Search Results
Return to Search Parameters
Displaying 1 to 20 of 74 Records
Next →
Submitted By  Meeting Date:Type   _Title___________________________________________  _Department________________  _Submitted For________________
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Grand Jury Response 
  Approve response to Grand Jury Report regarding the Yolo Habitat Conservancy
 
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Executive Director's Report 
  Executive Director's Report
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Approve revised Advisory Committee composition 
  Approve revised Advisory Committee composition
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  2021 Board Calendar 
  Approve 2021 Board meeting calendar, establish Executive Committee, and increase Executive Director's expenditure authority limit from $5,000 to $25,000
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Urban Economics Amendment 
  Approve fifth amendment to contract with Urban Economics to increase contract amount by $10,000 for a contract maximum of $40,000
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Minutes 
  Approve September 21, 2020 meeting minutes
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Real Estate Services Amendments 
  Approve contract amendments with on-call real estate acquisition consultants Conservation Land Group, Dokken Engineering, and LSA Associates to extend the term for each of these contracts through June 30, 2022 and to increase the contract amount for Conservation Land Group and Dokken Engineering by $20,000 for a contract maximum of $50,000
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Fiscal Report 
  Receive and file year to date fiscal report
Alexander Tengolics 11/16/2020:JPA  Correll MOU 
  Authorize the Executive Director to make minor modifications as-needed and take any further actions necessary to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with Yolo County regarding conservation and restoration activities at the Correll property
11/17/2020:BOS  Copy fees waiver Yolo County property owners impacted by 2020 wildfires  Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Elections
  Authorize the Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters to waive copy fees for property owners impacted by the 2020 wild fires in Yolo County for the period of November 3, 2020 through June 30, 2021. (General fund impact $1,000) (Salinas)
  Authorize the Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters to waive fees for copies of official records; filed maps; assessor maps and assessor building records for the period of November 3, 2020 through June 30, 2021 for owners of properties impacted by the 2020 LNU Fire Complex.
 
Thriving Residents
Safe Communities
Robust Economy
  On August 26, 2020 the California Department of Public Health in response to the Emergency Declaration issued by Governor Newsom on August 18, 2020, detailed procedures for wild fire victims to receive free copies of official records (birth, death, or marriage certificates) potentially lost as a result of the fires. The declaration made no accommodation for copies of official property records.

The Assessor/Clerk-Recorder/Registrar of Voters requests Board authorization to waive fees for copies of official records ($7.35/1st page, $2.00/additional page); filed maps ($4.00 per page); assessor parcel maps/printouts ($2.25 per page, $0.25 per additional page); e-mail assessor documents ($1.75 per document) for owners of properties impacted by the 2020 LNU Fire Complex through June 30,2021. These records are often required for insurance and rebuilding purposes.

These fees are at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors to waive.
  Department of Financial Services
County Counsel
  N/A
Lilia Razo 11/03/2020:BOS  Accept project as complete  Community Services
  Accept as complete the construction work on the Striping Project performed under Agreement 555-2019-3011-CHRISP By Chrisp Company. (No general fund impact) (Echiburú/Razo)
 
  1. Accept as complete the construction work on the Striping Project performed by Chrisp Company under Agreement 5555-2019-3011-CHRISP; and
     
  2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to sign and record the Notice of Completion.
 
Safe Communities
  Chrisp Company substantially completed construction of this project on September 9, 2020 in accordance with the contract plans and specifications.  The Board of Supervisors’ acceptance of the work, and authorization for the Director of Public Works to record the Notice of Completion, will allow final payment to the contractor and close out the project.
 
Background
The Board of Supervisors approved the plans and specifications for the Striping Project April 24, 2018 and authorized the Department to advertise for bids and award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder.
 
Work began October of 2018 and progressed for about a month until weather conditions impeded the contractors’ ability to continue work.  Work resumed intermittently during the winter when weather permitted into 2019 and 2020 construction seasons when weather conditions met contract specifications. This contract was used to supplement County rehabilitation projects that were constructed in 2017, 2018, and 2019.  Rather than use Senate Bill 1 funds for striping, staff was able to use this contract to reduce the costs from SB1 and the Road Fund for these projects.
 
The project striped approximately 230 centerline miles of road from the County road network and replaced retroreflective pavement markers.  The focus roads of this project included arterials, collectors and local roads.  The roads selected were based on public use, accident rates, and conformance to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).  The project is expected to systemically improve safety during day, night and wet conditions by providing uniform visual cues.  
 
In 2015 Public Works Division staff applied for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds administered by Caltrans to perform a striping audit and to determine California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) compliance under daytime and nighttime conditions.  The grant also provides for installation of upgraded centerline and right edge lines using thermoplastic striping with reflective beads and elements, and replacement of existing retro-reflective pavement markers to improve night and wet weather visibility. The Division’s accident database was used to demonstrate the “benefit to cost” ratio for the proposed improvements, as required to receive the HSIP funds, which are awarded statewide on a competitive basis.
  None
Kimberly Villa 11/03/2020:BOS  Approve Amendment to Power Line Easement  Community Services
  Approve agreement with Harlan Family Revocable Trust and Christine Harlan for up to $32,800 for an amendment to an Electrical Power Line Easement Agreement on County Road 28H. (No general fund impact) (Echiburu/Villa)
 
  1. Approve and authorize the Chair of the Board to sign the agreements with Harlan Revocable Trust and Christine Harlan for $32,800 for acquisition of an electrical utility easement on County Road 28H; and
     
  2. Authorize the Director of Integrated Waste Management to approve payments, accept the easement, and record the deed once the signed deed has been received.
 
Sustainable Environment
 

A temporary power line utility easement exists on these properties along County Road 29.  The power line on the easement conveys power from the County's methane power plant located at the Yolo County Central Landfill to the main power grid on County Road 102. This temporary easement has expired and an extension of its term is required to continue the delivery of power to the main grid. Pattison and Associates, Inc. a property acquisition consultant, provided appraisals and an accompanying independent review appraisal to determine the value of the property.  County staff have negotiated with both property owners and have reached agreement to amend the original agreement for an additional 6 years, with an expiration of December 31, 2026.

Background
On March 20, 1989, Yolo Gas Recovery Corporation (the prior owner of the methane facility) entered into an agreement with Bernell Harlan and John Henry Beckman for a Power line Utility Easement.  In 2017 the Division of Integrated Waste Management purchased the Yolo County Central Landfill Methane Power Plant and the rights to the utility poles from NEO Yolo, LLC to continue transmitting electricity generated at the Yolo County Central Landfill. In 2012, Christine Harlan purchased the Beckman property, and the easement went with the property.  The original power line easement expired 31 years after the agreements were fully executed.

In accordance with federal requirements for property easement acquisition, just compensation was established by the County based on the approved appraisal and an offer was presented to the owners on June 6, 2020.  Since that time, staff have worked with the property owners and offered an amount that was substantially higher than the appraised value in order to reach an acceptable agreement as shown in the attached Amendments to the Agreement. The limited term of this amended easement will allow the County to continue to use the land to transmit power from the County's methane plant while staff negotiates a longer term or permanent easement on this corridor.

  County Council approved the Agreement as to form
  Contract negotiated with property owner for easement agreement.
Competitive Bid Process not needed.
11/12/2020:PC  Cannabis Land Use Ordinance  Community Services
  Public hearing to consider a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding adoption of the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO), certification of CLUO Final EIR, general plan text amendments, and various amendments to other sections of County Code.  (Staff:  S. Strachan, H. Tschudin) 
 
 
FILE:  GPA #2020-01 and ZC #2020-03: Yolo County Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO)
APPLICANT:
Yolo County Dept. of Community Services
OWNER:
Yolo County
LOCATION: Countywide Unincorporated area

GENERAL PLAN: Various

ZONING: Various

SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT: All
SOILS: Various

FLOOD ZONE: All

FIRE SEVERITY ZONE: All
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
  Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission receive a staff report, conduct a public hearing, and make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors:
  1. Adopt a Resolution Certifying the CLUO Final EIR, which will include the CEQA Findings of Fact (see Attachment A)
  2. Adopt a Resolution Amending the General Plan and Adopting the CLUO EIR Mitigation and Monitoring Report (MMRP) (see Attachment B)
  3. Approve an Ordinance Adopting the CLUO (see Attachment C)
  4. Approve an Ordinance Amending the Subdivision Regulations (see Attachment D)
  5. Approve an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Regulations (see Attachment E)
  Yolo County (County) is proposing to adopt a Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO) and take other related actions described above.  The proposed ordinance would add a discretionary conditional use permit requirement for allowable cannabis activities.  The proposed CLUO adds requirements for zoning compliance, site design, and various performance standards related to development and operation. 
 
The recommended actions would accomplish the following: 
  • Certification of the program EIR for the CLUO as complete under and adequate under CEQA, allowing for adoption of the CLUO and potential future CEQA streamlining by cannabis use permit applicants.  
  • Amendment of the General Plan (first of four allowed annually under state law) resulting in 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 new Policies LU 1.4 and AG-3.21. 
  • Amendment of the County Code to add the CLUO to the Zoning Regulations by adding Article 14 (Cannabis Land Use Ordinance) to Chapter 2 (Zoning Regulations) of Title 8 of the Yolo County Code 
  • Amendment of the County Subdivision Regulations, Section 8-1.802 (Streets) to comport to CLUO Section 8-2.1408(K) (Driveway Access) to include standards related to access for new private driveways and encroachments. 
  • Adoption of 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. 
The Planning Commission held a workshop September 10, 2020 to review the ordinance, receive public comments, ask questions of staff, and discuss the proposed ordinance.  A summary of the workshop is provided below.
 
The purpose of the subject hearing is for the Planning Commission to take a final action, in the form of recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, regarding certification of the EIR and adoption of the CLUO and related actions. A second hearing has been scheduled for December 10, 2020, if needed.  Should the second meeting be needed, staff recommends the Commission close the public hearing at the end of the first hearing, and continue the item to the December date for final action.

REVIEW OF STAFF-PROPOSED CLUO
As presented to the Planning Commission during the September workshop the staff is proposing adoption the proposed CLUO with the following key features:
  1. Base EIR Alternative – The proposed CLUO recommended by staff is most similar to EIR Alternative 2,“All License Types with Moderate Limits”. 
  2. Range of Cannabis Uses – The proposed CLUO would allow the following new cannabis land uses in addition to cultivation (Section 8-2.1405): manufacturing, testing, processing, nursery, distribution, retail, and microbusiness.  This same range of uses was assumed in EIR Alternative 2.
  3. Allowed Location -- The proposed CLUO allows the same types of cannabis uses in the same zoning districts as Alternative 2, including prohibitions on commercial cannabis uses in all residential zones (Section 8-2.1407).
  4. Use Permit Cap – The proposed CLUO would limit the number of cannabis use permits to 132 total (Section 8-2.1406(G)). This same cap on uses was comprehensively analyzed for environmental impacts in Alternative 2.
  5. License Type Cap -- The proposed CLUO would establish generally lower caps on specified cannabis activities by land use/cannabis license type (Section 8-2.1406(G)) than the range of allowed uses analyzed in the CLUO Final EIR between Alternatives 2 through 5.  The  proposed CLUO is most similar to Alternative 2.  The differences between the proposed CLUO and Alternative 2 reflect market and policy decisions and would have no material effect on, or arguably reduce, the impact conclusions of the EIR because they fall within the magnitude and range of impact analyzed in the equal weight analysis of the five alternatives:
 
Cannabis Use Type Alternative 2 Caps by Cannabis Use Type CLUO Caps by Cannabis Use Type Differences (CLUO v Alt 2)
Personal Unlimited Unlimited None
Cultivation 80 95 +15
Nurseries 5 5 None
Processing 5 7* +2
Manufacturing 20 6* -14
Testing 5 2* -3
Distribution 10 7* -3
Retail Storefront 2 5 +3
Retail Non-Storefront Not Specified Unlimited N/A
Microbusiness 5 5 None
*Prohibited in Guinda/Rumsey
 
6. Buffers -- With the exception of buffers for tribal trust lands, the proposed CLUO establishes smaller buffers than Alternative 2 for the same list of identified sensitive land uses (Section 8-2.1408(E)).  Alternative 2 assumed 1,000-foot buffers for all identified sensitive land uses.  The proposed CLUO establishes buffers ranging from 200 feet to 1,000 feet depending on the specific identified sensitive land use.  The Alternatives examined in the CLUO Final EIR analyze a range of buffer distances from 75 feet to 1,000 feet.  The buffers included in the proposed CLUO fall within that range. 

Proposed CLUO Buffers
CLUO Sensitive Use Buffer5 Measure Buffer From
Off-site individual legal residences located on AG zoned parcels under separate ownership >20 ac (“farm dwelling”) = 200 ft
 
<20 ac (“home on small AG parcel”) = 600 ft
Building1
 
 
Parcel2
Residentially zoned land 600 ft Zone boundary3
Public parks 600 ft Parcel4
Licensed day cares 600 ft Building1
 
 
Recognized places of worship
Public or licensed private schools
Licensed treatment facilities for drugs or alcohol
Licensed youth centers
Federal lands held in trust by the federal govt or the subject of a trust application for a federally recognized Tribal government 1,000 ft Parcel4
Cannabis Land Use Buffer Measure Buffer From
Personal cultivation (indoor and outdoor) None N/A
Commercial indoor cultivation on AG, IND, or COMM parcel (with approved odor control system, if needed) None4 N/A
Commercial outdoor cultivation As identified above for various sensitive uses (200/600/1000) The closest point of any structure or outdoor area containing any cannabis 3
 
1/ Buffers applied to farm dwellings on agriculturally zoned parcels of 20 acres or more, day cares, places of worship, schools, treatment facilities, and youth centers shall be measured from the closest surface of the building in which the use is operated to the closest point of any structure or outdoor area containing cannabis.
 
2/ Buffers applied to residences on agriculturally zoned parcels less than 20 acres would be measured from the closest point of the parcel boundary to the closest point of any structure or outdoor area containing cannabis.
 
3/ Buffers applied to residentially zoned land would be measured from the closest point of the residential zone boundary to the closest point of any structure or outdoor area containing cannabis.
 
4/ Buffers applied to public parks and Tribal trust land would be measured from the closest point of the parcel boundary to the closest point of any structure or outdoor area containing cannabis.
 
5/Variations of up to ten percent may be approved by the County.


In making this recommendation regarding buffers the staff balanced the following considerations:
  • The buffers from off-site residences would be much larger than what is currently allowed under the licensing program.  The licensing program requires 75-foot buffers between outdoor cannabis uses and occupied off-site residences, as compared to 200-foot or 1,000-foot buffers under the proposed CLUO.   
  • Odor analysis modeling conducted by Trinity Consultants indicates that the difference between no buffer and 500 feet is substantial in terms of odor control.  It also indicates that increasing the buffer from 500 to 1,000 feet gets about half again the gains; and from 1,000 to 1,500 feet, the gains are dramatically diminished.  This suggests that the optimum distance for buffers is somewhere between 500 and 1,000 feet.  
  • Of the 17 counties that allow outdoor cannabis activities, 11 set the maximum buffer at 1,000 feet with all but three allowing lower buffers under specified circumstances.  Four set the maximum buffer at 600 feet, with two allowing lower buffers under specified circumstances.  
  • The default buffer established by the state is 600 feet.  
  • Preliminary GIS modeling, looking solely at buffers and based on gross assumptions regarding site boundaries, indicates that of the currently operating cultivation licensees:  
    • Approximately 40 percent could potentially fail or have to relocate on-site under a 500-foot buffer requirement.  
    • Approximately 60 percent could potentially fail or have to relocate on-site under a 1,000-foot buffer requirement.  
    • Approximately 50 percent could potentially fail or have to relocate on-site under the staff proposed buffers.
7. Eliminate buffers for personal use -- The proposed CLUO creates an exception from buffers for personal use but all other performance standards including odor control apply, thus ensuring the ability to control and enforce for nuisance behavior related to personal use.  Alternative 2 assumes buffers apply to personal use, with the exception of within residentially designated areas because that would have the unintended effect of prohibiting personal use entirely within those zone districts.   
 
8. Over-Concentration Threshold – The proposed CLUO would establish the threshold for over-concentration as more than ten cannabis operations in any 6-mile diameter area throughout the unincorporated County (Section 8-2.1406(H)).  Alternative 2 assumes control on over-concentration will be established but does not identify specific thresholds. The threshold included in the proposed CLUO is consistent with the CLUO Final EIR analysis and incorporates Mitigation Measure OVC-1(a-c).  

SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
The staff report for the workshop included a summary of the proposed CLUO, additional explanation supporting the staff recommendation, a summary of the EIR including the Master Responses contained in the Final EIR volume, a review of the comments and recommendations of the Citizen’s Advisory Committees (CACs), and a review of key features of the staff recommendation for the proposed CLUO.  That information is not repeated in this staff report but can be accessed
here.
 
All volumes of the EIR are available here.
 
Between 40 and 50 members of the public attended the workshop which was conducted virtually due to public health requirements.  Seven participants made comments.  The list below identifies the key issues raised during the workshop, either by the public or by Commissioners, with brief staff responses to each item:
 
Over-Concentration and Co-Located Sites – A concern was expressed over the way co-located sites were proposed to be counted for purposes of over-concentration.  The staff concurs and has proposed a modification to Section 8-2.1406(H) so that each owner/entity at a co-located site would be counted individually.
 
Proposed Caps by Cannabis License Type – Comments were received advocating a variety of changes, both higher and lower, to the proposed caps by license type. The staff is comfortable with the caps as recommended and proposes no changes.  In making this recommendation the staff balanced the following considerations:
  • Allow opportunities for new operators to cultivate.
  • Start slowly with a reasonable number in each category.  The County may modify the CLUO, including the identified caps, at any time in the future. 
  • Allow for market growth overall. 
  • Expand beyond the current restriction solely to cultivation and allow for reasonable numbers of new cannabis activities.  
  • Remain generally at or below the mid-point analyzed in the EIR. 
  • Reflect generally the permit caps suggested by the CACs.
 
“Grandfathering” of Existing Cannabis Licensees – Comments were received in favor of granting exemptions to existing operating cannabis licensees, presumably without requiring compliance with certain requirements of the CLUO, such as buffers for example.   The staff does not recommend this approach.  All licensees were notified prior to securing building permit approvals for capital improvements to their existing operations that compliance with future regulations would be required.  They were all required to sign a waiver acknowledging this disclosure. 
 
The proposed CLUO already includes several sections that are relevant to this discussion:  
  1. Priority Processing For Existing Cultivators (Section 8-2.1404(B)) -- This gives priority to existing licensees in applying for cannabis use permits and all license types. 
  2. Minor Administrative Relief for Buffers (Section 8-2-1408(E)) – This allows for variation from the buffers of up to ten percent of the required distance, at the discretion of the County, based on consideration of project-specific conditions.  It should be noted as well, that the proposed buffers are graduated to recognize the reasonableness of providing greater protections for residences on smaller agricultural properties that are less likely to be involved in intensive agricultural activity.
  3. Functionally Equivalent Standards (Section 8-2.1408(S)) -- This allows for one or more requirements or standards in the ordinance to be addressed by alternative means that have an equally effective or better outcome.  This provides for flexibility on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the County, yet imposes the overall regulatory standard of equal or better. 
  4. Odor Easement (Section 8-2.1408(DD)(3)) – This allows neighbors to agree to accept odorous conditions on their property by agreeing to an easement to allow this to occur.  The easement would be an alternative to compliance with the identified odor threshold.
If “grandfathering” were nevertheless determined by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors to be desirable, staff recommends it be limited and specific.  It should identify those specific regulations of the CLUO for which waivers or exemptions would be provided for existing licensees, and require full compliance with all other aspects of the CLUO.  Licenses should be in good standing and operators afforded this opportunity should be those that have operated in good faith and full compliance with all applicable laws over the course of their licensure.  The discussion of a “buffer easement” below addresses this issue from a different perspective – regulatory relief for one specific requirement and in situations where neighbors are in agreement.
 
Buffer Easement Concept – Comments were received in favor of allowing smaller buffers provided an easement agreement is reached between an operator and affected neighbors.  The staff does not recommend this approach, particularly in light of the flexibility already proposed as a part of the CLUO (described above).   Nevertheless, were this concept to move forward, recommended considerations include: use of a standardized agreement template for equity and fairness; definition of the externalities intended to be covered by (and excluded from) the easement such as odor, noise, light, etc.; clarity regarding enforcement within buffer easement areas; clarity regarding determinations of nuisance within the easement; requirements that the easement be recorded against all affected properties; and protections against coercion. 
 
Over-Concentration Threshold – A concern was expressed that the proposed over-concentration threshold may not be consistent with the EIR.  The staff has confirmed that the proposed approach is in full compliance with the analysis in the EIR and Mitigation Measure OVC-1.  The EIR analysis identifies that five or fewer sites within a six-mile diameter should not be considered over-concentrated and that 23 or more sites within a six-mile diameter should be considered over-concentrated.  The analysis points out (page 4-37, Draft EIR volume) that between six and 22 sites within a six-mile diameter area should be considered potentially over-concentrated and acknowledges that the precise threshold for over-concentration, within this range, is a matter of policy.  Mitigation Measure OVC-1a(II) directs the County to identify the appropriate threshold within the range and incorporate it in the CLUO.  In Section 8-2.1406(H) the proposed over-concentration threshold is:
 
>10 use permits/operations within 6-mile area = over-concentration
<10 use permits/operations within 6-mile area = acceptable concentration
 
CEQA Baseline for Impact Analysis – A comment was expressed in disagreement with the assumed operation of 78 existing and eligible licensees as the CEQA “baseline” for analyzing impacts in the EIR.  The staff understands this perspective but notes that this is a matter of law that has been confirmed consistently by the courts.  Master Response 2 in the Final EIR volume (page 3-4) is helpful in better understanding this issue.
 
Volatile Manufacturing – A concern was mentioned regarding volatile manufacturing.  The proposed CLUO would allow all types of manufacturing, with appropriate project-specific and site-specific considerations, which the cannabis use permit process will ensure. Compliance with all relevant local, state, and federal requirements for hazards and hazardous material will be required.  The staff supports all manufacturing types and proposes no change to the CLUO in this regard.  The EIR (Chapter 3.9) confirms that potential impacts associated with manufacturing are fully mitigated.
 
Cannabis-infused products (such as edibles, tinctures, and oils) are important components of the cannabis industry and growing in popularity.  A key ingredient of these products is cannabis extract.  To create these products chemical solvents are used to extract the active ingredients from whole marijuana flowers. The solvents are often flammable pressurized chemicals which, if used improperly during the extraction process, could be dangerous.  The most common chemicals/gases used for cannabis extraction are butane, ethanol (alcohol), propane, and carbon dioxide. 
 
To limit potential dangers, California split the activity of cannabis manufacturing into two different categories, volatile and non-volatile, distinguished by whether or not they use volatile solvents, and placed differing restrictions on the two categories, with additional precautions required for manufacturing operations that used volatile solvents.  There are different license types for each manufacturing type. Based on California Department of Public Health regulations, butane and propane are considered volatile solvents and ethanol and carbon dioxide are considered non-volatile solvents.
 
It is helpful for context to note that many common products and daily activities involve the use of hazardous chemicals including swimming pool maintenance, agricultural applications, house cleaning, painting, and furniture refinishing, among many others.  Butane is used in cigarette lighters and camping stoves.  Ethanol is used in gasoline, varnishes, and perfumes.  Propane is used to fuel BBQs and in many rural homes.  Carbon dioxide is used in fire extinguishers, sodas, and beer.  With proper controls and oversight, these chemicals and gases are used effectively and safely every day.
 
Agricultural Use on Parcel Remainder – There was discussion regarding additional creative mechanisms to support agricultural use of portions of cannabis parcels not being used for cannabis activities.   The staff noted during the workshop that farmers receiving any type of federal assistance are prohibited by the terms of their agreements from any agricultural endeavors on parcels associated with cannabis activities.  Until federal policy and regulations change regarding cannabis this creates challenges for cannabis licensees seeking to collaborate with non-cannabis farmers.  The staff does not propose changes to the CLUO in this regard.  Section 8-2.1408(B) requires agricultural use or proper maintenance of cannabis remainder areas.  Nevertheless there is nothing prohibiting voluntary programs and incentives to support farmers not otherwise prohibited due to their federal commitments.  This could be pursued as a possible cannabis incentive program outside of the CLUO regulations.

ADDITIONAL STAFF-PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CLUO
Since the Planning Commission workshop, the staff has identified several additional proposed edits to the CLUO.  These are identified in Attachment C in yellow highlight and include: 
  • General -- A number of non-substantive clarifications and corrections.  Included in these is the removal of the words “regional-serving” from the description of nurseries and processing in Section 8-2.1406(G).  These words were intended to be descriptive but caused unintentional confusion.
  • Section 8-2.1406(H) – Modification to require that each owner/entity at a co-located site be counted individually for purposes of evaluating over-concentration.
  • Section 8-2.1411(A) – Modifications to sub-sections 1 and 4 because this information is already required under state law.
LETTERS RECEIVED SINCE THE CLOSE OF THE DRAFT EIR COMMENT PERIOD
Since the close of the Draft EIR comment period, the County has received the following 12 comment letters on the CLUO (see Attachment F).  These comments have been considered in developing the staff recommendation.
 
Date Received -- Commenter
December 22, 2019 -- Brian Boyce and Linda Deering
January 6, 2020 -- Carol Owens
February 6, 2020 -- Meg Hehner
March 1, 2020 -- David Hills
March 3, 2020 -- Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
March 5, 2020 -- South Davis CAC
September 2, 2020 -- PG&E
September 9, 2020 -- Caltrans District 3
September 10, 2020 -- Susan Pelican
September 11, 2020 -- Capay Valley CAC Minutes from December 4, 2019
September 14, 2020 – Loren Hamilton
September 28, 2020 -- Brian and Gretchen Paddock
   
NEXT STEPS
If the Planning Commission requires a second meeting to take action on the CLUO, staff will return to the Commission on December 10, 2020 for this purpose.  If a second meeting is not needed, the next step will be to move this item forward to the Board of Supervisors:
 
  • January 19, 2021  Board of Supervisors Workshop
  • February 23, 2021  Board of Supervisors Hearing
  • March 9, 2021  (tentative) Board of Supervisors Meeting (if needed)
The staff will report back to the Planning Commission at a later date regarding implementation of the CLUO including considerations for accepting and processing applications following adoption of the ordinance.
 
 

 







 
  County Administrators Office, County Counsel, Department of Community Services, Cannabis Task Force
  Any person who is dissatisfied with the decisions of this Planning Commission may appeal to the Board of Supervisors by filing with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within fifteen (15) days from the date of the action. A written notice of appeal specifying the grounds for appeal and an appeal fee immediately payable to the Clerk of the Board must be submitted at the time of filing. The Board of Supervisors may sustain, modify, or overrule this decision.
JD Trebec 11/17/2020:BOS  Designation of Yolo County “Green Zones” for SACOG’s Green Means Go Project (No general fund impact)  Community Services
  Adopt resolution allowing the Director of Community Services to designate the communities of Esparto and Dunnigan as Green Zones for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG’s) Green Means Go pilot project. (No general fund impact) (Echiburu/Trebec)
  Adopt resolution allowing the Director of Community Services to designate the communities of Esparto and Dunnigan as Green Zones for SACOG’s Green Means Go pilot project.
 
Thriving Residents
Sustainable Environment
  The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) seeks to connect local member governments to State funding opportunities though its Green Means Go pilot program.  The program is intended to advance projects and programs that accelerate infill housing, travel options, and electric vehicle deployment to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. Designated Green Zones would be eligible to receive future state funding to implement and incentivize local development and housing production.

The communities of Esparto and Dunnigan have been selected for Green Zone designations due to the availability of infill areas within their community boundaries and their locations on major transportation routes, State Route 16 and Interstate 5 respectively, which provide opportunities for alternative transportation and electric vehicle facilities. 
  The Community Services Department will work with SACOG, the Esparto and Dunnigan Citizens Advisory Committees, and local citizenry to identify and implement policies and projects that accelerate infill, travel options, and electric vehicle deployment as state funds become available. County Counsel has approved the resolution as to form.
Todd Riddiough 11/17/2020:BOS  Adopt CEQA Document  Community Services
  Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the County Road 40 over Cache Creek Bridge Replacement Project as the appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and direct County staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk-Recorder. (No general fund impact) (Echiburú/Riddiough)
 
  1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the County Road 40 over Cache Creek Bridge Replacement Project (Project) as the appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
     
  2. Direct County staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk-Recorder.
 
Safe Communities
  Based on the environmental evaluation in the Initial Study for the County Road 40 Over Cache Creek Bridge Replacement Project, with the implementation of prescribed mitigation and other measures to reduce environmental impacts, the Project was determined not to have a significant effect on the environment. Adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration will allow the Project to move forward through the environmental permitting process for bridge construction.
 
BACKGROUND
 
The County Road 40 Bridge (also known as the Low Water Bridge) over Cache Creek was constructed in 1930.  The existing bridge (Bridge No. 22C-0091) consists of a 115-foot long, 22-foot wide, six-cell, reinforced concrete box culvert with three open cells.  Three of the six cells were plugged with concrete sometime between 1930 and 1979 when Caltrans began biannual inspections of the structure.  The north side of the bridge is accessed via CR 40, a single lane gravel road that connects to State Route 16.  In its 2008 bridge inspection report, Caltrans rated the bridge’s safe load capacity at zero tons, deeming the bridge as unsafe and inoperable to vehicular traffic. The structurally deficient bridge was closed to vehicular traffic that year.
 
When it is not inundated, the bridge still provides pedestrian access to public lands, such as recreational trails and park lands. The bridge may be inundated during the winter due to storm events, and in spring and summer due to water releases from the Cache Creek Dam, upstream of the bridge near Clear Lake.
 
Identifying that this bridge is a key access point to fire fighting in a very remote area of northwest Yolo County, in 2018 the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) entered into an agreement with Yolo County to provide funding to complete the engineering design for a replacement bridge.
 
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Yolo County proposes to replace the existing CR 40 bridge over Cache Creek with a new three-span, cast-in-place, reinforced concrete slab superstructure, supported on two column pile extension bents and seat type abutments founded on 30-inch cast-in-drilled-hole concrete piles.  The maximum depth of excavation for the bridge piles is approximately 30 feet. The replacement bridge will be constructed on an improved alignment at essentially the same location as the existing bridge.  The bridge will provide a minimum clear width of 20 feet, the same as the existing structure. The structure will be constructed with a horizontal curve radius of 132 feet, to accommodate CAL FIRE’s 72-foot long tractor and trailer vehicle used to transport their fire-fighting equipment across Cache Creek.
 
Yolo County ceased maintenance on CR 40 in 2009 from State Route (SR) 16 to the Lake County line per Resolution 09-31.  CR 40 is no longer maintained by the County and its “county highway” designations have been removed, as most the road extending from Lake County to State Route 16 is not under Yolo County jurisdiction.  Since the remainder of the CR 40 roadway is not maintained by the County, as a matter of public safety, the County believes that the gate near its intersection with SR 16 should remain normally closed/locked.  Even when the CR 40 gate at SR 16 is closed, the bridge will be accessible to pedestrian, ATV, and equestrian traffic.
 
Due to the limited traffic use of the bridge, a bridge that satisfies the standard design hydraulic clearances is not proposed. The 50-year and 100-year storm events are expected to overtop the bridge by approximately 8 and 13-feet respectively. The County will request a design exception from Caltrans for hydraulic clearances. Due to bridge inundation during high design flows, the County is proposing to use the new California State Type ST-75 bridge rail with tubular bicycle railing. The Type ST-75 bridge rail will allow inundation flows to pass through the rail members.  The heavy-duty steel tube rails are expected to undergo little to no damage when subjected to drift impacts.
 
Pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as ATV users and equestrians will use the proposed replacement bridge to access recreational trails, parks, and the southeast bank of Cache Creek. The proposed bridge will provide a minimum freeboard clearance of 8-feet for recreational rafters during summer irrigation flows in Cache Creek. During construction, portage signage for recreational rafters will direct them out of Cache Creek upstream of the construction zone and around the bridge construction site to a creek entrance location downstream of the existing bridge.
 
To build the bridge in essentially the same alignment as the existing low water bridge and provide the needed vertical clearance for irrigation flows and rafters (i.e., will no longer be a low water crossing), the approach roadway construction requires imported fill material. Two retaining walls will be constructed to contain the approach fill at the west end of the new bridge.  Rock slope protection is required around the new abutments and these retaining walls to protect the bridge during inundation flows.
 
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
 
A Natural Environmental Study was prepared for the Project area which supports the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment A).  The Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, and subsequently circulated for public review and comment on September 9, 2020.  Comments were received during the review period through October 9, 2020, and responses to those comments are included in the attached memorandum (Attachment B).
 
County staff has applied with the Yolo Habitat Conservancy for coverage of this proposed Project under the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Yolo HCP/NCCP).
 
The County also initiated an early consultation request with interested Tribes under the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, and subsequently met with Cultural Resources staff of the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Yocha Dehe/Tribe), who indicated a cultural interest and authority in the project area. A site visit was conducted at the project site with Yocha Dehe’s Cultural Resources Director, Caltrans and County staff, and the County’s consultant team, including an archaeologist.  Initially the original design alignment landed the bridge in the middle of a known cultural resource area along the creek bank.  Yocha Dehe’s team collaboratively worked with County staff and its consultant team to provide an improved location to avoid the sensitive area.  Details of the consultation process are outlined in the Initial Study provided in Attachment A.
 
The County is working to receive a Categorical Exclusion from Caltrans as part of their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) determination.  All studies required for NEPA have been approved by Caltrans with the exception of the cultural resources suite of studies:  Historic Property Survey Report, Archaeological Survey Report, Environmentally Sensitive Area Monitoring and Discovery Plan, and the Finding of No Adverse Effect.  Caltrans required this documentation despite the fact that the project was sited to avoid impacts to the satisfaction of Yocha Dehe, and the Tribe did not desire any additional studies or archaeological testing.  The initial reports to meet this requirement were sent to Caltrans on 1/3/2020.  After several iterations the final package that has met all the requirements of Caltrans staff was submitted on 10/27/2020.  Once District 3 signs these documents, they will be transmitted to Caltrans headquarters for their approval and transmittal to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).  Our understanding is that SHPO has 30 days to review this package.  We hope to receive these final environmental approvals in December 2020, so we can proceed with finalizing the bridge design for construction.  The County will be responsible for implementing the conservation and mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment B), as referenced in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
 
CAL FIRE, with the timely assistance of Assemblymember Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry, has also encumbered $2 million in construction funding to be allocated toward the CR 40 bridge replacement construction.  Bridge construction is estimated to cost approximately $4 million.  The balance of construction funds is planned to be reimbursed by the federal Highway Bridge Program once funding is programmed by Caltrans.
 
Staff anticipates finalizing design and receiving the required local, State, and federal construction permits in early 2021, going out to bid in Spring 2021, with construction following through Fall of 2021.
  California State Assembly, District 4
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CAL FIRE
County Administrator’s Office
Caltrans
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation
Yolo Habitat Conservancy
Marissa Juhler 11/17/2020:BOS  Illegal Dumping Update and Appliance Recycling Rates  Community Services
  Receive report on illegal dumping eradication programs and approve submittal of new appliance recycling rate structure with Master Fees in December of 2020 for Board of Supervisor consideration. (No general fund impact) (Echiburu/Juhler)
  Receive report on illegal dumping eradication programs and approve submittal of new appliance recycling rate structure with Master Fees in December of 2020 for Board of Supervisor consideration.
 
Sustainable Environment
  Illegal dumping is a statewide problem suffered by both rural and urban areas as well as incorporated towns and cities.  The Yolo County Division of Integrated Waste Management (DIWM) took this issue into consideration when negotiating the new solid waste franchise agreements with Waste Management, Inc. (WM) and Recology Davis, to enhance eradication efforts. As part of the new agreements, WM and Recology are to provide a total of 11 (40-yard) dumpsters to the County to cleanup illegal dumping each year, at no cost.  In addition, as the Board is aware, DWIM manages a Good Neighbor program that compensates residents who bring illegally dumped waste with a free disposal coupon for their future use. Last fiscal year, 122 customers utilized the Good Neighbor program.  This program is only valued around $800 in disposal annually however it saves the Roads Division resources and engages the community in the efforts of cleanup.  Below you will find our a complete list of programs managed by the DIWM that are aimed at addressing illegal dumping, and which are funded by solid waste franchise fees and grants. No general fund dollars are used to support these programs.
 
Illegal Dumping Program DIWM Estimated Annual Contributions
Esparto Transfer Center Staffing $67,000
Road Crew Time and Disposal $45,000
Haz. Waste Cleanup & Removal $40,000
Probation Litter Pickup $25,000
Farm & Ranch Grant- Resource Conservation District-Bable Slough Road (Clarksburg) $150,000
Litter Abatement Grant (Elkhorn, Knights Landing and Clarksburg Boating Areas) $5,000
TOTAL  $332,000

More recently, the DIWM has partnered with the Consumer Fraud and Environmental Protection Division (CFEPD) of the District Attorney's Office to work on expanding the prevention of illegal dumping.  Together, we attend monthly Zoom meetings hosted by the Northern California Illegal Dumping Task Force (initiated by Alameda County Supervisor Miley's Office) which focuses on the three "E"s (Education, Eradication and Enforcement).  Meeting topics span common problems jurisdictions face with illegal dumping, including how to tackle homeless camp cleanups, hazardous and infectious waste spills, as well as standard trash and litter abatement.  In addition, we are collaborating on an application for the 2021 Cal Recycle Farm and Ranch Grant.  The anticipated focus areas for use of any 2021 grant funds are CR 31 at Buckeye and Coil Lane at 99E near Nelson's Grove.

On the policy front at the State level, the California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC) is working to get an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) bill written and passed through the State Assembly which puts a recycling fee on all appliances sold.  This would mirror the Covered Electronic Waste (television and computer monitor) as well as the mattress recycling EPR programs which allows funding to come back to Yolo County to accept these items free of charge from the public and support "cradle to grave" recycling for all Californians. This is an important effort for Yolo County, for as explained further below, the current regulatory cost of disposing these appliances far exceeds the fees charged for their disposal. DIWM staff anticipate bringing a draft bill to the Board in late 2021, at which point we will be seeking a letter of support for such legislative action.

Until such time as an EPR is in place, the DIWM continues to accept, process and recycle over 12,000 appliances annually at the Yolo County Central Landfill.  Due to increased enforcement by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) on air quality regulations and hazardous waste storage limits, appliance recyclers will no longer pick up appliances at the landfill without the units first being serviced (emptied of all hazardous waste such as Freon, batteries, circuit boards, capacitors, gear oil, etc.).  This has resulted in a $125,000 annual increase in costs to the DIWM with no current means to recoup these costs.   The cost to service an appliance averages an additional $10/unit on top of our current $6/unit charge.  Due to staging required to service these appliances, DIWM also has increased its cost per unit in labor.

To address the concern of illegal dumping of appliances as a result of a direct and immediate pass through of all costs needed to support this program, the DIWM is seeking approval of a 2 year phased approach on appliance recycling rates.   Approval of this Board item only allows for the DIWM to submit these rates as part of the Master Fees packet at the December 2020 Board meeting.
 
Landfill Appliance Recycling Rates    
  Current Jan. 1 , 2021 Jan. 1, 2022
Washer/Dryers/General $6 $12 $25
AC Units/Refrigerators/Freezer $6 $8 $16

In looking at how approval of this rate increase might impact Yolo County residents, please note below that every jurisdiction in Yolo County offers a bulky waste collection program or landfill voucher program which includes the free recycling of appliances annually.  Therefore, staff does not believe that an increase in appliance rates will result in an increase in illegal dumping as all 77,000 residents have the ability to get rid of appliances at no charge, at minimum once per year.
 
Jurisdiction Appliance Program
Yolo County  2 Bulky waste vouchers annually = Total of 4 appliances
City of Davis  1 Bulky waste voucher/drop off annually = Total of 2 appliances
City of West Sacramento 2 Curbside pickups annually of bulky waste = Total of 6 appliances
City of Winters 1 Bulky waste voucher annually = Total of 2 appliances
City of Woodland 1 Bulky waste voucher annually = Total of 6 appliances

Should CPSC be successful in getting an EPR bill passed within the next two years, Yolo County residents would benefit as the County would eliminate appliance recycling fees at both the Landfill and the Esparto Transfer Station.
  DIWM staff has partnered with the City of Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland, as well as Waste Management, Inc. and Recology Davis, to host bulky waste drop off vouchers through the Yolo County Central Landfill throughout the year. The DIWM also is working directly with the Public Works Roads Division on cleanup efforts and with the District Attorney's office on steps forward.
Kimberly Villa 11/17/2020:BOS  Initiate Prop 218 Proceedings for El Macero CSA  Community Services
  Authorize staff to initiate El Macero County Service Area Proposition 218 proceedings for increase of street assessment. (No general fund impact) (Echiburu/Villa)
 
  1. Authorize staff to initiate proceedings to consider increase in the street assessment for the El Macero County Service Area (CSA);
     
  2. Direct staff to mail notice of the public hearing to consider proposed assessment changes for services to property owners in the El Macero CSA at least 45 days before the public hearing, including notification of the process to support or oppose the increased assessment;
     
  3. Direct staff to set the time and date of the public hearing to consider the proposed assessment changes and to receive and consider all public comment, and written votes on the proposed assessment changes; and
     
  4. Direct staff to prepare resolutions adopting and levying the modified street maintenance assessment for the El Macero CSA in the event the assessment changes are approved.
 
Safe Communities
 

The El Macero CSA  levies an annual street assessment to provide a source of funding for a higher level of public streets services in El Macero that the CSA would otherwise not be able to fund.  Property owners benefit from the higher level of service through improved aesthetic and driving experience in the neighborhood and enhanced appeal of homes.

The current El Macero street charge of $180 was set in 1994.  At this time, the current $180 charge provides the CSA funds only adequate to provide landscaping and street sweeping services, which costs have increased over the years.  The current amount will not be sufficient to continue to  maintain the higher level of pavement condition that El Macero CSA desires, and requests treatment no less than every 5 to 10 years.

Proposition 218, which was approved by the voters in 1996, implemented substantive and procedural requirements for new and increased assessments and various other types of fees and charges.  The current assessment was grandfathered by Prop. 218, but any increase must comply with Prop. 218's requirements, including the need for an engineer's report documenting the basis for the increased assessment.  County Staff and the CSA Advisory Committee have worked together to finalize the 2020 Engineer's report for El Macero Road Maintenance and Landscaping Assessment (Att A).  Based on the engineer's report, the the proposed new annual assessment of $450.48 per residential property, and $6,892.20 for the El Macero Country Club.

For special assessments, the approval procedure required by Proposition 218 differs slightly from the procedure for approving certain other charges (including property-related fees).  A special assessment is approved only if fewer weighted ballots are returned in opposition to the assessment than those in favor.  By comparison, certain other types of charges covered by Proposition 218 may require approval as a ballot measure, or can instead be approved after completion of a less formal but complicated process that involves both a majority protest and, if no such protest occurs, a mail ballot election (as was the case for certain fees approved in North Davis Meadows in mid-2019).  It all depends on the nature of the charge at issue. 

Consistent with Proposition 218's procedural requirements for special assessments, staff sent a letter to all property owners notifying them of this recommended action and next steps.  With the initiation of Proposition 218 proceedings, by November 6, 2020, a mailing will go to all property owners outlining the new assessment and providing the process and timeline for property owners to submit ballots to support or oppose the new assessment.  The mailing will also include a ballot and notice of the public hearing on the matter which is currently scheduled to be held at the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 12, 2021 at 9:00 am.  Additionally, discussion of the new assessment will be on the agenda for the next CSA Advisory Committee meeting, scheduled for November 19.  If the Proposition 218 proceedings are successful (i.e. less than a majority of returned ballots protest the assessment) the increased assessment will be collected on the property tax bill beginning the 2021-2022 tax year.   
  County Counsel, Public Works, CSA Advisory Board
Lilia Razo 11/17/2020:BOS  Adopt Road Safety Plan  Community Services
  Accept and adopt the Yolo County Local Road Safety Plan. (No general fund impact) (Echiburú/Dinozo)
 
  1. Accept and adopt the Yolo County Local Road Safety Plan; and
     
  2. Direct staff to implement the plan and the Director of Public Works to approve an annual update.
 
Safe Communities
  Yolo County was selected by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to participate in a pilot program for local agencies to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), as a supplement to Caltrans’ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) which provides Federal funding of safety improvements for road projects for local agencies. The purpose of the plan is to look at the safety of our roads and possible safety improvements in a comprehensive manner including Education, Enforcement, and Engineering. The ultimate goal of the effort is zero deaths on our roads.  For HSIP Cycle 11 in May 2022, local agencies will be required to prepare a LRSP to be eligible to apply for federal funding through the HSIP
 
Through safety stakeholder meetings with the various agencies listed in “Collaborations” below, the existing safety efforts and current safety needs on Yolo County roads were discussed and documented. The CHP supplied traffic collisions data so that stakeholders could identify areas of emphasis and establish goals and strategies to improve safety.
 
As a “Living Document” the Public Works Division will annually update the Yolo County Local Road Safety Plan to adjust to current traffic safety needs based on trends of traffic collision data and input from safety stakeholders and the public.
 
  • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
  • Yolo County Board of Supervisors
  • Yolo County Health & Human Services Agency
  • Yolo County Sheriff’s Office
  • Woodland California Highway Patrol (CHP)
  • West Plainfield Fire Protection District
  • Yolo County Office of Education
  • California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Evelyn Tamayo-Arias 11/12/2020:PC  Minutes  Community Services
  ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
Kimberly Villa 11/03/2020:BOS  Initiate Prop 218 Proceedings for El Macero CSA  Community Services
  Authorize staff to initiate El Macero County Service Area Proposition 218 proceedings for increase of street assessment. (No general fund impact) (Echiburu/Villa)
 
  1. Authorize staff to initiate proceedings to consider increase in the street assessment for the El Macero County Service Area (CSA);
     
  2. Direct staff to mail notice of the public hearing to consider proposed assessment changes for services to property owners in the El Macero CSA at least 45 days before the public hearing, including notification of the process to support or oppose the increased assessment;
     
  3. Direct staff to set the time and date of the public hearing to consider the proposed assessment changes and to receive and consider all public comment, and written votes on the proposed assessment changes; and
     
  4. Direct staff to prepare resolutions adopting and levying the modified street maintenance assessment for the El Macero CSA in the event the assessment changes are approved.
 
Safe Communities
 

The El Macero CSA  levies an annual street assessment to provide a source of funding for a higher level of public streets services in El Macero that the CSA would not otherwise be able to fund.

The current El Macero street charge of $180 was set in 1994.  At this time, the current $180 charge provides the CSA funds only adequate to provide landscaping and street sweeping services, which costs have increased over the years.  The current amount will not be sufficient to continue to  maintain the higher level of pavement condition that El Macero CSA desires, and requests treatment no less than every 5 to 10 years.

Proposition 218, which was approved by the voters in 1996, implemented substantive and procedural requirements for new and increased assessments.  The current assessment was grandfathered by Prop. 218, but any increase must comply with Prop. 218's requirements, including the need for an engineer's report documenting the basis for the increased assessment.  County Staff and the CSA Advisory Committee have worked together to finalize the 2020 Engineer's report for El Macero Road Maintenance and Landscaping Assessment (Att A).  Based on the engineer's report, the the proposed new annual assessment of $450.48 per residential property, and $6,892.20 for the El Macero Country Club.

A letter was sent to all property owners notifying them of this recommended action and next steps.  With the initiation of Prop 218 proceedings, by November 6, 2020, a mailing will go to all property owners outlining the new assessment and providing the process and timeline for property owners to submit ballots to support or oppose the new assessment.  The mailing will also include a ballot and notice of the public hearing on the matter which is currently scheduled to be held at the Board of Supervisors meeting on January 12, 2021 at 9:00 am.  If the Prop 218 proceedings are successful (i.e. less than a majority of returned ballots protest the assessment) the increased assessment will be collected on the property tax bill beginning the 2021-2022 tax year. 

Additionally, discussion of the new assessment will be on the agenda for the next CSA Advisory Committee meeting, scheduled for November 19. 
  County Counsel, Public Works, CSA Advisory Board
Next →