City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to welcome everyone to the Tuesday, September 8th City Council Work Session and Special Meeting. Call the meeting to order and ask for approval of the agenda.

I have a suggestion for the agenda. I'm curious of how many people are here to specifically talk about the public hearing that's at the end of the meeting. And if that number is pretty substantial, I would suggest if we could split the public hearing, do the first half of the public hearing right after the public comment section. So do public comment, open the public hearing, then close the public hearing. Once we've received comments, continue with the rest of the meeting and do deliberation. at the regularly scheduled item number six, I guess it would be number seven at that point.

So I have a question, would we also have the staff report? Or would it just be public comment?

I'm not sure. Um, what, how long is the staff report presentation? Is it? I didn't It's Jeff, so.

I meant that in.

That was just me.

Just say that out loud. I'm sorry.

I was just thinking out of respect for the people here to comment and also the people that are invited here to present all the other items on our agenda.

I can do my summary in a five-minute summary for the short-term rental.

Is Ashley getting ready to speak?

Hi, Council. I'm happy to speak, but I was also going to say that we have Missy Ryan, Special Land Use Council, and so I think she would be most qualified to speak about the timing for this land use hearing.

So go ahead and give us your advice, please.

Thank you. I don't know about most qualified. Thank you, Ashley. I believe if the Council does want to go ahead and change up the order a little bit, what I suggest is that you open the public hearing on ZO 26-01, have Mr. Adams provide his staff report, take public testimony, close the public hearing, and then reopen the public hearing, take additional public testimony at the time where this falls on the agenda that was posted. And the reason is because people may have shown up thinking that they were coming to the last item on the agenda, and they would then learn that they had already missed their window to provide public testimony. And so we would need to do that twice. During that second phase, we would also want Mr. Adams to present the staff report again for the people who came based on the published agenda.

Okay, thank you. Yes. So before we start all of this, I do want to have a moment of silence for a community member who passed away, Charles Bennett. So if you could all join me in a moment of silence. Thank you. So council, are we all in agreement about switching the order around?

I move to approve the amended agenda.

Second.

All in favor?

Yes.

Okay, so we're going to have, first off, we're going to have regular public comment. So if you want to make public comment for anything other than the hearing, please raise your hand. And is there anyone on Zoom? for something other than the hearing. Okay, go ahead, Andrew. And remember, post office box name, three minutes.

Andrew Tonry, PO Box 664. I just wanted to bring up that it was a number of months ago now that we talked about wanting to study the potential for housing at the RV park. And I just want to bring that up and hope that some progress has been made and we can move forward on that. Thanks.

Thank you. Nancy?

Nancy Littell, 7 o'clock, 734 Cannon Beach. I'm not sure what's coming first and what's coming second. I just want to say I'm so glad today is here and Knott Studio is going to begin to do something with NICU's park. I'm just so happy about that.

Thank you. We are too. Anybody else? Okay, and the people on zoom or do you have your hands up for the the public hearing or for regular? Good old fashioned public comment. Patricia, do you want to speak on something other than the public hearing?

I want to speak about STRs.

Okay, so you're going to get your chance soon. Okay. Other person on Zoom with their hand up? Good evening, Jessica. Did you want to speak on...

Yeah, hi. Jessica Alexander, PO Box 1148.

Jessica, hold on. Are you talking about the STR?

No.

Oh, okay. Go ahead. Sorry.

Oh, okay. Jessica Alexander, PO Box 1148, Cannon Beach, 97110. I just want to say, as a citizen of this sweet little town... I keep hearing mentionings of us talking about housing and working on that. Not necessarily the STRs, but housing in general. But where is that going? What is happening? Is anything happening? It just seems like it's rotating. And I just hope that we're actually looking for a solution to this. It's getting to a point where more people and more people I know that live and work here are losing their housing and having to move away. And it's like, can we do something about this soon? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Council, for your time. Thank you.

Okay, anybody else? Okay, so now we're going to... go to the public hearing and on ZO 2601 City of Cannon Beach request to place a short-term rental cap and related zoning ordinance text amendments to chapter 17.84 short-term rentals. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment would limit the number of 14-day permits in the City of Cannon Beach and provide other related minor changes to the short-term rental provisions of Cannon Beach Municipal Code chapter 84 short-term rentals of Title 17 zoning. The zoning text amendment request will be reviewed against the criteria of the Municipal Code Section 17.94.060A amendments criteria and the statewide planning goals. I would like to open the public hearing and does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the City Council to hear this application at this time? Do any counselors wish to disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest?

I have a potential that I need to disclose. After consultation with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission and at their recommendation, I prepared a statement. I have a potential conflict of interest. The conflict arises because I am employed by a small family-owned hotel in Cannon Beach. This hotel does not have direct interest in short-term rentals, nor is there ever a plan for the owners or myself to engage in short-term rental operations in Cannon Beach. I do recognize there is a potential that modifications to regulations on STRs could have a potential impact financially on other overnight businesses within Cannon Beach. This impact is both potential and typically recognized as unlikely due to the specific desires, requests, and expectations of guests who stay at hotels versus short-term rentals. Because of this potential conflict of interest, I will still participate in the discussion of this matter.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, I'd like to request a staff report, please.

All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Jeff Adams, Community Development Director. Planning Commission's discussion regarding short-term rental cap began on April 19th, April 9th of 2024 and has been on the Planning Commission agenda. They came to a decision to deny the ordinance July 23rd, 2026, and suggested consideration of other ways to restrict short-term rentals, such as percentage-based limits on permits, zonal restrictions, or density-based systems, where a 100-foot buffer limit would limit any new permits being issued in proximity to an active permit. So to summarize, in consideration of the density limitations requested by the City Council at its August 11th work session, short-term rental cap ordinance with density revisions is attached, identifying two possible revisions, exclusion zones and density restrictions. The exclusion zones would prohibit any new short-term rentals east of 101, while density restrictions would prohibit any new short-term rentals within 100 feet of an existing short-term rental. There is a growing body of evidence on the impacts of short-term rentals to communities, markets, and housing with an excellent recent literature review of over 400 papers by Hidalgo and Velazquez released in February 2026. While many of the studies are focused on larger metropolitan areas and Europe, the general consensus finds that short-term rentals raise housing prices and rents. The Hidalgo and Velazquez paper shows that short-term rentals can provide both the positive and negative effects for a community, but extremely high concentrations of short-term rentals can bring nuisance effects, noise, congestion, and loss of neighborhood cohesion, and can reduce residential desirability. As a literature review finds, the most consistent divide is between renters and property owners. Short-term rental-driven increases in rents and house prices benefit owners through capital gains and hosting income, while renters face higher housing costs and greater development risk. And that's the end of the quote. Staff have provided an excerpt of the conclusions from the Hidalgo and Velazquez paper, The Economic Impacts of Short-Term Rentals and Regulations, a Literature View, as an attachment, a summary of the most recent findings from research of short-term rental neighborhoods and communities, and the complete paper, I've provided a link in the staff report. And so after that, we received quite a few public comments, and those are from Mr. Zupac, a whole, Mr. Bates, Ms. Wright, and one just received from Ms. Conley, or Mr. Conley. And we have tried to keep up those and get those to you as quickly as we can. We also, in the staff report, provided a number of points potential motions for you, and those are found attached to the short-term, I mean, to the staff report and uh i also want to remind you that uh since we this is a land use action that if you are making amendments as suggested tonight if we want to perhaps change from 165 that number to something else it's recommended since this is a land use action that we would give to continue this to the next meeting as we would need 10 days of notification to the State Land Use Board regarding this, any types of amendments to the land use ordinance. So just wanted to bring that. If you have any questions of me or from Missy, just please let us know.

I have a question on that note. All the materials talk about limiting the short-term rentals, the 14-day short-term rentals, to the number that was chosen previously, 165, when I believe Council's consensus was to limit the entirety of short-term rentals to 165. Does that mean the same thing that we're facing a continuance or?

Yes, that you would need to continue because the way the ordinance is currently written is for 165 for 14 day permits only. Thank you. Sure.

Jeff, could you explain to me again? I didn't quite understand what you said about why we needed a continuance. The first reason.

Yeah, because it's a land use decision. It's not like a, you know, on certain decisions you all make on different ordinances, they don't involve Title 17, the land use decision, zoning ordinance. And so when it does, in fact, You're making an amendment that hasn't been seen and noticed to everyone. We have to, every one of those amendments we send off and notify through the PAPA process with the state, those decisions, and they get noticed to everyone.

Oh, I didn't realize this hadn't been noticed.

Yeah, and Missy can speak to that. Go ahead.

Yes, counsel, thank you. The relevant statute is at 197 ORS 197.6106. And this has been noticed originally as a specific proposal prior to the planning commission hearing. But that particular statute essentially says that when the proposed change to the zoning code is significant enough, that the local government has to notify DLCD of that change. And that has to be prior to 10 days before the final evidentiary hearing. And so I think a change in the number or the maybe let's say to make it more of a hybrid total cap or anything that's really going to confuse someone who thought that the city was proposing one thing and then it turns out that they're proposing something that's uh significantly different it's a very good practice to just take a pause and let jeff send that 10-day notice to dlcd and then the city has no problem if it gets appealed okay does that help it does a lot yes okay good any other questions of jeff

Okay, so I'm going to call for public testimony and state. The request will be reviewed against the criteria of the Municipal Code Section 17.94.060A amendments criteria and the statewide planning goals. Oral testimony will be limited as specified below. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes for proponents and opponents, 15 minutes for proponents and opponents if representing a group of five or more people. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports, testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal code, which the person testifying believes to apply to the decision. persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the mayor state their full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify whom they represent are there presentations by proponents proponents raise your hand michelle

Let's face it, a second home is a luxury in the United States. 60% of the people are homeowners, 35% are renters, but only around 4.5% of the people are second homeowners. It's a basic human right to have stable housing. No place in the entire country should be unattainable to live. Accepting a paywall to simply exist in a city, village, town, or town that becomes only accessible to a certain tax bracket should not be the status quo. While preparing for this meeting, I went down many different paths of arguments that everyone possibly hasn't heard. All of council knows where I stand. I'm sure most of the city staff knows where I stand, and I believe most of the community knows where I stand. There's people in the room that have no idea where I stand. Why is that? Because they more than likely don't live here, and they possibly are only hearing me for the first time simply because they're protecting their assets, an asset that many of us don't have or will ever have. Housing is a basic human right. I'll say it again, housing is a basic human right. In 1948, the United Nations created a universal declaration of human rights chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. The declaration consists of 30 articles detailing basic rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 25 states everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing, and housing. Another path I went down is why do proponents always have to present first? Well, because proponents carry the burden of proof. The person who wants to change the status quo must justify why it's necessary. So here I am, as I have been for the last four plus years, telling, asking, begging, a cap is necessary. Just because a lot of us are not part of the 60% of homeowners or part of the 4.5% that own a second home does not mean we do not have the right to live in a town we call home year round. Here's a question of basic math. Why, when 95% of the country's population own one house or less, are concerned about protecting the 4.5%? I can only guess that the answer is money. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. Again, valuing money over people is not the best way to maximize the bottom line. Government should not be run like a business because its primary goal is public welfare and equity rather than financial profit. profit. Make take my take go against the status quo. If you put people over profit, you will always win. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other presentations by proponents.

My name is Marcia Zegar, PO Box 956 in Cannon Beach. And I want to thank the mayor and the counselor, all the counselors. Thank you for your leadership and for the considerable time that you've devoted to this topic of short-term rentals. Now is the time for meaningful decisions. It has been approximately 14 months since a Haystack Heights neighborhood petition was submitted. Council agreed to proceed with consideration of a short-term rental cap. And I request, please establish a meaningful cap now, followed by the necessary work on zoning exclusion areas and protection for residential neighborhoods. cannon beach continues to lose population, we lose full time residents housing is known to be a horrific issue in this town yet. we accommodate enormous numbers of visitors. Protecting the neighborhoods where people live is vital if Cannon Beach is going to survive as a community, not only a tourist destination. Fewer than 7% of the Cannon Beach short-term rentals are locally owned. More than 90% have owners whose addresses are outside Cannon Beach and Tolobana Park. They are largely insulated from the day-to-day effects experienced by the people who actually live here, while their financial return goes elsewhere. Short-term rentals are in our neighborhoods. Yes, local management companies provide some employment, The city receives STR taxes and fees. The county receives property tax. But what do the citizens receive in return? And perhaps more importantly, what voice do the people who actually live in these neighborhoods have in determining their own future? We recognize that tourism is essential to Cannon Beach, but so are residents. A successful tourist economy cannot ultimately sustain a community that is losing the community itself. Please act now. We've all just made it through our summer season. We know that we do not have an issue attracting people to come and visit, but we are having a major issue maintaining what few neighborhoods we have left. Thank you. Thank you.

Other proponents? Guys, we're please not going to applaud. Do it silently. Come on up.

I'll keep this brief. I'm not a great public speaker. My name is Brant Cheney. I'm about to move for the seventh time to 420 Elk Creek. I've lived and worked here for seven years and I've had to move seven times. There's a simple lack of housing for local workers. I don't really know what else to say. That's really all. So I support the cap.

Thank you.

My name's Gordon French, 901 Cannon Beach, Post Office Box. And the reason I'm here is our family's been here since before the city was incorporated. We're down on Toke Lane. And with the cost of taxes and everything driven up by tourism, we're going to be leaving our property to our kids. And there's no way they're going to be able to afford the taxes on it. I'd like to see the city set up something so... Families like us that have been here for 70 years can keep the home. I'd like to see so we can rent it out a couple times a year to cover the expenses. That's basically it. And if the city says no, you're basically telling us, no, you don't make enough money to live in Cannon Beach anymore, so you've got to sell. So I really want this. I think it needs to go through because we want to stay here and I think other families need to stay here too. So we have to set up something so we can rent it out just to cover expenses. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Other proponents? Go on, Claire.

Clarice Roof, PO Box 88, Cannon Beach. I've spoken on this issue twice now, and apparently now I might need to do it again if this gets moved to another meeting. Short and simple, it comes down to what do you guys as our counselors actually care about? Do you care about the people who live and work here, who work in your stores, who make your coffee, who attend events here and make these things that we all love here possible? Or do you care about people who only see our community as a financial interest and nothing else? And that's what this comes down to, is do the five of you care more about the people in this room who come here and show up and live here, or about those people who are not really part of this community but just want to make money off of us? Thank you.

Thank you. Other proponents?

Lolly?

Hi, Lolly Alsop, PO Box 1038. So, I mean we've been here before right we continue to talk about housing. In cannon beach i've lived here off and on for 38 years i'm a business owner in town. I think that it's. unsustainable to think if we continue to just let as many STRs pop up as possible, if we don't put a cap on it. You know, when I was growing up here, we had houses that were designated houses for people that lived here off season. And a lot of the times those people that worked in restaurants and in the community here, they would camp for the three months that we actually did have our summer. We don't... have the luxury of a real shoulder season anymore, where we need housing for people full time. And, you know, I think that we should follow suit with most of the other towns on the coast that have put a cap on STRs. I don't I think it will be pretty disheartening to see people my age and younger leaving this community because we're basically told that we can't we can't live here. I'm I'm lucky enough to have a situation that I'm actually moving out of my apartment that I've lived in for the last 12 years that is over commercial businesses right in the downtown area. I'm very, very, very lucky to have this situation that has come to me and it's from the kindness of my parents helping me because that's the only way that it was going to happen. I have had 15 people come to me that I am friends with, that I know that work in the community, work full-time in the community, that have lost their housing, like Brant. You know, it's pretty horrifying to see that the people that spend 90% of their time here helping the people that visit us, they aren't allowed to be here or vote here. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate all of you.

Thank you. Other proponents?

Hi, I'm Maria Koshy, PO Box 1132. And I actually I'm learning data here from everyone else. I lack it myself. But what I do know is the experience I've had in the community living here full time for going on seven years. And I just know that the younger people in our community bring a lot more to us than just serving you at a restaurant or a barista in a coffee shop. They bring so much diversity. They bring talent to a karaoke night. They will walk their dog at the beach with you and their friendly faces out at live music. They are out in the community. They participate in the creativity of our arts community. They bring a lot of new ideas, really positive energy. They're responsible and conservationists and a lot of amazing folks. And it just in the short time I have lived here, I have met wonderful, amazing younger people who rent and they have had to leave our community. I mean, many over every year have end up disappearing in effect from our community because they had to move out of town, no matter how hard they tried to live here in their perfect kind of renters, you know? They just, there just is nothing for them. There's no place for them to be. And I just think that that is a huge, huge loss for our community. Bigger, to me, it's bigger than anything. Losing that kind of energy from our community is, it kills it. And also what I see is just, as I know these kids, usually kids, but they aren't always the renters, but It's I'm seeing everywhere I walk in the neighborhood just in my small neighborhood signs going up for you know, it's like luxury vacation rental goes on another house that was simply somebody's home. And now, I mean, they just go up right and left. So I don't have the data, but I see it happening. And I know we're losing just really critical folks from our community. And that's the hardest part of it. So, and I, I really do thank you all so much, your time and talent. I know

you have donated very much so thank you thank you other proponents andy cox fuel box 86 i want to thank the council and they're not for being here i want to just support the cap on short-term rentals I was reading through the city website and it shows some census data of population decreasing year over year here in Cannon Beach. One of the stats I thought was shocking was it said 5.5% of Cannon Beach workforce lives here in the community. I think a cap on short-term rentals would give an opportunity to those workforce that want to live here in the community, a chance to live in the community. So I'd like that 165 cap. I think that's reasonable and I just would want to support that. Thank you.

Thank you. Other proponents? Come on up.

Lynn Halderson, PO Box 1151. I wrote down what I was going to say so I don't ramble. I'm just going to read it. I've called Cannon Beach home for the last 15 years. And during this time, I've moved no less than seven times. Sometimes that's when my own choosing, sometimes I was priced out as rent continues to skyrocket. And once the home I was living in turned into a short-term rental and I was asked to leave. The reality is that if I were to lose my housing today, there would be virtually no housing for me to move into. I'm going to double back on that short-term rental. When I was asked to leave for the short-term rental, I was told they could make much more money doing it as a short-term rental rather than a long-term rental. So you can see where the priority was with that. So the lack of long-term housing isn't an abstract issue for me. I've experienced it personally, and I've watched it affect countless neighbors, coworkers, and friends. Every day I see how difficult it is for businesses like mine to find and retain employees, not because people don't want to work here, but because they can't find housing, let alone anything affordable. I understand how important tourism is. My livelihood depends on visitors, too. But tourism also depends on the people who make this town function. People flock to Cannon Beach because it is a vibrant, beautiful community of people, artists, shops and restaurants, not just a collection of vacation homes. So I urge you to prioritize long term housing and place a cap on the short term rentals. Every home kept available for local residents is an investment in the future of our town. And if we continue allowing housing to disappear from the long term market, We risk losing the workforce, families, and community that make Cannon Beach special and functioning. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Other proponents? Go on up.

Hello, I'm Sam Block, PO Box 1413. I just want to say I think it is crazy that we are here, all of us who are a part of the community, many of us who are talking are the ones that do the FaceTime with the tourists and make Cannon Beach what it is and what tourists see it as. That we are here pleading with the council that is supposed to represent us Meanwhile, it feels like we're fighting you alongside of those people who are using Cannon Beach solely as investment that, as we all know, they don't even live here. They don't know what's happening here. They don't see any of us. And I think the entirety of what Cannon Beach is lies within Those of us who actually choose to live here year round because we love it for what it is year round. And we love that it is a beautiful and artful place and we all want to contribute to that. And we're being told and asked to leave. I've also lived in seven places in Cannon Beach. And I hope that you all think that that is as ridiculous as it is. That all of us that are around my age have lived in as many places as we have. It's not normal. It shouldn't be normal. Please represent Cannon Beach and what is best for Cannon Beach. Thank you.

Thank you. Other proponents? Andrew?

Andrew Tonry, PO Box 664. New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Barcelona, Florence, Italy, Santa Monica, California. Honolulu, Boston, Miami, Amsterdam, Las Vegas, Maui, New Orleans, and even our neighbors in Portland, Oregon. From outright bans to limits on second home rentals, all the cities I just listed and countless small towns are going further than what we're proposing here. These are big, serious cities from around the globe that are full of smart, competent people, and they've decided enough is enough. Airbnbs are hurting, not helping our communities. So it's time for us to act. Please pass a cap tonight with limits on density and a number that is significantly lower than current levels, as to what Gary said. I think we can't cap it at our current. our current level that will provide only a reduction in permits will provide a modicum of security for people like Lynn who are told you can't live here anymore because I can make more off a short-term rental. So please, I would like to see us go further and take into account what some of these many cities around the world have done and go further. But at least we can get this done after 14 months. Thank you.

Thank you. other proponents.

Hi. I'm Keely Carlucci, PO Box 682. I was born in this town. I work in this town. I live in this town, and I would really love to keep it that way, but it is a constant fear that that is not always going to be possible. I was raised by so many people of this community, and I just love and appreciate everyone here, and I wish that we could celebrate that a little bit more. So I support the Capitalist TRs, and yeah, thank you.

Did you give your mailing address? Okay.

Okay, got it. Thank you.

Other proponents? Julia?

Hello, my name is Julie Dwello, PO Box 173. I was also born here and have lived here pretty much my entire life. And I have seen this community change over the years and lessen in community. We used to have a school here that was wonderful for everybody. It used to be really easy to find housing that was affordable for people. I was lucky enough to live in one place that multiple people in this town have lived in. And then when Lisa Frazier died, her family sold the place, and so I had to move. My boyfriend at the time, he had to move to Seaside because there was no place in Cannon Beach to live. I was lucky enough to find a place downtown, neighbors to Lolly. And I am in support of a cap on STRs. Thank you. Thank you.

Other proponents? OK, is there anyone on Zoom? Go ahead, Patricia.

Okay, good grief. Patricia Durkin, Post Office Box 173. I think that everybody who's spoken here tonight has been great. And, you know, the piece for me is I was in property management for, well, I still do a little, 35 years. And it has changed so much. And our community has diminished considerably. Yes, losing the school. Losing all these wonderful young people. It's critical here. I mean, we need their energy. And We need housing. I was on the CDC when we erected Elk Creek Terrace in Shorewood. Now, I don't remember having to go through all this rigmarole. I really don't. And I didn't understand Fred had died, so I needed to detach myself from that group and get to work. That's what I did. Raised my kids. Much more than I've already been working. Why is this so difficult for us to manage? This has been talked about for years now. To have housing here for the people who are supportive of our community. We used to have a volunteer fire department. We used to have enough people here to man that volunteer fire department, and we don't anymore. That's fine. It's great to have paid firemen. It's fabulous. But you really need to consider, as all these wonderful people have mentioned in one way or another, who you are supporting and why you are supporting it. We need our community back. It's very important. I moved here when I was 30. I'm 74 now. And it, yeah, it's just heartbreaking. It really is. So there we go. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anybody else on Zoom? Go ahead, Kristen.

Hello, Kristen Hall, PO Box 1063. I would just like to say that I support the cap and everything everybody in person said I agree with. The only thing that I'd like to add is that the importance of community to me is that my daughter has a safe place to ride her bike and to grow up and It's the same neighborhood Julia got to grow up in and it would be awesome if we don't have to worry about STRs coming into the neighborhoods of Cannon Beach because the community that we have in our neighborhood, as well as Haystack Heights, I'm sure, is you know everybody in every house in the neighborhood and you know them. I know Pat and I know her daughter Erin who makes me crafts and that's what builds community. not having someone next door partying until the wee hours of the morning. And right now there's lots of, there's houses coming up for sale. The one across the street from us is for sale. And like Haystack Heights, our neighborhood is away from it, the craziness. And I think it's worth the city's time and effort to protect Haystack Heights and the neighborhood over by the RV park to keep it local. So if the sense of community is lost in those neighborhoods, I think it could be really bad for the rest of the town. And that's all I have to say. Thank you, counselors, so much.

Thank you. Any other proponents on Zoom? Go ahead, Julie. Julie, go ahead.

Can you hear me okay? Yes. Oh, thank you. Sorry. My name is Julie Emery, PO Box 482. I echo what everyone else has said. I've lived here three years. And I'm renting right now, hoping to buy a home. The reason I stayed when I came here, yes, it's beautiful. Yes, it's lovely. Yes, there's lots of neat things to do around here. But the reason I stayed for real is because I met people. And they sustain me through the cold and rainy days that we all have for many months of the year. I did not come here and stay because there were empty houses, Airbnb customers left and right. I stayed here because of people that I met that live here the great majority of the year and actually the few that only lived here part time now live here full time. So it's people that make a community, not empty houses. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other proponents on Zoom? OK, thank you. One last chance for the audience. Any proponents? Go ahead.

I'm Terry Sugremo, PO Box 1372. Everybody. said everything much better than I could. I agree with everyone. You guys have the opportunity to be the game changers. And that's the one thing I am begging you to do. I'm fortunate in that I own my home. But that doesn't mean that I love having so many short-term rentals around me and two more on my street. are now going to be short-term rentals. And the person that bought them, oh, I love your house. I want to live in it my whole life. And within a year, it will be a short-term rental. It's what she's done with every other home. I have baristas that work for me that pay $400 a month, two girls. And then the owner told me, yeah, I can make so much money. So he kicked them out and raised the rent to $1,800 a month. Same place. And I went to him, I said, you know, you actually, the cap is 14%. You can't do that. And he said, the hell I can. I'm a private owner. I can do whatever I want. I'm not asking you to police everybody, but it's your opportunity. It's your opportunity before you leave to really make a change for our community. When you go to the Christmas tree lighting event, That's everybody that's lived here forever. And it's all of these cool people who make our town what it is, as you guys do too. Your job is so thankless and I appreciated so much what you do. It's not a job. You are not getting rich doing this. But I'm just asking you, move, act. It's been too long and it's scary. It's really hard. I interviewed someone the other day. She's living in an RV, and if she can make it work in the Halem, she would like to work for me. Help us. Thank you.

Thank you. Other proponents in the audience? Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any opponents? Steve? Steve?

Steve Waite, PO Box 1051, Cannon Beach, Oregon. The only reason I'm an opponent of this is because I don't think it goes far enough. A decade and a half of data and the staff report tonight show us that a cap would not protect long-term rentals or lessen the burden on our neighborhoods. In this week's City Bulletin, it lists the number of STR 14-day permits at 154, so a cap of 165 would allow for 6.5% growth of the STRs. A cap does nothing to address the existing unrestricted permits either. A density restriction would protect long-term rentals and reduce the number of STRs in overburdened neighborhoods, but an exclusion zone that encompasses a majority of city neighborhoods would preserve and restore those neighborhoods. An exclusion zone would protect our long-term rentals immediately. And there's a lot of talk about village character, and this is an opportunity to preserve and restore our neighborhoods. They are a valuable part of the city. We should get serious and not allow our neighborhoods to be treated as business opportunities. I believe a serious discussion about an exclusion zone east of Hemlock is warranted. A large exclusion zone would protect long-term rentals and begin to restore many of our traditional neighborhoods. And through attrition over a number of years, there's an excellent chance that the result would be more long-term rental housing and definitely a greater village feel. Let's take this opportunity to stop allowing our neighborhoods to be treated like business opportunities. Other cities have done similar things with great results. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other opponents.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Christian Zupanchich. I'm at 615 Broadway Street, Suite 216 in Seaside. I'm here on behalf of Kim Villeneuve, who is at 1916 South Hemlock. I'm here... I just turned it off. Sorry about that.

That's okay. He didn't say anything.

Exactly. I'm here not necessarily to talk about the STR cap itself, but to talk about the transfer language that is in in the existing Cannon Beach City Code. I've written a letter, it's in the record about this, specifically about how the transfer language will matter if an STR cap is adopted. I've heard some comments from the city before saying, there has never been an issue with the transfer language before, so why change it now? The answer is there's never been an STR cap before. Now, there isn't one now, but you're considering one tonight, obviously. You've got a variety of choices in front of you as a city council. You may decide to adopt a cap, not to adopt a cap, maybe to adopt one with geographical restrictions or density restrictions. Whatever it is that you decide to do, it's going to have a peripheral effect on everybody in Cannon Beach, those folks who do not have an STR permit, and those who do. And here's an example. Uh, the person I represent is Mila new. She's fourth generation. Her family has been here. Her grandparents were permanent residents. Her parents were permanent residents. She is here. She has this property. She wants to be able to pass it or to give it to her son through the terms of her trust. When she passes under the existing language of transfer in the ordinance, as soon as she tries to transfer that to her son, her permit will be revoked. Now, if her son tries to apply for another STR permit, it won't be there if there's an STR permit. It'll basically just be unavailable to him. So now as a result of that, they probably will not be able to continue to be in Cannon Beach. And the reason is without the benefit of that STR income from time to time, They're not going to be able to afford the maintenance, the taxes, the insurance, and all the costs that come along with having a home here in Cannon Beach that just has value by virtue of being here. So essentially fourth generation of families, fifth generation of families is not going to be able to be here because of transfer language. And again, if you adopt this STR cap, I don't think that's what the city council is intending to do here is to try to push out families that have been here for generations. I think the intent here is to increase affordability. to increase community, to be able to allow people to continue to be here for generations. So please, as you consider this STR language and whether there's a cap, please also consider amendments and possible changes to that language.

Thank you. Any other opponents in the audience?

Hi, I'm Sandy Dotson. I am 92400 F Road in Astoria. I am with Beachcomber Vacation Homes. Brian was going to speak today, but he had a family emergency, so I will try to do my best to fill his shoes. Thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to speak. I understand the city's desire to protect residential neighborhoods. We all want Cannon Beach to remain a wonderful place to live, work, and visit. But I am concerned that this ordinance could unintentionally create more of the very problem it's intended to solve. illegal, unpermitted short-term rentals. The proposed ordinance would limit the number of 14-day licenses to 165. It would also create a waiting list of owners who cannot obtain a license. My concern is what happens when Demand for vacation rentals continue, but the supply of legal permits become restricted. Visitors will still want to come to Cannon Beach. Property owners will still want to rent their homes. If a responsible owner cannot obtain a permit, the city may unintentionally create an incentive for people for some people to rent without one. And I want to be clear, I am not suggesting that most property owners would break the law, but when legal opportunities become more limited, some activity can move outside of that legal system. That is a risk the council should consider before adopting a permanent cap. The permanent rental, has a local representative must meet inspection requirements as subject to occupancy parking and other standards the city can identify who is responsible for the party and take action when problems occur An illegal renter may not have those same safeguards. If more rentals operate outside the permit system, the city may have a harder time knowing who they are, who's responsible, and whether they are complying with these rules. These rentals will not show up on OTAs. They will be advertised by word of mouth through friends and family, making it impossible to track. This is why I believe the city should be careful not to make a legal rental system so restrictive that it unintentionally encourages people to operate outside of it. Beachcomber Vacation Homes has a strong interest in seeing Cannon Beach succeed. We want responsible rentals, we want good neighbors, and we want well-regulated industries. We believe the city should focus on enforcing the rules already in place and addressing problems problem properties directly, rather than limiting our entire legal rental inventory. I respectfully ask the council to reconsider the proposed cap at 185, 165 homes for 14 day license, or at least consider a more flexible system that allows responsible owners to . Thank you.

Thank you. Other opponents? Is there anyone on Zoom? Hello? Zoom user. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please identify yourself.

My name is Herb Florer, PO Box 546, Cannon Beach. And I really want to emphasize some points here that are being raised, there definitely is a need for affordable housing in Cannon Beach. And I think we all notice that, realize that and empathize with that. However, I'm not sure that everybody realizes that the number of short-term rentals in Cannon Beach for like the last 15 years, if I'm correct, in Cannon Beach has been remarkably steady at about 195. It only goes up or down about five year to year. I think it's at about 194 right now, 196. I don't know what the latest is. So to say that short-term rentals increasing, somebody said signs are going up right and left. It's just not the case. The number of short-term rentals have been steady remarkably steady for a long time in Cannon Beach. So I think that we need to decouple the issue of affordable housing and stop blaming short-term rentals for affordable housing. We need to realize that Cannon Beach is expensive. Housing is expensive. That doesn't have anything to do with short-term rentals. If we're going to consider a cap, why not cap it at what it is right now at 195? I heard somebody mentioning the 165 versus 154, and that is frankly disingenuous. Right now, the total number of all types of short-term rentals is roughly 195. Some of those are going to go away. They're the lifetime rentals. I'm not sure I have the categories right, but lifetime types that are going to go away. So again, disingenuous to say that 165 would be an increase over the current 154. I really think that if you're going to consider anything, consider density. We sympathize with, for example, Haystack Heights. So I think maybe we should look at a density of full-time residents in some areas versus some areas in town have a density that are multimillion dollar homes and not many residents. Maybe that's the approach that could be taken to look at where we could put short-term rental, what's the word I'm looking for, zones or areas. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there other opponents on Zoom? Anybody in the audience? Okay. We're going to close the public hearing and proceed to our regular agenda.

I think somebody has to make a motion to continue this to the end of the meeting for deliberation. Thank you. I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing for ZO 2601 to be continued. It's regularly scheduled. Item number six on our agenda.

Second. Second.

Roll call, please.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So. So nobody leave.

We're still going to deliberate later.

Okay, we're ready to go on. Okay, so the first item on our regular agenda is the Dacus Park and Park Element Design and Construction Services Project. Tim?

Okay, Mayor Knopp and members of the council today, individuals from Knott Studio are here to talk about their project process engagement. And so I'm just going to turn it over to Michael and let him go.

And I would like to thank you for allowing us to delay your presentation.

Of course. Hi, Mayor. Hi, Council. That was actually really valuable for us. I mean, one of our core missions with this project is to deeply understand the community. And that was really amazing to hear everybody talk about their experiences and bring it forward and gives us a lot of empathy for what you all are dealing with right now in Cannon Beach. That was actually really lovely. Let me introduce myself. I am Michael Yan. I'm a professional landscape architect and a principal with Knott Studio. We are a multidisciplinary design firm based in Portland. I'm going to be the principal in charge of the design team for the Newkoos Park project. We're just going to do some introductions and then I'll launch into the presentation.

Hi, I'm Jamie Stamberger. I'm the senior engagement specialist at Knot Studio, and I will be coordinating the community engagement aspects. So looking forward to hearing more from all of you.

And hello, everybody. My name is Brett Hornart. I'm a senior landscape architect with Knot Studio, and I will be the project manager for the design portion of the project. This is kind of a dream project, a wonderful, wonderful community. And when I moved to Portland, this is the first place I came. So I'm just really excited to be able to have this opportunity to work with you all.

Wonderful. Russ, I don't know if we're able to share the presentation, the slides. We've got a few slides. So we were hoping just to, as Tim mentioned, just walk through a little overview of us as a team, talk about our process and just plan for the project, talk about some of the community engagement methods, and then just the next steps. So we're hoping to leave about 10 minutes in our half an hour just for a conversation or questions. So we'll try to get through these slides rather quickly. And some stuff is going to be small on these screens. Apologize for that. But I'll try to narrate everything thoroughly so there's no written words that you guys will need to read. So if we just go to the next slide. Yeah, pretty small in here. But essentially, this is just saying we see this project as a major opportunity to do something wonderful for the community. This isn't a normal park project. The history of this site, the tribal history at this site, and then the history of the site as the elementary school, the location at the mouth of the creek in the ocean, When we came in for the interview, I said, I mean, I have to be honest, I think this is really one of the most beautiful places in the world. And it's a space that demands an extremely thoughtful approach to the design. So that's what we're bringing to the table. We understand you all have been through a lot with this project already and have considered a lot of different things. we think that we need to figure out the right thing and the right scale of the project, and we need to work together to do that. So we'll walk through again our approach, but we hope that you feel that what we're really trying to do is to bring voices together and to usher the project in a direction that's scaled to the budget and that also has an elegance and meets the moment in terms of the quality of the design and what it pays back to the community for what we're bringing forward. If we go to the next slide. Just a quick introduction to our team. So you've met some of the Knot Studio team members here. Again, just flipping to the next slide, Rusty. This is our general org chart. We have a rather tight team, but we do have some key partners. So as Knot Studio, we're the prime consultant. So we're going to be leading the landscape architecture. We also are going to be leading the community engagement. And we have also an experiential graphic design team that will help us with interpretive and anything related to the graphic design of the project. With that said, OPSIS Architecture is one of our key architecture partners, is our key architecture partner on this, and they are going to be doing any work that's related to the structures in the building and helping us envision the future for those current structures or anything else that might be architecturally related on the site. We have KPFF engineers on the team. There are structural and civil engineers. You know, the structural engineering on this project is really going to be important as we're considering the condition of the buildings, what the future of those buildings may look like, what are some really smart strategies we might bring towards the structures to If we can save them within the budget, how might we think about that? And from a civil engineering perspective, they're going to be handling things related to the utilities, but also things related to some of the engineering of the natural systems on the site. You know, it's right on the bank of the creek, so there's things that I know we want to be considering for habitat and ecology in those zones. RNW is our mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineers. And then importantly, we have Suzanne Donaldson of Donaldson Consulting LLC as part of our core team who will be leading the tribal consultation and native community engagement portion of this work. She's a member of Collett's tribe and has expertise and experience with native community engagement. Um, next slide is just our team on the site. I, I just love this photo because, uh, I think it is, it reminds me at least of the passion that everybody is bringing to this project. You know, when I made that statement in the beginning, that's not just my feeling. That's everybody that's involved in this. Everybody sees this as an extremely important project for the community and extremely important project, um, for the city and also an extremely important project for. um the the tribes in the native community next slide um yeah you can just flip through this rusty i just wanted to talk to just a couple projects because i know we're coming in cold um and so just to give you a little bit of a sense of what we do there's three or four projects on this slide um I would say our superpower, maybe an easy term for this as a design firm, is focusing on community-centered projects that work on culturally sensitive sites and try to bring a high level of design thinking to those spaces. So the project on the upper right on this slide is a project that I'm leading, which is the loan for Chinese Memorial, which is a site alone for cemetery in Portland. where 3,000 Chinese community members were buried between 1871 and 1927. And eventually Multnomah County dug up graves and built a maintenance building on the site. And so this space to me, so I'm a member of the Chinese American community, so this is a personal project in a lot of ways to me, but also extremely culturally complex. As you might imagine, working on that site is extremely sensitive. It's a graveyard. In fact, they dug up many graves, but they left potentially the graves of 36 children that are still there. So working with the community to understand what the right moves were to do anything on that site at all. How can we be respectful for those that were still buried there? How can we honor the history of the site? How can we do something that serves the community now? And how can we do it for a public budget that was very similar to what we're working with for Nacoose? I think that project has prepared us in a way for for thinking about the site at Nakus, because I know people are very emotional over the history of that place. The the native community history there, what we understand of it, you know, has a lot of trauma infused with it as well. And so we know these conversations aren't always easy, but there's a way to take them forward and move them into a design approach that honors them and also makes people feel heard when they go to that site and they see this is currently under construction right now. So when they're seeing action taking place, they're confident that it's honoring the histories that were there. The other three projects that are on here, and sorry they're not in super clear order, but the two photos on the upper left are both at Lewitt View Park, which is a park that we led the design on and involved a significant amount of engagement with the Native community, including the spirally mound there, which um actually elevates to a historic viewpoint where you can see mount hood and then the sculpture that's right below which was a native artist and then the bottom uh the ones with the basically the pole sticking up on the bottom left and the bottom right that's at collie park in portland which was another um project that involved deep native community engagement and transformed essentially a brownfield site, a former dump site, into a native cultural space, a garden, and a gathering area, which actually you're seeing in the slides. And the projects in the middle is one of the OPSIS projects, which is the Center for Traditional Ecological Knowledge at Portland State University. All right, so keeping an eye on time here, let's keep flipping through. Yeah, so next section is just project approach and schedule. This is micro schedule for you all that I'm just gonna use it as a graphic to speak to. You'll see some language in here that's residual from our proposal. So know that like we're working with the team to refine some of our methods that we're talking about here and the way we're moving through them for the project. But basically what you're seeing is a cadence of public meetings on the top that is very regular. And we'll talk about this more as we get through it. But at the center of that cadence is actually this meeting with us together at a work session with council and community members every month for the full duration of the project. So that's 36 meetings that we're going to become really good friends, get to know each other really well. and have lots of conversations around this. And so that is like an exercise practice or your meditation practice where we got to do it regularly through the whole course of the project. We're not going to wait until some key deliverable or something like that to have a conversation. We're just doing this every month. So we've moved this. So starting in October, as I understand it, we're going to be moved to Thursdays. First Thursday is 4 to 6. So that's just something that we'll publish more widely. But for you all to mark down is our major opportunity to talk about this together. And then below that is just our sequence. So we start with pre-design. That first purple phase up there is about three months of us really deeply understanding the basic context of this project. We know you all have engaged with this for a long time. So we're not throwing that stuff away. We really care what people have said about this project before. We're reading through all of those summary reports. I've scoured old meetings. I have tried to infuse my personal self with a lot of knowledge of what you all have gone through. So we're going to be doing that. We're also looking at technical information, the building evaluation report, the geotech report, the archaeology. We want to know all the technical context. We want to digest it, uptake it before we start drawing anything. That's when we'll start these cadence of public meetings as well as before we start design so we have an opportunity to hear from people. And then we'll get into basically our sequence of schematic design, developing two concepts. So we're going to consider a lot of different things, but formalize two concepts that will take forward to a public open house and a public survey, get feedback on, and work those into a preferred alternative that will go through design development, construction documentation, and construction. Next slide, please. We can just kind of flip through these. This is just a more detailed project schedule that we worked on with the team. We're still updating. We just wanted you all to understand that we have a nuanced plan for this project through the full project, and we're gonna be working together to make sure we stay on track. Yeah, and next slide. Next slide. So I've already kind of gotten into a little bit of our community engagement approach, but this next section just kind of spells that out a little bit more. You know, these first set of slides is really the principles that we want to bring into our community engagement. And then there's a slide that just documents some of the methods. So again, understanding the community is at the core of what we're trying to do. The right design for Nacoose Park is not the right design in a different community. We're not bringing in some type of presupposed ideation about what this should be. This needs to meet your needs. And you all have the deepest and best understanding of what those needs are. Next slide. So listen before design. Again, we mentioned how we're going to be in starting our engagement before we even start drawing anything. This is us facilitating a community event for that Loan for Memorial project where we had government officials, local community members sitting around and really hashing things out together. Next slide. We also don't want this to feel like a burden to you all every time that you're engaging with this. This needs to feel like there's not a lot of barriers that we're making this fun, accessible, welcoming. So that is going to be a core hope for us. So we'll have further conversations with you all about what types of accommodations are going to make that the easiest. How can we make sure that, again, we're not like, um you know belaboring the community because in order to do all that engagement like i said we've got 36 meetings that we have planned that's a lot of of time to ask for from people as well so what can we do to make that feel like it's really worthwhile and it's really fun um next slide uh so this is important uh the the slide is build consensus across interests so we know that there are a lot of different hopes and dreams for this site and there always are for every project this is us facilitating a community design conversation for the nature and neighborhoods program for metro in the city of milwaukee at this table we had Director of the Watershed Council. This was for a project designing a outdoor classroom and a green schoolyard. So we had the Director of the Watershed Council, we had a teacher at that school, we had two students from that school, we had a member of the Parks Advisory Board, and we had the mayor, who you can't see in this photo, at this table at that same time. So having these collaborative conversations is really central to being able to understand where everybody's coming from and The way we look at it is we want to understand the meaning behind what our hopes and dreams are, not necessarily the one thing or the one program element that's coming out at the top of it, but maybe we can build consensus when we understand more what the meaning and the intent are behind what people are asking for. Next slide. Transparency reflects respect and flexibility. That's another core principle. We're not going to be able to do every single thing here. You always have some limited resources, right? And if we can't uptake an idea and integrate it into the design, we want to reflect that back and make sure you understand why we can't do that or why we've moved in a different direction, because that's sure to happen at various points in this process. So just maintaining that open communication is central to it. And again, I think we've structured our meeting cadence so that it should work for that. So we should look at those monthly meetings as a core opportunity for this check-in. It's a communications thing. All right, and next. And native community expertise. um suzanne will be present for uh our native community events and for some of our meetings together she's done deep work with the native community for a lot of years she's wonderful she's she describes herself as a the people person in the room she's just lovely to be around she's super warm person so um she's already um really looking forward to her role um on this project and the site she said she got chills the first time she walked out there on the site and just felt a deep connection to the place um and is really excited to help with this next slide um so again i'll go through this quickly there's some language in here i want to point out that is residual from our proposal that we've moved on from but Like I've said, there's previous outcomes review. We're going to be building, Jamie and I are going to work together. Jamie's leading the development of our engagement strategy and plan, which we'll have a chance to go through together. We just want to make sure that we're meeting the mark in terms of the expectation, and that will be something we're communicating around. We plan to hold a stakeholder power analysis. So this is really looking at who in the community may not have a lot of power in the decisions that are being made, but might be impacted quite a lot with what happens there, and making sure that we're addressing those power imbalances as we go about the process. I already mentioned the ongoing monthly engagements with you all. This next three, that's got scrapped. We're not doing focus groups anymore as a part of this, but we're rolling it into our meeting cadence and making sure we're hitting the mark in our public events together. We have public open houses scheduled at all the major phases, and we have a public survey during the two concept phase. Next slide. All right, that's the presentation. The next steps here are just basically getting ready for our next work session in October. So it's scheduled for October 5th. We plan to bring some engagement planning work to that session. Also, we'll probably have some drafts as we go through and process some of the existing information about the project. There will certainly be a lot to talk about there. Yeah, we'll review the community engagement strategy and Yeah, the project look ahead through the end of September, again, is our design team really crunching some of those existing materials. We are likely to start building a 3D model of the site, so we have that to work with, and possibly also a 3D model of the structures, and yeah, getting planned for community engagements. With that, I will open it up to any questions or conversation if we have time.

I have a question about that first. You mentioned October 5th. Do you mean October 6th? Is that the 6th?

For our first. If it's a Thursday, yeah. Sorry if that date was wrong. It's the first Thursday. Thank you.

Oh, so it would be the first Thursday.

Is that a Tuesday? Okay. Well, thank you for clarifying. Hold on. What is it?

Yeah, yeah. What's the specific date we're talking about? Yeah. Do it is the first it's the first Thursday. So October 1.

So thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. I appreciate that. Yes. Sorry for that confusion.

So that's not a that's a standalone meeting. Right. Okay.

And then now saying this is designed, I haven't been asked to put it on the site. Okay.

So this is a 4 o'clock to 6 o'clock standalone meeting, first Thursday, which the first meeting will be October 1st.

Right. Yeah. Thank you for that clarity. Cool.

And on May or not, for those meetings, or for that meeting in particular, we're on Baby Watch. Grandbaby number six is coming. Okay. So is it going to be possible to be able to zoom into those? Yeah. Okay.

Yep.

Thank you.

And congratulations.

It's going to be a regular public meeting. Okay. Perfect. Wonderful. Anybody have any other questions?

I don't necessarily have a question, but I'm just hoping that we can avoid some of the pitfalls we fell in this last process. And I'm hoping we're not reinventing the process, starting the process over, but building on where we left off. So I have a lot of concerns, you know, what that process looks like and make sure everything is public and that there's no side discussions that all of a sudden are running the project. So those are my big concerns that I think the project kind of tilted off course. And then we ended up where we didn't have a project. So I guess I'm just holding on, hoping we don't face any of those and looking forward to the first meeting.

Wonderful. And yeah, thank you. Yeah, we will all succeed together on this. So yeah, that's our view as well. So thank you for saying that.

Anybody have anything else?

I know you all have a lot on your agenda. We just appreciate the time.

And you're going to stick around so you can see more community involvement.

Oh, there's some excitement to come. I think we saw.

No. Remember, it's available on Zoom and YouTube. Thank you very much.

I look forward to working with you. Good to meet you all. Thank you.

Okay, next on the agenda, we have the Kennebeach Rural Fire Protection District prepared food tax update.

Okay, Mayor and Councillors, Chief Ruckman is here to give us an update with regards to the fire district and its use of the prepared food sales tax. So I'll turn it over to Mark.

Yeah.

Good evening. Good evening. I'll use the slides that we sent out in the packet or that Jen sent out in the packet and go through it quickly, I think. The first few slides are just statistics and we'll go through them quickly. There's not a lot to You know, calls come and go. They go up some. This last year, they went up a little bit, not as much. It'll be interesting this year. I'll talk about it a little later. For the first half of the year, we were actually down quite a bit. And we'll talk about, to get into this a little bit, of why that is and a lot of the reason, the good reason that a lot of it's down. Go ahead, Rusty. One thing I wanted to point out was when you start looking at the percentage, and we talk about the percentage of calls that are tourism-based, and you start looking at the graph and you start seeing the percentage is dropping. The percentage is dropping because when you start taking and adding the actual calls and It's not that tourism calls are going down. They're actually remaining very even. It's that the resident calls are going up. That's where you see the difference. Again, we're not going down to tourism calls. They're remaining the same. It's the local resident calls that are going up. And that's where the increase in calls coming from is more resident than increasing of tourism calls.

So Mark, how do you define a resident?

Somebody that's actually living here. that living here in the district, not a visitor. So every call we track, was this somebody that's living here, a resident of the district, or is it somebody that's visiting here?

So somebody in a short-term rental?

Yep.

Are they a resident?

No, they're not living here. They're a visitor. It's somebody that doesn't have an address here. They're not living here.

Okay.

So it's a tourism-based call. That's what I thought, but I just wanted to clarify.

So would that include a second homeowner? They don't live here. So is that a non-resident?

No, because they're paying taxes here. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

It's something that's totally, when we look at visitor calls, it's something that totally has nothing to do with paying taxes, paying anything here. They're just here for a vacation. Go ahead, Rusty. And some types, as everybody knows, I mean, medical is the majority of our calls, medical and rescue. So that's no surprise and nothing's really changed. What has changed is if you go back and look in previous years is when you look at this year, The false alarm and the service calls is where it's going down. And that's because the big thing is having fire marshal that's been working with motels, specifically fire alarms. We were going on a large amount of, false alarm in motels. And that's been one of his focus since he started is getting those alarms down. And that's where you see the really drop in our call volume over the last six months was fire alarms and then service calls. A lot of it was lift assist, people that need more care in their homes. And he has done a lot of work with getting those people the care that they need. So we're not going to lift them up. So that they're getting that care they need, whether that be getting things in their house that they can pull themselves back up with or getting the in-home care that they need. So we're not going out there two or three times a day sometimes for some of these people. Go ahead, Rusty. Our main focus when we look at it is standard cover, and that's kind of broke up into a few things, medical services, structure fires, rope rescue, technical rescues, surf, vehicle, and then prevention and education. Go ahead, Rusty. What I want to talk about these is the changes that we've seen over the years. well, a few years at Prepared Food Taxi here, but really over the last year, started with the EMS service. Going from EMRs and EMTs to now having six intermediates, and by hopefully this time next year, everybody on staff will be an intermediate. That really changes the level of service that we can provide while we're waiting for the ambulance. That gets into the advanced life support. We will likely... not have paramedic, but we don't really need the paramedic because the paramedic skills, the intermediates could do most of those paramedic skills. Those paramedic skills are gonna be done in more long-term transport. The intermediate can do most of those skills. And so having six intermediates now, every shift has an intermediate, plus a couple of the daytime myself and the EMS captain are both intermediates as well. That has really changed the level of service we can provide for emergency medical services. And then just the increasing the part-time, the volunteer, the students, everything we've done to grow the whole department has changed our standard cover with structure fire, rope rescue, and surf rescue. Going to, we can staff two apparatus immediately and a third very shortly. The rope rescue technicians having a rope rescue technician on every shift, having several volunteers, several students now as rope rescue technicians, that we can do these technical rope systems in place without having to wait for mutual aid to come. In fact, most of the time we're doing it ourselves without needing to rely on other agencies. surf rescue with hiring of our lifeguard head lifeguard with koa bring him in from hawaii he has just changed our surf rescue and we're training on surf rescue every wednesday if you guys see down on the beach every wednesday typically you see the skis get launched that is training usually one o'clock every wednesday they're down there in the water launching the jet skis launching the swimmers, doing evolutions, keeping those skills up. And so that's really has changed what we can do with Surf Rescue. Go ahead Rusty. Our daily staffing really hasn't changed for the last couple of years. We got to where we are and it's amazing what we can do. With two career on every day, 24 hours a day, two students, one to two part-time, We have daytime officers, three chief officers, and then everybody else in and out of the station. Volunteer, part-time. Today there was eight people hanging around the station. Not just the career, not just the volunteer, or not just the part-time, but volunteers hanging out. At night, with volunteers staying there, there's four to six people in the station every night. And just going back to the additional staffing is the volunteers, they're in and out of the station all the time. The off-duty students, we have a house up on Sunset that they live in, and they're coming back off-duty for major incidents. And then the off-duty career are coming back. That's where we start staffing additional apparatus is by the returning of the off-duty students and career as well as the volunteer. This kind of just goes through how many do we have on the roster? What do we have on the roster? So chief, deputy chief, division chief, fire marshal, two daytime captains, EMS and our head lifeguard, the six paid staff on shift, and then there's 23 part-time slash volunteer, and there's five students. And I use the part-time slash volunteer because they're really intermixed. Almost every one of the part-time also volunteers. The part-time, when we allow them to, there's a certain amount of hours they can do, and then they're staying the night and they're doing other things. And then same with students. They have their shift, they work, but then they're coming back as volunteers and getting that experience and just integrating with the whole crew. It isn't just, I'm just a student and I'm not part of the shift. It's they're part of the whole community and part of the whole team. So we get into a little bit of our funding, property tax versus food tax. This is for our current budget year. The property tax is $2.7 million. Our food tax is $962,000. The conflagration is a net zero. And I want to point that out here versus you see it on the other side. We participate in the State Mobilization Act. As our staffing allows, we send crews out on state mobilizations. But we don't plan on that revenue. So that's why I said net zeros. Because if some years weren't going to go out a lot, some years weren't going to go out at all. This year, we went out a lot. It is a revenue source, but we don't count on that in our budget. Go ahead. When we look at the food tax, what does it do for us? Is it still doing what we said it would? Absolutely it is. It still pays for three shift firefighters, the daytime captain, and the fire marshal, and then it also supplements our part-time program. It is... Dave Kuntz, Definitely part of our program without it, we wouldn't have this, this is what started the change of the department and the moving to a hybrid model part time full time and volunteer. We look at allocation. I mean, over 50% of our money goes to personal services. It pays people. That's what costs money. But then you have merge talent services and contingency. We transfer to the capital reserve fund. That is one of the best things, is we now have a dedicated capital reserve fund. We're not at the end of a life of an apparatus, okay, we got to go to a bond. No, we have it set in a reserve and we have a scheduled out apparatus replacement and we can move forward with those as in the schedule.

I have a question about on that pie chart, the transfer to other funds, 5%, 290,000. Is that, it says funds plural. Is it just, is there, okay. It's one fund.

It's one fund. It's capital reserve fund. Okay. In this main forms, I took this out of it. It lists funds, not a, in our case, it's only one fund. Okay.

All right.

So just last couple slides here. Really, our accomplishments is last year. I already talked about our AMS advancements. Getting an intermediate on every shift is a huge advancement. We joined what was called the Metro Area EMS Consortium. It just allows us to have larger access to training regionally. These six doctors that are part of this consortium are coming from CMH, but also OHSU and Emanuel, and just have this vast knowledge. And so we've joined that consortium. Most of Cotswold County has joined up this consortium now. Just amazing what we're getting out of that. And then replacement of the 2006 GMC engine. This has been a plan for a few years. It was in the fund for next year, and we started the research on it, and what we came up against was we weren't even close to enough money to do it, a timeline to do it, when you're looking at a new engine. We were looking at more than we had budgeted and a three-year commitment, a three-year timeline. So through the work of a couple of our guys flying over, literally over the United States, we ended up buying a 2014 engine. It's just in very good shape. Um, it's now in service. Um, we got it in first of the year and worked through getting in service. Um, it'll eventually go to the Arch Cape station. It's where it's slated to go once we get the Arch Cape station remodeled. Um, but, uh, it's really, uh, in service and, uh, already been put to use. Um, the Arch Cape station is moving forward. Uh, hopefully we have completed in the spring. Uh, it's been a long time coming, uh, but, uh, We've been moving slowly forward on it. We got new lifeguard towers in place. I already talked about response, reduced response to alarms. It's been a big thing with fire marshals working on those. And just increase the confidence and competence in rope rescue and surf rescue. and then continue to recruit and train part-time volunteers, constantly getting inquiries and applications for part-time and volunteer. And it's almost a revolving door because we get new and they get up and then they get hired somewhere, which is great for them and I'm happy for them, but it's a revolving door of we're always recruiting and bringing on. Go ahead. Um, and then when I look at the last thing is where I was looking as threats, what's our threats to our future? What we've got to be looking down the road and, uh, I already talked about the apparatus costs. That's a huge threat is apparatus costs. When we talk about housing cost pricing, apparatus costs are right there. There's been a lot of things lately with agencies suing the manufacturers for the cost of these apparatus. They're just astronomical going. And then some of the uncontrollable costs of fuel, medical supplies, things that everybody else already deals with. Workers' comp insurance and health insurance this last year was a huge rise to us. And I think we'll continue to see that. As some changes made to the state with workers' comp was a pretty big increase to that. And then the last is our radio system. It's been an ongoing, but I think it's something we're really starting to talk about. Our radio infrastructure in the county is very vulnerable and has been failing. There's been a lot that the city of Seaside, because they own the systems and putting into it and trying to increase that. But I think that's a big threat to us.

What's the future costs of that system?

And then the Arch Cape Station, my final with it, we're in the middle of, or just starting in the construction of that, hopefully by fall, we'll be breaking ground on it. We received 1.3 million grant for seismic stability, just like we did the main station. But with the Arch Cape Station, we're actually putting a addition on the back of it as well. 1.5 million special public works fund loan, uh, to put in, uh, dorm rooms and make living quarters down there and staff that station. Um, That's where our students will move to and hopefully put some part-time, some resident volunteers in there and staff that station. What that does for our fire district, but it also helps Cannon Beach itself is now when we're going down there for fire alarms, for minor calls, we're not sending the engine from here. We should be able to staff the engine down there and just send a duty officer down to join them. But it's also staffing another engine immediately now coming back this direction. So it's just a huge amount of benefit to the whole fire district to get that station staffed. Any questions?

Good job. Thank you. Keep up. Any other questions, comments? Okay, thanks. Thank you. Okay, next we have another chief.

Good evening. Good evening Madam Mayor and Councillors. Just going to do a short summary of mainly our summer with our parking aids and I'll roll in a little bit of data from our parking enforcement for the year. This year the Cannon Beach Police Department employed six full-time bike aids to monitor parking in the downtown core. Les Shirley Park in the 5th Street area, the Presidential Streets, Haystack, Midtown Parking, and the S-Curves. We started them in mid-May with a couple of them coming on as their school came to an end. And most of them came on full-time after school was out, either high school or college. And we're working pretty much full-time Memorial Day all through the summer. And some are still on working until close to the end of this month. Shifts are from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. with a minimum of three parking aids working a shift. Of course, that's changing now because a lot of them have gone back to work or gone back to school. This year, we had four returnees. Lindsay McCarthy, she's been here five years. Isaiah Salinas. He's been here four years. I would have had them here, but I did not want to let them sit here for two hours while waiting to introduce them. But they were here earlier, and they appreciate your support. Naomi Nelson. This was her third year. Galen Moritz. This was her second year, and we had two new aides that came through us from the college. Cash Miles and Jeremiah Schlenk, who I think enjoy themselves, and they'll be back next year. It's always nice to have returnees the week. So we don't have to keep training these folks. Year to date, which was through August 25th, the police department had written 2,040 parking citations and warnings. And of those written, 335 were warnings. And that includes the officers going out and writing parking citations too. In June, 321 citations were written and 112 warnings were written. July, 443 citations were written and 105 warnings. In August through August 25th, 427 citations were written with 43 warnings given. The locations throughout town, which you can imagine, mostly we saw a high level of citations in the North Spruce Second Street RV parking area and Haystack RV parking in Midtown. Those were our two citations. big areas that we monitored and it was tough to keep people out of those on a busy day when it's on open spot, they would just get in there. I know the parking aids patrolled that to try to keep people from getting into that situation, but it can happen pretty quickly. There were some questions about how the marked parking would be taken. There was little to no pushback. We gave them about a week. to kind of get used to it, just giving warnings. Most people are parking appropriately as they drive through town. I see on occasion somebody not parking where they should be. Time spots are monitored throughout the day. That's one question that has come up is how do we know they're being monitored? The parking aids go through there with their small handheld device. They can electronically mark a car, which takes a picture of the back of the vehicle with the license plate. they'll come back, say it's a 15 minute spot, they'll come back 30 minutes later, kind of give them that benefit of the doubt. If they're there, that same vehicle is there, they're gonna get a citation. And I've had a couple of people try to fight those, but it's kind of hard to say that they weren't parked there for 30 minutes when it's the same vehicle parked at 12 and they come back by at 1230 and it's the same vehicle parked there. So I allow the courts to deal with that. The S-curves were monitored throughout the summer and citations there were issued when appropriate. And attached in your packet are just the data that went over the ticket status by year to date, June, July, August, and then tickets by location.

Do you have any questions? Those stats were very fascinating. Yeah.

Um, 1 thing I did see is on tickets to date, uh, 1,021 tickets have been paid. We're still working on 410 tickets to get, uh. Uh, those, uh. Paid through the municipal court, and I know finance works hard to get those. Sometimes we can't track down the folks that, uh, receive the ticket either because. It's a rental vehicle possibly, or it's from a state that we can't get any, uh. owner's records, registered owner information from. Some of the states do not participate with our software, so it's tough to get some of that information back. So there are going to be some citations that will probably not get paid, but we try to work hard to get most of those citations taken care of.

How many states are there that don't cooperate with the program?

I don't know off the top of my head, but it's not a lot.

Okay. So for those, do you just have to have Sylvia or someone call their department motor vehicles and ask for information? Or does it just, if they don't participate, it's done?

Everything is done through the company that we work with. So they're the ones that would be able to get us that information or not.

Chief, I know you've answered this before, but what percentage of the ticket revenue goes to the city and what percentage goes elsewhere? The state?

This all goes to the city. This is municipal parking violations. So all this money goes to the city.

Okay.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Dimitri.

No, you're correct. parking ticket revenue goes to the city. It's when we have other like speeding violations, etc. Those get split up between the state, ourselves, and county.

And it's still $50 a parking ticket.

Correct. It is still $50 a parking ticket.

Currently. Currently. So a bunch of, well, I know that it's been asked twice in the last month for a comparison with other jurisdictions of parking tickets because $50 is really low.

And we're working on that right now. We should be able to bring it to you in October so we can have that discussion.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

And part of that, that the proceeds that come to the city are after the company that we're using takes their share.

No, we get the full 50 bucks. We do have to pay for, we pay for the software every year. We end up having to pay for the paper. And then we end up having them actually mail out different notices for us. So that's what we paid them for.

Thank you. One thing that I have noticed, there's not a lot of presence on Spruce between Sunset and Ross. And one of the local establishments there has workers that change over quite often, which is great that they can find a place to park. But they're parking the wrong way on the street. They're parking on the corners. They're parking into Spruce. And I don't think they're being ticketed.

Okay. I'll mark that down as a trouble area, and we'll make sure that we put that in the rotation next year, and we'll make sure that the officers are going through there while we don't have parking aids on to make sure that that's being addressed.

Usually between three and five.

On a sunny day or what?

So if any workers from establishments near Hemlock and Sunset are listening, make sure you're parking the right way and not blocking driveways.

any other questions i i wanted to ask um if there's uh any coordination with uh public works in relation to like specific trouble spots to try to mitigate and not have to write so many tickets of like if there's like identified locations that obviously the parking lots of the rv parking is those those really are two biggest spots and i don't know

how much clearer you can make it by putting big lettering that says RV parking only in big letters. And it's a big spot. I know that we took some spots out when we marked the area downtown because it was too close to an intersection. So those might have been a safety. area that public works removed. But I don't think we, I think that was three that we took out in the downtown area once they striped. And then we addressed that spot that was of concern pulling into the Mariner Market there between the post office and the Mariner Market and shortened up one spot to create a little bit more of a safety zone so that car that's parking in the southernmost spot right next to the post office is not, their rear end isn't hanging into the driveway of the Mariner Market parking lot.

And that makes that one spot a 20-foot spot instead of a 22-foot space. Is that correct? But the one at the very front at the north side of that could be moved forward. So it's off by two feet as well. So those could be two 22-foot spaces next time they go through. That could be fixed. Okay. Yep. If you have a big vehicle, it doesn't fit very well in that south spot.

Any other questions?

No, make sure you thank the bike aids. They've been great to work with.

Will do.

Yeah.

They appreciate the support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. OK, next, Andrew. Good evening.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and counselors. All right, I will just, I'll briefly go over the background of the staff report that I provided you. And you guys are all provided the final copy of the new emergency operations plan. So the City of Cannon Beach, their current Emergency Operations Plan or EOP was originally adopted in 2009 and has served as the city's primary framework for coordinating response to major emergencies and disasters. Since that time, emergency management standards, state and federal guidance, city organizational responsibilities, and local emergency management capabilities have evolved significantly. The existing plan no longer fully reflects current city structure, emergency authorities, coordination practices, or modern emergency management doctrine. In the analysis and information section, I highlighted just the five major changes from the plan. There were lot more changes that I didn't put in there just because obviously the plan the original plan was from 2009 and this one's 2026 on the page it says 2025 but I'm just looking for feedback and recommendations to the EOP based on your guys's review and observations on it I'm sure you guys thoroughly reviewed the 80 pages of the document and are uh super it's amazing how much goes into a lot goes into it yes mayor and uh i had a lot of help uh not only so if you're not familiar uh the county is re they redid theirs and all municipalities within the county all updated and redid their eops as well we hired out a company It's a third-party company called IEM, and they assisted us in the EOP, as well as several other annexes. I'm still working through annexes with the help of other department heads, the fire department, police department, public works, city staff. I've had a huge help and assist on going just through all the documents and having everybody review it. So it's been quite a task. Um, but if you have, you guys have any questions that I can hope either, you know, answer or clarify based on the EOP that I presented you, um, please feel free to ask.

Um, so I, I probably, I probably just would like to probably just meet with you and go through line by line instead of hashing it all out in a, in a public meeting. But I had a couple, I had a couple of questions, um, uh, on, uh, page 31 of the document. I was kind of confused. I asked Tim about this a little bit, but I was just curious what, when it defines the ICs with that CB fire would be IC if it lists the different situations, and then it follows it up with hazmat fire, hazmat situations outside of fire districts, but somehow within Canada Beach police jurisdiction. I was curious what that would be defined, where a location like that would exist, if you possibly know off the top of your head, or if that's something we could just talk about later.

Let me read through here real quick. The only thing that I can think of would be if it's possibly on Highway 101 or Highway 26 out there and there's a hazardous situation. Cannon Beach may be the first responding agency, correct me if I'm wrong, Chief, but they may just secure the scene or something like that until a fire department could, you know, get on scene. Because I know the fire department responds out there as well. So, you know, PD might just be, they're obviously in their vehicles, they can get to scenes quicker. So they may be able to just establish scene safety until somebody, you know, more qualified comes.

Okay. I guess I kind of was getting like to the crux of what I was just thinking in general about it is it has CB fire. I don't know if this is just a weird off the wall question, but it has a CB fire as filling in as incident command in a, in a bunch of situations and operationally that makes perfect sense doing that, that happening. And we call incident commander is you're establishing on, on scene, but for larger operations, incidents i feel like it would make more sense i guess i'm probably talking to circles but more more sense for a city within city staff emergency manager chief of police city manager something like that as incident command and operations being handled by whatever agency is dealing with that particular type of emergency and that's i guess i was kind of confused as why

Or this particular section here, 31, talking specifically about small individual transfer service. I think this is talking about outside of the Senate limits, because I'm not going to be responding outside of the Senate limits and being in Senate command or anything like that. But PD might be. if it's an emergency situation, but a city staff or city member wouldn't be going out of the city limits. We can definitely talk about that.

Okay. Yeah, I'd love to do that. But the other question I had or the comment I had is Appendix 3 is the Annex Crosswalk. Appendix 3. Appendix 3 is on page 60 of the document. Annex Assignment Crosswalk. It specifies that this is not quite, it's still underdeveloped and it's not quite ready. Is this something that's, I would think this would have to be ready prior to, ready and presented prior to a vote on council to adopt this EOP, correct? It looks like it's the only appendix or the only annex here that isn't Fleshed out in some fashion.

So we there. So what we've decided to do is rather than working through specific Like natural hazard we decided to go specific department annexes. And so we are, we're currently still, so like right now I'm working through the inclement weather annex. And so all the ants, so basically the, you have your, your, obviously, you know, the main EOP emergency operations plan, and then all the annexes come afterwards. And so those are going to be presented to you guys later once they're all completed and, And so we have a police annex, we have a fire annex, fire and life safety annex, inclement weather annex, major fire annex. And so technically all of those annexes are still under development because they're not completed yet. While I've completed them, like a couple of them, I still have... three left that I'm working through. And so once they're all completed, they will be provided to you as well for those specific department annexes.

Do you have an idea on the timeframe for...

I believe they're going to be completed by the end of October. Or not the end of October, by the end of this month. And so I'm getting the next two annexes on September 14th. And then I have until the 25th to review those and get those in. Okay, so... to get those into IEM and then they make those final revisions and then they give it back to me. So today I just got back to the police one that I just did. And I believe chief and I, I believe we completed that like two, three weeks ago. And so it takes a couple of weeks for them to, um, take all of our revisions and all of our updates to, to make those changes and get it back to me.

Okay. So you, you expect to have those, those done prior to this being presented as a voting item then?

I don't believe so. Well, yeah, I'm not going to be having this be voted like next month. So also for the EOP, that's going to be that is separate than the annexes. And so we're working through those annexes right now. So those are going to be individual items. Those aren't included in the EOP, if that makes sense.

So so the EOP would be the EOP minus all the appendices. It wouldn't it wouldn't have any. The appendices that follow at the end, the responsibility matrix and the annexes and the EOP structure and component relationships and all those appendices would not be included in what's presented.

The appendices will be, but the annexes won't. So those six, I believe it's six department focused annexes. And so like append, like all the, like the appendix six, like these aren't, I believe there's just a little confusion there. So there's the annexes, which are department focused, and then these are the appendixes to the EOP.

Oh, so I guess my question, and sorry, I missed, because that's the final page of the document. I missed that one page. No, the question I had was about appendix three, which references to annexes.

Oh, the annex assignment crosswalk.

Correct, yeah. The coordination with those annexes.

I'll have to follow up with IEM to see how they're going to work through that prior to us approving this, if the annexes aren't completed by this. Okay.

Because that was my concern, if we're approving an EOP, but... If it comes in a month or two months from now to come for approval, if we're missing this particular appendix, it seems by reading what the intent of the appendix is, it seems like we're kind of missing the meat and potatoes of the EOP as a whole. is it's uh this provides the the direction for resource prioritization training and exercise um planning after action implementation um all of the the actual deliverables of the eop to what happens seems to be buried in in this the annex crosswalk and that yeah the annex crosswalk yeah correct okay so when is it on our agenda to approve it

Do you have...

Yeah, we might have to... I'll get with IEM probably tomorrow. I'll just send them an email and say, hey, what's... Because I know the deadline for these annexes are the end of this month. So if there's time, which I don't think there would be, we may need to delay it to November so you guys can review them. Like I said, there's six different annexes there. So there's quite a bit.

Okay.

Okay. Okay. This, I was supposed to do this last month, I believe, but it got delayed. Um, and so I was gonna, I was trying to give you guys enough time, but I may have to delay the next one.

Okay. No, I think it's great though. It's got a ton of information in here and it's got, it covers lots of different, uh, lots of different things that. I'm sure we're not covered in 2009.

Yes. Yeah. No, I was very impressed with IEM, the company that helped us out with this. They were very thorough. So I would definitely recommend them again. Any other questions?

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next we have the public benefit housing policy. Yeah.

It's talking to Rusty there. All right, thank you. all right thank you mayor and council at the recent august 11th city council work session the cannon beach city council requested more information regarding other cities or jurisdictions who have implemented accessory dwelling unit incentive programs i have sent you those and included three in the packet from san diego california grand junction colorado durango colorado And as I mentioned in the staff report, there's plenty out there and also provided links to a few of those others out there, just to give you an understanding that they come in all shapes and sizes. And so I didn't want you to think that A, you know, recreating a will, so to speak, but to give you an understanding that there's, you know, a range from who they're benefiting, what types of benefits they're trying to allow and other components of the different programs. And so what I wanted to discuss tonight, I was so happy that Michael brought up the cadence and the practice because that's what I want to impress upon all of us is that I'm happy that we've gotten to this point But I know we are trying to make up for many in many senses, 50 years, 30 years of falling behind and building public houses. That's why I have the barn raising there on the public benefits slideshow, because really this is this is making room for those people in the community that were here earlier. to be in our community and have a voice in our community. And whether we're talking about community, as in they all live in Cannon Beach, or a portion of them live in Cannon Beach, and then other places within our community, as in Clatsop County, that's what these public benefits programs try to define and help out. What do those people, or those individuals or families, that we're trying to provide a foothold into the community. How can we do that? And so I would like to break it down into really three questions. Define housing, then who benefits, and then what do those benefits look like or how they benefit. And so with any of these, you pretty much have to start with our definitions. And I just want to be clear that we can speak about the same terms in the same way. And so when I talk about affordable housing, because many jurisdictions may see a lot of this of what we're talking about as affordable housing or things like that. But to be clear, when I talk about affordable housing, I'm talking about 80% and below affordable area median income. So those that we would be serving 80% and below, workforce housing 81% to 120% AMI, public benefits housing defined by you guys for those receiving below market rate housing outside federally subsidized programs. So in other words, most affordable housing and workforce housing into that 120% range can qualify through LIHTC or other programs. And that's what many that we've had come before you like the Pacific projects and other of those types of projects. That's what they try to do. They have statewide competitive grants that are LIHTC projects. They have to come in and work with the jurisdiction. It's gotta be usually free land because that's how they get the funding right for that. And so we are pursuing that right now as we are with the Clatsop Regional Housing Task Force. We landed a couple grants through the state to look at opportunity sites. And so we're currently looking at the RV site, and the south wind site and they will be bringing us back an analysis of that 3j is working we're working with them on that project and then uh you know we're also uh looking at other ways to provide housing and so i just want for those that this may be their first time to talk about this or to understand what we're trying to do here with public benefits housing is to You know, it's really easy to see why we need to do this. If you look at any Zillow search, this is Red Fins. I did it just before the packet came out. And you say, what's the cheapest or any rental that I can get in Cannon Beach? the only ones that come up are usually 2,500 and above for Cannon Beach. I think there's three on this one that say if you extend that to Clatsop County, yes, there are some that come under 1,400 or so. But if you look at the numbers that we have to reach by what we're talking about here, in a range of serving those, say, 120 or below, or even as some jurisdictions that I showed you accessory dwell in those ADU discussions or their programs, some of them go up to 140% or beyond. So they set those limits differently depending on how they want to operate those programs. But if you look, and I made a mistake in my, even in my write-up for this in the staff report, I put the 80% at the, I pulled the wrong number. I pulled 120%, and I mean the 100%. And so if you look at that for a studio at 80%, that's $1,240. A one bedroom starts at, for 80%, $1,329 per month. And then, They go up to, for 120%, that one bedroom is right around the 2,000 number. So those, I just wanted to give you the latest, that's the latest Glatsop County AMI ranges, so that you would have those to look at. But then for those that aren't aware, we have currently 78 existing affordable housing in Cannon Beach. In other words, they are deed restricted. They are held to those AMI limits to 80% or below. And so We did a buildable land study last year as part of the Clatsop Regional Housing Task Force. We did it for all the communities in Clatsop County and the unincorporated areas, and they brought back that we need 660 total units by 2045. That broken down into what we were talking about as in new workforce and new affordable looks like this pie chart here where 293 at below 80% and 216 new workforce. And then 151 would be at the free market. That's the city of Cannon Beach, okay? That's... That's from our buildable lands inventory and housing needs reports. We'll get to that here in a minute. I can show you that. Yeah, I'll be happy. Yeah, I'll point that out, Councillor Kerr, when we get there. So then we've got how much in our buildable city lands. For those that don't know, we, as part of that buildable lands report, The bright ones here. So you'll see that RV, R3, which is our multifamily district. The only vacant is about 0.5% is left vacant in our R3 zones. And so I just want to emphasize that we're running out of buildable city lands. And this is the countywide buildable lands and the percentages for each one of those. And so it is, as I said earlier, I think this is important because we must keep in context that we may not be able to build it all here. We may not be able to build it in the city of Cannon Beach. And that's what we'll be discussing step by step through these questions. But where we go could also be in warrington or in astoria or gearhard and that is the county-wide buildable lands and our percentage is just 4.4 percent of the buildable county-wide lands so i didn't want to oversupply you with uh information at one meeting and so But if we look at how we want to approach this, how would we approach going 660 or even getting close to that? If we were to break down our new free market units, we are doing about 150 at the pace that we're doing now building-wise. If by 2045, we add the number around eight per year of new building. So that's what would fill out that new free market. But how do we reach those other numbers into those other segments of the area of median income and those of our workforce that work here? I put in there the lease to local, an estimate of doing a certain number of public benefits, just to see how this would approach, and I came to about 400, oh, excuse me, yes, go ahead.

Excuse me, so this is an overwhelming amount of information, and I thought that, and a lot of it we've heard, but I thought that we were talking about public benefit, the public benefits housing policy, specifically regarding deed restrictions, and to begin with, and AMI, and how we were going to, an idea on how we were going to fund that. Did I misunderstand somewhere along the way?

No, I just want you to understand, I want everyone to understand that public benefits is just a portion of what we have to do.

Well, I do understand that, but there's three items here with many subcategories that I feel should be broken into separate meetings. I think we really need to define what deed restrictions look like. And what, if anything, we already kind of know. I mean, the state has specific parameters around public benefit housing, and it's not just about the MI, but it's also about, you know, reduction of taxes and abatements and things like that. So... I'd really like to know where we're going to go with the deed restrictions and how we're going to help fund some of the gap as a city. Grants come with a lot of moving parts right now, some of which we may or may not be willing to sign on to. So that's so thank you.

And that's okay. So we'll get right into that. So really, there's four really approaches or areas that we will be able to work with new accessory dwelling units. the new public benefits accessory dwelling units, new public benefits mixed-use units, and new affordable and workforce development units. And so that's your RV parks and other things like that. So how should the city... Yeah.

You said that... Thank you. You said the RV park. I thought the RV park is not just affordable housing we were talking about. We were talking about workforce housing.

It is affordable land workforce housing.

But before you go there, because you gave us all these charts, you say we need 660 new houses in the next 20 years, right? Yes. What is the total for that? Where did you get that number? I mean, what proportion of what's needed in Clatsop County does 660 represent?

So I don't have this slide in this packet, but I have shown it to you before in the last presentation, but I've been told to cut down on my slides.

Okay, well, if you're going to give us this, 660 total, I have to know where it comes from.

I have given you that before as well.

Well, I don't remember what the total was.

So if I could just show you that, I have it in another that's real quick. Okay. So if you can see this right here, this is the number, uh, that's 20 year need for each of the jurisdictions.

And what's that based on the first one?

This is, this is based on, uh, three J I believe was the, uh, you know, the consultant that worked with the jurisdictions. I wasn't here during this report or during this study. But what they did was they looked at the amount of housing for each jurisdiction, and then they look at the different AMIs and what they're producing. They look at also buildable lands and baseline trends of what they're developing, and then do an estimate of how many they'll need also in population projections.

Okay, so based on our population of around 1,200 or 1,250, we need, and Astoria's, they're requiring 1,835. They don't, okay, see, I'm not making much sense.

So Astoria, 20-year need from these reports are 1,835. Cannon Beach, 660. Gearhart, 382. Seaside, 1,603. Warrington, 1,276. So this has nothing to do with population or buildable lands. This is some other form of land? No, it does have to do with some of that methodology. Yeah, and the packets are available on our, I mean, the studies are on our website if you want to look at their methodology.

Yeah, but this doesn't answer my question, looking at this. So I'm just, it doesn't. Because I remember asking Melissa the same question back several years ago, the exact same question, where these numbers, and I still don't have an answer.

Okay, well, I can, I don't want to dwell on that tonight, but I'll be happy to look into that and bring that back.

Okay, I'd love to know that. Okay. So in Clatsop County, you're looking at 1,556 units needed, projected units needed by whoever did this survey in the next 20 years.

Yes.

So the total number is 5,756. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

Thank you. So I wanted to put that in context. Those two columns just left of the yellow column show what we are currently building. Well, the two white ones, one says residential density. The next one says developable residential density. Those are the densities we're building at. And then that residential baseline. And the developable residential baseline shows you if we continue to build what we build with all of our developable land available, shows you the number of units that we would be able to reach. And the ones that are colored red means we are not going to be able to reach those numbers, whether we use the density that we're building at or even the density of the developed density. And so, in other words, we will likely, each one of those jurisdictions will likely, if they want to meet those needs, will have to do an UGB expansion or figure out some way to meet those needs. Warrington is the only one that currently is building at a density on their developed developed lands at a density and have enough available land, but they still have issues with utilities and service providing water and sewer and things like that. So other other issues. So So back to what Councillor Hammond was referencing. Let's go back to this. And so the questions that we have before us tonight are defining housing. So how should the city participate in the creation of housing? Like I said in the staff report, I believe we're making grounds to look at the affordable housing and workforce housing sectors that we can through looking at the RV Park and the Southwind Park. But there will be a discussion as we get further into this. Will we need to rezone? or will we need to expand UGB area? And then what type of housing should the city help create? Well, you have before you zoning ordinance changes that will advance middle housing, which will help different types of housing, everything from duplexes, triplexes up to quadplexes and above. But then that third brings us back to where should the city create such housing? Like I showed with these numbers, it's not likely we're going to provide them even if we do build in the RV park. and Southwind. So where else would we like to develop that housing? So I'm happy, as Councilor Hammond said, I don't think we're going to get through all of these questions tonight. And so if you guys would like to at least talk about either that or the defining who benefits or defining public benefits, Choose one of the three courses, and I say that's what we should focus on tonight, to get through one of these three areas. Do you all have a preference? Because the defining who benefits really defines on what type of individual or family we want to target this program at. The third is defining the public benefits. And like you said, we have system development charges we could waive. We could waive building fees. We could look into loans, grants, or rebates. YAP financing, tax abatements, you know.

I think we should start with two because that sort of informs thinking of the three.

And so in your package, are you all OK with that? With two? Thank you. So I have put a example in the packet. And so I'm glad you did, because it went right to my next slide. the system development charges is really kind of the at least that it was brought up earlier and and we've talked about it before but really the current language if you guys want to provide everyone who builds an accessory dwelling unit should get their system development charges away but i've heard that before so i just wanted to clarify that some people uh some of the council i believe wants to do that well if they did want that We would have to do a housing, another amendment, ordinance amendment, excuse me. So I would want direction on going back and working on a housing ordinance amendment to uh, to allow that. Uh, because currently, the only things that are exempt are housing for low or elderly persons, which is exempt from real property taxes under state law, and then development, which is being financed by city funds. Now, if you chose to only do, uh, public benefits, uh, units and only allow public benefits and then define those individuals through public benefits and we give funds to those projects then i think you're exempt so i don't think uh you know i think our guidelines if you tell me to come back with guidelines that show that we don't have to do a resolution ordinance change that's just going to be included in our public benefits guidelines and so that is where this uh decision tree comes up. If you want to waive the SDCs for all SDCs, then I need to go over to the right and draft an ordinance amendment. If you say, no, I don't want that, I want to waive SDCs for the public only, then I need to do a policy guide, the public benefits policy guide, and include that in there. And then if you say, no, I want to acquire SDCs for all, well, I keep it as is. I don't need to do anything. That's the decision tree for that. So when you come down to who does this benefit, that is why that second question is crucial. And I've given you this language here, which is taken from one of the jurisdictions that I've worked with. And there's many examples of this, but this is really kind of the most traditional. It's very similar to almost Any mountain town community and other communities I've seen in California and other places that do some type of public benefits, they will want to do it for the local worker. Yeah, I'm just going to define this real quick.

But we can answer some of these questions. I think that we can answer the questions from the... the public benefits thing, like before you dive deep into something, maybe we can answer some of these questions and then we could move forward easily. Sure. Am I wrong?

No, I think it's fine.

Anyone over a certain age, what is that age? Is that 55? Is it Social Security age? How would you guys look at that? How is that listed here? 65 or older?

Are you looking at number four, local senior? Is that what you're looking at?

Well, I'm actually looking at the number two, defining who benefits. So anyone over a certain age. So 65 years or older?

Yes. What's the... and in our current ordinances it references the by state statute our

the um a for exemptions for sdcs what what is the requirement for at a at a state level for that it depends on which of the programs you choose to try to get a tax abatement through and i think the uh the i think it's called burpa or or whatever that's the one that uh um Manzanita and Seaside used to get for their LIHTC projects, and they use that, and I think that's 65, but I can check on that. But that's what that language refers to, those state programs.

Okay. If 65 is what the other state programs are using, it's 65. Right. Yeah.

And then anyone qualified as disabled, I mean, that definition up there looks good to me.

I agree with that. Was there more than one definition? It was just one that was easy to put up or did you have multiple definitions?

I didn't have multiple. This is just the one that I, like I said, borrowed from another jurisdiction.

I mean, I think it covers the basis that I would be concerned about. Somebody that currently lives here or currently and or works here and is disabled and it's not incentivizing somebody to move in and take advantage of a program, just to take advantage of a program.

And I know for a fact, like this one, because I've worked with this one, you know, it, it, it took a few iterations and it's been in place for a number of years. And, uh, so, um,

Anyone making less, does everybody agree that that definition looks good? Anyone making less than a certain AMI? So do you have that defined here somewhere? Are we looking at a 60, 80 on these, like for the affordable housing, and then maybe 81 to 120 on mid-level?

I think get rid of the 60 in the reference, just below 80.

Below 80? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Well, that makes sense. Yeah. So anything below 80%?

I think in two categories, yeah. Workforce affordability and capital A affordability.

Anything below 80. 120. 120 to 81, and then anything below 80?

Yes. So that's who should benefit.

And only those who are local. Yeah.

And you said below 120 is the highest you want to go right now?

Yeah. For mid-level. Yeah. And then only those who are local. And I think that what does local mean? Does that mean Clatsop County?

Everything here says Clatsop County. And you're looking at one thing and Up here we're looking at another. I'm sorry, Gary.

I'm sorry. Yeah, so yeah, if...

It's way down here.

If... Yeah, so when I said local, I have defined that as Clatsop County, working in Clatsop County. Now there are...

It would be helpful if we're all looking at the same thing.

So it's... Do you want it up there on the screen? That one. Back one more, Rusty. Okay. Number two, those categories.

Defining who benefits.

All right. So just one point on that. Other jurisdictions, like I said, I've set the county as the limit. Others have set a mile radius from the jurisdiction or class of county or you know, 30 miles, 20 miles from, you know, something like that.

The issue we're trying to address here is people who work in Cannon Beach and can't afford to live here. So why are we going to Clatsop County?

Well, I'm seeing that really as two different questions, okay? So first off, yes, you can define that they only work in Cannon Beach, or that they, you know, many work in Cannon Beach, but live within, you know, well, they live in Halem or Astoria. So, you know, many on our staff do that. So do you want to allow, Those workers also, you know, in other words, to be in the program and incentivize them.

I mean, I think, I guess, okay, it seems to me it's for people who want to live here and who work here and would like to live here.

And could we, I agree with you, could we, the E is should those deemed essential be given priority status? So that would be your worker. One thing that we learned from the... apartments the affordable housing that's going in and seaside when she was in here and gave her presentation she told us just because someone works in cannon beach if we were going to donate that money just because someone works in cannon beach if they change jobs, they don't lose their housing because they don't live in Cannon Beach anymore. So maybe we open it up to Clatsop County, but make it a priority for essential staffing.

That's the nexus of that point, that number that would go to E, is that a lot of jurisdictions will give, you know, say 50 points for first responder type, 30 points to city staff or some other jurisdiction. But then, like you said, yeah, so it's a prioritized type of system. Healthcare workers or things like that are also often put on an essential status. And they're given preference on those apartments.

Then you're leaving out that whole group of people we heard from tonight.

I think essential, when you refer to essential, should be referred to people that are employed in Cannon Beach as essential. And then local is more broad as Clatsop County. So like you were mentioning, 50 points for this. And how are the application? It's more essential for the funds that are being developed in Cannon Beach to provide housing for people that are living and working in Cannon Beach. And it's still worthwhile to get housing for people that are a little bit further away, but our priority within here is to get people moved back in and living in Cannon Beach.

I think they're defining essential different than you are.

I think they are too. I think that was the question was different.

So I think we have to maybe not use that word. I mean, anyone who works here is- Priority. Priority, right.

we'll just call it priority yeah yeah works works or a business owner because we do have business owners that yeah okay so did we answer all those questions and number two i loved it

Okay. Do you have other questions that we should answer about specifically who should be benefiting that wasn't included in these five?

I don't think so. I think I bring that back in kind of the next meeting draft form of what this will look like in the kind of resolution type of guideline resolution.

I just have a question about the age thing. It kind of concerns me a little bit because there's well, there are people who have lived in Cannon Beach for the past couple of years and they're over 65, but they really don't need public benefits because they have a nice big house or they have, you know, I mean, it's so I'm really, the age thing unattached to anything else, I think is a big issue.

Okay, let me look at that.

I understand what you're saying.

Yeah, I understand. I'll look through other jurisdictions and see if there's some way that they've limited that.

Lisa, are you saying you would not have age be a...

I wouldn't have age alone be a factor. I'd have age attached to economic

viability or or ami well i think that this is all to kind of inclusive as as one so you would have to in order to be 65 or older and get benefit you would have to follow it within that ami right it's it's a there's going to be a financial burden of proof yeah um

I'll look at that language that binds that and that might just need to be clarified in that number four, that local senior language. Okay.

But the baseline is a percentage of AMI. I mean, that's why I'm a little confused here. We have so many slides in a 220 page packet and page 168 of the 220 page packet defines local senior so yeah and that's what is that information for us is that from another packet no that is that's that's the language we're looking at yes I mean yeah so that's I'm not sure we're kind of recreating the wheel here from a bullet point of defining senior and On this page, page 13 of something 168 in the packet, uh, it defines it.

Yes, and it should say a person 65 years or older who meets at least one of the following definitions.

Right. Was a local employee for at least five or six years. I mean, that's it.

There's nothing in there that I can't see. I don't see anything in there about, you know, what I want. Right.

I think that's the baseline, though. That's the number one qualification.

It's AMI.

And just wants to clarify, we will just clarify and put that language also in there though. Yeah, so.

I will agree with you, Gary, that this packet is a little robust and wandering.

So are you saying my public benefits package is wandering or is it the whole 220? Because I really have no control over the other portions.

No, most of the packet is, but we've, you know, we reviewed 220 pages in the last few days. But it seems like what you're asking us is the information that's on about three slides. Yeah. And I'd rather be looking at three slides. Yeah. I mean, we all know the challenges. We don't need to keep hearing the challenges. We really just need to help you guide us through this and, and give us some simple options about defining some of these things. And I think we could do it, but I'm finding myself jumping back and forth between information and, and we're sitting here kind of recreating the wheel, which is, you know, already spelled out here. So I'm,

i think what counselor hayes is trying to say is if you had gone through these bullet points and actually given us your best recommendation for each one of those in three pages and maybe given us some backup information that we don't talk about but we have it for reference if we need it I think that would have been the better approach to this.

And that's, you know, I think we've done this. I think we've gone through exactly, you guys talked through it and, you know, and I think we're good. You know, I just, I want you to know that not everybody who tunes into the public meeting or public work session, though, has the background. This may be their first time, and that's the only thing that, you know, staff has to walk a balance of providing those, the essential information that they need, and then you guys who may have read every single thing, because I know some of you read every single time, every, you know, as much as you can, and even more reach out and do the links, but Some don't have the opportunity to, you know, this may be their first impression. And so that's, I've tried to narrow it down with each time. Next time I will not give any background. We're just going to go right into it. And so that's, I understand that now.

Well, on page 168 or page 13 of this document dated 9-4-26, It has local person with a disability, local employee, local employer, local senior. It doesn't mention the AMI at all. That is mentioned back on page two, page number 162 of the packet. anyone over a certain age, anyone qualified as disabled, anyone making less than a certain AMI, only those who are local. And so it's also missing the essential.

And that's, that's, Councilor Harris, that's because this is just the definition of the local. And local is not some, it doesn't have anything to do with the AMI and all that. We will put that on, from what you guys gave me feedback on, that will be inserted into the policy guideline. So next time I will come back with all the information you've given me in that policy document.

So does council have a preference as to whether they'd like to go to The question's in number one or number three. The next meeting, for another meeting. Yeah, the next meeting.

Well, I thought we were going to be talking about the public benefits. That's what I was more prepared to talk about. But I'll talk about these in any order. I like Councillor Hammond's idea of some language or your best shot at these things and then we can provide some direct feedback of yes or no or move it this way or increase that.

I have given you that. That's what that three-tier system is. And the local language I just gave you, that's the complete package. That tells you everything. That gives you my recommendation, and I gave it to you months ago. But now I understand I've got to emphasize that, and I'll just put it out beside that. Okay. Yeah. Well.

This doesn't feel like a recommendation.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I will put, I'll just spell it out, recommendation from here on. We're getting back to it. I mean, that, you know, it's a working relationship. That's, you know, we will iterate. It's the cadence. I like how Michael said cadence. You know, this is get in the cadence. So I appreciate this. And really, I think we've made a huge stride tonight. And I'll bring those documents back with no background information. And we're moving along.

So the next time this is presented to us, you're going to have a policy document with the definitions of those questions that we just discussed, and then a suggestion of either one or three, whichever.

Probably both. Honestly, I'll give you both. But you can choose if you want to go three or one next. But I'll give you both.

But I think Deanna's saying she'd like it separated.

Well, I would, I would, I think we might all like to see it separate. Maybe I'm back. Oh, no, I know.

But I think it was like that. I mean, if we were looking, really looking at the recommendations or possible options on about, you know, three slides, we could get through it all.

I think a lot of this, we have gone over, right? I mean, you said that we've gone over this. I think that we need to define what public benefits are.

Yeah, I would like to do three first, if it's under my recommendation, do those three first. And then we loop back to say the bigger picture, how much we're going to, from the program, how much we would like to kind of give towards each element.

And that was my question, number one, really, is where does this all come from? I'd like to know where we're getting these numbers from.

Yeah. I'll get you the numbers, though, for the, at least for the methodology as well.

Yeah, I'd like to see that. And maybe we can all, if we all have a lot of information that we've gotten over several meetings. So if we have questions about this, we could go to Dr. Adams now and or over the next couple of weeks and really confuse him. You know, I'm always giving feedback on, you know, I'm trying to have a little fun at 9 o'clock. But giving feedback on what we think, and that might help you make those recommendations a little clearer to us.

And remember, like I said at the beginning, we're trying to cover a lot of ground in a short time. So yes, just feel free to reach out to me.

OK, so I'm going to close the work session and open the special meeting. Are we ready? So ZO2601 City of Cannon Beach request to place a short-term rental cap and related zoning ordinance text amendments to chapter 17.8 for short-term rentals. The proposed zoning ordinance text amendment would limit the number of 14-day permits in the City of Cannon Beach and provide other related minor changes to the short-term rental provisions of Cannon Beach Municipal Code 84 short-term rentals of Title 17 zoning. The zoning text amendment request will be reviewed against the criteria of the Municipal Code Section 17.94.060A amendments criteria and the statewide planning goals. I'm going to open the public hearing and ask, does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the City Council to hear this application at this time? Does any Councillor wish to disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest?

Uh, through the consultation with Oregon Government Ethics Commission and at their recommendation, I have prepared a statement. I have a potential conflict of interest. The conflict arises because I am employed by a small family owned hotel in Cannon Beach. This hotel does not have a direct interest in short term rentals, nor is there ever a plan for the owners or myself to engage in short term rental operations in Cannon Beach. I do recognize that there is a potential that modifications to regulations on STRs could have a potential impact financially on other overnight businesses within cannon beach this impact is both potential and typically recognized as unlikely due to the specific desires requests and expectations of guests who stay at hotels versus short-term rentals because this is a potential conflict of interest i will still participate in this matter thank you so can we have the staff report please yes thank you mayor council um

This, just to summarize the staff report, in consideration of the density limitations that were requested by the city council in August 11th work session, the short-term rental cap ordinance with density revisions is attached, identified two possible revisions, exclusion zones and density restrictions. The exclusion zones would prohibit any new short-term rental east of Highway 101, while density restrictions would prohibit any new short-term rentals within 100 feet of an existing short-term rental. There is a growing body of evidence on the impacts of short-term rentals to communities, markets, and housing with an excellent recent literature review of over 400 papers by Hildago and Velazquez released in February 2026. While many of the studies are focused on larger metropolitan areas in Europe, the general consensus finds that STRs raise housing prices and rents. The Hildago and Velazquez paper shows that STRs can provide both the positive and negative effects for a community, but extremely high concentrations of short-term rentals can bring nuisance effects, noise, congestion, and loss of neighborhood cohesion, and can reduce residential desirability. As the literature review finds that the most Consistent divide is between renters and property owners. Short-term rental-driven increases in rents and house prices benefit owners through capital gains and hosting income, while renters face higher housing costs and greater displacement risk. Staff have provided an excerpt of the conclusion from the Hildago and Velazquez paper, The Economic Impacts of Short-Term Rentals and Regulations, literature view as an attachment summary of the most recent findings from research of short-term rentals on neighborhoods and communities, and the complete paper can be found online, and I provided the link in the staff report to that complete paper. And then we had a number of new public comments, as I said earlier. that came in from ZUPAC, Hull, Bates, Wright, and Connolly that were provided for you and your, at your, we posted and provided to you through email. And then we had plenty of new public comments earlier this evening. And I really appreciate the public that came out on and gave us that testimony. And I think that should cover it. Any questions? And we have Missy back also.

I have a question about that transfer language from that public comment. Is that appropriate at this time?

Yes. Missy, any comments on that transfer language?

Thank you. So I guess, Council, if I could suggest, is there anyone who's providing any further testimony? I think we should have the public hearing and let anybody else testify. And then we could ask questions after that. We could ask the questions about the staff report.

Okay, that's fine.

Yes.

That's kind of what I was asking. Okay.

Okay, so I'm going to call for public testimony and state the requests we'll be reviewing. It's the criteria for the Municipal Code Section 17.94060A amendments criteria and the statewide planning goals. Oral testimony will be limited as specified below. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes for proponents and opponents, 15 minutes for proponents and opponents if representing a group of five or more people. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports. Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed towards those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal code which the person testifying believes to apply to the decisions. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the mayor, state their full name and mailing address, and if appearing in a representative capacity, identify who they represent. Are there any presentations by proponents? In the audience? Anybody on Zoom? If you would raise your hand, please. Okay, are there presentations by opponents anyone in the audience. And anyone on zoom if you would please raise your hand. Is there a staff response.

Um, I don't have any to any of the public comments except for, you know, I would refer the transfer language to Missy. Let's see if there was any other things. Well, I would ask that when we go through that, you know, there may be a few, a few motions that were discussed. If we, if we have the potential motions that were discussed, that there may be a couple language that might need to be inserted. And, and once you get to that discussion and have that, then I'll, I'll ask to kind of clarify those things. Okay.

Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing and move to consideration. Mayor, can I ask if you could, well, this is what I'm,

I would like to just not close the public hearing at this time. I think what you're saying is we don't have any testimony, so we're going to move on. There is a scenario where the council may leave the evidentiary record and the hearing open. That situation that Councilor Kerr, I think, asked about earlier for more specific definition, which is if the proposal changes so much that we need to go back and notify DLCD. So I guess I would not, I would not close the public hearing, I would just move to move to discussion. Okay, so now I will move to consideration.

Thank you. So that the thing that had me concerned is the same thing it had Gary concerned was the transfer language and I know I sort of, you know, I I know that you can say any change in ownership or controlling interest of whoever holds title, or some cities ask for an affidavit listing all the natural persons with ownership interest, and that way they stop the idea. An LLC can transfer interest without... they transfer ownership, really, but don't necessarily transfer interest. I mean, it's still in the LLC, even though all the people who are in the LLC are no longer part of it. So can we use some kind of language like that to prevent that from happening?

Yeah, I was concerned about In if we're going to consider some kind of language about. A family trust, are we creating some kind of loophole?

That can be because it is a loophole now. For this kind of transfer, isn't it?

I can just say that, uh. That language is in there and we use it for lifetime. Very often in lifetime, we'll try to, you know, transfer or to a son or a daughter or something that's not listed on the title or the application as when we accepted it. And we have, I think, even legally, I'll have to check the record, but I know in the past we have not, you know, we have gone, I don't know if it was an actual court case or not, but we have that come up often, and it is a point that people try to, and we have not, I don't believe, had a problem in years, not since I've been here, with that language that's currently in there, and it speaks to the lifetime, so Um, there is a cap somewhat on those as it is so.

But this would be speaking to the 14 day permit as well because that and I don't know if what we have in the. In the ordinance right now is sufficient to protect us or not.

Well, it sounds like it is if it's currently protecting us under the lifetime. It's the same language.

I don't know. I'm not sure. I'd want to hear from Missy whether that was sufficient to protect us also from the trust issue as well, not just an LLC, but... So.

I guess that I understood Mr. Zupancic's comments to be more in the nature of closer to a takings claim. And I do think that it's the prerogative of the council to carve out specific family situations or not. I think it's just a policy decision whether the council wants to have a cap that achieves a cap or allows these sort of inner family transfers. So I know that's not that satisfactory, but I kind of agree with Jeff that this seems to be not as big of a problem, perhaps, as it has been described as.

Is the LLC thing a problem, though? Because it is a loophole.

It is a loophole. And so someone could hold their property as an LLC and then just sell the membership interests in the LLC. And what I'm not sure about is if the city has come across that situation yet with lifetimes and how they've dealt with it. I don't know, Jeff.

You probably don't know either. I would have to look into that one on the LLC.

Well, can't you attach the permit to a natural person and avoid that?

I think the reasoning behind the LLC is insurance and liability for the person that owns the property to not get directly sued and lose everything if somebody falls and breaks their leg at their house.

That's not the only reason people have LLC.

I think it's a driving factor, though. It's not the only reason, but I think it's probably the driving factor.

They have it because that way their assets are not as easily discernible. and and they can uh keep keep them somewhat hidden in an llc so i think that um i would like i'd like to see that loophole closed so that people can't people who have the wherewithal to form an llc can't just transfer their permit their 14-day permit once they they're all either no longer owners of the you know part of the llc or they're dead and gone, whatever. So they can't just, you know, transfer it.

Yeah, is this cap going to make everybody move to be an LLC?

Huh?

Is this cap going to make everybody move to be an LLC?

Well, it could encourage more people to be one, yeah, because it is a loophole. And I'd like to close that loophole.

Yeah.

I think we can.

But right now, if an LLC gives up their... If they sell, does that license transfer with the LLC?

It is simply what is listed on the application.

Okay, so it just, it stays with it.

Yeah, and so, you know, the other option you have here, of course, is that you can pass this with the language as is, and we are going to be coming back to you in likely January or, you know, the first of the year with the housekeeping language, we can look at that language specifically and see if we're having those threats or, you know, or we see that as a threat.

So sorry. So can we pass this some form of this tonight without changing the transfer language because it's a policy?

decision and doesn't need to be tied specifically to this no it's a definition decision really what a transfer actually is it's a definition of transfer and and so that it isn't part of this ordinance it says it's under definitions correct am i right

I think this is actually not listed in the definition section. It's listed within one of the subsections of the STR ordinance.

The definition of a transfer? Is that what you're talking about, Jeff?

Yeah, of a transfer. Yeah.

Well, we can address that definition, I suppose. It isn't part of the ordinance.

It is not.

No.

So it's separate. So we could do that at a later time? Yes.

Yes, you can do it as a later time.

And an LLC is its own entity. So if someone sold the property... and they didn't transfer any ownership of the LLC, the 14-day permit would just go away, right? They would need to reapply. No. Yes, if they sold the property and the LLC didn't follow the property, then it's a new ownership.

If they didn't sell the LLC too.

LLC will take down a provision in an ordinance that says a permit expires upon sale of the property. Right. Because the property itself never changes hands. The ownership of the LLC does. That's different. I wrote down an example. If, for example, someone buys 100% of the ownership of an LLC from another, The deed doesn't move, so the permit survives.

Right. I understand that. I was speaking to someone not actually taking over the LLC. So if they sold the property and didn't sell it, maybe the LLC has issues and they can't sell the LLC, but they can sell the property out from underneath of it. I'm reaching.

He's leaning in, but I'm not sure.

It's, Counselor Kerr I think is accurately describing it because if a property is held in the name of Lisa Kerr LLC and Counselor Kerr wants to sell that property, she's going to sign a deed from Lisa Kerr LLC to somebody else. And that's one way to sell the property. But the other way is to sell all the membership interests, which are stock. It's the same thing in an LLC. It's all the stock in the LLC to somebody else. And the deed never changes.

Right. So that's basically what I just said.

And what amount of the STRs are owned by LLCs? or is that just their form of business?

One thing about LLCs is that I don't think it's going to create a huge rush to create LLCs. When you have a property that's financed by a mortgage, a mortgage company would be a little bit suspicious of a property owner now wanting to go transfer their property in an LLC. It's going to affect the mortgage priority. Lenders don't like that. They get skittish of that. So the danger of sort of rushing to fill this loophole, I think, is fairly low. But there may be some permits out there that are in this situation.

Well, let's see what we can do on this.

Right. I agree. I mean, I think we have to address the ordinance right now. And then we should come back and address this. I'm hoping maybe you can give us some language or look at our current language and see if it's adequate to protect us. Because I don't want people skating out from that, you know, transferring their permit on and on and on.

well other people can't i mean they have right back to the bottom of the list like everybody else right everybody should be treated the same no matter the form of ownership i think that's what i'm hearing but from counselor at least yeah i i would agree with that yeah so yes so as far as consideration goes um uh uh on the ordinance uh is there anyone here who doesn't want to do the cap

I think everyone has all wanted to do the CAP for a long time.

So I'm not opposed to the CAP. I'm opposed to not doing the other stuff. I think the CAP is what a number of people have asked for specifically. I don't think it actually affects change. I think the other two things that are in this packet are the things that actually affect change.

Let me ask a few more questions.

I think all three together affect change.

Is the number right? Obviously the number is wrong the way it's written because I thought it was 165.

Let Gary finish what he's saying, please.

The number is wrong because we've always been talking about the 165 being of all permits, not just the 14-day. So whatever motion we need to make needs to clarify that.

I think somehow along the line, there was a misunderstanding, but I think all of us, when we talked about it, we're talking about 165 total.

Right. And then the questions become, as Eric's trying to get into, is the two others, the exclusionary zones and the density. It seems like those are the ones that we really need to talk about.

To me, okay, I just think, yeah, I think that a cap by itself does do some good, but I think it'd be much more. beneficial and and to have all three it makes it to me that makes the most sense, so um.

I have, I'm sorry, can I jump in here real quick? So the lifetime permits are what they are. When they go away, they go away. There's not a lot that can be done about those. So, and is that number 44, lifetime 40? And because we have 154 14-day permits now, And we have eight applications in the pipeline. I believe the cap and the geographic density restrictions need to work together because they address different parts of the same problem. This is not simply about how many short-term rentals we have. It is also about our ability to maintain and create long-term housing for people who actually live and work in our community. The cap provides an immediate safeguard. It prevents additional homes from being converted to short-term rentals while staff works through the details of the Highway 101 boundary and the 100-foot density restriction. That work will take some time, and I don't think we should continue issuing new STR permits during that process and potentially making the problem we're trying to solve even greater. The 100-foot restriction then provides a long-term tool to prevent STRs from becoming concentrated in residential areas, while restricting additional STRs east of Highway 101 establishes an area where we can better protect residential housing opportunities. I also think the cap gives us protection beyond today's boundaries. If our growth boundary or city limits were ever to change, we would still have an established ceiling on the number of STR permits. We wouldn't be starting over and allowing additional STR growth simply because geography changed. Ultimately, this is about preserving our housing choices. Every home that is used exclusively as a short term rental is a home that is not available for someone looking for a long term place to live. We have a finite housing supply and we need to be intentional about protecting opportunities for long-term residents the city should preserve the opportunity for residential use rather than allowing more of its housing stock to become permanently oriented towards visitor use for me these aren't redundant regulations the cap controls the overall number the geographic restriction controls where the STRs can operate, and the density restriction controls the concentration. Together, they give us an immediate safeguard and a long-term framework for protecting housing. That being said, a motion to overturn the PC recommendation Denial of the STR cap ordinance amends while amending to include a cap of 162 total STR licenses, density restrictions, and an exclusion zone east of Highway 101. Finding that the ordinance meets with the statewide planning goals, it is consistent with the Cannon Beach Comprehensive Plan and will not adversely affect the ability of the city to satisfy land and water use. I hereby move to overturn the Planning Commission recommendation to deny Z.O. number 2601, STR Cap Text Amendment of Title 17 Zoning, Chapter 84, adding Section 55, short-term rental license cap and amending the ordinance to establish a maximum of 162 14-day short-term rental licenses, establish density restrictions prohibiting any new STR license within 100 feet of an existing STR, establish an exclusion zone prohibiting any new STR licenses east of Highway 101.

Good. I second.

Thank you.

so we're raising the number of uh 14-day rentals by that notion no no total total hundred total so council can i ask a question um is the 162 uh different from or i guess this might also be a question for jeff i'm not sure is that different from The 165 that I think was under discussion. And the reason that I'm interjecting now, and apologies for interrupting, is we do need to make sure that we catch this new DLCD notice before you deliberate on a motion. And so what we might want to do is if the consensus of the council is leaning towards that 162 number, we may want to just suggest that you continue the hearing to something that's longer than 10 days out from like two days from now to give Jeff time to put in that DLCP notice.

So that is different because it's the total STR is not the just the 14 day, right?

Just the 14 day. no no the the the motion that you have is for total correct total 162 for total so you're increasing the number of 14-day rentals yeah you're increasing the number of 14-day rentals um no we already have eight applications in the pipeline so we have 154 14-day licenses right now 14-day licenses right now and we have eight applications in the pipeline and so that is how i came to the number of 162. the lifetime permits are are just they they aren't going to change anything when they go away they go away right um is that is that three str licenses worth putting this to a 10-day notice

I'm sorry, I seconded your motion, but I thought you were talking about 162 total, including lifetime and 14 days. So that's where I got confused. That's what I've always thought we were talking about.

Yeah, I agree with you. I thought that's what we were talking about as well. And after further talking with staff further, because the long-term licenses can't do anything, that they're not they're not going to change and we can't take away from what we already have because then we have i think we talked about taking and and maybe maybe i'm i'm wrong about that but um the only difference would be the 40-something lifetime would be on top of the And it's already there. It's already there. They're going to go away.

As those go away, the cap would be lower without them.

You're recommending capping just at where we're at now. That's what your motion says.

Kind of.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So now we have a motion and a second and a recommendation from the attorney that we actually don't make a motion that we try to come to some kind of consensus and send it back to Jeff.

I'll withdraw my motion at this time. Okay. What? Okay. She's withdrawing her motion.

Thank you. So Missy, is that your recommendation that we try to come up with some kind of consensus? Yes.

Yeah, and I think that I heard you ask sort of like, you know, is this a big deal? And there is a risk to it because there is some opposition to these ordinance amendments. And those folks have the right to appeal the amendments to LUBA. And so what we don't want to do is hand them on a silver platter, a procedural error that would send it right back to you. So that's what we're trying to avoid.

Okay. But if we capped it, the total number below what it is now, it doesn't mean that we're taking something away from somebody. It just means that the future applicants, the number that would be permitted would be lower. We're not going to be retroactive. We can't be. Correct. So we can't do that. So we have to let the people who have them now keep them. But in the future... fewer would be granted. And that seems to be legal to me.

That seems defensible. Initially, my thought was to make it inclusive of 14-day and long-term or lifetime STR licenses. And if it's feasible, I'm more than willing to amend that motion. I mean, to restate it.

Can we work towards consensus before a week? Yeah.

I think Missy was saying we don't want to make a motion right now unless we're going to.

Sorry, you just don't want to have a vote. Okay. No deliberation voting. motions can go up and they can get seconded and sort of discuss, but then let's then hit pause and continue the hearing so that Jeff can get this different notice out. I know it sounds very like sky is falling, but I do know Deschutes County just, they adopted their, a new comprehensive plan after working on it for something like nine years and And it was remanded by Luba for this exact issue where something changed at the final hour. And, you know, now they're back having to do a bunch of things again. I don't want that to happen to you. So thank you.

I feel like bottom line. We want to limit to 165 or another number of total short-term rental permits. I mean, I'd be fine with 175, which was, I think, my original suggestion. It does something immediately. It freezes any new vacation rentals, probably for at least... A year or two? I mean, how often do they drop off?

It's a lifetime. How often do they drop off? If you were to put 175 right now or 165 as the total, I mean, we've got 40 already that that would affect probably 30 to 40, right? Because you have... Right.

So there's 30 or 40. How long before they give up their licenses?

We, you know, it's no...

uh set thing i mean it takes a long it takes a while for that to happen yeah but what we're getting is no more short-term rentals anywhere east of the highway north and we're accomplishing something i'm totally fine with restating that motion but let's make sure we're all on the same page first i the uh exclusion zones i have i'm a little hesitant about uh it just seems like okay we're picking the east side because uh of some anecdotal information that we you know we've heard uh or east of the highway or haystack heights or uh i mean how many neighborhoods do we have that are uh mostly residential that would like to be an exclusion zone. Is there anything, you know, do we have any, do we have the map of the STRs to show us? Yes. It seems like we're kind of jumping the gun with exclusion zones.

And I don't think we have allowed for public comment on that topic.

I think we have allowed for public comment on that topic, the density and the cap. The Planning Commission talked about it. They had a number of people come in specifically requesting, talking about exclusion zones and density during their deliberation when their deliberation is just the cap. We've had a number of comments at the council level for the exclusion zones and the caps as they were proposed.

I just don't think that we've had enough information to do exclusion zones. However, I think the density is kind of a no-brainer. So, I mean, it feels like we could do those two and we could do it, I'd like to say now, but the next time we can officially get it noticed and get back here and approve something. to put the cap on at 165 or 175 or whatever we can all agree on and do the density. And then we could keep looking at, I mean, we could look at this exclusion zones and see what's most appropriate. I just, I'm uncomfortable just saying. let's carve out an exclusion zone right now. We're already prohibiting any new rentals for probably a couple of years.

You know, as far as the number for the cap, I remember the discussion that we had and we went around the table and I said 150 and somebody said 175 and we went back and forth and 165 was the median. It was the consensus that we would all agree on. And so I don't think...

It was a little bit of a flawed process. It was. Because, you know, the first people who said their numbers didn't realize that we were going to be lowballed.

Well, it was Gary and I said 175. Eric said 195. You said 150. And then Barb and Bruce said 165 was in the middle. And that's how we got to the number. And I don't think we want to change it. No. I mean, it just kind of landed there. I'm fine with the 165 number. Again, like I said, I...

i actually if it if it means getting something done i'm happy with it too i think 175 is the better number but uh you're okay with 165 i am one i mean i do have a motion that uh covers the uh uh the 165 uh let's see uh covers the 165 total permits uh and includes the uh density the density and a couple of other housekeeping things that will need to be changed if we make these uh changes that jeff provided me are we okay to make a motion now

Well, so that would be total. And so total is different than what is proposed in front of us. So that's something that would have the 10 days. Even if we make a motion, we're getting a recommendation to not vote on a motion.

Right.

Yeah.

It has to be noticed.

Yeah. So you can just recommend that I come back with that language.

Consent this. I'm in.

The question I would have also, just to clarify on... that technical language just outline what the council has said in 1784 50 the 14 day permit occupancy requirements under G it should read to pick up on some of this a 14 day permit application may be submitted to the city at any time and if approved the 14 day permit shall last for one year from the date of issuance and she'll only be deemed active and then I've added and renewable if proof is rendered at time of audit verifying quarterly tenancy of the unit. I wanted to clarify that, in other words, one of the questions that has been asked in the past is, you know, if that 14-day permit then expires, they automatically fall to the bottom of the list or they drop off the waiting list. No, they have the ability to renew that permit. And so then the second clarification, which is cannabis municipal code 1784-55A would read as follows, short-term rental license cap The maximum number of short-term rental licenses available is 125, 14-day license as described in Section 1784.50. No new lifetime unlimited permits as described in Section 1784.40 shall be issued. So I just clarified instead of the 165 number, just move that to 125.

Yeah, it's the 125, 14-day and the 40-day lifetime.

So if that's... I'm not like... PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Arguing about. But if that's if that number in 1784 055 a is changed to 125 so as they expire. Overall, eventually the number gets to 125 not 165 is that the PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The rent of changing language to that.

Yeah. PB, Lupita D Montoya, It gets to 125 so we won't ever go above 125 after if PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The lifetimes are all done.

When the lifetimes are all done.

And that's the suggestion for that change? Right.

Yeah.

I don't think the suggestion is to limit them to 125 necessarily.

Because that language that he read, that's what that does.

So we don't want to go over 165 is the number. You're OK with 165 14-day permits.

I think so.

But that's what you're saying. Either we change the number to 125, and it will max out at 125 in 20 years. We don't know when that is.

Yeah, how can we do that so it's not...

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Right, it gives you 20 years to think about exclusion zones.

We'll be long gone by then. Nobody will know.

So why do we specify the 14-day under 17-84-55?

Because that's where it was originally 165. That's where the ordinance that was amended was.

put that number at 165. You've requested to keep the 40 lifetime as is, and then to limit that to total 165, you've got 40. So 165 minus 40 puts that limit at 14 days at 125.

Why do we need to specify the 14 day if more of the intention is just to cap it at 165 total? Regardless of what Right.

Yeah. It's the same thing. It's semantics is what it is. You know, I can rewrite the entire sentence to say that, but that was changing one digit as opposed to rewriting the whole sentence. And it says the same thing. You're getting to the same thing. The only things that can ever happen is for those 40 lifetime to finally wind their way down to 125, because that's what you're asking for.

No, what we're asking for is $165,000 total. So let's say the 40 lifetimes dropped off tomorrow. Everyone who had a lifetime, you know, died.

So you're wanting to allow 40 more?

We'd love to get to only 14-day rentals.

Yes, I can draft that then.

I'm saying $165,000 total, everything combined.

Yeah, that wasn't my understanding from what I thought Councilor Hayes was saying originally. Sorry.

But that's how we got the 125, because the lifetime permits could effectively go on for 100 years, right? Thank you. Or longer. Well, not 100 years, but maybe.

So counselors, can I ask a clarifying question? So in 1784055A, are you now wanting it to say the maximum number of short-term licenses available is 165 licenses?

That's exactly what we wanted to say. OK.

As described in 1784. Right.

Any kind of license.

Well, it wouldn't. No.

No, don't see. We would need to take out the as described in 1784. Because that's 14 days. Okay.

You would add. I would just say. And 050. Yeah. That's what I would do. Okay. To include both.

Either way would work. That's good.

That's good.

Thank you, Eric. I. I. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Was not my intention.

So, PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I had to clarify that. And I was. And then I had, I had a question really in the first housekeeping point that the Jeff Adams brought up. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The deemed active I PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We have heard concern. I have mild concern of people seeking a license intentionally to avoid that density so that you don't have any STRs around you. The language that you provided there, the added on and renewable, does that cover stopping a property owner from getting a license or do we need to add, stopping a property owner from getting a license specifically to not have short-term rentals near them? Does the language that you just provided adding in and renewable to G cover that? Or do we need to add into the violations and where did it go? Violate violations. I literally just had it in front of me.

Eric, doesn't it use it or lose it, though?

That's the question. I don't believe it is. You're required to submit a... Isn't that requiring it be an active vacation rental? That was my question. Does that... Because it doesn't have...

Orderly tenancy. I mean, it's requiring orderly tenancy, so it's minimal.

No.

Yeah. But there's no, if it's, you have a permit, having a permit versus having an active permit doesn't have that defined in there. And I, it's, it was unclear to me if an inactive permit that you have, so if you're filing, not having tenancy, you're just filing a quarterly tax return with zero each month, that would by this definition of active mean that it's an inactive permit, but you still have a permit because you're filing your quarterly returns. You're following all of the other regulations with this. I just wanted to make sure that that was addressed and covered by that for somebody that would file a zero return four quarters in a row. Is that a renewable license? Sounds like it's not.

I thought it wasn't.

Yeah, if it's not active unless they've used it every quarter, then we would deem it inactive.

I just wanted to make sure because I was reading it that it possibly could have been renewed. I just wanted to make sure that

That's how, yeah, that's how I, that's why I put that active. And then the renewable is the portion that would allow them to renew it. But yeah, I mean, that's, I think that that's, you know, clear, but we can have a missy look on it when we bring it back. If there's anything else I can add that in there.

Yeah. I mean, one thing possibly you could add verifying quarterly tenancy and income of more than, You know, we could pick a number, $250 or something.

One night stay.

Well, higher numbers.

So someone wouldn't just not even something like that. I know. I'm just, I'm just talking that out.

Yeah.

Cause otherwise they just pay the money to have no one.

That would be your special lawyer deal that you would give special land use counsel.

So we've got 165. I'll amend that as suggested by Councilor Ostrander. Then anything else you guys as far and what I heard from consensus is to bring back the density restriction but not the exclusion. Are you all comfortable with that?

That's my preference.

My preference is still the full shebang, all three. It started, our real discussion of this started with a petition from a substantial number of people asking for an exclusion zone. And then we shifted over to CAP and then literally got those organized.

Andrew's going to go out and get the North End organized and put together a petition there.

There's no harm in doing... And that was Haystack Heights, wasn't it? Right, it was. But what's the harm in having the exclusionary zone? If we want to add more later, we could, but why not just have... That's why I put it plural, zones.

Yeah.

So I think we should just go ahead and have the exclusionary zones as well as the density cap and the STR cap.

And what is it?

I agree with Councilor Cooper and Councilor Ostrander.

East of 101, as proposed. Yeah. We have, I believe, if I'm remembering the numbers right, we have two in Haystack Heights and one by the RV park? Or was it two?

I can't remember.

It was relatively low numbers. And the literature review that Jeff Adams presented in this, 429 independent papers, There's a pretty large consensus of once neighborhood cohesion is lost, even with regulations, neighborhood cohesion does not return.

So there's three east of the highway?

I can check right now.

It's three or six. Well, there's one, a legal one east of the highway. I know that. For at least one. I think it's six or seven. That's Ginny Wright's neighbor. She wrote a letter to us about. Yeah. He's living in his STR and renting out his house. And so. So she filed a code complaint? Did she file a code? I think she, I don't know. I don't know if she did. So three of us.