Meeting Time: February 24, 2026 at 9:00am PST

Agenda Item

C28 Authorization of the Issuance of Coastal Development Administrative Permit No. CDP_2025-0022 (Acker) to Legalize an After-The-Fact Conversion of an Existing 640 Square Foot Accessory Structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Within a Highly Scenic Area, Located at 6001 S Hwy 1, Elk; APN: 127-190-10

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
50000 of 50000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Dee Pallesen about 1 month ago

    Authorization of the Issuance of Coastal Development Administrative Permit No. CDP_2025-0022 (Acker) to Legalize an After-The-Fact Conversion of an Existing 640 Square Foot Accessory Structure into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Within a Highly Scenic Area, Located at 6001 S Hwy 1, Elk; APN: 127-190-10

    I understand this item is just for a Coastal Development permit, but I think the circumstances surrounding this property warrants a closer look.

    This applicant is a relative of PBS Director Julia Krog and public records show she is also connected to this address. It is unreasonable to believe that Director Krog was unaware that an ADU was illegally constructed. This along with the issues listed below, especially the fact that no violation fees were assessed, reads as bias and/or favoritism, as well as a failure on the part of the Director to operate within the law.

    If you don’t take a stand now this property will never have to come before you again. If you pass this item without looking further into this, you will be setting precedents that will hog tie any hope of a fair and equitable permitting process in this county. You will send a clear message that no permit is required for any building in any zone, including the coastal zone, because there is no consequence, no penalty for not following the law.

    Referral to a public hearing is the only course of action for this item.

    • Mr Acker’s application as submitted to PBS is incomplete and contains false or misleading information:
    o #2 and #3 contradict each other:
     #2 indicates two single family residences, 1 ADU, 1 guest house
     #3 indicates one single family residence, 1ADU, 1 garage
    o #15 fails to indicate that the property is across the street from a state beach (left blank)
    o The attached letter from the Public Health Department is dated October 17, 1990. Not only does this reference a different parcel number than the application, the Code referenced is 35 years old, not current.
    o The plot plan is dated as approved on 4/20/1990. The APN has been crossed out and changed and references a different APN than this application.
    o The date of the submitted plans is 2017 for an ADU with a kitchen. The original permit for a “Studio” [not a guest house] was issued in January 2018. (This suggests that the permit application submitted at the time was potentially fraudulent in that the intent was to build the ADU from the beginning.)

    • No violation fees have been charged. The permit application shows the regular fees paid ($1509), but no violation fees were assessed. Per Mendocino County Code Section 18.08.030, at the very least, violation fees would be equal to the regular permit fees. That means the applicant should have been assessed at least an additional $1509. And since this property was part of a complaint file in July 2025, the violation fee should have been in fact an additional $3018, twice the regular fee.

    • The notice sent by PBS to Agencies requesting input, dated November 14, 2025, states:
    “CalFire has indicated in their State Fire Safe Regulations Conditions of Approval for this conversion, dated 10/14/2025, that “All parcels shall provide a minimum 30’ setback for all buildings from property lines and/ or the center of the road,” referencing CCR §1276.01…”

    o The set back clearance for this conversion is 12 feet, not the required 30 feet.
    o CalFire requirements apply to all habitable structures.
    o This property is within State Responsibility Area
    o The Conditions of Approval from CalFire were not attached to the notice or to the report submitted with this agenda item.

    I have provided the application packet, the notice sent to other government agencies, as well as links to both Mendocino Code 18.08.030 and Title 14 for your review.

    MCC 1808.030 https://library.municode.com/ca/mendocino_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MECOCO_TIT18BURE_CH18.08COPE_S18.08.030PEVI

    CA Title 14 Div 1.5 Chapter 7 Subchapter 2
    https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations?guid=IEC5359C0A76E11ED9E1BBAE9320F3C1A&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)

    Dee Pallesen