4g) Noticed Public Hearing - Discussion and Possible Action Including (1) Review and Consider the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission on the Proposed Adoption of Amendments to Division I of Title 20 of Mendocino County Code (the "Inland Zoning Code Update"); (2) Adopt a Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Reports for the Mendocino County General Plan and the Ukiah Valley Area Plan for the Inland Zoning Code Update; and (3) Adopt an Ordinance Adopting the Inland Zoning Code Update, Making Amendments to Division I of Title 20 of the Mendocino County Code
(Sponsor: Planning and Building Services)
Please find below the comment letters from the Mendocino County Farm Bureau regarding Agenda Item 4g. The first attachment is MCFB's initial comment letter on the primary draft of the Mendocino County Planning Commissions Zoning Code Update. The second item attached in for this specific meeting and agenda item. Thank you for allowing us to submit writing.
I’m writing in reference to agenda numbers 3s) and 4a) the letter submitted by Treasurer Sara Pierce stating once again "The investments have been made in accordance with the Investment Policy…". But as a concerned Mendocino County resident who strongly encourages the need for our tax dollars to SUPPORT humanity, and the Earth it is actually not “in accordance” with our Investment Policy. Approximately 2.5 % of our Consolidated Portfolio is still invested in fossil fuels and mass weapons not used in self defense. Rather than “discourage” these as is stated in our county’s policy we need to enforce and be accountable by “prohibiting” the investments directly.
Secondly I support g3) or the renewal of Resolution 24. It clarifies that in order for our county to “avoid irreversible, catastrophic climate change impacts..we must facilitate effective and expedited implementation of climate change mitigation efforts, including streamlining the implementation of climate change mitigation measures such as renewable energy projects, green infrastructure and emissions reductions initiatives;
Lastly the ethnic cleansing and scorched earth projects happening every day in Gaza and the West Bank where 40,000+civilians mostly displaced woman and children- have literally been paid by the above 2.5 investments and our 13 million US tax dollars/day. Two months ago this was identified by the world court as apartheid. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/world-court-finds-israel-responsible-apartheid. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/26/israel-palestinian-healthcare-workers-tortured
I have to question why a staff reinterpretation of our cannabis ordinance would be allowed where that interpretation expands potential impacts significantly beyond what was considered at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance. It would potentially double the negative environmental impacts which is cause for much concern amongst many of your constituents.
I also want to point out that this new interpretation of the ordinance clashes with the existing understanding of our ordinance, not just with the public’s knowledge (hence the outcry), but with county staff, as well. Historically, the permissible size descriptions have been: 2500, 5000, and 10,000 s.f. in our ordinance and staff documents.
And while a person could obtain 2 permits on a parcel the total square foot was not to exceed the maximum allowed for their zoning district. An example given was as follows:
“Pursuant to Board direction, this paragraph now also allows 2 permits to be on the same parcel so long as the total square footage of the 2 permits does not exceed the largest maximum square footage permitted on a parcel in that zoning district. For example, a person could obtain two 5,000 square foot permits in a zoning district that allowed a person to obtain a single 10,000 permit.”
I believe that if all interested parties wished to allow two permits for mature canopy totaling 20,000 s.f. there would be language to support this allowance. I cannot find such language in our ordinance.
And given that cannabis farming has historically been controversial and a source of many complaints involving negative impacts on neighborhoods which included criminal activity and the threat of violence, it would seem prudent to take a more conservative approach at this time.
Also, it should be considered that the communities who have sought to prohibit this activity by establishing exclusionary zones have been denied approval even though grouping high-impact activities to reduce conflicts is an important planning concept.
The optics of denying our community's desires to protect our properties while at the same time expanding this often obnoxious activity is controversial. And as you know, we are still in need of more law enforcement and transparency in our governance. So, I urge you to support the majority of your constituency and deny the adoption of this “re-interpretation” of our cannabis ordinance.
Sincerely,
Sheila Jenkins
Willits
Please find below the comment letters from the Mendocino County Farm Bureau regarding Agenda Item 4g. The first attachment is MCFB's initial comment letter on the primary draft of the Mendocino County Planning Commissions Zoning Code Update. The second item attached in for this specific meeting and agenda item. Thank you for allowing us to submit writing.
Jazzmynn Randall
MCFB Executive Director
I’m writing in reference to agenda numbers 3s) and 4a) the letter submitted by Treasurer Sara Pierce stating once again "The investments have been made in accordance with the Investment Policy…". But as a concerned Mendocino County resident who strongly encourages the need for our tax dollars to SUPPORT humanity, and the Earth it is actually not “in accordance” with our Investment Policy. Approximately 2.5 % of our Consolidated Portfolio is still invested in fossil fuels and mass weapons not used in self defense. Rather than “discourage” these as is stated in our county’s policy we need to enforce and be accountable by “prohibiting” the investments directly.
Secondly I support g3) or the renewal of Resolution 24. It clarifies that in order for our county to “avoid irreversible, catastrophic climate change impacts..we must facilitate effective and expedited implementation of climate change mitigation efforts, including streamlining the implementation of climate change mitigation measures such as renewable energy projects, green infrastructure and emissions reductions initiatives;
Lastly the ethnic cleansing and scorched earth projects happening every day in Gaza and the West Bank where 40,000+civilians mostly displaced woman and children- have literally been paid by the above 2.5 investments and our 13 million US tax dollars/day. Two months ago this was identified by the world court as apartheid. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/19/world-court-finds-israel-responsible-apartheid. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/26/israel-palestinian-healthcare-workers-tortured
Dear Members of the Board
I have to question why a staff reinterpretation of our cannabis ordinance would be allowed where that interpretation expands potential impacts significantly beyond what was considered at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance. It would potentially double the negative environmental impacts which is cause for much concern amongst many of your constituents.
I also want to point out that this new interpretation of the ordinance clashes with the existing understanding of our ordinance, not just with the public’s knowledge (hence the outcry), but with county staff, as well. Historically, the permissible size descriptions have been: 2500, 5000, and 10,000 s.f. in our ordinance and staff documents.
And while a person could obtain 2 permits on a parcel the total square foot was not to exceed the maximum allowed for their zoning district. An example given was as follows:
“Pursuant to Board direction, this paragraph now also allows 2 permits to be on the same parcel so long as the total square footage of the 2 permits does not exceed the largest maximum square footage permitted on a parcel in that zoning district. For example, a person could obtain two 5,000 square foot permits in a zoning district that allowed a person to obtain a single 10,000 permit.”
I believe that if all interested parties wished to allow two permits for mature canopy totaling 20,000 s.f. there would be language to support this allowance. I cannot find such language in our ordinance.
And given that cannabis farming has historically been controversial and a source of many complaints involving negative impacts on neighborhoods which included criminal activity and the threat of violence, it would seem prudent to take a more conservative approach at this time.
Also, it should be considered that the communities who have sought to prohibit this activity by establishing exclusionary zones have been denied approval even though grouping high-impact activities to reduce conflicts is an important planning concept.
The optics of denying our community's desires to protect our properties while at the same time expanding this often obnoxious activity is controversial. And as you know, we are still in need of more law enforcement and transparency in our governance. So, I urge you to support the majority of your constituency and deny the adoption of this “re-interpretation” of our cannabis ordinance.
Sincerely,
Sheila Jenkins
Willits