Search Results
Return to Search Parameters
Displaying 1 to 20 of 74 Records
Next →
Submitted By  Meeting Date:Type   _Title___________________________________________  _Department________________  _Submitted For________________
11/17/2020:BOS  Ceres, Demeter and Pomona funds for fiscal year ended June 30, 2020  Financial Services
  Receive and file annual report on the securitized tobacco funds and the status of Ceres, Demeter and Pomona funds for fiscal year ended June 30, 2020. (No general fund impact) (Rinde)
  Receive and file the Department of Financial Services' annual report on the de-allocation of securitized tobacco funds and the status of the Ceres, Demeter and Pomona funds for fiscal year ended June 30, 2020.
 
In Support of All Goals
  In 2002, Yolo County participated in the Pooled Tobacco Securitization Program administered by the California Statewide Financing Authority ("the Authority"). In accordance with U. S. Treasury regulations, all investments held in connection with the bonds are restricted by a universal cap, which essentially requires that the value of investments equals at least the value of outstanding bonds. After each semi-annual debt service payment (May and November), the bonds and investment holdings are revalued and any excess of investment value over bond value is de-allocated, that is, released back to the County for unrestricted use. In 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved an investment strategy for tobacco settlement receipts securitized in 2002 and directed the Chief Financial Officer (in role as Auditor-Controller) to make an annual report on the status of the endowment fund ("Demeter") and annuity fund ("Pomona") and recommend necessary adjustments to the investment strategy.

At the November 06, 2018 meeting, upon the Department of Financial Services' recommendation, based on revised long-term projections for the funds, the Board adjusted the investment strategy and the distribution of de-allocated funds (Att. B. Deallocated Funds Flow). In brief, the adjusted strategy called for annual transfers of $225,000 of de-allocated monies to the former Pomona Fund (now the Health & Human Services Emerging Needs Fund) and make $225,000 available from appropriations to fund these programs as determined by the Board until the year 2043. The balance of de-allocated monies is directed toward the continued buildup of the Demeter Fund so that it can generate a perpetual annuity of $300,000 from the year 2043.    

The Department of Financial Services staff together with Public Financial Management (as investment advisor), will continue to review financial models for availability of resources from de-allocated funds and update the Board should conditions change.

A financial summary of fund balances for the Ceres Fund, Pomona Fund (now Health & Human Services Emerging Needs Fund) and Demeter Fund for fiscal year end June 30, 2020 is presented in Att. A. Report on Tobacco Funds. Unspent amounts are retained in the Demeter fund to grow the endowment.
  The Department of Financial Services has collaborated with PFM. PFM manages the investment of Ceres and Demeter funds in reviewing the de-allocated funds flow and future projections of available resources for de-allocation.
  Not applicable.
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
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.
Alberto Lara 11/03/2020:BOS  Approve Department Holiday Closures  County Administrator
  Approve 2020-2021 department holiday closures. (No general fund impact) (Lara)
  Approve 2020-2021 department holiday closures.
  Operational Excellence
  None.
  Staff is recommending Board approval for select department closures during holiday periods when service demands are reduced.  Employees who choose to be off work during the office closure must use available leave balances to cover their time off.

The following departments are requesting office closures:

Agriculture - December 28, 2020 through January 1, 2021

Assessor - December 25, 2020 through January 1, 2021

Clerk-Recorder - closed on scheduled holidays only and will close at noon on December 24, 2020

Elections - December 25, 2020 through January 1, 2021

Community Services (except the Landfill) - December 24, 2020 through January 1, 2021

County Administrator (including Clerk of the Board) - December 25, 2020 through January 1, 2021

County Counsel - December 25, 2020 through January 1, 2021. Coverage of any court hearings will be arranged and pressing matters addressed.

Financial Services - December 25, 2020 through January 1, 2021

Health and Human Services Agency - All branches are requesting to be closed on December 24, 2020 and December 31, 2020, which are in addition to the regular County holidays (December 25, 2020 and January 1, 2021).  There will be a 24-hour response on these dates for child and adult protective services, eligibility program applications, and temporary assistance to the homeless.

Human Resources - December 24, 2020 through January 1, 2021

Library - All library branches to be closed on Friday, November 27, 2020, the day after Thanksgiving.  All branches will be closed on December 25, 2020 and January 1, 2021. All branches will close at 6 p.m. on December 24, 2020. All branches will close at 6 p.m. on December 31, 2020.

Probation - No closures except for the regular holidays.
Public Defender - No closures except for the regular holidays.
Child Support - No closures except for the regular holidays.
General Services - No closures except for the regular holidays.
  All County departments
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 11/03/2020:BOS  WBP Letter  County Administrator
  Approve letter in support of California Public Utilities Commission approval of an Advice Letter with Pacific Gas and Electric regarding Woodland Biomass Power. (No general fund impact) (Blacklock/Tengolics)
  Approve letter in support of California Public Utilities Commission approval of an Advice Letter with Pacific Gas and Electric regarding Woodland Biomass Power.
 
Sustainable Environment
Robust Economy
  The County was recently approached by representatives of Woodland Biomass Power (WMP) requesting the County urge the California Public Utility Commission’s approval of a recently submitted Advice Letter from Pacific Gas and Electric which would allow WBP to continue operations. Continued operation would not only maintain the current jobs at the facility but also has the potential to reduce wildfire risk by processing dead trees and other potential fire fuels. Staff recommends the Board approve and send the attached letter (Att. A).
  Woodland Biomass Power
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
Beth Gabor 11/17/2020:BOS  DJJ Realigment & JJCC Membership  Probation
  Introduce by title only, waive first reading and receive public comment related to an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors Adopting Additions and Modifications to the County Code of Ordinances to Establish the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and Subcommittee." (No general fund impact) (Fruchtenicht)
 
  1. Receive update on Juvenile Justice Realignment and Yolo County’s planning effort;
     
  2. Introduce by title only, waive first reading, and receive public comment related to an ordinance recognizing the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, established by operation of state law, creating a related subcommittee, and addressing appointments and related matters;
     
  3. Continue the ordinance to the next regularly scheduled Board of Supervisors meeting for adoption; and
     
  4. Direct the Clerk of the Board to advertise the community member positions of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council pursuant to the Maddy Act with the intent to appoint community members as early as the December 15, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting.
 
Thriving Residents
Safe Communities
  This year, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 823 Juvenile Justice Realignment which will close the State Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and create a system in which youth, currently court-ordered as wards of DJJ, will be served in counties.  This legislation provides funding to counties to serve the realigned population and a framework for broader community input on the use of that funding via a required Subcommittee of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council.
 
Yolo County already benefits from a Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council as required to receive Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act and the Youthful Offender Block Grant funds.  The purpose and membership of the Council are identified in Welfare and Institutions Code section749.22, which states in part:
 
[E]ach county shall be required to establish a multiagency juvenile justice coordinating council that shall develop and implement a continuum of county-based responses to juvenile crime.  The coordinating councils shall, at a minimum, include the chief probation officer, as chair, and one representative each from the district attorney's office, the public defender's office, the sheriff's department, the board of supervisors, the department of social services, the department of mental health, a community-based drug and alcohol program, a city police department, the county office of education or a school district, and an at-large community representative.
 
Note:  The Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council is different from the Juvenile Justice Commission which is an entity of the Court for the purpose to inquire into the administration of juvenile court law in Yolo County.  The Juvenile Justice Commission is charged with annually inspecting publicly-administered institutions for minors and reporting the results and related recommendations to the juvenile court and the Board of State & Community Corrections.
 
To date, Yolo County’s Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council has met annually to perform activities required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 749.22, including:
 
[To] develop a comprehensive, multiagency plan that identifies the resources and strategies for providing an effective continuum of responses for the prevention, intervention, supervision, treatment, and incarceration of male and female juvenile offenders, including strategies to develop and implement locally based or regionally based out-of-home placement options for youths who are persons described in Section 602.
 
The Probation Department would like to more frequently utilize the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council as an advisory body for a multitude of juvenile justice-related topics, including options for future use of the Juvenile Detention facility.  These are conversations that would benefit from public input.
 
As referenced above, Juvenile Justice Realignment requires the creation of a subcommittee of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council to develop a plan to provide appropriate rehabilitation and supervision services for their population currently served by DJJ, but which will transfer to counties starting on July 1, 2021.  The Juvenile Justice Realignment Subcommittee must meet certain minimum membership requirements established in Welfare and Institutions Code section 1995, which states in part:
 
No fewer than three community members who shall be defined as individuals who have experience providing community-based youth services, youth justice advocates with expertise and knowledge of the juvenile justice system, or have been directly involved in the juvenile justice system.
 
Through the attached ordinance, the Probation Department proposes to increase public participation through an expanded subcommittee whose members also serve on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council.  This will broaden the conversation on juvenile justice-related matters and meet requirements to be eligible for Juvenile Justice Realignment Block grant funds.  Specifically, the ordinance formalizes a process whereby the Board of Supervisors appoints a community member nominated from each supervisorial district to the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council.  These five public members would meet the requirements of the Juvenile Justice Realignment Subcommittee and fill the position of the at-large member on Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, which has previously been appointed by the Probation Department.
 
This ordinance is introduced for initial consideration on November 17, 2020 and will return for adoption on December 15, 2020.  The noticing requirements of the Maddy Act, though not mandatory for initial appointments to a newly-formed body, will be adhered to with appointments by the Board to occur no earlier than the December 15, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting.
  County Counsel
Carolyn Jhajj 11/03/2020:BOS  Child Support Services Regionalization  County Administrator
  Consider the recommendation of the County Administrators of Colusa, Sutter and Yolo counties to regionalize and integrate the Colusa, Sutter and Yolo County local child support agencies into one regional child support agency effective January 2, 2021. (No general fund impact) (Dillon)
 
  1. Sign the Memorandum of Understanding between Colusa, Sutter, and Yolo counties regionalizing the three local child support agencies (LCSA); and
     
  2. Request the Chair add assignment to the Child Support Leadership Advisory Committee for 2021.
 
Thriving Residents
  Guiding Principles
In early 2019, executives from the three counties created Guiding Principles to frame the exploration of regionalizing the Colusa, Sutter and Yolo Departments of Child Support Services. After review of the Guiding Principles with the three unions in May 2019, they were edited slightly, becoming parameters for future discussions and decisions. The Guiding Principles were provided to and reviewed with the staff of the three agencies in July 2019. The Guiding Principles are:
  1. There shall be no layoffs of represented employees resulting from regionalization. 
  2. There shall be a physical presence in all three counties.
  3. Yolo County is the lead agency for the region.
  4. Existing Sutter and Colusa County child support employees will have choice through [date TBD] whether they remain an employee of their current county employer or become an employee of Yolo County.  All new hires and promotional hires, as of [date TBD], will be Yolo County employees.  Commencing the first pay period following [date TBD], all Sutter and Colusa employees assigned to child support will become employees of Yolo County and will be assigned to the regional child support agency. 
  5. Employees shall retain seniority based on service date.
  6. Management rights shall be governed by the employer of record.
  7. Decisions should result in increased efficiency and improved delivery of services; improved customer service.
  8. Employees shall be oriented to the expectations of the regional child support agency and will receive ongoing training to enable them to perform all duties necessary to fulfill the tasks and functions of their jobs.
  9. The regional model supports integration of the child support structure and operations in areas including but not limited to, workforce, caseload and allocation.
  10. The organizational structure of the regional agency is accountable to all three Boards of Supervisors and County Administrative Officers.
  11. Decisions should be cost effective; fully reimbursable through the state allocation.
  12. The regional child support agency reserves the right to develop, implement and oversee any program improvement and operational changes.
  13. Travel between offices of the regional child support agency or to other business required locations during regular business hours will be by use of an agency vehicle when possible.  When an agency vehicle is not available, mileage will be reimbursed for personal vehicle use per the agency travel policy. 
 
Operational Assessment
We contracted with the Center for Support of Families (CSF) for an Operational Assessment of the three LCSA’s and for a recommendation as to whether the three agencies should regionalize. CSF understood that it was equally important to not directly replicate other regionalized efforts but rather approach this assessment objectively, recognizing the unique attributes of each county that have developed to serve their specific communities in partnership with judicial and other agencies and stakeholders. The CSF Operational Assessment presents a comprehensive set of interrelated recommendations that provide the blueprint for a single, efficient, and effective regional child support agency. CSF assessment states, “Underpinning the recommendations in this report is our foundational belief that the Colusa, Sutter, and Yolo LCSAs combine to become a single, regionalized entity that provides child support services to children and families in Colusa, Sutter, and Yolo Counties.” The CSF Final Report was provided to the Board in June 2020.


Labor
After the June 2020 Board of Supervisors presentation, the three counties began the meet and confer process. While meet and confer continues, Colusa and Sutter employees have stated they support regionalization but have not supported the concept of joining Yolo County as employees. In addition to the tenants in the guiding principles it was important from all three counties perspectives that employees not lose any salary during the transition to Yolo County and that they would transition into the step at Yolo County that most closely approximates their current salary without resulting in a reduction in pay.  Each Sutter and Colusa Child Support employee received a paycheck comparison that compares gross and net pay, with detailed income and expenses, between Colusa/Sutter and Yolo. Each Sutter and Colusa Child Support employee also received a tri county benefits comparison. The Assistant Director for Yolo County HR made herself personally available to all Colusa/Sutter child support employees to schedule personal meetings to answer individualized benefits questions.
 
The transition period for current Colusa and Sutter child support employees to become Yolo employees as defined in the proposed MOU commences January 2, 2021, when the administrative functions of each LCSA are consolidated with and managed by Yolo. The employees of Colusa and Sutter LCSAs shall each have a choice to remain an employee of their respective county or to request to become an employee of Yolo through the final pay period of calendar year 2023. After the initial transition effective January 2, 2021, employees will have the option to transition every six months during the three-year window.
  
Prior Board of Supervisors presentations (specific dates vary slightly by county)
January 15, 2019   Consider Exploration of Regionalization
March 26, 2019   Interim Director MOU
September 24, 2019  Contracting for Operational Assessment
November 5, 2019 Interim Lead Attorney MOU between Sutter and Yolo
January 28, 2020 Regionalization Update & Extend Interim Director MOU
June 26, 2020 Report on the Final Report from CSF
November 3, 2020 Recommend regionalization

Approval of the MOU creating the Colusa, Sutter, and Yolo Regional Child Support Agency makes obsolete the following existing agreements:
  • MOU for Yolo County to provide Interim Director services to Sutter and Colusa counties
  • MOU for Yolo County to provide attorney supervision and lead attorney services for Sutter County
  • MOUs for shared services for fiscal work and COAP (Compromise of Arrears Program) eligibility between Yolo and Colusa Counties
 
Timeline
November 2020 Colusa and Sutter Child Support employees interested in transitioning to Yolo effective January 2021 notify Yolo HR
January 2021 Commence the Colusa, Sutter and Yolo Regional Child Support Agency
January – June 2021 Transfer assets of Colusa and Sutter Child Support Agencies to the Regional Agency
January – June 2021 Yolo to invoice Colusa and Sutter for any costs associated with transitioned employees
January – September 2021   Finalize organizational structure, make policy and procedure decisions for Regional Agency, and train staff
June 2021 Second opportunity for Colusa and Sutter staff to express interest in transitioning to Yolo effective July 2021
July 2021  Yolo to receive the regional child support allocation from the California Department of Child Support Services
July 2021 – December 2023               December 2023  Colusa and Sutter Counties to invoice Yolo for costs associated with non transitioned employees
October 2021       Integrate child support caseload (concurrently with the start of the Federal Fiscal Year)
 
  Colusa and Sutter counties and the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS)
Casey Liebler 11/17/2020:BOS  20-21 Flood Maintenance Assistance Program Funding Agreement for County Service Area 6  County Administrator
  Approve Flood Maintenance Assistance Program funding agreement, in the amount of $121,000, with the California Department of Water Resources for County Service Area 6 levee maintenance activities; adopt associated Funding Acceptance and Local Maintaining Agency Authorizing resolutions; adopt budget resolution to increase the 2020-21 County Service Area 6 budget by $60,500; and authorize the County Administrator, or his/her designee, to sign all grant program related documents. (No general fund impact) (4/5 vote required) (Blacklock/Liebler)
 
  1. Approve the Flood Maintenance Assistance Program funding agreement, in the amount of $121,000, with the California Department of Water Resources for County Service Area 6 levee maintenance activities (Attachment A);
     
  2. Adopt associated Funding Acceptance (Attachment B) and Local Maintaining Agency Authorizing resolutions (Attachment C);
     
  3. Adopt budget resolution to increase the 2020-21 County Service Area 6 budget by $65,000 (Attachment D); and
     
  4. Authorize the County Administrator, or his/her designee, to sign all grant program related documents.
 
Safe Communities
Sustainable Environment
  The Knights Landing Unit 2 - Yolo Bypass - County Service Area 6 (CSA 6) levee system is a portion of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, a large-scale levee project authorized by Congress.  This system reduces the risk of flooding for Yolo and Sutter counties, and adjacent agricultural lands from flood waters in the Sacramento River, Knights Landing Ridge Cut, and Colusa Basin Drain.  A non-urban population and a small number of structures are present within the leveed area.  The Central Valley Flood Protection Board is a non-federal sponsor and has delegated authority to Yolo County CSA 6 for operation and maintenance of the levee system.

Over the last few years, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has implemented the Flood Maintenance Assistance Program (FMAP), which provides State funds for eligible maintenance activities to Local Maintaining Agencies and Maintenance Areas.  The program's purpose is to ensure that State Plan of Flood Control Facilities are properly maintained and have sufficient resources (i.e. funding) to meet applicable federal regulations and operation and maintenance manual requirements.  An important component of this program is that local matching funds are not required to obtain the State funding.

Yolo County CSA 6 was a successful recipient of $121,000 in FMAP funding for the 2021 calendar year.  Funds to be received will be used for continued implementation of levee maintenance activities that have been funded by the FMAP program since 2019.  These activities include, but are not limited to, vegetation control (weed spraying, tree limbing, and grazing), the removal of critical pipe crossings, and rodent control.  The work plan, schedule, and budget for this round of funding is included as Attachment E.

Staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the funding agreement (Attachment A) and adopt the associated resolutions (Attachment B - Resolution Accepting Funds; Attachment C - Local Maintaining Agency Authorization Resolution; and Attachment D - Budget Resolution), as well as authorize the County Administrator, or his/her designee, to sign all grant program related documents.

Lastly, Staff would like to note that there is a recital in Attachment C (Local Maintaining Agency Authorizing Resolution) that states:

"The County of Yolo acknowledges that it must submit a new operations, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement agreement with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board prior to the receipt of Flood Maintenance Assistance Program funds."

The Board of Supervisors approved the above-referenced agreement during their meeting on May 21, 2019 (Resolution No. 19-70 and Agreement No. 19-93).  The agreement was fully executed by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board on June 10, 2019, and has been attached to this staff report as Attachment F.  No additional agreements with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board are required to receive the 2021 FMAP funding.
  Staff has collaborated wih the California Department of Water Resources and the Office of County Counsel on this item.
  The competitive bid process is not applicable to this action.
Chad Rinde 11/03/2020:BOS  AB1869 Criminal Justice Fees  Financial Services
  Receive update on impacts of Assembly Bill 1869 Legislation; authorize Probation, Public Defender, Sheriff, and Financial Services to cease charging and collection of repealed fees; and authorize Financial Services to discharge outstanding debts related to these specified Criminal Justice Fees. (General fund impact $381,199) (Rinde/Burnham)
 
  1. Receive and accept presentation on AB1869 legislation;
     
  2. Authorize Financial Services, Probation, Public Defender, and Sheriff to cease charging and collection of fees contained in AB1869 effective November 3, 2020;
     
  3. Direct Financial Services to repeal fees formally as part of the December, 2020 Master fee update process; and
     
  4. Direct Financial Services to discharge accountability for fees repealed by AB1869 starting November 3, 2020 and return to the Board with a report of total completed discharges. 
 
Thriving Residents
Safe Communities
  AB1869 Background
On September 18, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 1869 into law. This bill repeals the authority of Counties through 23 different code provisions which allow for the charging and collection of a variety of Criminal Justice fees in the Probation, Public Defender and Sheriff offices. This is part of a broader trend in the state of California of legislative efforts to reduce or eliminate criminal justice fees which rely on academic studies demonstrating that these fees can be counter-productive and disproportionately affect lower-income households. 

This repeal in AB1869 was set in law to become effective on July 1, 2021 and will also at that time require the County to discharge uncollected fees associated with these same fee provisions. AB1869 does not  impact Victim Restitution that is owed by defendants and ordered by the Court. 

A list of fees that will be repealed (and are currently charged by Yolo County) are listed below:
 
Department Fee Name Code Sections Old Fee Amount New Fee 
Public Defender Adult Registration Fee PC987.5 $50 $0
Public Defender Legal Defense - Adult Specialty Court PC987.8 $125 $0
Public Defender Legal Services, Adult, Post Judgment PC987.8 $125 $0
Public Defender Legal Services, Adult Felony, settle after Preliminary Hearing PC987.8 $350 $0
Public Defender Legal Services, Adult Felony, settle before Preliminary Hearing PC987.8 $175 $0
Public Defender Legal Services, Adult Misdemeanor, settle after Trial Conference PC987.8 $275 $0
Public Defender Legal Services, Adult Misdemeanor, settle before Trial Conference PC987.8 $150 $0
Probation Adult Probation Supervision Fee PC1203.1b $30 per month $0
Probation Global Positioning System Fee PC1203.016 $18 per day $0
Probation Intercounty Compact Transfers PC1203.1b $243 each $0
Probation Interstate Compact Transfers PC1203.1b $243 each $0
Probation Pre-Sentence Investigation Reports PC1203.1b $794 per report $0
Probation Work program participation fee PC4024.3, PC1208.2 $340 $0
Sheriff Electronic Surveillance program (15 days or less to serve) PC1208.2 $175 $0
Sheriff Electronic Surveillance program (16 days or more) PC1208.2 $18 per day $0
Sheriff Electronic Surveillance Program Application PC1208.2 $70 per application $0
Sheriff Jail Booking Fee GC29550 $154.48 per arrestee $0
Sheriff Sheriff Working Inmate Program (SWIP) Application PC1208.2 $45 per application $0

Based on the legislation, the County could continue to charge these fees to defendants, probationers, or arrestees until June 30, 2021 but then at that time would no longer have the authority to collect and be required to discharge past obligations from these fees. However, based on discussion with the Sheriff, Probation Chief, Public Defender, and Chief Financial Officer, an accelerated implementation may be prudent for a variety of reasons as explained below. 
  • Low collection rate - Currently, depending on the fee, collection rates are ordinarily in the 10-20% range and could be lower than usual as this law will require any uncollected amounts to be discharged on July 1, 2021. 
  • Staff transition - The time between now and July 1, 2021 could be spent with continuing to assess and attempt to collect fees or in an effort to facilitate change to systems and staff duties who formerly worked on fee collection to more value added activities. It seems more sensible to take the later approach and begin this transition earlier. 
  • Public benefit - There would likely be a benefit to citizens in the County being proactive in implementing the legislation and relieving them of the burden of these criminal justice fees in line with the spirit of AB1869.  
Fiscal Analysis
Though there are benefits to early implementation of this bill, there is also a financial cost associated with it. In AB1869, it provided for beginning in fiscal year 2021-22, a backfill statewide of $65 million of revenue impacts to Counties which may mitigate the ongoing impact. However, there is currently not a prescribed method for the apportionment of that backfill. An early implementation in fiscal year 2020-21 would mean approximately 8 months of lower fee collection for the County. Based on prior year collections, this impact is estimated to be approximately: 
 
Department FY2020-21 Impact
Financial Services $104,333
Probation $220,200
Public Defender $6,666
Sheriff $50,000
Total $381,199

The fiscal impact of this reduction would be requested to be managed in each departments’ respective budget. Recognizing that departments have already made reductions associated with the impacts of COVID-19, should a department not be able to manage the revenue reduction within their budget, County Financial Services staff would look at 3rd or 4th quarter budget monitoring to recommend appropriating a portion of the Public Safety Contingency to support any shortfall that materializes directly related to this item. 

Discharge of Accountability
County staff have not yet had an opportunity to perform or assemble a full analysis of delinquent accounts that may be eligible for discharge. However, based on summary reporting information available currently, this amount is expected to be in the range of $6-8 million. 

Recommendation
County staff are thus recommending that the Board take the following actions should they be supportive of an early implementation of AB1869. Should the Board not accept staff’s recommendation, the implementation would occur still by July 1, 2021 as required by law.
 
1) Authorize Financial Services, Probation, Public Defender, and Sheriff to cease charging and collection of fees contained in AB1869 effective November 3, 2020.
2) Direct Financial Services to formally repeal fees as part of the December, 2020 Master fee update process.
3) Direct Financial Services to discharge accountability for fees repealed by AB1869 starting November 3, 2020 and return to the Board with a summary report of completed discharges. 
  The Department of Financial Services collaborated with the Probation, Public Defender, Sheriff and County Administrator's Office on this item. 
  Not applicable. 
Eric Will 11/17/2020:BOS  Leinberger Center Analysis  County Administrator
  Receive presentation on Leinberger Replacement Project and consider actions needed to continue the project as planned. (No general fund impact) (Blacklock/Will)
  Receive presentation on Leinberger Replacement Project and consider actions needed to continue the project as planned.
 
Thriving Residents
Safe Communities
  Background
In 2015, Yolo County was awarded $30,500,000 in Senate Bill 863 (SB 863) grant funds as part of the Adult Local Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Program to complete the Leinberger Replacement Project. This project is aimed at updating the 25-year old Leinberger Center to provide additional flexibility through programming space without expanding the number of jail beds within the facility.

Since 2015, staff from several county departments have worked toward the completion of this project, and have fulfilled the many steps required by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC), as well as the State Public Works Board. Currently, the State Department of Finance has authorized the County to proceed to bid out the construction of the project, and it is anticipated that staff shall bring back the contract for the lowest responsible bidder to the Board for consideration on December 15, 2020.

Leinberger Center Analysis Report
At the Board's request, staff has completed an analysis of the Leinberger Replacement Project, weighing the benefits of continuing the project as planned against declining the BSCC grant. The full analysis is provided as Attachment A to this staff report. In an effort to fully capture the documentation of this project without over encumbering this report, several attachments to that report have been made available upon request from the Clerk of the Board, and are noted within the report.

Through this analysis staff has made three major findings:
  1. California's jail population has experienced major fluctuations over time due to ongoing criminal justice reform, thus creating uncertainty and requiring flexibility on the part of counties throughout the state; 
  2. Changes in the jail population are not only numeric (quantitative) but also represent a shift toward housing more dangerous offenders that require specialized programming and housing (qualitative); and
  3. Utilizing grant funds through SB 863 to construct a facility at this time may provide additional flexibility in the future for reentry and programming, depending on state legislation and/or local action
     
Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the Board reaffirm its commitment to continue this project, recognizing that the project does not increase jail beds, would increase programming flexibility for an increasingly diverse jail population, and would allow for additional opportunities in the future. This recommendation is supported by the Sheriff's Department, County Administrator's Office, and Department of Financial Services.
  The item was developed in collaboration with the Sheriff's Office, County Administrator's Office, Department of Financial Services, and Probation.
Eric Will 11/17/2020:BOS  Industrial Hemp Ordinance  County Administrator
  Introduce by title only, waive first reading, and receive public comment on a proposed ordinance amending existing restrictions on industrial hemp cultivation, manufacturing, processing, storage, and related activities, and continue the ordinance to the December 15, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting for a second reading and adoption, or introduce by title only, waive first reading, and receive public comment on a proposed ordinance banning industrial hemp cultivation, manufacturing, processing, storage, and related activities (excepting exemptions adopted previously), and continue the ordinance to the December 15, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting for a second reading and adoption. (No general fund impact) (Nunes/Will)
 
  1. Introduce by title only, waive first reading, and receive public comment on a proposed ordinance amending existing restrictions on industrial hemp cultivation, manufacturing, processing, storage, and related activities, and continue the ordinance to the December 15, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting for a second reading and adoption*; and
     
  2. Introduce by title only, waive first reading, and receive public comment on a proposed ordinance banning industrial hemp cultivation, manufacturing, processing, storage, and related activities (excepting exemptions adopted previously), and continue the ordinance to the December 15, 2020 Board of Supervisors meeting for a second reading and adoption.*
     
*Staff will request that the Board identify which of the two alternative ordinances should return for consideration for adoption on December 15, 2020.
 
Flourishing Agriculture
  Background
On October 20, 2020, staff brought to the Board of Supervisors (Board) a new ordinance for consideration that contemplated amending the existing restrictions on industrial hemp to exempt a hemp pilot program throughout 2021. This ordinance and the associated hemp pilot program guidelines brought forth to the Board represented the efforts of the Industrial Hemp Working Group that has been meeting over the past ten months to discuss policy and data considerations associated with implementing a hemp pilot program in Yolo County.

Staff was directed by the Board after this last meeting to follow up on several items related to capturing adequate data throughout a pilot program, as well as inquiries associated with pesticides. Furthermore, there was an indication from the Board that industrial hemp might be contemplated only after the adoption of the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO) to better prepare for industrial hemp within Yolo County. After contemplating these concerns, staff has identified two potential paths forward related to industrial hemp in Yolo County: The Board may choose to either ban industrial hemp or choose to adopt a similar ordinance that was first presented in October 2020 but with several changes listed out below.

Industrial Hemp Ban
If the Board chooses to ban industrial hemp through the adoption of a new ordinance, existing exemptions from prior ordinances would remain in effect, including the addition of a grandfathering date for industrial hemp storage locations existing as of February 25, 2020 and exemptions related to manufacturing, processing, and storage. If the Board chooses to initiate the ban on industrial hemp through the adoption of this ordinance, the Board may choose to later amend this ban, as needed, to allow for limited or unlimited industrial hemp activities. This option would allow the Board to allow industrial hemp at some future date in Yolo County, for example, after the adoption of the CLUO. Furthermore, as the hemp moratorium in Yolo County exists only until January 14, 2021, a ban on industrial hemp would provide an option that would effectively put in place a "holding pattern" until the Board is ready for the next steps. This could allow time for obtaining additional information from other hemp pilot programs throughout the State.  It would also allow the new Agricultural Commissioner to contemplate the next steps moving forward, once they have had time to consider program and staffing resources. An ordinance banning industrial hemp in Yolo County may be found as Attachment A of this staff report.

Adopt Pilot Program Ordinance
The Pilot Program Ordinance, if adopted, will extend existing restrictions on the foregoing activities, preserve all other elements of the County's regulatory approach (including limited exemptions), and provide for 2021 implementation of a pilot project relating to industrial hemp cultivation. The Ordinance will apply throughout the County, including within the incorporated cities to the maximum extent permitted by law. In addition to the Ordinance presented in October, a new Request for Proposals (RFP) approach is being contemplated by staff as a means of teasing out data required to facilitate a successful hemp pilot program that places responsibility on growers to demonstrate how they will monitor pollen flow, etc. Staff anticipates presenting additional information on this RFP method at the Board meeting on November 17, 2020.

An ordinance providing for a 2021 pilot program related to industrial hemp cultivation may be found as Attachment B of this staff report.  Also, a redlined version showing changes made since initial presentation of the ordinance in October is included as Attachment C.
  This item was developed in coordination with County Counsel, Sheriff's Office, County Administrator's Office, Agriculture Department, Community Services Department, and the hemp working group.
Next →