Background
The County started its intial efforts to license and regulate commercial cannabis cultivation shortly after the September 2015 statewide vote in support of the California Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) which legalized cannabis throughout California for medical purposes. In March of 2016, at the urging of the Agricultural Commissioner, Yolo adopted the Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance (referred to as the “licensing ordinance”) regulating cultivation (initially of medical marijuana only). By October 2016 the County had established a moratorium on the issuance of cannabis cultivation licenses which limited the number to 78. This limitation remains in effect today.
Tables 1 and 2 provide different data about Yolo County licensees over the five year period the program has been in effect:
Table 1, Licensed Cannabis Cultivators in Yolo County (unincorporated)
| Year |
Number of Cultivation Licensed Sites |
| 2017 |
65 |
| 2018 |
67 (at times reported erroneously as 64) |
| 2019 |
53 |
| 2020 |
48 |
| 2021 |
47 approved, 2 pending further review, 1 eligible licensee that is expected to submit an application soon. In addition to the cultivation licenses, there is one self-distribution license |
Table 2, Record of County Cultivation Licensees by Scenario
| County Cannabis License Scenario |
Number of Licensees |
| Licensed every year (2017-2020) |
33 |
| Licensed last 3 of 4 years (2018-2020) |
12 |
| Licensed last 2 of 4 years (2019-2020) |
0 |
| Licensed last year only (2020) |
1 |
| Licensed 2017 only |
6 |
| Licensed 2017 and 2018 only |
9 |
| Licensed 2017, 2018 and 2019 only |
7 |
| Licensed 2017, 2018, 2020 |
1 |
| Licensed 2017, 2019, 2020 |
1 |
| Never Licensed |
7 |
| Total |
78 |
The County quickly recognized the need for a more rigorous process and within a year (by October of 2017) had directed the staff to begin work on a cannabis land use ordinance, including Board approval of the “Guiding Principles for Proposed Cannabis Land Use Ordinance” to guide that effort.
It is important to recognize the subsequent process to develop the CLUO focused on drafting regulations in a manner guided by available facts and scientific and technical information, all in a manner that aligned with various policy goals such as (by way of example) reasonably addressing all community issues, ensuring the continuing health of an entirely new business sector, and achieving consistency with countywide agricultural goals established in the 2009 General Plan, including:
- Policy LU-2.2, which seeks to allow additional agricultural commercial and agricultural industrial land uses in the agricultural areas
- Policy AG-1.1 which encourages the growth of emerging crops and value-added processing
- Policy AG-3.8 which encourages reuse of agricultural facilities to reflect changing economic conditions
- Policy AG-3.16 which promotes agricultural innovation, including nontraditional agricultural operations to expand business opportunities
- Policy AG-5.1 which promotes markets for locally and regionally grown and/or prepared agricultural products and services
The process included 36 public outreach meetings conducted by staff to present ideas, listen to concerns, and collaborate regarding regulatory solutions. It also included significant technical analysis of relevant issues in order to understand and distinguish fact from emotion. The Draft CLUO before the Board for approval reflects all that was learned during that period, both from the community and from various independent technical experts assembled by the County to support the process.
In effect, the staff sees the outcomes summarized above as “commonly held goals” for development of the CLUO and we believe the draft before you reflects a balance of these considerations:
- Reasonably address community issues
- Ensure the continuing health of an emerging business sector
- Be guided by science and facts
- Ensure consistency with long-held countywide agricultural goals established in the General Plan
- Ensure public involvement and due process for every applicant
It is also relevant to note the evolution of the County’s regulatory process during this period. The Cannabis Unit (formerly the Cannabis Task Force) oversees compliance for all cannabis license, including monthly inspections of all sites, and ongoing resolution of all complaints. Cannabis complaints that come through the Cannabis Unit (some come through the Board of Supervisors) are protected and confidential, and each one is carefully reviewed and resolved within the parameters of the County’s existing code requirements. The performance of the Cannabis Unit is highly regarded and has been recognized at the state level as one of the most effective and innovative local cannabis regulatory programs in California.
As discussed recently with the Board, a minimum level of license/permit activity is necessary to efficiently and affordably run that program. Based on preliminary staff analysis, approximately 48 to 50 licenses constitutes the minimum viable program.
Adoption of the CLUO will afford the County considerable discretion over commercial cannabis cultivation and related uses—discretion that does not exist today. The CLUO will “overlay” the existing cannabis licensing program which is entirely ministerial. Until a CLUO is enacted, cannabis licensees will continue operating with fewer regulatory constraints in their current locations, without public notice, public hearings, or a discretionary approval process that accommodates public participation, and without operational performance standards for odor, security, and other matters covered in the CLUO. Further, any of the approximately 36 eligible cultivation sites Countywide that were dormant in 2020 can seek licenses for the 2021 or subsequent cultivation seasons.
The following discussion summarizes the comprehensive analysis that has been prepared for the Board as summarized in the identified staff reports, starting with the most recent:
April 20, 2021 Board of Supervisors Progress Report on CLUO
On April 20, 2021 the staff provided a progress report to the Board of Supervisors. The full staff report for this item is available here. The staff report for the April 20th meeting covered the following topics:
- Coordination with Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (YDWN)
- Coordination with Other Stakeholders
- Examination of Crime Data
- Calls for Service Countywide
- Calls for Service in Capay Valley General Plan Area
- Calls for Service from Cache Creek Casino and Resort
- Sheriff’s Activity Related to Illegal Cannabis Cultivation
- Role of the Cannabis Unit in Assuring Compliance and Crime Prevention
- Examination of Fiscal Effects
- Revenue and Community Benefits of the Cannabis Tax Revenue
- Financial Sustainability of the Licenses Cannabis Program
- Context and Approach
- Recommended Range of Decisions for Key Issues (8 Key Decisions)
The following attachments were provided with this report:
A – YDWN letter received April 13, 2021
B – County Capay Valley General Plan Area
C – YDWN letter dated March 2, 2021
D – Preliminary Assessment of Crime Data
E – Preliminary Examination of Fiscal Effects
F – Capay Valley Special Study Area Concept
G -- 2020 Licensees in the Greater Capay Valley Area
Prior to the meeting, the staff distributed an additional attachment entitled Draft CLUO Decision Making Chart for May 4, 2021 Board Hearing #1. Attachment A to this May 4th report includes a refined version of that checklist.
There were no actions requested by the Board for the April 20th progress report; however individual Board members requested additional information which is provided later on this May 4th staff report.
March 9, 2021 Board of Supervisors Continuance of Hearing #1 on CLUO
On March 9, 2021 the staff provided a written staff report to the Board responding to questions and requests of Board members from the January 19th workshop. The full staff report for this item is available here. Comprehensive responses to Board Member’s questions and requests for information from January 19th were provided in Attachment A of the March 9th report. The staff report and Attachment A covered the following topics:
- Implications of Licensing Program Without Use Permit Regulations
- Implications for State Provisional Licenses
- Summary of 42 Meetings and Hearings Held as Part of Public Outreach
- Background Information
- Modified Staff Recommendation and Other Potential Changes to the January 2021 Draft CLUO:
- Buffers
- Summary of Residential Buffer Considerations
- Effects of Buffers on Existing Licensees
- Information on Buffer Easements
- Land Dimensions Needed for Buffers of Various Sizes
- Buffers from Tribal Cultural Resources
- Exceptions from Buffers
- Over-Concentration
- Is Over-Concentration Based on Number of Licenses or Number of Permits?
- How are Sites Counted if There is Vertical Integration?
- How are Sites Counted if There is Co-Location?
- Capay Valley Considerations
- How Do We Define the Capay Valley?
- Is Capay Valley Over-Concentrated?
- Could an Overlay Zone Be Used to Control for Over-Concentration in Capay Valley?
- Comparison of YDWN Over-Concentration Recommendation to Staff Recommendation?
- What Limitations on License Types are Proposed for the Capay Valley?
- Cannabis Law Enforcement/Crime/Safety
- How are County Resources Assigned/Used/Spent on Cannabis Enforcement and Crime?
- Information from Sheriff’s Office on Cannabis Law Enforcement
- Cannabis Retail Use
- Can Retail Be Addressed Later in the Process?
- Sales Tax Revenues Associated with Retail Storefront?
- Best Locations for Retail Storefont?
- Appropriate Limits for Retail Non-Storefront
- Number of Permits and Licenses
- Should We Authorize More Than 78 Cultivation Licenses?
- Explain the 30 Eligible Licensees That Are Not Active
- Will Multiple Licenses/Permits On One Site Magnify Impacts?
- How Will We Allocate Limited License Types if Demand Exceeds Supply?
- Summary of Odor Control
- Relationship Between Odor Complaints, Cannabis Locations, and Distance
- Explain How Lighting Impacts Are Addressed
- Explain How Impacts From Generators Are Addressed
- Explain How We Can Support Neighbors Coming Together to Resolve Differences
- Summarize Greenhouse Requirements
- How Much Agricultural Land Will Be Used for Cannabis Land Uses
- Use of Chemicals By Cannabis Growers
- Expiration of Provisional Licenses
- Could the County Provide Relocation Assistance to Existing Cannabis Operations?
The following additional attachments were included with this report:
B – Outdoor Cultivation Counties (Figure and Table)
C – Over-Concentration in Capay Valley
D – County Cannabis Tax Revenue Expenditure Summary
E – Yolo County Zoning
F – Sheriff’s Office Cannabis Crime Statistics
Attachment A was not presented to the Board as part of the oral report. Rather the Board acted at the March 9th meeting to postpone the first hearing on the CLUO to May 4, 2021 with a progress report requested in April. Individual Board members also requested additional information which was presented in the April 20th progress report.
January 19, 2021 Board of Supervisors Workshop on CLUO
On January 19, 2021 the staff held a workshop with the Board on the CLUO. The full staff report for this item is available here. The staff report for the January 19th workshop covered the following topics:
1. Background
2. Summary of Draft CLUO
3. Summary of All Proposed Regulatory Changes
4. Environmental Impact Analysis
5. Key CLUO Issues
6. Recommendation of CACs and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
7. Recommendation of Planning Commission (December 10, 2020)
8. Retail Storefront Uses
9. Cannabis Greenhouse Setbacks
10. Buffers from Residential Uses
11. Buffer Easements
The following attachments were provided with this report:
A – January 2021 Draft CLUO
B – CLUO Guiding Principles
C – CLUO EIR Alternatives
D – Summary of CAC Recommendations
E – County Buffer Summary Table
F – Cannabis Use Type Definitions
There were no actions requested by the Board for the January 19th workshop; however individual Board members requested additional information which was provided as Attachment A to the March 9th staff report.
December 10, 2020 Planning Commission Recommended Action on CLUO
On December 10, 2020, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a recommendation to the Board to certify the Final EIR, adopt the related general plan text amendments and CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), adopt the CLUO, and adopt various amendments to other sections of the County Code. Related to adoption of the CLUO, the Planning Commission recommendation differed from the staff recommendation in several areas, and there were several actions of the Commission that were not unanimous and of which the Commission wanted the Board to be aware. A summary of those items is provided below:
- Assessment of program effectiveness every two years, VOTE: 7:0
- Prohibition of Retail Storefront license type, VOTE: 7:0
- Unlimited cap on the number of Retail Non-Storefront licenses, VOTE: 4:3 (Campbell, Dudley, Muller voting no)
- 100-foot setback for cannabis greenhouses in an Agricultural zone, VOTE 7:0
- Accept the proposed buffers for non-residential identified sensitive uses as shown in the Draft CLUO, VOTE: 5:2 (Dudley and Muller voting no)
- 1,000-foot buffer from all residences in an Agricultural zone, VOTE 6:1 (Dubin voting no)
- Addition of Buffer Easements to the CLUO, VOTE: 7:0
- 1,000-foot buffer from Residential zoning, VOTE 7:0 (Dubin voted yes to make consistent with Ag zone buffer)
September 1, 2020 Release of Final EIR on CLUO
On September 1, 2020 the County released the Final EIR for the CLUO. That document (all volumes) is available here. The Final EIR contained the following information:
- Seventeen Master Responses addressing the following topics (Chapter 3):
a. Master Response 1: No Project Alternative and No Cannabis Alternative
b. Master Response 2: Baseline Conditions Used in the Draft EIR
c. Master Response 3: Range of Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR
d. Master Response 4: CEQA Alternatives and County Decision-Making
e. Master Response 5: Cannabis as an Agricultural Crop
f. Master Response 6: Economic Effects and Property Values
g. Master Response 7: Code Enforcement and Crime
h. Master Response 8: Marijuana and Hemp
i. Master Response 9: Buffers
j. Master Response 10: CUP Process and Overconcentration
k. Master Response 11: Cultural Change
l. Master Response 12: Expression of Opinion/Preference
m. Master Response 13: Cannabis Tax Revenue
n. Master Response 14: County Cannabis Disclosures
o. Master Response 15: Traffic Analysis
p. Master Response 16: Cannabis Licensing Program
q. Master Response 17: Consolidated Cannabis Campus
- 78 comments Letters containing 955 specific comments (Chapters 2 and 3). Individual responses were provided for every comment.
- Sample Cannabis Inspection Report and Applicant Notice (Appendix A and B)
- CEQA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)(Appendix C)
- Trinity Consultants Technical Memorandum entitled “Modeling to Estimate Odor Impacts at Various Buffer Distances” (Appendix E)
- Revisions to the Draft EIR (Chapter 4)
- Draft EIR
Responses to Board Requests at the April 20th Progress Report
At the April 20, 2021 meeting, individual Board members requested the following information.
- How much land is owned by the tribe in the Esparto/Madison area -- According to County records the tribe owns one property located in Esparto totaling just over 18 acres.
- Revenue from cannabis use types for Davis, West Sacramento, and Woodland -- Of the four Yolo County cities, Davis, West Sacramento, and Woodland allow cannabis activities; Winters currently does not but is considering it. All three allow distribution, manufacturing, and testing, plus West Sacramento allows indoor cultivation. Davis is the only Yolo city that allows retail cannabis uses. It has five approved dispensaries and three delivery-only businesses. Of the jurisdictions adjoining, and potentially serving Yolo, the cities of Dixon and Sacramento allow retail cannabis, including delivery.
Retail cannabis activity in the City of Davis has generated the following revenue (note different time periods; also note that revenues from other cannabis license types in Davis are not included below):
- $250,000 in sales tax (approximate value for latest 12-month period[October 2019 to September 2020])
- $3,009,500 from Measure C business license tax on gross annual receipts of non-medical cannabis sales (two-year period September 2018 through December 2020)
- $345,500 from 1% community benefit tax (two-year period September 2018 through December 2020)
Manufacturing and distribution activity in the City of West Sacramento has generated the following revenue in FY 20/21, however the City projects these numbers to be twice these amounts by the end of the fiscal year:
- $695,276 from 2.5% tax on gross receipts from three distribution operations (FY 20/21)
- $16,724 from 5% tax on gross receipts from two manufacturing operations (FY 20/21)
Manufacturing and distribution activity in the City of Woodland has generated the following revenue:
- $200,000 from various tax rates on gross receipts for fiscal year 2020/2021 for three licensed facilities collected via executed Operating Agreements (the City collected $104,511 in fiscal year 2019/2020)
- CEQA Baseline and No Project Alternative – Master Responses 1 and 2 in the Final EIR address these topics.
Regarding CEQA baseline, as a matter of law, the County has considerable discretion to select an appropriate baseline (e.g., the physical conditions existing without the project) concurrently with issuance of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR. Here, the EIR used baseline conditions consisting of 78 "existing and eligible" cannabis cultivation sites. This aligned with the number of sites eligible to obtain a cultivation license--a valuable, sought-after entitlement--upon issuance of the NOP in August 2018, with 67 active cultivation sites existing at that time. Also at that time, the cannabis licensing program was quite new and no "normal" level of cultivation licensing had yet been established. Indeed, the County understood and expected that the number of licensees would fluctuate from year to year and could increase or decrease from the 67 then in existence.
Overall, the description of baseline conditions in the Draft EIR is consistent with CEQA requirements and published case law. Numerous published decisions support reliance on the number of eligible sites as a realistic and proper baseline condition. For example, in Cherry Valley Pass Acres v. City of Beaumont, 190 Cal. App. 4th 316 (2010), the court approved the use of the an adjudicated water right of 1,484 acre feet as the CEQA baseline because it approximated past water use levels and was consistent with the existing legal entitlement, even though actual water use levels were much lower at the time of the NOP for the project at issue. And while some published decisions have rejected the use of maximum permitted levels as a baseline (an approach somewhat analogous to the use of 78 cultivation sites as the baseline here), those decisions involved permit limits that had never been met during extensive operations of the projects at issue and, hence, baseline conditions that were hypothetical and entirely unrealistic (e.g., Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 48 Cal.4th 310 (2010)). Finally, it bears noting that the number of active sites (67) at the time of the NOP for the CLUO was relatively close to the number of sites (78) eligible to obtain a license, rendering the difference between eligible and actual licensees relatively minor and certainly not sufficient to compromise the informational value of the EIR.
Regarding a “no cannabis alternative”, the Draft EIR does identify a ban on commercial cannabis operations in the County as a potential alternative. Under this alternative, the County would implement a ban on commercial cannabis cultivation operations. No new commercial cannabis cultivation, processing, or distribution facilities would be allowed (Draft EIR, Section 5.2.1, “Ban on Commercial Cannabis Operations in the County,” page 5-2). This alternative would also result in the cessation of commercial cultivation cannabis operations currently allowed under the County’s Licensing Ordinance. Enforcement activities would be undertaken by the County and other agencies, if necessary, to ensure proper closure of existing commercial cannabis cultivation operations. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), the Draft EIR identified that this alternative was rejected from further evaluation for the following reasons:
- It is inconsistent with the passage of Proposition 64 in November 2016 which carried in Yolo County by a margin of 60.5 percent to 39.5 percent.
- It is inconsistent with the passage of Measure K in June 2018 which carried in Yolo County by a margin of 79 percent to 29 percent.
- It does not attain or is inconsistent with many of the identified project objectives.
- 2500-foot buffers from city spheres of influence – Attachments 3 and 4 of this May 4th report depict a 1,000-foot buffer and 2,500-foot buffer, respectively, around the city spheres of influence. In both cases, two licenses at one co-located site outside of Woodland would be affected. Concerns about this approach include the following:
- City spheres are a tool of state law that identify the reasonably assumed future boundary of a city. In effect they are already a “buffer” for each City. The concept of providing an additional buffer beyond the SOI is unprecedented.
- The land in the SOI and in any buffer beyond that is County unincorporated land. The effect of the SOI buffers is to forego the potential approval (in the case of cannabis use types covered by the CLUO, through a rigorous use permit process) certain land uses in the buffer areas.
- Three of the four cities allow cannabis activities within their incorporated areas.
- None of the cities provide buffers to the County for land use purposes.
- At one time decades ago Yolo County had “pass-through” agreements with all four cities which in effect exchanged County land use commitments regarding land use within a given buffer area around the City limits for on-going tax revenue sharing with the city. Currently only the Davis ”pass through” agreement remains in place.
- 1000 ft from land zoned residential – Assuming the staff buffer recommendation is approved but with a buffer of 1,000 feet from land zoned residential instead of 600 feet, 24 of 48 licensees could remain in their present location (“operation okay”), 15 of 48 would have to move onsite, and 9 of 48 would have to move offsite. This scenario is already assumed as part of the Planning Commission recommendation. For convenience, the tables that summarize the staff and Planning Commission buffer recommendations and shows the effect they may have on existing operators are provided below:
Table 3, CLUO Buffer Comparison
| A/CLUO Identified Sensitive Land Use |
B/Staff Recommendation as modified 3/9/2021 |
C/Planning Commission Recommendation 12/10/20202 |
| 1/Homes in any non-residential zone |
600 ft from any home |
1,000 ft from any home |
| 2/Residentially zoned area |
600 ft from zone boundary |
1,000 ft from zone boundary |
| 3/Parks |
600 ft from parcel |
Same |
| 4/Day cares, places of worship, schools, treatment facilities, youth centers |
600 ft from building |
Same |
| 5/Tribal trust land and pending fee to trust land |
1,000 ft from parcel |
Same |
| 6/Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) |
600 feet from TCR for any operation that requires waste discharge approval/ waiver from the state.1 |
Same |
1/County staff verified with the State on February 25, 2021 that all of the 48 licensees active in 2020 have WDRs and are therefore subject to this requirement.
2/The Planning Commission buffer recommendation is consistent with the recommendations of the Clarksburg, Esparto, Madison, and Dunnigan CACs, and generally consistent with the recommendation of the Capay Valley CAC (which included additional regulatory specificity). The South Davis CAC recommended buffers of 10,000 feet or just under two miles. See staff report Attachment 1, Table 2)
Table 4, Effects of Buffers on Existing Licensees
| Scenario |
Capay Valley
600 ft |
Countywide
600 ft |
Capay Valley 1,000 ft |
Countywide
1,000 ft |
| Operation Okay |
6 |
25 |
3 |
18 |
| Operation Must Move Onsite |
5 |
14 |
4 |
8 |
| Operation Must Relocate Offsite |
2 |
9 |
6 |
22 |
| Total |
13 |
481 |
13 |
481 |
| Summary |
7 of 13 (54%) must move |
23 of 48 (48%) must move |
10 of 13 (77%) must move |
30 of 48 (63%) must move |
1/ The 13 cannabis sites within Capay Valley are included in this number.
- 1000 ft from Towns – To undertake this analysis staff assumed that the following would be considered “towns”: Capay, Clarksburg, Dunnigan, Esparto, Guinda, Knights Landing, Madison, Rumsey, Yolo, Zamora. A new buffer of 1,000 feet around these areas as depicted in the General Plan, would potentially eliminate 10 licensees.
- Cultivator Interest in License Types – To assess cultivator interest in license types would require a survey of the cultivators. Unfortunately there was not enough time available to undertake this. However, there would be nothing binding about such a survey and it may not be accurate. A cultivator could indicate an “interest” in one or more license types but they may not submit a formal application once the CLUO is adopted. We are concerned the results may be unreliable.
- Combined Effects of Buffers and Over-concentration Threshold in Capay Valley – Assuming the staff recommended buffers (600 feet) and over-concentration threshold (10 or less within a 6 mile area), the combined effects in Capay Valley may result in between 6 and 10 operations remaining. This is speculative however because we don’t know how many will apply, details about their sites, whether any will try to relocate, and where that relocation will be. For these reasons the actual results will not be known until applications are received and processed.
Subsequent to the April 20th meeting we received two additional requests from Board members for information:
- Map of Current Over-Concentration in Capay Valley – Under current conditions, using the staff proposed threshold of ten permits within a six-mile diameter area for over-concentration, the Capay Valley area is over-concentrated. Of the 48 cannabis licensees active in 2020, 13 are located in the Capay Valley, and 12 of the 13 fall within a six-mile diameter area (see Attachment 6 of this May 4th report). Therefore, during the use permit process, assuming all 12 operators submit applications and are not otherwise precluded from securing a permit due to other requirements of the CLUO (e.g. buffers), only ten of the 12 operations in the area could be approved. This would also mean new operators could not be considered in the area unless and until there was subsequent attrition.
- Effects of 800-foot buffers in Capay Valley – This information could not be prepared in time for the staff report but will be provided verbally by staff at the hearing.
Eight Key Decisions
The eight key decisions on which the staff recommends the Board seek consensus are as follows. Attachment 1 of this May 4th report provides a decision checklist summarizing these items.
- Overall Regulatory Controls – provide direction regarding appropriate regulation for cannabis activities
- Capay Valley Area – Define the geographic extent of Capay Valley for purposes of the CLUO
- Capay Valley Regulations – Adopt regulations specific to Capay Valley
- Buffers – Adopt minimum buffers from identified sensitive uses; adopt an appropriate buffer for Tribal Cultural Resources; consider a new buffer around City spheres of influence
- Buffer Exceptions – Consider whether to allow for exception to buffers to be considered during the use permit process on a case-by-case basis
- Over-Concentration Threshold – Adopt a threshold for the maximum number of cannabis operations that can be allowed within a defined area
- Caps on Use Permits and License Types – Adopt an appropriate limit on the overall number of use permits and the number of allowed licenses by type
- Other Regulations in the Draft CLUO – Adopt all other aspects of the proposed CLUO or make additional modifications as appropriate.
Proposed Process for Board Hearing #1
Staff recognizes the significance of these decisions and anticipates that two to three hearings will likely be required to conclude the deliberations. In support of this process, the staff recommends the following process to reach consensus:
- Staff presentation of information
- Board members ask clarifying questions
- Conduct public hearing and receive public comments
- Walk through decision chart (Attachment 1) with staff using the following approach:
a. Board members deliberate one item at a time in numeric order
b. Conduct non-binding straw poll for each item/option (eg poll on item 1.A, poll on item 1.B, etc until item 1 is complete; then go onto item 2; etc)
c. Summarize those items where there is consensus (defined as 3 votes on an option)
d. Conduct a second round of discussions focusing just on those items without clear consensus, eliminating options with one or no votes and focusing on options with two votes
- Once the Board has achieved consensus on all items/options, reopen the public hearing for comments
- Seek an “intent to approve” vote on the entire package and direct staff to return with a final CLUO, and appropriate findings of fact and approval documentation
|