Planning commission approves after‑the‑fact coastal permit modification for Newport Ranch trail

Mendocino County Planning Commission members voted unanimously to approve a coastal development use permit modification for an after‑the‑fact relocation of a multi‑use recreational trail on parcel 01507041 near Westport.

The commission’s action, taken at a regular meeting of the Mendocino County Planning Commission, approved Resolution 20 21‑0005 adopting a previously adopted negative declaration and granting a coastal development use permit modification for the recreational trail "as built." The motion passed with Commissioners Richards and Pollan and Chair Babini voting yes; Commissioners Jones and Wiedemann were absent by prearrangement.

The item centered on a trail the applicant located entirely within parcel number 01507041 and accessed off Highway 1 roughly three miles south of Westport, adjacent to Kippasila Rock Quarry. Mark Klieser, the planner on the project, told the commission that "the attachments in the staff report incorrectly include parcel numbers 01507057 and 01507040. The modification of the trail is located entirely within parcel number 01507041." He said no grading or soil removal would be required and that the trail uses an existing road; a small parking area adjacent to the trailhead can accommodate up to four cars.

Staff had requested a continuance to Oct. 2, 2025 so the applicant could be present to respond to comments from the Westport Municipal Advisory Council about work that may have been done on a previously approved trail. Deputy County Counsel Matthew Kudrowski advised caution about adding conditions when the applicant was not present, saying, "From a legal perspective, if we're adding conditions of approval and the applicant isn't here, I think there may have been some miscommunications about when the meeting was to be scheduled that occurred after it was noticed." He added that if the commission wanted to proceed without additional conditions that would also be acceptable.

Commissioners discussed the staff recommendation and the likelihood that natural vegetation had reestablished since the alleged work, citing that several years had passed since the application was filed. Staff reported a site visit in April 2025 with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Coastal Commission; comments from those agencies were included as conditions of approval. Staff noted the project parcel is under a Williamson Act contract and that the Resource Lands Protection Committee found the trail consistent with compatible uses under that contract.

After discussion, the commission approved the permit modification and included the addendum amendment to condition 16 presented by staff. The action resolves the after‑the‑fact status of the trail relocation and authorizes continued recreational use by guests at the inn associated with Newport Ranch, subject to the conditions in the staff report and addendum.

The commission record shows no public comments were received in person or on Zoom on the item at the time of the hearing. Staff said they will follow up with the applicant as needed to close any outstanding issues raised by the Westport MAC and to implement the conditions of approval.

Details from the staff presentation and the commission’s discussion indicate the trail is not visible from Highway 1 except to hikers at the ridge, there are no identified impacts to nearby creek habitat given the trail’s location on the west side of the access road, and that no Caltrans comments were received. Staff recommended the continuance only to ensure the applicant could review any new conditions; the commission chose to proceed with approval and the amended condition.

The permit file and the staff report attachments noted the correct parcel number (01507041) and included the April site visit with CDFW and the Coastal Commission among the materials included as conditions. The commission reiterated that if additional, substantial work on the trail were later documented, staff could seek to ensure the area is restored as required by the conditions.

The action taken was limited to the use permit modification and the conditions included in the staff addendum; no other permits or budgetary actions were decided at the meeting.