Sharing Information  |  Encouraging Engagement

The special BOS meeting included a number of important items, including Cannabis Division funding, Grand Jury report response, and more. Here are the notes I took during the meeting. Please understand that this is not meant to be a comprehensive documentation of discussions and decisions that took place.


Building and Development Services

  • 1.1   Take the following actions regarding the establishment of County Code Section 15.26 – Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permit Expediting:
  • 1.  Find the adoption and implementation of this ordinance to be exempt from the  California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), common-sense exemption, which applies to projects where the activity will not result in a significant effect on the environment.
  • 2.  Introduce and waive the reading of an ordinance establishing Trinity County Code Section 15.26 regarding Electric Vehicle Charging Station Permit Expediting.
  • Unknown fiscal impact.
  • Skylar Fisher (Planning Dept) provided a brief update – clarifying key points regarding the ordinance and California’s compliance requirements.
  • Margaret Long (County Counsel) addressed previous questions from the BOS
    • Previous action by the State regarding this measure indicates that County-based restrictions would likely be opposed by the state.
      • Health & Safety impacts could potentially be considered as reasons to limit locations.
    • Regarding the implication of not complying with the requirement
      • RCRC noted the potential for stricter requirements from the State in response.
      • Potential for legal action by the State.
      • Appeals are allowed… but no process is in place for appeals
  • Public Commitment
    • Weights & Measures concern – unclear how we will measure the delivery of a full charge and/or appropriate charging levels
    • Concern regarding where all the electricity will come from to support/supply the charging stations – including reference to rolling blackouts last Summer.
  • Some discussion regarding the continuation of this subject so that the incoming board can share concerns with State representatives – including a face-to-face meeting with decision-makers.
  • Some discussion about sending this to the Planning Commission to determine which zones would be appropriate for commercial charging stations and what kind of approval (Directors Use Permit, etc.) should be required.
  • Board voted to continue this decision to the January 3rd BOS meeting

Point of Order

  • Supervisor Cox raised concerns about the amount of time that the agenda and related materials were unavailable for review (due to system challenges) and asked about a change in the documentation that was attached to the agenda.
  • Suzie Hawkins explained that General Counsel’s response to the Grand Jury report was removed when it was determined that this was not needed until the Grand Jury response is being reviewed.


  • 1.2   Discuss the current status of the Cannabis Department’s budget, give direction to staff regarding providing a general fund contribution or advance, and authorize the  CAO and Auditor to sign any budget adjustments necessary based on the direction given.
  • $1,018,154 from the General Fund in the form of a contribution or advance based on BOS direction.
  • Ed Prestley & Drew Plebani provided related information:
    • Explained that there is no specific time crunch associated with this matter
  • The proposed budget reflects the following:
    • Cannabis Division Revenues down by $732,471
    • Cannabis Division Expenses up by $247,207
  • Public Comment
    • Comments focused on the need for additional time to review related materials and concerns regarding the reason for the changes reflected in this proposed budget.
    • Some concerns raised regarding where and how the funds in this budget are being used
  • County Counsel noted that the urgency is related to the director not being able to spend beyond approved funding levels without risking personal liability
  • Keith Groves encouraged the board to support efforts to get permits issued so that related revenue will flow into the department and county
  • Jill Cox emphasized the importance of transparency regarding the reallocation of $1 million within the Trinity County budget.
  • Keith Groves challenged charges that funds have been misused or inappropriately allocated
  • Board voted to continue this matter to the next BOS meeting.

Clerk of the Board

  • 1.3   Acknowledge receipt of and assign a Board member to respond to Grand Jury Report: County Counsel Review (JUR 2022-001).
  • No fiscal impact
  • Public Comment
    • Concerns were raised regarding the limited time available to review related materials
    • Responses provided to Supervisor Grove’s comments about the Grand Jury during the previous board meeting
    • Recommendation for Supervisor Frasier to be assigned due to his level of experience in this arena
  • Discussion about the possibility of sending this back to Judge Harper and the Grand Jury for further consideration/investigation.
    • Keith Groves raised concerns regarding the legality and fairness of how this was handled – including referencing the prohibition of a Grand Jury responding to anonymous letters and concerns that the process did not include interviews with the subject/focus of the investigation.
    • County Counsel was unable to provide advice due to a conflict of interest.
    • Supervisor Cox shared that Input from the District Attorney supports the approach of sending this matter back to the Grand Jury.
  • Board voted to have the CAO send this matter back to the Grand Jury, District Attorney, and Judge Harper for further consideration (to include addressing concerns about this starting with an anonymous letter – which is apparently not allowed) and to assign Supervisor Frasier to respond to the final Grand Jury report


  • 2.1   Government Code Section 54954.5(c) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation No. of Cases: 2
    • Hoopa Valley Tribe vs US Bureau of Reclamation,( US District Court Case No. 1:20-cv-01814-JLT-EPG)
    • Westlands Water District V All Persons case no. 19CECG03887

I hope these notes are helpful in your efforts to stay informed about county matters.  For a more comprehensive understanding of what took place…

You can watch any portion of the meeting on YouTube with this link. 

You can access the board agenda (including links to related documents) with this link.

You can access Grand Jury reports with this link.

Sharing Information  |  Encouraging Engagement