The Yolo County Board of Supervisors has continued taking “straw votes” on Yolo County’s Cannabis Land Use Ordinance.
After a nearly four-hour portion of Tuesday’s meeting, and a two-hour discussion, the board moved forward with three additional points in the CLUO until the meeting had to be continued to June 29.
The public hearing was a continuation of a May 18 meeting that sought to seek consensus on various aspects of the ordinance.
During the May 18 meeting, the board heard from nearly 50 public commenters arguing for and against the growth of cannabis, especially in the Capay Valley. The Board of Supervisors did agree to restrict growth sites to only five permits. These permits could not be transferred if one grower chose to forfeit their permit, and all cultivation sites would need to adhere to a 1,000-foot buffer — the space between cannabis growth sites and certain properties.
“Given the Board’s decision last month to adopt 1,000-foot-buffers for cannabis sites from residences in the Capay Valley with no opportunities for exception or variance, it appears the only future in the county likely involves the relocation of operations for Bom Farms,” a representative for the farm stated. The representative asked the board to consider the ability for the farm to remain in the Capay Valley until 2022.
The decisions made last month are not set in stone, but simply a direction to staff to revise the CLUO. After the straw votes are all taken, the board is expected to pass an intent to approve the revised document.
During Tuesday’s meeting, the board spent the majority of their time discussing the caps on cannabis use permits and licenses outside of the Capay Valley.
They decided on maintaining cultivating licenses as is, 49, for the time being, but allowing for existing farms to request the ability to increase crops from one acre to two. They also allowed for the following number of permits outside of cultivation: five nurseries, seven for processing, six for manufacturing, two for testing, seven for distributing, five for storefront retail, 10 for non-storefront retail (like delivery) and five for microbusinesses.
Additionally, the storefront retail permits will be delayed for two years for additional preparation. Storefront retailers will not be allowed in Clarksburg.
“The retail world that we know today is not likely to be the retail world of tomorrow. You know, once the big players start getting involved, it’s not as though they’re going to open up a little storefront on the corner,” said Supervisor Oscar Villegas. “This is gonna end up in your supermarkets. The push is gonna be to make it as cheap as possible. And so, I just think that we’re going down this path and we could probably save ourselves some grief….. by not going too far down the road. I would recommend, given the conversation, that we table it for now and revisit it in two years, or a year, whatever that comes up, and I suspect the retail world as we know it today, the storefront world will look quite different.”
The motion to move forward with the set number of permits was approved unanimously.
Supervisors also discussed the buffer zone for outdoor cultivation outside of the Capay Valley.
Supervisor and Chairman of the Board Jim Provenza advocated for a 1,000-foot buffer with the ability to include exceptions for all cultivators currently in place, but Supervisor Angel Barajas moved for a 600-foot buffer from properties aside from Tribal Trust Land — which would have a 1,000-foot buffer.
The plan Barajas advocated for is the staff’s recommendation. Under this plan, 19 of the 35 cultivation sites outside of the Capay Valley would be able to remain on their property. Nine would have to move elsewhere onsite, and seven would have to move offsite, or indoors.
Under the plan Provenza moved to approve, 16 operations would be allowed to stay, four would have to move onsite, and 15 would have to move offsite or move indoors.
The board chose to move forward with Barajas’s motion, which was approved with four yesses, and one no from Provenza.
The last portion discussed during the meeting was the use of buffer controls. Supervisor Don Saylor brought up a motion to allow for buffer expectations — which would for established growers to ask to remain where they are at the county’s discretion. Exceptions would not occur in the Capay Valley.
Saylor cited farms that are currently operating less than 600 feet away from other properties, but get along fine with their neighbors. Ed Walker with Diamond Back Growers spoke during public comment, explaining that all 12 of his neighbors signed a letter in support of his farm.
“I’ve been here, supporting the county especially the valley, buying organic,” Walker said. “We do all of our business locally, so I just want the supervisors to take each farm individually. I didn’t buy my ranch to grow, I’ve been here 42 years.”
Provenza argued against it, instead supporting the ability to allow for a 10% buffer reduction due to the already small 600-foot buffer adopted. Provenza explained that he believed allowing for exemptions would simply be “asking for problems” in the future and that every single grower will be requesting exceptions.
Barajas said that the growers would need to provide a compelling case to receive an exception and that Provenza’s idea of everyone asking for exceptions was “just an opinion.”
“My guess will be that we’ll see them all in here saying they have a compelling need to stay where they are, and I’ll be very surprised, I’ll take you out to dinner if I’m wrong,” Provenza responded.
At the end of the meeting, the 10% discretionary buffer exceptions were approved by the board by just one vote. Supervisors Gary Sandy, Villegas and Provenza voted yes, and Saylor and Barajas voted no.
The board is set on finishing the public hearing at the next meeting scheduled for June 29, and voting on their intent to approve. If all goes according to plan, the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance should be fully approved this summer.
