Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e e okay we have to wait for him to give us the thumbs up yeah we don't have a we don't have a screen should we have a screen am I just missing something oh just because we had it for you just one time I

EXT are you ready oh lovely okay good evening I'm calling to order our Mount Shasta Planning Commission regular meeting for Tuesday March 18th 2025 and I'll start with this flag salute allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right um Jeff roll call please commiss Bo here commiss here commiss here commiss MCD here here here here um I'm just going to throw in a little deal just because in front of public comments just to let folks know that we have two new two Commissioners one not so new he's come back um Alan parie is uh joined us again what are we film we're filmed still we are we're on I believe and um and our new new planning commissioner is Cindy Lee con and I just want to welcome you both for um and thank you for joining us and thank you for your volunteering and your efforts and uh look forward great to be here to um spending time working with you on city project so so now that folks know who these are we'll move on to public comment and this is an a time set aside for residents to address the Planning Commission on matters not on this evening's agenda um if anybody is interested to speak to us you would have three minutes and um you're welcome come up introduce

yourself and uh we'll get going hi Johanna El torer um this is kind of related to the agenda item but not exactly so I think it's okay during public comment so if there's anything stop me if it's wrong okay well just yeah and you know we're doing the parklet ordinance and the tiny house Wheels ordinance um we're not crafting that ordinance those ordinances tonight this is just getting started on them and so if you could keep those pieces separate we'll do and then anything else go right ahead okay so I sent an email to all of you today and I think Jeff said he forwarded it to all of you and um so thank you Jeff um I had a couple items on there um one was for parking dwellers that we have on our streets because we have this property we have the Orchard and Landing properties that the city owns and I was really thinking part of what we could do with that land is to have similar to the tiny homes concept is to have land set aside there for um for people who live on the street in their cars because we have people that live um for extended periods of time and some of them are regulars and it would be nice to have a place where they could actually Park their vehicles where they're not playing parking roulette with a code enforcement even though that's not always being enforced anymore and and I had that same thought with the tiny house on Wheels which I don't think is being discussed tonight yeah we are oh you are discussing it yes okay don't discuss I won't discuss that okay anyway but so I just thought we own this land let's put it to some good use because you know people that live in their homes and come visit us you know

they're not paying property taxes some of them smoke and there's um I I know cuz last year I had visitors and they didn't want to C really they didn't want to walk on that side of the street cuz there was cigarette smoke and marijuana coming out of the vehicle and sometimes it's just like a safety thing you don't really know who's living in there and anyway so I just thought we have this land let's set a portion aside for the residents and we could offer this like free service for our guests that prefer to have very temp more temporary homes out of their cars so and anyway um that was pretty much it all right thank you thank you for listening all right anybody else like to speak with us about something not on the agenda this evening and I'm not seeing anybody heading up so we're going to move on to item four which is our consent agenda and there's one item on there the approval of the minutes from our January 21 2025 meeting and if there's no uh changes that anybody wants to make to those we can leave it on the consent agenda Commissioners just wonder was that the case that um you had him do the well that's an interesting point we're going to move it off the consent agenda and talk about it uh and go ahead can you so on the um call to order and flag salute on the minutes you have Vice chair serion as the one who led the flag salute and that I don't remember hearing that uh usually

it's Melanie so um I just I if you so you guys are the two oh we're ringing I think she was there no she is that's what she says present she was present for the roll call carry over from the was I there I might have carried that over it may have carried from the 21st I don't huh I don't know so I don't know what's accurate or what's not accurate it was Melanie so I'll I'll I'll make the change okay so we're going to change that to um chair bendling um for the first item anything else Commissioners okay so if um could entertain a motion to um approve as amended I will so move all right V has made the motion do we have a second I'll second Belinda seconded all in favor I I opposed none and uh motion is approved uh but let me just add that you can actually move you can vote on an item even if you weren't here as it turns out I've learned I know I love it so you can just so say yay far back can they go is this well it's if it's on the agend if it's if it's an agenda item it doesn't matter if you are there or not whether you vote on it on the minutes five six years what do you think directed on that not the whole thing it's it's not whether he was a commissioner it's that you're a commissioner now and and you can vote on it okay moving on to item number five which is a discussion on uh our tiny house house on our the possibility of having a tiny house on Wheels ordinance um Jeff please

thank you chair fining um first of all I want to enter into the record uh johanes uh comments um I had about a half an hour of time today to go over them um specifically with respect to the tiny house on Wheels discussion um without going line by line suffice it to say that there's some information in here that has been part of our that is staff's consideration of the matter already what I will do with these comments as we move forward with this discussion item and into an action item I'll enter these into the record with City responses so we won't lose them okay so um that aside um what I'd like to do unless anyone has questions specifically about Johan's comments we can consider those as we discuss the item we don't need to address that right now so don't feel pressur have dive into them here and now I will provide a line by line response uh and and enter that into the record prior to the next time we talk about this item so um without further ado what I want to do is talk a little bit about why we're here um specifically the tiny house on Wheels um discussion and uh future ordinance is is an outcome of really two initiatives one um the housing element actually speaks to tiny homes on wheels or tiny home Villages so it implements our recently certified housing element uh it is also something that uh as as a consequence of of that new legislative

pressure I took this item to seek direction from Council and Council gave us a green light to have at it and so we did have one discussion here the staff report touches on that briefly uh the two choices were either easy as you go with tiny homes on wheels that means we tweak our existing RV Provisions so we treat treat these as glorified recreation vehicles and we modify that existing code um that really treats them like recreational vehicles and all the zoning Provisions there too that is very restrictive about where they go um there is as you know mobile home zoning which is specific to that so it puts it in that category um as opposed to a full ordinance which treats them as res residential equals to uh stick Built construction um more or less but for all intents and purposes the direction that this staff report discusses the uh the analog or the precedents that are included in the staff report go this direction that is a full ordinance to allow them uh in a number of different zoning districts um do not isolate them as RVs and treat them as such um the analysis that I want to touch on before we get into the discussion really is is um goes deep into the gravity of detail on building code um but in order to be a building code certified uh tiny home on Wheels it needs to comply with appendix Q of the tiny home uh building code Reg ulations

within the California um code of regulations so that's a body of information that highly regulates these living units to comply with a measure of standard For Life Health safety and even general wealthfare of the community which goes above and beyond the standards which certify uh other vehicles like RVS um and even mobile homes and and so on so it's a higher standard what we're talking about is a very specific set of standards and regulations that apply to the construction of these things uh that gives them a higher bar to to to clear um with respect to all sorts of things like sighting uh utilities on board um or connections to City Utilities is a big one um and also I think most importantly from the conversations that we've had at a staff level and direction from Council the aesthetic value of these how are they fitting into context we touched briefly on the objective design standards as an overarching design framework and process to regulate the look and feel of these um and we all agreed that the more modular version of the uh the forgetting the name now the particular set of objective design standards I WR the thing and now I'm forgetting um the broken um Mass um individual uh module types of of these structures that are on multiple on one lot so multiple structures on one lot like the Cottages thank you so the Cottages are more a analogous to a tiny home configuration on the same parcel they kind of fit

within that mass form scale um part and parcel with the overarching you know what I what I want to call the full meal deal ordinance is going to be treating these tiny homes on Wheels as adus as well so this would be a another sort of concurrent tweak to our existing Municipal Code uh which is our Adu code which would essentially create a provision that says adus and tiny homes and wheels are treated synonymously um moving forward so that'll be a choice for you as well um it's not enough to go so far as to say we're allowing tiny homes on Wheels in a village context akin to the objective design standards Cottage format um but we're also saying that an Adu now can come before City approval regulations and be approved uh as as a as a as a tiny home on Wheel so two kind of two separate um sides to the same set of regulations so keep that in mind as we discuss this um I've gone so far as to actually outline the uh purpose and intent um the definitions the review Authority the general requirements zoning districts density uh and site development standards and design standards which were all uh pulled from some precedents um in the region um and throughout the State and then provided you some uh precedent imagery uh of what if regulated under uh a pretty robust set of Standards um both site development standards and design standards um would would look like and I think the most

important thing I learned here was that it's not just enough to say we've got these things looking like we want them to look and they're cited where we want them to be cited on a building in a or on a site in a Zone um but that the common open space uh screening Landscaping access parking also be addressed so that they're contact sensitive that's that's I'm finding that as I as I searched these and actually I visited a few when I was in Oregon last uh and the ones that really do um appeal to design sensibility are the ones where you appreciate arrival before you're even to the tiny home there's a Gateway statement there's a a sense of arrival um and almost a processional kind of experience where lots of common open space lots of common amenity and these kinds of things so keep that in mind as well uh and that is all I've got um I'm happy to answer questions before we dive into this um but I would recommend that we go through um and take bites uh by by my recommended content um the goal here tonight is not to craft the ordinance but to get our heads around it collectively uh make sure we understand its role in the municipal code uh and then uh if you want to give me some directive uh that's clear around the content I'll March forward produce that content U for folding into a public hearing process where we get public uh engagement in a public hearing uh and we'll take as many hearings as it takes to get there and then as you know we move forward to council with a recommendation uh and do first and second readings so we have a handful of public hearings ahead of us to get to get to a a final uh uh ordinance so

that's all I've got for you thank you Jeff all right well this sounds like an opportunity for Commissioners um to start firing off questions asking for clarity and and then I'll open it up to the public and and get your input too so um how if we started this end David come back to me okay Tucson I have a couple questions to start um would someone have the ability like say someone owned a lot in the city to just bring a tiny home in and put it on there as their primary residents um in this instance that you were talking about again you know that's a choice to make for you all um based on how you think these things if designed under a very rigorous set of standards would fit into Community context the answer is um if you set those standards and you're comfortable with they with the way they look and feel you could pick a a Zone you could condition uh ahead of time how big the lot sizes would be in order to do that um I have discovered that the Press residents do treat tiny homes on Wheels uh in essence as a single family dwelling so if you owned a uh I mean a good a good uh maybe hypothetical case would be someone has a 5,000 square foot lot um they use the S sp9 lot division process to ministerially subdivide that into two 2500t lots uh keep keep a primary house on one or or Even build a new primary house on one an Adu on it uh and uh put a a tiny home Village on it if and only if it's in the zoning District that uh we recommend it be in

and it meet the the the site development standards that we're we would be crafting okay also um I know that the building codes are very different com for mobile homes compared to regular stick Built Homes uh how do you see that uh working with these tiny homes as far as what building code that they would be using given that if they're given um you know from a zoning perspective the same status as a regular stick built home right so that's the gravity of detail that I think is worth exploring um the the short answer answer is um the title 24 the California hang on a second Jeff you know we're getting feedback can you work on that maybe this is too close you can still get me we don't have any yeah mine's really okay um so CRC or California uh code of regulations um has in it a set of uh standards for tiny homes um it's it's appendix Q uh it talks and I've outlined a few of the key components of those regulations so it specifies their size their ceiling Heights The Loft square footage uh egress issues among others but those are the the key components which Drive the form of the structure um in my experience in kicking these tires a great deal I can tell you that appendix Q structures so that is a tiny home built to appendix Q looks like a

cottage it doesn't look like an RV so the width I didn't see a width um maximum on here but typically you know if it's on Wheels it's going to be you know maybe eight 12T at the most are we saying that there might be an opportunity to get them wider no 14 is what here 14 okay um so that's too true for mobile right right so they've got to be street legal that's what defines again consistent with appendix Q so uh you'd see them small able to navigate and you know not only on public roads but the heights regulated as well for over pass regulation so they're going to be small they're not going to be 12200 foot mhm homes with wheels they just wouldn't have permanent foundations from the outside in they would look like um and again there's design standards that speak to skirting um which conceal the the chassis essentially so from the outside in and and I think the best one that I've seen is the Government Camp one or or the one near Government Camp on in Mount Hood where um they pay a a lot of attention through an HOA and cc&rs to regulate uh not only what they look like you know a skirt much like this um turning what would you know otherwise appear as a picnic table into something more formal for our purposes so I think the same can be um can be carried carried off with a design treatment that is you know akin to a a cladding material that's consistent

aesthetically with the the exterior skin of the structure uh and and that's up to us to you to to to help us navigate okay that's it for now that's fine Linda so I do like the idea of the Adu NT h o w as similar character I don't know what the I mean there's in our ordinance I RVs and mobile home parks are two different things aren't they I mean a mobile home park is a an RV park is they get up and go and they are you know you can drive them yourself that's an RV in a mobile home park would have to have a special person take the mobile home correct away or two right right they're both allowed in Mobile Home Park zoning you know not yes okay they're both m home but they are but there's no regulation on looks or design standards or anything like that okay um and is there somewhere have we talked about um you know I read these things and I'm not sure I miss them the distance apart each unit would be that's up to us so we haven't gotten there yet uh we did talk a little bit about the the the spacing standards which was consistent with again back to um the uh the cottage Courtyard cluster kind type of typology that is in our objective design standards um there's a spacing standard there which doesn't come to mind but it you know we've we've been here before yeah with small structures and that's where

we would start and I think I would recommend that we explore some kind of spacing standards that's similar to that um and then well that would almost be the same as if you had uh whatever the what it's been so long um setbacks are at a regular home site I mean you know yeah nothing in this would supersede any base zoning standards that's the same with the objective design standards it it did not modify any underlying zoning so r2's r2's setbacks R3 setback C1 C2 setbacks would all Prevail here on from one property to another but if you had the cottage thing or if you had the THS would they fall in having a setback between that would be creating setbacks between those kinds of units sort of right yeah you mean these there separation of structure and structure distance to property line yeah the structure both of those are already resolved we wouldn't in other words the the separation of structure from property line is resolved in our chapter 816 right and the separation between units is is has previously been discussed in objective design standards and that separation is a number I'm about to find for you so and is there uh I think there's something that we should consider because this is a new relatively new uh product should I say and um at some point they're going to get old and we should consider putting in there some kind of age of the th and the condition of it because if somebody moves out and somebody wants to move in with another one it's not necessarily going to be a new one in 10 years there might be some of they're just moving different places because that's kind of the idea of it and I think there should be something in

there a little bit about the condition I of moving in a used one so to speak I mean I'm not trying to be real discriminatory but it's just like RVS or mobile homes I mean there are those that are just fine and then there are those that are like whoa wait a minute I don't want this one in my neighborhood you know yeah essentially what you're saying is that uh and and I think the standards are so far crafted to to reflect this is that you're establishing a design envelope within which in a condition and a character within which a a new uh tiny home needs to fit okay and if it doesn't then that discretion lies with whoever the approval body is to say I'm sorry you know this is too much this and not enough that uh there are RV parks where you can only Park an Airstream they do not allow yeah I know right as an Airstream owner I was that okay so we're getting that's kind of the same same thought process okay are you talking about maintenance or just appearance appearance because in 10 years you're going to have things that are 10 years old and that's different than a brand new one and but it could be have been totally taken care of or it could have been beat up either one I mean to to address the maintenance issue I mean I again I I I would hesitate to you know recommend that you hold one type of of of of habitation to a higher maintenance standard over another type of habitation if you go here with a rigorous set of maintenance standards make sure that they exist for other forms of single family dwellings like my neighbors Etc so keep keep it in mind that we this is a mobile this is mobile that's the difference well keep in mind

too that appendix Q is creating something that is in essence more Cottage and Less Mobile it's it's a home on Wheels and I think there's a if once we get that as a group I think it we're we the regulation the regulations are are within this body politic we can create any form we want any cladding we want any means of protecting Aesthetics with SE with a sense of compatibility with the neighborhood um I I I don't think that and I and I I'm just deferring to the group here but I don't think the word mobile is um is helping or in fact I would even go so far as to say I think the idea that they what comes with something being mobile it is takes away from its viability as a residential unit um well a mobile home I mean we consider those homes they're not they're not RVs and so I I mean it's a it's a it's it's going to be depending on who interprets it however they want a little bit and that's what I so I mean because they're putting them on Wheels and the whole point that I have heard about it is so that you can I'm going to move to Oregon at to this other uh Cottage area and that makes it mobile I can't move my house no I understand the I understand the difference but what I I I'm I guess I'm struggling with when when you're talking about a standard to to mitigate its mobile appearance let's move beyond that and talk about the specific standards that you're thinking about so if Mobility is the hangup how do you conceal um mitigate if you will its mobile nature you make it less less like no I have no problem with that I just I'm it's just

it's a different headp space right so that's all it's like yeah they're going to somebody hopefully whatever HOA or group that is in control of the situation will keep it really nice and together and I I suspect that's what they want everybody wants right and we need to have those standards very clearly Spilled Out in detail but I just worry a little bit that in the future I'm weing down in the future so I won't worry right now anymore okay I'm done all right pass done thanks Fon get you we got to get your mic mic get ready there you go okay maybe closer so so I mean the concept I understand and the uh the reasoning behind it I understand uh and it's easy to get caught up in the details because that's where the devil is here on these it's it's where I'm I I'm thinking questions like well if it's going to be an Adu um do I want an Adu a twostory Adu next door to me in somebody's backyard well that's okay some of the pictures I think yeah yeah okay yeah because I mean they were talking about ceiling height so okay one story or two read these would read as single single story structures with potentially a you know a dormer and a in a half you know half Second Story okay one and a half yeah all right smaller than adus okay um and what's to keep somebody from I

mean I I'm I'm struggling with a lot of the concept I'm thinking about all the things that can go wrong like somebody deciding you want to make one a double wide one or somebody decides that they want to uh use containers instead um put wheels on it or whatever I don't know um these are just thoughts that are rolling around my head I'm wondering if there's going to be an HOA I'm wondering if there's going to be a um uh I you know a red flag was when you mentioned about where they could split you know like a 5,000 square foot lot into four and what I want one of those as a homeowner not a snobby home own owner just somebody wants to protect their value of their property next door and so the biggest concern I have is have we ideas about where exactly one of these places or these places would go other than on a single story lot which doesn't sound all that pleasing to me it's up to you guys you pick the zone you say maybe it won make maybe it only belongs in commercial zoning or or R3 zoning was there a different zoning that we can have for something like this I guess not I'm just well then then you're back to again my my my preface to this was there are two paths to regulation one is easy as you go you tweak the existing code and you make little moves in the code to give this type of development pattern a foothold with under highly regulated site specific zoning regul regulations and design and development regulations um other than as as compared to a a ordinance which gives them more lure to be more broadly applied Citywide I will tell you that tiny homes on Villages T excuse me tiny homes on wheels or tiny

home Villages is the buzz phrase that is the latter right it's not just tweaking our RV code our Mobile Home Mobile Home code to say yeah you can you can post up your tiny home and you know in one zoning District in town city council and the housing element have made it very clear that they want us to really explore a broader application of this type of this building typology throughout our community so questions like yours around the I guess the the the fear const conu what happens when something goes wrong let's take a deep dive into it and then let's craft regulations uh to protect against that I guess part of it is I'm wondering why can't they just put a tiny home in a mo in a mobile home park they can then why don't we just do that what's the because not all of us they I understand tiny home Village in a mobile home park besides the size of the structure the building code standards and where it goes ultimately well the short answer to your question is um there is no difference because tiny homes on wheels don't exist in our town they're not codified and there's there's no examples just a mobile home smaller you could pull a mobile home right now or a tiny home on Wheels and pull it into uh the the KOA but he's right that's exactly the point now if you what you're saying is that you want to treat these as as that and that alone then we're done with this discussion there there is no there there's no regulatory change that we need to make because right now you can pull a tiny home on Wheels into uh mobile home park zoning and park it there aren't we just making more mobile home RV parks but just limiting

the size of the structure the design of the structure and the size and the site configurations none of those regulations exist uh in our Municipal Code presently that's you're just basically allowing the expansion of mobile home parks to the whole city outside of rn1 no yeah that's what could happen I think that's what the fear is or least my worry you know again this is It's just disguised as calling it a tiny home but this is I want to be clear about something this is I'm the fence post in this discussion my job is to advise you as to the consequences of your choices I I feather in best management practices when possible and I also bring precedent uh code from from other communities which makes sense to us um at the very outset of this I tried to make it clear that RV parks and mobile home parks are built to different sets of Standards both design of s of structure and design of site oh could you maybe it might help us right now if you gave us a brief explanation of those differences so we can if you can so right so let's take for example uh I let's I'll bring your attention to the to the precedent image uh on in the staff report is that the on the on the first page of the of that item is that the one you're talking about yeah with the little Adder on Deck chairs so that and the images which are appear in attachment a like page 10 the second the bottom photo I mean that basically looks like a mobile home park just not mobile homes they're tiny homes instead of mobile homes right so they tiny homes built to appendix Q which says cladding

material which talks about access which talks about fenestration which talks about roof pitch which talks about all sorts of design representation that makes it look and feel more like a small cottage than a mobile home or an RV so in answer to your question is there a difference I would submit yes there's a difference because the code that you're about to to craft or vote against crafting um is going to make them look like however you want them to look and however you all as a group uh find uh is aesthetically pleasing to meet the context of of the city of Mount Shasta and not look like a mobile home park or an RB park that's the challenge before you you because it's been clear that city council wants us to explore this to get creative here city council has been very clear about diversifying housing opportunities to address affordable housing uh in in this community and the housing element specifies this building type or this Pro housing product type by title so it's not an RV park it's not a mobile home park it's a tiny home on Village tiny home on Wheels Village and it's up to us to design it so there's a difference so because I I can we say mobile home but I think the term we're supposed to use now is manufactured home is that more with current practice I can I just tell you what the code calls it oh okay because I know we've also you know we can't my understanding is that we can't say if somebody wants to put a mobile home on their do we even still have R1 is R1 just gone because we aren't say we say R1 but you know R1 sort of functionally doesn't exist anymore because you can put a duplex anywhere well that doesn't take away from R1 R1 still has lot minimum lot

standards it still has bigger setbacks it still has yeah lots of things that R2 and R3 do not have okay thank you um anyway so we can put a somebody can put a manufactured home in an R1 on a on R1 lot by WR yeah someone could do a pre-fabricated factory built home certified by hcd and all we would ever see is the foundation permit they can do that under current state law in our zoning ordinance sure this manufactured home it's not a mobile home it's not a mobile home and it's not an RV but it's a manufactured home manufactured home is a foundation a permanent foundation exactly okay thank you I this clear clarifying thank you now they they do arrive in Parts on wheels and and the chassis the wheels are dropped and but they're still there and they're put on a block foundation and then someday that block Foundation is taken away and Chassis are still there and they put wheels on them they to them off site um it's got a DMV license plate on it right what does one of these one of these homes has to yeah yeah on the road when it's on the road yeah so they're licensed for similar to any other vehicle that is Towing um has a trailer you know yeah I'm just kind of getting lost I think it's almost it sounds like semantics and that's the problem I'm having with it um I've been in manufactured homes that are like as as good as a house right they're big they're double wides they're nice they're really nice and then there's mobile homes that are 12et wide and 40 ft long and that's two different animals as far and that's an RV park and mobile mobile home versus a modular home or manufactured you know home they're

different things and the tiny home in some ways almost goes a little closer to the manufactured home because it's Solider it's more aesthetically pleasing generally speaking so yeah are we Von are you all maybe almost so to me just for the record if if I'm if I'm putting a semantics aside to me it's a mobile home that's just the way I see it for whatever it's worth it's all yours okay sorry go ahead thank you got had to make sure Von was done again I haven't committed a pend execute memory but I don't think they specify steel frame construction no uh the ones I've seen our wood frame yeah I've seen them build yes yes wood cladding as well now you know again as as far as finish you know exterior skin of the structure goes that's up to us too we could say wood or or wood product wood like product most single family homes are not built today with real wood sightings

yeah these aren't parcel they are single Parcels yeah right right div uh that touches on question that Belinda asked which I have an answer to now but the current uh typology and objective design standards that is most uh similar is is a Cottage Court um it is a group of up to nine small detached house scale buildings arranged on a single site with an open courtyard so that's the objective design standards that we that that is now in effect in the city um it has a 7 foot SE uh separation requirement excuse me between Cottages uh the cottage Dimensions so to answer your question the number nine comes from that standard um because it just fits reasonably with something we've already done uh and the

separation between those cottages at 7 feet was was a met building code for this type of construction um and also gave enough flexibility on moderately sized sites to concentrate them and to provide more residual room on the parcel to buffer landscape common area Etc that's a minimum 7 foot yeah yeah so we could um we have a we have a distance between them that we could establish I'm assuming we could establish a percentage of open space if we wanted to you know Cottage the objective design I mean we can keep keep that I guess yeah and so the like I guess as my job from this point forward is as we get into these kinds of details make sure that you you guys are aware of and reminded of the the fact that we've got those objective design standards that may or may not apply and they may literally translate but they may not so yeah okay I'll let you know if that in terms of fire access you talk about a 20 foot wide would it have to meet all fire standards I mean like turning radius yeah load bearing capacity oh yeah so yep yep they got to get there okay right so site Ingress egress becomes you know a tow vehicle turning radius and design vehicle that's beyond just a single family vehicle it's going to be you know potentially up to 50 ft long so so there's got to be enough navigating room um to to get in and out of these these places yeah no for sure yeah and for the fire vehicles to get in and out absolutely th those two tend to be somewhat synonymous I know the fire yeah fire standards are right right in there with RV standards depending upon the

height of the building right but yes um and in terms of this skirting and stuff like that we could say skirting and must must be installed and established or approved prior to occupancy or something like that absolutely yeah okay that's all I had thanks all right thanks Cindy Lee give her yeah really give her the microphone oh give her what did you think I was gonna say can you hear me yeah what did I do what did I do um so I'm going to ask for some Grace because this is my first meeting and I'm going to probably ask questions or say things that might be obvious to some others little closer you're talking to you can pull it close yeah if you need to oh I guess you can won't move wow I can move though okay okay um so what I'm understanding uh Jeff is that we as a body are having this opportunity to look at what what all the elements that would would be involved in creating the Aesthetics and the and the property design um and the cc&rs that would we'd want to put into place so that if there were a a tiny house Village or a cottage um group group of cottages being built that these have been laid down first so that there's an understanding that there's an agreement about how that's going to move forward am I understanding that correctly so yes except that we already have the cottage part right right so that's that's in place already so this is just applying it to the tiny homes on wheals right and I didn't see in here what the height requirement was that maximum height uh I think they off hand I think I want to say they're 14 feet is

um they tend to again at that's 13 and change somewhere between 13 and 14 ft they they're not they're well below the 16t height limit for 80 years okay well I I just want to acknowledge that this is this is a very exciting place to be in to be able to look at what the what the different designs that already exist what they look like for us to as a group to take a look at what would fit this town if the if there if we wanted to move ahead with such a a design that's it okay um do you want try you want to give it another go yeah um what would limit us from just applying our Cottage ordinance that we have now to allow tiny homes on Wheels but just require them to be on permanent foundations so that you can build those projects at a lower cost use a tiny home on Wheels it just as on a permanent foundation wait so did I hear you say you're going to bring a tiny home into a site and drop it onto a foundation yeah manufactur but why well it's your code to write so nothing is but why I mean couldn't you append the our Cottage ordinance that we have now to use tiny homes on Wheels as long as they're on a permanent foundation you could okay yeah I just I mean I'm not against them I just I don't like the idea of being able to just pick it up and move at any time and the fluctuation of occupancy at the development and they're not on Wheels anymore though yeah but it saves on the investment for the project buying one of these for 50

60,000 instead of building a 400,000 or you know a 400 square foot house at $300 a square foot maybe we could ask if tiny home Village that's already been in existence how much the turnover is well but it sounds like we couldn't couldn't we do that too I mean yes I think that would the turnover is interesting maybe I buy a isn't a um isn't doesn't our existing existing Cottage um design standard allow for manufactured Cottages I really says I mean I it could it doesn't it seems like it wouldn't preclude them just like we can't because we aren't allowed to preclude manufactured homes on an R1 which is our most restrictive place in for residential I would think our Cottages could be manufactured and plopped in wouldn't would you say that that's the case so we already have that so this is really adding we just want to have there's a market for wield houses yeah I think you know again I this is putting my best management practices hat on and um understanding the intent behind tiny homes on wheels um sure building them on Wheels dragging them on site on Wheels and then my enforcement hat goes on and says okay now you're dragging it onto a site and I want to see those wheels off and I want to see a solid foundation that we're going to permit so we have a regulatory hook and an enforcement mechanism in the form of a foundation permit um and they build a foundation um and building a foundation requires expense that frankly in my back with my

best management hat on again um is not consistent with the intent of the standard to create housing that is Affordable by Design what you've done is add a a regulation that makes it more expensive that's what I was going to say was it it's really going to come down to the code that's what um you know makes the big difference in in cost so if we're treating these like um you know let's say mobile homes then they're not going to have the the energy standard to um comply with the the fire safety the uh solar requirement Etc so that's what that's where my my mind goes because I deal with this all the time if you put them on permanent foundations then it's a you're right it's brings it up to a a more expensive yeah yeah and I guess I would you know the Devil's Advocate position would be that they become something other than tiny homes on Wheels they become something more analogous to what Melanie's talking about which is potentially a factory built uh Adu placed you know potentially even craned in on site and dropped on a foundation we can do that right now we can do that right now right could we establish um time frames a minimum commitment of five years or I I don't know a minimum commitment to leave your tiny home in place for X I think I think it's completely up to you all to come up with a set of standard cc&rs is that anything um putting on your yeah other hat is that like what a stupid idea um I would say that maybe

defensibility is a suspect on that I mean I I don't know of a of an analogous rental uh circumstance where the city says you are qualify as permanent housing you're by the code you're longer than 30 days and we're going to require you because of you're just a different thing to not only meet that bar but also sign a minimum fiveyear lease I I I don't I guess it's lesser than all those same arguments but okay but if you take the wheels off and put a permanent foundation on you can stay I mean I'm just trying to how do we I'd say they it's Shades of Gray right I mean you're saying my my my best management hat is squarely around my ears on the subject of housing because only because we need to treat as a as a as a community all forms of housing equally you you can't distinguish through a set of more or less rigorous standards a given type of housing because it brings with it something that is unique different or therefore stigmatized I we that's the part we need to back to our conversation I think you need to get to a point where okay this is this is a big pill swallow and and and the housing land landcape is is changing as we speak uh for the worse and what are we going to do about it as a policymaking body to advise our Council and it is not cheap to move these tiny homes around yeah it is hook them up no you have to have a right they're wide and you have to have the correct license the driver you I can't because I don't have the yes she's right I am right I know this yeah she's

right you can't I can't pull my 3/4 ton truck in and pull a tiny home no you can't it's illegal you have to have a special driver's license you have to have a truck driver huh special permits for oversized load it's wider and you have to have it's not that it's not doable it's not that it's prohibitively expensive I can't do it you you can do it in the middle of the night I suppose and see how far you got I I drive up on down Highway 5 a lot and the reason why I said I I thought you could because I see those behind an F350 fairly often they're not tiny homes well it looks like one of these to me I just know this because the Nordic ski area has a thing being built that we could take down there but now that they're building building that the house on it on this Frame the person that took it down cannot bring it back because he doesn't have the right trailer or licensing that's a so I know structure it's the width and it's the length well anyway so I think just easy that's going to be managed and wait but perhaps maybe this maybe this will clarify a little bit um does the tiny house go with a person a person buys tiny house and moves it in or does somebody own six tiny houses and rents them to people it's different people and people can move in and out and in and out just like they would out of an apartment yeah part of my next question the the example that I visited in in near hood is is the ladder yeah sing yeah a single site owner he built all the tiny homes wheels and and and Drug them in there and placed them and it looks great and he he leases them out and they're all leased out just like any other single family dwelling annual leases month-to-month after that but for less for less money because they're smaller

right and so his cost of you know doing business is an order of magnitude less than a conventional stick built home on a foundation and therefore uh he's providing a you know an affordable housing service to his community um it's it's well-managed wellmaintained and you know it frankly it passes the wood w you live their test for me is it Zone commercial then or is it Zone multi no it's this particular project is zoned rural residential and they have how many lot part how many these tiny homes on this one parcel I think they have nine nine or 10 and and we can establish a Max right now we're floating nine because it's in the objective design standards caveat here is [Music] your it's it's a different situation if there's one owner that has nine of them is rentals and then it's you know it's basically like whatever it was on Old McLoud The Nest but tiny homes versus what was presented to us a couple months ago that it's a lot that they develop with nine sites and the people come in and as they pick and choose and bring their tiny home in stay for x amount of days and then leave which in that case it's basically an RV park for tiny homes yeah either model is is um passes if it's if they're built to appendix Q either model works well I think it from an aesthetic standpoint but I think for our tiny home Village we need to designate is this this a you can lease the space or is it a development where they're there by one owner I think that if you if you did the latter if you did one owner for all nine units you you'd have a

very it's very unlikely that you'd see this type this development typology flourish I don't think that you would see well didn't you just reference one I I did and I think that if you're going to you're going to set regulations to preclude this type then you would do that but all I'm talking about is from a design standpoint um I I think it's a good project could we have an onsite manager I'm sorry an on-site manager they I mean um could that be one of our I just don't like the idea of redefining basically what a mobile home park is this a mobile home park yeah it is it's just a mobile home with a different structure on it agree say so well David you're a man of of definitions right so I tell you the building code defines mobile home and Tiny home differently they're not the same the land use is the same the land use is a cottage typology I think Cottage is much better description of them so like what make how are they different maybe is for instance you know I think of a a mobile home park you can park your vehicle right next to your mobile home um I mean page this one does that right there's a page in here that has it next to the structure that is a mobile home park I've never seen a mobile home like that said besides the structure right so I so but you don't have to have you can put something we could put something in our ordinance that said it just linear it can it has to be uh I don't know what the term would

be but articulated is that the angled no no kind of like you know a cottage thing is I I would I would submit that David if you if you have aesthetic challenges with that then give us a set of standards that mitigate it for us or for you I I I still haven't heard the difference that Melanie had asked you about like what is what what is the difference between a mobile home park and a tiny tiny home on Wheels Park a mobile home is defined as a set of a structure built under a completely different set of regulatory parameters a tiny home home Village it's like comparing a multif family unit and a single family unit okay so or a type three construction and type one construction so wood frame over a concrete Podium versus five stories of of of Steel I mean it's a it's a vastly different building um regulatory framework different different definition in terms of site planning in terms of site design they're the same uh in terms of site design although they might require a little bit more room cuz are slightly wider maybe not are aren't they um isn't it a road that comes through with Park places for these units to go I mean you can almost say that of some of the subdivisions I've designed too but they're bigger yeah I mean I would say that if you compared it with let's say an apartment building yeah well no cuz that's multi- buildings with multi-units in it well there still I think this still meets the definition of a multif family project because it's got multiple The Nest is a multif family project so let's take the nest for example okay the nest H the those Nest units could be tiny homes yeah they could be it is not a

mobile home park okay so right so so you you you have skirting standards you have Landscaping standards you have common area standards you have uh site access and egress standards you don't have pull through Provisions you have utility standards so that all the utilities go underground to a central location they don't go to a stand pipe with a sewer clean out um oh really you know it's these kinds of aesthetic components that again once we get our brains collectively around the distinction I think the universe of regulatory possibility will open before us I think we really need to understand that these aren't mobile home parks they're not RVs they are regulated and recognized by California regulations as something else this is pioneering policy we're creating and then the direction that we have in the form of a housing element and a city council directive is to get creative and go there so it sounds like we need to find a place it I wouldn't want this just anywhere but I'd like it I like the idea of I like the idea of having them we do need to increase affordable housing yeah and so when you have I I would love to press on the best way to fix something frankly is is to understand what you don't want to see and mitigate it rather than try to get where you want to be and create it so what don't you like about mobile home parks it's there's nothing that I don't like about them it's just it doesn't make sense that if we have a mobile home ordinance that has certain restrictions to it why aren't we utilizing that instead of calling it something else tiny homes are regulated differently by okay it's just a different structure regulations it's not a different mobile home it's a slight of oh so hang on so hang on we're going to come back to the

the different being able to pull through it sounds like the diff one of the differences is that you don't have the I don't know like you go to an RV park and you've got the plugins and all that right next to your site instead that's all underground and integrated so that would be one difference that makes it different from a mobile home park aesthetically nicer one might think and I don't know what all of those are although I think it might be I think it would be super helpful for this crowd to have those differences spelled out maybe so there was more clarity because I I to your point David I think replicating something that we already have seems unnecessary seems and it it seems unnecessary to replicate something that we already have when if we could do it with our existing framework why don't we do that but it sounds like there's enough difference because our existing framework doesn't allow for expansion of mobile home parks into all of these areas listed whereas we make these small mobile home parks now it can be Rewritten to go into all these other areas if they look cute enough yes and is that some is how does is it different is it is it different enough aesthetic enough and meeting our goals of providing more housing which I think we all agreed is really important can we can we do that in a way that fits in the city okay so it seems like a worthy effort I think a big difference is the units look a lot different I mean mobile homes the mobile homes other than it might say Adventure or it's got a it's a rectangle Monarch or whatever it doesn't they they look a

whole lot more similar at least than what I'm seeing like a rectangular block with a roof so the concept I mean I'm I'm with David on this but I'm also on Allen on this the bigger question is I first of all I don't think why should we rewrite something we kind of already have it we just put a different kind of house on it A and B is where you know I don't want them all around town want them concentrated like a mobile home park would be well I think there's two things we we're also going to consider that we would allow them to be adus so that would go um in anybody that's about but okay an Adu so you can build in any of our backyards in the city we can front yard you can build an Adu by right today I mean and that can be one of these and instead of BU a stick built Adu it could be a tiny home on Wheels Adu that's part of our conversation and as part of that is I'm hung up on this thing where somebody's got a 5,000 foot lot and he puts four of these houses on it but it just zoned what R2 still we have density goals yeah it depends on the degree of affordability the density bonus law you can double any density in town so these could come in at at a 100% affordability 100% affordable projects or or rent rates you know 20 to 40% Ami and they could be granted a corresponding density bonus I I think that that's again that's throughout any type of I think conceptually the thing on top of that is is I don't want to get hung up on you know I I I get the ideas to try to make something cheaper but making

something cheaper there's going to be some people that are just never going to be able to afford a house unfortunately and I don't want to disrupt the value of our town and the concept of our town trying to make something cheap so there's got to be this kind of a splitting of the baby somewhere yeah so I I think we're at a point at which we need to take a straw pole because um these are two different these are two diversions uh uh it's a diversion of of of of thought either you know back to what is the entry level question to this do you want to modify our existing chapter 1608 which is Park regulations to include tiny homes Park regulations yeah that's Mar mobile home code um say that again yeah I didn't hear that excluded from it currently they wouldn't be but but this this is to your point you're saying since we already have the regulations why are we creating new regulations what in essence is the real difference and I sense a struggle that is not quite a quorum but close so I think um rather than and I'm sensing that the clock's ticking and we've got a lot to do that maybe what I do is at your prompt Melanie is put these up car uh frame these up side by side so that you understand the difference between what an RV park is and look feel under current regulations and what an appendix Q project would look like in a similar context so that you really can

get your head around the real difference and if that if at that point you say well why don't we just expand our mobile home Provisions to tweak them to include design look feels component that gets us to some hybrid of of RV and mobile homes and and tiny homes all on kind of one I I don't like that it doesn't feel right to me because there's so you would preclude one from the other by setting up those standards um is the zoning on a mobile home park way more restrictive than it might be for a time yes yeah very much so and they also have minimum roadway requirements a lot of the kind of the look feel of the village construct that is there's seating areas and there's they they look more pedestrian common spaces you know they're smaller than some of these large RVs that are coming through with large rigs driving all over the place with um anybody on vacation but there are mobile home parks with swimming pools and guest Center yeah and that kind of thing too and they are they are highly regulated for Mobile Home Park Mobile Home structures right not tiny home structures they're those mobile home park structures are larger we're talking about something new anyway right so why wouldn't we just use the mobile home park concept and use the CC cnrs for tiny homes well I think we're going a lot we would be going I think to do the tiny home ordinance we need to go a lot farther than a mobile home park because I think these can have some charm I think there's some places in town that you could tuck one in without and you don't have to have

nine you can have fewer than nine and you could tuck them in you can integrate affordable housing that we need we want folks who are working in the retail shops to be able to walk to work then I'd like to tuck it into Lots within towns and I'm not sure that a our existing mobile home ordinance is any is close enough to that I think there'd be so much work we'd have to do to that that why not just leave that alone let's get where we want to go so we can do a tiny little spot tuck a few in here and we've created you know four affordable units for people so they can walk to work and then you get salt and pepper neighborhoods and people's values are affected oh I disagree completely I think if you integrate neighborhoods and make them more complex and more interesting you've got more people people walking around town you have more people more activity in your neighborhood and that increases your safety and your neighborhood feel more kids walking to school besides the whole affordable housing thing all the stuff that's mandated it already takes care of that it's going to do that anyway they're going to put they're going to put houses wherever they want to put houses I don't see why having this next door to me decreases my property values I think it's cute that's a good place for one it would be honestly the house that's next door to me it's I just don't want one in my street I think it would hurt the values I really do that's why I think I like the idea of them having concentrated someplace still solves the problem solves the problem of uh of having you know allowing this this more

affordable neighborhood make it a neighborhood and you know and have it concentrated say spread it all around I think we could do willy-nilly I don't like that idea I'm just saying I don't well but I'm only one person are you are one are you is that your zoning that you live in because you probably won't be affected by this unless it's an edu it's like there's a lot of commercial lots that have the ability right now on Mount Chasta Boulevard to do this I live on the presidents so yeah so you're all one can I ask another pedestrian question as it stands right now my understanding is that the zoning is in place that anybody you as it stands right now it's my understanding that zoning is in place for people to put tiny homes on their property if it's if in the zoning so I just just to your to your question it's it's already happening in a backyard I guess an edu typically is going in somebody's backyard out of sight and I don't know are we renting these adus out I guess some people are I don't absolutely yeah I have one but it's not rent I don't rent it out but I have one uh so I think we we might be a little bit stuck here and I I want to make some a little more progress um and I actually did have some comments um I don't know I mean there is sort of um let me finish out my comments and then I think we'll go to how are we going to approach this um oh and we still have public comment I haven't forgotten you all thank you uh I I guess I would want and I don't have to have answers to these all tonight Jeff but um kind of our rationale for how we would space these

for the spacing standards I would want to have some idea about that I um do you can can you explain to me you say there's a there is a higher standard for tiny homes and the higher standards are can you just give me a quick synopsis of what those higher standards are uh appendix Q goes into a great deal of detail um and I to answer your question I brought it up um they talk a lot about um well from Dimensions Windows uh egress Ingress egress um is this ceiling Heights OH in so from the unit itself in minimum area minimum Dimensions um height effective height of the Loft area stairways head rooms Treads and risers Landing platforms handrails size and capacity incline Ultra Etc this goes on for uh how how about construction quality I'm sorry qu construction quality not just a things but yeah is is it there's materiality there's higher sets of Standards than than our currently in effect for being certified as a mobile home or MV okay okay so what that does then is produce a a a form you know a thing a unit dwelling unit that it meets a standards bar that is that creates a tiny home on wheels or or very much a cottage wheel more durable Pro maybe

with the construction standards that are required and aesthetically nicer now it it it doesn't touch on Aesthetics they don't talk about roof pitch you could do a shed roof or a gabled roof or a flat roof but and that's where I've tried to go in with some examples in the staff report where you could go above and beyond appendix Q which really talks about the quality of the structure itself and then establish design standards re form and you could even go so far as to say you know it's got to have it's got to have a Mountain Village Vibe you know these are tiny homes that are meeting they're going to look like a little mountain cabin you could go there uh you could go so far as to say that pick apart what you don't like about mobile home parks and RV parks and then create a set of very robust site standards that get you to something that makes you not have that reaction so I would say that you know the the the options are are yours to to come up with this this code there's you know I could start with bringing the Santa Cruz County or Humbolt county code in here and we could start picking that apart what I did do in the staff report is give you the exact outline plus some um in terms of content of of a code that would be more robust than I've reviewed well done thank you sir that's what I needed thank you and and I guess to my point of making a a straw vote here if we have a quorum here or a majority vote that says we don't want to go in this Direction with a full-blown ordinance we want to tweak our existing Park ordinance to do an easy as youo approach I I need staff needs clear Direction yeah well I want to get I'd like to request that yeah I'd like to do that after we hear from the public so but I I think but you do need direction by the end of this evening absolutely and that's part of it um I wondered we do

require sheltered parking for um would this not require sheltered parking it's up to us okay we often do require that uh again you waved um a lot of you established a pretty good precedent with a lot with the nest mhm part was one per bedroom and we you wav the covered parking standards okay and um I noticed in some of these the skirting we you show some with skirting some without I would think the skirting would be helpful in this climate to keep your pipes from not freezing um then the rest of this I think I'll tackle as we get Farther Along um Commissioners if it's all right with you I'm going to open it up to public comment all right would somebody like to come up and speak to us come to the mic introduce yourself if we've got folks here three minutes and you've got three minutes is somebody timing I do thank you could you get a little closer to the microphone so we can hear you I'm interested in tiny houses and um tiny house communities and I just want to say that my interest is for Workforce housing and the affordability issue and I've always thought they were cute I like well-made things and the ones that I've seen are well-made and I like the feel of them much more than mobile homes although if I had a tiny house Village I would allow mobile homes also because they're affordable housing and the aesthetic is great but it's not the driver to me um I love tiny homes like I said but um one other thing is you think

about uh you're saying about the single wide being so small and everything well tiny houses are very small and one of the things about living in a tiny house is having some outdoor space and i' just like to appeal to you to keep that in mind because if you put them right next to the freeway that's not going to be a great home home or a great community so that's well beyond aesthetic being right by the freeway so I just want to mention that thanks for uh exploring this thank you thank you somebody else like to come up introduce yourself please my name is Steve Das um I've seen several of these tiny home communities actually spent some time in a couple of them and we're not going to get it done in three minutes so in the interest of time I'll go ahead and put together a short thing and email it to the commission that'd be lovely thank you thanks hi I'm John Sang and I've Liv here it's hard can you maybe tip it up perfect thank you how's that that helps okay I'm John sanguin edti and I've been living here since 1988 and I'm a homeowner and uh I have some other property one of my big concerns here is the the parking situation right now we don't have a bad problem but I've seen this develop in other cities and other towns and as you incre increase the density of the population and the housing parking can become a major problem and I'm very concerned about about that and in small housing

communities or tiny housing communities or or even R RV park type situations you get you get permanent uh people living there and you get high density because the rents are high and you get more cars and and they don't fit always in the park they end up on the streets and and they become a big problem so I think especially with the snow problems we have sometimes and stuff like that then I think that's something that really needs to be considered and looked at so I thought thank you thank you Johanna elor for Mount Chasta um so I first want to just read my comments in my email which um I I think we should also do something like I was talking about during public comment where we allocate a certain space for these tiny homes on Wheels I I think they look really cute in all of that but um and so I I want to suggest the orchard in the landing space because the city owns this and it's something the city could offer but I I think we need to think about the kiss principle keep it simple stupid because as some of the Commissioners were saying we have rules R in place and I haven't read appendix Q yet but we need to understand are these permanent are they're really just like bigger RVs or different looking mobile homes and what I was reading in the agenda is you could have a different neighbor potentially every 30 days so is the intent really to have the ownership with the vehicle owner and by the way would they be required to have a license the

entire time that they're there like what if they have to you know I think it's really meant more as more permanent housing which then would be more like a mobile home park and we could use those rules and adapt them and it's basically just a different look and feel it's just a different model you have different model cars we have different model homes and I think tiny homes are something like that I don't know if our community or any Community really has the capacity to try to implement so many different rules and regulations for everything and so if we have a basis for for RVs already and mobile homes including things like leases and who owns them like an RV the owner is the vehicle owner the mobile home park sometimes it's sometimes those can be purchased but sometimes those are also rented out it because the land is owned by usually a management company and the uh but but some of these tiny homes I heard tonight 50 ft long by 14 ft tall I mean I don't think those people are going to be expected to go pop down to raay and pick up some groceries you know I don't think it's expected to be that mobile but anyway um but I think we need to keep things more simple and not complicate things and I love the look of tiny homes I think they're adorable but like if you're going to have one in your backyard well I would think that the homeowner of that property owns that tiny home right but if you're going to have a park of tiny homes that's going to be a different situation so then it's more like a mobile home park again where you are leasing out the spaces and then will those people be kind of like tenants will they fall under landlord tenant

rules and will they have to comply with certain certain you know um HUD and fair housing rules I mean there's a lot of things to this and I think it's just that it's a different look and I think that's okay that it's a different look but I think some of the rules are going to be underlying as to the use of the property which is what you guys were talking about so I think I would like to see us keep things more simple and not complicate things and you know what you were talking about use what we have as a basis and let mobile homes look different or let RVs look different or create a hybrid that's you know something like that I mean are we at three minutes oh yes sorry I I don't know are we I have no idea um yep thanks John okay thank you for your time oh there we go you're slow you're slow I think Seconds come on back up okay well thank you um so Commissioners any additional comments questions before we start talking about um how we'd like Jeff to proceed David no was that a no no okay tuon Belinda I just I just um know that the city council's directed us to do this and um that's what we're here for and I think getting the Quorum I think that was a good idea to take a poll oh St pole yeah have one I have one question for Jeff yeah

so in that discussion we had you said currently there's nothing stopping somebody from having a lot and putting four tiny homes on it and developing it right now correct Wait no that's not what I said one you could put one on your on your lot no we don't allow tiny homes uh appendix Q or otherwise well our code's silent on it therefore our code's prescriptive which means or permissive and if it's silent it's prohibited so right now we don't have any findings to make to support a tiny home on Wheels to replace an come on site as an Adu or anything else for that matter oh we couldn't today you no we don't have any permissions in the municipal code to allow it what I what I meant to say I thought what I said was under our current Park provision 16008 we can park a tiny home at the KOA and you know Park 10 of them there and call it a tiny home Village if you want I mean but again that's the current code but that current code also has lots of site development standards which are way relaxed you know there's nothing about skirting or common areas or you're and again that's the St that's the direction I'm looking for do you want me to modify 16008 pursuant to this public comment and other comments I've heard or do you want to go all in and create a robust set of standards for a separate ordinance those are two vastly different ways to regulate this this animal and I need some clear Direction on that yeah okay I think my biggest hold up is how the site would be operated is it

is the site operated is one developer who installs tiny homes and is the owner of all the tiny homes and rinse them as long-term rentals or is the site developed more in the form of a mobile home park where they develop the site put housing pads on it and then rent out those housing pads to random individuals that want to bring and bring and leave with their Titan Hill and that's my biggest hold up with this whole discussion the choice is yours but I'm just saying the the latter I would be against the other one I would support we have question yeah it's either or both either or both conditioned in such a way you either specify or you're silent on it so you're silent on ownership so we could specify you know c1c2 could be developed at least where R2 R3 has to be owner developed in there's that's a that's a great solution yeah you could do something like that you could specify ownership byed a part of it that's exactly what he's looking for yeah okay if you want me to pursue that line of thinking then yeah I'm all in well I'm all in in either case but I'm you know that gives me that gives me U well I think I could be half in and and do the former I would need to be all in because it's never been done before uh to to Really develop a robust robust set of of standards that that I think get us where we're going to want to be there there's no precedent like this out there this would be one of a kind right now cool go ahead Tucson I'll say um just from everything that I've heard

here and have a fuller understanding of what we're looking for and I think we do need to go down the road of a new set of standards for this type of um housing okay back to blinda are we taking vote it's sounding straw polish as we go so if you want to weigh in on that too while you're at it I I want to go with a uh tiny home ordinance okay V I'm not exactly sure what that means well you need to say it into the mic though I mean he's asking whether we want to go with a mobile home park thing and just adapting tiny homes into the mobile home park ordinance or if we want to cra a totally uh separate thing for this totally new thing my thought is it isn't as new as everybody wants to make it sound so I'd rather just call it a tiny home park but it's a mobile home park with just tiny homes that's that's my view of it and if and I'm I and if adus are you know allow one of those right now I guess that's the way it is I'm not nuts about that either but no they don't now well that's good then yeah but they that's going to be a question is as a part of this are we going to allow tiny home Villages under these new sets of standards and while we're at it are we going to allow an Adu to be a tiny home okay so my my view for what it's worth right now is just a make a a nice really cool mobile home park but it's just it's just tiny homes and not to have uh um tiny homes as an Adu that's where I'm that's exactly where

I'm at okay and what zones would under the former so you're saying a nice set of standards for tiny home Village in what zones I guess would you would you a mobile home park type of Zone okay so a single so that's back to our modifying our current standards to be very restrictive about where they go yeah and then you know and and yes there there should be oh God you guys all right um so the idea is is that um you know I think there's a classy way to do it I think whether it's owned where like somebody does the thing and you buy the space or you rent the space that's fine I'm not overly hung up on that but um I think that that's yeah I think that's kind of where I've settled on okay that's clear okay Alan I think we need I think it's different enough and more complex enough that we need a separate ordinance and I like the the direction you're going David you like what David talked about in terms of yeah okay cind I agree I want the I think that the tiny house ordinance is the way to go because there are enough differences and I U agree with having having a a way to decide on which zoning areas we're going to do that in how we treat them in the different zones treat them differently in different zones exactly yeah okay and yes I also think we should go with a tiny home ordinance that is um specific to tiny homes and uh I I don't know yet how I feel about um how we address them in different zones I'm going to think about it and Le learn about

it there we go do you feel like you have enough information to move forward Jee I do thank you okay then Jeff uh when you come back to us with more information will you have a pendex Q sorry as part of that yeah so yeah so if we do any model where we would distinguish if we go towards full ordinance which we are if we distinguish by Zone ownership uh and we address some of the other concerns I have then absolutely we're now in appendix Q territory so I will dissect appendix Q for you and and lay that up in a manner that makes it clear that an appendix H appendix Q structure and a set of standards that are site standards that regulate how that structure looks and feels around by by its site standards how it's going to look different from a mobile home park that's what that's where I'm headed with with my next set of analysis could you also um put a zoning map of the yeah City in there too I I'm I'm also I think we also are aware that given the type of product that they're doing unless there's like just one or two there will be restrictions just because of site configur site right um description right you know what it how the dimension it is how flat it is there won't just be any lot that we can do this on most of the most of the areas along the presence where you are it if you had more than two units it just wouldn't it wouldn't pencil yeah it wouldn't generally I know you can be creative and do things but that then the price starts creativity costs money right so we have a housing sit's inventory which is useful for that purpose that's in the the housing element so I'll use that and I'll I'll try to do a thumbnail analysis don't know how much time I'll have to do this but if I can dig into each each of those

you know x00 number of parcels in the city what percentage of them actually meet the standard for you know a are they vacant B are they flat enough C are they large enough you know so on so are we talking about you know you know a Title Wave a tsunami of tiny home Villages coming or are we talking about you know high low you know what I mean to use title met well you never know that because there you know all of a sudden everybody decides this is the place that they want to do that that's how communities grow a certain way that doesn't make land flat no it doesn't I'd like to see appendix Q can you um just email that to us soon so we can start chewing on it it's a hyperlink in your oh is there yeah and I ignored it sorry it's just the building standards for the homes it's has nothing to do with oh yeah well I'm okay I it regulates the structure itself and then what I've tried to put into the staff report is the rest of the categories of site development standards which married together create a contextually sensitive form and structure that meets our standards just says your wall has to be X minimum thickness it has to have y insulation okay you know it can only be this wide this long this High yeah I'd also like to know um what kind of code standards these are regulated under I'm sorry say again the type of the what code standards these tiny homes are regulated under as far as building codes that's a but is it have everything in like do they have to have SP fire sprinklers and energy code stuff yeah I don't know if penq goes that far I I don't think they don't think that it does but I knew I know some do the tiny home um village that I

visited and the the one that a friend lived in in near Grass Valley was all was equipped with fire sprinklers sometimes that's a negotiation with the fire department as to whether or not you have good access if you don't have good access you sprinkle so and I'm not seeing any pav roads here at all on these pictures at all so essentially you know and I'm thinking about the fir Tru thing again um and that's one of the other reasons why I was liking the actual concept of a of the mobile home type of of Park only just being tiny homes because it does kind of make things a little bit more you know uh approachable by uh Emergency Services those types of things also having to do with I guess we're not going to call them hookups um but there's going to be sewer and and water and electricity and the whole nine yards L under ground you have two different l typ is represented here the top one is single owner renting them out to long-term tenants the bottom one is somebody that owns the land and rents the sites out to different people that's why you're not seeing roads in the top one because they came in set the tiny homes develop the land and they're renting them out long term yeah all right did we get enough have we got enough are we good all right we're moving on to item number six which is also a discussion of our parklet ordinance start Jeff you ready this one I don't think I can labor um as much as I did with introduction I think it's pretty clear I hope that it is um you regulate you're the regulatory body for

parklets okay we've got two of them um they were set up during CO as temporary facilities period um Council and Merchants have directed us to explore not Merchants have directed us Merchants have advised counsel implored counsel to explore permanent solutions for these temporary things that people um Love and Hate uh there are two of them they're both permitted um they both exist under the current parket ordinance which is attached to the staff report um and we are here to begin the discussion about how to modify amend um not create a new but amend an existing ordinance to convert um these temporary facilities into permanent facilities and in the staff report I have shown you some precedence um I have given you um design considerations um I think that the three options that that I'm sort of boxing these for you are um either no design regulation in other words let them go let them be one on if in the future we have instead of two we have six let them do what they want um come up with some moderate regulation which limits potentially material and and character but it also gives induces variety um or option three which is high uh regulation again this is on item seven uh sub item three uh in the St report um which establishes a continuous material and character expression with pre-approved designs okay um that was what I found um in

the Palo Alto um link that's a hyperlink to their full set of Standards by the way if you go in here digitally to your staff report uh you can go to the pelto standards the Santa standards are two track they have a custom and a pre-approval uh process so two tracks much like our design standards for uh objective design standards or discretionary review um long beaches is prescriptive um and medford's is very functional life health safety only so that's make sure cars can't smash into it with you know who cares what you put up there it could be concrete K rail um it could be steel barriers Etc um I think it's an exciting opportunity to talk about how you can meet life health safety measures but also create something that we all can be proud of in terms of our aesthetic contribution to our to our Main Street um so uh what I've tried to do is to simplify this is ask you a series of questions which are on pack of page 12 and it is essentially the same question I was asking you in the previous item which is are we doing this or not um are they permanent or not do we have to renew those Jeff yeah they're annually reviewed that's the current ordinance you I'm saying is once the permit time comes up do we are we o at to renew it if they meet the standards that are specified in the ordinance then and if it's unless the ordinance changes then yes okay so that is something we can change well you can set criteria for

Renewal yes right yeah but no renewals so you would only allow them to be in existence for a year well they're already here there's two what if we those I don't think they should have an advantage over anybody else having one or not having one but I'm not in favor of them in the first place okay let's get through the um his report and then we'll get to commission comments so the answer to question one the entry level question is are are we going to make these permanent or not Bond's made his position clear what's permanent is it mean fasten to the ground or like they are now but no we we are we are going to Sunset parklets period we're going to make them go away they will not exist a year from now oh so permanence of having parklets not that the parket itself is per I'm sorry let me repeat to be clear our current ordinance specifies temporary okay temporary does not mean permanent tomorrow we could we could not renew these because they are now failing to meet a common sense standard of of temporary right they clearly have transitioned to a permanent structure the problem is the standards haven't kept up with it so what I'd like to do is take this one by one and get a straw poll on everybody really quickly for the sake of efficiency and go are we wanting these things to be permanent or not okay I I'm permanent in allowance or permanent in life of the hard we're going to create a set of standards that is that will allow them to be under a certain set of maintenance standards which actually already exist in our in our ordinance that if met they will they can be renewed for another year so they'll always be annually renewed right the permit most when when my slow brain when

you say permanent means like we bump out the sidewalk add pain put a fence around it that's permanent in my brain that was my brain too let me sorry for the confusion let me be clear that those are not parklets and and the staff report talks distinguishes between parklet and dining enclosure okay okay so in in reaching out to these folks both both users and participants and passers by uh over the last couple of months uh I've learned that and looking at other communities I've learned that there's a big big distinction in people's minds about what is a permanent parklet and what is a dining enclosure a dining enclosure is the curb extension it is the dining enclosure that is surrounded by something much like what's in front of yaks so Steel low railing up against the building wall and the curb line goes out with a new curb that that allows the accessible pathway by adaa standards to navigate around the dining enclosure okay sorry for not making this clear in this lexicon moving forward a permanent parklet means that that parklet we're going to write an ordinance that allows that thing to be renewable year after year after year and less than until the ordinance changes so that's a big aha moment it's separate and distinct from we're going to pursue a street skate project which is going to move the curb lines out and on those new sidewalks we are going to have Street furniture and trees and lighting and dining enclosures okay because the ladder is a $5 million per parklet uh intervention the former permanent parklet is is is is probably I know it's not working Sor your

explanation is hard for us is is that permanent can still be denied if they don't keep their standards up correct right but if it's not permanent it means they're out of there now pretty or we could yeah if even if their standards are good if you want to Sunset this then what we do is we we we don't we don't move forward and we say the code currently says that temporary and you're over here and so next year at this time you don't see parklets okay but but again I'm trying to be be clear I'm sorry that I'm not a low blood suggar it's my fault for not having a snack late but Park are separate and distinct from dining enclosures okay dining enclosures are a public works infrastructure that moves the sidewalk yeah okay and that's many many millions of dollars of effort that isn't what we're talking about tonight no that's fine I only put it in here so that we don't get confused over the matter okay and we got confused sorry that I sorry that it backfired okay I they have you been through Chico yeah they have permanent Dinan closures they permanent and they were not millions of dollars they were well they had wide sidewalks yeah well they widened sidewalks well I can tell you that you know I mean what's the cost per square linear foot on you know we need P it's building face to building face face when you move curb line and you're talking about travel Lane changes and park changes I think it's no but if there's no travel Lane changes we're just bumping out the sidewalk we're where the Park area is now consuming the parking stalls yeah assuming taking the okay well okay we're not doing that you pick the number I mean it's it's more expensive than than parket oh definitely definitely way more expensive and probably probably half a million dollar but it's but it's also not going to be a one-off project you're not going to say

I Merchant you know pipeline you know I'd like a I'd like a dining enclosure i' like you to move it around here the public works department and City Administration and Council are going to go wait a minute we've got a street skate project in effort right now if we're going to bump out a curb on this side might as well do it on the other and what about down the block if we're going to do mid block Crossings then it becomes part of a much longer more expensive proposition it does that's where we get into millions and that's where to get into um a big big heavy lift so I'm suggesting that we we focus on parklets and we keep them as this Garden variety thing that is wood structure in R of way we're not moving curb line we're not talking about dining enclosures we're we're doing a wood structure in the streets in the street yeah how do we make it permanent how do we what how do we make that stop using the word I'm I'm going to start using the word renewable thank you we're not temporary because we need to get strike the word temporary from the Parker yeah always be I liked renewable okay everything's temporary all right so the first question is would this be a parklet that could be renewed annually yes or no yes yes yes yes yes that's you you're up Von yes or no can it be renewed can you renew can you renew that parklet in front of the pipeline annually yes or no okay Alan yes Cindy Lee Yes okay we've got six to one okay now number two this is the permit duration you want to have these permits be annually renewed twoyear renewal four year van you can't weigh in you're already out of the game

problem I don't haven't heard anybody talk about yet is the lack of competition so if everybody else wants to get one of these where does everybody park around the corner because we don't have okay let's keep moving we don't okay well my question on permit duration hang on um my question on permit duration is do you know um so far what's happened for instance the one in front of Sparky is is looking a little ragged and so if because it gets bumped by a car it seems annual might be a more functional helpful way to approach it to make sure we get the okay um to we get the maintenance that we require I don't that's a good compl what do you think David I don't think the permit duration unless they're making structural changes to it or aesthetic changes to it the permit should be indefinite they should just require annual inspections okay and so the permit is conditioned upon the conditional conditioned on the outcome of the in correct that you don't have to reapply for a permit unless you're making structural or aesthetic changes but annual or every six Monon inspections if it's not up to standards you have 30 days to fix it or you're you lose it I think we're agreeing inspection annual inspection to continue to have this but it's permit to with annual but so but you don't have to reapply for a permit every year I agree exactly it's just a renewal it's not a reapplication well you do kind of don't you well you know there's a reason that we do that it's again that's what the current ordinance say money yes so what we're doing is we're inspecting these things um we have structural inspections we have aesthetic inspections and if we change this to have more Aesthetics we're going to have more inspection we're under a fee recovery mandate by

Council particularly moving moving forward so we're trying to capture our time spent during those inspections by reissuing the permit and that gives us a trigger to say okay most like much like cannabis for example cannabis is another one where these these aren't permits that are in perpetuity renewed through inspections they are you have to reapply every year oh is the reapplication simpler because you've already done it once yeah I mean it's it's off the shelf it's like cut and paste but um but yeah it triggers the same review by me and and and potentially if they change stuff coming before you guys are we recovering the costs uh yes we are and and there's a fee in there for c for that offsets parking lots too so it's $100 per stall you may know that because you guys created this for year $50 for yeah for month yeah 50 thank you 50 bucks yeah so I the reason I said it'ss because they both occupy to so yeah we don't actually do anything with money we don't do the we don't do fees cancel those fees no that's not what I meant you created the parklet ordinance or you should have and in there is a fee so yeah well anyway okay so are we back to permit do wish do we want to continue with the annual inspection renewing the permit David yeah Tucson yes yes yes Allan yes yes okay this is a pivotal one as well um in my experience two previous cities that kept these as permanent one did not one did um the one that did uh transition to public so in other words if I bring a sack lunch to work I can go sit down and have my lunch on a parklet um what that did was open up the use of those things to public benefit not private benefit in of the public right of way secondly it gave us more

public accommodation in our right of way not private accommodation right away um the consequence of that choice would be that you're complicating the liability right um and you're complicating the fee because pipeline's going to pay for a permit that everybody gets to use but that's tolerable because frankly they're using the community's public right of way not their right of way to increase their sales because they've got more floor area tabletops um that they're not paying lease for right so there's a bit of a structural component to this when it comes to um Public Access and the next number five which is fee structure so keep those kind of connected do we have to decide those tonight because I honestly don't have an opinion you this is these are questions that a discussion item only consider what I've put here um take another month to digest it and and contemplate it kick the tires and come back with answers to these questions you know like those two to me I mean I was in San Francisco and I just parked in somebody's parklet while I was eating something that I didn't buy in the adjacent build but it was it was lovely to have a nice outdoor space yeah I I yeah I agree so if it's publicly own does it require Public Access yeah yeah sure who gets sued yeah yeah oh you underr no no if you ownership Public Access you couldn't do Public Access no right right okay I mean well by by definition they're currently public owned um they're privately maintained so

we have a we allow by our permit and our ordinance use of the public RightWay for a fee but the improvements are driv it yeah but those improvements they own the wood we still own the ground under it they we're letting them use it for free was there an initial cost was there an initial cost I mean there for Von's point I mean that this did give them more this currently gives them more tabletop space right um was there an initial um during the covid thing did we say okay that's an equivalent of I don't know $20,000 I don't I I don't know you no that the fee structure right now is is outed in the next is just that it's just 250 how does that feel they're getting restaurant seating at Pennies on the dollar well that's why I wonder if we should work on the Fe and I know it's not ours to to work on but I do think that that's a cheap set of tables I I like the idea of them having them well I I also really like the that the vibrancy that it creates downtown so the next the next sort of um binary question is do you want to keep it as is in other words permit fee or lease by area Le what lease by area that makes better sense I think too yeah sorry out of turn so back to this one little thing here do we can Melanie just go sit in one of those places if she's not going to eat their food currently I I didn't hear the question if it's public oh because we own it because we because because they own the structure they own the structure it's like a condo okay in practice I've sat there a number of times and not purchased anything yeah I'm not I'm not saying that I went and said can I sit I'm not going to buy anything but I've sat there and not bought anything but there's times I've seen them put people in those seats like they

own the place so that's what I'm asking they they're entitled to own to kick people out if they sit there that's what I was asking yeah okay okay they own the structure that's what I was asking I didn't get that answer the first time I don't think or maybe I didn't ask it right yeah they own that structure they say who can and cannot eat there so the question is so they have a condominium and they're not paying for the dirt under it right what we're saying is they're going to there's private ownership of that by this by our Municipal Code of the wood what happens to the concrete under it are we going to lease it or we going to let them have it lease it Lee it okay so are we good leas yes I don't yeah I don't know yet so Public Access is no well no I actually I don't because it feel super weird because you have to go into this space and you know they're coming back seating people I I actually wouldn't but maybe that makes me think we don't have enough outdoor seating public outdoor seating where you would want to go sit there are benches all up and down that street yeah there's I know there are uncomfortable benches it's true they're not going to sery at those benches right no no no and this was just a I'm I don't know yet but I don't have to decide yet can city council determines lease rates correct not yeah city council makes final decision on this as well can we suggest what the lease should be well absolutely yeah okay we can say lease by area and say a reasonable amount is this or or or a derivative to get there is this I think it would just be based on average square foot rent restaurant space in town maybe 7 5% of average 50% can't use it you can't use it so much of the year I bet they use it 80% of the Year nah I bet they don't question be heers out that's another question is is are we is this lease rate going to be annual or is it

going to be seasonal oh I think it's only fair to be seasonal but I wonder is it does anybody pick them up and move them because potentially 3 months of the year it's inconvenient for plowing and they're not using them but they're taking the space you can't park there no I can't does anybody build them so they can be picked up and stored over the winter modular I'm sure it could be constructed modularly they're supposed to be yeah so if you set a standard that's pre-approved design because what we don't have right now is we're silent on on design it's all life health safety stuff MH so that's why you see this AI Podi between the two I think the ones that look better again permanent parklets not sorry what am I supposed to use cdy Le um renewable rable thank you renewable parklets are distinguished from the permanence of of a of a dining enclosure because it's not concrete it's wood right so if we have the pre-approved designs you know my design brain says well I like the pipeline better look and feel than the Sparky so if you're going to do a pre-approved design make it look more like spark or or a pipeline and then require when renewal comes along for pipeline for for sparkies to upgrade the aesthetic to better match that doesn't ask my question about picking it up for three months of the year so the plows can go through can we pick them up and move them and store them over the winter if you did a prescribed design you could probably design them in a way to where they would be modular you could and and in talking to the merchants now they are willing both both owners are willing

to are open to these discussions about a more proportional fee structure good a more more unified design aesthetic um but they dearly love them and want to keep them as renewable parklets um unless and until they go away because the curb line comes out with our new couplet design and the millions and millions we're going get we really going to do that Jesus but that still doesn't answer my question about picking it up and storing it over the window you you it's up to you guys you can create those standards well and also I wonder because I understand there's Wildlife issues wildlife habitat that's been created underneath the the parklets you're talking about rodents so they are nuisances for sure yeah right you've got a nice you've got shelter and a nice food source yeah so I'm just wondering if their modular pick up removable you can just kind of disrupt the habitat once in a while I think I think you'd find um some reluctance among the ownership to completely scrape them and rebuild them in a in a more modular way you get objection there or just pick it up and put it on a trailer and haul it off they're too big they're too big for that now they they'd have to be deconstructed in the right of in the current ordinance it does say that we can give them 72 hours and they got to be gone if there's an emergency and we need to get rid of them they're ours it's already there so you can ramp it up and and be I was thinking a seasonality to them wouldn't that come into play with what we charge them for the you know what we charge them the problem with having seasonality is if we have like a junuary where we have a June with two weeks in the 50s

and 60s or January with two weeks in the 50s and 60s and they want to open them up for a few days because it's nice and sunny out did they do that this year they've done it a few times yeah well I know I've been there and kind so to Circle back on the connection between fee structure and Public Access I hear you say lease by area potentially a seasonal does this general fund monies if we're leasing it to what end it's like what do we do with that Revenue City council's decision what to do with it but um connected to this fee structure is going to be Public Access so if we're going to lease by area are we going to codify in this revised ordinance that they are publicly accessible or not I think the liability on that sort of thing is just going to be nutty big got are we clear I I'm I agree I think the way they're constructed it would feel awkward to try to if the city own them be Public Access if they're privately built and and theyd be built and if they built them if they were built differently like say like the ones I was in in San Francisco where they were very open and they just had bench seats they felt more like part of the streetcape part of this discussion CS this stuff if you open it up to the public then you're adding an extra burden you know I mean who's been sitting here and who sanitized the table and blah blah blah you know I am sorry but part of this discussion i' eventually I'd like that street and I did a m plan back in the 990s where we were looking at this being more of a I assume you know the term wwor sure do yeah yeah living more of a living Street and to where there would be more and more pedestrian access and less and less parking um and um um like that it's okay if you want to close off that section words I'm good with that I don't have a problem with that but the uh uh so with that I'd like to approach all of these discussions with that in mind how can we make move in that direction well that's good context well short of

doing that one of the thoughts that I was looking at is and this is why I I'm I'm struggling with this whole thing is if those two go away we do get the extra parking but there's nothing to say people can't get permitted for like uh you know for Sidewalk Cafe seating and so that way you get the best you get both where would you put Sidewalk Cafe seating well right now you you you can have this a ropes of think of like San Elina for example yeah there's just not enough table there's not enough we have narrow sidewalks you get two you get four seats in front of pipeline yeah you got 20 tabletops out there you can't get even close to that that's why this is sidewalk dining we have a sidewalk dining provision in our you know people could put tabletops out there okay so right now so we're not talking about that we're talking about parklets as as renewable but with with a Twist of permanence okay so then eventually if everybody wants one of those everybody we can designate every business wants one of those there's no parking there so why you have the road open we should just close it and just save ourselves in trouble it's not not even close no that would be Millions there we go okay so can I can I keep ushering us toward number seven or excuse me number six which is you want to keep yourselves as the approval body or do you want unload this burden to staff okay keep it here number seven design and operations um do you want to keep it like moderate regulation where you let the existing be but the new ones come in they have to meet a higher standard yes I like option two because I like to see what creative people come up with got it okay and everybody's agreeing with me apparently we are yeah if you don't agree say something okay that ends that

um I will come back with revisions to the ordinance itself based on this it'll be a public hearing um you'll likely have more comments so my I feel like we're going to go into probably a continuation of that which is great because oh yeah two nights Le so I would assume that what's going to come forward next will actually be an actionable item but you're going to have two bites of this okay two what two two two public hearings to get through this next step so the whole conversation about dining enclosures was just to help us understand what we aren't [Applause] regulating I know he wants to get out of here so badly sorry no I wanted to I wanted to raise his I had I had some chips but they didn't maybe that's not the right thing you need something that's some fat and protein yeah to answer your question dark chocolate it's dark that was why the dining encloses was in here not because we're regulating them right only to differentiate and the reason I was trying to distinguish between temporary and permanence because permanence is part of a conversation that's happening with the couplet with Castle Street with Lake Street there's a lot of behind the scenes in public works Council subcommittee uh ad hoc committees are discussing what to do with our public right of way right now it's very with our what I'm sorry what to do with our public right our right of way so where isn't the planning commissioner in on any of this yeah um the the conversation right now is pure speculation I wouldn't I would go maybe a step further there's enough Concept in on the table right now that we can begin to understand what it means when we say daylight in Castle Creek for a long time it was just concept only what is it wow that sounds fascinating or interesting or it's

horrifying we now have some renderings that are put forth by Tom thank you who uh has done great work um all over town and there's an ad hoc committee that uh is exploring narrowing those options down um have there been any um I respect Tom a lot can you make sure we everybody I respect Tom a lot Tom um but uh have there been any hydrological studies Beyond Tom's to kind of Y Tru that whole thing I don't know okay yeah I I I the reason I haven't like I don't know brought you into the conversation because hey I'm not part of it directly I'm only my office happens to be within earshot of where they meet um but when it does get to a point of Y to know because you're an appointed body advising counsel then I'll bring you into the conversation but it's there suffice to say that um don't feel ignored there there's these are conversations only Lake Street is awarded a grant for active Transportation Safe Streets for all that's going to affect the right of way this couplet conversation is still concept only or if you what is a couplet the idea of one way street on one way and one way on the other and then com combined with that is this again increasing conceptual um conversation at least from an alternate standpoint alternative standpoint the daylight of Castle Creek so all this is now finally within the last six months or less three months conspired to collocate in one spot all the same conversation what are we going to do in the public rideway it used to be you know the Boulevard South and the Boulevard North and all why is the pavement bad up here and horrible over here and why aren so now it's a it's a

conversation that's coordinated around a more increasingly focused RightWay Lake Chestnut the boulevard Castle and so more to come what are our Lake and Alma Alma's not hasn't been part of the um conversation yet we just did Alma we just spent a ton of money as you know on Alma but the couplet would re-engage at the pinch points you know and potentially I mean it could disengage to re-engage earlier but then you got left turns anyway it there's it's not even worth getting into right now it's too it's too speculative so um that's a longer answer your question but that is why I I wanted to bring in dining enclosure because if we have these conversations about public RightWay very very fundamentally part of these to justify grant funding and public benefit is wider sidewalks yeah and safer Crossings midblock Crossings better streetscape design Etc okay if you do that you're going to have dining enclosures and guess what becomes very mood mhm Park yep or even even more the the side going out around them for the dining enclosure dining enclosure supp plantss yeah they go away we can't hear you when you dining enclosures are better yeah that's all so sorry are we good with that item I I I I I hear you which item um we are working on the parklet ordinance he wanted to know I think that because we made the first two decisions and now we're going to chew on the rest of it but you're going to give us a framework to chew from I'm gonna come back with an ordinance as I said probably two times more before you where we really sit down and and we look at the ordinance language the nuts and

bolts of the language itself we have a public hearing we tweak language okay and with these drivers that you've given me and then we will likely continue this for one more version I just feel like that you're so you got answers I think on ownership on three and four I think you took care of we have a we have at leas by area Direction on five Planning Commission and um on number seven option two so I guess you did get all your answers okay and um so but we have people here and if Commissioners have no any more comments of the commissioners before I let folks come talk to us if they would like to I have I do I do have one comment because there was a new law pass this year by the DMV or whoever does laws like that saying that you're not supposed to part within 20 ft of a corner which is bogus but nevertheless you have in here that these parklets can't be any closer than 15 feet and I'm going what is the law have you yeah I don't know we'll figure that out when we get there okay st's got signs up all over the place you can't park nobody here 20 ft of a crosswalk no right and we're parking within 20 ft of a crosswalk walk probably right now Corner par within 20 ft of a corner crosswalk corner too yeah how do you define the corner the curb the next curb back I here's the curb 20 ft back it's a huge amount of space it's about safe pedestrian it's about safe pedestrian Crossings it's a brand new law it's about it's in effect now and I did find it interesting that maesta has done nothing to enforce it that to see if it was going to requ new parking stud because of all the parking spots that we it's mostly it's mostly cornered because of it but we don't know anything about that

yet Jeff is that yeah word said it doesn't I just saw that in there as a and I'm done okay so um but we're not done with this yet um would anybody from the public like to come and talk to us about the parklets timer are we on is this on now it's on I didn't hear it all right timing got it um so I love parklets I think they're great I think it's wonderful for our downtown I think it's a makes it more vibrant I think it increases our to and revenue for the city um but I do think there need to be rules around it like you know the safety kind of the Medford I guess thing where I I think it should be able to withstand you know like cars bumping into it gently at 25 miles per hour so that we have safety we need to address things like um I think smoking is already outlawed but people still do it downtown and I agree that you know all the maintenance should be on the business owners um I don't know if there's anything where people can like if the neighboring property can give away their Frontage to like the business owner next door if they can sublet sort of their space I don't know if that's anything that's come up maybe that's a moot point but I think it we should at least consider it um I talked in my email also about like you know parklets parklet issues and you know code enforcement as well as public comments should be considered if there's issues I know in in the past I've heard um people comment about you know rugs or black so that's oily from food droppings or whatever and it makes it unsafe for

people on the sidewalk and that could become a liability issue so I think whatever you know you come up with that things like that are addressed so that um it's taken seriously by the businesses and I I think I'm sure they've I believe they've addressed it but um noise levels hours of operations um should be considered lighting you know so it doesn't interfere with cars um how electrical how does electrical get to the parkl you know is it okay to tap duct tape on the sidewalk or you know what are the rules around that we should have like some some thoughts on that um and then the rodents um except that I think we should do you know Humane trapping and all of that and since oneway streets came up I just want to say we're not Ashland we're too small um to have oneway streets in Mount Chasta in my humble opinion I I just don't think I I think it would be difficult for people especially since many of them are seniors and they use their vehicles to go shopping and how are they going to I I don't know maybe we can get electric scooters for everybody but anyway um um yeah and uh I wouldn't make them mo uh mobile or collapsible or whatever and remove them because I think even though it's a I think important for snow plowing but I think it would make the structure less safe from a usage stamp point and I think the business owners like Jeff was saying wouldn't like that so um I don't think they'd want to take

it on and off and so I think just increasing the fee a little bit for whatever you think the lease is worth okay thanks joh and we've got your email thanks thank you minut and did you want to okay all right well Commissioners anything else to uh contribute to um parklet conversation Cindy Lee nothing I have nothing to add Alan I want more of them you want more of them yeah cool yeah we're going to do it more not just into the mark so we get capture what you say please well I heard me uh so the idea is is that if we're going to do it yeah it shouldn't just be two and then like I said the competition seems unfair um so if we're going to do that's fine but nobody's addressed parking which I'm surprised because it comes up on every other thing that we talk about here today um I don't like the big solid wall of the same look I told I think I told Jeff this that I I was going into Sparky and I was crossed on the other side of the street and it was night and then you know traffic wasn't too bad and so I was jaywalking right middle of the block and I ran into the walls and I was like a little mouse going which way do I go because I'm want to get run over right so it says something in here about 2 feet apart from each parklet so I do agree with that because of that reason JW squeeze through that two feet that's why you're not supposed to jwalk I can get through no I mean you no you have to find that 2 feet as you're there it is it's better than 30 feet or whatever yeah okay do some no but that's why we have crosswalks blinda

I jwalk too jwalk not in the walls there's not supposed to be a wall there all right um thanks team I think we're good to go yes you're good to go yes all right lovely moving oh sorry moving on to item seven commission and staff comments I'm GNA let Jeff start with staff comments even though you have blood low blood sugar you did okay this is quick I promise so normally this happens at the end or beginning of the year not four months into it nearly um but we for whatever reason you know cancellations and so on um but this annual recap that I handed out um gives you a sense of what the volume was over the year um and it gives you an estimate of workload for the forthcoming year so it I started with team member stuff I've given you handout for all who you are it's and those what's important there I think we all knew who we are but there's going to be some uh term details to to think about as we cycle through so let's not get caught flat-footed I know that's mostly staff's fault this time around we should have seated a quorum prior to um sooner but we we just couldn't get um Council together in time and we couldn't get staffed together uh in time is that usually that used to be um Cathy's took care true and she left and we had a new Clerk and you again no gravity of detail is comp I'm just wondering if that's if that's um Rachel's job or okay yeah um the legislative update is attached um that's a 2025 mostly housing related stuff that's coming down the pipe I'm not going to talk talk about it right now but there's a lot there you can go online to the that information and there's hyperlinks

everywhere and you can geek out for an entire weekend over that material um suffice it to say that I watch it it's the Turner Center for housing they do a great synopsis they I'm I'm I I subscribe to their feed and I get heads up hey pay attention to this it's coming so that's not on you it's on me I'm just giving you a sense of of what we're up to more big changes huh more big changes um no there's mostly globally tweaks to fix changes that have already happened but there's still annual so y the workload again there's long range Planning by housing element municipal code in general plan um most of that you already know um we are under Municipal Code um we already adopted or added 1850 which is objective design standards that went into effect many months ago um however we do need to still change um Architectural Review 1860 and we need to change 1860 which is our underlying zones for to comply with uh the changes we made in the housing element okay so that's coming that's probably coming in um uh in in April is um General plan um the housing element was done safety elements done noise elements in draft review you're going to see that next probably April May um beyond that we're going to tee up land use next um and you'll probably start to see uh some initial reports from me um later this spring with workl so but that's coming next land use is coming um development services the cups are there the two that were um one approved and the the Spring Hill one that's incomplete um that's Eugene sway's project um that's it's a it's a submitted application but it's incomplete because of of SQL requirements are not met so we're we're

still trying to get him to resolve his SQL requirements and when the application is complete you guys will see it design review Mountain Medics came in for a prea on October uh 2024 um their their application is incomplete when it is complete you guys will see it um they it's a new new construction next to the building they occupy now up on Springhill um on the same lot no oh Maps um there's a condo conversion um two of them actually one is um in complete status that's in Carmen Drive and then 556 Spruce Street um that conversion was issued those are discre excuse me ministerial permits that are issued uh staff level um excuse me the 516 Spruce is 8046 and9 Caron or not that's coming to you that's um for it's a condo split for those Town Homes up on Carman Drive so existing construction built as Apartments they're being converted to condos um that is in complete status right now they're working on getting their their parcel map together didn't we have a condo conversion ordinance attempt that failed years and years ago I don't know aren't uh fire safety improvements required to convert yes building code is very clear about that yeah so we'll you'll you'll see more about that that's will be part of the subsequent approvals prior to recordation of the map is building cone compliance but um yeah yeah and and arguably even prior to entitlement so um they have to demonstrate that uh there there needs to be something in the written record that says building code's going to be met doesn't have to be done gotta but what you approve needs to indicate that but that's all we can say about

that because it's an active case and it's not before us yet so um billing permits um pretty slow adus we had one single family dwelling we had one Triplex we had one um I will tell you that the um under the housing element implementation status sorry I skipped over that uh item 3a3 there's a matrix attached which has our first two years of housing element programs that are occupying most of my time um you'll see the Matrix has uh the program number and than the implementation um milestones in the right column and so that you can keep a breast of that okay um when I need when I you'll notice in there municipal code changes are in there uh there's there might be some um other regulatory changes that you guys need to weigh in on um and so that's going to be either fiscal year 2024 25 or fiscal year 25 26 okay um if you have any questions please feel free to hit me up with those but that's what's regulating my workflow that's going to come to you uh and then in the other category um we are going to begin discussions probably next month about the housing advisory committee formation um there's been interest and direction to formulate a committee to help us implement the housing element and so it would be an ad hoc committee pulled together from two of you guys potentially one or two council members potentially someone in the industry and potentially um uh an at large public member and then staff so um and that that housing advisory committee would advise County excuse me um Council uh and um I would report back to you on on

happenings that affect any legislation or quasi judicial work that affects you guys so anyway keep thinking about if you want to volunteer to be on housing advisory committee and we'll talk about that's not the one what did I volunteer for do you remember time I don't remember I don't either um on the meeting time um I'm all for starting this meeting a little earlier um and I know that we're pinching against work schedules but 5:30 is the start time for Council um if you guys if I get a if I get thumbs up from start time at 5:30 instead of six I'll make it a public hearing item you got to change you got to set a policy so we'll make it so so we need to let you know ideally tonight if we're interested in changing the time yeah if you're interested in going to 5:30 let me know right now I'm okay so what wasn't it 7 for a while it was 7 for a very long DEC plus we used to start at pass my bedtime by the time you well I for me I didn't get dinner tonight nor did Jeff because we started so early so we got a quum on 5:30 decision cholate I think we have to make a decision now cuz he like to put it as an agenda item which I guess we could decide when it's an agenda item but it'd be nice to know how people feel about it I'm fine with it 5:30 it is okay are there any objections it says anybody not want 530 besides bring snacks on Final I know like protein protein snacks nobody's feeding me dinner at 5 o' so and everything closes early around here can still get here at 5:30 yeah so is that a yes is that a yes to 5:30 I think we have a lot of I think most people think it's fine okay good uh message received okay uh non-conformities chapter is 1824 um it strikes me that it's a good

enforcement tool for lots of things for code violations so I'm going to bring this up at a as a discussion item coming up I don't want to belabor this conversation right now anymore but it is um we have a what's called a soft non-conformities chapter you can allow non-conformities to exist in perpetuity um you can't take them further out of compliance with code but you can never Rectify and by our code an alternative would be to say if the same property was said non-conformity comes before you for any permit you first must Rectify your non-conformity I think it's a good idea definitely it's going to give us way more teeth in our enforcement of code and unless I hear unless I say heck from any of you then I'm coming for yes the noise ordinance is coming before you in U May um it's in draft form internally I'm reviewing it for compliance with state and local mandates who prepared that Mig Mig okay um parket be continued April tiny homes will continued to April sign or sign ordinance um is lower priority but it's still out there May June probably um and everybody wants to change our sign ordinance yeah and then a dark sky ordinance um is also uh on the horizon um is that a state thing is that huh is that a state thing or is that Alan I wish you get in habit of speaking into your mic is that a state thing the uh night sky thing or is that our own it's our own thing you know we have a policy in the general plan we do not have an ordinance gotta um the the municipal the objective design standards go a long way toward the guts of a r I think a pretty decent okay dark sky ordinance and then our chapter

1870 which is the large sites code which we've Exempted housing from it still includes large commercial but it's still over like 20,000 foot buildings so it doesn't resolve the Little Guys downtown who are lighting up the whole sides of their buildings and you know scaring away the dark sky creatures so um we uh you'll see me you'll see me bring some ideas before you in discussion first ordinance and so on second and that's all I got that's a lot that was pretty good you got a lot you actually got through two agenda items there because I think you covered future agenda while you're at it so we won't we're we've done future agenda but we still need to do commission comment so uh excuse me are you two we are yes um commission comments Cindy Lee have separation comments do you have anything to ask or question did you let's start at this end so you can hear let's let's start at this end so you can get a sense of what they're about David commission comments not an ad except not that's it t son I don't oh come on you often do well it's go ahead you go ahead mine's already gone uh no Belinda Bon more microphones I can't oh wait more microphones nothing for me thank you okay s and I agree with faon either more microphones or we can't be like squishing into the table to talk we need to they need a longer um a longer a longer cord can you next time give us a longer tether so next time it won't be that way thank you got we'll fix you okay that one's fixed and oddly I have nothing else to add so sorry to say we're done item nine joury our Mount Chasta Planning Commission regular meeting for March

18th 2025 all right oh man just