Crescent City City Council
October 5, 2026

RECEIVED
Thomas Beers | Crescent City California | [email protected] OCT 0 5 2026 October 5, 2026 CITY CLERK
Direct notice and written public comment
Accurate records official responsibilities and supported land use decisions Primary recipient: Martha Rice, City Attorney
Copies individually in their official capacities: Eric Wier, City Manager; Ethan Lawton, Contract Planner; Robin Altman, City Clerk; Isaiah Wright, Mayor; Candace Tinkler, Mayor Pro Tem; Ray Altman, Jasor Greenough and Steve Shamblin, Council Members; Raymond Walp, Planning Commission Chair; Kris DeCossio, Vice Chair; Paul Martinez, Shawna Hyatt and Debra Perius, Commissioners.

Why this notice is being provided
Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners, this notice identifies inaccurate project descriptions, unsupported factual representations and questions about compliance with the requirements governing the City's land-use decisions. It places the underlying records and governing authorities together for reconciliation.

You depend on City staff, the City Manager, the contract planner, applicants, consultants and legal counsel to place accurate information and the applicable requirements before you vote. You need to be able to distinguish a verified fact from an assertion, an applicable legal requirement from a policy argument, and a supported finding from a conclusion that merely repeats the language needed for approval.

The accompanying records identify specific false project descriptions, transit determinations whose support is not shown in the cited reports, questions about the evidentiary basis of findings, and capacity assurances that require qualification. Each issue is tied to its own project, source and governing requirement. Contrary evidence is included.

The responsibilities section below identifies the respective roles of staff, management, legal counsel and the decision-making bodies. The project sections then identify the record, the governing requirement and the apparent conflict requiring reconciliation.

Battery Point's application claimed qualifying transit service and recorded $10,679,500 in combined transit scoring benefits. Downtown Redwoods staff declared a qualifying major transit stop and used that conclusion for unlimited density and no minimum residential parking for 36 units; the City loan commitment is $1,032,371.43. These are different benefits and different legal tests. The following sections show the Official responsibilities and supported decisions
The responsibilities below apply according to the authority assigned to each City actor. The project sections identify the specific statements and records requiring reconciliation.

City Manager duties and approved employment agreement
Crescent City Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 establishes these relevant responsibilities:
• § 2.08.050: The City Manager is the administrative head of City government under the Council's direction and is responsible for efficient administration of affairs under the Manager's control. • §2.08.060: The Manager must enforce City laws and ordinances and ensure faithful observance of franchises, contracts, permits, and privileges granted by the Council. • § 2.08.070: The Manager must control and direct department heads and subordinate officers and employees within the Manager's jurisdiction, through department heads. • §2.08.120: The Manager must keep the Council fully advised of the City's financial condition and needs. • § 2.08.140: Expenditures may be submitted or recommended to the Council only upon the Manager's report and approval.
• § 2.08.190: Authority to sign specified City instruments depends on Council authorization.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 1
Sources: Municipal Code Chapter 2.08 https://ecode360.com/44236356 Section 11(B) of the employment agreement approved by the City Council on June 12, 2018, states:
"The City Manager must perform all duties in accordance with all the laws ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the position."
The meeting minutes record a 5-0 vote authorizing execution of that agreement. This quotation identifies the provision in the approved 2018 agreement.

Sources: 2018 agreement $ 11(B), PDF page 99; June 12 minutes in July 2 agenda packet City Planner and Planning Department
Under Municipal Code § 2.30.020(A), the Planning Department conducts City planning and zoning activities under the City Manager's direction.

Section 2.30.020(B) states:
"The planning department shall be responsible for the administration of federal, state and local planning and land-use regulations."
This provision expressly identifies federal, state, and local requirements within planning and land-use administration.

Sources: Municipal Code $ 2.30.020 https://ecode360.com/44236411 City Attorney responsibilities and professional rules
Municipal Code § 2.12.010 assigns the City Attorney responsibility for protecting the City's interests, advising on City legal matters, providing legal opinions, and preparing City legal instruments. Government Code § 41801 requires advice to City officials in legal matters pertaining to City business.

Sources: Municipal Code $ 2.12.010; Government Code § 41801 https://ecode360.com/44236367 ; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=41801.

The California Rules of Professional Conduct include:
• Rule 1.13(a): When representing the City as an organization, the client is the City. • Rule 1.2.1(a): A lawyer may not counsel or assist conduct the lawyer knows is criminal, fraudulent, or violates applicable law, rules, or tribunal rulings.
• Rule 1.2.1(b): A lawyer may discuss legal consequences and provide assistance in a good-faith effort to determine a law's validity, scope, meaning, or application.

Rule 1.13(b): Organizational misconduct meeting the rule's knowledge, imputation, and substantial-injury requirements calls for action in the organization's best lawful interests, including referral to higher authority when required.

These obligations remain subject to applicable confidentiality requirements.

Rule 4.1 prohibits knowingly false material statements to third persons during representation. Rule 8.4(c) prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and reckless or intentional misrepresentation.

Sources: State Bar Rules Chapter 1; Rule 4.1; Rule 8.4
California provisions concerning false writings and certifications Each provision below requires proof of its particular statutory elements.

Authority Conduct addressed Statutory penalty
An officer legally authorized to make a
Government certificate or other writing makes and delivers it Misdemeanor: ordinarily up to six months Code § 6203 as true while knowing it contains false in county jail, a fine up to $1,000, or both, under Penal Code § 19.
statements.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 2
Authority Conduct addressed Statutory penalty
Up to one year in county jail and/or
Vith intent to defraud, presenting a false clair $1,000; felony alternative under ill, account, voucher, or writing for allowanc §1170(h) and/or a fine up to $10,000.

Penal Code § 72 Application requires intent to defraud
or payment to a covered governmental body or
officer. and a covered payment or allowance
submission.

Penal Code S$ Willfully making a material statement known to Two, three, or four years' imprisonment. 118 and 126 be false under a legally authorized oath or 1 ordinary unsworn statement does ni qualifying declaration under penalty of perjury. itself establish periur These are statutory ranges and maximums, not automatic sentences.

Sources: Government Code §6203; Penal Code §$19, 72, 118 and 126. Official text:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=6203.; ttps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/taces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=19. ttps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=72.:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=118. ; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=126.

California False Claims Act
Government Code SS 12650-12651 address covered false claims involving state or local government money or property. Relevant provisions concern knowingly presenting or causing presentation of a false claim, and knowingly making, using or causing a false record or statement material to a false claim. Section 12650(b)(3) defines knowledge as actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance or reckless disregard, without requiring specific intent to defraud. Section 12651(f) excludes claims, records and statements made under the Revenue and Taxation Code. This exclusion prevents treating the Battery Point tax-credit entries as automatically governed by the California False Claims Act. The application's own CTCAC accuracy, certification and misrepresentation requirements are addressed below. Any separate covered grant claim requires its own factual and statutory analysis.

Subject to statutory exceptions, consequences under § 12651 ordinarily include three times the government's damages, civil-action costs, and applicable inflation-adjusted civil penalties for each violation.

Section 12651 also provides joint and several liability for qualifying violations committed by multiple persons.

Sources: Government Code 93 12650-12651
Federal statutes and certification requirements
The following authorities require the federal connection and other elements specified by each provision.

Authority Conduct or requirement Penalty or consequence Knowingly and willfully making materially
false statements, using materially false
writings, or concealing material facts through
a prohibited scheme in a matter within Ordinarily up to five years' imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 federal jurisdiction. Section 1001(b) limits a federal criminal fine, or both. application to specified judicial submissions;
a City hearing is not automatically a matter
within federal jurisdiction.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 3
Authority Conduct or requirement Penalty or consequence Knowingly making or presenting a false, Up to five years' imprisonment and a 18 U.S.C. § 287 fictitious, or fraudulent claim against the United federal criminal fine.

States or a federal agency.

Ordinarily three times federal damages,
Knowingly presenting or causing a covered civil-action costs and applicable 31 U.S.C. § 3729 alse payment claim, or making or causing us inflation-adjusted civil penalties, subject of a false record material to that claim to the statute's limitations and exceptions.

Required federal-award certifications Certifications expressly identify potential 2 C.F.R. § concerning truthful, complete, and accurate riminal, civil, and administrative 200.415 financial information and authorized award consequences for false information and expenditures. material omissions.

Remedies can include withheld
payments, disallowed costs, suspension
2 C.F.R. § Noncompliance with federal-award or termination, suspension/debarment 200.339 requirements.
proceedings, and withholding further
awards.

Under 31 U.S.C. § 3729, knowledge includes actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance and reckless disregard. Specific intent to defraud is unnecessary. The applicable claim, materiality and other statutory requirements still apply. Section 3729(d) excludes claims, records and statements made under the Internal Revenue Code; tax-credit matters require their own applicable authorities.

Sources: 18 U.S.C. §81001 and 287; 31 U.S.C. §3729; 2 C.F.R. §§200.415 and 200.339. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 ; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/287; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3729 ; https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/section-200.415 ; https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/section-200.339
Attorney professional conduct
Under Business and Professions Code § 6106, attorney conduct involving dishonesty, corruption, or moral turpitude can support suspension or disbarment, even without a criminal conviction.

Source: Business and Professions Code §6106.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=6106.

The listed penalties are statutory consequences where the applicable legal requirements are established.

This submission does not determine that any recipient has committed an offense.

Counsel can explain the governing law, disagree with an interpretation, identify another authority or explain why more evidence is necessary. Advice cannot change an underlying fact. A list of routes does not establish transit frequency. A preferred building layout does not, by itself, establish the necessity for a variance. When the deciding body must make findings, legal argument does not replace supported findings.

The duties and professional rules above include their applicable qualifications.

Questions for evaluating staff recommendations
These questions put the governing requirement beside the actual record. They help the Commission or Council determine whether it can make the findings it is being asked to adopt. A staff recommendation, applicant assertion or prepared resolution must be evaluated for its factual support. No rule requires every question below to be asked aloud; the legal obligation is to make the required supported findings. [L1, L3 L5; G1-G2.]
Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 4
Findings and evidence. Which exact code provision governs this approval, what findings does it require, and where in this packet is the evidence supporting each finding? Please identify the source and page, not just the proposed conclusion.

Contrary evidence. This notice identifies a conflict between the report and the underlying record. What evidence resolves that conflict, and how does the proposed finding explain the path from that evidence to approval? If the statement is incorrect, which finding or condition must be corrected before adoption? Ordinary variance necessity. What property condition causes the hardship? Why does it prevent the substantial property right enjoyed by comparable properties in the same vicinity and zone? Which lawful comparator approvals, dimensions and setbacks establish that right? How does the record address a conforming design or explain why it would not preserve that right? Different approval authorities. Is staff relying on an ordinary variance, a parking waiver, or a State density- bonus concession or waiver? Where is that request and its applicable statutory showing? What authorizes the dwelling count and setback or parking relief independently of general housing policy? Traffic analysis. What is the expected daily trip count and its factual basis? How was General Plan Policy 3.A.16's more-than-50-daily-trip requirement addressed, subject to applicable State housing protections? Which studies can lawfully be required under Gov. Code §65915(a)(2)? What evidence addresses driveway, truck and sidewalk safety, and any separate VMT screen? CEQA and utility findings. Which exemption is actually relied upon, and where is the evidence for each element and the applicable exceptions? Does the environmental description include every proposed use and unit? What project-specific facts or qualified utility assessment support adequate wastewater service for its actual loading?
The complete hearing record. Which documents and revised plans are part of the decisional record? When were material additions disclosed, and did the affected participant have a meaningful opportunity to answer them? On a variance appeal, has the complete Commission record required by CCMC $17.56.040(A) been transmitted?
Certifications and the final document. Does this recommendation conflict with any project representation used in a funding application or compliance certification? Which version of the resolution is being adopted, and have conflicting project descriptions, figures and conditions been corrected? Counsel, how do the proposed findings satisfy the ordinance and the authorities identified in this notice? Battery Point Apartments transit scoring public financing and Council action Council received notice, heard an assurance, and approved the item On September 21, I hand-delivered my Battery Point notice before Council voted. During Item 4, I stated that I had submitted a document and asked Council to consider the project's defects before approval. The City's own draft minutes record City Clerk Altman confirming that Council received the document through email distribution. The recorded sequence therefore establishes notice before the decision. [E01, original October 5 Council packet p. 9.]
Council Member Greenough then asked about transit funds, bus stops and State funding issues. The minutes record Mr. Hobson stating that the funding criteria had been met and all funding requirements followed. On the next page, Council approved the BPR plan-review amendment and Resolution 2026-61 by a 4-0 polled vote. The motion was made by Council Member Shamblin and seconded by Council Member Greenough; Mayor Pro Tem Tinkler was absent. [E01 pp. 9-10.] Those minutes contain the compliance assurance and the vote. They contain no substantive reconciliation of the application's 30-minute transit representation with the contrary service evidence identified in my notice. I am documenting that public sequence. Receipt is recorded; approval is recorded; resolution of the specific discrepancy is not recorded. Whether an individual privately read the notice is a separate fact that the minutes do not establish.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 5
The same discussion recorded City Manager Wier reporting extensive weather damage and stating that all buildings would need reinspection. It also recorded his description of Battery Point as a private developer's project on private property, with its own funding. Private ownership is established by that description; an absence of public financial support is not. The documented public awards and financing are set out below. [E01 pp. 9-10.]
The application selected a measurable service requirement The CA-23-518 application selected transit option (i, which requires a qualifying stop within one-third mile, service at least every 30 minutes throughout 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and density above 25 units per acre. The following page records seven transit points. This is a frequency requirement during both complete peak periods, not merely a requirement that a bus stop exist nearby. [E22, original application PDF pp. 95-96; E04 pp. 41-42.]
Application record Exact documented entry Original location Selected transit criterion Option (i): 30-minute service in both E22 pp. 95-96 weekday peak periods; seven points
Transit-support checklist Attachment 23-C marked Provided; E22 p. 69; E21 checklist B899, B918 prior bus-line aggregation approval
marked Not Applicable
Transit Benefit Seven points produced $5,642,000 ir E22 p. 102; E21 G62, G65 he formula
Separate Mass Transit Benefit Yes to a stop within one-quarter mite E22 p. 102; E21 G74, G81 with service every 30 minutes;
$5,037,500
Overall calculations 119-point self-score; 85.791% E22 pp. 99-100, 102, 104 tiebreaker
The one-third-mile seven-point criterion and the separate one-quarter-mile Mass Transit Benefit entry are distinct representations. Both invoke 30-minute service. The application checklist expressly requires relevant schedules demonstrating the selected service; it labels prior approval of bus-line aggregation Not Applicable. The rule permits aggregation of multiple lines from the designated stop to an employment center only with prior Executive Director approval. Nearby stops cannot simply be pooled. The public copy does not establish that a separate aggregation approval never existed. [E22 p. 69; E04 pp. 41-42.] The transit agency's record conflicts with the selected claim RCTA's 2022-23 System Performance Report, dated October 30, 2023, describes four local routes operating once hourly, with an extra 7:00 a.m. Route 1 trip. This is historical agency evidence, not a current timetable. Hourly service and one extra trip do not establish service every 30 minutes throughout both peaks. Final verification requires the application's designated stop, operative schedule and any approved aggregation. [Source 3, PDF p. 7, printed p. 6.]
RCTA's September 18-21, 2024 boarding survey independently records Pacific & E Street under Route 1 and A & Condor Street under Route 2. It separately lists A & Pacific Street under Route 2; A/Condor and A/Pacific are distinct stops, and exact A/Pacific timetable times must not be presented as A/Condor times.

These later agency records corroborate the route connections, not the complete 2023 schedule. The two Battery Point stops cannot simply be combined into one designated scoring stop. [Source 15, original PDF pp. 109-110, printed D-2-D-3; Sources 1-2.]
The City's October 2023 Battery Point report identifies Pacific & E as Stop 2716 and A & Condor as Stop 2731. Downtown's March 12, 2026 report identifies Cultural Center Stop 2721. These are project-specific stop references in the City's original records. Qualification requires the designated stop and service operative on the relevant application or approval date. [Source 4 p. 53; Source 9 p. 72.] Please reconcile the application's designated stop, submitted Attachment 23-C, operative weekday peak timetable and any approved aggregation under the applicable scoring rule. [E22 p. 69; Sources 1-3, 15.] Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 6
The application's transit entries feed financial scoring calculations: $5,642,000 for Transit Benefit and $5,037,500 for Mass Transit Benefit. They are not separate cash grants. The application/workbook records a 119-point self-score and an 85.791% calculated CLAC tiebreaker; the retained CTCAC staff report does not independently print these figures. This establishes the material role of the transit entries in the application's scoring calculation; it does not, by itself, establish the precise ranking after correction or that the entire award depended on these entries. [E22 pp. 99-104; E02 pp. 21-24.] The application identifies Step Forward Communities and displays Duane Henry's typed name and Executive Director title. Pages 77-78 impose an affirmative duty to update information that ceases to be true and contain a declaration under penalty of perjury that the application and supporting material are true and correct to the applicant's best knowledge and belief. The public copy's original-signature and date fields are blank; that does not establish whether the State received an executed copy. The May 10, 2023 CTCAC regulations separately address material misrepresentation of any application fact or requirement in amenity scoring instructions require accurate information and provide negative-point consequences for inaccurate information. Those administrative requirements apply directly to this application; an established inaccurate entry and an established knowing false declaration remain different conclusions. [E22 pp. 77-79; E04 pp. 39, 41-42.]
Battery Point's documented public support is substantial The following amounts come from official award or financing records. Each is identified by transaction type and stage so that loans, credits, bond authority and rental assistance are not inaccurately described as one cash payment.

Program / instrument Documented amount Record and meaning HCD IIG Round 8 $7,500,000 February 8, 2023 award list, p. 1; award HCD HOME $9,708,129 August 14, 2025 award list, p. 1; 70 HOME units
CalHFA permanent financing $16,375,000 February 2024 financing analysis, E03 pp. 20,22
CalHFA MIP financing $4,000,000 Ec pa: 2021 subsily loan analysis.

Federal credits $3,879,952 annually Preliminary reservation approved August 23, 2023; E02 pp. 21-23
and committee minutes pp. 2-3
State credits $16,011,905 total Preliminary reservation approved August 23, 2023; E02 pp. 21-23
and committee minutes pp. 2-3
Initial tax-exempt bonds $38,430,000 Initial bond request in application, E22 p. 104; not proof of allocation
2024 construction financing $40,662,000, plus $6,588,000 recycled E03 pp. 20,22; financing overlaps later conduit financing permanent sources
Modeled permanent equity $47,362,000 2024 financing model, E03 p. 22; investor equity differs from nominal
credits
Project-based vouchers 70 vouchers Rental assistance; a voucher count is not a capital-dollar award
The two HCD awards total $17,208,129. The two listed CalHFA loan figures total $20,375,000. Together those four historical amounts arithmetically total $37,583,129, but they come from different financing stages and are not a verified current capital stack or cash already received. The 2024 CalHFA model used $7,435,400 in IIG sponsor financing, compared with the earlier $7,500,000 award, and predates the 2025 Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 7
HOME award. This difference is preserved rather than concealed in a single inflated total. [E03 pp. 20, 22; HCD award lists.]
Ten years of the listed federal annual credits would total $38, 799,520; with the listed state credits, nominal credit value would be $54,811,425 if those figures remained unchanged and fully available. That is not additional money to add to modeled investor equity. Bond proceeds likewise cannot be added again to overlapping permanent financing. These distinctions establish the scale and forms of public support without overstating money paid.

The Manager's September 21 private-project description does not account for this documented public financing. The public record contains both statements: private ownership and substantial public support. The latter carries factual representations and program obligations independent of who owns the land. A general assurance of funding compliance does not resolve a specific conflict in the underlying application.

The original workbook calculated an 85.791% tiebreaker. If the project qualified only for the ordinary 4-point nearby-stop category and did not qualify for the separate Mass Transit Benefit, the same formula would produce 68.673%. That is a reduction of 17.118 percentage points. [Source 1, Tie Breaker worksheet.] That calculation assumes the nearby stop still qualifies and no other approved service or independent mass- transit basis supports the higher entries. It shows how the selected claims affected the calculation; the records do not establish that correcting them would necessarily have changed the final award.

These figures identify awards, preliminary credit reservations and financing approvals at different dates.

They are not a total of cash already paid. The $5,642,000 transit calculation is not a separate subsidy payment. The August 23, 2023 CTCAC minutes record unanimous approval of the staff recommendations for preliminary reservations, subject to revisions concerning two other projects. Read with the Battery Point staff recommendation, that vote verifies the preliminary reservation; it does not establish a final placed-in- service allocation. Sources 5-7; CTCAC August 23, 2023 minutes pp. 2-3.] Each funding connection must follow its own dates and documents. The February 2023 IIG award came before the consultant's August letter and the October City packet. Those later documents cannot be described as causing that earlier award.

Battery Point City approval and the separate CEQA transit representation The October 12, 2023 packet also carried attorney John G. McClendon's August 26, 2023 letter to William (Bill) E. Rice. It states Battery Point is within one-half mile of an existing "major transit stop and/or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor" and invokes the CEQA VMT presumption. Staff referred the Commission to the applicant-side analysis as Class 32 support. Rice was the addressee, not the author.

This CEQA assertion used the historical 15-minute major-bus-stop/HQTC standards; it does not establish the application's separate 30-minute CTCAC qualification. Please identify the dated service evidence supporting each representation under its own standard. [Battery Point packet pp. 37, 57, 95-100; E07 p. 72; PRC §821064.3, 21155(b), as operative in 2023.]
Stover's analysis cites stops at 7:18 and 7:48 a.m. Those two times do not establish qualifying service throughout both peak periods, but the pair is not proven false merely because other service was hourly. The relevant qualifications and full schedules must be tested under the rule applicable to the particular benefit.

Downtown Redwoods transit density parking and project descriptions Matter: AR26-02, 36-unit mixed-use development, 962/964 Third Street. Lawton's March 12, 2026 report is the identified City staff source. The March 12 official minutes confirm adoption of PC2026-05 by 3-0-1, Commissioner Hyatt abstaining and Chair Walp absent. The May 4 City report also confirms approval and describes the density, parking, height and setback benefits. [D1, pp. 57, 60; D2, pp. 3-5; F2, p. 83.] Downtown Redwoods, AR26-02 at 962/964 Third Street, was presented on March 12, 2026 as a 36-unit mixed-use development. "100% affordable" describes the proposed restricted unit mix; the staff report actually claimed UNLIMITED density based on proximity to a qualifying major transit stop. It did not describe the approval merely as a 100% density increase. Contract planner Ethan Lawton's staff report §6.6 quotes Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 8
the 20-minute peak-service requirement, then says the Cultural Center hub "meets this definition" because it serves listed routes. Listing routes establishes their presence, not their frequency. The report supplies no qualifying two-route peak-frequency calculation. [E07 original PDF pp. 71-73; supplemental source pages F04-F06.]
The legal tests must be kept separate. Battery Point's financing entry used 30 minutes. The 2026 major-bus- stop definition uses intervals no greater than 20 minutes during peak periods for two or more major bus routes. The separate high-quality-transit-corridor definition uses 15 minutes; the density-bonus cross- reference also includes qualifying major stops in the applicable regional transportation plan. The reviewed RTP discussion does not expressly establish the statutory classification relied upon. The stated premise remains unsubstantiated in these records; an alternative statutory basis cannot simply be assumed away. [PRC §§21064.3(c), 21155(b); Gov. Code §65915(o)(5); E07 p. 72; E11 pp. 41, 43.] The report expressly used that transit classification to justify unlimited density, no minimum vehicular parking and additional height. It calculated 44 spaces under its ordinary density-bonus ratios, accepted 2 spaces, and stated that no off-street parking was required. The report thereby provided a specific route from the transit assertion to valuable development treatment. This is more precise than saying transit merely appeared in the packet. Whether an independent concession, waiver or other statutory eligibility could support the same design is a separate question. [E07 original PDF pp. 72-74.] RCTA independently identifies Cultural Center as serving Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 20, 199 and 300. Thus, the City's list of route numbers is corroborated by the agency's own record; the issue is the claimed qualifying frequency. RCTA's service summary, expressly accurate as of October 2024, lists Routes 1-4 at 60-minute frequency, Routes 20 and 199 at a few daily round trips, and Route 300 as one trip on school days. That record supports the frequency concern but does not establish that no service changed before March 12, 2026. Please reconcile the approval-date timetable and any separate qualifying regional-plan basis with the City's stated finding. [Source 16, original PDF pp. 26, 33, printed pp. 20, 27] The parking provision for qualifying all-affordable projects is Gov. Code §65915(P)(3)(A), rather than the report's cited (p)(2)(A). A mistaken subdivision reference does not itself disqualify a project if the correct provision's actual elements are satisfied. The substantive problem is the unsupported eligibility determination.
"100% affordable" describes the affordability mix: 29 low-income and 7 moderate-income units. It is not a description of a 100% density increase. Staff claimed unlimited density. Applicable base density must also be determined under the governing §65915 definition, including the greatest applicable General Plan, zoning or specific-plan maximum; the report's 8-unit comparison should not be treated as the final legally controlling base without that reconciliation. [D1, pp. 71-73; L5.]
A qualifying regional-transportation-plan major stop is an alternative statutory route that must be tested.

Operative schedules, peak periods, route qualification and any applicable planned-stop designation resolve actual eligibility. Failure of this particular transit explanation does not automatically eliminate every independent density-bonus or parking entitlement.

Downtown Redwoods: false project descriptions and mismatched conditions Mixed-use in the application; residential-only in the effects reasoning Lawton's report identifies a 36-unit mixed-use project. Its Class 32 traffic, noise, air-quality and water-quality explanation instead describes residential-only use. The proposed resolution's title also describes residential- only development while other portions describe mixed use. That is a demonstrably inaccurate project description in City-prepared approval material. [D1, pp. 57, 60, 80-81, 111-114.] This false description continued beyond the agenda report. The City's Notice of Exemption filed March 20, 2026 identifies the project as mixed-use on page 1, then states residential-only use in its exemption reasoning on page 2. Page 2 bears a lead-agency signature dated March 20 with the title Contract City Planner; the contact is Ethan Lawton. This is an independently located filed record, not merely an unsigned recommendation. [D3, pp. 1-2; SCH 2026030906.]
Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 9
CEQA Guidelines §15332(d) requires that approval not result in significant effects relating to those subjects.

An effects conclusion premised on residential-only use does not explain the actual commercial component.

The question is material: the correct uses, floor area, operating characteristics and trip generation must support the conclusion. The false description is documented; whether a separate study or complete hearing record cures its analytical consequences requires the project-specific evidence. [L8.] Conditions describe a different building arrangement
Downtown's fire-access condition refers to East and West fiveplex buildings and a south-facing fourplex.

That is the arrangement in the 708 J Street Fire referral, not Downtown's 2-building, 36-unit mixed-use project. These mismatched descriptions appear in the City's proposed conditions, where actual emergency access is supposed to be identified. [D1, p. 109; J2, p. 33] Under CCMC $17.46.080, building-permit and occupancy determinations depend on conformity with approved plans and conditions. Cross-project conditions undermine a clear, project-specific compliance baseline. They do not establish that any building has already been constructed contrary to code. [L12.] Downtown Redwoods City loan and developer substitution
The City loan documents identify $1,032,371.43 for Downtown Redwoods: $383,099.10 in PLHA funding and $649,272.33 in PIP funding. The exact figure is approximately $1.032 million, not $1.1 million. It is City- administered, grant-backed financing; the loan commitment does not itself prove complete disbursement. [E08 pp. 98-99, 116-117.]
The earlier approved PIP developer task lists $620,000 and a February 28, 2026 completion date. The City packet separately identifies $649,272.33 available for the project. The May 4 packet describes CSS funding difficulties, a substitution to the Danco partnership and an extension for reimbursement submissions. A reimbursement-submission extension is not, by its description alone, proof that the operative scope, work and expenditure dates were all amended. The posted documents establish the difference; the executed amendments determine its compliance significance. [E08 pp. 99, 196-197; E09 pp. 83-84.] The May 4, 2026 City packet describes Community System Solutions' financing difficulties, a proposed substitution to Crescent City 3rd Street LP/Danco and an assignment and loan assumption. Please identify the executed assignment, any required State approval and the governing amendments. The City report establishes the proposed transaction; it does not itself establish three completed property sales. [E09 pp. 83 -84.]
The May 4 loan discussion identifies four restricted units, while the density-bonus approval describes a 29- low-income/7-moderate-income mix across all 36 units. Separate loan and land-use covenants can impose different obligations; the four-unit loan provision cannot itself establish the 36-unit restriction. CCMC §17.48.030(E) separately requires the affordability instrument before a building permit. [E09 p. 83; E07 pp. 71-75; CCMC $17.48.030(E) J
Project funding certifications and incorporated obligations Downtown's loan §3.1.1 incorporates PLHA Standard Agreement 23-PLHA-18498; $3.1.2 incorporates PIP Standard Agreement 23-PIP-18478 and the PLHA guidelines. These are express developer obligations, not voluntary assurances. The loan is made in reliance on the developer's representations and warranties. Its disbursement provisions require security and an affordability covenant for the initial PLHA payment, and purpose and proof of eligible predevelopment expenditures for PIP reimbursement. The packet establishes the proposed/approved terms; payment records and the executed closing instruments remain necessary to establish what was actually paid and certified. [E08 original PDF pp. 116-117; F07-F08.] The City is the named State grantee/contractor. PLHA Exhibit D §3 warrants that funding-application facts and representations are true, correct and complete to the best of the contractor's knowledge. Untrue, incorrect, incomplete or misleading information that would substantially affect approval, disbursement or monitoring can support a declared breach. Exhibit D §14 requires compliance with applicable State and federal laws concerning construction, health and safety and other grant matters. The agreement also Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 10
requires monitoring and retains audit and repayment remedies. [E09 May 4 packet original PDF pp. 124, 127, 129-132; F10 F14.]
PIP Exhibit B §1 likewise incorporates the funding application and warrants its accuracy to the best of the grantee's knowledge; breach remedies address misinformation that would substantially affect approval, disbursement, reimbursement or monitoring. PIP Exhibit D §2 requires strict program compliance; $16 requires compliance with applicable State and federal laws and carries compliance provisions into agreements with subrecipients, contractors and subcontractors. These obligations run through City- administered funding. [E09 original PDF pp. 167, 172, 182; F15-F17.] Battery Point's project-specific CalHA approval also conditions financing on receipt of evidence that the borrower complied with Crescent City's conditions of approval. It requires an engineer's current-seismic- code certification before permanent closing and reserves adjustment of the subsidy if financial assumptions change. This is the February 2024 project approval, not a generic loan template. [E03 original project PDF p. 11, printed board-binder p. 76; F02.]
Battery Point's July 2022 lIG guidelines separately require entitlements and funding commitments before initial disbursement. The executed award agreements determine the incorporated requirements. [Source 8, §305(g), (i).]
A false planning statement affects another funding stream when it is used in a material funding representation, certification, reimbursement or compliance determination. The planning report alone does not establish that the same statement appeared in every funding application. The Downtown State grants and December 2025 loan predate Lawton's March 2026 statement; the later statement's use in continuing project administration is a separate part of the record.

Please identify the application, certification, approved amendment, reimbursement and monitoring records governing these obligations, and reconcile any material project representation used in them with the actual approved project and transit evidence. The planning report alone does not establish that its transit statement appeared in the City's PLHA/PIP applications. The $5,642,000 scoring calculation is not a $5,642,000 cash payment. These separate records determine whether a specific funding requirement was breached.

Findings ordinary variances and separate approval standards A finding is the deciding body's factual determination explaining how the project meets a legal requirement.

It is not merely a recital that staff recommends approval. The Council or Commission adopts the findings, even when the applicant or staff drafted them.

Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-517, 520-522, requires findings that expose the analytical connection between evidence and decision. For a variance, the relevant comparison includes privileges enjoyed by properties in the same vicinity and zone. Preferred development or an isolated description of the parcel does not establish that comparison. [L1.] Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Assn. v. Board of Permit Appeals (1967) 66 Cal.2d 767, 774-781, rejects ordinary variance reasoning based on a preferred building, attractiveness, economic advantage or community benefit without the required necessity. Those considerations do not replace the statutory criteria. (L2.]
Requirement Evidence needed
CCMC $17.56.010(A): exceptional circumstances Property-specific circumstances, and why they are exceptional under the governing standard.
§17.56.010(B); Gov. Code §65906: necessity and What substantial property right comparable parity properties possess; same vicinity and zone; why
this property is deprived of it; why the requested
relief is necessary without granting special
privilege.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 11
Requirement Evidence needed
$17.56.010(C)-(D): welfare and General Plan Evidence supporting no material detriment or injury and consistency with applicable General Plan
requirements.
$17.56.010(E)-(F): substantiation and decision Applicant substantiation and the deciding body's determination that every required condition is
present.

Findings may be concise. Topanga Assn. v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1348, 1356- 1364, recognizes that findings are read reasonably with the record; using statutory language does not itself lake them defective. No rule requires a member to discuss every document aloud. The issue is whethe egally relevant facts and the record support the actual findings. [L3 Topanga concerns administrative findings and evidentiary support. It does not automatically establish a constitutional violation or an obligation to read every submitted page aloud. Density-bonus concessions have separate statutory standards; ordinary variance hardship cannot substitute for Gov. Code §65915. [L4 Ordinary variances: the complete legal test
Government Code §65906 permits a variance only where special circumstances applicable to the property cause strict zoning enforcement to deprive it of privileges enjoyed by nearby property under identical zoning.

Conditions must prevent a special privilege. A variance cannot authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zone. The statute expressly distinguishes conditional use permits. CCMC $17.56.010 adds its own required findings; the introduction's reference to the spirit of the code does not dispense with those findings. [L4.] Element Proof and application
Property circumstance and causation Size, shape, topography, location or surroundings may be relevant. Naming one does not complete
the finding: explain how it causes the denied
privilege. For 511, small size must connect to
necessity rather than simply the difficulty of the
preferred four-unit layout.

Actual comparable privilege Identify the nearby parcels, identical zoning, applicable standards and lawful rights. A balcony
projection does not establish the same privilege as
a principal wall encroachment. Earlier lawful
variances can be relevant, but their actual zoning,
relief and property circumstances must be
established.

Necessity, not preference Identify conforming alternatives and why they do not preserve the comparable right. A more
attractive, larger or more profitable preferred
building does not alone establish necessity. The
511 report's conforming 35-foot alternative is
directly relevant.

No special privilege The relief and conditions must preserve parity with the legal limitations on other properties. Repeating
an earlier exception does not answer this question.

Local welfare and plan requirements Safety evidence and General Plan support remain necessary under local law, but neither substitutes
for exceptional circumstances or the denied
property right.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 12
Element Proof and application
Each distinct item of relief Rear and side setbacks require justification for the requested reductions. The separate sidewalk-
backing waiver has its own hardship/hazard test.

One favorable general statement does not
establish all forms of relief.

Orinda Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1160-1168, applied Topanga and §65906 to lengthy height-variance findings. Attractive design, compensating benefits and earlier variances did not establish the required legally relevant difference from other parcels. It is particularly relevant to the use of general housing or design benefits to bypass specific limits. [L16.] Miller v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 539, 545-548, upheld a variance supported by detailed comparisons and existing property circumstances. Earlier variances were relevant to the privileges enjoyed by comparable property, but did not alone establish special circumstances. The defect alleged here is an unexplained comparison, not a categorical claim that prior variances are legally irrelevant. [L17.] This is not an absolute prohibition on relief for a small or irregular parcel. A supported property-specific comparison and necessity finding can justify relief. The defect arises when a relevant circumstance is asserted but its legal consequence is not established.

Findings, evidence and the deciding body's responsibility CCMC $17.56.010(E) places substantiation at the public hearing on the applicant. Applicant testimony is evidence; City employees do not have to author every underlying fact. Conversely, repeating a conclusion does not make it substantiated. The deciding body must determine whether the evidence actually establishes every required condition. [L4.]
Topanga requires two relationships: evidence must support findings, and findings must support the decision under the governing criteria. Substantial-evidence review allows supported factual choices; it does not permit use of a legally irrelevant test. A Council hearing may receive additional evidence where authorized, but replacement findings still need lawful criteria and actual support. [L1, L3.] Record requirement Specific duty / timing
Commission written findings — §17.56.020 Formal report of facts, reasons, decision and conditions within 20 days after the hearing ends;
permanent retention; mailing to applicant and
requesting persons within 10 days after decision.

Appeal - §17.56.030 The local appeal period and stay are tied to the Commission report. A date analysis must identify
that report and its actual rendering date.

Council hearing - §17.56.040(A) Complete Commission record transmitted; advertised public hearing within the code's 40-day
period following receipt of written appeal.

Council decision - §17.56.040(B), .050 Formal resolution with facts, reasons and disposition within 40 days after proceedings end;
required mailing and permanent-file handling.

A vote and a generic statement that all requirements are satisfied do not replace the code's required factual reasons. However, absence of a criterion-by-criterion oral discussion does not by itself prove that the written findings and whole record fail. Prepared findings are not categorically unlawful; supported adoption is the The variance test above governs ordinary variances. A State density-bonus concession or waiver under §65915 is a separate statutory entitlement with different burdens and permitted grounds for denial. General affordable-housing policy cannot supply ordinary variance hardship, and ordinary variance hardship cannot be added to a valid State housing entitlement. [L5.]
Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 13
Use permits and continuing conditions follow a separate code track CCMC 317.54.010(B) addresses compatibility, site adequacy, traffic, nuisance, General Plan conformity, parking, loading and landscaping. Section 17.54.020 covers required permits for new construction and enlargements or extensions of use. Section 17.54.030(B) attaches the permission and responsibility for conditions to ownership; transfer does not erase the owner's compliance duties. Section 17.54.040 incorporates the variance hearing procedure, not ordinary variance hardship as a universal CUP criterion.

Project conditions and legally applicable State housing rules must still be checked separately. [L19.] 511 Eighth Street variance appeal
Matter: Battery Point Group LLC, VAR25-01, four units at 511 Eighth Street. This is separate from the 162- unit Battery Point Apartments financing project. The January 14, 2026 Council minutes record adoption of Resolution 2026-02 by a 3-0 vote: Ray Altman, Candace Tinkler and Mayor Isaiah Wright; Jason Greenough and Steve Shamblin were absent. [V3, pp. 28-29.] The Council report identifies Ethan Lawton and Martha Rice as its preparers. It expressly says: "Staff have drafted a resolution using the applicant's arguments." Applicant-origin findings are permissible only if the Council actually determines that legally relevant evidence supports them. Labeling the source as the applicant does not relieve the City's decisionmakers of that duty. [V1, pp. 3-5; L1, L4.] Proposed finding / source The evidentiary defect
Exceptional circumstances: small size and shape Difficulty fitting the selected design is not the make functional space, parking, setbacks and the required comparison with similarly situated desired units difficult. [V1, p. 232, $1.3.1.] properties. The finding combines parcel circumstances with the applicant's desired layout
without explaining why that difficulty satisfies the
legal test.

Necessity: Sixth/D and Fifth/C developments The finding does not establish comparator zoning, received similar variances. [V1, p. 232, §1.3.2.] parcel dimensions, applicable standards, precise relief or the lawful property right supposedly denied
here. Earlier exceptions are not automaticaliy
rights available as of right.

Backing over the sidewalk is the only feasible Feasibility must address alternatives, not only the configuration. [V1, pp. 232-233, §1.3.3.] submitted layout. Staff acknowledged a 35-foot design accommodating development standards.

That alternative needed evaluation against the
claimed necessity. [V1, p. 20.]
Applicant substantiated every condition at the This statement records an ultimate conclusion. The hearing. [V1, p. 233, $1.3.5.] underlying evidence still must establish each condition; the sentence itself does not prove
substantiation.

The official minutes establish approval of Resolution 2026-02. The passages analyzed below are from the resolution presented in the Council packet. Please identify the executed resolution and any adopted changes, and reconcile the necessity and parity findings with the conforming alternative and comparator evidence. The issue is the evidentiary support for the findings, rather than the mere fact that they were drafted before the hearing.

For 511, CCMC $17.16.020(A) expressly permits dwelling groups consisting of one-family, two-family or multiple-family dwellings. It is inaccurate to describe R-3 as categorically prohibiting every one-family dwelling. But §17.16.030(D) separately states a minimum of 1 dwelling per 1,500 square feet and a maximum of 30 dwellings per acre; §17.16.040(B) addresses arranging new structures for maximum dwelling-unit potential. A new single-unit project must be evaluated under those density and placement rules as well as the General Plan. Please reconcile any categorical exclusion of a single-family use with the Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 14
permitted-use text, the separate density and placement requirements and the applicable General Plan provisions. [L18; V1, pp. 14-15.]
The balcony rule does not authorize a building wall in the same place CCMC $17.44.090 permits the specified fire escapes, porches, stairways and balcony projections into minimum front and rear yards by no more than 4 feet. That provision does not reduce the setback for a principal building wall. A balcony's edge cannot alone establish a right to place the entire building there. With a 10-toot required yard, a 4-foot projection leaves 6 feet; an asserted 5-foot balcony location requires actual measurements, approval history and the correct yard classification. [L6.] That distinction directly affects 511's comparator reasoning. The proposed finding names earlier developments but does not identify whether the comparison concerns principal walls, balcony projections, earlier standards or lawful nonconforming conditions. Those categories cannot be treated as interchangeable evidence of the same property right. [V1, p. 232; L1, L4.] A four-unit project does not receive the small-dwelling backing exception automatically CMC 317.42.120(H) treats properties devoted exclusively to one-, two-or three-family dwellings differently.

Four units require the applicable waiver authority and its findings, including hardship and absence of a hazardous condition under that provision. General parking reductions also require the considerations in §17.42.130. Numerical parking compliance does not decide sidewalk safety. [L7.] Public Works supplied actual City evidence: it opposed continuous roll-over curb/parking because of lost on- street parking and potential pedestrian danger, while also describing light E Street traffic and benefits from new sidewalks and an ADA ramp. Fire Chief Kevin Carey identified reduced emergency access and said design or parking changes could remedy the variance request. He recommended 5-7 feet; the approved rear minimum was 5 feet. The record therefore contains both supportive evidence and concerns. It is inaccurate to say the City provided no evidence at all. [V1, pp. 24, 54, 234.] The fourth unit needs its own density authority
At 5,227 square feet and 30 units per acre, the raw calculation is approximately 3.60 units. Four units require an applicable rounding or other density rule. Density-bonus rounding under §65915 cannot silently be imported into an ordinary project without establishing that statutory track. The reviewed approval does not establish a density-bonus application for this four-unit project. The same code also states the separate minimum-density rule; any interpretation resolving fractional units must reconcile both limits. This is an unresolved calculation issue, not proof that a bonus was actually granted. [V1, PDF pp. 9, 232; L5.] 511 Eighth Street: procedure, records and CEQA
The local procedure requires reasons, not merely a motion CCMC $17.56.040(B) requires a formal Council resolution stating facts and reasons for granting, denying or modifying a variance. The staff instruction that the Council could simply deny by motion incompletely described that requirement. Council approved by resolution, so this inaccurate denial instruction did not produce an actual denial without a resolution. [V1, p. 5; L4.] The same chapter requires the complete Planning Commission record to be transmitted on appeal. The Council report identifies a Fire Chief response and an updated site plan discussed at the Commission but omitted from the earlier packet. Those records concern actual design and safety, not merely background correspondence. [V1, p. 5; L4, §17.56.040(A).]
Ardette Esselstrom objected to missing records, spam-filter problems and inadequate preparation time. The minutes record Rice responding that formal discovery and strict courtroom evidentiary standards did not apply and that the hearing could proceed. That explanation did not itself establish what decisional evidence was disclosed, when it was disclosed, or what opportunity existed to answer it. A completed records request and a fair adjudicatory hearing are different questions. A separate fair-hearing conclusion requires the actual disclosure chronology, relied-upon evidence and resulting material prejudice; the minutes alone do not establish all of those facts. [V3, p. 29.]
Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 15
English v. City of Long Beach (1950) 35 Cal.2d 155, 158-160, involved an adjudicatory civil-service hearing in which the board relied on evidence obtained outside the hearing without an opportunity to answer it. Its holding distinguishes that denial of a fair hearing from ordinary evidentiary rulings. Applied here, the relevant inquiry is what material the Council actually relied on and what opportunity Ardette had to answer it; the absence of formal civil discovery does not resolve that narrower inquiry. [L20.] The CEQA analysis needs precise exemption rules
The proposed resolution invokes Classes 3, 5 and 32. City limits and surrounding development alone do not establish "urbanized area" under Guidelines §15387. However, Class 3§15303(b) already covers qualifying multifamily structures with no more than 4 units outside urbanized areas; urbanized status expands the limit to 6. Thus, the defective urbanized-area explanation does not by itself defeat the four-unit Class 3 basis. [IV1, pp. 233-234; L8.]
Class 5 815305 concerns minor alterations of land-use limitations without changes in use or densitv. Its application must identify the actual scope of the action. Class 32 requires all of its own elements. One valid exemption can suffice, subject to applicable exceptions under §15300.2. It would be inaccurate to state that this record proves every claimed exemption invalid. The ordinary variance findings remain a separate legal The Council's choice to proceed and its adoption of findings are official decisions. Staff advice and applicant assertions remain identifiable sources; they do not become true merely because Council adopted an approval.

Fifth and C Streets: the earlier variance used as a comparator Matter: VAR22-01, proposed eightplex, July 21, 2022. The later official minutes record Lawton explaining that General Plan flexibility accommodated multifamily setback reductions. Chair Wendt described increased housing density as desirable and as reinforcing easy access to variances. The Commission approved 3-1, Commissioner Amer voting no and Vice Chair Walp recused, subject to final parking layout and staff issuance of up to 4 parking waivers as needed. [C2, pp. 5-6.] Housing policy is relevant to General Plan consistency, but it does not replace the separately required exceptional circumstances, necessary property right, welfare and applicant-substantiation findings. The staff packet listed those criteria and said the application had not substantiated them, anticipating substantiation at the hearing. The legal question is what actual hearing evidence supplied the missing elements and what final written findings recorded the reasoning. [C1, pp. 13-15; L4.] Record issue Why it matters
Approval reasoning emphasizes density and General Plan support is one required element. It General Plan flexibility. does not establish all ordinary variance elements.

Preferred density cannot function as a blanket
hardship rule.

Minutes describe parking relief to be issued later The final parking arrangement and applicable by staff. waiver determinations matter. The minutes alone do not prove that required hardship, hazard and
traffic/site considerations were later established.
[L7]
Public comments identified substantial drainage Those are recorded objections, not independently through neighboring parcels. proven hydrologic measurements. The engineering response, drainage plan and conditions determine
whether material concerns were addressed. [C2,
pp. 5-6.]
Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 16
Record issue Why it matters
511 later relies on Fifth/C as proof of a comparable A previous variance is an exception based on its property right. own record. Without the earlier parcel, zone, circumstances and lawful approval terms, it cannot
establish the necessary like-for-like comparison for
511. [V1, p. 232]
The documented concern is substitution of generalized housing benefit for property-specific variance requirements and use of that earlier exception to justify another exception. Final written findings, parking determinations and the complete earlier hearing record would establish how far the approval itself departed from the requirements. The available minutes do not justify declaring every element conclusively violated. his example illustrates why individual decisions must remain traceable: the earlier record, the late omparator statement and the relevant legal standard are three different pieces of evidence Additional historical examples: 2023 variance and 2023-2024 sidewalk waivers 1348 Front Street - VAR23-01 / AR23-04, April 20, 2023
The staff report says no support for the mandatory variance findings was submitted with the application and that staff could not analyze the adequacy of that support. The applicant's stated purpose was cold storage, an employee break room and general storage. (H1, p. 22.] The official minutes record later applicant testimony about best use of space, a larger restaurant, loss of parking from alternatives and surrounding zero setbacks. Fire Chief Carey supplied actual access and construction evidence. Lawton said the Commission could grant a setback anywhere from 0-10 feet. The Commission approved a 3-foot rear setback 4-0. [H2, pp. 5-6.] The numerical range described physical options, not unconditional legal authority. Any selected setback still required every ordinary variance finding. Operational preference and unverified neighboring zero setbacks do not themselves establish exceptional property circumstances and a denied comparable riaht. At the same time, the hearing contains evidence: it would be false to claim no evidence was ever offered. The final formal report and comparator details determine whether that evidence actually supported the mandatory findings. [L2, L4, L16.]
Roosevelt - PWR23-10, August 10, 2023; later February 8, 2024 record Staff presented a waiver for 44 stalls to back across California/Hoover sidewalks. Applicant evidence emphasized maximizing units, lack of a second driveway in the chosen layout and additional cost or fewer units under alternatives. The draft resolution states hardship and no hazard but does not explain those conclusions in its text. [H3, pp. 290-292, 298.]
This is the distinct §17.42.120(H)/.130 waiver track. Ordinary variance parity cannot simply be imported.

More parking and unchanged vehicle totals do not establish the absence of pedestrian conflict from 44 backing stalls. The applicable safety finding needs the actual maneuvering, sidewalk and site conditions; technical evidence elsewhere in the record can support it. [L7.] The February 2024 report describes three buildings under construction and the earlier sidewalk-backing arrangement, citing PWR23-01 rather than PWR23-10. Phase and permit identity must be reconciled before counting another approval or describing the approved scope. This is evidence of continuing reliance on earlier relief, not proof of a second independent waiver violation. [H4, p. 44.] These examples fall within the five-year review period. They show recurring questions about preferred designs, comparator proof, later engineering and generic findings. They do not establish that every City approval in that period was unlawful, or that distinct permits all used the same legal standard. 140 Truman Court approved August 20 2026
The City's August 20, 2026 packet identifies Branden Bieber's VAR26-01 at 140 Truman Court, APN 118- 341-034. It requests a garage front setback reduction from 25 feet to 20 feet and a rear setback reduction from 20 feet to 19 feet, for a residence with an accessory dwelling unit above the garage. I was present and Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 17
witnessed approval. The written-record conflicts below are established by the packet itself. [N1 pp. 35, 43, 48-50, 67-73.]
Staff repeated the same asserted fact across different mandatory findings Packet pp. 48-49 say the parcel is not a standard rectangle and neighboring cul-de-sac corner parcels appear to have reduced setbacks. Staff uses that same explanation for exceptional circumstances, necessary property rights and lack of public-welfare detriment, and repeats it within the General Plan finding.

A nonrectangular shape can be a legally relevant property condition. It does not by itself explain why these two particular reductions are necessary or why they will not injure neighboring properties. [N1; L1, L4.] The staff report relies on neighboring cul-de-sac parcels that "appear to enjoy reduced setbacks." Please identify the comparator permits, zoning, measured setbacks, approval dates and lawful status, and explain how those records establish the property right and necessity required for these specific reductions. The appearance of a reduced setback is not, by itself, its approval history. [N1 pp. 48-49; L17.] An incorrect staff setback table
Table 5-2 on packet p. 43 reverses the R-1 interior and exterior side-yard standards: it assigns 5 feet to exterior and 10 feet to interior. CCMC $17.10.040(B)(2) instead provides a 5-foot interior side yard and a 10- foot exterior side yard. The circulated table is factually incorrect. The proposed 6-foot interior side yard does not violate the actual 5-foot minimum. Please identify the corrected table and the standards incorporated into the final approval. [N1 p. 43; L24.]
Conflicting resolutions and the remaining findings question The packet contains two drafts labeled Resolution PC2026-14, beginning on pp. 67 and 71. The second, p. 72, describes a four-unit multifamily structure in its CEQA reasoning. That description is false for this residence-plus-ADU application. The first describes a single-family residential development. Both refer to side and rear setback variances, although the request is for garage front and rear reductions. Please identify the executed resolution and reconcile these conflicting descriptions with the actual application. This notice does not attribute the four-unit language to the executed approval without that record. [N1 pp. 67-73] The variance clauses in both drafts recite the code criteria without identifying the project-specific facts establishing necessity, comparative property rights or absence of detriment. The staff report adds the parcel shape and apparent neighboring setbacks. Under Topanga, the question is whether those findings, read with the whole record, disclose the analytical connection supporting every required element. A small reduction, a desirable house or a finding of general zoning consistency does not dispense with CCMC $17.56.010 and Gov. Code §65906. Calling the approval a minor variance does not identify a separate exception to those criteria. [L1, L3- L4; N1, pp. 48-50, 68, 72.] The strongest contrary explanation is that the irregular cul-de-sac geometry actually limits placement, neighboring properties possess comparable lawful privileges, and the site plans and departmental evidence support the small reductions. Prior variances can be relevant under Miller; concise findings can be sufficient under Topanga (1989). Those authorities prevent treating repetition or brevity alone as conclusive illegality.

They do not permit staff to substitute an unverified appearance of neighboring setbacks for the required factual comparison. [L3, L17.]
Questions requiring reconciliation
Please reconcile the incorrect table, the conflicting resolution drafts and the repeated parcel-shape rationale with the code and the approved project. Identify the executed PC2026-14, the incorporated report and plans, and the comparator approvals supporting the findings. The packet establishes the written errors; it does not establish intentional deception or which conflicting draft was executed.

Evidence location: Approval Record Evidence Appendix, original August 20 packet pp. 35, 43, 48-50 and 67 -73. The source packet is listed as N1 below.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 18
Chipotle approved restaurant project
Matter: AR23-02, a new 2,325-square-foot restaurant with mobile-order pickup drive-through at 895 L Street.

Ethan Lawton is the identified preparer of the March 9, 2023 staff report. The official minutes confirm a 5-0 approval on that date. This is a completed land-use approval, not an unapproved proposal. [T1, pp. 3-4; T2 pp. 13-14.]
The exact false statement and the contrary evidence
In its Class 32 explanation, the staff report says the project will be located "on a developed site in an existing building." Its own project description and signed application instead describe a vacant parcel and a new restaurant, retaining walls and new access driveways. The effects paragraph on the very same page also calls it a restaurant on a vacant parcel. These statements cannot all accurately describe the same project. [T1, pp. 4, 7, 9.]
This is a false factual description in City-prepared environmental reasoning. It matters because the purported existing-building premise is used to establish the site and habitat circumstances for the exemption. A vacant urban infill parcel can still qualify under Class 32; the contradiction does not itself prove significant habitat impacts or defeat every exemption. The supported criticism is that the stated factual premise is wrong, and the actual site conditions must supply the exemption support. [L8, $15332(c).] Traffic and access require the actual project facts
The application describes new driveways on L and M Streets and a right-only driveway on 9th Street, with the first 2 streets within Caltrans rights-of-way. The minutes record discussion of driveway entrances. The environmental paragraph nevertheless supports its traffic conclusion with a general statement of limited potential, without a daily-trip calculation in that passage. [T1, pp. 4, 7; T2, p. 14.] General Plan Policy 3.A.16 requires a submitted traffic analysis when expected generation exceeds 50 daily trips. Establishing noncompliance requires the project estimate and the actual submitted studies, including any Caltrans review. Restaurant size and the presence of driveways are relevant leads, not a substitute for that proof. The record already proves the false existing-building premise; it does not yet prove that no traffic study existed anywhere. [G1, PDF p. 96]
The official minutes confirm the Commission approved the project after Lawton presented the exemption and recommended findings. The minutes do not independently establish whether additional hearing evidence or later documentation corrected the written contradiction. The original report, contrary application and recorded approval are the specific facts placed on notice here. [T2, pp. 13-14.] Traffic analysis General Plan Policy 3 A 16 and SB 743
General Plan Policy 3.A.16 requires a traffic analysis as part of the permit application for a project expected t jenerate more than 50 trips per day, and mitigation of identified traffic impacts. It also permits a safety-base study regardless of trip count. The threshold concerns daily trips, not the number of housing units alone. [G1, PDF SB 743 changes CEQA's treatment of automobile delay, while preserving consideration of safety and other environmental effects. Local traffic analysis, CEQA VMT and parking relief are distinct inquiries. State housing lan also matters: Gov. Code §65915(a)(2) bars conditioning a density-bonus application on additional studies not otherwise required by State law, while permitting reasonable eligibility documentation. Policy 3.A.16 therefore cannot be asserted as an unconditional additional-study requirement for every housing approval. The applicable State duties and protections must be reconciled with the local rule. [L8, L13, L25; Gov. Code §65915(a)(2).] Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 19
Project What the evidence actually shows
Battery Point Apartments - 162 units The packet expressly contains Stover Engineering's September 28, 2023 trip analysis. It
identifies 41 multifamily AM peak-hour trips and 51
PM trips, with separate senior estimates. A "no
traffic analysis existed" allegation is contradicted
by the packet. [B1, pp. 157-158.]
Downtown Redwoods - 36 mixed-use units The effects reasoning misdescribes the actual use.

Establishing Policy 3.A.16 compliance requires the
daily trip estimate, actual commercial component
and any submitted analysis. The unit count alone
is not the legally sufficient threshold calculation.
[D1, pp. 80-81; G1.]
Chipotle — new restaurant and driveways The staff report calls new construction an existing building. Actual daily-trip estimates, access review
and any submitted studies establish traffic-policy
compliance. A generic limited-potential conclusion
does not itself provide that analysis. [T1, pp. 4, 7;
T2, pp. 13-14.]
511 Eighth Street - four units The sidewalk-backing waiver has a separate safety/hardship inquiry even if the 50-daily-trip
threshold is not met. Public Works' competing
observations are relevant evidence that must be
weighed. [V1, p. 24; L7.]
The City-hosted June 2020 regional SB 743 plan screens certain affordable housing and local-serving uses from detailed VMT analysis. It screens projects below 110 daily trips and recommends a screening discussion above 60. These are VMT screens, distinct from other applicable requirements. Section 2.2 presents recommendations agencies may adopt or replace. Please identify the City's adopting instrument and applicable methodology; website publication alone does not establish adoption. Guidelines 315064.3 applied statewide July 1, 2020. Historical transit-area conditions do not establish 2026 eligibility. [G2 pp. 5- 7, 10-11; L13.]
CEQA landscaping and utility evidence
Class 32 is an element-by-element exemption
Guidelines §15332 requires General Plan and zoning consistency, a site within City limits of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, no qualifying habitat value, no significant traffic/noise/air/water effects, and adequate utilities and public services. Existing development addresses only some of those elements. Repeating "limited potential" is a conclusion whose factual basis still matters. [L8.]
Examples are Downtown's residential-only description in its effects reasoning and Chipotle's existing- building description in its habitat reasoning. Each concerns a factual predicate of the exemption being claimed. For Battery Point, the existence of the Stover analysis is actual contrary evidence to an allegation of wholly unsupported traffic review; its scope and assumptions remain examinable. [D1, pp. 80-81; T1, p. 7; B1, pp. 157-158.]
United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1074 affirmed setting aside a Class 32 exemption where the City did not consider applicable Housing Element policies. The holding requires consideration of applicable General Plan policies: it does not require a formal separate written finding on every policy. Here, Policy 3.A.16 cannot be disregarded merely because the desianation and zoning permit the use. [L22.]
Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 20
Guidelines $15300.2 supplies exceptions, including significant cumulative impacts and unusual circumstances. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, as modified May 27, 2015, distinguishes unusual circumstances from effects caused by those circumstances and applies different evidentiary standards to those questions. A generalized objection does not automatically defeat every categorical exemption. [L14.]
A sewer connection is not a treatment-capacity calculation Downtown states that existing utilities adequately serve the site. Class 32 requires adequate service to the proposed project. A connection count alone does not quantify flow, organic loading, peak conditions or remaining permitted treatment capacity. A supported assessment by qualified staff may establish adequacy; §15332(e) does not invariably require a separate engineering report. The cited passage supplies no project- loading calculation, and the complete utility assessment remains needed. [D1, p. 81; L8, §15332(e) J Downtown's March 12 minutes record Commissioner Hyatt saying she had requested flow reports 3 times.

Her motion to delay for WWTP information failed for lack of a second. The minutes attribute to City Manager Eric Wier the explanation that flow and connections are different, and that the amount of connections did not affect that night's decision. Flow and connection count are indeed different measures; however, the claimed Class 32 utility finding still requires adequate service to the proposed development. Treating connection count as nondispositive does not establish available hydraulic and organic capacity. The documented issue is the missing analytical connection to adequacy, not proof that the plant had zero capacity. [D2, p. 5; L8, 815332(e).]
A large WWTP repair estimate or enforcement order alone does not prove that a particular connection is prohibited. The controlling permit/order, current load and proposed contribution must be compared. This notice identifies the unresolved support for project-specific utility adequacy in the cited record; it does not establish zero capacity, invent a BOD limit or prove a project-specific exceedance.

The five-unit open-space threshold is not a blanket landscaping exemption For 511, the common-open-space threshold in CMC $17.43.060 is separate from the landscaping applicability and development provisions in S$17.43.010(B), .020-.030 and parking-area requirements in §17.42.120(M). Four units do not eliminate every landscaping obligation. The approved landscape plan and any lawful relief determine compliance; the record does not establish a completed landscaping violation. [L7, L15.]
Evidence and questions requiring reconciliation
Issue Present assessment / decisive evidence
False project descriptions Documented: Downtown is mixed-use, not residential-only Chipotle proposes new
construction on a vacant parcel, not use of an
existing building. Their completed approvals are
independently confirmed.

Downtown transit eligibility Documented analytical failure: a route list does not establish peak frequency. Actual ineligibility
requires the operative schedules and any
qualifying RTP designation; independent statutory
alternatives must also be checked.
511 ordinary variance findings Substantial documented concern: preferred layout, unestablished comparators and unreconciled
conforming alternative do not explain
necessity/parity. Whole hearing evidence and
executed findings determine the final conclusion.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 21
Issue Present assessment / decisive evidence
No City evidence / no traffic analysis Rejected as a blanket assertion: 511 contains Public Works/Fire evidence; Battery Point contains
Stover's traffic analysis. Criticism must address the
quality, relevance and treatment of that evidence.

Funding noncompliance Actual PLHA/PIP accuracy, monitoring and applicable-law duties are documented. A specific
breach depends on the applicable obligation and
actual certification, reimbursement or funded
activity. No automatic all-funds forfeiture is
established.

Disclosure / fair hearing Material disclosure questions are documented.

The relied-upon item, delivery date, opportunity to
respond and material prejudice remain necessary
to establish a completed fair-hearing defect.

WWTP capacity industrial loads and ratepayer costs
The City's own letter documents the treatment problem
The June 25, 2026 City letter included in this agenda packet connects chronic effluent violations to high- rainfall flows exceeding the membrane bioreactor system's ability to treat the entire flow. It identifies that system as limited to 1.1 million gallons per day and states that excess flow was diverted to the rotating biological contactor system, which does not provide tertiary treatment and cannot meet the new effluent limits. This explanation comes from the City's letter to the regulator, not from my speculation. [E01, original Council packet p. 95.]
The letter identifies chlorine/residual chlorine, settleable solids, ammonia, enterococci and total coliform among the chronic exceedances. The adopted June 6, 2025 Water Board order independently describes bacteria-compliance difficulty when flows exceed 1.1 MGD and RBC treatment is required. That is a documented treatment-compliance problem, even though it is not proof that every additional connection is prohibited. [E01 p. 95; E14 pp. 2-3.]
The letter's project-benefit calculation reports a minimum dry-weather influent flow of 0.77 MGD in 2024. For January 1-March 30, 2025, it reports average daily wet-weather flow of 2.316 MGD, with daily flows ranging from 1.257 to 5.337 MGD. Those are measured-flow figures reported by the City. The proposed repairs cover approximately 1.7 percent of total system length and are estimated to reduce infiltration by 26,000 gallons/day. An estimated reduction is not a measured completed improvement, and this repair project is not the comprehensive treatment upgrade. [E01 p. 97]
A general statement that the plant has capacity is incomplete unless it identifies the kind of capacity being described. Hydraulic design capacity, reliable tertiary treatment capacity, organic-load capacity, disinfection performance and remaining capacity after committed development are different measures. A design number cannot contradict the City's documented operational limitation simply by describing a different part of the system.

The October 5 settlement is evidence of violations, not a clean bill of health Item 9 proposes authorization of Order R1-2026-0058. The settlement materials identify 89 effluent violations through March 23, 2026; 86 carry mandatory minimum penalties totaling $258,000. The proposal suspends that liability while the City completes a qualifying compliance project estimated at $300,300.

Suspension subject to compliance is different from an unconditional cancellation. The settlement does not establish the plant's compliance after its cutoff date. [E01 pp. 74-81, 94-97.] Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 22
Documented figure What it establishes What it does not establish 89 violations / 86 MMP violations The settlement identifies violations and That all 89 receive a $3,000 penalty, or the penalty-bearing subset that later violations are resolved $258,000 suspended liability Penalty exposure subject to settlemen Unconditional forgiveness or proof this conditions amount was charged through rates
$300,300 compliance project Estimated corrective project in the A complete WWTP upgrade or a new settlement record capacity certification
Repair costs already budgeted Staff's statement that sewer-budget A separate penalty allowance c funding exists ransaction-level rate reconciliatio
The staff report attributes exceedances to heavy precipitation and inflow/infiltration. It identifies the 2023 collection-system evaluation and CIPP repairs as the corrective project. The proposal consequently addresses a real collection-system problem that sends additional wet-weather flow to the plant. It does not establish the remaining treatment margin after residential, commercial and industrial commitments. [E01 pp. 74-75.] The fiscal analysis expressly places the necessary sewer funds in the approved FY 2026-27 budget. [E23 p. 76.]
The long-term cost and schedule qualify assurances of capacity The selected upgrade's preliminary probable construction estimate is $57,700,000. Its published Class 5 range is $46,160,000-$86,550,000. These are planning estimates, not a fixed construction contract. The City's June 25 letter anticipates comprehensive-upgrade completion in October 2035, assuming full funding and no delays. [E17 pp. 127, 132, 212-213; E01 p. 95.]
Order R1-2025-0015 requires completion of the chosen corrective construction by December 31, 2029 (milestone F) and full compliance by May 1, 2030 (milestone G). Its conditional mandatory-minimum-penalty relief for specified bacteria exceedances extends through April 1, 2030; that relief is not a general waiver of discharge requirements. The City's letter instead assumes comprehensive-upgrade completion in October 2035. Please identify any operative amended order, interim corrective project or other regulator-approved basis that reconciles the 2035 assumption with the adopted 2029 construction and 2030 compliance milestones. [E14 pp. 5, 8; E01 p. 95]
The basis-of-design material identifies existing MBR performance figures of 1.2 MGD average dry-weather flow, 1.5 MGD maximum-day wet-weather flow and 1.9 MGD peak hourly flow. It also reports four of twelve RBC units permanently offline as of March 2025. Those engineering figures are not interchangeable with the City's 1.1 MGD operational/disinfection threshold. The actual available margin depends on equipment, wet- weather operation and the applicable limits. [E16 pp. 43, 50] The expense of an upgrade does not prove that current unused capacity is zero. Conversely, a legacy plant rating does not prove that uncommitted, reliable, permit-compliant capacity remains. Neither proposition can be established by substituting a cost estimate or a design label for measured loads and a current engineering calculation.

BOD limits and industrial allocations measure different things BOD is biochemical oxygen demand. It measures the oxygen demand associated with organic material. An effluent concentration in milligrams per liter, an industrial allocation in pounds per day, and wastewater flow in gallons per day are different quantities. A high-strength user can consume substantial treatment capacity while remaining one billing account; wet-weather infiltration can consume hydraulic capacity without a matching increase in industrial organic load.

The 2023 ocean-discharge permit specifies BOD limits of 30 mg/L monthly average, 45 mg/L weekly average, and at least 85 percent monthly removal. The 2026 general order repeats those BOD requirements. Its October 1 effective date does not, by itself, enroll the City: coverage requires its Notice of Applicability. The City's actual enrollment, Attachment G and applicable interim conditions determine the present obligations. Recycled-water specifications and individual industrial allocations are separate. [E13 pp. 9, 11; E15 pp. 1, 12]
Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 23
User / requirement Reported quantity Evidence status
Rumiano Current allocation not Executed permit, amendments independently established in this and monitored loads needed; identify executed permits,
amendments and monitored loads
Sea Quake Current allocation not Executed permit, amendments independently established in this and monitored loads needed; packet identify executed permits,
amendments and monitored loads
Three significant industrial users One cheese factory and two E14 p. 2 identifies the categories; breweries it does not name the breweries.

City ocean-discharge BOD 30 monthly / 45 weekly mg/L; 2023 permit E13 pp. 9, 11; 85% removal general order E15 p. 12
Industrial-user discharge ceilings and actual monitored loads must be established from executed permits, amendments and reporting records. This notice does not state unverified Rumiano or Sea Quake allocation figures as established current limits, nor attribute the plant's violations to those users. The adopted Water Board order identifies three significant industrial users; billing accounts alone do not quantity their treatment demand. [E14 p. 2.]
City and County counts do not presently reconcile
Source and date Published count Exact source
County service-area snapshot, 2015 Approximately 2,436 E19 p. 11 customers/connections
County sewer rate study, 2023 3,347 billed connections; flat projection E18 pp. 11, 17 through FY 2033
City sewer rate study, 2026 2,562 outside-City customer accounts E20 pp. 20,42 The County figures in the table below differ by 911 between 2015 and 2023. The 2023 County and 2026 City figures differ by 785. Those arithmetic differences do not prove 911 new physical hookups or 785 omitted customers: billing units, master accounts, service definitions, dates and methodologies may differ. They do establish that the published figures cannot be treated as one reconciled physical-connection inventory. [E18 pp. 11, 17; E19 p. 11; E20 pp. 20, 42.]
The County's flat financial projection does not establish flat wastewater loading. A multifamily account can represent several dwellings; an industrial account can represent substantial organic demand; and approved but unoccupied development does not yet appear as an occupied flow. A revenue-study count is not an engineering capacity calculation.

Battery Point's City land-use record describes 162 units and Downtown Redwoods describes 36, totaling 198 planned units. Funding records can count restricted units differently from the physical project.

Connected, occupied, approved but unconnected and proposed units must remain distinct. This total does not prove that every unit currently discharges to the plant. [E06 pp. 42, 44; E07 pp. 71-75.] The present capacity record must account for growth and industrial changes accepted since reconstruction, equipment limitations and commitments not yet flowing. Historical expansion projections are not present calculations of reliable, uncommitted treatment capacity. The engineering record reports equipment limitations as of March 2025. [E16 p. 50.]
Budgeted repairs and penalties must not be conflated
The Item 9 staff report states that the compliance repairs are already in the sewer budget. The 2026 rate study includes approximately $263,000 in cash-funded collection repairs for FY 2027. The settlement separately identifies the $300,300 project and the suspended $258,000 liability. These are three different Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 24
figures. Their similarity does not establish the same expenditure or that the penalty itself was included in the rates. [E23 p. 76; E01 p. 97; E20 p. 12.]
The documented fact is ratepayer exposure to utility repairs and compliance costs. A separate penalty allowance in the new rates remains unproved without the rate-model and ledger crosswalk. I will not turn that suspicion into a factual assertion. The notice preserves the distinction between an actual fine, corrective work credited against liability, routine maintenance and capacity improvements for growth.

The June 25 letter conditions its October 2035 completion assumption on full funding and no delays. It does not certify that all construction money has been secured. Please identify the awarded or committed funding and reconcile it with the capital estimate and the adopted Water Board milestones. A planning award, funding application and complete construction financing package are different stages. [E01 p. 95; E14 p. 8; E17 pp. 127, 132, 212-213.]
What this notice establishes about further commitments
The City has documented effluent violations, a treatment limitation during high flows, a conditional regulatory schedule and a major capital obligation. Its rate and County records use different customer-count measures.

Its approved housing and industrial users create present and committed demands that a billing count cannot describe. These records materially qualify a general public assurance that the system has capacity.

The available exhibits do not contain one current, reconciled calculation showing reliable treatment capacity minus actual loads and every accepted future commitment, under the applicable discharge requirements and equipment conditions. That is an evidentiary gap in the assurance, not proof of a universal connection ban. The historical restrictions are not asserted to remain in force, and the reported industrial permits are not treated as proof of wrongdoing by the users.

Please reconcile the capacity assurances with the documented violations, reliable treatment limits, adopted regulatory schedule, accepted development commitments and differing customer counts. Identify the current capacity calculation and the rate-model and ledger entries distinguishing repair expenditures from penalty liability. The listed records establish those issues; they do not establish a universal connection ban or prove that the penalty itself was included in rates.

Please retain this complete notice and its supporting exhibits in the written public-comment records of the City Council and Planning Commission and distribute it to every named recipient.

Respectfully submitted
Thomas Beers
[email protected]
October 5, 2026
Source references and original record locations
E01-E23 refer to the accompanying evidence appendix. Page citations mean original one-based PDF pages. The evidence index identifies each source group and its location in the final packet. E22 reproduces selected application pages; E21 identifies native-workbook cells. E23 supplies original budget and settlement-cover pages. The evidence appendix includes the committee's reservation vote and the verified workbook cell extract.

HCD IIG award list, p. 1: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/IIG-R8-Award- Listing.pdf. HCD HOME award list, p. 1: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/ home-2022-2023-nofa-project-activities-final-point-score-and-awardee-list.pdf. Additional primary-source locations follow in this register.

All page numbers refer to the original PDF, counting its first page as page 1. Sources 1-16 below identify the underlying records. Selected original pages are reproduced in the indexed evidence excerpts, funding sources and supplemental transit records.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 25
1 Battery Point CA-23-518 application PDF pp. 69, 77-79, 95-96, 99-104. Native workbook: Points System! H595/AJ610; Tie Breaker!G62:G65, G74:G81, H3:H5; Application Checklist!B899/B918. Official workbook:
https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ctcac/23-518.xlsx. Selected application pages and a verified cell extract accompany this notice.
2 CTCAC May 10, 2023 regulations. Material misrepresentation and inaccurate/misleading amenity certifications p. 39; site-amenity accuracy, transit scoring and aggregation pp. 41-42. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/regulations_committee.pdf

3. RCTA 2022-23 System Performance Report
Dated October 30, 2023; PDF p. 7, printed p. 6.
https://redwoodcoasttransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/RCTA-2022-23-Annual-Report-Performance.pdf 4 Battery Point City packet, October 12, 2023. Identified staff author p. 37; staff CEQA-support reference p. 57; stop IDs p. 53; McClendon letter pp. 95-100.
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/27694.pdf 5 CTCAC August 23, 2023 staff report pp. 21-24 and committee minutes pp. 2-3. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/ebinder%20(12).pdf; https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/minutes%20(18).pdf

6. CalHFA February 21, 2024 project analysis
pp. 11, 20, 22. https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/multifamily/mixedincome/approved/20240221-Battery-Point-Apartments.pdf 7 HCD official award lists, each p. 1: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/IIG- R8-Award-Listing.pdf; https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/home-2022-2023- nofa-project-activities-final-point-score-and-awardee-list.pdf

8. IIG July 2022 guidelines
§305(g), p. 17. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/iig/IIG-Guidelines-july2022.pdf

9. Downtown March 12, 2026 staff report
pp. 57, 71-74. https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/37172.pdf

10. Transit and density-bonus statutes
PRC §§21064.3(c), 21155(b); Gov. Code §65915(o)(5). Official California Code Section service:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml

11. Regional transportation plan appendices
pp. 41, 43. https://www.dnltc.org/s/2024-DNLTC-RTP-Appendices-Final-Feb-2025_compressed-4d9f.pdf

12. Downtown City loan, December 1, 2025
pp. 116-117. https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/35944.pdf

13. Assignment and State agreements, May 4, 2026
pp. 83-84, 124, 127, 129-132, 167, 172, 182.
https://www.crescentcity.org/meetingfiles/99597/agendas/2b1acebb9594426ca3601d45fd1a8786.pdf

14. September 21 draft minutes in October 5 Council packet pp. 9-10. October 5, 2026 Agenda Packet, retained as exhibit E01 in the indexed evidence package.

15. RCTA original stop and route survey
November 25, 2024 Board packet, original PDF pp. 109-110, printed D-2-D-3; survey conducted September 18-21, 2024. https://redwoodcoasttransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/RCTA-Agenda- Packet-11-25-2024-v2.pdf

16. RCTA service summary and Cultural Center route list November 2024 technical memorandum; original PDF pp. 26, 33, printed pp. 20, 27. Table 8 states its service summary is accurate as of October 2024.
https://redwoodcoasttransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/RCTA-SRTP-TM1.pdf Approval sources and operative dates
The evidence appendix reproduces selected original pages, labeled with these source IDs and original PDF page numbers. Full records remain available at the URLs below. The classifications in this notice concern the specific passages identified, not every assertion in each packet.

Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 26
V1 - Jan. 14, 2026 Council packet 511)
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/36447.pdf V3 - Jan. 14 minutes in Feb. 2 Council packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/36718.pdf C1 - July 21, 2022 Fifth/C packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/23155.pdf C2 - Fifth/C official minutes
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/23583.pdf D1 - Mar. 12, 2026 Downtown packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/37172.pdf D2 — Mar. 12 minutes in July 9 packet
https:/www.crescentcity.org/meetingfiles/100450/agendas/b1923003a9574962bb72cad569523564.pdf D3 — Filed Downtown Notice of Exemption March 20 2026
https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026030906/Attachment/dato1j J2 — Feb. 12, 2026 packet used only to compare the original Fire referral at p. 33 https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/36844.pdf T1 - Mar. 9, 2023 Chipotle packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/25457.pdf Source register
T2 — Mar. 9 minutes in Apr. 20 packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/25904.pdf B1 - Oct. 12, 2023 Battery Point packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/27694.pdf G1 - General Plan, adopted May 21, 2001
https://www.crescentcity.org/media/Community-Development/General%20Plan%20Documents/ Crescent%20City%20General%20Plan.pdf
G2 - 2020 regional SB 743 Implementation Plan
https://www.crescentcity.org/media/Public%20Works/Documents/2020%20DEL%20NORTE%20REGION%2 0SB%20743%20IMPLEMENTATION%20PLAN%20(2020-06-30).pdf
F1 - Dec. 1, 2025 Downtown loan packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/35944.pdf F2 - May 4, 2026 transfer and State agreements
https://www.crescentcity.org/meetingfiles/99597/agendas/2b1acebb9594426ca3601d45fd1a8786.pdf F3 — Feb. 21, 2024 CalHFA Battery Point analysis
https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/multifamily/mixedincome/approved/20240221-Battery-Point-Apartments.pdf H1 — Apr. 20, 2023 1348 Front packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/25904.pdf H2 - 1348 Front official minutes
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/26730.pdf Source register
H3 — Aug. 10, 2023 Roosevelt waiver packet
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/26977.pdf H4 — Feb. 8, 2024 Roosevelt report
https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/28795.pdf Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 27
Legal date control: Fifth/C is evaluated as a July 2022 ordinary variance; Battery Point's October 2023 major-stop rule used 15-minute bus frequency, distinct from tax-credit transit scoring. PRC §21064.3 changed to 20 minutes effective January 1, 2025. Downtown's March 2026 transit determination uses that 20-minute rule and the applicable 2026 density-bonus provisions. Federal-award duties depend on the version and terms incorporated in the actual award. Historical code criteria are also reproduced in the respective City packets; a later amendment is not silently applied to an earlier action.

N1 August 20, 2026 Planning Commission packet VAR26-01. https://www.crescentcity.org/meetingfiles/101006/agendas/9ba802d036f441428a80731021cac852.pdf.

Cited written passages: pp. 35, 43, 48-50 and 67-73.

Legal sources
L1 — Topanga (1974), 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-517, 520-522
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/topanga-assn-scenic-community-v-county-los-angeles-27785/ L2 - Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo (1967), 66 Cal.2d 767, 774-781 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2d/66/767.html L3 — Topanga (1989), 214 Cal.App.3d 1348, 1356-1364
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/214/1348.html L4 - CCMC ch. 17.56; Gov. Code §65906
https://ecode360.com/44243242
L5 - Gov. Code 865915
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65915.

L6 - CCMC $17.44.090
https://ecode360.com/44242989
L7 - CCMC ch. 17.42
https://ecode360.com/44242794
L8 — CEQA Guidelines §§15064.3, 15300.2, 15303, 15305, 15332, 15387; 2025 State-hosted AEP transcription, PDF pp. 259, 373, 376-377, 384-385, 395
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/CEQA/Documents/CEQA_Handbook_2025.pdf Legal sources continued
L9 — IIG Guidelines, July 29, 2022, §305(g), (i), p. 17 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/iig/lIG-Guidelines-july2022.pdf L10 — 2 C.F.R. §§200.415, 200.339
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/part-200
L11 - PRC SS21064.3(c), 21155(b)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21155.

L12 - CCMC ch. 17.46
https://ecode360.com/44243014
L13 - PRC §21099(b), (d)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21099.

L14 — Berkeley Hillside (2015), 60 Cal.4th 1086, majority opinion and modification https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s201116.html L15 — CCMC ch. 17.43
https://ecode360.com/44242940
L16 — Orinda Assn. (1986), 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1160-1168 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/182/1145.html Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 28
Legal sources and verification continued
L17 — Miller (1981), 122 Cal.App.3d 539, 545-548
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/122/539.html L18 — CCMC ch. 17.16 adopted by Ord. 843 September 3 2024 https://ecode360.com/44241272
L19 — CCMC ch. 17.54 use permits
https://ecode360.com/44243228
L20 — English (1950), 35 Cal.2d 155, 158-160
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/english-v-city-long-beach-26270/ L21 — PRC §21080.66 qualifying infill housing statutory exemption https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21080.66 L22 — United Neighborhoods (2023), 93 Cal.App.5th 1074, 1087-1093 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2023/b321050.html Additional official statute locators: Gov. Code §65906:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65906.

PRC §21064.3: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml? lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21064.3.

Berkeley Hillside modification: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2015/s201116m.html L25 | West Adams Heritage Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (Oct. 31, 2024), B319121, published Discussion E.5.c (additional density-bonus requirements preempted; not a holding that this City's traffic policy is invalid):
https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2024/b319121-0.html L24 R-1 development standards, CCMC $17.10.040. https://ecode360.com/46612519 Thomas Beers | Direct notice | October 5 2026 | 29
Evidence index
October 5 2026 Crescent City direct notice
The notice appears on packet pages 1-29. The following index locates the reproduced source records in this final packet.

Citations in the notice refer to the source document's original one-based PDF page, rather than the packet page. reproduced once and indexed under each applicable source group.

Source or exhibit Final packet pages
V1 approval record 33-42
Original PDF pages 3, 4, 5, 19, 20, 24, 54, 232, 233, 234 V3 approval record 43-44
Original PDF pages 28, 29
C1 approval record 45-47
Original PDF pages 13, 14, 15
C2 approval record 48-49
Original PDF pages 5, 6
D1 approval record 50-59
Original PDF pages 57, 60, 71, 72, 73, 74, 80, 81, 109, 111 D2 approval record 60-62
Original PDF pages 3, 4, 5
D3 approval record 63-64
Original PDF pages 1, 2
J2 approval record 65
Original PDF pages 33
T1 approval record 66-69
Original PDF pages 3, 4, 7, 9
T2 approval record 70-71
Original PDF pages 13, 14
B1 approval record 72-74
Original PDF pages 100, 157, 158
G1 approval record 75
Original PDF pages 96
G2 approval record 76-77
Original PDF pages 10, 11
F1 approval record 78-79
Original PDF pages 116, 117
Source or exhibit Final packet pages
F2 approval record 80-92
Original PDF pages 83, 84, 124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 167, 172, 178, 179, 182 F3 approval record 93
Original PDF pages 11
H1 approval record 94
Original PDF pages 22
H2 approval record 95-96
Original PDF pages 5, 6
H3 approval record 97-100
Original PDF pages 290, 291, 292, 298
H4 approval record 101
Original PDF pages 44
N1 Truman written packet 102-113
B1 staff and applicant attorney context 114-120
RCTA historical performance and City stop references 121-122 E01 September 21 draft minutes and October 5 settlement materials 123-133 E02 Battery Point 2023 tax credit staff report 134-137
E03 Battery Point February 2024 CalHFA financing analysis 138-139 E04 May 2023 CTCAC transit scoring and aggregation rules 140-141 E05 RCTA 2022 2023 performance report 121
E06 Battery Point approval and Stover traffic material 142-147 E07 Downtown Redwoods March 12 2026 staff analysis 148-154 E08 Downtown December loan and PIP approved scope 155-161 E09 Downtown May 4 assignment and extension description 162-163 E10 General Plan Policy 3 A 16 164
E11 Regional transportation plan transit discussion 165-167 E12 Downtown filed Notice of Exemption 168-170
E13 2023 wastewater BOD limits and capacity notice duty 171-174 E14 Adopted June 2025 wastewater time schedule order 175-178 E15 General wastewater permit effective October 1 2026 179-180 Source or exhibit Final packet pages
E16 Jacobs basis of design existing and proposed treatment 181-182 E17 October 2025 selected upgrade cost and schedule 183-187 E18 County 2023 sewer rate study counts 188-189
E19 LAFCo 2015 County service area snapshot 190
E20 City 2026 sewer rate study capital and customer inputs 191-194 E22 Battery Point application representations and certification 195-204 E23 Budgeted compliance repairs and settlement cover 205-206 Project funding and attorney source pages F02 F03 F04 through F17 149-151, 157-158, 207-217
CTCAC August 23 2023 approval minutes original pages 2 and 3 218-219 CTCAC May 10 2023 regulation original page 39 220
E21 Verified native workbook cells 221
Source locations and date limits 222
Source 15 Pacific E Route 1 223
Source 15 A Condor Route 2 224
Source 16 Frequency Table 8 225
Source 16 Cultural Center route list 226
M1 City Manager employment agreement 227
June 12, 2018 packet, original PDF p. 99; section 11(B) M2 Minutes authorizing agreement 228
July 2, 2018 packet, original PDF p. 9; June 12 minutes, item 7 Additional original source locations
M1: https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/16697.pdf M2: https://evogov.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/meetings/205/agendas/16698.pdf Other source URLs and original page citations appear in the notice's consolidated source register, packet pages 25-29.

The E21 page is a checked cell extract from the official workbook, not a facsimile of a worksheet. The RCTA supplemental cover is an explanatory source guide; the following four sheets are original agency records. The selected records retain their dates and do not establish an unavailable complete 2023 or March 2026 transit timetable.

V1 | Original PDF page 3 | Appendix page 3

I CRESCENT
*
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT *

CALIFORNIA
TO: MAYOR WRIGHT AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ERIC WIER, CITY MANAGER
BY: ETHAN LAWTON, CONTRACT PLANNER
MARTHA D. RICE, CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: JANUARY 14, 2026
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR25-01) FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 511 gth STREET (APN 118-230-003)

RECOMMENDATION
• Open public hearing
Hear staff report / presentation
Receive testimony from Appellant
Receive testimony from Applicant
Receive public comment
• Technical questions from the Council
• Further Council discussion
• Close public hearing
• Council deliberation
• Possible Motions:
• Motion to grant the Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) with conditions and adopt Resolution No. 2026-02, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Crescent City Approving Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) for Development at 511 8th Street (APN 118-230-003) (or as amended by the City Council)
Motion to deny the Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) Motion to continue the hearing to receive additional information and provide direction to staff

BACKGROUND
Applicant and property owner Battery Point Group, LLC submitted an application for a variance permit to allow for a reduction of the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet and a reduction of the exterior side-yard setback from 10 feet to 8 feet 4 inches. The applicant also requested a parking waiver to allow for one additional driveway to back over the sidewalk (for a total of 4). The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on December 4, 2025 and approved the Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) V1 | Original PDF page 4 | Appendix page 4
APPEAL OF VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR25-01) | 2
JANUARY 14,2026
by way of Resolution No. PC2025-14. At that public hearing, appellant Ardette Esselstrom voiced her objection to the variance and submitted her objection in writing (included as part of Planning Commission Record). Following the public hearing and within the time allowed, Ms. Esselstrom filed an appeal of the Planning Commission decision.

Subsequently, Ms. Esselstrom has submitted a revised appeal document, which is also attached to this staff report.

ITEM ANALYSIS

PUBLIC HEARING
While hearing this appeal, the City Council is sitting in its quasi-judicial capacity. This means that the Council is tasked with ascertaining if the relevant facts support the findings required to be made under the regulations for granting a variance. The Council's decision must be supported by "substantial evidence," generally defined as enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from that information that a fair argument can be made to support the conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.

This is standard that is very deferential to the decision-making body, the City Council. In addition to avoiding any conflicts of interest, Council Members are required to be fair and impartial when making a quasi-judicial decision.

The Council is limited to considering only evidence and information submitted as part of this public hearing, including the documents submitted as part of the agenda and any documents or testimony that may be presented at the public hearing. Council Members must disclose if they have had any communication regarding the variance application with either the applicant or the appellant and disclose the contents of those communications.

VARIANCE CRITERIA
Variances are covered by Chapter 17.56 of the Crescent City Municipal Code (included with this staff report for your reference). The purpose of a variance is to prevent discrimination and undue hardship. No variance shall be granted which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone.

The criteria for granting a variance are as follows:

A. That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located;
D. The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City;
V1 | Original PDF page 5 | Appendix page 5
APPEAL OF VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR25-01) | 3
JANUARY 14, 2026
E. That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above; and
F. The conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met.

The applicant submitted arguments and evidence in support of its application for a variance, which are included in the Planning Commission Record. If the City Council agrees with the applicant that the proposed variances meet the criteria set forth in the municipal code, then the City Council will need to adopt a resolution. Staff have drafted a resolution using the applicant's arguments. If the City Council does not agree with the applicant that the proposed variances meet the criteria set forth in the municipal code, then the City Council simply needs to deny the application by motion.

EVIDENCE TO BE CONSIDERED
The attachments to this stat raport, as evil as a in the rene to the one he des public hearing.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
If the City Council approves the variance, it will need to make a CEQA determination.

Staff have prepared findings in the draft resolution finding the proposed project to be CEQA exempt under Class 3 § 15303(b) (New Construction of Small Structures), Class 5 § 15305(a) (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), and Class 32 § 15332 (In-fill Development) of the CEQA Guidelines.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission Record for Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01)

2. Fire Chief Referral Response (was spoke about at PC hearing but was not included with packet)

3. Updated Site Plan (was spoke about at PC hearing but was not included with packet)

4. Resolution No. PC2025-14
Appeal from Ardette Esselstrom

6. Amended Appeal from Ardette Esselstrom

7. Crescent City Municipal Code Chapter 17.56

8. Draft Resolution No. 2026-02
V1 | Original PDF page 19 | Appendix page 6
City of Crescent City - Special Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #1
The Variance requests required the scheduled public hearing for the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed Variance Permit shall be approved or denied (CCMC §17.56.010(F)), based on the following standards:

7.1. Exceptional and Extraordinary Circumstances (CCM 17.56.010(A)) That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved;
"The property is uniquely constrained by its smaller lot size and dimensions, limiting the ability to comply with standard setbacks while still achieving the number of multi-family units permitted by zoning. The lot's shape and area make it difficult to design functional living space, parking, and required setbacks simultaneously. The requested variances are therefore essential to utilize the property in the manner intended under its zoning classification. Also, due to the layout to maximize the space of the lot, the building is facing E Street instead of 8th Street how it was in the past. Due to this, the rear set back changed due to the layout of the building, increasing the setback from 5'to 10' due to orientation of the building." (Provided by Applicant, see ATT.A Application VAR25-01).

7.2. Necessary Property Right (CCMC 17.56.010(B))
That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
"The requested variances are necessary to ensure the property owner enjoys the same substantial property rights as other nearby owners of multi-family lots.

Several comparable properties in the immediate vicinity-such as the newer multi- family developments at 6ih and D Streets and 5th and C Streets-have received similar variances for reduced setbacks and parking configurations. These projects have operated successfully without negative impact, establishing a precedent and demonstrating that granting this request would not provide any undue advantage but simply parity with surrounding developments." (Provided by Applicant, see ATT.A Application VAR25-01).

7.3. Public Welfare (CCMC 17.56.010(C))
That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located;
"The requested variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to nearby properties. The proposed rear and side setback reductions will maintain adequate open space, privacy, and visual harmony with surrounding structures. The parking variance is necessary because backing over the sidewalk is the only feasible parking configuration for a lot of this size and shape. Similar conditions exist throughout the neighborhood and have functioned safely without incident. Furthermore, the proposed backing area is located on E Street, a low- VAR25-01_SR Page 12 of 19 December 4, 2025
V1 | Original PDF page 20 | Appendix page 7
City of Crescent City - Special Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #1
traffic area, minimizing any potential safety concerns." (Provided by Applicant, see ATT.A Application VAR25-01).

7.4. General Plan (CCMC 17.56.010(D))
The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City;
"The requested variances are fully consistent with the Crescent City General Plan, which encourages development that supports housing availability and efficient land use. The proposed multi-family use aligns with the existing zoning and the predominant land use pattern of neighboring multi-family residences.

Approval of this variance will contribute positively to local housing stock and neighborhood aesthetics, transforming currently vacant land into well-designed, livable housing that complements the community fabric." (Provided by Applicant, see ATT.A. Application VAR25-01).

Staff Analysis: The MF 15-30 General Plan land use designation principally permits "townhouses (row houses)" with "Residential densities range from a minimum of 15 to a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre" as the intended uses "provides for high density residential development within the urban boundary." Additionally, Policy 1.F.3. states that "the City shall encourage higher residential densities at locations where convenient access and adequate facilities, including parks and open space, are readily available." The parcel is located where there is convenient access and adequate facilities. The designation allows 30-du per acre which permits 4-du on the proposed parcel. The variances would allow the 4-unit development for multi-family use. Otherwise, the development could be constructed at 35-ft height to accommodate the development standards.

7.5. Public Hearing (CCMC 17.56.010(E))
That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above; and
"The applicant will participate in the required public hearing to provide any additional documentation or testimony to ensure that all required conditions have been met. We are committed to working collaboratively with the Planning Commission to ensure the proposal meets city objectives and meets community expectations" (Provided by Applicant, see ATT.A Application VAR25-01).

Staff Analysis: A Notice of Public Hearing was submitted to the Del Norte Triplicate newspaper (on 11/17/25) to be published (on 11/20/25) in print/online circulation and provided to the Commissioners (on 11/17/25). A similar Notice of Public Hearing was mailed (on 11/17/25) to the property owners within 300-ft of the project location (CCMC § 17.46.050) as required (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65090 & 65094). A Notice of Public hearing was posted (on 11/19/25) at City Hall, Del Norte County Library, and the Flynn Center. The notice was also posted at the project location and on the City's website December 4, 2025 Page 13 of 19 VAR25-01_SR
V1 | Original PDF page 24 | Appendix page 8
City of Crescent City - Special Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #1
SECTION 9: INTER-DEPARTMENTAL PLANNING REFERRALS
The Inter-Departmental Planning Referrals were provided (on 11/04/25) to other City departments which included the following comments/conditions:

9.1. Police Department: Approved with "No comments or concerns." (11/04/25)

9.2. Fire and Rescue: None

9.3. Building Department: None

9.4. Public Works Department: Approved with the following comments (11/18/25):

1. For rear setback (east) against the property at 537 8th Street Public Works Building Department requests a fire wall on exterior wall facing east, with the rating (1-hr, 2-hr, 4-hr) as determined by building code and allowed by the City Fire Chief.

2. For setbacks adjustment to North and South side of the project, Public Works has no objection.

3. Regarding continuous roll-over sidewalk requested variance. Public Works is not in favor of allowing roll-over curb and continuous parking, as supported by the current ordinance. The loss of on-street parking and potential danger to pedestrians support the ordinance.

For this project the vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic on E Street south of 8th Street is light. E Street is not deemed a collector street, and the addition of sidewalks on E Street and 8th Street as well as the ADA compliant ramp installed by this project will benefit pedestrian traffic.

9.5. REQUIRED FINDING BY THE COMMISSION:

The proposed project is to be subject to the Conditions of Approval found in Attachment December 4, 2025 Page 17 of 19 VAR25-01_SR
V1 | Original PDF page 54 | Appendix page 9

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY CRESCENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & ZONING
(Address) 377 J Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (Phone) 707-464-9506 CALITORKI Incorporated April 13, 1854 (Website) www. crescentcity.org

PLANNING & ZONING REFERRAL FORM
Variance Permit - Application VAR25-01
The Department provides the following review regarding the submitted Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) to request a reduction in setbacks for a proposed 4-plex multi- family residential development located at 511 8th Street (APN 118-230-003):
• ON HOLD D APPROVED • DENIED
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, and/or CONDITIONS:

Fire has some concerns with this request. Please find my explanation below. In navigating around established laws and requirements for setbacks in residential scenarios, one must consider the perspective of responders in times of emergency.

1. Limited setback distance creates diminished access to critical areas of residential structures. These critical areas are often second story bedroom windows which also serve as required egress in case of a fire. In upper floor residential fires, stairwells or primary means of egress are often cut off for residents trying to evacuate.

2. Although the proposed project will be sprinkled, there remains an increase to the westerly exposure in fire conditions upon the residence to the east border boundary. Recommended solution: to increase. requested setback variance to 5 or 7 feet. This will allow a fully equipped responder with fire hose or ladders to more safely navigate fire conditions or effect a victim rescue from upper floors of the structure

3. Setting frequent precedence that becomes the norm for future residential building projects with little to no lot line setbacks. Recommended solution: consider at minimum, to make reasonable accommodation for responders access by considering 5-7' request. Additionally, if required setbacks are not kept, AHJ (fire marshal) can work with contractors to increase the fire/building code construction materials to be greater than 1 hour construction (including windows). This will further protect existing exposures if the setback variance is granted. It seems that changes to parking design or slightly less building square footage can remedy this variance request.

PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY:
2 Kevin Carey, Fire Chief, Fire and Rescue
• Dan Minges, Building Inspector, Building Department
• David Yeager, Public Works Director, Public Works Department • Richard Griffin, Chief of Police, Police Department
• Other:

Signature: Date: 12/2/25
VAR25-01_REF Page 1 of 1 November 4, 2025
V1 | Original PDF page 232 | Appendix page 10
process" because this project exceeds the minimum density standards.

1.2 Zoning Code Consistency. The proposed project (with a Variance Permit) is consistent with the Crescent City's High-Density Residential District (R-3) Zoning Code, in that the proposed project:

1.2.1 Is not located within the Coastal Zone and is not appealable to the Coastal Commission;

1.2.2 Is consistent with the "Dwelling groups consisting of one-family, two-family, or multiple-family dwellings" (CCMC § 17.16.020(A)) as he proposed project is a multi-family dwelling

1.2.3 "Provides for high density concentrations of dwelling units togethe with specific ancillary and complementary uses" (CCMC S

17.16.010(A)) as the proposed project includes the maximum density of dwelling units; and

1.2.4 Is subject to all zoning regulations (CCMC § 17.16.010(B)).

1.3 Variance Requirements. The proposed variance requests satisfy the Variance Permit Review requirements (CCMC SS 17.56.010 (A through E)), as follows:

1.3.1 There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved (CCMC 17.56.010(A)) because the shape and small size of the parcel make it difficult to design functional livings space, parking and required setbacks simultaneously while also achieving the number of dwelling units allowed by its zoning designation;

1.3.2 Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question (CCMC 17.56.010(B)) because multiple comparable properties in the vicinity (e.g., multi-family developments at 6* & D Streets and 5'* & C Streets) have received similar variances for reduced setbacks and parking configurations without reports of negative impacts;

1.3.3 The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located (CCMC 17.56.010(C)) because (1) the setback reductions will maintain adequate open space, privacy, and visual harmony with surrounding structures, (2) the parking variance is necessary because backing over the sidewalk is the only feasible parking configuration for a lot of his size CRESCENT CITY RESOLUTION No. 2026-02 Page | 3
V1 | Original PDF page 233 | Appendix page 11
and shape, and (3) similar conditions exist throughout the neighborhood and have functioned safety, and (4) the proposed backing area is located on E Street, a low-traffic road;

1.3.4 The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City (CCMC 17.56.010(D)) because the proposed project is consistent with the general plan as stated in Section 1.1; and

1.3.5 A public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiated all of the conditions cited above (CCMC 17.56.010(E)) was held January 14, 2026.

1.4 CEQA Determination. The proposed project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the following CEQA Guidelines:

1.4.1 Class 3 $ 15303(b) (New Construction of Small Structures) in that the proposed project is (1) within an urbanized area (within the city limits and surrounded by existing development); and (2) a multi- family residential structure totaling no more than six dwelling units (project is 4 dwelling units).

1.4.2 Class 5 § 15305(a) (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) in that the proposed project consists of " minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density" because the setback limitations with a slope less than 20% does not result in any changes to residential use or exceed density; and "minor side yard and setback variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel" because the requested variances are for minor side and rear yard setbacks and a parking waiver, none of which will result in a new parcel.

1.4.3 Class 32 $ 15332 (In-fill Development) in that the proposed project:
a. Is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's Multi-Family Residential 15-30-du per acre (MF 15-30) land use designation and is consistent with the Crescent City's High-Density Residential District (R-3) Zoning Code (with a Variance Permit) as stated in Sections 1.1 and 1.2;
b. Is located in the City of Crescent City, is approximately 0.12 acres, and is located adjacent to existing commercial uses; c. Is located on a site which has had past disturbances, contains existing development, and is surrounded by paved surfaces CRESCENT CITY RESOLUTION No. 2026-02 Page | 4
V1 | Original PDF page 234 | Appendix page 12
containing no habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species;
d. Is within a developed commercial area that already services commercial use and the four dwelling unit multi-family
residential structure has a limited potential to result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts; e. Is surrounded by and is already adequately served by utilities and public services, including water, sewer and power;
f. Qualifies as a Class 3 exemption as stated in Section 1.4.1; and g. Qualifies as a Class 5 exemption as stated in Section 1.4.2.

2. VARIANCE APPROVAL. Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) for development at 511 8th Street (APN 118-230-003) is approved as follows:

2.1 Rear yard setback is reduced to 5 ft (minimum).

2.2 Exterior side yard setback is reduced to 8 ft 4 in (minimum).

2.3 One additional driveway is permitted to back over the sidewalk (4 total).

2.4 Subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Crescent City held on this 14th day of January 2026, by the following polled vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Isaiah Wright, Mayor
ATTEST:

Robin Altman, City Clerk
CRESCENT CITY RESOLUTION No. 2026-02 Page | 5
V3 | Original PDF page 28 | Appendix page 13

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY

MAYOR ISAIAH WRIGHT MAYOR PRO TEM CANDACE TINKLEI

COUNCIL MEMBER RAY ALTMAN COUNCIL MEMBER JASON GREENOUGH

COUNCIL MEMBER STEVE SHAMBLIN

MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY

FLYNN CENTER BOARD CHAMBERS
981 H STREET
CRESCENT CITY, CA 95531
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 14, 2026 5:30 P.M.

OPEN SESSION
Call to order Mayor Wright called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.

Roll call Council Members present: Council Member Ray Altman, Mayor Pro Tem Candace Tinkler, and Mayor Isaiah Wright
Council Member absent: Council Member Steve Shamblin and Council Member Jason Greenough
Staff members present: City Manager Eric Wier, City Attorney Martha Rice (via Zoom), City Clerk/Administrative Analyst Robin Altman, Contract Planner Ethan Lawton, Contract Planner, Public Works Director Dave Yeager and Police Chief Richard Griffin
Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor Wright

PUBLIC HEARING

1. APPEAL OF VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR25-01) FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 511 8th STREET (APN 118-230-003)
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED: Reduced rear yard setback, reduced exterior side yard setback, parking waiver for one additional unit to back over the sidewalk POSSIBLE ACTION:
• Motion to grant the Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) with conditions and adopt Resolution No. 2026-02, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Crescent City (or as amended by the City Council); or
• Motion to deny the Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01); or • Motion to continue the hearing to receive additional information and provide direction to staff
Mayor Wright opened the public hearing at 5:31 p.m.
1 | Page
1/14/26 COUNCIL AGENDA
V3 | Original PDF page 29 | Appendix page 14
building; Mr. Lawton stated that it will be a 2-story building. Ardette Esselstrom, appellant, addressed the Council stating that since her emails were caught in a spam filter and she stated she has not been able to be fully prepared for this meeting since she wasn't able to receive the documents she requested. City Attorney Rice stated that this hearing is not subject to formal discovery or strict evidentiary standards. Since Ms. Esselstrom submitted a public records request that was quite extensive, it will take the City some time to compile all the records. There is no legal reason why the hearing cannot continue based on the fact that Ms. Esselstrom didn't get the documents she requested before the meeting. Applicant, Sam Schauerman of Elk Creek Builders was present to answer any questions the Council may have. Mayor Pro Tem Tinkler asked about landscaping and how that would be approved; Planner Lawton stated that the requirement for open space is for 5 units or more. Since this is a 4 unit project, the landscaping requirements are minimal.

There were no comments from the public.

Mayor Wright closed the public hearing at 6:11 p.m.

On a motion by Council Member Altman, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Tinkler, and carried on a -O polled vote with Council Member Shamblin being absent, the City Council of the City oi rescent City Motion to grant the Variance Permit (Application VAR25-01) with conditions anc adopt Resolution No. 2026-02, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Crescent City.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Wright adjourned the meeting at 6:14 p.m. to the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Crescent City on Tuesday, January 20, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at the Flynn Center Board Chambers, 981 H Street, Crescent City, CA 95531.

ATTEST:

Robin Altman, City Clerk/Administrative Analyst
2| Page
1/14/26 COUNCIL AGENDA
C1 | Original PDF page 13 | Appendix page 15
CCMC Title 17 Zoning, Section 17.16.020 allows the 8-Plex housing development within City limits, including the R-3 High Density Residential District, subject to securing a variance permit.

When considering the 8-Plex housing development, the Planning Commission should consider the following:

17.56.010 /Variance/ Purpose.

When unreasonable and unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the general purpose of this title result through the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the provisions thereof, the planning commission of the city shall have authority as an administrative act subject to the provisions of this section, to grant upon such conditions as it may determine such variances from the provisions of this code as may be in harmony with its general purpose and intent so that the spirit of this code shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done. The sole purpose of any variance shall be to prevent discrimination and undue hardship and no variance shall be granted which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and sone. Before any variance may be granted the planning commission or the city council on appeal, it shall be shown:

A. That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved;
B. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and sone and denied to the property in question;
C. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and cone in which property is located;
D. The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent E. That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above; and
F. That the planning commission is reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met. (Prior code § 30- 502)
The Applicant shall provide the above information during the Planning Commission Meeting. (G) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed project is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15305(a) and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines:
§ 15305. Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations.

Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to:
(a) Minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel;

C1 | Original PDF page 14 | Appendix page 16
§ 15332. In-Fill Development Projects.

Class 32 consists of projects characterised as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable soning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
(H) STAFF ANALYSIS:

Below is the staff analysis for the Planning Commission's consideration in determining the variance permit outcome, with the Conditions of Approval found within Attachment B:

A. Background Information: Staff believes that the proposed location of the variance permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

B. Project Description: Staff believes that the proposed activity, as conditioned (see Attachment B), will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment.

C. General Plan Consistency: Staff believes that the proposed reduced setbacks for the 8-Plex housing development is consistent with the General Plan as it provides flexibility in accommodating setback reductions for multi-family housing developments.

D. Zoning Code Consistency: Staff believes that the proposed project is principally permitted, but the reduced setbacks require a variance permit. Therefore, with a variance permit, the proposed project would be consistent with the R-3 High Density Residential District.

E. Site Plan & Architectural Review: Applicable Zoning: R-3 High Density Residential i. (Off-street) Parking: Staff believes that the proposed parking is partially located within the Public Right of Way (ROW). Staff recommends the off- street parking layout be revised, removing any part of the proposed parking stalls out of the City ROW. Staff recommends that the commission allow staff to grant up to 4 parking waivers to accommodate this adjustment. ii. Landscaping: Any landscaping would be subject to CCMC 17.43.030. ili. Fencing: Staff believes that the proposed fencing is consistent with 6ft rear and side fences.
iv. Signage: The applicant has not proposed any signage for this development. v. Public improvements: Staff recommends the installation of public sidewalks be required within City ROW per CMC 17.04.020.

C1 | Original PDF page 15 | Appendix page 17
F. Variance Permit Review: Staff received no comments addressing the below items, suggesting that the proposed project does not meets the following criteria:

Section 17.56.010(A): That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved; ii. Section 17.56.010(B): That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question; iii. Section 17.56.010€: That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located; iv. Section 17.56.010(D): The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City;
v. Section 17.56.010(E): That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above; vi. Section 17.56.010(F): That the planning commission is reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met. (Prior code § 30-502)).

G. Environmental Review: Staff believes the proposed project meets the above criteria for the following reasons: the proposed variance consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to side yard, and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel; a) the proposed reduced setbacks for the 8-Plex housing development is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Residential multi-family (15-30) and the R-3 High Density Residential Zoning District with a variance permit; b) the project site is located in the City of Crescent City, is approximately 0.29 acres, and is located adjacent to medium and high density residential uses along C & 5"' Streets; c) the project will be located within a developed area on a vacant lot that is surrounded by paved surfaces and contains no habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species; d) the project proposes a multi- family residential use in a residential zoning that has a limited potential to result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts; and e) the site is already served by utilities and public services.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the following findings:

A. The proposed location of the variance permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity B. The proposed variance, as conditioned, will not result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment.

C. The proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan.

D. The proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City Zoning Code with a variance permit.

E. The proposed project is consistent with Site Plan and Architectural Review standards

C2 | Original PDF page 5 | Appendix page 18
VIA- Variance Permit (VAR22-01) for Sam Schauerman
Applicant requests a Variance Permit (VAR) to allow reduced setbacks for a residential eight-plex within the R-3 zone (High Density Residential District). The R-3 zone requires a 10-ft rear yard setback. The proposed variance requests a 5-ft reduction to the rear yard setbacks. The proposed eight-plex is proposed to be located within a vacant lot on 5th and C Street (APN 118-190-026).

Commissioner Amer joined the meeting at 5:37pm.

Chairman Wendt opened public hearing at 5:40pm.

Vice Chair Walp recused himself.

Ethan Lawton, SHN Contract Planner, gave a PowerPoint presentation for a variance of the rear yard to have a set back of five feet instead of the required ten feet for a proposed 8 plex project in the R-3 zone. He said the proposed setbacks for the 8-plex is consistent with the general plan as it provides flexibility in accommodating setback reductions for multi-family housing developments. He said that the proposed project is principally permitted, but the reduced setbacks require a variance permit. Therefore, with a variance permit, the proposed project would be consistent with the R-3 High Density Residential District zoning code. Regarding the site plan Ethan advised the parking layout be revised and stated that up to four parking waivers may be granted to accommodate this adjustment and that staff believes that the installation of public sidewalls within City ROW would be required for public improvements per CCMC 17.04.020. Regarding environmental review he said its consistent and is exempt from CEQA.

The City right of way was discussed on a Commission level.

Commissioner Dewar asked is there has ever been a time when a set back has been granted and a time when it has been denied.

Director Olson stated that in the past there have been times where variances have been granted and denied for various reasons. He gave an example of a 6-plex that had requested a side yard and rear yard set back and Planning Commission granted them permission.

Variances were discussed on a Commission level.

Chairman Wendt stated there is a desire to increase housing density in Crescent City.

This reinforces that variances could be easily obtained because it adds housing density per acre and is desirable.

The following residents spoke at public comment:

Ray Walp. City resident- Stated he is the neighbor of the property and he has several issues with this project. First, he said along the fence line there is a water drainage that runs through several parcels through a culvert that is about fifteen feet from the property line with a ditch that is six feet wide and deep. He fears with the set back variance they would not be able to contain the water and wants the City to look at this matter. Second, he said his house is the oldest house in Crescent City and from the second floor he can

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C2 | Original PDF page 6 | Appendix page 19
see the ocean and the bay and if they put a two-story building on the lot it would block his view, he thinks it is not legal and would like the City legal department to weigh in. He thinks the builder may want to consider making it a 7 plex with the last unit not being two stories or moving the units around.

Coastal views were discussed on a Commission level. Public views are protected, not views from private properties generally.

Grading and drainage plans were discussed on a Commission level.

Andrea Borges, County resident- Spoke on behalf of the applicant. She thanked everyone for their input and questions. She wanted to remind everyone that the only thing being discussed for approval tonight is the 5 foot setback variance. She asked whose responsibility it would be to move the culvert. She asked for clarification on the parking and sidewalks.

Pat Black, City resident- Lives near the proposed variance location. She was concerned about the stream of water that flows through the property and vegetation that she said is valuable. She said she is in support of building new housing, but she doesn't think the back windows should open up to a creek.

Ray Walp, City resident- He said the depth of the water that goes through his back yard from one side to the other is generally between two and half and three feet deep, he said they are discussing a lot of water that flows between the parcels.

Andrea Borges, County resident- Spoke on behalf of the applicant and wanted to reiterate that only a variance for rear set back is what the Commission is deciding on tonight. She said the drainage plan involved will be reviewed by engineering in the submittal process.

There was no further public comment.

Chairman Wendt closed public hearing at 6.34pm.

On a motion by Commissioner Kime, seconded by Chairman Wendt and carried on a 3- 1 polled vote with Commissioner Amer voting no, and Vice Chair Walp recusing himself the Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee approved VAR 22-01 with the adopted conditions subject to final approval of parking layout, and direct staff to issue up to four parking waivers as needed to accommodate final parking layout.

VIB-Petition for Street Name Change for Ed Edwards
Applicant requests a street name change from Taylor Street to South Pebble Beach Drive between West 5th Street and West 6th Street. The proposed street name change would affect the following addresses: 520 Taylor Street (APN 118-150-011), 504 Taylor Street (APN-118-150-012), and 515 Taylor Street (APN 118-150-075).

Chairman Wendt opened public hearing opened at 6:39pm.

Ethan Lawton, SHN Contract Planner, went over the proposed street name change and the process to change the name. If Planning Commission recommends approval, then it

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
D1 | Original PDF page 57 | Appendix page 20

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY CRESCEN

PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Commission Members: Ray Walp, Chairperson * Kristine DeCossio, Vice-Chair Shawna Hyatt * Debra Perius * Paul Martinez CALIFORHIA
Incorporated April 13. 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM #2
TO: Vice-Chairperson DeCossio and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner
BY: Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner
DATE: Thursday, March 12, 2026
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing to consider a Site Plan & Architectural Design Review (Application AR26-02) for Community System Solutions proposed 36-unit mixed-use development, located at 962 & 964 3rd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (APN 118-120-025-000).

SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community System Solutions submitted FIGURE 1-1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP a Major Site Plan & Architectural Design
Review (Application AR26-02) for a
proposed 36-unit mixed-use development
within the C-1 Zoning (Downtown
Business District) located at 962 & 964

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY
3rd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531
(APN 118-120-025-000).

STAFF RECOMMENDS: "Motion to
adopt Resolution No. PC2026-05, A
Resolution of the Planning Commission
of the City of Crescent City Approving a
Major Site Plan & Architectural Design Project:

Review (Application AR26-02) granting Locatron
Community System Solutions 36-unit
mixed-use development."
ATTACHMENTS:

A) AR26-02 Application
2,000
B) AR26-02 Conditions of Approval 1 = 2,000 ·
C) Resolution No. PC2026-05 Source: Housing Element (December 2022) March 12, 2026 Page 1 of 29 AR26-02_SR
D1 | Original PDF page 60 | Appendix page 21
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
SECTION 3: PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed 36-unit mixed-use development, . "The Redwood Downtown" will set a new standard for multifamily affordable workforce housing in Crescent City. This infill ground-up housing development, located at 962/ 964 Third Street, transforms a 0.51- acre vacant downtown site bounded by Third Street, J Street, and Fourth Street. (APN 118-120-025-000). The site will feature two new buildings anchored by a publicly accessible central green space serving commercial and residential tenants and the community at large.

FIGURE 3-1: PROJECT PARCEL
Source: ATT.A - AR26-02 Application (February 2026)
Both buildings will feature a mix of studios, one - and two-bedroom apartments, the North building being fully residential, and the South building being mixed-use with retail along Third Street and J street. With monthly rents below local market rates, per tenant annual income limits will range from $32,900 -$112,700 (50% to 120% AMI for households with 1-4 occupants).

Each apartment will have in-unit washer and dryers, energy efficient appliances, smart heating and cooling systems, and on-demand hot water. The project is a catalyst for the City's downtown revitalization goals. Tenants will be a short walk, bike, or bus ride to work, shop, or play almost anywhere in the urban area.

The building will feature 6 studio apartments, 14 one-bedroom apartments, and 16 two- bedroom apartments. 81% of the units will be priced for lower income households and 19% for moderate-income households.

AR26-02_SR Page 4 of 29 March 12, 2026
D1 | Original PDF page 71 | Appendix page 22
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
Additionally, according to the City's General Plan (2001), "the granting of a bonus in density for residential development that provides qualifying low- and or moderate- income housing shall be permitted, subject to individual project review. As defined by State law, the additional density is to be calculated based on the maximum basic density identified by the Land Use Diagram. No change in the basic permitted density itself shall be necessary for the bonus, provided that the following findings are made a) The proposal is found to qualify for bonus units under State guidelines; and b) A program for ensuring continued use as low and/or moderate-income units is included in any approval' (Page 1-5).

The City's "Special Zoning Uses" (Chapter 17.48) states that 100% Affordable Housing means "One hundred percent of all units in the shared housing building development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager's unit or units, are for lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that a maximum of twenty percent of the units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code (Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(G))" (CCMC § 17.48.030(A)(7)).

6.4. Project Applicability:

The applicant has applied for 100% Affordable Housing Development in that a minimum of 80% of the proposed units would be restricted for low-income (50% to 80% of Average Median-Income (AMI)) and a maximum of 20% of the proposed units would be restricted for moderate-income (80% to 120% of AMI) households (CCMC §

17.48.030(A)(7) & Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1)(G)).

TABLE 6-2: PROJECT UNIT BREAKDOWN
Unit Size #of Rental AMI Min. Monthly Rental Max Monthly Rental Units Percentage Amount (2025 limits) Amount (2025 limits) Studio 6 50%-80% AMI $821.88 $986.25
1 bedroom 14 50%-80% AMI $938.75 $1.126.50
2 bedroom 9 500-80% AMI $1,056.25 $1,267.50
2 bedroom 7 100-120% AMI $2,112.50 $2,323.75
As a result, since the proposed project includes 36-units, 80.55% of the 36-units (29- units) will be restricted for low-income (50% to 80% of AMI) households and 19.44% of the 36-units (7-units) will be restricted for moderate-income (80% to 120% of AMI) households (CCMC § 17.48.030(A)(7) & Gov. Code § 65915(b)(1)(G)).

6.5. Project Incentives & Concessions:

When an applicant applies to the City, in writing, for a Density Bonus, subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years, the applicant is to receive several incentives according to the affordability of the development (Gov. Code § 65915(c)(1)(A)) in exchange for providing affordable residential units. If the proposed project is a 100% affordable Housing development that is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop (Gov. Code § 65915(o)(2)), the State Density Bonus Law provides March 12, 2026 Page 15 of 29 AR26-02_SR
D1 | Original PDF page 72 | Appendix page 23
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
several incentives/concessions including receiving an unlimited density bonus increase (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(3)(D)(ii)), no minimum vehicular parking requirement (Gov. Code § 65915(p)(2)(A)), a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet (Gov.

Code § 65915(d)(2)(D)), and 5 incentives/concessions (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(D)) which can be used as a concession of a local development standards as an incentive from the State in exchange for providing affordable housing. Development standard includes "a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, a minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation" (Gov. Code § 65915(0)(1)).

6.6. Located Within One-Half Mile of a Major Transit Stop Definition:

According to the State Density Bonus Law, "Located within one-half mile of a major transit stop" means that any point on a proposed development, for which an applicant seeks a density bonus, other incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, or a vehicular parking ratio pursuant to this section, is within one-half mile of any point on the property on which a major transit stop is located, including any parking lot owned by the transit authority or other local agency operating the major transit stop (Gov. Code § 65915(0)(2)).

A "Major transit stop" has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code (Gov. Code § 65915(o)(2)). PRC § 2115(b) further references defined in Section 21064.3 which states that a major transit stop is defined as, "The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods" (PRC § 21064.3(c)). The Redwood Coast Transit Authority's Cultural Center Transit Hub (Stop Code: 2721) located on Front Street between K and L street near the Del Norte County Veteran's Memorial Monument meets this definition as it serves several lines (1, 2, 3, 4, 20, 199, & 300). The proposed project is located ~1,000-ft from the Cultural Center Transit Hub which is under one-half mile (2,640-ft).

6.7. PROPOSED PROJECT REQUESTS:

The applicant has submitted written request for several items in conjunction with the proposed project as it relates to the State Density Bonus Law, which are further discussed below but include an:

A. Increase in Density (Increase by 28-units per GP)
B. Reduction in Off-Street Parking Spaces (Reduced by 42-spaces) C. Increase in Height Limitations (Increase of 4-ft, 8-in) D. Reduction in Rear Yard Setbacks (Reduced by 2-ft, 8-in)

6.8. Increase in Density:

The proposed 36-unit residential development on a 0.51-acre/22,215-sf project site exceeds (by 28-units) the GP maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre, totaling 8 units. However, the State Density Bonus Law states that if a 100% affordable housing project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the city shall not impose AR26-02_SR Page 16 of 29 March 12, 2026
D1 | Original PDF page 73 | Appendix page 24
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
any maximum controls on density (Gov. Code §65915(f)(3)(D)(ii)) to this project, allowing an additional 28-units to be added to the development. Including the Density Bonus, the developer is allowed to develop an unlimited number of units.

TABLE 6-3: DENSITY BONUS CALCULATION
Project Proposed Unlimited
C-1 Zoning GP Allows Total
Density
Parcels Units Allows Allowed
Bonus

0.51-acrel 36-units 15-units 8-units +Unlimited Unlimited 22,215-sf (16-units over) (28-units over) units units
Therefore, the proposed 36-dwelling units, without any incentive/concession, are consistent with the State Density Bonus Law. The proposed project has 5 incentives/concessions remaining.

6.9. Reduction in Off-Street Parking Spaces:

The proposed 2 off-street parking spaces does not meet (by 52 spaces) the minimum

1.5 spaces per "three or more family dwellings" (CCMC §17.42.040(B)) totaling 54 spaces (CCMC § 17.42.030). Additionally, the State Density Bonus Law provides a more relaxed parking ratio per bedroom (BR): 1 space per 0-1 BR and 1.5 spaces per 2-3 BR (Gov. Code §65915(p)(1)(A-C)) for this project (20, 0-1 BR and 16, 2 BR), lowering (by 10 spaces) the minimum off-street parking spaces, totaling 44 spaces.

Therefore, the proposed 2 off-street parking spaces do not meet (by 42 spaces) the standard minimum 44 off-street parking space with the State Density Bonus Law.

However, the State Density Bonus Law states that if a 100% affordable housing project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city shall not impose any minimum vehicular parking requirement (Gov. Code § 65915(p)(2)(A)), allowing 2-spaces for the development. Including the Density Bonus, the developer is not required to develop any off-street parking spaces.

TABLE 6-4: PARKING RATIO CALCULATION
Parcel Bedroom Proposed Density Incentive /
Spaces C-1 Zoning Bonus Law Concession

0.51-acre / 6 (0-BR) 0 y-spaces 6-spaces Covers
22,215-sf (1.5 = MF) (1 = 0-BR) All-spaces
14 (1-BR) 0 21-spaces 14-spaces
(1.5 = MF) (1 = 1-BR)
16 (2-BR) 0 24-spaces 24-spaces
(1.5 = MF) (1.5 = 2-BR)
Total 36-units 2-spaces 54-spaces 44-spaces Covers
(52 under) (42 under) 44-spaces
*0.5-spaces were rounded up to 1.0-space (CCMC § 17.42.030 & Gov. Code § 65915(p)(4)) Therefore, since the 100% affordable housing proposed project is located within one- March 12, 2026 Page 17 of 29 AR26-02_SR
D1 | Original PDF page 74 | Appendix page 25
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda /tem: #2
half mile of a major transit stop, the proposed 2 off-street parking spaces, without any incentive/concession, are consistent with the State Density Bonus Law. The proposed project has 5 incentives/concessions remaining.

6.10. Increase in Height Limitations:

The proposed 44-ft, 8-in height does not meet (by 4-ft, 8-in) the maximum 40-ft height stories, or 33 feet (Gov. Code § 65915(d)(2)(D)), allowing the proposed 44-ft, 8-in neight. Including the Density Bonus, the developer is allowed to develop up to 77-ft.

TABLE 6-5: HEIGHT CALCULATION
Proposed Height C-1 Zoning Density Bonus Law Allowable
44-ft, 8-in Max. 40-ft +33-ft 77-ft
Therefore, since the 100% affordable housing proposed project is located within one- half mile of a major transit stop, the proposed 44-ft, 8-in height, without any incentive/concession, is consistent with the State Density Bonus Law. The proposed project has 5 incentives/concessions remaining.

6.11. Reduction in Rear Yard Setbacks:

The proposed 7-ft, 4-in rear-yard setbacks does not meet (by 2-ft, 8-in) the minimum 10- ft height limit for the C-1 zone (CCMC 17.20.040(B)(3)). However, the State Density Bonus Law states that if a project is a 100% affordable housing project the applicant shall receive concession of local development standards including "a setback requirement... pursuant to any ordinance, general plan" as an incentive from the State in exchange for providing affordable housing (Gov. Code § 65915(o)(2)). The applicant has requested that 1 incentive/concession be applied to the rear-yard setback requirement in exchange for providing affordable housing. Allowing the reduced 7-ft, 4- in rear-yard setback. Including the Density Bonus, the developer is allowed to develop with a 7-ft, 4-in rear-yard setback.

TABLE 6-6: SETBACK CALCULATION
Proposed Setback C-1 Zoning Density Bonus Law Allowable 7-ft, 4-in 10-ft Concession 7-ft, 4-in
Therefore, the 100% affordable housing proposed project, utilizing 1 incentive/concession for the proposed 7-ft, 4-in rear-yard setback, is consistent with the State Density Bonus Law. The proposed project has 4 incentives/concessions remaining.

6.12. GRANTING INCENTIVES/CONCESSIONS:

An applicant may submit to a city, with a density bonus application, a request for a specific incentive or concession that will assist the developer in providing affordable residential units (CCMC § 17.48.030(H) & Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1)). The city shall AR26-02_SR Page 18 of 29 March 12, 2026
D1 | Original PDF page 80 | Appendix page 26
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
SECTION 8: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION SUMMARY
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of their actions before approving plans and policies or committing to a course of action on a project.

This process is intended to: (1) inform government decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects of proposed activities; (2) identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; (3) prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage by requiring changes in projects, either by the adoption of alternatives or imposition of mitigation measures; and (4) disclose to the public why a project was approved if that project has significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.

8.1. Project: A "project" is defined by CEQA as a "whole action" subject to a public agency's discretionary funding or approval that has the potential to either (1) cause a direct physical change in the environment or (2) cause a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. "Projects" include discretionary activity by a public agency, a private activity that receives any public funding, or activities that involve the public agency's issuance of a discretionary approval and is not statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA. (Pub. Res. Code § 21065.)

8.2. Exemption: There are CEQA exemptions (including categorical exemptions) that are created through the regulatory process and are found in CEQA Guidelines §§ 15300-15333. The proposed 36-unit mixed-use development is recommended by staff to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the following sections of the CEQA Guidelines:

Class 32 $ 15332. In-Fill Development Projects, consists of the proposed project:

1. Is consistent with the applicable general plan designation, policies, and zoning designation and regulations:

The proposed project (with Site Plan & Architectural Design Review) is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's Commercial Business-Professional (B-P) land use designation and is consistent with the Crescent City's Downtown Business District (C-1) Zoning Code;

2. Development occurs within city limits on a project site (<5 acres) substantially surrounded by urban uses:

The project site is located in the City of Crescent City, is approximately 0.51 acres, and is located adjacent to existing commercial uses;

3. Site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species:

The project will be located on a site that has had past disturbances, is already developed and is surrounded by paved surfaces and contains no habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species;

4. Approval would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality:

The project proposes residential-only use surrounded by developed commercial area AR26-02_SR Page 24 of 29 March 12, 2026
D1 | Original PDF page 81 | Appendix page 27
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
that already services commercial uses and has a limited potential to result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts;

5. Site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services:

The site is surrounded by and is already adequately served by utilities and public services.

8.3. Additional Analysis of Parking:

On September 2013, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, which instituted changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when evaluating environmental impacts on projects located in areas served by transit. While the thrust of SB 743 addressed a major overhaul on how transportation impacts are evaluated under CEQA, it also limited the extent to which aesthetics and parking are defined as impacts under CEQA. Specifically, Section 21099 (d)(1) of the Public Resources Code (PRC) states that a project's aesthetic and parking impacts shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment if: 1. The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, and 2. The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area.

Section 21099 (a) of the PRC defines the following terms:
(1) "Employment center project" (TPAs) means a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.
(4) "Infill site" means a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated only by an improved public right-of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
(7) "Transit priority area" means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. Section 21064.3 of the PRC defines a "major transit stop" as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes [modified by AB 2553] or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. For purposes of Section 21099 of the PRC, a transit priority area also includes major transit stops in the City of Los Angeles (city) that are scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS).

8.4. Exceptions: No exceptions apply to the proposed project in that (1) there is NO reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances; (2) NO significant cumulative impacts from projects of the same type will result; or (3) the project will NOT have impacts on a uniquely sensitive environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2.).

8.5. Notice: A Notice of Exemption (NOE) will be filed at the County Courthouse and the State Clearing House upon project approval (Pub. Res. Code § 21167(d) & Guidelines § 15062(d)).

March 12, 2026 Page 25 of 29 AR26-02_SR
D1 | Original PDF page 109 | Appendix page 28

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Site Plan & Architectural Design Review - Application AR26-02 b. Access. Access points will need to be maintained at the fences from the East and West five-plex buildings (north side of each building to the north property line), and on each side of the south facing four-plex to allow fire department personnel access to the rear of all buildings with hose lines c. Addressing. Each unit shall be identified with code compliant numbering visible from the street showing the address and unit number.

9. Public Works Department. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the City of Crescent City's Public Works Department, including:
a. Right-of-Way. Project to comply with City Right of Way requirements including 520 linear feet of new ADA approved sidewalks and (2) ADA corners, improvements to adjacent off-site Storm Drain, and driveway spacing complies with municipal code requirements.
b. Building. On site plans shall comply with current building codes. c. Drainage. On site storm drain discharges will be engineered to control off- site impacts

10. Building Department. The applicant shall comply with permit requirements of the City of Crescent City's Building Department.
a. Building Permit. Before a building permit shall be issued for any building or structure proposed as part of an approved site plan or architectural design, the building official shall determine that the proposed building location facilities and improvements are in conformity with the plans and conditions approved by the Planning Commission (CCMC §17.46.080(A)). b. Issuance. The Building Permit shall not be issued until the effective date of this notice, shown below.

C. Certificate of Occupancy. Before a building may be occupied the building official shall certify that the site or structure has been developed in conformity with the plans and conditions approved in this chapter (CCMC §17.46.080(B)).

11. Construction Noise Standard: The City's Municipal Code Section 8.18.060 E contains standards for construction noise that places limitations on the days and hours of construction activity to the hours of seven a.m. and six p.m. or sunset, whichever occurs later, on Monday through Friday, or between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays

12. Stormwater: The Applicant shall submit a copy of the Construction General permit Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Public Works Department. Design for the on and off-site improvements will conform to Municipal Code Section 17.88.310 "Stormwater Runoff Management AR26-02_COA Page 3 of 4 March 12, 2026
D1 | Original PDF page 111 | Appendix page 29

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY CRESCENT

PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Commission Members: Ray Walp, Chairperson * Kristine DeCossio, Vice-Chair Shawna Hyatt * Debra Perius * Paul Martinez CALIFORHIA
Incorporated April 13, 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

CRESCENT CITY APPROVING A MAJOR SITE PLAN &
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW (APPLICATION AR26-02)
GRANTING COMMUNITY SYSTEM SOLUTION'S 36-UNIT

RESIDENTIAL-ONLY DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Community System Solutions submitted a Major Site Plan & Architectural Design Review (Application AR26-02) for a proposed 36-unit mixed-use development within the C-1 Zoning (Downtown Business District) located at 962 & 964 3rd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (APN 118-120-025-000); WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered this proposed project on this date at a duly noticed public hearing, staff report, and public testimony; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project, with the State Density Bonus Law, is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's B-P (Business-Professional) land use designation, in that the proposed project:
a) Is categorized as ". ...retail stores... and multi-family residential units" with "Multiple-unit residential uses are permitted as a secondary use at a density of 6 to 15 units per acre" within the B-P;
b) "provides for a strong business, government, professional core in downtown Crescent City" within the B-P; and
c) Is supported by the General Plan goals (1.F, C, G, & 3.D) and policies (1.A.2,

1.A.3, 1.B.1, 1.F.2, 1.F.3, 2.A.2, 2.B.2, 2.B.9, 2.D. 1, 3.A. 15, 3.C. 1, 3.D.6, 4.A.2, & 4.E.5).

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City's C-1 (Downtown Business District) Zoning Code, in that the proposed project:
a) Is not located within the Coastal Zone and is not appealable to the Coastal Commission;
b) Is consistent with the "Multifamily Residential Dwelling Units. The multifamily residential units, at designated general plan densities (e.g., fifteen-thirty units/acre), includes mixed uses with commercial or business use. New multifamily units are to be placed behind, or upstairs of, commercial spaces" (CCMC § 17.20.020(E)):
c) "Provides for a vibrant business, government, and professional core in the downtown area and to serve as an overall mix of commercial and multifamily residential uses" (CCMC § 17.20.010(A)): and
Resolution No. PC2026-05 Page 1 of 4 March 12, 2026
D2 | Original PDF page 3 | Appendix page 30

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY CRESCEN

PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Commission Members: Ray Walp, Chairperson * Kristine DeCossio, Vice-Chair Shawna Hyatt * Debra Perius * Paul Martinez CALIFORHIE
Incorporated April 13. 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org

MINUTES - REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 5:30 P.M.

Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), 210 Battery Street, Crescent City, CA 95531

PART I - CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Vice Chair DeCossio the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.

Commissioners present: Vice Chair Kris DeCossio, Commissioner Shawna Hyatt, Commissioner Debra Perius, and Commissioner Paul Martinez Commissioners absent: Chairman Ray Walp
Staff present: City Manager Eric Wier, City Attorney Martha Rice, Public Works Director Dave Yeager, Contract Planner Ethan Lawton, Contract Planner Bob Brown and City Clerk/Administrative Analyst Robin Altman for Community Development Specialist Heather Welton
Vice Chair DeCossio asked for item 1 to be moved to #3
On a motion by Commissioner Perius, seconded by Commissioner Martinez, and carried on a 4-0 polled vote, with Chairman Walp absent, the Crescent City Planning Commission & Architectural Design Review Committee agreed to move item 1 to item 3.

PART II - PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Cate Claussen: spoke in regard to development in the City and that residents feel it is overdeveloped.

Margaret Sargent: does not want more building as she believes the WWTP is overloaded.

PART III - APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
PART IV - AGENDA ITEMS:

A Public Hearing to consider a Site Plan & Architectural Design Review (Application AR26-02) for Community System Solutions proposed 36-unit mixed- use development, located at 962 & 964 3rd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (APN 118-120-025-000).

Regular PC Meeting - Minutes Page 1 of 4 Thursday, March 12, 2026 D2 | Original PDF page 4 | Appendix page 31

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Vice Chair DeCossio opened the public hearing at 5:44 p.m.

City Manager Wier explained the to the Commission that this project is a mixed-use project that has housing above downtown businesses. In order for the downtown to thrive, residential development opportunities are needed. City Manager Wier stated that several public workshops were held to discuss this project and received feedback from community. Commissioner Hyatt asked if grant funds have been secured; City Manager Wier answered in the affirmative in the amount of $660k. Contract Planner Ethan Lawton outlined the project in detail as well as the State Density Bonus Law consistency of the project.

Vice Chair DeCossio was surprised at the requirement for 2 parking spaces for each unit. City Manager Wier stated that the State would rather have a parking problem than a housing problem. The parking on 3rd Street will be limited to 2-hours. He further outlined the public parking lots that are close to the project as well as the surrounding street parking opportunities. Commissioner Hyatt asked how the City came to the conclusion to waive the parking requirement; Planner Lawton stated that the City did not waive the parking requirements, the State outlines that the City cannot require a certain amount of parking spaces. Michael Bahr, CEO of Community Systems Solutions, a non- profit focused on affordable housing, went over his background and experience working within the communities he lives in. He detailed the design of the apartments that will include energy efficiency aspects. Under state law, we do not have to provide parking, however, are working with the City to provide parking in the future. The report done by Planning staff proves that this project meets all requirements for approval.

Commissioner Martinez asked how confident the applicant is to be able to provide parking; Mr. Bahr stated that occupancy is expected in 2027 and there are already designated parking lots and the property owner wants it to stay that way. Committee Member Martinez asked if CSS has any projects completed that can be viewed locally; Mr. Bahr stated that are no projects locally, but there are developers that CSS has worked with that he can provide addresses for those projects.

Adrienne McAndrews: stated that Enoteca will be affected by the lack of parking.

Lenora Carmody: stated whenever events occur downtown, she has to put cones in front of her house on J St. to preserve parking space for her home.

Cate Claussen: spoke in opposition to the project and prefers a smaller downtown.

Margaret Sargent: does not support changing the downtown area.

Mr. Bahr explained that the project has a right of way that semis can drive through for Enoteca; additionally, Enoteca does not own the parking lot, they are using CSS' property.

Commissioner Hyatt stated that the parking lot should not be taken away from the business owner. Does not agree with adding residential to this project, but does support Thursday, March 12, 2026 Page 2 of 4 Regular PC Meeting - Minutes D2 | Original PDF page 5 | Appendix page 32

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
businesses. City Manager Wier stated that the parking lot being spoken of is not a public parking lot and that this project is not taking away the parking for the area.

Kevin Hartwick: stated that this project has already gone through the approval process and is before the Planning Commission is for an Architectural Design.

Vice Chair DeCossio closed the public hearing at 6:51 p.m.

City Manager Wier explained that State law does require what is going before the Commission tonight, the City's hands are tied. It doesn't matter if the Commissioners like it or not, it is the question before the Commission to answer if this project meets the qualifications for approval. Commissioner Hyatt stated that she's asked for flow reports three times and hasn't received it, wants clarification on the amount of hookups; City Manager Wier stated that flow and connections are different things. Commissioner Hyatt stated she would like to see this before the Commission.

Commissioner Hyatt made a motion to have additional information on the WWTP capacity and extra hookups on a future agenda; Commissioner Perius seconded the motion, however withdrew her action.

Commissioner Hyatt made a motion to delay this project until more information on the WWTP is received; motion failed for lack of a second.

Vice Chair DeCossio asked if this can be approved tonight and then the additional information be provided later; City Manager Wier explained that the amount of connections does not effect the decision for tonight.

On a motion by Commissioner Martinez, seconded by Vice Chair DeCossio, and carried on a 3-0-1, with Commissioner Hyatt abstaining and Chairman Walp being absent, the City of Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Design Review Committee adopted Resolution No. PC2026-05, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY APPROVING A MAJOR SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW (APPLICATION AR26-02) GRANTING COMMUNITY SYSTEM SOLUTIONS 36-UNIT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

2. A Public Hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit (Application UP24-09) for Bruce Thompson's proposed 4-unit residential only development, located on a vacant parcel at Front & F St
Vice Chair DeCossio opened the public hearing at 7:00
Planner Lawton went over the project and it's qualifications to be approved for a Conditional Use Permit. Bruce Thompson, the applicant, is representing the owner to have a similar project like the one built by Marshall Jones and is on 2nd St.

There were no comments from the public.

Vice Chair DeCossio closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.

Regular PC Meeting - Minutes Page 3 of 4 Thursday, March 12, 2026 D3 | Original PDF page 1 | Appendix page 33

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY CRESCENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & ZONING
(Address) 377 J Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (Phone) 707-464-9506 CALIFORNIA Incorporated April 13, 1854 (Website) www.crescentcity.org

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION

CEQA - APPENDIX E
To: Office of Land Use and Climate From: City of Crescent City Innovation (Planning and Research) 377 J Street
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 Crescent City, CA 95531
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
County of Del Norte
County Clerk
981 H Street, Suite 160
Crescent City, CA 95531
A Site Plan & Architectural Design Review (Application AR26-02) Project Title: for Community System Solutions proposed 36-unit mixed-use development, located at 962 & 964 3rd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (APN 118-120-025-000)
Community System Solutions submitted a Major
Document Project Description: Site Plan & Architectural Design Review (Application AR26-02) for a proposed 36-unit
mixed-use development within the G-1 Zoning
(Downtown Business District) located at 962 8
964 3rd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (APN
118-120-025-000).

Name of Public Agency
Approving Project: City of Crescent City
Name of Person or Agency
Carrying Out Project: Mike Bahr (Community System Solutions) CONTACTS: PUBLIC/LEAD AGENCY: APPLICANT:

Name: Ethan Lawton Mike Bahr
Organization: City of Crescent City Community Systems Solutions Address: 377 J Street 7806 Juarez Way
Crescent City, CA 95531 Fair Oaks, CA 95628
UP26-09_NOE Page 1 of 3 March 13, 2026
D3 | Original PDF page 2 | Appendix page 34

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION

CEQA - APPENDIX E
Phone: 707-464-7483 541-505-2429
Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Regions: Citywide
Counties: Del Norte
Cities: Crescent City
962 & 964 3rd Street, Crescent City, CA 95531 (APN
Project Location-Specific: 118-120-025-000)
Exempt Status: Categorical Exemption
Type, Section Number, or
Code Number: Class 32 $ 15332
Reasons why the project is exempt:

Class 32 $ 15332. In-Fill Development Projects, consists of the proposed project:

1. Is consistent with the applicable general plan designation, policies, and zoning designation and regulations:

The proposed project (with Site Plan & Architectural Design Review) is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's Commercial Business-Professional (B-P) land use designation and is consistent with the Crescent City's Downtown Business District (C- 1) Zoning Code;

2. Development occurs within city limits on a project site (<5 acres) substantially surrounded by urban uses:

The project site is located in the City of Crescent City, is approximately 0.51 acres, and is located adjacent to existing commercial uses;

3. Site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species:

The project will be located on a site that has had past disturbances, is already developed and is surrounded by paved surfaces and contains no habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species;

4. Approval would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality:

The project proposes residential-only use surrounded by developed commercial area that already services commercial uses and has a limited potential to result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts;

5. Site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services:

The site is surrounded by and is already adequately served by utilities and public services.

Than Lawton 03/20/2026 Contract City Planner
Signature by Lead Agency: Date: Title:

AR26-02_NOE Page 2 of 3 March 13, 2026
J2 | Original PDF page 33 | Appendix page 35
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
SECTION 8: INTER-DEPARTMENTAL PLANNING REFERRALS
The Inter-Departmental Planning Referrals were provided (on 01/27/26) to other City departments which included the following comments/conditions:

8.1. Police Department: Approved with "No comments." (01/27/26)

8.2. Fire and Rescue: Approved with comments. (02/02/26) "The fire department has no setback concerns with this project.

Access points will need to be present at the fences from the East and West five- plex buildings (north side of each building to the north property line), and on each side of the south facing four-plex to allow fire department personnel access to the rear of all buildings with hose lines and ladders. Per the diagram, there is adequate clearance between buildings.

Project will conform to applicable California Codes, including Building Code, Fire Code, and Automatic Fire Sprinkler Code.

The location has adequate fire hydrant distribution for the project.

Each unit shall be identified with code compliant numbering visible from the street showing the address and unit number."

8.3. Building Department: None

8.4. Public Works Department: Approved with comments. (01/30/26) "Project to comply with City Right of Way requirements including 520 linear feet of new ADA approved sidewalks and (2) ADA corners, improvements to adjacent off-site Storm Drain, and driveway spacing complies with municipal code requirements.

On site plans shall comply with current building codes.

On site storm drain discharges will be engineered to control off-site impacts."

8.5. REQUIRED FINDING BY THE COMMISSION:

The proposed project is to be subject to the Conditions of Approval found in Attachment February 12, 2026 Page 11 of 13 AR25-02_SR
T1 | Original PDF page 3 | Appendix page 36

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item # IV.A
TO: Planning Commission
(Chairperson Wendt and Members of the Planning Commission) FROM: Community Development Department, Planning Department (Bob Brown, AICP, Director)
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department, Planning Department (Ethan Lawton, City Planner)
DATE: March 9, 2023
SUBJECT: SR23-02 -Chipotle
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

I) Open the public hearing.
i) Receive the Staff Report.
ii) Receive public comments.

II) Close the public hearing.

III Discuss and adopt the Recommended Findings.

IV) Consider Alternatives and take action on the application #AR33-02 with any additional conditions adopted by the Planning Commission at the public hearing.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Project: Site Plan /Architectural Design Review Permit (AR23-02) for Chipotle Applicant: Morton & Pitalo, Inc.

Representative: Jeff Thompson
Site Address: 895 L Street
APN: 118-250-013
Project Size: +/- 18,456 sq. ft.

General Plan Land Use: Commercial: Visitor and Local Commercial (VLC) Zoning: C-2 General Commercial District
Coastal: No
Surrounding Zoning/Uses: South - C-2 General Commercial District, East - P-F Public Facility District, West - C-2 General Commercial District, North - C-2 General Commercial District AR23-02 -Chipotle SR Page 1 of 6 March 9, 2023
T1 | Original PDF page 4 | Appendix page 37
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item: IV.A.

Aerial Photo of Project Site
AR23-02 Legend
° 895 L St
Proposed location for Chipotle
AR23-02
AR23-02
895 L St
Google Earth
300 fe
Source: Google Earth, March 2023
Analysis: Staff believes that the proposed location of the use permit will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

The project site is currently a vacant parcel bounded by L Street to the west, M Street to the east, 9th street and an existing commercial building to the north, and a vacant lot to the south. L Street and M Street are within Caltrans rights-of-way. There is a 16+ foot elevation difference across the site sloping from the west to the east. The project will consist of a 2,325+ sf Chipotle QSR and supporting site improvements (parking, drive isles, site lighting, landscaping, etc.) typical of a commercial project. The QSR will include a drive-thru for mobile pickup orders only. Site access will be from new driveway encroachments on L Street and M Street; a new "right only" driveway encroachment will be provided on 9th Street. The proposed site grading will require retainin walls up to 4-feet in height. The QSR building will be served by the existing 6" sewer and 6' water mains along the project's frontage to M street.

AR23-02 - Chipotle SR Page 2 of 6 March 9, 2023
T1 | Original PDF page 7 | Appendix page 38
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item: IV.A.

8. Public services requirements: Proposed sewer, water, and electrical connections are proposed.

Analysis: Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with Site Plan and Architectural Review standards.

ENVIORNMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The poposed pries is de mind to be A on the California Environmental Qualiy Act § 15332. In-Fill Development Projects.

Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section. (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable soning designation and regulations.(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Analysis: Staff believes the proposed project meets the above criteria for the following reasons: a) the proposed restaurant use is consistent with the General Plan Designation of Visitor and Local Commercial and the General Commercial Zoning District; b) the project site is located in the City of Crescent City, is approximately 0.85 acres, and is located adjacent to commercial uses along L, M, and 9th Streets; c) the project will be located on a developed site in an existing building that is surrounded by paved surfaces and contains no habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species; d) the project proposes a restaurant on a vacant commercial parcel that has a limited potential to result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts; and e) the site is already served by utilities and public services.

ALTERNATIVES:

The Planning Commission has the following alternatives to consider:

1. APPROVAL. Should the Planning Commission adopt all the recommended findings,

2. DENIAL. Should the Planning Commission deny one of the recommended findings, planning staff will send the applicant a denial letter stating why the application was denied.

AR23-02 -Chipotle SR Page 5 of 6 March 9, 2023
T1 | Original PDF page 9 | Appendix page 39
Print Return completed application to:

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY Planning Department
377 J Street
Development Permit Application Crescent City, CA 95531
(707) 464-9506 (707) 465-4405 fax

TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY
So colde Drive, Suite 140 Folsom, CA 95630 Zip Code
Property Owne Day Phor
RE 895, LL (415) 595-805
Correspondence to be sent to •Applicant • Representative • Owner sessor's Parcel N
8-250-013-0
Description of proposed project (attach sheets if necessary) The project site is currently a vacant parcel bounded by L Street to the west, M Street to the east, 9th street and an existing commercial building to the north Existing Land Use C2 (General Commercial District) Adjacent Uses c2 (General Commercial District) Building Coverage _sq.ft. existing Project Acreage 0.85+ Project Height Building Height = 19.5+ ft Building Coverage 2,325 _.sq.ft. proposed Parking (number of spaces) 30 Paved Area 18,456 sl Grading Required? Yes (if yes. attach preliminary grading plan) liking, dredging, or filling of open coastal water, wetlands or riparian/drainage areas. (Attach biological report and preliminary grading plans.

Land Division or Boundary Adjustment. (Include tentative map with existing property lines. proposed lots, lot sizes, dimensions, access, physical features and proposed improvements, utilities. etc.

Applicant/Representative: I have reviewed this application and Property Owner/Authorized Agent: I have read this application the attached material The provided information is accurate. and consent to its filing Signed Date 213/2023 Signed Victor Chiang _Date 2/3/2023 • Architectural Review • Lot Line Adjustment/Parcel Merger • Subdivision/Major • CEQA Review • Municipal Code Amendment/Rezone • Use Permit - Standard TYPE OF APPLICATION • Coastal Development Permit • ROW or Street Abandonment [] Use Permit - Cannabis • General Plan Amendment • Special Review • Variance or Waiver • Home Occupation •Subdivision/Minor •Other
Project plans: *
• Application Form
• Application Fee
REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTAL • Supplemental Application Forms (variance, etc.) • Project property deeds)
• Proof of applicant's legal interest in the property (escrow, etc.) • Commercial Cannabis Use Permit Application Checklist
• Special Project Justification/per code
Date Application Completed [Zoning General Plan (LUP)
CEQA: Exempt_ Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report

OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Review By Planning Commission. City Council Architectural Review. Planning/Public Works.

Public Hearing Office Hearing | Appealable to Coastal Commission? Olher Notes: Approved:

MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO CITY OF CRESCENT CITY
planning\planning templates\planning application Rev. 05/04/20 T2 | Original PDF page 13 | Appendix page 40

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Commission Members: John Wendt, Chairperson • Ray Walp, Vice-Chair Betsy Dewar • Brad Kime • Candace Tinkler
Incorporated pril 13.1854 web: www.crescemcizt.org

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING
Thursday, March 9, 2023, at 5:30 p.m.

VIRTUAL VIA ZOOM
I. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Wendt called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Commissioner presee Coming andace Tinkler.

Welton.
lI. PUBLIC COMMENT: There was no public comment.

III. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:

IV.A: AR23-02 - Chipotle
Chairman Wendt opened the public hearing at 5:36pm.

Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner, gave a slideshow presentation for the site plan and architectural design review for Chipotle proposed for 895 L Street. He said the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning. He said site plan wise it meets the off-street parking criteria and fulfills the landscape requirements. There is no fencing proposed and the signage meets requirements. There are no proposed street improvements but there are proposed sidewalk improvements. Public service requirement proposes hook ups to utilities as required. Environmental determination is exempt according to CEQA guidelines. He went over the staff recommended findings.

He said the findings show the project won't be a detriment to public health safety and welfare, the activity will not result in significant unavoidable impact to the environment, it is consistent with general plan, zoning code, and the site plan and architectural design review standards and is categorially exempt from CEQA.

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
T2 | Original PDF page 14 | Appendix page 41
There was no public comment.

Chairman Wendt closed the public hearing at 5:41pm
The driveway entrances were discussed on a commission level.

Commissioner Tinkler expressed some concerns. She feared the generic fast-food chain would downgrade the uniqueness of our community and the detriment of the local restaurants that are already established.

Commissioner Kime spoke in favor of the new development.

Architectural standards were discussed on a Commission level.

Eric Wier, City Manager, said that there is currently not an architectural standard enforced by the City of Crescent City and that this is something the Planning Commission would want the City to bring back before the Commission.

Chairman Wendt was in favor of having a future discussion regarding architectural design.

Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner, said they are currently in the process of updating C-1 zoning district and they are drafting objective design standards.

On a motion by Commissioner Dewar seconded by Commissioner Kime and carried unanimously on a 5-0 polled vote, the City of Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee approved AR23-02 Chipotle.

V. CONTINUING BUSINESS:

V.A: Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Chairman Wendt opened the public hearing at 6:04 pm.

Written public comment was acknowledged, there was no other public comment.

Chairman Wendt closed the public hearing at 6:07pm.

V.B: AB2339 - Emergency Shelters
Chairman Wendt opened the public hearing opened at 6:08 pm There was no public comment.

Sophia Ross, Contract City Planning Consultant, gave a slideshow presentation where she went over the zone amendment process, project description and location, general plan consistency, 5th cycle housing element consistency and environmental determination. For the amendment process she said that that the Planning Commission gave city staff direction on February 9th, 2023 to prepare a zone amendment for the C-2

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
B1 | Original PDF page 100 | Appendix page 42
Mr. Willaim E. Rice
CEQA for Crescent City Battery Park Apartments
August 26, 2023

presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.

Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact."
(Guidelines § 15064.3.) The Project site is within one-half mile of an existing major transit stop and/or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor. And given its central City location adjacent to schools, it will significantly decrease VMT in the surrounding area.

Therefore, the Guidelines advise that the Project should be presumed to cause less than significant traffic impacts.

Residential air quality impacts are closely correlated with traffic impacts. With the Project resulting in a significant decrease in VMT, operational air quality impacts will be commensurately decreased. Potential construction and operational noise impacts will be mitigated by local ordinance, and water quality impacts will be avoided under State and Federal requirements.

Conclusion
McCorkle Eastside Neighborhood Group v. City of St. Helena, supra, provides excellent guidance for the City in understanding the limited scope of CEQA to the Project.

Regardless of whether the City's Municipal Code is similar to St. Helena's, the Project clearly meets the criteria for a Class 32 categorical exemption, and I recommend the City adopt one for it after making a finding that none of the exceptions to categorical exemptions listed in Guidelines section 15300.2 apply to the Project—a finding easily made here.

Please let me know if you have any questions regarding any of the above.

Very truly yours,
LEIBOLD McCLENDON & MANN, P.C.

John G. McClendon
By: John G. McClendon
Attachment: JGMcC Professional Resume
B1 | Original PDF page 157 | Appendix page 43
US 101 - Crescent City Limits to Washington Blvd 11,000 10,900 72,000 US 101 - Washington Blvd to U.S. 199 9,600 10,900 180,000 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/trafffic-operations/census
A traffic analysis dated September 28, 2023 by Stover Engineering determined the number of trips generated by the project in relationship to peak hour trips generated by adjacent uses. "Trip generation estimates were calculated for the proposed Battery Point Multi-Family and Senior Adult Apartments (Project), as well as the existing Joe Hamiliton Elementary School based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (ITE Manual). Peak AM hour traffic generated from the proposed project is not more than 21 percent of the peak AM hourly traffic generated by Joe Hamilton School and neighboring apartments.

Multi-family Housing (greater than 20 units per acre, 3-5 stories tall): 121 Dwelling Units Senior Adult Housing: 41 Dwelling Units.

Trip Generation data was obtained from the ITE Manual. The peak hour vehicle trip ends for each generator along with time and direction distribution were calculated as follows:

Multi-Family Housing (Mid-Rise, 3-/0 Floors. 121 Dwelling Units) Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Time % %
(Peak Hour) Hour Entering Exiting
41 AM 7:00-8:00 AM
51 PM 4:45 - 5:45 PM 60 40
Senior Adult Ho using - Attached (41 Dwelling Units)
Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Time % %
(Peak Hour) Hour Entering Exiting
16 AM 11:45 AM - 12:45 47
PM
10 PM 12:00 PM- 1:00 PM 53 47
"Access to the proposed project is from three different locations: 1) E Street, 2) Margie Street, and 3) David Street via Gary Street. The area west of the project is primarily residential while the area on the east side is comprised of business and public services. The likely entrance and exit location used by most of the multi-family housing during peak hours is E Street having direct access to both Pacific Avenue and 9" Street, which are east-west main collector streets. Margie Street to the north has a 4- way controlled intersection at Pacific Avenue and experiences heavy traffic during peak hours so will be naturally avoided due to the better convenience using EStreet. Gary Street is located to the west and primarily accesses residential neighborhood but does have access to A Street (a collector) via East Condor.
"There is a transit stop located at Pacific and E Street which is planned to be improved as part of this project. Redwood Coast Transit has regularly scheduled stops at that location including 7:18 and 7:48 AM. This readily accessible transit stop to the site will likely reduce the estimated peak trip ends for the project.
11 Application # AR23-12
Battery Point
B1 | Original PDF page 158 | Appendix page 44
"For comparison to existing traffic, the major generator at E Street is Joe Hamilton School located adjacent to the project to the south on E Street. The school currently has 300 students. The entrance 10 the school drop off area with 30 parking spaces is from E Street. The drop off exits southerly onto 10" Street. A separate parking area with 39 parking spaces is accessed from 10' Street. 10" & E Street is controlled by a three-way stop tee intersection.
"Driftvood Apartments is located adjacent to the north of the proposed project. It is comprised of approximately 36 dwelling units in 4-plex style buildings. It has 28 parking spaces accessed from E Streel and the remaining 26 accessed from Pacific Avenue. The parking area from the lower density apartments is not a significant traffic generator to E Street as compared to the existing Elementary School or the proposed project.
"The estimated peak hour vehicle trip ends for Joe Hamilton Elementary School are as follows: Elementary School (300 Students)
Vehicle Trip Ends Peak Hour Time %
(Peak Hour) Enteri Exiti
ng ng
195 AM 7:15 - 8:15 54 46
AM
102 PM 2:15 - 3:15 PM 45 55
"The school's PM peak hour does not coincide with the proposed project's PM peak hour while the AM peak hour for the existing school and proposed project overlap. The proposed project is estimated to contribute not more than 21% of the peak hour traffic to E Street than currently estimated for the existing school and Driftwood Apartments alone. " (Stover Engineering, 2023) Therefore, based on the project location, design, and as conditioned, the proposed project will result in a less-than-significant effect relating to traffic.

Noise:

Residential development is typically considered to be a noise-sensitive land use, as opposed to a land use that generates significant noise levels. Noise levels in the project area are primarily generated by traffic on adjacent streets and schools. The proposed residential development site is not located within an airport land use compatibility safety zone though it is approximately one-and-a-half miles (within 2 miles) of a public airport (Del Norte County Airport). Noise levels generated by the proposed project will be from short-term construction of the proposed improvements and long-term operation of the residential uses.

Construction of the proposed improvements will result in short-term increases in noise levels from the operation of stationary and mobile construction tools and equipment. The closest sensitive receptors to the proposed project development site include residents to the north and west. The City's Municipal Code Section 8.18.060 E contains standards for construction noise that places limitations on the days and hours of construction activity to the hours of seven a.m. and six p.m. or sunset, whichever occurs later, on Monday through Friday, or between the hours of eight a.m. and six p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, which will be required as a condition of approval for the project. The implementation of the proposed project with these existing standards will prevent adverse noise impacts from construction activity. 12 Application #AR23-12
Battery Point
G1 | Original PDF page 96 | Appendix page 45
Section 3: Transportation and Circulation Policy Document TABLE 3-5

LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR

FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Unsignalized Intersections
LOS Average Delay per Vehicle Reserve Capacity
(Seconds) (peph)* Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic s5.0 $400 Lille or no delay

5.1 10 15.0 300 го 399 Short traffic delays

15.1 to 25.0 200 L0 299 Average traffic delays
D 25.1 to 40.0 100(0199 Long traffic delays
E 40.1 to 60.0 01099 Very Long rafe delays
>60.0** Severe congestion/Intersection blocked
*pcph = passenger cars per hour
*60 seconds of stopped delay is considered to be unacceptable lo the majority of drivers.

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985.

3.A.12 The City shall endeavor to manage its roadway system so as to maintain Level of Service C operation, except for when streets intersect with Highway 101, where Level of Service D shall be

3.A.13 The City shall strive to meet the level of service standards through a balanced transportation system that provides alternatives to the automobile. G

3.A.14 The City shall attempt to minimize through-traffic on neighborhood roadways. This through-traffic, ncluding through truck-traffic, shall be directed to appropriate arterials and collectors in order to naintain public safety and local quality of life. C

3.A.15 The City shall continue to require all new development to provide off-street parking, either on-site or in consolidated lots.C

3.A.16 The City shall require new land development projects to contribute their fare share of transportation given project, a traffic study may be required if traffic safety issues warrant such a study. C

3.A.17 The City shall secure financing in a timely manner for all components of its transportation system to achieve and maintain its adopted level of service standards. C

3.A.18 The City shall continue its program of maintenance and minor improvements to the existing public roadway system in order to maintain its capacity.

3.A. 19 Local road construction located within the incorporated limits of Crescent City should be at the discretion of, and in accordance with, priorities established by the City Council and the City Department of Public Works. C
May 21, 2001 3-10 Crescent City General Plan
G2 | Original PDF page 10 | Appendix page 46
available from the Caltrans SB 743 website (https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation- planning/office-of-smart-mobility-climate-change/sb-743). The lead agency should be consulted if different there is a discrepancy in Caltrans and ITE maps posted for the same area. VMT/capita and VMT/employee values for base year conditions based on the CSTDM are shown in Table 3-1.

It should be noted that some projects include a mix of land uses. For these projects, one way to conduct the VMT analysis would be to use the methodology described above and analyze VMT impacts and mitigation for each land use type separately. An alternative approach would be to conduct an analysis to determine the VMT reduction that would occur due to internal capture (i.e. trips between different land uses that occur within the project site).

Table 3-1 Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for
Del Norte Region Traffic Analysis Zone
Zone Base Year Daily Base Year Daily VMT
Number VMT Per Capita Per Employee
100 5.08 23.07
101 7.0 20.92
102 7.96 21.62
103 24.71 22.33
104 30.13 39.79
(1) Source: California Statewide Travel Demand Model. See Caltrans SB 743 Website https://dot.ca.qov/programs/transportation-planninq/office-of- smart-mobility-climate-chanae/sb-743 and Northern California Institute of (2) This table is current as of the time of preparation of this report and should b updated whenever Caltrans provides updated VMT per capita and VMT pe employee information.

3.2 Screening Criteria
Following is a description of projects that would have a less than significant transportation impact due to project size or project type. If a project meets at least one of the following screening criteria, it would not require a detailed VMT analysis. However, a discussion summarizing the applicability of relevant screening criteria should be prepared for projects for traffic generating projects in excess of 60 trips per day.

It should be noted that, in addition to the list below, OPR's Technical Advisory recommends that projects in Transit Priority Areas (TPA's) may be screened out from consideration to conduct a VMT analysis. However, TPA's require the presence of a rail station or buses running at headways of 15 minutes or less and there are no TPA's in the Del Norte region.

Del Norte Region SB 743 Implementation Plan | 6
G2 | Original PDF page 11 | Appendix page 47

3.2.1 Sma!! Projects
Some projects are small enough that they can be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact without doing a detailed VMT analysis. For The Del Norte region, projects that generate less than 110 trips per day can be presumed to have a less than significant impact, per OPR's technical Advisory. Trip generation would normally be determined using the current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Other potential sources include the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) trip generation guide (Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates in the San Diego Region, April 2002), articles in the ITE Journal, and customized trip generation rates based on individual research.

3.2.2 Local-Serving Retail and Similar Land Uses
Per OPR's Technical Advisory, local-serving retail uses are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT since they tend to attract trips from adjacent areas that would have otherwise been made to more distant retail locations. This presumption also applies in the Del Norte region.

Other developments that are not technically retail may fall under this category such as medical offices, insurance agents, and other offices that are intended to serve the general public. Project applicants may submit a written analysis to the lead agency for a determination on whether the local serving status applies.

3.2.3 Local-Serving Public Facilities (Excluding Schools) Similar to retail land uses, local-serving public facilities other than schools are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. This would include government facilities intended to serve the local public, and parks.

3.2.4 Affordable Housing Projects
OPR's Technical Advisory allows for a less than significant finding for transportation impacts of residential projects that that are 100% affordable housing located in infill areas.

3.2.5 Redevelopment Proiects That Result in a Net Reduction of VMTI Per CEQA, projects are considered to have a less than significant impact if they result in a net reduction in the relevant performance measure (in this case VMT). Therefore, redevelopment projects in the Del Norte region that generate less VMT than the existing project they are replacing would be considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT.

Since VMT/capita and VMT/employee are efficiency metrics, a redevelopment project that would produce more VMT than the existing project it is replacing would need to conduct a VMT analysis assuming the proposed land use (with no credit taken for the existing land use) to determine whether the proposed project meets the applicable significance thresholds (i.e. a value below the appropriate average VMT/capita or VMT/employee).

Del Norte Region SB 743 Implementation Plan | 7
F1 | Original PDF page 116 | Appendix page 48

PLHA / PIP LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN

THE CITY OF CRESCENT CITY AND COMMUNITY SYSTEM SOLUTIONS THIS PLHA / PIP LOAN AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Crescent City, a California municipal corporation (referred to herein as "CITY"), and Community System Solutions, a California nonprofit corporation (referred to herein as "DEVELOPER").

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY has approximately one million dollars in Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) and Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) funds from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to loan to a developer to support the development of at least 4 affordable housing units for households earning up to 120% of AMI; and
WHEREAS, CITY issued a request for proposals for projects that would utilize HCD funding from PLHA and PIP to create affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, DEVELOPER'S proposed project was selected by CITY to receive the PLHA and PIP funds.

AGREEMENT

1. TERM. This Agreement is effective as of the date of its execution and will continue in full force and effect until the obligations of the parties have been fulfilled hereunder.

2. LOAN. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and in reliance upon the representations and warranties of DEVELOPER set forth in this Agreement, CITY agrees to make to DEVELOPER, and DEVELOPER agrees to accept from CITY, a loan (the "Loan") in the principal amount of One Million Thirty-Two Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-One Dollars and Forty-Three Cents ($1,032,371.43). The Loan amount includes $383,099.10 from the City's Permanent Local Housing Allocation ("PLHA Funds") and $649,272.33 in funds from the Prohousing Incentive Program ("PIP Funds").

3. LOAN TERMS.

3.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Loan is to provide funds to assist with the development of low- to moderate-income affordable housing. The Loan proceeds can be used for any of the following purposes:

3.1.1 PLHA Funds. PLHA Funds must be utilized in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in that certain Standard Agreement No. 23- F1 | Original PDF page 117 | Appendix page 49
PLHA-18498 between HCD and CITY dated 09/19/2024 ("PLHA Standard Agreement"), attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 and the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Final Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit A-2.

These documents may be amended from time to time, and DEVELOPER must adhere to any amendments.

3.1.2 PIP Funds. PIP Funds must be utilized in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in that certain Standard Agreement No. 23-PIP- 18478 between HCD and CITY dated 12/09/2024 ("PIP Standard Agreement"), attached hereto as Exhibit B-1, Prohousing Incentive Program Guidelines, attached hereto as Exhibit B-2, as well as the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Final Guidelines (Exhibit A-2).

These documents may be amended from time to time, and DEVELOPER must adhere to any amendments.

3.2 Conditions of Disbursement. Loan disbursements will be made as follows:

3.2.1 PLHA Funds.

A. City will disburse $326,988. 10 in PLHA funds once DEVELOPER has fulfilled all the following conditions:
i. submitted the performance promissory note(s) required herein to CITY;
ii. executed and delivered the PLHA / PIP Loan Promissory Note to CITY;
ill. executed and delivered the Deed of Trust to CITY;
iv. obtained for the CITY, at DEVELOPER'S expense, the Title Policy insuring the Deed of Trust required herein; and
v. executed and delivered the Affordable Housing Covenant to CITY.

B. City will disburse $56,111.00 in PLHA funds to DEVELOPER upon receipt of said funds from HCD.

3.2.2 PIP Funds. DEVELOPER must submit a written disbursement request identifying the amount, purpose and proof of payment for eligible predevelopment costs to CITY for reimbursement on or before February 27, 2026. CITY will then submit the request to HCD. Upon receipt of payment from HCD (6-8 weeks), CITY will issue the reimbursement payment to DEVELOPER.

3.3 Security.

3.3.1 Performance Promissory Note. DEVELOPER must deliver one or more performance promissory notes in the total amount of $649,272.33 in a form acceptable to CITY. The performance promissory note(s) will be CRESCENT CITY PLHA / PIP LOAN AGREEMENT Page | 2

COMMUNITY SYSTEM SOLUTIONS
F2 | Original PDF page 83 | Appendix page 50
PLA / PIP LOAN AGREEMENT TRANSFER | 3
MAY 4, 2026
On March 12, 2026, the Planning Commission approved the Site Plan & Architectural Review for the proposed mixed used development with 36 residential units and retail along Third Street on the first floor. The project was subject to certain mandatory development exemptions due to the developer's commitment to make at least 80% of the units available to lower income households and no more than 20% of the units available to moderate income households. The exemptions applied and utilized for this project were height (+ 4ft 8in), rear yard setback (- 2ft 6in), density (+ 28 units) and parking (- 42 spaces).

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
The PLHA / PIP Loan Agreement requires that only 4 of the units remain affordable for households earning up to 120% AMI for a period of 55 years (moderate income level).

The project, however, has received state-mandated development exemptions based on the condition that the entirety of the residential units will be affordable with no less than 80% of the units designated for low-income households and no more than 20% of the units designated for moderate income households. Household income designations are created in reference to the area median income (AMI). The 2025 Del Norte County AMI as determined by HCD is $93,900 for a 4-person household. This number is adjusted based upon how many people are in the household. Low-income households are defined as households earning less than 80% of the annual AMI. Moderate-income households are defined as households earning less than 120% of the annual AMI.

Maximum Allowable Gross Annual Income by Household Size Income % AMI 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons
Level
Low- <80% $52,600 $60,100 $67,600 $75,100
Income
Moderate- <120% $78,900 $90,150 $101,450 $112,700
Income
The State also sets "affordability" guidelines. "Affordable housing cost" is defined in State law as not more than 30% of gross household income with variations (Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5). "Housing cost" for rentals commonly includes rent and utilities (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling, and green waste).

ANALYSIS
The developer, Community System Solutions (CSS), ran into issues with securing and expending funds prior to the HCD deadline for PIP Grant reimbursement. Danco Communities, which recently built the 27-unit senior development, Harbor Point at 655 H Street, has offered to purchase the project and step in as the developer. Danco Communities has the financial resources to spend the required amount in a shor imeframe and the experience to bring this proiect to completion. Danco is aware of the community's apprehension about the lack of residential parking included as part of the F2 | Original PDF page 84 | Appendix page 51

PLHA / PIP LOAN AGREEMENT TRANSFER
MAY 4, 2026
project and is actively working toward solutions. However, the project remains fully entitled without any additional parking.

Grants & Economic Development Manager Bridget Lacey has been in communication with HCD staff regarding the transfer of the project and spending deadlines. The City has been granted an extension to submit requests to HCD for reimbursement.

The agreement that the City Council is being asked to approve this evening will replace CSS with Danco with respect to this project and all agreements entered into regarding this project with the City of Crescent City. Danco Communities has created a new limited partnership, Crescent City 3rd Street, LP, for which it is the administrative general partner (same set up as Harbor Point). Both CSS and Danco have reviewed and approved the agreement as presented.

FISCAL ANALYSIS
This action will not have a fiscal impact to the City's budget.

STRATEGIC PLAN ANALYSIS
This action is consistent with the following 2016 Strategic Plan Goals:
• Goal 1: Support quality services, community safety, and health to enhance the quality of life and experience of our residents and visitors. • Goal 2: Promote a thriving local economy.
• Expand on the success of grant funding by maximizing utilization of opportunities with corresponding community needs.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Assignment, Assumption, and Novation Agreement of PLHA / PIP Documents F2 | Original PDF page 124 | Appendix page 52
City of Crescent City
23-PLHA-18498

EXHIBIT D

PLHA PROGRAM TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Effective Date, Commencement of Work
This Agreement is effective upon the date of the Department representative's signature on page one of the fully executed Standard Agreement, STD 213. Contractor agrees that work under this agreement shall not commence until execution of the STD 213, (the "Effective Date").

Strict Compliance
Contractor will strictly comply with the terms, conditions and requirements of the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Statutes, Guidelines, the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), and this Agreement.

3. Contractor's Application for Funds
A. Contractor has submitted to the Department an Application for a Grant under the Program. The Department is entering into this Agreement based on, and in substantial reliance upon, Contractor's facts, information, assertions and representations contained in that Application, and in any subsequent modifications or additions thereto approved by the Department. The Application and any approved modifications and additions thereto are hereby incorporated into this Agreement.

B. Contractor warrants that all information, facts, assertions and representations contained in the Application and approved modifications and additions thereto are true, correct, and complete to the best of Contractor's knowledge. In the event that any part of the Application and any approved modification and addition thereto is untrue, incorrect, incomplete, or misleading in such a manner that would substantially affect the Department's approval, disbursement, or monitoring of the funding and the Grants or activities governed by this Agreement, then the Department may declare a breach hereof and take suct action or pursue such remedies as are provided for breach hereof.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program - Grant NOFA Date: (RD 1) 02/26/2020, (RD 2) 05/03/2021 (RD 3) 08/17/2022 (RD 4) 12/29/2023 Approved Date: 10/05/2020
Prep. Date: 07/12/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 127 | Appendix page 53
City of Crescent City
23-PLHA-18498

EXHIBIT D
Core Practices
A. A Contractor or Subrecipient must provide eligible activities in a manner consistent with the housing first practices described in California Code of Monitoring Grant Activities
Contractor shall monitor the activities selected and awarded by them to ensure compliance with PLHA requirements. An onsite monitoring visit of Subrecipients and any other service providers shall occur whenever determined necessary by the Contractor, but at least once during the Grant period.

B. The Department will monitor the performance of the Contractor based on a risk assessment and according to the terms of this Agreement. The Department may also monitor any Subrecipients of the Contractor as the Department deems appropriate based on a risk assessment.

C. As requested by the Department, the Contractor shall submit to the Department all PLHA monitoring documentation necessary to ensure that Contractor and its Subrecipients are in continued compliance with PLHA requirements. Such documentation requirements and the submission deadline shall be provided by the Department at the time such information is requested from the Contractor.

7. Reporting/Audits
A. Commencing with the Effective Date of this Agreement and continuing through the Expiration Date, the Contractor shall submit an annual report to the Department by July 31 of each year that reports all activities from the previous fiscal year (7/1-6/30), on forms provided by the Department.

The first report will be due on July 31, 2025 and will report all activities from date of initial fund disbursement through June 30, 2025.

B. The annual report shall contain a detailed report which must include, at a minimum:

Identification of the Eligible Activities to which the Contractor committed program funds, and the income levels of households assisted.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program - Grant NOFA Date: (RD 1) 02/26/2020, (RD 2) 05/03/2021 (RD 3) 08/17/2022 (RD 4) 12/29/2023 Approved Date: 10/05/2020
Prep. Date: 07/12/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 129 | Appendix page 54
City of Crescent City
23-PLHA-18498

EXHIBIT D
The Contractor agrees that the Department or its designee shall have the right to review, obtain, and copy all records and supporting documentation pertaining to performance of this Agreement. The Contractor agrees to provide the Department or its designee, with any relevant information requested. The Contractor agrees to permit the Department or its designee access to its premises, upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours for the purpose of interviewing employees who might reasonably have information related to such records and inspecting and copying such books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter under investigation for the purpose of determining compliance with the PLHA Statutes, the NOFA, and this Agreement.

C. The Contractor further agrees to retain all records for a period of five years after the end of the term of this Agreement:
1) If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, monitoring, inspection or other action has been started before the expiration of the required record retention period, all records must be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues, which arise from it.
2) The Contractor also agrees to include in any contract that it enters into in an amount exceeding $10,000, the Department's right to audit the contractor's records and interview their employees. The Contractor shall comply with the caveats and be aware of the penalties for violation of fraud and for obstruction of investigation as set forth in California Public Code Section 10115.10.

D. The determination by the Department of the eligibility of any expenditure shall be final. If the eligibility of any expenditure cannot be determined because records or documentation are inadequate, the expenditure may be disallowed, and HCD shall determine the reimbursement method for the amount disallowed.

E. The Contractor shall retain all books and records relevant to this Agreement for a minimum of five years after the end of the term of this Agreement. Records relating to any and all audits or litigation relevant to this Agreement shall be retained for five years after the conclusion or resolution of the matter.

Breach and Remedies
A. The following shall each constitute a breach of this Agreement:

Contractor's failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program - Grant NOFA Date: (RD 1) 02/26/2020, (RD 2) 05/03/2021 (RD 3) 08/17/2022 (RD 4) 12/29/2023 Approved Date: 10/05/2020
Prep. Date: 07/12/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 130 | Appendix page 55
City of Crescent City
23-PLHA-18498

EXHIBIT D
Agree ray eigue a fra pres adapted under this.

Agreement.
3) Any failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in this Agreement.

B. In addition to any other remedies that may be available to the Department in law or equity for breach of this Agreement, the Department may:
1) Bar the Contractor from applying for future PLHA and other HCD funds; 2) Revoke any other existing PLHA award(s) to the Contractor; Require the return of any unexpended PLHA funds disbursed under this Agreement;
4) Require repayment of PLHA funds disbursed and expended under this agreement;
5) Require the immediate return to the Department of all funds derived from the use of PLHA funds including, but not limited to recaptured funds and returned funds;
6) Seek, in a court of competent jurisdiction, an order for specific performance of the defaulted obligation or the appointment of a receiver to complete the technical assistance in accordance with the PLHA Program requirements; and,
7) Seek such other remedies as may be available under the relevant agreement or any law.

C. All remedies available to the Department are cumulative and not exclusive.

D. The Department may give written notice to the Contractor to cure the breach or violation within a period of not less than fifteen days.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program - Grant NOFA Date: (RD 1) 02/26/2020, (RD 2) 05/03/2021 (RD 3) 08/17/2022 (RD 4) 12/29/2023 Approved Date: 10/05/2020
Prep. Date: 07/12/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 131 | Appendix page 56
City of Crescent City
23-PLHA-18498

EXHIBIT D

10. Termination
The Department may terminate this Agreement at any time for cause by giving a B. This Agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations or conditions, or statute, regulations or any other laws, whether federal or those of the State of California, or of any agency, department, or any political subdivision of the federal or the State of California governments, which may affect the provisions, terms or funding of this Agreement in any manner.

The Department has the option to terminate this Agreement under the thirty-day cancellation clause or to amend this Agreement to reflect any reduction of funds.

11. Waivers
No waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach. The failure of the Department to enforce at any time the provisions of this Agreement, or to require at any time, performance by the Contractor of these provisions, shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provisions nor to affect the validity of this Agreement or the right of the Department to enforce these provisions.

12. Relocation
Contractor shall comply with all requirements of applicable California relocation law (Gov. Code, § 7260 et seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder at Cal. Code Regulations, Title. 25, § 6000 et seq.). Any relocation plan for the Development shall be subject to the review and approval by the State.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program - Grant NOFA Date: (RD 1) 02/26/2020, (RD 2) 05/03/2021 (RD 3) 08/17/2022 (RD 4) 12/29/2023 Approved Date: 10/05/2020
Prep. Date: 07/12/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 132 | Appendix page 57
City of Crescent City
23-PLHA-18498

EXHIBIT D

13. Special Conditions Contractors and Subrecipients
f this Agreement and the applicable State requirements governing the use of Gran unds. The Contractor shall ensure that all Subrecipients are qualified to do busines and in good standing with the California Secretary of State and the California Franchise Agreement.

14. Compliance with State and Federal Laws, Rules, Guidelines and Regulations The Contractor agrees to comply with all State and Federal laws, rules and regulations that pertain to construction, health and safety, labor, fair employment practices, equal opportunity, and all other matters applicable to the Grant, the Contractor, its Subrecipients, and any other Grant activity.

15. Litigation
A. If any provision of this Agreement, or an underlying obligation, is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity, at the sole discretion of the Department, shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Therefore, the provisions of this Agreement are, and shall be, deemed severable.

B. The Contractor shall notify the Department immediately of any claim or action undertaken by or against it, which affects or may affect this Agreement or the Department and shall take such action with respect to the claim or action as is consistent with the terms of this Agreement and the interests of the Department.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program - Grant NOFA Date: (RD 1) 02/26/2020, (RD 2) 05/03/2021 (RD 3) 08/17/2022 (RD 4) 12/29/2023 Approved Date: 10/05/2020
Prep. Date: 07/12/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 167 | Appendix page 58
City of Crescent City
23-PIP-18478

EXHIBIT B

BUDGET DETAIL AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS
Application for Funds
A. Grantee has submitted to the Department an Application for a Grant under the Program. The Department is entering into this Agreement on the basis of, and i eliance on fact. information, assertions and representations contained in the Application and any subsequent modifications or additions thereto approved by the Department. The Application and any approved modifications and additions B. The Grantee warrants that all information, facts, assertions, and representations contained in the Application and approved modifications and additions thereto are true, correct, and complete to the best of the Grantee's knowledge. In the event that any part of the Application and any approved modification and addition thereto is untrue, incorrect, incomplete, or misleading, in such a manner that would substantially affect the Department's approval, disbursement, reimbursement, or monitoring of the funding and the grant or activities governed by this Agreement, the Department may declare a breach hereof and take such action or pursue such remedies as are provided for breach hereof.

Grant and Reimbursement Limit
The Department's decision to approve or deny an application or request for funding pursuant to the Program, and its determination of the amount of funding provided, shall be final. The maximum total amount granted and disbursable to the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $650,000.

Grant Timelines
A. This Agreement is effective upon approval by all parties and the Department, which is evidenced by the date signed by the Department on page one, Standard Agreement, STD 213 (the "Effective Date").

B. The grant term begins on the day the Department and the grantee have fully executed the Standard Agreement as described in Exhibit D(1).

All reimbursement requests for Grant funds must be submitted to the Department no later than March 30, 2026.

D. Upon completion of all deliverables within the Standard Agreement and prior to processing final invoicing, the awardee shall submit a Close Out Report.

Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP)
NOFA Date: 1/23/2024
Approved Date: 06/11/2024
Preparation Date: 10/15/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 172 | Appendix page 59
City of Crescent City
23-PIP-18478

EXHIBIT D

PIP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Effective Date, Commencement of Work
This Agreement is effective upon the date of the Department representative's signature on page one of the full executed Standard Agreement, STD 213. Grantee agrees that work under this Agreement shall not commence until execution of the STD 213, (the "Effective Date").

Strict Compliance
Grantee will strictly comply with the terms, conditions and requirements of the PIP Statute, Guidelines and NOFA, and PLHA Statute and Guidelines, and this Agreement.

3. Contractor's Application for Funds
A. Grantee has submitted to the Department an Application for a Grant under the Program.

B. Grantee warrants that all information, facts, assertions and representations contained in the Application and approved modifications and additions thereto are true, correct, and complete to the best of Grantee's knowledge.

Eligible Activities
Grant funds awarded to the Grantee and expended by either the Grantee or any entity to which Grantee awards funds shall be used for the eligible activities set forth in Exhibit A(4). The following additional requirements shall apply:

B. Each Grantee shall submit a Plan contained in Exhibit E detailing:
1) The manner in which allocated funds will be used for eligible activities.

A description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the Local government's Housing Element.

The following for each proposed Activity:

A description of each proposed Activity and the percentage of funding allocated to it.

A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule required for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP)
NOFA Date: 1/23/2024
Approved Date: 06/11/2024
Preparation Date: 10/15/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 178 | Appendix page 60
City of Crescent City
23-PIP-18478

EXHIBIT D

10. Breach and Remedies of Non-Performance
A. The Department may monitor expenditures and activities of an applicant, as the Department deems necessary, to ensure compliance with Program requirements.

B. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under this Standard Agreement that is not disposed of by agreement shall be decided by the Department's Housing Policy Development Manager, or the Manager's designee, who may consider any written or verbal evidence submitted by the Grantee. The decision of the Department's Housing Policy Development Manager or Designee shall be the Department's final decision regarding the dispute.

C. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by the Department will excuse the Grantee from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Standard Agreement.

In the event that it is determined, at the sole discretion of the Department, that the Grantee is not meeting the terms and conditions of the Standard Agreement, immediately upon receiving a written notice from the Department to stop work, the Grantee shall cease all work under the Standard Agreement. The Department has the sole discretion to determine that the Grantee meets the terms and conditions after a stop work order, and to deliver a written notice to the Grantee to resume work under the Standard Agreement.

E. Both the Grantee and the Department have the right to terminate the Standard Agreement at any time upon 30 days written notice. The notice shall specify the reason for early termination and may permit the Grantee or the Department to rectify any deficiency(ies) prior to the termination date. The Grantee will submit any requested documents to the Department within 30 days of the early termination notice.

F. At any time, if the Department finds the applicant falsely proposed information in the application or as part of the application review, including documentation related to incentive payments (e.g., affordability, enhancements), the Department may require the repayment of funds or decline reimbursement.

G. The Department may, as it deems appropriate or necessary, require the repayment of funds from a grantee, or pursue any other remedies available to it by law for failure to comply with Program requirements (Health and Safety Code section 50515.04(e).

H. The following shall constitute a breach of this Agreement:

Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP)
NOFA Date: 1/23/2024
Approved Date: 06/11/2024
Preparation Date: 10/15/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 179 | Appendix page 61
City of Crescent City
23-PIP-18478

EXHIBIT D
Grantee's failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2) Use of, or permitting the use of, grant funds provided under this Agreement for any ineligible costs or for any activity not approved under this Agreement.
3) Any failure to comply with the deadlines set forth in this Agreement unless approved by the Program Manager.

1. In addition to any other remedies that may be available to the Department in law or equity for breach of this Agreement, the Department may at its discretion, exercise the following remedies:

Disqualify the Grantee from applying for future Program Funds or other Department administered grant programs;
Revoke existing PIP award(s) to the Grantee;
3) Decline reimbursement of funds;
4) Require the return of unexpended Program funds disbursed under this Agreement;
Require repayment of Program funds disbursed and expended under this Agreement;
6) Require the immediate return to the Department of all funds derived from the use of Program funds including, but not limited to recaptured funds and returned funds;
7) Seek, in a court of competent jurisdiction, an order for specific performance of the obligation defaulted upon, or the appointment of a receiver to complete the obligations in accordance with the PIP requirements; and
8) Other remedies available at law, or by and through this Agreement.

All remedies available to the Department are cumulative and not exclusive.

K. The Department may give written notice to the Grantee to cure the breach or violation within a period of not less than fifteen (15) days.

Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP)
NOFA Date: 1/23/2024
Approved Date: 06/11/2024
Preparation Date: 10/15/2024
F2 | Original PDF page 182 | Appendix page 62

EXHIBIT D

16. Compliance with State and Federal Laws, Rules, Guidelines and Regulations A. The Grantee agrees to comply with all state and federal laws, rules and regulations that pertain to construction, health and safety, labor, fair employment practices, equal opportunity, and all other matters applicable to the grant, the Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors, and any other grant activity.

B. During the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee assures that no otherwise qualified person shall be excluded from participation or employment, denied program benefits, or be subjected to discrimination based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, age, disability, handicap, familial status, religion, or belief, under any program or activity funded by this contract, as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act (42 USC 3601-20) and all implementing regulations, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and all implementing regulations.

C. The Grantee shall include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all agreements with its sub-recipients, contractors, and subcontractors, and shall include a requirement in all agreements with all of same that each of them in turn include the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all contracts and subcontracts they enter into to perform work under the Prohousing Incentive Program.

D. The Grantee shall, in the course of performing project work, fully comply with the applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to the ADA. (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) E. The Grantee shall adopt and implement affirmative processes and procedures that provide information, outreach and promotion of opportunities in the Prohousing Incentive Program project to encourage participation of all persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, or disability.

This includes, but is not limited to, a minority outreach program to ensure the inclusion, to the maximum extent possible, of minorities and women, and entities owned by minorities and women, as required by 24 CFR 92.351.

17. Litigation
Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP)
NOFA Date: 1/23/2024
Approved Date: 06/11/2024
Preparation Date: 10/15/2024
F3 | Original PDF page 11 | Appendix page 63
76 SLC Final Staff Report for: Battery Point Apartments SLC Date: 2/1/2024 CalHFA Project Number: 23-010-A/X/N Board Date: 02/21/2024

10. Project Specific Conditions of Approval
Approval is conditioned upon:
• Closing on construction financing will be subject to final Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) being substantially consistent to the assumptions made at time of final commitment and as reflected in the attached Financial Analysis Summary attached to this Final Commitment Staff Report, and acceptable to CalHFA, in its sole discretion.

Any default as to any loans by the Agency for the Development shall constitute a default under any other loans by the Agency for the Development
Final subdivision structure will be subject to Agency's approval.

No site work or construction commencement prior to the issuance of a HUD Risk Sharing Program Firm Approval Letter.

CalHFA will require that the local funding regulatory agreements contain provisions allowing rent increases to the maximum CTCAC rents if rental subsidies are no longer available. • The total deferred developer's fee of $6,138,596 will not be fully repaid by year 15 per project cashflow; therefore, the owner must provide evidence of investor approval of the total deferred developer's fee structure. Receipt of LPA and investor written approval evidencing that any outstanding deferred developer fee remaining in Year 15 will be treated as a developer contribution.
• CalHFA requires that MIP affordability covenants be recorded in senior position to all foreclosable debt. However, the locality is requiring the Affordable Housing Agreement to be recorded 1" (ahead of) CalHFA Bond and CalHFA MIP Regulatory Agreement as indicated in Section 9. Allowance of the City's first lien position is subject to CalHFA receiving a Stand Still Agreement from the City in form and content acceptable to CalHA in its sole discretion. • The CalHFA subsidy will be, in the Agency's sole discretion, the lesser of 1) the principal amount as stated on hereto or 2) an amount as determined by the Agency in the event the financial assumptions change prior to construction loan closing and/or permanent loan closing.

All MIP Loan principal and accrued interest will be due and payable at maturity.

The Borrower has requested that 100% of surplus cash be available for the repayment of the deferred developer's fee (DDF) until the earlier of year 15 of operations is complete or full repayment of the DDF. Thereafter, the surplus cash split shall be 50% to Borrower and 50% to Residual Receipt lender(s). As a condition of this approval, the Borrower must provide evidence that the DDF repayment structure is required pursuant to the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA). In addition, the owner must provide evidence of investor and all residual receipt lender(s) approvals of the total deferred developer's fee structure and residual receipt split. Residual receipt lenders must also agree to defer the payments on their loans. • An updated Phase I is required per CalHFA underwriting standards and HUD Risk Share. The current Phase I ESA dated 3/9/2023 exceeds the 180 days validity and an updated Phase I ESA will be required prior to closing. • Receipt of a certification by the engineer on record that Project has been built to current seismic code acceptable to the Agency prior to permanent closing.
• Funds from the CalHFA permanent loan and/or the subsidy loan shall not be used to fund or offset any portion of the offsite improvement's construction costs, except to the extent such costs are attributable to improvements for the exclusive use by the tenants of the Project.
• An estoppel as to the lien priority of the Agency loans and approval of the Agency's form of subordination agreement by all subordinate lenders prior to construction closing. • Receipt of evidence of Borrower compliance with Crescent City conditions of approval. • A standstill/subordination agreement may be required for the HCD-IIG restrictive covenant.

AFFORDABILITY

11. CalHFA Affordability (Occupancy and Rent) Restrictions The CalHA Permanent Financing Regulatory Agreement will restrict a minimum of 40% of the total units at or below 60% AMI; with 30% of the total units (48 units) at or below 60% AMI and 10% of the total units (17 units) at 50% of AMI for 55 years.

Mutate Set Repe
*12021
H1 | Original PDF page 22 | Appendix page 64
Special Planning Commission Meeting
Agenda Item: IV.A.

F. That the planning commission is reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met. (Prior code § 30-502)
Analysis: The Applicant has provided the following: "The reason for the variance it 10 accommodate cold food storage and employee break room and general storage space (03/24/23)." The Planning Commission must make the above determinations (17.56.010(A-F)) prior to granting the Variance Permit. Since no support for the variance findings were submitted with the application, the applicant is required to provide support for each of the above findings to the Planning Commission (17.56.010(E)). Staff has not been provided information to analyze the adequacy of the support of making the variance findings. Staff is not making a recommendation to approve or deny the variance.

ENVIORNMENTAL DETERMINATION:

The proposed project is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), 15303(c), 15305(a), and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines:
§ 15061(b)(3). Common Sense Exemption
(b) A project is exempt from CEQA if:
(3) The activity is covered by the common sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. $ 15303(c). New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to:
(c) A store, motel, office, restaurant or similar structure not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances, and not exceeding 2500 square feet in floor area. In urbanized areas, the exemption also applies to up to four such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites soned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. § 15305(a) - Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations
Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density, including but not limited to:
(a) Minor lot line adjustments, side yard, and set back variances not resulting in the creation of any new parcel;
VAR23-01/AR23-04-BPG SR Page 6 of 9 April 20, 2023
H2 | Original PDF page 5 | Appendix page 65
IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW:

IV.A: VAR23-01/AR23-04 - LNL Design and Construction /1348 Front Street; APN 118-080-0171
Chairman Wendt opened the public hearing at 5:44pm.

Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner, gave a presentation on the proposed variance for safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. impacts on the environment. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan. 4. The proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City Zoning Code.

5. The proposed project is consistent with Site Plan and Architectural Review standards.

6. The proposed project satisfies the variance permit requirements. 7. The proposed project is determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b) (3), 15303(c), 15305(a), and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 8. The proposed project to be approved with the Conditions of Approval found which are 1. Approval is for the project as described in the submitted Variance Permit application and Site Plan (received 03/22/23) which is included as Attachment A to the staff report. 2. The applicant will be required to comply with all requirements of the City's Municipal Code including, but not limited to, Chapters 17.22 (General Commercial District).3. The applicant must meet all requirements of the various City Departments including, but not limited to, the City Manager, Public Works Department, City Engineer, Police Department, Fire Department, Building Department, and Planning Department. 4. The expansion shall meet all fire prevention code requirements.5. The applicant shall obtain building permits from the Building Department for any improvements that require a permit pursuant to the building code.

The following citizens addressed the Commission:

Matt Wakefield, owner of proposed project- Spoke about Seafront Baking Company, the restaurant/bakery that will housed in the bullding that is requiring the proposed three foot set back variance. He the plans submitted propose the best use of the space and they are anticipating a larger restaurant than what the building was previously used for.

He said that the addition that was in the setback space was going to used for storage and a break room for employees. He feared another location for the addition would take away parking from the establishment. He stated surrounding parcels have zero building setbacks.

Dan Schmidt, County resident-Owner of a neighboring Pete's Auto building. He spoke in favor of the project, but he had a concern about the elimination of the alley that runs behind the neighboring buildings and the closeness of the buildings if the set back is granted.

Mac Robertson, County resident- Owner of a neighboring business called Robertson's Automotive was concerned about the spacing between his property and the addition requiring the variance, right now he utilizes the space to drive thru to a gate on his

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
H2 | Original PDF page 6 | Appendix page 66
The alleyway, setbacks and landscaping were discussed on a Commission level.

Fire Chief, Kevin Carey, spoke about the fire access in the set back request. He said he visited the site with the parties involved. He said his staff can make due with the three foot set back, he said they could get a hose line behind the building and cut through any fencing in the area in case of a fire emergency. He said as far as exposure, the applicants building will have fire sprinklers, there will be fire rated construction material on the exterior, no restaurant equipment will be in the addition requiring the setback and the neighboring business is a metal building.

Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner, said for the administration record that the set back variance is for 3 feet and the Planning Commission can grant anywhere from 0-10 feet.

Chairman Wendt closed the public hearing at 6:25pm.

On a motion by Commissioner Dewar, seconded by Chairman Wendt, and carried. unanimously on a 4-0 polled vote, with Commissioner Tinkler absent, the City of Crescent City Planning Commission and Architectural Review Committee approved VAR23-01/AR 23-04 for a 3 foot rear yard set back with conditions of approval 1-3 being met.

V. CONTINUING BUSINESS: None.

VI. NEW BUSINESS:

VI.A: DRAFT ADU Ordinance [City Widel
City Attorney, Martha Rice gave a slide show presentation on Accessory Dwelling Units.

She said that this subject had previously gone before the Planning Commission and staff was given direction on the contents of Accessory Dwelling Units for the ordinance.

She said the ordinance took some time in her review and then the State laws changed.

What's before the Commission tonight is an ordinance that includes the provisions directed from the Planning Commission and changes to match the state law. She said the state goal is to widen the range of housing types to increase the housing supply.

The state mandates are the following: that local authorities must allow for the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on all parcels zoned for residential use and requires ministerial approval for ADUs and JADUs if certain conditions are met with an option that local authorities may adopt local ordinances that are more liberal than state law in furtherance of developing more ADUs. Martha showed the types of ADUs and gave their definitions. She said an attached ADU is one that is attached to primary dwelling, a detached ADU is one that is detached from the primary dwelling, a conversion ADU is one that is a conversion of existing space that can be attached or detached and a junior ADU is one that is contained within the primary dwelling that is smaller than 500sqft. She said that motorhomes, travel trailers, park trailers and converted buses are not ADUs. The statewide exemption ADU standards that require mandatory ministerial approvals are 1. Any single family dwelling are allowed one attached ADU and one JADU if it's in an existing or proposed single-family dwelling, it must be allowed in any residential or mixed use zone, if its an ADU attached or a conversion, can be up to 150 sqft of expansion of existing footprint for ingress/egress

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
H3 | Original PDF page 290 | Appendix page 67
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item #5

MUNCIPAL CODE REQUIRMENTS
CCMC 17.42.120 (H)
Ingress and egress across public sidewalks shall be made possible without the necessity of backing over the same except for property devoted exclusively to one- family, two-family or three-family dwellings. This requirement may be waived by the planning commission upon a showing of hardship and a finding that such waiver will CCMC 17.42.130
A. Reasonable and justifiable reductions or waivers may be made to these parking regulations by the planning commission as hereinafter provided.

B. Such reductions or waivers shall be judged upon:

The effect on present and future traffic;

2. The effect on neighborhoods;

3. The effect on the stability and adequacy of the site to accommodate the proposed use; and

4. Any other conditions hereinafter specified.

In addition to the findings required by CCMC 17.42.120 (H), the issuance of Parking Waivers is further regulated by the Crescent City Municipal Code and requires the Planning Commission to make a judgment based on specified criteria.

ANALYSIS
The Roosevelt Residential Project consists of 10 buildings. Seven (7) buildings contain six (6) units each, two (2) buildings contain five (5) units each, and one (1) building contains four (4) units (Attachment A). CCMC 17.42.120 (H) requires that a Parking Waiver be obtained by the applicant because the Project's dwelling units are proposed with four or more dwellings per building; exceeding the established threshold of a one-, two-, or three-family dwellings and because the Project proposes parking stalls that require backing and crossing, over the public sidewalk for ingress and egress.

Per CCMC 17.42.120 (H), to be eligible for a Parking Waiver, the applicant must provide evidence to demonstrate to the Planning Commission that:

1. A hardship would occur if the waiver was not issued; and PWR23-10 Page 4 of 7 August 10, 2023
H3 | Original PDF page 291 | Appendix page 68
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item #5

2. The issuance of the waiver would not result in a hazardous condition.

Per CMMC 17.42.130 the Planning Commission will judge the issuance of the Parking Waiver upon the following criteria:

1. The effect on present and future traffic;

2. The effect on the neighborhoods; and

3. The effect on the stability and adequacy of the site to accommodate residential use.

APPLICANT EVIDENCE
The applicant has supplied the following evidence, on August 2, 2023, to support the necessary findings established by CCMC section 17.42.120 (H) and CCMC section 17.42.130. The applicant's support can also be found in Attachment B:

Supporting Information to Support request for waiver:

I. To maximize available housing units,
Size A vaize le ailable housing unis, 3 rows of aces were designed to rohis lot There is not room for a second driveway. The parking access to the third row of units must come directly from the existing street, creating the need for a waiver to allow backing over the sidewalk and driveway ramps on California Street and Hoover Avenue.

2. A benefit to direct off-street parking per this design is the parking space ratio will be 2 parking spaces for each single unit. Per code, the City can only require 1.5 parking spaces per unit. İf all parking spaces were internalized or placed on the diagonal the 2:1 ratio may not have been available.

3. Site analysis
This waiver will not increase the number of vehicles traveling on Hoover or Oregon Street. Any increased traffic will be based on the number of units, not where the vehicles are parked.
• There should be no detrimental effect to the neighborhood due to impacts from this waiver as California Street and Hoover Avenue are lightly populated in these blocks, and neither act as a collector. Future growth in the neighborhood will be along Oregon Street with future improvements along that vacant lot. As designed there will be no perpendicular street parking along Oregon Street. Both driveway ends for the internal drive through are attached to Hoover and California Streets.

C. The site design shows that the lavout of these parking spaces included with this waiver request are accommodated by the existing site.

PWR23-10 Page 5 of 7 August 10, 2023
H3 | Original PDF page 292 | Appendix page 69
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item #5

4. Hardship Analysis
a. To maintain the current density with a second driveway to eliminate perpendicular street parking, the units could be converted to 3 story units which would inflict additional costs per unit (hardship). b. The number of units could be decreased, reducing the housing created, and potentially risking the viability of the project itself(hardship). c. Three story units would negatively impact the feel of the neighborhood

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed Parking Waiver is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations of the CEQA guidelines.

Class 5 consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density.

ANALYSIS
The proposed Parking Waiver would result in a minor alteration of the design standard related to the access of off-street parking over public sidewalks. The proposed Parking Waiver will allow vehicles to reverse and cross over a public sidewalk. The waiver would not result in the creation of a new parcel, has no potential to change land use or density of the subject parcel, and is located on a lot that has a slope of less than 20%.

MOTIONS
APPROVAL. The Planning Commission may grant/approve the Parking Waiver and determine that the required findings can be made.
"Motion to approve Parking Waiver PWR23-10 and adopt by resolution, Resolution Number PC2023-11"

2. DENIAL. The Planning Commission may deny the requested Parking Waiver and determine that the required findings cannot be made. The Planning Commission should specifically state which findings cannot be and why.
"Motion to deny Parking Waiver PWR23-10 and deny by resolution, Resolution Number PC2023-11"
PWR23-10 Page 6 of 7 August 10, 2023
H3 | Original PDF page 298 | Appendix page 70
PWR23-10
Staff Report CITY OF CRESCENT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Attachment D AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-11

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CRESCENT

CITY APPROVING A PARKING WAIVER FOR THE ROOSEVELT RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Elk Creek Builders (Sam Schauerman) has applied for a Parking Waiver (PWR23-10), to allow 44 off street parking stalls at 215 E Washington Blvd, Crescent City, CA 95531 (APN: 118-403-002-000) to back over the public side walk along California and Hoover Ave (Exhibit A);
WHEREAS, after posting of the meeting agenda, the matter came on regularly for hearing before the Crescent City Planning Commission on August 8, 2023.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City as follows:

1. The Planning Commission finds that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under §15305 Minor Alterations in Lot Line Adjustments of the CEQA Guidelines;

2. The Planning Commission finds that the requested Parking Waiver: 1) if not issued would result in a hardship and 2) the issuance of the Parking Waiver will not result in a hazardous condition (CCMC 17.42.120 (H));

3. The Planning Commission has judged the issuance of the Parking waiver upon the a) the effect on present and future traffic, b) the effect on the neighborhood, and c) the effect on the stability and adequacy of the site to accommodate the proposed use (CCMC 17.42.130);

4. The Parking Waiver (PWR23-10) shall permit 44 parking stalls, 32 stalls on California Ave and 12 parking stalls along Hoover Ave (consistent with the site plan proposed in Attachment A), at 215 E Washington Blvd. Crescent City, Ca 95531 (APN: 118-403- 002-000) to reverse and cross over the public sidewalk subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B):

Resolution No. PC2023-11 Page 1 of 2 August 10, 2023
H4 | Original PDF page 44 | Appendix page 71
City of Crescent City - Regular Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
SECTION 6: SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
The proposed 40-unit residential use is a permitted use within the R-3 Zone (CCMC $17.16.020) equiring the scheduled public hearing for the Planning Commission to determine whether th roposed Site Plan & Architectural Design Review (Application AR23-16) (See Attachment A shall be approved or denied (CCMC §17.46.040(A)), based on the following standards:

A. Zoning (CCMC §17.46.035(A)):

The proposed project is considerate of existing and potential uses of the proposed location and is consistent with the Crescent City's High-Density Residential District (R-3) Zoning Code (with a Site Plan & Architectural Design Review). (See Section 2: Background Information and Section 4: Project Description).

B. Parking (CCMC §17.20.060(A) & §17.46.035(A)):

The required off-street parking ratio for multi-family dwellings is 1.5 spaces per unit (CCMC $17.42.040) totaling 84-spaces. The proposed off-street parking ratio is 2 spaces per unit, totaling 112 spaces thus exceeding, by 28-spaces, the required amount. The three buildings currently under construction were granted a parking variance to back out over the sidewalk.

There are 20 off-street spaces fronting California and 12 fronting Hoover under the previously approved Parking Waiver (PWR23-01). An additional 12 spaces will front California also covered under PWr23-01. The remaining 68 off-street parking will be served internally with a continuous two-way drive fronting California and Hoover. Two accessible parking spaces (or

3.6%) are proposed meeting the required 2% (Section 1109A of the 2022 California Building Code). Each dwelling unit will have one electric vehicle charging station. The proposed project meets the required off-street parking spaces, accessible parking spaces, and electric vehicle charging station requirements, specific design requirements will need to meet Public Works approval; Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with parking requirements.

C. Landscaping (CCMC §17.46.035(A) & §17.43.010(B)):

The proposed project includes a landscape plan indicating the location of open space and trees. A stormwater detention pond is proposed on the southeast corner of the parcel and will be planted with appropriate and easily managed vegetation. The side slopes of the pond will be 3:1 to permit easy maintenance. The project site is located near Del Norte High School and Mary Peacock Elementary School which have recreational areas available outside of school hours.

D. Fencing (CCMC $17.20.060(B) & §17.46.035(A)):

The proposed project includes 6-ft wood fencing encasing a small "backyard" for each unit.

The proposed project also includes a trash enclosure which is required to be screened from view from adjacent streets (CCMC §17.43.050) and is therefore consistent with fencing requirements. Any future fencing would be subject to a fence permit.

E. Signage (CCMC §17.20.060(C) & §17.46.035(A)):

The proposed project does not include any proposed signage, none are required, and is therefore consistent with signage requirements. Any future signage will be subject to a sign permit.

AR23-16 Page 10 of 14 February 8, 2024
N1 original PDF page 35 | Appendix page 73

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY IT CRESCEN

PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY Commission Members: Ray Walp, Chairperson * Kristine DeCossio, Vice-Chair Shawna Hyatt * Debra Perius * Paul Martinez CALIFORNI
Incorporated April 13. 1354 web: www.crescentcity.org

STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM #2
TO: Chairperson Walp and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner
BY: Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Ethan Lawton, Contract City Planner
DATE: Thursday, August 20, 2026
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing to consider a Minor Variance Permit (Application VAR26- 01) for Branden Bieber's requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development, located at 140 Truman Court (APN 118-341-034)
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Branden Bieber submitted a Minor Variance FIGURE 1-1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP Permit (Application VAR26-01) for a
requested reduced front and rear setbacks for Project
a proposed single-family residential Location
development on a vacant lot within the R-1
zone (Low-Density Residential District)
located at 140 Truman Court (APN 118-341-

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY
034). CITY LIMITS
STAFF RECOMMENDS: "Motion to adopt
Resolution No. PC2026-14, A Resolution of
the Planning Commission of the City of
Crescent City to grant Branden Bieber's Minor
Variance Permit (Application VAR26-01) for
requested reduced front and rear setbacks for Crescer
a proposed single-family residential
development." -OR-
"Provide additional direction to staff regarding
the requested variance
ATTACHMENTS:
2,000
A) VAR26-01 Application
1"= 2,000 t
B) VAR26-01 Conditions of Approval Source: Housing Element (December 2022) C) Resolution No. PC2026-14
August 20, 2026 Page 1 of 22 VAR26-01_SR
Final packet page 102
N1 original PDF page 43 | Appendix page 74
City of Crescent City - Special Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & PROPOSED PROJECT:

The following items include a summary analysis of the Variance Application submittal (See Attachment A: VAR26-01 Application) and the R-1 (Low-Density Residential District) Zoning Development Standards (CCMC § 17.23), which is further analyzed under Section 7: Variance Permit Review below:

5.4. Conditional Use Permit: No conditional use permit is required as the R-1 Zoning District principally permits "single-family dwellings" (ССМС § 17.10.020(A)).

5.5. Height and Area Regulations: All permitted uses within the R-1 Zoning District are subject to height and area regulations and are addressed below (See Table 5-2:

Comparison of Height and Area Regulations).

TABLE 5-2: COMPARISON OF HEIGHT AND AREA REGULATIONS
Standards CCMC S Regulation Proposed
Height 17.10.040(A)(1) 35-ft 28-ft
Front Yard 17.10.040(B) (1)(a) 20-ft ~25-ft
Front - Garage 17.10.040(B)(1)(b) 25-ft 20-ft
[Exterior] Side Yard 17.10.040(B) (2)(a) 05-ft ~30-ft
[Interior] Side Yard 17.10.040(B)(2)(b) 10-ft 06-ft
Rear Yard 17.10.040(B)(3)(a) 20-ft 19-ft
Lot Area 17.10.040(C)(1) 6,000-sf 12,774
Lot Coverage 17.10.040(E)(1) 50% 19%
The applicant has submitted a request to reduce rear setbacks (from 20-ft to 19-ft) and garage front yard setbacks (from 25-ft to 20-ft) which requires a Variance Permit. This item is further discussed under Section 7: Variance Permit Review below.

5.6. Parking, Fencing, and Signs: All permitted uses within the R-1 Zoning District are subject to the general requirements regarding Parking (CCMC § 17.10.060(B)), Fencing (CCMC § 17.40.060(C)), and Signs (CCMC § 17.10.060(D). No signs or fencing are proposed. Any future fencing or signage will be subject to a separate permit. These items are further discussed under Section 6: Site Plan & Architectural Design Review below.

5.7. Site Plan: Although the single-family residence does not require a Site Plan & Architectural Review by the Planning Commission, the requested Variance Permit does.

This item is further discussed under Section 6: Site Plan & Architectural Design Review below.

5.8. REQUIRED FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION:

The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project (with a Variance Permit) is consistent with the Crescent City's Low-Density Residential District (R-1) Zoning Code, a) Is not located within the Coastal Zone and is not appealable to the Coastal Commission;
August 20, 2026 Page 9 of 22 VAR26-01_SR
Final packel page 103
N1 original PDF page 48 | Appendix page 75
City of Crescent City - Special Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: # 2
SECTION 7: VARIANCE PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS
The requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development on a vacant parcel is a permitted use within the R-1 Zone (CCMC §

17.10.020(A)) which has submitted the following variance requests:

TABLE 7-1: COMPARISON OF VARIANCE REQUESTS
# Variance Request Request Standard Difference
#1 Garage - Front Yard Setback 20-ft 25-ft 5-ft
#2 Rear Yard Setback 19-ft 20-ft 1-ft
VARIANCE PURPOSE.

The sole purpose of any variance shall be to prevent discrimination and undue hardship, and no variance shall be granted which would have the effect of granting a special privilege not shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone (CCMC

17.56.010). When unreasonable and unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the general purpose of this title result through the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the provisions thereof, the planning commission of the city shall have authority as an administrative act subject to the provisions of this section, to grant upon such conditions as it may determine such variances from the provisions of this code as may be in harmony with its general purpose and intent so that the spirit of this code shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured, and substantial justice done (CCMC 17.56.010).

The Variance requests required the scheduled public hearing for the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed Variance Permit shall be approved or denied (CCMC §17.56.010(F)), based on the following standards:

7.1. Exceptional and Extraordinary Circumstances (CCMC 17.56.010(A)) That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved;
This parcel has unique dimensions as it is not a standard rectangle. Neighboring cul-de-sac corner parcels appear to enjoy reduced setbacks due to the similar unique dimensions.

7.2. Necessary Property Right (CCMC 17.56.010(B))
That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
This parcel has unique dimensions as it is not a standard rectangle. Neighboring cul-de-sac corner parcels appear to enjoy reduced setbacks due to the similar unique dimensions.

VAR26-01_SR Page 14 of 22 August 20, 2026
Final packet page 104
N1 original PDF page 49 | Appendix page 76
City of Crescent City - Special Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: # 2

7.3. Public Welfare (CCMC 17.56.010(C))
That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located;
This parcel has unique dimensions as it is not a standard rectangle. Neighboring cul-de-sac corner parcels appear to enjoy reduced setbacks due to the similar unique dimensions.

7.4. General Plan (CCMC 17.56.010(D))
The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City;
The SF 2-6 General Plan land use designation principally permits "single family dwellings" at "densities range from two to six dwelling units per acre" as the intended uses "provides for low to moderate residential development within the urban boundary." This parcel has unique dimensions as it is not a standard rectangle. This parcel has unique dimensions as it is not a standard rectangle.

Neighboring cul-de-sac corner parcels appear to enjoy reduced setbacks due to the similar unique dimensions.

7.5. Public Hearing (CCMC 17.56.010(E))
That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above;
A Notice of Public Hearing was submitted to the Del Norte Triplicate newspaper (on 08/04/26) to be published (on 08/06/26) in print/online circulation and provided to the Commissioners (on 08/04/26). A similar Notice of Public Hearing was mailed (on 08/06/26) to the property owners within 300-ft of the project location (CCMC § 17.46.050) as required (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65090 & 65094).

The notice was also posted at the project location and on the City's website (https://www.crescentcity.org/PublicNotices). The planning commission is reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met (CCMC 17.56.010(F)).

7.6. REQUIRED FINDING BY THE COMMISSION:

The Planning Commission finds that the proposed variance requests satisfy the Variance Permit Review requirements (CCMC §S 17.56.010 (A through e)), in that the requests meet:
a) That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved (CCMC 17.56.010(A));
b) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question (CCMC 17.56.010(B)); August 20, 2026 Page 15 of 22 VAR26-01_SR
Final packet page 105
N1 original PDF page 50 | Appendix page 77
City of Crescent City - Special Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report - Agenda Item: #2
c) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located (CCMC 17.56.010(C));
d) The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City (CCMC 17.56.010(D));
e) That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above (CCMC 17.56.010(E)); and f) That the planning commission is reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met (CCMC 17.56.010(F)).

VAR26-01_SR Page 16 of 22 August 20, 2026
Final packet page 106
N1 original PDF page 67 | Appendix page 78

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY

PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Commission Members: Ray Walp, Chairperson * Kristine DeCossio, Vice-Chair Shawna Hyatt * Debra Perius * Paul Martinez CALIFORNI
Incorporated April 13, 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

CRESCENT CITY TO GRANT BRADEN BIEBER'S MINOR VARIANCE
PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR26-01) FOR REQUESTED REDUCED

FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Branden Bieber submitted a Minor Variance Permit (Application VAR26-01) for a requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development on a vacant lot within the R-1 zone (Low-Density Residential District) located at 140 Truman Court (APN 118-341-034); WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered this proposed project on this date at a duly noticed public hearing, staff report, and public testimony; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's Residential Single-Family 2-6 dwelling units (du) per acre (SF 2-6) land use designation, in that the proposed project:
a) Is categorized as principally permitted "single family dwellings" at "densities range from two to six dwelling units per acre" within the SF 2-6; b) Provides "for low to moderate residential development within the urban boundary" within the SF 2-6;
c) Is supported by the General Plan goal (1.F) and policies (1.A.2 & 1.F.2); and d) Is supported by the Housing Element policy HP-1.1.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project (with a Variance Permit) is consistent with the Crescent City's Low-Density Residential District (R-1) Zoning Code, in that the proposed project:
a) Is not located within the Coastal Zone and is not appealable to the Coastal Commission;
b) Is principally permitted as "single-family dwellings" (CCMC § 17.10.020(A)); c) Provides "living areas where development is limited to low-density concentrations of single-family dwellings" (CCMC § 17.10.010(A)); and d) Is subject to all zoning regulations (CCMC § 17.10.010(B)).

WHEREAS, Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plans and designs of structures satisfy the Site Plan & Architectural Review requirements (CCMC §S

17.46.010 & 17.46.035). in that the structures:
a) Are compatible, both in harmony and in appearance with the neighborhoods; b) Reduce negative impacts on adjacent properties, reduce the unnecessary Resolution No. PC2026-01 Page 1 of 3 August 20, 2026
Final packet page 107
N1 original PDF page 68 | Appendix page 79
MINOR VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR26-01)
For requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development
destruction of the environment and ground cover to avoid the creation of hazardous conditions and drainage problems;
c) Avoid monotonous and otherwise nonaesthetic development injurious to the overall community;
d) Provide a (means) to encourage full development of streets servicing the properties; e) Assures full installation of all public utilities necessary to serve such properties; and ) Is consistent with the applicable zoning, parking and landscaping, fencing, signage, street, sidewalk and public services requirements.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed variance requests satisfy the Variance Permit Review requirements (CCMC §§ 17.56.010 (A through E)), in that the requests meet:
a) That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved (CCMC 17.56.010(A));
b) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question (CCMC 17.56.010(B)); c) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located (CCMC 17.56.010(C));
d) The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City (CCMC 17.56.010(D));
e) That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above (CCMC 17.56.010(E)); and f) That the planning commission is reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met (CCMC 17.56.010(F)).

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3 § 15303(b) (New Construction of Small Structures), Class 5 § 15305(a). (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), and Class 32 § 15332 (In-fill Development) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed project:
a) Is located within City limits and is surrounded by existing development; b) Consists of a single-family dwelling residential development; c) Is considered a minor alternation to setback limitations with a slope less than 20% and does not result in any changes to residential use or exceed density; d) Requests variances for minor side and rear yard setbacks which does not result in a new parcel;
e) Is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's Residential - Single-Family (2-6 du per acre) (SF 2-6) land use designation and is consistent with the Crescent City's Low-Density Residential District (R-1) Zoning Code; 1) Is located in the City of Crescent City, is approximately 0.29 acres, and is located adjacent to existing residential uses;
August 20, 2026 Page 2 of 3 Resolution No. PC2026-14
Final packet page 108
N1 original PDF page 69 | Appendix page 80
MINOR VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR26-01)
For requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development
g) Is located on a site which has had past disturbances, contains existing development, and is surrounded by paved surfaces containing no habitat for h) Is within a developed residential area that already services residential use and has a limited potential to result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts; and
i) Is surrounded by and is already adequately served by utilities and public services.
j) No exceptions apply (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City grants Branden Bieber's Minor Variance Permit (Application VAR26-01) for requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development at the address above be approved subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment B):

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City held on this 20th day of August 2026, by the following polled vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Ray Walp, Chairperson
ATTEST:

Heather Welton, Community Development Specialist
Resolution No. PC2026-14 Page 3 of 3 August 20, 2026
Final packet page 109
N1 original PDF page 70 | Appendix page 81

THIS PAGE WAS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
Final packet page 110
N1 original PDF page 71 | Appendix page 82

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY CRESCENT

PLANNING COMMISSION & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Commission Members: Ray Walp, Chairperson * Kristine DeCossio, Vice-Chair Shawna Hyatt * Debra Perius * Paul Martinez CALIFORHIA
Incorporated April 13, 1854 web: www.crescentcity.org
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. PC2026-14

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

CRESCENT CITY TO GRANT BRADEN BIEBER'S MINOR VARIANCE
PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR26-01) FOR REQUESTED REDUCED

FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS FOR A PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, Branden Bieber submitted a Minor Variance Permit (Application VAR26-01) for a requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development on a vacant lot within the R-1 zone (Low-Density Residential District) located at 140 Truman Court (APN 118-341-034); WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered this proposed project on this date at a duly noticed public hearing, staff report, and public testimony; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's Residential Single-Family 2-6 dwelling units (du) per acre (SF 2-6) land use designation, in that the proposed project:
a) Is categorized as principally permitted "single family dwellings" at "densities range from two to six dwelling units per acre" within the SF 2-6; b) Provides "for low to moderate residential development within the urban boundary" within the SF 2-6;
c) Is supported by the General Plan goal (1.F) and policies (1.A.2 & 1.F.2); and d) Is supported by the Housing Element policy HP-1.1.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project (with a Variance Permit) is consistent with the Crescent City's Low-Density Residential District (R-1) Zoning Code, in that the proposed project:
a) Is not located within the Coastal Zone and is not appealable to the Coastal Commission;
b) Is principally permitted as "single-family dwellings" (CCMC § 17.10.020(A)); c) Provides "living areas where development is limited to low-density concentrations of single-family dwellings" (CCMC § 17.10.010(A)); and d) Is subject to all zoning regulations (CCMC § 17.10.010(B)).

WHEREAS, Planning Commission finds that the proposed site plans and designs of structures satisfy the Site Plan & Architectural Review requirements (CCMC §S

17.46.010 & 17.46.035). in that the structures:
a) Are compatible, both in harmony and in appearance with the neighborhoods; b) Reduce negative impacts on adjacent properties, reduce the unnecessary Resolution No. PC2026-01 Page 1 of 3 August 20, 2026
Final packet page 111
N1 original PDF page 72 | Appendix page 83
MINOR VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR26-01)
For requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development
destruction of the environment and ground cover to avoid the creation of hazardous conditions and drainage problems;
c) Avoid monotonous and otherwise nonaesthetic development injurious to the overall community;
d) Provide a [means] to encourage full development of streets servicing the properties; e) Assures full installation of all public utilities necessary to serve such properties; and Is consistent with the applicable zoning, parking and landscaping, fencing, signage, street, sidewalk and public services requirements.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed variance requests satisfy the Variance Permit Review requirements (CCMC §S 17.56.010 (A through E)), in that the requests meet:
a) That there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of conditions applicable to the property involved (CCMC 17.56.010(A));
b) That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question (CCMC 17.56.010(B)); c) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located (CCMC 17.56.010(C));
d) The granting of such variances will not adversely affect the general plan for Crescent City (CCMC 17.56.010(D));
e) That a public hearing wherein the applicant is heard and in which he substantiates all of the conditions cited above (CCMC 17.56.010(E)); and f) • That the planning commission is reviewing such requests and hearing the evidence finds that conditions of subsections A through E of this section have been met (CCMC 17.56.010(F)).

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project is determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 3 § 15303(b) (New Construction of Small Structures), Class 5 § 15305(a). (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), and Class 32 § 15332 (In-fill Development) of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed project:
a) Is located within City limits and is surrounded by existing development; b) Consists of four dwelling unit multi-family residential structure; c) Is considered a minor alternation to setback limitations with a slope less than 20% and does not result in any changes to residential use or exceed density; d) Requests variances for minor side and rear yard setbacks which does not result in a new parcel;
e) Is consistent with the Crescent City General Plan's Residential - Single-Family (2-6 du per acre) (SF 2-6) land use designation and is consistent with the Crescent City's Low-Density Residential District (R-1) Zoning Code; • Is located in the City of Crescent City, is approximately 0.29 acres, and is located adjacent to existing residential uses;
August 20, 2026 Page 2 of 3 Resolution No. PC2026-14
Final packet page 112
N1 original PDF page 73 | Appendix page 84
VINOR VARIANCE PERMIT (APPLICATION VAR26-01,
or requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residentia development
g) Is located on a site which has had past disturbances, contains existing development, and is surrounded by paved surfaces containing no habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species;
h) Is within a developed residential area that already services residential use and has a limited potential to result in significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts; and
i) Is surrounded by and is already adequately served by utilities and public services.
)) No exceptions apply (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2).

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City grants Branden Bieber's Minor Variance Permit (Application VAR26-01) for requested reduced front and rear setbacks for a proposed single-family residential development at the address above be approved subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment B):

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Crescent City held on this 20th day of August 2026, by the following polled vote.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Ray Walp, Chairperson
ATTEST:

Heather Welton, Community Development Specialist
Resolution No. PC2026-14 Page 3 of 3 August 20, 2026
Final packet page 113
B1 | Original PDF page 37 | Appendix page 91

CITY OF CRESCENT CITY

REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA ITEM: #3

STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: Thursday, October 12, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department, Planning & Zoning Ethan Lawton, City Planner / Consultant
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Proposed 162-unit residential-only development (Site Plan & Architectural Design Review)
APPLICATION NUMBER: AR23-12
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
APPLICANT/OWNER:

SSF Battery Point LP
REPRESENTATIVE:

Bill Rice
PROPERTY LOCATION:

Address not yet assigned
Crescent City, CA 95531
APNs: 118-440-021-000 & -022-000
EXISTING PARCEL SIZE:
1: +/- 1.15 acres / +/- 50,093 sf
2: +/- 4.33 acres / +/- 188.614 sf
= +/- 5.48 acres / +/- 238,707 sf
PROJECT SIZE:

4.98 acres / 216,928 sf Figure 1: Existing Project Parcels ParcelQuest (September 2023)
SECTION 2: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed 162 unit residential-only development:

1. State Density Bonus Law requirements for 100% Affordable Housing (Gov. Code §65915) based on its ability to meet all required findings and standards.

2. AR23-11 (Site Plan & Architectural Design Review) multiple dwelling (CCMC §17.16.080) based on its ability to meet all required findings and standards.

AR23-12 Page 1 of 25 October 12, 2023
B1 | Original PDF page 67 | Appendix page 92
KFA

ARCHITECTURE / FOR LOS ANGELES
Community Outreach meeting, brighter colors will be focused at key areas - such as entries and community areas.

Security & Fire & Life Safety:

Two onsite building managers will have units in the buildings. One for the senior building, and one for the family. Onsite management uniquely benefits the project and residents with onsite care and a fellow resident that shares concerns for the community. The buildings will be secured for residents, and security cameras will be located through the courtyard of the site.

The walkway along the south property line will also provide fire access. The buildings will be fully sprinkled.

Affordability: All Federal, State and Local Funding Approvals Received The project has applied for and received federal, state, and local approval on the following applications.

Federal - Low Income Housing Tax Credits approved August 23, 2023, by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC), and Tax-Exempt bond funding by the California Debt Limitation Allocation Committee (COLAC)
State - In January 2023, the Project received an award of S7.5 million in California's Housing and Community Development (HCD) Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG). In June 2023, it was awarded California State Tax Credits and S4 million in Mixed-Income Program funds from the California Housing Finance Agency (CAL-HFA).

Local - The project was awarded in December 2022, a commitment for 70 units of Project Based Vouchers from a public RFP from the Crescent City Housing Authority. It has received all of its approvals for financing and will need to close on its financing by February 19, 2024.

CEQA: Class 32 Categorical Exemption Can Be Used:

John McClendon, Esq. performed (and separately transmitted) a comprehensive analysis of the Battery Point Apartments Project's adherence to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, as part of this submission for Planning Approval. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that the project aligns with the stipulated CEQA requirements and guidelines, leading to a well-informed decision by the Planning Department.

After a thorough review of the provided project details, it is evident that significant actions have already been undertaken by both the City and its Housing Authority. The Project's history includes the authorization of a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking suitable privately owned properties, approval of a letter of support for the proposed affordable housing development known as "Battery Point Apartments," and the selection of a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Proposal, among other actions. These actions, recorded in various City Council agendas and resolutions, reflect the earnest commitment towards the development's success.

One crucial aspect of this analysis involves the CEQA review process, which entails a three-step evaluation of a project's environmental impact. The analysis supports the City as the "Lead Agency" for CEQA review. This 3 B1 | Original PDF page 95 | Appendix page 93

LEIBOLD MCCLENDON & MANN

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
9841 Irvine Center DRIVE, SUITE 230
Irvine, CALIFORNIA 92618
(949) 585-6300
JOHN G. McCLENDON
[email protected]
August 26, 2023
VIA EMAIL ONLY - [email protected]
Mr. William E. Rice
SSF Battery Point LP
638 Camino De Los Mares Suite H130 -467
San Clemente, CA 92673
RE: CRESCENT CITY-CEOA COMPLIANCE FOR BATTERY POINT APARTMENTS PROJECT Dear Bill:

I am providing this letter in response to your request for guidance regarding Crescent City's proper compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq: "CEQA") and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.: "Guidelines"); a prerequisite to its approval of the above-referenced Project.

Since you may wish to share this analysis with City staff, I waive the attorney work product privilege, and I have also attached my resume.

Actions on the Project to Date
Based on my review of the underlying facts here, the City and its Housing Authority have taken the following actions regarding the Project:

City Council Agenda, December 20, 2021, item 19: Housing Authority authorized publication of a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking privately owned properties within Del Norte County that qualify to participate in CCHA's Housing Choice/Project Based Voucher Program.

City Council Agenda, August 15, 2022, item 15: Housing Authority authorized the Mayor to sign a letter of support for the proposed affordable housing development "Battery Point Apartments" to be included in Synergy Community Development Corp. and Step Forward Communities' ("Synergy") Infill and Infrastructure Grant (IIG) application to the California Department B1 | Original PDF page 96 | Appendix page 94
Mr. Willaim E. Rice
CEQA for Crescent City Battery Park Apartments
August 26, 2023