The purpose of the hearing is to receive comments from any interested party regarding the adequacy of the DEIR as an informational tool for making decisions regarding the proposed CLUO. Although a public meeting to receive oral comments on Draft EIRs is not a procedural requirement, it is the County’s practice to conduct one for certain projects.
There will be no transcription of oral comments at this meeting. Comments received will be summarized by staff for inclusion in the record and Final EIR. Those who wish to have their oral comments incorporated verbatim into the record and Final EIR must submit their comments in writing by the deadlines described below.
This meeting is primarily an opportunity to provide comments on the Draft EIR. Staff will respond to questions if possible, but it is likely that immediate and/or direct answers on questions regarding the Draft EIR will not be provided. This information will be provided later in writing as a part of the forthcoming Final EIR (Response to Comments) document.
The DEIR is available online at the following website: https://www.yolocounty.org/community-services/cannabis-3398. The DEIR (electronic or hard copy) or links to it are also available at all Yolo County libraries and through the Department of Community Services, Planning Division and/or Cannabis Program.
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for determining the adequacy of an EIR state as follows:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15151)
The CEQA Guidelines require that formal written responses be prepared and made available for relevant comments received on the DEIR, including oral comments. These responses, plus the DEIR, will comprise the Final EIR for the CLUO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This Draft EIR evaluates the environmental impacts related to implementation of the proposed countywide Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO). The County currently regulates the cultivation of cannabis under the Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance codified in Chapter 20 of Title 5 of the Yolo County Code. The Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance includes standards for setbacks, compliance with State regulations, surety bonding, lighting restrictions for mixed-light cultivation, and implementation and enforcement provisions. The approval process for cannabis cultivation licenses currently includes no public notification or hearing process. Cannabis cultivation licenses are required to be renewed annually.
The proposed CLUO would add Article 14 to Title 8, Chapter 2, of the Zoning Regulations within the Yolo County Code. It would regulate all cannabis operations within the unincorporated area. Specific land use requirements and development performance standards are proposed in the CLUO that would address, among many topics, a range of social and environmental issues.
The full text of the proposed Draft CLUO is provided in Appendix C of the DEIR. The draft CLUO was originally released for public review on April 24, 2018. It was subsequently revised and released with changes as part of the DEIR. All changes are shown in red strike out and underline. All aspects of the proposed regulations that would differ based on the CEQA alternative are marked in yellow highlight.
The discussion below summarizes the proposed new regulations. These standards, except when noted, would apply to all five of the CEQA alternatives.
Section 8-2.1401, Relationship to Other County Cannabis Regulations: This section identifies other Yolo County Code sections that contain regulations specific to cannabis activities.
Section 8-2.1402, Purpose: This section elaborates on the purpose of the regulations. It establishes County intent in implementing the code. It describes the primary policy concerns and how they are to be balanced.
Section 8-2.1403, Definitions: This section provides definitions for various terms.
Section 8-2.1404, Applicability: This section addresses various aspects of how the CLUO will be applied and provides compliance timeframes for the 78 existing and eligible licensees under the County’s existing cannabis program.
Section 8-2.1405, Cannabis Use Categories and Use Types: This section identifies each of the state license use types and categorizes them for purposes of the draft CLUO. Generally, the use types are as defined in state law. Section 8-2.1405 (A through E), related to various cannabis use categories and use types, would be modified under the different EIR alternatives. Alternative 1 assumes cultivation only, with ancillary nurseries and processing allowed. Alternatives 2 and 3 assume all use types (except special events). Alternative 4 assumes outdoor uses are prohibited. Alternative 5 assumes the same use types as Alternatives 2 and 3 restricted to agricultural zones and with the exclusion of retail.
Section 8-2.1406, Cannabis Permit Requirements: This section clarifies the various license and permit requirements. In general, a cannabis operation must have the appropriate state cannabis license(s), a County cannabis license, a County business license (this requirement does not apply to cultivators, nurseries, or processing-only license holders), and a County cannabis use permit. The number of state licenses an individual or business can hold is dictated by state law. The number of separate County cannabis licenses and use permits a person or business can hold may be limited in future administrative procedures to be adopted by the County.
For the purposes of this EIR, the maximum numbers of assumed cannabis/operations by type are as defined for each alternative. Alternative 1 assumes 78 cannabis uses, Alternatives 2 and 4 assume up to 132 cannabis uses, Alternative 3 assumes 264 cannabis uses, and Alternative 5 assumes 130 cannabis uses.
Section 8-2.1406(h) addresses possible future regulation of the number of cannabis activities within smaller geographic areas of the County to address concerns related over-concentration of cannabis uses. This subsection establishes that the County may choose to enact such controls at any time, identifies the use of the comment areas of the County’s citizen advisory committees as possible subregions for such regulation, identifies the use of population and density as possible considerations, and establishes that effects on the illegal market should be among the factors considered when making decisions regarding specific cannabis use permit applications. Whether and how over-concentration will be regulated has yet to be decided. CEQA Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 assume controls for over-concentration, but as noted the specific mechanism and procedure for that to occur has not been developed.
Section 4.2 of the DEIR contains an analysis of over-concentration and includes mitigation to address identified effects from concentrations or clusters of cannabis uses in particular geographic areas (see pages 4-37 through 4-68). The identified mitigation would modify this section of the proposed ordinance.
This section also identifies findings for approval and denial of Cannabis Use Permits. These findings are based generally on County use permit findings identified in Section 8-2.217 (Use Permits) of the current County Zoning Regulations. Among other things these findings require consistency with the contents and requirements of the proposed CLUO. These findings would be modified by mitigation for over-concentration identified in Chapter 4 of the DEIR.
Section 8-2.1407, Table of Cannabis Development Requirements: This section identifies in table format which cannabis use types are allowed in which zone districts, as well as other applicable development requirements, such as maximum canopy area and buffers from sensitive uses. In the final approved CLUO, this table will be modified to reflect the alternative approved by the Board of Supervisors including allowed use types and allowed zones.
Alternative 1 assumes a 75-foot buffer between outdoor cannabis uses and individual residences and a 1,000-foot buffer between outdoor cannabis uses and identified sensitive uses. Alternatives 2 and 5 assume a 1,000-foot buffer between outdoor cannabis uses and individual residences and identified special uses. Alternative 3 assumes a 75-foot buffer between outdoor cannabis uses and individual residences and identified special uses. Alternative 4 assumes no buffers as outdoor cannabis uses are not allowed.
Section 8-2.1408, Specific Use Requirements and Performance Standards: This section is extensive. It provides 49 specific requirements and performance standards that would regulate operations for all cannabis use types. Examples of standards found in this section include: Buffers, Driveway Access, Good Neighbor Communication, Nuisance, and Odor Control, among many others. A summary of the requirements contained in this section is included in Chapter 2 of the DEIR (Description of the Preferred Alternative and Equal Weight Alternatives).
Section 8-2.1409, Special Cannabis Restrictions and Concerns: This section identifies and discloses restrictions and concerns unique to cannabis, including the current federal framework, the potential for changes in the regulatory environmental at all levels, and limitations on County liability.
Section 8-2.1410, Application Submittal and Processing: This section identifies information required as a part of a cannabis use permit applications, that are specific to the proposed site and operation. It establishes general code compliance requirements and identifies use permit requirements specific to cannabis applications. It also discloses the intent to achieve project-specific CEQA coverage from the programmatic EIR by utilizing available CEQA streamlining opportunities.
Section 8-2.1411, Reporting and Inspections: This section identifies annual reporting and inspection requirements, and describes how that information will be presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Section 8-2.1412, Enforcement: This section describes the enforcement process and related topics, including revocation, enforcement, and site restoration.
Section 8-2.1413, Effectiveness. This section identifies a required evaluation of the effectiveness of the ordinance after two years of implementation.
CEQA ALTERNATIVES
The County is considering five “equal weight” CEQA alternatives which are essentially different variations of the proposed CLUO. Each of these alternatives assumes the same underlying regulatory requirements related to land use, zoning, and development standards. The alternatives vary based primarily on allowed cannabis license types, assumed numbers of operations, allowed location based on zoning, controls on over-concentration, and required buffers from identified sensitive uses. The alternatives are:
Alternative 1: Cultivation (Ancillary Nurseries and Processing Only) with Existing Limits (Existing Operations with CLUO) (CEQA Preferred Alternative) – 78 licenses
Alternative 2: All License Types with Moderate Limits – 132 licenses
Alternative 3: All License Types with High Limits – 264 licenses
Alternative 4: Mixed-Light/Indoor License Types Only with Moderate Limits, No Hoop Houses or Outdoor Types – 132 licenses
Alternative 5: All License Types with Moderate Limits, Within Agricultural Zones Only, No Retail – 130 licenses
REQUIRED COUNTY ACTIONS
Adoption of the proposed CLUO will require the following actions by the County:
- Certification of the Final EIR (FEIR) for the CLUO
- Adoption of a General Plan Amendment for revisions to the text of Policy LU-1.1 and Table LU-4, modification of Policies LU-2.3 and AG-1.3, and inclusion of a new Policies LU 1.4 and AG-3.21
- Adoption of the CLUO adding Article 14 (Cannabis Land Use Ordinance) to Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations) of Title 8 of the Yolo County Code
- Adoption of amendments to other sections of the County Code to comport to the CLUO
SUMMARY OF DEIR
Overview
An EIR is an informational document that examines and discloses the potential for adverse environmental impacts to result from adoption and implementation of the proposed CLUO. The DEIR provides an analysis of the potential for impacts in 15 topical areas, plus an evaluation of cumulative effects, and other required matters.
CEQA Basics
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulates the EIR process. Pursuant to State law, EIRs focus only on significant adverse physical impacts. However, there are other important considerations the Board of Supervisors will ultimately consider such as beneficial, economic, and social factors. CEQA requires “reasonable” analysis – not perfect, speculative, or exhaustive. EIR conclusions do not dictate Board action.
Impact Analysis
For each environmental topic, the DEIR identifies the baseline (existing) condition, the significance threshold (the point at which the impact moves from acceptable to unacceptable), mitigation that would reduce or eliminate the impact, and whether the remaining effect (after mitigation) is acceptable or unacceptable. Here is a “cheat sheet” explanation of some common CEQA terminology:
- Existing condition = setting = baseline for impact analysis
- No Impact = no change in outcome from exiting conditions
- Less Than Significant Impact = an acceptable outcome
- Significant Impact = an unacceptable outcome = impact that exceeds the significance threshold = adverse
- Mitigatable = a significant impact that will be reduced to less than significant levels by the mitigation
- Unavoidable = a significant impact that will not be reduced to less than significant levels by the mitigation
The CLUO DEIR identifies adverse environmental impacts that may result from adoption and implementation of the proposed CLUO. It concludes that generally, cannabis operations that are conducted consistent with the proposed CLUO, and other state and local requirements, will be mitigated through compliance with applicable regulations and standards. In some instances, mitigation measures are identified in the form of changes or clarifications to the proposed CLUO in order to avoid and/or minimize the potential for impacts.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures (MMs) are identified and would be integrated into the final regulations upon adoption:
MM AQ-4: Adds a requirement for wind pattern evaluation for cannabis use permits to increase understanding of site conditions related to odor.
MM BIO-1: Clarifies biological resource survey requirements for sensitive species that are covered by the Yolo HCP/NCCP and other sensitive species.
MM GHG-1: Adds language to the CLUO requiring cannabis use permit applicants to demonstrate compliance with the County Climate Action Plan (CCAP).
MM HYDRO-1: Adds a requirement for applicants to provide information about whether their wastewater will require additional treatment measures, to ensure compliance with water quality standards.
MM NOI-1: Establishes noise standards for cannabis activities.
MM OVC-1: Changes and expands CLUO Section 8-2.1406(H) related to Over-Concentration; requires the development of detailed procedures for processing cannabis use permits in areas of over-concentration. This measure specifies/includes the following:
- < 5 cannabis sites within any 6-mile diameter area is not an over-concentration. Note: There are 25 existing/eligible sites throughout the unincorporated area that fall in this category.
- Between 6 and 22 sites within any 6-mile diameter area may be over-concentrated subject to the determination of a precise threshold by the Board. Note: The DEIR analysis identifies four areas of the County containing an overall total of 53 existing and eligible sites that are potentially over-concentrated or over-concentrated (see Exhibit 4-1 on page 4-38). These are:
Cluster #1 – Guinda/Rumsey Area with 23 existing/eligible sites (over-concentrated)
Cluster #2 – Willow Oaks/Monument Hills Area with 13 existing/eligible sites
Cluster #3 – Dunnigan Area with 9 existing/eligible sites
Cluster #4 – Esparto Area with 8 existing/eligible sites
- Cannabis use permits cannot be issued in excess of the final over-concentration threshold unless special findings are made related to the illegal market, enforcement, and public nuisance (see MM OVC-1a).
- The Board will be the final decision-making authority for cannabis use permits in areas of potential over-concentration and over-concentration.
- Cannabis use permits within any six-mile diameter area that is potentially over-concentrated and over-concentrated will be processed simultaneously to ensure consideration of community specific issues and facilitate community involvement. Note: The staff will develop detailed procedures for processing these and any other allowed cannabis use permit applications. These draft procedures will be presented to the Board of Supervisors as part of the upcoming adoption hearings.
- Cannabis use permits for the 78 existing and eligible sites will be processed first, with a priority to first address areas where over-concentration is a concern.
- Expanded findings of fact to address 12 additional community considerations beyond those listed in Section 8-2.1406(L).
“Unavoidable” Impacts
The DEIR concludes that all impacts can be fully mitigated except for those related to Visual Character and Odor. The EIR makes conservative conclusions about these impacts:
Impact AES-3: Degradation of Visual Character (all alternatives)
Impact AQ-4: Exposure to Adverse Odors (all alternatives)
Impact CUM-1: Cumulative Visual Character Impacts (all alternatives)
Impact CUM-3: Cumulative Odor Impacts (all alternatives)
Impact OVC-1: Visual Character Impacts from Overconcentration of Cannabis Uses (all alternatives)
Impact OVC-3: Odor Impacts from Overconcentration of Cannabis Uses (all alternatives)
Alternatives Analysis
The CLUO DEIR examines the potential for impact in all topical areas at an equivalent detailed level of analysis for each of five identified CEQA Alternatives. That is why these alternatives are referred to as “equal weight” alternatives. The result of this approach is the equivalent of providing five EIRs (one for each of the five alternatives) in one document. This was done to ensure adequate disclosure, informed decision-making, and overall flexibility for the Board of Supervisors in making their decisions regarding the final CLUO. The intent is to facilitate the choice of any alternative or the combination of features of any alternative analyzed in detail in the EIR. Table 2-4 commencing on page 2-30 of the DEIR summarizes the analytical assumptions for each of the five equal weight alternatives.
The DEIR also provides a comparative analysis of the No Project Alternative, and discusses and rejects as infeasible a 7th alternative that assumes a complete ban on cannabis. This discussion is contained in Chapter 5 of the DEIR (Alternatives). Chapter 5 also contains Table 5-1 commencing on page 5-8 which compares the five “equal weight” alternatives plus the No Project Alternative, for each identified impact area. Based on direction from the Board of Supervisors, Alternative 1 (Cultivation with Existing Limits) is identified as the “Preferred Alternative”. This is required based on case law but does not in any way limit the ability of the Board to consider any alternative.
Alternative 1 is identified as the “environmentally superior” alternative under unmitigated conditions. It outperforms the No Project alternative because it includes measures to reduce or avoid environmental impacts that are presently occurring or could occur in the future. Under mitigated conditions, Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 are relatively equivalent and individually environmentally superior when compared to the No Project Alternative and Alternative 3.
Deadline for Comments
The DEIR was released October 25, 2019 for review and comment. Comments will be accepted for an extended 60-day period that ends December 23, 2019 at 4:00pm. Pursuant to Section 15088a of the CEQA Guidelines, late comments will be considered only at the County’s discretion.
Please direct all comments to:
Susan Strachan, Cannabis Program Manager
Yolo County Department of Community Services
292 West Beamer Street
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 406-4800
cannabis@yolocounty.org
Response to Comments
A Final EIR (Response to Comments) document will be prepared following public review and comment. This subsequent volume will include responses to comments received on the DEIR, errata and/or other changes, modifications, or clarifications of the DEIR, identification of any other pertinent data or information, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP). The County will consider this information when deliberating the project.
Next Steps
As noted above, the Comment period for the DEIR will end December 23rd. The staff expect to return to the Planning Commission in March or April for a recommendation on adoption of the CLUO including certification of the Final EIR. Final action from the Board of Supervisors is expected in May and/or June of 2020.
Nov-Dec Public outreach
Dec 3 Planning Commission meeting on CLUO and DEIR
Dec 23 Comment period ends
Jan-Feb Citizen’s Advisory Committee meetings
Early Mar Final EIR
Mar-Apr Planning Commission hearings
May-Jun Board of Supervisors hearings
|