General Plan Joint Sessions | 6.10-11.2025

by | Jun 16, 2025 | Economic Development, Get Involved, Stay Informed, Trinity Resources, Your Opinion Matters

Sharing Information  |  Encouraging Engagement

The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors met in a joint session on June 10th and 11th. These sessions were focused on the General Plan and Community Plans. Mintier Harnish (our General Plan Consultants) led the sessions using presentation materials attached to the agenda. the materials inlcuded comments received and the consultants view of direction needed from the Board of Supervisors based on the feedback received.

After each presentation, we heard from the public via Public Comment, then heard from Planning Commission. Finally, the Board of Supervisors provided diretion to staff and consultants regarding how to move forward.   The board approved another round of Community Plan Workshops.

We covered a lot of ground over two full days. My notes are just that… notes. You can watch recordings of the meetings to gain more clarity regarding our discussions and direction.

Note – during the meeting we learned that, due to technical issues, some comments that were emailed to the county were not distributed to staff and the consultant team. Once this issue was discovered, those emails/comments were forwarded. These comments will be included in future documentation and in presentations.

Joint Session of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors

Mintier Harnish – walked through the 170+ slide presentation that explained the process, highlighted key points of interest, and introduced items for which direction was needed.

  • Public Comment after presentation of each section
  • Board and Planning Commission direction is needed in this meeting. Staff will use this direction to fine tune the documents
  • This is not the final hearing on the items we are discussing today.
  • Zoning Code Updates are the subject of the Planning Commission Meetings later this week.
  • Adoption is planned for Summer or early Fall 2026
  • Rezones can be completed within two years of adoption of the plan.
  • Completed Community Engagement includes six Community Workshops, 18 community Plan Meetings and much more.  More opportunities for engagement are scheduled.

Content Available

  • Background Report
  • Community Plan Engagement Summaries
  • General Plan Draft
  • Zoning Plan Draft

Organization of the General Plan – the Trinity County 2050 General Plan is organized into 11 chapters (elements).

  1. Introduction
  2. Land Use Element
  3. Community Plans Element
  4. Economic Development Element
  5. Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure Element
  6. Conservation and Open Space Element
  7. Circulation Element
  8. Housing Element (Approved by HCD)
  9. Hazards and Safety Element
  10. Noise Element
  11. Glossary

Land Use

  • Includes:
    • 112 unique sections
    • 13 existing policies
    • 34 new policies
    • 10 implementation programs
  • Density and parcel size requirements were changed
  • Land Use – Cannabis
    • Plan calls for Cannabis cultivation to only be allowed in the Agriculture General Plan land use designation.
    • Parcels are proposed to be automatically re-designated.
  • 224 total comments received regarding this subject to date.
    • 205 of these were focused on Cannabis alone (92%)
    • 181 comments regarded Agriculture re-designations
    • 12 comments regarding other re-designations
  • State does categorize Cannabis cultivation as Agriculture
  • NOTE – if you feel that your property zoning should be changed, it’s best to share that now as the process is underway.
Cannabis Land Use
    • Three options regarding Cannabis-related Land Use were presented to the Commission and Board
    • Cannabis-related development and performance standards are still in process
    • No changes would occur to approved Opt-Out Zones
    • Option 1 – stay with plan as drafted
    • Option 2 – go back to allowing Cannabis cultivation in RR
    • Option 3 – same as three with the addition of overlay zones that provide development and performance standards that are unique to (and guided by) Community Plans.
      • Existing Opt-Out boundaries for specific communities would be codified.
    • Public Comment
      • Comments that, since Cannabis is an agricultural use, it should be by right on Ag-zoned parcels. It should also not be disallowed on RR-zoned parcels, unless other agricultural uses are also disallowed. Suggests that Cannabis should be addressed within zoning code… not the general plan under land use.
      • Additional comments regarding questions and concerns about the inclusion of Cannabis in land use designations within the General Plan. Prefers Option 3, but feels this should be addressed within zoning code… not the general plan under land use.
      • Comments from Post Mountain resident focused on the potential complexity of changes that might be coming – especially for people in this area who are still working to obtain licensing/permits.
      • Comments supporting the concerns raised in previous statements. Encouraged decision makers to listen to their constituents. Raised concerns about vegetation management ordinances.
      • Comments that support previous statements of concern about the direction reflected in all three options presented today.
      • Comments in support of Agriculture designation for parcels involved in Cannabis cultivation for some reasons but shared concern that this could severely limit future program participants. Shared concerns regarding goals that reflect overreach.
      • Comments in support of previous statements and encouraging decisions that support future economic development – including within the Commercial Cannabis industry.
      • Questions regarding future impact of changes to minimum parcel sizes within zone types.
      • Question as to whether or not the commission and board have consensus regarding Cannabis as Agriculture.
      • Questions regarding the potential of the overlay zone process for Post Mountain.
    • Staff Input
      • Prefers Option 3. Supports the community input to how parcels in their areas are used.
      • Does not believe that Cannabis should be limited as a land used component… rather it should be addressed in zoning code.
      • Mintier Harnish – believes Cannabis should be addressed in the General Plan – to support future work in the zoning code.
      • The plan does not limit Cannabis Cultivation to Agriculture or RR. There are other parcel zone-types that allow for this.
      • Confirmed that segregation of Cannabis (from other forms of Agriculture) was direction from staff from the beginning of the process.
      • Suggests that we clearly confirm that cannabis cultivation is a form of agriculture.
      • Feels that we should address concerns about Cannabis land use during the zoning code discussion.
  • Questions & Clarifications
    • How many active program participants?
      • 333
    • How many pending applications?
      • 30 to 50
    • Any estimate on the number of parcels that would remain available for Cannabis Cultivation?
      • Option 1 – limiting to AG-only would limit.
      • Option 2 & 3 – would not further limit.
    • In Option 1, does RR allow for other types of agriculture – just not cannabis?
      • Yes
    • What limits would be imposed if existing cultivation parcels were rezoned to Ag?
      • None that impact Cannabis Cultivation.
    • At one point of the application process would a property be eligible for re-designation through this rezoning process?
      • Applications must have approved environmental documents (at the time GIS work was completed by Mintier Harnish).
    • Community Expansion – how do plans to expand development in areas (eg. TPZ) get addressed if this is removed?
      • The process allows for parcel owners to rezone from TPZ to another zoning type.
    • Do “overlay zones” create “islands” that are discouraged in planning best practices?
      • Yes… but this can be supported through appropriate code, ordinances, etc.
    • Does rezoning parcels involved in Cannabis Cultivation create a future problem in which other agricultural uses could take place that might not be appropriate?
      • Additional details addressed in zoning code would address issues like these.
    • Clarified that changes to Ag-zoning does have some limitations.
    • Question regarding the reasons for initial focus on limiting to AG-zoned parcels, and then shifting to the other options presented today.
      • Original focus was on ways to limit Cannabis Cultivation in a way that limited  in areas in which cultivation operations are seen to have “negative” impacts.
      • Later realized that converting all Post Mountain parcels to AG would create a huge number of non-conforming parcels.
    • Would the options we are considering make the commercial cannabis application more complex?
      • No. In some options, there would be fewer parcels on which cultivation could happen.
    • Questions raised about how community input would be gathered/confirmed regarding overlay zones?
      • Petition required?
      • What about communities who do not have community plans?
  • Discussion
    • Mintier Harnish proposed that we consider confirm Cannabis Cultivation as a form of agriculture and use the zoning code process to address more detailed land use development and performance standards.
    • CAO Tuthill proposed that general plan land use designation consider Cannabis as a form of Agriculture and allow AG as appropriate land use designation, without any reference to Cannabis in this document. Also, proposes pursuit of the Overlay Zones… including approval of $50,000 for the additional community engagement sessions required to do so. This is a version of Option 3
  • Planning Commission Input
    • Support offered for Option 3 – using Overly Zones to customize land use standards.
    • Would like to see an option for reshaping boundaries of North Lake Opt Out Zone(s).
    • Concern about representation of communities who do not have Community Plans
    • Support offered for CAO Tuthill’s proposal
    • Support offered for CAO Tuthill’s proposal
  • Board Input
    • Support offered for CAO Tuthill’s proposal by all Supervisors
    • Point raised that ballot measures could be considered as a means of gathering community input regarding Overlay Zones.
Parcel Re-designations
    • Several items were presented in this section
    • Mixed Use re-designation for Weaverville Main Street & Historic District
      • Public Comment
        • Support offered for mixed use re-designation
        • Support offered for people to rezone to Agriculture
      • Staff Input
        • Almost 200 requests for re-designations. Recommend revisiting these requests after additional details are confirmed via zoning work
      • Commission Input
        • Support offered for mixed use re-designation
      • Board Input
        • Support offered for mixed use re-designation and for providing the opportunity for landowners to request re-designation from RR to AG once zoning details are confirmed.
    • Medium Density to Low Density Residential in a certain area of Weaverville
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input
        • Support offered for recommendation
      • Board Input
        • Support offered for recommendation
    • Commercial Cannabis property re-designation for two properties that currently have Commercial designation.
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
        • No action at this time. Revisit at a later time.
      • Commission Input – none
      • Board Input – support staff recommendation
    • Hayfork Fire Protection District re-designation request
      • Public Comment – one in support
      • Commission Input – support recommendation
      • Board Input – support recommendation
    • Children’s Summer Camp Facilities – Recreational Camps and Facilities on AG properties
      • Public Comment – support offered
      • Commission Input – support offered
      • Board Input – support offered
        • This would be allowed based on parcel size
    • Poker Bar re-designation request for RR to AG
      • Staff Input – recommend no action
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input – none
      • Board Input – recommend no action
    • Combine RR Low and RR designations
      • Public Comment –
        • Support offered for merging
      • Staff Input – recommend no action
      • Commission Input – support offered for no action
      • Board Input – support offered for no action
    • Paved Roads & Parking for Commercial Cannabis
      • Staff Input – this is not needed here since it is in the EIR, address during policy discussion
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input – support staff recommendation
      • Board Input – support staff recommendation
    • Zoning Consistency – Open Space
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input
        • Support the recommendation
        • Clarified that property owners can request a change
      • Board Input – support staff recommendation
    • Watershed Recommendations regarding retaining rural character via conservation easements
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input
        • support recommendation
        • Suggest asking The Watershed Center for more clarity about intention/goal so that we can fine tune language appropriately
      • Board Input
        • support recommendation with language change listed below
        • Concern raised regarding potential unintended consequences (reduction of land for other uses)
        • Incorporate language about this being in alignment with other land use policies, etc.
    • Sustainable Cultivation Practices
      • Staff Input
        • Recommend changes to proposed language – refer to sustainable agricultural practices (vs sustainable cannabis…) and don’t reference specific sources
      • Public Comment
        • Supports the concept at a broad level as proposed by staff
        • Supports the concept at a broad level (AG vs Cannabis)
      • Commission Input
        • Support staff recommendation
      • Board Input
        • Support staff recommendation
    • Development Density – community water plans, developer responsibility, etc.
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input
        • Support recommendation with flexibility for maintenance requirements to be met by a third party
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
        • Create a separate policy – still focused on “encouragement”
        • Address typo (“and” becomes “the”)
Community Plans
  • Douglas City
    • Mintier Harnish presented recommendations
    • Encourage alternative wastewater systems…
      • Staff Input
        • concerns raised regarding ongoing costs to the county associated with this recommendation – OWTS Policy
        • Current policy does not require a septic system to use port-a-potties for events etc.
        • Nothing prevents land owners from using port-a-potties… just should not be the only solution for long term use.
        • We don’t currently have another approved alternative waste water solution
      • Public Comment
        • Question about staff input
      • Commission Input
        • Does not support long term use of port-a-potties… especially on commercially zoned properties.
        • Suggestion to avoid the word “encourage”
      • Board Input
        • Does not support this recommendation for a new policy
    • Housing Development
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input – support staff recommendation
      • Board Input – support staff recommendation
    • Restaurant & Park Amenities – request for policies encouraging development.
      • Public Comment – none
      • Commission Input
        • Support goal, modify language to avoid perception of county responsibility
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
    • Senior Center
      • Staff Input
        • not feasible to develop a new center, support creation of mobile senior services
        • Section 9.3 of General Plan refers to senior services, this could be added to this section as a policy
      • Public Comment – None
      • Commission Input
        • Suggest that the modified language be added to the county-wide plan
      • Board Input
        • Support Staff and Commission Input
    • Dark Sky – Light Pollution -request for new policy
      • Public Comment – none
  • Staff Input
    • Cannabis Division does work at night as needed to verify complaints regarding violations of light policy.
    • Dark Sky policies can be difficult to enforce.
  • Commission Input
    • Clarification that desired commercial development can be accomplished within the limitations of Dark Sky policies.
    • Concern offered regarding this being based on one comment.
    • Offered option to shift to “encouragement”
    • Consensus is not to support a Dark Sky policy
  • Board Input
    • Support Commission Input
  • Milestone Plan – request for this to be added for plan implementation
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Recommends against this due to budget constraints
      • Recommend that we rely on annual reports
    • Commission Input
      • Support staff recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Support Staff and Commission Input
  • Community History – add additional information
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Requires community to provide details. No additional details were shared with the request.
      • History books were purchased to support initial research
      • Request for board members and commissioners to solicit additional details from their communities
    • Commission Input
      • Concern shared about asking staff/consultants to do this research
      • Suggestion for link to Museum in each Community Plan
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input
      • Open to additional documentable information
  • Hayfork
    • Sidewalk Construction
      • Public Comment
        • Support provided for the work done on this Community Plan and the incorporation of the items on the agenda today.
      • Staff Input
        • Wording is key to avoid committing the county to funding of projects
        • Including this would help with future grant applications
      • Commission Input
        • Support for recommendation – tied to existing active transportation plans
      • Board Input
        • Support for Commission Input
  • Community Conditions Edits
    • Public Comment
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Same as with previous community plan regarding this subject
  • Cannabis Industry Impact on Economy
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Feels it will be easy to add additional information
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation
  • Add Cannabis Industry Stakeholders, Eco Tourism, Sustainable or Boutique Agriculture to Tourism
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Noted that “other relevant representatives” covers additional groups, entities, etc.
    • Commission Input
      • Suggestion to include other groups, agencies, etc.
      • The Watershed Center was highlighted as another entity to reference
      • Suggestion to consider cultural aspects (Hmong Community)
    • Board Input
      • Support Staff and Commission Input
      • Noted that Hayfork now has a “first of it’s kind” mill operations at the High School
  • Agrotourism
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Focus is on “allowed use” vs “use by-right”
      • Consider this at a county-wide level
    • Commission Input
      • Question regarding “use by-right” and the varying scope of agrotourism
      • Suggestion to consider appropriate limitations and focus on support.
      • Support for this at a conceptual level
      • Support offered for county-wide approach
    • Board Input
      • Support county-wide approach with details to be worked out at another time
  • Policy Name Change – Recreational Stays
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Support recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation
  • Expansion of Economic Base
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation
  • Hyampom
    • ..
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Support for recommendation
      • Board Input
        • Support for recommendation
        • Ask staff to consider potential risk/liability associated with specifying time
    •  Tourism & Small Business Agriculture
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
        • Recommend revisiting after review of county-wide economic development section
    • Early Warning System
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Suggest considering locally-focused FM Radio Stations – at the county level
          • Velocity obtained FM licenses that could potentially be implemented for this purpose.
        • Concerns raised about potential financial responsibility
      • Board Input
        • Suggest consider and evaluate vs “create”
        • Staff to word in a manner that avoids financial responsibility
        • Support for Commission Input
    •  Expand Boundaries
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
        • Support staff recommendation to not expand boundaries
  • Junction City
    •  Vision Statement – strong community support for this update
      • Public Comment
        • Request for transparency regarding input that directs the process.
        • Support for proposed changes to the vision statement. Noted the importance of home-based businesses to this community.
        • Support for proposed changes to the vision statement. Noted that the decision to consider cannabis as a form of agriculture potentially makes some of this moot. Emphasized value of pedestrian infrastructure.
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Support for recommended changes
        • Based on direction to consider cannabis as part of cannabis, encourage staff to revisit the reference to cannabis with the community during the next round of meetings
      • Board Input
        • Support for recommended changes, with exception highlighted below.
        • Staff to offer other communities the opportunity to revisit their vision statements
        • Direction to remove distinction of cannabis from agriculture… while leaving the option of highlighting cannabis in their vision statement in some other manner.
    • Fire Mitigation Measures
      • Public Comment
        • Comments about lack of clean up after damage from Helena and Monument Fires
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Suggest that be highlighted at the county-wide, General Plan level
        • Suggests not singling out individual agencies – don’t want to limit options (McConnell Foundation, CalFire, VFDs, The Watershed Center, Forest Service, BLM, SPI, etc.)
        • Ensure that both post-fire cleanup and fire prevention policies are well reflected in the General Plan as described above – supporting work with partners. Also consider inclusion of reduction of invasive species in post-fire clean up.
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
        • As needed, add appropriate reference to Fire Wise Communities in the General Plan
    • Adding Community History
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
        • Direction to treat this the same as the request from another community plan
    • Land Use Designation Concerns
      • Public Comment
        • Suggestion that zoning regarding agriculture address all forms of agriculture, not just cannabis.
        • Noted the unique regulations on cannabis cultivation… which might mean it should still be referenced uniquely in some instances. Noted this was the case for Timber in the current General Plan.
        • Agree with previous comments. Concern about the certainty and longevity of the direction for cannabis to considered as agriculture in the future. Noted that community plans might still feel that it is important to reference cannabis in their plans.
        • Support for previous comment.
      • Staff Input
        • Echoed previous input to provide communities the opportunity to update plans based on decisions made during these joint sessions.
      • Commission Input
        • No action on this matter now.
        • Support Staff Input
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission and Staff Input
    • Cannabis Policies – addressed with previous discussion
      • Public Comment
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
    • Highway 299 Development – Scenic Byway, expand commercial development away from the highway.
      • Public Comment
        • Support for the recommendations
        • Feels the General Plan should further restrict land use and development of their properties.
      • Staff Input
        • Regarding Caltrans coordination – noted that the Red Barn allows for a restaurant as a use-by-right, but additional requirements were put in place for potential use for cannabis retail
      • Commission Input
        • Highway 299 is recognized as a scenic byway… but not at the federal level.
        • Noted that state/federal level designation of scenic byway would lead to further restrictions on development.
        • Further restrictions might limit enhanced access to the highway.
        • Input regarding intent:
          • Expansion of the highway could limit the amount of land available for commercial use. They want to protect land use.
        • Recommend policy to support commercial development and coordination with Caltrans along these lines.
      • Board Input
        • Support for Commission Input
        • Discussion regarding the ability to influence Caltrans. Staff clarified that having this in the General Plan helps.
    • Pedestrian Safety
      • Public Comment
        • Support of this aspect of the community plan. Concern shared that the county did not meet expectations from this being in the previous community plan. Emphasized access to the School and Park. Also noted importance of retaining river access.
        • Echoed the importance of this matter – especially bus stops.
        • Support for previous comments.
      • Staff Input
        • Suggests changing “expand” to “pursue grant and other funding opportunities.”
      • Commission Input
        • Should reference active transportation plan
        • Avoid language that commits the county. Use “support” to accomplish this.
        • Added comments about the needed for a turning lane near Junction City Store.
        • Supports this section being included in the community plan
        • Noted previous efforts with Caltrans to slow traffic in and around Weaverville – with some examples of success.
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
        • Suggested strengthening language to support future efforts to collaborate with Caltrans and others.
  • Lewiston
    • Land Use Re-designation
      • Public Comment
        • Supports mixed use.
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Addressed in previous discussions.
      • Board Input
        • Addressed in previous discussions.
    • Mixed Use for commercial/residential purposes
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Support mixed use
      • Board Input
        • Support mixed use
    • Road Map Enhancements
      • Public Comment
      • Staff Input
        • Current GIS data will be used.
      • Commission Input
        • Support offered
      • Board Input
        • Support offered
  • Post Mountain
    • 90 attendees at October 2024 Community Workshop. The most… by far.
    • Land Use Re-designation
      • Public Comment
        • Believes there is a way forward for re-designation of land for commercial use. Support for all recommendations put forward. Noted that grant applications and activities are underway. North Coast Resource Partnership is working with the local VFD on a project.
        • Support for the previous comments. Knows of land owners who would be interested in rezoning of their properties for commercial use. Encouraged pursuit of the hybrid approach – including the ability to rezone properties.
      • Staff Input
        • RR zoning would work well in this area since agriculture is allowed.
      • Commission Input
        • As with similar discussions yesterday, pursue option 3 with additional input as provided yesterday.
        • Noted that much of the land in this community is unclassified.
      • Board Input
        • Address in the same way we addressed this in other community plans
    • Commercial Space Program
      • Public Comment
        • Comment about the importance of vertically integrating – which currently is only allowed on AG… not on RR.
        • Emphasized the importance of commercial properties in this community. Concern that we are moving too fast.
        • Clean energy grant to research options for Post Mountain. High priority on VFD.
        • Flora is working with 40 new applicants for the commercial cannabis program.
      • Staff Input
        • Clarified that the county can choose to re-designate land use for specific parcels
      • Commission Input
        • Supports the new program
        • Defers to the county regarding handling of county-owned property
        • Questions about suitable use for the county-owned property
        • Encourage mixed use approach to expand land use opportunities.
      • Board Input
        • Noted the need for solid waste facilities on county land (if possible/appropriate)
        • Support for the new program.
        • Direction to retain county-owned property for county-related uses vs allowing it for commercial property
        • Noted that this community pays the solid waste fee but has to travel to Hayfork for solid wast services.
        • Noted that Post Mountain is about the same distance from Hayfork Solid Waste as Lewiston is from Weaverville Solid Waste.
        • Direction to include mixed use approach as an option during next community meeting.
    • Property Maintenance Support
      • Public Comment
        • Believes the community is hoping for help with fuels reduction.
        • Suggests broadening the language to not focus just on county responsibility for pursuing grant funding
        • Feels this approach should be expanded to a county-wide approach to support other aspects of the General Plan
        • Support for the previous comments.
      • Staff Input
        • Grants are important to addressing the needs of this community. Several examples were shared regarding grant-related efforts currently underway.
      • Commission Input
        • Suggested adding something at the General Plan level to address services for seniors, marginalized populations, etc.
        • Should also consider including water systems to the list of services that could be supported.
      • Board Input
        • Highlighted work by North Coast Resource Partnership in the area of clean up from illegible cannabis cultivation.
        • Focus on support of efforts vs responsibility for efforts.
        • Efforts could include grant training, informational sharing.
  • Trinity Center
    • Community Conditions – add information.
      • Public Comment
        • Believes that the community wants to embrace commercial cannabis. Is an active member of the community, works at multiple North Lake businesses.
        • No longer a federal responsibility area – now a state responsibility area. This needs to be updated in the documents
        • Uncertainty regarding the meaning of the statement “request to add information…” Also feels there is not community support for further restriction of commercial cannabis. Feels that cannabis is an important part of the county’s history.
        • Support offered for this recommendation. Agrees with previous speakers that we need to acknowledge the contributions of Matt & Rhoda.
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Support for the recommendation
      • Board Input
        • Support for the recommendation
    • Expansion of Recreation Planning
      • Public Comment
        • Feels this could be handled elsewhere
        • Support offered for non-lake based recreation
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Desire for non water-based plans to be added
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
    • Historic Resources – support for the maintenance of and investment in historic resources
      • Public Comment
        • Supports this recommendation
        • Additional support for this recommendation
        • Support for non-lake based tourism strategy
      • Staff Input
        • Suggests adding other funding sources… beyond General Fund
      • Commission Input
        • Suggests deleting “investment”… limiting to county “support”
        • Supports the recommendation and changes
        • Comments from “missing emails” shared – focus on adding a fourth bullet
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
    • Community Infrastructure Improvements
      • Public Comment
        • Support for the recommendation and expressed desire for power in the region
        • Support for the recommendation
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Supports the recommendation with wording change to reference “maintain and expand”.
        • Emphasized the value of redundant power sources
        • Question regarding responsibility for plan development… led to discussion about wording change to not commit the county at this time (due to financial constraints)
      • Board Input
        • Support the recommendation with wording change that does not commit the county
    • Vacant Vacation Rental Crime & Theft
      • Public Comment
        • Clarified that this relates to vacant properties in general vs vacation rentals in particular. Shared that previous comments demeaning commercial cannabis can lead to higher risk to cultivators.
        • Support offered for previous statements. Asked for consideration of multi-family dwellings
        • Highlighted the negative impacts of short-term rentals on community water systems.
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Feels the focus is on lack of long-term housing, not crime and theft.
        • Supports the proposed policies and programs presented
      • Board Input
        • Support for Commission Input
    • Full Service Marina
      • Public Comment
        • Noted the many steps involved to make this a reality
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Suggestion to change wording to “Support” vs “Coordinate” to limit county commitments.
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
    • Early Warning System
      • Public Comment
        • Question about how we will address the issue of comments not being distributed.
          • Staff will research and follow up with recommendations
        • Noted that some of his comments were part of what was not distributed.
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Support for the recommendation
      • Board Input
        • Support for the recommendation
    • Community Expansion – additional Item from “missing emails”
      • Public Comment
      • Staff Input
        • Support offered for having something to address future re-designation (from TPZ) opportunities.
      • Commission Input
        • Staff to pursue this concept
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
  • Weaverville
    • Medium Density to Low-Density
      • Public Comment
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
        • Addressed yesterday
    • Pedestrian Infrastructure
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
        • Support recommendation as enhanced in previous direction to staff
    • Mixed Use
      • Public Comment -none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Support recommendation
      • Board Input
        • Support recommendation
    • Evacuation Routes
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
        • Suggests county-wide perspective on this matter in the General Plan
      • Board Input
        • Support Commission Input
    • Wildfire Risk Mitigation
      • Public Comment – none
      • Staff Input
        • Need to prioritize areas in which resources are most urgently needed. Mapping this is the first step.
      • Commission Input
        • Support for the recommendation with acknowledgment of General Plan focus and without burdening the county.
      • Board Input
        • Support offered based on staff input.
    • Housing Flexibility
      • Public Comment
      • Staff Input
        • Suggest defaulting to housing element.
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
        • Support for staff input
    • Community Conditions
      • Public Comment
      • Staff Input
      • Commission Input
      • Board Input
        • To be handled the same as with others.

General Plan

Economic Development
  • Cannabis Industry Support
    • Public Comment
      • Support offered for this recommendation
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation
  • Additional Organizations to support Economic Development
    • Public Comment
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support for the approach with suggestion to modify language to reflect the potential for other entities to be involved… including identification of other high priority entities to list.
        • Ric Leutwyler to provide a list
  • Business & Employment
    • Public Comment
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Support for recommendation with minor edits
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input
  • Resource Protection
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Not aware of permits required for restoration projects
      • Agree with suggestion to add this to the conservation and open space section
    • Commission Input
      • Uncertain if this should be here or in the other section in which this subject is addressed. Suggests including it in conservation and open space section
      • Suggest talking to representatives to more fully understand objectives.
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation with change of wording “promote” becomes “support”.
      • Ask staff to modify based on discussion with the Watershed Center.
      • Noted instances in which transportation-related permits might be involved in projects.
  • Community-based Tourism
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation
  • …
    • Public Comment
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Support recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation
  • Tourism Development
    • Public Comment
      • Support offered for this recommendation
      • Support with concern about limited resources
    • Staff Input
      • Support offered for this recommendation – reference to Natural Resources Division.
    • Commission Input
      • Support with concern about wording being too limited. Note to add “entities”.
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input.
  • Further Discussion – new program
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Recommends adding another program regarding tracking of economic development programs and the need for area-specific development to support economic development.
      • Provided examples of how this might work.
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Suggestion for all to consider additional economic development components to ensure that they are covered in the EIR – which would streamline action in the future.
      • Direction to staff to further research.
Public Facilities, Services, and Infrastructure
  • Introductions – request to edit for more detail/accuracy
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support Introductions as is – already reflecting staff input
  • Funding Mechanisms
    • Public Comment
      • Support for recommendation
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support for recommendation
  • Recycling and Compost Program
    • Public Comment
      • Support offered for the recommendation
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Support for the recommendation with wording change to eliminate municipal – “public and private”
      • Include reference to program being “accessible”.
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input
Conservation and Open Space
  • Dark Sky / Light Pollution
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Don’t support this being done on a county-wide approach
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input
  • Sensitive Receptor Setbacks
    • Public Comment
      • Concern that the level of “pollution” be better defined/described
      • Support for previous comments
      • Support for previous comments
    • Staff Input
      • This is a very standard approach to this type of policy
      • Agreed with the need for further refinement of verbiage
      • Noted equity issues associated with this type of policy
    • Commission Input
      • Encourage consistency in use of terms like “sensitive land uses”
      • Consider verbiage refinement to ensure we don’t limit development
    • Board Input
      • Staff to revisit verbiage as noted by Commission Input
        • Potentially changed “avoid” to “encourage” change “pollution” to “impactful pollution”…
  • Fish and Wildlife Preservation – Fish
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Support with wording change “support maintenance”
    • Board Input
      • Support with wording change “preservation” to “stewardship”,
      • Add the word “acknowledgement” to the beginning of 3.3.
      • Avoid the word “management”
  • Fish Population Restoration & Meadows and Wetland Habitat
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • 3.14 – support with wording change – remove “explore” since the county would not be the responsible party
    • Board Input
      • Support with wording change – “and explore” becomes “the exploration of”
  • Streamlined Permitting for Restoration Projects & Sedimentation Reduction
    • Public Comment
      • Noted that recent watershed tour included noted additional sedimentation is now desired
    • Staff Input
      • Suggests working change – “promote” becomes “support”
    • Commission Input
      • Supports the recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Supports the recommendation with direction to staff to work on wording
  • Prevent Lake and Stream Impacts & Access to Public Areas by Trail
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Suggest clarifying which source of “best management practices”
      • Support recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation with reference to non-motorized. Other edits suggested.
  • Biological Resource Education
    • Public Comment
      • Should include other entities – Ascend Wilderness, Tribal Representatives
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Support recommendation with wording to allow for inclusion of more local partners.
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input
  • Drought Resiliency
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
    • Commission Input
      • Support with wording change to refer to “local agencies”
      • Staff to ensure work is done in alignment with county policies and regulations
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input
Circulation
  • Bike Lanes – between Weaverville, Douglas City, and Junction City
    • Public Comment
      • Support for this item
    • Staff Input
      • Suggests this is covered by the General Plan
    • Commission Input
      • Suggests changing this to reflect county-wide approach
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input
  • Caltrans Scenic Highway Program – include in General Plan
    • Public Comment
      • Agree with staff input
      • Agree with staff input – with concern regarding meaning of “ensure that view-sheds along scenic roadways in the county are protected.”
    • Staff Input
      • Does not recommend adding this.
    • Commission Input
      • Clarification that part of 299 is part of U.S. Forest Service designated scenic byway
        • Suggests that this be incorporated into the General Plan – noting this does not carry implications that limit land use, etc.
          • Staff clarified that U.S. Forest Service aspect is already covered.
    • Board Input
      • Support Staff and Commission Input
Community Health
  • Tobacco and Smoke Exposure
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Does not recommend additional policy… other than potentially add sidewalks to smoke-free areas
    • Commission Input
      • Support generalized approach without specific policy addition at this time.
    • Board Input
      • Support Commission Input with addition of vaping to the list of products.
        • Could add marijuana… though this is already not allowed in public spaces by state law.
      • Note that zoning code will cover many aspects of this.
  • Marijuana Odors –
    • Public Comment
      • Support staff recommendation to not add something here
    • Staff Input
      • The cannabis program already includes regulations
      • Recommend against adding something here
    • Commission Input
      • Support staff recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Support staff and commission recommendation
  • Rehabilitation Programs
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Not recommended
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support Staff Input
Hazards and Safety
  • Safety Along Highways
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Caltrans would be responsible… but they have been taking them out
    • Commission Input
      • Support recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation
  • Accuracy of Wildfire Hazard Severity Zones
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • Update when finalized by CalFire
    • Commission Input
    • Board Input
      • Support recommendation – note that residents have the opportunity to challenge CalFire designations based on factual data.
  • Discussion Item – additional item presented and approved.
Noise
  • Construction Noise Limits – early morning and/or weekend
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • No additions recommended.
    • Commission Input
      • Supports addressing this at the zoning level
    • Board Input
      • Support Staff and Commission Input
  • Noise from Loud Vehicles
    • Public Comment – none
    • Staff Input
      • No additions recommended
    • Commission Input
      • Support Staff Recommendation
    • Board Input
      • Support Staff & Commission Input
Next Steps
  • Planning Commission Study Session – June 12th @4pm
    • Draft Administrative Provisions (Part 5 and Part 6)
    • Draft General Development Standards (Part 3)
  • Planning Commission Study Session – Tentatively August 7th
    • Draft Zoning District Provisions (Part 2)
    • Draft Specific Development Standards (Part 4)
    • Draft Definitions (Part 7)
  • Initiation of Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Scoping Meeting
  • Public Review Draft Zoning Ordinance – Late Summer/Early Fall 2025
  • Zoning Ordinance Community Workshops – October 2025 (dates TBD)
Community Workshops
  • Will likely push back the dates listed above
  • Overall Timeline for Completion is not expected to change.