Mendocino Coastal Permit Administrator approves CDP 20240042 with condition tweak

The Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator on Aug. 14 approved coastal development permit CDP 20240042, a staff-recommended action to legalize previously unpermitted small structures at 31451 Bayview Avenue in Fort Bragg, subject to standard conditions and one minor wording change to a condition.

Rob Fitzsimmons, the county staff planner and project coordinator, told the hearing the application seeks to remediate prior unpermitted development including four sheds and two trash enclosures, remove a covered deck, relocate two encroaching planters to meet setbacks, approve one existing greenhouse, and allow one proposed new storage shed. “Technically, this last shed is truly new structure, not a relocation of one of the four encroaching sheds,” Fitzsimmons said, noting a statement in the staff report that no new structures are proposed was incorrect.

The staff report locates the parcel on a coastal bluff in the Todd subdivision south of the city center of Fort Bragg, near Pear Creek. Fitzsimmons said staff considered whether additional geotechnical work was needed for bluff stability and concluded it was not required for the final configuration because the new structures are sited nearer the parcel’s northeast corner and set back farther than the primary residence, but noted development on coastal bluffs generally needs evaluation to ensure at least 75 years of stability. The record includes a September 2024 Coastal Records Project image used in the analysis.

Fitzsimmons also told the administrator that the property owner is in a separate dispute with the California Coastal Commission over a 1983 permit and a 1987 amendment (attachment K in the staff report). The commission’s staff has asserted that an area beyond a low fence line should be maintained as a public access easement. Fitzsimmons said none of the development before the county appears to be within the contested area and that Coastal Commission staff indicated they do not object to the county project moving forward while the easement matter is unresolved. To accommodate that, staff recommended adding condition 10: if permitted development is later found to be within an existing public easement, the encroaching development must be removed.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) provided four recommendations. CDFW asked that floristic surveys be conducted if ground disturbance will occur. Fitzsimmons said the applicant indicated the small structures’ construction, relocation or removal does not necessitate ground disturbance; staff did not request floristic surveys or make them conditions of approval but included CDFW’s second and third recommendations as recommended conditions six and seven. Staff said CDFW’s final recommendation — imposing a building envelope — could not be justified under the permit findings and would not be functionally controlling on later coastal permits.

An applicant representative, Megan Durbin, thanked staff and said the team was available for questions; property owner Rafael Winick confirmed one of the structures to be rebuilt would sit within the applicable setback area identified in the plans. During the hearing Durbin and staff clarified applicable setbacks: the parcel is zoned R-RL-5 (rural residential, 5-acre minimum) but is a nonconforming parcel under five acres; under Mendocino County Code Section 20.37.6.040, RR/L5 or L10 parcels under five acres are subject to minimum front, side and rear setbacks of 20 feet. Staff explained how the county applies variable-density zoning rules (parcels under 2 acres are held to higher-density setback standards), and confirmed the staff report’s reference to a 20-foot side setback is correct for this parcel. Fitzsimmons and the applicant noted that the proposed new shed would meet the county’s legal setback requirements while appearing within the smaller 6-foot yard dimension sometimes used in other guidance for small, nondivisible parcels; the plans and exhibits in the staff report are part of the approval record.

Coastal Permit Administrator Krog approved the project as recommended in the staff report, with a single modification to condition one to replace the phrase “Coastal Permit Administrator” with “Coastal Commission” to correct a scrivener’s error. Krog noted the exhibits in the staff report become part of the approval. The permit is effective after the 10-working-day appeal period to the California Coastal Commission.

The approval contains standard conditions from the staff recommendation, the added condition 10 addressing potential easement conflicts, and the inclusion of recommended conditions tied to CDFW’s second and third requests. No members of the public attended in person; one commenter on Zoom asked about how future Local Coastal Program (LCP) updates might affect offers to dedicate along Todd Point, and staff said any changes would likely be discussed with the Coastal Commission as part of an LCP update.

The Coastal Permit Administrator’s decision approves legalization of the identified small structures and the proposed new storage shed under CDP 20240042, with the record and staff conditions (including the modification to condition one) forming the approval basis.