Meeting Time:
September 09, 2025 at 9:00am PDT
Disclaimer:
Tell us what's on your mind. Your comments and information will become part of the official public record. If you do not want your personal information included in the official record, do not complete that field.
Chair Haschak,
This feels like another knee jerk reaction - a quick fix as a result of a complaint shared at the recent Laytonville MAC meeting. While I am sympathetic to the effects on this one landowner, we must ask ourselves how they ended up in this situation. Did they follow the law or did they choose to take short cuts to benefit themselves? Have they been paying their fair share? Have they created a situation that jeopardizes public health and safety and our First Responders?
The sensible course would be to spend more time developing long-term, effective practices that will benefit the entire County moving forward. While I understand the possibility of misuse an anonymous complaint could create, we must consider the entire issue.
1. Of the “one hundred [anonymous] complaints” that were filed, how many had valid violations?
2. If the complaint had a name attached to it, would it have changed the outcome?
3. Will the corrected violations increase the County’s tax base?
4. Who are we protecting here? The violators? Code Enforcement? The health and safety of the entire county?
5. Wouldn’t it be helpful to have the public involved in the process of discovering violations as much as possible?
While I am not 100% against not allowing anonymous complaints, the restrictions outlined in your memo also raise additional concerns:
1. While working on the Redistricting Committee after the 2020 Census, I learned that a significant number of County residences do not have verifiable addresses. Your proposal would eliminate these residents’ right to file a complaint.
2. We also have a significant number of property owners of rental/vacation homes that live out of state. The language of this item would deny these taxpayers the right to file a complaint to protect their property.
3. With the private camping/micro business items currently being developed, the proposed changes limits those affected by these types of businesses on an on-going basis.
There are alternate solutions to issues raised here.
1. Redefine the Board’s limit on operating proactively. The Board should clarify this directive to mean that CED staff will conduct a comprehensive review of the property to ensure all violations are identified and addressed. This approach would result in significant cost savings for the County as well as reduce the need for multiple complaints.
2. You state that complaints have returned to previous levels now that cannabis has settled out. Maybe this allows the County to return to pre-cannabis practices. Reduce CED staffing to meet the needs of the Abandoned Vehicle Program and return the full responsibility of addressing complaints to the respective departments. Doing away with the ‘filter” that CED provides could result in cost savings.
The problem of unpermitted structures throughout the county, and the resulting threat to public health and safety and the negative effect on the tax role has been previously identified by this Board. The Board’s Mission Statement states that the Board will work to “[enhance]the quality of life of the people of Mendocino County…[and]…to deliver services that meet: Public safety, health, … and environmental needs of our communities”. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors Principals of Office state the Supervisors will “Represent the entire County of Mendocino…”. It is prudent and crucial for the Board to ensure that their actions are thoughtful, intentional, and truly for the greater good.