Monterey County Board reviews environmental impact report for Carmel's Griffith project

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors convened on July 8, 2025, to discuss several significant agenda items, including a presentation regarding the Griffith project and a public hearing on appeals related to a proposed residential development in Pebble Beach.

The meeting began with a presentation by Jacqueline Nickerson, principal planner with the Housing and Community Development Department, on an addendum to the previously certified San Lucia Preserve environmental impact report. The proposed project involves a final map amendment and the construction of a 5,441 square foot single-family dwelling on Lot 38 within the Santa Lucia Preserve. The project aims to avoid the removal of 31 protected oak trees by reconfiguring the building envelope to a less forested area. The Monterey County Planning Commission had previously recommended approval of the project, which complies with all applicable site development standards.

Following the presentation, the board opened the floor for public input. Joel Panzer, representing the property owners, emphasized the project's alignment with fire safety measures and the preservation of the natural environment. He noted that the design would not impact biological resources and would save significant trees.

The board then moved to item 26, a public hearing to consider three appeals against the Planning Commission's approval of an 8,290 square foot two-story single-family dwelling at 111170 Signal Hill Road. The appeals were filed by Samuel Reeves, the Alliance of Monterey Area Preservationists, and Massey Metaport, the applicant. The appellants raised concerns about the size of the proposed home, its compliance with local policies, and the impact on neighborhood character.

During the hearing, various stakeholders presented their arguments. Reeves argued that the new home exceeded the size and height limits established in previous board resolutions, while representatives from the Alliance expressed disappointment over the potential loss of scenic views and the failure to adhere to conservation easements. Metaport defended the project, highlighting its compliance with the board's previous directives and the need for a resolution after years of delays.

The discussion revealed a divide among board members regarding the interpretation of "footprint" and the project's adherence to prior approvals. Several supervisors expressed concerns about the proposed home's size relative to the original Connell House, which had been demolished under contentious circumstances.

As the meeting progressed, the board deliberated on the appeals and the implications of the proposed development. Ultimately, Supervisor Church moved to deny the project unless it conformed to the original specifications of the Connell House, emphasizing the need for consistency with previous board decisions.

The meeting concluded with a clear indication that further discussions would be necessary to reconcile the differing views on the project, with the board seeking to uphold the integrity of local development policies while addressing the concerns of all stakeholders involved.