Board of Supervisors Meeting | 6.16.2026

by | Jul 31, 2026 | Get Involved, Stay Informed, Your Opinion Matters

Sharing Information | Encouraging Engagement

This board meeting included two presentations: an overview from Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries regarding the integration of habitat, hatchery, and harvest management, and a presentation recognizing Trinity County’s graduates of the CSAC Leadership Institute. Updates were provided by our CAO and each member of the Board of Supervisors.

All items on the Consent Calendar were approved as presented. Under County Matters, the board considered six items — approving the Behavioral Health Services Act Integrated Plan, a General Assistance budget adjustment, the preliminary FY 26/27 budget, and a subdivision modification; directing staff to decouple the General Plan and EIR from the Zoning Code update; and voting 3-2 to uphold an appeal of a Planning Commission decision.

A. PRESENTATIONS

A.1. Board of Supervisors – Receive a presentation from Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries regarding the Integration of Habitat, Hatchery and Harvest Management Domains. No fiscal impact.

  • Mike Orcutt & George Kautsky | Hoopa Valley Tribal Fisheries – presented using the materials included in the agenda packet.
  • TMC – has been sharing information with this group and will present during the quarterly meeting next week.
  • Key Area of Focus – taking a holistic approach across three domains.
    • Habitat Domain
      • A 2- to 3-fold increase in juvenile outmigration is not matched by an increase in adult Fall Chinook returns.
      • Research is underway to better understand why this is the case.
      • Looking across TRRP, Hatchery, and Fisheries Management.
      • TRRP Fall Chinook goals include 62,000 naturally produced Fall Chinook (after fishing). Returns have never surpassed 40,000, with some years below 10,000.
      • The harvest target is 132,000 naturally produced Fall Chinook.
      • Marine Mammal Predation – not specifically addressed in the report; it will be addressed in research. Regulatory protections limit potential actions. Research indicates lamprey are a major feeding source.
      • Hatchery Impact – there are benefits, including supporting the feeding demands of killer whales.
      • Weather Impact – El Niño events can add stress that increases juvenile mortality.
    • Hatchery Domain
      • Initiated to mitigate the loss of 109 miles of anadromous fish habitat in the upper Trinity River.
      • Points of interest – time of release, size at release, and volume of release.
        • Release volume: 4.3 million Chinook; 300,000 Coho; 448,000 Steelhead.
      • Trinity River Hatchery modernization will provide more flexibility and capability.
      • Hoopa Hatchery – Coho emphasis in the Lower Trinity population.
      • Remote stream incubators.
      • Hatchery fish are less likely to survive and thrive in the wild.
      • Lessening Domestication – looking into brood stock management and exposing hatchery fish to “wild” stressors.
    • Harvest Domain
      • Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) – manages Klamath Basin Fall Chinook.
      • Klamath River Fall Chinook Workgroup – pushing for a sub-basin management approach.
    • Goal – “Collaborate across hatchery, harvest, and habitat management domains to promote complementary actions for improving Trinity River salmon and steelhead abundance, diversity, and eco-system resilience for the benefit of dependent fisheries.”
    • Potential Gating Factors
      • Agreement with the goal statement.
      • Agreement with what it takes in each domain to achieve the goal statement.
      • Willingness of independent agencies and groups to collaborate and integrate efforts.

A.2. County Administrative Office – Receive a presentation from Paul Danczyk recognizing the Trinity County graduates from the CSAC Leadership Institute. No fiscal impact.

  • Paul Danczyk
    • “We must celebrate what’s right with the world to have the energy to address what is wrong.”
    • Presented certificates of completion to Maddy Woodward. Other recipients were not able to be present.
B. PUBLIC COMMENT
  • Acknowledgement of Workload – noted the high volume of work and the strong demands on staff. Called for greater process clarity and transparency to build public trust.
  • Library – announced a summer reading program and raised concern that there is insufficient parking for attendees.
  • Speeding Vehicles – raised concern about speeding vehicles coming into town from the west. Referenced the “daylighting” law to improve safety near crosswalks, and asked supervisors to request stronger enforcement of this law.
C. REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

C.1. Report from Department Heads

  • No in-person reports.

C.2. Report from County Administrative Officer

  • State Budget – adopted last night, with ongoing negotiations. The overall view is that counties are in better shape with this budget than with the May version. Areas of concern remain.
  • Insurance Rates – rates are still going up, but we are seeing some stabilization in comparison to prior years.
  • Insurance Tort Reform – anticipate an agenda item in the near future.
  • Emergency Communication System
    • Funding – our project scored well; it simply didn’t meet the criteria for this year (the program is not looking for new projects). We will submit again in March.
    • System Update – replacement equipment has been authorized, exceeding $100,000. Installation will be covered by existing funds. We are leveraging CalOES funding that would otherwise expire in the near future, and another grant will help cover anticipated costs. The installation timeline will be based on arrival of equipment and scheduling of personnel.
    • Board direction to staff to research potential long-term funding mechanisms for ongoing maintenance of the Emergency Communication System.
  • Employee Appreciation Picnic – later this week.

C.3. Reports from Members of the Board of Supervisors

  • District 1 | Ric Leutwyler
    • Sierra Nevada Conservancy – participated in the tour and board meeting.
    • NoRTEC
      • Co-chairs met with staff and service providers following the resignation of NoRTEC’s Executive Director.
      • Participated in the Executive Committee meeting.
      • An Interim Executive Director is under contract while an Ad Hoc Hiring Committee works to find someone for the permanent role. I will be chairing the Hiring Committee.
    • Fire Chiefs Association – attended the meeting.
    • PSA2 – attended the Joint Board meeting.
    • No out-of-county travel.
  • District 2 | Jill Cox
    • RCRC – meeting out of county; travel costs covered by RCRC.
      • State Mandate Reimbursements – ongoing efforts.
      • AT&T Carrier of Last Resort.
      • Photo Contest.
      • Fundraising Basket.
    • PSA2 Joint Board Meeting – Elder Abuse Awareness Month.
      • Highlighted the impact of phone scams and the potential benefit of a family and friends code word to avoid scams.
      • The Advisory Council reported over 500 volunteer hours, likely closer to 1,000.
    • Trinity County Collaborative – represented by Supervisor Carpenter-Harris.
    • Fire Chiefs Association.
    • NorCal EMS – still working through legal structure changes.
  • District 3 | Liam Gogan
    • Town Hall Meeting.
    • No out-of-county travel.
    • Trinity Management Council – meeting coming up.
  • District 4 | Heidi Carpenter-Harris
    • Trinity County Collaborative – participated in a field trip.
    • Representative James Gallagher.
    • Humboldt Area Foundation.
    • NACo Public Lands Caucus – working on a matter that she will present.
    • Geographical Names – involved in discussions about regulations that would allow someone to request name changes within Trinity County, whether they live here or not, and with or without good reason.
  • District 5 | Julia Brownfield
    • Ongoing constituent discussions.
    • No out-of-county travel.

C.4. Reports from Ad Hocs

• Tourism Funding

  • Webinar with Two Six Digital (Small Business Focus) on Friday, 6.19.2026 at 11:00 AM. See the Trinity County Chamber of Commerce’s site and Facebook feed for more information.
  • The quarterly meeting with the Ad Hoc Committee and key stakeholders is scheduled later this month. The chamber will share information about its use of the first $7,500 awarded by the county and its plans for use of the next $7,500. The focus is on collaboration and impact. The Ad Hoc Committee has authority to release the next set of funding.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
  • Public Comment
    • Consent Calendar Criteria – feels that the public would appreciate more information about what qualifies for consideration on the Consent Calendar.
    • IT Department Staffing – emphasized the importance of including the position in the next fiscal year budget.
    • Consent Calendar Criteria – echoed comments made regarding a desire for more clarity about criteria.
  • The board approved all items on the Consent Calendar as presented.
E. COUNTY MATTERS

E.1. Health and Human Services – Behavioral Health Services – Receive a presentation and approve the Trinity County Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) Integrated Plan. No impact to the General Fund; BHSA annual allocation to HHSA—Behavioral Health is projected at $2,247,997 for FY 26/27.

  • Liz Hamilton | Director – Health & Human Services Agency
    • See presentation materials included in the agenda packet.
    • July 1 effective date for changes.
    • County responsibilities include developing a three-year County Integrated Plan.
    • Funding allocations are prescribed, with changes in the percentage to be invested in different categories.
    • This plan did have a 30-day public review period.
    • A local survey was also conducted. The top three populations that could be better served:
      • Homeless individuals
      • High school children
      • Veterans
    • Suicide rates in Trinity County are four times higher than the state average.
    • Drug-related overdose visits to the emergency department are significantly above the state average.
    • System Overload – homeless (unstable housing) student enrollment, incompetent to stand trial, and children in foster care.
    • Integrated Plan – an overview is shown in the presentation materials; the full plan is available online.
    • Focused Opportunities – highlighting key initiatives that will help achieve goals, including youth stabilization (substance abuse outreach, education, and support), justice-involved interventions, acute psychiatric care, expanding the service footprint in Hayfork, and more.
  • Public Comment – none
  • Board Questions
    • Additional information was sought regarding the reason for the elevated suicide rate.
      • Nutrition, sleep, hydration, social connection, substance abuse, and poverty all play key roles.
      • One key item of risk noted – “an insulation of hope.”
  • Board Discussion
    • Acknowledged that this is a key component of our strategic plan, which calls for creation of a Healthy Community Strategy.
    • Acknowledged the strength and heart of Trinity County staff who work on these goals and plans every day.
  • The board approved this matter as presented.

E.2. Health and Human Services – Budget Adjustments – Approve a budget adjustment for General Assistance – Dept 5106 increasing Other Charges by $15,000 and approve a budget adjustment for FY 25/26 for General Fund Contingency – Dept 9901 decreasing Provisions for Contingency by $15,000. Increase in General Fund appropriations in the amount of $15,000; current Contingency balance is $550,425.

  • Liz Hamilton | Director – Health & Human Services Agency
    • General Assistance – this is for support of people who do not qualify to receive services covered by other funding sources.
  • Public Comment – none
  • CAO Comments – shared that this is not under the Consent Calendar because it is authorizing use of contingency funds. Budget adjustment matters covered under the Consent Calendar cannot involve use of contingency funds.
  • The board approved this matter as presented.

E.3. County Administrative Office – Adopt a resolution which adopts a preliminary budget for FY 26/27. $76,974,458.

  • CAO Trent Tuthill
    • The preliminary budget is presented based on an established formula. It represents only a portion of the total budget that we will consider for the final budget.
    • The initial gap between requested and available funding is $4.1 million.
    • The state budget approved last night provides more information regarding funding levels that will impact our county budget.
    • The strategic plan will influence the proposed final budget.
  • Public Comment
    • Question raised about the sources of funding, the percentage of funds that are discretionary, etc.
    • Budget Priorities – suggested priorities for funding and noted that the county does not directly fund the volunteer fire departments.
  • The board approved this matter as presented.

E.4. Community Development – Planning – Adopt a resolution modifying the initial conditions of approval for the subdivision approved as part of Planning File P-17-36 (Yordanov, K. Post Subdivision Modification, P-26-04). Unknown fiscal impact.

  • Angel Chappel | Assistant Planner – presented information about proposed modifications.
  • Public Comment
    • Support offered for this matter by someone involved in trying to move it forward. Noted efforts and obstacles associated with meeting the conditions now being reconsidered.
    • Support offered by another person involved in this project. He has been working on this for 10 years and encourages support of this matter by the board. Suggested using this as a test case for review by the subdivision committee to find ways to streamline and improve.
    • Development Review Team – suggests creating a team that can review our processes and procedures.
    • Support offered for the matter as presented. Noted potential benefits of streamlining and improving processes like these.
  • The board approved this matter as presented.

E.5. Community Development – Planning – Discuss and/or provide direction to staff regarding the potential of decoupling the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report from Title 17 Zoning Code Update, the associated project schedule implications and necessary budget adjustment. Up to $162,500 from the General Plan update fund, plus potentially an unknown amount depending upon future Zoning Code updates and the required level of environmental impact analysis.

  • Drew Plebani | Community Development Director – referenced recent listening sessions and subsequent direction to staff to consider decoupling and approving additional time and funding for work on the Zoning Code.
  • Public Comment
    • Question raised regarding whether the county has sufficient information to make the decision about decoupling. Feels there is potential for significant changes that could impact the General Plan and EIR. Requested publicly available recordings of staff/consultant work sessions.
    • Question raised about the reasons for decoupling and pressing for completion for approval by the sitting board. Feels there are flaws in the existing General Plan.
    • Support offered for decoupling. Suggests taking more manageable bites as the process moves forward.
    • Support offered for previous statements. Encourages following California land use code.
    • Concern raised regarding the need for the zoning code to remain consistent with the General Plan.
    • Question raised about the value of decoupling. Concern raised regarding use of placeholders. Focus on doing it right. Community meetings – raised concern about comments not being accurately reflected from past meetings.
    • Questions the need for decoupling. Prefers the focus on supporting more work on the zoning code.
    • Questions the need for decoupling. Sees this as a flawed approach.
  • Board Questions & Discussion
    • How common is it for jurisdictions to approve the General Plan and EIR before finalizing other components like zoning code?
      • It is typical that the General Plan and EIR are certified prior to the Zoning Code being approved. State law calls for two years to complete the Zoning Code.
      • Our original plan was to have them separated, as represented by the proposed decoupling.
    • Address concerns raised about the legality of decoupling and anticipated inconsistencies between the new General Plan and the existing zoning code.
      • Addendums would be created (if needed) based on inconsistencies.
      • The transition period is covered by the General Plan. This period usually identifies items that need to be addressed in the new Zoning Code. Changes could be made to the existing Zoning Code along the way.
    • Have we come up with a way to better illustrate similarities and differences between the existing and proposed zoning code?
      • A methodology is in the works.
    • What is the process for addressing inconsistencies that come from work on the Zoning Code after the General Plan and EIR are certified?
      • The Zoning Code is intended to be built upon the General Plan, not the other way around.
      • Changes to the General Plan can be made by amendment if needed.
      • Changes to the EIR can be made if required due to significant changes.
  • Board Motions
    • Three motions were presented. Two of these failed.
    • Failed motion – do not proceed with decoupling. (Failed for lack of a second.)
    • Failed motion – proceed with alternative three as presented by staff, and direct staff to ensure that legacy rural land uses are reflected in future work on the Zoning Code. (Seconded, then failed 0-4.)

Approved Motion

  1. Direct staff to decouple the General Plan and EIR adoption from the Title 17 Zoning Code update — completing and certifying the General Plan and EIR in 2026 — and return with the corresponding budget and contract amendments for the revised Mintier Harnish / Rincon scope;
  2. Direct staff to continue the Zoning Code work now, in parallel rather than pausing it, but at a realistic pace: treat the schedule in the staff report as a target rather than a deadline, let the General Plan and EIR lead through 2026, keep the Commission’s study sessions moving at a sustainable cadence, and return to the Board with a revised, realistic completion schedule and any budget implications rather than compressing the work to hit the current dates;
  3. Direct staff and the Planning Commission, as that work proceeds, to keep the Zoning Code focused on implementing the adopted General Plan; to work the existing draft Part by Part using the public comment matrix; to place any provision that would require environmental analysis beyond the certified EIR on a separate list for Board consideration before it is incorporated; and to return to the Board before running over on cost or time;
  4. Direct staff and the consultants to retain the current draft as the regulatory code and to produce, as early in the process as practical, a plain-language matrix that describes each zone in full and highlights what stays the same and what is changing from our current code, and to report back on its cost and timing;
  5. Ask staff and County Counsel to return at our next meeting with a short written scope-and-guiding-principles statement for the Board to adopt, along with confirmation on Table 2.2 consistency and CEQA; and
  6. Ensure that legacy rural land uses are reflected in future work on the Zoning Code.

Supervisor Leutwyler Comments

  • Implement the General Plan — don’t reopen it. Zoning has to be consistent with the General Plan by law. If anyone wants to argue land-use philosophy — more limits, fewer limits — that’s a General Plan conversation, and the General Plan is nearly done. The zoning rewrite is the wrong venue for that debate.
  • Work from the existing draft, Part by Part, off the public comment matrix. Refine what’s there; don’t restructure or start from a blank page.
  • Stay inside the EIR envelope. Anything that would allow a use or intensity the EIR didn’t analyze goes on a parking-lot list for separate Board consideration — not folded in mid-session.
  • No surprises. Flag any major policy departure to the Board early, while it’s cheap to redirect — not at adoption.
  • Schedule for attendance. These sessions only work if commissioners show up; calendar them to lock in a committed quorum for each Part.
  • Don’t create needless nonconformities. Flag any change that would turn existing legal uses or parcels nonconforming.
  • Don’t create something we can’t administer. We’re short-staffed; don’t adopt rules we can’t realistically permit or enforce.
  • The board approved this motion as presented.

E.6. Community Development – Cannabis – Conduct an appeal hearing to consider upholding, modifying or overturning the Planning Commission’s decision to approve CCL 775 (Applicant: Murrish/Vogel; Appellant: Michele Taylor). Unknown fiscal impact.

  • Drew Plebani | Community Development Director
    • Due to complexities, staff presented the CCL application to the Planning Commission.
    • The application is for a property that is grandfathered into the Coffee Creek Opt Out.
    • The property includes multiple APNs (parcel 21), one of which was enrolled with the Water Board in time to meet requirements for special consideration within an Opt Out Zone.
      • The originally enrolled parcel is the one that was originally approved for commercial cultivation.
      • There is some question about whether this was backdated.
    • The previous owners subsequently enrolled an additional parcel with the Water Board — after the established date.
    • The current owners worked with staff over the years to move forward a proposal to relocate the site of cultivation and operations to a parcel different than the one enrolled prior to the date required for special consideration within an Opt Out Zone.
    • The Board weighed in on an ambiguity matter, stating that special consideration only applies to the parcels enrolled prior to the established dates.
    • The Planning Commission approved the application.
  • Jim Underwood | Appellant Representative
    • The board was correct in its decision about ambiguity.
    • The commission ignored the board’s decision.
    • The board should make its decision based on the established ordinance, which limits commercial cannabis operations to the one parcel that was enrolled with the Water Board prior to the established date for special consideration.
    • Raised some concerns with staff’s view that the programmatic EIR covers all the requirements of this application.
    • Called for the board to reaffirm its previous decision regarding the limits of special consideration within Opt Out Zones, determine that the Planning Commission’s ruling was invalid, and approve the appeal.
  • Tom Balanco | Applicant Representative
    • Shared a map of the property showing the original cultivation site and the desired location (in the middle of their 115-acre property).
    • Noted that the original site is visible to drivers on Highway 3.
    • Noted that the proposed site requires less disturbance.
    • Noted the definition of legal parcel that recognizes contiguous parcels owned by the same person as a legal parcel.
    • Shared that the Water Board did not fully understand what Trinity County was doing with its Commercial Cannabis Program (and Opt Out Zones) when introducing the Water Board enrollment program.
      • At that time, enrollment was allowed only on existing sites.
      • Originally, cultivations enrolled in this manner could not be relocated.
      • Subsequently, the Water Board changed this approach to support development, relocation, etc.
    • RRR Program – retirement, remediation, and relocation of commercial cannabis sites, which incentivized cultivators to relocate to more appropriate sites.
    • The proposed site is 1,500’ from the property line (well beyond the maximum 1,000’ setback).
    • The proposed site has much less impact on the land.
    • The applicant has been cultivating in Humboldt County and wants to grow more naturally.
    • Exception language was intended to support relocation of operations on a legal parcel within an Opt Out.
  • Public Comment
    • Supports Applicant – only actively licensed cultivator in the area; has been operating there for nine years. Indicates that the Water Board based their program on legal parcels, allowing only one APN to be registered. On tourism, shares that his site is 50’ from the road and he has not received complaints. The proposed site would be 300’ from the nearest public road.
    • Supports Applicant – feels that the county should be supporting those who follow the rules, not those who complain about outcomes they don’t like and create more delays, costs, and workload through appeals. Shared that she worked in the Cannabis Department while this application was being considered and processed.
    • Supports Opt-Outs in District 1 – suggests continuing the matter until all the information needed to make an informed decision is available, and directing the CAO to further research through professionals (surveyors, county counsel, etc.). Feels that staff did not provide appropriate or sufficient information and that the board does not have sufficient information to make an informed decision.
    • Supports Applicant – shared that the library building is 10,000 sq ft. She worked on this application, observing the process and communications. Feels that the appeal is not based on legal issues. Believes there is no ambiguity, and that the legal parcel includes the originally enrolled APN.
    • Supports Applicant – supports the Planning Commission decision and findings. Noted her view that the applicant worked with staff in good faith throughout the process. Asked that if the board believes the Planning Commission decision was wrong, it should name and explain the reasons their findings are incorrect.
    • Supports Appeal – shared questions for consideration. When parcels are not all zoned the same, do they still qualify as a single legal parcel? Noted that one of the parcels is currently zoned “unclassified.” Referred to the Planning Commission meeting, noting comments made by one of the commissioners. Thinks it’s important to understand the difference in environmental impact from an outdoor operation. Wonders if all parcels were reviewed and considered during the application process.
    • Applicant – shared that he and his wife have been working in good faith throughout this process. They collaborated with the Planning Department on the best way to move forward. They were told the whole legal parcel was eligible. They cleaned up the old cultivation site. They completed all the steps required, invested in all the reports, and want to grow naturally and organically. They say their operation in Humboldt County receives nothing but compliments.
    • Supports Applicant – recalls first hearing about this type of issue 10 years ago. Eagle Creek Ranch has been part of that conversation. Feels that Trinity County has a unique way of interpreting State law in ways that are different from all others.
    • Supports Applicant – as a hotel owner/operator, she believes that people come to Trinity County for many reasons. Cannabis is a big part of Trinity County’s history and culture. Cannabis tourism is real, and she believes people do come here because of cannabis. Does not see facts that support the concern of cannabis having a negative impact on tourism in this area.
    • Supports Applicant – shared the view that there has always been a lot of uncertainty. Feels the Planning Commission was correct in its finding that the applicant meets the requirements that allow them to relocate cultivation to the proposed site. Encouraged the board to uphold the Planning Commission decision.
    • Appellant – shared that the original parcel does have sunlight and can support a cultivation site. Her greatest concern is the processing of product very near to her resort. Shared that guests have complained in the past. Noted her view that the rules limit the site to the original parcel.
    • Supports Applicant – feels that the board should not have gotten involved and implemented Opt Out Zones. Asks the board to support the Planning Commission decision.
    • Supports Applicant – referenced strong comments about land use. Referenced the movie Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. Shared that this situation is similar, noting that the applicant has demonstrated their willingness to move forward in good faith.
    • Supports Applicant – focused on the legal parcel definition. Noted that the five APNs could not be sold separately unless they were subdivided.
    • Supports Applicant – encouraged the board to support the Planning Commission’s decision. Noted the lengthy and involved process that the applicant pursued with staff over the last five years, moving forward based on staff guidance.
    • Supports Applicant – feels that the Planning Commission made the right decision based on the record, the facts, and the law. Noted that the applicant followed staff direction.
    • Supports Appeal – feels this is a matter of following the rules and that the application should not be approved. Believes the original site is the only one that should be allowed for cultivation and operation.
    • Supports Applicant – referenced the potential value of cannabis tourism. Feels that the proposed plans are much better for the environment than continuing with the site and approach used by the original operators. Noted that the Water Board directed operators at the time to only register one APN for their legal parcel.
  • Appellant Rebuttal
    • Acknowledges that there is no decision that will make everyone happy.
    • Noted that only one party, the applicant, has worked diligently with staff, moving forward based on the guidance provided by staff.
    • Feels that the board should support the guidance provided by staff, and the major investment of time and money that came with it.
    • Noted that challenges will likely follow either decision, indicating that the applicant will appeal based on the facts, law, and record.
  • Applicant Rebuttal
    • Noted that the original site is much further away from the appellant’s resort than the proposed site.
    • Noted that Water Board approval is site specific and cannot be applied across other parcels.
    • Regarding continuation, feels that the issues have been raised and addressed, and that sufficient information is available to make a decision.
    • Feels that the findings don’t need to be extensive; they can focus on the details addressed during the ambiguity hearing.
    • Believes that the applicants do have good intentions, but that is not the determining factor.
  • Board Discussion
    • The original application did not have the box checked to indicate it was in an Opt-Out. Staff believes they chose this because they felt their grandfathered status meant they weren’t limited by the Opt-Out. The applicant agreed.
    • Water Board research and outreach indicates that enrollment was limited to an individual APN.
    • At least three of the five APNs have different addresses and tax records.
    • Historical ambiguity has come from Trinity County’s reference to legal parcel while the Water Board enrollment was APN-specific.
    • The Water Board portal and forms only allowed one APN at a time, and only for existing cultivation sites. This was prior to the introduction of our program.
    • Legal Parcel definition – the cultivation ordinance specifies that contiguous parcels owned by the same person will be considered as a single legal parcel.
    • The applicant followed all staff guidance.
    • The reason for the urgency ordinance and opt-out was to stop things where they were within these opt-out areas.
      • Existing sites were grandfathered.
      • Parcels with qualifying Water Board enrollments were grandfathered.
    • Proposed changes to the location of this operation would have a greater impact on neighboring property owners.
    • Under current program requirements, approval is site specific.
  • Motions Considered
    • Deny the appeal, affirming the Planning Commission’s decision.
    • Uphold the appeal, overturning the Planning Commission’s decision — noting that the board previously determined that qualification applies to the specific APNs filed with the Water Board prior to the established date.
  • The board voted 3 to 2 to uphold the appeal, overturning the Planning Commission’s decision.
ADJOURN

Sharing Information | Encouraging Engagement