Board of Supervisors Meeting | 4.16.2024

by | Apr 21, 2024 | Economic Development, Get Involved, Stay Informed, Trinity Resources, Your Opinion Matters

Sharing Information  |  Encouraging Engagement

 

This was a busy meeting – with the closed session wrapping up after 6 PM. The agenda included five presentations, three cannabis-related items, a fee waiver request, and much more.

Here are the notes I took regarding the meeting.  Fair warning – this is a very lengthy update as I tried to capture key discussion points. Please understand that this is not a comprehensive documentation of discussions and decisions.

PRESENTATIONS

Clerk of the Board

1.1 Receive an update on the Digital 299 project and the general progress of local broadband development efforts. No fiscal impact.

  • Connie Stewart | Executive Director of Initiatives | Regional Coordinator for Broadband
  • Presentation materials were shared in the backup material and during the presentation
  • $6 billion for broadband infrastructure for middle-mile and last-mile projects
  • Trinity County is working on our technical assistance grant ($50 million available statewide)
  • BEAD – Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program
  • Middle-mile Broadband in Trinity
    • 151 total miles (79 leased)
    • Highway 299 and Highway 3 up to Siskiyou County
  • Deadlines
    • Contracts to be in place by Dec 2024
    • Construction to be completed by Dec 2026
    • We are “on track”
  • Frontier Communication Trinity Project
    • Moving forward with builds in Southern Trinity County
      • Hayfork across 36 to Mad River
      • They have funding in place
  • Milestones
    • Summer/Fall 2024 – Annual CASF Broadband Infrastructure Grant Program
    • July—Sep 2024 – BEAD Program Challenge Process
    • Oct-Dec 2024 – Digital 299 is finished (70% built, 30% of fiber is in the conduit)
    • Jan-Mar 2025 – BEAD funding begins, CPUC will continue (more funding)
  • Trinity County Actions/Opportunities
    • Anchor Institutions List (schools, libraries, hospitals, community centers, gas stations, hardware stores, grocery stores, financial institutions, fire departments, etc….)
      • Engineering plans then call for a point of presence nearby
      • Process for adding – send Connie the addresses of Anchor Institurions to: ces54@humboldt.adu
    • CETF – California Emerging Technology Fund
      • $1,000 grants for local governments
    • Advance Digital Equity Fund
      • $20,000 grants for local governments
  • Regional Internet Exchange & Innovation Center
    • Potential for bringing in businesses to leverage our enhanced services
      • Trinity County’s green power, water, etc… make us a good spot for this
      • Earthquake research using fiber is one example that is already taking hold
  • Board Discussion
    • Timing for community access – Humboldt is designing now and implementing this Fall
      • 6 to 9-month process once the middle-mile portion is complete
    • Last-mile access – surveys took place to learn who wanted it and what they were willing to pay.
      • There will be a minimum number of people required in the community to support the operation and maintenance of providing services.
        • Example – 299 is on the digital map more because of the need to take the fiber inland from the coast… vs because we have a large number of people indicating interest/willingness to pay
      • Status Check – contact Connie if you want to know the status (interest level, etc.) of your community/area.
    • Local efforts to attract businesses – Connie can help.
    • Satellite-based vs land-based – there are some subsidies to help make broadband more affordable for remote areas. The latency is an issue for some businesses.
    • County Actions – working closely with individuals and organizations involved in the process.
      • 299 required $4 million in environmental work
County Administrative Office

1.2 Provide a presentation to the Board of Supervisors on the adopted Trinity County Strategic Plan Line of Effort 3, Growth and Development, Objective 3, Key Result 2, Develop a Revitalization Strategy for Trinity County.

  • Trent Tuthill | CAO
    • Status – we are currently working on the development of the plan. Implementation to follow
    • Team – Ruby Fierro, and Ed Prestley are leading this team.
    • Deliverables – Strategy document delivery – Sep 2024, BOS presentation – Nov 2024
    • Success Criteria – The current focus is on the criteria for the plan.  Success criteria for implementation is a deliverable of the plan.
    • Focus Areas – see slide (9:48 AM) for details
      • Some progress in these areas already – Community Development Public Workshop
      • Open to input from the board and public
Planning and Zoning

1.3 Receive a report from the Juvenile Justice Coordinated Council presented by the Chair, Chief Probation Officer Ruby Fierro, and Co-Chair, Valentine Gonzalez, of the annual Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant (JJRBG) Annual Plan.No fiscal impact.

  • Ruby Fierro | Chair and Chief Probation Officer & Valentine Gonzalez | Co-Chair of Juvenile Justice Realignment Block Grant Annual Plan
  • Presentation – backup materials provide a lot of detail.
  • Status – we have low numbers of people in Trinity County who require support through this program.
  • Partnerships – we work with other counties to access facilities and services that we don’t have in-county.
  • Valentine was previously in Foster Care. Hopes to be involved in the sub-committee as they work on program details. Her perspective led to valuable adjustments to the program.
Sheriff

1.4 Adopt a proclamation recognizing the week of April 14-20, 2024 as National Animal Control Officer Appreciation Week. No fiscal impact

  • The board approved this proclamation and presented it to Sheriff Saxon.

 

1.5 Adopt a proclamation recognizing the week of April 14-20, 2024 as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week. No fiscal impact.

  • The board approved this proclamation and presented it to Sheriff Saxon.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

  • Trinity Center/Coffee Creek area – important to check our own biases. Biases should not be part of decisions to achieve a free and fair society. Asked if the public will ever see the results of the investigation.

 

REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

2.1 I. Report from Department Heads (10:17 AM)

  • Tim Saxon | Sheriff
    • Shared March statistics for the various departments
    • Staffing – two people in background checks, two members planning to leave, and two members out on medical leave.

II. Report from County Administrative Officer

  • Emergency Declaration – DOT working on road repair options/solutions… Hope to be implementing it by the end of the Summer
  • Pacific Plus – The new agenda platform should be used for the next meeting. Materials may look a little different but can be found in the same online location
  • Budget Adjustment – funds required to address additional work done. Information will be shared with the public
  • Community Plans – first round of meetings complete. The next board update is on May 7th
  • Household Waste Free Day – this weekend.
  • Employee Appreciation – Christina Merit was recently recognized by a member of the public.

III. Reports from Members of the Board of Supervisors

  • District 1 | Ric Leutwyler
    • The Community Plan Meeting in Trinity Center was well attended and very productive.
    • Fire Department Events – participated in events for Coffee Creek VFD and Lewiston VFD.
    • CSAC Legislative Conference & CSAC Board meeting take place this week in Sacramento.
    • PSA2 Board Meeting yesterday.
    • Forest Service Update on Water Matters – Sara Acridge agreed to present to the board in May.
    • North Coast Resource Partnership Meeting – takes place in Weaverville next week.
    • Weaverville Chamber of Commerce – held a great open house event last week.
    • TOT-Funded Partners – making an offer to fill the newly established Director of Marketing for Tourism.
      • Note – I have been informed that the candidate accepted the offer!
    • CA Jobs First – will be attending the upcoming steering committee meeting.
    • CSAC Rural Caucus Meeting – boundaries and insurance were the key topics. Will be meeting again at CSAC.
    • Up State Tourism Summit – attended in Redding. With 8 to 10 attendees, we had strong representation for Trinity County.
  • District 2 | Jill Cox
    • PSA2 Board Meeting – RFP responses were evaluated and funding levels determined
      • Vacancy – there is a vacancy for a member of the public in Trinity County
    • Golden Age Center – visited recently. This group provides services without funding from organizations like PSA2
    • Weaverville Chamber Mixer – appreciative of the clarity they provided regarding focus, etc.
    • 150th Anniversary Event in Weaverville last weekend.
    • CA Wild Wolves Presentation – gained insight from this presentation
    • CSAC Legislative Conference – will attend this week.
  • District 3 | Liam Gogan
    • No out-of-county travel
    • Wild Wolves of California – enjoyed the recent presentation
    • Trinity Lake – approximately 85% full. Restoration releases begin rising today
    • Salmon Fishing – anticipates that Trinity River will be closed to salmon fishing again this year.
      • Shared that FEMA funds are available to those who can document lost revenues from last year’s closure. Noted that inflation might mask a reduction in volume.
    • Community Meeting tonight at Northern Delights at 5:30 PM
    • Community Plan Workshop in Hayfork was very well attended.
    • PATH Meeting – attended the recent meeting that was focused on tobacco
    • Parks Department in Hayfork – going through rough times. The funding stream does not support operations ($50,000 costs vs $19,000 revenue)
  • District 4 | Heidi Carpenter-Harris
    • North Coast Resource Partnership – coordinating with organizers
      • Illegal Cannabis Cultivation Clean up – continuing to work on this initiative
    • PG&E – A recent power surge damaged a lot of home appliances, etc. Working to ensure that everyone has a way to report damage.
    • NACO Public Lands Meeting
    • Hyampom Community Plan Workshop – participated
    • CSAC Legislative Conference – attending this week. Insurance remains a key focus.
    • Roads – this continues to be a high-priority
    • Animal Control recognition.
    • Illegal Dumping – this is becoming a significant challenge
    • Hawkins Bar VFD – meeting on the 23rd.
  • District 5 | Dan Frasier
    • No out-of-county travel
    • Post Mountain Community Plan Workshop – fairly well attended. Hopes for more involvement as things move forward.

 

Reports from Ad Hocs:

A. Cannabis Ordinance

  • Continuing work on the full ordinance update with plans for completion toward the end of 2024.

 

b. Tribal Relations

  • No update

 

CONSENT CALENDAR

  • There were 21 items on this Consent Agenda.
  • Item 3.6 pulled for discussion by Supervisor Cox
  • The board approved the remaining items on the consent calendar as presented.

3.6 Approve a budget adjustment for FY 23/24 for AB102 Veterans Hall Modernization – Dept 8403 increasing revenues by $1,500,000, Services and Supplies by $2,000 and Interfund Expenses by $20,000.No impact to the General Fund; current cash balance in AB102 Veterans Memorial Modernization – Fund 403 is $1,500,000.

  • $1.5 million received from the State with the support of Senate Pro Temp McGuire
  • Some staff time is required to support this initiative.
  • Moving these funds streamlines the process of covering the costs of staff expenses. $208.00 spent to date.
  • Proposals have been received for mold abatement, etc…
  • Additional plans and drawings will be required.
  • The board approved this matter as presented.

 

COUNTY MATTERS

Board of Supervisors

4.1 Discuss and provide direction on voting for Rural Caucus Boundaries at the CSAC meeting. No fiscal impact.

  • Ric Leutwyler – presented this matter. Maps are included in the backup material.
  • New boundaries for the three Rural Caucus groups are being considered in response to Shasta County’s decision to move from the Suburban Caucus to the Rural Caucus.
  • Board direction was in support of Proposal 1 as first choice and then Proposal 2

4.2 Appoint a primary member for the year 2024 to The North State Planning & Development Collective and authorize the Chairman to sign the letter of support. No fiscal impact.

  • Ric Leutwyler – presented this matter
  • Ric Leutwyler was invited to join our region’s CA Jobs First steering committee as a representative of Trinity County.
  • The board voted to approve this matter as presented.
Clerk of the Board

4.3 Waive provision 2C of the County Fee Waiver Policy, find that the Trinity County Fair provides a public benefit, and approve their application for waiver of County fees waiving Solid Waste fees in the amount of $8,320. Loss of revenue in the amount of $8,320 to the Solid Waste department.

  • Trent Tuthill | CAO
    • Staff recommends to waive a portion of the fees (covering one aspect of the fees)
  • Carrie Bayley | Fair representative
    • Applied for a fee waiver request after-the-fact last year and was denied.
    • 2022 – solid waste fees were $20,000 for the year
    • 2023 – solid waste fees were $30,000+ for the year
    • Charges $5 fee ($10 for non-members and non-residents) no parking fees… try to keep the costs
      • Charging parking fees is a deterrent and can block traffic
      • There are lower prices for children, etc.
      • Members can add two others to their membership for benefits
    • Work aggressively to attract sponsors – covers some events and two days of parking
    • This is a non-profit organization
    • Estimate a need to double fees if the fee waiver is not granted.
    • Vendor charges continue to be evaluated
    • The Derby fee was $20, this year $25 (at the gate) probably will sell out at pre-sale.
  • Board Discussion
    • There was not a waiver request approved last year
    • It is possible the disposal fees could be greater than the recommended $4,800
    • County Funds – Trinity County increased the budget for the Fair Grounds this year to $50,000, it will be the same next year – then a 3% increase will begin to kick in. In prior years the budget was $25,000.
    • Waivers translate into a loss to the Solid Waste Department and the General Fund.
    • Support was offered for the Fair and for keeping costs down and feel we need to find the right balance with support of the Solid Waste Department.
    • No question that the Fair provides a wonderful public benefit.
    • Possibility of charging more fees for the Derby (which sells out) to cover the balance of fees that are not waived.
  • Public Comment
    • Support was offered to approve the fee waiver request. Recognized the value and importance of the Fair.
    • Support was offered to approve the fee waiver request. Recognized the financial challenges faced by many Trinity County residents.
  • Motions
    • Supervisor Gogan – approve the full request as submitted. This was not seconded.
    • Supervisor Carpenter-Harris – approve the staff recommendation to waive disposal fees of $4,800.
    • The board voted to approve the staff recommendation to waive disposal fees of $4,800.

 

County Administrative Office

4.4 Take the following actions regarding the upgrade of our Accounting/Financial System Software:

1. Ratify County Administrative Officer (CAO) Trent Tuthill’s signature on amendment number 1 to the agreement with Central Square to complete the upgrade of our financial software from version 16.2 to 23.1 and increase the maximum cost by $113,100.83 for the upgrade and related training/support costs to provide access to the County’s Accounting/Financial system;

2. Authorize the CAO to sign any future amendments needed for training on modules not currently being utilized and/or to keep our software up to date; and

3. Authorize the CAO and Auditor/Controller to sign any budget adjustments necessary to utilize LATCF funds to cover the costs associated with the upgrade and necessary training/support.

$113,100.83 from LATCF funds.

  • Trent Tuthill | CAO
    • Our old system lost support at the end of 2023.
    • The plan was to upgrade to the new system by 12.15.2023.
    • The complexity of the migration led to delays which resulted in the 4.8.2024 implementation date.
    • The delays resulted in a loss of credits (from payment for the old system) to apply to the cost of the new system.
    • New features that come with the upgrade will be very beneficial to the County.
      • Payroll will become much more automated/streamlined
      • Electronic time cards will replace Excel spreadsheets… Which have to be manually consolidated and transposed to the payroll system.
      • Payroll Lag – our current method leads to people submitting time before it’s worked. Changes to reflect actual time worked after the fact are manual and potentially missed.
    • This is an important opportunity to leverage technology to create efficiencies – one-time investments for long-term savings/returns.
    • Recommends LATCF funds vs General Funds/Contingency Funds.
  • Board Discussion
    • The annual fee will increase as well… this is likely to be in the $90,000 range vs the $60,000 range
    • Believe that we will recover these investments/expenditures through efficiencies over time.
  • Public Comment
    • None
  • The board voted to approve this matter as presented.

 

4.5 Discuss and receive Board of Supervisors direction to staff regarding what option to use/establish to process the three existing opt out requests from 2020/2021. The three specific requests are identified as Hettenshaw, Lewiston 3 and East Weaver Branch requests. Fiscal Impact is unknown at this time.

  • Trent Tuthill | CAO
    • Noted that discussions have been taking place on this matter since January
    • Staff presented options for consideration and to support board discussion.
    • Pending Applications – 1 in Lewiston 3 area, 4 in Hettenshaw area, 0 in East Weaver area
    • Looking for board direction to staff regarding how to move forward
  • Drew Plebani | Cannabis Division Director
    • The pending application in the Lewiston 3 area has been noticed.
    • The applicant is reportedly not going to pick up the approved license.
  • Public Comment
    • Noted economic challenges facing the county and the positive financial impact the commercial cannabis operations could have in these communities. Feels that the General Plan is the appropriate process for something like this. Noted that applicants have waited a long time.
    • Support was offered for previous comments. Encouraged the board to consider the timing of applications being submitted – which came first? Shared the view that rules for opt-out should include opportunities for opt-ins.
    • Raised concerns about further use of the process used for opt-outs. Important to consider the impacts to people both within and outside the areas potentially covered by an opt-out.
    • Asked for a way for parcel owners to opt in. Suggested the board take a closer look at the reasons for the opt-out requests. Asked questions about who is paying for the opt-outs.
    • Support offered for opt-outs and indicates the reason for them is the poor planning/implementation of the cannabis program – before general plan and community plan work. Understand the concerns of applicants who might be impacted. Noted that existing operations are grandfathered – which allows them to continue operating, sell, etc. The board is both the legislative and executive branch of the county.
    • Encourage the board to establish a process that addresses the reasons for opt-out requests and to fine-tune in a way that is not yes or no… but what would work.
    • Feels that carve-outs are not land-based efforts to segregate. Encourages the board to let the general plan, community plan, and cannabis ordinance processes work. Shared that some of these concerns are from illegal cannabis operations. Asks the board to uphold the law that exists. Rely on the zoning update process.

 

  • Board Discussion
    • Supervisor Gogan
      • Suggestion to let the general plan processes play out. Don’t take any action on these opt-out requests.
      • Suggest that existing petition-based opt-outs be reviewed as part of the general plan processes.
      • Concern about not allowing legal grows where we already have illegal grows.
      • Understands the concerns of those who’ve been waiting for opt-out requests to be processed.
    • Supervisor Carpenter Harris
      • Agrees that we need to do this correctly
      • Shared background of “split the baby” phrase… feels that is where we are with opposing requests.
      • Feels the general plan process is the best way to address this
      • Struggles with telling the people who have requested opt-outs that they have to keep waiting… and that having the cultivation applicants wait seems fair
    • Supervisor Frasier
      • We’ve had a culture of “getting it wrong” in cannabis
      • Feels that opt-outs are not a great way to go.
      • Feels that money was the driving force behind the cannabis program
      • Feels that we should have started with opt-ins and that we have allowed commercial cannabis operations in areas that shouldn’t be
      • Fought against commercial cannabis in rural residential areas
      • Feels that cannabis is not traditional agriculture
      • A full moratorium would be fairer than a moratorium on individual areas
    • Supervisor Cox
      • Feels that our existing process has the effect of taking away full land use of adjacent properties.
      • Feels like we put the cart before the horse and now we need to figure out how we fix it.
      • Feels that the best way forward is to stop everything while we wait for the general plan process.
    • Supervisor Leutwyler
      • Costs of work on anything we do should be borne by the General Fund or General Plan Fund.
      • My objective is to establish a balance regarding the interests of those seeking commercial cannabis cultivation licenses and nearby residents whose own land use can be impacted by the approval of the license.
      • Land use has different meanings to different people.
      • Waiting for the general plan process means new applications are approved – this has already happened. These are then grandfathered in… so there is no going back.
      • I understand that delaying application processing could have a negative impact on the applicants… just as delaying response to opt-out requests could (and has) had negative impacts on those requesting the opt-outs.
      • I agree that using the general plan process and overlay zones is the best approach for establishing long-term solutions to the issues surrounding this matter.
      • Bring a process for a temporary moratorium to the board within 60 days
        • Only someone who signed one of the existing opt-out requests may use the new process once established
        • All applications using the new process must be completed within 90 days of the process being approved.
        • The board will schedule a time to consider all completed applications within 30 days of receipt.
        • If approved, the temporary moratorium would be in effect until the General Plan process with overlay zones is complete and approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
        • If denied (or not submitted by the deadline) then processing of pending applications would resume based on current program guidelines.
        • Propose that no licenses should be issued in these three areas until this process is complete.
      • From my experience with the last opt-out request that was processed/approved by the board, the following criteria were used by staff at that time:
        • Map required that shows boundaries of the proposed area.
        • All privately held parcels within the boundaries must be included in the process (count).
        • All signatures must be from legal parcel owners. The petition forms had space for the name, address, parcel #, and signature.
        • Publicly held parcels that are not eligible for cannabis can be included.
        • A minimum of 65% of parcel owners must have signed a petition in support of the opt-out.
        • Appropriate reasons for the requested opt-out must be submitted in writing along with the signatures.
        • Specifics regarding the terms of the opt-out must be submitted in writing along with the signatures.
    • The board’s direction was to:
      • Bring a process for a temporary moratorium to the board within 60 days
      • Only someone who signed one of the existing opt-out requests may use the new process once established
      • All applications using the new process must be completed within 90 days of the process being approved.
      • The board will schedule a time to consider all completed applications within 30 days of receipt.
      • If approved, the temporary moratorium would be in effect until the General Plan process with overlay zones is complete and approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
      • If denied (or not submitted by the deadline) then processing of pending applications would resume based on current program guidelines.
      • Propose that no licenses should be issued in these three areas until this process is complete.
      • Ensure costs associated with this process are charged to either the General Fund or the General Plan Fund.
Cannabis (2:03 PM)

4.6 Introduce and waive the reading of an ordinance amending Trinity County Code  Section 17.43.090 about Commercial Cannabis Cultivation General Plan Update fees. No impact to the General Fund.

  • Drew Plebani | Cannabis Division Director
    • A “Track Changes” version of the document distributed in the meeting
    • Ad Hoc discussions led to this measure being brought to the board.
    • Shared current general plan funding levels.
  • Public Comment
    • Support was offered for this matter. Highlighted that the cannabis program (in large part) paid for the general plan update that is now underway.
    • Wondered why general plan fees will continue to be collected. Asked the board to review Prop 36 relevance to this matter.
    • Questioned why the $1,000 is being continued. Feels that all fees should be $75. Noted that all other permits are one-time vs. annual. Also questioned Prop 36 relevance.
    • Support was offered for the previous comment about reducing it to $75. Asked that we not treat the annual renewals like a new permit (with associated fees/general plan fees).
  • Board Discussion
    • Supervisor Gogan
      • Raised concern that cannabis permit holders will continue to have to pay a general plan fee every year.
    • Supervisor Frasier
      • Paid $2,300 in general plan fees for his home permit.  If calculated separately (based on square feet of average cultivation)… their fee would be much higher.
      • Supports reducing the renewal fee.
      • Feels we should look into this further.
    • Supervisor Cox
      • Asked for clarity regarding the calculation of other general fees – for the home permit (0.50% of the estimated value of the home).
    • Supervisor Carpenter-Harris
      • Question regarding other fees – such as business licenses.
    • Supervisor Leutwyler
      • I support reducing renewal fees and would like for a review of General Plan fees to be completed as part of our general plan update
  • The board approved a motion to approve as presented with direction to staff to bring forward an updated Planning Fee Schedule.

 

4.7 Waive the reading of and enact an ordinance amending Trinity County Code Section 17.43.050 pertaining to Commercial Cannabis Cultivation Regulations introduced April 2, 2024. Introduce and waive the reading of an ordinance amending Trinity County Code Section 17.43.090 pertaining to Commercial Cannabis Cultivation General Plan. No impact to the General Fund.

  • Drew Plebani | Cannabis Division Director
    • Distributed and explained a “track changes” version of the document
    • Shared that there would be a 300% increase in staff time required by staff (if noticing distance was increased to 1,000’+) – drafting, printing, folding, postage, etc. Multiply this times two because of secondary notices.
    • Historical perspective – we at one time had a huge backlog of CCV-related renewals and all the new applications. The new process is probably not more efficient… but it does increase opportunities for neighbors to weigh in (for free).
    • Humboldt requires neighbor consent
    • Explained the reason that we came up with the tiered approach to mitigation.
    • Shared that no single cultivation site has implemented all mitigation measures.
  • Public Comment
  • Support was offered for this amendment. Wished that the medium size licenses were being addressed with this amendment.
  • Support was offered for this amendment. Enforcement procedures should address operations that are not working within program guidelines.
  • Support was offered for this amendment. Shared that there have been very few concerns raised regarding these matters. Feels this will help open up staff and the planning commission for other matters.
  • Support was offered for this amendment. Concerns were raised about the language associated with limitations to legacy sites for new applications.

 

  • Board Discussion
  • Supervisor Frasier
    • Concern regarding some of the language.
  • Supervisor Cox
    • Agree with reducing administrative overhead.
    • Disagree with one aspect that is included here… this still allows a cultivation operation to significantly impact the use of an adjacent property.
    • Feels that the $500 appeal fee should be refunded if their appeal is upheld.
    • Suggests that in the full ordinance update, we shift to requiring “full mitigation” of odor… vs the stepped approach that only happens after complaints.
    • Endorses the Humboldt approach to obtaining neighbor consent.
    • Supports looking into modifications to the medium-size setback process as well when we address the full ordinance update.
  • Supervisor Gogan
    • Confirmed property owners’ right to personal cultivation, and highlighted the existence of a large number of illegal cultivation sites… sharing that it is difficult for people to distinguish.
  • Supervisor Leutwyler
    • As with item 4.5, My objective is to establish a balance regarding the interests of those seeking commercial cannabis cultivation licenses and nearby residents whose own land use can be impacted by approval of the license.
    • My focus is on approval of new applications – not renewals.
    • With future ordinance updates, I hope we eliminate the annual review of setbacks for renewals. Those in good standing should be able to move forward.
    • Our program documents indicate that odor from commercial cannabis cultivation operations can be significant, unavoidable… and can travel up to 2 miles (10,560′)
    • I propose expanding notification of property owners up to 1,500′ away (less than 15% of the distance we acknowledge it can travel.
    • This seems to be a better approach than expanding the distance of the buffer zone as it is less limiting to specific parcels.
    • If no objections by neighbors who are well within the area likely to be impacted by the odor, then the application moves forward as currently defined.
    • If objections are received then the matter goes to the PC where all parties can be heard without the burden of an appeal
    • Propose that applications that have been denied by the PC are not eligible for this streamlined process – and must be appealed to the board.
    • Bring an extension of resolution for temporary streamlining (from the end of April to the end of June) to a special meeting that will allow it to take effect before expiration
    • Include language that allows for the use of the streamlined approach immediately upon approval of the 2nd reading
    • Bring the modified amendment to a special meeting to expedite approval/implementation.
  • Board Motions
  • Motion as presented in the agenda.
  • Supervisor Leutwyler – Motion to adopt the amendment with the increase of 1,500’, to expedite the approval of an extension to the temporary streamlining, and to cause the revised amendment to take effective immediately upon approval of the 2nd reading.
  • Supervisor Frasier – Motion to schedule a special meeting to renew our temporary solution to the end of 2024.
  • The board approved the matter as presented.

 

4.2.2024 Closed Session Report Out

5.1 Government Code Section 54954.5(e) – Public Employee Appointment: County Counsel.

  • The board provided direction to staff

 

4.12.24 Closed Session Report Out

1.1 C Government Code Section 54954.5(e) – Public Employee Appointment: County Counsel.

  • The board provided direction to staff

 

CLOSED SESSION

Public Comment

  • Support was offered for the board considering the Prop 26 matter. Feels that we are the only county to use program funds in the way that we have. Questioned what “ownership” exists since program fees paid for the EIR, Program, Code Enforcement, and Environmental Health participation in visits to illegal sites.
  • Support was offered for the position offered above.
  • Handout regarding Proposition 26 provided by a member of the public. Noted that the use of fees should solely benefit the participants paying the fees. Referenced the history of using funds for Code Enforcement, County Counsel fees, Building purchase, etc. Shared that the burden of proof (of value to members) is on the county.

5.1 Government Code Section 54954.5(c) – Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation; No. of Cases: 1:Prop 26

  • Direction to staff. The County conducted an audit under Prop 26 in conjunction with litigation, and at this time, there are no violations within the Cannabis program.  The Board is directing the CAO to come back to the Board with proposals to conduct periodic Prop 26 Audits.

5.2 Government Code Section 54954.5(e) – Public Employee Appointment: County Counsel. 

  • Direction to staff.

ADJOURN

 

Sharing Information  |  Encouraging Engagement

 

Please use this form to let me know if you would like to be added to the distribution list for updates. Check the box next to the type of updates you would like to receive.