Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weed council advances ordinance to bar extended‑stay hotels exceeding 30 days in first reading
Summary
The City of Weed moved forward with an ordinance (first reading) that would ban hotels and short‑term rentals from hosting stays longer than 30 days unless otherwise permitted; motel owners urged changes, citing cost and operational impacts and questions about transitional housing and TOT collection.
The City of Weed on first reading moved forward with a zoning ordinance that would prohibit extended‑stay hotels — defined in the draft as any lodging that allows stays longer than 30 days and that meets certain amenity thresholds — from operating in city limits unless they receive a conditional use permit. The council voted to introduce the ordinance as written and left open the option of returning it to the Planning Commission before a second reading.
The proposed amendment, forwarded by the Planning Commission, would categorize any property that routinely allows stays beyond 30 days as an "extended‑stay hotel." Staff said those facilities would be expected to offer amenities commonly associated with long‑term lodging, such as laundry and kitchenette facilities; the ordinance text sets amenity and room‑size thresholds that staff described as the planning commission's recommended standards.
Motel owner Bamik Modi told the council the rules as drafted would be impractical for many of Weed’s small, older properties. "These requirements are written in a way that is really, really harmful," Modi said, identifying himself as owner of the Hilo Motel and the Townhouse Motel and saying his properties have small rooms and exterior corridors that cannot be retrofitted to meet the draft standards. He asked the council to send the ordinance back to staff for further work and to consider shared‑laundry or shared‑kitchen alternatives.
An employee of a larger local hotel added that some guests who stay more than 30 days are construction workers or other temporary project staff who cannot reasonably relocate for short projects. City staff said the ordinance stems in part from recurring operational and code enforcement problems at several hotels, including unpaid transient occupancy tax (TOT) liabilities and refusals to comply with audit requests. Staff noted one account in arrears for roughly $86,000, including penalties, and said the city has options to pursue collection.
Council members debated exemptions and practical enforcement. Several members suggested the conditional use permit process as a way to allow compliant properties to host extended stays while preserving the city’s ability to revoke permission if problems recur. The city attorney advised that substantive changes (for example, allowing extended stays by permit with detailed conditions) would require referral back to the Planning Commission and additional review.
The vote to introduce the ordinance passed on first reading by roll call. Mayor Perham and council members who voted in favor said the first reading does not foreclose further review or amendments before a final vote.
What happens next: The ordinance was introduced on first reading; council members said they could request additional clarifications and return the ordinance to the Planning Commission for more detailed language about conditional uses, transitional housing or project‑based exceptions prior to second reading.
