Title
PLN250315 - SCHONEFELD ROBERT S TR & SAPUPPO MICHAEL P TR
Public hearing to consider:
a. An appeal by Kirk and Christine Thorburn, Karen Wright, and Stephen Grebing of the August 13, 2026, Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Coastal Development permit (PLN250315/Schonefeld) to allow the use of a residential property for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer (Commercial Vacation Rental).
b. Find the project Categorically Exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15301, and there are no exceptions pursuant to Section 15300.2.
c. A Coastal Development Permit for a Commercial Vacation Rental to allow the use of a residential property for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer.
Body
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution to:
a. Deny the appeal of Kirk and Christine Thorburn, Karen Wright, and Stephen Grebing of the August 13, 2026, Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve a Coastal Development Permit (PLN250315/Schonefeld) to allow a Commercial Vacation rental.
b. Find the project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption from CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, and that none of the exceptions from Section 15300.2 apply to the project; and
c. Approve a Coastal Development Permit for a Commercial Vacation Rental to allow the use of a residential property for transient lodging for a period of 30 calendar days or fewer.
The attached draft resolution includes findings and evidence for consideration (Exhibit A). Staff recommends approval subject to 7 conditions of approval.
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Agent: Josh Ohanian
Property Owner: Schonefeld Robert S TR & Sapuppo Miachael P TR
APN: 008-453-016-000
Parcel Size: 0.997 AC
Zoning: Low Density Residential, 1.5 units per acre with a Design Control Overlay (Coastal Zone) or “LDR/1.5-D(CZ)”
Plan Area: Del Monte Forest LUP
Flagged and Staked: N/A
Project Planner: Jack Sorensen Assistant Planner
sorensenj@countyofmonterey.gov; 831-784-5765
SUMMARY:
The project site is located at 3245 Cabrillo Road, within the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan area. The Applicant/Owners, submitted an application seeking to use their existing single-family dwelling located in a residential neighborhood as a Commercial Vacation Rental. The site is developed with an existing 3,000 square foot single-family dwelling consisting of four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a kitchen, dining room, family room and two living rooms. The Applicant/Owner is proposing that the single-family dwelling be occupied by a maximum of nine people overnight and 13 people during daytime hours at the property at a time. The property will retain its potable water from California American Water. Sewer will continue to be provided by the Pebble Beach Community Services District
Within the immediate neighborhood (1,500-foot radius), excluding this application, there are no other vacation rental applications: no approved discretionary permit for a commercial vacation rental, no pending commercial vacation rentals, one pending limited vacation rentals, no approved homestays or pending homestays. If approved, the granting of this Coastal Development Permit would allow the establishment of the 9th permitted vacation rental in the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan out of a maximum of 57 Coastal Development Permits that may be issued at any given time pursuant to Title 20 Section 20.64.290.F.3.d.
Three timely appeals were filed of the Zoning Administrator’s August 13, 2026, decision to approve the project by the following Appellants:
- Appeal No. 1 - Received on August 21, 2026, by Stephen Grebing (Attachment F);
- Appeal No. 2 - Received on August 21, 2026, by Kirk and Christine Thornburn (Attachment G); and
- Appeal No. 3 - Received on August 25, 2026, by Karen Wright (Attachment H).
Appeal Nos. 1 through 3 contend the decision to approve the project was contrary to law. These specific contentions are further detailed below and in Attachment A (Draft Resolution).
Per MCC section 20.86.070, this hearing is heard de novo. Staff has prepared a draft resolution to grant the appeal, find the proposed use Categorically Exempt from CEQA Guidelines, and approve the Coastal Development Permit for a seven-year term.
DISCUSSION:
Appeal Nos. 1 through 3 by Stephen Grebing, Kirk and Christine Thornburn, and Karen Wright
The Appellants, Stephen Grebing, Kirk and Christine Thornburn, and Karen Wright, filed the same appeal outlining the three contentions (Attachments F-H), which staff summarizes below:
1. The decision to approve the project was contrary to law because the property is subject to a deed restriction prohibiting a business use; and therefore, should have been denied rather than approving the project subject to the “Use of Roads” condition.
2. The decision to approve the project was contrary to law because the resolution did not provide any supporting findings, evidence, or analysis to approve the project on an existing residential property for the use of a CVR considering the deed restriction prohibiting a business use on the property.
3. The decision to approve the project was contrary to law because the project was approved subject to the “Use of Roads” condition, and without approval from Pebble Beach Company first. Thus, this process created a lack of fair and impartial hearing, depriving the interested parties a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Appeal Nos. 1 through 3 Response
Staff has considered the appeal contentions and provides the following responses. In summary, staff finds the approval of the project consistent with applicable County policy and regulations in this case (see the discussion below).
Response to Contention Nos. 1-3: The project complies with the required Monterey County policies and regulations. The applicant has provided documentation that demonstrates the property is subject to CCRs, which is outlined within their deed (Attachment I). The CCRs are between the property owner and the Pebble Beach Company. While the appellant is correct in that the project may conflict with restriction (Restriction No. 1) prohibiting the use of a residential property as a business use, the appellant’s conclusion that the Zoning Administrator’s decision is contrary to law is misplaced. The County does not enforce privately held CCRs or deed restrictions, as such matters are private civil issues between property owners and the enforcing entity. Although CCRs are not enforced by the County, the County does establish regulations for the use of private roads as outlined in Title 16 Chapter 16.80. The property is within Pebble Beach and utilizes private roads, which are maintained and owned by the Pebble Beach Company. Pebble Beach Company is authorized to make determinations regarding the use, maintenance, and related matters regarding the private road. As further discussed below, the application was properly noticed to the governing structure, Pebble Beach Company, which subsequently provided a letter opposing the CVR use at the residential property. The applicant believes they have a right to access and use the property as such. The dispute between this language is held between the property owner and Pebble Beach Company as a civil matter in which the County is not a party to. In accordance with our regulations, the County conditioned the project as appropriate to ensure this dispute is resolved within 60 days, or the Vacation Rental Operation License will be denied, and all CVR activities must cease.
The County of Monterey Zoning Administrator is the appropriate hearing authority to review and make a decision on the application pursuant to the MCC. The project was adequately noticed in accordance with Title 20, Chapter 20.84. Public Comment was received and distributed to the Zoning Administrator, which was subsequently included within the record. Staff prepared a staff report and resolution outlining findings and evidence consistent with the MCC that included evidence related to the private road regulations (see final resolution in Attachment J). Additionally, public testimony was taken for the project, and allowed members of the public to speak on any concerns. Although the County does not enforce CCRs as discussed above and below, the County does have regulations for the use of private roads. Concerns raised regarding this issue were addressed in accordance with Title 16, Chapter 16.80, which regulates private roads. The Zoning Administrator found the project consistent with MCC and approved the project as conditioned.
CVR Regulations
Based on staff’s review of the planning application materials, the property complies with all rules and regulations pertaining to zoning uses and other applicable the 1982 County of Monterey General Plan (General Plan), Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan (DMF LUP), Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan, Part 4 (CIP), Monterey County Code Chapter 7.120 (Title 7), Monterey County Code Chapter 16.80 (Title 16), and the Monterey County Coastal Zoning Ordinance (Title 20).
The parcel is zoned Low Density Residential, 1.5 acres per unit with a Design Control Overlay, in the Coastal Zone or “LDR/1.5-D(CZ)”. Title 20 Section 20.12.050.FF allows for a residential property to be occupied by a Commercial Vacation Rental, subject to the granting of a Coastal Development Permit. The Applicant has applied for a Coastal Development Permit. If approved, the granting of this Coastal Development Permit would allow the establishment of the 9th permitted vacation rental in the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan out of a maximum of 57 Coastal Development Permits that may be issued at any given time pursuant to Title 20 Section 20.64.290.F.3.b.
The project complies with all Commercial Vacation Rental requirements pursuant to Section 20.64.290, including: adequate emergency response times for fire and emergency medical, adequate parking, limitations on the number of Commercial Vacation Rentals per legal lot, limitations on the number of Commercial Vacation Rentals an individual can have ownership interest in, and adequate property management information. The property has a maximum occupancy of nine overnight guests and 13 daytime guests. The proposed occupancy does not exceed the limits set forth in the California Uniform Housing Code and the requirements enumerated in Title 7 Section 7.120.070.C
To ensure the proposed use will not affect the residential character of the neighborhood, the following two conditions have been incorporated. Condition No. 3 has been incorporated to ensure that the property will not be rented for the purposes of holding a corporate or private event venue and Condition No. 4 to ensure that the property will remain in compliance with the regulations for Vacation Rentals in Title 7 Chapter 7.120, Title 20 section 20.64.290 and the Conditions of Approval. Additionally, the proposed Commercial Vacation Rental is subject to Monterey County’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 10.60), which prohibits loud or unreasonable noise between the hours of 9:00PM and 7:00AM. In accordance with Title 20 section 20.70.060, if the property is found to be in violation of the approved operations plan or conditions of approval attached to this Coastal Development Permit, the permit may be revoked for non-compliance.
Chapter 16.80 - Private Road Regulations
The property is within the Pebble Beach area and is currently managed by the Pebble Beach Company, which is the legally established governing structure for the private roads used to access the subject parcel. Pebble Beach Company is authorized to make determinations regarding the use, maintenance, and related matters regarding the private road. Pursuant to Title 20 section 20.64.290.F.4, the subject property must comply with Title 16 Chapter 16.80, which regulates private roads in Monterey County. The private road accessing the property is subject to a private road agreement, which is recorded as a grant deed for the subject property (Attachment I). The property’s deed restrictions are privately enforced by the grantor of the deed restrictions, the Pebble Beach Company. While the County does not enforce or regulate CCRs, these documents may include provisions that serve as private road agreements and/or private road maintenance agreements. The County reviews these documents only to understand whether such private road agreements exist and how to proceed pursuant to Chapter 16.80. Beyond this limited use, the County has no role in enforcing the deed restrictions or resolving disputes related to them; enforcement remains entirely a civil matter between the affected parties.
The deed contains language under “Maintenance of Road” that states “Grantee, his family and servants and his tenants and guests occupying or visiting said premises shall be entitled to the use of all roads and bridle paths now or hereafter owned by Grantor and to free access to Del Monte Forest. Grantor reserves the right to change, abandon, or close any of said roads or bridle paths but agrees to leave open a road from said premises to the nearest public highway. As long as Grantor shall keep such a road in repair the owner of said premises shall be obligated to pay Grantor the sum of $25.00 on each January 1st hereafter, which sum shall be a lien and charge on said premises. The plain language of this deed gives the property owner access to their property as long as they pay $25 each January 1st. Therefore, the project is classified as a Tier 4 category pursuant to Title 16 Chapter 16.80, which means this deed language constitutes the private road agreement and the private road maintenance agreement.
Although the deed allows the property owner the right to access, subsequent language under “Covenants and Conditions” (Restriction No.1) states that “No trade, business or profession of any description shall be conducted on said premises. Said premises shall not be used for any purpose whatever except solely and exclusively for the purpose of construction and maintenance of not more than one private single-family residence…”. These CCRs are enforced by the Pebble Beach Company and are between them and the property owner.
Title 16 section 16.80.040.C requires written notice for projects involving the use of a private to all parties to a private road and interested parties of the private road or project. However, noticing is not required for those projects with access via a private road(s) that are subject to a legally established private road governing structure such as a homeowners' association or similar organization where said governing structure is authorized to make determinations regarding the use, maintenance, and related matters regarding the private road(s). Examples of such projects included are not limited to projects considered allowed uses within subdivisions such as the Del Monte Forest area. The notice provides the opportunity for any party to a private road to object and subsequently resolve any potential disputes prior to the consideration of the project by the Appropriate Authority.
The Pebble Beach Company was notified of the project and submitted a letter on October 9, 2024, and July 27, 2026, to the County stating that they have a blanket objection to the use of residential property in Pebble Beach as commercial vacation rentals. These letters state that Pebble Beach Company believes that “…the plain meaning of the CC&R language bans short-term vacation rentals in the Del Monte Forest” due to the language outlined in Restriction No. 1. Therefore, since this language exists, the Pebble Beach Company argues that the property owner does not have a right to access the road for the purposes of a CVR. (Attachment E)
The applicant is aware of the objections and restrictions outlined within the CCRs and believes they have the right to access and use the property for the proposed application of a Commercial Vacation Rental. The plain language in the deed provides the owner the right to access; however subsequent language within the CCRs potentially restricts such use. The CCRs are held between the Pebble Beach Company and the property owner in which the County is not a party to, as such the issue is a civil matter between the private entities. In this case, the County does find there is a substantive dispute that exists over the plain language regarding the rights to access and further language under the CCRs.
Title 16 section 16.80.060.A states that if the Appropriate Authority finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that a substantive dispute exists regarding the use of a private road for a project, the Appropriate Authority “may approve the project but shall require as a condition of project approval that the applicant provide the County with proof of access demonstrating that the dispute has been satisfactorily resolved”. Therefore, staff recommends that Condition of Approval (Condition No. 6) to ensure that the substantial dispute regarding the plain language of the private road agreement is resolved prior to the applicant commencing the use of their property as a commercial vacation rental. This Condition requires that the applicant provides the County of Monterey Housing and Community Development (HCD) staff with adequate documentation that the private road dispute has been satisfactorily resolved and the use of the property as a commercial vacation rental is allowed and does not violate the plain language of any deed restrictions and/or private road agreement. Proof of the private road dispute resolution is described in Chapter 16.80 may include written agreement from the parties to the private road, a final settlement or final judicial determination. This proof is required within 60 days of approval, or the Vacation Rental Operation License will be denied, and all vacation rental operations must cease.
CEQA:
The project qualifies as a categorical exemption from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301. This exemption applies to the operation of existing private structures, involving negligible or no expansion of an existing use. The Applicant/Owner proposes to use a residential single-family dwelling for transient lodging where the term of occupancy, possession, or tenancy of the property by the person entitled to such occupancy, possession, or tenancy for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or fewer. This project does not propose or authorize any additional exterior development and/or expansion of the existing structure currently on the project site.
The subject property will be limited to one rental contract at any given time. All facilities, as planned and approved, have been confirmed by County agencies to be adequate for this use. Therefore, the proposed use is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. None of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to this project. Additionally, there will be no significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Further, there is no evidence that “the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.”
The County prepared a FEIR for the Vacation Rental Ordinances project, which was certified by the Board of Supervisors on August 27, 2024 (SCH# 2022080643). The FEIR analyzed the project for environmental impacts and did not identify any significant impacts of Commercial Vacation Rentals up to the Commercial Vacation Rental cap set for each County of Monterey Planning Area. This Commercial Vacation Rental does not exceed the cap on Commercial Vacation Rentals in the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan. It would be the 9th Commercial Vacation Rental in the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan. The FEIR did address public comments that vacation rentals have the potential for negative side effects including nuisance issues such as traffic, parking and noise. However, no significant environmental effects were identified. County regulations have been developed and are in effect to ensure that vacation rentals remain compatible with existing residential uses. Cumulative impacts of the regulations taken together with other past, present, and probable future projects were analyzed and no significant effects were identified. There is no evidence suggesting that approving this project would result in significant environmental impacts.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The following agencies have reviewed the project, have comments, and/or have recommended conditions:
Office of County Counsel
FINANCING:
The Board appeal fee is typically $3,572.00; however, projects in the coastal zone that are appealable to the California Coastal Commission are not charged an appeal fee. Funding for staff time associated with this project is included in the FY 26-27 Adopted Budget for HCD Community Development, Fund 1001, Appropriation HCD101, Department 310002.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:
The project aligns with Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan Goals A: This action represents effective and timely response to our HCD customers. Processing this application in accordance with all applicable policies and regulations also provides the County accountability for proper management of our land resources.
Mark a check to the related Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan Goals:
__X Well-Being and Quality of Life
____ Sustainable Infrastructure for the Present and Future
____ Safe and Resilient Communities
____ Diverse and Thriving Economy
____ Dynamic Organization and Employer of Choice
Link to the Strategic Plan:
< <https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/home/showdocument?id=139569>>
Prepared by: Jack Sorensen, Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Melanie Beretti, AICP, Chief of Planning
Approved by: Craig Spencer, HCD Director
The following attachments are on file with Clerk of the Board:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution including:
• Attachment 1 - Recommended Conditions of Approval
• Attachment 2 - Operations Plan
• Attachment 3 - Site Plan
Attachment B - Aerial Image and Surrounding Neighborhood
Attachment C - Vicinity Map
Attachment D - Home Inspection Checklist
Attachment E - Public Comment
Attachment F - Notice of Appeal: Grebing
Attachment G - Notice of Appeal: Thorburn
Attachment H - Notice of Appeal: Wright
Attachment I - Property’s Deed Restrictions & Private Road Agreement
Attachment J - Zoning Administrator Resolution 26-087
cc: Front Counter Copy; HCD-Planning; Jack Sorensen, Assistant Planner; Jacquelyn Nickerson, Principal Planner; Robert Schonefeld, Property Owners; Josh Ohanian, Agent; Interested Parties: The Open Monterey Project (Molly Erickson); Laborers International Union of North America (Lozeau Drury LLP); Christina McGinnis, Keep Big Sur Wild; LandWatch; Planning File PLN250315