Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It was always 39. Oh, gosh.

It's stuck in there somewhere, but very, very deep.

Are you ready?

We're calling to order this June 16th Planning Commission meeting, 2026. Let us salute the flag. And roll call, please.

Okay. Roll call this evening. Is the mic on? Okay. I think I'm on. Okay. Commissioner Higuera. Here. Commissioner Pardee.

Here.

Melanie Finling is absent. David McDowell is absent. Tim Stearns is absent. Commissioner Penrose.

Here.

And acting chair for this evening, Tucson Sarion.

Here.

Okay.

So we move into public comment, but since there's no public here tonight, I think we're safe to skip that.

Yep.

So here we move into consent agenda and the approval of the minutes of April 28th, 2026. Yeah, we're going to need to move for approval. Second. Okay, so Commissioner. Sorry, I didn't have this up.

Commissioner Penrose, move for approval. Second.

Okay, and seconded.

Now we just call for a vote after the second.

Oh, yes. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed?

None.

None. It's unanimous. I haven't done this in a while, so bear with me.

It's okay. I thought you came on real smart here.

So let's start our public hearing now with the Parklet Ordinance Revision.

We have... Don't we have one more set of minutes?

Oh, do we have another set?

There's a May 19th.

Oh, and May 19th. Oh, yes. Thank you. So who moves to approve the May 19th, 2026? I have a question on it. That's why I was...

Yes, go ahead. It looked to me like there was an item on there that shouldn't have been, that maybe it was just carried from one of the other minutes, and that would be item six, which was a parklet ordinance. So this was from May 19th. And I don't think we heard it.

You are correct. May 19th, we did not discuss the parklet ordinance, which is why we're discussing it tonight.

I just wanted to say that this was a consent agenda item for both of them in one packet. And now we're going to have to do one where you approve. April 28th, and May whatever.

We're doing consent twice, I guess.

Yeah, but I mean that formally. Formally, we would have done it once, yeah. We all know, but he's corrected it, so now we have to do it. It could have been done. That's okay. Because of you, we're not.

I think we have time. Yeah, we do have time.

Okay, make your motion.

For which? The first one? No, so for May 19th, what I'd recommend is that we strike. that item number six to be stricken off the minutes.

I move we strike item six from the May 19th agenda.

And I'll second that.

Excellent.

All in favor? Aye. All opposed? None.

You just made me thirsty.

Good catch.

Someone's reading it. Yeah.

Definitely a good catch.

So let's move into our public hearing, the Parklet Ordinance Revision. Kim, would you like to tell us about the changes you've made? Sure.

Happy to do that. Good evening, commissioners. Okay, so item number... Are we at number five?

Or tell us the page.

Page 9, right? Page 9. Page 9 of your staff report packet is for the revision of the parklet ordinance. We last discussed this in April, April 28th. Planning staff brought forward some recommended changes and we had a discussion, a quick discussion on amending the parklet ordinance in a couple of different ways. That item was not a public hearing, and so we couldn't approve those changes at that date. Since then, a notice has gone into the newspaper, and we've publicly noticed this item. So now, today, we can open up the public hearing for comments, and if none, review that the changes that were discussed on April 28th have been addressed and are incorporated into the revised ordinance, and then make a motion to approve such revisions. That's all I have.

Okay. Very good. Are there any questions from the commissioners here? Go ahead. Let's start with Belinda.

What's her face? Yeah, okay. So... I had mentioned this at the last meeting, or at the last parklet meeting, whichever one it was, about the 15 feet from the corner. And the state of California, AB413, says 20 feet. You're not supposed to park 20 feet within an intersection. So I think we should be changing that 15 feet for the parklet to 20.

Okay. Hang on. That would be on page... I do remember having that discussion. It would be on page 14. Scroll down to about halfway down the page.

It's also at B3 top?

Yeah. So we're striking 15 and changing that to 20.

Well, I don't know the detail. I just know it's 20 feet. Yes, I think so. Yeah.

And it's a DMV reference?

California made it, though. I happened to read the California new things. They tell you each year on your DMV stuff, and it was a 20-foot thing, and I looked this up. Yeah, or I said, California, 20 feet from the corner, and they said, yeah.

Okay. I agree it's 20 feet from the corner. She's right. We do have to be careful about determining what the corner is. Understood. Because right now, some of our curbs come along where it's the parking edge, And then there's a bulb out at some of our intersections. Are we measuring from the face of that bulb out the 20 feet? Does the ordinance allow us to do that? Or do we have to measure at the face of the curb against which parking occurs?

Call me. I see the distinction. I would err on the side of being conservative and measuring 20 feet from the bulb out.

That's the less conservative one.

I think it's where people come out. I think it's because of pedestrian deaths.

I understand.

Okay. So from the back of where that sidewalk or that...

If we do a bull bout, if we do a bull bout, that distance is measured from here as opposed to from here.

Yeah, I didn't... I mean, I don't know.

So what I want to ask you to do is kind of determine... our beginning point in measuring that 20 feet. If a community decides to put in bulb outs for pedestrian safety, is that face of curb the beginning point for that measurement?

Okay, I will write that clarification in and should you wish to approve this item, we will approve it on the condition that that language gets identified and incorporated.

So I'm assuming this is kind of where I do these kinds of things, right?

We'll just go around to everybody. Yeah, go ahead.

So we also talked about the problem with the tracking of grease and stuff from the restaurant itself to the parklet. And it's not really interesting.

So that I talked to code about. That ended up being a code enforcement item because everything should be clean and swept and appropriately maintained anyway. So we don't need to add that level of detail here.

And then there's another piece here. Amplified performance acts are not allowed. Amplified music is allowed as long as noise levels do not disturb neighboring uses, which is really vague. I don't know how to make that right, and I know it's an ordinance here. You've got it as an ordinance, page 21F at the very bottom. I just find that when you say, is this bothering you, and it's going to bother some people and not others?

Right. So that language currently exists. Okay. So it's in the ordinance now. It's been in the ordinance. So if we modify it now, we'll just be discussing it and taking it out.

It's going to be somebody else's... And I think those were the only little things I had.

All right. Michael, you had something? Yeah, thank you. Sorry about my timing of it. I was just following up on this measurement issue. It seems to me that since we are quoting a specific either vehicle code location or a DMV, I haven't looked at the resource, that we just mirror what that is because we're basing it based on their interpretation. of what 20 feet from the corner is, instead of coming through with a bulbing outlet and all those things. Each corner may have a very different condition, which I think is legit. These are going to be reviewed, of course. They're reviewed by public works people in terms of the geometrics of what's being built in the roadway. I think if we just defer to that in terms of her responding to that comment to make sure we get 20, then we can get resolution. We might be able to actually adopt this today with the requirement being

include the... No, I just wanted the 20 feet.

No, I get it.

However, whatever happens after that.

You just raised another piece that could have left us.

Yeah, that's right. I'm not just, it's not personal.

Signing code might just be the easiest way. Yeah, we could just find that spot. Yeah, I'm looking for it, yeah. Yeah, okay.

AB, what was it? You want that number again?

Yes, please. 413.

I don't know what my AB stands for, but when I just...

Typically it's assembly bill. Thank you.

Was that it from you? Alan, anything? Yeah. Besides what we've already spoken about, I don't have further comments on this ordinance. This is where we get public comment, but we don't have anyone to speak.

You opened and closed it, didn't you? We have to close.

Okay, I'll open the public comment. Now I've closed the public comment. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm just training him because he has not gotten a lot of opportunity.

No, I haven't.

Okay.

So now we have to... Well, do we want to make a motion on this tonight?

I'd like to. Yeah, I'd like to move that we adopt the resolution that's been prepared in the modifications or additions that have been made to the ordinance. And the resolution is recommending that it go to the city council for adoption, as I understand it. Yes. With the inclusion. of the clarification of the 20-foot measurement.

AB413 is to remember to leave at least 20 feet or one large car length between a marked or unmarked crosswalk and at your vehicle so approaching vehicles can see pedestrians and bicycles. That's what it says. Okay. So we'll mirror that.

Yeah. Yeah.

Excellent.

Can I just second it now? I second that. All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed? None. We've passed that unanimously.

Yay.

Yay. Thank you.

Moving on to the next item, number six, on the discussion on the California Forest Service office closures. Kim, take it away.

Okay, item number six. This is something that's coming up to the Planning Commission tonight because it was brought up by Commissioner Pardee at our last Planning Commission meeting. What has happened is the, as I understand it, is that the Trump administration has closed or will be closing several U.S. Forest Service offices one of them being here in Mount Shasta, which affects the people who work there. And there should be a discussion amongst the commissioners in terms of whether or not you would like to unite yourselves in writing a letter perhaps to the County Board of Supervisors to urge them to maybe oppose the office closure or do something on behalf of the city. So. If I might start. Yes, go ahead.

I had a chance to talk to one of our locals who worked for the Forest Service for a long time. I was incorrect in that all the offices have been closed. I'm not exactly sure if they will be closed in the near future. I don't understand it clearly enough to give direction on this. Apparently, the bigger picture is the amount of funding that has been withdrawn. not some of our local offices. It still affects our local economy.

There are trickle-down effects to funding.

Yeah, our local funding, our local economy, and our local employment, you know, that sort of thing. But in terms of what had already been closed, I had incorrect information on that. So, for clarification... I still want... I would like to... This friend... knows a lot about these particular issues and funding and such like that. She recently, in this process, left her position. And I want to see if she'd be comfortable talking to you. Is that OK? Yeah. Because the nuances of the funding and how it is affecting things, I don't need to know that exactly.

How about give me a call?

And so I'm going to have, what's that?

Does anybody?

Yeah. And she can give you a clearer picture. If you have clarifying questions, I think that would be more effective. So I don't think we're ready to for sure pen a letter of any sort. I would like an idea if the other commissioners share concerns about the impact of the decisions for our Forest Service and would like to pursue the idea of convincing our Board of Supervisors to be the body that I'm addresses that. It seems like the Board of Supervisors is the right body. And as one of the cities, I'd like to I'm in favor of encouraging them to oppose these changes and return our funding.

So I appreciate your clarification on that. I had an opportunity to go over to the site on Monday and speak with the park ranger specifically about it because I spent some time reviewing the information that was provided, which I think was helpful at least to point to the right direction. And there was no question in their mind that there was no risk in their facility being closed currently, which it sounds like you've been, that's been validated. There was the identification, and there's a lot of information on the funding issues that are happening. But none of that is at risk of their site being closed at this point, not anymore. And the only thing that they could identify for me, which I found useful, is I said, well, this thing keeps showing up on this

Yeah, because it's on the U.S. Forest Service website as being a site of possible closure.

The explanation, just for clarification, was that there was a rented space on Chestnut that was about 130 square feet or 140, very small facility that was leased space. And they had two Forest Service personnel there that were serving a different area of the Forest Service. And that rental space was terminated as of October last year, based on what they were paying for. So that's the only thing that the park manager could say that may have been the reason there's this noise that is in that one line item that was concerning all of us.

Did he have insights into the funding?

Into the funding changes? So he did mention about the funding, but we didn't get into that because it is very complicated, as you guys have identified, right? But there's been... So the only thing he shared with me about that is that there have been funding reductions, and as such, they've had to hold two positions vacant, which is not uncommon in public arenas, right, if you don't have enough money. But that was as far as we got on the funding side of it, because it was really the question about closure I was trying to get. So just for clarification, I wanted to share that with you. The second thing that I would like to highlight, just for the commission to consider, is whether the role of us commenting on federal funding, about another organization, the Forest Service and the reorganization and stuff, is really the role of this body. And, you know, so I just want to ask that question because I looked at it and thought, well, you know, we're a planning commission and we have a specific mission that's identified. And I'm not sure that that's really this role. It doesn't mean that something shouldn't be. Ultimately say there was a reduction being made, that there shouldn't be something done, but I'm not sure that it's a planning commission function. But I've got to say I'm new, so I don't know if this planning commission has historically taken positions on things like that and commented. Because I'm thinking as a city council, I might say, what's the planning commission doing contacting the Board of Supervisors about opposing something? Just that dynamic.

It may be something that gets recommended to the city council. That kind of made a little more sense to me.

That's kind of what I thought. Officially, that's what the channel would be, yeah. Okay. In reading it, I wasn't clear.

Well, and I might be less inclined to pursue something like this if our board of supervisors hadn't been pretty vocal about a lot of federal stuff going on.

Okay.

Fair enough. They have been quiet. in terms of land decisions and land use decisions that have come down from on high. And so that doesn't necessarily mean that it's our job to sort up, I suppose. But I think the funding issues will also affect Mount Shasta, as I understand them. So right now, I'd like us to do a little fact-finding. or there to be some fact-finding.

Okay, a little bit of research. I'd also like to have more of the commissioners here, not just the minimum, so that we have some more.

We can do some fact-finding and bring it back again next month for another round of discussion. Yeah, lightweight.

So I guess my main question around it, are there multiple Mount Shasta people Forest Service offices? I mean, this one seemed to be specific to research and development. Is that what our office here is in town?

Our office is not. That was a specific question I asked because they are really turning that on its head when you read the documentation of The reorganization, the research stuff has been gutted, apparently.

How about that station? Is that Forest Service Station up at Castle Creek, or is that something, or Castle Lake, or is that something else? That's UC Davis.

We have the two here. We have the McLeod, you know, in terms of the ranger stations, McLeod and Mount Shasta are the two. No, I mean, do we have any research?

Oh, research, pardon me. That's a research facility up there, but it's UC Davis, so.

So how many people does our local office employ in the Forest Service office? Do we know?

Quite a few, though, because we all know somebody, don't we?

Yeah, we do. There's quite a few.

Maybe not the same one. I know more than one.

So that office is not at risk for closure at this time, is that right?

That's what I've heard. This particular person... I don't know if I can characterize it as she lost her job. I think that's accurate, but I want to have more conversations with her, too. I wanted to, my initial research, I was sort of like, I need to check on this a little further. So I called the person I thought might have some answers. I want to pursue it further. Actually, I know it's not everyone. What do you guys think about pursuing it further, trying to Find out, should I waste Kim's time doing, or not waste, use Kim's time in this fashion?

Well, if there's not an immediate risk, I'm not sure.

Apparently the funding has been booked. That's past.

I think we should hold off on it for a while and keep our ear to the ground and see if it comes up as a more... dangerous situation. Yeah, because otherwise we could do this and it's no big deal and they just go, okay, fine, you know. Sorry.

To be quite honest, I think that's what's going to happen anyway. Oh, yeah. I don't think it would be met with well. Yeah.

So we'll table this topic?

I guess so, yeah. Well, actually, do you have any?

I don't have any further comments around it or questions, no.

So I, yeah, I guess we should.

Okay. So we're tabling this for now.

I'm going to ask some additional questions.

Okay.

If I feel that there's real, more meat to this than, and I have, I have a clearer understanding, then I might put in contact with you, and I'd probably proceed that with an email or something. That works. Okay.

All right. Then shall I move to table this? Then I will move to table this to potentially future discussion.

Do we have a second?

There was a second. Are you asking for a vote?

Yes. Is there? There was a second.

Oh, I thought you said second.

Who seconded? I'll second.

Okay.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Passed unanimously. We will table this discussion to a later date. I'm sorry.

My head was down. I did not catch who seconded. Thank you.

I know they were both kind of waving their arms around.

I'm trying to be efficient by writing my minutes in real time, you know?

Yeah. Much easier.

Yes. Okay.

All right. Okay. Well, this is move on to the planning commission and planning director comments.

We'll start with the commission first and then we'll, I'll go last.

Any questions for let's start at this end, Alan. None at this time. Thank you. Belinda? No. Michael? And none for me.

Okay. Okay then. It's my turn again. For now. Okay. So we are on agenda item seven. Planning director comments. Commissioner Stearns made a comment either at the last meeting or the meeting prior to that about wanting to reduce contractor insurance liability standards from minimums, I think, from $2 million down to $1 million. That is a question that is in with our finance director. She is out on leave right now. She'll be back next week. And she's going to be busy working on the budget when she gets back. So I'll bend her ear about that and have an update possibly by the next time we meet about that. The next update is, The dark sky ordinance and vacancy ordinance. So I brought that up to the city manager in this last month and he said, great idea. However, let's hold on this for now because my time is being prioritized to write the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. And right after that, I have to update the tiny homes on wheels ordinance. That ordinance also has to go back through the planning commission for review and approval. There are just some pieces of missing information that we need to add in to clarify what the boundaries are so that people who want to build tiny homes know what the requirements are. The existing ordinance right now is silent on some of those hookup installation requirements, so we want to pass that, clarifying those things. So that's probably coming to the Planning Commission in July next month. So.

Okay.

Yes, go ahead.

You said it has to do with utility hookups and that sort of thing?

There are a couple of different elements that are missing. One, for starters, is how do we regulate tiny homes if we want them to be permanent as opposed to tiny homes if we want them to be movable? Right now, our ordinance is kind of a hybrid, so it's unclear that when somebody rolls a tiny home into a residential home site, what those hookups to utilities look like. Because technically, in building code standards, there's one set of standards for RV hookups, and there's another set of standards for permanent, you know, tiny home hookups. And so we want to clarify what those mean to people who want to do one or the other. Things like that.

No, I hear you. What I'm getting at is, I mean, I want to do more than RV hookups and maybe less than a big house, but I don't know the... we're the ones to, I'm not a plumber or electrician or something like that, is there something we can lean on for some direction in that regard? I mean, I'd like them to be pretty beefy, because things are gonna be moving back and forth. I'm not sure what that means, so.

I will do my best to clarify, and there's gonna be a lot of content feedback coming in from our building inspector also, who has a lot to say on the subject, so.

Yeah, and more knowledgeable than we are, I assume.

Yeah, yeah.

Maybe not Tucson, but more than we are. Don't mean to speak for you.

Yeah. And I had talked to you about it, but I want to put it on the, about getting that dark sky ordinance done before the landing master plan because I want the landing master plan to be heavily dark sky oriented.

Okay, so the landing master plan will have to go first because we're using grant money to get that done and the grant money is going to run out. So we have to get to the finish line for that master plan before we run out of the grant money.

Okay, then let me put it this way. I would urgently request suggest that we get that dark sky ordinance in place before we start selling pieces of land down there or whatever we do, sell, rent.

We can also, another thought is the landing master plan can also independently on its own include a dark sky provision to solve that.

And can you get those grant writers or the consultants to Make sure they put that in there. I will make sure we talk about that. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Very good. Sure. Future agenda items. Did we just go over that as well? The tiny homeowners?

Yeah, future. Well, let's go back to one more planning director comment. I have a resignation from David McDowell. to step down from the Planning Commission due to work and time conflicts. So effective next month, we are back down to six active Planning Commissioners. And I could use your help in publicizing the need for an additional seventh Planning Commissioner if you could go through your networks.

County or city? Where does he live? I don't know where David, is he out there in the county? I'll check, because that does matter. And it is easier if we can pull from the county, too.

It is.

I think he's out there where I am. I think he's out with us, isn't he?

Just a quick poll. How many of us are in the city versus not in the city? City?

City.

Melanie's in the city. Who else is there? Tim's in the city, and Alan and I are in the county. And I think David is, too, because I think he lives by us.

Yeah.

rumor has it okay the three county and four four city and three county okay so if if the assumption is that david's in the county then it could be a county seat county commissioner which helps um let's assume that's the case and if i'm wrong i'll let you know Okay. Now we can move on to future agenda items.

Yes, please do.

Okay. So I'm hoping that by this time next month, I'll have a draft revision of the tiny homes on wheels ordinance for your review and consideration. We only touched on one of the things that we are talking about. There's, there's a whole bunch of things land use included that are up for revision. So that makes it part of part of your scope. Um, I'm also going to try to get the noise element in front of the planning commission. Um, The meat of the noise element update was done by a consultant sometime in 2024 and 2025. That consultant got it to the finish line, and my predecessor, Jeff Mitchum, drafted a staff report to get it in front of the planning commission sometime last summer. And it never made it to the planning commission, but it didn't get onto my desk either. So I'm just figuring that out now. So I need to do a little bit of catch-up work. get that section in front of you to look at and review and approve because right behind that, there's also a revised noise ordinance that piggybacks onto the element update that needs to be approved by city council that our chief, that our police chief drafted. So a couple of things. So I'll try to get that in front of the planning commission next month. And then after that, we're gonna try to take down the land use element and then the safety element. The bottom line is that the general plan needs to be updated so many years. The state requires that the city does that. And we don't have the budget to do a general plan update in one fell swoop with all 15 sections in it. So we're doing it one chapter at a time as we have time to do it. So that's why it's all separated.

I'm curious, how does the state We do one chapter at a time, and that's what we go through. Does the state, like, come over and whack you or something?

They haven't yet, but they reserve the right to. And before they do, we'd like to be in compliance.

No, I hear you. I'm just curious. Okay.

Yeah.

It's always the threat of.

Yeah, it's always the threat of.

The threat of.

Not being in compliance puts us at risk for not qualifying for certain grant opportunities. grant dollars that can be used for other planning efforts. So we want to make sure we're not, you know, in arrears. So that's the motivation.

Does this work include then for general plan amendments for this year? Will you have used all of those?

We are well under the four cap of general plan amendments that we can do a year.

So that won't be any risk going forward? No, no problem with that. Okay.

Any further questions, comments? Thank you, Kim.

Okay, thank you.

Then we will adjourn this June 16th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. probably well over a year.

Thanks for doing it.

Thank you. You seem like you've been on one of these commissions before. I've never been on this. Just on somewhere else? Yeah. Oh, did you?

Pardon me?