Planning commission approves replacement Big Sur home with clarified conservation-easement timing
Loading...
Summary
The Monterey County Planning Commission approved PLN250111, a replacement single-family dwelling at 35700 Highway 1 in Big Sur, after staff recommended approval and the applicant requested and received a clarification to Condition 13 narrowing the easement to the bluff area and allowing recording before final inspection.
Chair Getzelman and the Monterey County Planning Commission voted to approve PLN250111, a permit to demolish an existing residence and construct a 5,754-square-foot single-family dwelling with a 701-square-foot detached garage at 35700 Highway 1 in the Big Sur Coast land-use plan.
Planning staff presented the application and told the commission the project was designed to stay within a 14-foot height limit, avoid direct impacts to mapped environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) and 30% slopes, and comply with Big Sur Coast land-use policies. Planning staff (McKenna Bowling, Planning staff) said biological and geologic reports were prepared and that archaeological Phase I/II work found no evidence of significant cultural or tribal resources on the site. Staff recommended the commission find the project categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15302 and approve a combined development permit and associated coastal development permits and administrative approvals.
"As designed, it is anticipated that the proposed habitable development and necessary improvements would not be subject to failure over the course of its economic lifespan," Planning staff stated in the presentation, noting required reports and proposed mitigation conditions including a stop-work condition if previously unidentified resources are found during construction.
The applicant's representative, Angus Jeffers, said the project is principally located within the existing building footprint, retains the single-story form, and includes a 0.4-acre restoration of an existing turf moat. Jeffers asked two specific revisions to Condition 13: remove language that would treat restored turf as "being restored by this permit," and allow the conservation-easement recording to occur prior to final inspection rather than being required before pulling construction permits. Jeffers said the changes would avoid delaying permit issuance while preserving the county's conservation intent.
"We are not trying to skirt the conservation easement condition," Jeffers told the commission, "we just don't want to have it reasonably delay pulling our construction permits for timing elements we don't control." Applicant Lex Beyer said he and his family are "excited" to work with the design team and thanked staff and consultants for their work on the application.
Commissioner Deal asked staff whether the requested edits were acceptable. Staff said the primary intent was to conserve bluff scrub along the coastal bluff and indicated comfort with clarifying that the easement apply to the bluff area (not the entire parcel) and with recording prior to final inspection in past examples. Based on that clarification, Commissioner Deal moved to approve the project with the applicant's revisions to Condition 13 and asked staff to finalize language clarifying bluff versus turf. The motion was seconded and approved as announced by the chair.
The chair congratulated the applicant and staff. The applicant's representative noted that recording the easement will require additional county council and board consent steps before final recordation, and said the applicant can provide a signed draft and survey exhibits within two months to meet the revised timing.
