Trinity County Board of Supervisors*

The 2007 effort to update all tardy elements, though laudable, appears to have been an overreach considering the outcome. Response: We disagree with this finding. The entire General Plan was out of date and limited the County's ability to win certain grants, and opened the County to litigation where the County, more than likely, could not prevail. It was imperative that the County update the entire General Plan to protect itself from such litigation. The Board was correct in making that decision. It is however, only in hindsight that we understand that the effort would fail as a result of economic issues that the Board had no control over. Because of the effort that was started in 2007, the Hayfork Community Draft Plan (the second largest populated area in the County) continued forward with it's update, and is now ready for public review and comment. JUDY PFLUEGER JUDY MORRIS KARL FISHER DEBRA CHAPMAN JOHN FENLEY DISTRICT 3 DISTRICT 4 DISTRICT 5 DISTRICT 1 DISTRICT 2

Public access to and the awareness of the general plan is considerably restricted. Response: We agree with this finding.

Advisory committees seem to invite dissent based on the interest or agenda of the various personnel who volunteer to participate. Response: We agree with this finding.

The role of the Planning Commission in a general plan was variously described by interviewees indicating a lack of consensus. We agree that some interviewees would indicate a "lack of Response: We agree/disagree. consensus" as the outcome of some Planning Commission decisions. We disagree that the Planning Commission does not work to build consensus on issues. The commission, in our experience, always worked hard to not only hear and understand public comment; it also spent a great deal of time working to form a consensus among the Commissioners. During the two years, that District 3 Supervisor was seated on the Planning Commission, there was only one General Plan item on the agenda, the Housing Element. The Board had asked the Planning Commission to bring this Element into compliance with the State so as to not limit the County's ability to obtain certain grants. To bring the Element into compliance to be accepted by the State, it only needed the addition of items required by the State. To completely rewrite the Element would have taken a minimum of a year and a half, with all the public hearings throughout the County. Instead, Planning staff, working closely with the State was able to bring the existing Element into compliance by adding the State required items that were missing from the Element. It should be noted here, that County staff was able to get a softening of some of the State requirements that were urban in nature, and not in the best interest of the County. This item was passed with a 3(yes)-1(no)-1(absent) vote. The one dissenting vote was due only to the "sloppy wording" of the language that was contained in the entire original document, not with the added items. The entire Commission agreed with that finding; however the remainder of the Commission believed that it was not worth the staff time and cost to rewrite the entire element, when it was going to have to be redone in 2014.

Only "new construction" fees prescribe a set aside portion of the fee to be reserved for general plan update expenses. Response: We agree/disagree with this finding. The County has adopted a "general plan maintenance fee" which applies to new construction. However, there is an additional fee of $50 (for planning) and $75 (for building) for all other project applications that is also designated as a "general plan maintenance fee".

A segment of the community BELIEVES STRONGLY that any plan that meets state or federal law cannot be in the best interest of the local citizens of Trinity County. Response: We agree/disagree. We agree that there are community members that have the There are state and federal requirements that are urban based and not in the stated belief. interest of rural communities, however there are also requirements that are in most everyone's best interests, and there are requirements that are neutral.

State law does take a more urbanized approach to the general plan elements. Response: We agree/disagree. We agree that much of state law does take a more urbanized approach to the general plan elements. This should be no surprise, in that developed and developing areas need solid plans in order to have orderly growth that works for the majority of the population.

The complexity of the law requires that consultants who have specialized in rural counties be retained when the Planning Department itself is not staffed to accomplish the task. Response: We are not familiar enough with the law to either agree or disagree with the finding. The Board would however, agree that the complexity and technical aspects of the task require the use of specialized consultants in concert with Planning Staff that are familiar with local issues.