Trinity County supervisors introduce ordinance change to clarify administrative buffer rules for commercial cannabis; Post Mountain growers urge inclusion

The Trinity County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously April 5 to introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance amending county code sections 17.4.43 and 17.32 that clarify when Administrative Buffer Reductions (ABRs) may be used in commercial cannabis permitting.

The board’s action adopts staff-recommended language (referred to in staff materials as “option B”) that narrows the circumstances under which a buffer reduction can be granted: a buffer reduction would be permitted only for “previously developed sites,” meaning parcels that show preexisting mature canopy areas within 350 feet of an adjacent legal dwelling and that had been used for cultivation prior to adoption of the ordinance. The revised language also preserves a pathway for projects that already have an approved environmental (appendix C) document to apply for a reduction.

Why it matters: the change seeks to balance two county objectives—preventing newly created cultivation sites from being used to circumvent setbacks while allowing previously disturbed or historically cultivated small parcels (particularly in Post Mountain) to pursue licensing without being automatically blocked by a newly encountered dwelling on a neighboring parcel.

Public comment and industry concerns: multiple speakers from Post Mountain and other parts of the county urged supervisors to adopt the staff-recommended revision. Lisa Wright, who said she owns the company Flora and has worked with Post Mountain growers, told the board the change would help longtime growers move into the legal program and avoid additional land disturbance. Wright criticized ad hoc code changes at an earlier meeting and asked the board to follow staff recommendations: “I would ask that you please follow the staff's directions,” she said.

Community leaders from Post Mountain described small parcel sizes (many 1–2 acre lots) and said a strict reading of the earlier draft would have prevented many growers from qualifying to apply for ABRs. Chipeng Li, who identified himself as a Post Mountain community leader, and several other residents said the updated language would preserve a path for those sites to seek legal licenses.

Staff explanation and rationale: Drew Plavani, cannabis division director, told the board that the version returned to supervisors removes the ambiguous “legacy” term used earlier and clarifies that reductions are intended only for sites that were established and used for cultivation prior to adoption of the ordinance. Plavani told supervisors the earlier wording risked creating a loophole in which a newly developed site could be used to circumvent the 350-foot separation requirement; the revised phrase—“previously developed and utilized for cultivation”—is intended to prevent that outcome and to match existing definitions in section 17.4.3.

Board discussion and vote: supervisors described extensive prior discussion and said returning the item for another reading allowed the county and stakeholders to refine the language. The board approved the staff-recommended option by voice/roll-call vote; Chair Jared Goguen and Supervisors Carpenter Harris, Cox, Lewweiler and Brownfield all voted aye.

What the ordinance does not do: the board’s motion was to introduce and waive reading of the amended code language (first reading) and does not by itself grant any individual permits or buffer reductions. Those applications will proceed through the cannabis division and planning processes under the revised code if applicants meet the new “previously developed and utilized for cultivation” standard.

Next steps: the ordinance will proceed to its second reading and final adoption process consistent with county code. County staff and the cannabis division will continue outreach with growers about how the new wording applies to pending and future applications.