Title
PLN250292 - SIGNAL HILL LLC
Public Hearing to:
a. Consider the appeal of Sam and Betsy Reeves of the Chief of Planning’s July 27, 2026 decision to approval a Combined Development Permit;
b. Consider development within 100 feet of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, development on slopes in excess of 30 percent, removal and relocation of 1 Monterey Cypress tree, and development within 750 feet of a known archaeological resource associated with the construction of an attached 798 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit, and associated site improvements including 220 square feet of porches and terraces, a lower-level unconditioned crawl space.
Project Location: 1170 Signal Hill Road, Pebble Beach
Proposed CEQA action: Find that disapproval of the project is Statutorily Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270.
Body
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution to:
a. Partially grant and partially deny the appeal of Sam and Betsy Reeves of the Chief of Planning’s approval of the Combined Development Permit; and
b. Find that disapproval of the project is Statutorily Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270; and
c. Deny a Combined Development Permit consisting of:
1) Coastal Administrative Permit and Design Approval to allow construction of a 798 square foot attached Accessory Dwelling Unit and associated site improvements; and
2) Coastal Development Permit to allow development within 100 feet of environmentally sensitive habitat; and
3) Coastal Administrative Permit to allow development within 750 feet of a known archaeological resource; and
4) Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes in excess of 30 percent; and
5) Coastal Development Permit to allow removal and relocation of one Monterey Cypress tree.
The attached draft resolution includes findings and evidence for consideration (Exhibit B).
PROJECT INFORMATION:
Agent: Massy Mehdipour
Property Owner: Signal Hill LLC
APN: 008-261-007-000
Parcel Size: 2.19 acres or 95, 396 square feet
Zoning: Low Density Residential with 1.5 acres per unit density, Design Control overlay in the Coastal Zone or “LDR/1.5-D(CZ)”
Plan Area: Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan
Flagged and Staked: Yes
Project Planner: McKenna Bowling, Associate Planner
bowlingmr@countyofmonterey.gov, (831) 755-5298
SUMMARY:
The subject property is located at 1170 Signal Hill Road, within Pebble Beach. The subject parcel was approved for construction of a single-family dwelling through PLN240077 and PLN100338 (Board of Supervisor Resolution Nos. 23-237 and 25-334). The Applicant has obtained construction permits (25CP04088) for this work and is in the process of constructing the new dwelling.
The Applicant is now proposing the construction of an attached 798 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and the removal and relocation of one Monterey Cypress tree. The ADU is proposed on the south side of the approved single family dwelling, in an area where the former driveway once existed, however, the southeast corner of the proposed ADU will extend beyond the footprint of the former driveway and into slopes greater than 30 percent. The tree proposed for relocation is in the footprint of the proposed ADU. It was planted as restoration for the removal of a Cypress tree without permits in 2009 (HCD-Planning File No. PLN100418). The tree has been replanted multiple times due to soil conditions and wind exposure hindering the tree’s survivability. The project also involves development within 100 feet of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), 750 feet of a known archaeological resource, and on slopes in excess of 30 percent. The project includes 10 cubic yards of cut and 60 cubic yards of fill, with a net import of 50 cubic yards. The property has an existing active connection with California American Water and an active sewer service connection with the Pebble Beach Community Services District. However, the subject property does not currently retain adequate water allocation for implementation of the project. The applicant recently submitted a water allocation request, specifically requesting 0.068 AFY from the County's “Planned Housing Growth” category pursuant to Board Policy No. G-269. However, this request was withdrawn prior to consideration of this item. No evidence of adequate water supply for the ADU has been provided at this time but the applicant has indicated they will purchase water credits from the Pebble Beach Company.
During the project’s review, the Law Office of Tony Lombardo, representing neighbors, Sam and Betsy Reeves, submitted public comment contesting the redevelopment proposal, raising concerns with the location of the ADU, and its consistency with both Local Coastal Program requirements and the previous BOS decision as it relates to the residence. After consideration of public comment and written testimony, on July 27, 2026, the Chief of Planning approved the Combined Development Permit, and found the proposed project categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Chief of Planning Resolution No. 26-061; Attachment C).
The appellants, Sam and Betsy Reeves (Appellants), represented by the Law Offices of Tony Lobardo, timely appealed the July 27, 2026, decision approving the Combined Development Permit. The Appellant contends that the Chief of Planning’s decision was not supported by the evidence and that the decision is contrary to law (Attachment B). Appellants’ specific contentions are identified below and addressed in more detail in the Draft Resolution (Attachment A).
APPEAL
The appeal (Attachment B) raises numerous contentions. Staff has grouped these contentions as follows:
1) “The findings and evidence of Resolution 26-061 are several pages long and contain a substantial number of examples where the evidence does not support the conclusion and resulting decision.”
2) “…despite the Board's decision to not allow the tree to be removed and the applicant's assurance to the Board the Cypress tree would be protected, the applicant wants to remove and "relocate" that same tree for the ADU. The proposed removal and relocation would eliminate the last vestige of the promised screening of the new house from 17 Mile Drive as promised by the applicant. there will be no visual screening of the home.”
3) “The project is much larger than a 798 SF ADU. The structure is nearly 2,000 SF. Any environmental assessment which does not address the potential impacts of the project as a whole, as required by CEQA, is inadequate.”
4) “The State law and County ordinance are clear, the Coastal Act takes precent over other State and location regulations, including regulations for ADUs.”
5) “The Board of Supervisors approved demolition of the Connell House (PLN100338), a significant historic resource listed on both the State and Federal registers, subject to a subsequent design approval (PLN240077). That approval is (PLN100338) is very specific in its choice and implementation of FEIR Alternative 6 as mitigation of the loss of the Connell House. The approval limits development to the Connell House's "historic footprint.” and “The proposed project is inconsistent with the Board’s direction (Resolution 23-237 and Resolution 25-132) for the location and size of the allowable development on the site.”
6) “There is no evidence in the record of biological resources that may or may not have been on-site when the application was filed. To the best of my knowledge, the County has never relied on a 15-year-old biological report to approve development in Coastal ESHA.”
7) “There would be ample room in the area already cleared of resources by the demolition of the remainder of the Connell House to accommodate an ADU, without development on 30% slopes, remnant dunes or removal of the last of the remaining tree screening the view of the home from 17 Mile Drive.”
As detailed in the draft Resolution, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors grant portions of the appeal, specifically with respect to tree removal/relocation (listed above as contention 2) and options for alternative locations (contention 7). In summary, the Appellants’ contentions do correctly raise issues with the project’s compliance with the County’s Local Coastal Program. After further review and given new information and circumstances, staff is now recommending denial of the Combined Development Permit due to inconsistencies with Monterey County Code and the DMF LUP. However, the remaining contentions of the appeal are not supported by evidence, are contrary to law, and/or have no merit. Thus, staff also recommends partial denial of the appeal. Detailed responses to above contentions are provided in more detail in the draft Resolution (Attachment A).
The project includes construction of an attached 798 square foot ADU. The project has been designed to comply with site development standards, however the proposed location of development would impact on-site resource constraints, such as a tree, steeper slopes, and ESHA. Multiple reports have been prepared for the project determining the suitability of the site for the project, and evaluating potential impacts as a result of construction. Planning staff and the Del Monte Forest Land Use Advisory Committee have reviewed the design of the ADU and recommended that the appropriate authority find it to be consistent with the surrounding area. However, when considering the site’s constraints, nearby coastal resources, and the previously approved development, staff has concluded that the location of the currently proposed ADU does not comply with required Local Coastal Program requirements to minimize, and where feasible, avoid impacts to coastal resources, including trees and steeper slopes. Accordingly, staff believes that while the subject parcel is physically suitable for an ADU, this application’s specific ADU location would be neither suitable nor consistent with Monterey County Code and prior actions of the Board. Appellants have also provided evidence in support of their contentions related to potential project impacts to forest resources and ESHA, and their contention that feasible alternative locations are available on site for the proposed development. However, multiple of the appellants’ contentions are also not supported by evidence.
In summary, the Applicants are encouraged to site the ADU to avoid coastal resources, as prescribed by the Del Monte Forest Land Use Plan and Monterey County Code. This has not been done at this time, and therefore, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors partially grant and partially deny the appeal, and deny the Combined Development Permit.
Suitability & DMF LUP Consistency
The Appellants assert that the selected development site is not suitable for the proposed project because of both its design and potential impact on the public viewshed. The Del Monte Forest LUAC and HCD-Planning staff have determined that the architectural design of the ADU is compatible with the surrounding area, as it matches the previously approved residence and would have minimal impacts on the public viewshed once the main residence was constructed. However, as delineated on the plans, the proposed ADU footprint is partially within the existing driveway footprint. The remainder of the ADU is in a semi-previously disturbed area that is occupied by a Cypress trees and some steeper slopes (in excess of 30%). As a result, the project would require removal of this cypress tree and entitlements for development on steeper slopes.
Forest Resources
Three Cypress trees on the north-side of the main residence were evaluated during the original permit for the demolition and new dwelling construction. Two of these trees (identified on the arborist report as Trees #5 and #6) were approved for relocation through permitting of the main residence. The third Cypress tree (Tree #4) was to remain in place with tree protection measures installed. However, during excavation of the driveway and foundational footprint of the main residence, tree #4 fell after grading undermined the tree (Attachment D). The applicants immediately requested a permit for the removal of this tree along with the two other trees that were slated for relocation (Trees #'s 5 and 6). Conditions of approval of the main residence’s permit required nearby trees, including Trees #4 - #6, to be sufficiently protected in place throughout all construction phases. This condition was applied pursuant to DMF LUP Policy 33: “Retained trees that are located close to construction areas shall be protected from inadvertent damage by construction equipment through wrapping of trunks with protective materials, bridging or tunneling under major roots where exposed in foundation or utility trenches, and other measures appropriate and necessary to protect the well-being of the retained trees.” The arborist’s recommended and implemented protection measures did not prevent failure of Tree #4.
The project arborist’s updated report (Attachment D; prepared on August 17, 2026 following Tree #4 falling) indicated that the trees originally proposed to be relocated (Tree #5 and #6) also lacked structural integrity, which limited their roots’ ability to anchor in the loose soil areas. Consequently, as of August 17, 2026, both trees were expected to suffer significant root loss and to fail, similar to Tree #4. The updated arborist report recommended that all three trees (#4 - #6) be replanted with 36-inch Cypress trees, rather than relocated, due to direct impacts related to grading activities and excavation. Replanting, rather than relocation, would require an Amendment to the original permits’ conditions. These trees were removed from the site as of August 25, 2026 when an over-the-counter Coastal Development Permit waiver application was filed and issued to remove fallen Trees #4, and remove Tree #5 and #6 due to hazardous conditions and the potential for failure caused by the grading activities and excavation for the main house.
As delineated on the project plans, an existing Monterey Cypress within the proposed ADU building footprint is proposed for removal and relocation to the rear (south) side of the ADU. Two landmark Monterey Cypress trees were illegally removed in 2009 (Code Enforcement Case No. CE090288). An after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit and Restoration Permit (HCD Planning File No. PLN100418) was approved and required two 48-inch box Cypress trees to be replanted to mitigate for the tree loss. Multiple replanting had to occur due to the soil conditions and impacts from wind. However, two trees were ultimately successfully replanted. The tree proposed for removal is one of the trees planted pursuant to the requirements of the previously approved after-the-fact Coastal Development Permit and Restoration Permit (HCD Planning File No. PLN100418). Although this tree is planted, it is protected by the DMF LUP, as it is a replacement/mitigation tree.
When considering the tree failure that just occurred (falling of Tree #4), the degraded root integrity and subsequent removal of Trees #5 and #6, couple with the arborist’s updated recommendation that Trees #5 and #6 required removal (rather than retention), staff recommends that Board of Supervisors find that the proposed ADU’s impact on one additional Cypress tree is inconsistent with Del Monte Forest LUP Policies and prior permit actions. See below discussion.
DMF LUP Policy 32 recognizes the visual significance of forest resources when viewed from public vantage points such as 17‑Mile Drive. Policy 33 requires that projects be sited and designed to minimize, to the maximum extent feasible, the removal of trees and any related disturbance to soil resources. Consistent with these protections, Policy 35 requires that trees contributing to the visual character of public view corridors be retained and only removed when necessary.
The proposed project includes the removal of a Monterey Cypress tree that is visible from 17‑Mile Drive, which is in conflict with Policy 32. Recent construction‑related grading has already resulted in the unexpected failure of a nearby Cypress that were supposed to be protected in place, and the removal, rather than relocation, of two additional Cypress trees. The recent construction‑related grading for the main residence resulted in the unexpected failure and ultimate removal of the three nearby Cypress trees that were supposed to be protected in place and retained or relocated.
Removal of single or multiple visible trees from 17 Mile Drive conflicts with Policy 32’s requirement to preserve forest resources important to public views, violates Policy 33’s directive to minimize tree removal and soil disturbance through project design, and is inconsistent with Policy 35 because it removes resources that contribute to the visual character of a public view corridor without demonstrating that removal is unavoidable. Accordingly, staff believes the required criteria to grant a Coastal Development Permit to allow tree removal are not and cannot be made.
Development on Steeper Slopes
Policy 78 prohibits development on slopes of 30% or more unless such siting better addresses LUP objectives when compared to other possible siting alternatives. Staff has reviewed the project site’s constraints, and determined that there is at least one feasible alternative that would avoid development on steeper slopes, tree removal, and EHSA, and accordingly have less than significant impacts on protected coastal resources. Such alternatives are supported, if not required, by the LUP. For example, an adequately sized ADU could be reasonably constructed within the vacant courtyard of the main residence, within the driveway, or established within the footprint of the main residence (internal ADU), where no native trees, steeper slopes, or ESHA occur. Staff have evaluated these alternatives and confirm that such proposals would continue to comply with required site development standards. These alternatives have not been explored by the Applicant as the current project siting is desired. However, DMF LUP Policies are not conducive to the project’s current siting. Policy 40 requires that development be sited and designed to conform to site topography and to minimize grading and other site preparation activities. The aforementioned project alternatives are better aligned with resource protection policies than the current proposal. Accordingly, staff believes the required criteria to grant a Coastal Development Permit to allow development on slopes in excess of 30% cannot be made in this case.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
According to the Final Environmental Impact Report certified for the construction of the main residence (Board of Supervisor Resolution Nos. 23-237 and 25-132, the project site is located at the base of the “Signal Hill Dune”, which is a remnant of a historically extensive Asilomar Dune complex. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey identifies soils within the project area and surrounding areas as “Dune land.” Dune land is comprised of fine sand derived from quartz and feldspar eolian sands (NRCS 2015). The definition of ESHA provided in the Del Monte Forest LUP includes “coastal sand dunes” (refer to Section 4.2.2.3). As such, all areas of the parcel that have not been previously developed by the residence, driveway, walkways, or concrete patio are considered ESHA and are subject to protections provided in the LUP. The ADU, as sited, is partially outside of the previous development’s footprint and is therefore within ESHA. The previous biological reports produced in 2010 and 2011 found that if construction and grading occurred beyond the required grading limits for the main residence, that there would be significant impacts on ESHA. The previous grading limits considered in these reports were only the residence and garage; they did not account for or contemplate future development outside of that footprint.
Policy 8 of the DMF LUP requires that environmentally sensitive habitat areas be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values. Further, this policy dictates that, within environmentally sensitive habitat areas, new land uses shall be limited to those that are dependent on the resources therein (also known as a coastal dependent use). The proposed ADU is within ESHA (dune habitat) and is not a coastal dependent use. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with Policy 8 of the DMF LUP.
Within and around ESHA, Policy 14 requires that areas, native vegetation removal and land disturbance (grading, excavation, paving, etc.) shall be restricted to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate reasonable development. As described above, there are portions of parcel that were previously developed with the previous residence, driveway, walkways, or concrete patio that have not been encumbered by the replacement main residence project. Therefore, relocating the ADU within these previously disturbed areas is supported by Policy 14, Policy 78 (development on slopes), and Policy 33 (tree removal).
ADU
California State law strongly encourages the development of ADUs. Discretionary limitations generally apply only to those 800 square feet or less. However, in the Coastal Zone, local governments must implement ADU regulations that are consistent with both the Coastal Act and State ADU law (Government Code Section 65852.2 (l)). Accordingly, the Appellants’ contention that the Coastal Act supersedes State ADU law lacks merit.
The ADU complies with all required regulations and standards of Section 20.64.030, except for subsection D.1, which requires adequacy of water quality and quantity for ADUs. Specifically, Section 20.64.030.D.1 states “if either adequate sewage disposal facilities or adequate water supply is not available, an ADU or JADU shall be prohibited.” Here, the project site does not have existing adequate credits for construction of an ADU. Therefore, the project does not comply with objective public health and safety requirements. This inconsistency may be addressed through the purchase of new water credits and submittal of evidence of the water credit availability.
Staff is recommending partial granting and partial denial of the appeal, and denial of the Combined Development Permit for the proposed ADU and associated site improvement, specifically due to impacts on coastal resources. However, this recommendation is not intended to preclude the development of an ADU on the site. Rather, staff supports construction of a thoughtfully designed, sited, and sized ADU that complies with the County’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), State ADU law, and applicable Coastal Act policies. This application does not accomplish that.
Consistency with previous BOS decision
Appellants assert that the proposed project is not consistent with the previous BOS as it relates to the development of the residence. While this is true, pursuant to ADU law, the County must allow for the construction of at least an 800 square foot ADU. The Board of Supervisors’ previous decision considered only the development of the single-family dwelling and an attached two-car garage. It neither considered nor precluded future development of accessory structures, such as an ADU or guesthouse, much less their potential location. That Board’s Resolution did not address whether a proposed ADU would meet the County Code’s requirements and thus did not preclude, nor contemplate the construction of an ADU.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Appellants argue that the project cannot be categorically exempt from CEQA because of the structure’s size, implying but not clearly stating that the Chief of Planning’s CEQA action did not “address the potential impacts of the project as a whole” and should not have relied on a 15-year-old biological report. The Appellants therefore conclude that, “[a]ny environmental assessment which does not address the potential impacts of the project as a whole, as required by CEQA, is inadequate.”
Appellants provide no authority for these propositions, which, as written, are difficult to parse. The referenced biological report was used to determine biological impacts in the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (Board of Supervisor Resolution Nos. 23-237). The environmental impact conclusions of that environmental document are still stable. No evidence has been presented, indicating otherwise. Further, the Chief of Planning found that the project qualified for a Class 3 CEQA Categorical Exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15303 for new construction or conversion of small structures and that no exceptions applied to render this Exemption inapplicable to the project. By definition, a CEQA exemption means a project is not subject to further environmental review; no preparation of an “environmental assessment” is required. If there was an issue with the Chief of Planning’s CEQA decision, Appellants failed to identify that issue with sufficient specificity to make a meaningful response possible. Moreover, Appellants failed to support these legal arguments with legal authority, effectively waiving them. Appellants’ references to the prior Board CEQA determination are irrelevant; that determination neither considered nor examined the present project.
However, because intervening events have led staff to now recommend denial, staff recommends a different CEQA finding here, namely that the project is exempt from CEQA review as a project the County rejects or disapproves. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(4), 15270(a).)
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
The following agencies have reviewed the project, have comments, and/or have recommended conditions:
Environmental Health Bureau
Pebble Beach Community Services District
The Office of County Counsel
LUAC:
County staff referred the project to the Del Monte Forest Land Use Advisory Committee (LUAC) for review. The LUAC reviewed the project at a duly-noticed public meeting on May 7, 2026. The LUAC voted 5 to 0 in support of the project, with two members abstaining (Attachment E). The LUAC raised concerns about the design and massing of the exterior being too “blocky” due to the contiguous stucco, and wondered whether the Board of Supervisors’ decision to limit the single-family dwelling to the footprint of the original residence applied to the construction of an accessory structure, such as an ADU. The applicant, in response to the design concerns, incorporated an additional window on the backside of the ADU to make it more visually cohesive with the main residence and the surrounding area.
FINANCING:
Funding for staff time associated with this project is included in the FY2026-27 Adopted Budget for Community Development General Fund 1001-310002.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:
The project aligns with Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan Goal A: This action represents effective and timely response to our HCD customers. Processing this application in accordance with all applicable policies and regulations also provides the County accountability for proper management of our land resources.
Mark a check to the related Board of Supervisors Strategic Plan Goals:
__X_Well-Being and Quality of Life
____ Sustainable Infrastructure for the Present and Future
____ Safe and Resilient Communities
____Diverse and Thriving Economy
Link to the Strategic Plan:
<https://www.countyofmonterey.gov/home/showdocument?id=139569>
Prepared by: McKenna Bowling, Assistant Planner (831) 755-5298
& Fionna Jensen, Principal Planner (831) 796-6407
Reviewed by: Melanie Beretti, Chief of Planning, AICP
Approved by: Craig Spencer, Director of Housing and Community Development
The following attachments are on file with the HCD:
Attachment A - Draft Resolution
- Site Plan, Elevations & Floor Plans
- Colors and Materials
Attachment B - Notice of Appeal
Attachment C - Chief of Planning Resolution No. 26-061
Attachment D - Arborist Report
Attachment E - LUAC Minutes dated May 7, 2026
Attachment F - Public Comment
cc: Front Counter Copy; Del Monte Forest LUAC; Pebble Beach Community Services District; HCD-Environmental Services; HCD-Engineering Services; Environmental Health Bureau; McKenna Bowling, Associate Planner; Fionna Jensen, Principal Planner; Melanie Beretti, Chief of Planning; Signal Hill LLC, Property Owner; Massy Mehdipour, Agent; Sam and Betsy Reeves & the Law Offices of Tony Lobardo, Appellants; The Open Monterey Project; LandWatch (Executive Director); Lozeau Drury LLP; Christina McGinnis, Keep Big Sur Wild; Anthony Lombardo and Associates, Interested Party; Planning File PLN250292.