Mendocino County official approves coastal development permit and front-setback variance for Coral Court home

The Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator approved a coastal development permit (CDP-2023-0041) and an accompanying front-yard setback variance (V-2023-0002) on July 24, allowing demolition of about 600 square feet of an existing house, excavation for a lower story and a 2,636-square-foot addition including two bedrooms, a garage, an art studio, rooftop solar and a guest cottage above the proposed garage at 38660 Coral Court. The administrator found the project categorically exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approved it subject to the findings and conditions stated in the staff report.

Why it matters: The decision authorizes a sizeable rebuild and a reduced 8-foot front setback where the standard requirement is 20 feet, a change staff said is consistent with other Coral Court properties and necessary because of lot shape and steep topography. The permit includes conditions responding to recommendations from Mendocino County Department of Transportation and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Mendocino County project planner Shelby Miller told the administrator the property is in the coastal zone about one-half mile northwest of the Gualala town center and is served by a local public water utility. Miller said the variance request responds to the parcel's constrained size, shape and steep topography and that four nearby Coral Court properties have previously received setbacks for similar reasons. "The proposed variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject parcel is located," Miller said, and recommended approval.

Miller summarized agency referrals and conditions the department incorporated from the Mendocino County Department of Transportation, including requirements that the applicant build a residential driveway approach in accordance with Mendocino County road and development standards, mark the front property line by a professional land surveyor and obtain an encroachment permit for any work within the county right of way. Miller also reported that Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted a site visit, acknowledged the steep topography and abutting gulch, and recommended enhancements to natural communities; Miller said avoidance measures from the geotechnical and biological reports were included in the conditions of approval.

Applicant Dave Ashukian, who identified himself as co-owner with Mary Ashukian, asked procedural questions about permit duration, renewal and modest future plan changes. Miller explained the permit includes a two-year period to show progress before expiration, that a renewal requires an application and fee and agency re-review (which could add conditions), and that the permit is vested if a portion of the authorized physical work is conducted within the two-year window. "A renewal process is an application to our office, so there is a fee associated with it... and it does go through review with the various agencies that previously have reviewed the project," Miller said. Miller also said minor plan changes can be reviewed for "substantial conformance" while larger changes would require a modification through a process similar to the original permit.

Ashukian raised a specific question about a condition that exempts existing structures that predate the coastal permit from certain removal requirements; Miller and the administrator explained that language derives from the county zoning code and applies specifically to the subsection addressing removal of threatened structures, and that bluff or shoreline protective devices remain prohibited.

During public comment, neighbor George Provencher said he lives across the ravine from the property and supported the variance and the rebuild, noting several nearby homes have historically received similar variances because of setback constraints. "I have no objection whatsoever... I'm as a neighbor, I'm very supportive of this," Provencher said.

The Coastal Permit Administrator approved the application "subject to the findings and conditions contained within the staff report," and confirmed the project had been determined categorically exempt under CEQA sections 15301 and 15304. The administrator noted two appeal windows: a 10-calendar-day local appeal to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, followed by a 10-business-day appeal period to the California Coastal Commission; the administrator said the permit should be final and effective roughly 30 days after the hearing if no appeals are filed.

The staff file and conditions note optional administrative steps the applicant may take, including filing a notice of exemption with the county clerk and state clearinghouse to shorten the CEQA challenge period from 180 days to 35 days. County staff also advised the applicant to provide an updated property survey to the Department of Transportation to verify corner markers and to obtain any required encroachment permits before work in the county right of way.

Other matters raised at the hearing included a public request that county staff research a prior Board of Supervisors resolution from several years earlier related to rezoning and the Heliport/CM S property; the Coastal Permit Administrator said staff would follow up. The hearing lasted from 10:01 a.m. to 10:29 a.m.

Votes at a glance: The Coastal Permit Administrator approved CDP-2023-0041 and V-2023-0002; no roll-call vote was recorded. The approval was issued by the administrator with the standard findings, conditions and appeal periods described above.