To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
From: County Counsel
Meeting Date: September 1, 2026
|
Department Contact: |
Katharine Elliott |
Phone: |
707-234-6885 |
|
Department Contact: |
Matthew Kiedrowski |
Phone: |
707-234-6885 |
|
Item Type: Regular Agenda |
|
Time Allocated for Item: 30 Minutes |
Agenda Title:
title
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposed Direct Review of Nonconforming Use Determinations Related to the Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club Pursuant to Chapter 2.54 of the Mendocino County Code - Original Jurisdiction of Land Use Matters
(Sponsor: County Counsel)
Vote Requirement: Majority
End
Recommended Action/Motion:
recommendation
Approve the request for direct review of nonconforming use determinations related to the Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club pursuant to Chapter 2.54 of the Mendocino County Code, finding that time is of the essence with respect to these determinations, which will provide a special contribution to the County’s general welfare and economic wellbeing, in accordance with Section 2.54.010 of the Mendocino County Code.
End
Previous Board/Board Committee Actions:
On January 7, 2014, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance 4320, which added Chapter 2.54 - Board of Supervisors Original Jurisdiction of Land Use Matters to the County Code.
Summary of Request:
Chair Norvell requested County Counsel to bring this item forward, asking for the Board of Supervisors to take original jurisdiction, also known as direct review, of all nonconforming use determinations related to the Ukiah Rifle and Pistol Club (the “Club”), located at 2300 Vichy Springs Road, near Ukiah (the “Gun Club Property”). The City of Ukiah (the “City”) owns the Gun Club Property, though it is not within the City limits, and leases it to the Club.
In 2017, the County received two complaints regarding certain construction and the extent of activities on the Gun Club Property. These complaints were closed at the time based on concerns that the County did not have jurisdiction over the development of the Gun Club Property because of the City’s ownership.
In 2018, litigation regarding activities on the Gun Club Property was commenced by Vichy Springs Resort ("VSR"), against the City, County and Club. Among other things, the litigation alleged that the County was required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act in regard to a specific project that had been undertaken by the Club on the Gun Club Property and that the County had improperly not taken action under its Zoning Code in regard to the Club's project.
Later in 2018, after a several year’s wait, the California Attorney General issued an opinion on several questions relating to the building and zoning jurisdiction over the Gun Club Property. On the question of whether a private party leasing extraterritorial property from a city is exempt from county building and zoning ordinances, the Attorney General opined that the answer to that question depended on whether the use of the property was a public purpose such that the private party should be viewed as an agent or arm of the city.
In response to the Attorney General’s Opinion, but specifically without deciding whether the Club’s use of the Gun Club Property served a primarily public purpose, in 2021 the City and the County entered into a Joint Powers Agreement, agreeing to a shared exercise of land use and building code authority (the "Agreement"). Under the Agreement the County would exercise land use jurisdiction over the Gun Club Property in accordance with the County's zoning ordinance, Title 20 of the County Code.
After the Agreement was executed, the Planning and Building Services Department (the "Department") reached out to the City to request information from the City regarding the Gun Club Property. After reviewing records provided by the City, the Department reached out to both the Club and VSR for additional information regarding the extent of past development at the Gun Club Property. As part of this process, in September 2025, counsel for the Club submitted a letter to the Department in which it alleged that the Gun Club Property is a nonconforming use pursuant to the County Code.
The County desires to make the nonconforming use determinations regarding the Gun Club Property to (1) address the 2017 complaints that precipitated the 2018 litigation; (2) carry out the County's obligations under the 2021 Agreement and exercise its land use authority over the Gun Club Property; and (3) evaluate and respond to the Club's claims that the Gun Club Property is a nonconforming use pursuant to the County Code.
Section 2.54.010 provides that the Board can reserve to itself the functions of the planning agency “when time is of the essence with respect to any permit or approval, based on the project's special contribution to the County's general welfare and economic or environmental wellbeing.”
Making the nonconforming determinations regarding the Gun Club Property would resolve long-running disputes and jurisdictional questions involving the City, the County and the Gun Club, meaning these actions would have a special contribution to the County’s general welfare and economic wellbeing. Time is of the essence in this matter as the Department had been collecting information from both the Gun Club and VSR in preparation of making determinations when the Director of the Department announced their resignation from the County earlier this year. The determinations at issue would typically be made by the Director or the Zoning Administrator, an office normally held by the Director. The Department Director is currently the Chief Building Official in an interim capacity and the most senior planning staff are Senior Planners. In order to avoid departmental staff needing to come up to speed on this matter, the Chair believes it would be most efficient to have the Board take original jurisdiction over these determinations. In addition, given the history of the disputes over the Gun Club Property, the Chair believes that any determinations approved by departmental staff are likely to be appealed, which appeals would be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Direct review in this situation is the most efficient way forward.
The request for direct review shall be granted upon a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. If the Board of Supervisors takes direct review, all matters shall be heard and decided at a noticed public hearing of the Board of Supervisors. No substantive action on the determinations is proposed at today’s meeting. However, if the request for direct review is approved, time has been allocated on the October 6, 2026, meeting of the Board of Supervisors.
Alternative Action/Motion:
Decline to grant direct review.
Strategic Plan Priority Designation: An Effective County Government
Supervisorial District: District 1
Supplemental Information Available Online At: N/A
Fiscal Details:
|
source of funding: N/A |
|
current f/y cost: N/A |
|
budget clarification: N/A |
|
annual recurring cost: N/A |
|
budgeted in current f/y (if no, please describe): N/A |
|
revenue agreement: No |
AGREEMENT/RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNSEL: N/A
CEO Liaison: Executive Office
CEO Review: Yes
CEO Comments:
FOR COB USE ONLY
|
Executed By: Deputy Clerk |
Final Status: Item Status |
|
Date: Date Executed |
Executed Item Type: item |
|
|
Number: |
|
|
|