Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You can't see it in time.

I'll have to follow it up. So that is where you are.

So that is what we meant to know.

It needs to be.

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the zoning administrator hearing for Thursday, September 10th. We are conducting the meeting as a hybrid meeting with some people in attendance in person, some people participating by Zoom. For those of you participating by Zoom, if you can keep yourself muted, we'd appreciate it. That'll eliminate any background noise. If you want to be recognized to speak, if you're on a phone, you can use star nine to raise and lower your hand and star six to mute and unmute yourself. If you're on a device, you can raise and lower your hand HAB-Jacques Juilland- Under the rations tab in the raise hand button, and you can use the microphone icon the mute and unmute so. HAB-Jacques Juilland- That will get into roll call on Mike know who are acting today is zoning administrator, we have current out from environmental health. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Arlen blanca from our public work staff and just prayers from environmental services my missing any of the county staff. Our next item on the agenda is public comment. If anybody would like to speak on a topic that is not on today's agenda, an item of general interest, please raise your hand and be recognized and we'll let you speak. Seeing none, I will close the public comment period. We'll move on to agenda five, additions, solutions, and corrections. We have no such matters today.

Yes, I received the following correspondence for the following projects, which is PLN 260067, PLN 260109, PLN 260133, and PLN 260142. All correspondence was received, forwarded to zoning administrator and all interested parties.

And I've received three batches of comments, so assuming I got them all. And I have read them. We'll move into acceptance of minutes. We have minutes from August 27th. Does anybody have any comments on the draft minutes from August 27th, 2026? Seeing none, I'll accept the minutes of that date. We'll move into scheduled items. Our first scheduled item is PLM 260-058 for the Elkhorn Slough Foundation. This is a restoration project off Canaris Creek area. Turn it over to staff for presentation.

Through the zoning administrator, my name is Jacqueline Nickerson. We would like to move up agenda item number four prior to agenda item number one, as that item will be recommended for continuance.

Number four, Will? Yes. OK. Let me go a little out of order here. We'll take up agenda item 4. It's PLN 260109. This is on Hanley Drive in Carmel. There's a recommendation for continuance from staff. Does any of the public have any comments on that recommendation for continuance? Is the applicant present for that one? Okay, I don't see any testimony. So I'll close the invitation for you to speak. And do we have a date certain for the continuance?

Yes, October 15. And staff would like to add you would re notice this item and not The item was not noticed in accordance with the regulations outlined in county code. And therefore, staff will re-notice this item, even though it will be continued to a date certain.

But October is not a regular meeting. So it should be the second Thursday or the last Thursday. Let's double check.

It would be the 8th. That's correct.

Okay. All right. So we'll move this item to October 8th hearing. Continue the hearing to that date. Okay. Now we'll resume with item number one. This is PLM 260058 for Elkhorn Slough Foundation. And whenever staff is ready, I have my items open.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Jordan Evans-Palacco, and I'll be presenting staff's report on PLN 260058 Elkhorn Slough Foundation. The subject properties are located near 36 Hall Road and Royal Oaks within the North County Land Use Plan. The subject property is zoned rural density residential, 40 acres per unit in the coastal zone. The proposed project involves a combined development permit to allow the construction of two water basins as a natural water treatment system to restore previous hydraulic patterns of the Carneros Creek. The scope of work involves major vegetation removal associated with the habitat restoration of degraded riparian and wetland habitats with improvements to the degraded drainage canal. The project also involves development within 100 feet of Esha and development within 750 feet of known archaeological resources. The project meets all required site development standards of rural density residential and building site zoning districts. A biological report was prepared, stating that the proposed scope of work is development within a riparian corridor and 100 feet of environmentally sensitive habitat area. The project biologists surveyed the subject parcel three times over the past two years, assessing the project related impacts on biological resources resulting from the construction. As indicated in the report, development will occur specifically in the wetlands and riparian habitats, which includes impacts to various wildlife, amphibian, and avian species that are presumed to be present, as well as Monterey muskrat-footed wood rats, which was spotted by the biologists during one of their surveys. According to the North County CIP, projects within 100 feet of ESHA shall be prohibited unless determined through a biological report. But the project scope will not negatively impact the habitat's long-term maintenance through methods where such modifications will reduce impacts to a level less than significant and assure the habitat's long-term maintenance. The purpose of the proposed basin development and restoration work will aid in maintaining and improving the water quality of the Elkhorn Slough and surrounding wetland habitat. The ongoing use and maintenance of the infiltration basins and surrounding landscape would be of a low intensity that would not disrupt or impact the sensitive habitats and would ultimately result in improvements of the existing habitats. Therefore, as cited, designed, and conditioned, the proposed project will be consistent with the regulations for the development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitats and will not result in impacts to ESHA. In accordance with the North County CIP, a Phase 1 archaeological survey was prepared, producing no evidence of significant resources on the project parcel, but the report confirms that there are resources within 750 feet of the subject property. Therefore, a coastal administrative permit is applied in such case. The project was not referred to the North County Land Use Advisory Committee for review, as it does not include the requirements outlined in the LWAC Guidelines Board Resolution for Public Review. The natural habitat of the subject properties are similar to the surrounding scenic hills, so the proposed development assures protection to the public viewshed that is consistent with the natural topography and coastal rural settings of the Elkhorn Slough maintaining visual integrity. Therefore, staff recommends that the zoning administrator finds the project categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15333 and approve the project of the combined development permit displayed above. This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you. From the visual resources slide you just have, it appears the floodplain is not on this property. It's down in Carneros Creek. I mean, I shouldn't say not on the property, but not in the development area. Yes, that's correct.

It will not be within the floodplain.

Okay. We have quite a few questions for the applicants. So I'm going to open the hearing and hopefully the applicant is present and walk me through what they're planning out here. Is the applicant present for this application, please?

Yeah. Hi, I'm here. This is Dan Herbstead with the RCD Santa Cruz County. Good morning. Good morning.

Do you have any comments you wanted to make today?

Not necessarily, but happy to answer all your questions.

Sure. So the first I think I have is these are infiltration basins or meant to be infiltration basins. It looks like from the technical reports, that you expect that they will connect to the aquifer and the water will get down to the aquifer. Is that a true statement?

It is.

And how, since you're grabbing some water and infiltrating it, is that kind of reflecting what the historical setting was a century ago out there?

We believe so. We've done a lot of site assessment where we do electrical resonance testing out there. We do cone penetrometer tests. It's a highly variable geology out there, but we are citing the basins in the areas where we think they have connectivity to the aquifer. And for example, the riparian area really nearby doesn't necessarily, and it's for a number of reasons. We think historically with the vegetation and the riparian zone that was there, organic matter clays built up there such that you wouldn't get the same connectivity that you get on the slopes. And so that's part of what was considered in designing the project.

Obviously, you're taking surplus water here and capturing it, so that's going to reduce the peak flows downstream into Carneros Creek. Is that going to have any downstream effects that we're concerned about?

Not that we're concerned about from our perspective and with the biological report and talking to everyone else. We see it as a benefit with the known kind of flooding issues downstream. We are only planning to take peak flows downstream with the idea that we can maintain the riparian habitat and all kind of beneficial species uses out there and provide a benefit by capturing the excessive stormwater and funneling it into the infiltration basins.

And I'm assuming you have to get permits from other agencies. Is that correct?

Correct. We've got... We're using a lot of the cutting the green tape measures. So we have a statewide restoration general order with the Water Quality Board. We have a restoration management permit from CDFW. Let's see, we do have some very low levels of take authorized with our biologists and their Fish and Wildlife Service permit. The Sergo permit we have in hand, that's the Water Board's statewide restoration general order, and we're still waiting on the RMP permit, but we've been in close contact with the staff there. We expect to have that in a week or two.

Because one of the reasons I asked that is we have a permit expiration of three years for you to get all the work done and start the project. Is three years enough time? Because we can give you additional time if you tell me today you need it.

Yeah, thank you for that. I believe three years will be sufficient.

Okay. And have you read the conditions recommended by staff and are they acceptable? There's quite a bit to do.

Yeah, there's, I think, one outstanding we were wanting to follow up with Jordan on a little bit around the stormwater operation and maintenance. I believe there's an agreement and a plan, and I always confuse the two, but it's one of those we wanted to follow up on. It was the yearly requirement of an annual report by the engineers. And so we got some clarifying questions there around if that was truly needed, if there's other ways we can comply with the condition, and we want to talk through that a bit more.

Okay, we do have staff from our environmental services section here if they want to respond to that. Is that condition 11?

Through the chair, yes. It's the condition 11 stormwater operations maintenance plan.

Okay. No, no, he's talking about the agreement. Oh, he's talking about the agreement?

That's a plan. Nine, condition number nine, possibly.

Yeah, nine is. So the plan is where we ask the applicant to identify who's going to maintain all the different stormwater control measures. And we need a maintenance schedule. The agreement is where there's an agreement that I think it's, I don't know if it goes to the board, but I'm not sure. And we do ask for an annual inspection of the drainage facilities. I have not experienced doing it for bioretention before. My supervisors want to replace that condition on there. So we would have to ask him for his opinion on whether or not we want to keep that or not. So Luis would be the one to confirm it.

And that's condition nine.

Yeah, the agreement is nine. That's correct.

And that's confirmed that we were questioning, I guess, talking with our engineers who have done a lot of this work in the area and other colleagues working in similar areas and types of work in Monterey. They hadn't been required to do that before. And so we're just trying to suss out that's, you know, how important that was and make sure we were doing the right things.

So one thing I could do there is I could soften it a little bit. It's still going to be under the discretion of our environmental services staff, but I'll soften it where it's not required here unless it's required by our environmental services director or whatever the title is. So that'll allow you to have some discussions over that.

Yeah, thank you.

My last question has to do with, I think in the biologic report, it talks about a construction member being authorized to do checks for special status species. We usually have biologists do that. Can you talk a little bit about what the approach is there?

Yeah, we are planning to have a biologist on site and doing those kind of checks. Maybe that was... misrepresented a bit, but we have a qualified biologist that's going to be working. She's been part of the project team throughout, prepared the biological reports, and part of our team.

All right. I kind of thought that would be the case. I just wanted to clarify that. All right. I'm going to open it up to other members of the public. I see two hands up on Zoom already, so we'll start there. Margie Kay.

Hi, Margie. yeah Okay, you hear me I didn't I didn't get an unmute thing, so I want our support for this application I live behind. This property is behind me i've lived on the same property here for 50 years I know the brothers ranch that area. I've watched it from cattle, Angus cattle breeders to strawberries to now Elkhorn Sioux Foundation and all the good work that they do. I'm a volunteer with the foundation and I also do surface water quality sampling collection for the reserve. I am in my 14th year of doing that monthly. So I know the Carneros Creek area and this property. So I urge support for this application. Thank you.

Thank you. Matthew Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Zoning Administrator. I'm working with Dan on this application, and I just wanted to give my thanks to the county staff for their work to diligently get this thing in front of the Zoning Administration and expedite it. I also wanted to reiterate what Dan was saying, is that, yes, the biologists are qualified in the Biological Report for handling CTS. They have all the proper permits. There is some... There's the potential that, you know, other construction foreman would be required to do some monitoring, but not without qualified biologists present. So I just wanted to elaborate on that.

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak on this application out near Hall Road in Los Alamos area? Seeing none, I'll close public hearing. Staff have anything to add?

Staff has no further comments.

Okay. It would be my decision to find that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the combined development permit with some non-substantive changes to the resolution with the PB John Gerstle, softening alcohol of condition nine to allow some discretion and negotiation discussions between the applicant and our environmental services staff. PB John Gerstle, And I have a note about condition is, let me look at that real quick. Yeah. So just with those two changes and the non-substantive changes, the project is approved. Thank you. Our next agenda item is PLN 260089 for Carmel Grand Avenue Partners. This is out in the Carmel Valley Road area, closer to the river, east of Albert and And if staff can give me a minute to open up my hearing presentation items, I'd appreciate it. All right, I'm ready whenever staff is.

Thank you. Good morning, zoning administrator. public and members of the days. My name is Mary Israel. I'm project planner for PLN 260-089 Carmel Grand Avenue Partners 54 LLC. The property is located between Carmel Valley Road and the Carmel River east of Val Verde, approximately a sixth of a mile from Highway 1 in Carmel Valley. It's regulated by the Carmel Valley Master Plan. And the properties are zoned medium density residential with three units per acre maximum density design control and site review overlay and it also has the special yard regulations for the title 21 section subsection F and the final map that are listed here on this slide. The project proposes the Rancho Cañada Village pattern book through design approval for 93 lots of market rate housing, providing three models with three variations and accessory dwelling unit options. Also includes a plant palette for landscaping on the lots and in common areas, as well as a tree planting plan for the common areas and boundaries of the subdivision. The Rancho Cañada Village subdivision, which I'll also call RCEV, was approved in summer of 2021, at which time the board also amended the CVMP policy governing the development of the area, added the new subsection to Title 21, medium density residential zoning district that I just mentioned with ordinance 5360. And the final map was timely recorded in 2023. And this design approval is for the market rate lots. Last year, the affordable housing design was approved. The developer has also applied for master construction permits, which would serve to streamline the construction permitting of the 93 lots after this pattern book is reviewed and hopefully approved. The subject parcels are all the market rate single family dwelling lots shown highlighted here in yellow on this clip from the RCV subdivision final map that like I'd mentioned was recorded in 2023. The total area of the subdivision is 77 and a third acres. These lots make up approximately 14 and a quarter acre portion The lots are between 0.143 acres or 6,229 square feet at their smallest and most common size and less than 10 lots are larger up to 0.394 acres or 17,613 square feet. Lot coverage is set to 40% in these lots and all models and configurations demonstrate that they are below the maximum. The subdivision also set a floor area ratio at 40% maximum, and all the configurations demonstrate consistency. Yard regulations for these MDR lots special set by that ordinance that I mentioned include main structure front setback of 15 feet, a narrow first and floor side setback, and a maximum height of 24 feet. The pattern book is consistent with the RCV yard regulations and height. maximums. I want to note that these three lots are called out in the pattern book for special models. Pattern book sheets 30 and 33 indicate that lots 35, 36, and 37 require the 2X design to allow construction that fits with its narrower front lot line. Okay. I'm not close. Yes, five. So the pattern book is a 66 page document attached to the draft resolution and to condense it for presentation, this slide shows the content of page 52, which is a typical set of front elevations in a section of the interior road. The designs are modern with a flat roof, plenty of windows, some with second floor decks, some with balconies, and all are three bedroom floor plans with an enclosed two or more car garage. Plan one, which we see here, 1C, provides gross floor area of 2,490 square feet, and pursuant to the final math, excludes in its lot coverage the 440 square foot garage and 229 square foot covered porch from the measurement. Lot coverage is therefore 2,415 square feet, which is below the 2,492 maximum for these lot size. Far is 2,490 square feet, just two square feet below the maximum. These numbers bear true for Model 1 with A, B, and C elevation variations. Plant 2, which is shown here as Plant 2A with the fenestrations for Plant 2A, provides gross floor area of 2,486 square feet, has a 478 square foot garage and a 173 square foot covered porch. Lot coverage is 2,442 square feet below the maximum for this lot size to the smallest. And the far is 2486 square feet, six square feet under the maximum far. And again, these numbers bear true for models two with elevation variations A, B, or C. Plan C provides gross floor area of 2,489 square feet, has a 629 square foot garage and 143 square foot covered porch. The lot coverage is 2,433 square feet below the maximum. Far is 2,489 square feet, three square feet under the maximum far. And again, these numbers bear true for Model 3 with A and B elevation variations. The three lots that will have Plan 2AX or Plan 2BX shall have 2,455 square foot dwellings, a 478 square foot garage, and a 173 square foot covered porch. And the lots remain under maximum lot coverage and FAR. This slide shows the proposed single family dwelling site plan and elevations for Plan 1C variation. Sorry about all these. I did turn off my... teams popping up anyway. So I just want to note that for the site plan, the full parcel is not shown. There is a backyard that's not showing. And these are the elevations for the 1C. This slide shows the proposed single family dwelling elevations for Plan 2A variation. And as you can see, the height stays below the 24-foot maximum. This slide shows the proposed single family dwelling elevations for Plan 3B variation. ADUs proposed in the pattern book are overall only 750 square feet in size for two-story design. There's also an option for a 536-square-foot one-story option. This slide shows 1A, which was the fourth of the units on the streetscape that we introduced a few slides ago on slide five. So in A1, you have the option to add an ADU in the rear of the property. It would meet side and rear setbacks for ADUs. And as a two-story ADU, it would reach maximum height of 22 feet 2 inches, allowed because it is an attached ADU. The attachment is covered porch extension from the main dwelling. The pattern book includes six schemes for colors and materials. Here's scheme one, including exterior proposed as grays and some neutral caramel stone colors in a stone veneer. I believe there's some black window details and frames. Quickly going through the other schemes. Here's scheme two with some warmer colors and beiges, some wood teak introduced. Scheme three. Scheme four. Scheme five. And scheme six. Visual resources are precious in the Carmel Valley, particularly on the Carmel Valley Road corridor. Many CVMP policies address how views are to be protected, including Policy CV 1.1, CV 1.20, and Policy CV 3.3, as summarized on the left side of this slide. Also, the D district overlay protects neighborhood character. The pattern book proposes a new neighborhood, and the designs are similar in designs, colors, and materials, so it's compatible with itself. The pattern book is not out of character with outlying neighborhoods either. The potential for impact reviews was analyzed in the previous subdivision's second final environmental impact report, or SFEIR, with application of mitigation measures that I'll go into on the next slide. The project was found to conform with these policies and to have a less than significant impact to aesthetic resources. The design isn't generally rural, but the entitlement for RCB did not require a rural character in the design of this new neighborhood, as it is separated from Carmel Valley Road by wide developed parcels with tree lines and topography that limits visual access. The design approval conforms with the RCB subdivision's mitigation measure AES-1, which is a mitigation measure for those aesthetic impacts that were considered potential. It requires the developer to implement measures to reduce light and glare and visual intrusion to surrounding land uses and other public viewpoints. It requires the developer to plant a vegetative buffer with trees, shrubs, and scrub cover with locally derived stock around the periphery of the project site. And as shown on the previous slide, structural colors and materials are supposed to be non-reflective in natural hues, reducing any visual intrusion on the Carmel Valley vistas. A draft exterior lighting and window treatment submittal was provided in the application. It's attached to the staff report, but it was not attached to the pattern book. Rather than pin every home with the same exterior lighting and window glazing treatments until the last house is filled, staff applied condition number six to ensure measures to reduce light and glare are part of the construction on each lot. So the condition requires the construction master permits To address exterior lighting and window treatments and for site specific construction permits to be compared to those master permits that would be done by staff basically in sets of 10 is how we're planning it at this time, and that would be me. The certified SF EIR concluded the subdivision would have potentially significant environmental impacts to noise hazards and recommended mitigation measure NOI 1. requiring 45 C&L interior noise limits to be maintained through acoustical installation of building materials, fresh air ventilation and construction for all dwellings near these baseball fields and batting practice areas that are at Carmel Middle School, adjacent to the subdivision to the north. Staff required an acoustic report as part of the application for this pattern book design approval HAB-Masyn Moyer- And that report concluded that the housing within the area, the mitigation measure anticipated a distance from baseball fields would require this. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Sound protection. HAB-Masyn Moyer- It the report found that the construction would be sufficient to insulate and meet this 45 cnl interior noise limit. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Design question on that so they don't have to do anything extra. The pattern book already covers that? Correct. And it's in the master construction permits already. I have already checked those in part. Thank you. The design approval conforms with our CV subdivisions mitigation measure PSU 1, which memorialized the water rights for the subdivision and requires the homeowners association or similar entity to submit water usage reports to county and MPWMD on an annual basis to demonstrate that the subdivision wide water budget is maintained and that has to be under 60 acre feet per year maximum. So staff did require a subdivision-wide water budget that was painstakingly prepared by the agent prior to completeness of this application. It included estimates for full build-out of RCV and these 93 units with the full potential of 54 ADU units provided through the pattern book With all of that included, the development is well below the threshold. So all other subdivision mitigation measures and conditions of approval are currently met for the respective stage of the development. The last thing that I want to do is quickly run through everything that's on the left side of the slide. If you haven't read it already, the development is part of that 145 unit alternative 6B that the SFEIR approved, certified, and it was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2021 pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162. When an EIR has been certified, no subsequent EIR negative declaration shall be prepared unless the agency that is the lead agency determines substantial changes are proposed or substantial changes occur with respect to circumstances. And I believe that the zoning administrator can find that there have been no new circumstances and no substantial changes to the SF EIR scope of work that would warrant further environmental review. The Carmel Valley Land Use Advisory Committee, or LUAC, reviewed the pattern book on May 4th, 2026. A LUAC committee member did ask whether the plats of the pattern book matched the lots that were presented in the vesting tentative map or the final map. Staff clarified that they do. A LUAC committee member recommended the project description, which had at the time included the term peach as an exterior color description be updated. And also wanted to ensure that fenestrations would be varied along the units as they, you know, are side by side down the street. So the term peach was removed from the project description and the developer assured the LUAC by walking through the lot matrix that variation to facades is inherent to the pattern book. Each lot has a model number option assigned to the lot combined with an elevation style A through C. The LUAC recommended the zone administrator approve the pattern book as presented. Staff recommends that the zoning administrator consider the previously certified SFEIR and find the pattern book application as condition conforms with the related mitigations that were proposed during CEQA evaluation and is consistent with the subdivision project, which the board approved. Staff also recommends the approval of the pattern book as proposed, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

I have a question about how the landscaping for each lot is going to be handled. Is that done through this pattern book? And is that something we're approving today?

I'm not used to a decision maker approving a landscape pattern plant palette, Steph. So I'm not actually requesting that. But it stands as the guideline. And then there are landscape plans that are attached to the construction match master permits and set the norm for all of the site specific construction permits. They'll all have landscape plans and they will all align with this pattern book.

Okay.

staff did review the landscaping and made some recommendations during application review period as to increasing the number of natives while also adhering to fire safety and drought tolerance. So there's a little push and pull on what plants the fire districts are now considering fire safe that might otherwise have been in the landscape plan and perhaps the applicant can go into that.

On the What also is being approved today? Because we're not doing any common area. This is just the 93 lots? Correct. OK. We have other questions. But for now, let's open it up to the applicant. And maybe I'll have less questions after they talk to me. Good morning, Mr. Assembly. Open the hearing. Good morning.

Good morning. I'm Cody Phillips from Lombardo and Associates here on behalf of the developer. Mary kind of stole our thunder with that very detailed and well done presentation. So I don't know that we have too much more to add in terms of detail other than to say that this is the culmination really of a decades long process. The developers now at the state where we're ready to proceed with the model homes and construction of the marker aid lots. Of course, the underlying uses, the number of units, the zoning that was approved with the tentative map, and now we're ready to hit the ground running. So As Mary mentioned, the LUAC approved it. In terms of the materials, I did just at the end there very briefly regarding the fire safety. The pattern book does incorporate zone zero requirements in terms of hardscape and non-flammable materials within five feet of the structures. And of course will be consistent. I think the fire folks have already reviewed that and we're grateful for the work that we had done there. So the architect and developer are also available on Zoom if there's some specific design-related questions. But apart from that, I think we would like to request that you follow staff's recommendation and proof of project.

And staff's recommendations for five-year approval under this design approval. I want to make sure you're ready to actually start construction fairly soon because five years goes quickly. So just wanted to make sure. Is that appropriate? That's fine.

Okay. I want to make a comment for RCB slash Carmel Grant. Did you want to state your name for the record? Well, Alan Williams. I've been working on this project almost as long as Mike's career. Maybe longer. Maybe longer. We were delighted to find Carmel Grand and Chuck Landry to do this project. Obviously, once we got approval, I was inundated with people that wanted to build this project. But we were able to find a high-end boutique builder that would build a quality product, not just track homes in Carmel Valley. And I think what you're viewing today is a quality product that has been endorsed by the Loo Act, but also by the Carmel Valley Association. And when you look at these housing, they look, they are contemporary, but it is a village. It is Rancho Canata villages. It's going to be a village within itself, but It really takes into consideration all the fire materials we have to use now in building new homes. So there are fire safe communities. The flat roofs are very cleverly will cover and engulf all the solar panels that are now required on houses. So they're not standing in your face. They're integrated into the design. And quite frankly, it's everything I would have done if I were designing the homes myself. It's what I would have liked to see if I could have done all these 93 homes myself. So I feel real comfortable with this project and certainly as RCV, it's everything I wanted. And of course my primary goal, my dream 20 years ago when I started this was to be able to sell these 93 lots to people to build their own homes. But after the 23-year process, the last thing I thought was to put 93 individual homes, trying to come in there and get permits was a burden I could put on people and Northern County. And I think this is an excellent result to bring this quality project where people can come in now and buy a home. and get a project approved like this where we can get the housing to the marketplace with one big approval instead of 93 bites at the apple that would have taken us 10 years and a lot of confusion at the county and on the community. So I really appreciate the support of the staff and my staff, Michael and Cody, for putting together is everything I could wish for. And I will say that the inclusion area will be coming in for its plan check here pretty quick and the townhouses will follow. So the dominoes are lined up and the flood control is right around the corner. The Chapin's got the wall around the project and we're working on the southwest corner right now. So the flood control which I've been promising the community for 20 years is real close. So it's exciting for me to see it come to right to the end here. And this is one of the last steps. So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. I don't know which of your team or all of you at the LUAC, you want to make any comments about that process? Because I had one question because it said five to one on the slide, but three to one in the minutes. So I'm just wondering what the actual code was.

I was at the LUAC. Basically, I think I've been there in 2016 when we were approved the first time and the last time. And I think ultimately when they saw, they approved the project then, but I think when they saw what we were doing on it, they were very pleased that they had approved it. So it was fun. It was fun at that stage of the game to have that kind of approval after that length of time. So I was excited.

Thank you.

Staff can respond to that question.

We'll do that later. Anybody else like to speak on this application. This is for Rancher Kenyatta Village pattern book. Okay.

Yes, Mr. Burbs. I just want to bring to the zoning ministry's attention that environmental services wasn't routed this project. And I don't know what a planning book is, but I don't know if that's why, but

Well, this is it's a design approval. And I don't think we usually send the design approvals to you guys. I think that's probably why it's just that it will come to us eventually. Well, the whole subdivision came to you years ago.

Oh, did it?

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this application? Seeing none, I'll close public hearing. Staff have clarification for me on the LUAC vote?

Sure. So as the project planner, I was present for the Carmel Valley LUAC meeting. And I noted that it was a unanimous approval. But the LUAC minutes did not reflect that. And they were approved when I wasn't present at a feature meeting. locking in that there had been a no vote and that someone had not been present who had been present. So staff had requested those to be updated, but they haven't had another meeting to do that update.

Your note show was a five to one.

Yes. But in the resolution, it stated rather carefully that the recorded minutes reflect. Yes, I noticed that. Thank you.

Just want to make sure I understood it. HAB-Jacques Juilland- On condition six wording. HAB-Jacques Juilland- It says most pound book shall be consistent with the CVMP you should policies, we just change up to is consistent, this is. HAB-Jacques Juilland- And reflecting the decision so. HAB-Jacques Juilland- So we my decision to find that the project does not do to another er. HAB-Jacques Juilland- As my first action and approve the the pattern book design approval. subject to some non-substantive changes to the resolution and also clarifying on condition six that the pattern book's consistent. And with that, your project is approved. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so our next few hearings are all related to commercial vacation rentals. Some of you may know the Board of Supervisors adopted vacation rental regulations over the last couple of years, and the county is processing numerous applications. The county's processes of adopting the regulations occurred over many years with extensive public participation. The Board of Supervisors' intent was to strike a balance that allows Monterey County to benefit from the tourism economy while also minimizing loss of long-term housing and ensuring that residential neighborhoods are protected from potential social and behavioral impacts of vacation rentals. So part of the Board's determination But the community is better served by having limited well-regulated vacation rentals uses rather than 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. And the regulations ensure that each site is managed and responsible to respond to any issues. And in addition to the zoning regulations, the county code includes regulations in Chapter 7.120 which includes among other requirements, prohibitions on outdoor amplified noise and requires a sign be posted at a visible location along the street that provides the property manager 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. And with that, we'll start into our next four items. Like I said, they're all commercial vacation rentals. If staff can give me a minute to open up my items for number three. And item number three is PLN360067. This is for WHO at 26192 Mesa Drive in Carmel. And I'm ready whenever staff's ready. Thank you.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Jack Sorenson, project planner for PLN 260-067-HU. This application is for a commercial vacation rental located at 26192 Mesa Drive, Carmel, in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Subject property is a medium-density residential, two acres per unit, and a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The existing property has two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, living room, and five on-site parking spaces. Pursuant to Title 20, CVRs must comply with the parking requirements of Section 20.58.040. Pursuant to the code, single-family dwellings are required to have two spaces per unit. This applicant exceeds this requirement. The property has a maximum nighttime occupancy of five guests and a maximum daytime occupancy of seven guests. These occupancies exclude infants zero to 12 months and are set for pursuant to Chapter 7.120, which establishes the requirements for the vacation rental operation license. Through county records, staff found that they have not received adequate permits to convert the living room into a proper bedroom and therefore shall not be rented or included in the proposed maximum occupancy for the commercial vacation rental at this time. Staff is recommending adding a condition of approval number six, that prior to using this room as for the vacation rental, that they have received the proper permits to convert the living room into a third bedroom. The applicant submitted a certified home inspection, which was completed by a certified home inspector. The property manager, excuse me, the property has a local property manager who will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to respond to complaints or concerns that arise at the property. The property manager will be able to arrive on site within 30 minutes of receiving a complaint or a 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 38th. 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. Staff recommends the zoning administrator finds a 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. I believe the neighbors point out that there's several operating in the vicinity. be the first one in this neighborhood. It looks like from the exhibits I saw that there weren't any approved yet. I believe this would be the first first. Yeah, that's what the information seems to seem to reflect. Okay, I'd like to open the hearing is the applicant present, please. Yep. And you want to make any comments today? Yes, please.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Andrew gene. And I'm the property manager for the application at 26192 Mesa Drive. Thank you to Jack Sorensen for his hard work on this. And I've reviewed the staff report, the draft resolution, and all six conditions, and I accept them as written. I've also read the public comments, and I'd like to respond directly. Some came in as betas this morning that I was able to see. PB, Peter Vitale he the neighbor behind us. PB, Peter Vitale he asked some fair questions that I like to address. And she also wrote that she's had no trouble with this property is rental history. I really appreciate that. And I read this my commitment to keep it that way. And my neighbors matter more to me than anyone booking Um, Mr. Klein and miss bubble this open up but sharing that they have next door and their letter I came in this morning deserves a direct answer. They wrote that Ben called me during the daytime noise problem, then, and I didn't get back to him for two days. That's true. And it's not acceptable. And that's the exact failure that this permit. Permits contact requirements existing prevent so going forward. I'll have my partner monitor the posted phone number, especially if I happen to be off grid again so that it doesn't happen again. They also brought up the listings occupancy in their letter. Permit counted as five, as Jack stated, which the listings all now reflect. I also want to respond to This is the first that I'm hearing anything from him. I handed him my number as well on day one, and he never called me. And that's the whole reason that my number will be posted outside. And I'm available around the clock. If something at my house is bothering him, I really want to know specifically, fix it that day, not read about it later. So I'll reach out to him and to hear more about what he's seeing so I can address it directly. As for people coming and going that you mentioned and having a gardener and a housekeeper, that's what every nice home on this block looks like. And what I can commit to is that the coming and going that my house stays quiet, stays off the street with the five available parking spaces, on site and stays within five guests. Mr. Novo, I respectfully ask that you approve the permit and I'm very happy to answer the questions.

Thank you. And you have the chance to respond after any testimony. Thanks. Anybody else like to speak on this application?

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Yes, okay. I apologize. I'm in the hospital. So if there's any background noise, I have no control. So my name is Daniel Geerton. I live right next to property 26192 Mesa Drive. We are the next door neighbor divided only by a very thin fence. I'm strongly opposing the approval to make this commercial. I have three reasons. They're all related. One, tremendous excitement for the short-term rental property. I think the gentleman mentioned a prior neighbor said there was no issue. There was no issue when it was long-term lease. There was one family, we never had an issue with that family. Once they started short-term leasing, It's a party every time because there are multiple families, typically multiple cars. So last week, there was almost like a sorority party. Group of women talking in the yard for a long time, hours. I was taking a walk and I met a neighbor, Bill, across the street, two doors from home. the property, we heard the laughter from two doors down below. And afterwards, finally the party was over. No, one woman came out talking on the phone to recount the entire excitement for another hour or so. So that's, it's just nonstop celebration, partying. The second issue is evenings. There were music, sometimes loud music, booming music. There were a few occasions I wanted to call the police, but to be honest, I don't know if I should call the police or the sheriffs because our zip code is the county, not the Carmel City. So anyway, if this is approved as a commercial property, then I would have to call because the county approved, the county would give resources to manage all the nuisances. The third thing to me is more concerning. I have smelled cigarette smoking across the very thin fence and Because the summertime is so dry, who is going to manage? Who is going to make sure that cigarette butt doesn't land on the dry grass? And there's no security. So if I had bought a house next to a hotel, I trust the hotel would have a front desk, would have management team, would have support staff, including security. None of that. I heard a gentleman earlier say he would post his phone number. But up till now, it's... anything goes. So my concern is among all the laborers, many of us are senior citizens or approaching senior citizens. My husband and I worked 28 and 29 years respectively in this area in Monterey. So now we're trying to enjoy some peace. And now we have non-stop cars, laughing, music, and the leaf blower. It is a gas leaf blower. It's loud. And then the cleaning crew, it's not fair. We have worked a very long time. We should be able to enjoy some quiet time as retired people. So I'm strongly opposing this. If it leads to long-term people like some other neighbors do, we have no problem. Typically, they run to one person or one couple and they work in the community. They respect the neighbors. But those are short-term people coming to celebrate. They don't really care who are living in the area. They celebrate and they go. And the next group of people. I don't think it's five. I'm sorry. It's like a giant party. So again, my comments, I strongly oppose this. I'm just right next door. I couldn't bear all the noises. Thank you.

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

Go ahead. I'm Ben Klein. I'm next door on the other side of the house. I also a business concern. It changes the character of the neighborhood. We've been in this home for 11 years now. Prior to this current situation, there was a family renting the home. And we enjoyed great relationships with the father, the mother, and the son. And it is a constant influx of new people for whom we have no chance to have neighborly relationships because they're not neighbors. They are uh people who are coming uh as dunyan was saying to party uh or not just a party, but, you know, not just music and so forth, but, you know, children screaming, and that was the case just a couple weeks ago. I can't remember all the times where there have been disturbances. The one where I called a couple weeks ago was the most recent, but, you know, it's not the only time that we've had this type of of loud noise. I typically try to ignore it, but from what I've heard that there are six or seven applicants for short-term rental businesses in our very small Hatton Fields neighborhood, and it just changes the whole character of what it meant for me to move into this from the peace and quiet, but also the investment aspects of living in a neighborhood.

That's what we signed up for when we bought it. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak in this application?

Yes, I would like to speak. Eileen Herlihy.

Go ahead, Eileen.

Hi, I did mention that I did not in the past have problems with this as a rental, but it was during the long-term rental. This home is kitty corner to me on the backside, and I agree with Ben and Diane that it does change the flavor of the neighborhood. Additionally, we have an applicant later today that is across the street from me, as well as an applicant in two weeks that is next door to me. That means out of the six homes that I have access to, 50% of them are applying for short-term rentals. That seems like a very large percentage in a small neighborhood, as the previous people have mentioned. This is a family neighborhood. We have older people. We have a senior facility down the street, and we have children playing on their bikes. People who are short-term rentals are looking at their phone to find the rental. They're not watching what they're doing. They're small, narrow streets with cars parked on it. It's just too many short-term rentals. Thank you. I don't want to have this approved. Thank you.

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

I have a question. Was the presence of the long-term care facility on Taylor Road considered during this process?

We're taking testimony. We're not getting into a dialogue. So if you have any...

Okay.

So you can frame that in a way of testimony. I think you submitted a letter as well talking about the...

I did.

Yes. Yeah. So... So you're concerned about...

I would strongly encourage the county to consider that we already have a long-term care facility on our street and in our area, and adding more commercial properties would negatively impact our neighborhood. It already has, because they've already been running illegally.

Did you want to state your name for the record?

My name is Chelsea Batson.

And is that operated out of a house?

It's operated out of a home on Taylor Road.

Anybody else like to speak on this application? Seeing none, we'll let the applicant respond to any comments if they want to.

Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to respond. So Yeah, also Dee that spoke first, I also handed her my contact info on day one. And so I'd really like to know when there's any noise that's bothering her or any smoke so I can address that. And in our house rules, I want to say that we also admonish um, folks that want peace and quiet, not folks that want to come and party, um, and make loud noise. Um, and, um, so any noise or any smoking, um, or music, um, please reach out to me and, uh, so I can fix that the same day. And yeah, the gas leaf blower, I, um, I understand the concern with the noise twice a month with that for the gardening and I'll talk to my gardener so I can see how we can reduce the noise from that and see if they can switch to electric leaf blowers or something. We'll figure that out. And So in general, I'm a nice guy. I don't bite, and I encourage all my neighbors to reach out to me so we can work together on keeping the neighborhood quiet and peaceful.

Thanks. Andrew, where do you live? You guys can talk.

I want to find out if the management is actually within 30 minutes of the property.

All right, so I'm going to close the public hearing. Anything else from staff? Not at this time. Just to answer the gentleman's question he just raised, the resolution does include the location of the property manager, correct? Correct. Okay, so if you're interested, the information is in there. John Potter, Most of the issues raised today are those that were raised during the 15 plus years that the county. John Potter, Frankly struggled with how to adopt these regulations. John Potter, There are a lot of issues all valid from the neighbors. The Board of Supervisors took all those into consideration and adopted regulations. As I said in the speech before, these four items, they tried to achieve a balance. We are wrestling with a few of these issues as we are now processing all these permits. We do have some upcoming hearings with Planning Commission that have been referred from this hearing body or over concentration in neighborhoods. properties that are being surrounded properties that have developed their outdoor space as an enticement for people to use those are all before the planning Commission so I encourage people to participate in those hearings. These are important and valid concerns of the neighbors and I'm hoping to get some direction from the planning Commission and or the Board of Supervisors on how to apply these as we get a lot of these permits going through our process. So at this point, this is the first one in this neighborhood. And so it would be my decision to find that the project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and approve this permit subject to the findings and evidence and regulations outlined in the resolution. I do not have any changes to this one. Just if for the neighbors, if you did want to appeal it, we do have an appeal process. You can talk to Mr. Sorensen after the hearing today if you want to talk through about what that option is. So with that, the project is approved. Thank you. Our next hearing item is... We already did number four, so number five...

Yes.

...is PLN 260133. This is for Pence. This is on 3339 Taylor Road in Parnell. And staff, can you give me a minute to open up my hearing items?

I would appreciate that.

Yeah, come on. It's the cinnamon. Cinnamon is the welcome back, Mark. That's San Antonio. All right. I'm ready whenever staff's ready. Thank you.

Sorry, is that the administrator?

Keep up.

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is McKenna Bolling, and today's staff is presenting project file PLN 260133 Prince. This application is for an after-the-fact coastal development permit to allow a commercial vacation rental located at 3339 Taylor Road in Carmel within the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. The subject property is on medium density residential with two acres per unit and a design control overlay within the coastal zone. Some background on this project is the property owner was issued an administrative citation in April earlier this year and subsequently applied for the necessary permits to abate the violation in June. With approval of this permit, the violations will be abated and the property will be brought back into compliance with county code regulations. The property has three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, a kitchen and dining room, a living room, and two on-site parking spaces. There are carbon monoxide and smoke detectors in every bedroom and fire extinguishers in the kitchen. Pursuant to Title 20, commercial vacation rentals must comply with the parking requirements of Title 20, Section 2058040. Pursuant to the code, the single-family dwellings are required to have two spaces per unit, and in this instance, the applicant meets this requirement. The property has a maximum nighttime occupancy of seven guests and a maximum daytime occupancy of 10. These occupancies exclude infants zero to 12 months and are pursuant to Chapter 7, 120, which establishes the requirements for vacation rental operations license. The applicant also 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 on the property. The property manager will be able to arrive on site within 30 minutes of receiving a complaint or concern. The operations plan provides addresses and contact phone numbers for the police station, fire station, and hospital. And 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 secured separate entitlements for such use. The property must comply with Monterey County Code Section 1060. The operator could face escalating fines if they do not comply with this requirement. The approval of this commercial vacation rental does not allow for any tree removal or development to occur on this parcel. Additionally, Title 20 requires that the owner of the vacation rental shall only have an ownership interest in one commercial vacation rental in the unincorporated area of the county, while the regulations also allow the same property manager to manage multiple CVRs. The vacation rentals regulation allow for 118 commercial vacation rentals to be approved in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. If approved, this would be the 39th approved in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. Staff received several public comment letters raising concerns ranging from noise and parking to overcrowding of commercial vacation rentals in the immediate area, a decrease in property values, and guests and pets entering onto other properties. The letters also mentioned the use of a fire pit in the front yard and cleanliness surrounding the property after guests and their stay. In response to this, the applicant has since applied for necessary permits and been made aware of the requirements associated with their operation license and will ensure all conditions are adhered to as required through their vacation rental regulations. Additionally, the fireplace has been since removed and will not be available to guests. Therefore, staff recommends the zoning administrator find the project qualifies for a class one categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15301 and no exceptions under section 15300.2 apply and approve an after-the-fact coastal development permit for a commercial vacation rental operation use to allow 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. Is this application in the grace period?

It is not.

It is not. Okay. And the code enforcement citation that was issued, that was a written citation?

Yes. Sent to the property owner.

Okay.

And in the neighborhood, looking at the vicinity map that staff provides, I didn't see any others approved yet. This would be the first commercial vacation rental neighborhood. There's a couple of homestays. Is that correct?

Yes. I'm sorry, through the zoning administrator, staff would like to clarify, and it'd be easier to illustrate on the screen. This is the property that's being presented before you. There was one that was approved here for a discretionary entitlement, but the license has not been issued. So staff would like to clarify that for the record.

So there is two, or this would be the second in the area.

Correct.

Thank you.

And the yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is the applicant present, please? Yes.

Good morning. I'm here on video.

Good morning. Did you have any comments you wanted to make today?

Yes, please. And I apologize for not being present. I'm in Chile, South America, taking care of my ailing father. So I had to be here. Just a quick comment on the reason for the violation. And I know it's my responsibility to take care of that. However, I was not aware of the changing requirements. And in April, when this was issued, it was sent to the property and I did not receive it because we were not there. So I only was made aware of this when I got an email from the county and I acted immediately. So it's not that I waited since April 9th before acting on that. I want to make a few comments as well. We purchased this home in 2023 to be our retirement home. And then a few months later, my cancer diagnosis changed everything for us as I needed to continue working to keep my health insurance and needed to the proximity of Stanford Hospital and my medical team. So we couldn't move into the property. I understand that some neighbors oppose the granting of the application. I can put myself in their shoes and appreciate why having a few Airbnb properties in a neighborhood may seem concerning. However, it is important to consider that approximately 90% of our guests are families with children, much like the households in the area. They typically bring only one or two cars and it should not impact the character of the neighborhood. As it is well established, all guests are thoroughly identified and vetted by Airbnb first and then by us. And we have access to their reviews, profiles, and in most cases, LinkedIn and Facebook profiles. They are not permitted to smoke or host parties and have been so far very well behaved. While our neighbors may not be familiar with this guest, the same is true for our friends and family who use the house, who account for roughly 20% of all stays. We take exceptional care of the property, investing more than 100K in its upkeep, even though it was a new home, including an all new landscaping and addressing all the requests made by one of our next door neighbors to the best of our abilities. I'd like to spend a minute responding to Mr. Batson's letter, who is our next door neighbor, as his facts are incorrect regarding a single incident involving a dog. Written text messages easily show that he notified us on March 22nd at 1123 p.m. We took immediate action the next morning and it was fully resolved by March 27th, effectively four days later. as easily documented by photographs and invoices. Again, we went beyond the call of duty and planted bushes and trees to not only solve the problem, but make it look pretty for all of us, including them. Mr. Batson also fails to mention the thousands we spent with a completely new drainage system we installed, including French drains and a new well as rainwater was going into his property, his own words. He also fails to inform you that we removed a gigantic eucalyptus in another neighboring property that was endangering the welfare of his and other four families as winter approached, including his family. He didn't contribute any funding for the expensive project. In fact, we had to pay 50% as only one neighbor contributed. We have earned more than 95% five-star reviews and maintain super host status because we keep the home and surroundings as 100% safe and in perfect condition. As you can easily verify, we have tried to do everything by the book and paid all our required taxes, including TOT since the very beginning. I was unfortunately not aware of this new late 2025 requirement for this permit, but acted immediately as I became aware of it. I respectfully ask that you follow staff's recommendation and please grant my wife and I this permit. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions. the regulations don't allow use of fire pits by short-term renters. How have you addressed that?

I removed it already. It's already gone. I was informed by Ms. Bowling and it's already gone.

Yeah, we have testimony from your neighbors that it is gone. Did you continue to rent after you received the administrative citation for short-term rentals?

Yes, I did. I mean, the rentals are months and years ahead with Airbnb. So yes, I continued. I was not informed that I needed to desist from renting.

So the citation did not say that you needed to stop?

As far as I know, no, I could have missed it. But no, I can review it. I have it in my email. But I don't recall that, sir.

Okay, thank you. I'd like to open the hearing. Anybody else would like to speak on this application?

I'd like to speak.

Yes, go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Chelsea Batson, and we live next door to the short-term rental at 3339 Taylor Road. I'm here today because our experience over the past three years has shown us that this property has not been managed responsibly or with meaningful consideration for the surrounding neighborhood. I respectfully ask the county to not grant this permit. This hearing is about more than whether a property can legally be rented. It's about whether it is being operated responsibly and whether the owner is willing to take responsibility for the impact that operation has on neighboring homeowners. For three years, we have repeatedly raised concerns about our privacy, our children's safety, parking, noise, pets, and the behavior of transient guests. Guests have looked over the low-profile fence into our yard while our children were playing. We have had guests continue to smoke next to our yard, including this week, affecting our children's time outside. We've had unattended dogs repeatedly barking at our family through the fence and on occasions gain access to our property. And when we've asked for reasonable solutions, we have often been met with inaction or excuses. At one point when we raised concerns about privacy, we were essentially told that if we wanted privacy from their guests, we could pay to build our own fence. That response captures the larger problem. The owners financially benefiting from operating the short-term rental while the burden of its impacts is being placed on the families who live next door. This is not about one bad guest or one isolated incident. It is a three-year pattern of complaints, requests, and very little meaningful change. There are also serious questions about regulatory compliance. The property continued to advertise and provide a fire pit as guests' amenity, despite county regulations prohibiting the fire pit at short-term rentals. This fire pit was only removed 10 days ago. And I believe the county should also carefully consider the qualifications and effectiveness of the property manager being identified for this property. If the person responsible for 24-7 management is not a professional property manager with meaningful short-term rental experience, who is actually making sure this property complies with county requirements and that legitimate neighborhood complaints are addressed. Most importantly, I want to ask the county a question on behalf of homeowners like us. What are our next steps? For three years, we have reported problems, worked with county's compliance process, documented incidents, and asked the property owner to take responsibility. Yet we are still standing here asking for the same basic things, privacy, safety, accountability, and respect for our home. How many years are homeowners expected to report the same behavior and live with the consequences of poor management before meaningful action is taken? I respectfully ask the county to consider the full record, not just individual incidents, and determine whether the owner has demonstrated the responsibility, accountability, and willingness to protect the surrounding neighborhood that should be expected of a short-term rental permit holder. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this application? I would. Good morning.

I'm Davis Batson, husband of Chelsea. Chelsea is a fourth generation Carmel resident. My kids make it the fifth. We are deeply connected to this community. We live here. We are not going anywhere. We are here today because our neighborhood has changed. Short-term rentals have had a major impact on our neighborhood and our family. More specifically, the owners of 3339 Taylor have absolutely changed our neighborhood into something that worries us and endangers my family and our three small children. 3339 Taylor have brought strange, unvetted people and animals into our neighborhood. Strangers talking to my children, staring at my children. smoking, cussing, even strangers trespassing onto our property multiple times, knocking on our door on Christmas. Zero property management for them to answer their questions. My kids hesitate to go in their own backyard or don't want to play at all. Or we get harassed while we're out there. My main issue I want to address today, I brought up to Mr. Pence initially, which is my concern about strange dogs, strange animals. The fence separating our yard at the time was decorative, essentially not a fence. Approximately three feet high, large spaces. We have it documented. We provided evidence. I brought up my concern about dogs entering. They said, we don't allow pets. As stated by Mr. Pence, morning of March 22nd, two 50-pound dogs entered our property while we were asleep. My children saw this. Thankfully, they were not outside. They did, as he said, respond to fixed issue. What was applied was chicken wire to match the decorative fence, same height, roughly three, three and a half feet. In my experience as a firefighter, paramedic who has run on multiple dog attacks and seen these horrific, traumatic accidents, that fence is not stopping the majority of dogs. The owners of 3339 Taylor have a track record of not following code, not adhering to the rules, and worse yet, avoiding accountability. Whether it's having and marketing a fire pit, smokers throwing cigarettes, not posting about this hearing outside, not having their irrigation up to code, or not filing for a permit, they have a long track record of negligence. The letter sent in by Mr. Pence is a perfect example of negligence that we are referencing. To put in writing on record, quote, we have done everything by the book is the perfect snapshot of what we are dealing with. This brings me to my conclusion. When the next trespassing occurs, if and when the next set of dogs jump the fence, who is liable? Who will be civilly liable? Is it the owners? Is it the insurance? Are they even covered properly? Would it be the county that approved the permit with the foreknowledge of these occurrences? The foreknowledge of how the owners address real concerns about these unvetted strangers and animals. The knowledge that when suggestions to solve this issue are offered, the owners respond, quote unquote, not happening. They had asked us, what can we do to fix it? I stated, one, put up a traditional privacy fence that stops your guests from looking into our yard, looking at our children, DETERS THEM FROM TALKING TO OUR CHILDREN, STOPS OR DETERS DOGS FROM JUMPING OVER INTO OUR YARD. A FENCE WITH ZERO GAPS, A FENCE THAT REACHES MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED BY CODE. TWO, HAVE A SET OF RULES FOR YOUR GUESTS, FORBIDDING THEM FROM ENTERING OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, FORBIDDING THEM FROM COMMUNICATING WITH OUR KIDS. THEIR RESPONSE, QUOTE, NOT HAPPENING. Who would be liable? I recommend the permit for 3339 Taylor Road be denied. I'd like to add some notes on what Mr. Penn said earlier. The vetting he mentioned is nothing more than holding a credit card or social sites. He suggested there is no background. There's no history. There's no criminal record. Why did he not get these letters? He's not on site. He doesn't have a property manager that could read letters. Send them the information. The irrigation, their property was not up to code. We kindly asked for them to bring it up to code so their yard would stop flooding at hours. The tree cut, we have no idea. That tree is not even in their yard. The smoking occurs often. I appreciate your time. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this application at 3339 Taylor Road?

Yes, I would like to speak. I'm on Zoom. Eileen Herlihy.

Go ahead, Eileen.

Well, hi again. I'm directly across the street from this rental. And when you were counting, the woman who was counting the other applications, did you include the one that was just approved by Hugh on Mesa? So does that make it two or three now that you've approved?

Go ahead and testify. Okay, you'll get back to me.

I think that this one, I also completely think that they do not adhere to what the rules are. The fact of not knowing what the rules are does not make it good. They're not following the rules. I'm sorry that he has health issues. He could easily rent this house to a long-term tenant. There's such a need in our neighborhood. for long-term renters. They're not coming and going. They're using the wonderful Carmel School District. They can get a pretty penny, probably over $10,000 a month to rent that property to full-time tenants. We've had our property destroyed. I've had to talk to tenants that are too loud. I have contacted Keiko. I've had little response from her also. The amount of money that they've spent to bring their home up to code isn't any of our responsibilities. That's the part of being a good homeowner. Again, it's changing the neighborhood. This is the second one today that we're talking about. They leave their trash cans on the street. I think the worst part is this is the most egregious of the short-term rentals in our immediate neighborhood. The tenants seem to be very loud. I've called on them. They don't respond. Now they're going to have their mother be the property manager is what I've heard. I don't know that to be true. Thank you. I do not want this approved. They are egregious. I think some of the other situations are a little bit better. but they have not followed the rules and show a poor habit of working with their neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else want to speak on this application in 3339 Taylor Road? Mr. Pence, would you like to respond to comments you've heard?

Yes, please. First of all, since it's more fresh in my mind, Mr. Butson said, We are not up to code. You mentioned that as well. And then you said you spent a lot of money bringing up to code. Well, you can have it both ways. Either we are or we're not. As far as I know, we're completely up to code. I don't know anything that's not up to code. And I will respond to Mr. Butson in a moment. You also mentioned, Eileen, that we don't follow the rules. And I'm trying to figure out which rule we don't follow. Yes, the fire pit was there. As soon as Miss Bowling informed me to remove it, I removed it. I am not aware of any other rules we don't follow. So it's very easy to talk, but what matters here is our facts. First of all, Mr. Bottson repeats that Guests are unvetted. That is absolutely not true. Guests are very much vetted as it's explained in my initial remarks. Are vetted twice. We take care of that. Airbnb takes care of that. So they are absolutely vetted. I've taken responsibility. My wife and I have taken responsibility for this property. We visit as much as we can. depending on my health requirements, and we make sure everything is in order. We have a contractor and a handyman on hand. We take excellent care of the property. Mr. and Mrs. Batson claim it's been three years of complaints. Well, again, talk is easy. The facts can be shown. The text messages are there to everybody to show. The major issue started about a year ago. The main issue that was brought up initially, probably around three years ago, was the drainage, the water. That area, my property, your property, Mr. Batson, and properties around are in a low. And water comes from Taylor Road, corner atherton in the winter, so much so that we had to install a sump pump in our backyard to avoid the ponds and the lakes. So yes, water flows into your property as well into mine. However, we did, we spent thousands of dollars on French drains, on a well, and we responded immediately to that. The smoke and the cussing was a one-time incident that I'm not aware of any other incident and we took care of it immediately. We have posted clearly that smoking is not allowed and they acted immediately and stopped smoking in front or the back of the house. The dog incident, I explained already, that was one time incident. We fixed it within four days, and we made it actually, yes, it was chicken wire, but it stopped the problem, and we put nice bushes and all that. Mr. Butson lies. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but his reading of the not happening was very concocted. I have my phone here. I just checked. My reply to not happening was when I offered to do a fence, I said, 50-50%, I can show it right now. 50-50, we pay 50-50. And he said, no, I should pay 100%. And I said, it's not happening. So Mr. Batson has concocted multiple texts and taken the not happening answer to make his point. That's a lie and I'm very disappointed, Mr. Batson. I mentioned the fire pit. Mr. Batson lies again when he says that we said we don't allow pets. That is untrue. We have never said that. It's in the Airbnb site that we do allow pets. So we have never told him we don't allow pets. I really ask him to come up with proofs of his statement. Talk is cheap. um track record of not following rules irrigation not up to code i don't know what he's talking about irrigation up to code i've never gotten a notice that we're not up to code i'm not aware i'm not up to code Water was flowing into his property as well into mine. So I don't know, Mr. Batson, what you're talking about. He said we didn't post the three notices for this hearing. Completely untrue. I signed affidavit. I can show you the pictures. I took pictures because I know Mr. Batson and I expected this. I posted in three locations around my house. on Taylor Road, Corner Atherton, Corner Mesa, and on Taylor Road itself. All these are facts. They are in my phone. Mr. Batson, you need to be careful of what you say. And then people knocking on his door. I'm sorry. He said I should manage properly. Well, I would like anybody to tell me what I should do to prevent somebody knocking on his door. That is impossible for me to manage, short of making a notice, do not bother the neighbors, which I'm happy to do, of course. We have a whole book of instructions inside the property with everything that's required. I can add, do not bother the neighbors, of course, but I cannot control people saying hi to his children or knocking on his door. That is just beyond my ability. And, you know, unless there is a suggestion here in the room about Mr. Batson to how I should do that. So those are my answers. I'm happy to answer more questions.

Thank you, Mr. Pence. May I respond? No. We've had all the testimony. Thank you. No. So I'm closing the public hearing. Does staff have anything else to add?

Staff does. Staff would request that the property owners state who the property manager is on the record so that the neighbors are aware of who to contact in the event additional circumstances may or may not occur.

Well, it's in the resolution, correct?

It is in the resolution, but staff would like to confirm that that is the most accurate property manager information. For Ms. Ingrid Luters, Mr. Fitz?

Yeah, happy to do that. Mrs. Ingrid Luters and her husband are my wife's parents. They live on Atherton Place, which is a five-minute walk from the house.

Okay. And then if I may add a few things, staff would like to highlight that the property owner was notified once the ordinance went into effect for vacation rentals. Additionally, through the citation that was sent to the mailing address, it was included in the citation to discontinue all operations until proper permits are secured or cease operation and just discontinue it as a whole. The property owner continued to operate during that time while diligently pursuing permits. The notice of affidavit stated that notices were posted on August 30th on the corner of East Street and nearby, but signed on the 31st. 10 days is the required timeframe, which should have been completed by August 30th of 2026. So with those comments, staff is done and waiting for direction.

There was one other question about the number approved in the area. Are there any clarifications on that? Or is it still just the one?

It would respawn out through the zoning administrator. There was one on Atherton, and then earlier this morning was presented by Staff Hughes. So if approved, this would be the third one within the neighborhood.

Okay. Well, that's how you define a neighborhood.

Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Within 500 feet of the property.

Within 500 feet. Okay. Thank you. No, we are closed. Thank you. Apologize. That's all right. So a lot of the issues raised by the neighbors are the same issues that were raised during the 15 years of deliberations on developing the ordinance. It's not a surprise that they are issues for commercial vacation rentals and residential neighborhoods. What distinguishes this one to me is the fact that there was a violation issued. They continue to operate in violation of that enforcement citation. There is a lot of testimony, not just from the one neighbor, but I think I received nine letters talking about the pattern of I'll call it incompatibility with the neighborhood character out there. It's going to be my decision to find the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. But to deny this permit, I'm going to change the recommendation I recommend language in finding three that it would adversely affect the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. So we're going to add some evidence to finding three to deny this project. For the applicant, you can certainly work with the planner to talk about, Mr. Pence, to talk about an appeal if you'd like to appeal my decision, but it is going to be my decision to deny or permit. Thank you. Our next agenda item is item 6 PLN 260142. This is from Montez. This is on Valley Way in Pudmo. I'll just step in to open up my hearings. Sorry.

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

Good morning, Zoning Administrator Novo. My name is Imani Harrigan, and I am the project planner for 260142 Montez Melissa Trust. The project is located at 24785 Valley Way, Carmel in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. It is subject to county code as well. It is also in the sphere of influence for Carmel by the Sea. The property is zoned medium density residential with a gross density of two units per acre with a design control overlay in the coastal zone. The applicant applied outside of the grace period, and therefore operations are not allowed because the proper permits have not yet been approved or issued. Therefore, the scope of work for this project, the applicant is applying for a coastal development permit to allow transient lodging for a maximum of 30 calendar days or fewer at a residential property. In the image on the left, there is the surrounding area for the neighborhood. The subject parcel is within a residentially zoned subdivision in an unincorporated area in Carmel. And the second image to the right is a potential route to the nearest highway, which is Highway 1. There is a detached accessory dwelling unit, which can be seen in this first image here. However, it is not included in the vacation operation license, and it is not included in the maximum total occupancy for bedrooms. However, it is included in this application. The single-family dwelling has approximately 900 square feet of livable space. It includes two bedrooms, one and a half bathrooms, and two on-site parking spaces. The two on-site parking spaces comply with county regulations that require a minimum of two spaces. Also, there are smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors in the home, which can be seen in the second image further to the right. The applicant is proposing a maximum occupancy of five overnight guests and seven daytime guests. Overnight guests excludes infants from zero to 12 months. The five and seven occupancies are consistent with maximum occupancy regulations. The applicant also submitted a home inspection checklist that was certified by an international code council inspector. The applicant will also provide an informational notice to guests, which includes the adequate response times for both fire and 24-hour emergency response services. The nearest fire station, Cypress Fire Protection District 25, is approximately eight minutes away and also includes 24-hour advanced life support. In the operations plan, the Carmel Highlands Fire Station 1 is included, which is also approximately eight minutes away. Then the nearest emergency 24-hour is Chomp, which is approximately five minutes away. Included in the informational notice for guests will be information about the local property manager, which is iconic property management, and they are located approximately five minutes away. Therefore, they will be able to respond within 30 minutes to any concerns. Also, to protect the neighborhood character, corporate and private events are not allowed as an applied in condition number three. The Carmel Area Land Use Plan allows up to 118 commercial vacation rentals in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan. However, due to the continuance of item number four and the denial of item number five, staff is moving up the count total. So therefore, if approved, this would be the 39th, not the 41st. The property is accessed through Valley Way, which is a public county maintained road. Therefore, county regulations regarding access to private roads and management is not applicable in this case.

Before you move up that slide, is that the property we're looking at right there?

Yes, this here is the property.

I think you said two parking spaces, but it looks like they have actually more than that.

Yes.

Okay.

Hmm.

Staff received public comments stating that commercial vacation rentals in residential zoned areas should be banned as they are bad for residents, as well as limit critical housing stock. County regulations does allow for commercial vacation rentals in applicable zoning districts such as medium density residential, which this parcel is zoned. Also, staff is aware and would like Administrator Novo to know that this project is adjacent to Lower Trail, which does have a higher number of applications for commercial vacation rentals. As in the image on the right there with this lower arrow is the street for Valley Way and here is the subject parcel and then here on this road is Lower Trail. It is staff's recommendation that zoning administrator Novo find that the project qualifies for class 1 categorical exemption from CEQA guidelines section 15301 and there are no exceptions pursuant to section 15300.2 and approve a coastal development permit to allow commercial vacation rental to allow the use of a single family dwelling for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer. Thank you. This concludes staff's presentation and staff will be available for questions.

Thank you. I believe we approved a commercial vacation rental on the next street over, I think it's Cabrillo. Do you recall that from last hearing or maybe two hearings ago on the same side of Carpenter as this one? If you can just double check that. I'm pretty sure there was one other one in the neighborhood there. I'd like to open the hearing. Is the applicant present, please?

I am. I'm Melissa Montez. So thank you. I'm Melissa Montez. I'm actually the property owner of this home that I bought from Beverly about three years ago. We're actually on a corner lot. on Carpenter and Valley. So it's a quite busy street, I'll say. We have only one adjacent neighbor to the right of us and someone in front of us who is actually only there part-time. So I've spoken to both of them. They've had no issues since we've started renting our place out two years ago. No issues with noise. We only allow up to five people. It's not a larger home, as you can imagine. We don't have like seven to 10 people there at any one time. We do, just to clarify, we do have three parking spots. One of them is for the AGU in the back that I actually occupy part-time. So I'm actually at the home quite often. I go there at least once a week or twice a week because I work from home. So I actually quite see what's happening at the property very often. And we have very good responsible property managers. They are kind of property managers there that live very close by, as mentioned earlier. We've had no violations. We have no we had had no complaints from neighbors. And I actually took the time this weekend to really go talk to them this weekend to see if they've had any issues with parking or, you know, people being loud and we've had nothing in our neighborhood so far. So I would say based on all that I hope that today I get the full approval of the application to be able to continue the short term rental. So Thank you, Jess. Any questions?

Is there anybody who would like to speak on this application? I see several people there. If you want to speak and you can't figure out how to raise your hand, just go ahead and unmute yourself and start talking. If not, I will close the public hearing. Staff have anything else to add?

Yes, staff does. Through the zoning administrator, staff can confirm that a vacation rental on Cabrillo Street was approved.

Okay. So my memory is still okay. Thank you.

So there would be, there's two other ones out, both off of Cabrillo Street have been approved.

Okay. All right. And I know I referred Lower Trail, Upper Trail as a concern of mine to the Planning Commission. But carpenter really does distinguish these two neighborhoods. So I'm not concerned with that tie in here. I do feel that these are kind of operate a separate neighborhood. So that's not a concern of mine on this one. So it will be my decision to find that the project is exempt on the California Environmental Quality Act and approve the coastal development permit subject to the resolution and findings recommended by staff. and with the change to the number, as staff pointed out earlier. With that, your project is approved. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

All right. Next item is other matters. We don't have any, so we will adjourn at 11.26.