Planning commission approves Big Sur gate and stone wall amid dispute over viewshed exemption

The Monterey County Planning Commission on June 24 approved a permit to replace 53.5 linear feet of an existing wooden fence and the main entrance gate at a Rocky Point property with a locally sourced stone wall and a dark bronze gate.

Taylor Price, the county project planner, told the commission the proposal (PLN 110257, Amendment 1, Berlin) is in the Big Sur Coast Planning Area and that staff recommends approval with a Class 2 categorical exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. Staff said the project site is within the Rocky Point exception area of the Big Sur Critical Viewshed policy (Big Sur Land Use Plan Policy 3.2.5.F) and that the applicant agreed to omit a decorative capstone after the Big Sur LUAC recommended its removal. Price also noted the project address was corrected from 35,986 Highway 1 to 36,000 Highway 1.

Angus Jeffers, the applicant's agent, described the proposal and said the stone wall would be set slightly farther from Highway 1 and that the materials and subdued color palette were consistent with the rural setting. "We very much appreciated the LUAC comment and just perceptiveness that that doesn't really seem consistent with a rough hewn granite wall," Jeffers said, referring to the capstone.

A member of the public, Trey Crop, said he supported the applicant's revisions but asked the commission to reconsider how Policy 3.2.5.F is applied. "If that's truly straightforward . . . an administrative permit is all that's needed, then why did that result in a public zoning hearing, an appeal, Board of Supervisors hearing, and now it's back to you?" Crop asked, urging the commission to review whether the exception should apply only to vacant parcels because the current interpretation, he said, carries broader implications for future development.

Jeffers responded that while he shared community concerns more broadly about Big Sur development, this property lies inside the established exception area and the code allows certain entrance walls and fences to be processed administratively by the planning director. He also said community LUAC review can be beneficial in these cases.

Commissioners debated the meaning of the Rocky Point exception and whether the term "vacant" in Policy 3.2.5.F is a qualifier or a descriptor of area. Commissioner Deal said the exemption was created as part of a compromise when the Land Use Plan was adopted and was never intended to be a blanket authorization to eliminate visual-access protections. "That does not mean that this would not be subject to all the other concerns that we have in the areas that are not in the critical viewshed," Deal said, adding that minimization of impacts remains a requirement.

Staff explained the administrative history: the item had been initially scheduled for director-level review, was referred by the zoning administrator after public request, appealed, remanded by the Board of Supervisors, and thus was before the Planning Commission.

After discussion and conditioning the approval to reflect the LUAC comment (removal of the capstone) and the recommended findings, Commissioner Deal moved to approve the permit and Commissioner Roberts seconded. The commission approved the project on a roll call vote.

Chair Getzelman asked the director to provide a director-level interpretation and guidance on how the Rocky Point exception should be applied (vacant-only versus both vacant and developed parcels) so future administrative decisions are clearer. The commission's action affirmed the staff recommendation for this specific application and requested further policy clarification from staff.

The commission's decision authorizes the replacement of the fence and gate as conditioned; staff will update the draft resolution to reflect the corrected address and the LUAC-recommended design change. The director agreed to take the interpretation question back for a timely review and return with guidance to the commission.