Annotated Agenda Items from the Measure B Oversight Committee for their Wednesday, February 26 meeting...
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Update on Measure B Project Manager and Potential Need for Additional Measure B Project Staff Support
(More staff for the non-existent Project Manager won’t help anything.)
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Scheduling Details of Meetings on the Coast and Willits for the 2020 Calendar
(A waste of time to make people think they’re listening to Coast or Willits concerns.)
Discussion and Update Regarding Approval of Request from Mental Health Treatment Act Citizen’s Advisory Committee for Board of Supervisors to Direct County Counsel to Conduct Legal Evaluation, Research Analysis and Assessment of Adventist Health Partnership Legality; Including Restriction, Necessary Control, Implications, and Compliance Regarding the Possible Use of Public Tax Dollars to Fund Operations of a Private Entity
(This should have been months ago, but in typical Measure B fashion, it’s taking forever with no end in sight.)
Update Regarding December 10, 2019, Board of Supervisors Meeting Regarding Direction to Perform an Operational Feasibility Study of Proposed Measure B Funded Facilities
(We can save them a bunch of time on this one: No report/no update — Consultant Nacht & Lewis will deliver a partial half-assed study someday, not soon.)
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Update on Status of the Architect
(The “status” is: Expensive and featherbedding.)
Update regarding California Health Facilities Finance Authority (CHFFA) Grant for Crisis Residential Treatment Facility
(This is the item Supervisor Ted Williams now regrets having voted for since it’s forcing the County’s hand for services they don’t know if they can deliver or afford.)
Discussion and Possible Action From the Regional Behavioral Health Training Facility Ad Hoc Committee Regarding Update of Outline Plan Describing Relevant Details of Allocated Funds to Finalize Improvements to the Regional Behavioral Health Training Center Before Expenditure
Discussion and Possible Action of Potential Additional Creation of Regional Behavioral Health Training Facility Ad Hoc Committee Group; Provide Direction for this Ad Hoc Committee to Formulate A Regional and/or County Enhanced Training Program and Training Schedule for the Regional Behavioral Health Training Facility; And the Addition of this Ad Hoc Group to existing Regional Behavioral Health Training Facility Ad Hoc Committee
(Right: an ad hoc for an advisory/oversight committee to explore a training facillity they already bought in Redwood Valley.)
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Report from the Kemper Report Ad Hoc Committee
(Since Jan McGourty “retired” from the Measure B Committee, there’s nobody interested in this one anymore. They’ve never really liked Kemper’s $60k “needs assessment” which they have strained to ignore ever since they got it. Mr. Kemper has since declared that he wants nothing more to do with Mendocino County.)
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Requesting the Behavioral Health Advisory Board Provide Recommendations on Prevention and Early Intervention Service Gaps and Possible Programs that Could be Funded Through Measure B.
(“Possible Action Regarding Requesting … Possible programs that could be…”? The Measure B Committee at its best!)
Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee/Elephant (i.e., Supervisor John Haschak by himself) Labors Long And Hard And Produces A Few Mice
1. Personal Use Cultivation – Modify 10A.17.030(C)(2) to remove the reference to 100 sq. ft. of canopy and leaving the allowance to 6 plants for adult use.
2. Eliminate the need for an annual inspection except on an as needed basis with some indication of non-compliance with the ordinance – modification to Sec. 10A.17.070(i).
3. Eliminate the requirement of LiveScan for Criminal History which will be satisfied upon the applicant/owner/operator receiving a State Cultivation provisional or annual license. Require only a local criminal history check reviewed by the Mendocino County District Attorney for prohibiting Local Criminal History.
4. Eliminate the need for a final LSAA from CDFW, changing it to proof of applicationfor the same with CDFW by modification to Sec. 10A.17.090(J) to indicate that an applicant has to only provide a copy of their Streambed Alteration Agreement Permit (LSAA) when obtained.
5. Legacy Cultivators – for locations, not related to individual people, where cultivation occurred prior to 1/1/16 – Ministerial process for 10k of canopy and under. Sunset areas excluded from reopening.
a. Ad Hoc recommends the Board consider whether to establish a deadline for legacy site permit applications.
6. Non-Legacy Cultivation and Legacy expansion above 10,000 sq. ft.: Previously referred to as Phase III. Please see attached (separate, on County website) zoning table recommendations for zoning, parcel size, cultivation limits and discretionary permitting.