Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Visual Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays decision on Bechtel pavilion after staff‑applicant clash over 17‑Mile Drive views
Summary
The Monterey County Planning Commission continued action on a proposal for the Bechtel property on 17‑Mile Drive after staff recommended denying a new 1,171‑square‑foot pavilion that staff said would block protected ocean views; the applicant disputed staff’s interpretation of Del Monte Forest view policies and sought more time to respond.
The Monterey County Planning Commission continued action on PLN240069, a multi‑component application for a property on 17‑Mile Drive in Pebble Beach owned by the Bechtel family, after a substantive dispute between county planning staff and the applicant over whether a proposed 1,171‑square‑foot pavilion would block public ocean views protected by the Del Monte Forest land use plan.
Staff members Steve Mason and Fiona Jensen presented the application and told commissioners the project includes exterior modifications to an approximately 8,700‑square‑foot single‑family dwelling, conversion of an existing 1,100‑square‑foot caretaker unit into an accessory dwelling unit, and construction of a new 1,171‑square‑foot pavilion. The parcel is roughly 2.7 acres and contains patches of environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESSHA) dominated by Monterey cypress.
Staff said the pavilion is “almost entirely visible from 17‑Mile Drive and raises inconsistencies with applicable visual resource policies.” Jensen told the commission the proposed pavilion “blocks both filtered and unfiltered ocean views,” and staff concluded the pavilion’s design and siting could materially degrade the recognized public viewshed. Staff recommended approving the dwelling modifications and ADU conversion and denying the pavilion component; staff cited Del Monte Forest policies and recommended denial of the pavilion as inconsistent with visual resource protections. The California Coastal Commission staff reviewed the application and “concur with staff’s analysis regarding conflicts with the Del Monte Forest land use plan,” county staff reported.
The applicant’s representative, Eric Lundquist of Alpine Bridal, disputed staff’s reading of the policies and asked the commission to continue the item so staff could address a set of legal and factual objections. Lundquist said the family has proposed habitat restoration measures — removal of non‑native ice plant, native replanting, and a net reduction in impervious surface — and is prepared to record a scenic and conservation easement over the undeveloped portion of the parcel. “The Bechtels…are prepared to record an easement upon approval of this project,” Lundquist told the commission. The applicant argued staff had applied an overly narrow definition of a protected “open ocean” view and cited legal precedent the applicant said supports its interpretation.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about alternatives (trellis‑style designs, materials, and nighttime lighting), construction management and habitat protections, and whether denial of an accessory structure could create a takings risk. Several commissioners said they would like staff and counsel to respond to the legal arguments and to review inconsistencies the applicant identified in the staff report and draft resolution. Commissioner Deal moved to continue the item to a staff‑recommended date to allow time for staff to respond to the issues raised; Commissioner Wirk seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
Key project details cited by staff and the applicant: the site is about 2.7 acres; the main dwelling footprint is approximately 8,700 square feet; the ADU conversion is approximately 1,100 square feet; the proposed pavilion is 1,171 square feet; grading was described as roughly 430 cubic yards of cut and 80 cubic yards of fill; the project would remove non‑native vegetation (including ice plant), plant 10 new cypress trees and achieve an approximate net reduction of 4,600 square feet (staff noted an alternate figure of 5,369 square feet in the report) in impervious surface; a biologist would perform site inspections for five years.
The commission’s continuance preserves staff’s recommendation and allows staff time to respond to the applicant’s legal and factual objections and to consider design or siting alternatives the commission might prefer. Because the property and the decision may be appealable to the California Coastal Commission, commissioners also requested clarification from county counsel about any takings risk or other legal exposure associated with denial of the pavilion.
Votes at a glance: Commissioner Deal moved to continue PLN240069 for staff follow‑up; Commissioner Wirk seconded; the motion carried unanimously.
