- Receive a staff report on the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO) and Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), and related matters;
- Continue Board deliberations to achieve consensus on the CLUO;
- Direct staff to return with a complete approval package:
- Adoption of a Resolution certifying the CLUO Final EIR as complete and adequate under CEQA, and allowing for potential future CEQA streamlining by cannabis use permit applicants.
- Adoption of a Resolution amending the General Plan to revise the text of Policy LU-1.1 and Table LU-4, modify Policies LU-2.3 and AG-1.3, and add new Policies LU 1.4 and AG-3.21. This Resolution would also adopt the CLUO EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
- Adopt an Ordinance approving the final CLUO, including the specific direction articulated by the Board in the motion of intent, by amending the County Code to add Article 14 (Cannabis Land Use Ordinance) to Chapter 2, Zoning Regulations, of Title 8.
- Approve an Ordinance amending the Subdivision Regulations in Section 8-1.802 (Streets) of the County Code to comport to CLUO Section 8-2.1408(K) (Driveway Access) to include standards related to access for new private driveways and encroachments.
- Approve an Ordinance making two additional amendments to the County Zoning Regulations to comport to the CLUO by eliminating Section 8-2.116 which prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries and by amending Section 8-2.217 (Use Permits) to clarify and expand the process for revocation or modification of a use permit.
- Continue hearing to July 27, 2021; direct staff to prepare final revised CLUO; undertake a preliminary assessment of whether additional CEQA analysis is required; and conduct an additional public hearing;
- Direct staff to return August 31, 2021 (or September 14) with the complete approval package for final adoption;
- Direct staff, following adoption of the CLUO, to bring two additional clean up actions forward to the Board of Supervisors as soon as feasible:
- Adoption of an ordinance amending the County Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance to conform to the CLUO and moving it to Chapter 4 (Cannabis Licenses) in Title 12 (Business Licenses).
- Adoption of additional “clean up“ amendments to the County Zoning Regulations to add allowed cannabis use types to each zone district table of permit and development requirements.
- Direct staff, following adoption of the CLUO, to begin implementation of the CLUO as soon as feasible including:
- Assemble necessary staff and support
- Establish administrative procedures for accepting and processing cannabis use permits applications.
- Develop required forms, templates, and checklists.
|
On May 18, 2021 the Board held the first hearing on the proposed CLUO, CLUO Final EIR, and related items. At that meeting the Board received testimony from 46 individuals. The Board provided non-binding tentative direction on items 1, 2, 3, and 4.2 as shown in the second column of Attachment A and summarized below:
Item 1 (Overall Regulatory Controls) – The Board voted (5:0) to move forward with adoption of a CLUO.
Item 2 (Capay Valley Boundary) – As a component of their action on Item 3, the Board voted (4:1, Sandy opposed) to define the Capay Valley area using boundaries consistent with those used in the General Plan which include the town of Capay but do not include the towns of Esparto or Madison.
Item 3 (Capay Valley Regulations) – The Board voted (4:1, Sandy opposed) to establish the following restrictions in the Capay Valley area:
- No regional-serving nurseries, processing, or distribution licenses
- No testing, manufacturing, or retail licenses
- No more than 5 cannabis use permits total within the area
- The cannabis cultivation canopy area may not increase beyond the area approved on the effective date of the CLUO
- Use permits may not “transfer” – if a use permit is not used or is allowed to lapse it is removed from the available inventory
- 1,000 foot buffers between outdoor cultivation and identified sensitive uses
- Buffer easements, exceptions, and/or ten percent reductions are not allowed
- The geographic area for the Capay Valley shall be the boundaries used in the County’s General Plan (Item 2)
Item 4.2 (Buffers for Tribal Cultural Resources) – The Board voted (5:0) to establish 1,000 foot buffers for Tribal Cultural Resources.
Remaining Key Decisions for June 29, 2021 Meeting
Staff seeks direction from the Board for four remaining key decisions summarized below:
Item 4.3 (Buffers for Cities, SOIs, or Towns) – Staff seeks direction on new buffers from the following: city limits; contiguous residential areas; city spheres of influence; and/or unincorporated towns.
- City Limits -- Because the buffers adopted by the Board for Item 4.1 would apply to identified sensitive land uses whether located in the County or any of the cities, city land uses would receive the same level of protection as any other similar land use in the County, therefore additional buffers are unnecessary to ensure equitable land use protections. Staff does not recommend additional buffers around City limits. Also, each application would be considered based on its merits, and may be approved, denied, and/or conditionally approved to include larger buffers to address specific circumstances.
- Contiguous Residential Areas -- There are four residential areas immediately contiguous to city limits: El Macero (Davis); Willowbank (Davis); Royal Oaks Mobile Home Park (Davis); and Westucky (Woodland). These areas are all zoned residential and therefore the buffers adopted by the Board for Item 4.1 would apply. Staff does not recommend additional buffers around contiguous residential areas. Also, each application would be considered based on its merits, and may be approved, denied, and/or conditionally approved to include larger buffers to address specific circumstances.
- City Spheres of Influence -- These are designated growth boundaries for cities but they may not be developed or annexed for ten or 20 years, sometimes longer. In the intervening time this land remains unincorporated, under County jurisdiction, and subject to County regulations like other unincorporated land. Each application would be considered based on its merits, and may be approved, denied, and/or conditionally approved to include larger buffers to address specific circumstances. For this reason, staff does not propose any additional buffers for sphere areas. Options for sphere areas include: a) maintaining the same regulations that would otherwise apply to any agricultural use within a sphere; b) conditioning permits for outdoor cultivation within a sphere area to expire within one year of annexation; or c) prohibiting outdoor cannabis cultivation entirely within a sphere area. Staff supports option “b”.
- Unincorporated Towns -- The County General Plan establishes a growth boundary for every unincorporated town (see Attachment B). The buffers adopted by the Board for all sensitive land uses as a part of Item 4.1 would apply within the town boundaries meaning all the same sensitive uses would be buffered, therefore the staff believes additional buffers around town boundaries are not necessary. Each application would be considered based on its merits, and may be approved, denied, and/or conditionally approved to include larger buffers to address specific circumstances. However, it would be appropriate to prohibit outdoor cannabis cultivation anywhere within the growth boundary of an unincorporated town as identified in the General Plan. Staff supports taking this action.
Item 5 (Buffer Exceptions and Other Buffer Controls) – At the June 8 meeting the Board voted on buffer reductions for existing operators. The Board did not vote on other buffer controls. Staff seeks to confirm direction on the following additional buffer controls (acknowledging based on Item 3 they are not allowed in the Capay Valley and would not apply to Tribal buffers):
- Buffer Reductions – On June 8th the Board tentatively voted to allow buffer reductions of up to ten percent for existing operators only. Staff seeks direction regarding whether the Board supports extending this regulation to all applicants. This would allow a discretionary reduction of up to ten percent for buffers, for any applicant, based on the specific conditions at the site. Staff supports this item.
- Buffer Easements – This would allow for agreements between willing neighbors to accept smaller buffer distances for any applicant, subject to oversight and acceptance by the County. Staff seeks direction whether the Board supports this regulation for all applicants. Staff supports this item.
- Buffer Exceptions – This would allow for discretionary consideration of smaller buffers for existing licensees only. This regulation was rejected by the Board on June 8 in favor of allowing discretionary reductions of up to ten percent for existing licensees. No further direction is needed on this item.
- Buffer Exemptions – This would allow for automatic approval of existing buffers for existing licensees. This concept, also known as “grandfathering”, would only apply to existing licensees. Staff seeks direction from the Board rejecting this concept. Staff does not recommend buffer exemptions.
Item 6 (Over-Concentration) – This item establishes the over-concentration limit that would apply countywide, except in the Capay Valley where the Board has already established area-specific regulations. The staff recommendation is no more than 10 use permits within any 6 mile area.
Item 8 (Other Items) – Discussion of each of these items was provided in the June 8th staff report. The staff position on each is provided below:
- Freeze on Licenses -- With adoption of the CLUO imminent, staff does not see a significant advantage in enacting a freeze on licenses.
- Special Regulations for Esparto – See discussion of Item 4.3 above.
- Restrict Permits/Licenses to Local Residents -- County Counsel has completed additional research on this matter and confirmed that such a restriction would likely violate constitutional rights.
- Buffer Measurement and Buffers for Indoor Uses – Points of measurement for buffers from identified sensitive land uses were resolved with the Board’s action on Items 3 and 4.1.
- Buffers for indoor uses were not proposed as a part of the draft CLUO primarily because odor can be more easily controlled in an indoor environment, and to create an incentive to cultivate indoors where feasible. All indoor uses are subject to the applicable setbacks for the zone in which they are located.Staff does not propose additional setbacks for indoor uses.The Planning Commission however did recommend 100-foot setbacks for cannabis greenhouses in agricultural zones.
- Buffer Between Crops – Similar to certified organic crops, pesticide use for cannabis cultivation is significantly restricted; cannabis is essentially an “organic” crop. The burden for control of overspray and drift of conventional pesticides (and similar chemicals) applied to non-organic crops falls on the farmer and/or applicator subject to the requirements of existing state and local law. Dust control, including dust associated with agricultural activities, is regulated by the Yolo/Solano Air Quality Management District. The County has a long history of organic and non-organic crops successfully co-existing based on communications and courtesies between neighboring farms. The CLUO EIR did not identify any need for further regulations in light of the requirements of existing law related to pesticide overspray and dust control.
The research demonstrates that odor contamination between cannabis and non-cannabis crops are unlikely to occur.The reasons for this include: cannabis oils are not strong enough to have this effect; cannabis harvest is not long enough to allow for odor contamination to occur; and, for Yolo County, the amount of cannabis both in total and in the size of individual fields is very low.The research identified no instances where this has occurred in Yolo County and nor did the research through the California Association of Winegrape Growers yield any results.
For these reasons staff does not see a need for buffers between crops. Staff does not believe a regulatory solution is required given that the use permit process would allow for consideration of site-specific conditions for each application. This is an example of the type of concern staff would continue to monitor as the CLUO is implemented, and report on as a part of the required annual and biennial reporting.
- Revenue Sharing -- In exchange for the County not placing cannabis uses within certain areas around a city, this concept would involve the relevant City sharing revenue generated inside its borders with the County. If so-directed by the Board, the application of specified buffer prohibitions could be made automatic following negotiation of an acceptable revenue sharing agreement. As described above in the discussion of Item 4.3, staff does not recommend any new buffers that might trigger this concept.
- Buffers From Contiguous Residential Areas – See discussion of Item 4.3 above.
- Various Buffer Controls – See discussion of Item 5 above.
- Use of Generators -- The draft CLUO would require a permanent power source, and restrict generator use to power outages and emergencies (limited to 80 hours of use per year). The technical analyses in the EIR made assumptions consistent with this. Staff does not recommend changes.
Next Steps
Staff envisions the following next steps:
June 29 – Deliberate the remaining key decisions and provide direction to staff.
July 27 – Staff will return with the revised CLUO and a preliminary review of whether any of the changes directed by the Board would require modified or supplemental CEQA review/analysis. Assuming a preliminary conclusion that no additional CEQA analysis is merited, the Board will be encouraged to pass a motion of intent to take the actions identified as Recommended Action C, and to direct staff to return with a complete approval package.
August 31 – (or September 14) Staff will return with a complete approval package for the Board’s final action. |