Commission gives preliminary ‘maybe’ on Quail Meadows general plan amendment; staff to investigate zoning and alternatives

The Monterey County Planning Commission on March 12 provided an early assessment—characterized by commissioners as a cautious “maybe”—that a requested general plan amendment in the Quail Meadows subdivision could potentially meet the county’s criteria for a map amendment, while asking staff to pursue additional research and alternatives.

Staff presented PLN 240149, a proposal by Risdell Incorporated and the Quail Meadows Homeowners Association to adjust land‑use designations and zoning across three parcels (parcels 1, 2 and 3) so that a private driveway and utility easement would be merged into Parcel 2 and a trail easement into Parcel 3. The change would support a lot‑line adjustment and allow construction of a subterranean garage addition behind an existing house, a use permit for development on slopes over 25% and a tree removal permit. Staff noted the request before the commission on March 12 was an early assessment limited to whether the proposed general plan amendment “has the potential” to meet evaluation criteria in Monterey County Code section 21.91050.

Applicant counsel Anthony Lombardo told commissioners he believed the county’s zoning maps contained a mapping error: the subject open‑space zoning shown in county materials, he argued, is inconsistent with the general plan land‑use designation that he said should read as resource conservation. Lombardo asserted that if zoning were aligned to the general plan, the proposed garage and accessory uses would be allowable (with permits) without a general plan amendment. He also argued the project could be supported as being in the public interest, citing potential increased property tax revenue and HOA access and trail management benefits. Lombardo asked the commission to consider that staff’s recommended general plan amendment might not be necessary.

Staff acknowledged Lombardo’s submission was new information that arrived after distribution of the staff report and said it was not prepared to assess the zoning‑mapping claim on the spot; staff offered to work with the applicant to evaluate the alternative approach and to return with analysis. Commissioners repeatedly expressed a preference to avoid general plan amendments where possible and directed staff to examine whether the project could proceed through lot‑line adjustment, use permits and other mechanisms under current zoning; they also asked staff to analyze the mapping‑consistency question more broadly if a general plan amendment route remains necessary.

Commissioner Lehi moved, and Commissioner Gitzelmann seconded, a motion that the commission find there may potentially be the findings to support a general plan amendment (an early assessment of “maybe”); the motion carried unanimously. The planning commission did not approve a general plan amendment on March 12; instead the body authorized further staff work and signaled that multiple pathways — including processing the combined development permit without a map change — should be evaluated.

Votes at a glance: early assessment on PLN 240149 — motion by Commissioner Lehi; second by Commissioner Gitzelmann; outcome: commission found there may potentially be findings to support a general plan amendment (unanimous).