Commission approves Signal Hill replacement residence design with conditions after lengthy debate over historic Connell House and tree restorations

The Planning Commission approved design plans and a coastal-development permit to relocate three cypress trees for a proposed 8,290‑square‑foot, two‑story dwelling at 1170 Signal Hill Road in Pebble Beach, but only after extended public comment, technical review and direction to staff to tighten conditions addressing historic‑resource impacts, landscaping, conservation easement boundaries and tree-survivorship monitoring.

Mary Israel, project planner, summarized the project as the design approval step for an earlier, extensively reviewed Signal Hill proposal whose environmental impacts were analyzed in a certified environmental impact report. The property included the Connell House, a nationally and state‑listed historic structure, which has since been demolished. The Board of Supervisors previously approved a reduced-project alternative (alternative 6) with direction that any replacement remain within the footprint of the Connell House "as it was," and staff recommended that the design before the commission be found consistent with that alternative.

The item prompted lengthy public comment and opposition from neighbors and preservation groups. Attorney Anthony Lombardo, speaking for a neighbor, argued the board had required replacement within the original footprint and that the applicant had not complied. Denise Estrada of the Alliance of Monterey Area Preservationists urged protections for historic resources and said proposed tree transplants were unlikely to survive. Preservation consultant Kent Seavy said Connell House plans are available in public records and questioned demolition-by-neglect claims and permit compliance.

Commissioners raised repeated concerns about the redevelopment’s visual impact from 17‑Mile Drive and Fanchell Beach, the proposed alterations to the Connell House footprint, the survival and placement of replacement cypress trees, and whether the conservation easement and restoration commitments on the property were sufficient. Several commissioners asked staff to incorporate by reference the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan and to expand the conservation scenic-easement area so it would better protect restored dunes.

After extensive discussion staff offered a summary of recommended conditions to address commissioner concerns: require conformance with earlier mitigation monitoring and reporting agreements; clarify that one replacement tree required by a prior permit remains required and must meet extended monitoring and survivorship tests; require a conservation scencic easement consistent with county expectations (staff suggested expanding the previously-limited easement to cover additional restoration area); prohibit hardscape or impervious terrace overrestorable dune areas (staff explicitly opposed an applicant request to allow pervious decking over dune plantings); and include a setback variance only if technical findings demonstrate it would reduce net habitat disturbance.

Commissioner Gail Deal moved approval with those clarifying conditions; Commissioner Roberts seconded. The motion passed by voice vote. Commissioners directed staff to return the final resolution with explicit references to the prior mitigation monitoring and reporting plan, a conservation-easement boundary that better protects dunes adjacent to the development, and firm tree‑replacement and survivorship conditions.

Ending: Staff said the approval is subject to conditions of approval and monitoring and reminded the commission that the record includes the certified EIR and prior resolutions. The decision may be subject to appeal to the Board of Supervisors.