Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County updates commissioners on burned commercial property in Pajaro; demolition permit ready pending fees and environmental checks
Summary
Staff told the Planning Commission that demolition of the remaining damaged commercial building on Porter Road in Pajaro can proceed once the owner pays outstanding fees and completes environmental clearance; owner representative said demolition contractor selection awaits phase‑II results.
Monterey County planning staff updated the Planning Commission Jan. 29 on the status of a burned commercial building and adjacent residence at Porter Road in Pajaro, saying a demolition permit for the commercial portion is ready to issue once the owner pays outstanding fees and addresses potential environmental work.
Planning staff Edgar Sanchez described the property along the Pajaro‑Watsonville border, saying the residential portion was repaired and remains occupied but the commercial building suffered greater fire damage and has been the subject of code enforcement and demolition discussions since 2018. Sanchez said a demolition permit is ready to be issued to clear the remaining commercial structure and close the active code enforcement case if the owner pays remaining fees and pulls the building permit.
Sanchez said staff received word that the property owner has engaged a new agent and is preparing a new redevelopment design that would increase residential units while maintaining some commercial use. He described next steps as the county sending a letter urging the owner to pursue demolition and redevelopment and to provide updates to staff when status changes.
The property owner's representative, Jack Kirk, told the commission he was engaged about 18 months ago to push the project forward. Kirk said the owner initially pursued an architected mixed‑use concept but the project was not financially feasible; the owner then designed a more residential‑heavy proposal. Kirk said a demolition plan was prepared and contractors solicited, but bids varied significantly. He told commissioners the owner is also conducting environmental testing (phase‑II work) because the site may have historical oil/gas uses; the environmental firm expected to deliver results in about 30 days, and Kirk said the owner expects to decide on a demolition contractor once the environmental findings are clear.
Kirk said the remaining fee to clear the demolition permit record was small (staff reported $60 outstanding), and that the owner intends to move forward with demolition if the site conditions and remediation estimates make the proposed redevelopment financially feasible. The commission discussed public‑safety and visual concerns; some commissioners expressed interest in screening the site while waiting for demolition but others warned screening could create hidden spaces that encourage trespass or camping.
Commissioners asked staff to keep the commission informed of significant status changes; staff said it would provide updates when demolition begins or when environmental results arrive.
