Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

June 17th, 2025. Thank you. Item two, roll call, please. Oh, we're all getting that police department. I don't know. Well, let's uh let's roll call. We I know. I hope this emergency coner. Commissioner McDell, we can't hear you very well. Commissioner McDow, Commissioner Partardi here. Commissioner Sion on the phone. Chair Finland and I'm here also. So noted we have Is it a test? Oh, that's comforting. Did we shut the door? Can we set the door? At least slow down. Really? They didn't say shelter in place.

Okay. Maybe do you have the key? Well, kind of. He was assaulting people with a knife. Okay. Well, just, you know, All right. Sorry, folks. Um, item number three, public comment. This is a time set aside for folks to address the planning commission on matters not on our agenda this evening. You've got three minutes to speak and please introduce yourself. Can you hear me? Won't be booming. I don't hear you very well. How How about now? No one's ever told me to speak up. You guys will be sorry for that. My name is Julie D. Carlo and I dropped into Jeff Mitchum's life like Dorothy dropping into Munchkin Land. Only I did not land on Wicked Witch the East. I knew I was going to be involved in creating an intentional intergenerational community, but to be honest, I thought I would be doing that in Metro Detroit, but I'm supposed to build it here. So off I went to obtain the wicked witch of the west broom to lay at the city speech and have been joined by David Wright, architect out of Nevada City, California. Aaron Linden, expert in serving vulnerable populations in grant writing out of Philadelphia. Patricia Carreras, legal counsel here in Mount Chasta. Reinhardt Eshbach, developer out of Detroit, Michigan. Julie D. Carlo, CPA and former CFO for a major automotive out of Detroit, Michigan, and a licensed builder yet to appear. The overall plan is to form a 501c3 that

partners with the developer to build intentional communities in three phases. One, a community for young women, and seniors. Two, a community for single parents. Three, a self-sufficient community for men, women, and children of any age. Phase one is targeted for the Eugene Street parcel, a 1.3 acre micro community consisting of 400 square f foot stacked tiny homes on foundations with the density to be optimal for the site providing 25% or more affordable singleperson residences. Development will provide common garden recreation parking and gathering spaces. Aesthetics to be craftsmanstyle residences compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and village character of Mount Shasta. The owner/developer will work closely with neighbors, the Chamber of Commerce, and the city of Mount Shasta to create a housing development in harmony with the city master plan and future of the city. In closing, I would like to quote Margaret me. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world. In fact, it's the only thing that ever has. Together, we can be that group. If you agree, I am open to meeting with you to discuss my next steps to get the concept drawing for your review. I'm also ready to purchase the Eugene Street land. I just need to know that we are going to work together on this creation. So, I thank you for listening and that's kind of my plan. I've already just kind of seen it, but if you anyone wants to talk with me further, I'm happy to do it. I I just like I said, dropped in on him with no and now I got a team behind me. So if the planning is interested in the city, I'm ready to move forward. Everyone's in

place, ready to go. Uh but I also understand if that doesn't happen that way. But I just wanted to come and introduce myself versus just on email. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Thank you. Um just for the record, when um this isn't an agenda item tonight, so we won't take any action on it. And the next are through um our planner. So, thank you so much. And there are no other folks here this evening. So, we're going to move on to item number four, which is our consent agenda, which on which we have the approval of our meeting, our minutes from our meeting on April 15th. And if there's no changes, um, then we can leave it on the consent agenda and we can move from there. Commissioners, you can still vote. Um, actually, you can still vote if you weren't here. So, we need a motion to approve if we agree to what's on the minutes. Um, otherwise, we can move it from the consent agenda and discuss it and then proceed. I move to approve the Okay, got a motion from Alan. I'll second that. Second from Belinda. All in favor? I opposed. None. Motion for the consent agenda to approve the minutes passes unanimously. Now we're going to move on to item five, which is uh the appointment of planning commissioners to the design objective design standards review or So, we just take nominations and vote on a representative to assist planning staff in reviewing projects uh that are qualified for staff level review. As you

recall, those would be duplex side by side duplex stack, three forplexes, and neighborhood town homes. And the review body would consist of one of you all uh and uh planning staff. And so, we need a nomination and a vote. I would volunteer before a nomination. Can I um also ask is there a way to have an alternate? So it's all up to you. Sure. Go ahead. That's a good idea. Yeah, because you know we take vacations and do things and show up and stuff like that. Um, I would volunteer as either the alternate or the uh whatever the main person or David or I also would be happy to unvolunteer if one of the more skilled architectural type people, landscaper type people, builder type people would like to be the number one Yeah, I'll I'll Oh, then we have volunteer to volunteer for primary and an alternate. Does that sound right? Do we have whatever beh do you want a motion for all of this, Jeff? Yes. Okay. So, I need a motion. I move to Jeff. Sorry. All right. Do I have a second? We have a second from David. All in favor? I opposed. None. Motion passes unanimously

to have Tucson be the primary representative and Belinda to be our alternate. I forgot to ask if there was a time limit on on this appointment or if it's just like Sorry, who's the alter? Belinda. And do you want to set a annual on that? Everybody in agreement? We're kind of a consensus crowd here. annual opportunity to um reup or decline works for me. Okay, we have consensus on that. All right, are we good? Can I move us on to item number six? A we're having a public hearing this evening on the um parklet ordinance to the an amendment to the municipal code regarding parklets. Excellent. So this is an action item uh summarized uh in the staff report under recommendation. It's two parts and we're being particularly careful moving forward uh at city attorney's recommendation with respect to pulling out uh two um components to uh staff recommendations when a squa action is involved. Um and the first and foremost is to when you do make your your approved motion or your your recommended motion um please do remember to read it directly from this um finding as follows. that the action fails to meet the definition of a project under SQA, etc., etc., and two, that you are recommending city council amend the Mount Chasta Municipal Code uh section 1903 park uh dining. And again um to be very clear we you know we've talked about this um on a few occasions and

that the only item that we are amending the existing 1903 with is item X to fall under uh 1903 uh and that will be uh design permanence and character with respect to construction materials and techniques uh vicinity design context and coherent design character. Um all the other components of of that existing park ordinance uh under this action will remain the same. We are only adding item X. So that's all I have to say about that unless you have questions for me. Okay, team David, did you have any comments questions? How about you? Um questions and comments. You know what? sharing things maybe not ideal. My comments are mainly around design and what's there now. I assume those wouldn't pass this these design standards. Is that correct or no? Um, first of all, you've noticed that the the criteria that that are offered for your consideration are very subjective. Um, they allow all of the discretion um to make that determination um to be held by you and you alone. Um, staff's opinion in the matter is irrelevant, frankly. Um, dealt um with subjective criteria very much like these in previous positions. I can tell you that the pendulum swing of

aesthetic preference swings wide. Um under that notion, I would hesitate to say that what's in the street now would fail. Um, I think that what happened at Sparkies, that is the replacement of bolted on components to those that parklet to be replaced with structural oversized lumber. uh that is they're not just braced on or bracketed on or fixed on as additions to but rather they are part of the structural foundation of the parklet that does meet this criterion of construction permanence um more so than it did before. Um so whenever you're dealing with a non-conforming situation the adage is that you bring it further into compliance not further out of compliance. So if you were to their renewed application under this new ordinance a year from now uh because they are now an annual permit issued under the previous u ordinance 1903. Um I I would look at that. What can we do to recommend they or require they uh improve to to better comply with the intent of this ordinance and that discretion is up to you entirely. Okay. Um The goal is here is to to make sure these parklets are, you know, improve the downtown aesthetic and not uh degrade. So that's my main concern that that the design is, you know, of high quality and um visually pleasing. So whatever verbiage we can add into this that would would

further what we're looking for I think would be helpful. That was the intent behind construction materials and techniques. Part of the plan shall specify high quality construction materials such as masonry, heavy timber, cast iron or steel frames and techniques appropriate for commercial application and long-term durability. I think that gives you a lot of lensure to push applicants toward the ultimate extreme of of of um complying with that the intent of that criterion. vicinity vicinity design context. Um there is the reference to desirable vicinity context, not just undesirable vicinity context. So it's up to you all to decide what that is. Um so you can say we're we're using heavy timber, we're using wood uh that's comparable to in context of a desirable form and expression. That's all up to you. Um and then frankly, does it need is it coherently expressed? Um is it a train wreck or is it thoughtful? uh and poetic in nature, shall we say. Um that is all up to you all to to make um to make findings for and direct staff. Indeed. So So we So we have a chance to review it. Absolutely. And say yes or no. We don't like this. Yeah. Through this filter. All right. That makes it better. Then if I might add to that in that process, we're saying okay that's I don't know if 2x6 is heavy. Can we go with a 4x10? And they'll say, "Now we want to do that." Can we say, "Well, you're going to make it a 4x." I I would make it solid bindings. Um that saying by that I mean, uh look to other examples that exist in the public rightway or abuing the public rightway. Um either public space or or building form materials, etc. um that you would hope they aspire to to referencing directly. and if you can find it,

reference it specifically um and then hold them to it and that's your discretion. No, I hear you. But this isn't the kind of construction that we find on the street. True. Now, so maybe the the version that gets approved in the future is far more permanent in terms of construction materials and techniques. I I like the idea some relatively heavy timber portions of it and I'd like them to overhang a bit, have some quality to it. Character character and what I'm asking sort of is can we push that? Absolutely. Okay. And and then also um questions around maintenance. You know, if it's wood, it's going to take a beating, especially the western facing surfaces. So there was some verbage in here about must be maintained to you know keep a fairly new look. That's in the existing ordinance. Okay. It it wasn't um well when it when the parklet renewal application from pip from barkies came before me. Uh I failed it on that that ground. um that the the maintenance was deferred to the degree that um those bolt-on uh stansions that supported the crinkly lights, you know, were coming unattached and were crooked and looked horrible and that they ought to replace those with something that's more structural, which they did. They tore them all the way down to the foundation or the the uh the hooding if you will. Um and uh put 4x4s, you know, vertically much like pipeline did. Uh so that I mean, you know, by my estimation, it's further into compliance. Does it meet the full intent of this? No, it doesn't in my opinion. Uh would it? Could it? Uh under a new application next year? Uh it's all up to you. But I think this gives you to your

point, I think this gives you the teeth you need to take that bite. Okay. Um, and then I don't remember in here exactly if there's verbiage around what happens with like the um big concrete blocks that are out there right now. Does it need to have some sort of barrier like that? Uh, that's public works uh a compounding standard that and it's also in 1903. Uh, require that uh there be a barrier sufficient to withstand uh you know collision at that speed the speed posted speed on on notable part. Uh does it need to be a K rail that's concrete? No. Um could it be water filled? Yes. Less desirable aesthetically arguably. Um could it be concrete planters? Yes. Could it be boulders potentially? Yes. Uh could it be that's uh more permanent yet steel, iron. Yeah, you could go there. Um I think we should specify something like that. You know, something other than, you know, a big concrete block. What if say um did a mural on concrete blocks? I don't know. We did talk, by the way, we you know, when we were talking about framing this this ordinance amendment up, we did about coming up with uh pre-approved plans. Uh we talked about u making it completely discretionary uh and leaving it up to applicants. Um we we we chose something kind of a hybrid between the two. What is it that you're trying to get out of something that's permanent and something that looks like it belongs there? Well, that's what these criteria were intended to get from

uh from from applicants uh without telling them how to do it. that are out there now. Did you say they're provided by public works and and specified by? Uh no, they they need to be provided by the applicant and as you know there's only one that's in the direction of travel on the east side. Yeah, there is obviously I've done streetscape projects with very large concrete planters that I like that were vehicle that sort of thing. I'd like to that direction. I don't I don't know. They're much more landscaping appears elsewhere in the in that in the existing ordinance. So, you could pull that into this and go there. Yeah. So, but in this case, because Sparkies lives on the south end, you know, closer where traffic is then it would therefore be their responsibility because pipeline just to have sparkies to Yes. You know, that's a lot of speedies. Um, so go ahead. Anything else? Well, so I'm wondering so next year they'll come and you know we're talking about you know adding some design maybe having them you know having those posts instead of it being just this rectangle box adding some embellishments to make it more interesting changing the planter. uh you know they might want a little heads up that this is what we're

thinking like what's the time frame they come in and we say you know we don't really like what you have this is what we want you to come back with a proposal like what's the time frame that we have to make this happen and to you know to not spring it on them per se but to um get where we want to go. Well, first of all, uh the existing parklet permits are were issued under the existing ordinance and they're good for a year. Uh if you move this forward, it goes to council uh for two readings. It's effective 30 days after that. So, we're still two and a half months away from that effective date, which is uh still four months prior to their permits needing to be renewed. if they're paying attention to what we're doing. Staff will notify them. Yeah. Thank you. That's that's the piece. Go ahead, please. Yeah. Um are like shadees allowed in this there. It's already in the Okay. So, do you unless if anybody we're gonna have we're having a public hearing. Let me just ask for now. Is everybody sort of satisfied that what we have here meets the concerns of folks? Okay. Well, this is the public hearing and on the slight chance that one person here would like to speak to us, I'll open up the public hearing and I think that we don't have public participation at this time. We did have a um a letter from Dale Forest and I think that's been addressed by staff uh with those responses. I'm going to close the public hearing. Uh

commissioners, any more comments, questions before we go ahead? Yeah, when this first came to us, Jeff, there was the right word to say adjusting the monthly to more reflect standard rental rates. Uh we're doing a fee update right now citywide and it's folded into that. So we're having a new look. I have one more question. Um this is a couple meetings ago. I'm not sure if I got around to asking it, but is there a size limitation to these parklets? As far as how many car spaces each restaurant can take, I didn't see one. It's frontage only and it's typically frontage. Yeah. Two to three stalls. Right. Okay. Anything else, commissioners? All right. Are we ready to um move forward with a motion? wanted us to read. Oh, you don't need to read the whole thing. Just finding make it that it's fine. Read the first sentence of the first uh the first thing under recommendation. The first recommendation. No, you read both both one and two. Um but you can just read that first sentence of of the uh of number one. Now we're going to test my reading. So I move that we approve resolution PC25-01 recommending the Manchester City Council number one find the action fails to meet the definition of a project and is therefore not subject to review under

number two amend chapter 190.03 dining maybe as presented. Maybe we'd want to add that as present. Well, it's in the resolution. It's attached to the resolution as exhibit as attached to the as attached as attached to the resolution. Okay, we have a motion from Belinda. Do we have a second? Second from Alan. All in favor? I none. Motion passes unanimously to um for the resolution PC2501. Item number seven, the public hearing, another public hearing uh on our tiny house on wheels ordinance. Yeah. Yeah. A little housekeeping first. So, I handed some material out to you. Uh first, um I'll I'll refer you to the public from Peggy Ree. Uh this was an ongoing uh dialogue with her via email to clarify uh the density bonus as it pertains to tiny homes on wheels, the tiny home villages. Um and she asked for clarification on a site diagram which depicted a oneacre site uh with maximum allowed uh tiny homes uh under you know nondeed restriction density uh compared with a uh deed restricted 100% low income 80% density bonus which gives you a density bonus of seven units uh for a total of 16. So that's what this site diagram

does. Um I handed out uh the same diagram in a larger form format there along with a bunch of other development scenarios to test this this notion of nine and then also to be clear about when density bonuses apply when they don't um and also um when they do apply what is our what's our formulas so to be clear in our let's take C1 first the first one on the first page there, 20 units an acre is allowed is the is the maximum density, right? But we're not using that as a calculation for tiny homes on wheels. We're using the max density of nine units for any tiny home development. Okay. The reason that it's important that we remember what that base density density is is when it's less than the number nine by sight area or or density. So if the effective site density is less than nine, it caps tiny homes on wheels to the lower number. Okay? Um and that's what I've explained in the successive pages here. So, if you go to page two, um, you'll see a quick site diagram that shows how 16 units would fit on an acre and still meet all of the applicable provisions of the existing municipal code. Um, so all of the base zoning density uh standards, the objective design standards and building code, by the way. All right. So, you get up to 16 units, you get some open some circulation in this diagram. It's off of an alley. So, I I lost the label on the on the top edge of the sheet. That

should be an alley up there. So, you can do single loaded corridors straight through or sing oneway corridors through the site to get the clustered parking pursuant to our objective design standards. Uh you get the spacing pursuant to building code. Uh and uh you get all the setbacks. Um so, you can get a bonus on a oneacre site in C1 at those densities pretty easily. It fits. Um on the third sheet, I took a halfacre site and and the first sheet shows under uh current density without deed restriction. Um same thing, it it checks all the boxes. It meets all the setbacks. It meets the clustered parking requirements. It meets the common open space requirements. Um it provides access homes on wheels to move them in or out of the site. And then if you switch the page um you you find the deed restriction added um which bumps it up to to 10 units because 80% of nine is an additional seven units. Adding seven to sorry um uh gets you 16, but it's limited to 10. And the reason it's limited to 10 is that it if you fit more tiny homes uh than this current diagram, you would begin to uh locate the tiny homes too close to each other. One spacing separations would for these units would frame construction. Um uh lower price point means no firewalls means glazing is essential for livability of these units. Um so the moment you start throwing lots of fire hardening at them to get them closer than 10 ft, you blow the building code

and we would just we would not approve it. Um so you're capped at 10. So the density bonus doesn't get you that additional six units or total seven units. It only gets you one because you blew the building code. Um same Same with the final example uh which is a quarter acre site. Uh you can see that you can get five units uh which because your base density is 20 units an acre. It's a quarter acre site. Quarter of 20 is five. So you get five the site diagram shows five fits pretty comfortably. But you turn the page um and the max uh that we can get up to with affordable is six units because anymore if you shoehorn anymore onto that site, same thing. You're violating uh building code unit separation to clarify distance between the individual units. Yes. And and potentially others. So we also have Louis standards which would apply uh in uh between the wildland urban interface which and frankly now that we're all a high fire severity zone there'll be fire hardening standards which which lay on top of this. So, I'll pause right there and and ask you. My my question is the configuration of the six units if that were slightly deeper sure and parallel you could get another you probably could and that could be allowed they still meet density requirement and distance if they can prove that if they can pro can prove that it's a code compliant project that's defined as meeting everything on the budget general plan, municipal code, protective design standards, uh, and,

um, building code that we adopt in addition to this, um, which we will need to do, uh, to to get there. And, and that's a segue to what I handed out um, lastly, which is um, a new exhibit A to your resolution. And I added on page one only of the ordinance, I added the underlined text and eliminated the strike through text. Um, what I'm trying to do with that is two things. In 18 in the intent statement, I added for clarity sake and all applicable provisions of the Mount Chasta municipal code to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Um, that staff gets point applicants to to reinforce the argument I just made that if you violate spacing separations uh you're violating the building code. We can reject that even if it is a density bonus project um because it's um not conforming with the purpose and intent statement of of this ordinance bulletproof. Second thing that I did was and and again this next item is particularly nuanced because the definition of tiny homes on wheels is fluid. Um it changed most recently in 2022. It changed previously in 2020. HCD is stuck on a 2016 definition. the uh international code, residential California residential code, Oregon residential code all define tiny homes on wheels slightly differently because this is trend setting um new legislation.

Um we will be paying very close attention to this. It's already in our municipal code that if this doesn't comply with state law, state law prevails. Um, so what I did was sharpen the the sphere if you will a little bit on what is defined as a, you know, as a tiny home, how it meets that definition. What I got from you all as in the previous five meetings, we discussed this was that you wanted to push this, you wanted to provide opportunities for this building typology to be treated as one an affordable, a more affordable by design res. prototype and secondly uh to do so uh for permanent occupancy citywide under a set of rigorous design standards to make sure we don't have trailer parks everywhere um but we have tiny home villages that not only meet safety standards for American National Standards Institute because they're on the road and little doilies and chimneys are flying off as you drive down the road. It's got to be it's got to be sufficient to meet those highway standards. That's why I added B. Um, but we're going above and beyond and we're saying that not only does it need to be roadw worthy, but it needs to meet local aesthetic and character standards, which are the rest of this document. And we we've pushed pretty far with this with roof pitch and materiality, cladding, um, and and and porches and and you know, so on. So, this by staff's due diligence um goes way above and beyond uh what the minimum park model RVs look and feel like um and frankly also far above and beyond uh what other jurisdictions are doing.

most jurisdictions that are progressively treating this issue, Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Cruz, um, uh, Humble County, uh, and elsewhere. Um frankly because housing department of housing community development HCD required universally that for housing elements to be certified that they need to explore this initiative and a lot of jurisdictions have done that we included. Um but no one goes quite this far. And so I want to explain that um most of them use use ADUs as synonymous with tiny homes on wheels and they limit it to that. Um the tiny home, there are a handful that are doing this. Um tiny homes on wheels, not tiny homes on foundations, tiny homes on wheels, uh as uh as synonymous with single family residential and multif family dwellings, which is essentially what we're saying. We're saying we're giving them a density of nine units per site uh in a C1 zone um unless and until it violates the maximum zoning for small sites. And then is at that zoning for my um that's all I want to say about what I've added since the packet. Um the rest of this material is as you've seen it. Um it's got your fingerprints on it. You helped create this directed me to prepare this over a number of meetings. Um no changes elsewhere. Um and with that I'm happy to answer questions and the deliberation. Okay, let's start on this end. Alan, do you have comments, questions? I like what you've done. I I like where we're at. It's really reads

comments right now. Okay, Belinda. Um, in the uh one diagram that you gave us, the one with the all the extra is I was looking at that and I was going, is it Can there be a permanent housing like a few condos or something or apartments and tiny homes on the same property? Uh if it meets uh or doesn't violate underlying uh zoning uh standards and density and general plan provisions. Sure. So you could do a kind of mixed deal. Yeah. I I would I think this public comment you heard at the outset of this meeting um might contemplate something like that whether it's a a primary uh structure of maybe multiple use um you know surrounded by smaller tiny homes if you will on foundations. Um, I think we're going to find as this, um, issue matures and settles into the context of Mount Shasta that you're you're you're going to find tiny homes more likely on foundations than wheels. um to really meet the rigorous standard as a definitional standard that that's set here. Uh there are certain components of of this of the construction of of these units that needs to be approved by HCD. Um because it's on a chassis, it's on wheels. Uh so and um uh so a developer would say, "Yeah, I'm going to build kind of these things and I'm going to plop them down into C1 site with Acre. We'll see how it goes." Um well, they have to be a certified for HCD. If they're all tiny homes on wheels, uh they have to meet these this definitional standard and uh HCD assigns inspectors to ensure that

that's that's the case. Um in addition to that, local inspection would take place um for the nonstructural things. So so the circulation, the landscaping, probably twothirds of this ordinance would be reviewed by you and and our and our building officials to ensure that the totality of this the intent. Yeah, I think this is a nice put together ordinance. I had do a few questions here and thank you for putting that line That was a big question I had. You know, what building code are are these going to be falling under? And I assume this is in lie of like building permit so to speak and having to submit plans and all that. As long as they are certified under the standard, then it's good to go. Yeah. And the reason that I struck out title 24, the California building California code of regulations and replaced it with 2022 California residential code and appendix AQ is because appendix Q under the 19 code was replaced in the 22 code. So it was a trienium every three years the building codes are updated and local jurisdictions adopt. So in 2022, from 19 to 22 went from A to AQ or to Q to AQ. And with that, there were more uh tiny homes on wheels provisions. Um that said, there's by reference uh a a uh a

requirement for B to be complied with as well. So uh because we're we're we're locally we lose control once it gets on wheels. We lose control. It's there's state highways provisions. There's certifications at the state level that provide inspectors the the training to to inspect for mobility purposes. Well, it's a it's a it's a it's a team effort when it comes to this toward the end. However, if they are, as you mentioned, put on permanent foundations, does that bring them into a different category of building code as far as sprinkler systems, solar systems, energy reports? Yeah. And if you recall, we did have this discussion a while back. Um, our code is our existing uh zoning code is is and and and title 15 building code by reference is uh very permissive on minimum unit size. We have no minimum. Uh so we can already build tiny homes on foundations under our current code. Uh we're we're adding a provision to say that if you if you keep them on wheels then there's an extra bar to to cover to to clear. Uh and if you don't uh then you've got that option to go on a foundation for for a nominal fee because it's still affordable by design. It's still a small foundation. And there are creative ways to do that with small with small structures if it's brought in on wheels and then yeah uh very common with manufactured homes you know totally offsite certified modular factory built shipped in parts assembled on site sometimes or not uh dropped off the chassis or uh you know off off the off the wheels and and put on a a foundation which we inspect. So we get to con

um the parking surface. I see that we're calling out for 2 in of asphalt. I'm wondering if if that's just under the the unit itself and doesn't have to extend in front to a driveway to be able to to move the unit in. Now that's where we would pulled in the rest that's why I added as uh as applies to other all applicable provisions of of the municipal code. So that's where title 15 would come in uh where we get to control aisle widths and surface uh uh compact materiality etc. So we're we're making sure that the drive aisle can handle large you know heavy units being drug in on and off site. I guess my question is does that pad to extend to a driveway. Yes, it does need to Oh, yeah. Yeah. The path of travel to go on and off site would need to meet those standards. Could the surface under the unit itself be um like more of a decorative crushed rock with a fabric under it instead of a asphalt? It it can and I think we've provided for that as well. Um class two base rocker equivalent. Yeah, I mean it does of asphalt over or equival equivalent permeable or non-p permeable surface again. So we're I think we're good. We did discuss that previously and we didn't want to pave everything and stick homes tiny homes and wheels on it. We wanted to provide opportunity for percolation and yes site uh site uh storm uh you know retention detention. So postdevelopment peak flows are no greater than redevelopment and that's the standard that we apply. Uh public works is pretty rigorous about

that. Yeah. Good. Um for the decking part feature a uh entry porch or decking the steps. Is there any size limitation to that deck? And could it be usable? I guess we've certainly had it. My retence would be that um you know it's kind of a somewhat arbitrary one-sizefits-all attempt and um I think in a single unit context uh most of the prototype you know villages that that that I I toured uh they were they were amenized pretty well with exterior um features such as decks and common what's it's what gives them the market advantage over a comparable price point. So, uh I think that when we get to that point in the discussion, we're reviewing application and it's barely large enough for a door swing and set of steps to a parking pad. um you know this planner would push back and go give me a table and two chairs and a place to chill out. You got the room you know do it and particularly in village context where you all see it for the regulatory authority provisions uh you've got all discretion world to make sure that liberal provisions are made on site for these amenities and not skip and we I think everybody knows it when they see it. Um, and it would help to see a few of these where even the RV parks that are, you know, branded and stylized um for Airstreams or vintage trailers, they get that they're marketed

in large part by their arrival sequence and their public space components because their interior space is so compromised. They really have to make up for it uh in exterior uh um amenities. Yeah, I just think uh you know it's number one it expands their living area if they have a an outdoor deck. Um they're just nice in general. Um what about like storage units or not not storage unit but little storage buildings you know that's that are separate. Is there any provision for that? um not in this code but elsewhere in the municipal code. I think we also discussed you know being sensitive to holding tiny homes on wheels and villages to a higher standard than we would multif family projects at a similar uh market rate. Um you know cost level or expense level for housing generally but but again it varies discretion. Um we do have garbage recycling provisions so centralized um I do think You could apply a standard public health safety general welfare is pretty broad provision. We have lots of nuisance um components in our code that would allow us to enforce um exterior storage of you know junk and whatnot um and certainly rescues but um uh you know this this community draws a lot of active young people with toys. So the question becomes where does the mountain bike go, the gravel bike go, you know, your AT gear, your alpine gear, um your paddle board, um you know, your three fly rods and and so on. So if they

aren't, you know, putting those things inside somewhere or on a structural um or inside some structure that again we're silent on. Uh then we would um we would encourage them to do so at the outset for one. Um, you know, a gear room or a gear shed. Um, and if they fail to do so and stuff accumulates over time, then we enforce the the nuisance provisions in the code. But again, I think the self- selects itself. You know, people that are people who have stuff like to protect it. And the question then becomes, can I put a tough shed up as opposed to a cedar clad, you know, thing that I that I made proudly. Why? What's the difference? Well, the code doesn't go there yet, you know, elsewhere in the code. And do we really want to hold these guys to a higher standard? Um, I think that's risky. I would think that the last couple multifamily housing small unit things we did, there was a there was a one of one of the benefits that the developer wanted to do was some shared you know, like a bunch of storage things on site. So that and that's a they rent those separately. Yeah. And they could we could do that. I mean, there's something in here says, you know, you know, site coverage provisions, you know, these small footprint you can tell, but site coverage on these things is, you know, probably somewhere in the 25% range. So you're you got room, I think, on site to, you know, certainly it's under 200 square feet sight coverage. Anyway, so yeah, I think there's provisions for it. Okay. And what is the minimum space in between these that they need to be uh say without fire provisions? It's 10 ft. So it's usually

five feet to a center line and then five feet from that. So each unit's got five feet of from from their site and then five. So that's why I said once you get up once you start to shoehorn these in with density provisions that exceed uh the the base zones per you know per per density bonus uh you can scale these off pretty quick. These are 14 foot wide units. So slightly less than the width of the unit side diagrams they've blown it. So it's easy to get there pretty quick. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks David. Um, so did we I guess there's no definition of any home villages. I know I missed the last meeting, but I think in that provision or code there's this separation between the zones and if they were going to be owned or rented spaces. Uh, no, we we didn't go there. Um, I don't know if you missed that meeting or not. Um, the definition tiny tiny home villages is two parts. It's one, it's got to meet the definition of a tiny home on wheels and two, it's got to be nine or less. Uh, and then also, you know, comply with all the provisions and site standards. So, are we So, this is allowing this argument again of basically a mobile home park for tiny homes. I won't I won't dify that. response. I'll say that is a developer can develop the paths and then rent them out to people with tiny homes. Correct. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry to be to be uh to be blunt, but but I I this is particularly sensitive because as we move forward with this and we go to council with

this, we we really want to make sure that we're not talking about mobile home parks all over town. We're talking about You are. Well, hopefully we're not right because it is harder and I I was that's why one of the reasons I was sad I mean obviously you had things to do but having you part of that conversation since that was an important concern right that we want something aesthetically nice that you wouldn't mind having next door or you know wherever and how How did we get how do we get there? Because I think we did listen when you said that early on. How can we make this something that isn't that isn't a a mobile home park but does have it can't they have design standards that mobile home parks don't doesn't do. Well, and I don't know a whole lot about mobile home parks. I have this certain image and we have examples of them around town. I mean, it's nothing against a mobile home park, but we have an ordinance for a site that wants to be operated like a mobile home park. And all we're doing is making which are heavily regulated by the state and completely different than you know like basically we're just calling it a different thing to skirt the regulations of the state but it's basically the same thing operating the same way as a mobile home park. The only difference is the piece being put on it. How is it different?

So, um I'm I'm very familiar with HCD's regulatory authority over mobile home parks, having been the regulatory authority for a number of them. Um and then also having deferred to ACD for regulatory authority over mobile home parks and having had a hand in the creation of this ordinance, I can tell you they're vastly different. So, the rules You're developing a site with pads on it for individual owners to park their structure on and rent it. I'll agree with that. But we also allow that's your definition. Yeah. If that's your common definition of the two, then I would agree which seems like it's exactly the same as No. And where it differs is the set of standards in here are far more rigorous with respect to materiality design character and public amenity on site. So landscaping standards remember we've got objective design standards we're laying on top of this. And we've got title 22 or excuse me uh 2022 CBC appendix AQ which mobile homes do not. Homes probably have their 2002 appendic they they don't the standards are far less rigorous materiality uh they're not designed for permanent occupancy regulations with respect to insulation are far less uh volumetrically the room size is is compromised. So all those interior standards create an exterior expression of a thing that is an RV. What we're trying to do is create regulations which create an exterior thing that is a tiny home that looks like a tiny house, not an RV. So, when one says we're just creating RV parks, no, we're not

creating RV parks. We're creating tiny house parks. I'm not saying an RV park. I'm saying a mobile home park. Okay. A mobile home park. So, I guess the expression of a mobile home from a design standpoint in your mind, is that synonymous with what we're creating here? No, I think it's the I guess my argument is the operation of the site is the same. And if we already have an ordinance for an operation of one that same type of site, why are we making a new ordinance to operate another site in the same way? How define operation of the site where a developer develops the site and then the land to somebody who has their structure that's houses on it. Well, that's a very small part of the operation of the site in my estimation. I think the operation of the site is landscaping, setbacks, common area, etc. Mobile home, mobile home parks have no standards with respect to that. All they're doing is they have a standard with respect to sight area and that's it. So these standards give you a whole different look and feel. They don't look like mobile home parks. They look like tiny home parks. And don't we have another model an owner? There's we're open to a couple of several choices in terms of ownership models. One is that the developer could own the house, the tiny house on wheels, and rent it as opposed to you owning your and pulling it into a space. So I think that's so there's at least two models out there or don't we have also that somebody could put their tiny house on wheels and own the space if they can own the space collectively own it. Yeah,

this ordinance is silent on so the market will deliver what the market will deliver. someone can come in and and and buy a 10,000 square foot site and put as many uh tiny homes on it as possible. One owner um rent rent out spaces um do you restrict or not that land area. So they're essentially renting space. I I guess how is it what's the oversight if somebody develops a site and just put pads on it? Who what's the process for me to move my tiny home to that site and make sure that it meets these standards? homeowner association and CCNRs are required prior to site approval. Uh so if you move in uh you you need to comply with those CCNRs and as regulated by the HOA. Okay. I everybody knows HOAs some of them are enforced some of them aren't enforced. That's not it. Do you have a suggestion to change the ordinance or are you just one just trying to figure out home? I mean, well, I know, but we're having I think you could probably find tiny homes that are constructed that meet section AQ, but don't meet our objective design standards. So, what's the how does that get regulated if just like any other development that this is non-compliant? We it's part of a code enforcement process and we're but

there's no application process for going to this space and move my tiny home to it. My tiny home doesn't get reviewed by the city to make sure it meets the design. Yes, it would. Um I if so if I was the developer and I wanted to rent a space, I would have to say, "Okay, you need to get your structure approved by the city before I can rent you." Yeah. Every tiny home is subject to these standards. So if someone said, "I want to pull in my uh my aluminum clad, you know, corrugated plastic um beauty that I made in my backyard last week um onto this site, we would say no, it's in violation of this. So, but how CCNR I would say yeah, the permit the permit is uh issued with CCNRs um and HOA same exact condos and same exact thing for multif family projects. But those are you know the structure that's being built and if that structure over time is either deferred with respect to maintenance um we enforce. If it's in non-compliance with the conditions of approval uh we enforce. Uh same applies here. We would say that uh you're essentially creating an opportunity for a condo project uh that uh has at the time of application, you know, a partially filled list of occupants uh and you've created a a a site that contains opportunity for more occupants. Um then under these provisions uh we would say okay show us the CCNRs which

ensure that your site meets these standards for new occupants and then we would condition the approval pursuant to this issued by permit. So each one each every ordinance to approve this any type of development comes with a permit process uh that goes before staff for some of it and you all for others. uh and it comes with a resolution and it comes with conditions of approval and it comes with uh with the homeowners association and CCNRs all of which conspire to give staff plenty of authority in my estimation to hold developers um over sight control and if they don't we find them $100 a day and for first day and then $500 and so on. So yeah, it gets It's all there. Is there is there a permit process to set a tiny home on its pad? Yes, that's what this would provide for. So 10 years down the road, you know, one tiny home moves to Santa Cruz and a new tiny home comes down from Bend and it the procedure for this new tiny home 10 years down the road in order for them to pull in to onto their path. Are we depending upon whoever If it's this model where somebody owns it and is renting that space, they're the ones who like how does some I think to his point, how does somebody how do how are we how do we know that those are being enforced? So somebody pulls up, you know, he sends a picture.

Yeah, looks great. Come on down. I I guess I'm short of you know certainly willing to and happy to entertain suggestions. Um I I think there's there's a robust set of standards that we through permitting process have control over. Yeah. In the beginning that makes sense. And so so for example, if someone came in tomorrow and said, "Hey, all right. Well, next year and said, okay, we've got a we've got 10 of these things and you know, I want to create a site with with 10 pads and eight of them are immediately ready for occupancy. Here, here's photographs of them. Um, just like anything else, you know, you don't know what you're you're going to get until it's built. Um, you rely on material, plan sets, and so on, we would ask for the same thing here. And then we have substantial performance provisions that say, well, hold on. you know, you've got to be you've got to go through an inspection process when a new unit arrives to ensure that it substantially complies with what you submitted initially and substantially complies with these. And we have a site inspection process for hooking up to uh city services and we have a site inspection process to ensure that the deck is in in place, the landscapes in place and so on. So, I would say there's plenty of teeth in this thing for us to uh ensure that through the permitting process um for successive units that we require they be reviewed. Um I think maybe you're that piece, the successive units piece requiring inspection might be the piece that wasn't clear. So, where where would you put that? I don't know. We just we're talking

Does that David? Am I getting am I getting close to what you're thinking? I I don't like the model of a developer developing them and renting them out to people. So I I mean especially R2, R3, I just don't like that model of a tiny home village. You would prefer what model? Ownership. Yeah, I would prefer developer develops the site and owns the tiny houses and then rents them out to tenants or sells them. No, rents them out. Can't sell them. Oh, yeah. What if they're like condos where you own it? I just don't like the idea of them being able to be easily moved. And this space that once had 10 and it looked good in 10 years when tiny homes aren't a bad anymore. Now it has one. Well, we have properties around the city that look crappy. I mean, we we have that. I understand that, but I just, you know, if it doesn't take off, right, you just get stuck with one and I've got a bear lot next to me now. I mean, it's I don't hate that the fact that it's empty, but it's not empty with a bunch of bumpy parking pads and mo and mode or whatever. Does it We require maint landscape. So, maintenance on the sites though. The other the other thing I want to say I understand in my I grew up in Ashland and I know the area through there and down here home parks and that same like crappy looking things. Um the architectural detailing and roof lines

and stuff like this I think set set them apart substantially from what I see in home parks as far as visual I'm not arguing that they're aesthetically different. Okay. I'm the ownership model is the or the lack thereof. Yeah. I don't I don't you know I don't just it seems like I just doesn't sit well with me. So would um would part of your concern about it turning into something that's a blight in our community in some period of time other than well emptiness isn't going to solve it but if if we required an inspection of all new tenants. Would that help mitigate some of your concerns? I just don't I'm against the operating principle of them being operated as a site developer and renting out spaces. doesn't well we were given the task by council to come up with an ordinance. So we have this job in front of us that we're that we need to hash out in some fashion. So So we can't I think other than we could say I mean I guess we could say we could opt out but I I love consensus. So I'm gonna see if we can get there. Yeah. I don't support the a developer develops it and then rents out slips to other people and especially in R2 and R3. So I had a question about R2 and R3 because the examples you gave were just in C1.

Um so the only are our differences then because I can never remember this sorry um in the different zones if we did have these in our two any we have density the basic differences are going to be density between the different zones for small sites. Yeah, I mean nine is citywide density or zoning district wide for all the zoning districts. Um but um you know smaller more dense the more the more density um the higher the density provisions in zoning typically the smaller lot size. So you'll see zero lot line you know zero setbacks in our in C1 for a mixeduse project. Um you know oddly does have uh in R3 and C1 even C2 if it's a pure residential project uh you got to have a 20 foot front yard set back so you can't build a non-mixed view standalone apartment building in in in our downtown uh unless you put a 20 foot step that's that's an it's an odd standard uh so I think to answer your question you know yeah I mean there's more wiggle room for these things at the perimeter of our core uh in lower density residential zones. We we opted out of R1. We're protecting R1. Um what I tried to do in a previous meeting was give you a map and a and location for 19 sites that are currently vacant that qualify. It's not to say that, you know, a developed site could could be um merged with an abuing vacant site, demoed and create a village. I doubt that's going to happen because highest and best use is what's the ex is the existing use typically. Um I don't think the market pressure is here to start demoing and assembling sites and

building tiny home villages. I think we're probably going to see one of these things citywide. Um I think that in my experience in research and familiarity anecdotally with tiny homes that 99% of tiny homes are owned. They're owned. individual home is owned and it's pulled around and they rent the they pull around. They they rent land essentially. Yes. And what we're saying is that that's okay here. Um we recognize that the industry is set up that way uh as a as a affordable housing option that part of mobile living is is the attraction and you want to go live in Mount Fasta for a while and you want to go live in Palm Springs for a while. So yeah, you find out where these these villages are allowed. Uh you set up the potential for occupancy ahead of time. And yeah, there are people that do that. It's becoming quite popular, particularly as the housing crisis becomes more acute. Um, and will will get more acute. Um, and I think what we're saying is that under the HOA and CCR provisions that all occupants of a tiny home village shall be members of a of an HOA, uh, which is responsible for administering the CCNRs, regulating use, maintenance the villages. Um the CCR shall be established prior to permit approval by the planning commission. Um non-compliance with CCNR shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of title one or title six. So um the non-compliance piece that you're talking about is what's going to preserve the appearance down the pike. Yeah. So, we would make sure that the CCNRs address new occupants because it's going to happen. You're gonna have you're going to have cycles of people coming and going and that's that's the that's the

purpose. I want to ask a question here. Um, where I live, we I moved not very long ago and I walk by several properties that are falling into significant disrepair. It's really awful. Um, I don't know how we can stop that potential and even these are single family homes. So I is is that your concern just it starts to look bad because people aren't taking advantage. No, it's I think it's the it's that you'll just have the potential for empty space, I guess. And don't we have that now in other housing? Yeah. I I mean I just don't Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to better understand your concern. Um and I'd rather not have it necessarily know how to Oh, you know what? Um can we get the door open for Looks like Joanna's here and we are safe from the knife wielding. Well, this person's she's not a tall long person. Okay. So, um, right. So, how, so we're concerned about the ownership model could lend itself to

decay. I just don't like the ownership model. I'm against that model. I don't I think it makes the site look less appealing. I don't like the I I don't like the way that the site looks. I think in the first time this was brought up, the pictures were far more aesthetically pleasing on the sites that you could clearly see were developed for them to be there long term versus the sites that were developed for them to be frequently moved. But both both of those models need to meet all the standards in here. So when you brought that up. My point was if you don't like the rigorous that the extent of the standards to ensure that under both models site standards are are complied with are mandatory then suggest but under a rental model or an ownership model still the same site area still the same landscaping standards there's still the common area CCNRs and HOA so what's the Are they allowed to not like the approach? No, I I'm just You're allowed to opinion, of course. We're just trying to We're seeking substance. How why is the manifestation here or the lack thereof that gives you that concern? That's we're trying to figure that out. It seems like a way to make a new ordinance for rebranding what is a mobile home park to be allowed citywide when we've had restrictions on where mobile home parks can be. So that that relates to ownership and how because it's being operated the same way

a mobile home park is being operated. Somebody develops a site, builds pads, and then rents those pads to people with their own structure they own. And and and your proposal would be what? To fix that. Well, my proposal was in the beginning to allow that model in C1 and C2, but not in R2 and R3. And and in its place allow what? For what? R2 and R3. Yeah. to where the developer develops it and owns the tiny homes and then change the site development to allow for them to be more like permanent structures and not have these paths and big driveways and right. So then what you're doing is you're restricting the market to a pure uh to a non-mobile market essentially because they don't by by their nature tiny homes come and go. That's well yeah so you're saying your R2 and R3 it would be yes it would allow for a lower investment development for single occupancy homes and then in C1 and C2 for more of the mobile C1 C2 mobile R2 R3 single ownership and stay put. But that sounds so I think that a tiny home on wheels, which is our job around this ordinance, that would preclude allowing them. I guess you could move it in. You could move something in, but then it would need to become permanent on a permanent. It could still be the tiny home on wheel.

Did I understand that right? It would have to stay tiny in Yes, but it's a lower investment cost for the developer. Yeah, I'm just making sure I understand that's I mean technically it doesn't have to stay but they would be the likelihood that they would say if they're owned by the person who put them there as the developer is probably greater. Yeah. How is the uh in the examples that we have so far the frequency of movement do they move often? Again, I I did I did a little bit of research and I' I I've looked on maybe a dozen different examples of these ordinances and have familiarity with handful of owners of tiny homes and through the folks that were here pri prior testifying. Um typically what happens is they are customuilt for individuals and those individuals uh find a site and typically these sites are uh rural unpermitted sites. They live kind of in the margins, if you will, of legality. Um, and the cost per square foot to to build them and to operate them is a fraction of uh stick build on site um you know, foundation homes. Uh, and that's what's attractive. Uh and the intent initially was uh by HCD was trickled down through council and to us here tonight was to provide uh a welcome um home for for that model. You know that is individuals who like the idea like the mobile lifestyle uh want to live in a tiny home. Um good friend of mine happens to live in one. Um he didn't answer the question. They're mobile. I mean they they move I

don't know as often as they want to. I know in one case uh you know they were in one place for a year and moved on you know season some move on seasonally I think um the one up at Sandy Oregon that I looked at or Mount Hood Oregon uh has a seasonal as you can imagine people probably avoid the snow um but again you know we're we would still review these things to ensure that permanent occupancy under current building code here so snow load Um and the standards that are are here would would would apply. So that's what happens with mobile living. Lots of um RV parks will allow only you know airirstreams or only you know $4 million coaches or only vintage trailers. Um you you don't you got to pass a set of standards before you arrive on site. It's no different than these. We're saying that the HOA and uh controls this. You have one if you have one site owner, a president of the COA who owns this site um makes provisions for people to come and go. They need to comply. They need to be on board with the HOA. In my experience, HOAs are held very very tightly um with control of the city. Um their annual reviews um and I I mean we I'm certainly trying to think of ways to make that more robust. Um you know, it says pretty clear that all occupants shall be members of of an HOA. So, if you have a new occupant coming in, um they need to be a member of the HOA. We look at their unit um to comply with these standards. So, we do inspect all new occupants. That implies that we inspect instead of the HOA. Yeah. HOAs in my experience. Again, that's

I don't think we have an HOA in town that the city inspects. Uh I don't know that we have that kind of development here. I know there's a couple up in just south, you know, up on Mount Everett, right? Um I don't think we have uh viable HOA, frankly, in town. Um um the uh KOA site um we do annual inspections there. Um I know that in previous cities where we we are the regulatory authority for mobile home parks and RV parks. Uh we we do annual reviews. I think the HOA and the CCNRs would mandate annual reviews. We could make a provision for that in here that you know adding um a HOA CCNR shall be established prior to permit approval and reviewed annually. I like that. By the planning commission. Yeah. So maybe that would that mitigate some of your concern? I don't like the operational I don't like the Yeah. And I know there's a lot of people in town that don't like it. They don't like the model. So, I'm not familiar with it enough to kind of go don't like it. I'm not I'm not You might be able to visualize it better than I do, but I'm I'm not uh at at this point I'm okay with it in as as written minor tweaks and allowing them to R2 and R3 also the way I understand your concerns. Well, it still has to go to council beyond us. Um, and I think we were we've been tasked with generally

how do we help create more housing? And under that general request specifically, we were given the job of coming up with the tiny homes on wheels ordinance. So that's our job. So and the and the housing element has a program that says Right. So we have a job to do that. Is it possible to do that in a way that works for you? Why don't I mean in R2 and R3? If everybody owns Yeah. I mean, you're Yeah. I mean, you're basically Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's you might as well just say everybody can develop an RV park everywhere. And I mean, that's basically what you're doing is making a RV park that just has this like, you know, instead of an Airstream, it's only a tiny home that can be parked there. But I think from an aesthetic perspective and what we see in our minds. Well, I think I think look better than tiny homes. I don't I like the look of it's it's all subjective. Yes. I I think that these tiny homes and a lot of the tiny homes that I've seen are significantly more aesthetically pleasing than that. Although an airream is a nice looking in certain context an airream is cool.

We got Is there a way to uh change it in the R2 and R3? So that it must be owner. That's how it was when it was written in April and somehow it got I know. And somehow it got pulled out. Yes. We never There was Yeah, you all took it out. Yeah, we discussed it, but it never made it into the ordinance. It was It was an option in a staff report. Well, I mean, and I don't I don't think you don't have a point. Certainly. I mean aesthetically there is something we we do want to preserve in our residence and in an R2 and R3. Let's say I own a lot and I wanted to put three tiny homes on it. Uh but I wasn't going to I was going to own the tiny homes. I'm owning the tiny homes and I'm renting them. Is that acceptable? Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure. No, I I have no I don't have an objection to tiny homes. I don't like the model of Yes. I don't I mean Okay. So, if they were if we could count on in our resial zones tiny tiny homes on wheels that are going to stay there, they're going to have the CCNRs that we know from the getgo. You wouldn't even need the CCNRs. Oh, right. To your point, because the owner builds them and is renting them. Yes. Or condoing them. Yes. And the owner could pull that out and

sell it, right? Somebody falls in love with it and really likes it. The owner could pull it out and sell it to Bob and Diane that didn't have or my investment sucked on getting rid of them. Yeah. I mean, I guess you have the potential for that happening. So, might end up with the problem you talked about, right? Might end. Yeah, less likely. Yeah, I'll go with that. Yeah, I'm fine with that. All right. So, what do we need to do? Oh, yeah. To prove that, thank you, Linda. So, you're right. This is a public hearing. Uh, and I think we might have would like to speak to us on this. So, I'm going to open up our public hearing and uh take input for anyone who would like to come up and speak with us on this topic. Good evening, Johanna. Is this workinger? There we go. Can you hear me now? Yeah, that sounds okay. Johanna first. So, um I I have to say I mean I I like the idea of tiny homes, but I think I agree with many or all of the things David is questioning about these because it's really a blend between RVs and mobile home parks. And we already have this California law appendix Q that allows this. And I researched this and I Googled it. And in the state of California, the cities that have these places, the tiny homes on wheels, I mean, originally just was uh tiny homes and then subsequently the

wheels were added. And a lot of these tiny home on wheels parks or whatever were added for agricultural in agricultural instances because they needed more or like in San Jose for homelessness. And I think because this is such a new area and because it's um it's such a blend and I really do agree. I think we have um laws out there already. I mean the mobile home parks, they do they have community centers, they have barbecue areas, you know, for community rooms. Um they have parks and playgrounds for kids. They have they um these standards that they have to abide by and you know and then you know are these you know once it's more than 30 days they're a longterm tenant and you have fair housing and HUD that applies. So there's a lot of things that go into this and um if we do something like this I would only like to see it in commercial and industrial and if there's anything in R1 two or three I would like to see it limited to one perhaps petition to get two if you're you know whatever if you if you do that and you're the you know the owner but it concerns me little villages popping up potentially next to anybody's property here and and you have litter, you have lights, you have noise, you have water runoff, you have snow removal issues. Um, you know, and our, you know, um, yeah, I just think, um, there's the frequency of movement. Um, you know, will the occupants be required to have a valid driver's license so that they can move

it whenever they need to? Um, you know, SQA, what happens with that? Um, is the owner in the property only providing the foundations and the hookups? Um, I sent a letter on all of this um back in I think it was May May 20th and you know, these are a lot of the concerns and you know, will windows be facing existing neighbors? I don't see any language in there about that. And I I'm sorry I missed all the RQR3 conversation because I've been um not able to keep up on all of this. But um yeah, lighting, oversized load limits, um rooftop decks, what's going to happen with rooftop decks and view into other properties? But I guess the all concern is if you if you move forward I mean I don't know why we have to push this so quickly here in Mount Shasta there are other avenues I think with mobile home parks and RV parks and camping and forest service areas and all this other stuff and um um but if we do move forward with it I would please ask you to just do it in commercial and industrial areas to start with to see how it goes. Because I think neighbors need to feel safe in their in their neighborhoods and to have constant turnover of people. Before I came to this meeting, I was just assaulted at my front door with somebody pushing the door down and I had the police come and it was really scary after I texted Jeff Mitchum, the the alert from this syscue about the guy with the knife and and we have a lot of, you know, people that are we already have a lot of

travelers and visitors and we we we need to feel safe in our homes and And this is our our home too. And and if somebody wants to have a tiny home on their property, maybe you know have one or two, that's fine. That's your own property. And you know, we have ADUs and junior ADUs and all of that that I would think would cover that. But if it doesn't and you need something special, then then by all means do that. But I think we have existing avenues for these things. And it's very confusing that it's not clear that some of these questions can be answered. Is it is it more like an RV or I I would think that it would either fall under the RV or the mobile home park category, but it, you know, I'm all for more housing and and you know, and I love the tiny home concept, but you have to you can't I think you have to really think about it and look to see the other villages in California. It's probably I think I think we are Thank you. I appreciate you. Please take the other ones in California so you can see the application. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And yes, would you please? It's a public hearing, please. Public I left out getting to this meeting. So, one of the things I I actually do agree with David as well. Um, one of the things that I'll be doing to or that proposing control this uh community I'm doing is you have make it an intentional community. So you have to sign it's legal to do it. You attach it to the rental agreement that this is your intention to live in this community. And the reason I'm doing the

Eugene is that I'm really targeting senior women who are I've met a lot of them around here just are really living on probably like $1,200 a month. I mean, it's it's amazing. And so they're constantly moving trying to get into other people renting rooms and houses and stuff like that. So the reason that I did the tiny home was that it's a home. It's not an apartment. And um it gives you your sovereignty where you don't feel like you're being warehoused somewhere so you're in your home uh in an intergenerational uh way and then to give garages where you could fit a car and storage so you don't feel like you got to give everything up. So um I am just saying maybe with if you have to have the intention and someone has to intentionality of why they're in that community, then it would be more um acceptable to the residents. But this is where I'm trying to be before I even buy anything, try and be in step with the people in the community because it can be the best idea, but if people don't want it, then they don't want it. So, um that's kind of how I would be trying to make it better for residents is with an intentionality that you're ing that this is the kind of community you're agreeing to live in and it would be permanent and owned by the developer. Thank you. Okay. Um I had a question. Oh, closing the public hearing. Thank you. It's true. We haven't had one for a while. Um and thanks to folks who um who are offering up their advice and

opinions. Uh so when we had a deed when we had a deed restrict deed restricted tiny home village tiny homes on wheels village I guess even if if people are coming and going and these are deed restricted so they would come in and they would have to apply and meet the income requirements so that still works regardless of the model yeah yeah new occupants treated like new new res rental occupant of a mountain town home. Okay. Okay, that's all. Uh, all right team. I It sounds like we're getting closer to where we want to go with this, which is uh restricting the R2 and R3 to um developer owner developer owned tiny homes on wheels that are subsequently rented. as opposed to the commercial zones where the tiny homes can be either owned by the developer and rented or owned by the occupant and moved in and out. Am I characterizing this right? So should we make two definitions a tiny home village which is developed and the tiny homes are owned by one single owner and a tiny home park where the site is developed and the tiny homes are owned by individual owners. I think we just need to make one restriction in the R zone because in the C zone it could be in any of the C zones

they could be either model. True, right? I also would like to are cooperative ownership. So you have to be a little careful because this actually lends itself to cooperative ownership where several you know a group owns not one person so that the cooperative ownership could be a model that would work in the residential zone because it would still lend itself to that. Oh, sorry. I thought it was Well, I think that would be the same as Well, I just I don't know whether it has to be phrased. I just want to know. It's just not It just needs to be Well, I think in my opinion, cooperative owners would be in the commercial. If I if I could, um I I think we're talking about something that's substantial. So, why don't I come back um with recommendations to achieve that. I I'd like a straw vote if this is the direction you want to head. Um if it is, I'll do that. Um and if not, then we'll move forward with it as as as proposed. There were some clerical changes, entered this into the record and so on. So um I think does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. So if you all agree that we should reexamine ownership in R2 and R3, then uh let's let's get take a take a vote, please, and direct me to do that and we'll come back next month. I say yes, yes. Yes. Yeah, I think that sounds great. Can we continue the item time certain date certain to next month? July July. That sounds better than crafting this on the fly. Yeah, I don't want I wouldn't do that. Yeah, that sounds great. Thank you. Um, once again, I think the team does it better together. All right, then. Uh, moving on to

item Yeah. Yeah. Moving on to item eight. Um staff and commission comments. Staff want to go first or last? I'll go last. You'll go what last and then we might have something to say. I have something to say, but go ahead. Um let's see. I just sent you all an email to clarify. You'll get you'll get it in your inboxes tomorrow. Um, I wanted to update everybody on the the receiverhip process for coincidentally the public comment from earlier today. Um, there's been no site control issued. Um, city of DC no concept plans. Uh the receiverhip process by definition, by design, is out of the city hands between the the the attorney who uh and the broker who was awarded that that relationship through the courts, right? Yes. Um and um uh once site control, Julie is here to do a little forecasting and very early due diligence prior to site control. Um the city attorney did make a notice, an announcement at the previous city council meeting that the receiverhip process was was not complete. Um and was likely uh to end with um uncertain assignment, shall we say, to owner of ownership. Um the previous owner uh is litigating, is pressing hard uh on losing sight control. Uh, and so we need to please let's stand by on on on that. Um, I've had this conversation with uh with Julie and uh everybody knows what everybody knows. I wish I knew more. Uh, it's been in city attorney's uh locked

box. I haven't been able to be a party to that. Um, and we will announce or the announcement will be made uh through city council uh channels and then correspondingly to you all. Um, see what else? Um, I did follow up on I I will say there typically comments here during this period when you all weigh in on various things. We need to be cognizant of our assigned sideboards and responsibilities by the municipal code. Um, you all are as citizens have the right to to file code complaints for overp pruned trees in front of gas stations, for example. Um that said, I did check up on that um because it uh you know it is the streetscape design is potentially um uh I don't know relevant to your authority. So in any case, uh Ken says tell Ellen to cool his chest. I didn't even say I didn't even say who it was. Is that an exact quote? Yeah. So, in other words, we're stuck with this pruning of our trees by somebody who doesn't own them. Uh, well, that's not I I I don't mean to get Ken in trouble to hear about this, but he'll he'll he he's aware of it and and he has a staff and a crew, you know, that they they do pay attention to these sorts of things. So, it's not unnoticed. It's just code enforcement, right? So, um that's that. So, then the other Uh this is folding over into future agenda items, but um I do want to give you a heads up that um the noise element, the general plan land use element, um the dark sky ordinance and housing element

implementation are all on forthcoming dockets. So, I've got uh planning commission meetings forecast out over the next six months and and you've got a full agenda times two or three items per. Okay. So, uh that's to say that future me uh is going to need to prioritize based on that. Which leads me to the fact that I have submitted my resignation to the city uh manager. Uh it has nothing to do with my uh joy for this position and this city. It is entirely personal. Uh I've got um family issues that need my attention back in Portland. I need to attend to those immediately. Um and then beyond that, who knows what the future holds. So uh I can't do both. I can't attend to family and and and this I I spend too much time uh doing what I like doing here. So I can't I can't do both. So is it effective? Uh it the next meeting here will be my last and my last day will be July 18th. Uh we will have someone uh coming in. We did post a recruitment. Uh we've got a couple of responses which look promising. Uh we also have the potential to expand our contracting services to existing contracts to um to keep boots on the ground. So in in office at least three days a week uh and then two remote days. um and the the two folks that are in that position both have very good um and relevant experience. So, uh and they're familiar with Mount Chasset. So, uh more more on that later when next month, but I just wanted to give you that heads up now. Been a pleasure to serve you. I know. Hopefully, it's hopefully you have family things that you need to take care of. Hopefully TRC is not on the list of

candidates to help us get to Oh, that was the previous me. Yeah. No, that's all that's that's the next two items on the agenda. Sorry, I jumped. The next two Well, it's commission comments or staff comments and it's future agenda items. I kind of woke that into one. Oh. So, you'll see me here next time, but after that, you'll see someone else. And those those are our priorities. So, you're you're going to get to noise element, general plan element, the dark sky stuff. Um, and then obviously this as well. No projects that are No, the Eugene Sway project up there on Spring Hill uh is still um you know, lost in in pre pre-application process. Uh I believe that the applicant is trying to get a SQL uh some sequ analysis done and you may hear more on that. But yeah, and what about the the affordable housing on Chestnut and Ivy? Is it Ivy? Oh, you mean the Mountain View Town Homes? The what? The Mountain View Town Homes. 25 unitable. Yeah, that's still floating around. No, that's been uh we have active building permits in now. We're reviewing. Yeah. So that's good. Uh there was a monumental um occurrence today which was the filing of the um of the lot merger which took the vacated portion of of uh of Field Street and the which was quick claimed by city council a month ago to the developer to help provide some wiggle room for some um some wetland delineation and some drainage and some some storm retention and so on. So, uh that that's a good thing. The site's not

valuable to the city. It's undevelopable. Uh and it it will be maintained uh for uh reclamation and water and drainage retention purposes in a natural state. So, and maintained by them at their expense. Jeff, what I really appreciate I can call you day and night 247 and we answer the phone. Goodness, I don't do that. But nevertheless, your little face comes up every time. Well, there he is. Okay, that was plenty. Uh other commission commissioners, do we have any keeps pruning the trees behind? Oh, trimming the trees. Um curious. Um there's the tiny home group that was here a few months back. Have you had any more communication with them? Are they still moving forward with their plans? uh they're waiting for this legislation to come to fruition and then decide what to do. Um I I my plan in in formulating a response at your direction is to reach out to them and ask them what their understanding of their market is here. Does it make sense to have a pure ownership model um and a non rental occupancy, if you will? Um what would that do to the market? Would would it eliminate it? Would it reduce it by a nominal amount? Don't know. In my experience, it would, but that's only anecdotal and it's frankly not out experience. Anything

else? Okay. Well, I learned something really interesting when I was paying attention to the city council uh agendas and um that is that Dale Forest prevailed in his lawsuit against the city and the Golden Eagle Charter School on the um and the I think it was the appellet court said that we should have had an for that was on the aesthetics. No kidding. Super interesting. You can Google it. You can find the decision. You can um and see what they were talking about. So I think um you know that was a head heads up because obviously we all were very comfortable with their design and we were comfortable that it was a mitigated negative deck. So, I think there's something that we probably should learn from this going forward. And um Jack, if you want to talk about that, that'd be great. Well, you know, I think uh city attorney's perspective on this um which was conveyed at the council meeting is I think probably the most um gerine. it it really is that um that objective subjective standards are every city attorney's nemesis. Um and um most of the concern was um could we measured objectively? Um should we could we have had objective design standards in place? So typically the the aesthetics the discretionary approval or judgment over aesthetics as set aside from mass form and scale which is height set back and shape which all can be prescribed objectively which you've done in the objective design

standards is separate and distinct from separate the the discretionary and subjective opinion on what constitutes aesthetic value. Um, and it's really hard under SQL to understand to quantify and mitigate aesthetics, right? So most city attorneys will just say, "Well, it's a crapshoot. You're going to get a judgment here and a judgment there and a judgement here, a judgement there, when in fact most judgments are fact factbased judgments are process only." To your point, yes. Um, I wasn't here. I don't I didn't look at the record in depth but um um typically aesthetics um are viewshed related and it has to do with height and blockage of views and um that's not what this was and it certainly does not have anything to do with someone suing over the lack of a mountain village theme and prevailing. So all that to say objective design standards really as a binary choice to make around a project's fit or not fit within the context is really the direction to go. So I would suggest that um that you expand in the future the objective design standards to include a commercial component u because the ones you approved are residentially based only. Um and um otherwise we're still going to be in that state of of uh of having a discretionary and subject to SQA and not objective administerial and therefore exempl So that's the I know. Yeah. Well, thank you. Um your advice is on that is appreciated. Unfortunately,

you won't be here to help us through that. I return that in like six months and roll back down here. another planner here. You can't just dump. Well, it could be the inter we can have an interim planner. I think interim planner seems fine. I think there's we can work around this. Yeah. Sadly. Okay. Sounds like we've really discussed future agenda items completely. Anything else? All right. Then I'm going to our amount to ask the planning commission regular meetings for Tuesday, June 17th, 2025 until our scheduled meeting in July whenever that