Apr 25, 2023 4:00 PM - Redding Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

>> OKAY, WITH THAT, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR THE APRIL 25TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IF WE CAN PLEASE HAVE A ROLL CALL. >> HERE. COMMISSIONER HATCH: MINER: HERE. COMMISSIONER (INDISCERNIBLE). >> IF WE CAN HAVE THE MINUTES APPROVED. FEBRUARY 28TH, AND MARCH 14TH, 2023. >> I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GREENE, AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BENNER. ANY DISCUSSION? >> I WILL ABSTAIN? >> WAS ABSENT. >> I WILL BE ABSTAINED ALSO. >> OKAY. WE CAN PASS THE MINUTES, WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED? AND THOSE ABSTAINING FOR THE ROLL CALL? >> AYE (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS). >> OKAY. WE HAVE THREE. WITH THAT ITEM NUMBER THREE, ANNOUNCEMENTS. >> CHAIR NONE AT THIS TIME. >> SEEING NO ANNOUNCEMENTS WE MOVE ON TO FOUR A. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS, SEEING NONE. FOUR B, SUBDIVISION AND FENS APPLICATION EXT-2023-00456, BY D&A PARTNERSHIP, INC., FOR A 3-YEAR EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP S-2018-00098, RIDGEWOOD ESTATES SUBDIVISION, CONSISTING OF 6 LOTS ON 2.1 ACRES. THE PROPERTY. IS LOCATED AT 11574 RIDGEWOOD DRIVE AND IS ZONED "RS-2" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT. >> MR. MORGAN, PLEASE PROCEED. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, AND GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS. WHAT WE'RE GOING OVER TODAY IS THE RIDGE WOOD ESTATE SUBDIVISION MAP EXTENSION. HERE BEFORE YOU, YOU SEE RIDGE WOOD ESTATES LOCATION, UM, SO WE HAVE RIDGE WOOD DRIVE HERE. AND HAM LOW LANE, WHICH IS THE CLOSEST INTERSECTION. THIS WAS APPROVED IN 2018. THERE WERE SIX SPOTS, AND THE LOTS ARE APPROXIMATELY, TEN THOUSAND 24 SQUARE FEET AND THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST FOR A MAP EXTENSION FOR THE DIVISION. THE ZONING FOR THE SUBDIVISION, IS AN R S TWO, FOR THE SUBDIVISION. FOR THE MAP EXTENSIONS AND PRACTICE STAFF EXTENSIONS FOR THE NEW MAP APPROVAL. SO THAT'S EXTENDED WITH THE APPLIANCE FOR ALL STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. THE CITY ORDINANCE, AND THE CITY GENERAL PLAN. AND THE TENTATIVE MAP HAS SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT, FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. NO CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED NOR HAS THERE BEEN OTHER PLANS. STAFF IS NOT AWARE OF ANY NEW ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, MITIGATION MEASURES OR CONDITIONS. THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED SUBDIVISION MAPS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MORGAN? FIVE MINUTE RECESS FOR THAT. NEVERMIND. WRONG BUTTON, EXCUSE US. THERE WE GO. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MORGAN ON ITEM, FOUR B ONE? >> SO JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP, I AM LOOKING AT THE TREES MARKED FOR REMOVABLE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S 11 MARKED FOR REMOVABLE, BUT 14 WITHIN THE PADS OF THE BUILDING. IS THIS MAP REVIEWED OR UPDATED. >> THIS MAP HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED. >> DOES BELLA VISTA NEED TO UPDATE THE LETTER FOR A PROJECT? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AT THE, THEY WILL NEED THE LETTER. >> BUT NOT FOR THIS APPROVAL? >> NO. >> FOR THE LOT EXISTING TWO RESIDENTS, WHAT APPEARS TO BE AN OUT BUILDING ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IS THAT A BUILDING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY? >> YES, THAT'S CONSIDERED THE POPULAR LINE. (SPEAKING AWAY FROM MIC) (INDISCERNIBLE). THANK YOU. >> AND IT HAD OCCURRED TO ME PRIOR TO THAT QUESTION IS IT FOR POOL EQUIPMENT? I LOOKED AT AN AREAL OVER THE WEEKEND. I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE CHANGED THAT ORDINANCE A MONTH AGO. >> THIS WAS TO NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS, THE ZONING CODE USED TO READ THAT. >> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD APPLY. NO. >> ALL RIGHT FURTHER QUESTIONS? AND COMMISSIONER GOEDERT: >> IF THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN COMING AFTER THE TREE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN UPDATED, WOULD WE BE CONSIDERING THE TREE ORDINANCE? SINCE IT WOULD BE THE CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN? >> THE STANDARD CONDITION EVEN IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE ORDINANCE THAT'S IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. >> ALL RIGHT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF ANYONE HERE WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM, WE DO HAVE BLUE SPEAKER CARDS IN THE BACK, THAT WE CAN BRING UP FRONT AND HAVE COMMENT FOR THREE MINUTES. ONCE, TWICE; OKAY? SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE WILL BRING THE ITEM BACK TO COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. >> I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT THE SUBDIVISION EXTENSION APPLICATION, 2002300456 FOR A TWO YEAR EXTENSION. >> AND I'LL SECOND IT. >> AND WE HAVE A SECOND. >> OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE, IN THAT CASE WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE? >> AYE (MULTIPLE SPEAKERS) >> THOSE OPPOSED? IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >> ALL RIGHT VERY WELL AND THAT WILL TAKE US TO OUR NEXT ITEM WHICH IS FOUR B TWO. THIS IS A REZONING APPLICATION 22, 2356 BY THE CITY OF REDDING TO CONSIDER THE SHORT TERM RENTAL REQUIREMENTS. >> I'LL TAKE THIS ITEM. UNLESS YOU WANT MR. MORGAN TO PRESENT THIS, I CAN CALL HIM BACK UP. >> GO AHEAD. >> GOOD JOB, MR. MORGAN, THANK YOU. >> AS YOU SAID, THIS IS AN ITEM FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE, IT'S BEEN AROUND SINCE LATE SUMMER, AND WORKING ON THIS IS AND THE LAST TIME THAT THE COMMISSION SAW THIS WAS IN JANUARY, AND WE HAVE ATTACHED THAT STAFF REPORT SO TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A RECOLLECTION OF WHAT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU MADE BUT BEFORE IT WENT TO COUNCIL, COUNCIL HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. AND THEY WANTED TO TAKE THAT BACK A LITTLE BIT, AND KIND OF WANTED TO GIVE BACK A LITTLE MORE TIME AND CONSIDERING THE AMENDMENTS, AND DIRECTIVE STAFF TO PUT THAT TOGETHER BY STAFF COMMITTEE, AND THE DIRECTOR, AND DURING THAT TIME, WE DID A SURVEY AND REACHED OUT TO FOLKS AND SO, WE PUT OUT A SURVEY THAT RESULTED WITH OVER 7 HUNDRED RESULTS IS AND A 567 AND 79 OF THOSE WERE COMPLETE ANSWERS. IS AND THROUGH THOSE RESULTS, AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND CONSIDERING THE SURVEY RESULTS. SO WITH THAT, BEFORE I GET INTO TOO MUCH DETAIL, IS AND MORE FOR A REFRESHER FOR US AND A NEW COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER I WANTED TO GO OVER THAT, WE HAVE THE HOSTED HOMESTEAD, AND THEN THE VACATION RENTALS, HOSTED HOMESTEAD IS WHERE THE UNIT IS OCCUPIED BY AN OWNER. AND THAT'S FOR THE PROCESS IS AND IT CURRENTLY HAS THE APPLICANT SUBMITTING THE PROPERTY REGULATIONS, AND THEY READ OVER THE CRITERIA AND THEY SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT AND THEY GO UPSTAIRS TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND OBTAIN A BUSINESS LICENSE AND OPEN UP THE TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY AND THEY ARE OPEN FOR BUSINESS, THAT'S THE CRITERIA TODAY. FOR A SHORT TERM RENTAL, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED, AND THEY DO HAVE TO SUBMIT TO US AN APPLICATION AND WE ACTUALLY SENT OUT A NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR 3 HUNDRED FEET. AND WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, AND WE MAKE A DECISION. AND WE SEND OUT A READIED ISSUE LETTER, AND THEN ONCE YOU OBJECT TEEN THE BUSINESS LICENSE AND T O T ACCOUNT, AND UM -- AND UM, WE ALSO SEND OUT -- IF THAT'S ISSUING THE PERMIT, AND THERE'S TWO-WAYS THAT THE PERMIT CAN GO, IT CAN BE APPEALED, AND UM, SO IF IT'S NOT APPEALED WE ISSUE THE PERMIT AND THE PERMIT IS GOOD FOR ONE YEAR, AND IT IS SUBJECT TO RENEWAL. AND IF THE PERMIT IS APPEALED THEN IT GOES TO SOME APPEAL. SO THAT'S BASICALLY SUMMARIZING THE PROCESS FOR OUR EXISTING VACATION RENTAL PROCESS. SO WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT AS FAR AS THE CRITERIA, I WANT TO KIND OF GO INTO WHAT'S THE DENSITY AND IN THE DENSITY, WE UM -- WE WANT TO LIMIT THE RENTALS WITHIN A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, AND WE TALKED ABOUT ONE THOUSAND FEET SO IN A SURVEY WE BASICALLY PUT OUT FOLKS WHO WANTED TO LIMIT THE UM, SEPARATION OF ONE THOUSAND FEET. BUT YOU HAVE 7.4 PERCENT AT 12 HUNDRED, AND ANOTHER WITHOUT SEPARATION. SO WHAT WE DID IS COMBINE THOSE 5 HUNDRED OR LESS, AND YOU HAVE 42 PERCENT THAT ARE SAYING THAT WE WANTED FIVE HUNDRED OR LESS. AND WE DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE SO THAT IT'S AT 5 HUNDRED FEET. AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE GEOGRAPHICALLY SO IF YOU'RE TAKING THE HIGHLIGHTED PARCEL, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AT 5 HUNDRED FEET. AND THERE'S THE DIRECT ORDINANCE THERE. WHERE IT TAKES CERTAIN TYPES OF BUFFERS INTO CONSIDERATION AND IF YOU HAVE THE ARTERIAL STREET, OR THE A C L CANAL. THIS IS WHAT THAT MAY LOOK LIKE BUT BECAUSE OF EUREKA OR BUENA VENTURA, WE CAN REDUCE THAT TO 1 HUNDRED FEET, THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE TODAY IS DRAFTED FOR YOUR REVIEW. FOR DENSITY, WITH REGARDS TO CAPPING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS, IF YOU RECALL, WE WERE CAPPING IT AT 4 HUNDRED RENTALS AT ANY ONE TIME, THE COMMISSION DID NOT FEEL THAT THAT WAS NECESSARY WITH THE DENSITY REGULATIONS FOR SEPARATIONS THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE NECESSARY BUT WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A SURVEY RESULT SAYS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CAP SO 61 PERCENT IS INDICATING THAT THEY NEED A CAP. WITH REGARDS TO ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS, WE ARE EXEMPTING DENSITY AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, AND IF ANY AREA IN THE CITY DO NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THOSE ISSUES, IN OUR DOWNTOWN, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS DOWNTOWN WE DON'T TYPICALLY HAVE THE SAME PARKING ISSUES, SO WE'RE EXEMPTING THOSE TWO REQUIREMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE. WITH REGARDS TO THE LOCATION, WE WANT TO PROHIBIT THE PROPERTIES CONTAINING AN ADU THAT HAS AN APPLICATION, SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2020 THAT'S WHERE THE STATE MANDATED, A D US FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. AND WE WANT TO KEEP THAT IN THERE, BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE WHOLE INTENT OF THE ADU IS TO INCREASE UM, RENTALS, LONG-TERM RENTALS, SO IF A PROPERTY OWNER TOOK THE ADU AND MOVED IN THERE YOU HAVE LOST THAT ADU RENTAL AND THEY TURNED IN THE HOUSE AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL. IN ESSENCE, YOU HAVE TAKEN THAT OFF THE MARKET. AS FAR AS THE CRITERIA WE WANT THE OWNER TO BE A NATURAL PERSON AND WE HAVE INSERTED SOME LANGUAGE OF A TRUSTEE, AND LIMITED LIE ABILITY COMPANY WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSION AS FAR AS WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SAY NO CORPORATIONS, BECAUSE THAT'S INTENT, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY COMING IN HERE OPENING UP THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT THE WHOLE POINT IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO -- IT NEEDS TO BE A NATURAL PERSON. THAT'S STILL BEING PROPOSED IN AN AMENDMENT. IF YOU MAY RECALL, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT LIMITING UM, PERSONS HAVING AN ECONOMIC INTEREST IN MULTIPLE UNITS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND LIMITING THAT TO TWO TOTAL UNITS AND WE HAVE THE SURVEY BASIC RESULTS, 52 PERCENT SAYING, WE DON'T WANT THAT, SO WE'RE ELIMINATING THAT, AND PARTICULARLY SAYING THAT IT'S A NATURAL PERSON UNLIMITED FOR THE CORPORATIONS. SO IF YOU HAVE A FIVE BEDROOM HOUSE AND IT'S TWO-PERSONS PER BEDROOM, AND THEY ARE ALLOWED TO INVITE SIX OTHER INDIVIDUALS BUT TOTAL OCCUPANT AT ANY ONE TIME, SHOULD NOT EXCEED 16, WHICH IS INDUSTRY STANDARD. WITH REGARDS TO THE PARKING WE HAD TAKEN A LOOK AT REVISING SOME LANGUAGE OF UM PROVIDING ONE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE AND IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAD ON THE REQUIREMENTS, SO IF YOU HAVE A FIVE BEDROOM HOUSE, YOU NEED FIVE PARKING SPACES, PLUS ONE ADDITIONAL. OVERWHELMINGLY THEY SAID, WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT. WITH THE RESOURCES WE DECIDED TO DRAFT UP THE LANGUAGE THAT CAN REALLY HOLD THE APPLICANT MORE ACCOUNTABLE SO THE APPLICANT SHOULD, WHEN THEY APPLY, THEY NEED TO STATE HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS WILL BE PROVIDED. IF THEY HAVE FIVE, THEY WILL SAY, I HAVE FIVE PARKING SPACES. AND IF THEY CANNOT PROPOSE, AT LEAST, A TWO MINUTE, AND IF THEY HAVE A SHORT TERM RENTAL, THEY WILL HAVE AT LEAST TWO MINIMUM. AND ALL PARKING SPACES WILL HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES, WHEN THE HOUSE WILL BE RENTED AND THE ADVERTISEMENTS HAVE TO INCLUDE HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WILL BE AVAILABLE. ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE REQUIRING AN INSPECTION, AND A FLOOR PLAN, AND A LOG OF ALL LICENSE PLATES AND TENANTS VEHICLES AND REDUCING THE SITE MANAGER'S RESPONSE TIME FROM 60 MINUTES TO 45 MINUTES. AND THE VACATION RENTALS CANNOT GO AGAINST THE R F P CODE. AND WE'RE EXPANDING NOTIFICATIONS FROM 3 HUNDRED FEET TO 6 HUNDRED FEET. AND EXPAND THE APPEAL PERIOD FROM TEN TO FIFTEEN. AND PROVIDE MORE DISCRETION WHEN MAKING A DETERMINATION FOR THE PERMIT. SO FOR INSTANCE, UM, YOU KNOW IF THERE'S A HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUE. WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN MAKING A DETERMINATION. WE ALSO ADDED SUSPENSION ORDINANCE, AND WITH REGARDS TO GRANDFATHERING, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT JUST -- WE HAVE OUR LEGAL NONCONFORMING SECTION OF OUR CODE, AND REALLY HOLDING THOSE EXISTING UNITS TO OUR STANDARD UNIT NONCONFORMING STANDARDS, BUT WE WANTED TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY HARDSHIP EXEMPTIONS, FOR INSTANCE, IF UM, SOMEONE GOT SICK AND COULDN'T OPERATE, WE COULD EXTEND THAT A LITTLE BIT LONGER, WE CAN EXTEND THAT. LET'S SAY THAT THEY WENT TO LEASE A PROPERTY FROM SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR. WE WOULD ALLOW THE GAP TO OCCUR, AND IF THEY WANTED TO TURN THAT INTO A SHORT TERM RENTAL, THEY CAN. AND THAT'S A SURVEY FOR THE GRANDFATHER, AND THE EXISTING UNITS, AT 54 PERCENT, AND WE SAID NO, BED SHOULDN'T GRANDFATHER THOSE IN. AND WHAT ARE -- SO JUST A FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE HOMESTEAD HOME SAYING WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE, TO DOCUMENT WHICH ROOMS HAVE TO BE RENTED, OWNER HAS TO BE THE APPLICANT. THIS IS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL OTHER THAN PURPOSES OF DAILY ROUTINES, FROM THE OWNERSHIP OCCUPIED FOR THE RESIDENTS AT ALL OF THE TIMES. SO OBVIOUSLY, THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BE IN THE HOUSE, IF THEY HAVE TO GO TO WORK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN, THIS IS NEW, WE WOULD REQUIRE AN ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THE CURRENT CRITERIA, TO BE RUSHED TO WHAT THE RULES ARE, AND ALSO, THAT WOULD COINCIDE WITH THE BUSINESS LICENSE THAT THEY HAVE TO RENEW ANNUALLY. SO WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? SO WITH THE AMENDMENTS, WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU LIKE, AND WE WOULD TAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL. AND THEY WOULD TAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS INTO CONSIDERATION AND THEY WOULD ALSO NEED TO ADOPT THE BUDGET RESOLUTION AS THIS -- AS THE NEW REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL STAFF RESOURCES AND ANTICIPATING ONE ADDITIONAL PLANNER, AND ONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND THERE'S APPLICATION FEES TO COVER THE STAFF RESOURCES. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION, AND I'M OPEN TO ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. >> CERTAINLY GOOD WORK PUT INTO THIS. AND SEEING SOME MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION HERE, LET'S START OUT THOUGH IN TERMS OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF I HAVE JUST A COUPLE ON THE NATURAL PERSON LLC CORPORATION ETCETERA. I NOTICED THAT THE ORIGINAL -- ORIGINALLY THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTED US TO GO WITH THE NATURAL PERSON. AND I KNOW THAT IT WAS A COMPLICATED DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD. AND UM, I CAN SEE THAT WE DON'T HAVE CORPORATIONS ON THERE. AND I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. PLEASE LET ME ADDRESS THAT QUESTION. SO UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT INTENT WITH THAT AMENDMENT IS TO EXCLUDE UM, PERSONS OPERATING IN BUSINESS OF SHORT RENTALS.; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, I THINK THAT IT WAS THE ENFORCEMENT PORTION OF THAT FOR THE CONCERN. >> WELL, UM, I WOULD -- LIKE A NATURAL PERSON CAN HAVE A BUSINESS AND SHORT TERM RENTALS, AND CAN OWN SEVERAL UNITS AND PROVIDE FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS, AND AS WELL AS LLC AND CORPORATIONS AS WELL CAN BE OWNED JUST BY ONE NATURAL PERSON. AND OWN THEIR PROPERTY. SO THIS LANGUAGE IS DRAFTED NOW WILL NOT EXCLUDE WHAT WE WANT TO EXCLUDE. SO I WOULD UM, I WOULD REQUEST, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST TO DRAFT THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE TO EXCLUDE PERSONS WHO OPERATE IN A BUSINESS OF SHORT TERM RENTALS. AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY WOULD BE BETTER DRAFTED NOT JUST EXCLUDEING THE CORPORATIONS EVEN I TALKED TO (INDISCERNIBLE) BEFORE THAT AND AS I'M THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED MORE PRECISE TO WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE. >> OKAY. AND WHILE I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE INCLUSION OF LLCS, IT WAS THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS THAT I THINK THAT YOU MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY ABOUT MAYBE JUST OWE OWED LET'S JUST PUT IN THERE NO CORPORATIONS AND THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT -- TO CLEAR UP SOME OF THAT AMBIGUITY. >> LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS, AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PARTNERSHIPS CAN OWN PROPERTY. BUT A GENERAL PARTNER CAN BE CORPORATION SO HERE'S LIKE A LOT OF NUANCES TO BE KNOWN FOR EVERYBODY TO MAKE A DECISION BUT THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE DRAFTED THAT WAY AS TO EXCLUDE CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS IN SHORT TERM RENTALS SO THE OWNERS SHOULD NOT CONDUCT THE BUSINESS ON A SHORT RENTALS, AND THAT IS SAY A VERY VALID CONCERN AND ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ON THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS AS WELL AS THE GENERAL PARTNERSHIPS. UM, CAN OWN THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY. AND I THINK THAT I SEE THE DISTINCTION ON THERE. MY SECOND QUESTION HAD TO DO WITH THE ALL PARKING AVAILABILITY. I BELIEVE THAT IN THE STAFF PACKET, IT INCLUDED WITHIN A GARAGE. I JUST WANTED TO VERIFY THAT IT WAS AN INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT THEY INDICATE THAT THE SPACES IN THE GARAGE THAT ARE AVAILABLE NEED TO BE AVAILABLE. >> SO THAT PRECLUDES, AND TAKES CARE OF THE POTENTIAL LAUNDRY MAT? >> IT SHOULD. >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IS IT YOUR POINT THAT IN YOU'RE OPERATING A BUSINESS OF RUNNING SHORT TERM RENTALS, YOU WOULD BE DISALLOWED? >> AS YOU KNOW THERE'S DIFFERENT KINDS OF LIVING TRUSTS, JUST A MONETARY TRUST, WHICH IS NOT A LIVING TRUST, AND UM -- ADDITION TO THAT, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN OPERATE IN A BUSINESS FROM THE SHORT TERM RENTALS, SO WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THERE TO AMENDMENT THAT -- THAT CLARIFICATION THAT I NEED FROM THE BOARD -- >> BECAUSE THERE'S MANY PEOPLE WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY THAT OWN FOUR OR FIVE SHORT TERM RENTALS, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME A BUSINESS? AND I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS, AS LILI SAID THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED THAT THEY WOULD BE EXCLUDED AND THAT WAS GOING ALONG WITH MR. *DEWALLTS ADVICE. I DID SOME RESEARCH SINCE THE LAST MEETING FROM THE CORPORATIONS AND BUYING SHORT TERM RENTALS, AND UM, WHAT I FOUND OUT WHICH IS KIND OF INTERESTING THAT PENSION FUNDS, AND INVESTMENT FIRMS, ARE BUYING UP INVESTMENTS, IN 2018 ONE OF FENG HOMES IS PURCHASED BY CORPORATION. AND PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL IS OWNING 20 THOUSAND HOMES, IN THE FIRST QUARTER, CORPORATE INVESTORS SNAPPED UP 15 PERCENT OF THE HOMES, AND IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, N B C REPORTED THAT NET LIFE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PREDICTS THAT BY 2030 INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WILL CONTROL 40 PERCENT IN THE UNITED STATES. IT IS AID CONCERN UNLESS YOU WANT TO CREATE A PERMANENT INVESTOR'S CLASS BY SHORT TERM RENTALS, THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET A FOOT HOLD -- BUT WITH THE LIMITED LIE ABILITY COMPANY MENTION, I THINK THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO SATISFY MY CONCERN AND MR. DE-WALT'S SAYING WHERE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IN WHICH THE MEMBERS ARE NATURAL PERSONS, BECAUSE A CORPORATION -- AND I WORK FOR SEVERAL, I MANAGE PROPERTIES MANAGED BY LLC OWNED BY CORPORATIONS. SO THAT'S FURTHER APPLYING THE NATURAL PERSONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATIONS, THAT'S MY COMMENTS RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. >> IF I MAY ADDRESS. UM, ABSOLUTELY VALID COMMENTS, AND UM, I AGREE WITH THAT DETERMINATION AND UM, UM I JUST WANTED TO CALL THE COMMISSION TO LOOK INTO THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING. BECAUSE THE FORMS OF OWNERSHIP CAN BE VERY COMPLICATED. >> I THINK THAT WE CAN CRAFT THIS BETTER TO ACHIEVE IT. AND I THINK THAT WE AGREE TO WHAT THAT IS. AND THE LEGAL EASE, AND THE LANGUAGE CAN BE TIGHTEN UP SOME. AND IF YOU WANT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING, WE CAN TIGHTEN IT UP, AND KEEP IT GOING TO THE COUNCIL. AND AS THIS BODY AGREES WITH THIS. AND WE CAN BUTTON IT UP AS WE GO TO THE COUNCIL. >> COMMISSIONER HATCH: >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE 4 HUNDRED HOUSING CAP. IS THAT TIED TO ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR? >> WELL, WE TAKE A LOOK AT HOW MANY ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING IN ANY ONE TIME LEGALLY ON LEGAL. AND THERE'S RAKES FROM 360 TO 380 AND UM, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE UNDER STAFF AND REALLY NOT ENFORCING IT. AND SO, UM, THE QUESTION WAS ASKED, IF WE ADDED THIS ADDITIONAL STAFF. HOW MANY CAN WE HANDLE. WE SAID, IT'S ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE CAPPED. SO ADDITIONAL 20 WILL TAKE US TO 4 HUNDRED, THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED THERE. >> DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF THE CAP? >> 30 THOUSAND. >> I HEARD SOMEWHERE IN THE UPPER 20S, IT'S CLOSE TO 30 THOUSAND INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY. >> OKAY. SO THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. >> YES, THAT'S TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY. SO 3 HUNDRED WOULD BE ONE PERCENT. >> YEAH, I THINK THAT SINGLE-FAMILY WOULD BE MID TO LOWER RANGE. AND SINGLE -- >> SOME OF THE INTENT THERE IS TO ARRIVE TO A NUMBER LOOSELY FROM ONE TO TWO PERCENT IN HOUSING STOCK. WHEN WE DID RESEARCH IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, LIKE SAN DIEGO AND OTHERS, THEY HAVE THAT AS THEIR CAP. THEY DON'T ESTABLISH IT BY-LAWS OF PERCENTAGE BECAUSE IT'S CHANGING AND MOVING AND THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO HANDLE. BUT IN THE INITIAL CAP, IT'S PERCENT, OR PERCENT AND A HALF. I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE HAS THE EXACT NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS. BUT THAT'S PART OF STAFFING CONSIDERATIONS. >> I LIKE THAT PERCENTAGE BASED AND IT'S A YES, SIR, IF WE DID GET MORE, AND WE HAD MORE HOUSING STOCK, THEN THAT NUMBER CAN INFLADE OVERTIME, WITHOUT HAVING TO GO BACK, AND REVAMP THAT IN THE FUTURE. >> CORRECT, BUT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND CITY MANAGER. TO COME BACK TO THESE BOTH YOU AND COUNCIL TO ADJUST AS WE WANT. UM -- WE WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THE STAFF LEVEL IN DENSITY, AND CAP, BECAUSE DENSITY IS OF CAP. AND DENSITY IS ONLY SO MUCH AREA. AS MS. TOY PRESENTED, 60 OR SOME ODD PERCENT WANTED A CAP. SO THAT FACTORED INTO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SURVEY, DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF ANY DEMOGRAPHIC DATA, WAS IT REPRESENTED OF THE COMMUNITY AND LIMITED BY I P ADDRESS. AND I KNOW THAT IF I CLICK ON IT AGAIN I CAN GET BACK INTO IT. I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO YOU KNOW -- >> WE DO HAVE DEMOGRAPHIC DATA, I BELIEVE THAT THE FIRST QUESTION ON THE SURVEY IS I HAVE OWNERSHIP INTEREST, AND I LIVE NEXT TO A SHORT TERM RENTAL. I DO NOT LIVE NEXT TO A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR OTHER DECLINE. I CAN PULL IT UP HERE, AND IF I HAVE A FEW MINUTES, I WILL. BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE I P ADDRESS, I DON'T THINK THAT WE UM -- LOCKED IT DOWN TO THAT EFFECT. I SUPPOSED SOMEONE TOOK IT DOWN TEN TIMES TO 50 OR ONE HUNDRED. I HAVE TO CHECK WITH OUR COMMUNICATIONS TEAM IF THERE'S A WAY TO LOCK THAT DOWN, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE WENT AS FAR AS TO LIMIT INDIVIDUAL I P ADDRESSES TO ONE SUBMISSION. >> THAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT. IN A SENSE THAT PEOPLE CAN DO THAT, BUT IN GENERAL, I AM MORE THAN OKAY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I WOULD SAY THAT THE DATA DOESN'T SEEM TO ADDRESS THAT IN MY OPINION. AND ALSO, WE DID A UM -- OPEN HOUSE. AND I FORGET THE DATES MARCH TIMEFRAME, AND ASSISTANT PLANNERS WERE THERE. AND WE HAD 30 TO 40 PEOPLE SHOW UP, AND TO THE SENTIMENT TO LINE UP FROM THE DATA. AND IT IS ANECDOTAL. IT IS A GOOD POINT, AND I WILL REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNICATIONS TEAM TO REACH OUT BETTER. AND ONE OTHER QUESTION. >> IT LOOKS LIKE WE -- IN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR PART OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN, THERE'S CERTAIN OF THESE -- THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER WAYS OF PREVENTING, UM, SHORT TERM RENTALS, IN SOME OF THOSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE IN DOWNTOWN? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF? MAYBE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PRIVATELY ENFORCED THROUGH CCNR INCLUDED IN GROUNDS FOR KEY NILE OR APPROVAL IF SOMEONE CAN BRING THOSE BACK. DO WE WANT TO HAVE A DENSITY REQUIREMENT IN DOWNTOWN? TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING. >> YOU CAN, BUT WE THOUGHT THAT THE CORRIDOR IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS IN TOWN WHERE WE WANT HIGH DENSITY, WHERE PEOPLE EXPECT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF NOISE, THAN YOUR TYPICAL DWELLING. THAT'S UP TO YOUR CONSIDERATION. BUT STAFF DIDN'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY. >> ALSO, IN TERMS OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN DOWNTOWN, IN GROWTH, AND DEVELOPMENT, AND IN TERMS OF TOURISM, AND OFFERING OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE PEOPLE COMING INTO DOWNTOWN OF LESS RESTRICTIONS. AND WE SAW THAT IN THE APPROACH IN ZONING AND EXEMPTING THEM FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, FROM SHORT TERM ORDINANCE. AND WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE SHORT TERM RENTALS AND SO THAT'S CONSIDERED FOR STAFF TOO. AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING LESS RESTRICTIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR, AND WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF MARKET RATE IN HOUSING DOWNTOWN YET. AND HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE THAT WOULD COME, AND HOPING THAT IT WOULD BE RENTED OUT, WHICH DEFY THE WHOLE PURPOSE. QUICK, I HAVE A QUICK CLARIFICATION THERE. STRS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN MULTI-FAMILIES, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> SO THAT ADDRESSES THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PARTICULARLY IN THE DOWNTOWN UNITS, JUST AS ONE MORE POINT ON THAT. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS DRAFTED, AND WE MAY NOT HAVE EXCLUDED THE DOWNTOWN FAMILY. >> I DON'T KNOW WHICH NUMBER. NOTWITHSTANDING THE SUBDIVISION D TWO. AND DOWNTOWN MAY BE PERMITTED IN SHORT TERM RENTAL. >> I THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MOST LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY NO DENSITY CAP WILL BE THE NORTH -- THE SECTION OF CALIFORNIA STREET BETWEEN TRINITY AND RIVERSIDE. THE OLDER NEIGHBOR THERE -- THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. DOES IT HAVE WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN, I RECALL THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT I MIGHT -- THOSE ARE SMALL LOTS. THAT'S IN THE MIXED USE. AND FOR THOSE TO BE GOING AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE AS IS, RIGHT? >> I CAN THINK OF A HANDFUL. >> YEAH, THERE WERE JUST A FEW. SO THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WE PROBABLY SEE A LOT OF OCCURRING, BECAUSE I HAD QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO THE UM, PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE DOWNTOWN CORE. I KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE ONE IN GENERAL, AND WE HAVE SOME ISSUES THERE OF LATE, AND WHAT'S THE DEMAND AND THE FEASIBILITY OF TRULY DOING ANY OF THESE IN MASS DOWNTOWN AND THERE REALLY AREN'T A LOT OF LOCATIONS, MOSTLY IN THE COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS, WITHIN THE CORNER BOUNDARY. SO -- WE DON'T -- I DON'T SEE IT BEING A HUGE -- I AGREE WITH YOU, IT CAN BE A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, IN THE DOWNTOWN NOW, FOR BUILDING PERMITS, AND IT CAN BE SOME -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S DUPLEXES, I BELIEVE IT'S 12 UNITS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT THE IDEA IS TO HAVE IT AS AN OPTION. AND EVEN FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, OR OTHER PROPOSALS THAT COME OUR WAY IN THE CORE. THAT THAT'S FLEXIBILITY. AND HOWEVER THIS BODY CAN RECOMMEND OTHERWISE TO COUNCIL. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT FOR THE QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER P A R T I N. >> THAT'S FOR THE LIMITING FACTOR INCLUDED IN THAT. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND AN S CORP. FOR THE LIMITED LIABILITY THAT THEY HAD IN EXISTENCE THAT THAT S CORPORATION IS NOT INVOLVED PRIMARY IN THE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTIES. >> THAT'S A VALID CONCERN AND UM, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT WE DO NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO EXCLUDE IN ORDER TO DRAFT IT. TO DRAFT IT PROPERLY. I WAS LOOKING TO EXCLUDE SOME TYPE OF BIG BUSINESSES OR INITIAL SHORT TERM RENTALS OR TRYING TO EXCLUDE ANY BUSINESSES OWNING SHORT TERM RENTALS, OR WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE? BECAUSE THE CORPORATION AND THE OWNERSHIP AND THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS AN OWNERSHIP. SO THE PERSON WILL NOT EXCLUDE WILL NOT PRECLUDE THE BIG BUSINESSES BUYING PROPERTIES, AND COMMITTING THEM TO SHORT TERM RENTAL BUSINESSES, AND AT THIS POINT LIKE S CORPORATION SO THIS IS FOR TAX PURPOSES AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CORPORATION, AND THERE'S LIMITATIONS, AND IT'S AGRICULTURE, AND IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT HERE, BUT IT IS UP TO ONE HUNDRED SHAREHOLDERS OR SO. SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S LIKE, HOW MANY SHAREHOLDERS WE HAVE. IF WE HAVE TO CONDUCT THIS TYPE OF BUSINESSES. AND IN THAT REGARD, WE WILL JUST DRAFT THE LANGUAGE TO EXCLUDE WHAT WE DON'T WANT HAPPENING HERE. AND IT WILL SEEMS THAT WITH THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC ENGAGE POINTED THAT IS TAKING PLACE IN THE SUBJECT OVER MANY MONTHS, THEN THAT WOULD BE A FACTOR AND RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD GO TO COUNCIL AS IT WAS MENTIONED BY A FEW OF US HERE TONIGHT. AND WHAT'S THAT'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. AND THAT'S INCLUDING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES. AND TIED INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT THE GRANDFATHERING OF IT AS I UNDERSTAND WOULD PRECLUDE EXISTING GOOD FAITH OPERATORS, IF THEY DIDN'T MEET THE CURRENT STAND >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO SOMEBODY OPERATING WITHOUT IT, MAY NOT CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS? >> WELL, THEY CAN COME IN, BUT THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION IF THEY CONTINUE. IT DOESN'T EXCLUDE THEM FROM APPLYING. >> ARE YOU SPEAKING TO A LEGALLY PERMITTED OPERATING SHORT TERM RENTAL? >> CORRECT. >> THE INITIAL PROPOSAL, IS TO HAVE A THREE YEAR PERIOD WHICH THEY HAVE TO OBTAIN COMPLIANCE OR BE GRANDFATHERED. SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW FOR LEGAL NONCONFORMING -- THEY CAN BE GRANDFATHERED. >> CORRECT. >> YES. SO THEY -- I BELIEVE THAT MS. TOY'S PRESENTATION PHRASED IT IN SUCH A MANNER. AND YOU ARE GRANDFATHERED IN. AND YOU CONTINUE TO OPERATE. >> WOULD THAT APPLY IF WE SELL THE PROPERTY? >> YES. >> BECAUSE SCRS GO WITH THE OWNER, NOT THE LAND. >> SO IF YOU SOLD YOUR SHORT TERM RENTAL PROPERTY TO ME, I CANNOT TAKE YOUR PERMIT, AND CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND IN YOUR CASE OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IT WOULD BE SOLD THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED. FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY? >> NO, IF SOMEONE WANTED TO SALE THE LIMITED LIABILITY PROPERTY. >> YES, THAT CHANGES THE COURSE, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY PURCHASE THE LLC. AND AS WELL AS THE LIVING TRUST CAN CHANGE THE TRUSTEES, AS WELL AS THE -- AND ANY CHANGE IN THE OWNERSHIP CAN HAPPEN ON A LEVEL OF THE PROPERTY OR ON A LEVEL OF THE OWNER, AND IF IT'S LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, IF THE LLC IS SOLD, IT IS CONTROLLED BY SOMEONE ELSE, IT MAKES SENSE SO IT CAN BE A FACTOR THAT A MANAGED MEMBER OF THE LLC CHANGED THEN, UM, THAT WOULD TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A NEW PERMIT? >> UM WELL -- THE OWNERSHIP OF LLC IN MANAGEMENT -- IN MANAGING MEMBER IT'S NOT KIND OF THE SAME CONCEPT, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE ASKING, SO WHO'S GOING TO CONTROL THE LLC FURTHER, SO YOU CAN SALE THE LLC. >> OR IF THAT'S A CONSIDERATION IN AN UPDATED ORDINANCE THAT IF WE TAKE ON LLCS THAT HAVE THIS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN MANAGING MEMBERS TO TRIGGER THE NEED FOR A NEW PERMIT. >> WE CAN CONSIDER THAT. BUT WE JUST NEED TO UM, DECIDE WHETHER WE GO WITH UM, THE OWNERSHIP'S STRUCTURE OF THE PROPERTY OR LIKE, DRAFTING IT THAT WAY THAT EXCLUDES SOME TYPE OF ACTIVITY BY ANY OWNER WE WILL WORK WITH THE STAFF TO SEE HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT PURPOSE. AND WE WILL GO KIND OF -- GOING FROM THERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, AND UM -- AND UM, ON LLC ABSOLUTELY BEING SOLD LIKE THE ENTIRE LLC CAN BE SOLD, AND IN THAT CASE, THE -- THE OWNER WILL BE THE SAME LIKE I DON'T KNOW, X Y Z, LLC BUT THE OWNERSHIP OF LLC WILL BE DIFFERENT. HAVE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS? >> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN SELL AN LLC, AND CARRY ON THE PROPERTY. IF THAT HE RECOMMENDED THAT WOULD SAY, IF THAT CHANGE TAKES PLACE, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN UPDATED PERMIT? >> THAT CAN BE DONE. LAST ITEM. >> AND I KNOW THAT IT'S PROBABLY A SILLY STUPID QUESTION. THE 5 HUNDRED FEET THAT'S BEING PROPOSED. AND THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCES TO PROTECT EXISTING PROPERTY RIGHTS, OR THE CHARACTERS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. PROTECTING THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. >> I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO JUDGE IT. OR IF YOU HAVE AN IRREGULAR LOT, LIKE THE HOUSE THAT WAS PROPERLY THERE AT SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET AND CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND YOU MAKE THE CUT THERE. AND IT MAKES SENSE THERE. SO MAKES IT IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT BUT TO MAKE IT AN OPTION, BUT TYPICALLY WHEN WE LOOK AT IMPACTS, WE USE THAT TO BUILD A POOL PROPERTY LINE. AND YOU HAVE ACCESSORY UNITS THAT ARE ON THE ACCESS POINT. IS THE INTENTION HERE FOR A TIMER TO A 60 OR 45 MINUTE RESPONSE TIME? SOME OF THESE SEEM LIKE REALLY DETAILED RESPONSES AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR THE STAFF TO KEEP THAT UP. SO IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT TO THE CITY, THE CITY CAN REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY MANAGER, AND HAVE 45 MINUTES TO RESPOND OR COME TO THE PROPERTY, I'M CONCERNED THAT WE'RE ASKING STAFF TO ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T REALISTIC THERE. THERE'S SEVERAL WAYS THAT PEOPLE ARE HANDLING IT TODAY. SO TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE OPERATORS IF YOU'RE A GOOD OPERATOR, THEY REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY LET THEM KNOW WHO THE SITE MANAGERS ARE. AND THEY HAVE THE PHONE NUMBER, AND THEY REACH OUT TO THE SITE MANAGER. AND IF THEY ARE NOT GETTING COMPLIANCE AND THE NOISE KEEPS GOING ON. BEYOND AN HOUR, THEY WILL CALL THE POLICE MOST OF THE TIME. AND THEN WE HAVE RECORD THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CALLED. AND WHEN WE ISSUE RENEWALS, WE LOOK AT ALL OF THE RECORDS, WE SEE IF THERE'S COMPLAINTS ABOUT THAT. NOISE COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THOSE ARE CLUES THAT THEY ARE NOT REALLY MANAGING THE UNIT WELL. SO WITHIN -- 60 MINUTES SEEMING LIKE A LONG TIME, 11 O'CLOCK. IT WILL DRIVE ME NUTS, AND WE THOUGHT THAT 45 MINUTES WOULD BE ENOUGH FOR SOMEONE TO CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES, AND GET OUT THERE. AND NOT HAVE TO RACE THERE BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE 30 MINUTES, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT STAFF HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. AND EVEN HERE IN REDDING TIME. YOU CAN WAKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. AND FALLING DOWN THE STAIRS TO GET TO THE UNIT. WE THOUGHT THAT 45 MINUTES WAS A GOOD INDICATOR, BUT ENFORCEMENT, NUMBER ONE, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY IS THE NEIGHBORS. TO CALL THE SITE MANAGER, AND LATER ON, WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCEMENT, AND YOU SEE THE RECORDS OF NO ONE RESPONDING, AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT MAINTAINING THE 45 MINUTE RESPOND TIME. >> I THINK THAT ENFORCEMENT PRIMARILY WILL BE THE SITE MANAGERS ROLE. NOT THE CITIES. SO THESE ROLES ARE -- THESE RULES ARE FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANTS, AND THE PERMIT HOLDERS, SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT THE CITY STAFF WILL START THE STOP WATCH TO GO OUT IN, AND RESPOND, BUT TO PROVIDE THE SITE MANAGERS, AND THE NEIGHBORS MORE THAN NOT, AND IT'S TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD THROUGH SURVEY DATA, AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, TO HELP THE SITE MANAGERS TO BE TIGHTLY REGULATED ON THE PROBLEM SITES. BUT THEN IF THE RECORD INDICATES -- THOSE ARE RULES, AND THE CITY WON'T BE ACTIVELY ENFORCING THEM ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASES. >> SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS, IS TO THE RENEWAL PROCESS. AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. THE LOGGING OF THE COMPLAINTS, SO IT'S NOT AN AUTO RENEWAL. THEY HAVE TO REAPPLY? >> YES, THEY GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS AS THE INITIAL PERMIT. >> AND THEN TO BE ADDRESSED AND SEND THEM ON THEIR PATH? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HOW DIFFERENT IS THAT AS A RENEWAL THEN SAY LIKE OUR UM, STANDING B AND B'S AND HOTELS? >> STANDARD HOTELS DON'T REQUIRE THE ANNUAL PERMITS, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY DISCRETIONARY REVIEW ON A REGULAR BASES. WHAT ABOUT THE B AND B'S THAT ARE IN A HOME. >> YES, THEY SERVE BREAKFAST AND STUFF LIKE THAT. IT'S A ONE TIME PERMIT. IF WE PAY THE TOTS. >> SO THIS IS DIFFERENT? >> TOTALLY DIFFERENT. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE. >> COMMISSIONER HATCH. IS THE ONLY TIME TO REVOKE UM, PERMIT AFTER THAT UPON RENEWAL, OR CAN IT BE REVOKED? THERE'S CONSISTENT VIOLATIONS TO BE REVOKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT PERIOD. >> YES, THE LADDER. >> SO IF IT RISES TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. AND THE ISSUES ARE NOT RESOLVED, IT CAN RISE UP TO BE REVOKED. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THAT'S ADDED LANGUAGE SECTION H, TO MAKE THAT EVEN MORE CLEAR THAN IN THE PREVIOUS OR ADOPTED ORDINANCE. >> HE WAS LOOKING AT J. SO -- THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. >> COMMISSIONER GOEDERT: >> YES, THANK YOU. A COUPLE OF FOLLOW-UPS TO THE ISSUES THAT MY COLLEAGUES BROUGHT UP. IN THE SURVEY, DID YOU ASK IF THE RESPONDENT WAS A RENTER OR A HOMEOWNER? >> GIVE ME A MINUTE, I'LL GO LOOK. >> AND THEN LILI, WHEN YOU WERE RESPONDING TO COMMISSIONER'S INQUIRY OF PARTNERSHIP OWNERSHIP. I'M CONFUSED. DOES A SALE OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL OCCURRING, DOES THE PERMIT GO WITH THE BUYER? >> THE ANSWER IS YES. FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS, YES. WE HAVE WRITING THERE, SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO REAPPLY. >> IN OUR CASE, IT DOES NOT. SO THE NEW OWNER HAS TO REAPPLY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> TRYING TO GET SOME IDEA FROM THE PLANNER ORDERS. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THE MAJORITY OF THE WORK WILL BE ON SHORT TERM RENTALS. GOOD THAT'S THE PRO? >> YES. GOOD TO DO A GOOD JOB, AND ADMINISTERING THE PROBLEM. AND HAVING THE RENEWALS, IT IS A FULL-TIME JOB. BUT THAT DOES SEEM THAT IT WILL BE THE CASE. >> WE HAVE BEEN SENDING OUT PERMITS THAT THE PERMIT WILL EXPIRE. IF WE HAVE A WELL OILED MACHINE. WE'RE RUBBING BEHIND BUT ABOUT TWO MONTHS, AND IF THEY CAME IN AHEAD OF TIME, IT IS WAY AHEAD OF SCHEDULE WITHOUT ANY LAPSING OR ANY PERMIT. >> OKAY. I LIKE THAT. >> I STILL DO HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE LICENSE PLATE GATHERING, JUST FOR THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MAJOR PIECE THERE IS THE ENFORCEMENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WILL COULD THAT, RATHER THAN A HOTEL. THEY CAN CERTAINLY ASK FOR THAT. AND MAYBE THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE SHORT TERM RENTALS ASKS FOR THAT TO REQUIRE TO RECEIVE SOMETHING, FROM THE RENTER. BUT UM, THAT -- LIKE THAT LICENSE PLATE TO GET A CAR FROM THE AIRPORT ALONG THE WAY, AND THEY WON'T HAVE THAT IN DAYS OR WEEKS IN ADVANCE. I THINK THAT IT IS -- I WOULD HAVE MUCH TREPIDATION TO DISTRACT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, POSSIBLY BY THE WAY THAT WE WRITE THIS. IF YOU HAVE A THREE OR FOUR BEDROOM. THAT'S A MINIMUM OF THREE. AND THAT'S BASED ON THE INPUT THAT WE RECEIVED, IS AND ETCETERA -- SO WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY THAT PARKING ENFORCEMENT MAY BE LESS OF AN ISSUE IF THE ORDINANCE GOES THROUGH AS DRAFTED. MAYBE YOU CAN RECOMMEND THAT. AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS NOT AS DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. AS ONE POINT. AND FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER'S QUESTION THE SURVEY SAYS, MARK THE BEST OPTION THAT APPLIES TO YOU. THAT WAS 15 -- ABOUT 15 PERCENT STR IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S 43 PERCENT OF THE RESPONSES. AND THE OTHER WAS 6 PERCENT, AND I USED IT OWN AN STR. 43 PERCENT WAS THAT I LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THAT. WHERE THERE'S OWNER OPERATION. I AM HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP LATER TO SHOW YOU THE SURVEY DATA. >> COMMISSIONER PARTIN. >> TWO FOLLOW-UPS, AS TO COMPLIANCE. AS THEY ARE FOUND TO DO SO, ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS PERMITTED, ONCE THAT HAPPENS, ANY PENALTY? >> NO. BASICALLY BY GETTING THE PERMIT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. SO THERE'S NO PENALTY FOR THEM OPERATING, AND THERE MAY BE PENALTY IN FINANCE, UM, COLLECTING FOR THE T O T, BECAUSE WE HAVE RECORDS OF THE STAYS. AND WITH THE NEW BUYER, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE INSTANCE THAT HAS A BUYER THAT WANTS TO BUY THAT EXISTING USE COULD THEY APPLY SUBJECT TO OBTAINING THE PERMIT? BEFORE THEY GET INTO TITLE? >> THEY CAN, WITH PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE TO WRITE THAT UP. IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE TO WHAT IT WOULD SAY, WE COULD DENY AN APPLICATION FOR EVIDENCE OF APPLICATION IN VIOLATION WITH THIS ORDINANCE, IF SOMEONE WAS OPERATING. MANY DO OPERATE IN PERMIT, WE CERTAINLY -- WHEN DENYING THE PERMIT, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE PERMIT. PERHAPS IF THAT WAS APPEALED OR IF IT CAME BEFORE THIS BODY OR OTHERS. THAT CAN BE GROUNDS FOR DENIAL. >> BUT WE DID HAVE A SCENARIO, VERY SIMILAR TO THAT, AND THAT WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. GREAT QUESTIONS ALL AROUND, WHY NOT OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL KEEP THAT WITH THREE MINUTES A PIECE, IT'S A YES, SIR TO SEE THE TIMER. >> GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS ROBIN (INDISCERNIBLE). AND I AM NOT, UM, SHORT TERM RENTAL OWNER, BUT I HAVE ENJOYED MANY VACATIONS AND APPROVE OF THEM. AND JUST PERSONALLY HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A UNIT THAT JUST DIDN'T -- AND IT HAD VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES BIG TWO STORY HOUSE AMONGST SMALL HOUSES FOR THOSE REGULATIONS, BECAUSE SOMETIMES, YOU CAN'T GET THE NUANCES, OF THOSE FACTORS. IS AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS, THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT AND I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION, AND ONE OF THEM IS REDUCING THE 5 HUNDRED FEET TO 3 HUNDRED FEET. AND I INNED THAT THE WHOLE BUBBLE JUST GOT SMALLER AS A CIRCLE, AND THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME, BECAUSE, THERE'S MAYBE MAJOR STREET, AND YES, YOU WOULD REDUCE IT ON THAT SIDE, BUT WHY WOULD YOU SHRINK IT TO ALL OF THE HOUSES ALONG THAT STREET UP AND DOWN THE STREET THAT ARE WITHIN THE FIVE HUNDRED FEET, SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANY REDUCTION, MAYBE IT A POLYGON INSTEAD OF A REDUCTION. AND THE OTHER ONE WAS A PROBLEM THAT CAME OUT FOR THE HOMEOWNERS WITH THE 15 DAY NOTIFICATION. AND CAME OVER TO THE FOURTH OF JULY. AND WE'RE ALL SCRAMBLING TO MAKE COMMENTS TOGETHER. AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT FOR THE FIRST TIME APPLICATION. I THINK THAT WITH THE RENEWAL IT IS FINE. BUT I THINK THAT 21 IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE FIRST TIME APPLICATION. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT ON THIS PROJECT. MY NAME IS JEFF (INDISCERNIBLE). I MANAGE SHORT TERM RENTALS FOR OTHER PEOPLE. UM, AS WELL AS WE OWN ONE AS WELL. I HAVE BEEN HERE THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, AND WHAT CAN I SAY? A COUPLE OF POINTS THE 5 HUNDRED FOOT RADIUS, UM -- THE SURVEY SAID 52 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE DID NOT -- OR 52 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WANTED IT UNDER 5 HUNDRED FEET, AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR 5 HUNDRED FEET, AND THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS AT THE UM, COUNCIL'S UM -- DISCRETION AND THEY HAVE TAKEN 3 HUNDRED FEET AS A STANDARD, AND I HAVE THIS HAPPENED TO ONE OF MY PROPERTIES SO THEY INITIALLY SENT IN DENIAL LETTERS, HAD I NOT CALLED, IT WOULD HAVE STAYED AT DENIAL, BUT BOTH OF THE PROPERTIES HAD PERMITS FOR MULTIPLE YEARS, AND EVEN THOUGH THE SURVEY SAID UNDER FIVE HUNDRED, THE RECOMMENDATION, IS FOR FIVE HUNDRED. IF YOU'RE DOING A SURVEY, WHERE 15 PERCENT WERE OPERATORS THAT RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY AND 40 SOMETHING PERCENT JUST LIVED NEAR THEM, AND EVEN THEY WANT LESS THAN FIVE HUNDRED FEET. AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE NOT POLLING WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED IN THE SURVEY. I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THE GRANDFATHERING FOR THE CASE THAT I POINTED, WHICH IS A GOOD POINT. AS FAR AS THE LOGS ON THE LICENSE PLATES, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. NOTHING HERE ADDRESSES THAT. AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO START WHAT IS END FORCED. AND WHAT WE HAVE NOW, AND LET'S ENFORCE IT. USE THE FINANCIALS. AND I KNOW THAT YOU GIVE YOUR MONEY TO THE GENERAL FUND, THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM, YOU'RE NOT ENFORCING WHAT'S OUT THERE ALREADY. AND I THINK THAT HAVE'S A GOOD PLACE TO START. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. AND IF I MAY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, ON THE 5 HUNDRED. WAS IT 5 HUNDRED OR LESS? THAT WAS THE 52 AND 48 WAS A THOUSAND? >> THE SURVEY BROKE IT UP FROM 0 TO 3 HUNDRED, TO 5 HUNDRED TO ONE THOUSAND. YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE SLIDE, LILI. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT -- ONE THOUSAND FOOT WAS THE NUMBER ONE RESPONSE. SO 7 AND 7 SAID 5 HUNDRED. SO IT'S FIVE HUNDRED OR LESS. STATISTICALLY, YES. I'M APPRECIATIVE WITH THE FACT THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND CITY COUNCIL HAS GONE THROUGH GREAT LENGTHS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT. INSTEAD OF DID GO THE 15 DAYS, CAN IT BE LIKE 15 WORKING DAYS, LIKE THE HOLIDAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL NOT BE TAKING OFF LIKE THE FOURTH OF JULY. IT CAN BE WORKING DAYS, AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT, OF PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF THE DWELLING, UM, AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED BY CITY STAFF. IS IT ALSO SOMETHING THAT MAY BE UM, CAN BE DONE ON A RENEWAL ALSO. BECAUSE PEOPLE MAY BE CHANGING STUFF OR SOMETHING WHEN THEY ARE SHORT TERM RENTALS BETWEEN THE INSPECTION OR MAYBE THE RENEWAL. IS THAT A POSSIBILITY OR PROBABLY YOU DON'T HAVE THE MAN POWER TO HAVE IT ON AN ANNUAL BASES TO HAVE THE PEOPLE TO DO THE INSPECTION. AND UM -- AND ALSO, I'M GLAD THAT THEY TOOK THE LOTTERY OUT OF THE TABLE. I DID APPRECIATE THE TIME AND CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. >> AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION AS WELL. I HAVE BEEN TO ALL OF THESE, AND COUNCIL MEETINGS. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? SEEING NONE? JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON THE SURVEY DATA, SO IN FACT, IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT. TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THIS. AND SO THE SURVEY ACTUALLY HAD FOUR OPTIONS, 3 HUNDRED. SO THE QUESTION IS -- TO THE PUBLIC, WHAT SHOULD THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATIONS BE BETWEEN STRS. NO MINIMUM SHOULD BE REQUIRED. SO WE INTERPRETED THAT IN OUR GRAPH AS ZERO. WHICH IS NOT TECHNICALLY RIGHT. I DON'T THINK. IN OTHER WORDS 28 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE SAID. IT DOESN'T MATTER. THEY CAN BE THIS CLOSE TOGETHER AS THEY WANT TO BE, RIGHT? IS IT STILL FAIR TO CLUMP THEM TOGETHER? >> THAT WOULD BE MY INTER FACE, BUT -- I THINK THAT'S OUR JOB UP HERE. TO INTERPRET THINGS UP HERE. >> WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER RESPONSE OF 15 PERCENT. SO IT'S ALMOST 90 PEOPLE GIVING OPTIONS. SO OKAY, SECOND GUESSING MYSELF. SO I THINK THAT THE MATH WORKS. BUT WE DID A 42 PERCENT, SAYING A TO THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTING. PEOPLE WANTED MORE SEPARATION TO THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS. >> IF I MAY, WHY NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND COMMISSIONER HATCH PRIOR TO THAT, I GET THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK. WE HAVE TWO-WAYS OF GOING ABOUT THIS. REALLY WITHIN THE PACKET. WE HAVE IN THE FIRST THREE PAGES, ESSENTIALLY A DOZEN RECOMMENDED POINTS OF CHANGE. IN OUR ACTUAL REPORT. WHICH WE CAN GO THROUGH. THAT WOULD BE ONE OPTION THE OTHER ONE AND I -- THIS MAY BE THE MORE BETTER AND THOROUGH WAY TO DO IT. THERE'S CERTAIN POINTS TO HIT ON ON WOULD BE TO GO THROUGH THE ORDINANCE WHICH ACTUALLY THEN INCLUDES -- WE'RE DOWN TO J. AND GO DOWN TO A B C D, AND SOME OF THEM WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSIONS, AND SOME WE WON'T HAVE ANY. I THINK THAT IT IS MORE THOROUGH TO COVER THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. ANY OBJECTIONS? AND GO THROUGH THE PARTICULAR ITEMS. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ESTABLISH THE INTENT WHICH IS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS. >> I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL. OKAY. IF THOROUGHNESS IS THE POINT, I SAW STAFF MAKE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A COUPLE OF MOTIONS TO COME UP AND FIND CONSENSUS. I'M OKAY EITHER WAY. ALTHOUGH, I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY WE DECIDED TO CAPITALIZE SHORT TERM RENTALS. WE'LL LET COUNCIL GET INTO THE HIGHER END OF STUFF. AND B: WE PROBABLY WON'T HAVE MUCH. C: AS WE GET THROUGH THE DEFINITIONS, IT'S WITHIN A COUPLE OF SECTIONS. WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSE ISSUES, AND AS WE DID LAST TIME. SEE IF WE CAN REACH THE CONSENSUS. AND THE SPECIFIC POINTS HERE. WE HAVE SOME REAL VARIANCE WITHIN THE COMMISSION. WE LOOKED AT THE INTENT. AND COME TO THAT CONSENSUS. SO, IF I RECALL WHEN THIS CAME TO US IN JANUARY, IT WASN'T A RADIUS OF ONE THOUSAND FEET. IT WAS A STRAIGHT LINE ON THE SAME ROAD AND WE KIND OF GOTTEN AWAY FROM THAT PART. SO EVEN THOUGH I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT QUESTION THAT IT WAS PHRASED. I'M STILL SUSPECT ON THE SURVEY, OR ARE WE DOING SURVEYS. >> IN SURVEY QUESTIONS? >> NO. WE DIDN'T BREAK IT DOWN TO SAME STREETS OR SEPARATE STREETS. WE JUST SAID SEPARATION. >> I GUESS, THAT SOMEBODY CAN READ INTO THAT, AND SAYING ONE THOUSAND FOOT SEPARATION RADIUS, FROM PROPERTY LINE. >> I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ANY TYPE OF CLAUSES IN THERE EXPLAINING WHAT THAT WAS REALLY MEANT. THEY MAY BE ANSWERING ON THE SAME STREET. BUT WE DON'T KNOW. >> THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE WAS ONE THOUSAND FOOT ON THE SAME STREET. AND THEN THREE HUNDRED FOOT WITHIN THE ARTERIAL. THERE WAS A GRAPHIC THAT WE PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN THE POINT. BUT STAFF WAS TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE ORDINANCE. SO INSTEAD OF THAT, WE WILL BE, I BELIEVE IMPLEMENTING IT WITH A RADIUS FIGURE. TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THAT IDEA AND THE FIGURE THAT IT WOULD BE -- IF THEY ARE BOTH ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE BUFFER, I BELIEVE THAT IT WILL APPLY TO THAT. >> OR IS IT EUREKA OR BOTH? >> THE CIRCLE IS TOUCHING THE PROPERTIES ACROSS EUREKA. THE IDEA IS TO ALLOW FOR A CLOSER PROXIMITY OF THE TWO VACATION RENTALS. TO CHOP AWAY AT A NUMBER OF THESE. ONE LAST QUESTION THAT I HAVE ON HERE. DO YOU SEE AN INCREASE OR DECREASE? AS THERE HAS BEEN A DECREASE. AND PEOPLE SELLING OFF THEIR PROPERTIES THAT WERE SHORT TERM RENTALS, COMPARING THEM TO LONG-TERM RENTALS, ETCETERA. WE'LL GO TO SHORT TERM RENTALS, SECTION A. BASIC DEFINITION, ANY OBJECTIONS? NO. ON TO B: DEFINITIONS OF HOSTED HOME STAYS AND VACATION RENTALS, ANY OBJECTIONS? APPROXIMATE OKAY. C: SHORT TERM RENTAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, THIS ONE GETS INTO -- IT HAS A ONE TO TWO SUB-SECTIONS, COVERING BOTH VACATION RENTALS, AND HOSTED STAYS. HAVING TO DO WITH MARKETING, ANY OBJECTIONS TO C ONE OR C TWO? IS EVERYBODY GOOD? D: DISTRICTS IN WHICH PERMITTED, ALL DISTRICTS. NONE? GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ON THE HOSTED HOME STAY. ONE THROUGH THIS IS FOR ALL HOSTED HOME STATES. AND I DID HAVE A QUICK QUESTION REGARDING THE COOKING. IN OBJECTION, IS THERE A REASON FOR THE NO COOKING? NO OWNER SHOULD COOK OR PREPARE ANY OF ANY KIND. BUT THEN THEY TURN INTO -- THAT'S A DIFFERENTIATION. OKAY. DONE. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION ODD NUMBER 7. WHICH IS ABOUT PARKING SPACES, AND SO, IF LET'S SAY SINCE WE'RE ELIMINATING THIS ONE PARKING SPACE. PER ROOM. PREVIOUSLY THERE NEEDED TO BE TWO PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ALLOCATED FOR GUESTS? THAT'S CORRECT. SO NOW WE'RE NOT LIMITING, OR SAYING THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE -- THERE HAS TO BE TWO ON SITE PERIOD, AND LET'S SAY THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON SITE WOULD THEY PARK ON THE STREET? SO YOU WOULD HAVE A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE. SO IF YOU HAD A TWO BEDROOM HOUSE, IT WOULD STILL MAKE SENSE. MINIMUM ONE FOR THE OWNER, AND ONE FOR THE TENANT. WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THE HOUSE HAS TO HAVE TWO MINIMUM MARKING PACES. BUT TWO. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? I INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN, TWO CASES, IF YOU'RE THERE, YOU'RE NOT A TENANT, YOU'RE THE HOST, SO YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR SPACE, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO FOR THE TENANTS, BUT LET'S SAY THAT IF YOU HAD IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE OWNER CANNOT PARK ON SITE? >> NO. WE ALL KNOW OUR NEIGHBORS, HE DOESN'T LIKE ME PARKING TOO CLOSE TO HIS DRIVEWAY, SO I TELL EVERYONE TO PARK CLOSER TO MY HOUSE. AND THEY MAY NOT KNOW THE RULE. AND THEY JUST EVERYWHERE AND -- ON 16 THE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE. AND FOR THE SUBJECT TO HAVE THE PERMIT FOR THE EXISTING OWNER. AND WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE. >> AND THE GENERAL RULE OF PROCESSING AND THE PERMITS FOR PLANNING, SO IF YOU AS A DEVELOPER DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY, WE WOULD REQUIRE TO OBTAIN THAT FOR THE OPERATION TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> THERE'S ACCURATE. WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE TURN AROUND APPLICATION WAS FOR A VACATION RENTAL? >> READY IN FOUR MONTHS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT ANYTHING ELSE ON E? LET'S MOVE TO F. THIS IS THE MAIN ONE OR ONE OF THEM. JUST TO BEAT THE RADIUS HORSE TO DEATH. IF YOU HAVE A HOME STAY AT ONE SIDE OF THE CANAL, THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CANAL IMMEDIATELY, THERE CAN BE A HOSTED HOME STAY, RIGHT? OR A VRBO. FOLLOW ME? I'M TRYING TO THINK -- THE VACATION RENTAL, DOES THE DROP TO 3 HUNDRED FEET APPLY TO THE WHOLE RADIUS. FOR THE ARTERIAL OR THE RIVER? >> THE LADDER. >> ON ONE SIDE THERE'S NO BUFFER AND THE OTHER SIDE THERE IS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I WANTED THE SAME, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO INTERPRET THIS MULTIPLE TIMES. AND THAT EXAMPLE ACTUALLY CAME TO MY MIND, WHICH IS YOU HAVE ONE IN SUNSET WEST, AND ONE IN SUNSET TERRACE. AND THEY ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET TO THEM NO REAL CONNECTION. NO CONNECTION AT ALL. BUT THEY ARE WITHIN THE 3 TO 5 HUNDRED. OKAY ANYTHING ELSE? REGARDING F? THE BIG DISCUSSION THAT GOT THIS BODY IN DEEP DISCUSSION WAS THE ENFORCEMENT ANGLE, THAT WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A NATURAL PERSON, AND THAT'S OUR PRIMARY CONSIDERATION, WAS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, HAS A MORE DIFFICULT TIME COLLECTING POTENTIALLY -- FINES ADMINISTERED IF THAT'S NOT A NATURAL PERSON. LLC, L.P. AND OTHER TYPES OF ENTITIES. THAT'S ISSUING OR REVOKING A CAMPAIGN. OR IF YOU HAVE ONE, YOU'LL STILL GET TO FIND IT, AND LOSE THE PERMIT, AND WHAT DOES THAT MATTER THEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND SO YEAH, WHETHER OR NOT THAT LLC, THE LPSC. THAT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION. SO YEAH, IF THE OFFICERS ARE MYSELF AND MY WIFE, ARE DEFINITELY NOT PUBLICLY TRADED YET. I THINK TO HAVE HALF A DOZEN OF THESE ARE WE KEEPING OUT SOME MAJOR FOUR BILLION DOLLAR PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR BUYING OUT HALF THE TOWN. THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY REASONS TO LOOK AT THIS SPECIFIC SECTION. >> CAN WE NOT USE GEOGRAPHY AS A LIMITING FACTOR? I'M FINE IF IT IS A TRUST AND THE PERSON LIVES IN CHICO. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ORGANIZATION NO MATTER HOW THEY ARE TAX STRUCTURED, AN ORGANIZATION THAT'S MADE UP OF LOCAL INDIVIDUALS TO ME IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT. >> THE HARD PART IN THAT, THERE'S A LOT OF CORPORATIONS FILED. AND ANOTHER ONE, WHERE WE DRAW THAT LINE. THAT WAS THE DIFFICULT PART. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ANYWHERE, WHERE YOU PUT IT ON PAPER. UM -- COMMISSIONER GOEDERT, PLEASE. >> SO MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE AN LLC. AND WE ELECTED TO BE TREATED AS AN ESCORP. AND THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TO WHY IT EXISTS, IT'S AN ACCOUNTING OR A TAX PREPARATION. SO THEY ARE USUALLY SOMETHING ELSE BEHIND THE ESCORP.; IS THAT CORRECT?? USUALLY, THERE'S AN ENTITY IN TAX LAWS. AND THERE'S DETERMINATION OVER ENTITY ON A CORPORATION'S LAW. HOW DETAILED WE WANT TO BE, AND HOW WE CAN CONTROL IT. BECAUSE LIKE FOR EXAMPLE IF THERE'S STRUCTURE IN CORPORATION, IT IS NOT EASILY AVAILABLE. HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT, AND ANOTHER SIDE OF THE BALANCE, WE TRY TO CONTROL THE BUSINESS WHO CAN COME IN, AND WHO CANNOT COME INTO REDDING? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO? AND THIS IS KIND OF -- THIS SHOULD BE A BALANCE OF WHAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE AND UM, BUT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. SO FOR TAX PURPOSES, YOU CAN BE A TAX THROUGH LIKE A PARTNERSHIP. >> BUT EVERY LLP HAS TO FILE A STATEMENT OF INFORMATION. WHICH GIVES YOU THE NAMES OF THE PERSON THAT YOU WOULD SERVE. SO THAT INFORMATION IS READILY AVAILABLE. SO THIS IS AN AGENT FOR SERVICES AND THIS IS NOT A PERSON. BUT IT'S NOT A PERSON WHO STANDS BEHIND THE OWNERSHIP OF THAT ENTITY. AND THE OWNERSHIP NEEDS TO BE TRACT. SO IT'S TRULY LIKE UM -- I DON'T KNOW BEING MONTHS OR SO. THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE DRAFT, SO -- IN THAT REGARD AND THAT WAY TO HELP PRECLUDE TO ACHIEVE ONE OF THE PURPOSES. AND ONE OF THE BIG BUSINESSES TO COME IN, AND THEY WILL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO OVERCOME THAT PART THAT HAS BEEN ALREADY ISSUED. BECAUSE TOTAL IS ALLOWED. SO MAYBE THAT APPROACH WOULD BE BETTER, BUT ABSOLUTELY AGREE, DO WE WANT TO -- DO WE WANT TO CONTROL THE BUSINESS LIKE -- TO WHAT EXTENT DO WE WANT TO CONTROL THAT AND ACTUALLY, CAN WE DO THAT WITHOUT, UM, OVER STEPPING ON -- >> YEAH, AND SO HERE'S MY TAKE ON THIS. >> SO TO DO THE ENFORCEMENT THAT WE CAN FOR BAD ACTORS AND THAT'S THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES, CITY ATTORNEY'S *DEWALLTS -- ONE APPLYING FOR A PERMIT. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERMITTING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT COMES DOWN TO FINING. EVENTUALLY ISSUING FINES, AND IT IS TWO THINGS, IF YOU'RE DECIDING, HEY, I'M DOING WHAT I WANT TO DO. I'M NOT GOING TO PAY THEM WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT COMES -- AND THAT'S DOING IT IN GOOD FAITH, AND THEY KNOW IF THEY ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE ISSUE THE PERMIT GETS YANKED. AND THEY GO DOWN THE PATH OF FINDING -- WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN END UP FINDING THIS IN THE END. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO RUN TO THAT PROBLEM, IF WE APPLIED FOR THAT. AND NEVER HAD A PERMIT, OR ANYTHING ANY WAY. I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER'S GOEDERT'S POINT, TO SAY, THAT CAN WE SOMEHOW PUT IN THERE, OR GIVE THE DIRECTION TO STAFF. TO NOT BUY IN AND BUYING UP A THOUSAND OF HOMES DOING THIS. LLC, AND THE ESCORP ARE NATURAL PERSONS, THIS IS NOT THE JPMORGAN. I THINK THAT -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT TO WRITE THAT. BUT I THINK THAT CERTAINLY GETS TO INTENT, AND IT SEEMS LIKE -- WHAT COMMISSIONER MINER AND COMMISSIONER GOEDERT WERE INDICATING. >> I THINK THAT WHAT WE WANT IS OFFICIALLY REGULATED COTTAGE INDUSTRY OF SHORT TERM RENTALS, AND HOSTED HOME STAYS. BUT WE DON'T WANT WHAT CAMERON SAID, PENSION FUNDS. THAT HAS UNINTENDED IMPACTS, AND MAKING THE HOME PRICES, AND GETTING HIGHER HERE. AND RESTRICTING THE NUMBER OF WORK FORCE HOMES AVAILABLE TO OUR WORK FORCE WHICH WE'RE IN BAD SHAPE WITH THAT. AND ANYHOW, I THINK THAT YOU SUMMED IT UP VERY WELL WITH WHAT I'M AFTER. ANY MAY PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION FOR THAT. THAT'S UM -- ABSOLUTELY, VALID CONCERN AS I SAID PROBABLY TIMES SEVERAL TIMES TODAY, LET'S LOOK AT A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FOR THAT. IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN PLACE TO COME INTO THE CITY AND PROVIDE FOR EXAMPLE A LONG-TERM RENTALS, OR HOTELS, OR WHATEVER, THEN IT WILL DEFINITELY INFLUENCE -- IT WILL DEFINITELY INFLUENCE THE PRICE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY ARE NOT COMING IN -- NOT KNOWN TO US. WHY THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THAT. AND JUST TO PUT (INDISCERNIBLE) AND DO WE ACTUALLY WANT TO SAY; OKAY, I DON'T WANT THAT JPMORGAN TO COME IN INTO REDDING. AND I THINK THAT OKAY. THAT'S OKAY FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT. >> IT PUTS A ROADBLOCK UP. AND ALSO IN MY EARLIER REMARKS, I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT HILTON HOSPITAL IS BUYING OUT SHORT TERM RENTALS THROUGHOUT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THERE. SO AT LEAST YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE PAYING, 8 HUNDRED DOLLARS OR TWO. AND THAT WAY, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE AND ANOTHER IDEA IS TO POTENTIALLY BE REQUIRED TO BE MANAGING MEMBERS AS A GUARANTOR OR A GENERAL PARTNER. I'M OF THE OPINION IF LLCS ARE INVOLVED, THEN YES, THE REASON FOR NOT HAVING THEM WAS HAVING A RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND HAVING A RESPONSIBLE PARTY TO HAVE AN APPLICATION AND HAVING IT IN CALIFORNIA, WOULD LIMIT IT SOMEWHAT FROM SOME OF THE MAJOR CORPORATIONS. AND HAVING TO SIGN AS A GUARANTOR TO GUARANTEE RESPONSIBILITY. >> WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND STAFF WILL WORK HARD TO CRAFT LANGUAGE TO ACHIEVE IT. >> SO IT'S ONE OF THE KEY POINTS WITH ONE OF THE DIRECTIONS TO BE LLCS OR CORPORATIONS TO BE ALLOWED UNDER CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS TO BE PERMITTED. IF I RECALL, IF IT IS NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVED, YOU HAVE TO GO AFTER THE CORPORATION AND THEN THE GRANT OR. NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO DO THAT. AND THEN IF IT'S NOT A CONTINUANCE GUARANTEE THAT MEANS THAT ONCE ONCE THEIR PERMIT IS RECALLED, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? AND THEN ONCE THE STRUCTURE CHANGES, WHAT HAPPENS HERE? IT'S A LOT OF NUANCES TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. THIS IS TO ACHIEVE WHAT WAS BOLD TODAY AND UM, AND THEN WE CAN MAYBE COME BACK WITH THAT OR GET THIS TO COUNCIL AND PERHAPS CRAFT IT INTO A RECOMMENDATION, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO COME BACK. IF WE CAN CAP PURCHASE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS REGARDING THE INTENT HERE AND THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, I THINK THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE BOTH. AND KEEP OUR TIMELINE TOGETHER. >> I THINK THAT WE CAN START WITH MICHELLE'S COMMENT OF THE INTENTION AND IT'S TO SUSTAIN A COTTAGE INDUSTRY. >> AS GIVING DIRECTION TO STAFF ON WHERE TO GO WITH THIS. WE NEED TO ADJUST THE LANGUAGE AND FIND WHERE WE FIT. >> AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CONSENSUS HERE, AND IT'S REALLY FOR THAT LARGE PROLIFERATION OF ACTORS THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE RESPONSIBLE OR ACCESSIBLE. I THINK THAT'S THE BIG PART OF IT, IN TERMS OF THE FINDING, IF THEY ARE INTENT OF BEING THE BAD ACTORS, AND THEN SKIRTING THE FINES USING THIS VEHICLE, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT MATTERS, WHETHER OR NOT -- THEY ARE GOING TO CARE ABOUT A PERMIT, THAT'S THE LEAST OF THEIR CONCERNS IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THEY WANT TO GO. SO I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE -- AS COMMISSIONER MINER PUT IT, IF WE ALLOW THESE DIFFERENT ENTITIES, TO BE ABLE TO FILE FOR THE PERMIT, I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE, IT REALLY IS A MATTER OF WHO'S BEHIND THEM AND I THINK THAT IF THE STAFF CAN GET THAT DIRECTION FIND SOME LANGUAGE FOR IT -- >> CAN I MAKE A SUCCINCT STATEMENT TO ADD TO THAT? THAT WE WANT TO PROVIDE A VIBRANT COTTAGE INDUSTRY. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NO LANGUAGE IS EXPRESSED TO DISALLOW TRUST AND LLC, ESCORP S. PERIOD. WHEREVER YOU CAN ADD THAT TYPE OF DEFINITION, YOU CAN GO ALONG WAY TO ACHIEVE IN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE. OKAY I AM GOOD ON C. >> YEAH, I HAVE ONE THING TO CALL OUT. AND I THINK THAT IT'S F. F TWO A ONE, CONTAINING AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DOES NOT ALLOW THE STR TO BE IN THE ADU, BUT IT DOES ALLOW TO BE IN THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS. I'M GENERALLY A FAN OF OF SOMEONE APPLYING FOR AN S C R TO LIVE IN THE ADU AND RENT OUT THE HOUSE. WHICH SECTIONS? WE DID JUMP TO C ON THAT. AND I APOLOGIZE. SO F TWO A ONE, VACATION RENTAL. NOT PERMITTED ON PROPERTIES, FOR THE ADU. SO MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THIS STATE IT DOES ALLOW IT IN THE PRIMARY RESIDENTS, NOT THE ADU, I'M UNCOMFORTABLE -- WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT NOT ALLOWED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. AS I EXPLAINED, THE INTENT WAS -- >> AS I RECALL -- FIRST WE TALKED ABOUT ADUS. BUT THEY COULDN'T BE SHORT TERM RENTALS, AT LEAST THE JR. AND ADUS, OR NOT LONG-TERM RENTALS, AND THAT'S PART OF THE WAY TO HAVE SOLD THAT TO THE COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH, THE STATE