City Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to welcome everyone to the um city council joint work session with design review and planning commission. Call the meeting to order and ask for approval of the agenda. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, first we'll have public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make public comments? And is there anyone online? No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we'll go ahead and start the meeting um with our discussion item of the code for the right.

I think I'm going to share my screen if it works. Great. This first time I get to see your off perspect. Yeah. Okay. Let's see.

Robert, who's online with from our different committees? I see

there's

so uh welcome everybody. It's great to be back. The reason wanted to start with this slide. It says 2021 going on it because that's when we started this discussion in a similar like this back the old place. Uh but you see the name of what or what that slideshow was entitled Mind the Gap back on seven September 8th 2021. And uh so we have now rewrite 2026 is what we're calling this uh move. Okay. And I want to start with this because I still think it's the guiding principles of why we're doing this. And uh so I always want to touch base on this and I will read it because I think it's that important. The purpose of the can comprehensive plan is to control and promote development which is most desirable to the majority of the residents and property owners of the city. It is not the intention of the plan to encourage growth or to stop development. Rather, it is the intention of the people who have prepared the plan, including the planning commission and interested citizens to establish a set of policies and guidelines which will allow for development to occur while preserving those qualities which brought them to the community or made the community what is today. The character of Canon Beach in Midley is a difficult concept to define. It is made up of many factors. Some of these include a beautiful coastal location, the surrounding natural environment, a diversity of people, and a friendly small town atmosphere. Last, but my favorite, I think, of any comprehensive plan I've ever read in my entire life, and I've read a lot. Canon Beach is not without controversy. It is a community in which citizens are concerned enough to become all involved

in all phases of city affairs and this involvement often leads to conflict. The intention of the plan is to attempt to draw together the concerns of the entire community. While the policy and guidelines recommendations are not unanimously agreed upon, they represent a statement which the city can use to guide its future grower. I think, you know, to me that that part about the citizens want to get involved in every part of affairs is what brought me back here. And, you know, it does it's a it's unique to this community. And I I think it's one of those things we've always wanted to keep. But I want you guys to know what does that say down there? Where does that that little citation at the end? 1979 was when that was written. And when I came in saying, "Okay, we're going to go from reviewing and redoing the comprehensive plan, then we'll do a code audit, and then I was, it was the coldest room I'd ever been in." No, you're not touching the comprehensive plan. And we're still with that. So, back in 1975, box office, top of the box office was what? Superman. That was 1979. So, think back to 1979 and who and where and what you were in 1979. Since 1979, we've had Superman 2, we've had Superman 3, we've had Supergirl, we've had Superman 4, we've had Superman Returns, we've had even the Man of We've had 16 different movies of Superman since 1979, but we still have the same power playing. things change and with that gasp okay gas form if we don't update our codes and things that follow we can keep those same guiding purposes and principles but we need to update and change as things change around us this is the slide I shown since 19 this is

back in 2021 this is a slide I used in that same showing the different citations by each year in other words amendments to the comprehensive PL since 1979. And so 50% or more is still that's what we started with in 1979. And I think if you looked at our ordinances and our uh subdivision and zoning code, what we find the majority still is that 1979 language. And so I talked about in that 2021 with Marcy and everybody coming on board, we talked about identifying the gaps. So in codes, our zoning, our subdivision, uh they're just the basis of many codes that play out that combine and overlap. Everything from state codes to federal code, fire protection, building codes. So all those things play out to the buildings you see around you. Okay. But what we identified back then and we've been talking about uh since the last four or five years, what were the big gaps that we found? Current zoning standards don't provide the village fair. Uh we know those little alleyways that we love right across on the block behind us and some of these other places that scale the that feel uh of the spaces of our downtown is what gives us that that special beach village character. But the codes as we say over and time again it just doesn't get us what we're after. Uh this is from the uh image that we ran with our drone footage and just showing that all that that we take for granted as you know that village character those those buildings across the street from us. Well the reason that they give us that village character is because see those big

parking lots out there that was in the 80s and 90s they allowed that to be used as their offspring parking requirements and and we're still dealing with that. Second, the other big grab, current code doesn't provide affordable housing. This is language from the strategic plan back in 2016. And this is a memo that uh u Bruce drafted as we began this uh talking about what has developed since 2018. And I those blue are my responses to that or Bruce's responses to the questions. We had said in afford in that strategic plan that by July 1st, 2018 that we would have 25 units of affordable housing uh by 2018 that would accommodate a variety of household sizes and be consistent. We developed sear that's eight of them back in 2019. We haven't done anything since. and they said by even December 31st of 2018 they wanted 10% increase in long-term rental by then. We don't even track long-term rentals. We have no metrics to compare you or give you any feedback on that. Then by the 2020 they wanted to add 25 additional affordable units in the city and we haven't reached that goal yet. It's not to say we haven't done things. It's not to say we haven't. We do have the construction excise tax that's accumulating funds. You guys have set aside funds for affordable housing.

[clears throat]

We've drafted the housing changes that will be uh zoning ordinance 252 that have been through the planning recommended back in uh and it's coming to you next month today will increase housing accessibility to persons who live and work in Canon Beach. Enable more housing overall. Encourage a greater mix of smaller dwellings. Make it easier for an applicant to get a permit for an ADU or duplex. encourage and incentivize long-term tenure housing uh more variety of housing and direct from the comprehensive plan encourage the development of housing which meets the needs of a variety of age and income groups as well as special needs. The next one current architectural standards weren't adequate. Our earn architectural standards are right there. Uh telling you that all single family dwellings uh have to at least two of these things right there. Either dormers, more than two gables, recess entries, covered porch entry, bay window, building offset, deck with railing or planters and benches or a garage port or other accessory structures. Jay can tell you that's not very difficult to do. I mean, you got a garage that's you've got one of the two boxes already ticked and then you uh put your entryway in just that protected 6 in. You've already checked off both of our architectural standards. So, what you have out there and we love and you know the shingles and all that that nothing to do with what we see or or what comes through us. we uh say over and over again that's not from any of code that we have that is just a a norm and then uh three um the next gap would

be or number four sorry is current standards don't protect historic cottages okay so those small cottages uh that are still in existence uh you know we have nothing really to protect that in the current language so Marcy and I discuss you know what's a strategy what's the game plan I talked about in the council retreat with you guys is that you know you guys have things coming at you from all over what is a path forward a timeline that we're going to adapt to say here's a strategy for doing this to get these things done in the next couple years well I broke it down and Marcy and I broke it down into three really packages the first one the housing we'll be going through uh in the next few months here which it talks and we'll get into each one of these in a second in each of these others uh elements. Second housekeeping this these are nonp policy non kind of uh difficulties uh but and then we'll go into a third package which called policy priorities which we could do as one full package or we could break down into what I've done AB and C here. So just to talk about a few of these. So housing clearing object. You guys know the accessory dwellings right now. If you come in with an new accessory dwelling unit, what did C say? New dwellings that contain accessory dwelling or the exterior nullification existing dwelling needs to go to what? DRB. It's subjective review. That language should not there should not be in existence. There's many more clear and objective kind of language that's in there that should not remain there because it was changed housing needed housing uh will require to um and yeah uh we are have this set up for discussion

the way we uh I we've done this Marcy and I I want to kind of go through this but we will talk about all these and that's why we have it in this discussion. You're free to interrupt me during your message. Just raise your hand, but I thought I'd outline it and then Carson's going to talk about different parts of it and then we'll let you guys have a conversation over just a real quick question. Talk about mention affordable housing always get so confused when I think of affordable housing subsidized housing. Are you talking about the workforce housing or

affordable and is how is how I'm looking now when we we bring the ordinances and the language before you it has more specifics on that right now I'm generally talking about affordable and workable okay and so um uh and back then I don't even think they broke that language down back when that 26 plan was developed they were just talking about having affordable housing because that is a generalized term there. Uh so uh I want to also talk about uh those clear objective but also size size was also an issue right that's part of that other component of the housing changes and so as you can see this is a a graph that I did back uh with housing sizes back in 2021 in 1920 uh of the units that were built during that time period 90% % or under 2,000 square ft in size. Okay. As of 2020, less than 50% or over 2,000 square feet in size. And you can see that red line, that's what I'm talking about. That red and blue, those are the ones that are 2,000 below. And that you'll see that yellow and that growing range from 2,00 to 2,00 2,999 square feet. That's our if you will that's the sweet spotlight we have done. Next up was uh what we're talking about what Lisa Lisa just brought up there is that you know clear objective size the public benefits or workforce affordable type of homes. This is a graph that I did also back in that time period showing our workforce. your start dates

from the left to right uh from 1980 up to 2020 showing the start dates. The blue dots are uh city employees. Uh the red dots are city department heads and you'll see uh this was done I have not updated it since coming back but that this was back in 2021 when I did this chart and you can see that trend line and I think we all know as Robert has to drive back up the story after this meeting that yes that's what happens we're commuting longer distances and farther uh with each hour in Azar our um public works and all those others that have been here for 20 30 years and they laid out where are those folks going to live and that's that's a real concern of uh the community and so housekeeping that's that second packet so you know the first packet I said is the housing one that's coming through you in the next month and you'll start to get to work on that the next is housekeeping that is the policy that Marcy not like to put together a lot of them I gave an example of a language on lot coverage which you know is still my nemesis uh and it doesn't really it's it's a different interpretation of a lot coverage calculation than any place I've ever worked with and and I think it could be very simplified and and some of just one of the many things in the language that I made edits to you de Marcy Then Steve came on board, made his at Roberts, made some, and then I've come back and made more. So we have a ones lined up that we would like to do that. You know what it does is, you know, when that gap keeps growing

between what the language should be and what we have to deal with each day, puts the city more and more aggressive to move, to appeals, to all that language. Um finally uh we'll talk about uh the third package. So we broke the third package down into three different areas. The first one I talk about and I did in this priority of design review changes first uh and that's because we talked about this back in 2020 even before we started 2021. Uh it's discussed in the code audit. We had talked to the design review board and the planning commission about scope of review. They when I showed that one about the cottages and and others, the shingles, this is the house that came up back around that time period and people said, "How did this get approved? It's, you know, it doesn't even look like Canon Beach at the time." Okay. And you know, so I had to say, "Well, the code we, you know, the code this is what the code gets you." Okay. And so the scope of review was they were saying is it simply just as it is now um which is commercial properties pretty much or non-s single family duplexes triplexes. Should those be the scope of review or should we extend that to some single family homes or and throughout the city? And so uh and so we we were talking about uh for instance and we brought up as an example and did some research and work for this for the uh to talk about the unit size and everything. Uh but you know to keep those cottages in the presidential. We talked about possibly a historic kind of cottage overlay district that would be in those uh that

that area in the presidentials. And I identified by these are under 1,800 square foot pre-1970 lots at that time. So those were that was back in 22 and160 tax lots at that time were under 1,800 square f feet and built prior to 1970 of the 390 single family tax lots from first to galler. Uh and then across the city, we looked at that there was 485 tax sites, 1,800 square ft built prior to 1970 of the 1,800 residential across the city. But you said, you know, what is the scope of review? What should the DRD reviewing as part of that? That was part of this discussion. Second, what is the procedures? Right now we have this language in the DRB code which is another one of my favorites that says the city it says revisions of approved plans and I want to note that title that's revisions of group plans and talks about construction documents drawings and specifications and things like that and it says uh the city and the chair of the DRB shall review the proposed modification to determine whether it constitutes a major or minor revision of the approved plans. And so when you get to that section B there highlighted in blue, it says minor modifications. Minor modifications are those which result in an insignificant change in the improved plane. The following are examples of minor modifications. And it gives you three examples. Limited dimensional or location changes to building elements such as windows or doors. Changes in building materials where only a limited area is affected. Substitution of landscape materials. And so, you know, that's all it mentions. And so, if somebody wanted to come in and they've got a uh let's take that, you know, that when they put up that big uh uh plastic

wrap around the building there and they were redoing the siding. If that came in uh right now, that would go before our DRB chair. And the DRB chair, even if it's just life for life, they're just doing a life for life exchange, right? Because let's just say that's a asbestous and they need to get that out of there and do it because they got leaks and stuff or and they want to do that kind of repair on a commercial building. Uh should they have to go through the entire DRB process to do that and especially if it's raining you know you got an emergency type situation and so we have a modification where it can come for the DRB chair DRB chair if it's life like detects anything we call it a minor and go forward with it. So that's that's what we were calling a procedural kind of questions. Can this be broken down as in this major minor and then possibly there's a certain level of light fertilizing those kind of things that somebody putting in a new HVAC unit. It's going to be on the roof. Well, that still supposedly goes through the entire DRB review board if you don't have some kind of minor revision. So should there be that certain ones and just go through administrative approval and then other mild ones that would just be administrative but the DRB chair signed off on those which could be another classification and then full DRB review for major and so that's that's what we're talking about procedural kind of qualification other communities I've worked in and been associated with have these kind of things where there's administrative adjustments to things. This is new for 87 South Carolina. Uh but you know, they're broken down into different things and different avenues for getting this done in a more streamlined fashion and as objective as we possibly can.

Uh and then uh signage of course end of each signage. Uh we're going to be doing a work session next Thursday as part of PRB on u signage code. So, and and and that's in hopes that what we come up with tonight, this kind of gain the strategy that those uh their comments from our DRB work sessions and their review will lead to this package that will uh come to you eventually at the planning and the uh board of commission is commission what city council back anyhow uh you guys know are may not know and some of you should know is that if it's not a wooden sign or etched in glass on a window then that has to go to the DoD for Ruby. That's the way the language currently reads. Okay. And all freestanding signs. And so they that that's how it's done. This is you know these are the things that you see in Canon Beach. Uh just showing it a couple kind of a little tear in the eye sleeping monkey right there. But you know, but now we have new signs, new ways of doing sign have evolved since 1979. And how do we as staff as administrators, staff, and then the DRB, you know, what how do we handle that? How do we, you know, window signage, new kind of techn materials have changed? And so, how do we handle that moving forward? If you've got a uh material that will last three times as long or as forever and and it looks like wood, do you still only demand wood? Currently, it's only. So

anyhow, uh that's what we're going to be talking about at the award session and hopefully that will lead into this third package. Finally, um partner or second please partner and we know this is the language from our licensing code talks about the off street parking maintenance fee that we no longer do. And even in our off street parking, this is from taken from off street parking l which is in our zoning code. It says it is unlawful to charge a fee of any kind for the use of off street parking spaces provided to meet the off street parking requirements specified in our code section. So that's where we are at right now with off street parking in the commercial areas and we are limited and this is what I showed you you guys at the council retreat. This is 43,818 in that block right behind you there of of retail space which if you divide that by 400 you got 110 cars to park. I cannot count 110 cars apart in that block. And so, you know, they're going somewhere or they they were diverted somewhere to qualify for those villages. But we love that village carrier. So, we've got to figure that out. That nexus has got to be figured out. Um, and so, uh, I wanted to show you guys, you all know what the new new urbanism, uh, form based codes transact, if you guys ever seen this, I pro I've shown it to the DRB before and I think the planning commission at one point when we're talking about maybe moving towards stormbbased code back in 2021, um, what it does is it it identifies

what they call the rural preserve to the far left and then it moves in form and transsects those that T1, T2 rural reserve, T3 suburban, T4 general urban, T5 urban center, T6 urban core, T7 special district. And so it moves in this fashion of uh rural to urban, right? One thing I'd like you to notice though, and this is why I think we want to talk about this in context and why I put it all together in the same package of policy decisions in that third package is that when you talk about rural to urban, look at this drawing uh in better detail. Uh it does not show any park cars. It's got a few people in the streets traveling around in nice little city areas, but it doesn't show any cars or parking lots except for the ones in the straight downtown areas. And so what we do with cars is very important and very dependent on environmental matters. Okay, it's has a lot to do with that urban rural to urban continue. This is from the sideline institute. It's kind of the foundational mental housing tools uh also in a kind of almost a transsec if you look at it. But here's ways to get mental housing. You know that u Manzanita and Til County and all the jurisdiction down there have passed all the legislations to get the middle housing right from accessory dwelling units to cottage clusters to the duplex triplex quadlex type thing. But if you look at this also, what you don't see too much of is what? Parking. Because what do they say? Parking makes off street parking option. And that's

what they in most of many of these communities that adopt mental housing and changing mental housing legislation, they make it either optional or they get rid of us in some jurisdictions even. Um and so uh finally this is showing the same thing another kind of form based code new urbanism approach showing the cottage cluster and the cottage core the different kind of middle housing forms in a formbbased code kind of uh method. But what I liked about this one, it also shows that retail has to be looked at in the same way. Commercial has to be looked at from just tents, food board, trucks, trailers, pocks, small retail mixed use. It is a similar type of thing that to get these kind of businesses up and running and they takes different forms. And of course, I also know this, they don't show any order. And so uh finally in the connection between parking and environmental is this 68% I believe are second homes in that big blue sector of that pie chart in the bottom left that's us that's seasonal homes okay and so uh when we talk about and the reason I put it here is when we talk about all of these things whether it's affordable housing whether it's commercial and development uh we're running out of room not just in canv we're running out of room for everything we talk about affordable workforce housing in seaside where we're running out of that space in Gearhart

Warrington we're running out of that space up the coast and so we consider where is affordable and workforce housing going. It should not just be, you know, we're happy with more apartments being built because that does not guarantee that they're going to stay affordable or workforce housing. I guarantee you that the majority that are being built right now in seaside and growing crazily right now that market will not keep or where everyone believes it's going to keep them. It will keep growing. I have come from the land of the mountain towns Aspen and uh Sun Valley and Breenriidge. It won't stay unless you go deed restriction and unless you get that uh buying in from the community now because they'll not it's going to disappear and you lose that opportunity or your R3 or your multifamily lands will be gone and you may have a lot of apartments and but the market has not solved this. It will not with land prices the way they are will not solve it. And so we've got to come up with a uh how to work on that. And these are environmental questions. Okay, that's what I wanted to tell you that these are environmental issues because it boils down to this right here. Okay, USDA. This shows you how much property is in urban areas compared to crop lands, grassland, forage trees, uh special uses, miscellaneous other land. Only 3% are urban or city lands and special uses that 14% rural parks,

wilderness, defense in industrial, rural transportation and farmsteads. It has not changed. Urban land has actually shrunk. Okay? You know, our state pretty much the same land mixture since 1950. It's a it's it's the special Eric Houston that is grown uh and you know agricultural even kind of stayed the same but I want us to know that uh when we talk about uh and I bring this back up from the city council retreat is that in Boston metropolitan area where they did this study like many across the country is not producing enough housing to meet the demand. This insufficient supply has led to exploding housing cost, pricing out middle and lowass home buyers renders for many neighborhoods. Economists blame land use regulations while public opinion researchers focus on not in my backyard sentence. In other words, it's the neighbors that are blocking. So, our research shows it's a combination of the two, the land use regulations and the neighbors. And so, you know, just like I said at the city council retreat and those that come to speak at meetings and participatory politics uh about land use decisions and those regulations once they get through and do their conditional use permit when they go through their subjective requirements at the DRB or whatever, then it's the neighbors that don't want them there. And so uh you know this is why the state has jumped in and done the uh clear objective and and done the needed housing uh components because the local land uses were not allowing uh needed housing to be constructed. There's also this environment environmental local

environment that are growing and growing. We increased the wetland 50 foot buffer. This is showing just a certain segment of our area uh in Canon Beach is showing this is just looking at wetland and stream corridor buffles. Um does not include the uh other aspects like slopes or um ocean front flood plane other other elements. But this is something I did back in 2021 or 22 with you guys showing you uh that white kind of uh transucent uh is wetlands or slopes lands that are constrained by wetlands or slope uh what I call environmental constraints. This is what's built out in uh South Can Beach from Fresh Foods down in 1919. The white as they pop up are the built properties. This is 1929 I believe. Let me see. Got 29. This is 1939. This is 1949. 1959 1969 79 89 99 09 and I didn't get 19. I got 18 left. Anyhow, this shows you how much property is still left to build. We don't have much left to build. And so when we talk about housing, a lot of our housing, the old thing that is going to happen has got to be done on um you know, smaller lots, re

u rebuilds and and other things. But that's what we're faced with. And we also need to think regionally about, you know, our workforce and where they come from. But those are all environmental concerns. Uh second up, trees. So when I look at these environmental concerns, what are the environmental concerns that have come up? Trees came up uh even before I left. They were a top. And so there's been a tree ordinance. I know draft have been brought toward uh and so that's that's one of your environmental concerns. I want you to look at urban forestry suggest 330 rule. Uh you should be able to see three visible trees from every home. I don't think we have that problem. You should see 30% tree canopy in every neighborhood. You should be able to within 300 meters walk to the nearest car park car green space. These are the urban forestry measures from US today which adopted from I think our Nordic Institute. It's a big European thing. That's why I think it was the 300 meters. Uh and but that's about 1,000 ft. So when you look back at that, you know, what we were looking at before this a thousand feet is pretty much from him to the beach. That's so I I doubt there's a very any place within the city of Canada that you're not 300 meters from a green space or a park uh or 30% canopy tree cover uh or uh three trees visible. Um finally uh ocean front structures. That's another uh one that's come up. Uh

just showing what ocean front protection uh and not having it can do. Uh third, dark sky. Dark sky. This is a uh graphic I put together for brochure for dark sky back before I left uh showing what our current allows in Canon Beach. Uh and then fourth, dunes. Uh, another one, the very first project I worked on when I came to clean back in 2018, uh, was the update for forward management plan. And so there's been some suggestions to update that. And so I leave you or I hand it off to Marcy to talk about that structure. you know, three packages, moving three packages through housing, nonpolicy, what I'm calling the housekeeping, and then the policy is just moving forward. I think we have a good grasp on all of these things on language that we could develop from this. Uh what I would like us to discuss tonight, Marson can lead that is kind of how do we get our hands around this? Are these the right order? Uh because one thing that I stressed back in 2021 and I will continue to stress with Oregon land use and you guys know it. It takes a long time to get it through the process. Every time you get deferred by a pet project, it's going to cost everything else at least uh you know 16 18 months because that's just how long it takes to do it. And so if you can package as many of the components into one and do that or take your time doing that but put it into one so you don't have to keep coming back reicing

re going out it's costly it's time consuming uh and I think you know I have worked on once that have broken it down for an entire UDL which is the subdivision uh zoning And you know they've broken it down into three different sections pretty much similar to this. Environmental is the last one. uh they led with the housing remains of course and then the third but we've already done the reorganization right and then we've done the so let's let's get our house in order and set priorities tonight and the timeline for getting the rest of this done and then you know we can have plenty of discussion on those details you know when we're talking about affordable housing we're talking about 60 to 120 Are we talking about them? That's for later. Now I want to talk about, you know, what are the ways to get this through because we need to change these uh ordinances uh and and I can point to any commercial developments that are coming into this town and or future development. And to think that every single development that comes in um is also you know uh often we we're losing space because we're losing not just uh uh the opportunity but the opportunity for more workforce housing for future workers in this. Uh so do you have any question before I pass you? Oh no. Um from a couple you stated one was maybe I misunderstood it. You said that Uber and Rams have not grown basically the same.

Yeah. Not it hasn't as a percentage of our lands has not it hasn't changed. I mean it's it's increased a bit for but compared to um some of the other categories. No, I can show you. I'm just kidding. Just look at look at G Beach landmark. Has it grown? Well, no, it has nowhere to go. Right. But but a a city like Portland, for example, has grown incredibly. All the urban birds keep moving and moving and moving up. More and more farmland has been taken over by huge housing developments. Sherry Road. We used to be able to go to horse farms and pick blueberries. Now it's all

it has grown but it has not grown as much as we perceive it has grown compared to the rest of the country and how much land there is. It is not that much growth. Isn't that one of the reasons that people like Northwest is because there's so much

and and I I don't want to I I am not debating whether we're having broke or sprawl. I mean I I agree with you. I I am a proponent of having less but we don't do that unless we have denser cities right we have current language right now if you think of well 5,000 square foot lots that's 8 units per acre okay um city's function at best 16 units per acre so that's our team zone that's what we have if everyone had a home and an ADU you have 16 units So density is not that dense is what I'm trying to say. But you know what the average American city is in density? It's around two to three units per acre. You know, even the big cities, right? So I agree with you that the whole heart of Lisa, we should not be increasing boundaries. We should keep our boundaries, but we should require density because that helps us all better. Just ask our student districts, right? our water. We don't want to lay in tight and good land. We want to be able to just uh you know, you know, have efficient landings is what we're talking about. And that's what this is about environment. That's why I'm saying the more you push people to drive from Atoria, that's more traffic on the road, more parking you need because I didn't even do what she said. The fun thing I want to do next for you guys for the Austrian parking discussion is how many workers do we have working on there? Do that. Do the math for 200 square feet for every person that 80 to 90% that drive every door. That is a ton of parking and and we complain about uh you know it's even in the parking plan and the parking surveys and stuff. Well, you know that's

who's using all of our own street parking are the employees. Well, they got to park somewhere. You know, that's that's what we're down to. And so we've got to consider these things as when when we talk about development is that let's incorporate it into that discussion is that parking is environmental issue because like Lisa just got done saying uh you know if if you extend and sprawl which is what you're going to be doing if you if you want to you know limit it and limit and limit you constrain constraint constraint you're pushing more development by because people are going to go somewhere because they love us. So they're going to they're going to continue to come. So we need to develop plans for uh working with them. So anyhow, uh I'll pass it off to Marcy and we can we can have these discussions. going back. No. presentation You couldn't see it would have been very

out. Anybody need one realize that? It's just good to get them in now.

Well, I wanted to talk to you about um

We can't hear down here. We can't hear. I want to talk about all the things that we've done as part of the code audit project and the code rewrite and I've been working on this out here. So is the middle of the table. Oh, we can move in. Well, not that word. her daughter. Oh, she's all she's all she's

This would have be easier if if like Well, I guess we're

I need goes outside. Oh, that's an engineering issue. Let's try this. Can you hear me? No. Perfect. Great. A lot.

So, I want to talk about what we've done on the code audit and the code rewrite. They're they were two separate projects. vote audit started in 2021 and like I was saying I I don't know if I should be if that would be a mark of shame that we've been doing this 2021 but or not but these things do take a long time and I want to kind of uh show the impressive amount of things that we have a period of time. So I want to talk about project scope and purpose and then some of the code audit recommendations that came out and then how we moved into the code rewrite project by that time we were working Jeff had departed for a little while and now he's back and so just to move to the next slide what did I do with fully Is this uh is it this little button here?

Yes, it's working.

Yes. Okay. So, the very first step in our process was the code audit. It was a top tobottom audit of the um community development ordinance and we were looking for things that were gap some of these gaps that had already been identified between the village character and the parking requirements and the need for housing and and the comprehensive plan language which says housing for every um person every kind of person. Um so we were already aware of those potential gaps and then we the really the purpose of our audit was to look at the code provisions that were preventing the city from meeting those village character or comprehensive plan goals. Um and then we developed a code rewrite tasks and strategy out of that. And I want to emphasize that we as a result of the code audit work, we identified kind of two different areas of two different kinds of work. One was the housekeeping issues where we were going through the entire code and trying to fix things like outofdate citations to Oregon or by statutes or um meet some new code requirements, some new state requirements. um to reorganizing the code so that it worked better and there wasn't duplication in places and also that involved um bringing the subdivision and the zoning code together if you remember that. So there were more administrative mundane things happening in the background. But we also identified a series of policy issues that would try to address this gap between what the code requires today of development and what the comprehensive plan said we should you should be getting. We wanted to do those two things concurrently. Um and an example of a housekeeping fix that we did at the same

time that we addressed wetlands. wetlands being a major policy issue which was somewhat controversial. The policy issues were things that were going to take a lot more community conversation potentially longer and um potentially longer process and they would involve much more of the community. The housekeeping issues on the other hand were these more mundane issues. They were um intended to be more policy neutral and low controversy. But there were some issues that we had um especially when it we were reorganizing the code and there was a lot of discussion around the procedure types. Uh how did you what kind of procedure did you apply to certain kinds of development? Why and should we change that? But we we did finish the reorganization process, a major housekeeping effort. And then we um also tackled the wetlands. So you have a wetland overlay and we have now gone into the housing. As you remember um last August we presented the housing to the planning commission and then the city council. Some of the recommendations just to go back to the code audit for a moment. We we talked about the code audit um in terms of three things. How to reorganize the code and how to um amend your decision- making procedures so that they comply with state rules and then public benefits. Those were three main um digests that we issued. They were technical reports. They were intended to get members of the three committees, the city council, the design review board and planning commission who have been involved in this process from the beginning um to be more informed about the issues in the code and that was those were used to

reach our recommendations for the code audit. So just to go through those recommendations again because that's where we started in 2023. The essential first step was reorganize the code. It should be policy neutral and we should address decision-making procedures and we should we did this in a very methodical where way where we identified ministerial, administrative, judicial and legislative decision-making procedures and then we cateorized your current system and matched the procedure type with your application scale and complexity. And this is where um we had a lot of community discussion and planning commission discussion about these procedure types. But in the end, we were able to assign appropriate approval criteria and it also met state rules and uh kind of the best practices that most cities follow in their administrative procedures that allowed us to go on to these um policy fixes. So, one of the major policy fixes that we uh we had our eye on from the very beginning was about parking. And I bring up these graphics, the 2022 Parkland studies that we prepared as part of our code audit because we in these slides, these are excerpts from planning commission from sorry the joint commission presentations that we used in 2022 to illustrate that the downtown, for example, the downtown commercial area, the things that you love about it, and this is a reiteration of what Jeff was just talking um these small small uh shops and intimate courtyards. These are these would go away if you required new development today to meet parking requirements. These only exist because the parking requirements are being met on these larger parking lots or in some other

way. And the example on the right shows a a commercial uh establishment that came in for a permit. And as you see this this was actually built most of the lot is devoted more than 50% of the lot is devoted to the parking for this tiny commercial building that that would be repeated over and over and over unless we actually address the parking issue. We also looked at the effect of parking on housing uh as we came into the housing chet or the housing workshop. And we looked at um the the the pictures on the right show a 3D model or an aerial view of the gas station site. And on the upper left um picture showing the orange, the darker orange, that was a model of if you had to meet all the parking requirements of a site, how much of a building or how much housing could you get on that site? And you can see in that example, which is kind of like the the worst case um or but today's reality is you don't get very much of a building at all. you I think we got about six units in that building and some commercial space on the ground floor. The rest of that site has to be devoted to parking in order to meet your current parking standards. But we did through the course of the sharet um look at several other

So I I I can't hear you back here. You think so?

You want to move your up? Yeah. So we looked at the other three models around the lower right and the lower left are our are different forms where we looked at if we didn't have to park this entire development, how many more units could we get? Could it be something that a developer would actually build? Could it provide enough units to make the development worthwhile? And we looked at these different forms. And the lower left is kind of where we landed with the in the end with the more um dormerred hipped roof building facing the street and a taller building toward the back of the site. But this illustrates the issue. Then we tested the theory that parking would not um if we had to meet all the parking requirements, we would not be able to provide enough housing. And we we were it was verified. the gap that we identified about parking was verified. And on the left side of this image, I just want to point out that we also looked at some buildings that people love today that I would say represent kind of what people think of when they think of Canon Beach establishments. There's the White Bird Gallery. There's the Canon Beach Hotel and there's the Bald Coffee Shop. Each of these has it does not meet your parking requirements. And if they did meet your parking requirements, you would have got these low. Important point here is in this bullet that 81% of respondents respond responded to this question where we asked is um Canon Beach living up to the policy to encourage the development of which meets the needs of a variety of age groups and income groups as well as special needs. In other words, is the city meeting the comprehensive plan

goal? And 81% of respondents, 243 people said no. And when we asked if there was a lack of affordable housing in Canon Beach, 89% of people said yes, or 243 people. And we defined affordability the way that the county defines it. This was when um and Alyssa helped us define this. This the way that the housing and urban development or HUD defines it as well. So, it's a very common definition. Affordability. And I think this is actually a good way to talk about affordability generally, whether we're talking about workforce, but affordability with a capital A. It's defined as um housing that requires a household to spend less than 30% of their income on housing. That's affordability. So doesn't I mean if we could kind of remove the who are we trying to house here from income levels and just think about it that way. If you are able to spend less than 30% of your income on housing that then you have affordable housing. We are not able to meet that standard. [clears throat] And then I'm going to show this slide too. Um if you could turn to the page it has little pie charts all over it. Um this was something that we did with the county with Alyssa um Herbs another person who worked on this. We took data of housing permits and we just to simply um in the most simple graphic way understand what each of the cities in the c and the county what each of the cities in the north coast area um county or a kind of area that Alyssa used to um care about till she went off to Washington. Anyway, um Canon Beach, Seaside, Gearhart, Warrington, Atoria, and then Class of

County. And you can see Canon beaches is just an outlier here because it has um the largest percentage of homes that exist here are we group them together to call them seasonal use and short-term rentals, but they're broken out. The red is short-term rentals and the blue is vacant seasonal units. And as Alyssa used to say, um there are as many people who want to live here as there are houses here that don't have people living in them. So it's unusually high because Canon Beach is a very desirable place, I think, and it has the mountain town syndrome that Jeff was talking about. when um we brought everyone to the people who participated in the housing focus group and we did the housing workshop, we also looked at the um tools that Alyssa had prepared to help the community generally understand what different affordability um levels mean. When we talk about workforce housing, what are we talking about? And when we talk about affordable housing, what are we talking about? And I love this chart. Um hopefully you'll you have already um seen it. It she she took actual family of two, family of four, and the the rent that they would have to pay uh at certain jobs that they had um using that affordability definition just to ident peg jobs really to and families to different housing affordability. And we I the goal of of of using this here and using it in the housing workshop was just to kind of fluent shared language about affordability. So where we are today is we have um based on the audit recommendation of the

city council direction to proceed in 2023 we address undertook these tasks. We amended the CDO to address four high priority policy areas through code amendments. They were wetlands, trees, housing and parking. In addition, there were complete we our goal was to complete numerous minor improvements this top to bottom our housekeeping code amendments to update terms etc. Since um 2023, we have completed the wetlands and the code reorganization and we're I would say we're well into the housing This process takes a really long time. And on this one, I don't think we're getting to the end slide, I actually put a schedule that Jeff and I had developed back when we were wrapping up the code audit to say that um a typical package of amendments would take six to eight months that the four to six months to draft and six to eight months to adopt. And that's just because we're gonna imagine that we we have to schedule our work sessions with you and then we have to schedule our adoption sessions with planning commission and then our adoption sessions with city council is a very it's a kind of plotting public process that can be good but it to acknowledge that it takes a long time to do this work and every time that we get um pulled off of the trap we like we lose remember what we said 16 months maybe 12 to 16 months I don't think we've um been delinquent in our schedule I think we've been on schedule just I just want to reiterate that this is this process takes a long time so what we'd like to discuss is that we

we kind of get back to the housing related code amendments and fix that gap we also pursue these housekeeping amendments And then we um tackle the policy priorities that we identified earlier. Maybe number one might be parking or number one might be design review and design standards. But we should we should get to those as soon as we get the housing done. Yes.

We really want to just have a conversation. Okay, would like to start us off? Yes. So we originally council identified three barriers that based on programs which is done housing which were in the process housing which were in the process of and treats that was the third one but I I haven't I didn't hear that anywhere in your you know your um you didn't hear me say trees huh you didn't hear me say the trees

I didn't say hear that in your timeline. know of what you know we can address. In other words, though the the council at least the council that you know from a couple years ago determined that there were three things that were important to address obviously one was the wetlands. We did that. One was housing. We're in the process of that and the third one was trees. We got through a great deal of that process and then it came to a screeching halt because of um uh questions about uh public process or new rules and there was a lot of concern about that. I think you remember that.

And so now we've got clarification from um city attorney about how how that can be done. I'm just wondering where that fits in because if we're going to relieve people from a tree code, in order to build affordable workforce housing, you have to first have the tree code in place that they can be relieved from. In other words, that's one of the public benefits is certain aspects of the tree code like you know um cost for cutting down trees that kind of thing would be forgiven if you are um uh building workforce housing. But right now, the tree code, which is pretty much was all done, like I said, it's in limbo now just because um uh of that public processing. I think the housing provisions could go forward without that uh that one provision in the truth code being in place. And I I don't know um what the plan should be about the truth code. Should it be pursued by a group hidings in parallel to finishing the housing and then moving on to parking? Should it be a process that is officially taken on by the city and run the way that the wetlands code was done? I mean that's I think a decision a discussion for you to have and provide direction on. Well, the wetlands was done by a small group of three people and then two people and then and then after it there was a draft made then it went to you and you went through you got other people involved who were um experts in code writing for wetlands and then you know and then

so or would it would a similar process be I mean what I was told by the attorney was that that group could write continue to to try and refine the tree code and they could give it to a council member. They could bring it for council and council could decide if they wanted to send it to um the planning department to to continue work on it. Or maybe that's premature. Attorney first is Jody on I actually thought that the attorney said that it needed to go to the planning commission first.

No, it's already been through planning commission. Planning commission approved it. So that's the problem. And then it came to council and council wanted to see more uh more changes. So it went back to the group who did the changes and and tried to take into account what you know a lot of what was brought forward and then it stopped just because of the public process issues. So it's still sitting there but still um you know has all the changes incorporated into it. It's just that according to the city attorney, I had a lot of back and forth with the city attorney and she finally I I said I wanted a definitive answer on how we could proceed and we could proceed by them the group finishing the tree code, giving it to someone on council. It probably be me because I was involved in it. And then I would bring it to council. Council could look at it, decide if they wanted to send it back to planning and planning would take it through the um planning

the the the planning commission all over again. There's two avenues. Well, the other one won't work because we don't have the no one has $1,500 to do it. So, the other avenue is out. But I I wanted to say, you know, there are two avenues. the group brings it forward, it pays the application fee and they bring it forward to the planning commission go through the process or like Lisa says council has to initiate it and pay for it back.

I I have a question though about um to get it to the point where we go to the plan for adoption. I think there still needs to be a a technical look at it by like we did with the wetland where the it is actually I mean I I haven't seen fit so I don't know how and how it fits with the rest of the code but it should be organized um in a similar way that the wetland overlay was

technically there's just technical things that need to happen to it to I I think what what I understand is there's a concept there's like a desire expressed in the um code that you've created but it needs another an additional step to be ready for the code adoption process. It was written in a way so that it would be ready by people who who saw the wetlands code and tried to model the the format after that and there was a lot of consultation with the Oregon Department of Forestry. I mean so much that it was almost pestering them because we had so many questions for them and we had a urban forester help us.

So can I ask I thought the the planning commission process on trees worked really well and I thought the end result was you know was good. What we're I'm not I'm not filled in where the gap is or why that didn't proceed to council. Well, because it did proceed to council, but council wanted to see some changes. Yeah.

And that's what happened. So then it went back to the drawing board to film to try and make the changes that council had requested and those changes were made, but then the public process issue came up. So, you know, nobody wanted to get in trouble. So, it sort of just came to a screeching halt until we could get a definitive answer from our city attorney. Now, we have them. We could go forward with it. But I don't want, you know, I don't know if I want to do what's what's best. So, if that means doing the housing first and then doing that as the third housekeeping thing, that's fine, but or doing it parallel, but that's, you know, it's a lot to take in. So, I don't know. or doing I mean this is another potential order that Jack put up here the design review the parking and then environmental of which trees would be the first

how much in our uh existing code uh becomes a problem with uh our housing code as we where it sits at this point or there's Are there some things in the existing tree code that would prevent us from making housing a priority, which I think it needs to be public? Well, there's one public benefit provision among many public benefit provisions that says that um you could get a exemption from the tree code if you're providing housing that meets the teachers you're living in

or relief. It doesn't mean you could clear cut your lot. No it go through the process evaluating options to clearing but in it's the way I understand the concept of the tree code although I haven't seen the details is that works the way the wetland works is you have to go through this very rigorous process of of um proving that you've looked at all the other options and when you finally have exhausted your options then you can actually build in or near the wetland but you have to mitigate And I think that concept should be the same like that path should be similar. It is it's exactly the same. Um,

is there any reason why she can't look at what what that committee is already

that they need to so uh in other words what needs to be done at least before the city council and the city council agrees that it's something the city wants to do it's it's an amendment we don't have the money so we're going to pay $1,500 for that fees That's all, you know, that's what the difference is. An application was never freely accepted by the state and that's what the complication in legal matters of minority has been. And so, um, that's all that and that's normally what you do is I mean, you know, you guys can move that forward and it just can happen. That's neat. The city's paying the city paying itself.

Yeah. different and then she would Yeah. contract with whatever between that or you could look at it and decide if it needed to go somewhere else and maybe maybe you Yeah.

So I have a question. Herb Works has been basically proofing everything. You've been going through the whole code, correct? Um, so wouldn't it make sense that that tree ordinance would come back to you for I mean that makes sense to me that um your objective set of eyes looking at what has been written to make sure that it actually fits state blah blah blah. I think it makes sense. I think it absolutely makes sense

partially because we worked with the committee some of the same members make up but made up by the committee. So we kind of were able to take that their wetland code and turn it into a you know code that was an objective and that was was that your question? I'm sorry that was your question and I think Jeff kind of took it in a little bit different path but

I I didn't take it. I was just trying to clarify you have impact and the path though is like you said it's it's financially not possible the 1500 for the committee to do so. So the normal path is just like you said come from council but I want to clarify you do not want to do this right now in my professional opinion because you slow down the housing which is already got to you. If you do this, we have to go through the whole new path. Go through the whole new process. Housing waits for that. That's my concern.

The housing can go just like Marcy said that is just one of the option public benefit options that they can do. There's other public benefit options that they can take and that's just one when it comes on board which is this path that I've shown that will hopefully come on board about this time next year. We're hopefully having that ready those that third package ready to go. But Jeff, that's just a public process on housing and that can be parallel to your evaluation of the consistency of the ordinance if I would think they could be done at the same time.

Uh maybe not the approval but at least the work would continue. Exact. I agree. Yeah. and and the um you know the kind of whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Like you just said, you can come next meeting before to get that you know the city to step up to say we want to do this application and we get going on the behind the scenes.

Right. Right. So am I hearing that potentially the um council agrees that the tree code goes forward for technical then the finetuning and that happens in the background while the adoption process for housing is taking place. Yeah, housing is in the forefront right now. We worked so hard on that trees. I just want to make sure that we're not getting slowed down again for a fifth time or sixth time.

That's I mean it seemed to me like we were like 95% there on trees. My opinion is we're like 5% there on housing. I mean, did we, you know, we didn't really get any big projects or we didn't talk about the RV park. We didn't, you know, do anything that would really move the needle. And that's that's my concern about the housing. I don't think that's in the code. And those are other

not in the code but but in in terms of addressing the the gap between our comprehensive plan that that is certainly part of I I think what our mandate is is we need to figure this out and everybody's right there's no extra land and the things that planning commission considered you know you can agree or disagree on them but they don't move the needle very Is there a um a draft that is far enough along to be circulated on the housing issues? Because it would be nice to see what the words say. CO2502. What?

ZO2502. Oh yeah. Okay. is that on March 5th I [clears throat] believe we'll have a public input session on March 5th I'm coming back to talk about the housing package and to um you asked me city council last come back and talk about um the big ideas is that it's addressing. I think the goal is also to allow a lot for community uh conversation during that meeting. So testimony will be happening. Um it's not a public hearing. It's not a public hearing.

It's not a public hearing. It's a public input session. It's not been noticed but but the public can come and discuss and even potentially have a lasting conversation with members council. Is that correct? But I think that was the goal. I heard that that's what I thought was creating to have the plan meetings and not being able to address public more of a round table kind of question. Not literally a round table maybe, but yeah. But yeah, [laughter] that kind of a back and forth a figurative one.

What does the other priority the parking priority look like? I I feel that's pretty urgent before we lose what we have left of downtown.

I think that's the like we said first is already coming through that house. make sure that what you guys are having move forward with that it would be to start that. So that's where I was saying that my goal would be about this time next year was bringing a third package in parking for a moment because I think it's kind of um we think

I was wondering how complicated it is. I think it's going to be very complicated and controversial and I think we're going to need to involve the downtown businesses a lot more than we have on previous efforts so far because they're so affected. There are a lot of these agreements built in that so there's a parking issue parking requirements issue like how many parking spaces are required for each building. I I talked about the effect of that on your small downtown structures and businesses. If you if somebody has to meet that those parking requirements today, they can't they have to tear down their building or they'd have to build a little tiny building in the middle of a parking lot. That's just the requirements. But then there's all these uh you can change the numbers. So you can say um if you have this a small building this many square feet don't require any parking or if you're building housing downtown don't require any parking. We've had these discussions before that's a lot of cities are doing that that it seems in keeping with the what you're trying to achieve here. um that might be actually easier to achieve that zoning change, but then there are all these agreements about the parking that's already

there. How do because we'll have to address that, too. Yeah. So, um, it's a little that's a complicated, it seems like we need to address that along with the housing because it's so integral to what the housing looks like, what the housing requirements are going to be, whether they're affordable housing or not affordable housing. I'm glad you brought that up.

A lot of parking just for R1 and R2 though, but it does make a significant dent in the parking issue for housing for infill housing. So is that if we get if we're successful at adopting the housing package close to what is there, we will address the parking requirements issue on housing. Yeah, I know that the proposal does uh speak to housing or pardon me speak to parking uh and actually lessens the requirement for parking for housing, saving you and so forth. So I think that's the first step. First step. Yes. But what it will do is make more on street parking.

I mean, that's that's the reality. If you don't if you don't require parking for housing, then you're going to it's going to be on street. I'm not saying that's bad, and that's exactly what Portland has done. You know, big apartment buildings with no parking attached to them at all. So, it's a matter of finding an on street parking spot. I I know that force us to make some changes in our downtown parking like timed parking with exceptions for residents and employees. Uh it's it just seems like the solutions are there but we have to you know step up.

Well the solution down town parking might create a problem for other areas uh you know in residential area parking. I think uh maybe a con comprehensive review of the areas around affected parking lots in the business district maybe need to be done to determine what kind of restrictions if any we need. For instance, on the presidents, if we restrict parking or charge for parking or have any kind of parking restrictions downtown, people are still, you know, start charging, for instance, [clears throat] they're going to go somewhere, walk a few blocks where they don't have to to obey anything, which on, you know, every resident uh that lives in that area than their parking.

Some of the streets, of course, in the uh and the presidents and other places are very narrow. can't have parking on both sides. And maybe they shouldn't have parking on either side. When you have parking on both sides, then you have all the traffic, whether it's pedestrians, bicycles, dog walkers, that kind of thing, and two-way traffic all into this narrow corridor, which causes also safety issues, you know. Well, all of the presidentials are only one that

Well, uh, and does that need to be reviewed? And I know a lot of other uh areas in the city uh that are narrow uh also have they will have have no parking descriptions whatsoever. And you get people on uh Oak Street for instance parking on both sides. you have one lane in the middle when they're parking on both sides on a holiday weekend in the summer and everybody's trying to lose that little corridor right there which creates traffic backup and safety issues for dog walkers and cyclists. So, u I think that before we make restrictions in some of the downtown areas, if we need to look at what kind of impacts we're going to have the see if, uh, you know, there are restrictions necessary to what we can do there as part of the impact of the

parking code amendment usually consists of a parking supply analysis which

that TSP recommended that, right? So as a first step it and I I would guess that that supply analysis is going to have kind of a different um tone for the downtown for Midtown for Tivana and then the neighborhoods are going to it's going to have a slightly different the presidential is probably going to actually have a somewhat unique parking usage pattern and you need to understand all those and there are people who literally go out and count the cars and when people move them and where they park and what's the parking, what how much parking spaces are available and when are they used and that actually helps you um have a more educated discussion about where to make the parking changes.

You should be so fortunate that uh all of those people living downtown, you know, are struggling to find a parking spot. Uh I think that's years away uh from making any real difference in housing downtown. Uh but we are in immediate danger of you know just becoming a strip mall downtown.

Uh and you know we I don't know of anything in the code that uh encourages the kind of green space that we all love now, the pathways and the courtyards. uh you know and so what we're going to get is uh a building and a parking lot everywhere. Uh I mean that I don't think any of us want to see that really do we that fix that part by just changing the numbers.

It's it's it's easy but it will be controversial here. You'll have lots of estimating how wrong that is. Well, well, because in addition to just changing the numbers, the um the agreements that she's mentioning is there's there's a few like Costa Theater owns a bunch of parking and they lease the parking out to other businesses for them to meet their parking requirements. So, if that's not a requirement, does that then get developed into something else or does that be a parking lot? Same with at the intersection of third and penlock. That's that's another private lot that

if if it wasn't required to be a parking lot because it's being leased out for parking, would it become a building instead? No, I I I understand that and that's true. What I'm what I'm saying is is that if we an immediate fix to at least save off the strip mall effect would be to change the number of park spaces that must that are required for a certain square footage of building and that we can do that's what I'm talking about that can happen right away. Doesn't that just give us bigger buildings though?

Yeah, exactly. And so that is, you know, that can be part of the discussion because, you know, just like Gary was saying, you know, and and I caution each of these decisions that if you do not have affordable workforce housing in the thought of every single decision you make, you're losing, you're wasting your time is what you're learning because every decision and you know, I think every building that we see coming forward, it's got to has some kind of that's why we call the public benefit to think about that public space green space

yes and so yes but I agree with we could start immediately we could start talking about that and and yet I think as Marcy says it's still going to require a supply kind of parking analysis and demand type of thing because we want to put those into the discussion very one that I did of 43,000 square feet for retail and one B what is that for the whole community and do that kind of analysis of what kind of demand are things we need and then what is the calculation to get some affordable workforce out of out of that and to to get the size of scale building you know

and are we okay with bigger buildings if they provide a certain amount of housing on top or something. Still could be two stories with dormer and still provide housing. It doesn't have you don't have to go up. No, I'm talking about two stories, three stories. But are we okay with them being bigger as long as we provide that workforce or affordable housing? I don't know. I'd rather give up the parking and get some public space, green space rather than just entire lot

for design. You have to have at least 20% landscape in your design for any commercial property. So you could increase that if you're worried about once you take away parking that you increase your building size if you want to increase your landscape requirement you know you say you know right now you can you can uh include hardscape you know so you can adjust that so you can you know courtyard or plantings um you know and give some incentive for making beautiful gardens. that you know she loves

but that you know sort of sort of those rounds of design intention and regulation that were Jeff point out were severely lacking. Yeah. Personally I don't even think about those things because I do them automatically but that's how easy it is to meet our standards. So yeah white ship goes around for long. Oh my god. The ship the ship of the white

you can see it from space. Okay. One at a time please. Commercial. I mean we could zonally say that you know increasing for downtown that we need to have a certain percentage of green space per structure no long line to lotically [clears throat] say this area has an increase in green space in hand goes hand in hand what we're talking about the party

yes exactly we're willing to give off something we have to we can't just give it We have to go to a building, you have to have something in in relationship to that's going to be what we expect to have, you know, like the the mall, you know, a pathway for the dreams. Well, I I don't want to interrupt. I do think that it's okay. Can we interrupt just to see if anybody mind? I've been kind of watching for their I've been watching for Yeah. How about our online audience? Any comments? If you'd raise your hand, are you still awake?

He's waving. Oh, you're waving. Good. Yeah. Looks like Mike Bates raised his hand. But are we doing public comment? He's still on planning commission. Clay, did you want to speak? Yeah. Hi. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes, we can.

All right. Well, first of all, Jeff, it is I'm so glad to have you back in this conversation. Um, and to think about the gosh, seven years ago or so that we were talking about this or six, whatever it is now or started these conversations, um, I can't help but go to process. Um, and what we've been through to get here. Um, we should be better for it. And I, my comments are going to be around our process, not so much what we're talking about. I think um Tim made a comment earlier that really stuck with me about our process on affordable housing. We lost a lot of um maybe lost isn't the right word, but we used a lot of public um energy sentiment, goodwill in getting to something that really doesn't I'm not sure moves the needle significantly on this affordable housing question that we've are trying to address. So, I think that comes back to us as I listen to us tonight talking about um some some great ideas that might happen. Our process really didn't support that. And I think it I don't know, but I suspect part of it comes from the communication uh chain um between ourselves um and the time that it h that takes place that happens between that. So I think one of the things we should be talking about is how we're communicating with each other maybe more focused than we have been in the past uh with more public uh involvement say even in this meeting so that one they can see us having these conversations and hear us having these conversations and be involved in these

conversations. um that you know we uh the public meeting law that we you know people were upset about whether we did or we didn't you know violate public meeting doesn't matter the perception was with the public we did so I know that you know there's a process for changing the law and you have to notify people but maybe we run similar processes for meetings just like this where we let people know we reach out more than we had in the past so they can be involved in these processes and we sharp sharpen it up. So, we know we have a a smaller um goal in terms of what we're trying uh a tighter set of parameters around the goal we're trying to meet and we can be more focused say at the planning commission level so that can come back to the the city council um with something we can act on. We we end up in spots where we've taken on a lot. there's been a lot of time that's passed between the time we started the conversation and the time we actually get it in front of us in the planning commission and we just we just lose so much um momentum so much of the message is lost in the process we currently have so one thing I think to think about is our process between the groups with the public and the time that happens in there so I you know I didn't I didn't come into this meeting thinking about that but as we're talking about all these multiple things the trees or housing or parking I'm reminded of the message that gets lost by the time it gets to us to make a decision. It gets really hard to kind of focus in um in terms of what was important in these meetings and what was said and we lose a lot of momentum um and energy of the people involved both on on these different committees and commissions as well as within the public. That's all I had to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Cliff. Anybody else on Okay, thank you.

So, it was two years ago we had a meeting in February on housing

and I thought it was an excellent meeting. I thought there was a lot lot of really good ideas around the table. uh and then it diverted into this let's create this focus group and let's study it and so on and so so forth maybe naively but I at the time was arguing why not just have a few more of these meetings like we're doing and and and move the ball um to see if we could actually get something done on on affordable and workplace workforce housing talking related to code or or other projects.

Well, it's a it's a fair question. You don't necessarily need to rewrite the code to do some of these things and some of the things that planning commission did in 252 did address code. But it if the goal is to move the needle on affordable housing, I don't think we've moved it very far. Well, we had a I think we had a good meeting on Tuesday night talking about uh land trust.

So, I mean, it feels like we're having the conversation. I know everything feels like it takes too long. Um, but uh I think we are having the conversation. I think I think Clay's right though. We need to move forward. We need to continue to have these meetings [clears throat] and set there are excuse me other things that could be set aside that we don't that aren't as important as our housing issue.

Well, that's where I get I need more clarity on just what the housing goal is. You know, I think Jeff mentioned the number 25.5 that we were trying to get to the 25 units. Well, and I think when you added them all up, when you added them all up over the years, it was 50 or 75 units that what I'm getting at though is to get to a place where we can say, okay, we can feel good that we've done this now. We can address this instead of just I mean, you know, is it 200 units? Is it 25 units? You know, what do we need to do so that we can feel like as a community that we have accomplished something with housing? And that's where I

first we need a place to put those. Well, and that's what I'm saying. But but if we have a number in mind, right? Then we can look at okay, this place can accommodate or this can, you know, uh provide 20 units. And and I think that that's something that that needs to get in my head anyway, just to be able to kind of know that we're we're going to do something. and and what does something look like so that we feel good about that something. We did have numbers at one of our one of our um meetings that we had. You had number to start with and you you you had some uh numbers that were presented.

The county did had uh the county had every city do a housing needs analysis. Look at how much land they have and how and u about the population the need for housing. How a lot of it is a much more technical look at um those people who are spending more than 30% of their income on housing and how much housing do you need to provide for those people etc. It's it's a statemandated process and they identified I believe was about 10 dwelling units per year for Canon Beach which just interestingly was a number that was thrown out on the first day of the housing focus group. Like we had we we had a poll of people how many housing units if we do these zoning code amendments and I want to just be clear that that process was about zoning code amendments. It wasn't about building an affordable housing project or or sorry um you know a a wide range of housing types that are affordable on the RV site. It was we we backed off of that because that's not a zoning project. But if you're just going to adopt the housing code amendments that we proposed, I do think they would get you 10 dwelling units a year. If that's your if that's the state sort of target for the city of Canon Beach, you could achieve that through those infill infill measures. It might be in the forms of form of AUS. It might be in the form of of a duplex that's been um allowed F through a public benefit. Now, are those 10 units the are they public benefit units? Are they deed restricted affordable? The state doesn't say anything about that, but that was also a goal of the housing code amendments was to make sure that you only get certain amount of floor area ratio over and

above what you're allowed automatically if you agree to make your um make it a long-term rental or long-term or residence for sale. And was that the restriction um like 10 years or something? He's mirror discussion going with that kind of a conversation with going right 30 right now but you know

the the role of the code amendments was to make a provision that even allowed that to occur which you don't have anything like that right now. So we wanted to make like a new ch it's a new chapter. It's a new clause and it makes it possible to say yes a public benefit is defined as this and this and this. So it's more like it provides a home for it in the code and that way they can utilize it if we need to

and the decisions more policy decisions about like to whom should it apply and you know those are those are not zoning decisions. So just because we have that in the code doesn't mean that somebody who applies for something has to have a deep restriction. They only have to have a deep restriction if they want to expand their farm. Exactly. There's some extra benefits that you get in the zoning allowance rates. [clears throat]

Follow up what brought up and others have brought up about discussions in April. at the city council. So that's coming on that on where we're going housing opportunity. So we've got three different speakers coming in for that discussion talk about outside of zoning kind of changes. Although I will know if you're wanting to do anything like that the argument part it will take a zoning amendment because we'll have to change the zoning and that's a map change another One round 56.

Well, 10 doesn't to me seem adequate for the amount of passing that we have right now. Maybe we need to play some catch up and that if we get caught up, whatever that looks like that 10 might be adequate going forward. But u I think we need to start with more than 10. and um personally just because you know I have 90% plus of the workforce that commutes to Canon Beach uh from other places and you know we can't count on them being able to have affordable housing and going north of here from what Jeff's report said of course I think it's pretty obvious rent prices go up all the time and um they can never find anything in in their city and you play any job to work in their city, they're going to stay there and not commute here. So, I I think we need to do a little bit of catchup and then maybe 10 will be adequate. Well, my my understanding of the conversation the the objective there it's 10 that would be solely identified as 10 units produced additionally per year by the zoning code and then the policy the whether it be the RV park or it be the um community land trust that we just had a presentation about things like that those would be the projects that would be the catchup projects that would get us above and beyond that 10 units the the 10 would be kind of like the standard baseline. The zoning code changes allow us to get an additional 10 a year

of infilling and whatever and and then those policy changes would be that catchup stuff the creating creating areas that like the RV park and the community land trust things that meet that goal and do that above and beyond to get the people in our community that are working able to live there. isn't what the RV park um proposals that you reviewed like by bringing in 30 I mean theoretically but like once finished um like so those kind of projects do help a lot if you can make a you're absolutely correct we're never going to take care of our entire workforce [clears throat]

uh I mean that's just you know it's not even you know in our wildest dreams if if we would want that you know or could make it happen in any way. Uh but you know making some progress and at least living up to our comprehensive plan and providing the kind of housing that we say we want to provide as a community. Uh so that's

okay. I mean it's and it's not like the the definition of 30% um of income that's one category but the Roberts and the Mark Breman's of the world you know who are making you know decent wages but still can't live here. Yeah. uh and and wouldn't qualify under a true affordable um you know type of program. So that's I mean and long-term market rate rental is also a benefit for our community.

So I mean it just it seems to me that you know our biggest concern is workforce housing, not as much affordable housing. Um um but then you have but then you have the the backside of that is how many people really want to be a landlord. And you know once you have a renter in there and I agree with you that that's what we need. But people realize that once you have a renter in your property it's almost impossible to get them out in the state of Oregon. It's not a good

So, um I mean, you'd like to think that wouldn't happen in your town, but it does. Um so, that's another hurdle with um Yeah. with housing. Pretty obvious with that blue space in the pie chart that not very many people want to be landlords. It's true. [clears throat] Yeah. They want to use their house two weeks out of the year or a month in the summer, whatever. And and then um I have that house off the forest now, but

and they're never there. They probably haven't been there in three years. Wouldn't it be nice to have a a kind of a master list of the ordinance uh language that would meet these criteria like public benefit exceptions that we could get use for, you know, less fewer trees or uh ADUs or would be nice to start with some language that everybody kind of agrees to that would bring that would uh exponentially perhaps uh uh add to housing. We're not going to be able to say you you know you're we you're one of the 10 come in. uh it's going to be what are the standards for uh these uh building uh permits and uh I think there's a lot of ideas here that you know a duplex uh but you got to start somewhere and it would be nice to start with some language that that would uh meet those goals that would help us make exceptions

that's where that's sort of our synrop and that's what she wrote is exactly what she did is that would facilitate um greater density and ADUs and duplexes. So put a the big benefit right now is limiting far for single family homes but giving more back for for that I mean that's the biggest give back as well as parking but okay yeah some of the language in the propos Go ahead. Okay. Okay. Clay has a go ahead Clay.

Clay. Yeah. Sorry. Can you hear me? Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Um what about instead of trying I mean we've already taken a swing across the whole uh the planning commission has already taken a swing at the whole code. What if our next round was much more focused? It was you know there's only so many areas where we can really move the needle significantly in our town. A there are some areas we we might try, but they will be so controversial. I I just don't see us having the stomach to do that sort of change, but some might be less controversial. The downtown core is the best chance of getting some units and and to's point, you know, we're not going to move the needle he massively, but it is our best chance of moving the needle. We never talked about changing zones. we talked well let me take that back I don't think we talked about changing zones significantly enough um to really move the to really move the needle um and we got kind of lost I feel like in a conversation people didn't understand and density and that sort of thing but if we really focused on a small area and rather than looking at the whole thing and having it be this huge conversation we just focused on a small section maybe that would help us in terms of our process us in terms of people being trying to understand what we're doing and not trying to just take on these gorilla um these these big um complicated conversations all in one swoop. Um maybe we maybe we segment it out um if if affordable housing is at the top of the list um you know talk about where our best chance of success is and really hone in on that area or you know maybe we you talk about some specific zoning changes

to you know the RV parks come up maybe that's part of this conversation but go after specific areas and move the needle significantly in those areas and and you know we've made suggestions for the broader picture. I don't think it's going to move the needle much. To Dian Dino's point, the [clears throat] person that can afford to tear a house down and start over doesn't want a runner. There there will be a few people that do that, but it it'll be nowhere near 10 10 a year. Just ain't going to happen. Um, but you could get a more meaningful number if we started to think like, um, uh, Marcy was talking about with the the, um, the gas station site that we used back in 21. Go from what now would be six units to, uh, many more units and get people focused on that and get, frankly, get us focused on that so we can have a much smaller conversation and not get so sidetracked by all the other possibilities. Just narrow this down. Anyway, um just an idea to kick around maybe talk about. Thank you.

Thanks. Can I speak to if I'm at the same level that you um there there were two important things in the that came out of the housing policy workshop that uh for downtown that I think would kind of change the zone without actually changing the zone. One was drinking parking requirements and another was removing the um ground floor retail requirement off of um spruce. Is that right? Not him states. It was spruce but I don't think it was spruce. I I don't remember talking about removing completely removing

that was a call for spruce. Well remain re keeping it. Right now you can't build housing on without commercial. That seems appropriate there. But on hemlock, I think it spruce on spruce. Sorry. I think it is.

I think you will see standalone apartment buildings there if you don't allow require parking and you don't require the retail. And I think some of some types of um buildings like that downtown would be really really good for addressing the shortfall of housing. And I I think that's a big move that you make with a relatively small zoning code change, but we backed off of that because it was I think downtown is so special and there was so much concern that too much change might occur too quickly. So we backed off of that. I'm not saying we, but the group did. I think that should be revisited that decision.

When you say apartment building, what do you mean? a standalone like a building like the hotel um that the the uh Canon Beach Hotel say it doesn't have it has um well let's pretend that that doesn't have a little bar on the ground floor it's just a lobby and it's um it's entirely residential from ground floor to top a building like that that's when so when I say standalone apartment building that's what I'm talking about northwestern Portland, Northwest Portland can't be true. Yeah. Yeah.

He I mean at this meeting two years ago, Matusa, who owns a building right across the street, said if you didn't need to have parking for units upstairs, he'd put eight or nine units upstairs pretty quickly, right? I mean, that's that's a pretty good swipe. That's a pretty good cut at the ball. I I don't think he I don't think he's alone from what I can tell downtown. A lot of Well, he sort of is alone in that that's the only place you could do it on Spruce. I think there's a lot space that's not being used for housing because you would have to provide

not on spruce. I mean, you got wetland here and you got a parking lot over there. On hemlock. On hemlock. Oh, we're talking about spruce. On hemlock, I think it's the it's the same. you have you have space above commercial um there and we wouldn't change that. We would still require that any housing be above commercial but I think there's a lot of existing space if you got rid of the parking but if you didn't have a parking requirement it would convert to housing. Oh yeah. And that's low hanging fruit. Yeah. So you're saying you recommend or we should consider I recommend you consider

eliminating the retail um ground floor requirement parking on spruce.

I recommend you consider going a little bit further with the housing code amendments than the proposal goes and that would be to remove the parking requirement for housing and the other would be to remove the retail requirement from groups. He might [clears throat] I don't think I'm disagreeing but I I want to reiterate that unless those have some type of deep restrictions with the workforce and the housing it will not be wor so we just can't say get rid of parking parking alarms part of the leverage to get and so we That has to be clear in the message that this is why you know I'm just what I believe is the point of it and don't want people to get misled when these things start because I think you know we still got to have a lawyer's way on you know kind of the tangled history of that giving those spaces to people for how many years and can you know what can we do with this? So that's still part of our discussion. I mean, these are all great dreams to have, but I don't think it's like Tim said, it's a low hanging because these are gonna be some

I think we still got some hoops to jump through just to be able to do a little but with the because I'm find like apartments over these buildings over here they if they needed to have deed restrictions in order to be able to do that. Um, but along with that deed restriction, what's the AMI? I mean, are they going to is there going to, you know, is there some way to cap the rent in a way or can they charge $3,000 a month for a unit even though it's a deed restricted? So, how does it

would the deed restriction would cap? It's like it's community land trust and other organizations investing many mountain town communities. It's your this one called housing author and maintains that requires if you're a workforce you have to prove that you're living in the area or whatever and you have to meet that that you work 30 hours a week on the war. Uh, and they're the ones that the regulator that's certainly up to the ante of being a property manager. Uh,

so they would regulate the amount of rent. So I think for um, but it's the community that does that. I'm not saying it's the person that owns that building or the operator of that building, but it's they sign that and the the community, the city does a memorandum of agreement or whatever with that group and we're paying for them to uh as the community your taxes that you're collecting on your construction tax, excise tax type thing could pay some service to do that and to uh to do the management to be the management, right? that time with the de restrictions would have to be in place otherwise nobody would build them because they wouldn't get their return on

Yeah. So, the only person that's really going to do that if there's because I think on um workforce housing median income, you're looking at AMI cap of 120. And [clears throat] so, the only person that's going to build something like that if there's a restriction and if there's a restriction on what they can charge for rent is someone who needs the loss at this point in time because building costs are so expensive. Am I Am I on the right path on that, Jay? It needs the kind of a loss.

A los you can build more units on the same piece of ground if you don't parking requirements. So, you know, there's something to be said where you can build more there and you make more money from more than fewer and have your parking requirements and not being, you know, you can't make money off charge for it kind of thing. But yeah, there are all kinds of things involved in whether or not they're how they're incentivized, you know, you know, but for a 500 square foot unit, can you charge someone $2,000? Yeah. But can you really, right? I mean, that's that's where it comes down to um Yeah. They get

I don't know. I'm getting too deep in the weeds. parking relief and the other incentives or more units for wearing. Yes, it you're right bringing up a lot of this make it work for the human. I think it's great idea. I It's just It's the I think the attorneys need to advise us. Yeah. On what we can actually do there. property rights.

So, so well if there's a deed restriction and they agree to it, then they agree to that deed restriction. I mean, that would be run past the would be a trade group of probably they put the contract I mean and aren't there government programs and loans that are lower interest for affordable housing when there is deed restrictions? So there's not just private money. There's also loans available. If we made that obvious not could be through the could be through housing authority of some

housing authority. Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah, there's that. But it's gonna take us that long probably to get to that point. So we'll just look at that as a win. Um [clears throat] we're not talking a lot about a lot of people. We're looking at incremental, you know, graduated change. And so some of all of these ideas might help a little bit add people. Makes sense.

Yeah. Marcy, how hard would it be and is it possible and maybe we do need legal advice to take this one block, this one part of Spruce and say this is what we want to do. I don't know if you call it a trial or whatever, but you know, we put the bead restriction in the code. We go through all of those steps and then and then just do a trial on one block. What does that look like? Is that something that I mean how much controversy might that cause? Well, in this town a lot and that would be a zone change that you make and you see who is who's interested in taking advantage of it. I think

so it's just it's so it I guess simple might be the wrong word. Some students do actually go out and kind of like talk to developers who are interested in developing on the coast. like try to uh build a relationship, but you already have awesome relationships starting with developers who are interested in the RV site. I mean, that would maybe this is another site you could enter into like just a exploratory discussion with them about

um yeah and some and then some cities also like advertise broadly to like we're open for business, we want more housing downtown, we say changed our zoning code to make it more possible. I see Clay has his hand up. It looks like it's popular in in this survey to encourage development of housing. 81%. It's pretty big number. So, it may not be a a an unpopular move. [clears throat]

Yeah. with a population of 1,500 250 people responding and 89% down that road. It's it those are staggering numbers [clears throat] by by survey results. Um Dian, I don't think you uh were in the weeds too deep. I think you've hit on one of the challenges uh that we're seeing in affordable housing everywhere. It does not make economic sense right now. It is too expensive to build. uh the rents that that one can expect to get um in exchange for that cost and risk which is that bit we talk about you know people not wanting the the the risk I'll just say that in of owning um rental units just has not been compelling for developers. One tool that we have seen used in some of the smaller communities um around the metro area has been tax incentives where you say if you have a prop if you develop a property at a certain level of AMI and we can dictate what that is uh you will get tax relief. I think we in order to incentivize real development, we should be looking at working with the county on that to get developers incentivized to do this. It's it's very the the the path between actual development and conceptual development is absolutely going to run through the economics of making that happen. So very important um piece and um I don't think you're too weak deep in the weeds, Diana, to to think that way. It's critical. Jeff, the deed restriction 100%. The tax bit somewhat serves in the same vein. It's a huge number um and and does protect the development. We're seeing a number of these programs uh that were started 9 years ago the at that period where they roll over. A lot of times those those programs run 10 to 15 years. Those developers and potential buyers of those developments are coming to the table

going we've got to keep this in the affordable program. we cannot afford to pay those taxes. So that is one way to also ensure that that housing stays uh in your affordable housing stock. Thank you. I I I agree with that, but I also have concern about the power of property tax incentives in Canon Beach being that it's not really that high. property taxes are not uh percentage aren't that high compared to places like the Portland metro area or even Atoria and it's substantially higher if you cooperate with Psup County then it's

there's a little bit more power to that letter but it's not I mean the major the majority of it goes to the property goes to school that's like 80% of property tax goes to school district and we still need to have schools yeah so that's that's where almost all of our property tax is going so There's not there's not a lot of county services or city services being paid for out of our property tax. So, it's it's not as powerful a lever as it would be in the Portland area that some flexibility and permitting fees and we we got a couple of public comments over overnight specifically about permitting fees and the SDC fees and all of those fees

to develop to develop a new 14 grand for somebody that wants to do that. All of the city involved use of that. So that's a substantial amount of money that people are paying in order to just develop a single EDU in their backyard. Yeah. Approximately 600 feet depending on

the [clears throat] parameters of certain not communities also pay the word the actual structure. So I mean there are like you said most things together think that's but I would like us to you know this can this is a great conversation but I think you know we're going to go through housing ordinance changes and the discussions with that and that is just the first step in this there's we're going to have Unfortunately, we're going to have to keep working in the housing. It never stops from here on. I've been in these communities and I just know how difficult of a challenge this is once you reach this point. And unfortunately, almost every city in America is now reaching this point. I mean, places we never thought would reach this point are reaching this point, having this challenge. I understand from North Carolina, but you know, they're having the same problems. You know, this, you know, they, you know, they don't want to say the affordable workforce or subsidy or whatever, but they don't have a workforce and they're having close shops down their tourist things. They're facing the city today. So, uh, it's going to be something we have to continue to work on. So, you're going to get to work on the housing starting next month. uh we would like from tonight's conversation at least my goal was to come out here and say uh yes after that please move forward with the housing the nonp policy changes bring us that package but that

does not mean we're not starting to work on that third package got which is part and environmental and our Facebook getting better aesthetic or degree. Um, does that sound like a plausible strategy? Um, and a guarantee that this isn't all accomplished in three years that you can fire because [laughter] are you retiring? Is that the idea? [laughter]

Oh, no. I think that we need we need a deadline. So that's a good one, but I would like to see it sooner than that. Maybe or [laughter] maybe I don't know Jeff very well. We'll see how that works. Thank you very quick. [clears throat] The other topic is we should spend some time thinking about the financial viability of of Creek Terrace and I mean we can talk about new housing but if we lose the ones we've got uh it would be a disaster right?

When is that big restriction up? Do you remember Jen 35 question? The dude restriction for um Elk Creek just had 47. They had been signing Oh, I found there there was some recent developments with their financing and stuff like that. Some grants they received Oh, that's good. Oh, yeah. I remember it bumped out to 10 years. It was a 10-year bump. You're on the April 14th question. Well, there we go.

Be there. Is part of this housing hold does it address the issue we just talked about uh of uh something like an AU. U it w some of those uh I would call this enabling ordinances. what it is. We do not have all the pieces like the tree ordinance and other things to plug into it yet, but it enables that to happen once we get those others in place. It's just added

possibilities and you know uh the concerns about the commercial and parking above uh you know we can have that in this or housing that has an enabling. We just come back with the parking kind of things that fill in that gap in that ter and we can look into getting a uh you know part of that is looking through uh ODO to get the transportation uh funding to do what we plan for that and I'm sure we'll get financing for some of that and also likely some code uh and funding to help us do these. There's funding out there.

I wish we could tell these people that uh just hold out for another two years, you know, when they're trying to build an ADU for a caregiver.

Yeah. So, that's what this first this badge will allow them. It's just more complicated things like some of the trees and some of the other if council passes it the package that Marcy's put together that is built into this. Okay. Well, so you're not talking two years to get the housing done. Okay. But the the 80 the just

in that housing code that what's already written on the ADUs is that's is that only if they're rented that they get incentives only. No. Um they can't be an SDR. They have to be they have to be a longterm. Yeah. So what if it was an ADU for a caregiver? I don't that's the big still for ownership they rent so they could still get incentives. It seems like it's it will be full-time occupied is more what I recall from the language, but again that's uh so I mean that that could mean a lot of different things and cover a lot of different circumstances.

That that was what I believe we're attempting to hit at with the language is that it's fulltime occupied by somebody residing within it locally, not not a short-term rental or a second home sort of situation. that that was the lang if the language isn't specific enough to weird. So, it could be your elderly parents could be a career. It should be a caregiver for the people that own the res. Okay.

What we have two levels of incentives. They're going to have a longterm rental to get more discounts than if they're going to just have a time res. I think that makes it um I I don't see the fairness in that. You don't see what the fairness in having two different incentives if if you're going to have it long-term occupied, but if you're going to have it as a rental because you're bringing in a workforce person if you have a caregiver or someone I mean or No. So, so then you're then you're asking people to prove.

So I would I would appreciate if we talk about having a detailed discussion how you we will have that discussion and I'm not saying the short it's not me or anything conversation. I'm just saying from perspective I think that's fine. Yeah. Okay. They'll send that out again, right?

It goes out Okay. Thank you all. Great conversation.

So in the order I have something I need to talk to counselor. Um the um Sunset Transportation District is trying to apply for joinings to allow um more veteran services for free on the buses and they've asked us to write a letter for the deadline is next Tuesday. So and I'll be happy to write a letter but I wouldn't know if it's okay with counselors if I do it. So we have a followup. Certainly is with me. Yeah. Okay. Can anything else for

with with subset transportation? There have been a few people ramping me about uh um the dialeride program that's offered in other parts of the county, but it apparently isn't available

drivers. I'm not sure it's drivers. I just I've been asked a number of times about bringing up. Okay. Anything else? I think that I think that we touched on those letters that were sent the public comments um that were sent in about the ADU, right? Um but that would have been the only thing that I think it's important that I don't know. I just thought it was important that we address to them in the order that we did hear them. Right. Okay. Anything else? Okay. I'm mittens to