City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We all need a good job. Yes, we do. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, good evening and welcome everyone to the City Council work session of today, June 30th. Call the meeting to order and ask for a vote on the agenda.

So moved. Second. All in favor? Yes. Thank you.

So first on our journey, we have a public comment. If you have any public comments, please raise your hand up to the data. And take your name and mailing address. Keep it under three minutes and be kind to each other. Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment? Is there anyone on Zoom?

We've got one with her hand up.

OK. OK. Zoom is working, but we don't have pretty much for that. OK. So our one long-legged inspection item, and this is how I'm being . These are .

I will. You're going to start? I will start. Let me get to the presentation for the folks on the set.

I have computer issues. So you can't use the computer information that was on the screen. Sorry. Oh, yeah. I have one more. which I. Are the strange down so there is a. All right.

welcome thank you for uh let us uh speak tonight i have jeff adams i'm community development director for city of canada we've got larson becchanelli from uh earth's works with us and also shelly jensen from earth's workers in the audience uh uh why are we here today uh pathways pathways to housing keeping in mind that just because you're building housing doesn't mean you're providing or securing housing for the people who can't reach. We recognize it's a difficult subject matter and a challenge. We came into this trying to provide necessary documentation to take the legislative path forward, whether it was to encourage someone to build an ADU or incentivize someone to build an excuse for affordable housing development. on the RV property or elsewhere and provide all that information while keeping it understandable and digestible. And I have to tell you, it has been a real challenge. We wanted to provide a balance that would give you an example of the actual policies that would be required, as Councilmember Osterender had asked, while not overwhelming, for instance, on what it would take to rezone or seek a UGB expansion, et cetera, et cetera. Thus, we supplied you with free packets over three weeks so that you will have enough information to answer these four questions.

Yes.

The board question number one. And what more do you need to be prepared to make a decision on going on is 5 to which of agents 25 to 79 of the combined that and which is scheduled for August 6 of your number 2. What would you like to expand or what would you like to expand those amendments to include those found on a a way for the combined action. Striking to get your view language waiting parking requirements for all of the well in and allowing middle out they have to try flex in our line are you in our previous. There were 3 would you like to hold a public that were set in August 11 is to discuss that your system of right now on page 23 of the combined. Which allowing or. It looks like we have three tiers. Okay. And why do we need another work session? That's why the second package is so large. Because to provide a secure housing for the workforce, we must develop a system that incentivizes or leverages and distributes funds to those willing to secure housing and not just build houses. And just like the system development charges in each unit or co-page 22 of the mind that it states only certain types of housing or development are in and the state of a program that by only certain types of having our back to them. The program. So the 4th question are you in favor of the girl out in all things for which I love her to talk about later. But prior to that, for those that aren't familiar with the reasons, I wanted to provide four slides that I think provide ample reason. For 30 years, from 1965 to 1995, the national government, federal government, built affordable workforce housing. 1995 to 2025, the last 30 years, It's pretty much collapsed. There's been no federal and state funding of very little affordable housing. So when somebody asks, you know, if there's no affordable housing, well, this is one of the main reasons right here. Second, as you can see, 78 affordable existing units in the city of Cannon Beach. The majority of those, 70 of those of the 78, were provided by the federal out of the state. I don't know where and now that you know the C of our we different model of the the restricted model that provided that it is for 10 years. But what about the 303 affordable having this needed by 2024. I mean 2045 or the 660 total having a unit that will be needed by 20. 45 across the entire community. Just studying what we've done up until today, historically, if you will look at the next slide, it says we will need 483 acres across the county, and that's not including the land already in the DDB. So we are currently building in our residential districts 5.9 units per acre, okay? That's by far the best out of all the different communities in your class of counties. You can see Astoria built at 4.7, followed by Seaside at 4.4, all the way down to Warrington, which is at 1.6 units per acre. And yet, if you take that density and look at the available land that was available at Cannon Beach, we're still far short of what we need for the future. And so we need to develop pathways forward. And so what we're trying to do with this in the next slide summarizes, we have a package here of housing that is noticed for August 6th that we hope to get your approval to say, let's go forward with that. The second package, which we were calling housekeeping, we have notice the short-term mental cap. So we've taken that out of that package. It's already on its way to a public hearing for July 23rd for the planning commission. So at least the housekeeping and the signage in the July work session, which is also going before the planning commission. And so we scheduled also, like I said, for item three there, an August 11th work session with city council for the public benefits moving forward. And then we hope to come back to you guys in September for that number three, policy priorities for the final packaging and the rest of them. So what we have to do, we have to take these steps one step at a time along this pathway. So I'll hand it over to Marcy to kind of tell you a little bit more about step number four, question number four.

Hi. I'd like to comment on the zoning ordinance and then a package and the options that you have for it. So I'm talking about the page that says option pros and cons. One option would be to do nothing with the package that the Planning Commission approved and forwarded to maintain the zoning as it is today. Don't adopt amendments to support housing or a village character. Option B would be to adopt the Planning Commission's recommended amendments as they are. A small alternative to that would be to adopt them with the language that Jeff just went through. C would be to pull off and develop an alternative amendments package for adoption that's more ambitious. And D would be to adopt the Planning Commission amendments now and develop this more ambitious alternative package for future near-term adoption, along with the other housekeeping code amendments. So next slide. Let's assume we don't do nothing. I want to talk about the three options a little bit in a little bit more detail. So the next slide says housing code amendments option B. This would involve adopting the founding commission recommended amendments. These are, as you're familiar with now, line by line amendments sample is shown on that page where we kept the R1, 2 and R3 land use districts intact and made some significant changes to the language to reference public benefit dwellings and to allow certain waivers and exemptions on certain land use standards or development standards for public benefit housing. And The C1 also remained intact and there were some changes to that district as well on a line-by-line basis. And I want to point out that this was the work of the Housing Task Force over many months. And I think it's a decent package, but we have received a lot of community comment that we could and probably should go further. So onto the next slide, I'd like to talk about what options CMD would involve in this housing approach where one of the main aspects of this would be to consider the consolidation of R1-2 and possibly R3 into a single consolidated zone and to adopt two different zones for downtown. One for Hemlock to maintain its main street focus with the required retail on the ground floor and another zone that would allow residential at the ground floor that would be appropriate for spruce and possibly other areas in the town that are currently zoned. If you go to the next slide, housing code amendments, option C and D, the basis for consolidation of the R1, two and three zones is there's really very little big difference between the allowed additional land use space At this point, I think most of the testimony received during the course of considering the CO2502 was that duplexes should be allowed everywhere. There shouldn't really be a difference between R1 and 2. Also, the development standards, setbacks in height, very little difference between those zones. It's somewhat arbitrary. And it would make it a lot easier to administer a pro-housing approach if we consolidated this. And I included an analysis by Roberts on the left where we tabled out each of the zones and put it next to where they have the same families as well. So onto option C, pro-housing key concepts. Another approach that's more ambitious approach would be to adopt a form-based approach, one that sets very clear standards about height, setbacks, location of parking, landscaping, facade requirements. It would build in all of the clear and objective design standards that would replace the design review. Currently, it would address all of the village character aspects in clear and objective language. It would meet state requirements for that. And it would also provide a lot more certainty against the need for applicants and more predictability for you. The disability standards would establish the desired core, but the multiple drawings on a lot could be allowed on a lot up to the current point. Currents, I'm just going to say 0.6 FAR, but we can also revisit the FAR during that process. So much more clear, much more... the objective design standards than we currently have and it would encourage more housing options instead of prohibiting that. On the next slide, I want to talk a little bit about lot sizes. This has come up a lot in the discussion of the resuming amendments. We have studied the lot sizes encountered in R1 and R2 and found that Almost 50%, close to 50% of them are larger than 5,000 square feet, much larger, which means that under the current NBR, you can build a larger house. And I know this was an issue was that it appeared that we were limiting the size of the homes, but in reality, we have many lots have a great deal of floor area ratio attributed to them and therefore square feet. If a form-based code approach were taken, we could allow more flexibility about the number and type of dwellings on the lots. Potentially, we could get more units, especially on some of those larger lots. For example, under your current zoning, on a 10,000 square foot lot at 0.6 NVR, you can get 6,000 square feet of residential use. But currently, all that is allowed right now is one house. and an AU at 800 square feet. So that doesn't offer a lot of options for the kind of housing that you may want to be bringing into Canopy. So 5,200 square foot dwelling and one 800 square foot AU is not really serving your workforce. Another is that if you reduce the FAR for one dwelling, like we're talking about in an incremented FAR, approach because larger lots would still allow 4,000 square foot dwelling on a 10,000 square foot lot. So there's nothing that's really limiting the number of centerfeeds. And I wanted to point that out because it was an issue. On the last slide, that was one of, and this is the last slide, pro-housing key concepts. At the last time I made a presentation here, we talked about the civil blue book, the catalog of housing types that I've that I offered. And I think Councilor Hayes asked if any of those could be built in Cannon Beach. So I actually looked at your lot sizes, and these are one and two and three zones, and looked at the number of square feet associated with each of these housing types and found that you could allow any of these housing types on here, but some are as small as 600 square feet or 400 square feet. The number is 16. is actually here in Cannon Beach, those small cottages in the south. More of the dwellings as large as 2,000, or as I mentioned, even larger homes, depending on the size of the lot. So there's a huge variety that if we were to go to a farm-based pro-housing concept approach, a lot of variation could be built. And that's the end of our presentation. And at this point, knowing that there's some people who need to leave sooner, we were hoping to discuss the possibility that we could take a poll of you right now to get early feedback prior to opening.

Yes, absolutely.

Here's my question.

I still don't understand when And when the restrictions would kick in under this scenario, are they simultaneous or does it happen later on? Because I personally would not be willing to agree to any of these things. The rest of the restrictions are in place at the same time.

So the language for the housing benefit program is part of the 25.02. And what Jeff was talking about now in his presentation, and I assume that this would be the main topic of the August 11th work session, would be what are those public benefits? What does the House have to provide to be counted as a public benefit line to take advantage of the zoning ordinance?

I think the goal is to play in fashion until both of those things work. I read through all the different ideas for e-restrictions, but I wasn't sure if that's something to come after this happens, or I'd like to see it sometimes.

Yeah, because of the notice requirements and all of that, we noticed the meeting for August 6th, correct? That's for that first slate of changes. So that's what we call the enabling language. So Once that, I mean, that's in place, we will start working after the August 11th meeting on bringing those other policies for you to sign off on, you know, the detail of what the limits are, you know, and how long they need to be and all of that, because we've left the past revolution through you guys. And if you're wanting to go as far as like tax abatements and things like that, that not only takes legislation, for you guys but that also has to be 51 percent uh so you would have to go to the county uh to get that approval and uh and also to the school district that's what seaside or manzanita have done with different types of basics so there's different pieces that move forward but like you said once you have that enabling language in place you can start moving forward on that stuff They are really doing it as soon as possible.

Yeah, but they're not. They're not.

So I'm going to go to those requirements and don't work for a little different than what we're talking about.

So I think we would need to agree that if we are going to move forward, we need restriction. This isn't what it is. Fifty percent of the more than 50% of it. Now the feed restriction, all this is just like, even though more animals for occasion, I'm sorry.

I think the critical part of that is making sure that there are some real incentives and not the restrictions that prevent us from, and all the gaps are smaller, best use sales. So there's some kind of balance that we have in mind. And I expect that there's going to be a lot of conversation about that.

The zoning ordinance amendment does explicitly state that none of the housing is built under the zoning ordinance would be available for a short-term rental. Right.

I think we all know Yeah, but the concern is the second part of the usage, which is .. policy-oriented proposals that Jeff is bringing forward. I think Jeff makes a good point. The proposal that's coming before us in August, that language has to be in place before policies can be enacted. And can an active policy before the zoning ordinance, the policy is modifying. It wouldn't make any sense. And I imagine it would be legal, but if we could have that, I don't know if it would be worth having that language. Like, if this passes, this is the policy that would pass, and having that language before council, that would be a groundwork session in August. That this is the language that should you have zero to whatever this is the language that we'd be proposing the residues to modify that it will be about one month.

Yeah, this is all important.

Yeah. And so that's what I'm saying. So in August that the August 11, we would talk about those details. The thing you guys want to agree on, you know, do we want to go for all the way to tax abatements? And, you know, how much, like Gary was saying, to make it work well, are you going to give X amount of rebate to an affordable public benefit, affordable unit? Do we want to give a, you know, a rebate to those that would lock it up for 10 years, 30 years, or how long do you want to do that? And so we would get those details, and like you said, then we would bring you guys the different resolutions for rainfall.

So my question I had for this, like the de-distriction portion, you mentioned that, I can't remember, would you call it community housing something? Yeah. But that sounds like staff, that sounds like additional staff and community, and And so how much, what does that look like to the budget and where does that money come from?

You guys gave me to go ahead and move forward for this position for housing. And I think that first and foremost, their main role would be to maintain that and oversee that. But like you said, we currently have eight units at CVAR. I did want to give you guys perspective that Currently, we're doing two, on average, two new ADUs per year. That's what we've produced. It has been produced for the last 10 years. And so I would expect if we start going in this direction that, yes, we would increase that. But how much? I doubt it could be too much just because of how many we have out there. But then what we're doing with this other benefit is you're getting different types. It's also allowed for mixed use and affordable units. So for instance, if somebody wants to do a development downtown and they're going to be doing a ground floor commercial up above, if they do two units of regular or one unit of public benefit, then they can have two regular units. And the parking is uh, even later.

And so this will incentivize those types of units to be, uh, I would say that that was my answer to was the amount of administration and enforcement involved in all of this and the mountain that it would be to climb for, uh, jokingly, how many person to do that? I mean, I think it's something that developers have gotten used to. And I don't know how much we're talking about developers and how much we're talking about people wanting to add an ADU. I just, I fear that we are gonna pile too much on people who would actually add it as a community. And we're going to discourage it. So, I mean, that's my, one of my big concerns.

In general. That was the question I had. And I guess where the money would be coming from city-side administration doing that?

Well, I mean, I can only wait for right now, from our perspective, like when we do have a, as you see, we had already with our staff, and yet, you know, now we've given us another position to go towards housing, so I think it's a good start for moving there. But then you look at other jurisdictions that do this all the time, yes, they have organizations that that do that. And so it is part of our plan with the class of regional housing task force. That's one of the reasons we started that organization was to start talking about regionally building that path.

Well, and when you're asking we should have one zone. On downtown, I don't necessarily see or understand why we want a different zone for, we're talking about really just, you know, down the corridor between 2nd and 3rd. Why we want a different one for Spruce and Grand Walk. But I could certainly see

During the housing charrette, we studied the effect that the retail requirement has on housing. And it does require additional parking, which can, so it basically makes, in some areas, housing infeasible. So there was some agreement at the charrette amongst the participants there that maybe we could look at Spruce is not your main street. It doesn't have to have retail on the ground floor everywhere. And you could allow standalone apartment buildings on a lot by lot basis as feasible. It might make housing more feasible for the down-down.

We've got some commercial things there now. I have no students about that.

Well, yes, we do. Talking about this particular block, Josh Triplett- A third of the block is residential ground floor of spruce and others wild things that are there. Josh Triplett- Yeah, they're going to be Josh Triplett- Just just residential industry tradition. Josh Triplett- Whatever that and then when I rebuild the girl three residential commercial on so Josh Triplett- This is already a mishmash of stuff that would currently be a lot of this because

uh and more based on shaking that's on the ppl side but it's probably a direction we moved up so there's my answers to them were those your questions those are good questions that the actual official questions would were also um can i go ahead and state them yeah uh what more do you need to be prepared What work do you need to have to be prepared to make a decision on the adoption of the ZO 2502? And would you like to expand upon those amendments? There were some additional things that have been added for your consideration, such as allowing up to triplexes. And third, would you like to hold a public benefits work session on August 11, regarding this three-tiered public benefits incentive system. And for are you in favor of moving from housing policies forward? And thank you, counselor, as you you did answer the number four question, which I got one. That's your I need us in favor of moving from us to follow support.

So the tiered incentive system, this proposed in the presentation, is that something that you're looking to have included in 0.502. As part of that is the resolution to be passed to 0.502. Right. That's what we'll talk about on the 11th.

And really, this is kind of the tiered approach to doing that. These are kind of the parameters of the program. And we can talk everything about areas of income ranges that you would want to see those averaged at. you know, what type, I was just talking about the parking, raising parking, those types of things, which do you want to waive system development charges for, affordable housing fees for, those types of things. Because I think, you know, we've heard discussion about, you know, we don't want to limit people from just building housing. But, you know, this right here, has been posted around town, and I think it's a great thing just to look at, okay? Because what we're getting is just what this little house says is, I'm empty inside, and it's crime, okay? And we had an immediate cap on SDRs. We don't really need to do that, right? Eliminate or drastically reduce fees for ADUs, okay? We're going to be talking about that. Then you've got to eliminate downtown parking restrictions for mixed use spaces. We're talking about doing that for certain things. Four, commit to funding and increasing the housing fund. You've done that. Five, stop saying short-term rentals aren't an issue and there's no more space. And I really don't think, I've never said it, I don't believe it, that it's ever going to set. It's at 10%. I think it's going to stay 10%. If we put a cap on it or not, I think it's a good thing to go ahead and do the cap. But none of these, I really think, address that empty house. None of them addresses the empty house. It does, maybe marginally, but what we're trying to move to is to say when someone... put, built that accessory dwelling unit, and we give them, we waive these for short, for STCs and for housing and all that, and we give you so much funding to build that, you have to assure that it's going to stay in that for a number of years in a affordable range. Because right now, we are not getting that. We are just not seeing rents that anyone can afford being given. And so it is definitely a bang for the buck, a leverage point, if you want to call it. And that's why we've talked about L30Rs and housing sizes, because if you want to save the historic cottages, for instance, or if you want to build affordable units that people can't afford, we've reached that point in the price of land and the price of construction that unless you want to build to seven stories or five stories and much denser, then that is the only way that they're going to be able to do that. So that's just following that.

I guess I'm wondering about what has allowed for an ADU or a duplex that doesn't put you into that program of the V restrictions.

So I'd rather- I think 800 square foot ADU is allowed without having to go into any of the public benefit programs. But if you make it a public benefit ADU, it can be, the FAR does not count. That was something that was incorporated in.

Right. So it would be under the reduced FAR. And 800 would count against the FAR. It's not.

It does not count. So you could build your FAR in the primary dwelling and have this 800 square foot that does not detract from your FAR, your local FAR. It's a public benefit ADU. Exactly.

If it's a public benefit. Right, only if it's a public benefit. Only if it's a public benefit do any of these things apply. So if we have a couple that wants to build an ADU on their home so they can spend, on their property, so they can spend their last years there and have somebody take care of them, that doesn't count.

That does count. That's one of the, in the public benefit provision is the other 2502 is living the full time. I'm renting it long-term for, um, there's a third thing, but they're living in it and they're renting it long-term. Both units are occupied about 70 full terms. So that's, that's what we're qualified for. They don't necessarily have to rent it to somebody, but it's a long-term residence, whether it be themselves or a family member. That's, that's the language that has in it currently. Yeah. You can rent it. That's an option to build it.

Right, but to get these benefits, to get your sewer, I mean, if you're building a new ADU on your property, because all of these say that it has to be part of the Canterbeach public benefit housing through the housing office through Canterbeach.

Yeah, but if you look at that Tier 1, it does not require the description of a Tier 1. I have to say, though, that comes with the provision that you guys, if you were to go that route, you guys would have to do an amendment to your SBC order, because currently that will not be allowed.

And one says it must be kept as a long-term rental unit for 10 years from the certificate.

Yeah, it does, but we don't put any limiters. You look at the other categories here to do a pretty good and then after the search, but we don't live in London is just saying that we want to see what that we read that.

Please look for it so that we have an understanding that we're not going to the city wants control of you know that's what it says here.

Yeah, I was there by that you can build a new year. And you don't have to get a public benefit telling it off at all. It will come out of your FAR.

Right. I understand that. But they're not going to get any. If you build an ADU on your property for your own personal use and it's not part of the public benefit program, you don't get system development fees.

Right.

Right, but you don't get your system development fees waived or reduced. You don't get any of those things.

But I think as Eric pointed out, if it's for a family member, it doesn't have to be rented to an outsider. If it's for long-term rental or residence, it counts as a public benefit loan.

So I have a note for the computer here. So I noticed this when I was going through the path and I had a question because I didn't realize what The tears were prior to me getting in plane, the three years ago, I had a note saying that that or bullet point in tier one. Should. Include the language that we have in the proposal you're going back to instead of the current as much as you can remember, which I don't think is accurate to what you were trying to say. And I imagine that this was the objective of that sentence was must be kept in compliance with the public well, and the occupancy requirements. That's what I imagined. That's why I think the confusion might be here in this conversation. It shouldn't say long term rentals. That should say, in the case of six, 17, 16, 200 public buildings. We're not requiring any

Am I 100% of that?

Sometimes need the restriction.

The word must in that fourth bullet point is pretty strong word. And so this is what I'm trying. I understand what all of it. I understand what this is saying, but I think that there's more to the picture that so if I have a house, And I want to build an ADU and I'm within afar. I mean, I still have room to build that. I want to put an ADU out there, but it's my husband's band room, right? He's going to have his man cave out there. That doesn't fall under any of this. I have to pay for all the things. I'm responsible for everything, but I am not beholden to the city because I don't have a deep restriction. Yeah. That's exactly what I was saying before.

So, if you do it for yourself, if any time the lady you authorize no more in panic, you get nothing. There's a disincentive to add a dwelling unit becomes my concern.

And that's what I was saying about having a caretaker in that space. You're not renting that space to them. And if In order to qualify for even Tier 1, we would have to have a deed restriction in order to have some of those fees waived, correct?

Yeah, so I think that that is the discussion you guys have to have. And it will also work, like I said, if you side with the, you know, everyone should get their FPC and fees waived, then yes, you're going to have to go and change your FPC ordinance to that. And so that's the balance. And you lose, like I said, you will lose leverage or the ability to really, for that public benefit, to keep them at a general rate. So that's what, that's where, you know, your biggest session will be only August 11th. I mean, that's really what we're going to talk about at that meeting.

Well, I'm still not clear. If there is, if we are somehow restricting the use of someone who wants to build an ADU and get, I'll ask it again. I think maybe you answered it. You can build an ADU, but it's within the reduced FAR that the ordinance spells out and your ADU takes away from that FAR. Correct.

You also don't have to care about the parking space.

That's just off the top, anyone. There's a benefit that everyone gets.

One benefit without any kind of restriction to the property.

Great. And you don't have to care about parking.

You don't have to care about parking. Right, that's one benefit. building an additional development unit without having to agree to something, have a de-restriction, whatever you want to call it.

So I'm all for moving forward with the pro-housing package. I don't want anybody to think that I'm not for that, but I think that there's some things that we just need to be clearer on so the public understands this is this and this is this as far as oh yeah and as far as the SDCs for the person who needs to build an ADU on their property for a caretaker or whatever I think that we need it's a separate conversation we need to look at that as they're already tied into those utilities. Why are they having to pay the same amount now? And I think that that's a different conversation, right? I don't think that it falls within this here. Maybe it does, but it sounds like that's a different conversation. I'm fine with moving forward with this. I think that I've had conversations with people and I think that there are a lot of people that will be hard pressed to buy into this. Deeper extraction. Divide into the deeper extraction.

And again, that becomes my concern. You know, I'm like, okay, yeah, we can reduce FAR and give it back if you add a dwelling unit. But now we're putting so many requirements on the dwelling unit that I'm seeing the movement. And I'm a person would say, why screw it? I'm just going to go with my tiny unit. single family residence and it'll be the second home like we don't want to have.

I think we need to have that article on refining the tier benefits that actually because the proposals in these tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 include things like the passivations. We have talked about passivations before. We've really talked about passivations. It has Josh Triplett- A number of other things in your benefits that what direct cash benefits or building those things to help with construction and Josh Triplett- Reduction additional fees, not, not just as a CV, but other these are mentioned in two, three, two, two that I think those Josh Triplett- Could be real at this, the do what you're saying and create an incentive to maybe, maybe there's a couple of boost the jumper. maybe the staff in the community development department has a way to clarify those steps so it's more simple. You're not going through the service to try to figure out what am I supposed to do to get any sort of benefit out of this.

I guess that was my only thing. A tier one business is a real tier one to get additional development experience. you know, whether an additional dwelling unit is built as a rental in the beginning or not, I think it adds a dwelling unit, you know, that's gonna be there for a hundred years. And it seems like we need to make that more accessible with less restrictions. And then, you know, but if you permit to, you know, making it a full-time rental, you get more. If you commit to an AMI limit, you get more. It feels like that two, one.

That is what we're trying to do. That's what the communities that do this, that's what they do. They tier it up to make those incentives stronger for each level you move up. I live in an accessory world indeed. right now, okay, current accessory dwelling units. It is $500, no, actually it's $600 over 120%, okay? So we're building accessory dwelling units, okay, to the maximum of 600 square feet right now, and that's what I've done. It is not providing affordable for work for this housing. Yes, we will, but we're going to be having the same thing. People can't do it.

Well, I just see the whole purpose of this is not to just increase the density of the city. It isn't to increase density. It's to increase the opportunity to almost incentivize the building by middle and workforce housing. And that's it. So you just want to increase density. That's a whole different thing. That does not get us where we're trying to go. And so they have to be linked. If they're not linked, it's not going to work. Well, and I think I agree.

I've been out since three.

So forgive me. Well, you said something. You're great. I agree. That's good.

I remembered what I was going to say. Full-time, I think there are some full-time rentals already in town that people rent long-term and without having a deed restriction, I think they should be incentivized as well because I think that it's It's unfair for someone who is all they have to do is provide a lease to the city. Here's a copy of our lease. It doesn't matter if what the AMI is or whatever, maybe that's tiered as well. One thing I think that before August 11th, we should have and be able to see is what this lease agreement looks like with the city. How much it's going to cost the tenants, and even if it's just a sample example, what it's going to cost the homeowner or the city to manage that, and what of that rent they'll realize back.

Yeah, and there are some long-term medicine fees. And they are outrageous in price. You know, it's absolutely, people cannot barely afford a new one. Just profit, a new house was purchased and now it's for rent for a huge amount of money.

Who can live there? Well, you know, we rent our house. Our financial advisor advised us not to buy it when we bought the bakery. We were just renting the COVID kit and then pricing. So anyway, but our landlords, have been very fair. Our rent is not cheap, but it's not... I could live in Portland for maybe a little more than what we're looking here for the house that we rent. So... We're lucky. I am very lucky. But, you know, housing prices are so high. And that's where an incentive comes in from the city to, yes, someone buys one of these more expensive homes, even, what, an $800,000 house? What's the payment on that? $6,000 a month. So if there's some incentive by the city of some kind, granted, it's not going to be leaps and bounds. It's not going to be a couple thousand dollars to bridge the gap. But still, if they have some incentive to lower that rental level, I think that, and maybe that's wishful thinking.

But well, that's our agenda for next council or literally. Yeah, at least you look with program. The resolution for her drunk being or whatever it is to do. That's that's where that broken down. Yeah, so it's but but that's only one piece. Then.

Yeah, and and the renting thing. I'm sorry, go ahead.

I would just like to offer that to Councilor Hayes' comment that there needs to be a real tier one, one that provides incentives for an EMU, for example, that doesn't place too many restrictions on it. Is that what you would call a real tier one? Well, I think that we have that. We just don't articulate it amongst the tiers that Jeff has laid out about the public benefit. And it is what is in the CEO ordinance right now. What we have is a public benefit dwelling provision. All that it requires is that it's a long-term rental. And all of the provisions for it are set up or shown on page 31 of the consolidated page number document. It doesn't have an income limit or anything. It's just about long-term rental. For that, you get an ADU, 800 square feet, exempt from FAR, and no parking requirement.

Is that a need restriction?

It is, but it's not, the way it reads is once sold to the initial buyer, the dwelling unit shall remain occupied as the principal residence of the title holder receiving public benefit housing losses. And then there's some other hardship exceptions and dwellings may only be rented for periods exceeding 12 months and are not eligible for short-term rental licensing. And it does require that the city tracks that in order to award the public benefit waivers. So I would be accurate.

Of the extra 800 square feet. And the parking or the parking already counts. But if you use it, there's still a deed restricting.

That deed has to be provided to the documentation that will be provided to the city. that prove that it's a long-term crisis.

It's a long-term. The concern remains that we're going to make this something that, you know, they said they are a joke. And we're going to end up with a lot of smaller, sad MPs. Sad MPs. I think the goal behind this is, you know, I said,

We are going to have to skim this. I think we all agree we're going to have to skim this cap many different ways to get to the end result. And if a couple people take advantage of this program, a couple people take advantage of Ways to Locals, and a few people take advantage of this, then we'll build inventory. I don't think we're going to have a lot of people take on the ADU option, but we might have a few.

I'm actually starting to need to disincentivize the ADUs by reducing the FAR and then making you take your EDU out of that.

That's what the market feels today. Right now, today, the FAR, the ADU counts against the FAR.

But the FAR is 60, right? And is there still talk about going to 0.46?

If you can, there is. Because otherwise, where do you go to? Right.

I've always liked that idea of reducing the farm and then giving it back.

That's exactly what this is.

Right. Except for the deed restrictions, which I think that...

The deed restrictions just forces people to... Because if you don't do that, what are you going to do? Are you going to have a... To to vacation on some property. You know how they use a vacation home and you'll have the main house is a vacation home. Everybody would be kept. This is trying to I don't like this word for some people, but you get there's an incentive. There's an incentive to build an 80 year long term. And I agree with Leanna that even if to begin with, maybe only the first year, three people do it, and then two people do lease the locals. And then next year, maybe a few more people do it. It's not going to happen overnight, but it will slowly build. And there is an incentive for a lot of leases. In our housing group, we have a lot of these same incentives for duplexes. You know, you get parking relief, and you get paying for taking down a tree relief, and you get, you know, all kinds of different incentives to get people to go to duplex. Same thing. Not just maybe you. So we might get two or three new duplexes, and we might get two or three new AVUs, and, you know, eventually it builds up into something that is providing what we are trying to provide.

And there's jurisdictions out there that are doing these programs, and so they are getting benefits from them. So it's, you know, it's... Like you said, it's not going to happen overnight, but it does get buy-in, and people see the benefits of having people working in their communities, living in their communities, going to communities like this, coming to their communities, and getting involved in a community.

Four-cluster colleges on one of the larger lots, a central common ground, and a community garden for the people who live there. I mean, there's all kinds of... configurations that I've seen in other communities that are there still maintain the village character of the place, but they provide smaller and more housing.

And I feel like we're really focusing on the ADUs and not focusing on those other things, cluster communities, duplexes, triplexes, It's those things that make sense.

Well, that's where the fair housing proposal comes in. In our show, we talked about all those things. The complexes, the clusters, we talked about all those things.

Part of that is the F-2502.

But it could be part of the fair housing.

And part of that tier three. So they should be working together with the pro-housing to get more of those. You've been taking just the step to extend, which is question number three, just to do that. That gives the ability to at least weigh public benefits, parking for units and the downtime. So you're at least starting to take more steps just by extending the The question.

So, of course, isn't that our isn't that already the same in the proposal 0.502 or is that an additional? I thought it was.

Yeah, I think it's for in the residential area, but I don't think it's that.

It didn't include ceiling. I thought it didn't include ceiling. Not that I know of. I'm sorry, I missed the original question. The parking relief for residential, low commercial, and C1 is not included in Z025.

I thought it was.

I wouldn't see it. I mean, that's why I gave you the structure. I can check on that. Okay. Okay. a very key feature to get in the residential development and make these area, you know, not a lot of working for us.

That's part of our discussion. So how do we all agree with that? I remember too, but you want Siemens?

Would you guys mind if we just do a poll on question one, or do you guys, do you need anything else for, you know, to move that and forward for our paper. We've got it scheduled for almost six months before.

Well, I think you've answered some of the questions that will help us be prepared to make a decision.

Yeah, I'd like to see kind of the other side of I want to make sure that when we do this, that we aren't restricting things or people in our community in other ways. I just want to make sure that this isn't restricting anything that we have any place currently. Like everybody that's there is grandfathered in. If their house burns down, they can build the same house back without And maybe I'm going taking it too far, but I just like to, I just want to make sure that this isn't going to cause green fur on the other side. Well, yeah, yes and no. I just, I just want to make sure that.

So, so if somebody say has something that's about you, the rules we require in the 0.46 to the 0.52, depending on what big situation they have, if they are to have above that, and they want it to be like a major renovation of that expanding space, they would have to demo down to 0.46. Right. They would have to fully rebuild 0.46 to their house, or down and forth, if they had a catastrophic something happen to their house. Maybe that was happening there. Oh, but I'm making sure we have that assured, that that's the case, even with 0.45 worth of passing. that people will still be able to maintain the existing home that they have now in whatever way they need to continue to maintain therapy.

Yeah. I know it makes sense.

I just want to... And I believe that I will just say that I believe that the current thing that's going through doesn't provide Okay, I believe in our house in order to do that. I've spoken up. That's one of the ones that I've got.

So I would like to make sure that that is in there.

Because if it's not in the current language, it is in the current code that your house burns down. You can build it in the original.

I mean, I will come back to you at that time. But we'll talk about this. Yeah.

If you decide to remodel this because you want to make a fancier house, then there's a certain percentage that you can't, you know, I just don't remember, 75% of the assessed value or something that you can, then it would have, it's more than a certain percentage that you have to conform to the existing code. But if it's a catastrophe, you do not.

And that's fine. I don't think that the... So you're not sure. and things should be pouring down to their lease and replaced with big old wall in the wall.

Yeah, so the 1788 warning of non-conforming structures that states that the non-conforming structure or non-conforming portion of the structure is destroyed by any means to an extent amounting to 80% of its fair market value as indicated by the records of the county assessor It shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this time.

So more than 80% or more of your home has to be destroyed. I think that's a little excessive. That it has to be basically a complete loss. That you couldn't rebuild your home. So if half of my house burned down, and then I have to conform to the new zoning. I don't...

There's something in place for years. I'm just changing. I don't agree with it. That's a different flow. We're not talking about that now. That's changing the current code about how much has to be billed and what percentage is right. We've had that discussion before. And that's a different discussion.

I think that's a perfectly relevant discussion to an adjustment to the FAR that this is the $20,000 you have in this. If there's an adjustment now But it's an additional 10% of the homes that are out of compliance. What happens to those are that they don't have. So I have to keep in London.

I will talk about that when I was here prior. But that would read that the nonconforming structure, nonconforming portion of the structure is destroyed or damaged by any problem in the actions of the owner of that structure or his agent. to an extent amounting to 80% of its fair market value as indicated by the records of the assessor, that structure can be rebuilt for the construction or reconstruction of the structure shall A, conform to the setbacks building high support area of the structure, fire damage or destruction, or B, conform to the setbacks building high other requirements of the zone in which it is located.

So you're still using that 80, but you still have that 80% number? No. And I think that's excessive. I know that it's a small amount of people in town that would, a smaller amount of people that would fall outside of that, outside of far with the size of their home. But if you have right now 3,000 square foot house on your whatever lot that you could build, And then we, you know, farce reviews, setbacks, all of those things, and you can't rebuild your house. I kind of think because it was destroyed in some way, I think that's short-sighted.

So these are part of the Housekeeping ones that we're employing say reset and refer.

So her question once we have your work mission, do you make a decision, I try to look at information about this, I'm having trouble during my recent changes, but our other other cities. In the current realm of all these housing developments that are happening all across the state. Have other cities instituted reductions in FAR? How have they looked in those cities where they've implemented them? Have they done expansions on FAR? Have they changed? I know a lot of cities don't use FAR anyways. A lot of cities use block coverage and they end right there. But have those adjustments been made in other cities? And how has this compared with other cities that have been successful in increasing housing in those cities? situations. I think they have, but I don't think I'd like to see something like that in this conversation. You don't want to have a comparison between the capital cities of the population. There's not a lot of cities with a population of our size. But we have the number of Well, it's, it's compared with the bachelor sex. So it's kind of a little confusing situation.

I don't think you just made this up on a whole block. This is this is something that you have worked on and seen one in other places, I'm assuming.

Yes, we still a lot of concepts from other places where that has been in place for

A few years now. Yeah. Not only for us, but for any proponents or opponents too. This is something that we've been on. These are some examples of where this has been on, and this is where it's fallen short or it's succeeded or however, however it's been implemented in us. Honestly, that feels like the stickiest part of 25.2 is the FAR portion of it.

Are you asking that this material be prepared in advance of the public hearing? It's possible. And I know I'm going to just tell you a friend that a lot of this is from Portland and larger cities.

Yeah. Jim is not going to be able to. Oh, I didn't expect that. It's not possible.

No, Portland. Yeah. Okay.

No. Examples of. these reductions because everyone across the United States, no matter how big or small the city is, is having housing issues.

And I sat through the public hearings and the planning commission, and it seemed to me, and I didn't have statistics, but it seemed to me that most of the complaints about FAR were from second homes. They were not from residents who lived here, but they were from second homes who wanted to build a second homes. Those are the people I heard the most about the reduction of welfare in life. And that's natural, that makes sense. But I don't, I think that getting more housing is satisfying the size desires of second homes. I think we also heard from a lot of people that thought that

all the lots were going to be subject to, I mean, they weren't correlating that they are a lot size. And there was some information going around about how many councilors had homes that were larger than the amount of square footage that would be allowed on a 5,000 square foot lot. If you dug into it, you would see that that's because the lots are larger than 5,000 square feet. You know, it was the planning commission, not the city council.

Yeah, the planning commission. That information was received. We're not there's only one of us.

And so does anyone else need anything else for number one the question or. And then we get a feel or if you guys want to send it to. The 3 items which is we. parking night, which may already be done, but I don't really, I still don't see it, but maybe we can talk about that more soon. But that would extend that. The other thing is we, let me go back to that document. Okay, yeah, weighting the subjective review things to make it more clear and objective. So, you know, there's a, we have a few phrases and I think three different things under that conditional use or setback reduction where we say it doesn't interfere with the view of the neighbor. Our ordinance, they're not supposed to say that under the state's fair and objective standards now. And so if it would remove those and then to allow up to triflexes in R1, R2, and R3. And the other provision in that is in R3 districts do not allow single-family or duplex.

Single-family what?

Do not allow single-family or duplexes in R3 districts. Oh, right. Right. And so those are the only things that we're asking to extend that 0.5.

So the first one you mentioned, that's the part B and C1. Yeah. And the second one.

And the second one was to get rid of the subjective view languages that are required. Yeah. And then three is, what did I just say?

The subjective view language, there is a way to make the view language objective and still make it work.

Yes, we will with that.

I mean, not just take it out.

Yeah.

I mean, someone would like to take it out.

So I want them to do that. So is everyone okay with that for number two? Okay. Okay, number three. Number three was the work session from on August 11 to deal with the tiered approach system to get that down. Okay. And everybody okay with that? Second. And you know,

If you need more information, it doesn't have to be said here.

You can always email me and say, I would also like to see if you can find anything on this or that. That's also good to hear.

And so also, it's just an additional item for that four sessions. Yeah.

And number four, are you in favor of moving pro-housing policies forward?

Yes. Yeah.

With some revision. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, I had a question about the So are there things in CO 2502 that you've seen or you're aware of that are going to make it more difficult to move forward with these other options from option C in the programming that are going to make us be doing double order mapping one day and then six months later, they'll actually know we're rehearsing all of that and doing the other thing.

I don't think we'll see that. I think it's just going to be a replacement with more form-based . OK.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- The currency of 25 was do it or less than six months down or about five and whatever it is this this hammered out with a few revisions and like narrowing the requirements or incentives and stuff it's not like a wholesale change. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Going to the mortgage. HAB-Jacques Juilland- away from what. HAB-Jacques Juilland- The proposed. HAB-Masyn Moyer- It may look.

Visually, a lot different.

But in essence, what actually is allowable and incentivized.

Yeah, there are development standards for trying to do the same. But there'll be one zone. So a lot of it will be formatting, in theory. Hopefully, simplifying from that instance. So it's not a narrative. Narrative form, line by line, in a confusing way, yeah.

So any other thoughts or questions?

Anything?

Marcy, anything else?

I appreciate you all very much. There is a lot of material to think about. And August 11th, we'll have to roll the course release. What I'll try to do is kind of a step-by-step process to walk through it so we can just kind of do a workflow of yes or no or we, you know, I think the warmness or something so that we can go step-by-step through this.

Is there a meeting up to that meeting? Can you do similar where we have this meeting and have, once you have materials prepared so that we can review them as early as they're available. So if we have comments, we can throw them back to you as quickly as possible.

I hear you right, or is it that? Oh, that's the, so. Never mind. Because I just read my notes.

I've got a little punchy.

Yeah. Okay. Packet two is July 11th. Packet three is in September. Okay. So thank you.

Okay. Anything else?

But I think we're going to be all right.

This is totally not about this. And I wonder, is there an after action report from the office and the hassle conference.

So you may agree this Thursday to do with the change the chamber is community. So that

Basically, all wrong. Because there was a lot of Some people are happy that Like, for example, there is no parking for for members of the emergency response team with very much stuff.

That's a State issue that The state doesn't permit. I heard the same thing when the request was a restriction in the state, but two years ago, they could access the beach the way the NRC wanted to access the beach. I was going to request for that. Yeah, there there there's a meeting this Thursday where we need to be brief with. I think I've got almost every agency. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's just, it seemed like I couldn't answer the question who was in charge because I don't know.

It's been a chamber event for 62 years, so the chambers.

Well, I know the chamber is, but they're not, they're not in charge of who, where, where, and so.

It's the state that had a requirement for the usage.

Yes, I know that, I know that, but I'm sure that it saved us to say, you can't, He's there. He's in there.

And they did it for herself.

There was a number of people say, well, there's a lot of people who served and in my company will serve and occur in the middle of the world. And so you're upset because they didn't have place to park. And I don't, you know, I don't, I'm not going to argue about it, but I was there. So I don't know. I'm just telling you what they need to say to me. And I feel like you can communicate wherever it's in charge. Yeah. Well, we are. Well, hopefully you're excited about that person.

Okay. So he's one of those concerns and

This order. So that's, you know, If you're not the same as I don't want to lose our emergency medical, you know, you know that we go back and stuff. I see that. Business. That the weather is not sure. It was the best thing we've had since sort of

It was great. So we've had it in the past. We had a substantial amount of participation on the beach. It was, it felt pretty perfect on the first. It was awesome. The chamber has itself on the thing that they have. It's three months behind. It takes three months to get it right. It's a cloud adaptation. So we won't know for sure how many errors exactly for a couple of months, but it definitely, it felt like it was over 15 minutes on each.

I hope you invited your groups to come here and then stop.

I don't have people. So Janay is included. I'm sorry.

Violet is the head of the Okay. Anything else?

Oh, that's right. And then in August, it's going to be the second Wednesday instead of the first because they're announced. The second.

Oh.