Zoning Administrator clears three commercial vacation rentals in Carmel and Pebble Beach; Pebble Beach private‑road dispute stays in place

The Monterey County Zoning Administrator on June 11 approved three commercial vacation rental (CVR) use permits in the Carmel and Pebble Beach areas, resolving related code-enforcement matters and applying a private-road condition in one Pebble Beach case.

For 24971 Carmel Hills Drive (PLN180319), planner Jay Mason said the four-bedroom house exceeds county parking requirements with four on-site spaces and has a certified home inspection and a local property manager available 24/7; staff recommended a class 1 CEQA exemption to abate code enforcement case 26CE00235 and approve a use permit. Applicant Joseph Sandish, representing Carmel Coast Estate, spoke briefly in support; neighbor Fred Faltersack also spoke in favor. Zoning Administrator Mike Novo adopted staff’s CEQA findings and approved the permit with minor non-substantive edits.

Imani Harrigan presented PLN24260065 (24760 Lower Trail), describing a property built in 1946 with legal nonconforming parking (one on-site space) and a proposed maximum occupancy of five overnight guests (seven daytime). The proposal includes a JADU on site and a local property manager (Sanctuary Vacation Rentals) who can respond within 30 minutes. Owner and manager representatives described safety improvements, long-term stewardship and compliance with operational conditions; Novo approved the coastal development permit with the staff-recommended conditions.

The hearing’s most contested item was PLN240358 (2924 Congress Road, Pebble Beach), an after‑the‑fact permit intended to clear code enforcement case 26CE00194. Planner Kyle Nadkasai said the property has four parking spaces, a local manager and meets many code requirements, but staff received an objection from the Pebble Beach Company claiming deed restrictions limit commercial use and access over private roads. To address that dispute, staff added condition 6, which prohibits commencement of CVR operations until the private‑road issue has been satisfactorily resolved. Applicant Doug Clay argued the deed rights permit residential rental use and asked that condition 6 be removed.

Several speakers weighed in on the private‑road question. Doug Clay said his deed expressly grants access for tenants and service providers and does not bar short‑term residential rentals. Attorney and commenter Sean Murphy told the zoning administrator that, based on his prior litigation experience, the Pebble Beach Company is not a homeowners association and must pursue court enforcement rather than be given veto power. Opposing comments from the Pebble Beach Company were cited by staff as grounds for applying the private‑road condition under Chapter 16.8 of county code.

Fred Faltersack characterized the Pebble Beach Company as a “big bully corporation” opposing homeowners’ use of their property; his remarks were part of the public comment record. Zoning Administrator Novo said the county follows its private-road ordinance and applied condition 6 in this case to require parties to resolve the civil dispute outside the land‑use approval process. With a non-substantive correction to the Tier 3 classification in the resolution, Novo approved the permit as submitted by staff, which includes condition 6 preventing the CVR from commencing until the private-road dispute is resolved.

No roll-call votes were recorded; these were administrative decisions issued by the zoning administrator at the hearing. The county will record the approved permits and monitor compliance with operational conditions and any outstanding enforcement fines or requirements.

Next steps: the two Carmel permits may proceed under the conditions adopted at the hearing; the Pebble Beach permit is approved administratively but cannot commence CVR operations until the private-road dispute identified in condition 6 is resolved.