Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise water and tree-removal concerns; Coastal Permit Administrator approves CDP after county and Coastal Commission materials support water adequacy
Summary
Neighbors told Mendocino County officials they worried that adding two dwellings could strain local groundwater and that tree removal for driveway sight lines might affect neighboring parcels. County staff and a Coastal Commission letter supported a finding of water adequacy, and the Coastal Permit Administrator approved CDP 2025-0007 subject to staff findings and conditions.
Mendocino County’s Coastal Permit Administrator on April 23 approved coastal development permit CDP 2025-0007 after considering additional water-capacity documentation and objections from nearby residents about wells and potential tree removal.
Rob Fitzsimons, a county staff planner, told the hearing that the Coastal Commission’s April 17 response — including a March 24, 2026, letter from Richard Escobar — may support a finding that water capacity is adequate for the project. Based on that material, planning staff recommended approval "as originally presented" in the staff report.
Neighbors, represented by Kim Kinard, urged the county to require a dry-season well test and objected to any removal of trees they say are on their parcel. "They're very concerned about water capacity," Kinard said on behalf of clients Philip D. Smith and Beverly Vanderpool, noting that one neighbor had to drill a second well after the existing well proved inadequate. Philip D. Smith described his household's prior well failure and said he and his wife intend to retire on the property; he added there is an inconsistency in the staff report about whether four or five parcels use the private driveway.
Applicant representative Bob Stoops said no work is proposed on neighboring property in this application, that Caltrans-related highway-entrance matters would follow Caltrans permitting, and that the applicant submitted three well reports and agreed with the county's supplemental memorandum explaining why the proof of water satisfies county standards.
Planning staff clarified that tree removal does not automatically require a coastal development permit unless it meets the code's definition of "major vegetation removal." Staff said Caltrans recommended the applicant work directly with Caltrans to identify trees that might be removed to improve sight lines and noted the application would not authorize removal of trees on property not owned by the applicant.
The Coastal Permit Administrator reviewed the applicable coastal policies and cited policy 3.9-1, which says one housing unit may be authorized on every legal parcel existing on the plan-adoption date provided adequate access, water and sewage capacity exist and proposed development complies with policies. The administrator concluded that, with the submitted materials and the Coastal Commission response, the applicant satisfied policy 3.9-1 and approved the permit subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report.
The approval was made at the hearing level; staff indicated no further changes from the March 24 staff memo. Opponents' concerns about neighboring tree removal and the driveway-parcel count were noted on the record; staff said separate authorization would be required for tree removal on parcels not controlled by the applicant.
