Trinity County supervisors split over interpretation of cannabis 'opt‑out' exception; board gives staff direction

Trinity County supervisors on Oct. 7 debated whether a narrowly written exception to the county’s cannabis opt‑out rules applies only to the single assessor parcel number listed on a historical North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board enrollment, or whether contiguous parcels under single ownership can be treated as one site.

The discussion stemmed from a staff request, presented by Drew Plobani, interim planning director and cannabis division director, asking supervisors to resolve an “ambiguity determination” in county code (the limitations language that refers to enrollment under the North Coast board’s 2015 order). “We scheduled it as an ambiguity determination for the planning commission to give us guidance on how to interpret and administer this code,” Plobani told the board.

The issue matters to growers and adjacent businesses in opt‑out areas such as Trinity Center, Coffee Creek, Weaverville and Lewiston because the limitation section creates an exception for sites enrolled with the water board by set dates in 2016–2017. Plobani’s staff analysis said there were 32 enrollments under the 2015 order in Trinity County and an estimated 118 parcels within the code’s limited areas that could be affected.

Attorney Jim Underwood, representing the appellant Michelle Taylor, argued the county’s exception should be read narrowly and tied to the specific parcel APN recorded on the original water‑board enrollment. “The simple question then is what was required as of the date of the county’s ordinance by reference to the 2015 order,” Underwood said. “That order…required applicants to enroll and the application form is explicit in asking for a single APN and resulting in the issuance of this WDID, this ID number that verifies enrollment.”

Opponents to a strict APN reading — including Marissa Maresh and Brad Vogel of Eagle Creek Ranch and other North Lake residents and cultivators — said they relied on earlier staff guidance and on practical farm boundaries when moving permitted operations to adjacent contiguous parcels. “We have been working in lockstep with the county and doing everything they asked of us ever since to make sure this project was a success,” Maresh said. “Please direct the Planning Department to issue our permit.” Vogel said the applicants had sought staff direction before buying and developing the property: “The first thing we did was ask for direction from staff when we started this process 4½ years ago. We got direction that it would be okay to move.”

The planning commission previously considered the question at two hearings and voted 2‑3 against the staff‑draft ambiguity determination; three commissioners told staff the code was “crystal clear.” At Tuesday’s meeting supervisors heard a mix of legal, land‑use and practical testimony about how the 2015 water‑board enrollment form historically captured a single APN and how later state processes allowed multiple APNs under one WDID (waste discharge identification) in some situations.

After about two hours of deliberation, the board took two formal motions. A motion by Supervisor Brownfield to deny the appeal and adopt the county’s “legal parcel” concept (counting contiguous parcels under identical ownership as a single parcel for purposes of the chapter) failed on a roll call. A subsequent motion by Supervisor Cox to grant the appeal and adopt staff’s interpretation passed by a narrow margin. The board directed staff to apply the staff interpretation in pending matters and to return with ordinance revisions if the board wishes to change the policy going forward.

Plobani told the board that environmental review will still be required on any site regardless of where a grow occurs: “Any parcel that gets a license in the county would go through the same environmental review irrespective of whether they're in an opt‑out or not.” That means individual project approvals would still be subject to environmental analysis, mitigation and appeal rights.

Speakers for both sides told the board that the outcome will affect existing local businesses, property owners and prospective applicants in the county’s 97,000‑acre North Lake opt‑out area and other limited areas. Several commenters urged the board to update the ordinance in a public planning process rather than rely on ad‑hoc interpretations.

The board moved into closed session following the vote. The planning interpretation adopted by the board will be reflected in how staff processes pending applications and will likely be the basis for any future ordinance amendments or further ambiguity determinations.

(Votes and motions are summarized below.)