Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

going to call to order our um Tuesday, April 15th, 2025 Mount Chasta Planning Commission regular meeting. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for its indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, pause right there. That was last a roll call, please. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner P here. Present. Commissioner Hiera here. Commissioner McDall unknown. Commissioner Partardi here. Commissioner Sarion. He announced that he he let us know he wouldn't be here. And Sheriff Finley. And I'm here. Thank you. Okay. Item three, public comment. This is an opportunity for people to come and speak to us on an item that is not on this evening's agenda. Um, if you're interested in coming up and speak, you would have three minutes. Uh, we have possibly no interest. So, we're going to move on to item four, which is our consent agenda. And the item on our consent agenda is our are our minutes from our regular March 18th meeting. Commissioners, I can leave this on the consent agenda if there's no um edits adjustments. Good. Oh, I'll move to approve the minutes. You can approve I think you approve the consent agenda actually. Well, how did is that so we so sold them just done that? Uh, I move to approve number four, consent agenda. Linda

moves. Do we have a second? I second it. A second. And Cindy Lee second. All in favor? I I I opposed. None. Motion passes unanimously. Item four. Uh, this is an action item on our planning commission. There's been a request to change our meeting time. Uh Jeff. Yeah. All we're asking is to approve resolution PC2501 which is attached to the packet which is a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Mount Chasta approving a time change to the regular planning commission meetings. Uh I'll just read the resolved component of that resolution. Now therefore it be be it resolved. The planning commission of the city of Mount Chasta hereby approves the changes in time of the planning commission regular meetings to 5:30 on the 3rd Tuesday of each month commencing May 20th, 2025 located at the City Park Upper Lodge 1315 Nixon Road, Mount Shasta, California 96067. So everything remains the same with the exception of the time moving from 6:00 to 5:30. Oh well, we actually never had a resolution about our location. and we were just moved. So, I don't know if we actually need a location. Here's the visible. Yeah. No, I saw it. But I'm just saying um it's wasn't up really up to us where we meet. Um I actually prefer 6 o'clock, but I'll go with what the team prefers. I'm fine with 5:30. I could accommodate 5:30. I prefer 5:30. Okay. Do we have a motion? We're gonna make a motion. This is a good one. Easy one to practice making a motion. Cindy Lee. Oh, great. So, you can make motion

if you like. So, I move you look at your agenda item. Look at them on the agenda. Number five. Number five. I move to change the regular meeting start time to 5:30 p.m. Commencing May 20th, 2025. Approve. You want to wait a second. You want to approve the resolution. PCR. You want to say that the whole thing? Not the whole thing. Just that part and then approving. It's approving a resolution. Oh, okay. So, I move to approve the resolution PCR25-01 to change the regular meeting time from 6:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Commencing May 20th, 2025. All right, we have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Allan seconded. All in favor? I I I opposed. None. Motion passes unanimously. And I'm guessing you're tracking the nos, the y's, and the abstains or the abstains and the eyes's, I mean. Okay, moving on to item six. Uh this will be a discussion and we will welcome public comment. Uh it is not actually technically a public hearing um regarding the tiny house on wheels ordinance that we've continued from previous meetings. Go ahead Jeff. Thank you. So um again continuation of the item. Uh I did summarize some of the direction that was behind this initiative. It includes the city council directive. It includes the housing element implementation program. It also summarizes the direction received from you all on March 18th uh in these very chambers. Summarized those for you and um I'll go into those and then conclude

with some of the components of um the ordinance itself. But before I do that, we have a guest and I'd like to bring Evan up to touch on the handout provided you, which is a distinction between uh the tiny house on wheels code as uh compared with recreational vehicle code for key components of those standards. So Evan, it's all yours. A lovely. Go ahead and give us your whole name, please. Hi everybody. Um, my name is Evan Drake. I'm a local builder and a member of the CISQ Housing Alliance. And I've spoken several times at these meetings. Um, I was asked to give a brief presentation on some of the key differences between tiny houses on on wheels and RVs and travel trailers. Um, so I made a visual aid to kind of help identify some of the specifics. Um, but I'll talk through each item um, in the presentation. Um all of these uh construction paradigm discrepancies are mostly based on the utility intended for the structures. Um tiny houses on wheels being residential structures and recreational ve vehicles being uh for travel and recreation specifically. Um I'll start with the structural systems which is item two on the list. Um tiny houses on wheels are framed conventionally the same way that homes are framed. Um that includes studs and rafters as well as plywood sheathing. Um typical wooden cement siding types and conventional interior finishes like drywall and trim. Uh recreational vehicles are have a slightly lighter envelope. In fact much lighter envelope. Um they use a different frame type which is a laminate of an exterior shell and a thin interior framing. Um this is to conserve weight

largely and also to provide an aerodynamic shell that can have contours and uh travel better. Uh so these differences um are kind of they support uh the different ways that they're transported. So, when transporting a tiny house on wheels, um you're not really focused on fuel efficiency, um ease of towing, um because largely you're going between foundations from the manu manufacturer to a site um or when moving from a site to a site. Um so, you're really transporting the structure and not using it um for recreation or for um travel itself. Um whereas obviously travel trailers um they're easier to tow. Uh they're intended for towing. Um and all of these features support that. Uh one of the easy ways to understand the different structural envelopes is in the wall thickness. Tiny houses on wheels have larger or thicker walls. Um you can see the different figures there. Four to 7 in for tiny houses and then 1 and a half to 3 in is for RVs. Um, and due to this wall thickness, they have different insulative power. So, RVs are uh more poorly insulated than typical houses, and that's because no one is really camping in them in the winter. And if they are, they know what they're getting into and um are expending quite a bit of uh fuel to keep it heated. And um because of the different wall thicknesses, tiny houses have typical home insulation and um they conform to energy standards that are associated with conventional housing. Um furthermore, the snow load capacity is different. Um RVs are typically kept um out of the snow um because seasons of snow can wear and collapse roofs. See it all the time around here. Our snow load rating um in Mount Shasta is 70 pounds per square

foot. RVs do not typically meet that uh standard. Tiny homes usually do. Um and in fact, tiny homes often exceed it um because of their narrow width. The rafters of the roof are typically extremely robust um to snow. Uh the sizes are largely the same for the most part. I included some figures there just so you can read through and uh identify and compare. Typically RVs are narrower and tiny houses are wider. Um, and tiny houses are often longer, although they can, uh, reach the same length. Uh, tiny houses are typically heavier. Um, RVs, obviously already discussed, are intended to be light as possible. Um, let's see. The foundation systems are different. Recreational vehicles do not have foundations. Um, obviously, they're being towed and set up. So, I would consider the foundation to be axle and jack, which is essentially it's sitting on its wheels. Um, and perhaps there are some stabil stabilizing jacks being used to keep it from rocking. Um, this is also true for tiny houses, but um, typically because they're residential, they are connected to a permanent foundation, which most commonly is a peer foundation with anchors. Um, but also can be a stem wall in certain cases. Um, and in fact, the stem wall foundation for a tiny house is a really uh a really wonderful solution if they're going to be more permanent. The electrical systems are different. Um, it's a hookup for RVs and it's usually hardwired for tiny houses. Um, there you can have a hookup for a tiny house, but the amperage is pretty low. So, it's typical to have a hard wire uh to a actual electrical sub panel in the tiny house. Um water supply is very similar um hookup versus hard

connection. And the waste plumbing um is very different um between tiny houses and RVs. RVs have black water tanks um that are usually transported to dump stations for the uh black water to be emptied. That's toilet waste typically in shower. Um tiny houses usually have a hard sewage connection. uh repair is different. It's a specialist versus a conventional handyman or contractor. Um this is partially because um well it's it's all because of the the different uh structural systems involved. Um but it's also just more conducive to residential versus something that can be towed to an RV specialist and repaired in a shop. Um, the lifespan. This is just the first one. I placed it first because it's important, but I will mention it almost last. Uh, tiny houses have a very different lifespan than recreational vehicles, and that's a big part of why they're more suited to long-term occupancy. Um, they can they last as long as a house. Um, sometimes longer because of their uh simplicity. Uh, so 50 to 100 years is conventional and common for the style of construction. whereas recreational vehicles as vehicles typically deteriorate within 30 years. Um I listed certain um certify and regulating bodies. It's not really a structural concern, but it is just something I wanted to mention. Um tiny houses, it's still ambiguous who certifies, which is partially why I'm here. Um there's there are different avenues toward it. RVIA is the RV certifying body. It's a trade association that um regulates the construction of RVs and it can be used to certify tiny houses and to potentially get insurance for tiny

houses. Um but it's not the only way. Um the IRC, the International Residential Code has an appendix called Appendix Q that specifically um references design standards for tiny houses. Um that appendix is for tiny houses on foundations, not on wheels. Um, lastly, the local building code, which is partially why I'm here. Um, so yeah, to summarize, um, tiny houses on wheels and recreational vehicles have distinct functions and distinct intentions for their manufacturer and so have very different, um, structural systems and lifespans. Um, and as a final note, um, I would just like to say that in our discussion of tiny houses and and creating ways of compliance in Mount Shasta and in Syscue County, um, I'd like to also look into certifying tiny houses on foundations, not just on wheels. Um, I think that they're equally viable for residency. Um, and might be simpler to uh permit at a local level than tiny houses on wheels. Um, and I also think that it improves the cost for people who are building and um, it shouldn't be missed, I don't think. So, uh, thank you all. Um, I'm open to questions if that's relevant. Um, but otherwise, I can take a seat. Oh, yeah. if you stick around. Commissioners, um, questions. Cindy Lee, did you have any questions? What's the amp max for a electrical system for a tiny house? Um, it is kind of whatever you want it to be because it's a hard connection. What was that? I didn't catch it. Oh, what is the amp max for a tiny house? So, the maximum amperage of an RV hookup is determined by the thickness of the extension cable that makes the connection between the RV

and the hookup. Um, and that typically is that cable is typically maxed out at 50 amps, which is enough for occupancy. Um, but smaller than most homes. Um when you make a direct connection varying conduit running cable um you have the opportunity to bring much higher uh amperage cables into the structure um which can allow for electric dryer you know um all sorts of different highcapacity electrical implements. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. You bet. Is that it? Oh, I have questions. Alan, um, aren't they sometimes 12t wide? I've You have 8 to 10 foot wide. I thought I'd seen them somewhat wider. They can be. Yeah. Um, these are typical ranges. Um, and and the max on the freeway is it 14T that you can carry? It varies. The five you can I mean it depends on the level of permit and Okay, gotcha. That makes sense. Yeah. So 8 and a half is without a permit and everything past that requires a permit of some kind. Do you see in other applications where a requirement for a hard connection pursuer is typical or is there usually options or I would like that to be like we they'd have to do that if they did it here. Is that for tiny houses? It's it's typical for a residential tiny house. Yeah. Um there are alternatives. Um you know gray waters and dry toilets are common for tiny houses but obviously not in the code books. um as as easily. So that's typically with tiny houses, it's going to be a hard connection with the waste. Yeah. Okay. Mhm. Right. Linda, so um I'm assuming they have breaker boxes. Mhm. Yeah. They each have a sub panel. Yeah. Uh, I'm a little confused about what the difference between a

cottage and a tiny house not on wheels and a tiny house on wheels because it seems like you're saying if it's not on wheels and it's on a foundation that becomes it becomes a house then. Yeah, it does. Um, if I'm not mistaken, we have minimum square footage right now for permitting. Is that true? Um 400 square f feet is pretty small for any single residence. I I wonder if well an ADU can that be that small for ADU? Yes. Um but for a single residence um that is specifically of this size and on a foundation. Um I'm not sure that it is actually currently possible. I can resolve that in a minute here. That'd be great. Yeah. Okay. So, are you going to speak to that or? Yeah. Oh, good. Because I am also curious because um it seems like if you were to put a tiny house on wheels on a foundation, why did we bother with the wheels? Unless it's an easy way to transport something that's manufactured offsite and and there's some cost savings there. possibly. Um I'm not quite sure why I I'm open to it, but why we would regulate them differently. A tiny house on wheels versus a tiny house on foundation otherwise exactly the same. I agree. Um I think that they are very similar. Um the reason that I mention it is because I'm specifying tiny houses on wheels in this presentation. Um but they are largely the same thing. Um the trailer element um historically with tiny houses has been for code reasons um as well as for

flexibility of the person buying it. Um move it putting it on a foundation isn't really a permanent thing. It it's permanent in the sense that it could be um but it can be removed from the foundation and transported. Um but yes um the trailer element does not greatly in in fact it increases the cost. Um it does not it doesn't make it any cheaper. I think that tiny houses on foundations are more cost effective. Yeah. Generally. Mhm. and that would necessarily be built from the ground up as opposed to maybe a modular system or is this just a range of possibilities? Yeah, so tiny houses on foundations would be built on site. Um they could be transported from a manufacturer but obviously it's not as typical because they don't have trailers. Um tiny houses on wheels are almost always built somewhere else and then brought to site. Yeah. And then I was wondering if you looked at our um cottage layout in our attachments. Um when we're referencing the uh potential configuration, it seems to me that a tiny house on wheels wouldn't fit in that configuration because you can't get the middle one out out once it's placed. Yeah, I haven't seen any configuration there. And maybe um Jeff If Jeff possibly Jeff can speak to that. It's kind of a long way to look at it from here, but you I don't know if you can see, but it's like like a like you know like six and like three three right there. Uh-huh. Yeah, I see that. Yeah. I mean, you know, with the trailers, they're they're pretty maneuverable, I'd say. So, you can parallel park with them. Yeah. Right. And maybe do some

funky stuff. Well, they can they can jack them up and they have those trays that they can Yeah. They can be board on. So yeah, there are creative ways to adjust their position. Yeah. Okay. So that configuration doesn't limit eliminate our ability to put tiny houses on wheels. No. Yeah, that would be that would be a fine uh example of a configuration. Yeah. Okay. And then so it sounds like and maybe Jeff you have can speak to this. We need we would if we wanted to talk about tiny houses on foundations. Are those currently allowed under existing ordinance or would we have to approach that with another ordinance? So I I've got this queued up in my presentation as well. So but I can answer that question directly. Um, right now what you're what we've referred to in terms of site development standards and the modular the the envelope within which tiny homes would go is our cottage clustered courtyard development and the body width and depth are 35 by35. Um, those are maximums. So we could conceivably uh if we want to go down as a group to whatever the minimum recommended size would be then we would write that in the code as superseding to any provisions elsewhere in the code. So if it comes in whether it's on wheels uh or on a foundation uh we would so reflect that in the definitional standard in the ordinance so it's very clearly defined what we're talking about and then if it meets that definition then all the subsequent code applies to that typology alone tiny house on foundation tiny house on wheels capture it all and then all of those landscape light excuse me site

standards and landscaping standards the cluster development, the the open space amenities, the skirting of a wheel, should it be there, uh materials, construction standards, all that would apply. Um I'd also like to mention that uh functionally once a tiny house is set on its foundation, it is considered a tiny house on a foundation whether or not there's a trailer as the floor framing. Um so with the appropriate anchors and the appropriate foundation um we may not need to distinguish uh between wheels and no wheels because we won't be permitting tiny houses set on their axles. And we can also pick up permanent homes and move them. So exactly everything's mobile if you're creative. Yeah. So, does it make a difference if you put a tiny house on wheels on gravel rather than uh concrete in terms of classification? Um, I suppose it depends on how you're supporting the structure. Um, it wouldn't make a difference if you're describing it being parked on the two substrates. It would make a difference if you're describing a concrete foundation that directly contacts the trailer frame. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. Okay, commissioners, are we good for moving? Yeah. Yes. On. Thank you. That was very helpful. Appreciate it. Very instructive. So, thanks, Evan. Appreciate it. Um, so I'll take a few minutes and summarize the material in the staff report. Uh, I've cued this up in a way that could um conceivably we could navigate through this and go item by item by item. So, I'll just go through the background section uh very rapidly because we all know where we've been and how we've gotten here. Um but

as far as the definitional standards go, Evans um edification is priceless given particularly that dynamic wheels or no wheels. So, if we're headed in that direction, then staff would expand that definitional standard to include a foundation or wheels or and skirted if if on wheels. So, keep let's set that one aside for now. Um, I want to move on to the ownership issue that came up. Commissioner McDow brought that up last meeting. Um, again, this is on the table for action by you all and direction to bring this into the ordinance. Uh, his recommendation was to explore um ownership distinctions. Um, we could talk about the intent behind that. Um but I think what was floated last time was the the ownership distinction uh by zone. So that our two zones um and R3 zones all units would be allowed to be uh owned individually. So these units could come and go individually in these residential zones. In commercial zones, you can kind of think of it as more of a multif family project, more of a commercial project where it is a singular site under common single ownership where these are more rentals, rental units that come and go. So that would lend potentially uh an air of more permanence to them. They would potentially move less frequently. Um anyway, I I haven't discovered this in any code um analog that I've researched. So, I think it's worth uh putting a pin in that one and really deliberating that or or directing staff to do a little more research on that. The third direction received last time was to do a little bit of land area analysis to find out what kind of opportunity we have for tiny homes on wheels or foundations. Uh so we did a a

little bit of a land area analysis based on that cottage courtyard typology. Um the diagram there on the staff report shows um p straight out of our objective design standards uh a total of um eight units uh with a land area of approximately 9,000 square feet. Uh so that's derived by adding up the unit sizes, the separation, the amount of open space, the amount of parking and circulation required. So conceivably, if we're going to set the tiny home threshold at between three and nine units, on the low end, you would get three units on a 4500 foot site potentially. Um and at the top end, you'd get you'd get a land area of of approximately 9,000 square feet. If I might uh in looking at development on the land and actual site development standards, there's I may have misunderstood something in here, but there was a little bit on how much per you per unit. Let's say there's three uh units on a site there that that site would have to be a minimum of 4,500 square ft. Is that what that's how that's how the rough math works. If you add up open space requirements and parking requ parking open space and the units and the circulation. So in in total yeah this is a I understand. Yeah. Um in looking at what I want to uh in looking at page seven and a diagram on page seven um which shows a cluster of cottages or something like that on there. Um that site is is more than 30,000 square ft. My my guess would be it it looks like

it's about 150 to 180 foot deep and maybe couple hundred foot wide maybe. Um so I want us to have a clear picture of of will there be open space if we all lot 1500 square feet approximately to these units. Will there be shared open space? and and if not, how do we and if we want that, how do we ensure that? Got it. So, that's a little further down in the the set of standards, but to address and that's fine. Yeah, we can uh but but that's why I bring this up is because the bare minimum will get you 1,500 square ft of common open space per the existing standards for nine units. Okay. And that common open space includes parking, circulation. No, no. So there's that's in addition to so the standards that are in our existing objective design standards say parking is separate pedestrian access um well frontage to um front door access uh and the common area open space all that is a different standard. All added together gets you roughly about 6,000 square ft total for nine units. Now, you're right. The diagram on this page is is is much larger because we were thinking that there could be large uh development typologies of this sort. Um you touched on the last meeting commissioner party the premium placed on flat land on the side of a mountain which further comp compounds you know this analysis by my analysis of the mapping on the following in the diagram on the following pages those 15 sites I think yes 15 sites that are so appropriately

zoned um and sized approp appropriately for a tiny home on wheels village of at least three three units potentially up to nine units nothing above that um with the exception of two of these sites are are big enough um I've tried to break that down to give you a sense of the order of magnitude or scale of this potential opportunity I think based on this analysis we have very limited opportunity for tiny home villages of of this sort where we're really seeing a handful of these nine unit pods, if you will, or villages. I I think it's going to be in the single digits in terms of opportunity site um potential. I think it's very much more likely going to be a clusters of three or four um as the primary opportunity uh given the topographical analysis if you laid it on top of this. But still still a fair amount of noodling to do if you really want to get inside that number to understand the the full potential impact. Uh I just want to return to scale while we're talking. What would you estimate this floor space in this room would be? Is this room about 30 or so wide by maybe 50 foot long? About a 1500 square foot. About 1500 ft. So this is the area dedicated to one unit and the shared and the separate shared open space. Well, this this is actually about the open space with units. No, I understand. Right. So this would be common. Yes. All centered per that diagram. Right. Okay. Um, so beyond the analysis of potential opportunity,

uh, I want to talk briefly about the ordinance outline itself. And I think this is where we could walk through section by section, dial this in, uh, get direction from you. I'll take notes. Uh, we'll see where we are at the end of the discussion. Um certainly ask Evan for kind of some industry expertise uh should that be needed. Um and then uh if if you guys are so inclined, you direct me to come back with this in ordinance form at the next uh public hearing. We get public weighing in on it uh and then move forward is for as many hearings as it takes to adopt. Um purpose and intent is very clear. We've talked about that. We're here because the housing ordinance, excuse me, housing element uh program uh suggests we we be and um we've received city council direction to explore this. The definitions I've talked about, we would expand that to include foundational um uh units as well as wheeled units um potentially. Um right now that tiny home village um size is three at minimum and nine at maximum. So, that's a number that's on the table for uh deliberation and direction. Um, I'm going to speed through these rather quickly um and and stop me if if you want to weigh in at this time or let it settle and weigh in at the end. Okay. Well, I'm weighing in. I think it helps. I It's hard to remember from point to point. So, I like Yeah. Weighing as you go. I like the discussion. So, let's take that one then. Are we still This is previous direction. This this number. So, does three tiny homes a village make um or are are we really take and is nine a maximum or does it feel arbitrary? It feels very arbitrary to me. Why not two? If you can

squeeze two into a space, why not use that opportunity? Well, that's the argument. Why not one? If we're not talking a village, and I don't care, you know, if there were a little spot where somebody instead of building a home wanted to put a Now on it, I'm I don't have problem with that. Okay. So then are we if we eliminate the minimum then someone could come in with one. We put two because one's the ADU, but we fall back into a minimum single family lot size, don't we? Right. But they could put a tiny home wheel on any lot, right? So, are we saying that tiny homes on wheels or foundations are now synonymous or interchangeable with that of a single family dwelling? That's that's a question for you. I think so, but I'm I'm not um It sounds like they Why should Well, I guess why shouldn't they be? What would be the distinction really? They're very small. The intent, maybe this will help. The intent of the um the overarching direction from our housing element is the city will consider preparing amendments to the municipal code to provide for the development of tiny house villages for non-transient occupancies um to allow for a different more affordable housing typology. So, it's up to you to interpret that. Does our current code disallow what is what one of these tiny homes on wheels now to be put on a single family lot? It it classifies them as RVs and limits them to zoning districts that are exclusive for recreational vehicle use. And that's just the wheels that makes that a tiny home on a foundation is not excluded.

It's just the wheels. That's a residential occupancy. So it could be the tiny home on wheels could be brought in put in on on put on a foundation the wheels brought taken away and now that can be put on a single family yes lot as it stands. Yes. Good. Is there right now a time limit when you can have a tiny house on wheels on your property? Occupancy I think is 14 days. 14 days for site occupancy I mean. Yeah. So am I hearing there's consensus or direction to eliminate the minimum the the minimum and say on how many though? I think nine is a huge amount. I don't like nine. That's the reason the reason nine is there is because cottage cluster it's currently allowed per our objective design standards in the cottage core typology. So we were thinking if there make them all and if it fills with fits within the impact threshold, you know, sight area, unit size, vehicle trips, etc., then it seems logical by extension to Well, that's when I'd like the tiny homes on foundations only to be in that nine, but not the wheels, you know, because I've kind of I thought we're taking the wheels away on all of them. Don't we take the wheel off? Don't we take the wheels off after we park it? We didn't decide on that. It's girth or it's foundation. The foundation component is is another added cost. So, it's cheaper. It's a cheaper methodologically to get that unit in there, skirt it, drive it in, skirt it, or drive it in, drop it on a foundation. But don't the the wheel carriages go away? No. Do they? When I had a mobile home forever ago, Yeah. under the house that they ended up towing away. I mean, getting on putting on a new a new wheel carriage. The the wheel carriages that had been on it were not on it when I live there. The chassis remains and they set it down typically

on a CMU foundation or concrete mason unit foundation on on a uh a compact fill, but usually the infrastructure remains. So, if they want to take it away, but the wheels are gone. The wheels are gone. Probably the wheels and the tires are gone. steel foundation or steel structure that now rests on top of block. Okay. Thank you. Strawberry Valley, the one that uh Jacob has is now working with. How many structures are on that property? They are like tiny houses. Uh oh. Yeah. That's that's the nest. There's 13 units up there. 13. Okay. Just just that exists. You've seen it on on old probably seen it on there are six of them that are common wall two or three they're standalone and they're very tiny qualifies yeah it's a good good analogy yeah I it feels like um nine does seem a little arbitrary to me if if if somebody can design something that's lovely I I kind of want to get out of the way if we can make something affordable for people to live in. However, and I don't know what I don't know, maybe there is a number that's too many. Maybe they're like double clusters or something. But and I don't it seems so unlikely that you know we have a lot of places where this might happen. You know, maybe Spring Hill someday, maybe at the landing someday, but in terms of sites that this is even plausible. I I don't think that that means we should up the number. I like the number nine. I the the der of uh additional open space or space around these I think

would close to nine. I think that's a good number myself. Well, somebody could ask for a variance if they had some or do a phase two. Sure. Separate parcel. It's nine per parcel. If you have a 18 acre parcel, then you split it and you do two clusters of nine. We're just saying that it seems like a a it's consistent with our previous legislation in objective design standards for the cottage court typology and it just feels right scale-wise for the land area opportunities that we have. That's my thinking too is that if there is a piece of property that's big enough to put 11 on or a few more on, it would be um unfortunate to not take advantage of that property for a tiny house village. But under that scenario, they could ask for variance. They could come in and say, "We have this unique opportunity where we can get 11 on here. Can we seek and right?" Yeah. And you would you would entertain that variance request also the other property owners near it. Yeah. Do they want 11? Do they want nine? Do they want three? You know, they might want to have a say in the matter if we go over nine threshold. Say all right. So I'm hearing um to eliminate the minimum and establish retain the nine. There you go. Maximum. Um review authority item three remains planning commission pursuant to the cottage courtyard typology. Uh so you would you know receive a staff recommendation entertain it um and then take action on that request from an applicant. Um the general requirements section of the code is pretty typical and this is where we sort of talk about you reiterate a little bit of the definitional standards. Um but you also

want to capture the whatifs in here. So here for example we have um we would strike the minimum of three leave the maximum of nine um consistent with chapter 1850 objective design standards and you would also cast the net wide enough here in the ordinance to include ADUs. Um and um that would be both or either a tiny home on wheels or a foundation. So a tiny home on wheels would be used interchangeably as from a definitional perspective as as an ADU. Right now the state law allows us to do that. It's up to local jurisdictions to expand and most jurisdictions that have entertained this legislation have started with this that is allowing ADUs to be tiny homes on wheels. So what we did in our housing element was say let's go above and beyond because we want contextsensitive housing in this courtyard cluster cottage typology. So let's explore the villages. So this general requirement section would would say that succinctly zoning districts um would be they would be allowed by right um under design review. So what you're seeing what you would your your entitlement that you would issue is is a is an objective design standards review similar to affordable housing or all multif family housing now right under these objective design standards. So the zoning ordinance in R2, R3, C1, and C2 would those use tables would be expanded to include tiny homes on wheels subject to planning commission review for consistency with objective design

standards. Can the R3 Why does it have to be individually? I mean, yeah, same. So I don't understand either. I would think it should be a single owner with That's why I wanted to bring that up. So, do you do you want staff to pursue that? I I've never I'm not sure. I only can imagine wish David were here to but he could he could bring it up next time if you want me to bring I think part of his concern may have been addressed in in the conversation differentiating recreational vehicles with tiny homes on wheels because it I recall that that was part of the conversation concurrently. Maybe if it feels less like an RV, um, presumably harder to move than that ownership piece. I think the the image that David had gave me, I hate to speak for him, but um possibly the idea of we have this this image of a you know design guidelines that there's this look to this cluster and somebody moves out and somebody moves something in that is in congruous with all of that. They wouldn't do that be unless you allowed them to do that. Isn't that up to PCNR? that we have an objection and regulations right that are sorry that are already in place right I think actually to to really I can make a note here that we can strike this um but let's let's revisit this I'll remind you because let's get through all these because I think where Allan said it is what kind of design regulation is in place both in objective design standards and the design intent here that would allow for that potential and I think after we get through this you'll see that it's there's com in addition to the

tiny the objective design standards and these standards. I think you're going to be pretty darn proud of every single unit that comes and goes that you're you you're not going to lose that control. So, but it sounds like we all we seem to agree that we aren't convinced about ownership in the different zones. Correct. I would think that either formula would be okay. Again, getting out of the way. If we can make this happen, all the better. I That's my feeling. Okay. Um density number six is um clearly regulated by the underlying zone. Um that's the same with all the objective design standards typologies. Um item seven there are there's nine sub items there. The t and and then item eight I've broken these into tiny home development standards similar to our code and then design standards. So think of the development standards is everything on site that isn't designy. It's not architectural character. Starting with um long-term housing only. We will not allow short-term rentals. That's I think goes without saying. Water and sewer services, they are all principally um connected to uh public water and wastewater. Whether they are submetered or master metered, it's up to the project, but they would need to be if they were master metered. Um right now our code allows both at the discretion of the public works director. Uh we I think in most cases you're going to see sort of a H an HOA CCNRS kind of thing that's going to take care of the concept the the open space uh shared public um use infrastructure including water and sewer if it's if it's submetered. So that that would be uh part part and parcel with how how you approve these you you'd be reviewing those CCNRs uh as a part of the application. Um, electric utilities,

same thing. Um, each each unit would have its own panel. Um, power sources um if if there's reliable demonstrable renewable uh source on site than it is uh connected to uh city service uh and permitted according to um adopted electrical code at the time. Uh same with fire. Um, it goes without saying that, you know, fire access to these, we're hoping, and I can't think of an example of all the the sites that I've seen where the access standards that we provide here to allow a tiny home to come and go are synonymous with fire access to fight fire on site. 20 foot right away, um, access to each unit to pull it in and out. And there's a length standard. There's a length of drive standard as well, right? Um address, each unit will be individually addressed prior to occupancy. Um parking is similar to what you all approved at the nest. Um which is a reduced parking ratio, which we would so identify here as one per unit. Uh and bike parking of one per unit. and um whether or not that bike parking or that well either either vehicle or bike parking is covered or not. Um if it's silent, we're we allow it to be uncovered. So keep that in mind, too. Then it's not really bike parking. Say, can you say that louder? If the bike parking isn't covered, it's not bike parking. Yeah. Yeah. So, you could say you could say covered clustered bike parking. Um I don't know what does. Um that's an option. If it was my bike, I'd want it under lock and key in a little toy shed attached to my You'd hang it from the ceiling inside your tiny home. Well, that's also a possibility. I

would, but you know, again, bikes get stolen. Bikes need to be secure. And a bike covered with snow is a wrecked bike. So, should we add are you all in agreement that we we require covered bike parking or secure enclosed bike parking or just leave make a general statement that says that you have you know you a utility shed that would securely store but I'm not going to store my bikes with some anybody that can put their bikes in there at the same time or be silent entirely on bikes and let people just do it themselves. We have to be silent on I don't think I mean you could have a bike rack because if you're temporarily going into the house and more and more often like dormatory designs stuff like that they're interior you have a right they provide I mean in effect it's kind of move because holding a tiny home on wheels to a higher standard than a single family home is counterintuitive right so maybe we're just silent on bike parking okay I didn't see anything here about storage for spare things. The little toy shed. Yeah, the toy shed, right? I mean, um, is everybody supposed to be so so minimalistic they don't have anything or are their lawn chairs going to be sitting outside their home? Yeah. Again, we I I keep coming back to the standard of how to what degree are we requiring a regulation on a tiny home that we wouldn't on a single family home. So, let's use that as our barometer as we're moving forward. Okay. Um moving to number seven, waste storage. This is centralized closed um you know, garbage recycling. So, that that is concealed as part of the common area maintenance standards.

um common areas and open space. Um number eight, comply with the 1500 square f feet for um for a cluster of of of of nine. Um, what I'd like to do is explore more direct standards that um I I did, by the way, I did add the landscaping is down here, which is really going to crack this one wide open. So, let's pause on that. Um, there's a little heavier lift on on what we want to do with landscaping with these. So, let's let's um What are we looking? Let's talk about but lighting um I mean our existing code for residential is not I don't think adequate. Yeah. So lighting lighting would lighting in lighting here applies in our objective design standards. Did we do full cut off downward facing? We did a very robust lighting set of lighting standards here already. Sorry. Yeah. [Music] um other standards uh setbacks, buffers, greening, lighting, and that that's why I tried to put that catch all in our objective design standards because that really goes pretty far with cutoff and downcasting and minimum globe or maximum globe height. Um as far as design standards themselves goes, the California Building Code, um we would need to really be clear about, you know, what standards within CBC and appendix Q apply. Um, and I think that's going to be, you know, the catchall to include a wheeled version, skirted, etc. Um, and a foundation version. So, um, we would specify exactly what sections of code would need to be, um, complied with at the discretion of our building official.

Would either skirted or foundation would we be requiring I I maybe already said this, a hard connection for sewer? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Good. Is that too arbitrary to not I mean I don't know. It seems like a big lift to go through perhaps why all of appendix Q doesn't apply. Well, appendix Q only gets partway there. We need more. We need We're saying we want more than appendix Q. And then and then how much more is enough that our building official has discretionary authority to say yay or nay with a binary set of standards. Um you fail or you you pass or fail. Um and that recommendation is advises the application that I write about and present to you and then during the course of that they will like most uh building code variances they become exceptions to the code uh there's cause given for that justification given for those exceptions and those are acted on or by me as a recommendation to you. So, I guess if we want to get out of the way of these, then we would need to make it clear what the that um laundry list or set of standards that they're shooting for compliance with is. And and it's a little squishier than most because this is kind of a tweener typology that we're playing with. So, we'll do the best we can and I think we'll get really close to giving you uh a very clear choice to make when the time comes. Um so with respect to design standards um that's item one. Item two is the character component of design. Um this is where it gets a little subjective. Um but I think that the intent is clear

that we're trying to suggest that these design features and materials include the architectural character of vicinity architecture. Can we can we enforce this? Is this object? Um, we can do that. Yes, we can. Um, under the caveat that if someone were to come in with a 100% deedestricted capital A affordable housing project, then the only design standards apply are these or and or no and all objective standards herein. So the subjective stuff is open to interpretation which includes this. Yes. That you just read. Okay. So this is kind of what we call friendly suggestion material. Um 99.9% of the time friendly suggestions are acted upon because they're going to have an easier, more clear and objective way through the process. So I don't but we can comment on it. We don't want neon orange and a right pointy thing. We Okay. Friendly suggestion. Move on. Yeah. Um sighting materials. Um, same as any other standard for residential construction these days. Natural or simulated natural products, typical to the residential home building industry. Windows, same thing. Um, double pane exterior trim featuring um design components that are similar to residential windows. Um, uh, roofs. I I established a a minimum pitch of 1 and 12 which gives room for um different interpretations of a traditional gabled form or a more um contemporary shed or flat roof form. So one and 12 gets you um enough architectural variation I think from a roof form standpoint um with the caveat

that snow load calculations are really going to drive that analysis. So um mechanical equipment shall all be screened um if not incorporated uh within the structure itself. Um sewage um connection hard connection not portable st portable tanks black tanks or or gray tanks. Um power same thing CRC uh CC uh California code of regulations electrical code would prevail. um skirting for those on wheels would have a rigid rigid appearance complimentary to the siding of of the unit itself. So not just landscaping or shrubbery or drapery, you know, really need to be a hard rigid material. um parking service itself would go so far as to say it's either asphalt um on base rock um to public work standards or um an equivalent permeable material or non-permeable surface. Um but that's wide enough open to bricks. Yeah. Perable we tried that's a pretty wide standard to play with. Um, if you're in the WOOI, uh, that means, uh, you got some fire construction concerns to deal with. Um, this is almost moot because right now we're all in a high fire hazard severity zone. The entire city is now within it based on FEMA's recent mapping. So, we will be pursuing uh, fire hardening standards within the new uh local hazard mitigation plan induced safety element update which is going to be coming for you all starting in um June or

July. So um there will be a hook in item 11 to to all that. That's the I wondered um general design standards um every everything that's applicable this is the catchall everything applicable in our objective design standards here's our hook site design site design standards same way I want to make sure it's really clear to these folks that um there's a lot of good stuff in this um in in our objective design standards from from lighting to landscaping to site design standards for this typology. So, it all applies and and they're all um defensibly objective. Landscaping standards. I put these on here just to crack this open a little bit more because I think there was a lot of concern last time about when you increase the density of of a given housing type. Um there comes a certain responsibility to if done well um to endow your project with some taste and character to give it to soften its edges a little bit. So greater density comes with greater responsibility for site design standards particularly landscaping in my opinion. Um so that's why 1850 went so far as to identify these landscaping features. um we have to be careful because of the again fire hazard um stuff that's that's going to change landscaping. We also have to be careful because of the water efficient landscaping um state law requirements for landscaping projects in excess of 500 square feet. So, we have the um water efficient landscaping analysis that needs to be um uh approved by our public works director um if they come in with um a lot of landscaping. Um so, that that's also going to be a little fluid here. Keep that. You mentioned landscaping in here. I think there should be a statement on requirement for irrigation. I'm sorry. There should be a

statement. You mentioned landscaping. It doesn't say anything about irrigation. I think there should be something in there requiring irrigation adequate to support the you know mature landscape da da da right so that's where um the title of our the chapter of our um species item 2.2 two species shall meet the minimum standards in conformance with the California model water efficient landscape ordinance. Um I'm familiar. Yeah, we talked about that. Um, and I'm deferring at least we did in objective design standards and on the table here is to is to echo that standard to channel everything through our M. wheelow uh chap there there even the most native thing that you could find here and put in the ground won't grow into maturity without irrigation and and is that even in the milo doesn't uh what's required for this zone and stuff like that it we have to irrigate to establish plantings this is it's it's a dry landscape here um and would that or we put in there something that says that they have to guarantee that the landscape will be alive in 10 years and then they'll put in irrigation so that it will be Yeah. I I'm just I'm just um I I'm just playing that devil's advocate position uh for a higher standard applied to this project than would this type of project than you would a single family home. But this is isn't that this is mult almost multif family and we do require

irrigation landscaping for multif family housing. Yeah. Are does that sound supportable? Well, otherwise people move into a place that isn't cared for and turns into a dust pit or I mean the fugitive dust I I mean to's point and knowing you know growing native plants in my yard they're not getting established without supplemental water. Now, I know that could cause some real um headaches in terms of uh moving in and out, who's responsible, and is it an individual irrigation system for each site and everything like that? I'm I'm not sure of what the answer is, right on that, but if we're if we're going to maybe the plan for care and maintenance of landscaping. Yeah. Well, multif family projects I I I need to I I'll pull from current analogs inside the code. I'm I'm sure for our R3 zones, I mean, we we didn't we didn't require it here. This is an exact excerpt. So, right now, a multif family project that comes in tomorrow would would not be subject to that requirement. Yeah, I know. I we've had to argue through that in the past. Something to put on the to-do list perhaps. So, we didn't have Allan here when we went through our objective design guidelines. And this and the single family home, isn't that one? I mean, you know, one tiny home. Well, maybe that's a bad analogy. Forget I said that. I I I I rephrase. All right. It's a multif family comparison and no multif family um code right now or chapter on municipal code goes to that extent requiring irrigation on on landscaping right we've required landscaping and right we've managed to strong armor into watering that

landscaping right and most and so the reason I'm caveing this with the FEMA fire mapping is that might supersede some of that anyway way. How so? I I I'm I'm I I need to look at it, but it's it's it's I've read the briefing so far and um is this irrigated landscape within X? Yeah. Yeah. Because there within 100 ft of a of a lammable structure and hardening of the structure itself, there are some exemptions associated with that. But a wood structure that burns um with landscaping irrigated a budding it in the dry season is a torch. So you're saying there is a proportionate relationship between the amount you water something and the amount it becomes a fire hazard. That's the logic. Yeah. The whole Milo is in direct contradiction to fire. Exactly. So that's why I'm saying no pun intended. It's fluid and it's going to be continue to be that way. But what will supersede it is FEMA. So you're going to see this come before out of the LHMP, local hazard mitigation planning, our safety element. Uh that that's going to be fire life safety, life health safety, general welfare drivers are going to affect this. That's that's my point. Yeah. You can't have much close to your house, right? So all these places won't get to have bushes and things by them because that's the way it is out there in the in the But regardless, irrigation is on the plus side of fire prevention. Yeah. If you just turn it on while you're fire, water is one of the least flammable things around. Yeah. Yeah. As long as all the plant materials saturated. Um because you're you've got you had such a um a genius landscape architect who

created an oasis. Yeah. It doesn't burn. Uh okay. So that's that. There's access paving trash enclosure utilities. So those are all part of the landscaping standards. It's a lot to say that um all of 1850 applies. Um at the applicable components of 1850 apply. Planner gets to decide what that is. I got the building official and the public works director to help with structures and site standards. Um, and that gets all packaged up, comes to you for a recommendation. Um, with that, um, I'm ready to move forward with an ordinance that gives you a cohesive set of standards to look at in ordinance format. um that's going to come to you well in advance of the usual distribution time for packets. I'd like to get out to you at least a handful of weeks in advance of a public hearing so you can come as prepared as possible uh with the nuts and bolts. Uh direct staff accordingly, you know, we'll give Tucson and David a chance here to weigh in. Um more testimony if needed, public involved, bigger bite at the apple collectively. C could I speak to another thing in terms of density? I wanted to get back to that because I was concerned about the overall I hadn't read the uh it the underlying zoning density provisions apply. So for 10 units, if you're only doing 10 dwelling units per acre, if that still applies, then you've got plenty of room. theund the 1500 foot area there would be a lot more than that. Right. Right. Exactly. Just I mean in buffer and everything else there would be a whole lot more. You'd have lots of wiggle room on you you'd average a little over 4,000 square foot per unit

not not 15 that I know the minimum is 1500 I understand but right that that gives me some you know feel better about that. In the commercial sites, it's more like 2,200. 20. Yep. So, and that's that's that's you could get a little tighter program, but it still I think it still would be roomy with the minimum standard. That does in R2 and R3 though back to irrigation that does provide a lot of non-pave non-building area that homes moving in and out of having some way of dealing taking care of the landscape that will remain. I don't know how other places have done that. I mean, you if you end up with a really dilapidated, uncared for, dried out landscape, it's a fire hazard. Yeah, there was the the the one that I liked the most had a sort of a, you know, a service side and a and an amenity side and it was laid out that way. So the from the street you saw the amenity side and you know the service side was a loop um 20 foot loop access and everything was kind of backed in up at an angle. They weren't angled in a way and uh so essentially the permanent infrastructure that was your character statement in form of fencing, screening, landscaping, amenities etc. was permanent and the unit sort of backed into its space surrounded by those permanent elements. That to me that concern gives more credence to David's concern about ownership in a commercial site where there's a where there is an owner the the the onus for taking care of those shared amenities. There's someone to go to. Yeah. I think what what what in in the case of the one then Mount Hood, they allowed tiny homes to come and go under individual ownership, right? I own a tiny home. There's a space available.

I move in and I pay for the right to be there and I'm part of an HOA and there CCNRs that regulate my behavior and they're responsible or they are all collectively financially responsible but individually there is assignment to responsibility for maintenance. And it was very nice nicely done when I was visiting. There was actually a unit leaving and a new one uh arriving. So there was there an on-site manager of some sort? Okay. There sure was. Yeah. One lived in there was an occupant. If we had enough land for something of that size, I' I'd like that as a model, but I don't. Right. And so they're leasing their space. I think you would see people come in and maybe, you know, may maybe Evan's already thinking about this, but you know, if I were in the industry and I were tracking this legislation, I'd be looking forward to that opportunity to say, "Wow, I know a 10,000 square, you know, whatever that is perfect for this." And and dress it up and make it um the best example of its kind. But, right. Okay. Are we good? We're good. You have enough? Yep. Move on. onward. All right, then we will move on to our next item which is discussing the amendment to the Parklet dining ordinance. Yeah. So, this is a lot simpler. Um, what I tried to do here was pull the thread of a few conversational items. One, that they be renewable, not permanent. um two that they remain under private ownership um not public ownership. So public access for that local planner with a sandwich in a bag could sit down at a parklet only under the permission of a of the owner of pipeline for example as opposed to pure public where everybody gets a free-for-all. You can serve out there

and public can sit there. That was the model that I wrote an ordinance for down in Napa Valley. And it suffice it to say those parklands aren't there anymore. They were they were removed because maintenance was a problem. What's was that the What other issues did you did they run into? Um well again like like all parklets they were induced by the pandemic for outdoor dining. They were there were four of them established under you know wood construction not long-term permanent intent. Um the maintenance was city responsibility. um city uh tried to strike a deal with the local merchants who sort of um took over implied ownership of these platforms to serve lunches on um which was uh contrary to the intent of the ordinance. They were serving tabletops in the public ride of way while also allowing the public to use them, which blended the public private responsibility threshold a little too to a degree that everybody was pointing at everybody else to maintain it. They didn't get maintained. They fell apart. Um the tab to repair each one was excess of $10,000 per parklet. Um nobody could agree they scraped them. So, I think that if we're going to keep these things for a while, uh, until again, we we do curbwalk curb extensions, um, sidewalk widening sidewalks, dining enclosures per my previous staff report. Um, and we truly go toward the European version of public dining out in the public right away, right? um unless and until that day, we're trying the purpose of this is

to render these things more permanent through a set of standards. And so what I'm suggesting is that we regulate the permanence of these as complies with this updated ordinance. And if they aren't maintained well because they are private and we can require them to do comply with the law um then we revoke their uh we do not renew their permit the next time it's up for renewal. uh we set a a we we apply our abatement chapter of our municipal code which establishes fines until they comply or we tear it out because that's the the ordinance is very clear that we could need access for emergency purposes to that right of way and tear these things up overnight. So, uh that still applies. So, all that to say that's under ownership, more authority granted under ownership um if it's privatized. Um the fee structure, we talked about this a little bit. Um staff strongly after vetting this with other cities and other attorneys and our local city attorney that the leasing model is not a good model um to lease public um public right away. It's not an instrument that has that retains enough legal control um of of the owner to mandate. Um with leasing comes rights that are long-term for the occupant. we don't want to endow these uses with that kind of long-term rate. Um so therefore I came up with a flat fee um that could be that is for the use of those things. There's no implication of a long-term lease or a period a lease term. Um they could be scraped overnight if need be. Um under this fee structure, the two existing items are the first and the last. The application fees 250 bucks.

the parking spaces, they they each take up two, so it's $100. So, right now, we're $350. Um, what that doesn't do is account for staff time on periodic review and annual um inspections and um I added that as a as a nexus to the proportional service provided and came up with $670. Um, I've folded this into our fee structure, our our our fee schedule for the entire city, which is now at a ad hoc committee level at city hall. We're meeting tomorrow morning for the first time, and this will be folded into it. Um, we're going to run this by I've had public works weigh in on this, city manager, our ad hoc committee, uh, uh, council member, uh, um, Glman and Redmond are the two council reps on that. So, they're going to hash this out tomorrow morning among the rest of the fees and I'll report back to you on that. Um, you happen to check with other communities that are there other communities that are venting these or Yeah, they all do flat fee basis. Um, and and they're they're anywhere from a few hundred bucks to um $1,500 more or less. Yeah. So, we're in the ballpark. For what it's worth, we usually don't really deal with fees here at the planning commission. Yeah. Right. That's why that's why kind of I'm trying to skim over it not to um trivialize your role, but that's a plan that's a council issue. The approval body approval body remains you all. Um as far as design review goes, um staff's recommendation is to retain the existing 1903080 A throughW, which is the design standards with the following addition. Um this I pulled together from some precedent um parklet ordinance my

previous community and tried to make it fit here. Um, but parklets must demonstrate structural and design permanence at the determination of the building official and/or planning director, considering factors including but not limited to structural integrity, decking rigidity, railing strength, material durability, structurally integrated vertical elements, no wobbly things hanging up in the air that don't mean anything. Um, commercial grade materials specified for exterior use. That's a big one. Um, and the evaluation criteria are going to go are going to carry that purpose into to some bite-sized standards. Construction materials and techniques. The plans must specify that those materials such as masonry, heavy timber, cast iron, steel frames, techniques appropriate for commercial application and long-term durability. Vicinity design context. Parklet design character shall be shall explicitly reference desirable vicinity context such as distinguishing architectural and streetscape qualities. So that all that to say was that that's a lot all that to say is the power is in staff's recommendation to you that that was carried off. So if a parklet puts a purple ferris wheel in front of uh sparkies, you can say, "Show me where you're deriving a purple ferris wheel from the the the desirable character of its immediate vicinity." But that's not desirable. Desira, that is a nonconforming sign. Nothing against purple ferris wheels. I'm just suggesting perhaps a purpose fair a purple ferris. Yeah. So, I'm concerned with the fact that it's now a solid two parklets slammed together in a big wood wall. That's I I know you like to run

across the street in the middle. And you know what? The other ones I've seen in other towns, they they're a little more open. They have plantings, you know, all that kind of thing. And I don't know whether it's because our community is a snow community or whatever, sometimes snow. But I'm kind of concerned that the designs these neither of these are actually Yeah. So that's very interesting. So So I I I heard you last time and I and I looked at a lot of the communities that have gone from temporary to permanent. Um I also asked my old my city attorney down in uh Kalisoga and South and Santa Paula down in Ventura County because they both went through this painfully um because of this very issue. Uh, and everybody said, "Don't do it." Don't do what? Don't make it permeable. Don't make it like light gauge. Um, transparent um back and forth between the right of way and the deck in your public rideway. These need to be Oh, yeah. People poking out. It's one thing to go in. It's You need to ricochet off at 25 miles hour. Though, like hanging plants or something. We can make it prettier. They could make the wooden wall more texture or, you know, some kind of element to it rather than just boards like a fence. I mean, yeah, I get solid. I understand that. I don't want gravel kicked up on me from a car, you know, but there's not a lot of art, you know, it's not very This is this is where you have that authority to say that during a design review hearing for one of these. Will this what what did I hear that? Well, yeah, I don't think Well, my question is would any would the two that we have now comply with this ordinance? Um, I I'd say the pipeline does, but but Sparky's doesn't.

Just because of the wobbly top things. Uh, I think there's there's lower quality building materials in the Sparkies. Uh I think that the heavier timber stuff is is more evident in uh I I thought about that when I wrote this. So um I I think to the character component one one person's um beauty is an eye beholder, right? So let's let's really keep in mind that if you try to uh create an objective design character statement, you're going to fail every time. So I what I wanted to do was say give them the tools to be good designers. say, "Look around. Look at what's desirable and demonstrate how you're pulling that the desirable element into your design expression." That's a simple challenge for any designer. If there if you're designing a parklet, you better understand that. So, but that said, are those going to change? Are we going to get another swipe at that? Yeah. After this, after this ordinance is adopted, 30 days after it's adopted, it goes into effect. They then by the time they renew these things next year they both these are annual renewals. So next year when they renew if this is different then we'll we'll we'll ask that they be they comply. So we can include what you're talking about is something more dimensional more artistic more textural. Well yeah I mean obviously I am kind of making it just difficult to do anything. So, but I'm just there just needs to be something that softens it or you know whether it's well that is a concern always anytime something new is placed in the city is that it's somehow matches the feeling tone of our village like like yaks you know like right which is completely allowed with our code freaked out okay I like it okay we don't need to be constrained um by objective clear and

objective standards on this one. You can be subjective all day long and you can use your discretion and as a group you can arrive at whatever it is you want. If you guys want purple ferris wheels then we've got purple ferris wheel park. What is it? We don't want purple. Are they down there? All right. Um are we just to tidy things up but do you feel like you've given us your presentation and I can maybe make sure I'm getting everything from the team here? Yeah. So, again, um, what I'll do is come back with an ordinance. Um, I'm not sure I want to load this up on the same day. I don't think you're we really want to crack open two ordinances on the same day. Um, this one shouldn't be that hard. Uh, you know, we unless we get Huh. You're right. We could I could come back. you know, it it's going to be a public hearing and we'll get the public coming in and well, I suppose it's not going to affect these guys until next year anyway, so it doesn't matter. There's no rush on the parklets, believe me. I think I'd rather wait on that one and really do tiny homes and then Okay, I like that, too. So, does anybody else have any comments or questions about parklets? Because, of course, I still do. No. Okay. So, I'm wondering um when if we don't have if we have an entire year to wait for somebody to maintain their parklet, I think that's too long. Uh we don't. Okay. because it says here like for instance if you know this gets passed in June or July and then they have another year and Sparky's sorry Sparkies but those posts don't look good. Yeah. No, I've already had that conversation with them and um that is in convers in in process. Honestly, that's taking it's slower than I would like. So I do owe them a return call with a little more urgency in my

tone. because they're part of the reason we're having this conversation in some ways. No, that's not lost. Yeah. Um so would you know there's got to be I would hope is there some way you can write this to include you know the the maintenance has to be upheld not just annually but continuously. Oh no that's it's in the code now. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. um little thing, but we may not always have a planning director. So, we just need to put planner in there instead of planning director under 5x planning director because 20 years down the pike, you may have retired. Yeah, we're trying to set that up so so the title change is permanent. Oh, cool. That'd be lovely. But anyway, so just a thought on that. Um we don't talk about lighting an ear. I think we should uh lighting is in the current standards the current the current parklet standards speaking in the current parklet standards then why doesn't anybody comply with them or are they adequate? Um they're adequate. Yeah, they're not because we don't have downward facing ornamental. They're ornamentals. So can we have downward facing ornamental? Uh, well, I mean, we if you're asking for an amendment to the existing standards, then we could explore that. Doesn't it have to do with the lumens? What has to be blocked? I thought there was some Well, if we're going to go down the dark sky path that is a place to work on. I don't know. I like the ornamental style of light because I think they look And they turn them off at night. I mean, when they close, they're off. It's not like it's a parking lot. Well, in that fine with me if they turn them off. They

do, don't they? I don't know. You and I don't go out at night. Well, not often enough probably, but I mean, if they turned them off, I mean, I think it's an ambiance that's way more pleasant than a downward facing. Well, you could put caps on those and they'd still be cute. Oh, Alan, can can you explain your concern so I understand? Dark skies. Dark skies and migratory birds are my two concerns. Oh, okay. Lighting is required at night. All lighting must be downward facing. Be turned off outside operating hours. That's not what we have. Right. People aren't doing downward facing on the park on the parklets. They're not No, they're the little exposed bulbs. Oh, aren't they facing down? They're facing down. Come on. The plug is on the top of the You can't I I I can't write an ordinance against uh twinkly lights. I'm sorry. I love twinkling lights. I can't I'm sorry. I do too. We're going to need a new planner. I do too. As long as they go off when the business is closed. They go off. They're downward facing because it's already lit up downtown and things are happening and cars are driving and there's lights all over the place and the business. I got twinkly lights inside my car, inside my van. Well, these aren't the twinkly lights. These are those little bulb, you know, like you rebel. Well, there's also the lights so they people can see. I mean, they could start putting things on the table. Okay. All right. So, anything else? All right. I'll give up. I guess you've got you've got enough. I got enough. Thank you. All right. Moving on to item eight, commission and staff comments. It looks like you have something for us, Jeff. Uh, all I wanted to say there was that the um where's where are my notes? Here.

Um, don't forget to go online. You did you did did you do the survey today? What survey? Okay. Downtown survey. Did you not read that? I saw downtown downtown Thrive's economic development survey. So, we are it it's it was part of your broadcast email for me. Uh, it is posted on the homepage on the news banner. Uh we sent out 180 notices to all the folks who are reside uh excuse me who own property within our downtown district. Uh it is a six question survey. It's focused on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. What do you want to see when what do you want to be when we grow up? Um we're going to be using that information to come back to uh the community, mostly downtown, potentially upscale it. Um and um no my shoulder see what the city can do to help. That's is that's it. A short short and sweet. So how do we access this? I'm sorry. How do we access it? It's online. Um go to our web page. Planning department. There's a link. Planning department. Yeah. Or just the homepage. There's a little banner on you go to our homepage and there's a little banner that come comes little news items go across. One of one of which happens to be the downtown thrives survey. Excellent. or go to the planning page directly. Your call. That's all I got. Okay. Uh Alan, what have you got? Um you haven't heard this particular complaint. The Bolero gas station down the corner from the police station on the other side there. They always butcher their pear tree so that it doesn't block the their sign, which I want it to block. So, and it's not their tree. They aren't their tree is the prune. It's not their tree. And that they're not they're they're complained about this for over a decade now. Yes. All right. Um that it's that tree there. They they have somebody

go out there and prune it down so that it doesn't block their sign. And that's not its natural habit. That's not their job. Yeah. Not their tree. Not their tree. Any of that. My other thing is more a question. Up on South A, the hospital, old hospital site cleaned up is all cleaned up and done. Who owns that? Is that the city? Well, it's in uh receiverhip receiverhip now, so it soon will be. Yes. So, uh are we uh tiny homes? Are we planning like an apartment complex or something up there? It's a housing site. Okay. Yeah. Um but that's all we can say. And it's big enough for how many units? Depends upon the density. But that density, I think it's R2 up there on the hill. Might be R1. I don't think I can look. Might be commercial. It's a big site. Yeah, it it is exciting. Yeah. So, I wanted to know how many units could go in there. I'll look into it. Well, how about a home for old people like me? Bunch of small houses for older people to age in place. community where we can go when we become I suspect your house. Yeah. I would probably advocate for multif family units. Okay. Okay. Lee, do you have something? Commission comments, questions item. I'm good. Future agenda items? No, not yet. Not yet. I thought we were closing the book. No. Do you have a commission comment? Okay. I um have a comment. I was uh got to go to get involved with the Mount Shasta safety action plan and maybe you can chime in a little bit to help out. But the city is also working on making travel in Mount Shasta better and safer and there's going to be outreach I think um over the summer as well as they think

they just started. And so it's different than our transportation planning. It's safety planning and I don't know I don't know a whole lot about it except I got to go and walk around and look at unsafe intersections and places that have had accidents, places that have had near misses and we've got to share. There'll be an opportunity to um also fill out a questionnaire about safety and I can pass this around and I don't know do you know offhand when is there anything on the city website yet about the safety plan? Same banner. There's there's uh and and public works page both have updates on those two items. So Lake Street uh complete streets and the safe streets for all citywide stuff and the safe the safety plan deal that's going on. Great. All right, that's it for me. So, uh for two agenda items, um yeah, noise element and land use element are coming up um for you all. So, general plan uh you get to crack that one open again. That's probably going to be June or July, but we're having consultants get into that right now. So, and is this Yeah, they've been promising that for decades. Uh, but land use, so consultants are working up to this proposal. The proposal and this has to do with um tidying up things around our housing element also or just generally an update. It's essentially implementing the housing element by changing some of the land use provisions but all all zones. Lovely. Okay. Anything else? Nope. Okay. Then I am going to adjourn our Tuesday, April 15th, 2025 Mount Chasta Planning Commission regular meeting. Thank you. 7:38. My bothers me too. Thank you again,

Evan. No, it's good. Well, thank you again. And it pops and kinks sometimes. And then I go