Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell MAAC Big Sur’s visitor‑serving unit cap may have been exceeded; call for county action and moratorium request
Summary
Several members of the public told the advisory council that Monterey County’s Big Sur Coast Land Use Plan caps visitor‑serving units (BSUs) at 468 and that counts by residents, the chamber and consultants show the cap either reached or exceeded. Speakers asked the county and Coastal Commission to enforce the cap, investigate an alleged backlog
Multiple residents and community groups urged Monterey County and the Coastal Commission to enforce the Big Sur Land Use Plan’s visitor‑serving unit (BSU) cap and said local counts suggest the cap has been reached or exceeded.
Tim Green, a long‑time North Coast resident, read policy language from the Big Sur Land Use Plan that explains lodging limits were set to protect Highway 1’s capacity for recreational use. Green said the county’s previous chamber count found 455 rooms, a 2023 consultant count found 482 BSUs and a more recent resident count reached 545 BSUs — including shared spaces — implying the cap of 468 is either close to or exceeded. He said a local attorney previously requested a moratorium on additional BSU approvals until the discrepancy was resolved and that the county did not respond.
Other speakers, including Marcus Foster and members of local advocacy groups, said Highway 1 is at or beyond capacity at many chokepoints and that additional visitor‑serving development will worsen congestion and degrade the scenic highway that the land‑use plan is intended to protect.
Monterey County planning staff said they had received the materials and would review the documentation that commenters provided. Staff also noted that the county and the Coastal Commission coordinate on coastal‑zone matters and that some programmatic permitting mechanisms — such as a county public‑works plan authority — can be used for landscape‑scale projects, but that environmentally sensitive habitat protections remain in place.
Several speakers asked the council to press the county for a clearer public accounting of BSUs, a formal inventory reconciliation, and a temporary moratorium on new visitor‑serving approvals until inconsistencies are resolved. County planning staff said they were looking into the counts and the moratorium request.
Ending — The council did not vote on the matter, but public comments prompted county staff to commit to reviewing submitted counts and to report back. Residents asked the MAAC to keep the issue on future agendas until a reconciled BSU inventory is published.
