit way above most houses on, certainly on the front golf course. Houses behind, obviously, similar height to, but their visual impact is not as great as this will be to the surrounding neighborhood. I have no problem with having the lot developed, but I think consideration should be given to other design aspects and designs for a similar property on the lot. There is considerable erosion at the moment on the slopes between my property and their property. And I'm sure they will have to excavate or put something on those slopes to prevent that. So there will be work going on on those slopes, I would imagine. So as I say, it becomes a very prominent roofline in the area for neighbors and for members of the golf course. I just like to see some other potential designs for that particular lot. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this application?

Hi, yes. My name is Chris Dan Long. I live directly across the street from this development. I think it sounds like it's going to have some beautiful detail, but I do take exception to saying everybody's going to love this house. And that I, the second story, our house sits directly across, but down, up, down under the street line. And so when I open my front door, this is the entire skyline. The entire skyline is gone. And so it's starting, their lower level is starting at my upper level. And I have a much smaller house, 1700 square feet. Most of the homes in that area are a little smaller, much smaller. And so most of those families aren't here today because they are working families. But I'm sure the detail will be beautiful. And I agree with. Michael, Mr. Sharp, that this is going to take every inch of that square of that lot. It's not as big as the other two lots that were next door to it. And it sits already up 25 feet higher. So another 23 and a half feet, that's 48 and a half feet into the skyline. It's pretty high. It's a big, this is a, and I agree, down the hill, down the hill, beautiful homes like this that you're planting. And around on other scattered in Pasadena, Absolutely, yes. But for this particular lot in this particular neighborhood, it does seem like it's going to be a monstrosity sticking way up into the sky. So I would ask this board kindly, like Michael, could we please talk about not a second story? The first two homes, there's only three lots there. The other two homes have been recently developed. They have not been developed. I've been there for 26 years with this empty lot across the the skyline. I don't believe there's any eminent domain of view, but I'm thrilled for the people building, but it's just the height of this house is taking everything away from our home and the homes across the street. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this afternoon? Yes.

I'm Cheryl Sharp. I live right next door and been a member and a resident ambassador for many years since 2002. And I've sold a lot of the properties out there. So I'm very familiar with the development. And the average do, there's no question, build an absolutely beautiful home. And they, the detail, all of that's absolutely gorgeous. We're not debating putting a house on this property. We're not debating the quality of construction. We know what it is. What we're debating is the way this structure sits on the hill in relationship to our property, And not only our property, but the properties across the street. When myself and the neighbor on the property next to us went to the neighbors across the street and neighbors around the area, all of them said, what is that arbitrage, excuse me, being constructed on that lot? The Evers have or their design architect has submitted some pictures of other properties around Pasadena sitting up on a hill on a slope like that. with the two story. But if you look at those photographs, you see sky. So they're sitting up there and there's sky around. That's not taken away from the skyline. When you look at this particular property and the photos that we have presented, and we have other photos that we haven't presented because we just did not want to inundate with you guys with all these photos from across the street. It completely takes out that mountain, the sandstone, Steinbeck property, you know, back and takes all of that out. It takes out the golf course when you stand back and look at that two-story structure. if they could flip it, if they can make, build a one story, anything other than having that huge second story. When you come down from the hill, all you see is this big building. When we built our home, we were asked by the Architectural Review Committee after the Monterey County had already approved our plans to change our roofline because we were told by the Architectural Review Committee that our roofline was not pleasing to people driving down the hill because when you drive down, the two single stories sit down below the the road. So when you come down the mountain here, you see our rough. And when you come down the mountain on the other side, on Australia, Delaware, you see our rough. So we added dormers. We were told that we couldn't have a 45 foot straight line on our rough. So we made provisions and we made changes to that within the guidelines of the Pasadena HOA. And we did that because our roof line wasn't pleasing to drivers. This thing sits up there. This massive construction certainly isn't not only pleasing when you drive down, it's shocking. And secondly, from the golf course, when you look up, it's shocking. So we are definitely agreeable to something being built there, definitely agreeable to have Evers build it. We just are concerned about that slope. Oh, and then the transition to it completely changes that skyline. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in this application?

Yes, hello. I'm Todd Evers. I'm also a contractor and a brother of Jeff Evers. Thank you for talking with us. Yeah, so... It's always hard to develop new lots. You know, especially when it's kind of an infill lot, there's not, you know, it's kind of a, it's a large impact no matter what, because there's just nothing there. So you're just not used to it. But I think Darren and my brother and Rose, his wife, did a fantastic job with the style of the house. It looks like an early California style home. I also live in Pasadena and I built several homes there. It is... of homes in pasadena that are two stories um and i think that um that it definitely fits in with with a lot of the other homes that are in the area the other thing is that you know is when we do build these homes um and you put landscaping around them it really diffuses the you know the height of these homes and um and i don't think that has been kind of looked at as kind of goes away um you can probably get rid of 15 or you know 20 feet with with some trees and vegetation um around the home so it doesn't look like it's it sticks out so much but anyway I just I think Darren has done an amazing job I do think it's one of his bestest homes um And it's diffused by the single story around it. And as Jaron said, the roof going into it. So I do think it's a really beautiful home. And I wish that people could actually give it a chance because I think it really will be something really pretty spectacular to look at when it's completed. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak on this application?

Yeah, if I could.

No, you already had your chance, sir. Thank you.

Commissioner Novaleck. Thank you and Fiona for your work on this project, Fiona especially. I mean, you took over and done a tremendous job getting this project pushed through. I would like to speak in strong favor of this project.

Did you want to state your name?

My name is Cortland Heverspeth.

Okay, thank you. Can I ask a question? No, thank you.

I'd like to speak in strong favor. I'd like to really second everything that my dad says. It is really, I mean, the elevations of the house especially after you get the landscaping going as far as the roof line goes this house is on you know it's on a steeper slope which i realize is part of the issue with massing but you don't see it very visibly from the road as you do some of these other houses with that being said the 26th house greater actual elevations. There's only two homes in that vicinity that are actually single-story homes. Having grown up for much of my life in Pasadena, the first time was in a two-story home and the second time was also in a two-story home, and also doing work in the community, I can definitely vouch for the fact that many of the homes are two stories or split levels. There's, I mean, Many of the homes are multiple levels, which add up to two stories if you really did the calculations on it. The design on the house is beautiful. It'll add tremendous value to the neighborhood, to the homes around it. Property values will go up. It's a very desirable house. Given the lot, the topography of the lot and the building envelope, I think it's a very good use of the only real buildable location. It's not encroaching. below maximum height for the lot. I believe that what they've designed is a beautiful home that is really as good as it gets for that lot. And I understand that there's some discontent with it, but I think that is largely because people are just used to there not being anything on that lot. And with the homes to the rear of it being in the area, the way that it is. I had a question.

You said it's not as visible from the road. Can you explain that for me? Sure.

So the road comes, if you can think of it as the road coming from, you know, obviously the road continues before and after it and kind of bellies. And so the two single story homes that are already existing are kind of in the bottom of the belly. So they're really visible from the uphill side. This one is closed the roof line won't be as visible, especially not from the, I guess that'd be the Western end of Australia URL. I think I understand. Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak on this application? I'd like to turn it back to the applicant or the representative for any responses.

I think the owner and the, uh, uh, uh,

So you've heard there's a lot of neighbor opposition here. So obviously it's potential for an appeal on this if I was to approve it. Did you want to take any time to revisit your design or does the property owner want to do that or do you want to proceed?

No, I believe that this is the appropriate design for this property and we would like to proceed with it.

Okay, thank you. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Was the hearing the staff have anything else to add.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Thank you.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Can I get the slides back and I'd like to see the story polls pictures.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- Was there another one to HAB-Masyn Moyer- Share.

Is that the ridge line for the two storage? Correct. Okay. Should I answer that question? No. Staff did. Can we go back to the one you had just before that?

Excuse me.

Okay. Yeah, it is difficult when you have, you can see the road steepens quite a bit on that picture to the upper right there going up to this lot. So the grade change is going to be very significant. I think even a single-story house versus a two-story, you'd have issues. I appreciate the fact that The design does have the roof slanting down with the topography towards the lower houses that the second story is set back. It is going to be my decision to find that the project is exempt and approve this project, the design approval. I think the design does do a good job of softening that wall. I think that story poll actually isn't going to overstate it, but I think no matter what you build on there, it's going to overpower the homes below, unfortunately, just due to barfing. And it is a constrained lot. And so we'll find the project's exempt, approve the design approval, and approve the allocating of the water. I believe we had some non-substantive changes to the resolution. And that's the project is approved.

Thank you. Absolutely.

Our next agenda item is PLN240362, the Keshire property.

This is the 2755 15th Avenue in Carmel.

And if staff can give me a minute to open up my hearing. Okay. Okay, whenever staff stress. Thank you.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Imani Harrigan, and I am the project planner for PLN240. The project is located at 2755 15th Avenue in Carmel. It is subject to county code as well as the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. It is owned medium density residential with a maximum gross of two units per acre with a design control overlay in the coastal sub. Currently, there is an existing 646 square foot single family dwelling that was built in 1960. The applicant is proposing for the demolition of the existing single family dwelling in order to construct a 2,794 square foot single family dwelling. with a 263 square foot garage and attached 800 square foot accessory dwelling unit with associated site improvements that includes the removal of three protected oak trees as well as for water allocation for not to exceed a total of 0.227 acre feet of water per year for the entire single family dwelling from the county's first come first served category and water allocation not to exceed a total of 0.101 acres of feet of water per year for accessory dwelling unit from the county's planned housing growth category.

Before you move on, so the public knows this, water allocation is new for all of us here at the county. So even though they have an existing house, they still need a water allocation for the new single-family dwelling?

Yes, for the new single-family dwell.

Thank you.

In the image to the far left, it is the first floor or the only floor for the accessory dwelling unit, which has a combined living, dining and kitchen space, as well as two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Then in the picture in the middle, that is the first level for the single family dwelling, which includes the garage, the bedroom, the kitchen, family room, living room, dining room, and as well as an outdoor patio area with a kitchen. with cooking, outdoor cooking area. Then in the final picture to the far right is the second level of the single family dwelling, which includes three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a deck. The applicant is proposing to remove three oak trees equal to or greater to six inches, therefore they are protected trees. The property is landscaped with several oaks, hollies and other non-protected trees. The arborist assessed 17 trees in total and determined that three oak trees should be removed because of their proximity within the building footprint for the front side of the house. Those three oak trees are circled in red on the plants. Also two more trees are to be removed for the house, but they are non-protected trees. Also, the arborist denoted that the trees should be replaced instead of relocated because of structural issues and proximity to other trees. It is recommended by the arborist that there be a one-to-one replacement ratio, so to plant three trees of at minimum five gallons or larger for the oaks. The arborist is also recommending tree protection zones to preserve and protect the roots of the other trees found on the property. The three trees are the minimum necessary to be removed. Staff considered the reconfiguration of the proposed single family dwelling. However, it would not meet design standards for setbacks due to the narrow configuration of the lot. If the single family dwelling would move to the rear of the property line to try and preserve those three trees, then the attached ADU would not comply with the setback regulations of a minimum of four feet and shifting the house toward the side property lines would not comply with minimum five. speed side setbacks. Also the geotechnical report recommended that the project limit should be cleared of remaining root masses, loose soils, organics, and non-engineered film. Therefore, due to the limitations of the parcel configuration, the building footprint of the single family dwelling should not be reconfigured to avoid the three oak trees and meet the medium density residential zoning district setback requirements and apply the geotechnical recommendation. The archaeological report acknowledges that the subject parcel is within 750 feet of known sensitive archaeological resources. However, there is no evidence of pre-contact archaeological sites, features, or artifacts on the property. Therefore, a coastal administrative permit is being applied. The applicant is also applying for a water allocation for the single-family dwelling. of approximately 0.227 acres feet of water per year from the first come first served category, which is pursuant to the board policy, then water allocation of 0.0101 acre feet of water per year for the ADU from the planned housing growth category, also pursuant to the board policy. The project was reviewed by the Carmel Unincorporated Highlands Land Use Advisory Committee. The project was supported as proposed on August 3rd. The project was initially to be reviewed on July 6th. However, it was continued due to the lack of staking and flagging. The property has a craftsman architectural style that includes olive siding, provincial wood windows, cedar shake roofing, metal gutters, and downspouts. um stone pavers aluminum lighting for landscaping and rafters with rafters staff would like to make an errata to the resolution first to the action decision three to include to approve a water allocation not to exceed a total of zero a point zero point two to seven acre feet of water per year for the entire single family dwelling from the county's first come first served category and water allocation not to exceed a total of 0.101 acres, acre feet of water per year for the accessory dwelling unit from the county's planned housing growth category pursuant to board policy number G2. six nine also for resolution finding one evidence m um to state based that currently states based on the lower procedures guidelines adopted by the monterey county board of supervisors this up you don't have to read it okay i had that note to ask you about that so thank you for catching that yes um to change it from with changes to as proposed also um with the addition of resolution finding one evidence and for the water allocation to state the applicant has demonstrated that the proposing family dwelling will not demand more than a total of 0.227 acre feet of water per year. Additionally, the applicant has demonstrated the accessory dwelling unit does not exceed a subtotal of 0.101 acre feet of water per year. Therefore, the project qualifies and complies with board policy Number G269, the allocation of water for the project site will be granted for a period not exceeding the time limits of this resolution, as may be extended or amended by separate discretionary action. Additionally, staff is requesting an errata for resolution finding three, evidence B, to include project complies with the planned housing growth and first-come, first-served categories of the adopted board policy number G269. The subject property has existing connections and water availability. The replacement of an existing single-family dwelling does not exceed 0.25 acre-feet of water per year, as outlined in the MPWMD Rule 24, Table 1, Residential Fixture Count Unit Values. Additionally, the project includes the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, requesting an allocation of 0.101 acre feet per year, less than the maximum allowed of 0.12 acre feet per year. Therefore, the zoning administrator does hereby approve allocating 0.25 acre feet of water per year for the single family dwelling from the county's first come first serve category and 0.12 acre feet per year for the accessory dwelling from the county's planned housing growth categories. for the project site for a period not exceeding the time limits in this resolution, as may be extended or amended by separate discretionary action.

Question on that last sentence. Should we actually have the amount we're allocating? Yes. You're putting the limits in, but should we put the actual amount?

Yes, that's correct. So the amount should...

Okay.

Yes, this is, we will... add that into the evidence, it should be .227 not to exceed and .101. In the decision and in the filing.

And in this evidence as well.

It is staff's recommendation with bid rot included that zoning administrator know that the project qualifies for class one and class three categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301L and 15303A and E and no exceptions pursuant to section 15300.2 can be made and approve a combined development permit consisting of a coastal administrative permit and design approval to allow the demolition of the existing 646 square foot single-family dwelling and construction of a 2749 square foot single-family dwelling with an attached 263 square foot garage and an 800 square feet attached accessory dwelling unit with the associated site improvements um um which include and a coastal ministry permit to allow the development within 370 square feet of known archaeological resources and a coastal development permit to allow the removal of three oak trees and to approve a water allocation not to exceed a total of 0.227 acre feet of water per year for the entire single-family dwelling from the county's first-come, first-served category and a water allocation not to exceed a total of 0.101 acres feet of water per year for the accessory dwelling unit from the county's planned housing growth category pursuant to board policy. Number G269. Thank you. I'm going to open the hearing. Is the applicant present?

Okay.

Good afternoon. My name is Eric Miller. I'm the architect on the project. Well, let me see. Yep, it is. So I think staff did a great job covering all the aspects of the design and the house. We got unanimous approval at LUAC. And the allocation is new to us also. And so the way we looked at it was we currently have 0.068 acre feet and we're requesting 0.5. which would give us a total of 0.227. So our request is 15.9 fixture units. And then on the ADU, we're requesting 0.101 and we're allowed 0.12. So we think it fits within the allocation.

Thank you. And that brings up something for staff. whether there is a credit for existing. So we'll wrestle with that internally. But you're within the limits, so we appreciate that. Did you have any other comments you wanted to make? I had no other comments. All right. You'll have the opportunity to respond if anybody does. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this application on 15th Avenue and Carmel? I'll close public hearing. Anything else from staff?

Yes. Through the zoning administrator staff, I'd just like to clarify that the total not to exceed 0.227 acre feet per year, but the additional allocation would be for 0.159. Okay.

We might want to make sure that the reso reflects that. Thank you. It'd be my decision to find the project categorically exempt. and approve combined development rent for this application with the changes recommended today by staff. And some non-substantive changes to the resolution. And I think I had a question on condition six talks about, I think planting trees within 60 days of permit approval. We're actually gonna tie that to the construction So it will not be within six days from approval. So we will push condition six implementation back to after construction is completed. But prior to final, I believe, is how we do it. So with that, your project is approved. Thank you. John Potter, Our next agenda on appeal in 260100 is for throughout this is a 24503 San Marcos road and Carmel. John Potter, And the stuff can give me. John Potter, My hearing.

Just.

All right, I'm ready whenever staff is ready.

Good morning. I'm an Administrator Novo. My name is Marlene Garcia and I am the Project Planner for the Throw-Up Application PLN 260100, which is item number six on today's agenda. The subject property is located at 24503 San Marcos Road in Carmel. within the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. The property is zone medium density residential with a maximum density of two units per acre and is subject to a design control overlay within the coastal zone. To provide context, the subject property is located within Carmel Union Unified School District and is in proximity to local amenities, including restaurants, shops, and coastal recreation areas associated with Carmel by the Sea and the Monterey Peninsula. The property is accessed from Highway 1 via a county maintained road. Therefore, no additional documentation or conditions related to roadway access are required for this application. The applicants are requesting a coastal development permit for a commercial vacation rental to allow the use of a residential property for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer. The application was submitted after grace period established under the vacation rental ordinance. However, the applicable requirements have been satisfied and proper conditions have been followed to process the application. The proposed commercial vacation rental will operate within the existing approximately 2,000 square foot single family dwelling. The residence includes two permitted bedrooms, a sewing room, a study room, two and a half bathrooms, a kitchen, living room, great room, and an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to use the two permitted bedrooms identified as bedroom one and bedroom two on the plans for the commercial vacation rental. The maximum occupancy would be limited to five overnight guests and seven daytime guests. between zero and 12 months of age are excluded from these occupancy limits. These limits are established pursuant to chapter 7.120, which sets the requirements for a vacation rental operation license. The plan also identifies bedroom three and bedroom four. These rooms will require the appropriate building permit process to verify that they meet applicable egress requirements. Until that process is completed and the rooms are approved as bedrooms, they will not be rented or included in the maximum occupancy for the commercial vacation rental. The site plan identifies a total of two on-site parking spaces under Title 20, sections 20.64.290.F.6 and 20.58.040. Single-family detached residential dwelling is required to provide two parking spaces per unit. The proposed project complies with this requirement as demonstrated on the submitted plans. The applicant has submitted a certified home inspection completed by a certified home inspector. The property will also have a local property manager who will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they will be able to respond any complaints or concerns that may arise at the property. The property manager will be able to arrive on site within 30 minutes of receiving the complaint or concerns. The operations plan provides addresses and contact information for the nearest fire station, hospital and 24 hour clinic. This information will also be provided to guests through the informational notice at the property along with five hours and emergency route information. In addition, condition of approval number three prohibits the property from hosting corporate and private events unless the property obtains a separate entitlement authorizing that use. The regulations for CVRs allow up to 118 commercial vacation rentals to be approved in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan pursuant to Monterey County Code Section 20.64.290. If this application is approved, it will be the 35th approved application within this area. In conclusion, staff recommends that the zoning administrator find the project categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines and approve the coastal development permit for the commercial vacation rental operation based on the findings and evidence presented. This concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. I believe the staff board said there's two other commercial vacation rentals approved in the area. Are any on this block? I'm not saying that they were, but I just wanted to confirm where those might be located. They don't seem to be. I see one in Portola. I don't know if that's the subject of this application or if that's an approval.

I have a figure showing that in my presentation.

OK, we'll get there then. Thank you. If you don't know, we can wait until we get all the testimony. OK. All right, I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present, please?

I'm Gordon Thropp, the oldest son of Dr. Laurie Thropp. Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you. Did you want to put your presentation? Yes, please.

Kyle and Kirsten Brett are here and they're the property managers with Monterey Bay Rentals. And actually Kyle submitted that application.

And while you're pulling up the presentation, I did see it by the way, but I appreciate it for the rest of the public. Your application does talk about 112 rentals per year. I don't know if that was the intent of that's the number of days per year you anticipate renting or if you're actually going to do more than two rentals per week. Can you clarify that?

I'm not sure. I mean, it's been variable. It's generally been about less than 50% of the time rented over the last several years. I'm not aware of that number.

Yeah, I can get you an exact number if you're looking at an exact number.

I'm just wondering, what's your plan on renting the property?

I mean, it's rented, you know, on an occasional basis. It's variable. It depends on the season. And, you know, we're willing to, you know, make a stipulation on that if that's necessary. But it's not about the numbers.

I'm just trying to understand.

Yeah, yeah. It's probably, I would say, right around 70% occupied.

So does that mean once a week, 70% of the week?

No, over the course of a year, I would say 70% of the time. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I was saying 50%, but maybe that's looking back further. I think it's rented more than it used to be. All right, thank you. And also I have this, I submitted a letter yesterday evening. It's too late to be in the record, but I'll- I have that. You have that as well? Do you have any paper? I do not. Okay, well, good.

Yeah. I have a mouse.

Just close this X.

This one?

No. My tools. Oh. Close that X there. That's fine.

Okay. Yeah. And then you can let me know when to go next.

Sure. Thank you. All right. I'm Gordon. And both Kirsten and Kyle are here. All right. Okay, this is item 6 of the hearing today. Next slide, please. And this was already, you know, a lot of this was shown nicely already by Marlene, but anyway, I also, this shows the location of the property. It's near Highway 1 in the distance to the beach. It's about a mile to the beach as a bird flies and about a mile and a half if you drive or walk. Monterey Bay Rentals Property Management has been managing it as a vacation rental for, since about 2018. And for most people know this, but a coastal development permit is required to continue using the house as a commercial vacation rental because the coastal zone in this area extends all the way up to Highway 1. So it's quite a ways from the beach, but the coastal zone borders Highway 1. And no construction or development of the property is proposed as is. Next slide, please. And this is an aerial photo on the left of the house. It's at the corner of San Marcos Road and Camino Del Monte. The yellow shading I put there shows where parking is available. In the driveway off Del Monte, there's room for two cars, actually, not just one. And you could put two in the garage, but typically we'll put one. but the garage is available to guests as well. So you could have three cars easily in the garage and driveway, and there's room for two or four easily more cars in the front. Not that we wouldn't want that, And on the right, it shows the floor plan that Marlene already showed you. The main condition that we are fine with is making sure that these two rooms comply with bedroom status. On the plans, my father and his wife did remodeling on this in 1999 and 2000. Their intent was to move here for retirement. My father only retired last year in 95, and his wife died several years ago, so that's never happened. So they used to use it on a very occasional basis. She didn't even allow family to stay there, but since she's been gone, we stay there occasionally. So it's been not occupied a lot of the time in the past. On their plans, when they revised the... Oh, next slide, please.

Here we go.

So this shows where the revisions were made. They remodeled the kitchen, expanded the garage, added two rooms shown there behind the garage. On the plans, the architectural plans, the one on the left was labeled sewing, and the one on the right was labeled study. He did use that as a study. I never saw any sewing room set up. Since I've seen the house, there's always been bunk beds in that left room. More recently, the study was used for storage and then now it's also used potentially as a bedroom. The bunk beds are moved to there and there are twin beds in that other room. And this, it was all permitted. Maybe we need to do more to make sure it's okay as a bedroom, but everything, all the building and planning was permitted and these are excerpts from that. Okay, next slide. So here, as I said, that was labeled sewing and study. So each of the rooms are approximately 120 square feet, which is more than the 70 foot minimum of California code and Monterey code. The ceilings are seven feet or higher. egress from the corner room includes a door to the backyard where that red arrow is. And yesterday evening I checked the window sizes to see if they comply with the egress. The window in the room is labeled study is like 40 inches by 24 inches. It's bigger than the area required. It's a The area required is always open to get out potentially or in is 5.7 square feet and this area is 6.7 square feet. Okay, next slide. Now the next slides are more responses to opposition and concerns. So maybe we should wait there, see if there's other speakers.

Does anybody else like to speak in this application? Yes. Yes, sir.

Hi, Mr. Novo and staff. Thank you for having me. My name is Kyle Burrett. I'm the property manager for the home at 24503 San Marcos. And my wife, Kirsten Burrett, is here as well. property management. We're the managers for the thrups and we've been managing them for approximately, I'd say I started with his father about probably 15 years ago. So we're very well aware of the neighborhood and the conditions that surround the neighborhood. I understand that the county's primary concern when considering a vacation rental permit is protecting the character and quality of the life surrounding the residential neighborhood, and we share that concern. At MontereyRentals.com, we currently provide management services for over five rental properties. Our brokers are all licensed by the state of California and we're members actively in professional organizations, including the Vacation Rental Managers Association and the National Association of Residential Property Managers. Let's see. In our experience with 24503 San Marcos under professional and local management, it's not simply listed online and left for guests to manage themselves. We're in fact giving the neighborhood and guest protections before they arrive. When a reservation is made, we send a guest a letter specifically reminding them that they're staying in a residential neighborhood and they're expected to behave as good neighbors. We make the guests aware of the property's quiet hours, maximum occupancy, and parking limitations, and we make it clear, very, very clear, that parties and events are not permitted. Most importantly, those aren't simply rules written on a piece of paper. We stand behind them. If a neighbor contacts us with a complaint, we guarantee a response in less than 30 minutes. Our company also maintains a 24-hour emergency hotline seven days a week. Our management program includes professional house repair coordination, guest agreements, and ongoing monitoring of the condition of the home. We spent 40 years providing housing both for people who live in Monterey County and for the people who come here to visit. We recognize that successful vacation rental management requires balancing of those two interests. Our responsibility simply isn't the property owner and the guest. We also have a responsibility to the neighbors and the community. That is why professional local management matters so much. If there's a problem at San Marcos, we're there. There's always a local company accountable and prepared to address any issues immediately. We understand that the vacation rental permit is a privilege and that comes with significant responsibilities. We are prepared to accept those responsibilities and operate this property in a manner that respects its neighbors and surrounding community. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Anybody else want to speak on this application? Can we take down the share screen? Just minimize it for now. I just want to see if anybody else wants to speak on this application. Seeing none, I don't know if you want to respond to public comments or not.

Yeah, I will. My brother, Bruce Thrupp, and his wife submitted a statement. Bruce, are you online? You can read it if you'd like. He might not be on. Yeah.

I am here, Gord, but it's fine for you to read it, please.

I don't have it. Okay. If it was submitted, I'd read it. Okay. It's on the record.

It does not need to be read into the record.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Bruce. Thank you.

Okay.

OK, so this next couple of slides address some concerns that were submitted by some of the neighbors. So this map shows the property, subject property, and the two locations of people that submitted concerns. Scott Jasper at the northern one, 2447 San Marcos, the main comments were that noise and traffic from a vacation rental is unacceptable in the quiet residential community. and that the approval, what it could entice more second homeowners to follow suit and impact the neighborhood and hotel businesses. The person at the 24555 Camino Del Monte, Michael Hayes, also expressed concern about additional traffic and vehicle activity in the area where there's children walking around and playing. And also that traffic and vehicle turnover on the neighborhood streets, available site parking, maximum occupancy, outdoor use and nighttime noise, garbage and refuse management, frequency rentals were some of the main things he had concerns about. And also stated if additional homes on the residential streets are continually converted to commercial transient lodging, the cumulative impact becomes significant. So next slide, please. So, I mean, as you guys know, as you mentioned in the beginning, there is a limit on the number of commercial vacation rentals. The first time I heard it was 4% of homes. The maximum number in the Carmel land use planning area is 118. And A lot I thought I saw the 8 were approved and you said there are 35 now approved 8089 were pending so it's a smaller number pending on that. In the vicinity of my of this House. There's a permit that's been approved in that green box 24576 Portola. When based on the website information to the other one across the street from that 24571 Portola. The application review is pending, but maybe it's been approved by now. I don't know. Anyway, those are both more than 250 feet away, 300 feet and 380 feet away approximately from this property. And there's no other ones that are closer than a few hundred feet. There's hardly anything on the north or a few to the south. And then I think one important... factor is that you know that since this rental vacation um started the utilization has been less than 50 that's what i said um as kyle said now maybe it's more like 70 but over a longer time it's significantly less but consequently the impact of the neighborhood is less than a continually occupied unit house It's less traffic, less water demand, less garbage, et cetera. So if anything, the neighborhood should be more peaceful and quiet when it's used this way. There's ample on-site parking, as I showed, both in the driveway and garage, as well as space adjacent to the front of the house. It has weekly garbage service and recycling service. And also, as Kyle said, the maximum occupancy and other rules and conditions are provided to the potential renters before they come. And I think actually many of the guests choose this location because of its tranquil and quiet neighborhood. It's not a party place. And Kyle already talked about some of these other concerns with their management. And they're very familiar with the neighborhood and the whole area. The company is local and it's been working here for a long time. Okay, next slide, please. So in closing, we're committed to responsible operation of the vacation rentals at this house with respect to the neighbors. And thanks very much for the opportunity to present. Thank you.

Do you want to close the public hearing? Does the staff have anything else to add?

Okay.

Could I ask one question? You may. I just wanted, I mean, if, well, you can go ahead. I'll wait for you, I guess. But I would like to know what additionally might need to be done about compliance of those two rooms as bedrooms?

Yeah, you can talk to staff and actually the building department's right here. Okay, thanks. Yeah, I would investigate that while you're here. Okay. So it'd be my decision to find the project is categorically exempt and approve the Coastal Development Permit for this application. With some non-substantive changes to the resolution. Does that make any recommended changes on this one?

There were several conditions. We're fine with all those. Okay. We would also be fine adding that the garage is available as a condition, but that's already clear from the telephone.

You're good, sir. Okay. On condition six, we have a little bit of cleanup to do on that. That's the conversion rooms condition.

Okay.

But it's really not substantive. And I think the operations plan I don't know if we need to put a note on it about the two bedrooms versus four. You know, if they can resolve it quickly, obviously it will be four bedrooms. But until then, it's actually limited to two. So see what you can do at the counter today. But with that, your project is approved. Thank you. Thank you. John Potter, And that's the item is peeling to 50069 it's just the 1056 the old driving pebble beach understand there was a this may be one where we had a nose notice posting issue so. John Potter, The staff make presentations.

Like this one or another one?

Okay, I'm ready whenever staff's ready.

Good morning, Administrator Novo. My name is Imani Harrigan and I am the project planner for PLN 250-069. Staff is requesting a continuance to a date certain at the request of the owners to better meet the public noticing requirements.

So, I did want to ask one question about the setting here. It looked like from the plans that there are three applications that surround one house. I'm just trying to get to that site. If you look at the exhibit B, There is one house on the old drive. There's one on Wrangler's Trail, and then another one on Wrangler's Trail. And all three tend to surround a lot that's not participating in the rental program. Is that accurate? John Potter, That there's a commercial vacation rental approved one posed here and then. John Potter, I look at exhibit be the one circle, there's the one that's subject to this application was that. Okay. John Potter, So on this one i'm going to actually ask that this goes planning mission. John Potter, One of the concerns I have is when properties are getting surrounded by commercial vacation rentals or other in this case and homestays. John Potter, I think I need some input from the planning Commission so since we're continuing this one anyway let's notice it for the planning mission, rather than the zoning administrator and i'd like them to. John Potter, Consider. John Potter, You know whether these. When properties are surrounded whether that's an issue where we can make the finding regarding health and safety finding that is protecting the neighborhood character so I'm going to ask this one go to the planning Commission. Is the applicant present for this one.

No.

OK everybody else like to speak on this application. On the old drive. Seeing none, I'll close public hearing and it will be my decision to refer this to the Planning Commission.

Thank you.

Our next item is PLN 260138. This is 24800 Lower Trail commercial rotation rail. And if staff can give me a minute to open up my hearing items. All right, I'm ready whenever staff's ready.

Thanks, Mr. Sorensen.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Jack Sorensen, Project Planner for PLN 260138, Lau. This application is for commercial vacation rental located at 24800 Lower Trail, Carmel, in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. The subject property is zone medium density residential, two units per acre, and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The property has four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, garage, and two onsite parking spaces. The garage is not a part of this application and will remain locked There are carbon monoxide and smoke detectors in every bedroom and fire extinguishers in the kitchen. Pursuant to Title 20, commercial vacation rentals must comply with the parking requirements in Section 20.58.040. Pursuant to the code, single-family dwellings are required to have two spaces per unit. This applicant meets this requirement. Property has a maximum nighttime occupancy of nine guests and a maximum daytime occupancy of 13 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 upon 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 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 allow for up to 118 commercial vacation rentals to be approved in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. If approved, this would be the 37th. Public comment was received in support of the project, as well as public comment regarding parking and traffic. As stated, the applicant meets all parking requirements. Staff finds... Excuse me, staff finds that 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 find the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 and approve a coastal development permit for 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.

Thank you. Are we aware of any code enforcement complaints on this property?

Fair enough.

Okay. I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present?

Yes, I'm here. Yes.

Good morning. Did you have any comments?

Good morning. Well, my comment is, first of all, thank you very much for the opportunity for me to make a presentation. And I understand that neighbors have concerns on the parking and noise and traffic and the neighborhood characters. But as Mr. Sereno said, that my property has enough parking space. And then with regarding to the noise, And that would be a quiet hour from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. And my house is right next to a carpenter. Carpenter is noisy, too. And I don't think... And then... the gas noise can be greater than the noise from the carpenter. And then with regarding to the traffics, the gas don't need to go up to the upper trail and lower trail. They just go into the valley, make a left turn, and then make immediately left to the driveway. And I understand the neighbors are concerned about the character to preserve that. And for me, I don't plan to have rent it out. I want to keep it in a small group and then keep it for my personal use as well too, at least like 40%, 50% for my own personal use. So this... This property won't be a property that's attracting a lot of guests. I don't see that. So it won't be a busy one in my mind. And that's all I have for now.

All right. Thank you. And you'll have the opportunity to speak at the end of the testimony today. Thank you. Does anybody else like to speak on this application on 24800 Lower Trail?

Yes, I would. I'm Dr. Michael Moeller. I live just to the right at the top of the Lower Trail next to the other app that will be coming up. This is three, my house, the one next to me across the street, and this one, which is right next to it. I mean, a total gang right there. Plus you are, I think, already approved two just up the street on Lower Trail. I'm not sure how this is not really changing the character of my neighborhood. It really is. Where this one will not impact traffic so much, they do have more than two cars at a time coming into this property. And they will park up on Lower Trail and Upper Trail Again, impacting line of sight and ability to bypass. We have had noise issues. They had a wedding party there once that was very noisy. We had episodes where dogs were on the patio barking for hours on end. So all these are not, you know, nothing as far as the impact to this area. And I think this should also be referred to the board or planning. And we need to really make it an idea how, you know, this is the fourth one and will be fifth within 300 feet of my house. That's too much, just way too much. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this application? Did you want to respond at all?

Yes. Regarding to the party, I didn't know there was a party. I did talk to my neighbor next, directly in front of my house, and they didn't tell me there was a party. But I will pay extra attention to enforcing no party for the upcoming guest, such a loot on the upcoming guest. But as far as a parking space, I have two carports and a driveway. The driveway is long enough to hold another two vehicles. So I don't see that. I will keep the group in the smaller group too. So I don't see that they would need to park outside of the house.

Thank you.

Thank you for listening.

John Potter, And I close the public hearing the staff have anything else to add. Not this time. John Potter, All right. John Potter, It may seem like i'm not paying attention to the neighborhood but i'm hearing you and I understand. And I do think I need guidance from the Planning Commission on how many is too many for a neighborhood. So I am going to refer this to the Planning Commission so we can get some policy direction from the folks that provide that to us. And so I hate to do this to staff and to the applicants, but I think it is time. This would be the fourth one approved on this block. To me, that's... crossing a threshold I need some guidance on. So we'll refer this one to the Planning Commission if we can set it as soon as possible. Thank you. I think you have everything drafted. So it's just a matter of putting new words in there. So our next item is PLN 260103. And this one's on Cabrillo Street in Carmel. Dave Kuntz, For Davenport and stuff and give me a minute to open up my eyes. Okay, I'm ready whenever steps ready.

Okay. Okay.

Almost good afternoon, zoning administrator Novo. My name is Kayla Nelson, project planner for HCD planning file number PLN 260103 for the Davenport application. This application is for a commercial vacation rental located at 24715 Cabrillo Street in Carmel within the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. The subject property is zone medium density residential, two units per acre with a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The property has three bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, and a minimum of two on-site parking spaces and one on-street parking space in front of the house. There are carbon monoxide and smoke detectors in every bedroom and a fire extinguisher within the home. Pursuant to Title 20, commercial vacation rentals must comply with the parking requirements of Section 2058040. Pursuant to the code, single-family dwellings are required to have two spaces per unit. The applicant meets and exceeds this requirement. The property has a maximum nighttime occupancy of seven guests and a maximum daytime occupancy of 10 guests. These occupancies exclude infants zero to 12 months pursuant to chapter 7.120 of the Monterey County Code, which establishes the requirements of vacation rental operation license. The applicant has 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 at least five minutes of receiving a complaint or concern. The operations plan provides addresses and contact phone numbers for the police station, fire station, hospital. This information is also included in the informational notice to individuals staying on the property along with fight 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 the noise ordinance pursuant to Monterey County Code Chapter 10. 60. Otherwise, the operator could face escalating fines if they violate the code. Additionally, pursuant to Title 20, Section 20-64-290 requirements, the owner of the commercial vacation rental shall only have an ownership interest in one vacation rental in an unincorporated Monterey County. However, the regulations allow the same property manager to manage multiple commercial vacation rentals. The current regulations allow up to 118 commercial vacation rentals to be approved within the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. If approved today, this would be the 36th approved application within the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Yesterday, staff received public comment regarding the commercial vacation rental application. The questions and concerns raised are shown here on the slide. So the question was maximum number of guests that are allowed at the property. This was stated earlier in the presentation. I will reiterate here, 10 daytime guests and seven overnight guests. Question raised, minimum number of nights required to rent the property. The county does not have a minimum number of nights stated in Title 20, Section 20-64-290. However, that would be subject to the rental company's policy. Another question there is, is there going to be a minimum age requirement to rent the property? Again, the county does not enforce minimum age requirements. This would be subject to the rental company's policy. Last but not least, will there be a maximum number of vehicles allowed during the rental? Modern County Code does not state that within the ordinance. However, the number should not exceed the maximum allowed occupancy. With that, staff finds that the projects, sorry about that. Staff finds the project qualifies for a class one categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301. And staff recommends the zoning administrator find the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA and approve the coastal development permit for a commercial vacation rental. to allow the use of residential property lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer. And that concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. I have a couple questions or a question for Public Works. I believe I read one of the letters commenting on this that this is a cul-de-sac and that it has restricted parking on that cul-de-sac. So This street, Cabrillo, doesn't go into Carpenter, right? It cul-de-sacs to Carpenter? And then is there restricted parking along the bulb of the cul-de-sac?

Good morning, Zoni Administrator Novo, Arlen Blanca here on behalf of Public Works. To answer the first question, yes, there is restriction in the bulb. area it's to protect the public works has placed no parking signs there to protect the turnaround movement a u-turn movement along with the existing fire hydrant out there and if you can repeat the other question you had i'm sorry the other one was just whether it connects directly to carpenter i think the answer is no yes the uh there is no connection to carpenter all right thank you thank you i'd like to open the hearing is the applicant present

Yes. Good morning. I'm Joshua Canyon. I'm the property manager for this particular home.

Good morning. Morning.

Do you have any comments you want to make today? No, nothing to add.

How many parking spaces are there on the side? I think I saw there's only two, but there are, there's a garage as well.

So you can get at least two cars in the garage and well, well, two maximum of two cars in the garage and then at least two in the driveway. Thank you. Sure.

Anybody else like to speak on this application and 24715.

My name is Robert frozen. I own the property across the street. I'm the one who submitted this. I realize the owner of this property is relatively new. This property was just sold sometime within the last 12 months to this owner. And it's now turning it into a vacation rental. It previously was a full-time rental. The problem was it had six occupants. And I think the reason we have the no parking in the cul-de-sac now is they all had cars, including one guy who was an over-the-road semi-driver who would park his tractor in the cul-de-sac and sometimes even put the trailer on it and parked it in the cul-de-sac. And I couldn't get out of my driveway. So that's my real concern is with the – I thought it was a four-bedroom house. I've never seen a car in the garage in that house. And we've only owned the house since 1974. So, you know, it's been a short time. But anyway, the... My real concern is about the parking and whether this was going to turn into like a one-night, two-night rental, turn it into a party house for kids from, you know, you see Monterey Bay or San Jose State or whatever, and really change the whole character of the neighborhood. So as long as there's reasonable restrictions on the number of people and things like that and the number of cars. I have no problem with it being a vacation rental as long as it's done responsibly.

Thank you. Okay. Anybody else like to speak on this application? Seeing none, I'll turn it back to Mr. Ohanian if you wanted to respond to your neighbor here.

Yes, I will. Thank you. I will just say that Sanctuary Vacation Rentals, our company, we have a very strict I live in the community, so does the 35 staff who work for us. So it's important to us that these homes do not disrupt the character of the neighborhood or be disruptive at all. And that includes car wish. So we are available if there's ever a noise complaint or anything. You can always reach out to us. One of us will be right on it, and it's likely it'll be myself personally who will be addressing any concerns that you have. But in general, we have We're pretty lucky, I think, with the area that we live in. It just doesn't typically attract that type of guest. What we tend to see is usually an older couple renting the home. Sometimes they come with their family. Occasionally it's a younger couple. But, you know, if we ever catch word that someone's renting one of our homes to host a bachelor party or do something like that, we shut it down immediately. We won't even accept that type of reservation, so.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. Anything else from staff?

No additional comments.

All right. So it would be my decision to find that the project is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act and approve the Coastal Development Permit for the vacation rental. Subject to some non-substantive changes to the findings and evidence. I have a note that we might need to amend the operations plan too. I'm not sure. No, we don't need to. There was just a blank in there, but it's fine. All right. So with that, the project is approved. Thank you. Thank you. Our next agenda item is other matters. We do not have any, so we adjourn at 12.01.