Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

It is 901 to the regular meeting of the Board of Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, could you take a roll, please?

Supervisor Klein? Here. Supervisor Mulhern? Here. Supervisor Hashek? Here. Supervisor Norvell? Here. Supervisor Williams?

Here. Thank you. Supervisor Mulhern is going to lead us in the pledge. Thank you. OK, we will now open the podium to public comment on anything non-agenda. Anybody in the room like to speak on an item not on today's agenda?

Good morning, board. Here we are about halfway through the year. And I just wanted to speak a little bit on the environment. I'm coming to you. My name's Gizmo. This morning I'm coming to you as the Mendocino County Climate Action Advisory Consultant since the committee was wiped away by this board a year or two years ago. My concern is that I'm really happy to see the solar panels and stuff going up. I'm really happy to hear about the project with PG&E on the Superfund site at the south end of Ukiah. What I'm concerned with is that a lot of this power we're gonna need it like to power our County vehicles and our buses and my concern is the power is actually Seems to the electricity seems it's going to PG me first and then we're buying it back if we're gonna utilize our County parking lots and our County schools To produce power, electricity, we should get it first. And it's why the MTA bus is in the Burger King parking lot charging, because we don't actually have a way to charge it yet. So I'd like to bring this to the board's attention, and I hope that they can keep a really close eye on this. We as a county have very little atmospheric interference. We get very little fog compared to a lot of the counties south of us. So we can produce a lot of solar power here. That power should be used for our benefit, our county cars, our kids, and our schools first. Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Hashtag.

Yeah, just to clarify that that project on the south end of Ukiah is a Sonoma Clean Power project, not a PG&E project.

Oh, thank you for the clarification. They work with PG&E, correct?

Well, it's tied into PG&E, but it's Sonoma Clean Power.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the room? Madam Clerk?

Seeing no comments online.

OK. We will move on to the consent. Is there anything on consent the board would like pulled for discussion or separate action? No. Madam Clerk, has proper notice been established?

Proper notice has been established.

OK. Public comment on the consent calendar? Please.

Good morning, members of the board and fellow community members. My name is Theresa McNerlin, and I'm a US Army combat veteran who served this country to defend the constitutional rights and freedoms of every single citizen in the community. I am here today to address a proposal regarding flying the LQBTQIA plus pride flag over our county civic building for the entire month of June. I want to make my position clear from the outset. My objection is not rooted in any animosity towards any group of people. The core of my argument rests on the fundamental principle of fairness, government neutrality, and the preservation of sacred civic space. When you look at our county building, the flags flying above it should represent all citizens universally. They should symbolize our shared laws, our shared heritage, and our collective unity. The American flag and our state flag fulfill this purpose perfectly because they encompass every single person living here, regardless of their personal background, orientation, private or political beliefs. The moment a government body flies a flag for a special interest, advocacy, or identity group symbol, it creates an immediate and undeniable imbalance. If this board votes to dedicate a public flagpole to one specific community's flag for a full 30 days, you must ask yourselves a very difficult question. Why is there no equivalent flag flying for a month to honor our local veterans, our active military, or our fallen soldiers? Our service members and fallen heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure every freedom that allows flags of all kinds and all banners to be flown on private property across this entire nation. Yet our public civic space do not fly a dedicated flag for military or veterans for an entire month. If we do not elevate the very symbol of those who died for our collective freedom to that level of a long-term civic display, it is deeply inconsistent to grant that unique privilege to a specific social cause. Additionally, the next resolution, item C5 on the consent calendar, is a proclamation declaring one week to honor EMS. These are men and women who are dedicated their entire careers to helping and saving the lives of people in our community. One week, no flag. Civic buildings must remain neutral ground. When you fly a flag representing a specific identity or political movement, you inadvertently signal that the government is prioritizing that one segment of the population over all others. Let us protect the integrity of our public property by keeping our focus on absolute unity. Let private individuals, businesses, and organizations fly whatever banners and flags they choose on their own properties. But on our shared county buildings, let us fly only the flags that belong to all of us, the United States flag and our state of California flag. Please pull item C4 for separate consideration and vote no to unite our community, not divide it. Thank you for your time and your service.

Thank you.

Good morning, Board of Supervisor members. Tammy Bartlemay. I am the program manager for the emergency medical services with public health. And here today, I want to talk about the first responders, as Teresa just mentioned, the proclamation for the first responders. We are super excited to be having you declare May 17th through the 23rd as Emergency Medical Services Week. As we all know, our providers work extremely hard keeping our community safe. Just a little brief history that President Gerald Ford established the very first EMS week in 1974. to officially recognize the emerging profession of pre-hospital medicine. Over 50 years later, our local first responders continue to uphold that vital public safety mission every single day. And I am proud of every one of them. They do such an exceptional job in our community. We have several representatives here today. Many could not be with us. We have representatives from Coastal Valleys, our LEMSA, from the hospital, from Ukiah Valley, from MedStar. And our LEMSA, James Savante, would like to say a few words this morning.

Good morning, Chair and members of the board. Thanks very much for your consideration passing the gold resolution for EMS week. As Ms. Bartlemay says, we are intensely proud of our providers, many of whom are here today And first responders maintain the core of our EMS system. The EMS system itself also includes everyone that's involved in a call, from the dispatchers to our first response personnel to our transport providers, paramedics, EMTs, and public safety first aid providers that provide that extremely vital 911 service. I think that the best advocate for our people are themselves. And they speak with intense passion when they talk about the work that they do. And it is only fair to provide them with that recognition that they so richly deserve. The next person to speak on behalf of our agency will be Dr. Mark Goutreau. He is our interim medical director. He'll be assuming the Coastal Valley's medical director position at the beginning of July. And now he's here to say his thanks as well for our providers in the field.

Good morning, members of the board. I'm very tall. Thank you so much for having us, and thank you for your consideration of this measure. My name is Mark Gautreaux. I will be assuming the role of the Coastal Valley's EMS Medical Director for Mendocino and Sonoma County's effective July 1st, as James has stated. And I just wanted to kind of especially give a big note of thanks to all of the EMS providers, EMTs and paramedics, who are out there every day providing extraordinary great care, oftentimes that care means so much. It gives me the opportunity as an emergency physician to actually save lives that otherwise couldn't be saved. This is especially true in a county such as Mendocino, where people often live quite a great distance. from definitive care in a hospital emergency department. And those EMS providers are often tasked with caring for patients for quite a long period of time, much longer than they would need in cities such as San Francisco or San Jose. And so I'd just like to offer a very, very deep thanks, especially to those who are members of volunteer ambulance services and fire departments who are often sacrificing hours of their time, hours of sleep, and their own personal funds to provide care to their community. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Teresa Gowen, Director of Operations for MedStar Ambulance. I would like to thank you for this proclamation to acknowledge the people who are out there saving lives every day. This year is the first year we're bringing back our Mendocino County Survivors Reunion since COVID. Our event is tomorrow night at Saracena, and it's an event that reunites people who have had a cardiac arrest or a severe trauma with their first responders. So this is the perfect week for it. We're happy to have it back, and thank you for the acknowledgement. And I know that Bernie will be there with us tomorrow night, so it'll be a fun event to have it come back after COVID. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room? Madam Clerk?

Seeing no further comments online.

Okay. Back to the board. Entertain a motion to approve the consent as presented. Supervisor Haschek?

So moved.

Second.

The first by supervisor has checked the seconded by more her will vote by the button.

The motion carries unanimously.

Okay, and then we do have a the potentially urgent off agenda item discussion possible action, including appointment turn over as the alternate representative to the general government standing committee for the remainder of the calendar year 2026. And that is sponsored by the clerk of the office and supervisor more her.

Thank you, Chair Norvell. So this item came up after the agenda had been posted. So it is an off-agenda item, as the chair explained, to appoint Chair Norvell as the alternate representative for the General Government Standing Committee for the rest of this year. County Council, did you have anything that you wanted to add?

I just wanted, the first step is that you have to vote to hear this item, and then you vote on the item itself.

Thank you. So I would make a motion that we add this item to the agenda.

Okay. Second. Okay. We'll hear from the public on this. Anybody in the room? Madam Clerk?

Seeing no comments online.

Okay. We have a first and a second. We'll vote by the button.

Do we need to have a discussion about the item or is that fine?

We do. Again, the item discussion and possible action including a Appointment of chair Norvell as the alternate representative to the general government standing committee for the remainder of the calendar year 2026.

So this first vote was just to hear the item correct so okay.

Any questions from the board. No. Pardon me?

Chair, so we voted to hear the item. When will we hear the item? Right now.

Right now. But we have to vote first that we are going to hear it. So I think that that's what the first vote is for. And then we'll have the discussion about the item.

It looks like everyone voted.

It just has to be.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay, so for the actual item, the General Government Committee is a standing committee that has two Board of Supervisors members. It doesn't currently have an alternate were it to be that one of the supervisors couldn't attend. So this item is to add an alternate and to have that alternate be Chair Norvell. So that's a request.

Not seeing any questions. Supervisor Williams?

Move approval.

Second. OK. And again, to the public, anybody in the room like to speak on this item? Madam Clerk?

Seeing none.

OK. We have a first again by Supervisor Williams, second by Haschek. We'll vote by the button.

The motion carries unanimously.

Okay, thank you. All right, brings us to our regular calendar discussion, or one, discussion of possible action including acceptance of informational reports from the assessor, clerk, recorder, registrar, or voters, auditor, controller, tax collector, district attorney, sheriff, and various county department heads or designees. Anybody in the room? Yes.

Good morning, Chair, members of the board, Denise Parker, Director of Social Services. I just wanted to bring to your guys' attention the recent federal announcement regarding Medicaid and home and community-based services funding, including Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' decision to defer over $1 billion in federal Medicaid reimbursement to California related to the In-Home Supportive Services, IHSS, program as part of a broader federal anti-fraud initiative. Federal officials also announced a six-month pause on new Medicare enrollment for hospice and home health agencies. At this time, Mendocino County IHSS operations continue without interruption. The program currently serves 2,513 eligible recipients and maintains 2,447 approved providers countywide. The department will continue to monitor federal and state guidance and will keep the board informed regarding any fiscal or operational impacts to IHSS services in Mendocino County. We will also be providing communication today and updated communication. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Norville, members of the board. Matt Kendall, Sheriff. Over the last month, Sheriff's Office has been doing a lot of training and preparation, working with the Office of Emergency Services through the county, as well as our partners in fire and law enforcement cities and whatnot. We also had our annual helicopter training for our search and rescue teams. Big shout out to all of our partners, Sonoma County Sheriff's Office, Butte County Sheriff's Office, who was able to send some helicopters over. MedStar, all of our All of our friends who work in EMS also were with us, and it was actually pretty wonderful. One of the few times that Mendocino County residents were happy to see helicopters in the sky for a change. And we had teams from all over Northern California who were receiving training, and I think it's going to be extremely helpful for us. But as we prepare for fire season, we're going to have to start putting out more information and more information. And hopefully this year we will knock on wood and we'll get through it with a light fire year. But with the winds and everything that we've been seeing and then Ventura County yesterday, we do have some pretty serious concerns for the year. Anyway, big shout out to all of our friends who helped us make the helicopter operations for the search and rescue units really successful this year and our friends out at the corps of engineers who allowed us to use the spillway at the dam anyway everything kind of went off without a hitch we're going to continue to train throughout this month so that we can be ready when things pop off in june thank you thank you sir seeing nobody else oh we do have one more thank you

Good morning Chair, members of the board, Assistant CEO Pierce. My name is Jeff Dederman. I'm the Fleet and Facilities Maintenance Superintendent. Today I'm here to briefly share some information about upcoming fire fuel mitigation work that will be conducted by Ukiah Valley Fire Authority in partnership with the Mendocino County Fire Safe Council. Through funding sourced through funding sourced by the Fire Safe Council, the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority is planning to perform targeted fire fuel mitigation efforts focused on reducing hazardous vegetation, improved defensible spaces, and enhancing fire resiliency in high-risk areas within Faulkner Park. This work is designed not only to help the spread of wildfire, also to provide fire teams with improved access better opportunities for containment during emergency responses the intention moving forward is for fire safe council to outreach to local stakeholder groups in order to set a meeting so that we can discuss potential scope of work receive any concerns from the public and then set a schedule for that upcoming work And separately, I just wanted to extend my sincere appreciation for the continued collaboration between the local fire agencies and our community partners to make work like this possible for us. If there are no questions.

Yes, Supervisor Hasek.

I had a question for Ms. Parker from Social Services about this $1 billion cut or money that was put on hold for California. That's the essence of it. That will affect our in-home support services?

Denise Parker for the Department of Social Services. Yes, so right now they put a pause on the funding. However, we are still waiting to hear how the state of California is going to respond. So we just have what the federal government has stated regarding the pause while requesting more information from the state of California while doing their anti-fraud investigation. But right now there's no interruption to our services.

OK. And so we don't need to get in touch with our federal legislators at this point? Or we need to keep an eye on it?

So we're keeping an eye on it because they're waiting for California to respond with additional information. So we're keeping an eye on it. We're hoping to have more communication this week.

OK. Thank you. Of course.

OK. Nobody else in the room? Madam Clerk, do we have anybody online?

Seeing no department heads online.

OK. We'll open it up for public comment. Anybody in the room? No. Madam Clerk?

Showing no comments online.

OK. Back to the board. Looking for a motion to accept the presentations.

So moved.

Second. First by Supervisor Klein, second by Haschek. We'll vote by the button.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you. Agenda item R2, discussion and possible action, including acceptance of informational presentation on the implementation of accessing telehealth through local stations Atlas program in Mendocino County in collaboration with United States Department of Veterans Affairs, social services.

Members of the Board, Chair Norvell, and Assistant CEO Pierce, I'm Stephen White, the Assistant Director of Social Services, and today I'm pleased to announce that after two years of work between the Department of Social Services, specifically Adult and Aging Services in our Veterans Services Office, and the VA Healthcare Team, we are finally able to implement VA telehealth appointments in Fort Bragg to our coastal vets. This, we hope, will expand access to health care and also reduce the amount of time spent on the road traveling to health care appointments. With me today is the VA team responsible for this program, and they have a short presentation for us.

Thank you.

Valerie, you're muted. Okay, this is Theodore Amaro. Thank you for inviting us. It's very nice to meet you. Valerie and Sharon, we're going to give the presentation. Can you please unmute them if they're muted?

They are muted. If they are unable to be heard, that would be an issue with their microphones.

Can you hear us? Yes, we can. Yes, we can hear you, Sharon.

Valerie?

Are you able to hear me now? Yes. Now we can hear you. Good. All right. So I apologize for the technical difficulties. My name is Valerie Brewer. I'm the management analyst for Connected Care at the San Francisco VA. And I am going to share my screen and share the presentation we have prepared today. Just to make sure it's working, is my screen sharing? Are you able to see it?

Yes.

All right, great. So good morning, members of the Board of Supervisors and distinguished attendees. Thank you for inviting our team to today's meeting. Again, my name is Valerie Brewer. I serve as the Management Analyst and Connected Care Coordinator for San Francisco VA Healthcare System. As mentioned this morning, I'll be presenting the overview in partnership with Ms. Offrell. for our Atlas Partnership, which expands virtual care access for veterans by bringing secure VA-supported telehealth closer to where you live. So before we begin, I'd like to take a moment to introduce our San Francisco VA team members who have helped guide and support this work. This slide includes our full stakeholder work group, but I'll highlight those who are in attendance today. Dr. Theodora Morrow, our Deputy Chief of Staff and Executive Leadership Team Sponsor for all of our Connected Care initiatives, and Sharon Offrell, our Chief Nurse for Connected Care, and myself, Valerie Brewer, the Management Analyst and Connected Care Coordinator. We are grateful for the contributions of the entire Connected Care team whose collaborations make projects like Atlas possible. Now that I'd like to provide a brief overview of what we mean when we talk about VA telehealth. Telehealth evolves with the use of electronic and telecommunication technologies to support clinical care, health administration, and patient and professional education. At the VA, we use two primary modalities, the primary being asynchronous telehealth, where imaging or test data is captured and securely transmitted to a specialist for an interpretation and treatment recommendations. And then synchronous telehealth, which is the focus of today's discussion, which is a real-time or face-to-face video care that can take place in a VA clinic, at home, or in a community location like Atlas. VA continues to lead national virtual care initiatives and these modalities allow us to reach veterans where they are. So let's talk a little bit about specifically Atlas, which is, again, accessing telehealth through local area stations. Atlas is a national VA initiative that brings private and secure telehealth rooms to a rural community location so that veterans meet with their VA providers without long travel times or internet barriers. Each Atlas site offers a private exam space, VA-approved technology, and secure connectivity and also on-site attendance to help with rooming and basic technology support. This program launched nationally in 2019 as part of the VA's Anywhere to Anywhere initiative and has grown to 16 active sites nationwide. Your site will be number 17. These are also supported by three case studies demonstrating strong outcomes for this particular model. Through our partnership with Manusino County, we will bring Atlas, to veterans in Fort Bragg and ensuring that they have convenient community-based access to VA Video Connect visits. Atlas offers meaningful benefits to all of our veterans, especially those living in rural areas. Some of your key advantages include increased access to VA care with reliable technology and assistance, reduced travel and wait times, allowing veterans to receive care sooner, Less stress by removing the transportation and logistical burdens, lowering financial impact from decreasing mileage and travel costs, and improved care compliance, which helps provide better health outcomes. Ultimately, the Atlas is designed to make care easier, more accessible, and equitable for all veterans who may otherwise face significant barriers. So at this time, I will allow Sharon Offriel, our chief nurse, to discuss more details about our Fort Bragg partnership.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. As we look at the placement of our Atlas site, Fort Bragg was selected very intentionally. The telehealth station will be located inside the Veteran Memorial Building, which is central and familiar to... It's a familiar location for the community. According to the data provided by the Atlas National Program Office, more than 800 veterans live within a 15-mile radius of this site. And without Atlas, the nearest VA medical facility is roughly 57 miles away, often an 80-minute drive depending on the road and weather condition. Next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry. In addition, 64% of the surrounding veteran population is considered rural or highly rural, and more than 16% lack reliable internet access at home. Because of these access barriers, Fort Bragg is an ideal location to expand virtual care and reduce the travel burden for veterans. Next slide, please. The site itself is already a place veteran knows and trusts. The County Veteran Service Office and the American Legion both operate out of the same building, so many of our veterans already walk through those doors. We've established a strong collaborative partnership with the Mendocino County Department of Social Services, and the Atlas Room will be located inside the VSO office at the Veterans Memorial Hall. This setup ensures the space is private, secure, and easy for veterans to access. Next slide, please. As we begin operations, primary care and mental health are two service lines that have already committed to provide telehealth appointments through Atlas. The site will operate on Tuesdays and Fridays from 8 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. with the goal of expanding services as the program grows. We have four volunteers attendants from the local veteran community. They are Ulysses Lopez, Richard Crandall, Ricky Cooper, and Patricia Long. They will provide on-site support, help veterans check in, navigate the technology, and prepare for the visit. All needed telehealth equipment is ready, and the County of Mendocino has confirmed reliable internet access through their onsite guest network, ensuring smooth and secure connections for the appointments. Next slide, please. Looking ahead, we are planning a soft opening on the week of June 22nd, followed by a grand opening between July and August. As we stabilize operation, we expect to begin adding new services in the fall of this year. And from fall into the winter of this year, we anticipate expanding the site's availability to better meet the demand. Next slide, please. Before moving forward, we also want to acknowledge our Mendocino County Workgroup stakeholders who played a very critical role in bringing this partnership together. This includes Steven White, Assistant Director with the Mendocino County Department of Social Work Services, Jesse Van Voorhis, the Deputy Director for Adult and Aging Services, and Jennifer Thompson, Senior Program Manager for Adult and Aging Services. Next slide, please. I just wanted to say that the people that I have mentioned, their leadership and commitment have been truly invaluable for this effort. And we want to thank all the veterans for all their services. And to the Mendocino County, we thank you for your partnership. And that's the end of our presentation. Do you have any questions for us?

Supervisor Haschuk?

Yeah, thank you for this presentation. It said that from Fort Bragg, the nearest medical facility was 57 miles away. Where is that?

We have the Ukiah Sea Dock.

Yeah, because that was my next question was, could people from the inland area, Willits and everywhere, go to Fort Bragg? Because if they had to go to San Francisco, that would certainly be an option.

Of course, they are welcome to go to the Fort Bragg Atlas.

Okay, and then the veterans could get their lab work and everything done in Fort Bragg. And that would be used by the doctors with the telehealth?

We will have a, also, along with ATLAS, there's going to be a medical mobile unit that will be there occasionally. We don't, I don't know yet what their schedule will be, but they said that they will be on site. And so there will be... medical professionals and LBNs and doctor providers and NP providers who will be on site there. And they could possibly draw blood. So we will report of that arrangements later on.

All right. Thank you for your work on this.

You're welcome. It's our pleasure.

I'm not seeing any more questions. Thank you.

I'd just like to make a comment that Sharon and Valerie really have pursued this through all sorts of difficulties and all sorts of obstacles, and I have to thank them as well, as well as the people in Mendocino. We couldn't do this without them, and they were incredibly enthusiastic, incredibly helpful, and are actually doing a large part of the work for this project. So thank you in advance.

Thank you. Did social service have anything else they wanted to say?

So this has been a two-year push, and it's required a lot of approval from the VA, the top of the VA and down. So I want to thank the VA team for making this possible, and we're hoping that this will better serve our veterans on the coast. And that's all I have. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you both. Okay, we will open this up to the public. Anybody in the room? Madam Clerk?

Seeing no comments on line.

Okay, back to the Board. Supervisor Haschak?

Well, I move to accept the presentation and really appreciate everyone who's worked on this, from the VA to the social services and the veterans on the coast who I'm sure had a big impact on this, too.

Second to the motion and the appreciation.

Okay. First by Supervisor Haschak, second by Williams. We'll go by the button.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you. Thank you again.

Thank you for the time.

Thank you so much.

We're going to move on to item R3, discussion and possible action, including direction to staff regarding right-of-way acquisition strategy the wilderness lodge road bridge replacement project over dutch charlie creek row county road 320 at milepost 0.72 in the laytonville area mr dashiell announced us so good morning mr chair ladies and gentlemen of the board i'm howard deshield the director of transportation

You know, I'm here before you today to talk about our bridge project on Wilderness Lodge Road. That's Charlie Creek. It is in the chairs district. It's in the fourth district. This particular bridge, the department started the process of getting allocations and beginning the work in 2016. The bridge is a solid bridge. It will take a legal load, but it's restricted to one lane. So you can't get oversized loads. For instance, you can't get a large bladed, large crawler tractor through it. The department actually did a fishberry removal in 2003 where we had to shore this bridge to get the large precast concrete sections through and the equipment. So the bridge is functionally obsolete. It's an important bridge for us to be working on. You know, unfortunately, and let me just start by saying, if Lily could check to see if she sees R. Green, Rebecca Green. Okay, so you can elevate her if we have detailed questions. I have with me here today Rebecca Green, who is the right-of-way agent working as a contract right-of-way agent for the county from Bender Rosenthal. And Alicia Wolkers, also in the room, our deputy director. in the engineering division. Anyway, this bridge has restrictions. We've been trying for a long time to replace it. There are basically two owners, one on the Eel River side to the east, one on the ocean side to the west. And early on in the project, the owner to the west is Wildlands LLC. They're a conservancy-type group that holds that land. We had a title report done when we started in 2016. We approached them through the mail for a right of entry to do investigations. In the end, they didn't respond to us. We were able to work around that by doing our geotechnical borings in the existing county right of way, and it was finally determined as we went through the environmental and design stage that all we really needed on their property was a small strip of land for a wider structure that we'll have when this project is done, and then a temporary detour. And we would restore everything, pay the proper amounts of money. We've just really not had engagement from this particular property owner. So I'm here today hoping that... that they may tune in during public comment to speak to us, that they may actually be on the call. I don't know. We told them about this meeting, and we did not get any response from them. So when you open the public hearing, maybe they will be here. We are here before you to ask you or get your direction on a process that I don't really like to use. In my 21 years, I've only started the process three times, and that's condemnation, you know, to use the powers of the government to just take land. The owners are always compensated. regardless, but I would like to start the process to seek a court to give us an order to allow us to continue this bridge project and get it built. With that, I'll take questions. Maybe we'll hear from the property owner. If you have detailed questions, again, Rebecca's online. So that's the situation.

OK. Thank you, Supervisor Williams.

Do we know that the party received the communication from the county? Was there a return receipt?

So we've had some limited contact where they've talked to us off and on, but they won't respond to the offer. We submit an appraisal and an offer. So yes, we know that they're getting the emails and the communications. And as it says in my letter, they're in the process. They want to sell the property. But it's been since last fall that we started this. It just seems like after six months, I'd like to see something move forward. Chair, may I?

Please. Has the county sent by a certified mail?

You know, that I can't answer. But I know that they've received our offers. Maybe if you could elevate Rebecca to she could answer that.

My only concern is I want to avoid litigation. I want to see the project go forward as quick as possible. But I don't want to have legal expenses if there's a way to mitigate.

Good morning, board. My name is Rebecca Green. I'm the project manager for the county of Mendocino. And we do know that the owner has received the offer. We've also sent it to them electronically, and they've received that as well. And they do get our emails because they properly and well respond to our emails.

Just for the record, can you explain how we know the owner has received it?

Because we've sent it by FedEx. And also that the property owner has asked us to send it to her electronically last week, and we sent it to her as well.

Thank you. That works for me.

I'm not seeing any more questions. We'll open this up to the public for comment. Madam Clerk, I'm not seeing anybody in the room.

Seeing no one online.

Okay, so back to the board.

Move the recommended action.

Second.

We have a first and a second. First by Supervisor Mulhern, second by Supervisor Williams. Any discussion on the motion? And then we'll roll up by the button.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you. Moving on to item R4, discussion of possible action, including acceptance of informational presentation regarding neglected and abandoned vineyards in Mendocino County.

Good morning, Angela Godwin, Agricultural Commissioner. Good morning, Chair Norvell, members of the board, CEO's office, and county council. I thank you for the opportunity today. And we have a slideshow.

Is there somebody that you would like to be promoted to present the slideshow? I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. So we don't share the slideshows for the departments. The department needs to have somebody share it. Is there somebody from your department that you would like to? No, I didn't bring anyone. I'm sorry. I didn't understand.

Sorry. I spent all that time on the presentation. I didn't realize that I needed to bring somebody else with me. I'm not sure how you want me to do that. I'm sorry.

Chair, I could share it. Oh.

Yeah.

I believe our senior deputy clerk of the board is seeing if he can get it to share it. Okay.

I apologize for that.

We just need one minute to get this up.

That's fine. I didn't have anybody to bring today.

No worries. We've got it covered.

Supervisor Williams is the pro bono IT staff. I feel very honored. Thank you.

I can start talking to you about it while we're waiting, because I know you have a very full agenda.

I think some of us up here are having a problem with our internet. So I think we're going to take about a five minute recess to see if we can solve that. Do you have that up? OK.

Yeah. OK. Thank you very much. I thank you for this opportunity today to update you on the issue of neglected and abandoned vineyards in Mendocino County. Hopefully the goal today is to have the board view the presentation and have a robust discussion. We have industry people here, too, for their input. And I'm looking for a possible recommended action, including what steps going forward to address these issues I'm going to present. Our goal here is to protect our active wine grape growers and the long-term health of our agricultural economy while treating all landowners fairly. Perfect. I'll cover the current situation, why this matters to our industry and our existing legal authorities and processes, and new tools that are provided by the recent passage of AB 732. and our department's philosophy with this issue, and some key takeaways, and hopefully some board recommendation on our next steps. Next slide, please. Like many California counties, Mendocino is feeling the effects of the statewide wine and grape industry contraction. Right now, the market's been down. And despite having a high quality Grapes this last harvest many were left on the vines because there just wasn't a market for them in the past few months our office has received I'd put on here formal complaints I would call them informal at this point and we've received at least ten complaints in the past few months from multiple sources both industry the public and we don't have I don't have a full countywide grasp of how big the problem is but it seems to be And depending on what happens with the market in this next season, we may see even more best neglected vineyards. So as we move forward, I want to talk about why this matters so much. Just dip into a little bit of science, biology here. And the next slide. These neglected properties can quickly become reservoir problems. reservoirs for pests and diseases that threaten the active vineyards that are nearby. Our focus would be protecting the growers who are working to actively keep their operations viable and productive. Secondary risks such as fire hazards and blights would be a benefit if we control these neglected or abandoned vineyards. As you can see on the slide, it's a little, I struggle to really get my arms around it because it's so obvious sometimes when a vineyard has been neglected, but there's sort of that process in between where They're not doing the maintenance, the pruning, the trimming, the spraying. And we're going to touch upon that as we go. Take you to the next slide. I'll talk about some of the real concerns. And I would say the top one is powdery mildew. We have a great climate for mildew, as well as grapes. And if not properly treated and sprayed, it could spread. You get a source of spores, and that goes to all the neighboring vineyards. We are also concerned about brotitis, where they leave the grapes on the vine. There's a rot there that they can take it off and treat, but it can also spread disease. Grapevine, early viruses, mealybugs, leap hoppers, creepers. They sound like monsters coming from a show. And the sharpshooters that carry Pierce disease. These diseases can spread rapidly from neglected blocks to productive vineyards. And they impact the yield. the neighboring vineyards' ability to get crop insurance, and the quality of the grapes. So again, we've put some traps up. We're working with UC. We'll get into that a little bit more. But we have already seen a much higher pest pressure We don't have a really accurate way to test for spore count. I know some of the growers have some very sophisticated ways of doing it. We're working to track that, but we do see a definite spread from these neglected or abandoned vineyards. If we can move to the next slide. I've been working with Our county council, our code compliance, we are fortunate enough to already have some existing tools through Mendocino County's code, Mendocino Code Chapter 8.75 in our code enforcement division. I'd like to really appreciate the work that Gretchen and Julia Crockett have shared some of their documents with us as we're kind of really looking at what our options can be. And we are recommending an approach that will align with the county's established nuisance and abatement process. Like I said, I want to really focus that. I want to emphasize education first and working cooperatively with landowners whenever possible. The next slide. As you can see by these definitions, the various pests and diseases can be called public nuisance. And that's where our ordinance comes in play. Next slide. And we also have a brand new tool that was passed by the assembly. It went into effect in January, AB 732, which gives us a new enforcement option. I call it a tool. It is some due process, but civil penalties could be set up to $500 per acre, increasing to $1,000 per acre if there is no good faith effort to address the problems within 45 days. This law was designed to encourage faster compliance for protecting neighboring growers. It actually originated in Fresno from some abandoned almond orchards. But the same issue is found there, pests being spread and issues not being addressed. So one more slide, please. Thank you. Thank you. as you can see in the comparison yeah that one I think I jumped a little bit here again just this is a new tool it's gotten a lot of attention even though we do have a good abatement process in place, we haven't used it for over, last time we found it was over 10 years, it was in pairs. And it was the type where you post the property, at the end they might have to, we pay for the removals. We're trying to avoid that. We want to work on compliance and getting the actual landowners to really address the issues. And, you know, working into, like, say, compliance agreements with a set time frame, set measurable So as we move forward with that, like I said, we have the processes in place. And I'd like to go to the next slide, please. We think it's going to be faster using AB 732. But after spending time with county council, they really think that some of our existing enforcement options can work, too. So this is going to be a learning experience if the board directs us to continue pursuing dealing with these pest threats. Next slide, please. I really want this to be a matter of education, outreach, and voluntary compliance. I've actually heard just the fact that we were looking at it, and there's been news articles that several vineyards that were kind of on the fence of what they're going to do either stepped up and removed the vines, which is not ideal, or they started doing the maintenance work and care that's really needed to at least do the minimum to be a good neighbor and a sustainable farmer. Next slide, please. Like I said, there are a lot of options. We call it mothballing, where there's the minimum you need to do, a minimum amount of spraying, a minimum amount of trimming, and a minimum amount of ground control cover. Removal is always an option or conversion to another compatible agricultural use. I really don't want to use enforcement unless we have to. I think education and outreach is truly the way to go. Because the last thing, it's a difficult situation. I'm not looking forward to really being in the middle of it, but it's important that we protect the active growers. At the same time, while I very much feel for people that are suffering from market problems, that we can work with them to come to a minimum level that we all find acceptable. Next slide. Right now, I think we have to approach it as a case-by-case basis, because it's going to be a little bit of a learning curve, what's needed, what's the best fit for one property versus the other. I've got a vineyard that's very isolated way up in Potter Valley versus one that's over here on Lovers Lane, where there's 12 different growers in the same area. We'll have to develop some procedures, and I really look forward to refining those. providing educational outreach, news articles, maybe some training, some things that we could really work to help. I've reached out to several of the neighboring wine-growing counties, Sonoma and Napa, and they shared some of their protocols. They are addressing this issue, too. It's not unique to Mendocino County. We just feel it's a little more painful for us here. But it is happening everywhere. And I want to keep the board informed and I'm really looking forward to Getting funding with what you what you want what you want to see our department do this is not a mandated activity And these are not some of the actionable tests that the state funds us for so this would be something we need to do to protect our local active growers, et cetera, really coming to you for direction, what you want us to do. Because this will take some resources. It's already taken a certain amount of my time just trying to get my arms around it and figure out the protocols and things we can do. Again, it is becoming a bigger issue, and it's not going away. So I really want your input. Next slide. We've set up a spreadsheet and some complaint forms. If people call in, we very much want to keep complaint information confidential to the greatest extent possible. Look at following up. Now, I can see some complaints where it may not be what we need, or it may be something I can refer to CAL FIRE. But again, it will be a learning process. Next slide. I just wanted to thank you for your time today. These neglected abandoned vineyards are becoming a pest and disease reservoir that threatens the active economic viability of our local wine grape growers. I'm afraid some of them are rising to the level of public nuisance, and we have a responsibility to respond. As I mentioned earlier, we are fortunate to have strong existing authority under our manual state of code and the new assembly bill law that passed, really focusing on education and compliance, but I look forward to your input, and thank you.

Thank you. Supervisor Klein.

I want to thank our Ag Commissioner for bringing this forward today. I've been hearing increasing concerns from the wine growing industry about the impact of properties that are neglected and abandoned and how that's impacting their property and their crops. And unfortunately, when things rise to the level of having such a large impact to your neighbors, that is when the county does need to get involved. And so I appreciate the conversation today and also look forward to hearing directly from representatives that are here today to participate.

Thank you. For me, it's really about your approach here, the education being the first part. For me, I think the fines are a necessary tool to have, but they're really, for me, just the carrot to drive compliance. So thank you for that. I really appreciate it, and I'm sure the industry is going to appreciate that as well.

And I've worked on doing some of this outreach with other counties. Napa shared their best management practices. We're kind of fine-tuning those. So we have a lot of positive education tools to hand out. Some of the initial conversations with the wine growers, they were even looking for a way to have some funding to help. We weren't able to find anything. It's a carrot to go with the stick, but it's still Like I said, trying to come up with a small stalling, like the minimum to remove. And I've heard numbers vary. Maybe some of the industry can speak to it. But when you remove it, I think you're looking at about 1,500 an acre, depending on trellising and what type of vineyards you have. But that can also... That's about what it costs to maintain it. So it's going to be a point for some people to make a decision, but we want to be there to work with them. And like I said, going into compliance agreements with recognized steps, maybe one or two treatments according to label, for sulfur, for dealing with mildew, things like that, we are really looking forward to working with people. And because we already have that sort of nexus with pesticide and things like that, I think it's a perfect fit. And we do have the authority, but we want to use it very carefully and wisely. So, thank you.

Thank you. We will open this up to the public for comment.

Thank you guys for your time. My name is Lorenzo Piccini from Shannon Ranches, a vineyard management company here from Northern California. And I appreciate... everyone's opinions on the idea that we can educate and all those things. And that's all great. And the idea that we have the UCC that created a mothballing option. But none of those are actually viable because we already have the guidelines from the USDA. So all this has already been created. And AB 732 is a requirement for all of the other wine growing counties have already adopted. We're the only ones that haven't yet. So Sonoma, Napa, Solano, they've all done it. And we can't make our own rules in Mendocino. I know that that's a very Mendocino thing to do. I'm from here. But we have to actually follow the rules that are already created by the Department of Agriculture. So the RMA guidelines are pretty clear on what farmers have to do to keep their crops in so that they don't negatively affect other farmers. are producing and the market, we've had some market struggles, but they're not, we are the largest GDP in the county and we are the only viable GDP in the county. There are right now, there are no other options. The cannabis industry has been a complete failure. huge investment from the county and that didn't return anything and so for us to look a gift horse in the mouth and say this is not the overwhelming priority from a GDP standpoint in the county is a is dangerous and so for us when we create liability on the county by not adopting and not protecting the GDP that we do have and that is the largest viable GDP in the county, we open ourselves up to liability. And so right now we have a lot of growers that are feeling a lot of pressure, and one of those pressures can't be the county not enforcing AB 732. So my hope is that we can adopt as quickly as possible. And we do want to help people to meet the RMA guidelines, Risk Management Agency, which is the arm of the USDA that creates the guidelines that we didn't have to recreate because they're already done. And we can adopt and move forward to protect the viability of the vineyards we do have. So if you have any questions, more than willing to elaborate on that. We have our executive director from Mendocino Wine Growers here, and Brian White is one of our grower committee members as well, and I'm the chairman of that grower committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Williams, do you have a question?

Chair, I would like to understand why we're not adopting AB 732. Is there opposition to it, or is it a cost issue? Just trying to educate myself.

We can get an answer from the department really quick. Sir, I've got one in front of you.

Thank you. There's not really a need to adopt it. It's already state law. It would just be utilizing it as another tool as we move forward. I've worked with Matt here. And I didn't realize how good some of our co-compliance tools are. So we have multiple tools. And I would look at using AB 732 if you direct us to go forward. But there's a lot of due process involved. Because when you're going for fines, you have to do a certain, And that's where co-compliance has shared some forms. I've got some forms from NAPA. You have certain language you have to do, send something posted, certified. It's part of that. You're building due process with your notification and your site visits and your inspections and your documentation. So it is already state law. It would just be moving. I would look to the board to suggest us to look at utilizing and moving forward to build that. Because most of the procedures we looked at, they all start pretty much the same. You take a complaint. You visit the site. You document. You contact the owner. You start the dialogue and the conversation. Is that clearer for you? I think it's just sort of a misstatement to say we need to adopt it. We should start to utilize it and utilize the department going to look at these vineyards. Does that help, Supervisor Williams? Go ahead.

So I'm trying to figure out what direction the board could give. From everything I understand, the direction I'd like to see the board take is try to follow state standards, do what other counties are doing, especially if the industry here supports it. I haven't heard any industry objection. I've only heard people in the industry saying this needs to happen in order to protect those that are still operating. Is that fair? That's very true.

That's fair? Good morning Board, Chair Norvell, County Staff, Adam Gaskin, Mendocino County Farm Bureau. I really appreciate that Angela is bringing this forward. Our office has been getting calls from many growers concerned about abandonment. And after a full year, some people have seen crop loss due to their neighbor basically neglecting their vineyard, not spraying enough, not controlling pests and disease. And then it's a challenging time for vineyards right now. And growers that do have a crop sold that then near the end of the season lose it, or they have to stop spraying themselves because they've hit that economic threshold. I don't envy your job. We're here to support you and try to have those conversations. But as Lorenzo has mentioned, there are a lot of tools, a lot of guidelines for the county to enforce what is expected and what people need to do to avoid basically being served an abatement. And hopefully that doesn't reach that level. And we'll do what we can to help bring those difficult conversations forward with growers. But we do want the Ag Commissioner to follow through and do it quickly before there is damage to the handful of people that are still left standing and making a good go at it. So again, thank you. And hopefully there isn't abatements. But also, when it's necessary, we support you in acting decisively. Thank you.

thank you or did you have an answer to a question i just had a quick response it's it's may now so we are kind of under a time crunch because we're in like the middle of our growing season and so anybody that's not farming we know by now so it's like everyone else has adopted and went into the growing season with this maybe adopted is not the right word uh enacted or is responding to maybe 732 but we're in the growing season right now and everyone else did this prior to that so we're kind of behind the eight ball here so we need direction to the commissioner to to be able to move forward with this at a rapid rate thank you anybody else in the room no madam clerk seeing no further comment on oh seeing one online mca zoom

Hello, Steven Amato. Hello, Steven Amato. I'm on my MCA Zoom, but I'm not actually representing them today. I am a grape grower in the county. For supervisors, you know me well. I strongly agree with everything that the speakers have said in the room today. This is definitely a dire situation. I mean, I've been battling with my vineyard with a neighbor that for the past six years hasn't done anything to their vineyard. And I've had to go for extra sprays, always taking extra precautions and stuff. But I will say that hopefully there's something, some conversations that could take place to help some of these folks out. We just don't have the funds to do this anymore. they're going bankrupt and they can't even, it's gonna be great difficulties in even trying to sell their properties off because it's just not desired right now. We're dealing with an industry that's becoming like a falling knife that no one wants to grab while it's going down like this. And according to some estimates, 40,000 acres of vines came out in California over the last few years and another 40,000 are required until they think it might even stabilize. So yes, we need to protect who's still growing and able to sell grapes now, but we gotta come up with a better solution because I'm just afraid that like some of the neighbors that I'm thinking of who haven't been maintaining their vineyards are just gonna get these fines, not do anything, and the problem is just still gonna persist. Thank you.

Thank you. Eric, anyone else?

Seeing no further comment online.

Okay, back to the board. First, Supervisor Hashtag.

Yeah, for the Ag Commissioner that you said that there were 10 formal or informal complaints, what is the process for a person? And what's the difference between the formal and the informal?

Well, actually, I think I should probably call them all informal because we don't really have a process in place. You know, I have a very specific process for taking weights and measures complaints, pesticide spray drift complaints. It's more laid out. But what we would do is we'd start at, you know, Again, I've had people complaining. They've come up to me at events, this and that. They've called the office. So when I say informal, we have not really taken action. A few of the complaints, I've pulled up the property. We went by there. We took some photographs. But I really need to know if we're going to start to really pursue issuing civil penalties that long term, I would need to have some direction on how to actually start it. you know, what forms I use to notify. That's why I started working with county council. We went out, we saw that in several of the cases of these complaints, and normally with a formal complaint, they call, they give you their information. I think we have that. People are more than willing to stand up and, you know, nicely tell that there's a problem with their neighbor. So I may have misspoke when I use the word formal because we haven't really started an enforcement, a co-compliance, an ag co-compliance enforcement yet on it. But we've been noting them. I have them all written down. I have started a spreadsheet, done some aerials, some using our Cal Ag permits to really look at the property boundaries. It's been really interesting because sometimes The areas they're complaining about, it's their own vineyard, but they've decided for one reason or another that the block on the east to the right, they're not taking care of. I've seen some strange combinations. There's one right off of the 101 that it's quite surprising because it's all owned by the same company, but there's one block they're just not taking care of. So some of this is going to have some conversations, some outreach, and we'll see what is driving some of the spottiness, besides the ones that, as Mr. Lamoff was just talking about, that they just don't have the money to do the work. So I hope that explains it. I mean, I've had a lot of feedback. We just haven't really started pursuing it, documenting evidence, that sort of thing.

So is there any direction that you need from the board? You said that you're waiting for that. So what do you want the board to do?

Well, mostly I wanted to make the board aware that when we start this, if this is the will of the board, there will be complaints. We will be making some people unhappy. So I want to be sure that we're all on the same page and that we've come up with processes the board feels are fair county council feels legally defensible and that we're you know I've got very limited resources right now to put into this so far it's been mainly myself and I've utilized some of my extra help trappers to put some traps out just trying to get a feel for the situation and it is pretty serious and it's I think it's going to get a lot worse with mildew this the powdery mildew and some of the other pests So I guess I want the board to just say, yes, please use your resources. I may need to come back and say, this is bigger than, I hope it doesn't get bigger than I expect. But we're really hoping that just a lot of it is knowing that we're taking action. People will hear about that and do the right thing or reach out to us to what the best management practices are, the minimum. And that's really what we're looking at, too, is what is the minimum to have a safe environment active, or at least a mothball vineyard that's not creating pest pressure for the county and the neighbors. So I'd like the board to say, go forth and spend some time and money, which is our time is money, to look at this. Because I don't know that, again, if we are successful, I don't see a lot of fine money coming in, because the goal is going to be to take care of the problem.

Right.

yeah i would say go for it and um you know at least bring back a process and a plan for us to really agree to okay thank you sir supervisor williams yeah i'd like to move that we direct the ag commissioner to enforce ab732 within this staffing resources and budget available and return to the board if you need more resources

Supervisor William, I think it would be better to phrase it to enforce vineyard cleanliness best management practices. And we can use whichever tool we end up using, because there are some civil penalties, as county council has pointed out, that might be effective. So more just the fact that we take these complaints, we research them, and we move forward to making sure that we have no public nuisances.

Can we see if the clerk of the board was able to capture that refined language? Or do you need it restated? Could you restate it slowly for the clerk?

Sure. I just didn't want to focus specifically on AB 732. So I believe it would be better to ask that the Ag Department use their authority to make sure that all the wine vineyards in Mendocino County meet a minimum standard of cleanliness and pest and disease free.

And for clarity of the record, does the maker agree to the Ag Department?

Yes. And if we could augment it to also accept the report.

Thank you. Supervisor Klein?

Chair, I'd like to second that motion with the inclusion if the maker agrees that the Ag Commissioner works with the Executive Office to set up that process.

Agreed.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, we have a first and a second. Any discussion on the motion? None? Okay, we'll vote by the button.

The motion carries unanimously.

All right. Thank you. Moving on to item R5, discussion of possible action, including approval of the Mendocino County Lodging Business Improvement District annual report, adoption of resolution of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, declaring its intention to levy and collect an annual assessment for businesses in the bid within the boundaries of the unincorporated portion of the county of Mendocino and the incorporated areas of the city of Fort Bragg, the city of Point Arena, The City of Ukiah and the City of Willett from specified lodging businesses and setting the date, time, and place for a public hearing to be held to the board to levy the proposed assessment for the fiscal year 26-27.

Good morning, supervisors. Adrienne Thompson, Planning and Building Services. This is the bid annual report today, setting the time and place for the public hearing. Staff would like to highlight some changes in this year's bid annual report, noting that we've consolidated the request into three action items for staff and county to review. I'd also like to note the executive office has made comments on this year's board summary. So if you haven't reviewed that, I can read it into the record for you. Or if you need to take a moment, there are some comments in here from executive office. And then if you have no questions for staff, I'd like to introduce Scott Snyder from VMC.

I'm not seeing any questions.

And then staff's available after that for further comments. Thank you.

Good morning. As mentioned, my name's Scott Schneider. I'm the interim executive director of Visit Mendocino County, also known as the Mendocino County Tourism Commission. I was in this role for about 10 years when the bid first started. It'll be 20 years on July 1 of this year, so it's a pretty exciting time for us as we enter another stage in our marketing of the county. um with me is cali dim she's the chair of the advisory board and we're just going to go through a couple of the changes that we're asking for generally just review the report i think cali's introductory letter in the report really summarizes the purpose of why we're here what we're trying to do and also some of the changes that we're trying make and so just to highlight some of those we are asking the supervisors to consider changing the bid ordinance or the bid law some of the things that we'd like changed is to remove the election of officers to the Mendocino County Tourism Commission and give those powers and rights back to the organization itself another thing we're trying to do is the board makeup which is now also currently in the bid ordinance to again give those power and rights back to the organization itself and finally we are encouraging the county um to one uh remove the three percent admin fee or reallocate it or give us a three percent match to offset three percent admin fee um as well as uh look into a third party vendor to do the bid collections uh reporting and enforcement um these have been requests that the county has received through this report for the past several years. Callie can talk to that a little bit. And we're just trying to be a little more forthcoming and assertive this year to try and actually make some of these changes or all of these changes occur. These changes really come about from the lodging community itself. This is a lodging bid. These monies come from a 1% collection that all visitors pay when they stay in a short-term rental. It is actually up to the lodging establishment themselves if they pass the assessment off to guests or if they just pay it themselves I don't know of any properties that don't pass it off to the guests. So essentially it's like like the TOT This is a 1% every property in the county including the four cities collect this assessment the county collects it through their quarterly paperwork, and then this organization gets checks four times a year of those amounts. The final check of the fiscal year does take out that 3% admin fee. One thing that I'm sure you're all aware of, again, it's talked quite a bit about in the report, the county used to match these efforts by 50%. When this organization first started in 2006, there was a $550,000 budget. The county matched that with $275,000. um and the organization now without the match is up to 1.2 million as i'm sure you know the county brings in 9 million dollars a year in transient occupancy tax of which the county reinvests nothing into tourism we included in this year's report an addendum it's actually addendum 7. it's a brief that talks about the importance of counties reinvesting in their marketing and tourism efforts especially those counties where tourism is a big part of the economy or a GDP. I know it was mentioned earlier that cannabis was not good, and wine and grapes is really the main one. Well, tourism is also huge up there. And so a couple of things. The CEO did have some comments of the report, and I'll just go quickly through them. There is direction for the auditor tax collector to investigate a third party vendor. There actually is a current vendor that the office uses for some enforcement of TOT and I think it would be fairly seamless if they would look into that and expand that contract to also do the collection and reporting. there's comment number two mentions of the county should wait to see what happens with the third party vendor before dealing with a 3% admin fee of course we don't want to wait we'd love to just see that happen as quickly as possible And then for the last one, it was requested that there be some sort of support from MCTC to the county expressing their support for what the advisory board is asking the county to do. And a letter has been submitted as part of the packet. So with that, I will pass it off to Kelly if you have anything to add.

Thank you. Callie Dim, owner-operator of Little River Inn on the Coast and chair of the Bid Advisory Board. I just want to address the one, maybe it's a baby elephant, about how we plan to spend marketing funds and apportion them more appropriately to where they're collected. So Inland would be getting less money in this case. However, for a long time, the leisure marketing helped Inland and the Coast. fight over share of voice between the 101 corridor and the coast was a real argument. I don't know when it shifted, but we recently got data from Camise on the bid dollars by zip code. If we had seen those earlier, we would have shifted the conversation to something different. The leisure market just does not move the needle for inland anymore, and we need to figure out what will. So I really think that even though it's less dollars, I think they're going to be better spent, and we can actually do something good for Inland instead of just fighting about how we spend the money.

Yeah, and I think to elaborate on that, If Inland brings in 20% to 30% of the assessment dollars working with the hotel operators directly along the 101 corridor to ask them, who's staying in your hotel rooms? Who's filling your beds? How do you want us to market to them? Instead of marketing the entire county as a leisure destination, which works for the coast and the Anderson Valley, refocusing some of those dollars, working with Visit Ukiah and that group. Also, again, the lodging properties are a huge part of that. and figuring out how they want us to market their rooms. And that's really what we're here to do. We want people to stay, put heads in beds, which puts butts in seats for restaurants. People attend events. They go shopping. I mean, I'm sure you've seen the numbers. If not, they're in the report of how much the tourism economy does help the tax base here, as well as jobs. I also, another little elephant in the room, I'm sure you've heard in the past there's been efforts to increase the bid assessment to 2%. That effort is still underway. However, we're really refocusing the organization to streamline our effectiveness, our efficiencies with our current budget. and at the same time work with lodging properties especially those in the Fort Bragg area to ensure that our programs are benefiting as many properties as possible in in the best way possible and so you know I also want to point out going back to the three to three percent admin fee should this board direct staff that the county does not conduct that election every year the board election that does take quite a bit of staff time and so those hopefully those admin fees would be reduced because they wouldn't have to be sending out ballots and finding candidates and and all that sort of thing and I think The main reason we're asking for the board makeup and the election is because it's been very difficult the past several years to find quorums, to find people to fill those seats. And when the county's in charge of the election, and it can only be held once a year, even if people want to sit in those seats, they can't. They have to wait. There's a process. And she probably collaborated on that a lot. I think with that, anything else? All right. I just appreciate your time and happy to answer any questions.

Sure. You talked a little bit about changing the makeup of the board. Could you talk a little bit more about that and why?

Sure. So I'll start. So in the annual report, what we're hoping the county will do is give the makeup of the board back to the organization. I know the advisory board does have recommendations in the report of what that board makeup should be, but there has been a lot of requests from lodging that there just needs to be more lodging on the board, a smaller board and just more lodging. Thank you.

I'm not seeing any other. Yes, supervisor hashtag.

Yeah, thank you for that. There's a lot to unpack with this whole proposal. But speaking of the, you know, this coastal versus the inland split, and, you know, I've heard that people on the inland side would like to kind of form a coalition of, lodging and visitor-centered stakeholders to really look at a different way rather than what Visit Mendocino is doing. So I would like to see that kind of explored before it comes back on June 23rd, to see what possibilities are out there for if you really are going to split the funds between the two sides, see what can do the best good for the people on the inland side.

And it's important not to lose sight of the economy of scale. So we would share the admin, the staff, the insurance, the rent, all of that is shared before we're talking about splitting the actual marketing funds.

Yeah. There could be different approaches, too. So I want to make sure that those are explored. And then the 3%, in the budget times that we're in, it's kind of hard to just say we're going to give up the 3%, especially if we're having cost for whatever we do as far as the auditor's office or elections. So I guess I have questions about that 3%. And then with the makeup of the board and the election process and everything, so really what would happen is that the county would be taken out of this role with the bid, oversight of the bid, anything to do with the bid in a way, and it would all go to your board, right?

Not exactly. So you appoint the bid advisory board. So we are the watchdogs appointed by you. Is that one little? Sorry? Yes. Here's Adrienne.

If I may, through the chair. Adrienne Thompson, Planning and Building Services. To change the board seats is really an ordinance update. So the board would provide direction to staff, planning and building, and county council. It would require both departments to revise the bid ordinance. We'd come back with a red line if directed to do so. That would change the ordinance and remove that component back to the MCT bylaws so they could run the MCTC board. So really, it's talking about two different boards. The county would maintain the bid board, which is where planning and building serves as a representative. But MCTC would fully take over their own lodging board separately outside of the ordinance.

Thank you for that.

Supervisor Williams? So I think it's a thoughtful proposal. I can support everything presented today. But I'm not clear on the motion, specifically the with direction based on CEO comments herein. What is the, can you clarify the recommended action?

If I may, through the chair, Sarah Pierce, assistant CEO, I would like to have Shamice Cobbison, audit controller, treasurer, tax collector come up and speak because she can speak on some of the impacts of the 3%. So I'd like to have her speak.

Good morning, Board. Auditor to Comptroller, Treasurer, Tax Collector, Shamice Keveson. This is primarily in my Treasurer, Tax Collector side of the House. So I just wanted to make sure to remind you that CEO's Office did provide some comments in the bottom of the agenda item. I just would like to point out a couple of things. The Treasurer, Tax Collector's Office would agree that the election is a somewhat onerous task for the Treasurer, Tax Collector's Office. We don't normally conduct elections. I do believe that it is in the Treasurer, Tax Collector's Office because the way that board is structured and the votes is dependent on the actual revenue collected from the lodging establishments. And so I believe it was in the treasurer tax collector's office in order to preserve that proprietary information and have that be not something that's disclosed publicly. And so because of the way those seats are set up and the election votes are set up, I believe that's why it's in the treasurer tax collector's office. I don't have any issue or concern. The board wants to direct that those seats be calculated differently and that those votes be handled differently. Not a concern. It is a cost for labor to determine that vote weight, as well as the seat makeup, as well as conducting the elections. I would like to just point out that the annual cost to the county is about five and three quarter percent or close to 6%. So even though we are getting 3% back, there is still an additional minimum of about $30,000 that the county is contributing. So I have expressed a willingness to ask our current contractor, which That contract has had a couple of iterations, but I'm willing to have them tell me how much it's going to cost to add the bid collection. But at the same time, if I'm adding the bid collection, I'm probably going to try to see what the cost is going to be to add the TOT collection, because it doesn't make sense to do one without the other. I will also have conversations with HDL who does our sales tax consulting because they also do do TOT and bid collecting for other jurisdictions. My previous conversations with HDL in the past were that they require a percent fee, and it was a substantial amount of money that was going to be costing the county. And at that time, I did not believe the board really wanted to consider it for TOT because, again, it was a substantial amount of money. But I have scheduled discussions with them to have them update their cost structure with me and give me some options with HDL. So I'm willing to have those conversations with Granicus Host Compliance, who is our current consultant for TOT, as well as with HDL. I would just caution the board that if you do provide direction to not take out the 3%, that's about $35,000 additional cost to the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office budget that we will need to account for. So my suggestion is that you make that decision taking that in consideration, or you wait for the actual language to be developed in the ordinance to make some changes, as well as for the collection process and election process to change before you actually make that decision. But certainly, that's up to you. I'm not quite sure if you have any other specific questions for me.

Supervisor Williams?

Well, I'm with you on the 3% will likely drop when we update the ordinance. The organization is administering its own process, and we're using an outside firm to do the bid collection. So Chair, do you think it's appropriate to take this in pieces? Could we work on the ordinance change first?

I think it's fine to take it in pieces. I know we have some more comments.

If I may, I just would like to clarify that there will be an additional cost to the county if we add this to the contract we have with Granicus Host Compliance. So they're asking for this to be added to a formal collection contract. So there will be a cost to that no matter where that is. So unless they contract themselves and do the collections themselves, which I don't think is the conversation on the table, there will be a cost to the county to adding that service. I don't know whether that's going to be 1%. I have no idea until we have that conversation.

I understand. I don't know either, so it's hard. We don't have dollar figures here to know what we're talking about. But I can support the ordinance change.

Can we do a straw poll and see if... Yeah, we can do that. How does everybody feel about the ordinance change?

I'm a yes. I think it's putting it back the way it used to be.

Thank you, Supervisor. So what we're really agreeing to today is to accept the report and then to kind of move forward with these ordinance changes. So when it comes back on June 23rd, then that will be the final decision.

Go ahead.

If I may, through the chair. So I think your original question, Supervisor Williams, was what was the CEO's recommendation? I wanted to make sure that Shamice had a moment to voice her concerns as well. So the CEO's recommendations are listed under the CEO comments. and i don't mind reading them one by one but they are broken into the three different stages so the first one would be board direction would be given to the auditor controller treasurer tax collector to investigate the third party vendors available to support the bid administration and return by december 31st 2026 with an associated cost and an initial plan for potential implementation The second part was with recognition that the county workload administering the bid exceeds the 3% cap and incurs general fund expenses. Any discussion of the county foregoing that allowable reimbursement should not incur in advance of future discussion with information requested above. And then lastly, any changes in county code associated with the Tourism Commission as referenced within the annual report. be proposed for consideration by the Board of Supervisors only after the Tourism Commission agendizes a discussion related to the annual report's recommendation and sends communication to the Board requesting specific changes.

Go ahead.

My stance is we should make the ordinance change. It's putting it back the way it used to be. It will make it more efficient for the county. It'll make it more efficient for the organization. This is just a no-brainer. There's no cost. In fact, collectively, we're going to save money by doing it. And I think it may improve the broader economy and the county's tax base. So I'm hoping we can give direction to move forward with, I saw there was at least a majority, move forward with the ordinance change and bring it back as soon as possible.

Okay. Supervisor Klein?

I don't want to deter this conversation. I see County Council Matt Kudrowski is up at the dais because I have a comment back to Supervisor Haschak's comment.

Okay. You want to wait for Mr. Kudrowski?

Yes, please.

So Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, just to clarify what's on for today, this is just an initial approval of the report as submitted by the bid advisory board. That includes recommendations going forward on both the ordinance changes they're looking for. The county would have to adopt those ordinance changes in the future next year. The main thing on for today, if the board wants to consider any changes, I would recommend looking at the 3% issue, and if we wanted to change the report today before calling the public hearing, we could keep everything on track. Otherwise, the report as is and the recommended action includes this moving forward with the ordinance changes. Thank you.

Supervisor Klein?

Yeah, thank you. I wanted to make sure to go back to part of the discussion that Supervisor Hashtag's comments centered on, which I align with. I appreciate the admittance in our conversation prior to this meeting and here today that VMC has not been probably best serving the inland community as it could. And it seems that there hasn't been a concerted effort to have that effective marketing or being true partners for the inland community. So appreciate the admittance of that. The bid report says that inland marketing and PR efforts can be repositioned around drive-through travelers, as you talk about splitting into two kinds of strategies. But I don't see what that strategy actually looks like. There's still so much of the focus on what the strategy for the coast is. And I understand the desire to be equitable in reinvesting the funding from where it's collected. But I just feel unsatisfied at this point that the true investment, not the dollar amount, but the actual strategy, will happen for inland and would like to hear your response to that.

Sure. So thanks for the question. I think that conversations have already been started with Visit Ukiah as well as G2, who's on this board and also owns a lot of the properties and has close relations to a lot of the other owners of properties along the Inland Corridor. Maybe Callie can speak to this a little more. I think it's a little premature to have specific marketing programs and initiatives at this point because we don't even know if this is the direction that which we're going to go in. um ready to have those conversations and i think that some preliminary discussions have been there's they've been met with a lot of excitement about really talking to those lodging owners and figuring out again how to put uh those heads in beds and and i'm not we don't have our specific marketing plan is not it's still in the works This is the first step for our renewal every year, is to make sure that we have another year. But I think every discussion we've had has been supportive of having these conversations with inland groups, and specifically, again, the Visit Ukiah and their three organizations, as well as lodging owners to make sure that we market how they think that we should market. I don't know if you want to elaborate.

I just really want to underscore the importance of data. which we didn't have until recently. There's a lot of us on the coast that share numbers all the time. So when we go to visit Mendocino with a request, it's not only data driven, but it's strategic. We want to address the dip after Labor Day, for example. As far as I know, those conversations don't happen inland. And so when G2 says, my occupancy down, that's anecdotal. And we don't have any data to really do anything about it. So switching to a third party vendor is going to help us in a great way to help the entire county. And I should say, if we had seen those numbers earlier, I mean, it was a huge wake-up call. Like I said, we've been doing a disservice unknowingly, and we need to change our strategy for Inland. Don't know what it is. It's kind of exciting to be at the brink of something. But we do need information to do our job.

And just as an example of that, we just did get data from the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office for two fiscal years of bid collections by zip code. And the difference in the city of Ukiah from one year to the next is huge. 30 percent 40 percent we don't know if that's penalties and interests that someone collected one year and in the next it's not broken out we don't have that data but that's an example of the more data we have the better that we can serve the lodging community that collects the funds thank you so at what point can this board expect to hear an update on those conversations and what the plan is moving forward Well, I think the goal for June 23, at least, to have an initial, certainly conversations can be had between now and then to talk about next year. The MCTC board meets later this week to look at the marketing plan as a first go around. And so if they approve of this direction, you know, again, conversations with Fizzy Ukiah have already started. And I think, you know, conversations with lodging, you know, Jan Willits and others in Willits that are interested, as well as Jitu and his colleagues, certainly we can have something for you. You know, where are we specifically going to market and how much are we going to spend? I don't know, but certainly some sort of summary about what they want to see.

Yeah, I would certainly appreciate that and kind of a comment as a side for the board. There are other counties that are, you know, tackling kind of having a tourism strategy and going beyond just having a kind of a marketing approach. And that's something that I think we need to consider seriously here in Mendocino County as our, you know, economy struggles to have pillar industries.

Any more questions from the board? Supervisor Hashtag?

Well, could you elaborate on that? Because, you know, we have been marketing focused. And so what would it look like and where would the money come from?

Yeah, that's a good question. I know that Humboldt County has made some changes recently in the funding. Their bid process has changed. The marketing agencies that they're funding are changing. But they do have an overall tourism strategy. And that's something that I'm not aware that Mendocino County has and something I'm interested in looking into further. would encourage others to do the same.

Thank you.

I'm not seeing any more questions from the board, so we'll go to the public for comment. Thank you.

Got a public comment on this. Thank you, board. So there has been a lot of continued inland tourism. And I'm going to focus on what Madeline said also. And although we haven't had the marketing from the visit Mendocino I have gone to the Chamber of Commerce area and I have tried to use the board to visit the Mendocino and a lot of the direction that we get is towards the coast and we do have a lot of inland things that do happen here and so I'd like to bring to the attention the past speakers that we have rails to trails that just opened we have a lot of people if you go down south to any county, Sonoma, Marin, Napa, where do they aim for? They aim for Mendocino County. Why do they come here? Because we have air and we have space for them to be able to roam around in. So I think the marketing technique here or the tourism technique should be marketed towards families, should be marketed towards electric bicycles and self-propelled activities, should be marketed towards the fact that we have a lot of water, fresh water here to be able to swim in and utilize. And being that the coast has always had a big tourism boom, and a lot of people do go there. Fort Bragg is known. You go there on a real big tourist weekend, and people are from all over the place, Sacramento and Oregon. And I mean, they come from all over the place. to come here. But we also, again, I'm going to say, stressing the inland tourism factor needs to be addressed. Because some of the things that they're directed to, just even inland and even on the website, is more generated, seems to be, towards the coast and less towards inland. And thank you for the time.

Thank you. Nobody else in the room? Madam Clerk?

Seeing no comments online.

Okay. We'll bring it back to the board. So question for the executive office. Your recommendation is to hold off on the 3% waiver until we hear the cost of the third-party vendor. Is that correct?

If I may, through the chair, yes. I mean, the recommended action does say approve the bid report with direction based on the executive office comments. But we do believe that the 3% is... is not covering what our current expenses are and any discussion of the county foregoing that allowable reimbursement should not occur in advance of future discussions with the cost of the collection agency okay board supervisor williams i would move the recommended action and direct staff to begin working on the proposed ordinance changes advisor hashtag

Does that include the three recommendations from the CEO? Because for me, that seems like that's the process that we should engage in.

Agreed.

And also what Supervisor Klein and I talked about, about exploring other options for the inland area. And I would, if those are included, I would second.

The CEOs are in. I'm not sure how to include the other discussion about the inland area, just as far as how this is agendized. It seems rather broad and outside of scope.

Supervisor Klein?

Chair, I think it's been expressed to VMC that we'd like to see this happen, and they've committed to bringing it forward for the June meeting, so that addresses

And I'm in support with my colleagues. I'm just not sure how to get it into the motion.

Okay. I guess the expectation would be that that would come back in June.

Yeah, I think they've heard that.

Okay. So I would second the motion.

May I comment from the chair, please?

Please.

A question on the motion. The CEO recommendation is to keep the 3% in, and the bid advisory end report is to remove it. Would the motion be with the CEO to include that 3% back into the county fund?

I want to talk to my colleagues. My preference is we find out what it will actually cost us under this new approach. And I think CEO's office is suggesting that it's premature to give any specific direction until we know what that number is. We're spending public money. We don't know how much we're spending.

Correct. If I may, through the chair, agree. We need to understand how much we're spending before we give funds back.

Yep.

And that was understood in your motion. Okay. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you, sir. Ms. Krogh?

Thank you, Julia Craig, Planning and Building Services Director. In anticipation that the board may wish to retain the 3% administrative fee, we have prepared a red line of the bid report that I would like to share on the screen for your consideration. And I discussed this briefly with Scott Schneider as well and looked at where to reduce expenses within their budget to account for the $36,000 that would be the 3% administrative fee. So if I may, I'll share my screen briefly.

Please.

OK, so as you can see on the screen here on page 14 of the report, there was a line that just noted that the current budget did not include the 3% administrative fee. This just revises it to state that it includes this fee, but encourages the county to not charge for its staff time in assisting with the bid collection, reporting, and administration. So still keeping with the spirit of what the bid advisory board wished to recommend to the board. And then under the proposed budget on page 15, it removes the county administrative fee line from income, which was at a $0, and adds it into expenses, and then reduces the partnerships and visitor services by $18,000 each. And those are all the changes that would be made. Thank you.

Questions? Supervisor Williams?

I've been trying to get to three, but I'd be curious to hear Supervisor Mulhern and Supervisor Norvell. Are you in agreement with us, or do you have other ideas?

No, I'm in support of your motion. I think the request for the waiver of the 3% is not out of line at all. I know that they were, like they mentioned, they had intentions at one time to come back and ask for a second percent, and they're not. I do believe that we don't do enough for tourism. But the county does contribute to terrorism. A lot of this stuff is generated to take care of the terrorist and that's dealt through public safety. EMS calls, you know, all fire and safety. You know, our sheriff's department rescuing people. So we do contribute that way. But I'm in support of your motion.

Thank you. I share the same concerns as my colleagues. I'm in support of continuing with the recommended action as we've discussed, but generally I think that we should all be supporting each other, whether we're on the 101 corridor or whether we are coastal. And I think that the lodging industry does have a good grasp on what's working and should be given the task of figuring out what gets marketed without the county's necessarily interfering with those expert recommendations. At the same time, as elected officials, we generally understand the economies of our districts and what's working and what's not. So it's a challenging, I think, conversation to have where you have people that are in the market every day versus what we see just generally and hear from our constituents.

Okay.

If I may, through the chair.

Yes.

If the board approves the red line, we would need to modify the recommendation to include the report as recommended at today's meeting.

It's my hope we can get that 3% down by efficiency. Does the CEO's office have any thoughts on that?

If I may, through the Chair, I would need to defer to Auditor-Controller, Treasurer, Tax Collector, as her office is the one that administers the...

It may be helpful when this comes back to the Board if we could get line items on where the cost occurs. I don't have a good sense. I'll trust the numbers, but I don't know if there's anything that we're doing today that we don't need to do. Are there possibilities to reduce county load and therefore pass on less costs to the organization?

If I may, through the chair, Chamise is coming up to speak, but we can work with her office to understand.

Auditor, Comptroller, Treasurer, Tax Collector, Chamise Cubison. The election varies depending on seats and vacancies as well as nominations. Average cost is $8,000 to $10,000. The remaining costs have to do with the quarterly mailings, the collection of the bid fee, booking the revenue, et cetera. So I just want to remind this board that the cost is actually double. It's not the 3%. It's nearly 6%. So what I'm concerned about, and I would appreciate the opportunity, is to have the conversation with the outside vendors to see how much they're going to charge us. Because I do believe that's going to be a considerable amount of money and may actually take up what's remaining even if you remove the election.

Supervisor Hashtag?

Well, just as far as the process goes, my understanding is that if we accept the modified report, then those kind of investigations about how we can cut down or where those costs are coming from, what generates them, and what we can do to kind of cut them down, it will happen before this comes back in June.

I don't want to get locked in the county get locked in for another year of the current procedure. Are we in agreement that the decision we're making today is leaving the door open to tuning that 3% based on the findings from the vendor for this year, this coming fiscal year.

If I may through the chair, I defer to county council.

I'm going to ask Mr. Kudrowski to answer that question. And I just want to be clear on our procedure. I believe Supervisor Williams did make a motion. We haven't had a second, but I want to make sure that we, oh, we have had a second?

Supervisor Hashtag seconded.

We have a second, but we're talking about the modified language, too. Correct.

Correct. So I want to make sure we may need to go back and amend the original motion. I'd like to

also have mr. Kudrowski suggest some language for that so so deputy County Council Matthew Kudrowski if I'm correct I'm hearing that we there's there's potentially three votes for a revising for keeping the 3% County admin fee at this time I'd recommend the existing recommended motion and amending it by saying It'd be approving the bid annual report as amended at today's meeting and then continuing onward that way. That's the red line in adopting the report.

So I guess I see it differently. This board doesn't have enough information today to be able to weigh in on the 3%. We're making structural changes that should reduce cost. We're also hearing the tax collector note that we don't know what an outside vendor will charge. So we don't know how much money we're talking about. We can't possibly make a decision on that. I think the direction we wanted to give is for staff to bring back all that pertinent information in June.

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Godrowski, today we have to adopt a report before we call the public hearing.

I know, but it's an unfortunate truth that we don't have the information we need to make that type of decision. I mean, we can leave the 3% in or we can strike it, but we're acting without the foundational information.

So if I could, through the chair, again, I just want to make sure you heard what Mr. Kudrowski said. We have a hearing that's currently set in June without sort of going forward today. I understand what you're asking in terms of information. So I don't know that we answered the question you had in terms of how long this locks you in for. And I don't know if Mr. Kudrowski can answer that.

At a minimum, if we make some changes on June 23, there could be the need to do a re-noticed public hearing. And so at the moment, right now, we're hearing from the auditor controller. If we do things just like normal, we're going to have double the 3% in costs. If we go forward with next year and we are amending the existing ordinances, I'm not sure if that staff time will get billed to this as well, but my guess is even with those reduced costs, we're still spending some money to try and reorganize things, and that would cover the 3%. But whether or not this would be a significant change at the next meeting if we reduced it in some form, my guess is that wouldn't necessarily require another public hearing. You know, getting money back to the bid. If we keep it at 3% today, that's the version that the public is aware of and that the TOT, the bid assessment payers are being made aware of in order to show up at that public hearing.

Supervisor, would that answer your question?

Not fully. I appreciate it. I'm curious why it's a percentage. It seems like this is a static expense, and depending how much, how many people stay and what the total in the industry is, the percentage would shift. Why are we locking it in at 3% rather than passing on actual cost? That's just in the county code. So I guess to my colleagues, I'm going to question that. This seems like a legacy decision that doesn't have basis. If cost recovery is the goal, you pass on the actual cost. This is passing on a percentage of the 1% of visitor stays. I think if you had double the visitor stays, you would have the same actual expense. There isn't a basis for it being proportional.

Supervisor Klein?

Supervisor Williams, how would you feel if that leads to an increased cost?

Well, I think we should at least have the discussion of what is the actual cost to the county under the post-ordinance change and post-third-party vendor involvement. Maybe we don't want to go to a third party if we find it's driving up the cost significantly. So I would like to move forward with the ordinance change, accept the report, but recognize once we get all the information, we may have to revisit it.

Is the red line version that Ms. Krogh presented, that would be the informational report that we would adopt if we want to hold off on the 3%, is that correct? But we can still adopt the report.

That's correct. You'd be adopting the report as amended. Yeah.

That's the statement I believe you need to make in your motion, Supervisor Williams, that we have not done.

He would need to, I think, amend his motion.

Clerk, are you able to capture that?

I currently have been taking a lot of notes, so there might be a little extra. Do your best. Could I get a query statement?

Yeah, I mean, I wonder if we should take a five-minute break and maybe counsel could work with clerk.

So I have some language I can send. Let me just repeat it. This was done by Mr. Kedrowski, but again, the motion would be amended to say approve the bid annual report as amended at today's meeting with direction based on CEO comments herein. adopt a resolution of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors declaring its intention, which is what the resolution says, to levy and collect an annual assessment from lodging businesses in the bid within the boundaries of the unincorporated portion of the county of Mendocino and the incorporated area of the city of Fort Bragg, the city of Point Arena, the city of Ukiah, and the city of Willits. GO AHEAD AND SET YOUR PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AT THE REGULAR MEETING ON JUNE 23 AT OR ABOUT 9 A.M. OR SOON THEREAFTER AS THE MATTER CAN BE HEARD. AND I CAN GIVE THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE TO THE CLERK SO SHE HAS IT AND THEN AUTHORIZING THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE SAME.

ADVISOR WILLIAMS.

Yeah, I can accept that. Okay. And that's just a second degree.

Yeah, I agree with that. And I think that the intent is to look at the cost of the county for this and see if that 3% covers it. And if we wanted to look at a different model, that would require extra action in the future. And I'm certainly up for covering. We've talked about cost recovery for these kind of issues, but You know, let's see where it plays out, but let's get the information.

Thank you supervisor client I just want to take a moment to see if the otter controller treasure tax collector has any other comments before we vote on this updated motion

Auditor, controller, treasurer, tax collector, Shamice Cubison. Just to clarify, what I heard was accepting the report as amended and approving the resolution and scheduling the hearing. I did not hear anything with regard to one through three, direction to bring back an ordinance, changing anything else. I just want to make clear. So I'm not sure exactly what. In addition, item one was that I would be researching the vendors and coming back with something by December. So I just want to be clear what the direction is.

If I may, through the chair, the recommended action did include with direction based on CEO comments herein, which was down below. And I can reread the CEO comments if you want.

I just meant what I heard from counsel, what she read.

What I stated in that motion was direction as per the CEO comments.

All right. We do have a first and a second. Any more discussion or questions on the motion? No? We'll vote by the button.

The motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we have a scheduled break for 11 o'clock. We'll recess for 15 minutes and come back at 11.20. It's 1120. We're going to move on to item R6. It's a notice of public hearing. Discussion of possible action, including one, consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of use permit and variance, and two, adoption of resolution reversing the Planning Commission's denial and approving use permit 2021-0016 to establish and operate a gas station with 10 gas pumps, two separate illuminated canopies, 30 new parking places, landscaping, conversion of part of an existing structure to a convenience store, and partial approval of concurrent variance 2021-0005 to increase the allowable sign area and reduce the front yard setback, and partial denial of concurrent variance The twenty twenty one zero zero five for a sixty five foot total business identification sign located at ninety six twenty one and nine six zero one north state street red river valley a p n one six two one hundred dash fifty eight and one six two one hundred dash fifty nine which may include additional direction to staff this is planning and building. Clerk is proper notice been established.

Proper notice has been established, and all correspondence from this item, if any received, has been sent to your emails.

OK. It is 1121. Yes. Thank you. Both Supervisor Klein and I have to, I will start first. I have to state that I have reviewed all of the previous meetings that were online and I have. I believe I watched them all while they were live and then I went back and rewatched it. Supervisor Klein?

Same. I did review all the previous hearings. I watched the two Board of Supervisors meetings live. I've also reviewed the subsequent recordings.

Okay. So it's 11-22. We'll open the public hearing. The procedure will be as followed. The board and clerk will note correspondence and telephone calls received will have staff presentation. The applicant will have 20 minutes. Public input will be next. The appellant applicant are allowed five minutes for final remarks. Staff presents final remarks. And then it will be go to the board. We'll close the public hearing, and the board will commence. Excuse me. So the public hearing has been opened. Staff presentation.

Good morning, everyone. This is Liam Crowley with Planning and Building Services. And since the last time this project came before the board, there's two new board members. So some of this might be a review for some of you. But I'm going to start out with some basic property information and go over some of the key issues that we identified. And then after that, I'll go into sort of the timeline of events with this appeal. So start out with some basic property information The property in question includes two lots. They're both within the commercial general plan classification, and they're both within the limited commercial C1 zoning district. And in total, they are approximately 2 and 1 half acres. The same applicant did apply for a use permit for a gas station in 2015. It was slightly scaled down from the current request. There was a six pump gas station under one canopy. It included a parking waiver to reduce the required number of parking spaces. It also included a front yard setback variance to reduce the front yard setback. And that use permit was approved in 2016, but it expired in 2018 without ever having been constructed. And so the applicant reapplied in 2021 for a new use permit uh with a 10 pump for a 10 pump gas station instead of six pumps that would be under two canopies instead of just one 30 new parking spaces landscaping and that landscaping would primarily be within the frontages along the encroachments and the driveways into the gas station to convert a portion of an existing commercial building, that's the photo on top, to a convenience store. That's a 12,000 square foot commercial building and 2,000 square feet of which would be converted to a convenience store. The applicants also requested two freestanding signs, one 65-foot-tall business identification sign and one 30.5-foot-tall fuel price sign. And I will note that both of those signs exceed the normal maximum height limit of freestanding signs in our zoning ordinance, which is 25 feet, hence the request for a variance to increase the sign height requirement. It would also include underground fuel storage tanks, driveways, and encroachments onto North State Street. The sign height and sign area variance that I mentioned, in addition to being taller than the maximum sign height requirement, the signs would also exceed the sign area requirement. And so the variance was requested for that as well. And a front yard setback variance as well, which I'll go over later on. This is a site plan of the proposal. You can see my cursor. You can see the 10 gas station pumps and the underground storage tanks here, the landscaped frontages and driveway encroachment onto North State Street, the additional parking that would be included. The conversion of the convenience store, which would be this. It's a six-tenant commercial building. So one of those tenant spaces would be converted. And So it's just to go over sort of the key issues that we reviewed in our initial review. As I mentioned before, the property is in the commercial general plan land classification, which provides for a variety of commercial uses, including gas stations. It's within the C1 zoning district, as I mentioned before. And I'll just note that the intent of the C1 district, as it's described in the county code, includes a clause that says that typically this district would be applied in conjunction with residential uses and would permit only those uses which do not significantly increase traffic, noise, or other impacts. So we did determine that those traffic impacts could be mitigated, which I'll go over in more detail a little later on. We also looked at the potential aesthetic impacts of the projects. are proposing illuminated signs and canopies and so we did include a recommended condition of approval in the original permit that would require that any lighting be downcast and shielded or otherwise would not exceed the boundaries of the parcel We'd also require as a condition that a final signage plan be submitted. There are several other signs on the property in addition to the two signs that are proposed that are existing. And so we would be asking the applicant to submit a final signage plan that includes the dimensions and the heights of all the different signs on the property to ensure that they meet our requirements. And then there's another condition in the permit to comply with the model water efficient landscaping ordinance. And that's a state law that applies to any landscaping over, I believe, it's 500 square feet. So if there will be more than 500 square feet of landscaping, then that condition would kick in. But we also looked at air quality. We have a proposed condition of approval that would require that the applicant consult with the Mendocino County Air Quality Management District to install vapor control devices on underground storage tanks holding the gasoline. Another condition related to fugitive dust during construction that could be kicked up by grading or other activities This property is also in an area that has the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos. So we also included a condition of approval that would require the applicant to consult with their quality management district and determine whether or not they require any further permitting. And then there's another condition of approval that just notifies the applicant of existing state law regarding vehicle idling. For cultural resources, there was a 2022 archaeological survey that was conducted on the property, which did not find any cultural resources. That survey was presented to the Mendocino County Archaeological Commission. They accepted the survey with the condition that the standard county code discovery clause be included, which accounts for any unanticipated discoveries of remains or cultural resources. For fire, we did receive conditions of approval from CAL FIRE, which have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for the use permit. And the plans were accepted by the local fire district as well. For HAZMAT, the applicant would be required to prepare a hazardous materials management plan to the satisfaction of the county Department of Environmental Health. And that plan primarily has to do with the safe handling of hazardous materials, the storage, and contingencies for any accidental spills that might occur. In addition, the applicant would be required to comply with existing underground storage tank regulations and programs. That also occurs through the County Department of Environmental Health. That includes several inspections of the installation of the underground storage tanks as well as the inclusion of a leak detection system in the underground storage tanks. Another condition related to parking would require that the applicant provide a final parking plan that shows that they would meet all the parking requirements. There would be 53 spaces that would need to be provided. The plans that have been submitted already do meet that requirement, but we would just require a final plan to be submitted that firms it. Then for stormwater, this property is not within the municipal stormwater area of the county, which has sort of heightened regulations for treatment of stormwater. However, the applicant, if they're going to grade more than an acre of land would be required to comply with the state's stormwater general permit and would be required to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan. There is also a condition of approval that's recommended to require that the applicant incorporate standard best management practices to prevent adverse stormwater runoff. And the County Department of Transportation also recommended that a condition of approval be included that would require that a civil engineer or a hydrologist submit a plan for a swale or a properly designed swale or culvert. And that would most likely be installed within this existing swale that I don't know, runs sort of west to east along the property. And we would expect that with the installation of that swale or in that culvert that stormwater could infiltrate into that swale, which would allow some filtration of stormwater before it reaches creeks that are nearby. So I guess I should back up and mention that... There are sort of two, based on our mapping of nearby streams and creeks, there seem to be two areas where the streams cross the highway and end up in Forsyth Creek, which continues south of US 101. And those areas are about 400 feet north of the project site and about 1,000 feet south of the project site. Continuing on to transportation. So the County Department of Transportation recommended that the applicant be required to obtain an encroachment permit to construct a properly designed commercial driveway approach onto North State Street and to provide a circulation plan that would show how trucks that are delivering fuel can make it in and out of the site. They would also be required to provide documentation of access easements from North State Street onto the property and into the gas station area, as well as providing a signing and striping plan that's related to this next bullet point, which is median closure. And so we did receive several comments from Caltrans during the processing of this use permit and they indicated that in order to reduce potential transportation impacts that would occur from the additional vehicle trips that would be generated by this project, that it would be necessary to close the median at the North State Street and Yuba Drive intersection with US 101. And a screenshot of that intersection is this photo here. Essentially, what that median closure would entail would be preventing motorists that are traveling southbound on US 101 from turning left across the highway into the site onto North State Street. It, of course, would also prevent folks traveling northbound on US 101 from turning left onto Uva Drive. And it would prevent motorists from crossing from North State Street to Uva Drive and vice versa. In addition to that, the applicant was required to conduct a traffic study. And the traffic engineer who conducted that study recommended that acceleration and deceleration lanes be installed along the northbound US 101 at the North State Street intersection. These are sometimes also referred to as right turn lanes. So it would essentially be an area where cars can slow down have their own lane to turn right into North State Street. And then when they're getting back onto the freeway heading northbound on US 101, they have more area to get up to speed and merge on northbound 101. And as I mentioned before, these improvements would require encroachment permits from both Caltrans and County Department of Transportation. And I guess I should note at this point that never mind I'll get back to that later when I go over the timeline but the next bullet point here has to do with utilities so the applicant provided a construction waste management plan within their application so we're just recommending that a condition of approval be added to comply with that waste management plan and in addition to that we would recommend that the applicant be required to contract with a commercial solid waste disposal service to deal with solid waste that's generated by the project. And the project was referred to the local water district, and they didn't have comments on the project. So that covers the use permit portion for the gas station itself. And now I'll go over the various variances that were proposed. so to start off with the setback variance the applicant is requesting a variance that would reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to zero feet and the purpose of that variance would be to avoid several easements that run through the project site and which restrict the buildable area you can sort of see in this photo to the left it marks where there's a 55 foot wide and 40 foot wide easement that that runs property and Fortunately, it got cut off by this image, but this box here notes where the 20-foot front yard setback line kind of extends. And so if the applicant were to build the canopies and the fueling stations to meet the setback, they would end up encroaching into the Those easements did exist prior to the current owner, and we determined that nearby commercial properties are not similarly constrained with these wide easements in this way. And a similar variance was approved in the 2016 use permit for the setback variance. And normally it would be somewhat concerning to us that this setback would be reduced to zero feet and would essentially be right next to the border of the property and the North State Street corridor. However, there is a large swale that separates the property boundary from North State Street. And so we feel that the reduction in setback wouldn't jeopardize motorists or be of adverse impact to motorists that are traveling along North State Street. And kind of going along with the potential impacts of reducing the setback, as I mentioned before, we are recommending a condition of approval that would limit the proposed lighting for the fuel price sign. So the next is the sign area variance. So as I mentioned before, there's two main signs that are proposed. There's the fuel price sign and a business identification sign. We did some calculations and found that the total sign area of those two proposed signs would be about 739 square feet. We're recommending that the sign area variance be approved, but instead of accommodating the entire 739 square feet that was requested, that only 512 square feet of signage be allowed. And that would be the total square footage of signage across the entire two-lot property. not just for these signs themselves. And as I mentioned before, we would require the applicant to submit a final signage plan that shows the area of all the signs, the height of all those signs, to ensure that it complies with that 512 square foot limit. So the justification behind our recommendation for the sign area variance is the fact that the site is obscured by the highway grade north. And so motorists that are traveling at speed along US 101 might not have the opportunity to see a smaller sign if we were to interpret the code literally for its maximum sign area limits. And in addition to that, as I mentioned before, the commercial building has six tenant spaces within it. And if we were to interpret the code literally, it wouldn't allow the ability for those businesses to construct reasonably sized signs that could be seen from the highway to advertise. So the existing regulations are that any freestanding sign like these cannot exceed 64 square feet in total. And the total square footage of sign area on any particular lot cannot exceed 128 square feet. And so if we were to take the 128 square feet that's allowed on one of the parcels that doesn't include the six-tenant commercial building, and we were to add that to 64 square feet times the six tenants, as if they were all allowed to construct a reasonably sized sign, then we end up with the 512 square feet that were recommended. Now for the sign height, we are recommending that the board deny this variance because it does not meet all the required findings for variances. And specifically, I want to highlight finding C within the county code, which says that such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question. So we feel that the requested sign height variance does not meet this finding because the 25-foot maximum freestanding sign height limit applies across the inland portions of the county regardless of location or zone. And therefore, there is no substantial property right that is being denied to this property because they could not build taller than 25 feet. So now to kind of go over the timeline of events. This application was first brought to the Planning Commission in December of 2023. And at that time, we as staff were recommending approval of the gas station with those conditions that I mentioned earlier, including closure of the highway median. We're recommending approval of the front yard setback variance. approval of the modified sign area variance to 512 square feet instead of the requested 749, and to deny the sign height variance. And the result of that meeting was that it was continued to the January 2024 Planning Commission meeting with direction to prepare a resolution for denial. And that was primarily based on the Planning Commission's conclusion that the closure of the median to mitigate transportation impacts was indeed necessary, and that the imposition of that condition would lead to negative impacts to the community in terms of welfare and nuisance and general welfare, as I mentioned. And so because of that, the Planning Commission recommended that, or directed staff to come back with a resolution for denial. There was a second Planning Commission hearing where staff brought back that resolution for denial, and the result was that the project was denied. And shortly thereafter, the applicant appealed the decision in January. And this photo on the right just shows a swale that kind of buffers North State Street to the edge of the property and some of the existing freestanding signs there. So the first Board of Supervisors hearing for the appeal occurred in March of 2024. And the staff's recommendation at that time was to deny the appeal, thus denying the entire project. And one day prior to that hearing occurring, the applicant's traffic engineer submitted an addendum to the traffic impact study that was originally completed for the project. And that addendum included some arguments and assertions against the recommendation from Caltrans that the median would have to be closed to mitigate transportation impacts. Because that addendum to the impact study was submitted so close to the hearing date, the board ended up directing staff to go back and document denial based on health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare, referencing the planning commission and other correspondence, and to allow time for staff to evaluate the validity of the addendum that was submitted. So the hearing was continued to May of 2024. And the second Board of Supervisors hearing happened in May of 2024. And again, staff's recommendation was denial. And again, a day prior to that meeting, the applicant's traffic engineer submitted a revised addendum to the traffic impact study that was submitted at that prior meeting. And that revised addendum included more data and analysis to support their position that the median closure was not a necessary condition. And so again, because the study was submitted so close to the hearing date, the board directed staff to go back and clarify the studies to ensure that all studies are complete and adequate to enable the board to make a final decision on the project. And at that point, the board continued the hearing to a date uncertain. So following that hearing, between March and May of 2024, staff conducted further discussion with the applicant and Caltrans regarding the validity of those addendums to the traffic study that were submitted. And ultimately, we concluded that in order for Caltrans and the county to sort of accept the validity of the claims that were made in those revised addendums, that the applicant would be required to essentially start from scratch and conduct an entirely new transportation impact study, which includes any sort of traffic impact study that's done includes a section on the methodology of how that study and that analysis is conducted. And usually that methodology, Caltrans must concur with that methodology. So at that point, The applicant agreed to basically void and withdraw the revised addendums to the transportation impact study that were submitted and agreed to that previously recommended mitigation from Caltrans, which was to include the closure of the median and to incorporate the acceleration and deceleration lanes. So following that, in September of 2024, Caltrans provided additional comments on the project. And in January of 2025, staff discovered some issues with the plans that were submitted regarding parking and the setbacks. So we found that the parking that was originally approved wasn't adequate because the applicant had not provided proof that an area that was proposed for parking behind the commercial building They did not provide evidence of easements or an ability to allow members of the public to get back into that area to park. And so as a result, they revised their plans to include more parking in the front area in front of the shop to meet the parking minimums. And in addition, we found that some of the proposed canopies still slightly encroached into the easements. And so the applicant went back and revised their plans and essentially made it so that the canopies were fully outside of the easements. And then in 2025 and 2026, we conducted further discussions with Caltrans regarding freeway agreement and encouragement permit process that would be required as part of this median closure condition, some additional research on the variance, and discussion with a new attorney that was retained by the applicant. So in terms of the freeway agreement that's mentioned in the bullet, as part of the requirement from Caltrans to close the median at this location, Our initial discussions with Caltrans, they had mentioned that it would be necessary to amend the existing freeway agreement between the county and Caltrans at that intersection to basically clarify that that median would be closed and that folks would not have the ability to make left turns or go across the highway at that location. those freeway agreements are essentially planning documents that are agreements between the county and caltrans that identifies where the sort of on ramps and off ramps are onto the highways and where there's different access controls onto highways And so the possible board actions for this meeting would be to, following the hearing and the consideration of my presentation and the staff report, the board can affirm, reverse, or modify the decision as it deems just, equitable, and in compliance with the zoning code general plan. And the board decision is final. And now I just want to go over a supplemental memorandum that was presented to the board after this initial item had been noticed and posted. And that memorandum covers a few different topics, one of which is the community character combining district that is applicable to this property. And I'll go over that in more detail on the next slide. We did receive some questions from the public about the applicability of the community character combining district regulation property. In addition, after further discussions with Caltrans, They determined that a full amendment of that freeway agreement that I mentioned on the last slide would not be necessary and in fact only what they call a resolution of change would be necessary to document the closure of the median and the different kind of access control that that would bring about on the freeway and We are recommending an additional finding and condition be included in the resolution that notifies the applicant of this section of the California Government Code, which essentially outlines a period where applicants and permittees can challenge any conditions of approval that are imposed And then a minor change to the expiration dates that were included as conditions of approval that were outdated based on past hearings and not updated to reflect this current hearing and potential action. So as I mentioned before, this property is within the Community Character Combining District, which is an overlay district that includes regulations for formula businesses in Manitino County. And specifically, that combining district regulates these four businesses that are included in these bullet points here, eating and drinking establishment, food and beverage retail sales, food and beverage preparation without consumption, and general retail sales. And these regulations apply to any newly constructed structures on any lot. And it also applies to any substantially reconstructed structures in certain community areas or commercial zones. And specifically, the substantially reconstructed structures is defined as alteration, removal, or replacement of more than 50% of a structure's existing floor area or exterior walls. And so because the gas station is not listed in those four use types that are regulated by the CC combining district, and because the conversion of the convenience store doesn't meet that 50% alteration threshold, we determined that the project is not subject to the community character combining district regulations. So staff's recommendation at this point, given the fact that the applicant is now willing to incorporate the median closure and is accepting of that condition of approval and is willing to void and withdraw their previous arguments against that condition, we're recommending that the board adopt the revised resolution that's within the supplemental memorandum which would reverse the Planning Commission decision and approve and modify the project as follows. It would include adopting the mitigated negative declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. It would include approving the use permit for the gas station with the conditions I mentioned earlier, including that median closure condition. Approval of the reduced front yard setback variance. Approval of the modified sign area variance. denial of the sign height variance, and incorporation of the corrections that were made in that supplement. However, because the last direction that we had from the board was to come back with a resolution for denial, we are including an alternative resolution to deny the project. And the primary basis for that resolution of denial would remain the circulation impacts that are due to the closure of the median. So if the median were to be closed, as I mentioned before, it would prevent motorists from traveling across the highway or turning left into the site when traveling southbound or turning left onto Yuba Drive when traveling northbound. In essence, it echoes the concerns of the Planning Commission that by doing so, you'd be creating a nuisance or impacting the general welfare of the community because of that change. I believe that's all that I have, but I'm available for any questions. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. Any questions from the Board?

Well, I have a few questions. You know, the last comment about the circulation. And I guess my concern is if the median is closed, then if there is an emergency, if there's a fire and there's an evacuation needed on either side of the highway, has that been considered by the emergency circulation plans or anything?

yeah we did look at the emergency evacuation plan for the county and it doesn't specifically mention this area as a specific emergency evacuation route but in general I would say that it's true that if the meeting were to be closed it would prevent certain access from taking place naturally, just by virtue of the fact that folks would no longer be able to cross US 101 at that area from Uva Drive to North State Street or vice versa, or turning left off of the freeway or onto the from those roads. But as I mentioned before, the emergency evacuation plan doesn't specifically mention that spot.

And then the deceleration lane. So you talked about the swale being a factor in allowing for the zero variance setback. But if there's a deceleration lane, it seems like that lane would have to be constructed into that swale. Can you explain how that would work?

Yeah. So those would actually occur in two sort of different locations. So the swale itself is between the boundary of the property and the edge of North State Street. But the acceleration and deceleration lanes would actually be constructed along US 101, which is maybe 100 feet northwest of the project site itself. So they'd be occurring in two different locations.

OK, so there, and I guess I'm not envisioning it properly, but there is a swale between North State Street and the property.

Correct. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind, I'll share my screen.

And there's also another swale between 101 and North State Street. Correct. Back.

So this sort of, hard to see with my mouse, but this sort of oval shaped or ellipse shaped area is the swale that is between Project Scythe and North State Street. But North State Street continues on northwest off the screen of this map. And if I can go back to the intersection. So continuing along North State Street here, eventually it turns into US 101. So the deceleration lane or the acceleration lanes would be along sort of These vegetated areas, if you will, But these themselves are not connected to that swale that connects North State Street to the project site.

OK. So how long do the deceleration and the acceleration lanes have to be? And is that something that the county would be watching? Or is that Caltrans? Because it's on the Caltrans.

So it would require that the applicant obtain an encroachment permit. through Caltrans to construct those improvements. And this is outlined in more detail in the staff report, but essentially, Caltrans would require, it's called QMAP, quality management assistance process, I believe it's called. It's a special type of process for these sorts of improvements for encroachment permits onto the highway. And essentially what Caltrans would require is that the county act on behalf of the applicant in facilitating the encroachment permit to construct those improvements. but that the applicant themselves would pay for those improvements and would be involved in the process with the county to construct those improvements.

looks like any councilor deputy county council Matthew drowsky condition number thirty three talks a little bit more in detail about this. The caltrans does typically like to work with the local government but they have said there is a separate agreement with the name it's a highway improvement agreement and if you know the We can at least be requesting, if not directly trying to force the issue with Caltrans, that they work directly with the applicant on this. So I don't know exactly how that's going to work out, but the condition 33A talks about the county and owner applicant requesting a highway improvement agreement be executed directly between Caltrans and the owner applicant.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry, just to answer your question about the distance of the acceleration lanes, I do not know that off the top of my head, but... I believe Caltrans may be in attendance. They might be able to speak to what the normal distance of those lanes are.

Yeah. No, I'm just thinking about how long it's going to be, what the effect is on that stretch of the highway and all that. And there is that, when you head north out of that intersection, that there is that hillside right there. And so would that have to be cut into? How big of a project is this?

I believe when Caltrans provided their comments in the past, they did mention that it There is a possibility that the highway would have to be widened in some way to accommodate those accelerations, which would involve some sort of grading or some other work that encroaches into those kind of vegetated areas that are on there. I don't know how much of that. cuts into the hillside, as you say, or how steep it is in that area. But I would imagine the lanes themselves would be at least a couple hundred feet in length.

Thank you.

Just a quick follow up to that question. Any expense that may be incurred in the process that Supervisor Haschak is talking about is going to be borne by the applicant, correct?

It would, yeah. And part of the condition of approval that we're recommending includes essentially an agreement between county applicant that they would bear the expense of those.

Thank you. Supervisor Williams.

I have two questions. You talked about the threshold not being met for the community character combining district. Can you walk us through how the square footage calculation was performed? What are you including and what are you not including on both portions of the business?

Sure. So the The entire existing commercial building is 12,000 square feet. And only 2,000 square feet of that would be converted to a convenience store. And because of that, the alteration would be less than 50%. So that's how we came to that conclusion. That's for the convenience store conversion itself. The gas station portion of the project is not listed in those types of uses that are regulated by the community character district. So that portion of the project simply is not subject to those.

What will the remaining square footage be used for if only the small portion is for a convenience store?

I don't know the answer to that, but I would assume there would be continued use of some other commercial activities. I think there's a Thai restaurant that currently occupies one of those units.

I would think in order to do this calculation, we would need to know the full scope of the planned utilization, and we're looking at one small. If I were an applicant in the abstract on any project, I would keep that new portion of it small to not trigger the community character combining district. So the second question, the environmental review that's been done, has the scope included the acceleration and deceleration lanes, as Supervisor Haschek was pointing out, the grading along the state highway?

It did, yes. That was contemplated in the negative declaration.

So when Supervisor Haschek asks about how much grading in the distance, we don't know the answer, but we must have known the answer at some point because that would have been included in the environmental review.

Not necessarily. We don't know the exact.

Maybe ask another way. How could we have completed the environmental review if we don't know how much grading will take place to make room for an acceleration and deceleration line? Isn't that the pertinent information, whether it's 100 feet of dirt and whether it's 10 cubic yards or 100 cubic yards? I think we need to know those numbers to do environmental review.

I will say that. The California Environmental Quality Act, it requires that we evaluate whatever the reasonably foreseeable future portions of a project are. And at this point, it's not certain what the potential design of those improvements would be. to be teased out during the encroachment permit process with Caltrans?

Understood, but I think it's part and parcel with the review of the project because this project couldn't move forward without that component being completed per Caltrans. And so we have to include that component in the environmental review, right? There's the grading. There's the impact to sensitive species. There's also nonpermeable surface with water collection that's going to have to be diverted. That's all environmental review.

I don't think I have any response to that

and if i may uh julia craig playing building services director i think if we there may be representatives from caltrans available online too because if you look at the image that um liam had up on the screen showing the existing freeway as well there is already turn lanes that are marked in um for going in and out through that that median that would now be closed so i think there's going to be a level of restriping that's happening throughout that whole freeway area And I don't recall that this has come up specifically about there not being adequate existing area already to accommodate the acceleration and deceleration lanes. We're just reviewing through the record here. And so perhaps we'll continue with board discussion. And staff may have additional comments to add after reviewing some of the traffic impact study.

Follow-up question. If there's adequate space on the highway, if they're not changing the width, but they're restriping, that's narrowing the highway, which creates a safety concern. So I guess I'm concerned either way. Either it's being widened without environmental review, or there's a certain narrowing of the lanes that will have a traffic impact. And I don't see that in any of the documentation attached.

My apologies, perhaps my comment was unclear. There's also existing shoulders on either side of this. So I think that's where it would be great to hear from Caltrans, I think specifically, because I don't want to speak for them. I don't think there's any intention to narrow any traveled lanes, to be clear.

I support that. And my last clarifying question is, even if there's shoulder space existing in the Caltrans right-of-way, That shoulder space today is not a non-permeable surface. So the water accumulation and the water diversion, the toxic compounds off the tires that are going to be running in that water, that needs to be part of the environmental review.

Ms. Bearden, do we have Caltrans on?

Is there a name in particular? There isn't anybody online identified just as Caltrans.

Yes, I believe it would be Jesse Robertson. Robertson.

I unfortunately don't have that name either online. I have a Sadie Clark and an Erin .

Those don't sound familiar to me. I will just note, if I may, that we did send the environmental document to Caltrans and asked them for any comments they may have about the adequacy of that document. As part of the encroachment permits process with Caltrans, conduct their own environmental review of sorts or ensure that existing environmental review is adequate for the encroachment permit process. So we did send that to them. And they responded to us and did not have any comments and said that the report was adequate for their purposes. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board before we hear from the applicant? Supervisor Mulhern?

Thank you. I did visit the site over the weekend. And maybe I believe that the applicant's comments are next as part of the hearing. So if we could clarify whether or not the businesses that currently exist in the building are going to continue to exist, because that was part of the community character combining district analysis that staff did.

Supervisor Haschuk.

Yeah, excuse me. One last question was, if we eliminate the setback, then does that mean that the signage can go right up to the edge? And is that a normal, is there a setback normally for signage?

Yes, usually setback would have to, signage would have to comply with the normal setback requirement for that zone, which is 20 feet.

So if we accept this proposal to eliminate the, well, to have the variance and to eliminate it from 20 feet to zero, then the signage can go right up to that edge? Correct, yes.

Okay. Supervisor Williams another question.

Yeah, so the question for staff if if this is a Basis for allowing a very variance from 20 feet to 0 feet wouldn't other Parcel owners create such easements so that they could remove the setback Isn't this is a way to leverage the process to get around what's in our code. I Right any parcel any parcel that wants the zero could create this wide easement through a parcel and then ask the county for zero feet because You see I was getting it.

Yes, one of the findings that's required to be made for a variance is that the special circumstance that is applicable is not due to any action of the applicant or the current owner and so

If that were to be the case, it would have to be some previous owner that were to establish a... Is it typical in the application of our code to make exceptions based on a parcel not being able to inform? Wouldn't you for a gas station start with a parcel that doesn't have this easement situation that's appropriate to comply with the setbacks, rather than start with one that arguably can't comply with the setbacks?

Well, I don't think we have any control over where gas stations are proposed. But part of the findings, as I mentioned before, is that the applicant is not being denied a right that's available to other property owners in the same vicinity and zone. And we did look at some of the surrounding commercial properties in that area. The property immediately adjacent to this property to the north is subject to the same easement. But a couple of the properties further north in that same commercial area are not subject to that same easement. And then some of the nearby commercial areas further south along the highway do not have that same constraint. So it has to do with The fact that other properties in the area that have the potential to build a gas station or some other commercial use are not similarly constrained by that easement.

So essentially we would be applying our code with exceptions for where a parcel due to previous owners selling easement have made the setback infeasible. I guess what I'm getting at is, is it really a level playing field that we're applying the setback to some parcels but not others?

I would say that is essentially the purpose of having variance provisions in the code is to allow for these situations where there's special conditions that are applicable and that other properties in the area aren't subject to those same restrictions.

I'm not seeing any more questions. We'll invite the applicant up to the podium, please. You have roughly 20 minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, board members. My name's Steven Johnson. I'm an attorney. I represent the applicant, Fizon Corporation. And I'd like to thank the planning and building staff and county council for their .

Excuse me, sir. I don't mean to interrupt you. Could you pull the microphone a little bit closer to you? Oh, sure.

Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you.

I'd like to thank the Planning and Building Department and the County Council for their comprehensive review of this project. And they've worked closely with us to go through a lot of these regulations and requirements. And they've gone over this project thoroughly as far as what the conditions are, so I won't repeat that. However, I would like to state that this gas station project will not be located in the heart of Redwood Valley. It's right off the freeway, right at the very end of North State Street. The property is one of the few parcels zoned for commercial use in the area and is located right off the freeway. The applicant received county approval for a gas station project at this site in 2015, but the station was not built before the permits expired. The applicant subsequently applied for approval of a gas station on the site, but it was denied by the Planning Commission. And the project has changed since the Planning Commission denied it. in that the applicant has agreed to the county's request the applicant pay to reconfigure the freeway by removing the median, allowing for a left turn lane off the freeway onto North State Street and the crossing of the freeway from North State Street to Uva Drive. The condition of the property will be considerably upgraded by constructing a clean, lighted gas station and mini market that will offer gas to those that need it. It will promote public safety, encourage people passing through to stop, and increase tax revenue for the county. The project will also cater to the freeway business and not necessarily cater to those that live in Redwood Valley unless they care to stop. The applicant shall invest millions of dollars in this project, which will make for a more appealing and welcoming site. The neighboring property owners are in favor of the project and will create approximately 12 jobs. The applicant has also expressed an interest in having an EV charging station installed after the construction is completed. The applicant is also open to erecting a map of Redwood Valley that depicts the wineries, businesses, and other points of interest to encourage those passing through to visit Redwood Valley and the surrounding areas. If this project is denied, then the improvements on the parcel will likely continue to decline in condition as the demand to lease the property is very limited and the existing leases and other known uses do not justify spending significant sums to improve the property. I recently met with the Redwood Valley MAC to discuss this project with its members and interested public and we had a very good conversation regarding the issues. The Redwood Valley MAC generally states in its community plan update that it seeks to limit commercial growth in the area and maintain the character of the Redwood Valley. Those are commendable goals that likely meet the needs of numerous Redwood Valley residents and property owners. However, there are also property owners and residents that do not subscribe to the Redwood Valley MAC strict limitations on commercial activities in the area. I would like to make a personal comment regarding commercial projects in Redwood Valley. I grew up in Redwood Valley. My mother was a school teacher at Redwood Valley School. I farm pears and grapes in Redwood Valley with my brother and my family has been farming in Redwood Valley for over 130 years. I have a strong interest in maintaining the rural character of the valley, but some commercial investment in the area is needed and should be encouraged. In my lifetime, say the last 50 years, there have only been four new commercial projects that have been constructed in Redwood Valley that I'm aware of. Eagle Peak School was constructed, and then the old Redwood Valley School was left to rot. The casino was constructed. And the project was not required to go through state or county approval process. A new self-storage facility was constructed right in the heart of downtown Redwood Valley. This project was likely built because it did not require any discretionary permits. And the neighboring property to this property, owned and operated by Arrow Fencing, constructed a manufacturing and shop facility right next to this project. That's it for commercial construction in Redwood Valley area over the last 50 years. 50 years, that is a very long period of time for such limited commercial construction. In my opinion, Redwood Valley needs some commercial investment or it's likely going to decline just like this property has over the years. Such projects, especially those located on commercially zoned parcels, can provide needed services to the community and enhance the valley. I appreciate the fact that Redwood Valley MAC and its members are taking a very strong and active role in limiting projects in Redwood Valley in order to retain Redwood Valley's rural character. However, if this approach is taken to extreme, it can deter investment, negatively impact the valley, and fail to meet the needs of the residents and property owners. We firmly believe that this project will improve the Redwood Valley area. It will definitely improve this piece of property, which is generally a gateway to the Redwood Valley area right off the freeway. It will provide a service to those that need gas, encourage people passing through to stop, increase the county tax base, employ people that need jobs, and meet the needs of the public. And we respectfully request a clear path approval for this project I would also like to generally address a couple of the issues that the supervisors raised in their comments as far as the combining district the existing tenants shall remain on the property and continue to use the property in their present condition the median closure As far as the CEQA documents are concerned, they were adequate and they were effectively approved by the county and by the Caltrans. In looking at that site, there's left turn lanes which would be removed. There's also a median in the middle of the road in that area that widens the road or the freeway. And I would expect, although I'm not an expert, I would expect that there should not be a need to substantially increase the width of the road or freeway at all. But I'm not able to comment on that. I did speak to the Caltrans. consultant or agent regarding this project and he did not bring up any negative issues with this and he was happy to work with us in the county to to get this project completed in a timely manner I'd also like to state as far as circulation is concerned I appreciate the fact that there you know if you close any road it potentially limits some circulation inherently and However, I would mention that if you do drive on that property in that area and you do try to make a left turn lane, whether it be off North State Street or off Uva Drive, or you try to cross the whole freeway, it's a very difficult turn to make or crossing to make. And I think it's very nerve wracking, especially for people that when they're coming down the road, And coming down the freeway from Willett South, it's hard to judge specifically how fast people are going and how you can make a safe turn. So there may be a limitation as far as circulation. I think there is an opportunity to make for perhaps a safer area in that you don't see this type of interaction between county roads and freeways very often. And I don't think that this change is that significant. I would also like to address some of the issues that are likely to be raised by the Redwood Valley MAC as far as the client is concerned. They're likely to bring up an issue as far as my client was ran into violations a few years ago involving gas stations and the operation of gas stations at various counties and he paid a fine for that or the corporation paid a fine for that and address those issues I would also like to say that the that the operator is a very good operator he owns numerous gas stations in the area he works with and and the corporation works with the major gas station companies. And if they were not good operators, they wouldn't be making those type of relationships and they wouldn't continue them. Additionally, the operator has recently constructed the truck stop here in Ukiah. And I think that's presents a significant improvement to that whole area in town and there was significant investment that benefits the county and the city of Ukiah in that area and I think that this is another opportunity to make a similar type of project where there's a solid investment that's going to have very good impact on the area and there's going to be a lot of opportunity for people to stop and to make a potential voyage into the areas around Redwood Valley that may benefit the county. And then based on the previous discussion that was had earlier today regarding tourism, it is apparent that the county is interested in tourism dollars and is interested in having people stop and invest their time and energy in this area. And I think that this presents an opportunity to do that. Additionally, there's a demand for this gas station. If there was no demand, this type of investment would not be being made. Additionally, the Coyote Valley has a gas station down the street, which right now, in my opinion, based on looking at it, is very crowded, and it's clear that there is demand for gasoline. Additionally, I think that the Coyote Valley, based on their ability to not have to pay taxes on gas in California, has the ability to have a lower price. So those people that want a lower price gasoline will go to Coyote Valley. I don't think it's going to have a significant negative impact on Coyote Valley's use or operation of their gas station. And I think that this project will allow other people that have uh do not go to coyote valley or wish to go to chevron will allow them the opportunity to do that there aren't that many gas stations or there's no gas stations between redwood valley and um and willits additionally after the project is is completed There's an opportunity generally for people like Tesla to come in and set up EV stations if they think it's appropriate. And this likely would be an appropriate spot given its location and the lack of EV charging stations in the near area. And that would potentially allow people to easily charge in that area and then move through Mendocino County and go up to Eureka and charge up there. And I've talked to people that are in the area who want EV charging stations. And I think this presents a good opportunity for them to have a place in their area in Redwood Valley to charge their cars. So I'd be happy to answer any questions or address your questions later.

Supervisor Klein?

Yeah, I have one question that comes to mind. Has the applicant been found in violation of other environmental compliance issues since the corp was fined in January of 2023.

Not that I'm aware of.

Any other violations?

No. No.

Supervisor Haschuk?

Yeah, you talked about promoting public safety. Can you elaborate on that, please?

Well, I think as far as public safety is concerned, I spoke with local law enforcement. And they thought that having a clean lighted area in that specific area would be good and would promote public safety. That was the use and words that they used in that I think that there's An opportunity to have more people there is going to be taken care of in a managed area with employees, with better lighting. And I think that promotes public safety. And additionally, as far as public safety is concerned, I think not having to cross the freeway in the fashion that's presently being done, in my opinion, personally believe that that could assist with public safety as well.

And you talked about the CEQA for the median closure. When that CEQA analysis was done, was it done for the acceleration and deceleration lanes too? Or was it just for the median closure?

You know, I can't, we have, I have the Caltrans statement document here. The Caltrans wrote a letter on September 27, 2024, to Liam Crowley, and this is written by Jesse Robertson, and it's on attachment Z in the documentation, and it states in the second paragraph, this is Caltrans stating this, we also concur with the conclusion of this study that in conjunction with closing the median, acceleration and deceleration lanes would be required for northbound traffic entering and exiting North State Street. So I believe that it would have been probably in conjunction with the CEQA analysis that those acceleration lanes were part of the process.

OK, thank you.

Supervisor Williams?

Who was the they in the public safety comment? You said you talked to public safety and they referred to well- Who did I speak with? Yeah, just for the record.

I spoke with former Sheriff Tom Allman,

I see. So he's not public safety today. He's retired. Is there any evidence for the record of public safety who's currently public safety recommending the project for public safety reasons?

I haven't spoken to anyone presently.

And then follow-up question on the CEQA concern. It should be part of the initial study. Have you seen the Caltrans analysis of the acceleration and deceleration? Is that part of the initial study packet?

I've you know what I would defer to county council or county planning and building on that issue I've I've reviewed the I reviewed the Caltrans letter and I've also spoken to Caltrans regarding the issue I've also spoken to Matt Kudrowski regarding various Caltrans issues and I don't doubt you I just I know that if the county is the lead agency it should be in that initial study it shouldn't be a letter from Caltrans

I'm wondering, I haven't seen anything. I'm just wondering who might have a copy of that portion of the environmental review.

And if I could, through the chair, at least respond. The Caltrans letter, which is contained in Exhibit Z, as in Zed, does give the board an alternative to doing an acceleration and deceleration lane. I know that's a different issue.

It's kind of sidetracking my concern, but now that we have the discussion, has council seen that the county as lead agency in its initial study has fully analyzed the impact of the acceleration and deceleration lane on the highway that's being requested?

So Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, I would look towards the staff planner's tributes in the initial study. This is a mitigation measure recommended by Caltrans as part of the initial study. I don't know necessarily that the design is final at this point. There is going to be room on the highway to shrink it with the reduction of the turn lanes. Whether that necessarily eliminates the need for initial paving, I can't say at this point in time.

So follow up for council, if this board were to, accept the appeal and allow the project to go forward, we would be doing it without consideration of the alternatives that would be part of the initial study. Those alternatives would be based in part on options for the highway rework. Not for the public safety concern, but for the environmental review.

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, I'd stay away from alternatives that would be in an environmental impact report. Right now we're at a mitigated negative declaration. To the extent that there's any desire for further analysis to clarify if whether there, you know, what would the potential Expanded pavement be that's something we could if planning isn't able to speak to that here or if Caltrans isn't here to speak on the item on that to determine whether that's a significant impact or not given the existing pavement area that's usable.

But there's a fair argument for greater environmental review than this mitigated negative deck based on reworking a highway and drainage.

I think the issue is, is there a substantial environmental impact? And I don't know that we have. I'm not sure what the impact is of whatever the number of feet is that would need to be paved on the side of the road.

OK. I'm not seeing any more questions for the applicant. Thank you, sir. Thank you. OK. We'll now open the podium up to the public for comment.

good afternoon board members and staff for the county my name is chris boyd i'm a resident of redwood valley and i've been a member of the redwood valley municipal advisory council for 10 years and in all those years there have only been two permit applications from the county that has received significant opposition from redwood valley public community And this is one of them. And we've had numerous meetings. A lot of people have spoken about this. And primarily, the attitude is negative towards it. So there are so many reasons why this project should not be approved in Redwood Valley. I only have three minutes. I don't have time to go into all of them. But the Redwood Valley MAC has sent you a letter that does outline quite a number of the issues that we face. But this is really all about money. We all know that. You need revenue for the county. We all need revenue for the county. And Faison stands to make a lot more money from this property, and they know it. We are engaged in a windfall profit experience for the oil companies, and they're raking it in. $7 million for Shell Oil in the last quarter in profit, and $6 million shared with the shareholders of Chevron. So this is really about big, big money. Your Honorable Board and the good business people of the Mendo Matters group don't live in Redwood Valley, nor do they represent it, except, of course, for Madeline Klein, our supervisor. But I do, and I'm less than two miles from this proposed station site. I can hear the 101 freeway from where I live, unfortunately. But this new traffic going up and down West Road, State Street, back and forth to the station is going to be very noisy. It's going to involve a lot of accelerations and decelerations. There will be a lot of release of hazardous materials in the form of diesel exhaust and particulate matter, both of which are known carcinogens. Faison, basically about money, they've built their $500,000 in fees and fines from a few years ago from seven counties into their cost of doing business. So they essentially don't bear the cost. They pass it on to the consumers. And maybe you have noticed, or maybe you haven't, that at North State Street, they have failed for the last few months, until today I notice, to display their cost of gasoline in their sign. Maybe it's convenient for them because it's the most expensive gasoline in the area. But what we're concerned with, including traffic, sounds, noise, fumes, and the school is one block away, our only public school in Redwood Valley, and it's already a roadblock for students people coming in and out of delivering their children. So in Europe, there's a windfall profit tax now. And around the world, electric vehicles are selling like crazy. Only in America do we lower fuel standards at such a time, grant tax exemptions to big oil companies, and grant variances to oil companies to allow them to come into our community. If you deny the Faison project and they sue, don't settle. Let it go to a jury, and let them decide whether the health and welfare of Redwood Valley will actually be benefited by this gas station. And in conclusion, I'd like to say that people talk about money, that it makes the world go around, but it doesn't. Nature makes the world go around, and nature is crying right now. Nature needs some help. We do not need to bring in- I don't mean to interrupt.

Could I get you to wrap up? I'm trying to, yeah.

Thank you. Thank you. We don't need more of the oil infrastructure. We need to go in the other direction. We need to go into the future. So please, I ask you to deny this unnecessary and harmful fossil fuel project. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name's Dolly Riley. Greetings, supervisors. As you've heard, a lot of people in Redwood Valley have expressed they don't want to see this 101 stop off, 10 pump gas station, 512 square foot sign, illuminated canopies, et cetera. They don't want a repeat of Fison Corporation's failure to incorrectly label fuel octane ratings and failure to comply with hazardous waste laws. What we want is we want to preserve smart growth. We want mixed-use business. We want to preserve community character. We want to develop a community recreation center in the old Redwood Valley School. That's been held up by Ukiah Unified School District, not Redwood Valley. And we do not want to add pollution. As supervisors, you can consider the appeal permit. You can consider denial of the appeal permit based on the formula business ordinance. And late yesterday, I saw this supplemental memorandum where it talks about substantially reconstructed structure of the building, which is dilapidated. And I do believe when they go to put a convenience store in there, they may need to rebuild it so I don't know that that holds weight I think that that is something that is very debatable in fact there is somebody here that wants to talk that has worked on that building that will tell you what a sad state it's in okay so I think that's splitting hairs okay I want to talk about How the ordinance defines community character. They talk about urban form and design. They talk about historical preservation. They talk about natural features. We do have an ordinance. It can be followed. The intent of the CC combining district. Let's talk about that for a minute. I'm going to run out of time, folks. I really tried to narrow this down. But all of a sudden, I get new information. So I'll make it quick. The original framers to create the Formula Business Ordinance in 2016 intended to impart that chain stores diminish community character. This was the intent of the ordinance. The deciding agents must examine the extrinsic aids, such as legislative history, committee analysis, social purpose of the law, In Superior Court of California law, the goal of interpretation of such an ordinance, the fundamental goal is to ascertain and affect the intent of the ordinance. That is, in this case, no repeated Chevron station and convenience store. I do not agree with the submission of only selected parts of the legislative history. There are a couple of cases, 2003 case of draw out versus superior court, and I'll quote, isolated fragments of the act. of legislative history pointing to a single paragraph where the entire statute must be considered. I know I need to wrap up. Please look at the intent of the statute. I have a lot more to say, but sorry. Thank you.

Yes, and I just have a heart statement to make. A lot of people have done a lot of work on this. My name is Fran Lawton. I'm a 40-year resident of Redwood Valley. I moved up here from the Bay Area. I love the town. I, too, agree that Mendocino County needs to generate more revenue, but it needs to be done in a way that enhances the community, not detracts from the community. And the only thing that I see this 10-pump gas station doing is letting people whiz through Ukiah, stopping right there in Redwood Valley, filling up their tanks and whizzing on through Mendocino County up to Humboldt County, where they're doing a whole lot more to preserve the quality and the charm of their community. So I'm opposed to it. I'm in sympathy with the need to increase revenue, but I just don't think that this is the way to do it. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you for letting us speak here. And thank you for your report, Liam. That was really thoughtful and complete. A new gas station in 2026? Are we crazy? We're already saturated. We have enough of this. Destroying the environment to let somebody else make tons of money, yes, it does give us revenue, and I know we need it. There are other ways. So after Faison paid $500,000 in fines, do you think the environment was restored? No, because what they did, unfair and unlawful business practices, groundwater and surface contamination, releasing hazardous substances, unlawful disposal of hazardous waste, and improper and false product labeling. These guys are not moral people. These guys have no ethics. They have no integrity. We do not want this kind of a company in our community. Moral standards and principles and norms we use to judge whatever actions, behaviors, or motives are right or wrong. They specifically govern actions that can seriously harm or benefit human well-being, such as lying, stealing, or showing compassion and solidarity. The fines that Faison Corporation had to pay do not restore the harm that is done and underline willful harm inflicted for monetary gain. Do we want these people in our community? Redwood Valley doesn't want them, based on these facts. So we ask you, our five board of supervisors, to have compassion with us and solidarity and honor the voice of the people who live around these proposed business practitioners. Let's not move forward with a company that cannot be trusted and does not meet our standards of integrity and neither yours. Thank you very much for your time.

Through the chair, if I may, could I please get the name of the speaker?

Ma'am, could I get you to repeat your name?

I always forget this. My name is . I'm a resident of Redwood Valley and a Mac member.

Thank you.

Apologies.

Melinda. My name is Melinda Hunter. I am from Coyote Valley. I am also the vice chairwoman for the tribe. I have a letter here of opposition for this project, the Chevron project, right here. But I'd like to read some other notes. So I'm here on behalf of my tribe, my people, and a very long, long time resident of the Reddow Valley community. I don't have my glasses. The Coyote Valley Band of Poma Indians opposed the proposed Chevron gas station in Redwood Valley. We believe this project would hurt our community more than help it. Our tribe is working hard to invest in Redwood Valley and support local families. We are planning to bring a pharmacy and an urgent care clinic to the area. These services would be open to everyone, not just our tribal members. Redwood Valley needs health care services more than another large gas station. Money earned through tribal businesses stay in our community and help support local jobs and programs and services. The Chevron project would mostly benefit a large outside company, not local residents. Red Valley already has gas stations. Many people in the community believe there is not another need for one. People are concerned about more traffic, noise, and pollution from this project. also change local road access and make travel harder for residents and emergency services. Our tribe supports growth that helps the community in a healthy and positive way. We want development that brings needed services, good jobs, long-term benefits to local people. Our tribe wants to continue building projects that improve the life for everyone in Ritter Valley. The creation of our businesses has been to achieve our goal of self-sufficiency, to promote to provide programs, services, and employment for our people and our local communities. I will just mention one business, our casino, Most of you here, I believe, know that in order for tribes to game in the state of California, we have to have a tribal-state compact, which means we have to have state approval, which triggers many other requirements that the tribe has to require, including a MOU with the county, Mendocino County, to mitigate environmental effects. So it's that. I raised my 30-year-old daughter here on Cuyahoga Valley Reservation, which is located in Roto Valley. I apologize. and now grandchildren that many, many of us are doing. And I'm sure you're all aware we've been here a lot longer than that. We serve a total membership of 474. Approximately 200 reside on the reservation. So when making your decision, I ask you to remember our people. I ask with great passion, I strongly encourage you to oppose and deny this proposal or project, and then we can continue the work of our ancestors to improve the quality of life of our people and the local communities. Oh, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, Tom Shoneman, Redwood Valley. I'm on various water boards in this valley. And I've been listening to these arguments for quite a while on the Phazon project, but listening to this this morning about the concern about the berms and just the construction of this and the EPA standards that are, you guys are being, you're questioning this stuff. And that makes it quite apparent to me that this isn't ready to go. This needs to be more thought out. These people were here in 2015, let it go, came back, it was denied. This sounds like it's a mess, and it's not ready. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Honorable Board of Supervisors. My name is Richie Campbell, Environmental Director for Coyote Valley and a citizen of Coyote Valley Band of Poma Indians. I want to be up front. Yes, our tribe owns a gas station. We all know that. We're not against all gas stations, but we're against this gas station by this company. This corporation, we all know in 2023 had to pay over half a million dollars for environmental consumer violations across seven California counties, including Mendocino. You know, they failed to install leak detection equipment in their underground tanks, putting underground water at risk. They falsely sold 89 octane gas as 91 octane cheating customers. A court required them to hire an environmental compliance consultant because they could not be trusted to follow the law on their own. Coyote Valley relies on clean water. Our people live downstream from this proposed site. A repeated violator with a history of leaking tanks is a risk we should not have to take, protect our land, and deny the appeal. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, members of the board and general audience. My name is Troy Klein. I'm the general manager of the Coyote Valley Travel Market and Fuel. I can't say that I'm a long-term resident like some have said that have been here for 150 years. I've been here for almost three years now. And in that time, I've fallen in love with the area. Since purchased a home, which I haven't done in 20 years, moved my family up here. We could take all of these arguments and we could hash them out all day long. We could throw accusations at the owners. We could throw accusations at the board. End of the day is this isn't a issue about a business. It's not an issue about a county. It's an issue about a community. A statement was made earlier that this business meets the needs of the community. Well, how could that possibly be when the community has overwhelmingly rejected this proposal? There are many different things that we talk about. Chevron, oh yes, certainly they would not ever want to do business with somebody that's unscrupulous. Let's be clear about one thing. Chevron is a multi-billion dollar corporation. And unless they are directly involved in litigation, as long as there's money to be made, no problem whatsoever. Been in the business and know how that works. Talked about it meets the needs of public safety, really. Nobody today in this chamber has even talked about anything other than the freeway. What about the additional traffic coming off of those on and off ramps on West Road? I don't know anybody that's ever been up there. It can be quite the nightmare. That is an additional public safety risk that maybe we don't need, more traffic accidents. At the end of the day, I would ask the board to consider the community, and only the community, because at the end of the day, The community is the lifeblood of this state. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Polly Girvin. I'm a resident of the Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians. I'm an auntie to two generations of tribal youth. I want to discuss general welfare. Whether this is in the general welfare of our community, I would say absolutely no. On noise, we already have a freeway. Little kids ask me, what's that sound, auntie? because you can hear constantly the cars going by. Adding onto this big diesel trucks more. Aesthetically, I just don't even know what I would tell the children. Well, it just keeps getting louder. Also, I have come to you before on concerns of air quality on our reservation. We have two highways that intersect, 2101, very close to our reservation. We have as well, god, now I'm losing my chain of thought. But if you have the cumulative impact of two highways And also already a pellet plant, which is what I came and talked to about before, huge amount of I don't know if always good air is being pumped through that pipe stack there day and night. We have air quality concerns I see sometimes when it's a really black cloud coming out of it. I've been informed that means there's toxic issues. It's only when there's a clear cloud coming up that there aren't toxic issues. I think I heard county council say, well, air quality will be a condition they will have to adhere to. They will have to speak with our air quality district. You should have spoken already. And I believe the public is entitled to an EIR evaluation of whether there will be more toxic substances released into the air right where we reside. I also want to thank Coyote Valley because they put the profits of their castation back into tribal services. We have an excellent after school program. We have many children now graduating from high school who never did before. And we have served as an evacuation center, two different major fires in a row. We have serviced the Redwood Valley community. This is a tribe that concerns itself not with just advancing its own programs for its citizens, but in offering a hand. of solidarity and support to the rest of the Redwood Valley community. I ask that you look at this matter in equity, not in just strict contractual terms. In the law of contract analysis, you can apply a moral voice. You can make questions on the general welfare applicable to your heart, your concern for your community. That's called equity. And we had to involve this in the law because that is where the citizen's voice is heard. Please listen to the voice of the citizens. Thank you.

Welcome, board.

Glad you're all here. Thank you for your time.

My name is Sonia Pio. I live in Redwood Valley. I have for 33 years. I drove school bus. And now, as auntie, I'm seeing all these little kids I used to drive are now raising families here. If this 10-pump gas station with a convenience store gets approved, it will increase traffic at an already very busy intersection. This will cause increased levels of hazardous exhaust, including carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and particulate diesel matter. These emissions are particularly risky for young children attending nearby schools, as developing lungs are uniquely vulnerable to toxic air contaminants. Because School Way, North State Street, and 101 are all direct routes for schools in this area, the idling of parents and semi trucks, plus any new incurred traffic, puts children at a higher risk for asthma and permanent lung damage. Does Chevron or the Fison Company employ anyone that actually lives here in Redwood Valley? Are there any people here today that are tenants of them, real estate agents, attorneys, or employees of these two companies? Are they being paid to be here? With this proposed project, are there any plans that include renewable energy, such as solar panels, rainwater catchment, or groundwater recharging surfaces? 53 paved parking spots doesn't let the water percolate, does it? In the event of injury due to the increase in traffic volume, it's a one-way stop. They get off the highway, they go to gas, they go to Willits. They're not coming into town to go eat or do anything. They're going to pick up junk food and go. And Chevron's the highest priced gas. You think truckers are going to go there? In the event of injury, who is going to get sued? Chevron? the Fizon Corporation, or Mendocino County Building and Planning that approved this. This proposed project is unnecessary because just 1.5 miles down the street to the south is Coyote Valley. fuel station. It already has 12 fuel pumps, eight for regular vehicles and four for high clearance pumps for RVs and semi-trucks. Also at that location, there is propane, air, water, cold beverages, food, and restrooms. This existing location serves as a one-stop shop for travelers and locals. and provides a variety of items to meet everyday needs. There is no need for this proposed Chevron gas station. It will not bring any benefit to the community of Redwood Valley. It will only enable self-serving greed and increase environmental hazard. It will be a detriment to the people that actually live here. I truly hope this board denies this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Well, good afternoon. My name is Tom Rawls. And I've been here a couple of times. My family has been ranching, joining the PROS project since 1944. I've been here twice in opposition of the project. But since then, based on the current plan that addressed my easement concerns and an agreement for a second easement, my family doesn't have a problem with the project. We've had a problem with the median not being closed. The median is going to be closed. The property is deteriorating quite a bit. And I would much rather live in an area next to a project that is well kept and well lit. I think that with those things, my family does not have a problem with the project. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Well, my name is Gizmo. And I think that we do. We're going to need some more investment in Red Valley. But this is the wrong way to go. This is absolutely the wrong way to go. There's a lot of groundwater issues there. I know if you've lived or been around Red Valley, every time you get onto the entrance heading north to Willits, you'll notice that there's toolies and there's always water. that Caltrans had to mitigate with a storm drain. And so as you're coming on to head to Willits and you're heading north, if you look to the right, there's always cattails there. There's like this mini artesian well that happens there. That water ends up in Forsyth Crete, which, of course, ends up in the Russian River and downstream. And with the track record of this company and just the continued issues with just every underground tank in our community, just every gas station, every brownfield that we have here, I do not know and have not ever seen a tank that holds fuel that has been put in the ground that does not leak. If anyone can tell me that there's an actual tank that's been put in the ground for any number of years with gasoline in it that is not leaked, please let me know, because I have never, ever heard of or gone to, and I'm not a major gas station owner or person, but I will tell you, every one of these tanks that I've ever had experience with from the 50 years that I've been alive have leaked. every one of them. Now I would like to talk about the downwind effects. Most of the wind blows southeast in that area. And southeast of this project is Eagle Peak School. Southeast of this project is Redwood Valley. There is a lot of unmitigated Oak and scrubbush woodland really close by within feet of where the proposal for the gas station is. There's a real volatile foliage. And people's homes are right there. And so the catastrophic event that could happen if this does catch fire or if there is an emergency would blow right into Redwood Valley. I mean, we're just right there. I mean, it's up the hill and over, right into Red Valley. And then we have a huge redwood plant right there also. If it caught fire with embers. And of course, we're all really concerned about the fire. any kind of fires. I just don't think this project is really even, it's just such a hazard to our community. It's just not a good project. And I would hope that you would deny this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon to everyone. My name is Patrick Antonio Gallegos. was a resident of redwood valley for 21 years before moving into ukiah about two years ago earlier today it was mentioned that some of the neighboring property owners are all in favor our family is technically neither for or against we kind of see both sides of the situation here we're we're three uh two generations of property, not property owners, sorry, business owners there. So we can see the business side of it, but we also see the stuff that could happen if the gas station was put in. Part of the issues that we have currently with the property is that it's an eyesore in the positive towards the property. It is going to make something that looks better than what it is. God forbid something happens, catches fire in that building, Our property is just above it. It'll just start going up and it's further back there. The neighbors don't maintain next to the Rawls property. No one maintains that very much. So big fire could happen up there. Other than that, like I said, we're not formally nor for or against it. Just asking to please consider all the opinions here and thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Norville and fellow supervisors and county council. My name is Carrie Vaugh and I'm here today speaking on behalf of Employers Council Mendo Matters. Our board of directors met yesterday and we voted unanimously in support of the Fison development for the following reasons. I'll stop first to say that conditioned upon approvals from the county building and planning department and any conditions and requirements that come from Caltrans and so forth. As long as all those are met, we're in support of it. We believe in fairness and rights to all. It should not be about I have mine, you can't have yours. And I'm hearing that in the room right now from some people. We believe in the property rights for all property owners. Under zoning and planning laws, owners have the right to build and use their property as long as the proposed project complies with current local zoning ordinances, general plan and development conditions. Number two, the area is currently unattractive. And this development will enhance the area and potentially provide for additional development opportunities to clean up that area. I've been selling real estate for 40 years. And that area has been depressed for a while. There's been businesses come and go into that area, probably more that go. There's vacancies there now. service station as being something that would fit into that area more than anything else that has been there before. The sales, business, and property tax revenues that will eventually be lost from the county to the city of Ukiah, this would allow us to, or the county, to get more property, business tax, and property tax and sales tax revenue to come into the county. So if comments are made about this owner of the property or the proposed development, I met him for the first time a few moments ago outside during the break. I brought to his attention, because I talked to other people about his Not so, I guess, I want to say is that he seems to have a reputation that he needs to clear up. And I asked him if he has cleared up his violations. He says he has. I guess that would be up to you to find out if he's telling the truth or not. Last, I would like to say that I clarify that Chris Boyd with the Redwood Valley MAC noted that Mendo Matters directors don't live or own property in Redwood Valley. I will tell you that I personally owned land less than one mile from this proposed development. I farm in Redwood Valley, and my daughter and grandchildren live in Redwood Valley. So Redwood Valley is important to me personally. It's important to the members of Mendo Matters. We value all the communities, and we just want to do what's best for private property owners. So thank you for listening. We are in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Dolly Riley, may I submit a document? This is my legal research on why the combining district can use intent.

Thank you. You can leave it right there, and the clerk will pick it up. Thank you. Anybody else in the room?

Yes, sir.

Yes, hello. My name is Parker. I've been a resident of Mendocino County all my life. I live in Ukiah. I've worked with Haji for a number of years now. He's a friend of mine. He's helped me out quite a bit. I'm an entrepreneur. I've got an equity grant for a cannabis business at the truck stop location. And I've seen from the very beginning what he's done to improve that. It was a toxic waste site that he's turned into a thriving hub that everybody seems to enjoy. You see a lot of the local youth that come there every day and many travelers that come through. With regards to this location, everybody with any brains can see that the current traffic situation is not even legal or correct, that anybody could cross the road and cause an accident. If you're coming south and making a left-hand turn, you have to stop there and wait and possibly cause an accident. I don't understand how Caltrans could allow this current situation to remain, and for him to make a change is going to Fix that unhealthy traffic situation. There's an actual correct freeway exit another half a mile down the road, which people should use. That's the correct way to turn. And this has definitely been an eyesore all my life. There's no need to have any businesses there. Anybody in your right mind would not consider that as Redwood Valley. That's just a piece of dirt alongside the highway. Nobody wants to stop there for anything. It's just a bunch of rundown. But if there's a thriving gas station that was clean, well-lit, people need gas, they're going to stop there, maybe stop somewhere else. But this notion that, OK, I own a gas station down the road, therefore you can't open up another gas station is ridiculous. Who's come here to speak out against this? You've got a small group of people that are very elderly, and they don't want the world to exist. But they can't claim to represent Redwood Valley. We have to have gas to survive. That's just how it is. You can't say, well, no more gas stations, no more pollution. He's not creating new vehicles. There's no new cars that are going to be created out of this. This is the same vehicles that are already going down the road. They're going to stop here instead of somewhere else. There's no school that's nearby that's going to be polluted. The school is probably at least three or four miles away. Please, let's just benefit the county and let's benefit the community by increasing the economic situation. Let's not have a situation where we just have a rundown community and nobody wants to have anything because they just want to keep it how it was. This is not right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chris Wojda, Arrow Fencing. I just wanted to start by, I really respect everybody's opinion here and everybody's business and everybody's personal life. I've been in Redwood Valley with Arrow Fencing, I don't know, since about 2000. I started this business about 48 years ago. I recently developed a little place next to the store in Redwood Valley to brighten up that little commercial area, 16 doors, a few commercial buildings in the back. It's really, really expensive to do, very low return. I did it as an opportunity to give something back to Redwood Valley. My wife runs that business. She made low rents. She brought new businesses in. It's all rented. It's clean. It's safe. Before then, I built Arrow Building on the freeway, which was a piece of property. It was very dilapidated. Five illegal units. It was a bidding war. The other bidder was going to put in lots of people living in those illegal units and not fix up the property. I chose. I got lucky. I got the property. I built Arrow. I built a very attractive commercial building. I think I enhanced Redwood Valley. I provided jobs. We're also a manufacturing facility at Chainlink Fence. I am for this project because something needs to be done with this vacant, dilapidated, rundown piece of land. I looked at trying to buy it myself. I would do so and break even. There's just no way. It's a $2.5 million project with five or six doors, unless I'm going to rezone the use, which means I've got to do the traffic $2 million. Traffic safety plans a safe one I'll say turn lanes express turn lanes acceleration deal accelerations just like the one up on the rock that they're very safe They're well, they're well environmentally looked at by Caltrans our prime Our prime contractor our customer is Caltrans I work all over the state for them and I will guarantee you they will look at an environmental impact study very carefully on this project if they haven't already I Don't know what to say about Other businesses impact. I believe it's going to actually enhance that strip of land along State Street. I don't believe there's a traffic impact. I don't think people are going to get off on West Road to go to this gas station. I think they're going to use the exit in front of my place. And I believe they're going to get right back on and go north. I don't think it's going to impact the casino gas station, which is obviously a fantastic presence, does a very good business. I think they're really good developers. i just think it's two different completely different areas i i don't see an impact to it um i hope that that's something that can be considered for an approval this project or further consideration i think it's it's a good project to have um i do believe it needs to be looked at closely but that's your job and that's what you're doing and i appreciate that thank you uh nobody else in the room

Hi, my name is Gabriela Gallegos. I'm a resident of Redwood Valley, actually probably neighbors to the business that's being proposed here. So I just wanted to say that I stand with the community. I know that I submitted a letter saying that I was neither for or against it, but truly I'm more so against it. So I would just beg for you guys to listen to the majority of the people that live in Redwood Valley. I know that the place is an eyesore and needs to be updated, but I truly believe that Redwood Valley does not need another gas station. There are other ways to improve this location. I can use, for example, to test a building down the road. I can't remember what's called a black something. Thank you. Black locks. So they improved this historic building and established businesses that are there to improve the community's health and leisure, such as the coffee shop and the gym. So the community mostly speaks of begging of a denial of this project. I am here to say, please, maybe let's not put a gas station. Maybe let's try to find another way to improve the location so it's not so ugly looking, right? I also know that the Chevron at the North State exit in Ukiah belongs to the petitioner. And I can see whenever I go into Ukiah that there's not a lot of people going to this gas station. If they're going there, they're probably going to hit up the Starbucks grab a can of beer or whatever at the store, but they're not there to pump gas. So what would be the need to put another gas station where the community of Redwood Valley, where it's not going to be benefited, they're not going to stop there to refuel. So again, I'm just here again, just prepared this very last minute, but I'm here to support the denial of it. Thank you.

Thank you. Nobody else in the room, madam clerk.

We have three online, Sadie Clark.

Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? We can hear you. OK. Good afternoon, supervisors. My name is Sadie Clark. I'm a longtime resident of Redwood Valley and the co-owner of two businesses based in Mendocino County. I urge you to deny the appeal on the grounds that it does not meet the moral standards of our community. We understand that this argument has been used successfully in the past to protect Mendocino County communities from development that would harm residents' quality of life and undermine their property values and offend their the moral standards of our community. Our community is primarily a rural farming community. This particular project threatens our values of preserving our clean environment for the benefit of our residents and farms, many of which are organic. Gas stations are a notoriously toxic facility type, and this particular permit applicant has a history, as you heard, of environmental and consumer violations. Furthermore, it's apparent from listening to this hearing that and thorough environmental review has not been completed. Our values also include protecting our children who go to school immediately downwind from the proposed development and protecting ourselves and our neighbors from the light pollution that would emanate from the proposed facility even if shielding directs the light downward. And the ugly oversized signage with no setback detailed on the site plans The circulation impacts due to closure of the median represent a serious inconvenience to residents as well as a safety issue in the case of emergency evacuation. And please consider that traffic on and around the West Road exit on 101 is already dangerous and overly busy. This new project would make it worse. I know I speak for many of the residents of Redwood Valley when I urge you to deny the appeal of this permit. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Erin.

Hi, my name is Erin Moynihan. It's now Brendi. It's being changed. I wanted to state that I've been a member of the Redwood Valley Mackinac historically, and I've been a community member for 42 years. Over the past eight years, Faison Corporation has had three major lawsuits. In 2018, the environmental and consumer protection lawsuit. where the California Attorney General's Office and several district attorneys filed civil complaint against the defendants alleging 107 violations relating to operation of underground storage tanks, hazardous waste handling and leak detection systems at numerous gas stations across the state. This case was resolved with a settlement requiring the defendants to pay 1.7 million. In 2023, the environmental violations lawsuit Prosecutors in Alameda, Sonoma, and other Bay Area counties sued Faison Corporation for violations of state laws regulating retail, gas stations, underground storage tanks, and false advertising. The defendants entered into a stipulated judgment agreeing to pay $500,000 in penalties and investigative costs alongside a permanent statewide injunction to retain an independent environmental consultant. And then in 2025, the Proposition 65 lawsuit, a lawsuit was filed against Faison Corporation for failing to provide required Proposition 65 health hazard exposure warnings for unleaded gasoline at their service station in Clayton Road in Concord, California. They entered into a settlement agreement in January of 2025 where Faison paid $4,000. Personally, I would not do business with a company that has been known to be... to make so many violations and not consider the impact on the community around them. Having eight years, three major lawsuits, that's roughly one every two and three quarter years. That's not a great history and that's not something that we would, I would never enter into a contract with a company that is known for this kind of business. And then I would like to say as a parent who was driving West Road constantly before Coyote Valley, the traffic was not nearly as bad as it was. And then Coyote Valley came in and now we've seen accident after accident, especially with Google sending people down the off ramp to get onto the freeway. So with all of those concerns, I would please respectfully request that you deny this request and that we find a better way to clean up the area and offer supports to Redwood Valley. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Peter McAmey.

Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak. I just want to say a few things. I have participated in the Grassroots Institute's Climate Crisis Workgroup. for several years now. For the past three years, the work group has been assessing this particular project and has gone on record repeatedly in opposition based on meeting after meeting that the work group held to discuss the pros and cons of this proposal. We are primarily an environmental group and we look at these issues from an environmental sustainability standpoint, and we have come to the conclusion over and over again that this project is a detriment to the environmental quality of Mendocino County. And as a result, the Climate Crisis Workgroup opposes this project. We have a number of reasons why, but I will only touch on four at this point because of the limits in time. The first is that It would undermine the county and our state's environmental goals to limit and reduce the negative impacts of global greenhouse gas emissions. Second, it is not needed since the state's drivers are already rapidly moving to zero emission vehicles that do not use gas as a fuel. And there are already sufficient stations in the county to adequately serve the consumer's needs. Third, we are concerned about rural residents that don't have access to environmental, alternative energy, electric vehicle charging stations. And we recognize that they are probably going to be the ones that need to continue to use gasoline. And we think that they would be poorly served by this because many of them rely on small one and two pump gas stations, stores that are located in remote rural areas. And the addition of another highway-linked gas station would simply take business away from those mom-and-pop stores and undermine their viability, further orphaning these people who are living at the end of the longest driveways in Mendocino County. And finally, a fourth reason is that, and probably the most important one, you have two resolutions before you both of them are equally justified. And so it comes down to a decision on your part, mostly on what you think is in the best interest of the community. And we recommend you choose the position of opposition and disapprove this permit use because it's overwhelmingly opposed by the community of Redwood Valley and the rest of the county. I thank you for your time. I urge you to follow the will of the people. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Clerk?

Seeing no further comment on line.

OK. No more public comment in the room? All right. We will close the public comment portion and open it up to the applicant for any closing statements. We have roughly five minutes.

All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the comments. I would like to make a couple of statements regarding some of the issues that are raised. As far as the issues from Coyote Valley Casino and their residents, you know, I appreciate the fact that they do not want to be in competition with another gas station. They do not believe I do not believe that they're going to be significantly impacted in that if anyone wants to buy gas at the casino, it doesn't have to pay taxes, and it doesn't have to comply with the other environmental requirements of the area and the state, that that would allow them to compete and compete significantly against this gas station. Additionally, I think it's a little surprising that they're claiming moral high ground on the issue and that they operate a gas station and a casino. And my client wants to have a good relationship with them, and I think that they can both positively impact Redwood Valley together in conjunction and benefit the city and the town and the area. And there is a demand for gas. And I appreciate the fact that a large portion of our community and our society in general opposes carbon, opposes gas. The fact of the matter is we still need it. And the people that drove here today still use it in some capacity or another. And this gas station is right off the freeway. If there's a gas station to be used, this is about as close as you can get. And as far as negatively impacting a community or society, this is, I think, as basic as it can be. Additionally, if you look at State Street, you can see all the gas stations have gone out of business in the last 20 years. There's actually less gas stations now than there was 20 years ago. And the fact of the matter is there's environmental regulations of gas stations that is very significant. And nobody seems to be getting away with anything. So the environmental issues are addressed by the numerous laws in the state of California. And additionally, there is benefit to the people. And I appreciate that people don't like gas stations all the time, but they need them. And this project would not be going through if it wasn't needed. And these expenses for paying for the median and paying for the project in general would not be justified if it wasn't a need for it. And I think that the real fact of the matter is we've got to look at the existing site and what the opportunities are for it. And they're very limited. And there are existing easements and there are issues that justify the variances. And these variances can benefit the site. And I would appreciate the Board of Supervisors thoroughly evaluating these issues and applying it to this particular site and project. And in the end, pros outweigh the cons. And we respect the opposition. However, at some point, I think the county needs to evaluate What is the best options for this particular site? And what are the best uses? And as far as I can tell, this is the best option. And this is the best use. And the thoroughness of the evaluation is significant. And the negative impacts on the environment and on the residents are mitigated. And the CEQA analysis is adequate. It was approved by the county. And this thorough review was also approved by Caltrans. And this has been in front of the board and the planning commission numerous times. If there was an issue with the CEQA issue, it would have been addressed or should have been addressed. It hasn't been raised. And I feel confident that the county has adequately evaluated the CEQA analysis, as long with the Caltrans operators. And I think that the existing freeway allows for the is wide enough to allow for these acceleration lanes given the closing of the median and if they weren't then i think that that would have definitely been addressed by caltrans as they're very thorough in their analysis and the state and the county so i thank you for your evaluation i appreciate you taking the time i appreciate the the county spending the time and resources and energy to evaluate this project i think in the end it's going to serve the community well thank you

Thank you. Excuse me, sir. Don't leave just yet. Supervisor Williams, do you have a question? I have a question for staff. Okay. We're almost there. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Staff, any closing remarks?

Yes. This is Liam. I have two things to mention. First, about the community character combining district. So I'll start off by saying just that the development of a convenience store on its own in a zone like this is permitted by right, meaning it doesn't require a use permit. And so when the application was submitted, it didn't specify what the design features of the convenience store conversion would be. And so it's unknown whether or not the convenience store would include any of the standardized features within it that would be covered under the formula business regulations. And so because of that, to address those concerns potentially the board could add a condition to the permit that would require essentially that no formula business as it's defined in that chapter of the county code could be established in that commercial building about an amendment of the use permit or without an additional use permit because the requirement as it is in the community character combining district is that if a formula business is going to be established a use permit is required to features and And so I just wanted to make make the board aware that that that is a potential option if that is a concern and As I've mentioned before, my reading of the code is that the community character regulations don't apply to this particular project. That chapter of the code doesn't specify or include any language about cumulative changes to buildings or consecutive changes that build up to that 50% threshold. It just says that this substantially reconstructed structure is the alteration or replacement of more than 50% of the structure. It doesn't have any more detail beyond that. So again, if that is a concern, I think there's an option to add a condition And that chapter of the code does apply to the county's review of not only applications like this, discretionary permits, use permits, but also to building permits and other applications for permits that come in. So that sort of review could also be triggered at the time that a building permit was submitted. And then secondly, there was some discussion about the West Road. interchange and the on-ramps and off-ramps at that intersection, the impact that this project might have on it. And that was discussed in the transportation impact study that was submitted. And it's also discussed in the initial study. But just to go over some of the conclusions that were in that traffic study regarding the interchange and also some of Caltrans' comments, the study itself concluded that The existing stacking space at the US 101 off ramps at West Road can accommodate the project with the median closure. And it determined that there was less than significant safety impact. And the stacking space is essentially the number of cars that can pile up along the off ramp before it extends out onto the freeway itself. Another conclusion was that a traffic signal was not recommended or was not warranted at the West Road interchange. That all-way stop controls, so an all-way stop sign, was not warranted at either of the West Road intersections. That all of the intersections, including the West Road interchange, currently operate acceptably by county standards at level of service B or better. except for the West Road South off ramps, which currently operate unacceptably. So regardless of the project, that off ramp currently operates unacceptably. It also concluded that with the project and the median closure, all intersections would continue to operate acceptably, except for that West Road South off ramp, which would continue to operate unacceptably. under the county standard, but would be acceptable under Caltrans standards for level of service. And the impact study recommended that despite the fact that the all-way stop warrants were not met for that intersection, that consideration be given to installing all-way stop controls anyway. Even though they weren't warranted by the analysis, Transportation Impact Study recommended them in order to meet the county's level of service operation policies, specifically under the AM peak hour volumes. However, in response to the conclusions and that recommendation in the impact study, Caltrans, in their comments, stated that they did not support the installation of traffic signals or all-way stop signs at the West Road ramps. And that was because of lack of collision history at the intersection and because that recommendation was based solely on the level of service of that intersection. Whereas Caltrans stated that queuing would be a more consistent measure of impacts. Queuing is similar to stacking. It has to do with the number of cars that are lined up along the off ramp. And because of the fact that the impact study recommended that based solely on level of service and not queuing, Caltrans did not support the installation of the hallway stop controls at that end. I just wanted to go over that point about West Road and the community character, but that's all I have, unless my colleagues have anything.

OK. Questions from the board, Supervisor Williams?

When a customer who's fueling at a pump has a problem with payment, to which employee do they see? As I see the plan, they go inside the convenience store and they talk to the cashier because the fueling is essentially one and the same with the convenience store. They're not separate businesses. So modern gas stations generally make the majority of their profits from the convenience store, not the gasoline sales. The canopy and fueling areas are functionally inseparable from the convenience store operation and should be considered part of the same commercial use when evaluating the community character combining district applicability. The project must be evaluated as an integrated commercial development. When we talk about not meeting the 50%, I think we're looking at just the 2,000 square feet that we're calling the convenience store. But the fueling area, the 30 parking spaces, the pumps, all of that is part of the convenience store because nobody constructs one of these without the convenience store. The convenience store is where they make their profit. And you don't have fueling employees running the fueling station. You have the convenience store running the fueling. That area is part of the convenience store. So I think the county may have miscalculated. Thoughts?

So if I may, Julia Crock, Planning and Building Services Director. So there has not been a tenant identified for the convenience store. So I cannot sit here and tell you today that it is going to be operated by a formula business, a business that meets the formula business. It's also important to note that the formula business ordinance is not a prohibition on formula businesses. It solely requires additional review looking at design features related to that particular business.

I understand, but pull in a jury and ask, is this a formula business? A Chevron fueling station with a mini mart or a convenience store, that's a formula business. Everyone on the street knows that's a formula business. This appears to be a piecemeal way to get around evaluating the whole project. We're evaluating individual components so that we don't have to treat it as a formula business.

i may yeah i yeah again i i don't think that's my reading of this chapter of the code but if this is a concern to the board i think we'd be open to looking into that as if it were applicable to this uh combining district regulations or as i said before including that condition that um that should some sort of formula of business be proposed in the future that an amendment of this use permit or an entirely new use permit be required.

Well, I'd like to hear from my colleagues, but it's my understanding the legislative intent of the community character combining district was to regulate this type of project specifically. And we're seeing an application that is a piecemeal we don't know who the tenant will be for the convenience store. So we don't know if it applies. We're being asked to approve a project without the pertinent information.

Supervisor Mulhern?

My reading of the slide that was included in the presentation is that gas stations literally says gas stations are not listed as regulated formula businesses. It says that in the slide. I'd like to hear from the district supervisor who represents this area, please.

just i want to caution the board here we're at a position where we're asking questions of staff and or the applicant we're not necessarily into the comment portion so if we have questions so we should hold our comments for staff i mean i know we get a little sideways here sometimes but you know if if i'm wrong i'm going to look to county council

I think you're still at the stage where you're asking questions to the staff. So, um, if everyone's gotten their questions answered, that would be then you can move on.

Okay. Thank you. Supervisor claim.

Yeah, I have a couple of questions probably for county council. Um, here's my list. So can we approve or deny this permit based off of whether the gas station is needed or not?

I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Can we deny or approve this based off of whether the gas station is needed or not?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, there are findings for use permits. They're in our code and there's four of them. And so in general, as a quasi judicial act, we should look into those findings and if they can be made or not made. And so whether it's, a lot of factors we're discussing, the issue is how does that fit in or respond to one of those four findings?

My question is, does whether there is need for the gas station fit into one of those four findings?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Giedrowski. Public health, safety, and welfare can be stretched a long way. I'm not going to try and create guardrails necessarily on that point. But if the board were to make a decision by a majority saying that's the rationale, we'd have to connect that to evidence in the record that would support that finding.

Can we deny the project based on the individual that is associated with the application?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, no we cannot. The use permits regulate the land, not the individual. And so this would run with the land going forward in time. It would be so if you're looking at other property owners could do this or not do it in ways that people think are better or worse than the current applicant.

Can we deny the project based off of the concerns over the potential environmental violations?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Giedrowski, any action on approving or denying has to be based on substantial evidence. So the issue comes down to what's in the record that staff has brought forward in the applicant, in the application packet, and what's been brought forward in terms of public comment or anything else from the board's perspective as concerns of raising a substantial evidence.

Okay, so follow up to that. Could we approve or deny based on the previous violations?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, I think that relates to the identity of the applicant. And based on that, I would say no.

OK. And then final question for County Council. Can we deny the project based on moral objection?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski again. Public health, safety, and welfare, what's detrimental to the public? Those are subjective things. The issue becomes, can we tie those two facts in the record that say this development would obviously not or would harm or be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare?

Those are my questions for staff.

Thank you. I only have one, and it's more of a follow-up to Supervisor Klein. The way she was phrasing her first question, I don't think she got an answer. Maybe putting it, can you deny a permit based on competition?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, that's a private impact. I'm not sure what kind of evidence we have on the record that is actually showing what competition there would be or not. Dying at any kind of generalized statement you need to have some kind of foundation for that so if there's competition i'm not sure that there's. How do we connect that to the bill the public health safety welfare and what what what evidence has been brought to the board, thank you.

Is it appropriate for us to approve a project if we recognize environmental view review has not been complete.

So, Deputy County Councilman Matthew Kudrowski, if there are concerns with the environmental review that has been done, I would probably not recommend approval or denial. I'd recommend getting direction to staff for any additional analysis.

Supervisor Haschuk.

Yeah, with that environmental review, right now, this project is before the board with a mitigated negative declaration. Correct? And, you know, reading the letter from from Caltrans on September 27, 2024, which I think it was D in the packet, that it says, it's talking about the the median closure and it says we also concur with the conclusion of the study that in conjunction with closing the median acceleration and deceleration lanes would be required for northbound traffic entering and exiting at north state street depending on the type of median barrier deployed Widening of US 101 may be required in order to conform with design standards for the median barrier and acceleration deceleration lanes. So that gets back to that question about, you know, if we're going to widen the highway at that point, has that been studied?

Deputy County Councilman Matthew Giedrowski, I'll always look to staff to see if they have any further answers on that. Right now, I don't know whether that is something CalTrans or staff should have said more things about, I don't know. With that being opened, I think if anything I would look to potentially looking at the, send this back to staff, My inclination is that this isn't a full, necessarily a full lane widening, but the facts may not be in the record to necessarily support that. I'm guessing the assumption by Caltrans may have been this is not a significant addition to the highway at this point. But at this point in this hearing, I think that's one concern that might be one reason for not a continuance of the hearing necessarily, but direction to staff.

Supervisor Klein?

Got to get off me. A question for staff. Was Caltrans supposed to be participating in today's hearing? Were we expecting them to be here?

Yes, this is Liam. They didn't say definitively whether or not they would be available, but they did say they would try to make it.

And to the clerk of the board, could we just ask by chance if someone from Caltrans is here, if they could raise their hand?

Seeing no hands raised online. Thank you.

Supervisor Williams.

It's not about overall widening of a state highway. It's about the specifics of this site. When we talk about an acceleration zone and a braking zone, we're going to have tire compounds like 6 PPDQ in the stormwater. It's going to run off somewhere. I don't see any of that discussed in the environmental review. And I think that is county responsibility. We're approving a project that's going to impact water near creeks and rivers. staff have an answer for that how how how could we find that exempt or or overlook it.

If I may, Julia Krog-Planning, Building Services Director, I guess I'll start by saying I think that in the traffic impact study, at least the recommendation that had come from the consultant was they had, and it just says it right here, while there's existing acceleration and deceleration tapers on US 101 North at North State Street, it's recommended that the existing tapers be upgraded to acceleration and deceleration lanes. So my immediate, you know, and obviously if the board wants further analysis, the staff is happy to conduct further analysis on this as well. But that already you're having that there is breaking and deceleration occurring at this intersection. And yes, the project could increase that because of the additional trips that would be in this area. But at least what I think was envisioned by the traffic consultant at the time of preparing this report was just the upgrading of those existing sort of tapers that are happening off of the freeway.

And I don't know that you're wrong. There's some assumptions there and they may be accurate or they might not be accurate. But the point is that's why we have studies to back it up with claims. And I'm not seeing that in our record. And I think it's this requirement of CEQA.

If I may. Yeah. So you're correct. The mitigated negative declaration as it's prepared does not explicitly discuss 6PBDQ. If that's a concern, as Julia mentioned, then I think we'd be open to revisiting that issue in particular or other issues that the board feels need to be addressed in the environmental review or issues that the public have brought up that aren't already included.

My fear is the county is going to be held liable for not studying the plan for 6 PPDQ. And we're completely overlooking the water impacts when we're talking about widening a state highway in order to put a gas station in the unincorporated. So irrespective of how we got here, I think the study falls short of meeting CEQA.

Supervisor Hashtag, do you have a question?

Well, it's going back to this acceleration lane. And when you pull out of that North State Street, you're going, right now, I don't think there's any kind of acceleration. And when we're talking about a lot of extra traffic on that and trucks and everything, I think that it's going to have to be a considerable increase. We're going to have to build a real acceleration and I think that it's going to cut in the hillside I think there's going to be some environmental impact there and so I would like to see that kind of study if we haven't done it there is a coming out of there off of State Street going north there is a right hand turn lane correct

correct there there is there is a taper but I don't think it's I don't know the technical terminology of acceleration lane deceleration lane there is some sort of a taper there but clearly it's not to the ultimate standard that the traffic in traffic engineer recommended thank you any other questions from the board before we close the public hearing

No okay, 1.56 PM will close the public hearing and put this matter in front of the Board of Supervisors. Was a client.

So I've heard concerns from 2 of my colleagues around the environmental review and I'm curious if there are other supervisors that are concerned about this and asking the chair to drop all about this.

Those are more.

I am not concerned I don't know how to share the same concerns about the acceleration deceleration I used that exit just on Saturday to look at the site and I don't think that the environmental concerns that Supervisor Williams raised on that issue are um warranting additional review and also you know part of the process of application is that the applicant the property owner will actually be working directly with Caltrans as it relates to that and not with the county I feel the same way I don't I don't share the same concern certainly not at the same level as uh Supervisor Williams

Yeah, I agree with Supervisor Mulherin that Caltrans is responsible for the oversight of that portion. And we've not heard concerns from them. They knew that this was going to be included, the median and the turn lanes, as part of this hearing. So I assume we would have heard from them and would probably hear from them. shortly after if there were concerns. So to go to some of my more general comments, obviously there's been much feedback from the community regarding this project, a range of both opposition, support, and some neutral positions. When I was rewatching the hearings from 2024, I heard Supervisor Hashtag and my predecessor, Supervisor McGordy, acknowledge that mix of comments being in both support and opposition. So it's been interesting to see that consistently through. But of course, I want to acknowledge that most of the comments are in opposition. And the main reason for opposition is just general opposition to having a gas station in this location or no need for a gas station in Redwood Valley or concerns over the applicant. Previously, when the applicant was not agreeing to meet the mitigation conditions, I think there was a really strong basis for denial. The Planning Commission found that those mitigation efforts are necessary. Now that the applicant is agreeing to the conditions, I think it's a much different situation. I would look to see if my colleagues have other comments around this project.