Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves hemp cultivation ban after debate over two‑year review
Summary
The Trinity County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance prohibiting hemp cultivation after debating whether to include a two‑year review; the planning commission had recommended a two‑year sunset, and public comment urged removal to avoid extra county expense.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Trinity County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance to prohibit hemp cultivation after a brief debate over whether the ban should include a two‑year review period.
Agricultural Commissioner Angela Blanchard presented the ordinance at the board meeting, saying the planning commission recommended a two‑year sunset to allow time for additional study of hemp impacts and buffer zones to assess whether small‑scale hemp cultivation could coexist with cannabis. "It is back for the first reading due to changes, including a 2 year sunset recommended by the planning commission," Blanchard said during her presentation.
During public comment Adrian Keyes urged the board to remove the two‑year review, arguing that the county should not spend staff resources on a mandated reexamination. "My belief is that that would be, really not a good use of county time and resources," Keyes said.
Board members then debated two motions: one to approve the ordinance without the two‑year review and a second to retain the sunset. After clarifying that removing the sunset would not prevent the board from later revisiting the matter through the standard first‑ and second‑reading process, the board voted to approve the ordinance without the two‑year review. The clerk recorded three ayes.
The ordinance will proceed under the county's reading and adoption process; board members noted that staff and the planning commission could bring the issue back if changes are needed. The meeting then moved to a closed session on pending litigation.
The planning commission's recommendation, public comment and the board vote were the key actions recorded at the meeting; specifics about the ordinance's enforcement details, effective date and any implementing regulations were not provided in the record and are therefore not specified.

