Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And welcome to the Wednesday, 03/25/2026 meeting of the Monterey County Planning Commission. We will begin with a pledge of allegiance. And I think Commissioner Gomez perhaps would like to lead us. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner.

How about then we have roll call. Madam clerk, would you do that for us, please?

Good morning. Commissioner Getzelleman? Here. Commissioner Mendoza?

Here.

Commissioner Hartzell? Here. Commissioner Gonzales?

Here.

Commissioner Work?

Here.

Commissioner Shaw? Here. Commissioner Gomez? Here. Commissioner Monsalve? Here. Commissioner Deal? Here. Commissioner Robert is absent today. Chair, you have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Madam secretary, would you help all of us and the public understand how to use public access for the meeting?

Thank you for joining us. If you are joining us remotely today, you can access the Zoom meeting through our web excuse me, through the agenda. There's a link to the Zoom meeting. If you're joining via Zoom either on the computer platform or by phone, you are welcome to participate during times in the meeting for public comment. You can do so by raising your hand, by pressing the hand icon at the bottom of your screen to raise your hand and then lower your hand.

Or if you're on a phone, star six will raise your hand and star six will lower it. You can also submit public comment by submitting emails to PC hearing comments at, county of Monterey dot gov. We do monitor that during the meeting and we do our best to capture all comments that are submitted, but now that the meeting started there's always a chance we may miss a comment or two. Also when it is your time to participate during public comment, you will be given the option to unmute yourself on the computer, on your platform, on your computer. You can mute and unmute by touching the icon, the microphone icon at the bottom of your screen on your phone.

You can mute and unmute by pressing star six, which makes me have to now go back and correct that it is actually star nine, which allows you to lower and raise your hand as to participate. Star six on your phone will mute and unmute. And we continue to offer translation services. If we could get the wordly slide up on the screen in the bilingual or Spanish language would be great. For anyone who requires translation services, you can scan the QR code or go to the webpage and select your language of choice when given the prompt.

It'll allow you to join and then you will get live translation. You will also see here in chambers on the screen we also include Spanish translation of the meeting as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is the time set aside on the agenda for public comment. Those would be comments that the public would like to share with us that are not on the agenda for today. So these would be items that you just like basically bring to our attention on the Planning Commission. Do we see we have no one it looks like no one's coming forward in the chambers. Madam Clerk is there anyone online that would like to speak with us?

We have no emails online and no hands up on Zoom.

Very well, thank you very much. Are there any agenda additions, deletions, or corrections that we have?

For the record, we received and distributed correspondence for a non agenda item and it's placed on the dais and there's copies over by the table on the front.

Very good. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any requests or referrals you'd like to bring forward? Oh, Commissioner Deal? No? I'm sorry. Just flexing your Yeah. Okay. My apologies. All right. Very good then. Nothing in that area. Then we'll move along to scheduled items on the agenda. The first scheduled item is PLN number 250149 Duncan and Duncan LLC. Staff when you're ready.

Good morning Chair Getselman and the Board of of of However, after noticing of this application in the newspaper, the applicant decided to withdraw their application. And therefore, there was no item for the Planning Commission to consider. And this is staff's update status of this project. Staff is available for any questions. Thank you.

Oh, you want to hear me? Okay, thank you very much. All right, very well then if it's been withdrawn, then we'll move along to the next scheduled item, which is PLN 25111 that would be Bayer Lex Neal, TR. Staff?

It's withdrawn.

Yeah, they just

There is no item because they withdrew their information, so there's no comment. It's just

Yeah, so we're good. All right, staff, I'm sorry. PLN number 250111. Staff, when you're ready.

Good morning, Planning Commission and Chair Getsselman. My name is McKenna Bowling, and today I am presenting project file PLN 250111Bayer. The subject property is located at 35700 Highway 1 within the Big Sur Coast land use plan. The parcel is zoned rural density residential with design control overlay, a 14 foot maximum allowable height within the coastal zone. The project includes a combined development permit consisting of a coastal administrative permit and design approval to allow demolition of an existing residence and garage and other site improvements and the construction of a 5,754 square foot single family dwelling with a detached seven zero one square foot garage and associated site improvements a coastal development permit to allow development within 100 feet of ESHA a coastal development permit to allow development within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, and a coastal administrative permit to allow development within seven fifty feet of a known archaeological resource.

The project includes application for development within 100 feet of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, or ESHA. Pursuant to the Big Sur coastal implementation plan, a biological report is required for all proposed development that is sited within 100 feet of ESHA. Per the project biologist or the project biologist surveyed the subject parcel twice within the same year to provide a flowering survey and a field survey to determine project related impacts to biological resources as a result of construction. As indicated in the project plans, the area of construction is sited within 100 feet of Esha, specifically the Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub as seen on screen in the photo. The proposed development will be cited primarily within existing development footprints, but expands to the north and south into existing areas occupied by ornamental landscaping.

The development, however, will not be sited within ESHA or have direct or indirect impacts on ESHA and thus ensures its protection. Further consistent with the Big Sur Coast land use plan policies three point three point two point four and three point three point two point seven as it proposes long term improvements and maintenance of the habitat present on-site through the use of invasive species eradication and habitat restoration recommendations as detailed in the prepared biological report. As designed, cited and conditioned, the proposed project would be consistent with the regulations for development adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitats, would have no or less than significant impacts on ESHA and would result in enhanced ESHA habitat values. As indicated on the project plans and County of Monterey GIS records, the project includes an application for development within 50 feet of a coastal bluff. The seventy five year bluff erosion and instability setback line can be seen on screen by the red line indicated by a red arrow.

Pursuant to the Big Sur coastal implementation plan, a geologic report is required for such development. As designed and located, the project would comply with applicable policies of the Big Sur Coast land use plan and has been designed to incorporate measures outlined in the report to minimize potential erosion concerns and incorporates the geologist recommended seventy five year coastal recession setback of 22 and a half feet. Further consistent with the land use plan, the prepared geotechnical and geological reports both demonstrate that the site would be stable for such development. As designed, it is anticipated that the proposed habitable development and necessary improvements would not be subject to failure over the course of its economic lifespan. According to Monterey County GIS system, this property is identified to be in an area that is mapped as having high sensitivity to the presence of archaeological resources.

Pursuant to the Big Sur coastal implementation plan, a phase one and two archaeological reports were prepared for the property, which assessed the potential of the project area containing to contain archaeological resources. According to both reports, there is no evidence demonstrating that significant cultural project site. Therefore, the potential inadvertent impacts are limited and controlled with application of condition number three, which requires work to stop if previously unidentified resources are found during construction and or ground disturbance activities. The proposed project was reviewed by the Big Sur Coast Land Use Advisory Committee earlier this year in 01/27/2026. The committee recommended approval of the project by a vote of four to zero in support of the project as proposed.

Concerns were raised about the removal of cypress trees and the potential for increased views of the residents from Highway 1. However, there are no trees proposed for removal, and the development would not be visible from Highway 1. As shown on screen, the replacement residence proposes colors and materials consisting of stone veneer with light gray stucco and horizontal wood siding and a flat pitch metal roof. The colors and materials are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character, and the use of natural materials and flat roof help blend the structure into the vegetation and protect the public view shed. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the project categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15,302 of the CEQA guidelines and approve a combined development permit consisting of a coastal administrative permit and design approval to allow demolition of an existing residence garage and other site improvements and the construction of a replacement single family dwelling with a detached garage and associated site improvements a coastal development permit to allow development within 100 feet of Esha a coastal development permit to allow development within 50 feet of a coastal bluff and a coastal administrative permit to allow development within seven fifty feet of a known archaeological resource.

This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you very much, Mintzpoli. Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff? All right, very good seeing none then move along applicant or applicant's agent would you like to make a presentation? Welcome Mr. Jeffries.

Thank you yes Chair Gitzelman hold on one second. Can I have the my iPad screen thrown up on the excellent? Okay. Good morning, Chair Getselman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Angus Jeffers.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant, Lex Baer. Lex would like to introduce himself and say a few comments though as part of the public comment portion of this hearing. And Lex retained field architecture to design his family's new house and help manage the restoration of the turf moat which surrounds the existing home. This is our fourth opportunity to work with field architecture and learn from their context sensitive design process. Just as a quick overview, they did the house just north of Rocky Point, the former Castro house where the house the main house was designed to be consistent with the historically significant Kingshofer ADU or white sands in the city of Carmel where the excess sand was exported off-site, compressed and brought back onto the property as the walls of the house.

And then the house currently under construction at the end of Van Esse Way in the Carmel Highlands, where a faux craftsman house was replaced with a contemporary house that actually is consistent with what was originally in the property in the 1950s. Moving on, we'd like to thank Ms. Bolling for thoroughly vetting this project and bringing it forward to hearing in record time while also making that process entirely collaborative. The applicant and I support the proposed conditions of approval. But I will at the end of this presentation bring up a couple of revision asks regarding condition 13, the conservation and scenic easement condition for this project.

The existing single story residence is 4,692 square feet. It is just a single story ranch house. We're seeking to replace that with a contemporary single story residence enjoying 5,754 square feet along with a detached seven zero one square foot garage. To be consistent with zoning and also avoid the risk of Ushed impacts from Highway 1 or Garipata Beach, the house is set at a height of only 14 feet consistent with the existing house. And it's been principally located within the same building footprint as the existing house.

The house was cited to avoid bluff erosion risks by being set back behind the estimated extent of bluff erosion over the next seventy five years. No trees were proposed for removal, but we also brought on board Benjamin Ikorn County approved arborist to make sure that through design, through the actual construction, we've thought through how to protect our existing trees. Fred Ballerini was brought on board to design the restoration plan of 0.4 acres of that turf moat. Essentially Fred is taking the restoration work he did on the former Kleisner property next door and extending that across the fence. Fred's investigations and report also confirm no Esha impacts are foreseeable with this project.

The project avoids 30% slopes. It avoids impacts to archeological resources. And Meg Clovis confirmed that the single story ranch house is not historically significant. Regarding condition 13, we'd like to ask for two revisions. One, that the language or is being restored by this permit be removed.

That language would essentially make the conservation easement applied to the whole parcel. It would penalize the applicant for doing what I call the right thing and restoring the turf to Coastal California landscape when the project itself doesn't result in any impacts. So this was not done as any sort of mitigation. It's just doing the right thing. And by penalizing the applicant here for having to put under conservation easement what is now turf, it would make it impossible for me to convince other applicants to do the right thing in the future, of which I have one cooking in Pebble Beach, which is again, extensive turf restoration to California coastal landscape.

The second revision we'd like to ask for is to make the last phase of condition 13, the actual recording of the conservation easement made prior to final inspection rather than prior to pulling our construction permits. The other timing triggers are just fine. Within two months, we can have the conservation even drafted. We can have the surveyor provide the necessary exhibits and the applicant can present a signed copy to the county. And within that two months spectrum, it won't delay pulling the construction permits on this project.

However, the rest of that process can take a couple more months. And we have no control of that process, which is final County Council review, getting it agendized for the board's consent calendar, getting it actually signed, and then actually recorded. And then this change would be consistent with the timing for other projects, including Blaise Morgenrath and Big Sur and a couple of the Cypress Habitat projects in Pebble Beach. And in which again, we're not trying to skirt the conservation easement condition. We just don't want to have it unreasonably delay pulling our construction permits for the timing elements we don't control.

I also want to be clear that we're not trying to be stingy on the conservation easement area. The Esher area is really that everything from the bluff forward to the ocean. And I'm thinking that we'll have a buffer of five to 10 feet back from that bluff to just be inclusive. With that, if there are no further questions or comments, thank you for your time and consideration. And I know that Lex is during the public comment period looking forward to just introducing himself and saying a few words.

Thank you, Mr. Jeff. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Jeffers, commissioners? No. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you.

Alright. Very good. We probably like to start with the gentleman that Mr. Jeffers said, then we'll open public comment. Are they is he with us on Zoom?

Alex, you should be allowed to speak now.

Great.

Can you hear me?

Yes, very well. Thank you.

Great. Good morning. My name is Alex Bayer. I'd like to express my gratitude to all the people who've been in this project and all the work that went into preparing for the hearing. Thank you to our planner, Mrs. Bowling, for all your guidance, to Mr. Jeffers for representing us, and thank you to the many technical consultants who prepared our various reports. I also want to share how excited my family is to be working with field architecture. Their vision care for the site and the surrounding landscape means a lot to us. Thank you so much.

Thank you, sir. That's very nice. Thank you very much. All right. Are there any other there's no one in the chambers that has come forward or seems to be interested. So is there anyone else on Zoom or online?

No additional emails, no hands up on zoom.

Thank you very much.

All

right, commissioners then. Commissioner Deal.

Thank you. I just like to ask staff for a read on the revisions to conditions that were proposed by the applicants representative. What do you think?

Staff's primary intent was to ensure that the Bluff scrub area along the Coastal Bluff was conserved in a easement. So staff would be supportive of a clarification there where it doesn't constrain or restrict the rest of the property. As for the timing, am looking at past examples to see if there is that is something that we have generally conducted. But I I am comfortable with a prior to final inspection that the document be recorded.

I take that as staff is comfortable with the revisions as presented by the applicant's representative?

I would suggest just clarity that it's I believe the the Bluff area is being restored and therefore that would include that to be in in the easement but not the remainders of the property that may be restored. So just clarification that the easement is applicable to the Coastal Bluff area.

Okay. You good? Yes. And and then I don't know if there are other people that want to speak. I just want to my main my main pitch is always that as a a neighbor, I certainly hope that the applicant is intending to reside there.

We we really like to have houses with people living in them. This is a wonderful thing for our neighborhood and and we would we would as a group, as a larger neighborhood, truly treasure additional residents, people who are part of our community. I just like to to note that I really appreciate an application that is designed not to ask for any exceptions. And I see nothing in here that it indicates that there was any any rules that didn't weren't followed. And that's refreshing and useful and I think reflected in the the kind of speed that processing can happen for an application of that type.

And so on all those counts when it's appropriate I would be happy to move approval with the changes that we just discussed condition 13 leaving staff to finalize the wording on the bluff versus turf.

Very good. Thank you. And I too would like to it's always so pleasant when we have applicants that seem to actually adhere to the to the rules and to make this process seamless or it appears to be from up here. Commissioner Hartzell.

I second Commissioner Deals motion.

Oh, very good. All right. Any other further questions, comments from commissioners? No. Seeing none. We have a motion Commissioner Diehl and a second by Commissioner Hartzell to approve the project with the noted conditional changes. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed nay. Very good, Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Jeffers. Wow. I kinda run out of stuff on there. Thank you, staff. Kinda run out of stuff on the agenda. Well, we might be out of here by 09:30. We have remaining on the agenda a department report. Madam Secretary would you like to share things with us? Anything with us?

Sure, thank you. Just a couple of

quick

updates. I wanted to just notify the Commission and the public that County Housing Community Development Department staff was able to submit our third submittal of our draft housing element update to the state on March 13 for its now third review which is a sixty day review. Staff is confident based on communications with the state that we anticipate we are pretty much there in responding to all questions and comments, maybe outside of final refinements. So we are hopeful, but pending that final review. Also yesterday, the Board of Supervisors considered the annual reports for the general plan, the housing element, as well as the long range work program, in which staff did relay the commission's recommendation to the board, which had included specifically requesting that key priority implementation items from the 2010 general plan be given higher priority and moved through completion.

Specifically that was continuing Chular, adding Pajaro community plan development and development evaluation system. The board supported adding the Pajaro community plan to the top list of priorities and also staff noted that addressing development evaluation system is incorporated as part of the housing element and so that was acceptable to the board. With that, I don't have any other notable updates other than we do have this afternoon scheduled at 01:30 our planning commission and land use advisory committee joint meeting. We do our best to make sure you don't have such a huge gap in your day, but the way the tea leaves spell that is what we do indeed have. So we look forward to seeing everybody as much as possible back at 01:30 for that joint Luac Planning Commission session.

Can we take a straw poll about if there's anybody that's not coming back? Okay, I just want to if there wasn't going to be a quorum I wanted Yep, to know

it appears we do have one though coming back. So thank you Madam Secretary. And I think without further ado then, we'll see you all back here at 01:30PM and the meeting is adjourned at 09:29AM. Thank you very much.