Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. We will call the regular planning commission meeting of Thursday, September 17th to order. And we will start with the pledge. And roll call, please, Nicole.

Commissioner Wolf.

Here.

Commissioner Walz absent. Commissioner Sharp.

Here.

Commissioner Laffins. Here. Commissioner Byker-Coffman.

Here.

Vice Chair Scarpa?

Here.

Chair Scott?

Here.

We'll move to the consent agenda. And we just have one item there, which is the approval of the minutes from August 20th. Is there? Is it not loud? OK. Let me. Oh. Can I turn it up here? Or is that better? It's a little bit better. You good? One second, okay. Hello? Okay. Can we get a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I motion to approve the consent agenda.

Okay, we have a motion by Vice Chair Scarpa.

I'll second.

Okay, and then a second. Nicole, can you call the roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Wolff?

Aye.

Commissioner Wall? I'm sorry, he's absent. Commissioner Sharpe?

Yes.

Commissioner Laffins? Yes. Commissioner Byker-Kaufman?

Yes.

Vice Chair Scarpa?

Yes.

Chair Scott. Yes. So that motion passes 5-0 with one absence. Before we move on to the public hearings, I just want to let everybody know there are speaker cards in the back. So if you wish to speak on an item, please bring those up to city staff. up here and you may address the commission on any matters not on the agenda at the next point right here. So if you're here to talk on any agenda topics, speaker card in there. If you wish to make a public comment on any matter not already listed on the agenda, we'll take that now. So is anybody here to speak on an item that's not on the agenda? Great. We will move to public hearings. Are there any ex parte communications or recusals? Okay.

I have to recuse myself based on a conflict of interest. All right. Okay, thanks.

If I talked to people from the CBA, is that a?

I would say anybody that you spoke to about any item that would influence your decision, yes.

So I did talk to people from the CBA.

Can you provide who you spoke with and about what item topic?

I talked with Katie Toma and I'm going to forget all the names. Matt Galloway and Brandon Slater and... There was one more.

I don't think it's necessary to list them all.

Yeah. Anyway, those people, I just wanted to clarify their communication to understand better what they were saying.

Perfect. Yeah.

Okay.

Any other ex parte communications on my right? No. Okay. I did have a very brief conversation with Mr. Galloway. And then to my left? All right. Great. Well, we will turn it over to Kelly.

Good evening, Chair Scott and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Kelly Murphy, senior planner with the Community Development Department. And tonight I'll be presenting phase three of the city's residential readiness program, which includes code amendment, general plan amendment and rezone 2601. Before I get into the details, I just want to acknowledge the significant amount of staff work, careful consideration, and collaboration that has gone into developing this package. Residential readiness has been a multi-year and cross-departmental effort, and these amendments reflect a great deal of discussion and coordination with planning, housing, public works, and engineering staff, and our local development community. Overall, we hope these amendments will be well received. A great deal of care has gone into considering where the additional flexibility is appropriate and how these changes fit within Chico's existing development patterns and adopted general plan framework. It was a lengthy report, so my presentation will be about 15 minutes here. Okay, tonight's action, the Planning Commission's being asked to hold a public hearing and consider a resolution recommending the City Council approve the proposed general plan amendments, municipal code amendments, and rezoning actions. Those actions are organized into four exhibits. Exhibit one includes text amendments to General Plan Land Use Table LU-2, as well as Appendix B. Exhibit 2 includes an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Diagram associated with the reinstatement of the Pomona Ave Opportunity Site. Exhibit 3 includes amendments to Titles 2, 18, and 19 of the Chico Municipal Code. And Exhibit 4 includes the proposed expansion of the Corridor Opportunity Site, or COS, overlay and corresponding zoning changes within the Pomona Ave Opportunity Site. I'll walk through the proposed amendments in that same general order. The residential readiness program, as I mentioned, is a coordinated multi-phase effort initiated in May 2024 and is intended to streamline development processes, reduce regulatory barriers, clarify development standards, and expand opportunities for housing production. Phase three continues that effort and implements several objectives. Importantly, it implements housing element action 4.2.5, which directs the city to investigate opportunities to expand application of the COS overlay. The amendments also respond to the recommendations of the city council's growth and community development ad hoc committee, incorporate recent changes to state housing law, improve clarity and internal consistency of the municipal code, and respond to the planning commission's request to explore further opportunities for parking reductions.

Starting with the general plan amendments.

General Plan Amendment 2601 includes both text and map amendments. First, a text amendment is proposed to Table LU2 to increase the maximum density allowance for the RMU designation or residential mixed use from 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre. The amendment would align general plan density with corresponding amendments to proposed Title 19 and provide greater flexibility for residential and mixed use development. Increasing the density to 30 dwelling units per acre would also allow these properties to qualify for inclusion in the city's adequate sites inventory used to meet the city's regional housing needs allocation. Amendments are also proposed to applicable opportunity site boundaries and descriptions in Appendix B to ensure consistency with the proposed COS overlay zoning changes. Finally, phase three proposes to reinstate the Pomona Ave opportunity site and redesignate affected properties from very low density residential to medium high, medium and low density residential as applicable. Corresponding zoning changes necessary to implement those general plan designations are included in Rezone 2601, which I'll discuss later. So moving into the Municipal Code amendments, the proposed amendments include revisions to Titles 2, 18, and 19, with the majority of amendments proposed to Title 19. Although the red line itself is fairly lengthy, the amendments generally fall into three categories. First are amendments necessary to maintain consistency with state housing law. Second are policy driven amendments supporting residential readiness objectives and recommendations of the GAC DAC. And third are targeted amendments intended to improve the clarity, usability, and internal consistency of the code. I'll briefly highlight some of the more significant changes within each of those categories. The first category addresses recent changes to state housing law, primarily affecting ADUs and JADUs, two-unit housing development, urban lot splits, and the separate conveyance of ADUs. For ADUs and JADUs, rather than continuing to amend the city's existing ordinance incrementally in response to successive changes in state law, staff is proposing to replace the existing local ordinance with the model ADU ordinance prepared by HCD. The proposed ordinance generally follows HCD's model language with two principle modifications. First, an evergreen clause is included to maintain consistency between the code and state law as statutory requirements change over time. And second, the city proposes to be more permissive than state law with respect to off street parking. No off street parking would be required for an ADU or JADU regardless of whether the property otherwise qualifies for a parking exemption under state law. The amendments also clarify that owner occupancy continues to be required for an urban lot split, but is not required for a ministerial two unit housing development on an existing parcel. The second category of amendments respond to GACDAC recommendations to expand housing opportunities and provide greater flexibility within the city's residential development standards. One of those recommendations was to expand opportunities for missing middle housing, including bungalow courts within the R1 and R2 zoning districts. Bungalow courts consist of multiple smaller dwelling units organized around a shared open space. This building type can expand housing opportunities while maintaining a scale and character compatible with lower density residential neighborhoods. By clustering smaller homes around a common courtyard or landscaped area, bungalow courts can support a more pedestrian-oriented, community-focused living environment while providing greater housing choice than conventional single-family development pattern. They can also make more efficient use of infill properties by allowing multiple units to share access, parking, open space, and other site improvements. The amendments would make bungalow courts a principally permitted use in the R1 and R2 zones with a minimum of three dwelling units. Rather than establishing a separate numerical density standard, the number of units that can be accommodated would generally be determined through compliance with applicable objective standards, such as lot coverage, setbacks, parking and access requirements. For sites exceeding two acres, however, the maximum density permitted by the underlying zoning district would apply. GACDAQ also recommended expanding opportunities for compact residential development by applying standards historically associated with small lot subdivisions more broadly within residential zoning districts. Staff proposes incorporating reduced lot dimensions directly into the base development standards rather than maintaining a separate section and entitlement pathway. As shown on the slide for interior lots, the minimum lot width in the R2 and R1 districts would be reduced to 38 feet and the minimum lot area to 3,500 square feet. The minimum front setback in R1 would also be reduced from 15 to 12 feet, and the minimum rear setback in R2 would be reduced to 10 feet. By incorporating these standards directly into the base zoning framework, the code would facilitate more efficient land utilization while maintaining compatibility with the existing neighborhood form. And it would also provide greater flexibility in residential site design and create additional opportunities for a range of housing types within established neighborhoods. All right, the third category consists of targeted refinements to the code, mostly for internal consistency and clarity. These include new or revised definitions for bungalow courts, car washes, mobile food vendors, and personal services. The amendments also reinstate the former title 18 provisions for model homes, which were inadvertently removed during a prior code update, but have continued to be applied administratively. Several overlapping provisions for accessory structures, garages, and carports would also be consolidated, and objective standards would be added for uses and improvements that are not comprehensively addressed by the existing code. Finally, hotels and motels would become principally permitted uses within the Industrial Office Mixed Use, or IOMU, zoning district. Turning now to the proposed rezoning, Rezone 2601 implements Housing Element Action 4.2.5, which directs the City to investigate opportunities to further expand the COS overlay. The overlay is intended to provide additional flexibility and development standards in areas that are well-positioned to accommodate infill housing and mixed-use development. Depending on the underlying zoning district and project characteristics, available incentives include greater density, additional building height, reduced parking requirements, and greater flexibility in site design. Importantly, application of the COS does not require redevelopment and would not change the underlying primary zoning of affected properties. It also does not approve a particular development project. Instead, it provides additional development flexibility that a property owner may be able to utilize as part of a future project. These incentives can be particularly beneficial for vacant and underutilized properties, commercial centers, large surface parking areas, and parcels with configurations that might otherwise constrain development. To identify areas appropriate for expansion of this overlay, staff conducted a corridor and parcel level evaluation of North Avenue, Esplanade, East Avenue, and Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, as well as key opportunity sites identified in the general plan. The evaluation considered proximity to transit and services, existing zoning and development patterns, parcel size and redevelopment potential, and infrastructure capacity and constraints. Planning staff also coordinated with the Public Works and Engineering Department throughout the evaluation. Based on that analysis, staff recommends expanding the overlay along North Esplanade, North Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, Regional Center Opportunity Sites 9, 10, 11, and selected properties within Opportunity Site 12, known as The Wedge. East Avenue was also evaluated, but a broader expansion is not recommended at this time. Looking more closely at the corridors, along North Avenue, the overlay is already applied to substantial but discontinuous portions of the corridor. The proposed rezoning would fill intervening gaps, creating a more continuous overlay pattern and extending development incentives to similarly situated properties. This corridor contains a mix of student and multifamily housing, commercial businesses, automotive and service uses, manufacturing, surface parking, and vacant or underutilized properties. Applying the overlay would allow existing multifamily sites to accommodate additional units, replace surface parking with housing, and redevelop at a greater height and intensity. Extending the overlay south, of West Sacramento Avenue would also strengthen the connection between downtown Chico State and the northern Nord Avenue corridor. Along Esplanade, the proposed rezoning would extend the overlay south from Lindo Avenue to 8th properties. Within this segment generally contain commercial and service uses, vacant or underutilized sites, and surface parking with potential to accommodate residential or mixed-use infill development. Lot depth, alley access, frontage roads, and frequent transit service further support redevelopment potential along this corridor. Staff also evaluated Esplanade between 8th Avenue and downtown, but did not recommend extending the overlay to this area due to the concentration of historic structures and prominent community institutions, including Enloe Medical Center and Chico High School. Finally, staff evaluated East Avenue. The expansion is not recommended at this time. West East Avenue is constrained by existing sewer capacity limitations and portions of the broader corridor are affected by the airport overlay restrictions. The proposed expansion also includes selected properties along Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway and within Regional Center Opportunity Sites 9, 10, and 11. These areas contain large commercial properties, regional retail and entertainment uses, vacant or underutilized parcels, extensive surface parking. They are also served by major roadways, transit, and existing urban services, and therefore provide some of the city's strongest opportunities to integrate housing into established commercial areas. North Valley Plaza has a potential to accommodate additional housing near existing retail, restaurants, entertainment, schools, and services. The East 20th Street area contains large format retail centers, vacant land, and expansive parking capable of accommodating infill and greater development intensity. Similarly, the Skyway Opportunity Site contains regional commercial properties with surplus parking and opportunities for renovation or redevelopment. Selected properties within the wedge are also proposed for inclusion. Applying the overlay there would support housing and mixed use development near Park Ave and East 20th Street, while maintaining a transition to industrial uses to the south and west. The final rezoning component is the Pomona Avenue Opportunity Site, which is distinguished from the COS overlay expansion. The Pomona Avenue Opportunity Site is not proposed for application of the COS overlay. Instead, consistent with the recommendation from GACDAC, phase three would reinstate the area as a designated opportunity site in the general plan and rezone affected properties to R1, R2, and R3, consistent with the proposed general plan land use designations. The rezoning is intended to restore opportunities for a broader range of residential development while maintaining a range of residential densities that responds to existing development patterns found in surrounding neighborhoods. To conclude, staff finds the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the general plan, particularly those intended to increase housing opportunities, facilitate infill and mixed-use development, and streamline development regulations. The proposed COS expansion directly implements a housing element action, while the broader package supports policies that relate to housing diversity, mixed-use development, infill development, economic diversification, and development process streamlining. With respect to CEQA, no specific development project is proposed or authorized through these actions. Code Amendment 2601 is exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061. The general plan amendment and rezone 2601 are also exempt pursuant to that section and additionally fall within the scope of the development assumptions, land use framework, and environmental effects analyzed by the certified EIR prepared for the 2030 Chico general plan. Regarding public noticing, a display ad was published in the Chico Enterprise Record and courtesy notices were mailed to affected property owners of the proposed rezone properties. Staff is recommending additional changes to resolve issues identified by public comments received. First, an alternative last sentence to the proposed definition of model homes. Staff does agree that the last sentence is unclear regarding allowing or disallowing the use during the marketing period and provides subjective language referring to the caveat for otherwise as permitted by the city. So you can see the last sentence of the proposed definition is struck and the red text would be the replacement language. And secondly, the ADU ordinance modeled after HCD's ordinance does not reflect some recent housing legislation. Staff will implement these changes and agrees that these need to be implemented into the ordinance for City Council adoption. So with that... The community development director recommends the planning commission hold the public hearing and adopt resolution 2603, recommending city council adoption of residential readiness phase three, including code amendment, general plan amendment, and rezone 2601. That concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. I do think we'll probably have a lot of questions. Would you like me to stay up here? No, I think you can sit down. Yeah. One suggestion for the commission is I'm wondering, I'm guessing there's probably one exhibit that has a lot more questions than another exhibit. And so I'm wondering if we can take questions kind of exhibit by exhibit so Kelly doesn't have to go back and forth. But I wanted to start and see if there were any questions on Exhibit 2, which is redesignating the properties within the Pomona Avenue Opportunity Site. And then Exhibit 4, which would be adding the COS overlay zoning and rezoning the Pomona Avenue Opportunity Site. So I'll start to my left.

I think that that makes absolute sense. Thank you. It was removed. Well, I think it makes absolute sense and I would support it.

Any questions? Okay, questions to my right. Okay, great. And then how about exhibit one? And that's attachment A. Those are the text amendments to the table and then the appendix B with the maps.

Madam Chair, could you please help me out here? Yeah. I've got our 189-page staff report printed out, and I'm wondering where you are when you're referring to the exhibits.

So that is exhibit 1A, 1B, 1C. There are a bunch of maps. Then they have the land use.

Looks like it's about halfway through. Yeah, the packet.

Do you know the page number?

There's no page number.

Attachment A. So attachment A at the very bottom.

I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I'm looking at Rezone 2601, Exhibit 1A.

Do you see this, Mark?

Yes.

Those pages.

Okay. I have a question about that. Okay. That's the... And in that table, it's proposed to increase the density in the RMU designation from 20 to 30 units per acre. And the staff report states that increasing the density to 30 dwelling units per acre would allow these properties to qualify for inclusion in the city's housing inventory used to meet its regional housing needs allocation. And that's usually referred to as REHA. And I have a question to staff. Are we in trouble with the state in terms of our arena numbers? And is this an essential change to comply with their demands?

We're not in trouble with the state.

We have proven to them that we have adequate inventory currently, but those those properties we lose 1 at a time and. Losing enough of those will create a situation where we cannot project meeting arena in the inventory and we'll have to add more. It was a challenge to find enough properties in the last cycle and we want more properties because we learned that. If it allows 30 units per acre, it's much easier to include for the inventory. So we want as many properties that qualify as possible so that we can satisfy those requirements. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Any more questions on that exhibit?

Yeah, one for me. Okay. Regarding the COS designation generally, I noticed that we're now bringing most of the city's major corridors and commercial centers under it. Does that kind of suggest that maybe our underlying zoning should be looked at?

I think that's interesting, but application or the existence of these overlays, I think, is the intent to allow that flexibility and not outright provide it with the base zoning. Yeah.

Any questions on this exhibit to my right? Okay, and then what I think will be the big one is exhibit three, and that is attachment B, which are the Title II, Title 18, and Title 19 code amendments. So how about I start to my right this time, and any questions for staff?

Okay, any questions?

Okay. Yeah. Commissioner Sharpe, do you want to jump in first?

Sure. Okay. A couple of minor things I noticed. The text for bungalow courts specifically calls out bicycle parking. Is there intention for that to be short-term bicycle parking or long-term bicycle parking that might be secured? All right. Sorry. Yeah. So the bungalow court code mentions inclusion of bicycle parking. Are those intended to be short-term spaces or long-term spaces that might require storage or security?

Our bicycle parking, I think, is intended for permanent bicycle parking spaces.

Okay. So it's still up to the property owner to figure out how to supply that?

Yeah. Okay. Correct.

Honestly, I apologize. I'm kind of confused as to where we are. I'm looking at Attachment B, Title II, Title 18, and Title 19 Code Amendments, red line, starting with Section 2.8.0.70. Correct. Thank you.

A massive one. Yeah.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And two more from me. Table 2-1 removes authority for... I forgot this phrase, but it removes authority review and appeals for sign permits. In the case of in the case of a dispute, who does that go to now?

So sign permits are a review that we conduct during our administrative or architectural review process, which is established in that table and that is an appealable action. So it would just be captured in our architectural review process. We don't collect a separate sign permit application anymore. It's bundled with your building permit or development proposal.

Thank you. And one last one, too. Table 5-9 removes ground-based antennas from single and multifamily housing use, accessory use. Does that mean that they are prohibited? And if so, is that a conflict with SEC's requirements to allow amateur radio?

Can you point me in the direction of that again?

5.9, or Table 5-9, I don't have a page number, unfortunately.

Yeah.

Gotcha. Yeah, so the setbacks for single-family detached, single-family housing and multi-family housing strike out ground-based antennas as accessory use structures. Are they still covered elsewhere, or are they prohibited because of this change?

I believe we're trying to consolidate all of our standards for accessory structures into our 1976-02-0 section. So that might have been struck from another table and implemented, reinstated in 1976-02-0, I believe.

And I suggest we check the FCC rules to make sure that we're not running afoul of any.

Yeah, absolutely. That's a great comment.

All right. Thank you. Any further questions?

You have more sticky tabs than I do. So I don't know if I go first or you do. How about you?

Go ahead. On the first page, item number C, the code currently states, if an appeal from a decision, determination, or order of a city board, commission, officer, or employee not to approve a lease, license permit or other entitlement has not been commenced within the time frame required by subsections a and b above the council may nevertheless extend the time frame for commencing such appeal for good cause shown that's the existing code language and is being struck and i'm wondering uh why

That is a good question. I'm not sure I know the back story on that proposed amendment. It was forwarded from our community development director after some policy discussion.

Can I ask a follow up? I had a question on that too, Commissioner Wolf. It's not unheard of, but I would say it's rare for us as the planning commission to jump into sections where it is not within our purview. And section two is administration, which includes all city boards, commission officers and employees. So why would this be coming forward from the planning commission and not the city council? Essentially, we're recommending this for all commissions and the city council.

Well, it's removing some authority the city council has right now.

And city officers. which feels just uncomfortable.

I'm going to check out my email to see if I can find the origin. It was something that was part of our scope included over a year ago when we began this effort. So just let me see if I can dig up an answer for you.

Okay, get back to you. I think what's also in this section is it says that the time limits prescribed in this chapter are directory, not mandatory, and I think that is... Interpreted to mean that other provisions that say that is are redundant that provision Commissioner wolf read basically says that you don't meet the timeline the City Council can allow you not to meet the time limit and The time limits in the chapter are not mandatory their directory I did find an email from Mark Sorensen to Brendan big and

saying please include this item in the next round of code amendments. So I'd say that was city manager directed. Okay.

To the question, if the commission does not feel comfortable weighing in and recommending changes in this area of the code, then we can strike it from the ordinance.

Okay, I think when we get to the discussion that might be, I would say my question as far as the planning commission purview and where I feel really uncomfortable, is the idea of a lease or a license, because that is not something that comes before the planning commission.

I would agree with you there, and I'd also be reluctant to tell the council that they need to give up some authority that they've got right now if they choose to exercise it. Okay. I've got questions about proposed changes in Section 1809030. It has to do with how approval of corrected or amended tentative subdivision maps or partial maps are treated. It used to be that all revised tentative maps had to go back to the Planning Commission, and that seemed like overkill in a lot of cases because the changes were minor, not worthy of, That process and so it was kicked down to the map advisory committee under certain circumstances to handle those easier kind of ones. The proposed changes would alter the scope of max authority considerably. and i hope that the other commissioners are aware of what's being suggested here number one it would allow mac and mac is a three-member committee formed by members of the city staff it would allow that committee to revise a tentative map to include more lots than originally approved by either the Planning Commission or perhaps the City Council if it was handled on appeal or in connection with the rezoning. That's new. And then, it would eliminate a requirement that MAC make that the amended map complies with all conditions of approval of the original tentative map including all applicable mitigation measures, if any, from the environmental document prepared for the original map. and that would be struck. So what's being suggested here is granting to the MAC expanded authority to add lots to subdivisions and to alter conditions of approval. And I'm presuming that would mean to delete them, modify them, whatever. And I was kind of shocked when I saw this actually. That's just a comment. I understand what's being suggested. I don't have any questions about it. Bungalow courts. If I understand correctly, The proposed changes would allow bungalow courts. I mean, bungalow courts were a style of housing that was popularized in the early 1900s down in Southern California. Usually one-story little bungalows around lawned areas and whatnot. They were pretty quaint and pedestrian-oriented. And I agree. I think they'd fit in well. That type of a project would fit in well to most existing residential neighborhoods. However, what's being discussed here is something quite different from that. What's being discussed and proposed are changes to our code that would allow bungalow courts in all of our R1 and R2 zoning districts without any density limits, unlimited density. I thought that was kind of shocking too.

I wasn't really sure why that was proposed, but it was.

And so we're talking about a situation here where, and it would apply to lots up to two acres in size. So about two football fields of unrestricted density with two story houses, Maybe they look like bungalows, maybe they don't. The suggested standards kind of get us there, but not all the way. And within each of those units, There could be the main unit, an ADU, and then the junior ADU. So you could end up having three units in each one of these units. And with the changes being proposed, neither of the ADU units would need to provide parking. And I think that there's a potential here for a project like that to really impact our existing neighborhoods. And I think it's unnecessary to do that. Again, I don't have any questions about this. I'm just making some comments along the way. I too, I guess, Kelly, I think you explained it. There's no longer a sign permit required for a sign in town, is that right?

Building permits are required for all signs.

Yeah, but there's no separate planning. So there's no sign review done?

That's incorrect. We do minor architecture review, as Kelly said. And those actions are appealable.

Okay. I'm just wondering why we needed to strike that from, because we don't call them sign permits, is that why?

We don't need to. It's been sitting there for years. It's a vestigial part of the code that is not usable. The way people know that they can appeal signs is we tell them. This is a decision by a city official. You can appeal this decision. You're not forced to do what we're saying.

Got it.

So we always afford that to people.

Okay. Pardon me, I just gotta, I wanna make sure I get through some of these here.

Can I ask a quick question? Is this two acre maximum for allowing larger density? Is that only for bungalow courts?

So to clarify that what the two-acre maximum does is it, if your bungalow core project is two acres or greater, then the density restrictions come into play. But if the project is less than two acres, there is no density requirement. And the idea is that all the other development standards sort of control the space of the land right when you account for setbacks parking the open space requirements that are all required as part of a bungalow court that starts to eat up a lot of space that's available and you can't go to vertical because you have your height limits as well so. The idea is to create as much flexibility so we can generate projects and not inhibit projects from happening, but also being sensitive to the fact of, careful of how we'll interact with the existing neighborhood. And so we like to use the term neighborhood scale for this because we're really sensitive to what those setbacks are, what the height requirements are, keeping it compatible with that existing neighborhood.

Just to add on to that too, staff did explore many numerical density limitations and ran a bunch of hypothetical scenarios and proposals. And we ran into the issue that picking one number not knowing the amount of units that would be proposed or the size of your parcel would really not offer a lot of opportunities for this type of building form and design to be developed in our R1 and R2 zones. So instead of just doing the most minimal amendments or picking something that was on the more conservative side, we thought it was more in line with the GAC DAC's recommendation to provide feasible opportunities for these missing middle housing additional building types.

So just to clarify, so you're basically counting on the other requirements, the setback requirements, the height requirements, the open space requirements, to limit how big those buildings can be? That's correct, yeah. And so they could have a lot of small units in them, but they're not going to be big buildings, right?

Yeah, that's correct. They're intended to be a smaller scale.

Well, they may be intended, but they're going to be large structures. The footprint, I think, for these is going to be probably full or could be full up to the maximum. I think we have to assume that. There's no review for any of this. And with respect to the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Growth and Community Development Committee, I've got the report. I think we should have been provided with a copy of that, but we weren't. With respect to how we... work these projects into the existing fabric of the community. Recommendation was to increase allowable density in R1 and R2 zones. But one of the caveats to that, one of the important points made was to facilitate a broader mix of housing while maintaining and enhancing architectural integrity and sense of place. and investigate developing and implementing form-based codes for existing neighborhoods there's a lot of concern about making sure these things work in existing neighborhoods and what's being discussed here is pretty disruptive i think again unlimited density two football fields three units per unit with only one of those units having any parking, I think has the potential to significantly disrupt and damage some of our existing neighborhoods. On table 4.9, this doesn't have to do with housing at all, but it's manufacturing industrial zone general development standards. There is a requirement right now that if you have an industrial use next to a residential use, that there needs to be a six-foot buffer of landscaping on the industrial side, kind of provide that little bit of a landscape buffer between the two uses. And that's being recommended that be eliminated, and I'm wondering why.

I'm a little confused.

Okay, table 4.9.

Yeah, I'm looking at that. So we have new footnotes next to front required setbacks. There's only one footnote to table 4.9. Right.

And that one is being struck. Yeah, it's... Am I totally missing this? I was too.

Under setbacks required, if you look under that, that brings you to number one. Yeah. Now, so it was struck from sides and rear, and then it was added to overall setbacks required on the front.

Setback required front, but along the side and rear, I think, correct me if I'm wrong here, I think that what the code says right now is that along the side and rear is you would need to have that six-foot buffer, and that would no longer be the case, or am I misreading this somehow?

I think we were saying that the standard still applies. We just, in previous tables, our footnotes were located in the first column, and so this was just an improvement for internal form and consistency.

It's almost like setbacks requirement needs to be its own bar. Yeah, these tables are... Funky. Because front is included in setbacks required, but yeah, it should be on all of them.

You wouldn't have a landscape buffer there.

Yeah. Or eliminate the separated rows between front, side, and rear setbacks. We can change that table.

I just, yeah, pardon me for my confusion on that then. Or leave it, yeah. You know, one of the, there's a lot of stuff in this. A lot of it has, most of it has to do with housing. And I think a lot of it is really well intended and in the right areas. Like a lot of it went too far. But there are a lot of things here that don't have to do with housing at all. And I think they're just as important. Again, we're in that Exhibit B. Section 19.76020, number 3, has to do with solar parking canopies. This is new text being added. And I'm wondering, staff, could you kind of update us on what kind of authority the city has to regulate these at all? And are we just at the mercy of the state or can we come up with standards?

Yeah, the... These were added to our accessory structures because it's just something that has come up internally. There's been emails. There's been some questions. We didn't have any standards codified, and they became more recurring frequent issues. So this is intended to provide a little bit more objective standards for those.

So we do have the ability to adopt some objective standards with respect to solar arrays?

I think that is under the architectural review component of a project.

I was thinking there were some mandates that came down from the state about this, though, that limited our authority. Am I wrong about that?

The state cannot prohibit them. And we do want to guide people on how to do it right, I think, maybe as far as it goes in many cases.

Right. And I... I've seen some really terrible examples of how this ends up looking. There's one in Orland on the north side of 32 there going into town. There's a grocery store. I don't even know the name of it anymore because you can't see it. The whole parking lot is covered in a solar array. So all of the city's efforts towards good design for the buildings and landscaping in the parking lots was for naught. And you can't even read the signs on the building anymore. And I've seen that happen in other locations around the state as well. I'd hate to see that happen here. And there's a part of the... the new standards or guidelines or whatever we wanna call them here. It says location, solar parking canopies may be located over parking spaces, drive aisles or other paved areas. And I would maybe, can we say, do we have to allow them over drive aisles or can we limit them to other areas of the parking lot? It'd be a question.

I don't think we have to allow them over any particular area.

Okay, thank you. Accessory dwelling units. Wow. How things have changed. It used to be that you'd have to get a special use permit to do an accessory dwelling unit in an R1 district. It was pretty straightforward. The regulations took up about half a page. You need to provide parking, maximum 640 square feet, something crazy like that, and you need to use permit. And you've got to live in the unit. You can't just turn it into a duplex kind of thing. And the state's gone crazy with this stuff, in my opinion, and forced a lot of things down the city's throat. And it's gotten out of hand, in my opinion. And we're at the point now where It seems like they're kind of giving up, fighting back against the state on this stuff. They have kind of a nonstop, kind of a startling pace of changes to these regulations. They're trying to force on cities. It seems like every year there's something new that comes up. And so it puts the city, I think, in a really tough spot. And you're trying to respond to that. I get that here. I mean, the model ordinance from the state for these is 11 pages long. Good Lord. And so I think I would be tempted to say, fine, whatever state will just do what you want. And so the recommendation here, I kind of get it, is to just adopt the state's model ordinance. But the part about the recommendation that concerns me is that it would require that that apply in perpetuity and subsequent model ordinances as well that we haven't seen. And I would not want to do that. I think it would be a pain in the rear to deal with these things on an annual basis or semi-annual basis. But there are some terrible ideas that came out of Sacramento. And I'd hate for us to be in a bind just because we gave up. At this point, I get it. I understand the feeling of frustration, but I'd be concerned about that.

Are we still in the question part?

Yeah, I'm just about done now. I'm getting there. Thank you for your patience.

Yeah, I just was wondering where the question was.

Oh, the question? Yeah, the question would be, Staff, would you consider a change that did not obligate the city to take whatever the state adopts on an ongoing basis?

So there's a couple concerns with that. It is important, and we did discover this in our pro-housing designation process. It's important to have your housing element certified and a compliant ADU ordinance adopted. Otherwise, you would be disqualified from certain grant funding opportunities, including the associated pro-housing improvement program funding, which We intend to apply for next year. So the as part of that process and submitting our pro housing designation application to the state, the final round of that involved a review from HCD, specifically their ADU team, which. returned comments to us saying that our ordinance was inconsistent. And we attempted to then further massage it with all the language that they wanted. But by the end of the day, it was a Frankenstein piece of local development standards for ADUs that we've been trying to be more permissive than state law. And these really kind of arduous requirements are in a very different format and language than the rest of our code as well. So it was... almost impossible to make a hybrid of the two. And we decided pick one or the other.

Right. And my concern is just with the in perpetuity part of it.

Yeah, so I was thinking on that concern. We are allowed to be more permissive but not restrictive. So any future ADU ordinance that mandates something, I don't think we have the authority to not adopt or comply with. We could only adopt a local ordinance that provides greater flexibility, additional unit size, further parking reductions, et cetera.

I think it's just good for the cities of the state to understand what's being mandated. by Sacramento and not just a seed to it, but that's just a comment, not a question. So I believe it's, if I understand correctly, the changes recommended by staff would eliminate any parking requirements for ADUs, is that the case? Why is that a good idea?

In practice, how it works now, the state has, I think, exemptions A through E. waiving the parking requirement if you're within a certain distance to a public transit stop or and in reality a lot of ADUs proposed within the city limits do meet one or more of those exemptions. So we really haven't in essence had a requirement for ADU parking. We do find that it's something people typically provide. I think it makes it a more livable situation. So I don't think we've seen too many ADUs proposed with absolutely zero parking, but we would be making that change to allow it.

So the state allows the city to require parking. Why don't we require parking in some locations that aren't near transit and such? Because that makes sense. In other locations, it doesn't seem to make as much sense.

I think... The locations we would see not meet a parking exemption for an ADU might be maybe a little more rural, on the outskirts of town, in a pocket that has less development intensity, and I don't THINK WOULD BE IMPACTED SO MUCH BY HAVING A NO PARKING REQUIREMENT OR THEY WOULD NATURALLY PROBABLY WANT TO PROVIDE A PARKING SPACE FOR THAT.

I GUESS I'M JUST I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE ANYWAY ENOUGH SAID. I THINK ONE MORE QUESTION I'M DONE. I KNOW. Well, yeah, maybe just a question about the size of ADUs. Do we really, what's the minimum floor area shall be? 150 square feet. That's about as, that's smaller than most parking spaces, I think. Is that something the city has to accept from the state?

Yeah, I believe that's called an efficacy unit. It can be efficiency. Okay.

It's about the size of a camper, having lived in a camper.

Yeah, that's not much. Okay. That was it. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a few questions. Not as many, I don't think. But some of these have been addressed. OK. Kelly, I'm on attachment B. Can I give you page numbers? The page for withholding building permits, A, the construction of all required improvements has progressed to the extent that completion of and acceptance of the work seems assured to occur within a reasonable amount of time. I understand we want some flexibility there, but that seems really, really vague. So who is the authority who is deciding if the work seems assured to occur within a reasonable amount of time?

I'll let Mike answer this.

The authority is the community development director. Okay. And they rely heavily on the fire marshal and the public works director especially who is doing the inspections on the state of improvements and Literally nat across the room there who knows where people are in the stages of their development of their subdivision. And, you know, after the underground stuff goes in, and they're getting ready to pave the street there, they're close and they're within a few months of record the map. And that's a good time to start a house because then it can be. done shortly after the subdivision's recorded.

Okay, so maybe, why doesn't it make sense to say 75% complete or 80% complete?

I don't know if you necessarily quantify it, but typically what we do is, excuse me, it would be like remaining landscape improvement. So the road's all in, curb and gutter's in, you have the curb ramps and everything, so there's a remaining landscaping that might need to be installed, and that's what we're waiting for.

Okay. That makes sense.

There are other things besides just the improvements, too. There's sometimes documents that have to be finalized and brought through. And if that's not making progress, then we can say, hey, get that going before we can release the model homes and say you're actually that as close as you need to be.

Okay, page 16. We're proposing removing the use permit for liquor stores. And just wondering, is that because we think ABC and Chico PD are going to be monitoring that? Or why would we just make that a permitted use?

I think this is just consistent with a pattern where we've been trying to reduce unnecessary regulatory processes. A use permit for a liquor store, essentially it functions as a retail store. So we thought the use permit was a bit overkill. Any business, there is a footnote in the table, any business operating between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. would require it. So that would apply, say, the hours the liquor store were proposed to be beyond 10 p.m.

Okay, that makes sense. Okay, you did mention for certain overlays that you did a corridor and parcel level evaluation. I'm wondering if you did that on the uses for hotel and motel in the IOMU district.

We did not have that in depth of an analysis, but it was an idea that we thought was in line with recent amendments adding additional uses into the IOMU, most notably multifamily uses in the last round of residential readiness.

neighborhood serving uses or employee opportunities in what we would like to see more residential developed areas in the iomu would make sense okay there's one if i'm looking at my purples correctly there is one area and i'm i'm not i know there can be when you have a permit process there can be some subjectivity but i also want to make sure that we're giving transparency to people applying. There's one area where I would say absolutely not. We should not have hotels or motels and that is off close to the Chico Airport on the east side right by Sycamore. So I don't know how Sycamore Creek It looks like it's maybe, it is an industrial area, it's on the east side, but it would not be a place where we'd wanna see a hotel or a motel, and it is within that overability zone.

In the overlay zone?

Or no, in that zone, in the IOMU zone.

I think that would be within the airport overflight zones and that would be prohibited because you would have a big group of people and that's not allowed too close to the airport in that area.

Can we take a look at that during the... And reduced height restrictions.

It would also be a really silly place for a hotel.

It would be. I think an AOB1 overlay does exist on that site. So that would regulate max building height and max people per acre.

Okay, that one would scare me. Okay, trash. This is brand new. Oh, sorry, page 36. And we're on trash and recycling enclosures. I'm just... I'm trying not to have a comment and have a question. Have we experienced this problem in planning and development that would require this type of solution?

For just any standards or a particular standard?

Residential facilities of four or more units and non-residential facilities serving commercial or industrial uses. having to have required trash enclosures.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, we have repeated code violations on some properties, multifamily properties that don't have trash enclosures and messes occur when they don't have a place to congregate all the garbage.

Okay. Where did we land on four and then non-residential? Like how did those numbers come to be?

I think we were trying to be reasonable for residential developments that are just slightly updating or renovating, not triggering that requirement. Okay. It is a requirement for new or substantially remodeled residential facilities of four or more. So we weren't trying to be too stingy with that one.

All right. I might come back to the stinginess on that later. Solar, so page 37. uh height and clearance i'm wondering if staff would be amenable to providing some measure there for adequate vertical clearance um with um garages we do what 15 feet 12 to 15 feet or something 12 7. oh But I'd rather have something in there to have it less vague. And then I don't know on the designing compatibility, but minimize visual bulk and not create a cluttered appearance. It feels really hard for a developer to figure out what that means. So if there could be, if staff was amenable, if there could be some language we could look at there. Okay, page 41. Swimming pools. Language on that you could have a swimming pool in a front yard. We currently allow swimming pools in front yards.

I believe our existing table establishes only a side and rear yard setback for swimming pools with the intent that they be located in either the side or the rear of the property. However, where infeasible, we would just require that they be outside of the front yard setback of the primary structure. There might be a fencing requirement as well for safety.

I guess I'm just wondering, why did we add front yard? Is there a strong demand to have swimming pools in front yards?

There is not a strong demand, but believe it or not, it does happen where you have a unique property configuration where it might be a fairly large lot and they do not have space to do it in their backyard, but they have a very large front yard. And so we are adding to have an administrative use permit process to go through and kind of set some standards for them to abide by.

Okay. I don't love it, but we can come back to that. I just wrote holy moly on the accessory dwelling units. So if there, can I ask a couple of specific questions of if we have to have this, Kelly? And then if there's any, if we are allowed to be more restrictive. So the, if we go to page 45, C2, If the city has not acted upon the completed application within 60 days, then the application shall be deemed approved. Do we have to have that in here? Okay, what happens if everybody's out sick for 60 days? That's just approved? That can't happen. Okay.

We're the city. We are open weekdays. No, we actually just also do not have separate permits for those in planning. We go straight to building permit, and I just had the discussion today to remind them that we are doing this, where we're getting them comments every time within 15 days of a submittal, and those comments describe the universe of things we can talk about after that.

Okay. Parking, so page 50. do we have to say that there should be no parking for a detached ADU?

We can defer to the state law, which provides exemptions for parking. Okay.

I think that that's it. All right. Any other questions before we open the public hearing? What time is it? That clock's never... 7-12. Does anybody need a bathroom break before we open the public hearing on the commission? No? Okay. All right. So we will open the public hearing. We'll start in the order of the speaker cards. Everybody will have three minutes, and I will kindly ask you to wrap up your comments when we hit about two minutes, 50 seconds.

So Nicole, could you give us our first speaker and then the speaker after? Yes, we have seven speakers starting with Dave Fullner and then Charles Pete Lindstrom.

Hello, my name's Dave Fuller. Now the sound system works. We couldn't hear very much back here. Anyway, my name is Dave Fuller, and I've lived on Pomona Lane for almost 40 years. I've seen the Yemen orchards knocked down, replaced by big apartment complexes. Every so often, someone proposes changes to the zoning to enable these real estate speculators to... make good on their investments. We're talking about city services and infrastructure improvements. I have seen none. As far as city staff doing anything, I see a street cleaner every once in a while. I'm getting totally off topic, but I think you people have the same problem that we had as far as acquiring information. I don't think my neighbors receive notices, and not too many of them are renters, so I kind of question the notification process. Back in the day, they used to put things on phone poles in the neighborhood. As you're driving by, you see a sign, you stop, you find out what it is. We tried to do this by looking at the notice. At the bottom it said, call this number. You call the number, you get city staff. They tell you to go online. As far as Kelly goes, we were told that we had to email her, that we could not talk to her on the phone. I'm an old guy. I'm not real tech savvy. I don't like this whole process. It's like all this is gobbledygook to me. It's like I'm and as far as I'm concerned, we haven't really learned much from this. We're talking with this dialogue or this stuff that we don't really understand as residents of the city. It's like we try to get information and it's like, I'm not getting the information. But anyway. I think in the future, I would recommend a neighborhood meeting. I'd like to see stuff in hard copies of the maps. The maps that I saw online, like I say, I'm not real tech adequate, but the maps that I saw really didn't have adequate information. I mean, it's like naming one street without naming the other streets. You know, it's just... Yeah, to me, I think somebody needs to do a better job of informing the public. As far as putting a notice in the paper, who gets the paper anymore? I didn't even know they'd made a paper except for Sunday. I've lived here for 50 years. Anyway, I think we have a communications problem. This speaker system is totally inadequate for the audience. Evidently, you can hear me well. But anyway... You've got a tough job to do. I commend you for doing it. Appreciate your service. Need to improve communications. Thank you.

Can I ask you a few questions, Mr. Fulner? Oh, yes. Yeah. First of all, I'm really sorry you had that experience. And I know I've found city staff to be incredibly responsive. So I'm sorry that happened in this instance and you didn't get the information you wanted. But you did mention living on Pomona Avenue for a long time.

I live on Pomona Lane, Pomona County. Yes. We don't get any benefits from them either, by the way, as far as services go.

What does that interface look like for you? Just thinking about the properties that impact us on that, that would have agriculture interfaces right across. What has that looked like for you over the years?

Well, since North State Hulling moved, you know, we don't have that three-month chaos anymore, but that's an agricultural thing. We're living on the edge of the agricultural community, so we're kind of used to that. What we're not used to is... just building apartment buildings, put a sidewalk out in front of them and not addressing anything further down the road. Now we've got our bridge shut down for God knows how long. It's a total fiasco right now. I don't know if any of you have driven in that neighborhood or not, but we have huge dump trucks going down roads that aren't made for them. Ammon Street is totally just about impassable. If you call 911 for an ambulance, they send out the hook and ladder truck. And it's like if they come down our driveway, there's no way for them to turn around. You know, that's a whole nother issue with the fire department, I guess. They have a rescue truck. I don't know why they don't send out the ambulances instead of the hook and ladder truck, for God's sakes. But anyway, what was the question?

I think that was it. And I do think we have a full packet of the agenda in the back if you want to look at some of those maps a little more close up, as well as the language for the changes on that quarter opportunity site.

Yeah, the opportunity site, I got a big kick out of that because the opportunity is not for the people that live there now. It's for the real estate people. They wanted to build a dormitory in my backyard with 500-unit capacity. We shut that down years ago, but this keeps coming up because people have an investment with the idea of development. Yeah, and we're so close to the green line. And anyway, whatever.

Thank you.

Thanks for listening.

Charles Pete Lindstrom and then Katie Toma.

Hi, I'm Charles Lindstrom. I'm a resident. My wife and I are residents of Pomona Lane. We came down to Chico after the campfire to live in beautiful Chico. We love the area, especially on the outskirts there near the Greenbelt area. But I have concerns after receiving the notice about the adoption of Resolution 2603. And the residential readiness phase 3. I think we need further clarification about the impact that this reasoning will have on the Pomona lane and Pomona Avenue residential community. After extensive search online. And I'm fairly tech savvy for an old guy. But I did find the information in Appendix B and read that in the description concerning Pomona Avenue zoning map. But I was unclear when I did find that they had the term COS. Well, there was no map of COS overlay anywhere I could find. And I spent two days researching the website with City of Chico's zoning concerns. And I was at a loss. And I'm still kind of at, what does COS stand for? Corridor?

I don't want to eat into your time, so I can write down your questions and then we'll answer them after your time.

Yeah.

But it is corridor opportunity site.

Okay. All right. So basically, concerning the property owners and residents of Pomona Lane, I think... My plea would be to have this adoption tabled for further discussion at a future date to give the property owners of Pomona Avenue and Pomona Lane a chance to discuss with whomever we can contact. It'll give us clarification on what the implications impact is going to be for our neighborhood. What I'm seeing is, and thinking that there may be, of course, with more residents, you're going to have more traffic, possibly more crime, a number of different aspects that negatively impact our neighborhood. And the size of the buildings are also something that are of major concern. Thank you.

Thank you. Katie Toma and then Eric Nelson.

Good evening. I am Katie Toma and I'm the executive director of the Chico Builders Association. And I'm the only one here representing CBA tonight. The other folks have other commitments. There's lots going on apparently in town tonight. Nobody else was able to come. So I'm not the expert. I am the messenger from the experts. I want to start off, first of all, by thanking staff for this opportunity. Just Herculean effort to do this update. This is just an amazing project that you've all worked on for a long time. CBA has enjoyed being a part of the process. We've met with Mike and with Kelly and then later with Garrett to go through and making suggestions and going back. And they heard us. And one of the things that they did hear that we're very pleased about is that the hotels and motels can be built within the IOMU. Not at the airport, but in other areas. So thank you for that. Thank you for hearing us. We really appreciate that. But tonight we want to talk about some of the concerns that we have. We sent a letter to you and then we sent a letter to you at the very last minute. tonight that's a two-page letter. And what we, our biggest concern at this point is that there's so much in here. We had, we listed out 20 concerns that we had. And Garrett, God bless you for getting on it and responding so quickly to us with each one. Kelly's laughing. She must have been a part of that too, to respond to those 20 concerns that we had. But that will tell you that the turnaround on this was really fast. So it came out, and then we came out last Tuesday, I believe it was, or Wednesday. And then we responded. You know, we had to digest everything that was in there. I know that the document's not actually 189 pages, but the report's 189 pages. So to sort through it was a lot for everybody to digest. And, of course, like you all, everybody's got other responsibilities throughout the day. So we feel like it was a lot to deal with. And then, so what we are suggesting, I mean, besides the 20 items on there, is that... That of those 20, well, let me read to you the last part of our letter that you got at the last minute. CBA is not asking that the entire residential readiness program phase three be delayed. Rather, we respectfully request that the commission separate the 20 items identified in CBA's September 15th letter from the remainder of the proposed amendments and allow additional review of those specific provisions before they move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Nelson? Okay, and then who's the next speaker? Doug Osi.

Okay. Good evening. I served on the Ad Hoc Committee with Mark and Ann, and I'm excited to be here tonight. And I wanna echo Katie's comments. Just deep thanks for all the work you guys have done to bring this to fruition. I do know the purpose is clear in the document to expand opportunities for housing and mixed-use development while making more efficient use of areas already served by streets, utilities, transit services, and other infrastructure. The report identifies corridor opportunity sites and opportunity sites that have tremendous potential to provide a variety of housing choices for our citizens to include mixed-use commercial residential, bungalow, those bungalow developments you mentioned, and ADUs, and the changes in zoning to enhance already developed neighborhoods. It advocates for leveraging current infrastructure and planning developments that will encourage use of alternative transportation. The proposal also recognizes the great opportunity downtown provides for increasing residential units, because when that kind of development happens, it strengthens the downtown economy. With the changes to zoning, the increases in allowable density, and the expansion of opportunity sites, Chico is poised for infill development that will positively impact housing choices, improved infrastructure, and greater fiscal sustainability. To move forward, we need a public-private partnership that answers the following questions. How can we enhance economic viability for infill projects? What are the economic barriers to infill development, and how do we mitigate those? Because infill development leverages current infrastructure, will we adjust impact fees downward for infill development? Are there ways we can adjust the permitting process further to make it more efficient and less expensive for developers doing infill? How can we leverage state and federal grants to support this kind of development? And how can we encourage private investment in infill projects given the tremendous potential for economic growth? Thanks again to staff for this proposal. It provides positive direction for housing choice, neighborhood enhancements, and corridor opportunity sites that have tremendous economic and housing potential. It helps us preserve the open spaces around Chico and better ensures the city's economic well-being and quality of life. By working together, developers, investors, citizens, and city government, we can make this a reality. Thank you again.

Thank you. Doug Osi and then Peter Peterson.

Good evening, Doug Osi. Mr. Nilsen stole most of my thunder talking about the subjects that I wanted to speak to. I've read the 189-page document. I was as frustrated by it as many of the others, but I wanted to bring your attention to one specific piece of that. And that had to do with the opportunity sites. I think it's on exhibit. What's that? Let me see that map. This is exhibit 1A. on rezone 26-01. And in it, you'll see the largest possible infill site that exists in the city of Chico, which is the Chico Nut site. It's 10 acres in the heart of town, completely paved with 200,000 square feet of building on it today. All of the infrastructure is in. Power, water, sewer, drainage. It's all there. It's been in operation for almost 100 years. What is preventing, what is the impediment to the redevelopment of this site? That's what I want to bring to your attention. I spent 12 months working with a partner here in town trying to figure out how to untangle this Gordian Knot. The collision of market values for land, construction costs for new product, market rents that you can attain, and fees that you have to pay today make that project unrepurposable. That's not a word, I just made it up. Unrepurposable. And the only one that has The only element there, in my opinion, that the city can directly affect are the fees that get paid. Mr. Nielsen spoke briefly about working together towards this. I would suggest to you that the current interpretation of the development impact fee ordinance in the city of Chico is working as a huge disincentive to repurposing these unicorn pieces of property like the Chico Nut site. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions for our speaker? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Peter Peterson and then Jared Geyser.

Good afternoon or good evening. My name is Peter Peterson. I happen to be the owner of the Chico Nut property that Mr. Osi is just talking about. And I grew up in Chico. It was a big part of my life. And there came a time in our farming career here around Chico that we needed a place to process our products. And Chico Nut property was in a terrible state of disrepair, had been abandoned, was in bankruptcy. And with the help of the city of Chico, we were able to put something together to keep that from being just a disaster. It was a home for 2,000 pigeons. When we got there, it was just the real mess. But with the help of the city of Chico, we were able to reclaim it. We moved forward. It accommodated all our production and the production from other people. But things have changed. All our production is inclusive county now. And we'd like to repurpose that. I spent a lot of time on that esplanade as a young man, watching the trains come in and go out. And it was just really something great. The things that Mr. Osi spoke about. And I'll just read these before my time runs out, but it's about the infrastructure that's in place. The city of Chico stopped about four blocks to the south on the Esplanade. If you drive there today, look at the landscaping, you'll see the edge of the city limits. All of this was in the county. And during this... Last, since they had the 2030 plan, we worked with the city to change the zoning from industrial and light manufacturing to a whole plethora of different zoning. And now it's changing again, but it's not working. I'd love to see something very appropriate for one of the finest streets in the United States. And we keep having trouble. It's about the fees. for the repurposing and also of note, there's one piece of property that's not included on your map that we can talk about at a different time, but it's all commercial and should be part of this. So thank you for your time. Any questions?

Any questions? Yeah, I have a question. So does it help if this becomes a quarter opportunity site?

That remains to be seen. It seems like we're not quite finished with this process. Took a long time to get the 2030 process in place. And I think This is gonna take a while too.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Jared Geiser is our last speaker.

Good evening planning commissioners and chair and vice chair and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these residential readiness updates. I was a lot to go through. I was like 189 pages. I read through what I could this week after work, but it really wasn't a lot of time to digest all of the proposed changes to the general plan and the development codes. or to cross-reference state housing law compliance. I think it's important to comply with state housing law, but I was wondering how anyone would have time to really verify that and look at that. So I just think this warrants more public review, more planning commission review, and a discussion with the owners of Chico Nut I think are certainly warranted. Sounds like they want to do something useful with that property in a really prime location for urban development. and so yeah i think some more public outreach on this would would go a long way and i think a lot of the proposed changes are going to be highly beneficial for the city of chico and its residents in our community um so mostly i thought they were positive amendments um but again i think more reviews are required the one element of this that i have major concerns with is the rezoning of the pomona ave opportunity site I think it was removed as an opportunity site for good reason. It wasn't really suitable for the types of developments being proposed there. And I actually just looking at the satellite imagery, I'm like, that's a bunch of old valley oaks. I know it just from the satellite imagery. I drove out there yesterday to verify mostly the six acre property that's being considered to be rezoned as high density residential. And really, this is the riparian corridor of Little Chico Creek. And I think that an old growth stand of Valley Oaks is really an inappropriate place for an apartment complex. And that major changes that are being proposed in these residential readiness updates really warrant more consideration. Specifically, I think the concern about Pomona is where I think more thorough consideration is required, as some residents of the area expressed earlier tonight. And yeah, I think people need more time to review all of this. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other public speakers? He was our last one. Are you sure? Okay. All right. Close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Any overarching comments or concerns you would like to address?

I mean, similar to some of the public speakers we had, this is a huge packet to go through. It's 189 pages. I think we've had six days to go through it. It's asking us to consider general plan amendments, municipal code amendments, rezoning, a slew of other significant policy changes. And a lot of them are good. I just... I believe it could have been more beneficial to split this into three or four agenda items. We can meet every other week or twice a month, and we meet about twice a year. It would be really beneficial for commissioners and the public to be able to really consider and deliberate. So I think that's just my overarching thoughts.

Any other comments to that?

I'll just second that. Yeah, this is a lot. And there's a lot of good stuff in here. Some other stuff that maybe isn't so good, at least in my opinion. But certainly there's a lot to talk about. And it's all kind of bundled together. So it's hard to, you know, you might want to get behind some parts of this, but then you also have to be behind parts of it that are just kind of thrown in and you aren't necessarily in support of. So just to make a motion to get through to approve the good parts of it would be quite an undertaking in itself.

One, I would say thank you, staff. This is pretty incredible, and I really appreciate all the work on it. A lot of times I feel like we're under the pressure of developers' timeline or extenuating costs. We don't really have that here, and really we only benefit by having more public input. I know... I know this city staff very, very well, and I know public input and public comment is a high priority and value for them. I would have a difficulty of making a decision tonight without really making sure that you guys are heard who were trying to get a hold of city staff and I know they'd feel the same way of wanting to make sure that those concerns were addressed. So I would be in favor of tabling this, getting some more public out. I mean, I don't know that a neighborhood meeting, I would defer that to staff. I don't know if that makes sense because there are a lot of different opportunity zones, but I do think maybe having a couple extra weeks on this to gain public input, certainly to get maybe some solutions addressed with the developer community would probably be the best course forward.

And maybe also splitting it from what we are required for state inconsistencies as well as with the quarter opportunities. Those are two amazing projects, but I feel like I haven't been able to and the public hasn't been able to really splice apart what it is.

Do we need a formal motion to... POSTPONE? YES. OKAY. BEFORE WE DO THAT, COULD I ASK FOR A COUPLE, IF WE DO POSTPONE, A COUPLE THINGS THAT I'D LOVE TO LOOK INTO IS I THINK COMMISSIONER WOLF'S CONCERNS ABOUT DENSITY ON BUNGALOW, IF THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WE COULD CONSIDER AND LOOK AT THERE. And then definitely the trash enclosures, just maybe some different options that maybe aren't those four units and potentially included non-residential. And then... I would say Vice Chair Scarpa, 100%, maybe on the ADU, if it was possible to know what is a state requirement and where we're being a little bit more permissive or where we might have some flexibility. Anything else that you would want looked into?

I'm just wondering about your comment concerning an interest in getting more public input on this. And maybe we could hear from staff just to remind us, I think it was addressed as part of your presentation, what the notification was for this project.

Yeah, so we actually did have an enhanced noticing requirement of 20 days and we submitted our display ad as this affected properties citywide. However, in addition to that, we also sent courtesy notices specific to the property owners being affected as an additional noticing.

That's pretty thorough. I think the only expansion, if we were to suggest an expansion, would be to notice properties within the 500-foot buffer of some of these properties that are being redesignated. And that would include the folks along Pomona. and in other locations as well. It sounds like staff went over and above on this. Very much so. But maybe we can go farther with it a little bit more and get that public input expanded a little bit.

I think also if Pomona Avenue is a separate item, so then it can have the time and attention instead of just being lumped in, but I don't know. I think it could be beneficial to separate the Pomona Avenue quarter opportunity site rezone from the rest of the residential readiness program. And I'm not saying it's separate, but just to be able to have its own public hearing, have its own discussion, maybe a little bit more detail in the presentation surrounding it.

Yeah.

So, yeah, I just wanted to say I really, really appreciate everything the staff has done on this. This is... This is potentially really going to help solve the housing problem in Chico. So one thing I wanted to suggest, too, is the CBA has offered to help with the ADU part of this and to help get the wording to be clearer and better aligned with the state. And I'm thinking we should Take them up on free help.

But if we're using the template that HCD gave this staff, I don't know how it would be.

Well, the template actually is out of date. So, yeah, there are things there are. Things that went into effect at the beginning of 2026 that we're not in in there and then there are new things that are going to go into effect on. January 1 of 2027, so it's already out of date. Um. And so I had a really hard time reading through trying to understand basic things like how many ADUs are allowed on a property. And it turns out it's one regular ADU and one junior ADU. But that was not clear. And so just clarifying, I mean, it's always best if the code is readable and understandable by anybody who wants to do this kind of work. So I'm also willing to help with that process to try to make the ADU part clearer.

Maybe hoping it could throw out an idea that we were kicking around a staff to the planning commission and maybe take a straw poll or see what the commission thinks about it. We were frustrated to learn that the model ordinance given to us by HCD was out of date upon receipt, and it will be out of date on January 1 again, and probably every year, January 1. It will be out of date. We'll have to come back for a code amendment. The alternative idea would have us adopt a very simple one liner for that whole section that says. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling in it shall be approved consistent with California government code title seven division one chapter thirteen accessory dwelling units. As maybe a minute from time to time, I realized that is going even a more extreme version of what Commissioner Wolf did not like. But as soon as they adopt the new law, our existing code is out of date and we have to snap to implementing the new law anyway. So that's that's the case regardless. And all we have in the meantime is an outdated ordinance, which will happen every year, it seems. So we were looking for the full retreat on that, actually, and just saying what we do with ADUs and JADUs is what the state says. We just have to go there. And it's also kind of their mess that they get to keep in their code, and we just point at it. And we don't have to talk about whether or not we're actually making substantive changes or just trying to do what the state's telling us.

So I work for HCD. I do per housing designation program reviews, and I tell cities and counties to do that, just because there's so many changes every year. So that, as well as the state density bonus law, both of those, there's changes every year.

It was done to be helpful, but it is a moving target.

Just one comment about that, though. Unfortunately, there are things in the state law that say a city may do something or other or the city has some leeway. So we would still have to make some decisions. within the leeway that the state gives us. We can't keep it totally just do what the state says.

I think we can, actually. The code allows the cities to go further and allow more things, and that would just be something the city of Chico declines to take them up on because we tend to get in trouble when we do anyway. Because then that deviation that we made now is in, you know, it will be superseded by the next time they, sometimes when they update the law again. The only time we try to do it here, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's for parking. It was just to say, instead of running the six tests, one of which is, is there a rise share on the block, which doesn't seem like a permanent thing we can verify at any given time. We just say no parking required. They provide it if they want it. In most cases, they just provide it anyway.

I think that is a great solution. One of my primary concerns with the ADU is the parking. I live in a neighborhood that has had the benefit of a lot of ADUs, and there has not been parking provided. And so I think a combination of what that looks like, it's not... I would say it's not onerous to my day-to-day life, but I think it's compounded with the lack of city infrastructure. And so I have a street that has serious pavement issues, serious sidewalk issues. So then living on a block that has four or five ADUs and has cars parked on the street and you're trying to dodge kiddos and dodge potholes just makes the quality of life feel not as great. And so I do think that's one thing is if we do go to that, just abiding with the state, I just feel like our neighborhoods in Chico, we do need something on the parking. But if the rest of the commission doesn't feel that way, I'm flexible to that.

Yeah, I just wanted to say that cities all across the country are completely eliminating parking mandates. Just saying, you know, a developer is going to know how much parking they need. And if you want to market your property, if you don't have sufficient parking, it's not going to work. And the state of North Carolina just basically blanket said, there will be no parking mandates in this state. So they're doing it all over the place, and there hasn't been a horrible disaster. And it really does seem that people can decide themselves how much parking their property needs.

Yeah, I'd love to see North Carolina's pavement index, though. Anything else?

I'm just wondering how we're going to proceed here tonight.

Would somebody from the commission be willing to make a motion to postpone?

Well, I guess like there's to make a motion that would get passed. I don't know if it'd work, you know, tonight. A motion to recommend approval moving this along?

To recommend that we postpone our decision.

Is that a motion from you?

I'll make that.

Okay.

And... Yeah, please. Okay, I move to postpone the residential readiness phase two and separate the Pomona Avenue corridor opportunity site...

Do we need a date to postpone?

Yes. Until mid-October because we're having a barber yard. Until November 1st or the first Thursday in November.

So what about October 15th, which is two weeks after the barber yard?

I don't know if that gives enough time for staff. Yeah. Does that?

I think staff would be comfortable just postponing it to a date uncertain so we can collectively decide how we can break this up, make revisions to make a more robust staff report for this commission, and we'll do a full re-notification of the hearing. Okay.

I think that's an excellent suggestion, and maybe you guys can work on it. structure for us to act on different parts of it too. That'd be outstanding. I have a question as well.

Just want to clarify, do you want Pomona in a separate meeting or just a separate agenda item?

It would just be a separate agenda item. I was thinking especially for the public to be able to see the maps. If they're coming for that, that's what they're coming for instead of everything else.

Okay. I'll second that.

I'm going to clarify, I want to make sure staff understands what they'll be asked to do when we come back. If you're comfortable with the direction you've been given so far, I'm fine with that.

Yeah, I think so. In fact, we'd probably break out more pieces and just find the logical breakpoints to kind of set it into more bite-sized pieces. It might all appear on your agenda, but there would be no pressure to get through everything. It would just be like, you get to take bite-sized pieces. That would be fantastic.

Just for clarification on Commissioner Scarpa's comment, bringing the Pomona Ave site separately, would you like that coupled with the COS rezoning action? So rezone application 2601 will come separate from the general plan amendment.

Yeah, I just thought that could be a good break.

Sure.

Do you have enough, Nicole? We have a first with Vice Chair Scarpa. Chair, second? Yes.

I have a question though. So the public will still be able to continue to make suggestions and the staff would consider those suggestions, right?

Yes, and we'd have an entirely new public hearing as well, so everybody tonight could come back and share their same comments, but hopefully additional comments.

And is it too late just to add to the motion, just so everyone's clear, is that it would include the recommendations that staff has made or the suggestions that staff has made with respect to breaking it into bite-sized pieces and re-noticing it in the future? Is that all part of this?

I think so.

Okay.

Okay. So we have a motion to postpone to a date uncertain time. The we'll say item one and number two and item two. And the motion also includes that when we meet at that date uncertain time, we will have at least two separate agenda items, one including Pomona and the overlay zoning, COS, and the other including the amendments to Title II, Title 18, and Title 19.

Okay.

So we'll have first and a second. All in favor? Oh, no. Roll call. Sorry.

My little fingers were working, sorry. Let's see, Commissioner Wolff.

Yes.

Commissioner Sharp.

Yes.

Commissioner Byker-Kaufman.

Yes.

Vice Chair Scarpa.

Yes.

Chair Scott. Yes. Okay, so that passes 5-0 with one absence. We'll move to regular agenda. There's none. Reports and communications. We got your email on the EIR. Thank you.

I would strongly recommend starting to read anything you've got your hands on for Barbara Yard now. There will be a lot more to read in a week.

Okay. All right. Great. And then we will adjourn to Thursday, October 1st, which will be a long meeting, I would anticipate. So thank you.