Mendocino review board approves two after-the-fact EV charging permits with conditions; consent items also cleared

The Mendocino Historical Review Board on Aug. 4 approved two after-the-fact permits to install electric-vehicle (EV) charging stations at historic properties and cleared two consent-calendar items, while placing conditions that code-enforcement violations be resolved and that any required accessibility changes return to the board as minor alterations.

The board approved MHRV2025-006, an after-the-fact request to install three EV charging stations at a property listed in staff materials as 10691 Powell Drive, and MHRV2025-007, an after-the-fact request to install three EV charging stations inside wooden enclosures at the McCallum/McAllen House parcels on Albion Street (parcels listed in staff materials as 45020 and 45040 Albion Street). Staff recommended and the board adopted standard Mendocino Historical Review Board conditions plus two additional conditions for each permit: (1) the owner must demonstrate code-enforcement violations are resolved to the satisfaction of Mendocino County prior to permit expiration, and (2) charging cabinets must be stained redwood (staff language) and new or replacement exterior materials shall not use imitation or synthetic materials such as aluminum or vinyl siding, imitation stone, plastic laminate beams, concrete boards or blocks, stucco, asbestos shingles/panels, or plywood panels.

Why it matters: board members said state accessibility (ADA) requirements have changed since earlier approvals and could require design changes that affect the historical appearance of properties. The board and staff agreed that if accessibility-driven changes arise, those changes will be reviewed as the board’s established minor-alteration process so the board can weigh material and design alternatives.

Staff presentation and conditions Jesse, Planning and Building Services staff, told the board the Powell Drive project had previous NHRP permits that expired, that the owner is subject to code enforcement, and that a building-permit application is under review. Jesse said staff added two conditions to the standard staff recommendation: that the property owner demonstrate resolution of county code-enforcement violations and that exterior materials be limited as described above. "The building permit will not be issued if it deviates from what is proposed in front of you today," Jesse said, adding that proposed accessibility-driven deviations would come back to the board as a minor alteration.

Board discussion and ADA issues Board members and staff discussed how California building-code accessibility requirements could force changes such as painted lines, curb ramps, or different pad layouts for van-accessible stalls. Board member Alan Sanders pressed staff to ensure the board would have useful alternatives to evaluate when an accessibility-driven modification is submitted. For example, Sanders asked whether a differently colored marker or alternate treatment could meet accessibility rules while better fitting the historic streetscape. Staff and other board members said building officials must determine whether an alternative meets code but agreed the board should see any proposed modification so it can determine whether the change is "minor" or requires full review.

Public comment and applicant presence Kelly Grimes, a member of the public, urged the board not to feel pressured to approve after-the-fact installations and said it was the owner’s responsibility to present acceptable alternatives if the board dislikes a proposed material or color. Kelly Grimes said, "Don't feel pressured to approve things." The applicant for at least one of the permits was not present for the hearing, which several board members said made evaluation harder; staff said the applicant was told a site visit occurred and had been notified.

Outcome and procedure going forward The board voted to approve both after-the-fact EV permits with the conditions described above and to handle any accessibility-driven revisions through the board’s minor-alteration policy (the policy limits applicants to submitting minor alterations within two years of an active MHRP approval and allows board review when the changes are proposed). Staff also told the board that approval would not exempt the owner from building-permit requirements or from paying applicable enforcement fees for commercial violations.

Votes at a glance - Consent calendar (two items): The board approved two consent items including MHRB2023-0012 (Trillium Cafe and Inn: enclosure of existing deck, additional interior dining, and continued temporary tent for outdoor dining to be removed on commencement of permanent pergola construction) and MHRB2024-0003 (Mendocino Village Inn, applicant Tom Colson; agent Deborah Lux). Motion to approve the consent calendar was made by Deirdre Lam and seconded by Alan Sanders; the board recorded a roll-call approval. Action: approved. - MHRV2025-006 (EV charging stations at 10691 Powell Drive): Approved with conditions requiring code-enforcement resolution prior to permit expiration and limits on replacement materials; accessibility-driven changes will return under the minor-alteration policy. Action: approved. - MHRV2025-007 (EV charging stations at McCallum/McAllen House parcels, 45020 & 45040 Albion Street): Approved with the same conditions and minor-alteration expectation. Action: approved.

What the approvals do not do Approvals adopted by the board do not grant building permits or resolve outstanding code-enforcement findings. Staff said building permits remain subject to review by Planning and Building Services and the Building Division; if a building permit must deviate from the approved historical-review proposal for accessibility reasons, the resulting changes will come back to the board as a minor alteration for review.

Next steps and follow-up Staff will notify applicants of board decisions, continue processing building permits, and require that any code-enforcement issues be addressed before permits become final. Board members asked staff to advise applicants to monitor meeting recordings and staff correspondence so applicants are aware of the board’s recommendations and requirements.