Board of Supervisors*

of the 2022 Grand Jury: In October 2019, the BOS voted 3-2 to dissolve the Ad Hoc Cannabis Committee (formed in 2016). However, the Board Chair stated, "there's no change now thought." (The BOS Chair has authority over ad hoc committees). In October 2019, the two board members stepped down from the Ad Hoc Committee on . Cannabis Retail, turning that work over to the Planning Department. In December 2019, BOS dissolved the Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee. Rather than . forming a standing committee, it assigned the work to the Planning Department. The BOS formed a Cannabis Cultivation Ad Hoc Committee in November 2021. At the April 19, 2022 BOS meeting questions were raised whether the current Cannabis . Ad Hoc Committee is acting more like a standing committee. The BOS supports creation of ad hoc committees as needed to augment the Planning Department's efforts due to staffing shortages. On April 29, 2022, the BOS appointed an interim deputy director for the Planning . Department. Additionally, the Cannabis Division hired its first dedicated Director March 1, 2022. The 2022 Grand Jury determined that the response from the BOS: While they were timely in their response, as of this report, the Board has not opted to create the recommended standing committee. DAN FRASIER LIAM GOGAN JEREMY BROWN KEITH GROVES JILL COX DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2 DISTRICT 3 Though in agreement with the recommendation, the BOS offered no evidence that it . would implement it. The BOS did not meet the criteria required by PC 933.05(b)(3) or include a time frame or an indication that it will pursue this issue. See Appendix B. Response: Disagree. There seems to be a misunderstanding of the role and tasks of an Ad Hoc. The thought that a Cannabis Ad Hoc over sees all things Cannabis is false, each Ad Hoc was and is tasked with certain duties of oversight. We've had the "retail cannabis Ad Hoc", "ordinance Cannabis Ad Hoc", "medical cannabis Ad Hoc", "Cannabis implementation Ad Hoc" (twice) and others. The Grand Jury also failed to include the whole history. The work started around 2005 with Cannabis "1.0" also in that time period there was an appointed standing committee, even though it was well meaning and interesting, it ended in utter failure. Then the task was turned over to the planning commission to start investigations and write ordinances, two of which reached the board with only the Medical ordinance passing. Later the Planning Commission was tasked with writing new commercial Cannabis ordinances, this stalled out and collapsed. This is the point when the BOS stepped in and formed an Ad Hoc over seeing ordinances, taking 100's of hours of public and private testimony, then passing these on to the planning department for dozens more public hearings. These ordinances were then presented to the board for even more public hearing before passing.

of the 2022 Grand Jury: According to the Planning Department Cannabis Division, a variable nuisance fine structure has not been developed. The 2022 Grand Jury determined that the response from the BOS to Finding 2: This response was not timely and did not meet other criteria required by PC 933.05(b)(3). See Appendix B. The response provided a vague and incomplete explanation and did not address direction . to the Planning Department to analyze and provide recommendations to the BOS for adopting a variable nuisance fine structure and did not meet criteria required by PC 933.05(b)(3). See Appendix B. Response: Disagree. The county did enact a variable Cannabis nuance fine system. Ordinance 1352 Chapter 8.90.080 on 08/18/2020 for Cannabis violations. First offense up 1,000 dollars, second offense up to 2,500 dollars and third offense up to 5,000 dollars. Also, the planning director has discretion to set any amount less than the maximum amount.

of the 2022 Grand Jury: According to the Planning Department, the County does not contract for aerial surveillance. They do use other resources as available such as: www.trinitycounty.org/Trinity-County-Parcel-Viewer, Google Earth Pro, county, state, and federal coordination efforts. The BOS response was not timely and did not meet other criteria required by PC . 933.05(b)(3) including an explanation, scope, parameters, and time frame not to exceed six months. See Appendix B. Response: Disagree. The county followed its response recommendation by doing its due diligence. The planning department and the sheriff's department looked at this very closely during the COVID time era. In the planning director's opinion, it ended up being too expensive, (more than available grants) and limited in its flexibility. Sheriff Saxon also had concerns about the effectiveness and the county's ability to staff the program due to the counties chronic labor issues. The board may look at this down the road but for now this idea has been shelved.