[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6572736,"mediaKeyId","3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8","parentId",3160591,"title","Planning commission recommends adopting California Fire Code and Green Building Standards into county code","audioSeconds",502,"startMs",8036000,"endMs",8538000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8&start=8036&end=8538","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8/thumbnail_8036000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6572736/Trinity-County/California/Planning-commission-recommends-adopting-California-Fire-Code-and-Green-Building-Standards-into-county-code","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572736-63b7807785c44d91f4e8e4d17c205437/orig.mp4?Expires=1777181765&Signature=j-44TtKx3~~2GxxYr3OLPOuW6ybjVka-jY~b0Psb8~GJIAtAZkuLVhrZI9xmmsnTSHWM0eS2QQ3HIgVBN2AGOEVOxfNW6ZjbvVXCTZXimG0nmly8HIHVj69UCrNHd2z7QeWDT6zcW9lQ47qLOfwxB37SvAiHq6-4XW7ZMT7G4z0zuvcocT717dPIVPDQD2dmEOaG2Dk3R6cpcRRObKzrSgb-ZhHsMmbA3uBLOcZiNDD0~TW2rcc57-oj8XEz14KN1~yHxOjqHR1fMKb8voXtnsj4PBuSrL-DBnTkwoUP8zWDC6tmK3zPJP9PPuciEEmt2zIc-dQRjZ8yudKbE~sE~Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Trinity County","date","2025-04-30T22:12:06.767Z","article","The Trinity County Planning Commission on April 24 recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt amendments to Trinity County Code to incorporate the California Fire Code and the California Green Building Standards Code (both components of Title 24).

Senior building inspector Cody Smith told commissioners the amendments bring county code into conformance with state codes and add provisions such as demolition-material recycling and other green-building practices. Smith said much of the residential fire-safety material is already embedded in the local code but that the change bolsters enforcement for commercial and construction projects.

Senior planner Bella Hedke noted the update also enables the county to adopt the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), which the county is currently out of compliance with; she said a bare-bones compliance report had been submitted to the state and adopting the code updates would close that compliance gap.

Commissioners asked whether the updates conflict with the county's limited-density owner-built rural dwelling process; Smith said he had reviewed the provisions and did not find conflicts and that the new code sections would build on existing local rules rather than undermine them. Bella Hedke added that the county may need to consider adding the California Historical Building Code at a later date.

The commission voted to adopt Resolution PC 2025-07 recommending the Board of Supervisors include the California Fire Code and California Green Building Standards in the county code; commissioners requested that where the new requirements intersect with firewise landscaping and MWELO, county counsel and staff review conflicts and clarify which standards govern in cases of tension.

Public comment was brief and supportive of the code updates. Tom Balanco told the commission he welcomed the trend of staff bringing code changes forward and said the updates were necessary. The commission closed the item and asked staff to forward the resolution and analysis to the Board of Supervisors.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Trinity County Planning Commission Meeting 04/24/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners recommended the Board adopt updates to Trinity County Code to include the California Fire Code and California Green Building Standards (both Title 24 elements) and associated program elements; staff said updates also allow conformity with the state landscape water-efficiency standard.","taxTitle","Trinity County, California","taxId",26843,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6572739,"Commission backs code changes to exempt common agricultural structures from building permits",1191,5395000,6586000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8&start=5395&end=6586","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8/thumbnail_5395000.jpg","/articles/6572739/Trinity-County/California/Commission-backs-code-changes-to-exempt-common-agricultural-structures-from-building-permits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572739-068588413c0246c153279fecf9e7ab00/orig.mp4?Expires=1777181765&Signature=PQpseEMYmL7zP1gHYZ3I-ipmrxrV6WECZcxFuzzFa2pEaefl~Q620KhBd-kajU-Y1Rq8rQ8TbblSIVxSIt~OIsGw77Vp3VC3f8BTQrLNARuFfFRLyDoyPCY2qj80SadMGcIojc0BS7VHbEe7NXCpHyxjeJYkJEksBqWU8cUduUrh3y9RYKYry8aRIZ1ti56bcsgUTpq3QgVWt8el9Fon4PA~fjlij0CSSQw7tqbTzB1Hy55cyV5BCR5Fi43JvTtvhLK-2SpA1ZBkaAr6Aq3wmF5ncC01SN6RDizsNGw7CYSYLORtv899IPpdrOaDTPdjRrjKW3zN27UXT~EAd86xFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Trinity County Planning Commission unanimously recommended code amendments April 24 to add new definitions and building-permit exemptions for agricultural structures to Trinity County Code Chapter 15.

Senior building inspector Cody Smith said the proposal aligns county practice with the 2022 California Building Code by clarifying which agricultural structures are exempt from a building permit. Smith told commissioners he reviewed similar language from neighboring counties and consolidated language to fit Trinity County's needs. He said the draft explicitly lists hoop houses, greenhouses and woodsheds among examples of agricultural structures.

Public commenters including local farmers and contractors supported the change and urged the commission to explicitly include \"row covers\" (lightweight crop covers used to protect blossoms and early crops) and to ensure hoop houses that lack plumbing, electricity and fixed foundations are treated as ag-exempt to avoid permitting costs that can absorb farm profit margins.

Commissioners asked technical questions about where the ag exemption applies and whether the exemption would allow larger agricultural buildings used to store equipment. Smith said exempt structures must still meet zoning setbacks and lot coverage; other regulations such as grading permits would still apply if earth-moving thresholds were met. The staff-recommended letter-of-intent process would be used to confirm whether a proposed structure qualifies for the exemption based on its stated agricultural use.

The commission adopted Resolution PC 2025-06 by unanimous vote and asked staff to include the memorandum dated April 24 with updates to the agricultural-structure definition, to add Timber Production Zone (TPZ), Agricultural Forestry and Special Use Districts with agricultural designations to the allowable zoning districts list, and to reference the county fee schedule rather than a fixed dollar amount for any administrative fee associated with the exemption.

Smith said the intent is to reduce administrative burden on small farms and community agricultural projects while retaining site-review steps for public-safety items. Several commenters said the change would ease costs for community gardens, small farms and seasonal hoop-house operations.","The commission recommended amendments to Trinity County Code Chapter 15 to add definitions and an agricultural-structure permit exemption drawn from state building code practice; the measure passed 5-0 with additions to allowable zoning districts and instructions to tie fees to the county fee schedule.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6572743,"Planning commission recommends ordinance to allow movable tiny homes countywide",1513,3855000,5368000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8&start=3855&end=5368","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8/thumbnail_3855000.jpg","/articles/6572743/Trinity-County/California/Planning-commission-recommends-ordinance-to-allow-movable-tiny-homes-countywide","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572743-7d49ca015b40e6ae62b28a556408485a/orig.mp4?Expires=1777181765&Signature=In5U2bSJvdD6DaBbs31-KI7COtD3XCZr--8th9RrRBEB5kp1qM40PB9XiPmz~XVjX6G6uNaOvfPt1ZNcggYRsVaq2kwBQdZTJvPs3KH0KuZLY4knP4ZvY~IPhzoeA9AbRw-OEvSlANh89QxfH~2riv35Rx3ftWQYiJ2E~l8r6sjUDsAFhTI8ujMm7wtzsTakexx37kfpNVYzAVwB7mcgwt5NqcIRz9soFBLcSfpIOL1lRGzBp-PiGjxcNM-UijMFztBV6GHOjlkGijtaNTv2G-2FfBcYYFZb6Nhg4E5Gx2BPMvYrF4iMDdw83GMMemWLkqaueKxF8rMIjBJpTF~Xcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Trinity County Planning Commission on April 24 voted unanimously to recommend a county ordinance allowing movable tiny homes be adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

Senior building inspector Cody Smith introduced a draft ordinance to add a new code section (15.26) governing movable tiny homes as an affordable housing option. Smith said demand from residents prompted the proposal and that the draft aligns with state inspection regimes for movable units. Senior planner Bella Hedke highlighted that the building division took the initiative to translate community requests into a draft ordinance.

Public commenters representing farmers, rural residents and fire services generally supported the proposal while urging clarifications. Trinity Center Fire Chief Dwight Stewart submitted a letter (included in the packet) with fire-safety comments; commissioners and staff confirmed the draft had been revised so lofts and typical tiny-home features were allowed. Local commenters told the commission that tiny homes could help address worker housing shortages and provide affordable dwelling options.

Commissioners asked technical questions about allowed uses and safety requirements. Smith said movable tiny homes may serve as primary single-family dwellings or accessory dwelling units if they meet zoning setbacks and lot coverage requirements. He emphasized that before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, required items such as road access, addressing for emergency services and water storage must be signed off and that Cal Fire is part of the permit referral and inspection process.

After questions and public comment the commission considered two competing motions: one to continue the item to May 8 for further consultation, and a subsequent motion to adopt the staff recommendation. The commission approved the subsequent motion to adopt Resolution PC 2025-05, including a CEQA determination that the project is categorically exempt (as presented in the staff report), and recommended the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance allowing movable tiny homes. Commissioners asked staff to make the ordinance terminology consistent (use \"movable tiny home\" throughout) and to clarify that the ordinance addresses placement and use of movable units (for units built off-site and moved in), not on-site construction, which would be subject to standard building permitting.

The commission also discussed how many tiny homes could be sited on a parcel. Smith said lot coverage, setbacks and state regulations for tiny homes will determine the number of units; the ordinance does not create a pathway for tiny-home communities or parks (those would require a separate code framework).

The resolution passed unanimously. Staff and commissioners said the ordinance will return to the Board of Supervisors with the recommended textual clarifications requested by the commission.","The commission adopted a resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors approve a county ordinance allowing placement of movable tiny homes on private property, after clarifying language and agreeing the ordinance is CEQA-exempt.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6572749,"Trinity County Planning Commission pauses cannabis cultivation appeal pending water dispute",2573,1259000,3832000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8&start=1259&end=3832","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3160591-4ab5e9d949f32eef025fab87f90c52e8/thumbnail_1259000.jpg","/articles/6572749/Trinity-County/California/Trinity-County-Planning-Commission-pauses-cannabis-cultivation-appeal-pending-water-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572749-c1e9484b197ab1c23d920162bd56af63/orig.mp4?Expires=1777181765&Signature=FmI5LiVfA1p3FF2EtP8CfUBt~XcJEa2B7O2Vfv43pNL~AdKrdg2dBJgEAO5EqZgX2aVpa1ynTHFGHYg8Cxhv0By9xmkUwApYEn2gtUguP3GVLEoPsyT~8MLTkBRSLK6R3ZkQnS~pUnIbd5uaY7miUQdtyDMCvyd4gPTbezq5Cl2cUAUJbXfg8D7i4KLelRUlkvI59-qAKugZiCbVdXLBgWmMsSd2qkH1I1CBsvlJojh2DxAjYQzZO653vvpTYWTBN931hCQoVxPqrPiJXEJS1GKplRptQTVTa7Fxau9EtJqoJd1bzXBh4BuhH2o5FKrmzRml47lA6b35Vz54Fbnmrw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Trinity County Planning Commission on April 24 voted to continue consideration of an appeal of a director's decision on a small commercial cannabis cultivation license (P-24-12) until a date uncertain.

The commission's majority approved a motion to delay action 3-2, accepting staff's recommendation that the matter be held pending the outcome of a civil dispute over the location or ownership of a permitted well tied to the application or until the applicant submits documentation of an additional appropriate water supply. Chair Barrett, Commissioner McIntosh and Commissioner Harper voted to continue; Commissioners Flights and Foll voted no.

Staff planner Seth Pulubani told the commission the county had received a letter from SBI and that a new well application for the subject parcel remained incomplete and not finaled. Pulubani said that, given the potential for a civil dispute over the permitted well that appears connected to the subject APN, \"it's most prudent for the county to not take action and allow for the civil dispute to be remedied through the courts.\" The county's updated recommendation was to continue the item to a date uncertain.

Representatives for both sides addressed the commission. Tom Balanco, representing the applicant, said he concurred with staff and supported a continuance while the water issue is resolved. Appellant Bob Morris of the Browns Creek Road Improvement Association said he had limited comment because the parties were still gathering information but confirmed that earlier well-test results had shown a low yield and that water availability remained a central question.

Several other participants urged clearer procedural rules for appeals. Balanco recommended a firm schedule for submitting records on appeals so that staff and the commission have complete records in advance of hearings.

Commissioners debated whether to deny the application and force the applicant to reapply or to leave the case open. Several commissioners argued that continuing to a date uncertain allows the applicant to resolve the dispute without requiring them to pay another initial application fee if they later reapply. County counsel Margaret Long confirmed an applicant may reapply and that fee-waiver requests would need Board of Supervisors consideration.

Clarifying details discussed during the hearing included that the county has informally applied a 3-gallons-per-minute water standard for licensed cannabis cultivation (staff said the figure has been used as the standard in practice) and that the applicant's alternative well report had not been provided or finalized. Staff also noted the well application tied to the APN remained in an incomplete status.

The commission's motion, as adopted, continues the appeal and application until the civil dispute is resolved or until the applicant documents an additional appropriate water supply sufficient for the proposed cultivation operation. No date certain was set. The record shows supporters and opponents on both sides asked for time and clarity on evidentiary requirements.

The commission closed public comment and staff confirmed the item will return when the specified conditions are met or at the applicant's request.","The commission voted 3-2 to continue an appeal of a director's denial of a small commercial cannabis cultivation license (P-24-12), deferring the matter until either a civil dispute over a well is resolved or documentation of an additional appropriate water supply is provided.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission recommends adopting California Fire Code and Green Building Standards into county code

Commission backs code changes to exempt common agricultural structures from building permits

Planning commission recommends ordinance to allow movable tiny homes countywide

Trinity County Planning Commission pauses cannabis cultivation appeal pending water dispute