Coastal permit administrator approves Albion coastal development permit with ESHA mitigation and bluff-top deed restriction

The Coastal Permit Administrator (name not specified) on Feb. 27, 2025, adopted a mitigated negative declaration and approved coastal development permit CDP2023-0029 to construct a new residence at 2731 Seaside Court in Albion, Mendocino County, subject to conditions and mitigation measures outlined in a staff memorandum dated Feb. 27, 2025.

The decision follows a staff presentation by Mark Klieser, project planner for Mendocino County, who described the proposal and the revisions made after consultation with the California Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to address proximity to Pacific reed grass, an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA).

The approved project authorizes construction of a 1,816-square-foot single-family residence with an attached 310-square-foot garage, a 990-square-foot deck, a 121-square-foot concrete entry pad, roof-mounted solar panels, a two-bedroom septic system, trenching for utility connections and a 1,686-square-foot driveway/parking pad. The residence will be 18 feet above natural grade. The site is addressed at 2731 Seaside Court, approximately 1 mile southwest of the town of Albion (Assessor’s parcel number 123-340-27). The subject parcel is approximately 1.3 acres; the zoning and general plan designation is rural residential (5-acre minimum with a development limitation to a 1-acre minimum) and the parcel contains a floodplain combining district, though staff said all development will be located outside the floodplain toward the southern portion of the lot.

Staff reported the parcel is bluff-top and contains noted environmentally sensitive habitat, including Pacific reed grass. Because the project footprint was within 50 feet of the reed grass, staff said the proposal initially conflicted with Mendocino County Code section 20.496.020(a) (ESHA development criteria). After consultation with the Coastal Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the applicant revised the site plan so the home sits 10 feet outside the mapped Pacific reed grass and proposed a 1,260-square-foot Pacific reed grass enhancement area on the parcel. Staff said both agencies are agreeable to the design changes.

As a condition of approval (condition 39), staff recommended the applicant record a deed restriction acknowledging the hazards and responsibilities associated with bluff-top development. Staff also added a finding (finding 9) under California Public Resources Code section 15074.1 that the revised mitigation measures are equivalent to or more effective than those in the prior staff report and will not cause a significant environmental effect. Based on an initial study prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act, staff concluded the project will not have a significant environmental impact with mitigation measures incorporated, and prepared a mitigated negative declaration.

Two written public comments were received from nearby property owners; staff reported both comments were in support of the project. At the hearing, Megan Durbin, identified as a senior planner and agent for the applicant, told the administrator she and the applicant's team had reviewed the staff memorandum and documentation and had no further comments. Applicant Andrew King and project architect Martin Brewer were present and offered no substantive objections; Richard Ruff was mentioned as an architect associated with the project.

After taking the matter under review, the Coastal Permit Administrator stated: “I will adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the project subject to the findings, with the additional finding number 9 as written to the record by staff and the modifications to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures per the memorandum dated 02/27/2025.” The administrator also advised the applicant of two appeal periods: a 10-calendar-day local appeal period to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors and a subsequent 10-business-day appeal period to the California Coastal Commission. Following those appeal periods, staff said the permit will be effective and the applicant may apply for building permits.

No members of the public spoke at the hearing. The Coastal Permit Administrator closed the public comment period, adopted the mitigated negative declaration and approved the project with the revised conditions and findings.

Clarifying details from the hearing include the project’s footprint and mitigation commitments, the parcel’s zoning and lot-coverage figures, and the recorded deed restriction requirement. Staff noted the project remains appealable to the Board of Supervisors and the California Coastal Commission.