The Ukiah City Council on Wednesday moved forward with passing a right-to-farm ordinance, which city planners described as a crucial step as they prepare to incorporate more land through potential annexations.

In presenting the ordinance to the council, Community Development Director Craig Schlatter described its purpose as protecting “agricultural operations from nuisance litigation. And why this is important, and why it was prioritized, is because now, with the master tax sharing agreement adopted by all jurisdictions in the county, was the last obstacle (preventing) the city from making any kind of meaningful annexation effort.

“So as our boundaries begin to expand in the valley, we want to make sure that … this valley is a community. We want to make sure that we protect (agricultural) interests as we expand,” Schlatter said, describing the litigation protection as “the essence of the ordinance ,” which was drafted using ordinances passed in other cities as models, the closest being Calistoga and Tracy , and by gathering comments from both the outgoing and incoming agency directors of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau.

When asked how the ordinance qualified fumes, dust, smoke, insects, pesticides and herbicides that may be present in and around an agricultural operation as non-nuisances, Assistant City Attorney Darcy Vaughn said “the idea is that these activities are excessive – the agricultural operations that the city is trying to preserve and allow, and the idea is that a new entrant cannot come in and protest and cause inconvenience to these permitted agricultural operations that have already been going on.”

Asked by Councilwoman Susan Sher if the ordinance would prohibit people from “complaining about someone spraying chemicals that flow into their yard,” City Manager Sage Sangiacomo said “it doesn’t negate the requirements that exist within the administration. industry for the proper use (of chemicals ) and the regulatory requirements associated with ag operations. What we want to do is just (make sure) that those family farms and other activities don’t go out of business because all of a sudden another development comes along and somebody decides they don’t want that activity next to them.

Sangiacomo noted that these issues will be “part of the ongoing discussion as we determine which areas are appropriate to annex, but protecting the agricultural business in our community (is something the City Council previously decided) to protect as a fundamental industry in our community from being overtaken by other developments.”

Resident Linda Sanders then addressed the council to point out that Anderson Valley residents “have been really upset with the county because of the noise coming from the commercial fans in the vineyards, and they can’t sleep when there’s a risk of frost,” but the county’s right to farm ordinance trumped their concerns, “and when you expand your borders, it sounds like that could happen to our townspeople.”

“It sounds like the farmers can do whatever they want, regardless of the effects on neighbors — which is not to say they shouldn’t be able to farm, just not to create a nuisance,” Sher said, asking for more language to be added. residents to complain.

“The intent of the ordinance is to apply when new development is created adjacent to existing agricultural uses,” Vaughn said, and Sangiacomo said that because the ordinance is intended to address “new development that may encroach on agricultural land, it is part of our responsibility that planning authority to try to avoid these conflicts, and the purpose of the regulation certainly points to that.”

“Agriculture is the economic cornerstone of not only our county, but our cities as well, and the right-to-farm provision would protect our farmers from nuisance lawsuits and legal challenges to everyday farming activities, allowing them to continue their vital work without fear of litigation , says Jazzmynn Randall, current executive director of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau. “And by protecting our local farms, we’re preserving open space, we’re supporting local economies, and we’re promoting more sustainable food systems.”

“I wonder about cannabis,” said Councilwoman Mari Rodin. “If we have some cannabis farms that become existing in the future when a housing development comes up, what are we going to do about it? Is cannabis included in ag or not?”

“I understand cannabis is not included,” Schlatter said, to which Sangiacomo added, “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address it.”

“Isn’t there cannabis growing in unincorporated areas within our sphere of influence?” asked Vaughn, to which Sangiacomo replied “yes, and this ordinance doesn’t prevent (cannabis) from being incorporated into, but we have other rules and regulations that would need to be changed if we’re going to consider the type of (cannabis) ) cultivation beyond what the personal, indoor type that is allowed within the city limits.”

“If this ordinance is designed to protect ag, one of the ways to avoid some of these problems (raised by Sher and Rodin) is to make sure that incompatible uses are not located where these conflicts can occur,” said City Attorney David Rapport . notes that the city’s land use planning and zoning regulations should take all of this into account.

“We had a lot of questions, but I want to say that I’m very happy that this is here, and I strongly support that we have a right-to-farm ordinance — that’s pretty progressive of us,” said Rodin, who then called for council would introduce the ordinance by title only, a motion that passed unanimously.

Originally published: August 9, 2024 at 13.23