Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Survey Acceptances Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Archaeological surveys accepted for four coastal development permits, discovery clause retained
Summary
The Archaeological Commission accepted archaeological survey reports for four coastal development permit applications (CDP20250007, CDP20250008, CDP20250011, CDP20250012) and applied standard discovery protections; one commissioner recused from a related item.
The Mendocino County Archaeological Commission on Sept. 10 accepted archaeological survey reports, with the standing discovery clause, for four separate coastal development permit applications in the county’s coastal zone.
The accepted surveys and outcomes were: - CDP20250007 (980 N. Highway 1, Navarro River Partners / Nancy Williams): survey accepted with discovery clause by roll call. - CDP20250008 (44081 Noya Way, Jess Rafael): survey accepted with discovery clause by roll call. - CDP20250011 (45151 Mar Vista Drive, John and Joan Buchanan): survey accepted with discovery clause after commissioners reviewed the report; the survey reported no resources within a quarter mile of the study area. - CDP20250012 (18501 N. Highway 1, William Hayes): survey accepted with discovery clause; Commissioner Bill Cole recused from voting on this item due to a disclosed conflict and did not participate in the roll call.
Archaeologists who prepared or presented the reports told the commission each survey was negative for archaeological resources at the recorded level of inspection. Project planners and county staff noted varied site conditions — several parcels were small, some on steep slopes or coastal benches, and one had prior industrial disturbances — and recommended applying the discovery clause, standard county practice that requires immediate stop-work and professional evaluation if buried cultural material is found during construction.
Commissioners moved and voted on each survey individually; staff confirmed each motion carried. Applicants or their agents were present for several items to answer questions about site conditions and project scope; no surveys required additional immediate fieldwork at the meeting.
The commission also reminded applicants that if future work on these parcels changes to include ground disturbance beyond what was assessed, the projects will be re-referred to the commission for further archaeological review.
