Mendocino County coastal permit administrator approves three permits, continues Navarro River project

The Mendocino County Coastal Permit Administrator approved three coastal development permits on March 26 and continued a fourth timed item to give the California Coastal Commission time to review new applicant materials.

Staff recommended approval of CVP 2022‑0017 after reporting that seven trees were removed near a bluff‑top parcel in Gowalla and that the property owner erected a new, six‑foot view‑obscuring fence. Planner Rob Fitzsimmons told the administrator that staff incorporated comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Coastal Commission and recommended conditions requiring remediation of the fence within 90 days, a 1:1 replacement of removed trees with native, locally appropriate species, and a five‑year monitoring plan with a performance standard (either 100% tree survival in five years or 75% survival if an understory of shrubs is included). "Staff recommend approval of this project with the revised conditions of approval," Fitzsimmons said.

Property owner Steve Regan, who said he and co‑owner Vicky Sanderson bought the parcel after a prior owner had accrued the code violation, objected to parts of the revised conditions. Regan called the species requirement "punitive" and said forcing specific species — for example a bishop pine — could limit future use of the property. He told the hearing he would comply with fence remediation and leave stumps in place, but asked for flexibility in the planting palette and more time to plant large trees. "Replacement of the trees is punitive against basically an innocent party who stepped into someone else's shoes," Regan said.

Staff and the administrator responded that CDFW and Coastal Commission recommendations supported a 1:1 replacement ratio and that the permit language allows flexibility beyond the two example species by requiring at least one bishop pine and one grand fir among the replanted trees while permitting other locally appropriate natives for remaining trees. Sean Crackon, a county code‑enforcement supervisor, explained how a code enforcement lien could be released once the permit is issued, the appeal period expires, and staff verify compliance: the lien becomes eligible for release subject to a recordation fee and would not be held for the five‑year monitoring period.

After the clarifications, the Coastal Permit Administrator approved CVP 2022‑0017 with the staff findings and modifications memorialized in the March 24, 2026 memorandum and noted the applicant faced two subsequent appeal periods before the permit would be final.

The administrator also granted two additional permits. CDP2025‑0014, for a residential remodel at 47081 Pirates Drive, was presented by architect Matthias Opliger, who said the owners accept staff conditions including a recommended driveway reconstruction; the administrator approved the project as conditioned. CDP2025‑0016, a small addition and deck replacement in the Casper South subdivision, was presented by planner Liam Crowley; Crowley said CAL FIRE conditions and an archaeological mitigation measure (10‑foot protective fencing around an identified archaeological site during construction) were included in the permit and confirmed adequate water and sanitation capacity; the administrator approved that project as conditioned.

A larger timed item, CDP2025‑0007 for a new 2,375‑square‑foot dwelling near Albion (Navarro River Partners LLC), prompted extended discussion about tree‑removal policy, geotechnical constraints on bluff top development, Caltrans driveway requirements, and the adequacy of a 2001 well report versus a new 2026 report. Staff noted that the Coastal Commission had received late applicant materials and that commission staff were not prepared to comment at the hearing. Applicants and nearby owners discussed well testing history and water yields; adjacent owners reported consistent static water levels in tests conducted in 1991, 2001 and 2026.

Because of the late submittal and to reduce the risk of an appeal, the Coastal Permit Administrator continued CDP2025‑0007 to the April 23, 2026 Coastal Permit Administrator hearing at 10:00 a.m. "So with that, what I will do is I'm gonna continue this item to the April 23 Coastal Permit Administrator hearing," the administrator said. No new public notice will be issued for the continued hearing; written comments and attendance at the April 23 meeting remain options for participants.

Procedural notes and key compliance timelines from the hearing: the planting plan for the CVP case must be submitted within 90 days of the permit issuance; tree and shrub planting required by condition must be completed within one year after the administrator approves the landscaping plan; the tree‑replacement monitoring period extends five years with a specified survival performance standard; code enforcement indicated a lien may be released after permit issuance, appeal periods and verification of compliance (subject to recordation fee). Appeals to the California Coastal Commission remain available where identified by statute or regulation.

The Coastal Permit Administrator adjourned the hearing at 11:20 a.m.