Mendocino County coastal permit administrator approves modified permit to allow limited septic, wells and directional boring in ESHA with conditions

The Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator approved a modification to coastal development permit CDP 202319 that allows replacement septic work, controlled drilling of new wells and directional boring beneath an environmentally sensitive habitat area on a coastal property, and adopted a mitigated negative declaration with modified conditions of approval.

Staff said the changes address issues the Coastal Commission raised when it appealed earlier decisions and aim to minimize impacts to coastal terrace prairie, which the staff report classified as ESHA. "It's likely that such denial would result in an unconstitutional regulatory taking because it would significantly devalue the property by preventing maintenance of the existing residence," Planning and Building staff member Liam said, explaining why limited development was recommended.

The modification removes a proposal to expand a gravel parking area, retains the existing water tank rather than removing it, replaces a sliding door, and would allow a deck over replacement septic infrastructure. Directional (subsurface) boring is required for water lines under the ESHA root zone, and the number of new wells is restricted to the minimum necessary to establish an adequate water supply. An initial study under CEQA identified potentially significant impacts but concluded those impacts could be mitigated to a less‑than‑significant level; staff therefore recommended a mitigated negative declaration.

Agent Amy Nguyen of Wind Coast Planning and Biology, representing the applicant, said the project "adequately protects the coastal resources," and requested two edits: adding the word "or" to the project description so the applicant may use either a single 5,000‑gallon tank or two 2,500‑gallon tanks, and revising Condition 14 to clarify what water testing is required and when. The condition as written authorized drilling a minimum number of test wells and required testing "in accordance with the County Of Mendocino Coastal Groundwater Development Guidelines" and stated testing shall occur within the dry season from Aug. 20 to Oct. 31.

Amy Nguyen asked whether the Coastal Permit Administrator could accept testing by a qualified onsite well driller (for example, a shorter pump test or a well driller's report) to determine whether additional wells are needed, noting logistical constraints and the cost of multiple test wells. The applicant also asked that the requirement to test strictly within the Aug. 20–Oct. 31 window be made discretionary to avoid unnecessary delay if dry conditions occur outside that range.

Coastal Permit Administrator Krog and staff noted the county guidelines generally reference testing in the dry months but acknowledged variability in what the Coastal Commission has accepted in past cases. Staff said its priority is to ensure "no more wells are drilled than necessary" and indicated support for adding flexible language permitting testing "if required" and for removing the strict dry‑season sentence so that testing requirements could be clarified during coordination with Coastal Commission staff.

Property owner Chi Sullivan spoke about the family's long history at the house, saying the house "was built in 1976 by my grandma Coffey," and described the property as carrying "a ton of sentimental value." The transcript shows the applicant and the county reached agreement on the edits the applicant requested.

Coastal Permit Administrator Krog concluded the hearing by saying, "I will adopt the mitigated negative declaration for this project and approve the project subject to the findings and conditions, as modified during today's hearing and, with the revised project description per the memo except for adding in the word or." The approved modifications included the option for a single 5,000‑gallon water tank or two 2,500‑gallon tanks and the agreed revisions to Condition 14 that make additional groundwater testing discretionary or subject to coordination with Coastal Commission staff. The applicant indicated it would work with county and commission staff to clarify any remaining test requirements during the appeal period.

Staff also corrected technical items in the record: the archaeological survey encountered a prehistoric shell refuse site and an ESHA buffer was established around it; the proposed project would not intersect that site and conditions reflect recommendations from the county archaeologist, the Mendocino County Archaeological Commission and the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians; and the agent corrected an earlier mix‑up in the building materials description so the replacement roof material will match existing composite shingles rather than cedar.

The Coastal Permit Administrator's approval resolves the pending appeal by virtue of the applicant's withdrawal of the separate CDP 202318 from county review; staff noted California Code of Regulations was cited in the staff report regarding withdrawals and finality of local actions. The decision was administrative (by the Coastal Permit Administrator) and recorded as an approval with the adopted mitigated negative declaration and the conditions modified on the record.