Trinity County planners review Part 3 zoning updates as residents warn against overregulation

Trinity County planning staff and consultants on Thursday reviewed draft changes to Part 3 of the county zoning code, an update the county says is meant to implement the new general plan and standardize rules for site development, parking, signs, landscaping and utilities.

The study session, led by Drew Pilvani, interim planning director, and consultants from Minter Harnish, outlined a multi-year project that planners said will produce a public-review zoning ordinance and environmental analysis next year. "We are currently at phase 7 in this overall project," said Michael Gibbons, project manager with Minter Harnish. He told the commission the team expects a public-review draft of the zoning ordinance and associated environmental review in 2026 and that community workshops are scheduled Sept. 15—.

The draft Part 3 text presented by project planner Nikki Zanchetta reorders and clarifies dozens of existing provisions; Zanchetta said most edits to date are formatting and consistency changes rather than new substantive standards. "A majority of the revisions that we've made so far are very heavily on the formatting, reorganization, and just, updating of language for consistency," she said.

Still, staff and the consultant identified several substantive edits now in the draft: a clarified method for measuring building height and exceptions (chimneys, rooftop equipment), a consolidated chapter for fencing and walls with new height thresholds and materials rules, a landscaping chapter that references the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, updated parking standards to align with state law and best practices, and a move of the county's sign regulations into the zoning code with cross-checks for federal and state content protections.

Public commenters and several commissioners urged major changes or much clearer exceptions to match Trinity County's rural conditions. Ben Kellogg of Weaverville told the commission he supports the cleanup work but urged more robust commissioner debate and local input; he closed his remarks to the commission with a plea for more participation: "speak up, speak loudly." Matthew Jefferson, a Trinity Center cultivator, warned the commissioners that proposed rules felt discriminatory toward cannabis businesses: "you are driving an agenda of prejudice against the farmers in this county," he said.

Multiple residents raised specific objections that officials acknowledged as items for further review. Speakers and commissioners questioned: - How height should be measured on steep parcels and whether the draft measurement (from "existing grade" to highest point) could penalize projects that need building pads or regrading for access; commissioners asked for graphics and clearer text. - A 50-foot setback from state highways proposed in the draft and how it would affect established downtown storefronts along Highway 299, with several commissioners asking staff to provide an exception process if Caltrans or safety standards otherwise required a large setback. - New language treating fences and walls: the draft allows fences under 7 feet without a permit and requires building permits above 7 feet; commissioners asked for a low-cost, staff-level approval path for minor deviations and to clarify how the rule applies to small residential uses (pets, gardens) versus larger security or institutional equipment. - Provisions that would require 6-foot fences around certain power-generating equipment; commissioners asked the county to distinguish small household generators from larger permanent equipment subject to permitting. - Restrictions on barbed wire, razor wire and electrified fences; residents asked the county to allow some protection for livestock, orchards and beekeeping while keeping prohibitions for signs of hazardous fencing near populated places. - Parking ratios and how short-term rentals (Airbnb-style vacation rentals) should be treated; commissioners asked the consultant and staff to propose a parking rule that captures vacation rental impacts without unduly blocking small properties.

Several speakers pressed the commission to keep state and local limits in perspective: "Proposition 64 in the state of California says that program dollars for any program are only to be spent to the benefit of program participants," said Rhoda Kane of Trinity Center, urging staff to avoid using cannabis program funds on reports or proposals that do not benefit license holders. Others said the county should avoid importing urban-style standards: "This seems like a city plan rather than a rural plan," a commissioner said, noting parcel shape, topography and volunteer fire department capabilities differ across the county.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized the draft is an early-stage working document. "This is draft," Gibbons said. "We anticipate a multitude of revisions and edits, formatting errors, and changes that are going to need to be made before this is rolled out to a complete public review draft." Pilvani said the community workshops this fall are meant to gather priorities and local context the consultant team will use for the next draft.

The presentation also previewed the project's timeline and next steps: community-plan workshops in September, a consolidated public-review zoning ordinance and concurrent environmental analysis in 2026, then additional public hearings leading toward adoption. Pilvani said staff will coordinate further study sessions and that the draft will come back to the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors for formal action.

Votes at a glance - Approval of minutes: The commission approved the minutes of June 12, June 26 and July 10, 2025 after a requested correction to a July 10 line. Motion moved and seconded; vote recorded as "Aye." Outcome: approved. - Blight ordinance: The commission voted to continue the blight ordinance discussion to the next regularly scheduled meeting (September 11, 2025). Motion moved and seconded; outcome: approved.

What's next Staff and Minter Harnish will incorporate commissioner feedback and community concerns into the next draft. The consultant team plans to publish a public-review draft and perform CEQA analysis in 2026; community workshops are scheduled Sept. 15—, 2025. Pilvani said staff will return to the commission with revised draft language and visuals (figures showing height measurement, parking and driveway sight-triangle examples) and will propose processing-level options for director-level review versus commission-level discretionary approvals.

The commission also received procedural updates: planning staff said a new planner is expected to start about Sept. 1 and commissioners discussed scheduling and logistics for more focused study sessions aimed at specific code chapters.

This report is based on the planning commission's study-session presentation by Minter Harnish and on public comment recorded during the meeting. Direct quotes and specific procedural steps were taken from the official meeting transcript.