Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission. Will you all join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? I'd like to start off with and welcoming Commissioner Pifferell back to the Commission.

Thank you.

His input was missed. Next will be public comment. This time is set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on any item of interest to the public that's within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. For items that are on the agenda, public comment will be heard at the time the item is discussed if your comments are concerning that is noticed as a public hearing please address the Planning Commission after the public hearing is open for public testimony okay Conflict of interest is there any items on the agenda this evening that any of the commissioners have a conflict of interest Hearing none I have none Moving on to the first item, it pertains to use permit number 2026-01 to consider a mobile vending unit at 2650 Main Street, which is the parking lot for the Home Depot, in a Zone C3 district. Beth, could you give us a rundown as to the story behind this?

So this evening, the use permit 2026-01 to consider mobile vending unit at the location of 2650 Main Street is going to be continued indefinitely as there are some considerations to relocate that item. No, they're pulling their application at this time.

With that, I will open the public hearing at 5.33. Is there anyone present? No one's present to speak on? Beth, is it? No, excuse me. Anita, sorry. Nobody online? So I will close the public hearing at 5.34. Bring it back to the commission. Are there any questions or questions?

comments on this item the one thing I'll mention with the continuance typically if we knew it was going to go to a specific date we would just make the continuance to a date certain in this instance we don't know when the application will be ready to present to the Planning Commission again So we're requesting the indefinite continuance. And what that means is before we bring the item back to the Planning Commission, we would re-notice the public hearing again at that point in time, publish it in the paper, and send it to the property owner. So simply, if there's no specific questions for staff, then we would just need a motion to continue the project indefinitely from the commission.

Understood do we have a motion to continue this item as the City manager addressed do I have a motion for this? Motion by Commissioner Yates second by Commissioner Miranda Anita Where exactly is this truck going to be parked I

It's not going to be on this site. So there's not going to be a truck on this site. Okay.

Yeah, the application is withdrawn. It was going to be in the northwest corner, which is most nearest the signal location. If you're exiting Home Depot, it's going to be right in the parking lot in the corner there. But the application at this time has been withdrawn, so they're going to search for a new location in the community, and we'll proceed with an application moving forward, and we'll try to get a more descriptive site plan from the applicant when they do decide where they want to be.

Thank you, Tom. Any further discussion? Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Moving on to the next item. Just one moment, please. That's for the mobile vendor. But then you can come to the top of this page.

Yeah, we're going to the tobacco retailer permit.

OK, but I don't see an ID on the one on the left. I don't think that's it. Item number two consideration of the recommendation to the City Council for the adoption of a tobacco retailer permit ordinance establishing local Regulations for tobacco retailers operating within the city of Red Bluff Beth could you give us some background on this?

Good evening, planning commissioners. This ordinance would establish local operation standards and enforcement procedures intended to strengthen the compliance with the state and federal tobacco laws and help reduce unlawful tobacco sales, particularly sales to minors. This ordinance is intended to be a proactive ordinance rather than a reactive. So we are proposing it in place of the anticipated need for compliance and regulations. Why the city would need a ordinance and permit process like this is there is a key distinction between what the state and federal government impose as opposed to what the city can put into place. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration issues state tobacco licenses primarily for taxation and statewide regulatory purposes. While the state regulates tobacco sales generally, local jurisdictions have limited ability to directly enforce compliance issues unless they adopt their own local permitting framework. The ordinance gives the city local authority to establish operational standards specific to businesses operating within the city, monitor compliance at a local level, investigate complaints and violations more swiftly, take administrative enforcement actions when necessary, and revoke or suspend a local permit for repeated violations. Another important distinction is that the state enforcement resources are limited, and enforcement actions may not occur quickly or consistently with local level. A local permitting program allows the city to respond more efficiently and swiftly, as I said, to complaints, and we would work closely with law enforcement as needed. The city would benefit from adopting this ordinance as it would provide local enforcement mechanisms, improve retailer accountability, supports youth access prevention efforts, and establishes clear operational standards within the city. So tonight, staff does recommend that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 2026-17, recommending the City Council approve the proposed ordinance. And based on the staff's time for permitting, processing, inspections, enforcement, and administration, we've anticipated the cost for staff to execute the program to be approximately $449 per retailer. this would be an annual fee at the expense of the retailer I'm available for any additional questions you may have under permit fee

I apologize that so the 449 was a misprint on my notes I apologize so it is as stated in the staff report And how do we currently handle any complaints that come in to either the police or whomever for vendors not dealing properly with youth and selling them tobacco or other products they're not supposed to? What do we do now?

Currently, I have not received any complaints specific to my department, so I can't speak to that. I can certainly follow up.

I'm just curious if somebody wanted to complain, would they complain to the police department?

At this time, that would be the mechanism.

So we currently don't have any involvement with people who sell tobacco or tobacco-related products?

That is correct.

So if somebody lodged a complaint, what is the chain of process? Does it go to the code enforcement officer and then PD?

So under this program, it would start with the code enforcement officer and that individual would conduct a preliminary investigation. And then depending on the findings or the circumstances would be when we would then include the other departments as appropriate.

Would the city be notifying the state and possibly the federal departments if something happened? Absolutely.

Yeah. So depending on the degree of the violation, if it's something egregious or is a state or federal law violation, we would absolutely go through the proper reporting channels.

But I'm assuming they wouldn't tell you about it. Like if somebody were to call the ATF, they wouldn't have called Beth and said, hey.

Not my experience so far, but I'm not sure.

So have these 25 individuals had any input into this process?

This meeting has been publicly noticed.

But have they gone over this? Have you gone over this with them so that they know exactly what it is?

No, not individually.

Is there some way to ask the police department as to how many of these types of complaints might be presented to them so that we know that the numbers work and it's worthy of a program?

I can certainly do that, yeah.

Because if you get three a year and you're charging 25 people $640, they might consider that a little predatory.

I can certainly look into that.

Because even in this time period, $640 per year for a permit for people is kind of steep. Because they've already got to follow state and federal laws. So we're going to insert our own addendum into those, into that process. Is that what you're saying?

I am proposing an ordinance that creates a program that regulates the sales.

Explain to me why you're doing 30 years, 30 year olds. I'm sorry? Because currently it's 21. Because you say here, a verification of customer identification for individuals appearing to be under the age of 31. And currently it's 21. So you're asking them now to... No, no.

So much like alcohol sales, if a person appears to be under a certain age, they impose an automatic identification requirement. So the 30 years old is that imposition that if a person appears to be under age, they would be... Under that age, they would be ID'd.

Meaning if they look...

Correct so it follows the same kind of framework as alcohol sales and Currently, there's not a state or federal standard on that. So that would be a local standard that we would be adopting I Correct so it would allow a more efficient and swift investigation to occur and If in the event somebody needs to have their ability to sell tobacco products The city would be able to enforce that more rapidly. I

And would state and federal authorities acknowledge that, our revocation of their ability to sell tobacco in the city limits?

Yes. So under this program, the city would have that authority to halt.

Yeah, this would put that in place so we can take action. Correct.

Correct.

Are other cities in our region have similar ordinances like this?

Yes, so this ordinance is a very common ordinance in the state of California. The model that I have presented is mirrored very closely to neighboring jurisdictions as well as that was kind of what prompted the ordinance was other cities adopting exactly this framework.

Commissioner Piffero brought up a good item. I mean, yes, I know it was publicly noticed, and that was just in the local paper, correct?

That is correct.

Um, since it's not very well read, I mean, in my experience, is there any way possible to hold this item over and talk to some of these retailers? And he brought up a good point, $640 may not seem like a large sum, but I feel it would be without proper notice and acknowledgement they've been noticed, it's adding another layer of bureaucracy to businesses, I would prefer to see this us reach out and saying this is coming down the pike. You know, just to let you know, do you have any feedback as a retailer because it's an additional burden on them? Yes, you're mimicking the state and federal requirements, but it's the money for what you know, the amount is, I think it would be proper to notify these people that say, hey, there's a potential this is coming down. Is that possible?

if that is the direction that I receive.

Because my other concern is the fact that we, one, haven't notified everybody, given them the addendum to read and make comments on so that they would be able then to work through the process more efficiently. And it also would allow for businesses that Like 7-Eleven and those that don't always have adults behind the counter give them the opportunity to work through that process. So there's always going to be someone there that's going to be able to verify and sell tobacco products.

Well, I think they have to have someone as an adult behind the counter because they sell alcohol too. I have to be, I think, 21 to sell alcohol. I don't know. Maybe. I could be wrong.

So just for the record, I'd like to state that we have followed all public noticing requirements by law. So I want to make that perfectly clear that we have properly noticed this item for the public's consideration and public hearing response. However, if I receive the direction to take further actions for this ordinance, that certainly can be directed.

Yeah, so simply just by motion and the majority of the votes of the members We could send it out to the specific businesses involved and then again just bring this back Probably would recommend doing it Not to a date certain because we want to make sure they have adequate time to review this so probably not your next meeting and But just if the direction is provided to send it to the businesses that would be affected by this ordinance, Beth could set up some time to meet with them individually or have a meeting, not a planning commission meeting per se, but just a meeting with the retailers. IF THEY'RE INTERESTED IN THAT AND THEN BRING IT BACK AT SOME FUTURE POINT. THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY AN ORDINANCE THAT IS BEING PUSHED BY AN APPLICATION OR ANYTHING SO THE TIMELINE TO GET IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL IS JUST A PROCESSING THING SO IT'S NOT BEING PUSHED BY AN APPLICANT. So if that is the direction from the commission, then simply just need to make a motion in that regard. Mr. Piffereau could make the motion if he wishes, but then we can go ahead and get that direction from the businesses that would be affected.

Could we also include something that has to do with the amount of complaints that I mentioned before that go to the police so we can see if it's a rampant problem or if it's not?

We can certainly do that. Somebody just, yeah, I think that doesn't need to be a part of a motion. Really the big thing is getting the kind of the messaging out. But we can certainly ask that question too.

I apologize if it's in here. Maybe I overlooked it. But when would the, if this were to become an ordinance, when would it take effect? Just at the beginning of the year?

No, so it would go to City Council and in the event they adopt it It would have to go through a first reading and a second reading and then it would become a in in place 30 days after the second reading There is a State website that you can look up any tobacco retailer. So it was extracted from that site. I

I just, I didn't know, I thought Raley's, does Raley's, maybe not, Raley's or Walmart, they don't sell tobacco?

Not anymore, I don't think. I know, I had the same thought.

I just thought they did. Same.

Commissioner Piffer, would you like to make a motion regarding your concerns? I concur with your position on this.

I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND ALSO TO BRING IN DATA RELATIVE TO THIS ITEM.

AS FAR AS CONTACTING THE SELLERS.

You're wanting each individual seller to be notified of the potential of this so they can give feedback on if it would affect them in which way?

Yeah, I think the only consideration about that motion is perhaps make it not a date certain, and then we'll just re-notice the hearing, because we might not be able to do that within the next month's time. And then when it's ready, after we've been able to meet with the retailers, they've had ample time to comment and review the proposed ordinance, then we would just re-notice and then re-notice for the planning commission hearing. So it could be tight to try to do that in the next month. The next two months is probably doable. But if we leave it open-ended, then we'll just go ahead and re-notice it when it's ready to bring back to the Planning Commission.

So this is something we can request to table with the hopes of within the next few months or so. So we don't have to put it, like you said, we don't have to put a time on it, just motion to table this.

Yeah, I think that's just a simple thing to do.

Yeah. Any other questions?

So, Anita, are you clear on the motion?

I'll second that.

Motion by Commissioner Pfefferow, second by Commissioner Quigley. Anita?

Commissioner Pfefferow? Yes. Commissioner Yates? Yes. Commissioner Quigley? Yes. Vice Chair Miranda? Yes. Chairperson Laterelle?

Yes. Moving on to the next item. Next item is concerning Planning Commission Resolution 2026-17, a resolution of the Red Bluff Planning Commission. Oh, I'm sorry. Redundant. It's 30. My apologies. The next item is regarding consideration of the recommendation of the City Council for adoption of vacant commercial property registration and maintenance ordinance establishing local regulations for the registration, maintenance, and security of vacant commercial properties within the city. Beth, could you give us some background on this?

So the proposed ordinance is to address the impacts associated with long-term vacant commercial properties, including the deterioration, vandalism, trespassing, illegal dumping, blight, and public safety concerns. Vacant commercial properties can negatively affect the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods while increasing demands on city resources. The proposed ordinance would require qualifying vacant commercial properties to register with the city, maintain minimum property maintenance and security standards, and provide contact information for the property's responsible party. It would also include exemptions for properties actively undergoing construction, rehab, or lawful marketing efforts. staff has prepared a cost analysis using current fully burdened staff rates and estimated time associated with the administrative cost and based on that analysis staff has anticipated the annual administrative cost to be approximately nine hundred and fifty per qualifying property the ordinance is exempt from CEQA and the anticipated fiscal impact would be offset through the program's administrative fees So tonight staff recommends we conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and adopt resolution 2026-15 recommending city council approve the proposed ordinance. I am available for your questions.

Commissioners?

Who would be responsible for enforcing?

So the community development department in a whole. So it would be both code enforcement and the building inspector.

Do we have codes, regulations, and laws in place that are already asking people to care for their property in that regard? In other words, fix broken windows, take the graffiti off the wall?

Sure.

I'm just saying, many of the items that we're asking them to do in here, are they already on the books, in essence?

So we do have a nuisance code in place that has the violations that would be enacted in the event something was identified. What this ordinance and program specifically does is, one, it holds property owners accountable to maintain their properties rather than waiting for a violation to be either cited or a complaint to be filed against it. It also is a required goal of our housing element and our general plan to have a list that is comprised of any vacancy opportunities for both residential and commercial properties. So it's meeting some of the goals as it relates to our adopted plans. It also It will hopefully prevent those folks who have these properties as tax write-offs and has them more hopefully motivated to keep their property either filled or at least maintained so it's not an attractive nuisance that we have to then bring up the codes from that Chapter 15.

On the discussion area, it says that So I know that language is a little conflicting the reason why I went ahead and left it in there was because again that is I Used a template that several other California cities have adopted the 180 days is a generic number that can certainly be altered and then the I know again that 30 days was contradictory so I can certainly clean that language up you have to have the registration completed after the 180 days so 180 days comes by then the application needs to be filled out

Right. So after the property has stayed vacant for 180 days, they would then have 30 days from that 180 to register with the city, get put on the list. Again, the objective isn't to punish, but it's also intended to be a resource that when folks call in to my departments or any other and ask about commercial properties or interested in bringing a business to town, I can more easily identify vacancies for their consideration or know who the property manager is for them to reach out to or the real estate agent or... It becomes a resource that can also be shared out. And they're, again, kind of meeting some of our objectives and goals of our general plan and housing element.

One question, and I'll just use it as an example. Like my own property on Main Street here, it's technically 50% vacant because the entire upstairs is empty. But I want it that way. I want to keep it empty because I want to be able to do whatever I want up there. So I would have to register it and pay $950 a year that I'm never going to advertise it for rent because I want it vacant. I mean, it should be my right to keep the building vacant if I want to use my ping pong table inside.

So that would be something for us to consider. So again, the fee for this is only in the event that the property is not being maintained or properly registered or the compliance being met of the program. So that fee would not apply if your property is being maintained.

But you have to fill out an application, you have to do the paperwork, you have to pay the 950, right?

With the application?

With the application. Is that my understanding correct?

The initial vacancy registration. Is 950? Yes.

And would that be better spent maintaining my building?

I think what happens here is maybe a little bit of splitting hairs. We're not going to know that Tyler's, Commissioner Miranda's building is vacant because it's maintained. So what we're trying to do is get blighted properties where somebody doesn't have any motivation to occupy that building with any business. So most of the existing businesses around town, whether they have 25% or 50% of their building vacant, that's really not the concern. The problem is is when these property owners live out of the area or in a different state, and they're just using their property as a loss. So they're not maintaining the property in any regard. This is really what the intent of this ordinance is, is to capture those folks. because we have a hard time trying to contact them when there is an issue if they have a water line break if their building needs to be secured for whatever reason so this is really going to capture the kind of the more blighted type properties and even as we even as we i think that it shows here if there is a building that's vacant as long as they're trying to market it and lease that out then they're really not subject to it it's really when there's just no in there's no activity on the on the property whatsoever

So not everybody has to fill out an application? No.

So Commissioner Miranda's building is occupied with a business, not even subject to this. It's trying to capture those businesses where somebody's not motivated to lease it or they have a ridiculous rate of rent or they're just not looking to maintain the property in any condition whatsoever.

I misunderstood because I thought that anybody who had a business within a certain district would be required to pay the 950.

No. Okay. And that only becomes into play if it's not being all of these things, right? There's not a tenant improvement happening. It's not for... for lease or sale, there's a bunch of exemptions from that. So if somebody's actively going through the process to secure the necessary permit for a tenant improvement or move somebody in, then it's not subject to it. It's the ones that are just absolutely mothballed that nobody, there's no intent to do anything.

Is there any specific properties that you have in mind for this, are you allowed to say?

Well, the one that comes to mind just because I see it every day is the one that's out for an attractor supply. It's been vacant for four or five years straight.

The cozy diner, that one? Mm-hmm. Yeah. I do manage that property. Right. And that wouldn't qualify because it's less than 50% of the entire space, right?

Mm-hmm.

Because it's all one parcel. So it says 50% vacant. The total square footage in that complex is like 150,000 square feet.

So it would apply. On that parcel. So where that building is, not the entire complex. That building's not 150,000 square feet.

No, the whole complex. So is it the address or is it the parcel?

It's on that parcel. So the parcel where the building is. So it's not the shopping center. It's the parcel where that building is.

which is the shopping center it's tractor supply it's all one parcel oh it's all one parcel yeah but so maybe we should put that in there then it's the address not the parcel because a lot of parcels have tons of addresses on it landing so it speaks to commercial units it's what it's it's identifies it as commercial units yeah but see even that one we have it we have it advertised forever So it's just nobody wants to rent an old restaurant in Red Bull. Just like Denny's.

Yeah, so that's really the purpose of this is to bring it forward. We see blight. We can't get a hold of people in any regard to get them to fix anything. So if there's a better way to do it, that's certainly what we want to know. We don't want to implement something that isn't actually going to work. And so these are actually good discussions to have. But we need something that's going to work for us because we really don't want to have our code enforcement officer, when they are trying to get a hold of somebody, they can't get a hold of anybody because it's

Well, and looking from the outside in, it would almost seem, at least the way I misunderstood it, as predatory. As if you were, in fact, attacking all of the business people, and that, to me, would not be a friendly environment. If I had to sign up and spend $950 and send in an application and do the paperwork that's included with that, I would not consider that a friendly opportunity.

I mean, I see that as well. I also see it as if you see a business that's kind of run down and looks horrible, hasn't been occupied for a long time, other businesses don't want to be next to that one either and it looks bad. Just driving through town, you see business after business that's been vacant for so long and just kind of... It's kind of a downer on the city. Oh, I agree.

I mean, I totally agree.

So there's a way to, like, yeah, you might not be there to occupy it or whatever the situation might be, but you should at least make it look presentable to where it's kind of a nicer place to drive by versus...

And again, a major motivating factor is gaining the information to be able to reach a responsible local party to maintain that property or respond to that property in the event there is an issue or in an emergency. You know having looked hopefully at the form that the registration form it's designating somebody that's within a Certain mileage 40 miles. Thank you To to be able to respond it's it's acquiring information in the so we can be able to hold that individual accountable in the event there is an issue with that property and The $950 is not a value that I made up. That actually only allows about 30 minutes per month for my team to dedicate to this program specifically. So that's, you know, I designated one ream of paper for $25 and postage and ink under that $25. That is literally 30 minutes per month of enforcement action. whether it's responding investigating updating information providing another department information so that value actually isn't a lot of time that's six hours per year to put it into perspective so again it's not an arbitrary number that i i just You know seemed like it felt great so just to kind of help you better understand that's where that number comes from is it it is a reasonable cost to administer the program and

It is, in my experience with the fire department, there's been times where there is emergencies at these places, whether it just be a fire alarm or somehow a fire started, and then sometimes it's really difficult to find the property owner. There's different names, but they don't answer the phone, and there's somebody that's supposed to be in charge of it, and they don't answer. So it is kind of hard to really narrow down who can come take care of it.

Especially when you're dealing with corporations. Yeah.

Well, rarely will a property manager answer the phone in the middle of the night if something happens. Because if a tenant calls me at 3 o'clock in the morning, I'm going to be like, why didn't you just call the police or the fire department? That's typically what you want. So one thing I think that needs to be shared because the city has all this information Most of these properties all the shopping centers have letter of agency signed with the police department and that has contact information, person's name, email, phone number, their mailing address. The problem is that they only last 12 months. Then they expire and the police department throws them away.

And that's why this program would be for an annual, just please make sure the information's.

The police department should be sharing it with the fire department and you guys. I don't know that they do. I don't think they do. Because if there's a water leak, you should be able to just look at that and immediately call somebody. And that's free.

My question again is, has this been discussed with the chamber, and has this been discussed with the business entity in the city of Red Bluff so they have some input into this? Because it kind of sounds to me like you want to implement this in the process without any input from the people of effects. Because to ask people to register and get all this information without proper input is putting the cart before the horse as far as I'm concerned. You need to get the input from the community. You need to get the input from the retailers. Because otherwise, it says top down to me. and not from grassroots where it needs to come from when you look at this community. And a lot of the people in this community that own buildings have a hard time right now finding people to move into those buildings.

That's what I see with most of these vacant buildings is the landlords would do anything to get a tenant in there. A year's worth of free rent will give you $50,000 in cash, not in cash, but to spend on fixing the property. And the tenants are like, yeah, it's still too much work. Sorry.

And those exact landlords would be considered exempt under this project and not have to do any type of reporting other than, hey, maybe just letting me know that they're aggressively looking for a tenant. Again, that would be where that exemption comes in.

So I could see, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here, I could see a landlord being like, I'm marketing the property, and they just put a little for rent sign in the window. What's the definition of marketing a property for rent? Who's going to say, are you going to say that? Okay, you're marketing it, or...

As long as the property is being maintained and in good condition and is not a blighted property, again, I don't think that's who we're trying to capture here.

But they would still have to register?

No. Not if it was being actively marketed. There's a ton of exemptions. We're just trying to get a small segment here. So whether it's tenant improvements, whether it's for lease or for sale. But Beth is correct. We're just looking to make sure that if it is for lease or sale, that they're maintaining the property so that landscaping that may be there is maintained. They're not allowing... blighted conditions with trash or whatever on their property it's just looking that it's maintained so yes it may be vacant but it looks like all the rest of the properties in town

and someone's maybe just using it as like a business front that they don't actually use, but it's a write-off or whatever, how do you go about, like is there a loophole there? Because it says unoccupied, but I didn't see any definition on what we're saying is unoccupied. If they just show up once every 180 days, are they no longer in that?

I think in that capacity, it would be considered occupied. And again, we're looking for that compliance of is your landscaping, are you maintaining landscaping? Are you properly securing it? Are you carrying liability insurance? Are you making sure that vagrants aren't going to, you know?

If they were not making it, you know, they're not maintaining it to what we consider properly maintained but they are occupying it do you still apply?

That's when the code enforcement violations would become present.

Okay.

So on the I think it was the application that said something about do you have fire and or general liability insurance? So if they have fire they don't have to have liability insurance or?

Does it say and or?

Yeah, it says it's on the registration form. It's paragraph six.

It's on page 39.

Yeah. Because I know some property owners in town that own pretty large complexes that just self-insure. And they have a lot of vacancies, unfortunately. The reason they self-insure is because insurance would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Correct so it does have an attach a declaration statement for why I

And I think if the Commission recalls I think that Beth brought this item in the previous item to you to kind of get an idea So if these need a little volley back and forth, we can certainly do that This is just the first first crack So just keep that in mind

I mean, I see what they're saying, obviously. But I kind of see the intent of what we're trying to go for here as far as keeping people accountable for their property. And if you're not making attempts to do anything with it, it needs to at least look presentable for the city and the neighboring commercial buildings. I mean, I'm kind of going back and forth where I completely understand what you guys are saying. I just really like the intent of where we're going with this.

Believe me, I do not like it. blighted properties in Red Bluff just as much as anybody else. It's absolutely horrible for Red Bluff. I mean, you go out on Madison Street there and you had to install a security tower because it's so bad. And those would be properties that I would hope have to fill out an application. But that was my other question. You have a property owner that is just letting something go. It's just a horrible property. They're not going to fill out the form. I mean, how are you going to make them

in those properties either are or would be a code enforcement nuisance or dangerous property or again that's kind of where that nuisance chapter really comes into play completely separate from what we're ultimately talking about here I'm not trying to advertise those properties just yet when people are trying to open businesses.

So what happens if a property owner just says, no, I'm not going to fill out the form or pay the fine, the fee?

So then that's when code enforcement procedures would come into place and we would apply the violations as appropriate.

What about people that are maybe having issues with, let me phrase it correctly, unsheltered. I believe it's unsheltered people kind of camping out on their property, causing a bunch of issues continuously, making it look like it's not being upkept, but it is. It's just they're having issues there. Would we be a little more enforcement on that end of it, or are we allowed to?

So that's when we would bring in our homeless liaison officer. We would make conversations and connections with PATH and the police department. And we would identify the other resources we can bring in for that.

Yeah, and then Commissioner Miranda talked about letter of agency. That's specifically what that's for. Chief Ortega has started a position that's a parks ranger that kind of makes sure to keep them out of the park. But from time to time, when we do have a circumstance and a letter of agency on file, that park ranger would go to address something on a private property as well.

Thank you. It's really difficult. There are some people I know who have had to put a fence around their parking lot to keep the homeless out because unfortunately the police don't seem to be responding effectively enough to actually keep the problem at bay. So some things are out of your control when it comes to how another party is damaging your property that you have no control over and you can't get them to leave your property.

And this ordinance would not hold the business owner accountable for something outside of their control?

Except if they left, let's say a building was broken into and they just left it wide open, then obviously it's an attractive nuisance for the homeless and they're going to keep coming back. I get that.

Well, I'm not even a fan of leaving a board up. Okay, so... Are there things we're requesting on this?

Yeah. You brought up the point on item number six on the application as far as insurance. Are there any suggested modifications to this? I mean, you brought up some good points about the insurance.

I think the fact that it says an option to check no and then to provide a statement allows them to explain why they may not have those insurances but are self-insured or some other reasoning behind it.

Can I make a suggestion? Yes. Why don't you put in here another item that says self-insured?

I think everybody would check that, but you would think.

Yeah, but at least it's another option. Rather than having to say no and then come up with the declaration for insurance and whatnot.

But if it says I'm self-insured, would we, if they checked yes, is there a verification of that at all or is it just kind of the.

And they would attach a copy of the.

So they would still have to attach something whether they checked no or yes kind of.

Correct.

And if they were self-insured, I'm assuming they would attach something as well?

I think in that regard, the declaration statement, as you had pointed out, would be sufficient.

So no matter what box they check, they're still going to go through the hassle of providing some sort of statement or documentation to back it up.

I have another question about the registration form. It says a notarized letter of authorization is required for any contact listed that is not the property owner. But then it says below a property management company is required. So would the property management company have to sign a notarized letter or we just need a copy of the property management agreement?

Just the agreement would be sufficient. I mean, I can certainly revise it to make it more clear or remove the notarized element if you guys so wish. That's just giving somebody authority to be able to make decisions on that property owner's behalf outside of a contracted service.

Yeah. What do you suggest? I would say just there's no reason to have a notarized letter if you already have a property management agreement with the landlord.

Well and again that would be if it's somebody other than a property management company So if you're if you're know if you're having your brother be the person who's the legal authority for your property It would act in that way. I

But it says a property management company is required if the property owner lives 40. I guess I'm just assuming that most of the large property management or property owners don't live in Red Bluff. So they're mostly 40 miles away is what my brain was thinking.

OK. So do you want me to remove the notarized letter?

I would say no notarized letter, in my opinion.

I concur with that.

So if their family member is the one responsible,

The owner would write a letter saying, this person is responsible. Here's their phone number.

So it doesn't have to be. It's the same as the letter. It's just not motorized.

Yeah.

So in the case of Frontier Village and Bell Mill Landing, Are you looking at those as an entity or are you looking at those as individuals, businesses or buildings or sites?

Individual commercial units. So individually.

So for instance, in Frontier Village, is that big vacant lot in the back? So the businesses on the left and the business on the right are going to be responsible?

In that regard that would be property owner So no lab core would not be responsible for the weed abatement of the back lot am I understanding your question Could that be clarified in the wording I

I mean, I don't see too many scenarios where that, I believe an old bar used to sit there that burnt down. The hook and ladder. Yeah. So could that be in there if properties, does it defer to the property owner? I guess I'm not making myself clear. In that situation, can we put verbiage in there that says that particular scenario with a vacant lot there, the property owner's responsible?

Well, it's all one parcel. One or two parcels.

So again, I think that's getting probably more into more code enforcement related actions rather than a registration of a vacant commercial unit. I feel like maybe we're getting a little hung up on the 50% or more. So maybe that's the language that can change. So it's not confusing. Because again, this is about.

Could you explain that further? Because the way I understood it is, you know. Like, let's go back to the tractor supply complex. You know, you have, like, express personnel, now the meat business, and tractor supply, you know, the laundromat, that's all one parcel. But then you have the restaurant space that's 4,000 square feet that's vacant. That has its own address. So we're talking about addresses, suite numbers, unit numbers, not parcels.

and that's what so it sounds like it's a little too subjective because my interpretation is commercial units so the restaurant building is its own commercial unit nug is its own commercial unit tractor supply is its own we have one unit being only 50 vacant then it's if it's if it's occupied it's going to be 100 occupied like you know what i mean

yeah so again maybe that's the language that i can change so it it removes some of that subjective interpretation yeah i mean if anything it would be if this if a suite slash unit or address is 100 vacant because how like you know what i mean like you're not going to rent 30 of your space maybe but yeah of the same building it's going to have its own address So I don't know how we would vote on this if we're asking for a bunch of changes.

Well, the changes would have, I mean, I'd like to kind of narrow down what changes we are asking for. The 50% one. Yeah. Are there any specific changes that would make this better?

The insurance thing, I think. You know, if somebody wants to self-insure, that's up to them.

Okay.

Tom, I have a question for you. I mean, there's several modifications that we've discussed up here. Do we still have to have the public hearing? I'm thinking after the public hearing of holding this over, making the modifications we discussed, and bringing it back. Do I still have to have the public hearing?

Yeah, even though there's not likely to be anybody to present to say anything, I would just open it and close it quickly and then move on and provide the direction to staff. OK.

All right, at this time at 628, I will open the public hearing. No one in the audience? Anita, is there anybody online wishing to speak? No one wishing to speak? I will close it at 629 and bring it back to the commission. Is there any further discussion before we make a motion?

And just to make sure that I've captured your requests, I have removed notarized requirement, changed the 50% occupancy language, and add a self-insured for item number six on the registration form. Is that correct?

Am I the only one that had a problem with understanding that it was specific to blighted properties only and not everyone in general?

Yes, I agree with you. And not everybody that just has a vacant property.

Exactly. A blighted vacant property.

That is currently not meeting code. Yeah. Building code or, you know, code enforcement.

So right now the ordinance reads any vacant property that exceeds 180 days without an attempt to occupy it.

But can you qualify that with blighted? In other words, because when I read that, I was thinking I thought it was going to incorporate everybody and everybody would have to pay the 950 and send in all the paperwork. That's the way it originally read to me. And I'm wondering if we could change it at the point where it has a qualifier so that we know that it's specific to blighted vacant properties that have been vacant for over 180 days or whatever the parameters are. So there's no confusion with people who have well-maintained buildings.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. I mean, is there a way that that applies to same verbiage, but to someone who's... had a nuisance violation already or something along that to where they've already proven to kind of have a nuisance issue now their current blight like a current nuisance to where now that they're supposed to register i guess so i think again we're kind of blurring lines with the intent because those properties already have active code enforcement cases on them so um

Would the owners, how would we identify what commercial properties are required to register?

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding. The ones that are blighted or have code enforcement violations.

So if there were a business that was well taken care of but not... occupied, would they still have to follow all of this, even though they're taken care of and they're not?

Basically, how do we pick and choose who is supposed to register and who's like, oh, you're a fuck?

and that that would be where the default of if your property is vacant for 180 days you would contact essentially me and we would talk about the plan for that property and if it needs to be registered does it mean any of the exemptions yes or no if it does then great move forward happy day if it does not then we're going to have you register and these are the actions that you need to take So it's kind of setting that 180 days, and then you have 30 days from that point to have that conversation and register with me or be exempt to. That's the catch-all. Whereas I think what we're talking about right now is blighted properties. Well, we already have contact with the owners. They're already potentially receiving violations and citations in the event that they're not complying. Completely separate course of action. So I'm not really sure how I would update this to be something that's already kind of in place.

Yeah. Like I said, when I read it, it was not clear to me. So I'm saying that anybody from the outside looking in reading it needs to be at

Sure, so that would be when that individual or that owner would contact the planning department and have that conversation to see if they meet the exemption.

I'm trying to find the exemptions. I'm sorry. So those buildings that are in the city of Red Bluff that are owned by people in Sacramento, San Francisco, that have been vacant now for more than 180 days and will probably be vacant for another 180 days, you're saying that after the 180 days they need to fill out the forms and processes and contact you?

Yes, sir.

Unless they're advertising, making a valid attempt to advertise them for lease.

Right.

Right. And to your point, what is a valid effort to?

Yeah, it can be interpreted lots of ways. Right.

There are a lot of buildings on Main Street that don't have any signs in the windows at all and have been vacant for ages. Yes, they have.

Correct.

They would still contact you anyways and have that discussion, correct?

So that's exactly the objective, is we're trying to get those properties to hopefully be filled with businesses and grow our community economically.

In this economic time and area, it's going to be difficult. Because like I say, some of those buildings have been vacant for a year or more. And to add this to the process, to these owners, is to me, government takeover. You want the whole enchilada instead of just looking at the process and say, encouraging these people to get their buildings leased, rented, whatever, and then you're saying, well, if you don't do that, then we're gonna stop you with a fine. And they've been working on getting it done for a long time and it's just not happening. How many businesses have we opened in this community in the last year?

So again, under that circumstance that you just stated, they would be considered exempt because they're making an effort to lease their property. So there wouldn't be any fines or fees other than the expectation that they're maintaining the property in the meantime. So under that scenario, there's no fees associated.

I believe that if they really are making the effort to fill it, they would make it look presentable and desirable for someone to fill it.

One would hope.

One would hope. So therefore, they're most likely going to be exempt because it's not going to be anything that we even really notice other than the fact that it's empty.

Do we have like a educated guess, because it would be an educated guess, of how many properties are we expecting to be registered in the first few years? I mean, is there any other cities nearby that have those kind of numbers?

I don't have that information. No, this would help start building and tracking that data.

I think the city of Corning has a vacant building fee. They just charge a fee.

Really?

Yeah. The city of Corning already has something in place to address vacant buildings.

And the model that I've presented for you is actually off of the Orland ordinance, so another neighboring jurisdiction.

scenario that you would like to see change that would make this more uh with the changes that we talked about the three sheet that beth yeah

We've had quite a few modifications and suggestions, and as Commissioner Piffero said, you've got to be careful with the business climate around here. You don't want overreach by local government. I would suggest somebody make a motion and let's make the modifications in the language and bring this back. Is there urgency to having this done? I would like to have this as a clean bill. The modifications we discussed, both the reform and some of the other questions we had to define what blighted is and clearly define the exceptions and stuff, just hold this over, do the wording and bring it back to us. Because I would like to give to the city council, I'm sure they may have some questions that we haven't thought of yet, but at least get this in writing and bring it back to us. Are there any issues with that? Okay.

No, not for me. This is a draft and it's intended for some good beat up, so.

Okay, I'm, is there any other comments, Commissioner?

The only suggestion I would have before we're gonna do that, then we probably need to strike out, line out what's been deleted and then insert what is going to be the current language.

Yeah, that we have redline and redline.

Yeah, redline the changes. We may not bring this back when it comes time for that agenda item to be brought back to us.

Agreed.

Leave existing and then redline changes.

Are there any other recommendations or anything?

I think all we've discussed, if we could get that changed for the next review of this, would be pertinent. And then we can have a lot of good ideas here. But I think it would be important just to revise this and bring it back. So do I have a motion to hold this over, have the community development director make the modifications, and bring the revised draft back? Do I have a motion?

You just made the motion. OK, I just made the motion.

I move, yes. Do I have a second?

I'll second that. I'll second that.

Chairman Laterelle, motion, and Quigley, and Mr. Piffero, second. Anita?

Commissioner Piffero? Yes. Commissioner Yates? Yes. Commissioner Quigley? Yes. Vice Chair Miranda? Yes. Chairperson Laterelle?

Yes. Is there any reports from staff?

so our code enforcement officer has been working on his certification programs he just returned from a week-long training down in Sacramento on code enforcement practices and he's working on reviewing our chapter 15 identifying any gaps in language our regulations and our practices and really working diligently on targeting high blighted areas and putting a lot of focus on working with the homeowners and connecting them with resources available to us So we've seen a lot of really great movement with code enforcement, and we have seen an increase in compliance, which is really great. We've had some very long blighted properties really, really looking great. um so looking forward to showing you guys pictures of that before and after typically they're available on the second council meeting of each month we have a code enforcement report that goes out and it has some some pretty good before and after pictures um i think that's it for me

Yes, thank you.

Commissioners, do we have any suggestions for upcoming agenda items?

I'd like to see discussion relative to a food truck park in the community of Red Bluff.

Good idea. I noticed on the weekends, specifically this past weekend, I've seen a lot of vendors sitting on street corners. And I don't know if they were all permitted. But it seems to be on weekends that they show up when the code enforcement officer isn't working. I mean, that is an ongoing issue. And I'm all for people being availed to food and stuff. But there are rules and regulations in place. And I'm not sure all these businesses are permitted. So I would like to see that addressed. I don't see these popping up on weekdays when there's a lot of people in town. So I'm not into controlling everything, but this is food related, so it could be a liability.

So our code enforcement department is working closely with Tehama County Environmental Health as well as the police department to try to capture these after-hour pop-ups. So it's just an ongoing effort that we're certainly trying to do our best with.

Do they have to, like most businesses, post that they have a permit to operate within the city? These street corner vendors that are permitted, are they supposed to make that public?

Yes. In short, yes. They are supposed to have their business license posted and available to be seen. If it's not in a postable location like some of the pop-ups are that are actually permitted, they have to be able to produce the evidence if asked.

Are we allowed to modify our ordinance for increasing the distance between mobile vending units? I didn't know if that's like a state law or, because right now it says it's 300 feet.

That is a local regulation, so that is something that can be considered if directed.

Because it seems like 300 feet is awful short. That's like, I mean, as you saw the Home Depot parking lot, it was between the two, the proposed, it's no longer proposed, it was actually 410 feet between the two. That's really close. I couldn't even imagine if they're only 300 feet apart.

to me a more reasonable would be like a thousand feet or more that would put some of those people out of you couldn't change the ones that are existing maybe grandfathered in the future because I know the one on south main street by the paradise tractor they had to take the wheel and go from across the street to where that new one is to measure it to make sure that it fit right over. They had to move it back. Yeah, they did. They get the 400 feet.

Regarding your idea for a food truck park, do you have an idea of where we would put it? Just a suggestion?

park rehabilitation has a kind of an area, Tom can elaborate on it, but that's kind of set aside for that. Not set aside, but it's like at the end, the north end, there's going to be like a roundabout, and the idea was to have it there. What were you thinking?

Yeah, that would be good. People have suggested, and like I say, it's private property, so I don't know how the city would do it. The one we're across from the bank on... between the two banks on Main Street there on the right-hand side. There was a station in there for a long time. That has been proposed. But the issue, I think what we need to look at when we look at the guidelines, we should be looking at Anderson, Corning, and Redding, and Chico because they have all these things already in place. So we just need to look at adapting what they have for our locality. And somebody suggested that when the band, the Hayman County band does their program on Monday or whenever night it is, that street there becomes a food court area. So I don't know.

Interesting idea.

I think it would be best to have it on city property so that the city could be the one regulating it, charging a space rent or whatever to the, like if it was at the city park.

How would we go about exploring that idea?

So we did do a mobile vendor ordinance update in 25 where I did add the language of a mobile vendor park or participating in a special event activity. So we added the language that would allow that concentration of food trucks for a park kind of setting. Ultimately, it comes down to, well, property owners being interested and kind of going through that process. I have been approached by numerous folks about their interest and support in a food truck park. However, we just haven't had anybody kind of get that ball rolling. there's again there's been a lot of talk about it certainly River Park could have a hosted food truck park event you know monthly or on the weekends it just kind of takes kind of an outside entity to to take lead of that even if it was during the Saturday farmers market would be cool Right it wouldn't be a program necessarily put on by the city But that language was added to be able to take that in consideration if somebody did want to move forward with that initiative I

Well, perhaps you could put some more thought into it and then bring it back in the future and explore this more. But I like that idea. I mean, that does attract people. That in itself is an attraction.

Is there nothing further, commissioners?

No.

With no further business, I will close the meeting at 6.49 p.m. Thank you.

Thank you.