Zoning administrator refers Steele Pebble Beach coastal‑slope project to Planning Commission
August 27, 2026 | Monterey County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Zoning Administrator Mike Novo referred PLN240366 — the Steele residence project in Pebble Beach — to the Monterey County Planning Commission on Aug. 27, 2026 after staff concluded the application includes development on slopes exceeding 30%.
Staff planner McKenna Bolling told the hearing that the application, filed in January and revised this year, proposes a driveway replacement, permeable pavers, landscape improvements and a private putting green and that “the project includes 22,544 square feet of development on slopes” that trigger Planning Commission review under Title 20. Bolling said staff recommends referral to the Planning Commission for a date uncertain so the county can consider the combined coastal administrative permit and any coastal development permit required for steep‑slope work.
The applicant’s representative, Joel Panzer of Maureen Rent Planning Consultants, argued the zoning administrator is the appropriate authority for a coastal administrative permit and said the staff report lacked specific consistency issues that would justify a referral. Panzer requested the ZA deny referral and cited administrative provisions intended to expedite coastal administrative permits. He also said the amount of development on steep slopes was overstated in staff materials and asked for latitude to place more project details on the record.
Ralph Osterling, who identified himself as a registered professional with decades of local experience, testified the property’s trees are not landmark specimens and the site’s existing condition amounts to deferred maintenance that would be improved by the proposed landscaping. Osterling said a tree‑removal waiver in the Coastal Implementation Plan could narrow the outstanding issues.
After questions about applicable sections of Title 20 and combined‑permit rules, Novo said the slope‑based development entitlement appears to be the primary permit that must be considered by the Planning Commission and that, given that nexus, he would refer the entire combined application for Planning Commission review. Novo encouraged staff and the applicant to coordinate on scheduling because the referral will require a new public notice and hearing date.
The referral is procedural only; no decision on the project’s merits was made at the hearing.
Staff planner McKenna Bolling told the hearing that the application, filed in January and revised this year, proposes a driveway replacement, permeable pavers, landscape improvements and a private putting green and that “the project includes 22,544 square feet of development on slopes” that trigger Planning Commission review under Title 20. Bolling said staff recommends referral to the Planning Commission for a date uncertain so the county can consider the combined coastal administrative permit and any coastal development permit required for steep‑slope work.
The applicant’s representative, Joel Panzer of Maureen Rent Planning Consultants, argued the zoning administrator is the appropriate authority for a coastal administrative permit and said the staff report lacked specific consistency issues that would justify a referral. Panzer requested the ZA deny referral and cited administrative provisions intended to expedite coastal administrative permits. He also said the amount of development on steep slopes was overstated in staff materials and asked for latitude to place more project details on the record.
Ralph Osterling, who identified himself as a registered professional with decades of local experience, testified the property’s trees are not landmark specimens and the site’s existing condition amounts to deferred maintenance that would be improved by the proposed landscaping. Osterling said a tree‑removal waiver in the Coastal Implementation Plan could narrow the outstanding issues.
After questions about applicable sections of Title 20 and combined‑permit rules, Novo said the slope‑based development entitlement appears to be the primary permit that must be considered by the Planning Commission and that, given that nexus, he would refer the entire combined application for Planning Commission review. Novo encouraged staff and the applicant to coordinate on scheduling because the referral will require a new public notice and hearing date.
The referral is procedural only; no decision on the project’s merits was made at the hearing.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
