Monterey County HRB pauses Red Barn siding permit, orders detailed condition and repair report

The Monterey County Historic Resources Board on June 4 continued consideration of construction permit 26CP00819 for siding work at the historic Big Red Barn, directing the applicant to provide a detailed condition and repair/replacement report and samples before the board forwards a recommendation to the chief of planning.

Elizabeth, a supervising planner with county staff, presented the permit application and the Phase 2 historic assessment, saying the barn — listed in Monterey County’s local register of historic resources — meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and that staff recommended the board recommend approval of the construction permit to the chief of planning. "This is the proposed repair plan," she said, summarizing that the project would replace damaged siding and match materials and colors to the existing structure.

Owner Sal Jimenez, who identified himself as owner and president of the Auto 1 Red Barn, told the board he had examined options and had tried to locate matching material. "We researched the like‑kind material to be able to match it 98, 99%," Jimenez said, adding that parts of the roof had already been replaced and his contractor, Salinas Steel Builders, had worked on prior repairs.

Board members raised repeated concerns about whether the work as described in the permit is truly "repair" or effectively a large‑scale "replacement." "I don't consider that repair," the chair said, noting the project drawings appeared to show most of the siding marked for replacement. Multiple members pressed for an upfront, site‑specific evaluation to quantify how much siding actually needs to be removed and replaced, rather than allowing a contractor to make those calls in the field after permit issuance.

Technical questions dominated the hearing: members asked whether panels are full height or seamed at framing girts, how wide and long the vertical panels are (applicant stated panels are vertical and can be 16 feet high), and whether replacement would produce a patchwork appearance if new panels cannot match the historic ribbing, gauge and visual texture. One board member described standard historic practice: repair is preferred; replacement of distinctive features requires documentation and matching in design, texture and details.

Safety and maintenance concerns were also raised. Jimenez said some panels have holes, loose rivets and have at times come off in strong wind; he argued fastening limitations and the thinness of the material constrain how much can be secured without replacement. "They're very thin, razor sharp. They could cut somebody," Jimenez said, describing usage of the barn for vendor events.

After extended discussion, the board voted to continue the item to the August 6, 2026 HRB meeting and directed the applicant to submit a report and materials to support the board’s review. The board's requested report should include: a square‑foot or percentage estimate of siding to be replaced; photographic evidence and line drawings identifying locations slated for replacement; physical samples of siding and paint color chips; a discussion distinguishing damage that threatens life/safety or structure from visually objectionable dents; consideration of repair per the Secretary of the Interior standards for metal repair; and identification of contractors or specialists consulted. The board set interim deadlines for materials to allow inclusion on a July or August agenda and noted that staff will coordinate permit‑related inspections with the building division.

The board framed the continuance as a way to avoid issuing a permit that cannot be reversed: several members emphasized they need objective measures and samples now so the board can support a recommendation to the chief of planning and so the building division will have clear field criteria to inspect work against. "We don't want to tell you to go do the work and then not be able to take it back if we find the documentation was insufficient," one member said.

The hearing record did not include a roll‑call tally of individual yes/no votes; the motion to continue and request the report was seconded and carried by voice vote. The board also discussed upcoming agenda items, and staff noted a preservation event at the Puerto Vallejo Library on June 12.

Next steps: the applicant will assemble the requested documentation and materials and submit them to staff by the dates discussed at the hearing so the HRB can reconsider the matter at a subsequent meeting (the board indicated Aug. 6, 2026 as the earliest possible date to act).