Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You can tell me when we're good. All right. Good evening. I am going to call to order our Tuesday, April 28, 2026 special planning commission meeting. We have nation.

Okay. Okay. Item two, roll call and quorum establishment. Kim, please. Okay. Good evening. Roll call. Uh, Commissioner Hibira here. Commissioner Partardi here. Commissioner Sterns, welcome. Uh, Commissioner Mcdal appears to be absent. Commissioner Serion here. And Chair Finley here. Thank you. So, we have a quorum. And just quick note, um part of our quorum is our new planning commissioner, Tim Sterns. Welcome to the team, Jim.

All right. Our next item, number three, public comment. This is a time for um folks to address the planning commission on an item that is not on our agenda this evening. Um if you'd like to come up and speak, come to the podium, introduce yourself. Um a maximum of three minutes to let us know what's on your mind. If anybody would like to come speak to us, please do. Hello folks. Uh I'm Maria. I live here. Um we are so happy that you guys are here tonight. I know sometimes it's tricky to get everybody together. Um but I just want to say a big thank you honestly. Um time that AF and I got involved in all this stuff locally was when we showed up here a little over a year ago when we sat for the planning commission and you guys were talking about the tiny house ordinance that you're thinking about doing at the time and um that's something we're both really passionate about affordable housing for our community. It's been a big struggle for a lot of people in our community and really nationwide and beyond. So, we really appreciate you guys being willing to kind of step forward out of the ordinary uh to kind of run in the front and maybe sometimes we we take some hits for for being a little out of the ordinary and doing things differently. I know we do. Um so, we applaud you for moving forward with something maybe a little out there, maybe a little progressive and really trying to find solutions for the community. um the the planning commission, you know, obviously your recommendation helped the city council move forward. The community is really behind it. Um everyone is really trying to find affordable solutions. We've done a lot of work um with the city since then. Um I joined the Tiny House Industry Association with our little

movement. Um I was able to connect the president of that association with city staff. Um, so there's some really interesting things happening as far as making sure that our ordinance stays as strong as possible. We have a lot of local cities around us who are also looking to us as leaders in this movement and how can we provide solutions for our working class and our workforce and um all the first responders and our aging population. There's a lot of people who really need more affordable solutions. Um, so it's really been um encouraging and and refreshing to see government officials really stepping forward and and doing what's best for the people even if not everybody necessarily likes it. So just really excited about finding solutions for the community in all kinds of different ways. And um just want to say thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Aloha.

Uh that's mine. She's gorgeous. Uh my name is Apa. Uh and we live right here in Mount Chasta. And ever since that um recommendation was passed through council first and second reading and we brought 20 30 people to testify and strengthen the the now living ordinance. And we've been to manufacturers down south in Cottonwood. They make a lot of tiny houses and we got relationships and brought a tiny house up here with Evan's help uh to bring a tiny house up here for people to touch over Earth Day just last Saturday. So we've I've been to city council weed at least three times, two listening sessions, Dunmir a couple times and taken a shot at Haya's mayor and uh the HOA at Lake Chastina. All with the intention of furthering the ordinance into other cities slowly, slowly, slowly but surely. It'll go across the county. It might take a little while, but the paperwork that you guys have hammered out and pushed together is moving through a lot faster. So, uh, boots on the ground should be coming around soon. We're talking a lot with the city about, uh, extra land they might have around here that might be too small for a single family house, but might be just big enough. one or two little tiny houses as a prototype project in mind. So that's fun. Like she said, the president uh that wrote all the ordinances for down south, he was actually laughing a little bit. Kind of funny because a lot of the terminologies inside the ordinance was the the language that he wrote for the other cities. And so when he brought it over here, he said in one year they already changed the language. So maybe we might just upgrade the language, one little word to strengthen it before weed and Dunir takes it on. So again, like to applaud you for taking on alternative affordable housing. And so for a few little whiles, I've been waiting for this moment. I'd like to make a small

little suggestion that we move on to other alternative affordable housing options. I don't know what the next lowest hanging fruit example might be to talk about. I just like to say shipping container houses seems to be another alternative affordable housing that I'm sure we can find a lot of data from a lot of different cities of how that might work out that we can grab and kind of gnaw and go through the whole process all over again. I figure if I don't say it right now, it might never show up for a while. So, we might as well say it now and in a little while from now we might have another form again. It's just low hanging fruit. I don't know if 3D printed uh housing is another Is that three minutes?

You got 30 seconds. Okay, 30 seconds. Thank you. I don't know if 3D printing I work at a cement concrete place. 3D printed houses is another option. And I think in Reading is like one of the nationwide biggest 3D printing, so you can 3D print houses pretty easy. Um kit houses, there's a lot of those very affordable out there options. There's shipping container houses that very just like tiny houses. There's a lot of ordinance out there that we can copy and paste. I'm just suggesting tonight. Um, let's consider that. Wow. Get off the mic. Thank you. I appreciate you so much. Thank you for all you guys do.

Thank you. Uh, anyone else like to come speak with with us about something not on our agenda? What would I do? Uh, my name is Evan Drake. Um, I'm a builder and a member of the Syscue Housing Alliance. And I just wanted to update the commission that we're currently doing some survey work regarding housing in the county. Um, and we'll be sharing some of our findings with Kim uh when we have a large enough sample to pull from. So, that's happen. And then we may also actually have some help from the city in distributing it. So, we'll see. Thanks. Thank you. Did I see somebody else and I have been given an opportunity to do a presentation with the city planning tonight, but there's a few things I want to talk about in the three minute segment. It will start my time. We haven't had a lot of meetings with the planning department and I felt like there's been many things that the community's unaware of. We don't have a newspaper and we don't have TV to be able to get messages across and not everybody has Wi-Fi and does neighborhood or does Facebook and all that. Some people are from the last century and we need to see things. So try to use the mic as much as possible. So Oh, sorry. Hang on. Yeah. Okay. One of the things that I was unaware of till I went back and started looking at meetings is something called daylighting the creek. And I'm not sure anybody else in this town, am I the only person that doesn't know about that? Because they're talking about taking in between Ace and the Crystal Shop and bringing water to the surface. Does that mean you're

going to lose parking places? I want a straight answer from somebody. Is that yes or no?

We don't do that. So, I'm concerned that like all of a sudden at one of the council meetings, they talked about graveling and I felt like that was there's been some things that have been mentioned in council meetings that were really planning kind of things because we weren't having planning meetings, but they're going to pave some property across from Weston's in between Ace and the welding game shop for parking. And I'm wondering is that to replace the parking that's going to be lost on Castle? Is that a forthought? I just am trying to understand because I go to so many meetings and parking is an issue and one of the things that came up when I actually canvas the neighborhood was that the people that have the big businesses are parking on the street in front of their businesses and the question came up about parking permits. It was really against the idea of having a meter reader and having to do collection and having to give somebody and if they lose their job, do they use it? There were some really good questions that came up at one of the meetings about parking passes. So, I'm sort of against that idea and I want to remind all the people um Kim and I talked about this before because she told me there were complaints like people parking in front of their own business and where tourists are having to walk. Anyway, I just wanted to bring that up. That was something. Also, Lake Street is really important that people are going to understand the staging of when their property might be affected by all the work that's going to be done. I think that's so important. I know you're going to be having public meetings about the landing and that's really important for people to tune in and find out. Is that going to be every week or every month?

Oh, no answer. Sorry. Yeah. Right. So, yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to bring up a few issues that aren't in my presentation about why I think there's May matters. Thank you, Cinco de Mayo.

Thank you. Um, anyone else? Okay, looks like we are going to move on from public comment uh to our consent agenda. However, this evening I believe we don't have anything on our consent agenda. So, next item is going to be item five, our public hearing for a tenative parcel map for four condominiums at 804 Carmen Drive. Kim. Okay. Thank you very much. Apologies for the voice I am getting over from being under the weather, but uh we'll do this. So, agenda number five is for a condominium at 804 Carmen. Um, this is a structure that was built a couple of years ago. There are people inside the units that are renting the units already. Um, the proposal before the planning commission tonight is simply to approve a condominium conversion map so that in the future the developer has an option to instead of leasing or renting the units to to people who would rent them, they would have the option of selling the individual units people would be purchasing the units um sometime down the road. I don't know when what the time frame is um but the the legality in doing that is to have a condominium map. So that's what's before us tonight. Uh the staff report packet has a couple of letters. Um when this when this item was supposed to go before the planning commission in March and it was agendaized for March, a couple of letters came in from members of the community. And so now have an extra month. I wanted to take an opportunity to address those comments. So, in addition to your staff report packets,

on your desk in front of you is a memo where in recognition of the public comments, um I took a stab at updating some conditions of approval language and also some resolution language. Um just to make it very clear what the project scope is, what the description is, um there is a That speaks to that speaks to trash. Um people letting their trash sit outside and also people improperly disposing of snow. Uh there was a comment letter about that. So in recognition of those comments, there are two new conditions that are included in your memo tonight. One uh number nine is trash, number 10 is snow. and it's it's language in there to encourage everybody living at these units to adhere to the best practices. Um let's see there was also a comment um from Miss Ree um about consistency with the general plan and also the zoning designation. Um we found out today that if you look hard enough between the general plan and the housing element, the land use element, the housing element, and also um the zoning code, there are very minor but significant enough discrepancies. Um at the end of the day, I don't think is worth the commission's uh time to worry about. Um it's a cleanup item that we'll address when we go through with a land use element, general plan, land use element update in the next few months. Um but the bottom line is that staff does find that the project is consistent with the general plan um lane use designation of medium density residential which allows um without a density bonus up to 10 units. Um and the zoning code uh designation of R2 also medium density residential. uh this

project is consistent with those designations. So there's I don't think there's anything to worry about there. But I added language in the resolution just so that it's clear to everybody that the project is consistent. Staff is fighting fighting that to be consistent with the general plan and the zoning code and the language and the housing element. Um see I believe that is it. Um I will stop here and let the let the commission um ask clarification questions. Um the development team is in the audience tonight. So if there are questions specifically for the developer or the engineer, we can ask those questions together and they are here to answer that tonight.

Great. Thank you, Kim. Sure. All right. Um commissioners, uh I'm gonna we start with you. Do you have questions, clarifications, want to um get from Kim at this time? Um I am recusing myself from agenda items five through seven tonight. Thank you very much. Noted. Okay. All right. Usually then the person doesn't if you'd like us to hang out in the lobby, we'll call you back when agendas five, six, and seven are complete. No problem. Thank you.

Sorry. Um, don't go too far. Okay. Um, Belinda, so the trash thing is important to me because I see that I look at that property and it's not real easy and if people put their trash inside of the garage, they won't have any room for their car because the garages are tiny. So being as how this is an HOA, the HOA could build a trash room for all tenants to put their trash in because it's an HOA rather than they're not individually property owned. You know, I mean, the dwellings are owned, but the um property is not. So, I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with taking a garage space that's so small that you're going to end up with no cars parked in there. So, that's I don't know whether you can address that or

I can defer that to the site developer. I think yeah, putting in a trash enclosure is a matter of whether or not there's there's this space there a feasible space to have that. So, I'll defer to the development team to answer that question. Sure. Well, hold on. Actually, you know what? We're gonna do commission clarification and comments, then I'll open the public and then we'll have the project proponent come up first. Okay. So, we'll just tally the questions. So, yeah, hang on to that. Do you have anything else, Belinda? Did you have anything else, Belinda? No.

All right. Alan, don't forget your mic. I have questions of the development team. Okay. All right. Kim, I don't think I have any questions for clarification of the of what's before us tonight. I do have some concerns. Uh for as long as I lived in Mount Chasta, there's been a problem with not having adequate rentals. And I think that's a serious concern that I would like to address tonight. Okay. So, did you So, do you want to hold off and maybe ask the project?

Well, actually question for both the planner and and the developer when we have the opportunity. I think you just asked if there were any clarifying questions.

Right. Or just at this stage, I mean to your point, you know, that we want definitely want to include that as part of the conversation this evening and we'll have opportunity, you know, after we close the public public hearing to have clarification and then conversation amongst ourselves. So, thanks for that. Um so um just to let my fellow commissioners and and the public know I also have thought about this project um I had a nice excuse me conversation with Kim earlier about um modifying our conditions of approval to talk about the things that I think are part of our job which is to ensure that these structures are built to condominium standards which are not the same as rental unit standards and my understanding is that that is the case but I want it to be part of the public record. Um to Belinda's point, um I also think that the trash needs to be managed in such a way that people can use their garages and that trash does not sit outside and is um accessible by bears and wildlife and the current situation is not working. So I'm looking forward to hearing a proposal from the project folks about how to remedy that. Um likewise snow storage. I think we need to talk about making sure we um manage snow storage on site going forward. Um and um to point I also think it's important to find out the project proponents plans for protecting the existing tenants. If we proceed with um the condo

conversion um how do we sure that the existing tenants or what is the plan for the existing tenants going forward and um what's going to happen when their lease needs to be renewed? You know, what is what would the conversion look like and how do we mitigate taking um property out of rentals that to Tim's point we do need to um condominiums which also have advantages because it's an opportunity people to build that good age. So all that I think is part of the conversation that I would like to have tonight. So um unless there's anything else, commissioners. Okay, I'm going to open our public hearing this evening and um if our the project proponent could come up first and introduce yourself and talk about your plans, maybe speak to some of the things we've already talked about and um we'll go from there.

Hello. Um my name is David. Thank you for for tonight. Um, too many questions. I'll be happy to answer what I remember. Um, I think that some of them are um bit repetitive. I'll probably can that one I remember the most. Uh, so the the primary plan for us for and I will speak for all the uh the three units, the three complexes, not just one. It's like Yeah. Just so there's a couple things. We want to make sure we can hear you and we want to make sure it gets So, okay. So, I is that better? Okay, I'll get closer. I wasn't sure. Thank you.

Um, yeah. So, um I'll probably speaking for the three context as the uh the they are consecutive on the on the agenda. So, the plan for us in these uh conversion to condominium is very simple. We were not planning to sell them literally. It's just it's a it's a it's a function of economics for us to get insuranceances. This is very fundamental. It's not easy to get insuranceances at at that at that level. Secondly, it's financially u more liquid for us to be able to refinance. So nothing will touch on the existing renters. We will not sell in the short term uh because these are designed for us as u uh for rental but the conversion was more practical u and um it doesn't change much. for the protection how the existing uh renters uh and in in a in a previous note we sent to the city we uh we agree that we'll we'll not we'll not uh we'll renew their leases um and as much as they want they can stay uh so we will not do anything uh uh in regard to that of course I repeat myself we will not plan to sell for many years um so the intent is more for us to be as a as a developers more functional, more efficient uh to make it more insurable and then uh so the the whole infrastructure become uh operationally easier for us as much and all the pass through cost to the uh uh to to the uh to the tenants as we go. Um so this is the first question remember but maybe I can go for the second question. I think you had a concern. So, well, I think so. We were talking about um so protection of the tenants, existing tenants. Make sure I've got this right. Um we're talking about snow

removal, snow storage. So, how you manage snow removal and snow storage, how you manage um garbage storage. And I think that's it.

So, um let's talk about the the snow. Um so in in the design there's enough space and where snow goes on on prem on the premise not on the road and they already been designed for that is an area where that happens. The the whole infrastructure the whole structure themselves if you ever drove by it you see the garages are facing the road meaning the minimal snow removals to happen just by design and the snow needs to go to one side that we designed for it so that when snow get carried forward get pushed on on the property on the side that's already been designed for it um early on and we spent a lot of time designing that function um there may have been some incident where um where the snow that came actually came from the city I remember uh that moved from one place to another uh may have been placed by the city uh and in somebody else property and then we got accused for it but that's we removed it ourselves so we no sweat Um but this is uh from the snow that is on the property would take care of it has been designed and that pays for it. Um and in regard to the garbage

hold on a second maybe um let's stick with the snow piece of that. So my question for you is um I don't know or maybe you could clarify right now are um individual renters responsible for clearing their the snow to their on their of the sidewalk and their portion of the driveway or do you take care of that as the landlord? We take care of it. So, you're taking care of snow removal? Yes.

And um once if this were to change to condominiums, would the HOA um continue to have that snow t taken care of collectively or would people be doing it individually? Collectively. So, okay. Because I was just imagining, you know, if you're in driveway in the middle driveway to clear your own driveway. You need the other person's pathway to be clear.

Yes. In in the in the in the proposal of the condominium. So that there's a you think of it as the actual housing itself is what the condo is and then the common area. So the HOA is responsible for the common area that means including um the walkways including the uh u the driveways and and all the maintenance of it that includes snow. Okay. Good. Um, commissioners, do we have any more questions about snow storage and snow removal? Can I assume the location on the plans for snow removal were were indicated on the on the individual plans for the project?

Um, I don't I don't remember that detail, but uh we we spoke of it. We designed it and there's an area for that uh where it's even designed for the water to go through. Um, and then I think Um I don't know if the plant called them out. Um but in practice that's what we have on ground. So there was a you say for water to go down in the soil. Was it an infiltration basin of some sort? It's always been designed and we we dug it out. We put the right uh material for that for that or infiltration happens correctly.

Do you know if that was part of the storm water control plan? I don't remember that that's been years for us. Um but we've been designed for u uh all the water collection we have to to make and then um you know we hired you know the reason the the right companies How long ago was this about about two three years okay we're still requiring storm water bases and snow removal being indicated on the

Yes. The short the short answer is yes. This is before my time, but I imagine what occurred was that when building permits were submitted over the counter that um a plan checker and inspector and the city engineer would have taken a look at all that

was here two or three years ago. Okay. All right. I just want to mention a couple of things. So, we've been actively actively monitoring the situations. Um and then we're seeing where the water goes. Um we've been very happy with the results and then um not like we're just walked away. Um and then uh so the results are are and are impressive getting situations we had. I think we had a one big storm years ago. We monitor that and that was pretty pretty pretty good result. That's all for me for snow. Okay. Yeah. Good. Anybody else on the snow part of this? Okay. Next. What do you want to try garbage next?

Okay. So the current setup way it exist um each um um each renter have their own garbage can uh have their own plan with the with the uh with the with the city and then it's been taken care of that way. Um and uh and I think we plan it will stay that way. Each homeowner will take care of their own garbage and their own plans. Uh the HOA would require um that they have the u If there's an owner right now as they don't uh but if there's a new owner they will have to deal uh and abide with the with the laws that mandates what the garbage needs to go.

So the current situation with garbage like each tenant has their own recycling and trash container. Correct.

And there's no room to store them inside their garage, then that situation is not satisfactory. With regards to wildlife, you have a proposal to provide secure storage for people's garbage cans so that the wildlife cannot access them. Well, they the garbage needs to stay in the garage uh accessible whenever time for pickup. If they leaving it elsewhere, so they're doing it on their own um um not the right way. They have to be put back at the garage where they where they where where we agreed on. So in the least uh the cans the recycling stay in the garage

and is there sufficient room to an average car in the garage and their and to store their garbage cans. Correct. So, in the garage, if you check those garages, there is uh in the back there's a space and we put uh what do you call these uh guards that the car doesn't bump into things. Um and then um and then there's a place way in the back to place their uh uh their cats. Okay. Anybody else? That look possible. the dimensions I see.

Thank you for the reality check on that. I appreciate that. Okay. So then I think our next um concern was how to protect the tenants and and to consider the impacts on our rental housing.

Okay. So as I said is the intent for us is renting not um not anything else but I like to to to speak out is um in as as the developer um the we understand and and and then myself um um been writing into affordable housing for many years. So the the way we see is this is that whether uh to bring population to Mount Shasta to live as uh as local uh forever sometime affordability is become partner of the city. You can't just live forever as a renter. Uh so as you we develop so there's difference between building houses and condominiums because condominiums are cheaper. You share the same resources you share this is very become a communal uh we have an amazing be developed already at that location uh where people get together sharing a wall sharing a garden uh is very effective economically. So uh the mixture of rental and maybe in the future ownership they can rent it themselves out but they become have an equity in towards that investment. Renting something money out is sometimes good for short terms. So rental for short term is one thing but as you want to build a community you need to give them a chance to actually invest in the city and become owner in that city uh uh in that in the community. Not just that is a mechanism to make it happen in an affordable way uh condos will make it affordable price-wise compared to a house which has become very unaffordable besides um uh a place for them to get uh mortgage on. Today houses are I give an example I have um uh people who I know this is very good effective they desperately looking for housing in Mount Shasa they're right now chasing a house they have no foundation and they cannot find

because affordable to them but the house has no foundation banking will not give them the money because of that reason for the same price they can buy a condo that is could be mortgaged back very easily so the the economics works better at that level. But again, uh is that our intent is for our own interests is rental right now for a while until things have will change. I'm talking about years, not just a month. So we're talking like you know at least three to five years until we we change our thinking. Um but again is the protection is there. uh because it's it's uh you know it's just it's not like uh um um uh it's going to go away. Um and then being a developer we we will develop likely further the macha in both for with the same principle and and and the same element of success for the community and for uh for everybody else. Um so we're not just walking away. We're local. I live locally too. So that's just like I like to see that prosper and that committee um uh prosper from uh from that angle. So we all my renters um have been very happy um and uh and then it's been it's been great for for for everybody. So why walk away?

Commissioners um Tim did you want some I think I heard you say that there's no intent to sell the units once or if they become condominiums. It's solely for purpose of getting better insurance rate. Is that correct?

So I would just say solely. So for the for the short term uh it will give us a better arrangement with insuranceances with banking and other u uh arrangement that give us that fluidity of doing business. It will not affect the actual renters but for the developer owners have a better arrangement with different institution in the banking and insuranceances. Has have any insurance companies told you that or presented you something in writing indicating that the insurance would be less for rental condominiums than rental town houses.

Uh so the way it works because we're forplex is considered commercial. So this is one of the difficulty we're we're facing. So they don't treat those forplexes as residential unless they are individual. That's the first writing we have. when you thought uh to develop the property uh or years ago, three and a half years ago. Uh did you have any plans at that point to convert to condominiums?

That is correct. So when we designed it early four years ago, we even build it in such a way that is that conversion happens structurally, feasibly internally um and in a in a straightforward the way the plumbing happens, the way the electrical is done is done systematic. The division between the walls are intended to be so on the get-go. Um and it's a process uh we went through and to get to a level is once we make sure we'll uh we'll move forward with the right uh with the right uh with the right uh experience and data. We didn't want to rush too fast. And was that intent disclosed to the city at the time?

That is correct. In writing I think there was some writings that it is um uh even even in the leases is in the writing. Yes. I'm sorry. Say again. Yes. Even in the leases with the tenant, it's in writing also. So we call the cities and we also pull the tenants that that we plan for as a condo conversion. Uh as I expressed in the beginning, um Casta has had a rental shortage for a number of years. That's probably one of the reasons that you decided to correct build rental units. That is correct. So that's we not walk away from that strategy.

That rental shortage uh is continuing in Mount Chasta. Uh and we'll be happy to build more. Pardon? And we'll be happy to build more. Well, converting to condominiums and selling the condominium condominiums would not help the rental shortage.

We're not selling. uh it it's uh selling become it's a it's a it's an element we're not selling in the short term I'm just again it's just many many years you will not selling is a is a functional element for us um to be um um more fluid um and u and then for example if I need to just I mean I'll be frank if I need to build a U structure right Now we do have already bought uh properties in Macha for future development. If I need to um fund it, I can easily mortgage one of the units of the condos and fund that development. Perhaps I can do right away, but I need the condos to do that.

I don't think that I'm sorry. I don't see how that addresses the my concern about the way of course the It addresses it in a double way. One, the condo is still rented. I'm not rent. I'm not selling it, but I have money cash to actually build more housing, more rentals. So, it's it's a it's a process where you build, you take the money out, you build more, you take the money out, you build more. So, that would increase your rental. That's how developer works. That's the principle number one.

Well, the way that the way on the best scenario the way you would get money take money out would be to sell it to somebody. No, absolutely not. It's mortgage.

Um so just one correction is so so many things happened since the last um crash in 2008. LLPs don't get mortgages from banking anymore. Meaning by that is multif family. They can only do it at the level of housing. So a multif family is very hard to get mortgages of that large scale. You can get the house at the unit level for us. Meaning by that when we are in the condo business then I can take one unit I can mortgage that out that give me the money to build something else. The renter can stay in the condo. The money is mortgage from the bank. I can take that money. they can develop another rental

as you would with say uh if you did a subdivision, you could mortgage one lot. Pardon me. See, you can mortgage one lot if you Exactly. land subdivision. Exactly. I can mortgage one unit. I don't have to mortgage four units. All right. Now, you indicated that that there'd be no intent to uh convert or to sell any of these units, correct? Uh, for many many years. For many years. What does many many years mean to you?

Three, five years. Three to five. Three to five years. This is just for now. We're sure we're not studying 3 to 5 years. In five years, we can talk again, but I doubt I doubt we'll be selling back then. Um, but it's just because for what they are, uh, they're very economical. um units. I understand your position of where you are. Um, and the city's u position

um if I can speak for the city is to protect rental housing, to keep rental housing um and to encourage more rental housing in Mount Chasta, not to lose any rental housing. Um, four months ago, I think there was there were zero rental units. When I say rental units, I'm talking about large homes, mediumsiz homes, small homes, individual apartments, duplexes, triplexes available for rent. Um, now there may be as many as five in the entire city for rent. So it's it's we we've had almost 0% vacancy for a long time, a very very low vacancy. Um so if the city were to exercise its discretion to u allow the conversion to condominiums u we run the risk of losing of going contrary to one of our primary uh and most important principles. under the general plan. I I sat on city council for 24 years. During much of that time, we had a principle that uh anyone who worked in Mount Chasta should be able to afford to live in Mount Chasta. Uh, right now people are living other places in Mount Chasta because they can't find a rental in Mount Fast.

Would you be willing to commit to a longer time period, say 10 years? Um, yes. Well, we these are called units. I cannot speak on all the units. Um, for at least I can speak for six. to preserve his rental. Um to preserve his rentals.

Yes. So I can So maybe this microphone is not loud enough. Maybe it's going to have to be kind of eat it up. Um so to very simple if you need 10 years I can give 10 years for some of them at least the one I can speak of. Um these are um three different companies. Uh I can speak for the one I can control about 50% of them. I can give you 10 years on at least for the one I speak of. The other ones um I can't guarantee you the 10 years but between three to five I think is fine. But Tim like to consider the following to your point about your vision uh you spoke of for the city of Mount Chassa about affordability about um availability of housing. We are together here as a partnership. Uh I know you been going to take the whole thing on your own that you you are responsible for the housing and it's no longer a partnership with the developers. We work together for this. We develop for the community those housing. So we need to work together that you as as as a as a uh committee as a city uh we work together in building the next generation of housing. And for those rental to happen um sometime there's no feel of that relationship become harder and then for us if we don't feel that we have that fluidity of economics to build more it's harder for us to build more. So if you re we understand the need for that rental and we are working hard to make it happen. So we're not just there to come and sell and walk away. We are part of the community ourselves. But so as in your vision when you say anybody who lives in Mount Shasta should be able to live in Mount Shasta that does also include buying as much as renting, not just

renting. So we g we're giving both options not one option. And then we're as I mentioned again through this mechanism of this conversion to condominium we give up both options but most importantly will give us the option to develop more housing. That's the kind of the three things we're hitting in one stone tonight not just one thing.

Yes. And one thing that a potential conversion would do is enable people Sacramento, Bay Area, elsewhere to buy that condominium and use it two weeks out of the year, four weeks out of the year. Basically removing it from the long-term rental.

I I want to interject here because you've had quite a bit of time on this and I agree with him that there are a lot of people can't afford to buy a house that these could be introductory steps. And that's one of the complaints I hear of the um the professionals in town. I we have the people that can't afford to buy and they need rentals. And then we have the the you know your bankers and you know those people that don't make that much money but they make enough to potentially buy a condo to do the next step. And then they could rent the condo if they wanted to because it's theirs. Or they could sell it and somebody else could step into a lower income because buying a house is way more expensive than uh condo

condo. Right. Right. So um so maybe let's um let's let other commissioners talk. Um if you have a I'd like to make sure that every we all get a chance. Did you have anything else to add to this or can I move on and let Alan? I do have some questions. Okay. So, uh, have you formed an HOA at this point? Correct. Uh, and is there a an operating agreement for the HOA? Correct. Um, have you provided that to the city? Correct. You have provided that to the city?

The city does have a copy of the CCRs on file. Okay. Um, if I understand what it's not in the staff report packet. Uh, the city asked for it as a courtesy just so that we had it on file. But it the CCNRs are between the developer and the tenants who are who are living in the units. And so typically the city would not get involved with enforcing CCNRs. Um, but I asked for it just as a courtesy to have on file and it was it was given to the city. So we have a copy to see. Thank you.

Also, I would like to confirm that putting your properties in a commercial insurance is way more affordable because we did that on our property. We had to in order to get the best price, we had to consolidate all the property one commercial property instead of bits and pieces and so that was uh you know they didn't have anything less. So it it was the commercial insurance is the better way to go than cheese meal but I'll I'll I'll ping you offline. Um yeah it's still not a good dealensive but

okay go ahead. Can you give me a sense of what what the differences are between say apartment complex construction and condominium construction? I understood what you mean in terms of uh the infrastructure for water and sewer electrical are separate but the wall that separates them is that is there space for sound is what what kinds of um

yeah it's very good question. So sometime for example let's look at the electrical. So for example, each um unit has its own solar, has its own electrical, has its own main panel, it own service panel. They can get service directly from uh Pacific Power. This is an example. Uh so uh they're individual and they have their own um internet connection. All these connectivity is individualized for each u unit. Uh plumbing similarly, they have their own meters. They have their own uh um so even on the sewers uh which is very simple thing we take for granted each line is made specially not to go under the other unit. Sometime is plumbers like to put the shortest cut so that means one line can go under the other unit. We made sure there is no overlapping. This is very detailed uh but very important for I understand that the infrastructure to support each unit is separate and that's great. That's what you needed to do to make this step in construction practices, how they are built, what are there specific differences? Are they like I'm not saying this is what it is. Is it 2x4 2x6 construction instead of 2x4? Is there you know separating walls? Is there air space between walls for sound attenuation? What sort of things are different? Um uh in in those specific units um we have to um so the wall um when it comes down to construction is that especially the the the airspace anything above you is tend to be belonging to you. For example, you don't want the fan of your next unit neighbors to go over. So that kind of thing. So that separation uh goes all the way up. That means uh the wall go all the way up and then your space above you is likely has to do with your function even though the um the the units is above unit on on in that airspace but sometime the attic

is shared but what I understand airspace condos things I I get that construction it's the same material like construction it's code you cannot modify that okay and the walls that the the walls that are individual units. Are they standard 2x6 construction or is there something is there something unique about them? Nothing. Nothing unique. It's a standard 2x6 and are sound insulated uh as by code. So these are they're code thing. We we don't have that luxury to modify. Oh no, that's fine. I understand. I just wanted to know if there were Yes. Yes, they are curious. That's standard. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Um anything else, Tim? Actually, let me finish. Otherwise, I'm glad that you're bringing more housing um of any kind, apartments for rent, uh condos to buy. Thank you.

We're looking forward to So, you indicated that you would be agreeable to um a restriction again selling u half of the condominiums for the next 10 years and you thought that you think that your partners would be agreeable to what do you say six years or five years

so I like to use the word use the word restrictions here so an agreement um because let's say if I'm stuck financially I need to do something so I'm not because I have a restriction I'm stuck with it legally I can't sell anymore so I have that liberty that I do have the plut. Um and then so what what that means what you have in mind there Tim um it is clearly is that agreement is uh shall be and should be a handshake between us and the city that will not sell for for many years 10 years is fine but it won't be won't be a restriction as in in legal form.

Well if it's if it's just a handshake agreement you could turn around and sell it in six months or a year from now. That's that won't that's won't be true but uh but that the restriction needs to be in that case very well crafted because it is financially tying my hands because I cannot sell anything in that in that thing anymore. The whole the whole structure cannot is not for sale anymore. Right now I can sell the whole complex. If you want me not to sell at all the complex is not for sale anymore. I know what you mean by that restriction. I'm trying to find a way of trying to find a way of protecting existing rentals from disappearing for a period of time. Uh, and I was saying if there might be something that you would also agree to uh to make that happen.

I agree. um as as a as as an agreement. I don't know what that I don't know what the agreement you have in mind. I don't know how that looks like. So here I'm going to interject and let's talk about um the possibilities to protect the tenants which it sounds like a shared goal because it sounds like the people living there. The space you've created has built a community. It sounds like you're interested in supporting that. Um, if there's something that we could put in a condition of approval that works that works for us is our job to want to preserve rentals, also help community members build equity, but in particular the the folks who live there right now. And so, you know, I looked around on the internet. Um, a possibility could be right of refusal for purchase for existing tenants if that's something that you would consider as a as a condition of approval.

And so right as a so we could include that as a measure um as a condition um how and if so but then the piece comes up I mean I'm I'm assuming that folks are going to be protected by their lease. So, and I don't know what kind of lease agreements if you're doing monthtomonth, year to year, some other time frame if you want to share that. Um, yeah, we we usually offer them uh a yearly lease and uh they usually renew.

Uh some don't based on their health reasons. Um uh but mostly renew um um you know year to year and then we'll we comply with that. Um, yeah, that's still how it works. And then that's that's what they're comfortable with. Also, we're pushing too many years for them. They don't like it. Uh, and uh I think the year the year is what they really prefer on their side and it works with us too. And then um so since you're in this business, have you are there other mechanisms to protect the tenants besides first threat of refusal and you know yearly leases as worked for them. Um and I don't I don't at this point I don't know if we need to make that a condition of approval because people's lives change in terms of lease term. Uh, I read, you know, condo conversion. If somebody wanted to renew their lease and you chose not to renew their lease, then paying for their I've read about paying for their moving costs, assistance with finding a new rental. Um, perhaps there's other things out there. I'd like to know your thoughts about that,

Melanie. I think that could be a problem. They want to get rid of the tenant because it's a bad tenant, which happens I but you don't want to have all that other stuff in there because then you have to treat all tenants fair and and for to put the burden of the landlord to move and find a place for somebody that has destroyed the apartment. Well, to your point,

I mean, so you're you're really putting the landlord in this corner that is incredibly expensive. I would I would only say that the um it wouldn't be if the tenant had been remiss for whatever reason. That's a separate issue and I am not proposing to protect those tenants. This would be only in the case that you determined to not renew someone's lease. Then because you intended to sell it and for it to become a condo, then potentially some other protection or some other mitigation for that person could be. I am not protecting

nothing. So that is that is correct. So let's let me clarify a few things.

So a tenants have the right to stay month to month even though his lease expires until the tenant chooses to the law. This is not we made it up. The tenant chooses to leave. So month to month and then until he the tenant chooses to leave. Um and then he may ask for another lease. Um but his law I mean the law is with the tenant that he can stay as much his month to month as much as he wants to stay. So um so the way in this in the business of rental it's um what's the word is a it's a mutual thing between landlords and tenants. It's not like a bad guy good guy or good guy. This is that's how it works. Sometime there are good tenants there are bad tenants are good landlords and there are bad landlords. doesn't make any of the stuff will not change the good landlords into better landlords or good tenant into uh bad. It's just just the way this is the the economics of business. Business is driven by that nature. Um and then we will not be in the business if we don't have that element of delivering good quality services to the tenants. I mean otherwise if we don't want to do it, we shouldn't be doing in the first place but we are doing it because we intend to do it. if it just it becomes too hard for us, we won't be doing it. So there's a level of um the whole arrangement of of this mutual trust between cities, counties, tenants and landlords. It's it's just it's fluid. It has to be natural, not forced. The more get forced, the more become harder and then the other parties work with it. If the way it is today is the best way it is today, modifying it further whether on the tenants or on the landlord, it just become uh somebody is losing. The

economics speak for itself. Demand and supply speak for itself. Uh certain restrictions have been put on the property for low uh income housing. We've done that. We complied and I think it's a fair game. uh beyond that become um I don't know I'm going to call it that become what protection is there you know we're not we're not in I don't know I'm not going to call out but uh we're still in masta here with our freedom the respect and and it should be stay like that um the conversion is just as I mentioned the simple administrative conversion of ownership that's nothing more than that it shouldn't overload that intobody uh somebody Nobody is losing. Nobody's losing anything here. Actually, we're all gaining. Uh and I will mention to Tim is we're we're gaining three things. Uh more tenants, more u more availability for us to execute better and faster and then for us to um just to make it happen. So the last three years speak for itself. So why we're going to change that? It's just it's this this is the reality. This is a fact. uh and we know how to do that business very well and we like to continue doing that business very well. It's just a simple administrative function. We like to just adjust that ownership so that we can do our economics better and be more effective. Um the tenants are respected. Uh the tenants are protected by law. California is amazingly rigorous in those laws and our leases are standard leases like bylaws and then there's nothing else there. Everybody is is empowered in their own ways. I think I think it's that's the way to uh to trust the system as anything we do wrong, you tell us. But I don't think so far um and then you have all the means to correct it. Like you're the city, you have the power to correct correct things if we do anything

wrong. Um and then um beyond that, I think we're should be uh should be fair,

right? Well, this is our opportunity to influence this project going forward. So, um but you didn't really answer my question about this specific if you were to actually instead of using this as an opportunity for um funding to build more housing, which sounds fabulous. Um if in fact you instead of that you actually convert them or some of them to condominiums again in that specific condition. What what can we do to help somebody who perhaps didn't want to move or I mean I mean you can say well we you know we wait for something natural where people are moving on anyway but I so I'm just asking first right of refusal doesn't you or um I understand commitment to a 10-year restriction. That seems I I'm not interested in that. I am just wondering what specifically you would be interested in doing if somebody couldn't renew their lease, not because they weren't paying their rent or not because they crashed the place, but because you wanted to convert it to a condominium and they weren't ready to move.

So, the the element of um first round of proclusive meaning by that is the element of um uh when we sell they have they have the right to buy correct that's my understanding well that's fine I mean just like like they have that right anyway in the first place why was nothing preventing them to if the not but if the property is on the market to actually buy why what's what's the restriction on this I'm fine with it if you want to I'm fine with that thing but uh but doesn't really make any difference?

Potentially, it might, you know, I don't know, your cousin Vinnie wants to buy a condo and I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm just looking to protect generally the folks who are there. So, technically is that we'll put the property on the market and that's fine with that. And then it's well, not subtit, right? And if there's anything else that like say you're in the business, these are things I read that other cities are doing. This is not this isn't out of my head. This is out of other cities in California that are doing this.

Okay. So, but we need to to do something like that. So, we need to be careful whether that means that 12 units. Uh you you you plan to have a restriction all units. First, write a refusal on all the units would be what I had in mind. No, but wait a minute. How can I give the unit to my son for example?

That I isn't that a separate issue when it's your family that is moving in? I thought that that was something that landlords which is perfectly fair or if you or your immediate family wants to use a unit or move into a unit that that you know then somebody has to vacate to allow you to use your property that way. And it wouldn't be all 12 units anyway because you have two that are rentals, permanent rentals, right? No, that's they can be they have to be sold under the affordable. So you did the only reason you have those four instead of three is because you got the density bonus. Correct.

So it's not like that was something ownorous I don't think for you to provide affordable units so that you could get that density bonus and put foreign correct. So So what does that mean? My understanding is that you can sell you sell one under similar provisions that it has to be affordable at an affordable at an affordable price as determined by working with the city but it can be sold at an affordable price or rented at an affordable price.

Yes. So what it means is that out of those 12 two specific units are uh deed restricted. They need to be rented or sold if they are condos at what uh affordable housing dictates the price to be. Did we put a another one of those units in the third uh quad? Well, they got a density bonus. I know they did, but we should because we're so concerned about the affordability.

Huh? make it three. Instead of two of those affordable units, you put a make them all the same with a one affordable in each of the three blocks.

It's not like we're negotiating here. I don't understand uh what's what is what we're talking about, you know. Um if we need to uh do some sort of negotiation, I don't think it's the right forum. Um sorry, I I I will decline those kind of uh questions. So, I I was I was going to suggest that we uh that perhaps you might meet with the city staff and mutually tried to address some of the questions that we brought up, some of the concerns that we brought up. Um again, one of the concerns I have is loss of of rental. Um, another concern that that we've had in Mount Gast is losing homes that are for sale to um out oftowners who use it for vacation and then it's not available to locals. Um we uh chairman Finling raised the question about um uh persons who get displaced um and you know they can't afford to purchase but there may not be any available readily available alternative locations for them. U there there are some there are some questions that I'm I'm hearing that have come up as a result of our conversation. Um I'm wondering if if you would be willing to meet with the city planner, a city staff, city manager and and pick around those issues.

Well, Hang, we might be able to resolve this this evening. Um Alan, did you have a question? Yes. Um did I understand it that your intention is to uh part of the reason for doing all this is for capital capitalization and you're looking to develop additional sites, correct? you have you've already identified and possibly purchased some other properties correct to develop um is your intention to a similar program. Um correct I I think that's all really good. I think that we're I think we have a developer that's doing the kinds of housing we need. It's providing

it's providing rental housing and then it some of those can get converted to inexpensive um homes that can be purchased. I think that I think that's a I think that's a good thing. Yeah. I I'm hearing uh you say that um with the if the uh discretionary that he used his discretion to to grant the request for conduct version that you could actually then fill all 12 of them. Correct.

Sure. Well, and and then and then and then use that money to come to the city again uh say we want to build some rental property and we're going to we we'd like to get a a city bonus uh because we're going to we'll put on 12 units instead of whatever. I didn't understand that. One more time. Um, and then keep that for two years as rental and now you've gotten two bonus units and then turn around and sell those again.

Well, those units are going to be if they get if somebody gets a density bonus, then the units are either sold or rented for target incomes for I believe 55 years. So that's that's not going to change no matter who owns it. So I think the question before us really is um I think we satisfied our concerns about trash and snow storage that it was a um really an issue of enforcement and that's changed going forward. Back to those the storage garbage storage and snow removal and snow storage was an enforcement issue. Correct.

Correct. And that has been resolved going forward. Correct. How is that resolved?

Because it will be enforced now and it wasn't. I'm maybe and I don't know. I don't have anybody and maybe and we also have an opportunity because we're a little stuck in the weeds right now. So I'd like we can ask you to there's a likelihood that we'll ask you to come up and talk to us when after we're um moved through our public hearing and get to hear from other folks. So, for now, let's think about um whether I don't know, maybe some of the folks here can answer some of these questions, but let's move on to the public hearing, hear from other folks, and then there's a good chance we'll bring you back up to ask you more questions. Okay, I'll be there. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Um who would like to come speak to us this evening about the um condo conversion please come up to the mic and you have um in this case you have three minutes which is a little different standard I understand than the project proponent but there's a good reason for it. Good evening, Johanna Elwarker. Um, I have a couple um questions and clarifications and just some comments. Um, I'm not overly familiar with exactly where this location is, but um, first of all, I heard Belinda say that commercial real estate is a lot cheaper. Did What did I hear you say that?

Insurance. Insurance. Yeah, for insurance. because I heard the developer say it's cheaper for him to get condo insurance for an individual unit. So, I feel like there's a disconnect between what you Well, anyway, this isn't going to be a back and forth.

Yeah. No, I know. I just want to point that out. That's kind of what I heard. Um, and then I kind of share Tim's concerns about losing potential rental units because if that is really kind of the intent and the zone, well, not the zoning, but the the structure was the intent of that structure originally was X and then we're changing it to something else. Not really a zoning change, but anyway, um and 10 years in my opinion is a very short time. Um and it sounds like they're going to turn around and sell. Um uh let's see. There are state laws in California for relocation costs per tenants, but it sounds like they're on a monthto-month rental. And if they're on a month-to-month rental, I'm not exactly sure, but I think if it's no cause, I believe they would have to pay relocation, but could give a 90-day notice to a tenant. You'd have to look into that, but um so it sounds like it's very possible these units. I mean, you have to look at both sides. You know, the positive you know, maybe it'll get sold to a, you know, somebody who wants to buy a condo, but on the other hand, it um it's possible that the tenant will um might not be able to stay there longer. And then, uh oh, what do the neighbors have to say about this? because I actually someone commented to me at the mayor's coffee thing this morning and mentioned this project and it sounded like it was very crowded or whatever and so I'm not really sure if that's true or not. Um, but I'm just curious what the neighbors

think and also have the tenants written any letters in support of this and I don't think if they're tenants and they're renting now I find it unlikely that they would have money to buy the they might already have purchased something, but maybe not. Maybe we don't have enough price points low enough, so that might be in favor. We're down to 10.

Okay. Um, and then the last question was, can condos qualify under SB9 and 10? So, they further subdivide and that was kind of all of my questions and comments. I don't really know enough about this, but those are some of the thoughts. Thank you. Thank you. I'm hoping that some of the tenants are here to talk to us this evening. Um, who else would like to come up and speak with us this evening? Uh, I I appreciate the very indepth Area again.

Yeah. Okay. It's me again. Um, your whole name. But no, so it's on tape. So, it's not just speaking to us. There's a public there's a record of this and if it's on tape, then we can hear it later.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I I'm sorry. I thought I said my name the first time I came up. Area Wolf. I I'm I'm local here. Um I just want to say I appreciate the very indepth and rigorous uh digging into all the ins and outs because I have some of the same questions um about this. I don't know the I guess I don't know enough about the actual benefit of a condo conversion versus just a renovation of an apartment building if that's what you're doing. It would seem like the intent is to sell at least at some point if you're going to go to the condo conversion because my understanding is there are some specific requirements if it's going to be a condo versus an apartment that are somewhat different. Um, so it seems like it there would be, you know, an intent at least at some point to sell. Um, so my one of my other questions in addition to some of the other because obviously we do have a huge affordable housing issue in this area in general, not just Mount Shasta, the city, but our whole area. Um, and it is both in the rentals and in the homeownership area. So I understand there there is a need for more entry level. Um, so the condo could potentially meet that need for some people. Um, but also then you have to consider what are the condo association fees and everything on top of that. Sometimes those things make it a little out of proportion as far as monthly fees. Um, but then, you know, so we're working on the tiny houses. We're working on a lot of different things for potential entry level home ownership opportunities. Um, but also the rental market. um because there's a section of the population that can't qualify for a mortgage yet or at this stage in their life because of whatever's happened. Um so it's important to address the needs of the rental market too. And when there's no rentals then obviously the rental uh rates go through the roof too. So there's there's a balance and there's

both pieces of the market that need to be addressed. Um, and something I haven't heard mentioned yet. I'm not sure. Maybe this is what you were getting at when you asked about the CCNRs. Um, what would be the potential if they do get sold? Is that going to in any way u be turning into short-term rentals? Because that's also a piece as well as people with second homes and they're sitting vacant and that kind of thing that really impacts our housing stock in general as does the short-term rental market which hurts the locals quite a bit in a lot of ways. You know, even though there's tots issue, there's a lot of back and forth, but we we need at the end of the day workforce housing. We need affordable housing. We need housing that matches the income level of what our community actually has. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Aloha. Thank you.

Um same uh really good indepth left and right side. Um thank you for having this discussion. Um, I'm going to go on the same ideas that let's just say 5 years, 10 years from now, they decide to sell and it has to be at whatever the city determines a condominium's affordable rate is at the time whenever that sale happens. I think it's a little interesting that I think our individual medium income as an individual in the city of Mount Shasta is lower than the county uh individual medium income. And so as far as I know, which I might be wrong, but the county individual income is about 45,000. So the town homes that we have being built right now, if you make 45,000 or less, you qualify to be on that list. The powers group is coming around at the landing that's looking to pen towards worker qualified housing which means you have to be a worker here which also means you can't be retired which also means you can set up a business and become self-employed and then you can get on that list over there too. And just like the planning the city council's core uh points of keeping rental houses available rental available for that next ladder steps and talk and Belinda's uh I hope I said that right talking about you know the younger families just kind of got got to is stepping into this next ladder step but those bankers and those next, you know, that might be their next best step for them, a condominium. And so, we're kind of in this little

this world between low income and low low income and hella low income. We're kind of in that like what would match a condominium. So, I was um my my gut would tell me that if if the condominiums ever did sell 5 10 years from now at whatever we call affordable rate based on this and based on that, uh I just feel like there'd just be a lot no matter what you guys call affordable as a rate when you sell it will not be affordable to the average individual inside of Mount Shasta. So, it might be affordable to the bank or you know that level and it's important to think about that. Uh I just you know thank you and so yeah thank you for your consideration. I appreciate the topic and I thank you and the developer thank you so much for talking about this together. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Anybody else want to come speak us about the condo conversion? Um, commissioners, do we have any more questions of the project proponent? I can ask him to come back up if we do. And I think he'd like to come. Oh, wait. Hold on. We do. you want. So we are it's not a back and forth but you can tell us what's on your mind.

So in the very beginning he was kind of talking about time and talking about an agreement kind of a handshake deal I heard something like that. Anything that's a handshake deal can be written down even if you're considering you can call it a handshake deal but there needs to be writing to protect anything that's just kind of an understand what I'm referring to

um okay yes please come back up David again um so just uh been back And uh and then thinking to one of the questions I asked, I wasn't um aware of some of these concerns that the city had in the background. Not not nothing to do with the condominium itself. So the concern is um how you are making the housing available to the locals. This is probably one of your major concern because I kept hearing somebody from outside come by the house and leaves or does this stuff. So um I I would hope that um um some considerations have happened. I can give you a story or share that maybe you may know it in other places of the world where they face similar problems where housing is uh unaffordable as there's a shortage uh for um for the uh uh for the for the local I use the word locals here very precisely and this place is actually is in Canada especially in Vancouver area and Vancouver Island area in Victoria. So the they are come up after many many years of back and forth of cities and and equivalently developing these uh things they came up with a very interesting just ideas so that you don't have to go chase the developers as is like he's the bad guy. So those kind of ideas they came up with I'll share one of them is uh to maintain the availability of housing for the locals. They came up with first something very simple that houses that unoccupied are taxed very simple 2% on the value and uh and then so think of it is that there's so many other places ways to solve the problem versus to go after a developer that has make it his problem because I

can't tell you I could go to a different city it's not a deal to me uh like we would really need my help right now and city of be and then um So in in in perspective um in those kind of consideration is you'll see um that this is one example of solving a problem and then and then it can easily be implemented one simple ordinance. You can you don't have to be that rigid 2% um and then you can make it something similar is that uh the local needs you know the house needs to be occupied which means this portion of the house should be either rented or owner occupied. uh and then you'll see a big surge in the other of your houses right like within few months simple things that you is on tip of tip of your fingers to control things um and then I think just like to mention there are other example possibilities to think through that give you that power to make these um housing available uh for the community you want and you're looking for and you're looking to protect um this I'm going to share that with you as an example So that's just so many other ideas much simpler than this than we're trying to negotiate right now. Thank you.

Any other hang on I think we might have a commissioner question for you so stick around. You're important to stay there. Tim, go ahead. I appreciate your your talking about that. Um, as you may or may not know, the city matriast is is planning to build housing for sale housing uh on what we call the landing. For sale, you said, pardon, did you say for sale? For sale homes for sale on the landing.

But so that addresses some of the other concerns that that uh have been expressed here tonight. Um, again, that doesn't solve the rental issue in Mount Chast, the rental problem in Mount Chasta. Um, and I was talking to a broker earlier today. I happen to be a landlord myself. U, have nothing against landlords or developers, and I don't mean to sound like we're picking on you at all. But if the units are sold as condominiums, um, and the condominium owner, your son or whoever, doesn't choose to live in that condominium, yes, the person can rent it out, but it's going to be rented out at a higher rent than what the rents are now because the buyers are going to have additional uh money in and additional expenses. So, the rent's going to go up um and make that uh existing rental unit less affordable. At least in my mind, that that's one of my concerns. Um, and that's why I was seeing uh was trying to see if there was some way that um we could perhaps continue this hearing for a month till next month um to give staff and you an opportunity to address some of these issues.

Commission, right? That's up to We'll decide. Yeah. Whether Yeah, we will decide whether to Yeah, they could if there's some sort of agreement reached or proposal, we can consider that at the next meeting. Then I think maybe Wait, but we have to use the mic. I think it that may be something that we're going to need to discuss as a group rather than to the developer or the landlord. I'm not sure. I mean, he he's not going to he can't we'll decide that. That'll be one of the things we'll consider. Somebody might We may not agree with you and what you want. Right. That that's absolutely correct.

Right. And uh it's also it's not at all unusual at least from city city council um perspective. So we would often times invite um some further discussion with staff and see if some sort of agreement uh could be worked out that might be suitable. Um and but that's probably to be discarded and that would that would come back to the that would come back to the to the commission.

Okay. So um let's talk about the things we've so I think we've had three issues. I think we've agreed that two of them potentially are resolved. I think that we have um conditions of approval proposed by city staff that could help us um work on that. And um and we'll get to that in a minute. I think we may need to take a little break to have time to read it before we decide on that. I think the place that we're struggling right now is what kind of tenant protections we already have the state of California's tenant protections in place which are robust. Um we talked about you know Tim suggested you know 10 years until you sell but that is a pretty ownorous request if things if you want to continue to build um additional housing,

right? So, and we will we have plenty of time for that. So I'm saying is but while we still have you up here um what we talked about um first right of refusal is a condition that you would agree to that would that would work for you and work for you going forward that works with us I mean at this point as I said before um this should not be an issue because in in in a in effect is just we put the house let's you're the tenant. I'll ask you like to buy the house for say $100,000 is because I'm not interested. So the next step for the market, it doesn't change much.

Doesn't change much, but it does give that person that opportunity. Of course. Yes. Right. And so that so that's great. So that is one potential condition we can add that works for you. It sounds like um the lease leasing is works otherwise. Um, it sounds like there are provisions in state code about providing if if somebody is evicted not for cause that there are other protections for tenants,

right? So, um, so I'm going to suggest unless, um, because I would like to get through this tonight. Um, I would suggest that if does anybody else have a potential tenant protection that they would like to see if that would work for them. Otherwise, um, I think we're going to go we're I'm going to close the hearing and we're going to have commission discussion. Is there anything else? And use the mic. I have a question of staff. Um, the process. We talked about the process uh Malu, correct? Maloo. Yes.

Maloo went through and he got his uh the agreement for the additional units. Was that based on them being rentals or was it was it just that's just the process they went through at the time or could it have been condos at the time? The developer went through that density bonus provision back in 2022. There was no distinction at the time whe or not these would be for rent in perpetuity or for rent to for sale at certain period. That was not discussed because it's not really a land use.

And our and our um our our uh the program whatever for getting density bonuses isn't based on one or the other. It is not. It in fact says that the uh affordable units go with the go with the units. And so for rent or for sale, the affordability factor still applies. That's the deed restriction. The deed restriction, I'm sorry, the deed restriction is applicable for a rent model or a for sale model. Okay. So that doesn't change. So the agreement to give them the density bonus. There was no um there was no requirement for rental. Correct. There was no requirement.

So um I management team. So that so as um for you guys similar to the SP9 SP10 models these are California specific laws that give those specific uh density bonus uh units. So it's nothing to do with the city itself. These are California's specific uh functions. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your um help with this. All right. Anybody else want to speak to us? Otherwise, I'm going to close the public hearing.

That was No, I'm closing the public hearing. And now, um, commissioners, uh, thoughts going forward? Belinda? Michael? Yes. I think that the snow and trash has been dealt with and we understand. Have you read I I feel like I need a minute to read what um Kim has written about proposed proposed changes. So do we want to take a five minute use the bathroom read the little things and stuff or do you want to read them out loud or

I don't really want to read them out loud. I think I want to read them to myself. Okay, let's take a five minute break and we're gonna study break or whatever study break um and we're going to read your proposals for conditions of approval and um come back to it Okay. No language.

So, I need people to be quiet. All right. Are we Are we live? Thank you very much. All right. We're back from our break. Um, we're still working on item five, which the public hearing for the tenative parcel map at 804 Carman Drive. Um, commissioners, I'm going to let folks have comments and questions about where we are in the process. Um, Linda,

no, I'm good. Okay. I feel good about the project as as presented. I like some of the changes we're proposing to put together for the conditions of approval. Um I don't haven't identified what they need to be yet, but generally I'm feel good about the proposal. Okay. Well, I'll talk about that a little bit. Tim,

I make a motion that we uh table action on this item until the next meeting uh to give uh de veloper and staff an opportunity to discuss uh some of the issues that raised tonight, maybe brainstorm and come back with something that we um all feel good about that uh um will meet the concerns. Okay. Uh we have a motion from Tim. Do we have a second? We don't have a second. So, our um motion fails for lack of a second. Um with that, do we have any anything else to add?

Uh I would um move that we uh add some additional conditions to the approval. Um in terms of u provision for displaced tenants um in good standing and also um a period of time um say 10 years or at least half the unit that's to remain rental not be sold.

Okay. So you move to approve with two conditions of approval as with those with two additional additions um condition. Actually there's another one. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. that uh this deals beats u for uh full-time ownership usage rather than for vacation homes. If I can interject,

our two properties are ineligible for short-term rental permits already. So, this property already does not qualify for short-term rental permit. But I think his I think his point has to do with um with with basically having an empty condominium because the person who purchased it purchased it as a as a vacation home instead of instead of as their primary residence. Am I correct?

Yeah. We have a we have a number number of homes um that were available for locals in the past but have been bought up uh in our town uh to be used for vacation rentals by the owners. Um oftentimes fourth of July uh ski season it usually is one or two weeks out of out of the year at their second home. But it's taken both the rental and the long-term uh ownership for locals off the market. Right.

This is a familiar problem. Is there a is there a has cities responded? That's the problem a lot of cities have. Are there ways other communities have responded to to that? I mean I would think that uh taking this individual project and and conditioning it that way would be pro potentially problematic unless there's a a way a model that other communities have used to somehow restrict restrict have that sort of restriction. Are are we talking about prohibition for any sort of rental? No, no, no. We're talking about um whether the house is occupied as a primary residence or as a vacation second home.

That is a larger discussion that will need to be had. It's a problem that that uh Tahoe area has experienced. Uh and there's been a number of articles, publicity about how locals can't find a place to to live. I share your concern about that 100%. However, I think to Alan's point that conditioning this property and not looking at other properties in town is problematic. But go ahead with your with your motion, please. Well, let's let's take those three separately. How's that?

So, right now, you have a motion to approve with um a 10-year prohibition on selling half of the units. Oh, what were the others? And a um and not allowing the units be used as a second home, but rather they need to be a primary occupancy. And what was the third one? Provision for displaced tenants and the provision for Okay, so we have a motion that can be discussed as to what those provisions would be. Okay, so we have a motion. Do we have a second?

And we don't have a second. So that motion dies. Um I'm going to take a crack. I'm going to let you you know what I'm thinking about this. Um so one um because we have agreement with the project proponent that we could include an additional condition on top of these that a tenant in good standing would get first right of refusal for purchase during a condominium conversion. I would propose that as I'm not making a motion. I am opening this up for conversation with the commissioners. I would propose that as a condition of approval to include first product refusal for purchase for a tenant in good standing.

Can I ask a question about that? Yeah. Do those teeth use your mic. Use your mic. Do those hold teeth? I mean, as the as the developer said, he's not going to keep it secret from the from the tenant that they're that it's up for sale. I mean, it's not so before it goes to market, it would the tenant would have first read of refusal before they Okay, that sounds legal to me. I I found other cities do this other we can't get um input from our developer. Well, I asked him that one specifically and he said it was all right. So, that's why hands up and I wonder can we still do that? Come on up.

And that was that was the reason rather than trying to work all this out tonight. Well, that one I think we could work. Just want to clarify. This is David Maluk. Want to just clarify one statement. The lease does specify clearly that the complex the units will convert to conduct. So they're really aware of it. Not like I need to tell them. already aware in their leases and they sign on it.

Okay, great. Thank you. So, it's really just giving the tenant the opportunity to figure out if they can buy it before it goes on the market. That's my proposed condition. My second um so we have the conditions that we'll also have to talk about here um that we could add to the project. Um I was concerned that I just wanted to make sure we noted that in terms of the project description that the property is compatible in its existing state with a condo conversion. Nothing needs to be modified. And so when I was talking to Kim earlier, that's why I wanted to include it as one of our conditions so that the public would know that as I think doing our duty to say that this property can be converted to condominiums without modification because it exists in that state. So that's why that is in here. So that's something that um if we decide that these new conditions of approval are satisfactory, that's why that one's in there. And if we want to include that,

that's a that's an additional condition of approval you want added that C added that we have before us in this memo. Yeah,

that's why that's in there and that's why I thought it was a good idea. Um regarding the trash number nine, I don't think This I think that maybe this is part of the problem because it doesn't it says that the trash has to go in bins or trash collection receptacles. The only trash collection receptacles that tenants have right now are the ones that are provided by waste management. And those are part of the problem because they're not they don't keep wildlife out and wildlife is the problem. So I don't think this condition of approval is satisfactory. I'd like to change it. I also think that the snow one because it comes straight out of our code is adequate and I'm happy with that. So, um we need another condition about how that there was an enforcement problem and it doesn't if this is what they're um if this is what it says in their um CCNRs, it doesn't say that you have to store it in the garage. So what they have now is therefore inadequate in my opinion because there's a problem.

Yeah, I'd like to see the CCN before I vote. Well, I don't think there's a way because I I have written them. I also have I also have represented HOAs and POEs. I have familiarity. Right. Well, this is according to um Kim. He pulled these right out of the CCN. And so Right. I mean, I'm sympathetic because I would want to keep my bike and my car in there. I hope there's room for that. But really, so there's an area that's adequate to store trash.

Well, well, not not if you have a huge pickup, right? Okay. So, I would suggest that we need to So that crash is stored in individual garages can be can be stored. We're not going to force the tenants to do that. If they don't do that, then the trash is going I live not very far from there for quite a long time. I never trashed I never put my trash inside. I didn't keep my trash inside. Did you read? But you saw Linda's Tit right now the Bears have found their open their

and and those land owners need to be proactive about that. I don't know that writing a commission for them inside I don't know place we want to start if they I live there nearby for you know how long you live there I live in the corner there outside yes no ever I had I had bear I had bears in the backyard a bunch of times not a bunch of times but enough times well right now there's a the way people are storing their

this is an opportunity to actually say you have to store it in your garage because that's the only way to keep the bears from knocking over the trash cans. Okay, so that's my suggestion. Yeah.

Individual garage, right? Individual garages. Okay. All right. So, um number five. How? So, I meant number five. Number five. What are we doing?

I know it's number. She wanted to add first. Oh, we would add a an 11th condition of approval, which would be that tenants in good standing have first right of ref refusal to purchase if and when the condo the rental unit is turned into a condominium. First right of refusal. Yeah. And then all of those

and then as I would say that the resolution and the commission as submitted by staff with the following changes. I am not ready.

So, does somebody want to take a crack? I'm just taking a crack right now. Oh, good. Okay. But you have to speaking with Mike. my but comprising myself. Um I make a motion. Don't we have discussion before a motion? We certainly can. I Yes, please. We can have discussion motion.

No, you please go ahead. We the way we do it is very collaborative before and usually the by the time we get to a motion we kind of agreed with where we're heading is how we typically do it. So if you have more to add please do

that's where it comes down to I haven't I'd love to hear what Tim has to say. And then we and then you want Well, no, but usually usually what we do is we built our motion before the final motion is made. That's what we usually do, which is what we just to add to what potentially is going to be the motion that Belinda makes. or if you have opinions about what I said, please go ahead and chime in now.

Well, again, I would propose louder. I can't hear you. And if I'm writing this down this way, again, I would propose that there be some consideration or protections for uh tennis U who get displaced who can't afford to buy the unit. Um number one I mean and I don't know if we discussed that separately. Is there anyone other than the chair who who agrees with that idea?

Well that was why I proposed the first right of refusal as one protection. I think that the state of California has quite a few protections in place and um I'm I think that anything else that we put on there I'm hoping to take the project proponent at his word that they tend that the the the long the midterm view is to retain these as rentals. Um I don't want to I would like for them to be able to access some of that equity they have in there. And if with the condo conversion, then they can mortgage individual units and that gives them cash to start another project, which I think would be lovely in our town. If we can facilitate that, I think this is an opportunity

at the present time. the city were to approve take discretionary action to approve uh the request to convert to condominiums. There is nothing to prevent the developer from selling all 12 immediately. That's right. There's no there's nothing in place right now either. And the the the problem he he was willing to make a handshake agreement but not anything that was enforceable. Okay. Um there is no existing lease agreements.

There is um you know I've looked at the last two uh general planning housing elements. Um they both going back to the 2014 to uh 20 24 uh or 2014 to 2019 rather. U goal number one was adequate supply of housing provide an adequate supply of sound affordable housing for existing and future residents. More specifically, HO4.2.3 2.3 of that general plan housing element said the city shall consider adopting a condominium conversion ordinance that would limit the ability to convert from rental units to condominium units taking into account the impact of the conversion on the availability of rental units in the new general plan housing element. moment. There is considerable discussion about the shortage of u rental housing. Um also not only the shortage of rental housing but the rent being overburdened meaning um rent is overburdening if it's more than 30%

of a person's uh income or household income. Um to a great extent rentals in Mount Chassa are as much as 48% of a person's income or household income. Um, if these units are sold as condominiums and then rented out again, that's going to raise the rent, making them less affordable, which is contrary to the intent of the general plan. I would argue that that's not necessarily how it would happen. If they were able to get say $1,200 a month for it by buying it, they're going to get 1,500 by buying it. when property is sold. I know typically the rent goes up because the buyer has to cover additional cost that has and does that mean that there'll be people available to pay that if if they found if they found a a a level where they're able that we we've found that nobody pays over $1,200 here and they decide that we're gonna we need we need more so I'm going to you know we're going to charge more. Not having not having renters is going to affect that price. I would assume

yes, but traditionally again I spoke with I spoke with today rather than what what are you making what do you want to add to this and I'll see if I want to put it in there. I think that Well, I'm I'm discussing the pros and cons of this.

You have discussed the pros and cons and let me go further because It's in our general plan housing element for multiple years. Mount Casta rental vacancy rate has been zero. So I think that um I don't run want a foul of our housing element in any stretch. Um taking again taking him for his word this is not It has the potential to create more housing by freeing up funds to build more housing. Therefore, I'm not sure that we and that we can predict there will be housing even if I mean tomorrow he could they could put all 12 of them on the market and they could be sold to somebody else, right? I mean there's there's things out of our control. Can I continue?

Again, the current general plan housing elements section 5.8.1 which talks about existing affordable housing. Affordable housing is below a certain income level. um indicates there are 91 housing units and three properties that are at risk of converting to market rate within 10 years from the start of the planning period of the city's 2023 2031 housing element. Some of those units probably won't convert to from affordable housing to market rate. But there is a possibility that at least 28 of those units will convert meaning making making

we have to okay let's finish let us finish his sentence and then I do want to hear what you have to say finish your sentence

the uh program F2 in The housing element u action plan talks about reduce conversion risks. Um because the city the city council has it has indicated the importance of keeping rentals. It's not a right to convert from a rental to a condominium. That's a discretionary action. And and what we as city representatives have to look at is what's in the best interest of the city and the citizens of the city, not just the developer.

I agree. My No, I agree. Go ahead. Yeah. most of what you read and I understand we have we have a problem with housing housing whether it's rentals whether it's um houses for sale I think both of those exist we've all been on we've all been on planning commission 12 years or more we're familiar with with the direction we want to take can use mic

sorry um and uh what we've been trying to do is build a motion that we it may not be unanimous, but we've had two motions from you that have been voted down. We're trying to build a motion that it might not get all four of us, but that we might pass. So, can we do that? Yes. If we can at least protect if not all of the units for a period of time, at least some of the units for a period of time as

that's not how it works. We don't have to agree that that's what we have to do. the three of us can come up with something and and vote on it and it doesn't have to it does not have to be protecting what how you're interpreting that. Exactly true. And Ellen, what you had asked if I understood your question was correctly was is there a way that we can make this unanimous? No. No. That's that's what I thought you said. No, I didn't say that. I said there is Melanie typically wants to have a a unanimous across the board. I think that's a worthy goal. I don't care.

Well, okay. So, I mean, I agree to Tim's point. Um, but I have to say, we talked about doing a condo conversion ordinance and we couldn't get city council to do that. So, for years, we've talked about trying to do a condo conversion ordinance and without buying from city council, it never happened. So um this is what we have today. We don't have guidance with an ordinance. I think we have an opportunity to potentially again taking out his word to build more units by doing this. And if and that's what they say the more we build the more housing opportunities we'll have. Thank goodness we have target income housing being built right this minute here in town and that's huge and that was I don't know 15 years in the making. So I think that um this I mean this can happen fairly quickly if that's how they move you know we potentially could have housing more housing soon and more housing is going to help take some of the pressure off and you got to I'm also not sure that this That's new. It's not affordable housing. It wasn't It had two units. It has two units, but it is not

never has been affordable. It's not affordable housing except for the two units, but it is rental housing and the general plan both. We don't know what its future is. The general plan makes we don't know whether he's going to sell all of it or he's going to rent all of it or he's going to keep it as rentals and so on. And we can't put we can't do that. If we're going to do that, we're not going to get anybody to build anything. We also don't have any assurance. I mean, there's a carrot saying, "Hey, let us convert these uh and sell them and we'll build more units, but there's no assurance of that either." Um,

there's very little assurance. No. That's the nature. That's the nature of And what I what I heard the developers say was, "Let me sell some of the units so that we have some." No, that's not what he said. That's not actually what he said. So, um, do you want to interject just a moment? Please go ahead.

This is David Loop again. I'd like to provide you some facts. I think there's a presumptions that uh, you know, you mentioned if if we If it gets sold, somebody buys it, the the new rent going to be higher. I think this is not correct. In the same street on Carmen and the the block next to it, there are lots of condominiums just across city. You anybody can get the statistics and realize that actually rentals there exist predominantly also even though there are condominiums does not means it's a condominiums the ownership means you have higher prices. prices actually are lower and also they are for rent. So does that mean condominium meaning is no longer available. These are statistics. If you want to know the future even though in 10 years or 20 years it will follow that statistics. These are facts. Anything else becomes decorative. And these facts are very positively speaking that the future will not change much on the rental market even though there are condos and just in the same block not across the town it just the next building the next building. So all that block are condominions and rental is dominant. I'm going to say the facts that you own.

All right. Thank you. All right. I think it's time to um make a motion. Go ahead and let's see where we go. Try to implement this. Uh where did that page go that you handed me that had the Thank you.

The first one is agenda is 804. 804 806 and 809. Are they dealt with separately then? Correct. Right now I'm hoping we are currently on agenda number five which is 804 Carbon Drive somewhere. Um oh there it is. So I make a motion to approve the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Mount Shasta California approving the and we're just going to start with the first one right there. This is three elements.

No, we're gonna we're gonna have to bundle it separate. No, we're going to do three separate public hearings, but like I say, I think we've done the heavy lifting. So, we're just going to do this one right now. But we'll Which one? We're doing We're just right now 804. We are only doing 804. Oh, right there. Yeah. uh approve uh approving the tenative parcel map at 804 Common Drive, Mount Shasta, California. Um with the addition, the findings have been So the findings are a separate approval, aren't they? Usually,

huh? Conditions of approval. Why aren't you doing this? Like I told you, uh that we add to our conditions of approval the first a refu refusal to any tenant in good standing. Conversion

in the case of it being sold as a condominium. in the case of it being sold as a CA condominium. That we approve the uh snow removal aspect that was in question and that we have changed slightly the trash to include rather than um trash collection receptacles located within the development. They will now be tenants will their trash collection in their individual garages,

their trash receptacles. Um, do you want to So, you could say that um the memo that the city staff provided with the new conditions of of approval because we also have the project and uh this is including the memo that the city planner Right. Correct. Correct. Uh gave us with all the additional information and approve those findings and conditions.

I can I can make that pretty brief staff. So, if I understand correctly, the motion from Commissioner Higera is to approve this proposal um subject to the revised conditions of approval as indicated in the memo brought to you this evening with additional changes outlining the fact that number one, uh there will be a condition written in for tenants in good standing to have first right of refusal for purchase of of units. Um there is a modification in the crash or rubbish uh condition of approval in that no occupant shall permit or

that the occupant or tenants um shall keep their trash inside their individual garages and that this also includes the acceptance of the snow provisions that are added as number 10. Oh, we have a motion. We have second from commissioner parard. Um commissioners all in favor I. Commissioners opposed nay.

So we have three in favor one opposed. Commissioner Stern opposed. Uh the motion passes. And now we're going to we're finished with item five. We're going to move on to item six. I'm going to speed this up and Uh unless commissioners have any objections, I am going to open the public hearing because it is a public hearing and request that anybody who'd like to come to speak to us on this item, you may come up now. This is Oh, I'm sorry. 806 Carmen Drive.

Right. So, this is the same thing. Attentive parcel map for four condominiums at 806 Carman Drive. Essentially, the entire packet is identical to the one we just went through um for 804 Carmen Drive. If anybody would like to come speak, um you may do so now. You have three minutes and let us know who you are so the public will know who you are. Introduce yourself. Johanna, um I just wanted to add that you want to make adding conditions that perhap um I don't know but I think it should be looked into and perhaps it could be made a condition of to have condos be subject for rent control and just cause evicting rules because I think there's some question um that that might not be the case with condos as it is with rental units. So that might be a good condition to add and also that everything is in writing versus a handshake deal because that's just not good business practice.

Thank you. Anybody? All right. Anybody else? Okay, I am going to close the public hearing. Um commissioners, comments, questions? Otherwise, um I'll take a motion. I move to duplicate the 804 conditions of a pool for the 806 Carman Drive, Mount Chasta, California.

Okay, we have a motion from Belinda to approve um the motion duplicating the previous motion for 804. Um do I have a second? Uh Alan Party seconded. Uh, commissioners, all in favor? I opposed.

So, the motion passes with three in favor, one opposed. Tim Sterns opposed. Um, moving on to item seven, uh, tenative parcel map for four condominiums at 809 Karma Drive. Again, for the public, this um staff report, all of the provisions, everything is a duplication of the previous two because it's public hearing. Um unless there's objection from commissioners, I'm going to open the public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to us on this um condo conversion, please come up now. You have three minutes. Seeing no one coming up to speak for us and we're going to close public hearing commissioners comments or does somebody want to make a motion? I move to approve the conditions for the 809 Carman Drive California as the duplicate of the 804 and 806 drive.

Do we have a second? All seconded clarification yes I think u the moving party wants to move uh adoption of resolution PC 2026-003 with the same changes that were made for 804 and 806. You know what that's tidying it up. Thank you. Is that all right with the those motion and the second? All right then. Um, commissioners. All in favor? I opposed. No.

So, the motion passes. Three in favor, one opposed. Tim Sterns is Tim Sterns opposing. And thank you everyone. We're going to move on to a completely different topic now. Item eight, which is a public hearing for a revised architectural review for um our um Teslant Street buildings on the the um Testament Street project. Commissioner,

we can have Commissioner Serion rejoin us. Patience, Commissioner. All right. All right, Kim, take it away, please.

Okay, planning commissioners, the next item on the agenda is item number eight. This is for a revised architectural design review for the mountain to town homes at the corner of Chestnut and Ivy. Um since approval of this project back in 2023, um the construction team has identified that perhaps stucco is not the best sighting material as it cracks and it requires a lot of maintenance. So, the construction team is coming back to staff now and through the planning commission seeking approval to have areas where uh the sighting has been approved as stucco to now be sighting um lap sighting instead. There are no color changes. There are no other changes. Um it's just a material change for the buildings.

Uh are you done? Uh yeah, sure. I'm I'm done. That was it. Then yes, that's sighting. Uh can we specify that it's not wood sighting? We can. In fact, it may already be specified. Let me let me go to It just says sighting and what I or lap sighting and I just Ton, what's the concrete?

Fiber cement lap sighting. So it's fiberment board. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry I missed that. Thank you. Okay, sorry man paper. Uh, all right. So, we ascertain that it's um basically hard equivalent. Uh, any other questions or comments for staff? Clarifications for staff.

Do you know if color is Is it going to be a different color from the vertical to the horizontal be all one color? Whatever colors were previously approved shall remain. So there are no color changes. So if it if it was red stuck, it's still red sighting.

Go ahead. So I don't necessarily agree with their stuckco things how Barry Veil stuck to death and u but they may not have the money to do as good a duck job as we did. So I understand that but what I don't like is that they took and rather than having they made all they had been doing boards this way and this way and all of a sudden they all the boards going like this.

Right? So, I apologize that that was a little bit confusing. Um, so in figure two in your staff report, the the red bubbles and the orange bubbles are calling out where the materials have changed from stucco to sighting. If you go down to figure three, uh, staff identified a few sections where it kind of looked funny in that the original approval may have had sighting go horizontal, but maybe in this exhibit it's now vertical. So there was clarification with Danco. Um the confirmation is that no, there are no sighting changes whatsoever. So if it was previously approved as horizontal, those planes are still horizontal. If it was previously approved as vertical, those planes are still vertical. The reason for the inconsistency in this particular drawing is some sketch program that they were using couldn't manipulate the layers to show them correctly. But they did confirm and I will verify with our building inspector that the sighting orientation has not changed and is not proposed to change.

So all the sighting will be one direction. No no no whatever. So sighting for for arctic for architecture you know relief and and so so on. It was previously proposed to be a combination of vertical and horizontal and that has not changed even though it may look like that in this exhibit. the siding hasn't changed. I don't like it. I like to stay with what I say. And um Okay. Anything else commissioners before I open up the

If I might expand on that, one of the reasons I think staying was I don't I like that look of differing materials. It helps with the mass and the feel of the building. I don't I don't having it all be given the size of the structure and stuff like that having it all be linear whether it's both vertical and horizontal I don't think is is pleasing to the eye and I don't think that um trying to save the developer some money just because it's a little bit more they didn't figure that in no to me I say no

okay anyone else right I'm going to open up our public hearing for the revised architectural design review for 735 Teslant Street. Um, anybody would like to come speak, introduce yourself and you've got three minutes. Johanna Alor and um, I think I have a solution for your sighting dilemma. Hardy board makes a smooth board, a smooth wall, which is because the fiber cement board is basically it's almost like a Stuckco. have to use a cement saw to cut it, but they make a smooth board that's flat and it's got a very nice finish to it. And I know this because I I'm using Hardy board myself. So, it's a great product. It's a little bit more work, but I think it'll give the desired effect. And you hardy horde has two it has smooth board and it has um the it has the horizontal panels and likeos carries it and you you can just buy it. So but smooth board would probably be the way to go to keep your architectural differences and then party board is really not that much different than Stuckco. Anyway, those are just my two cents. So I think you can make it work.

Thank you. Sure. All right. Anybody else? You know what? Um, any of that? This is the only thing we have tonight on our agenda that relates to that. This is a public hearing. All right. So, anyway, this is um if they're not and this was on the agenda. I don't know what to say. I'm sorry. I wish they were here. Okay. So, then if you're going to speak to us, you can come on up and introduce yourself and talk into the mic and then we're happy to engage

and hear what you have to say. And we need to make sure that the public needs to be able to hear what the conversation is. I'd love to be recorded. Okay. So, you're talking about a Deno project at Street. So, introduce yourself, please. First, Swson. Three minutes.

At the beginning of this meeting, I didn't know Dango was on the agenda. And I spoke to Kim about my question that there is now 24 units, three stories high. And my question to all of you is, do you know anybody that has only one car in their house? And I think we have a consideration of 50 cars at that corner that have to be dealt with. I don't know how much on-site parking they have. I don't know if there's curb parking, but I've made a suggestion that the property that's adjoining that's owned by the city be tiparred and stabilized and made into parking with solar covers that would light up the whole corner. So, I think we have to resolve a parking problem because I know I don't know one person that has one car. So, I think that needs to be addressed as to how many parking places they have on site and it needs to be resolved and we own the property next door. The city does. So, thanks for listening. All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, then I'm going to close our public hearing. Uh, Commissioner Um the idea of the um the hearty panels that are flat

or maybe it's quiet. Is it on? Is this on? Oh yeah. I kind of like the idea of the massing if they're that much different. And that might be a solution using the the Hardy panels. Although the problem is the seam you still seams. So, they'll have to put, you know, a batten over that, but they'll be much further away than I'm not I'm not sure how it would look is what I'm saying. How big are the panels?

Usually like, you know, 4 by eight by 3x five11 plywood, whatever. Yeah. So that that's something that that they would use probably under their their board siding is the vertical very likely. It's not used as a not usually but I have heard of stucco panels that are not stuckco but textured panels something that they could look at although there's very still seems.

Yeah, they just But they're almost not noticeable. Yeah, I don't know. I I'm not sure if we can get that specific in this response. Well, we could be generally say that um you know, it can't be the linear panel. It can't be a linear lap. They might have a a That's, you know, that's part of those products that that are like inset. Yeah. It doesn't have to be like a a thick batten over it, but it could be like a thin inset. Could be part of the architecture.

Do they do that? Have I seen that with like is it aluminum or something? Yeah, it could be like an aluminum um panel. Yeah, that's intentional, you know. Yeah. And a 4 by unit, I assume. Still. some large panel like that. Sorry, that's better than what they're proposing, but I don't like what they're proposing. That might I don't know how I'm thrilled that we have two design professionals on the planning commission to help us with this. So, thank you. Yeah. Okay, Alan, anything else?

Well, That's what I said. I don't think we we should say no. Okay, Tim. Well, um I think we can say no. I I the project the Vanco folks aren't here. That makes it a lot harder for us. Um so they're not here. Um and I think it's probably timesensitive judging from where they are in the stage of instruction. They are hoping to have the first set of um CEOs by November. November. So, but they want to put signing on

but working backwards from November there there's still many things, right? Okay. but putting signing on there. Um well perhaps um we could continue this and they could come back with a proposal for something besides uh lapsiding. Can can we uh ask them to come and present and tell them our concerns kind of thing and and extend and continue this meeting? Can we do that?

Yes, we can do that. Could we suggest that these products that were mentioned as an alternative and that maybe they could bring those products in so we could see them? Yes. Okay. Do a little work here or at least some some way to describe how something besides what they've proposed. Correct. to preserve what we've approved to preserve the look of what we approved however many years ago that was do we noted. So the the intent is to have varying textures so it's not just siding sighting signing siding lines lines lines lines lines lines. Yeah. Right. That is what we approved.

Okay. It was lengthy. Can I make a motion? Go for it. I make a motion we continue this meeting and request the developer show up with samples or some other way of showing examples of their uh proposal and let them know that we're not in favor of the Do we have a second? I'll second. Seconded. Commissioners, all in favor? I

opposed. None. Motion passes unanimously. About that. Uh, moving on to discussion of item nine. Um, we're going to discuss our parklet ordinance. Kim,

good evening again. Uh, agenda number nine, this is a result of a new planning director coming into a seat and auditing all of the ordinances on her desk and going, "Oh, hey, there might be an opportunity to revisit some of these items." Um, the city's parklet ordinance last came to the planning commission roughly about a year ago when Jeff Mitchum was still here. Um, I recently view the tapes for the four public hearings uh that this ordinance went through. Um the planning commission at the time spoke at length about the difference between the temporary parklets as they are now and what it would mean to convert them to something that looks more like a permanent feature. So in 2025, the commission uh adopted some some language around design, permanence, and character. So there are three three or four paragraphs in here that speak to that. Um when I joined the city staff back over the summer, summer 2025, I noticed that the first sentence in the ordinance still said temporary, non-permanent. So part of this exercise is to to clean up some language um if the commission still agrees that going towards a more permanent feature is the way to go. So we would be striking out the temporary non-permanent language to make the ordinance internally consistent and replacing that with permanent. Um another item that came up was a was a review logistical item in that the ordinance on paper requires the planning commission to review and approve the on an annual basis. In reality, because we have two park lists that have already been approved, they just get renewed annually by staff and that has not been coming back to the planning commission.

So the question tonight is also does the commission wish to see these annual parklet renewals or would you like staff to review the renewals or would you like to review just the new ones that come in for review and approval and staff can handle the renewals or any one of the combinations or permutations thereof. Um and then the last one is just a the last item is just a recommendation for encouraging the use of canopies and covers so that on a bright sunny day maybe there might be an encouragement to use an umbrella or some other shading material for guests that are sitting outside. Um that is all I have for right now. There are two photos of the parklets, one for pipeline and one for craft house included in your staff report. This is just a discussion item. So at this point um staff will just be seeking planning commission direction on next steps. Thank you. All right, commissioners. Um, let's start down at your end. Tim, thoughts, questions?

I would like to uh give uh owners an opportunity to have either permanent or temporary. There are some uh restaurants that may be seasonal. Um as long as they create a stable platform um then they can remove it when they're off to wherever. So, that would be one thing. Um, in terms of um requirement that they have a a covering, I think that would be up to the business owner. They might decide to use umbrellas. They might decide because of their particular location, it's already in the shade, so they don't really need a covering. Um and most importantly um I think um once the standards are in place we ought to let the the staff uh ministerally approve.

Okay. Mike, I want to entertain the idea of them being the way they're being built now. Even the newest ones, they're not permanent. Correct.

So, I mean, using the terminology, maybe that's why we got stuck on it. I actually would like them to be hardcape and steel myself and they and either they take up the in the sidewalk. We moved out and take out the I'm not horribly satisfied with the park idea as it as it stands. I mean, they they add nice seating there, the little addition. I like the fact that we have that outdoor seating option. It's I like the idea of having reason I like covering and stuff like that is because they have color color and movement and that that's the thing I like about it. Um the other noted on the page that is chapter 19.03 parklet parklet uh dining um

that's the ordinance as it's written today. Okay. Uh you caught the uh per non-permanent and non-permanent platform constructed a talking about a a um but it says is constructed within the traveled portion. We don't have them in the travel portion either. They're in the parking portion. We don't they're not in the travel. It's considered part of the travel. It also says here in the parking separate language on part C. So all I'm looking for is consistency in language. I know that

um that is a that what we have is C on street dining by this definition. I don't care what we call them really. Um uh but that just going along with your uh update of the of the language here. Let's let's get that as well, please. Um I would prefer of these descriptions I would prefer I know this is going backwards in time, but I would prefer the uh sidewalk cafe. That's my What would you prefer to be?

B. Um my understanding when we were having these conversations um that a sidewalk cafe was something that is on the sidewalk where the I mean it would be a deeper sidewalk than we typically have that was a separate very separate thing than a parklet which is something that is in the street closer No, I understand. No, I think you're right. I'm I'm just saying I like them. I like them, too.

There's a bunch of them down in Chico and stuff like that, but I think they're really they're attractive. They're they're instead of Anyway, I like them, but we don't have adequate sidewalks. Well, then the sidewalk in Chico, what they've done is here's your traveled way, here's your parking strips, and the buildings on either side. They um move the park. They they move the sidewalk into the parking lane. Oh, and so that is permanent.

Yes. Now, we have a problem partially because we have such a highly pumped road. So, there are some physical issues in the design of it. But it could be could be done building like think, you know, it used to be village books and lots of restaurants. That doesn't matter. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Alan, are you done?

Um, I agree with Alan that uh to call these permanent isn't accurate because they're year to year and they would tell them to take them down. Uh, I think we the planning commission should review any new parklets but nothing else. Um, and the problem I have with um the canopies which or covers is that if it's a canopy, an umbrella can be closed down if it's windy. And man, there's been some bizarre winds and I'm worried about a canopy unless it's retractable where they can roll it up, you know, otherwise I mean there's been so many weird wind episodes. It's not not good. scary actually. Um, then I'm under limitations. Uh, what did I do? Did I miss it? Limitations. Um, parklets must be uh number C2, traffic limitations. Uh, I think I thought the state of California passed a law that nothing could be within 20 feet of an intersection. I mean, we're not even supposed to have a parking spot by those things, but we do. And I I don't care about that, but I think we should change that to a parklet must be at least 20 ft from the any street corner or intersection.

The ordinance currently reads under C2, parklets must be at least 15 feet from any street corner or interception and 15 feet from any active driveway connection.

Yeah. Now, the driveway, I don't know whether that matters, but I think there's a state law that got passed and nobody's enforced it that it's a 20. We're not supposed to park 20 feet with in any intersection, which won't work. And I'm not trying to get that one done, but at least the parklet should have that in there. And um I think uh they started talking about all the numbers of parklets that could be in city blocks. I think it's extreme five. And on either side of the street, does that mean both sides are included in that five or is it either side can have five? I don't know. Okay. You enforce that one. Um I don't understand what either on either side that's like um number two. I'm sorry about limitations. Number two under B. Uh what is either side? Five. because you know I don't know what that means. Do each there a total of five parklets on a block and I think that's a lot. Our blocks are not very big. You know downtown especially I I would like to consider three at the most. Um it's kind of weird because it you know it's not really happening. So, u So, there's a there's another uh E on the um I'm just on the design and operational requirements. E has this 15 ft thing. Um landscaping is this I don't know. Okay, I made all these notes, but I still my stuff. Do we have something uh it talks about uh needing to make sure that we the

under the platforms of the parks they aren't there's you know yeah there's but what about rodents there's rat there's a lot of rats in this area and I don't know how that's dealt with when they've got that wonderful area to hide out underneath

that's habitat Okay, fine. Um and the um about sign visual obstruction to the adjacent bu businesses I don't know how that that's mitigated how that is I mean because can you see the crave in that pipeline signs I mean it's kind of like Well, Cra's on the one side, but if these dwellings, it says here that we they can't block the names of the businesses, but those businesses are the ones with the parkless. So,

you can't block your neighbors. Your neighbor I just take it out of there. I don't know. I mean, yeah, you can't block your neighbor. Well, I don't know what that that's kind of ambiguous in my mind. And um Oh, I know. Uh under fees, the base application for new parklets is 250 and it says applicants or private parklets who wish to allow for table service and consumption of alcohol will be charged $50 per month per parking space in addition to the base. Well, why are they charged extra for losing parking when pipeline and crave that are only charged 250? Are you talking you don't mean crave? You

I mean not crave. I'm sorry. What's the name of that place? A craft house. Craft house. Thank you. Sorry, take the crave back and make it craft house. But I think that's kind of weird. Why are you charging more for people that have it on their own property and they still have to pay the base as well as parking space fees when your four four of the parking spaces on Manchester Boulevard are gone to the current parklets? See what I mean? They charge 250 a year and they get to other thing. But if I were to put it in maybe, let's say, Barry Veil's parking lot, I'd be charged 250 plus the parking spots that it took, $50 per parking.

So, to be clear, um both Pipeline and Craft House should be paying the 250 annually plus $50 per month per stall. And if they're taking up two stalls for the parklets, that's an additional $100 per month multiplied by 12 months. And that's an additional annual fee on top of the 250. Or you take that out of the other one. Either way, I mean, it's just not fair to the other people. Why are they charged for the parking and pipeline? I guess I don't follow the who's doing it and who's not doing it. Uhhuh. I didn't hear you.

I you you'll have to restate that again because I didn't follow. So the private parklets on their own property are charged the 250 and this is like probably a temporary summer thing or something. No, this is the 250 is not for the private parklet. The 250 is for the parklets that are take that are used in addition to the base. The base fee, it says right there it says will be charged $50 per month per parking space used in addition to the base application fee. So, they're charged 250 plus 50 bucks per shot.

The the intent uh is the base fee is 250 for the permit. Uh and then if there's a parking space, a city parking space is being taken up, that's additional $50 for each parking space per month. Yeah. But why isn't pipeline and um they're not charged for the parking, are they? They are. Oh, okay. I want to make sure it doesn't really say that. because it says applicants for private parklets and then it puts the $50. It doesn't say it in the the base fee. It says all. It should be all, huh? Then why are we

We can just strike the word private and just make Yeah, the private is what's Okay, that's all. I'm not going to talk anymore. Thank you. Um, forgive me if I if I missed any language in here, but what about maintenance as far as if it gets damaged or gets dirty because it's all along the road? Um, you know, in what kind of time frame would that need to be repaired or cleaned or whatever? There is a very last one.

Yeah, it's a good question. I don't think there's a timeline parameter, but there is a maintenance section at the last section, and it does talk about the applicant being responsible for general maintenance um and the costs associated with the maintenance. But you're right, there is no uh you know, infractions must be corrected within 3 days or 5 days. We don't have that kind of language yet. I would be in favor of adding something to that effect.

You know, it's interesting. that the facility is swept daily and debris is removed from under and around the park and I'm skeptical that anybody's going underneath those but if they are that's fabulous to get the all that good rat food out that's probably why that's in there every day you need to clean up those little crackers you know it is a really nice place to live with your So, are they really going underneath and cleaning them? I don't know if they are or not. I would be darn curious to know about that.

Anything else? Um, when it comes to covering, I I see the uh advantages to have at least some storage chain covering on there, but if we go that route, it's going to need engineering.

Yeah. like Linda was saying, um, something more along the lines of retractable, removable fabric shade, as long as it's nice looking, um, could be a good alternative to that. But, but then again, if someone does opt to have a more permanent hard covering and go through that expense, They might think about, well, if I just put some flex panels in here, then we'll have a nice enclosure, but I don't think that's the way we'd want to go. So maybe some language to say must not be enclosed.

You're saying why would they not be enclosed? Yeah. Someone might say if we put some plexiglass panels, we could make a nice enclosure in here, you know, so that wind and things. Right. You're you're in favor of I'm not You're not Okay, I just understand. No, that's that's a different Yeah, the the engineering for the those canvas things is I think retractable just because they're retractable doesn't make them free of potential wind. No, it doesn't. Not at all.

Um, and then, you know, looking at what's there now, parklet right next to another parklet, I'd want them to be complimementary looking to each other rather than contrasting.

Yeah. Should there be is really yeah in between them that that's why there should be a limit on not but I tried to jwalk I tried to jaywalk in that area and I forgot that they're there and I was like you know the little animals try to get across the freeway imagine if there were five of them imagine if there were five of them

as far as um coming to planning commission question. Would these new more permanent structures come to us first for approval? That's what I would want. And then and then every year after that it could be that unless unless there's significant changes.

Okay. So new or significant changes. to go. Uh so um I am in agreement about definitely in agreement about the um planning commission's role with everybody else. I'm also I sounds like we have some consensus about what permanent means because again if it's completely permanent there's I feel like there's concrete involved in it. These aren permanent. These are potentially removed if they don't meet their annual renewal approval. So, replacing the word permanent not the answer as far as I'm concerned. Um, and then as far as I don't really feel the need to tell them anything about a canopy because sometimes the last thing I want is a canopy. I would rather have that warm sun on me and a wind block than sunshine. So, I would just assume not touch that. And other than that, that's all I have. Um, even though this isn't a public hearing, I will just offer up an opportunity if anybody wants to chime in on this before we come back next time to vote on a resolution. So, you've got three minutes. If you'd like to chime in, come on up in a not official public hearing.

Okay. Johanna Alfer and a not official public hearing. Um, in general, I am in favor of parkletits. I think they add a quaintness uh to the downtown and it's been very popular in many cities. Um, and I think it helps attract people to the downtown businesses quite honestly because if you have a receptive, happy downtown, people are more apt to stay anyway. Um, but I do think we need to have safety. So like having jersey barriers, which are those concrete medians on highways, something that a car cannot accidentally, you know, someone texting and driving and oops, you know, there they go. So I would think a concrete barrier would be a good um requirement to have um for safety, cleaning and maintenance. Um one of the concerns that was brought up by um Mount Chester residents was um sidewalk issues with grease from the kitchen. Um the sidewalk tends to get black from um and slippery. So that can be a danger and I would recommend that you have like a 7-day maintenance and repair edict or whatever so that it's done quickly. it doesn't drag on and become an eyesore or whatever. I like the idea of continuity between the different parklets. I do think it would be nice to have and especially if a parklet goes beyond the uh businesses uh frontage. I think it would be nice to have approval of the neighboring businesses to make sure that they're in agreement with all of this um because

business especially I think I think the pipeline may take maybe in front of one of the other businesses and so I would think that other business would have a right to you know they're using their street fronted so to speak and so I think they should be able to weigh in on it and have some sort of a veto approval how you structure that I'm not really sure but I think that needs to be part of the conversation so that everyone's happy and we don't have insighting Um and I agree with the removal of permanent and yeah and just in general you um you were mentioning plexiglass. I mean we shouldn't have anything that's not structurally sound because then it becomes the safety issue because that could blow out or whatever. So I think that's all I had to say on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Those were my thoughts. All right. Anybody else like to come speak to us? I know. So, we're talking about the parklet ordinance. Rumor has it that you may have been interested in talking about Danco housing project.

Okay. just for people who can't hear what they just said, they weren't planning to speak. They were just interested in hearing um what we were talking about. We didn't miss an opportunity to hear from them and the public hasn't missed their, you know, their input. Thank you. Okay. So, um sounds like you have feedback from all of us and Johanna. Sure. Go ahead, Kim. Microphone. 19 microphone mic mic

19.03.130 fees the second the second paragraph on fees um oops or maybe you know I'm sorry it's 19.03.140 3.140 insurance uh sub A insurance shall provide coverage not less than 2 million or 4 million per occurrence depending upon the parameters outlined in the encroachment permit. Um to me that's vague and I think four million 2 million is a lot uh of insurance to obtain uh in this city. I think there's only two contractors in the city that have $2 million coverage for their companies. Um, and I don't recall why we included the four four million.

So that might be something to um maybe look at clarifying language in that par in that paragraph. Yes. Okay. Unless there's good reason to go four million, I think 2 million would probably be enough. I know it is right. What are the parameters. We don't know obviously. Maybe if it was someone was injured, you know, during an accident, maybe that's why just thinking if someone was injured during an accident in the park, you know,

I I can also check the materials that were submitted for previous permits because because obviously we have two parklet permits now with all of their insurance information included. So, I can also take a look to see what we already have on file. That sounds good. Um, to Johanna's point about the grease and sidewalk, might be something to clean a little more often. Could they put a industrial carpet down like like people have in their stores? Huh? Well, I know, but all of our stores have those in them,

you know, and then they take them up at night. They don't leave it down. Well, actually, I'll defer to somebody who's very knowledgeable about those things. Yeah, I know. And what makes sense? He has drugs all over the place like that. I mean, and that's what uh does. He delivers rugs and things, but um and I imagine they would even have one inside their doorway. They might have that already. So, I don't know whether that would be a solution. You're suggesting these rugs be placed across the sidewalk or the walkway. I mean, I don't It's just an idea. It's hard to wash a sidewalk. I mean, well, it has to be like a steam.

Yeah, you every seven days. Yeah. I don't know what how quickly it accumulates. Well, yeah, we just said we just put seven days in there. That was one of the suggestions. But but a carpet could or one of those industrial things could be rolled up every night. put away and then rolled out from there, right? Or just mitate the greasy sidewalk, however it makes sense. I don't know. Anything else, commissioners?

Okay. I think we have finished up with item nine, our park ordinance. Item 10, planning commission and planning director comments. And we've got planning commission first. So, do you I don't have any today. No. Okay, I'm just eager to act tonight. It's bad.

I think I'm hungry. Um, so there we talked about the parklet lighting and the lights should be turned off, you know, and they should be downward facing and all that kind of stuff. And and we talked about the ornamental lights in one of our meetings not that long ago about how we like those little round lights. They're kind of they're charming. Well, I know that the um singing bowl place down by the post office, they I think they leave theirs on all the time. They're strung across their parking lot and they're not there, you know, it's at night. So, I'm Why do they I think they should be uh requested to follow that same policy. I mean, I don't I like them, but they shouldn't be on all night. It's dark sky, you know, all that kind of stuff. That's all. Yeah, I think so.

Enforcement. It's not an ordinance or nothing. I just want to say it's been a pleasure. Okay.

And anybody who's watching, we still have a vacancy for planning commission. So, anybody who'd like to join us, please apply. I have two things. Um, relevant to uh Belinda's comment. I think that and actually I was talking to our new building inspector. Um, I've learned that just because we pass conditions of approval, that doesn't mean that the building inspector has any idea. And if he doesn't have an ordinance that's specific in this case, the lighting is what I'm thinking about now. stuff just dropped off the table. So, I would like to propose that um we check in with the um city council and that we should pursue a dark sky ordinance that is actually on the books that we because we have references. We've got plenty of support for that in our general plan in various things over the years. Um it's always a condition of approval. Let's just put it in there. a dark guy and also wildlife protection. Um, particularly for migratory birds and other wildlife. I think it's important and I think that way we'll have the teeth and we don't always have to add it anyway and we can have the conversation with the community about where it applies, right? I mean, because it's, you know, commercial uh, you know, anyway. Um, my second and Okay, so do ers agree that that's something that we should um pursue. What a dark sky ordinance. Um something to think about. I mean and and that we would want him to come back.

Anything in terms of the dark sky ordinance? Are you're not talking about suggesting that we get rid of the the ordinance? Are you that we just take a look at it? We actually um develop a dark sky ordinance for the city of Manchester. We don't currently have one

because we don't have one. And we have a glare ordinance and I don't know where that went. Um, but somebody cleaned up the municipal code once and it disappeared. So, I think we need it. So, if everybody's kind of in agreement, this is not, you know, it's not on the agenda. This isn't an agenda item, but if people feel like they're game Okay. Um, my second request is that the um agenda packets have page numbers from beginning to end because If I dropped this tonight's packet, it would have been over. That's why I paper clip.

So, um, if there were page numbers from beginning to end, that would make it a lot easier. And do we really need all these blank pages? I don't know. Like, it's because we're trying to print everything double-sided. So, when we put all the PDFs together, we're trying not to documents start on the back side of a piece of paper. But if it makes no difference to you, then we can take out all the extra blank pages. That's fine. We can do that. I don't know. My, you know, preserve trees thing says like a blank intentionally blank page. Put something on there. And if it's PDF, you'll never know.

Yeah, we can do that. Uh Kim, what do you have for us? Um, if somebody's making a noise, can they stop making a noise?

There's a phone in the kitchen. Carbon monoxide alarm.

Thank you. Okay, back to um Kim's

comments for us. Okay, there there are a few items. So, first of all, thank you for meeting tonight. I know it's been a minute um due to various reasons. I'm very happy to be here. I hope you're happy to be here. Thank you for being here. Um lots of things going on. So many things are going on. Um a planning commissioner application. I do have a planning commissioner application from one Michael Penrose um from from our Rotary. So, the application has been submitted. He's been out of town. So, that application is going to the city council at the next city council meeting. And if they appoint him in, then he should be here for the May planning commission meeting. So hopefully, fingers crossed, everything goes as planned and we will have our seventh and final planning commissioner seated by next month's meeting. So there is that item. Um, under B, the landing master plan. Um, it's been a minute, so if if I could just rewind a little bit. Back in June of last year, city staff issued a notice of availability for the 120 acres of the landing to be developed. And so this notice of availability went out to the world saying, "Hey, city has surplus property. Dear developers anywhere and everywhere, if you so wish, please submit us a development application. Um, priority for the development applications will go to those developers who are um agreeable to putting in 25% of residential units as deed restricted affordable. So that comes down from the surplus lands act at the state level. At the end of the 60 days, one development team approached the city with a nonbinding offer. So, the city is

in negotiations with that developer right now to develop all acres of what we know as the landing. Um, separate from that is the city also has roughly $200,000 left over in um grant money to be used within the next year. Um there are guidelines about how that grant money can be used. It's been determined that the city is allowed to use the grant money for what we would call a master plan. So, an RFP went out about a month ago for somebody to develop a master plan for all 120 acres. So, now we're drilling down a little bit and identifying where the residential land uses are going to be, where the commercial land uses are going to be, where maybe we'll have some open space, gateway, trail, whatever. But we're asking consultant team to come forward now with a master plan that then the developer developer who's on the books to do this they have a blueprint in which to follow. So that RFP period closed last Thursday. Um in total the city received 14

proposals 14 bids have come in. So I am in the process of reviewing about a thousand of those pages right now. Um There's a committee of me, uh, myself, the city manager, and public works director. We're going to pow out and go through some of these bids tomorrow and spend a couple of hours taking a look at it. But there, the RFP does issue a grading system. So, they're going to be scored on different elements and we'll narrow it down. We'll probably go through an interview process because we'll want to interview all of these consultants. Um, have time to have some dialogue because this is really the one last and final chance to get this done right. So, we want to get this done right and um ask all the questions before we commit to something. So, that's happening. Um 14 bids. We will be looking at that this week and in a short amount of time here, we'll be getting started with the master plan process. It's a truncated process. We're looking at getting this done within six months. And inside of these six months, we're planning to have three different town hall meetings. The goal being that we solicit anybody and everybody in town who wants to have an opinion about what should be the land uses for the landing. We we want to hear from everybody. So there are going to be three town hall meetings, probably a presentation before the planning commission, probably a presentation before the city council, checkpoints along the way, but at the end of the six months, we want to have a really good solid plan, feasibility studies, um phasing plans, whatnot, so that developer coming in to do this has all the tools that he needs and it's not just another paper plan that's going to be sheld. So that is the latest update for the landing as I have it this minute. Um it has consumed a lot of time at the staff level in the last six months just we've had weekly meetings

with the developers and you know it's one thing to want to commit to doing affordable housing. It's another thing to actually connect the dots and do it because um it's a very arduous set of steps and there are scoring requirements and um applications and it's not just as easy as saying we're going to do affordable and it's done. There there's a whole set of things that have to be done. So we're navigating through all of that with the help of HC and making sure that we do things the right way. Microphone microphone.

It does. There is. Yeah. So, we're we're sifting through those right now. Yeah. With consultants. Is there also missing middle housing? There is definitely a missing middle component. We're we're calling that, for lack of a better term, workforce housing for now. But yes. Yes. So, so that's the landing uh that's the landing master plan. So, we'll be kicking that off shortly. Um Third thing that's on my desk is a master fee schedule update. So most jurisdictions will go through and update their fee schedule on an annual basis because we want to make sure that the fees we're collecting are in line with how much it costs us to do things. Um here in Mount Chassa, we have not done this in a few years and so this master fee update is going to have a little bit of a sticker shock component. So there is an ad hoc committee um that's been formed um with city council members but also city staff as though we're working through the pieces of how we're going to reset some of these fees but you know building fees planning fees all of those fees the $250 that's in here you know for for the parklets is that still appropriate because we set the $250 a number of years ago. Is that still enough? Are the $50 per month for stall enough? So, a lot of the fees are being discussed. So, it's more just an FYI for the planning commission that that's a big task that's being undertaken by staff right now so that we can get with the times and so that when we have future um development plans come in that staff has a mechanism a mechanism to actually charge what it costs us to provide those services. So, so that's happening. Um that's a big part of my time. Another thing that's happening right now is um in November. I'm switching to D, mobile home rent control ordinance. Um, several members of the community approached city council back in November last year with the

concern that within the Shaster Horizon's mobile park um, mobile home and RV park that the new landlords were charging an excessive amount of rent. And it's been hard to figure out what excessive means. Um, because do you count the rent? Do you count the rent? the utilities, is water included, is sewer included, what's included, what's not included. Um, the parameters that are have been kind of fuzzy for for us to pick through, but ultimately as of today, where we stand right now is that the city council has asked staff to prepare a rent stabilization ordinance that's specific for the mobile home park. So, we're looking at creating a rent control ordinance for for mobile homes. Um, so that will be for the community that's within the city city limits. So that is happening. That's going before the council. Um, item E is the short-term rental ordinance. Another thing uh that I read through since since joining the team here is that there might be some internal inconsistencies or vague language regarding our short-term rental ordinance. Um, for example, a for example is somebody somebody for and obtain a short-term rental permit to legally operate. However, over the last 12 months, they haven't reported any toot because maybe there aren't any guests. Um, and right now, there really isn't a mechanism or a way for the city to take that permit back and issue it to somebody else who will submit. So, perhaps there's room in the ordinance somewhere to update, massage the language a little bit, make it clear, maybe create a floor so that anybody has a short-term rental permit has to submit so many dollars, $500 quarterly, monthly, annually, whatever in tots

and providing to back to the city. So, that's something that staff is looking at or maybe some other things that we look at. That's one way in which STR ordinance could be updated. Um, and then F, the last thing I have on the agenda or for the update tonight is the tiny homes on wheels ordinance. So, that's another thing that went through the planning commission sometime last year. Then it went through city council. the I wouldn't call it an issue, but what's happening now is there are real folks within our community who are looking at um implementing the first set of tiny homes on wheels or maybe even the tiny homes on wheels um village. And word for word as it's written in the ordinance, it's kind of unclear and vague in terms of what the exact rules are. And so staff has been spending a lot of time interviewing the president of the Tiny Homes on Wheels Association, um, local builders, folks who are actually building the Tiny Homes on Wheels, interviewing other jurisdictions, and figuring out what pieces in their ordinances do they have that we don't have in ours that maybe we can bolster or supplement to make it super clear because I think the messaging is people are ready to do this now. and we don't want to be in a position where we're unclear about what the parameters are. So, we're looking at probably doing an update to the tiny home on wheels born in just so that everyone's clear on what the next steps are because we want to make this something that's easy for people to read, digest, understand, and know what the next steps are because right now it's kind of big. So, that's another thing that we're working on. Um that gets me to if if we're ready item number 11, which is item 11. Yeah. Future agenda items. Um the general plan amendment section. So

the land used noise and safety elements are still kind of hanging out there and kind of lingering. Um I do not have the benefit of having any staff or consultants to help out with these exercises. uh because the grant money that Jeff was using last year have since been expended completed. So those items were were kicking through by we I mean me. I'm a department of one. So we're working on the updates. Um they will come back before the before the planning commission as things are buttoned up and I have chunks that are digestible for you guys to review and provide input on. But all of this to say that there's a lot going on. There's a lot going on. So, is there um the state of California is requiring that these all be updated?

Yes. So, we have to do that. Yeah. Got it. Right. Thank you. That's all I got. Um that's the end. And so, um I'm Well, obj. Oh. Oh, usually that's it. What do you have? Um like to propose adding as a future agenda item a um a uh real property vacancy ordinance. What?

Real property vacancy ordinance that if if a property is vacant for months um needs to pay some sort of payment a penalty. the second home. So, the second home people, I think it's New York City's doing that right now.

Is that a state? Is that gonna that be a state thing or can a city do that? I know that I guess it is because I had friends that lived in Victoria for a while and because they weren't Canadian citizens, they said, "You were taxed you 8% on your on your property tax thing." And they moved. It was It was interesting because I mean that was enough that was enough for them to stay second home. I don't need it, you know.

Well, and again, it was suggested by a developer tonight as as one possibility for us to look at. Um, I think anyway, uh, and again, there have been a number of other jurisdictions that have adopted uh, ordinances like that. So, I think we would have some template. I think great idea. I'm I think that empty houses. I think they're hard. community. So that's the list. Take it to the city council and let us know we can pursue it. All right. Any other future agenda items?

All right. Then I am going to adjourn our reg our special meeting. Next meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 19th. Thank you everyone.