Response says
The response partially agrees that past practices created frustration but says current review uses formally adopted requirements.
← Back to this finding in the response audit
Public discussion · Finding F6
Use of unwritten local requirements during plan review
What should residents consider about Finding F6: Use of unwritten local requirements during plan review, and the County’s response?
Tuolumne CountyResponse dated 2026-09-01Audit assessment: Addressed
Participate in this discussionAudit context
What the response says and how it was assessed
Audit analysis
The response states its position and gives an explanation, so it directly engages the finding. This assessment addresses responsiveness only, not factual or legal correctness.
Finding-response score
Document completeness and usefulness—not factual verification or a legal conclusion.
4/4
Statutory elements
- Stated position
- 2/2
- Applicable disagreement elements
- 2/2
5/6
Public usefulness
- Coverage
- 2/2
- Reason specificity
- 2/2
- Support traceability
- 1/2
The County identifies the past practices it accepts and explains its disagreement by describing changed permitting procedures. It asserts that adopted requirements now govern review but does not identify a specific revised procedure or adoption record.
Scoring confidence: high
Source pages
Review the underlying documents
Public participation
Discuss the finding and response
Use Pol.is to discuss both the Grand Jury finding and the County’s response, see where participants agree, and add a perspective for others to consider. Participant statements do not alter this audit or verify factual claims made by any participant or source document.
Loading the Pol.is conversation...