Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Boundary Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mendocino County CPA continues one boundary-line case, approves two others
Summary
At its May 8 Coastal Permit Administrator hearing, staff requested and the administrator granted a continuance for project B2024-0006 to June 12; the administrator approved two separate boundary-line adjustment requests for B2024-00020 and B2024-0027 with standard conditions and appeal periods.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Boundary Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mendocino County’s Coastal Permit Administrator on May 8 granted a continuance for Project B2024-0006 to the June 12 hearing and approved two boundary-line adjustment requests, B2024-00020 and B2024-0027, subject to standard findings and conditions and with appeal periods.
The continuance was requested by staff after receiving a continuance request from one property owner and several late public comments. "We did receive a request for a continuance on this project from 1 of the property owners earlier this week. So staff is gonna be requesting this be continued to the June 12 CPA meeting," said Russ Ford, staff planner. The Coastal Permit Administrator said the item would be continued to a date certain and that no new public notice will be sent before the June 12 meeting.
Why it matters: The first case, B2024-0006, prompted neighborhood concern about possible future campground use of the parcel, with a nearby resident warning of potential impacts to insurance and property values. Staff and the administrator emphasized the current application is only a boundary-line adjustment; any campground or commercial camping use would require a separate application and Coastal Land Conservation Program mapping and review.
Staff and public comments
Russ Ford told the administrator the staff report and materials did not include evidence that the applicant sought campground status for the parcel. Ford summarized permitted uses under the local coastal program, explaining that "there's basically 2 ways that the campground could be used on this property. 1 is just for personal use from the property owner and non paying guests, which is, entitled, temporary use. The other 1 would be considered either a full fledged campground or a camping group, which would require that property being marked as such on LCP maps, which it is not currently, so that would not be a permitted use."
During public comment, Sean Agnew, a nearby resident, said neighbors received late notice of the application and raised safety and property concerns: "Our fire insurance could go up. I mean, how are people outside in a camp gonna stay warm? It does get cold here... I don't want my insurance or property values to change as a result of being 2 doors down from this." The administrator and staff reiterated the continuance and the narrow scope of the current boundary-line review.
Votes at a glance
- B2024-0006 (applicant listed in staff report as Buddy Burdick): Continued to the June 12, 2025 Coastal Permit Administrator hearing. Action: continuance granted; no new public notice will be sent because the continuance is to a date certain. Public comment received expressing concerns about potential future campground use and neighborhood impacts.
- B2024-00020 (John Pascall Beryl and Christa Marie Dagley): Approved subject to the revised staff report findings and standard conditions of approval. The staff report contained minor corrections to factual findings (including that Lot 2, not Lot 1, is currently developed with a single-family residence served by on-site septic) and noted a prior coastal development permit tied to Lot 1 remained vested by installation of a well in 2018. The administrator approved the project and noted appeal periods apply before the applicants may record the lot-line adjustment.
- B2024-0027 (applicant name given as Sahyun in the record): Approved with standard conditions. Planning staff reported the project would merge two substandard lots in the Irish Beach subdivision into a single 0.62-acre parcel (Lot 1 ≈ 0.34 acre; Lot 2 ≈ 0.28 acre). Staff said the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15305 (minor lot line adjustments) and that referrals to local and state agencies raised no concerns.
Key technical details and staff findings
- B2024-00020: Staff described a prior coastal development permit (CDP 2011-23) for a house, garage and associated development that was preserved ("bested") by installation of a well in 2018, which left the CDP vested. A biological report prepared in 2015 for Lot 1 identified Bishop Pine Forest as an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) on the western 25% of the property; the earlier CDP authorization included a reduction of the standard 100-foot ESHA buffer to allow development to remain at least 50 feet from the mapped ESHA. The staff report noted Mendocino County Code section 24 9 6 0 2 0 8 3 (as cited in the record) prohibits approval of a boundary-line adjustment that would create a parcel entirely within an ESHA buffer; staff concluded the minimal change proposed would not create such a parcel and would not affect the location of previously permitted development. Staff corrected a transposition in the findings so Lot 2 (not Lot 1) is shown as the parcel with an existing single-family home and septic.
- B2024-0027 (Irish Beach): Planning staff reported the parcel is in the Irish Beach Water District, is zoned rural residential with a planned development overlay, and that no development is proposed at this time. Staff said the proposal is consistent with the local coastal program objectives of aligning development with existing public services and avoiding environmental impacts.
Next steps and appeals
For the two approved adjustments, the administrator noted appeal periods apply; staff will notify applicants of appeal procedures and timelines before recording changes. The continued case, B2024-0006, will return to the Coastal Permit Administrator calendar on June 12, 2025 for further consideration.
Meeting context
The virtual/quick hearing lasted about 13 minutes, covered three agenda items and included two applicant/property-owner participants and one public commenter who spoke at length on neighborhood concerns. Planning staff presented the technical analyses and recommended approval for the two record-approvals with standard conditions.

