Planning commissioners continue review of contested Ukiah-area short‑term rental; direct staff to draft denial

Mendocino County planning commissioners voted April 16 to continue consideration of a use permit for a large inland residence near Ukiah that applicants want to operate as a short‑term rental, directing staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial and to seek further information from CalFire and Environmental Health.

The item, U_2025-00006, concerns a 15.2-acre parcel addressed as 2401 Booneville Road about five miles southwest of Ukiah. Planning staff said the primary residence is approximately 5,000 square feet with multiple additions and accessory structures and that several additions appear to be unpermitted. "Condition 19" in the staff recommendation requires the owner to obtain any after-the-fact permits prior to issuance of a business license, staff said.

Russ Ford, planning staff, told the commission that Mendocino County currently lacks an inland short‑term rental ordinance and that the department has been using Mendocino County Code §20.164.015 (the county's room-and-board classification) together with a 2010 planning director memo as a permitting pathway for inland short‑term rentals. Ford also recommended a CEQA categorical exemption under CEQA Guideline §15301 for the existing structure and recommended approval of the use permit subject to conditions addressing noise, trash and operational hours.

A neighbor, Matthew Tallini of 2395 Booneville Road, told the commission he has received notices and provided a printed Airbnb listing to the clerk. Tallini said he has observed repeated rented gatherings since the new owners took title in December 2024 and told commissioners those gatherings have included large numbers of people, noise late at night, open fire pits and septic issues. "They've already had several Airbnb guests … they've had fires, open fire pits," Tallini said, and said the listing advertised the house as sleeping 20 people.

Applicants identified themselves on Zoom as property owners Chaitana and Ravali and said they are new owners who intend to hire an off‑site property manager reachable within about a 10‑minute drive, ensure trash service and disposal of excess trash, post house rules (no parties, quiet hours), and install exterior cameras. "We plan to hire a property manager who will be on‑site who will be close to, somewhere like a 10‑minute drive from the property," one applicant said, and offered to put management commitments in writing.

Commissioners pressed staff and counsel about an earlier "Class K" building-permit designation that may have applied to some permitted work at the site and about owner‑occupancy limitations that can accompany certain Class K permits. Deputy County Counsel Matthew Kiedrowski explained that Class K (owner-built limited-density rural dwellings) includes definitions and owner‑occupancy presumptions and that building‑department review would determine whether the unpermitted work can be regularized via Class K or standard residential permits.

Several commissioners said the record contained credible neighbor complaints and outstanding permitting questions that could support denial. Commissioner Weideman moved to deny the use permit, citing alleged violations and nuisances; after debate about whether to deny immediately or allow staff to gather more information, the commission unanimously approved a motion to continue the item to a date certain (June 4, 2026) with direction to staff to draft findings for denial and to follow up with CalFire and Environmental Health. The roll call vote was unanimous among those present (Commissioners Johnson, Weideman, Richards and Chair Paulin; Commissioner Jones was absent).

Planning staff emphasized that, as written in the proposed conditions, issuance of a business license would require evidence that all required permits for site improvements have been obtained and approved. Staff and counsel also noted that the county's pending noise ordinance (second reading completed countywide, not yet effective) should provide an additional citation mechanism once it takes effect, but that code enforcement remains largely complaint‑based and that revocation of discretionary permits remains an enforcement tool.

Next steps: staff will attempt to obtain written input from CalFire and Environmental Health to add to the administrative record and will prepare a proposed resolution for denial for the commission's consideration on June 4, 2026. The commission's action was procedural (continuance with direction to staff), not a final approval or denial of the use permit.