Title
PLN230311 - ERSKINE, FRANCES K TRUST
Continued from the September 9, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, consider an after-the-fact approval of an as-built shoreline armoring structure consisting of concrete retaining walls, stairs, landings, and stone veneer concrete masonry unit walls; and allow the demolition of approximately 80 square feet of the lower stairs and landing, removal of approximately 400 square feet of decking from the middle tier of the structure, installation of code-compliant guardrails, and weather-protective coating on the underlying concrete slab and drainage piping. The project includes development within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, on slopes in excess of 30%, and within 750 feet of a known archeological resource.
Project Location: 157 Highway 1, Carmel
Proposed CEQA Action: Find that the project qualifies for Class 1, Class 3, and Class 4 Categorical Exemptions pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15301, 15303 and 15304, and that none of the exceptions from Section 15300.2 apply.
Body
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the County of Monterey Planning Commission adopt a resolution:
1) Finding that the project qualifies for Class 1, Class 3 and Class 4 Categorical Exemptions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15301, 15303 and 15304, and that none of the exceptions from CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 apply; and
2) Approving a Combined Development Permit consisting of a:
a. Coastal Administrative Permit and Design Approval to allow:
i. after-the-fact approval of an as-built shoreline armoring structure consisting of concrete retaining wall with a cobblestone veneer, access stairs, landings and related drainage improvements;
ii. demolition of approximately 80 square feet of lower stairs and landing;
iii. removal of approximately 400 square feet of decking (composite deck boards and wooden runners) from the middle tier of the structure; and
iv. application of weather-protective coating on the concrete slab and drainage piping underlying the middle tier deck and installation of code-compliant guardrails; and
b. Coastal Development Permit to allow development within 50 feet of a bluff;
c. Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes in excess of 30%; and
d. Coastal Administrative Permit to allow development within 750 feet of a known archaeological resource.
The attached draft resolution includes findings and evidence for consideration (Exhibit B). Staff recommends approval subject to 12 conditions of approval.
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Owner: Erskine, Frances K Trust c/o Kirke Erskine
Agent: Luis A. Osorio, Land Use Consulting-Permitting Assistance
APN: 241-171-001-000
Zoning: Low Density Residential with a Density of 1 acre per unit and a Design Control Overlay, Coastal Zone or “LDR/1-D (CZ)”.
Parcel Sizes: 0.76 Acres
Plan Area: Carmel Area Land Use Plan
Flagged and Staked: No
Planner: Anna Ginette Quenga, AICP
quengaav@countyofmontery.gov; (831) 784-5732
SUMMARY:
The Erskine project was set for the September 9, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Due to an emergency that occurred affecting the Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, the hearing on the project was continued to the September 30, 2026, meeting.
Below is a summary of the existing site conditions, project components and issues identified by staff. For a more detailed discussion, refer to Exhibit A and the draft findings and evidence contained in Exhibit B.
The subject property is located at 157 Highway 1, in the Carmel Highlands area of unincorporated Monterey County. The approximately 0.76-acre property is located adjacent to a coastal bluff between Highway 1 and the Pacific Ocean situated next to a small cove north of the Wildcat Creek bridge. Existing development on the property includes a single-family residence with an attached garage, a detached studio, detached garage/shed, driveway. Assessor’s records indicate that the dwelling was built in 1964 and detached studio was built in 1981.
At the coastal bluff, the property contains a concrete retaining wall, stairs and landings, deck, and drainage improvements which is the subject of this Combined Development Permit. See Exhibit C.
In 2023, the applicant submitted an Application Request for an after-the-fact permit and in 2024, the application was found complete. Although the development occurred without obtaining the necessary permits, a code compliance case was not opened. Consistent with normal practice of HCD-Planning, the fees were not doubled for the after-the-fact Combined Development Permit as the applicant self-initiated bringing the property into compliance.
The project involves an after-the-fact Combined Development Permit for existing development consisting of an as-built retaining wall, stairway and landing components, and related improvements constructed in 1998 without construction or planning permits. The records referenced in the technical reports (Exhibits D and E) indicate that storms occurring in 1997-1998 and associated runoff and debris flow from the highway resulted in erosion of the bluff, causing destabilization of the bottom areas of the bluff below the residence.
Several issues were identified, such as coastal hazards, sand loss and supply, public access and recreation as well as potential impacts to coastal resources (e.g. archaeological, biological and slopes) during project analysis.
A Geotechnical Investigation conducted an alternatives analysis evaluating eight alternatives to the as-built development to analyze coastal hazards (Exhibit E). Staff reviewed the alternatives to determine which scenario would have the least impact to coastal resources while still providing stability and protection to the existing primary residence as recommended by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) following review of the project on October of 2024 (Exhibit H). County staff recommend approval of Alternative No. 7, Minor Modification to the Project, (referred to as the “project” or “proposed project”), which involves modifying the as-built development by removing features that are not essential to protecting the principal residence, including 80 square feet stairway and landing and 400 square feet of middle tier decking. The project retains only those elements necessary for bluff stabilization, adequate drainage, and safety.
The project involves removal of approximately 80 square feet of development of the staircase, including the lower three west-facing reinforced concrete stairs descending toward the rocky shoreline, the concrete landing immediately above those stairs, and two south-facing concrete stairs connected to the lower landing beneath the upper stair system and the removal of approximately 400 square feet of middle-tier maintenance deck. The proposed project also includes the installation of a code-compliant guardrail system surrounding the retained lower landing, and installation of weather-protective coating on the underlying concrete slab and drainage piping.
The project was reviewed for compliance with the resource protection policies in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (“CAR LUP”), their implementing regulations in the Monterey County Coastal Implementation Plan Part 4 Regulations for Development in the Carmel Area Land Use Plan (“CIP”), and the Monterey County Zoning Ordinance (Title 20). The project requires Coastal Development Permits for development within 50 feet of a coastal bluff, development on slopes in excess of 30%, and development within 750 feet of a known archaeological resource.
CEQA:
The project qualifies for Class 1, Class 3 and Class 4 Categorical Exemptions pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301, 15303 and 15304. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, exempts the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, or topographical features involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The project involves after-the-fact permitting and minor alteration of an existing blufftop retaining wall/stair/deck/drainage system associated with an existing single-family residence, with no expansion of the current bluff or residential improvements and use.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) defines the environmental setting of a project as being: “the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project”, as they exist at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. As demonstrated through case law (Fat v. County of Sacramento [2002] 97 Cal.App.4th 1270, where the court held that the illegal expansion at the airport was appropriate to consider as the CEQA baseline), Lead Agencies must evaluate impacts against actual conditions existing at the time of CEQA review and are not required to evaluate impacts compared to a baseline condition that predates the unpermitted activity. In this case, the retaining wall and appurtenances have been in place for 28 years which is substantial evidence that it is appropriate to consider it as part of the CEQA baseline.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, exempts the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures and the installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. Class 3 applies to the limited new safety improvements proposed as part of proposed project including installation of code-compliant guardrails and related small appurtenant components within the existing developed retaining wall, stair, deck, and drainage improvement area, with no new residential floor area, no change in use, and no expansion of the blufftop retaining system.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Minor Alterations to Land, exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation. The proposed project involves minor removal of non-essential, relative to structural integrity, stair/deck components from previously disturbed/developed areas and installation of guardrails and weather-protective coating, with no grading, native soil disturbance, beach equipment staging, or expansion of use.
None of the exceptions from CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply in this case.
• Class 1 categorical exemptions apply regardless of their location. The project is also not located in an area where an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern has been designated by a local, state, or federal agency and precisely mapped.
• The project would not result in cumulative impacts because it does not authorize new residential development, new coastal armoring beyond what is currently existing onsite, or intensification of use, and instead reduces existing private development exposed to coastal hazards. The proposed land use is not being altered and there is a negligible expansion of existing use, and there are no potentially significant impacts associated with the project; therefore, the project would not cause or contribute to a cumulative environmental impact.
• There are no unusual circumstances that would create a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect because the proposed project work is confined to previously developed areas, uses manual methods, and includes best management practices to prevent debris, slurry, or waste from reaching the shoreline or ocean. There are no unusual circumstances associated with the undertaking of the project that would create the reasonable possibility for a potentially significant environmental effect.
• The project would not damage scenic resources within view of Highway 1 because it does not add new and visually prominent structures and removes non-essential deck/stair components.
• The project site is not known to be on a hazardous waste list. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site included on any list compiled by Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
• The Phase I Archaeological Resource Assessment (LIB240162) was negative for precolonial and historic site indicators, and determined that the existing residence was not a historical resource and therefore standard inadvertent-discovery measures will be included.
OTHER DEPARTMENT/AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The following agencies or departments reviewed this project:
• Environmental Health Bureau
• HCD-Engineering Services
• HCD-Environmental Services
• Carmel Highlands Fire Protection District
• California Coastal Commission
LUAC REVIEW:
The project was referred to the Carmel Area/Carmel Highlands Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) for review and recommendation in accordance with Board of Supervisors’ Resolution No. 15-103. On September 16, 2024, the LUAC held a duly noticed meeting and considered the project (see Exhibit G). One member of the public commented on their support and no areas of concern were identified. The LUAC recommended approval (5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 members absent) of the project as proposed, finding that the materials used were consistent with neighbors and that the project was necessary to protect the bluff.
Prepared by: Anna Ginette Quenga, AICP, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Fionna Jensen, Principal Planner
Approved by: Melanie Beretti, AICP, Chief of Planning
The following attachments are on file with the HCD:
Exhibit A - Discussion
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution, including:
• Recommended Conditions of Approval
• Site Plans
• Alternative No. 7 Project Description
Exhibit C - Site Photos
Exhibit D - Geological Report (LIB260069)
Exhibit E - Geotechnical Report (LIB260078)
Exhibit F - Biological Resource Report (LIB240163)
Exhibit G - Carmel Unincorporated/Highlands LUAC Meeting Minutes
Exhibit H - California Coastal Commission Comments Dated October 10, 2024
Exhibit I - Vicinity Map
cc: Front Counter Copy; California Coastal Commission; HCD-Engineering Services; HCD-Environmental Services; Environmental Health Bureau; Anna Ginette Quenga, AICP, Senior Planner; Fionna Jensen, Principal Planner; Melanie Beretti, AICP, Chief of Planning; Erskine Kirke Andrew Trust, Applicant; Luis Osorio, Land Use Consulting-Permitting Assistance, Agent; Dave Martin, Black Tail Engineering, LLC, Agent; The Open Monterey Project (Molly Erickson); Laborers International Union of North America (Lozeau Drury LLP); Christina McGinnis, Keep Big Sur Wild; LandWatch; Project File PLN230311.