Mendocino review board urges expedited permit, fee relief for Kelly House Pond restoration

The Mendocino Historical Review Board voted unanimously Feb. 2 to ask county planning staff and the Coastal Permit Administrator to expedite a coastal development permit for restoration work at the Kelly House Pond and to request reductions in permitting fees to lessen financial strain on the nonprofit overseeing the site.

Planner Tanya Walden, speaking for Planning and Building Services, told the board the referral (CDP 20250026 / KCDP2025-0026) seeks after‑the‑fact authorization for excavation, a high‑density polyethylene liner, filtration equipment and landscaping at a property listed in the packet as 45007 Albion Suite. Walden said previous work on the pond dates to the 19th century and that a 2015 repair and alteration triggered multiple review processes: an historic review permit (MHRP/NHRP approval), a coastal development permit and a grading/building permit. "Staff would recommend that you do wait for all approvals," Walden said, because planting before grading or building permits could require replanting if later changes are ordered.

Public commenters and board members pressed the board to move the matter along so plantings could occur this spring. Several speakers described permitting costs as burdensome for the nonprofit stewarding the site; one commenter estimated total costs "somewhere around 13 or $14,000," and another said a hardship letter previously produced a fee reduction. Planning staff read proposed referral language that asks the Coastal Permit Administrator to "expedite" CDP 20250026, to "significantly minimize the impact" of fees on the nonprofit, and to encourage expedited processing of the building permit "so that they may plants their plants by springtime."

Board member Alan Sanders was identified by the board as the motion's mover; the board then voted by roll call. Jeremy Lam, Justine Herb, Julia Lopez and Alan Sanders were recorded as voting "Aye," and the planner recorded that the motion passed unanimously. The board's formal comments will be added to the referral packet and staff will prepare a larger packet and the staff report for the Coastal Permit Administrator's hearing. Walden noted the Administrator's decision would be processed locally and would be appealable to the California Coastal Commission under state coastal processes and the California Environmental Quality Act.

The board did not take any final action to approve or deny the coastal development permit; rather, the board sent advisory comments as part of the referral process. Staff told the board it would prepare the full packet for the permit hearing and include the board's summarized comments asking for fee relief and expedited scheduling. The Coastal Permit Administrator will set the local hearing date; decisions can be appealed to the California Coastal Commission.