January 26, 2022

Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Mendocino County Planning & Building Department

Re: Appeal of CDP_2017-0038 Kirkman & Kawase
by Sierra Club, Mendocino Group and Concerned Albion Neighbors

Public Statement Feb. 8, 2022

This appeal of CDP 2017-0038 is being brought by the Sierra Club, Mendocino Group, and the Concerned Albion Neighbors; represented by Rixanne Wehren, Melissa Hayes, Annemarie Weibel and Tom Wodetski. My name is Rixanne Wehren.

Please open the Appeal Packet to photo pages 223-231 to view the site as I speak about it.

In May 2021 the Coastal Permit Administrator approved the CDP_2017-0038 permit for a two-story, single-family residence, with a garage, covered porch, decks, solar array, pump house, two gal. water tanks, three wind turbines, and a driveway. All of this is sited on the ridge of Navarro Head, in full view of Highway 1, and the Navarro Point Preserve.

However, in writing the staff report and approval by the Coastal Permit Administrator some very important items were missed. No review was done of prior permits for this area or parcel and no inquiry for CCR documents was even attempted. Specifically, Conditions were set on development in the original subdivision by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in 1989-1992 in the CDP 1-89-125. In debating the subdivision, the Coastal Commission staff gave special attention to the Navarro Head stating that:

“The Commission has consistently shown concern for the scenic resources in this area of Mendocino. The Navarro Head area is especially important because it is many visitors’ first introduction to the Mendocino coast. … Intrusion into this extraordinary public view has been avoided to prevent incursion into this most scenic resource area.”

Thus, we feel that this site deserves more than a simple checkbox as insignificant.

The Commission then imposed a Special Condition 2 on the subdivision which included:

“Permittee shall submit conditions, covenants and restrictions which allow only one story homes, up to 18’ in height, the use of non-reflective surfaces and natural colors, the prohibition of satellite dishes and high voltage lighting in the Highway One viewshed, and the installation of native vegetation to screen the buildings.”

We have shown that these CCRs were recorded and accepted by the CCC to complete the subdivision.

It is this Special Condition 2 that primarily concerns us today, as the proposed development at the time of the appeal was considerably higher than the “one story home up to 18’ in height” and included freestanding solar arrays, large water tanks, and wind turbines up to 20’ in height. Landscaping had been discouraged by the Planning Department although other houses on the ridge have screening trees.

As residents of Albion, we have been involved with protecting the natural resources of the Albion Coast for over 40 years. In 1985 the Citizen Advisory Committee for the coast recommended the entire Navarro Head be considered “highly Scenic” although the final map missed the top of the ridge. This is not rumor or hearsay, in fact two of those Advisory Committee members are still here today to advocate for protections for this site, 36 years later.

While we appreciate the current efforts of the Kirkman-Kawase architect to redesign the house to meet the standards set in 1989 by the California Coastal Commission, we find upon a quick review that the house would still be visibly 22 feet tall, from the average existing grade. Although not clearly defined, the floor level for the house seems to sit at the 403’ elevation level, with the structure adding 16’. The building extends to the 390 foot elevation line so the average existing grade would be 397’ (403’-390’/2 = 6’), so that seen from the highway the structure would appear 22’ feet above existing grade. This would still not satisfy the limit set by the Coastal Commission. We have only had a short time to review this new material and have seen no comments from the Planning Dept.

In addition to the height of the house, there are questions about the previously planned solar arrays, wind turbines and large water tanks. In the initial drawings the turbines were to the south of the house, the water tanks to the west, and the “ground-mounted solar array” mentioned but not detailed. The turbines and solar array are specifically not allowed as per the Special Condition 2 of the CCC 1-89-215 approved subdivision. In the new plan, the turbines are gone, the tanks missing, and the solar array may or may not be located on the roof. Each of these must be confirmed as moved, mitigated or eliminated before the permit can be approved. We believe that wind turbines are not permitted anywhere in the Coastal Zone. We do appreciate the landscaping included in the new plan.

Much has been made over the exact location of the “Highly Scenic Area” boundary on the hillside, yet the Dec. 22, 2021 letter from CCC District Director Bob Merrill (page 186-188 of the BoS Appeal packet) states that , “Special Condition 2, specifically, was imposed to ensure consistency with the Coastal Act’s visual resource protection policies, by limiting the height of any structures to be built on the subdivided parcels to 18 feet and one-story.” In our view, this height question has already been resolved in 1989 and the compliance with the Coastal Act very clearly outlined. The applicant has the opportunity to simply comply with the decision or risk trying to amend the subdivision Condition 2 with the Coastal Commission.
We have also included several photos of the building site from Highway 1, the Navarro Point Preserve and the Coastal Scenic Trail (pages 223-231 in the BOS Appeal Packet). They show the ridge where the house would stick up above the ridge like a castle on the hill. There are three other houses in proximity to the proposed site and all are screened rather successfully from view below. While the site is difficult to landscape we believe that certain locally adapted trees and bushes would be successful with maintenance.

The two noted ESHAs did not receive good protection in the staff report . Mendocino County Code (MCC) Section 20.496.05(A)(1) requires a 100 ft. buffer from ESHAs, with 50 ft. being allowable with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF&W) approval, the project as proposed would not meet either of those requirements. While there are mitigations proposed, we have not seen any document from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDF&W) approving a very truncated buffer.

On the other hand we have seen two letters from the California Native Plant Society, signed by the two most prominent botanists in our county, questioning the botanical survey characterization of the grasslands as non-native, the mapping of the natural communities, and the surveys for other sensitive species. These issues, raised in 2017 and 2019, were ignored in the staff report. We understand the Takings Issue, but this very sensitive site deserves a through evaluation. The staff report says that “alternatives to the proposed development, including different development projects and alternative locations, were considered and analyzed by a qualified professional” but we could not find any evaluations in the Packet or the Freedom of Information Act submissions. The mitigation for the morning glory and the revision thereof may indeed be adequate, but without a design and Condition for monitoring and follow-up remedial actions the plant community may be further impacted. Please include monitoring in the Conditions.

The Board should send the house plans back to the Planning Department for additional details and review by the public. In this very important scenic area with both the Highway 1 and the Navarro Point Preserve within sight, complete comments and evaluation are necessary and right.

Rixanne Wehren
Sierra Club, Mendocino Group

The staff recommendations and draft resolutions are flawed and should be rejected per the other public comments and per the letter from the Coastal Commission. As noted by the Coastal Commission staff, approving this project would be inconsistant with the certified LCP and the appeal should be upheld on that ground. It makes no sense to approve a CDP that is inconsistent with the prior permit issued by the Coastal Commission. Unfortunately, this wasn't properly dealt with at the Coastal Permit Administrator level and it should either be sent back for their reconsideration in light of the amended application or should be denied per the posotions taken in the timely appeal.

My name is Melissa Hays and I have lived in Albion for 46 years. I was the Postmaster of Elk for 23 years and for 23 years I drove past the Navarro Head. I also frequent the Navarro Point Preserve located across the highway from the project. I spoke at the previous hearing run by Coastal Permit Administrator Nash Gonzalez and I have been an active participant in this appeal.
This CDP is incomplete and I request that it be pulled and resubmitted as a new application to the County for the following reasons:

This is a new design and must be critically examined by the County. Are we certain that the new design is 18ft. or less in height? Is it the best fit for this location? The letter from California Coastal Commission, CCC, North Coast District Manager, Bob Merrill, which is included in your packet, states the home must be one story not to exceed 18ft. The original design, which was appealed, was three stories and over the 18’ limit. This new design, in a highly scenic and sensitive location, should be given careful consideration and not automatically approved as part of the initial project.

The permit does not adequately address the location, height, and noise of the wind turbines, the location of the solar array and the water tanks. There is nothing about the noise of the wind turbines, the siting of the water tanks or solar arrays in the conditions of approval. The California Coastal Commission suggests “restrictions to one story residences with no more than 18ft. in height, use of natural colors, non reflective surfaces, prohibition of satellite dishes and high voltage lighting in the Highway 1 viewshed, and the use of native vegetation to help screen the buildings, is appropriate.” Currently at least one wind turbine is 20ft and there is no discussion about noise. More consideration should be given to the location of the wind turbines, solar array and water tanks in order to “protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alternation to natural landforms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.”

The new design suggests only six Pinus Contorta or shore pine to screen the height of the entire west side of the home. More screening using localized trees and bushes to protect views along the scenic coastal areas is necessary. See Exhibit 3 Visual Impact and Vegetation Screening in appeal CDP_2017-0038.

The new design impacts the already impacted ESHA area. The new design has a bigger footprint than the previous two story more than 18’ home which was situated less than 50’ from an ESHA. The County has not demonstrated that there is not a feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative to locating the development within the ESHA buffer such as reducing the development footprint and/or addressing its location.

There is not a more prominent point on the east side of the highway from Fort Bragg to Navarro than the Navarro Head. It is incumbent upon Mendocino County to give their utmost attention to the sensitivity of this scenic location. The fact that the one story, 18ft limit was overlooked by the Mendocino County Planning Department and the Coastal Permit Administrator indicates that more careful scrutiny must be given in order to fulfill the obligations mandated by the Coastal Act and Local Coastal Plan.