Planning commission recommends scenic-easement amendment to allow ADU on Big Sur Coast property

The Monterey County Planning Commission voted on June 11 to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve an amendment to a conservation and scenic easement covering a property in the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan area to allow construction of a 622-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a 210-square-foot trellis.

The project, PLN230350, applies to a parcel at 30860 Aurora Del Mar in the Big Sur Coast plan area and is proposed by Artemis LLC. County planner Jose Salomita said the parcel is zoned rural density residential and subject to a design control overlay and a conservation and scenic easement that was imposed as a condition of an earlier single-family dwelling approval. Salomita told the commission that the amendment would reconfigure about 1,100 square feet of the existing easement but would leave the overall easement area unchanged at approximately 43,596 square feet. He said the easement deed language would remain in effect and would continue to prohibit new structures, material alteration of topography and advertising within easement boundaries.

Why it matters: the property lies within the Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan and the coastal zone; changes to easements in that area can affect public viewshed protections and trigger review by the Board of Supervisors and, potentially, the California Coastal Commission. The commission was asked to recommend approval because the Board of Supervisors is the appropriate authority for the proposed easement amendment.

Staff reported that prepared biological, arborist and archaeological studies found no biological or archaeological resources in the area to be developed and that the ADU site is not visible from Highway 1. Joel Panzer, planning consultant for the applicant, told the commission the project is low-profile and that "the staff report accurately characterizes the proposal. It's a fairly low profile building"; he also noted prior communications with the California Coastal Commission regarding the amendment. Panzer said the overall size of the scenic easement would not change.

Commissioners questioned plan graphics, setbacks and how the easement amendment would interact with existing infrastructure such as a leach field. Staff clarified that a portion of the existing building envelope that overlaps a leach field would be moved into the scenic easement and that the leach field itself would remain in place but no longer be inside the building envelope. Commissioners also requested that findings add more specific reference to the Big Sur Land Use Plan exception that applies to the Otter Cove subdivision, and that staff clarify references in the resolution to the easement "map" by using words such as "exhibit" or "graphic" to avoid implying a formal survey record.

Commissioner Deal moved that the commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors "including the additional language for both map and the specificity around the critical view shed exception." The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. The planning commission recorded no recorded no opposing votes during the motion and noted that the Big Sur Land Use Advisory Committee had voted 5–0 to support the project.

Next steps: the commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for its decision on the conservation and scenic easement amendment, the coastal administrative permit and related design approvals.