5i) Noticed Public Hearing - Discussion and Possible Action Including (1) Adoption of a Resolution Approving and Adopting an Addendum to the Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for Rezoning (R_2019-0011), in Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act Requirements; and (2) Adoption of an Ordinance Rezoning (R_2019-0011 - Calpella/Milani Drive District) Twelve (12) Legal Parcels, Totaling 8.96+/- Acres, Adding a Cannabis Accommodation (CA) Combining District to the Current Zoning Designations of Suburban Residential District
(Sponsor: Planning and Building Services)
I am a resident of Redwood Valley. I strongly oppose the rezoning to cannabis accommodation from rural residential district. This is a small family community. We already have a huge cannabis grow across East Rd. from our residence which is bringing in questionable activities 24/7. Please vote NO on this item.
I oppose the rezoning for cannabis accommodation. Light pollution, for one, is a huge problem in this area, due to so many large grows, not to mention excessive water usage. This could set a precedent that changes our residential neighborhoods into grow properties with all the elements that brings to the neighborhoods. I am not against cannabis cultivation. I don't want to see smaller parcels rezoned for this purpose.
To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Agenda Item 5i) Calpella/Milani Drive Cannabis Cultivation Accommodation District
Dear Chair Haschak and Board Members,
I have lived on Milani Drive for 30 years and I live directly across the street from Applicant Stephen Thatcher. I oppose the rezoning of my neighborhood to create a Cannabis Accommodation District.
I submitted my letter opposing the Cannabis Accommodation District to Planning and Building Services marked as received August 6, 2020; which is the date the Planning Commission considered this application. Unfortunately, my letter of opposition along with attachments and four additional letters in opposition are not included nor mentioned in the August 6, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report – Rezone, submitted to the Board of Supervisors for the current agenda. In contrast, however, the Staff Report addresses “Land Owner Support” and quotes from the two letters in support (page 6), the Staff Report fails to address the letters in opposition. The Staff Report attaches the letters in support; but does not include the letters in opposition.
I fear my voice is not being heard. I feel all letters in support and all letters in opposition should be considered by the Board of Supervisors. I hereby respectfully request my letter of August 6, 2020, and the attachments, along with the additional four letters in opposition, be attached to the Board of Supervisor’s Agenda to be considered by the Board. I am attaching all five letters in opposition to this letter.
With respect to the letters in support, I make the following comments:
1. The letter from Kure, a cannabis dispensary, should not be considered. They are not owners of any parcel to which this rezoning would affect.
2. The letter from Brent Mileinder should not be considered. According to Public Records, Mr. Mileinder is not the property owner of APN 168-184-03. Mr. Mileinder lives on the property, however, according to Public Records, the legal owner is Armando and Tamara R. Montenegro; who purchased the property 2/6/2020.
3. The letter from Dolores Collett APN 168-184-07 is also not valid for consideration. Delores Collett occupies/rents a travel trailer on the site. The property is owned by Robert and Mary Collett. The actual property owners should be providing the input. This letter is not appropriate for consideration.
I reiterate my opposition to this application based on the impacts of commercial cannabis cultivation to adjoining residential properties. Commercial cannabis businesses ought to be located in areas properly zoned for it, not in populated residential areas.
I am concerned with contradictions in the Staff Report dated August 6, 2020. On page 5 the Staff Report cites Suburban Residential Land Use Category Policy DE-13 which states "The Suburban Residential classification is intended to be applied to transitional lands adjacent to cities or towns, including in portions of Community Planning areas where only residential areas are considered desirable, which lands are appropriate to accommodate future growth." Despite this very clear statement that only residential areas are considered desirable, including for future growth, staff concludes that this application is consistent with the General Plan, and at the bottom of page 5 speaks approvingly of "further developing the parcels for commercial use rather than increasing rural dwelling densities." In advocating for commercial development of Suburban Residential properties instead of residential, staff reversing and undermining the intent of the General Plan.
The parcels in the proposed Accommodation District are simply too small to allow commercial cannabis production without serious negative impacts to the neighbors. With a total of just under 9 acres the 12 parcels are less than .75 acres on average, well below the 2.00 acre minimum which is required for parcels with the correct zoning. If this application is approved existing setback requirements will be further reduced which will only increase the negative affects.
Did staff ask the neighbors what they thought? The second paragraph on page 3 of the staff report states "Applicants seeking to establish a CA Combining District must demonstrate support of affected landowners." Without a survey of the neighbors who are not in the proposed Accommodation District how can staff possibly know whether the affected landowners are in support?
Did staff conduct an assessment to see how many of the 12 parcels are eligible to apply for permits, even if the Accommodation District is approved? Property owners within the proposed Accommodation District may not be aware that they are not be eligible to apply for permits unless they can provide proof of cultivation prior to 1/1/2016. Were property owners made aware they will need to comply with expensive permitting and compliance requirements to legally grow. Except for the applicant, none of the current growers in the Proposed District applied for a permit to continue cultivation during the Sunset period, which means they have been growing illegally.
This application is only before you because the applicant is trying to find a way to continue his commercial cannabis business. Based on the above information the applicant was not eligible to continue cultivation during the Sunset period. Please do not impose the negative impacts of continued and expanded commercial cultivation on an entire neighborhood because of the economic benefit to a single grower. Especially one that cannot be legally permitted.
Did staff make any effort to verify the information in my previous letter that the applicant is a convicted felon who is subject to Megan's Law and cannot legally obtain a permit for cannabis cultivation? Mendocino County may not think background checks are important but it's unlikely the applicant will be so lucky with the State permitting authorities.
This application should be denied for many reasons beginning with impacts to the neighbors and lack of consistency with the General Plan. Neighbors who bought their properties for residential purposes ought to take precedence over those who seek to profit from commercial cannabis production. What other commercial businesses are allowed in residential neighborhoods?
Please honor the Sunset period and do not allow continued commercial cannabis production in neighborhoods at the expense of our quality of life.
Thank you.
Michael D. Snyder and
Leslie Wilson Snyder
360 Milani Drive, Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 485-5430
I am a property owner and resident of Redwood Valley. I strongly oppose the rezoning to accommodate the cannabis industry.
I am a resident of Redwood Valley. I strongly oppose the rezoning to cannabis accommodation from rural residential district. This is a small family community. We already have a huge cannabis grow across East Rd. from our residence which is bringing in questionable activities 24/7. Please vote NO on this item.
I oppose the rezoning for cannabis accommodation. Light pollution, for one, is a huge problem in this area, due to so many large grows, not to mention excessive water usage. This could set a precedent that changes our residential neighborhoods into grow properties with all the elements that brings to the neighborhoods. I am not against cannabis cultivation. I don't want to see smaller parcels rezoned for this purpose.
I am a landowner at 340 Milani Drive and I oppose this proposition.
November 1, 2020
To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
501 Low Gap Road Ukiah, CA 95482
RE: Agenda Item 5i) Calpella/Milani Drive Cannabis Cultivation Accommodation District
Dear Chair Haschak and Board Members,
I have lived on Milani Drive for 30 years and I live directly across the street from Applicant Stephen Thatcher. I oppose the rezoning of my neighborhood to create a Cannabis Accommodation District.
I submitted my letter opposing the Cannabis Accommodation District to Planning and Building Services marked as received August 6, 2020; which is the date the Planning Commission considered this application. Unfortunately, my letter of opposition along with attachments and four additional letters in opposition are not included nor mentioned in the August 6, 2020 Planning Commission Staff Report – Rezone, submitted to the Board of Supervisors for the current agenda. In contrast, however, the Staff Report addresses “Land Owner Support” and quotes from the two letters in support (page 6), the Staff Report fails to address the letters in opposition. The Staff Report attaches the letters in support; but does not include the letters in opposition.
I fear my voice is not being heard. I feel all letters in support and all letters in opposition should be considered by the Board of Supervisors. I hereby respectfully request my letter of August 6, 2020, and the attachments, along with the additional four letters in opposition, be attached to the Board of Supervisor’s Agenda to be considered by the Board. I am attaching all five letters in opposition to this letter.
With respect to the letters in support, I make the following comments:
1. The letter from Kure, a cannabis dispensary, should not be considered. They are not owners of any parcel to which this rezoning would affect.
2. The letter from Brent Mileinder should not be considered. According to Public Records, Mr. Mileinder is not the property owner of APN 168-184-03. Mr. Mileinder lives on the property, however, according to Public Records, the legal owner is Armando and Tamara R. Montenegro; who purchased the property 2/6/2020.
3. The letter from Dolores Collett APN 168-184-07 is also not valid for consideration. Delores Collett occupies/rents a travel trailer on the site. The property is owned by Robert and Mary Collett. The actual property owners should be providing the input. This letter is not appropriate for consideration.
I reiterate my opposition to this application based on the impacts of commercial cannabis cultivation to adjoining residential properties. Commercial cannabis businesses ought to be located in areas properly zoned for it, not in populated residential areas.
I am concerned with contradictions in the Staff Report dated August 6, 2020. On page 5 the Staff Report cites Suburban Residential Land Use Category Policy DE-13 which states "The Suburban Residential classification is intended to be applied to transitional lands adjacent to cities or towns, including in portions of Community Planning areas where only residential areas are considered desirable, which lands are appropriate to accommodate future growth." Despite this very clear statement that only residential areas are considered desirable, including for future growth, staff concludes that this application is consistent with the General Plan, and at the bottom of page 5 speaks approvingly of "further developing the parcels for commercial use rather than increasing rural dwelling densities." In advocating for commercial development of Suburban Residential properties instead of residential, staff reversing and undermining the intent of the General Plan.
The parcels in the proposed Accommodation District are simply too small to allow commercial cannabis production without serious negative impacts to the neighbors. With a total of just under 9 acres the 12 parcels are less than .75 acres on average, well below the 2.00 acre minimum which is required for parcels with the correct zoning. If this application is approved existing setback requirements will be further reduced which will only increase the negative affects.
Did staff ask the neighbors what they thought? The second paragraph on page 3 of the staff report states "Applicants seeking to establish a CA Combining District must demonstrate support of affected landowners." Without a survey of the neighbors who are not in the proposed Accommodation District how can staff possibly know whether the affected landowners are in support?
Did staff conduct an assessment to see how many of the 12 parcels are eligible to apply for permits, even if the Accommodation District is approved? Property owners within the proposed Accommodation District may not be aware that they are not be eligible to apply for permits unless they can provide proof of cultivation prior to 1/1/2016. Were property owners made aware they will need to comply with expensive permitting and compliance requirements to legally grow. Except for the applicant, none of the current growers in the Proposed District applied for a permit to continue cultivation during the Sunset period, which means they have been growing illegally.
This application is only before you because the applicant is trying to find a way to continue his commercial cannabis business. Based on the above information the applicant was not eligible to continue cultivation during the Sunset period. Please do not impose the negative impacts of continued and expanded commercial cultivation on an entire neighborhood because of the economic benefit to a single grower. Especially one that cannot be legally permitted.
Did staff make any effort to verify the information in my previous letter that the applicant is a convicted felon who is subject to Megan's Law and cannot legally obtain a permit for cannabis cultivation? Mendocino County may not think background checks are important but it's unlikely the applicant will be so lucky with the State permitting authorities.
This application should be denied for many reasons beginning with impacts to the neighbors and lack of consistency with the General Plan. Neighbors who bought their properties for residential purposes ought to take precedence over those who seek to profit from commercial cannabis production. What other commercial businesses are allowed in residential neighborhoods?
Please honor the Sunset period and do not allow continued commercial cannabis production in neighborhoods at the expense of our quality of life.
Thank you.
Michael D. Snyder and
Leslie Wilson Snyder
360 Milani Drive, Ukiah, CA 95482
(707) 485-5430