Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Are you going to show your eyes?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right, we have a busy agenda.

First, I would like to ask for a motion to the agenda. Second. Second. All right. We've got a first and a second. Any discussion? Tessie, could you please call the roll? Commissioner Orloff?

Yes. Commissioner Risley? Yes. Commissioner Pierce-Mooshin? Yes. Commissioner Sinclair?

Yes.

Commissioner Waite?

Yes.

Vice-Chair Warren?

Yes. The agenda is approved. We will move on to consideration of the minutes from the June 25th Planning Commission meeting. Do we have any amendments to those minutes? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? I move to approve the minutes. I'll second. Thank you. Any discussion? I'll second. Nelsa, could you please call roll?

Commissioner Risley, here. Commissioner McFlyer?

Yes.

Commissioner, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

And it's from June 25th, 2026 meeting. At this time, we will be moving public comment on non agenda items. I know we have lots of folks here, but if you have a comment you would like to make about an item that is not on today's agenda, this would be your opportunity to make a comment. We ask that you keep your comments to three minutes long. Does anyone wish to make a public comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to our action items. Our first item tonight is continuation of SR 2602, Jamie Riege, for a setback reduction. SR 22-0, 26-02, Jamie reach of Hamlet construction on behalf of Grayson sale for a setback reduction to construct in addition to a nonconforming structure. The subject property is located at 4572 Logan Lane in a residential lower density zone. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of Cannon Beach Municipal Code section 1764 setback reduction. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal bias? Has any commission member had any ex parte contacts or made a side visit?

Side visit.

Do we have a stack report?

Thank you. This application is for a setback reduction application for a remodel to a non-performing residence. The initial evidence you're hearing on the application was on June 25th, last month's planning commission hearing. During that hearing, the Planning Commission continued this item with a request that the Council can provide the following additional information. One, an Arborist report detailing construction impacts. Two, a survey showing the location of the Banks and Stream corridor at the bottom of the Dean and Northland property and a required 10-foot bumper area. And three, an Oceanfront Setback Survey demonstrating that the work conforms to the Oceanfront Setback lines. As of the start of this meeting, the city has not received any new information regarding this application.

Okay. If I'm correct, there were no documents for this application within our packet. Is that correct?

No additional information. Okay.

The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets at the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in a comprehensive plan or municipal code which the person testifying believes to apply for the decision. The failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to report the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on that issue. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair. state their full name and mailing address, and if appearing in a representative capacity, identify who they represent. At this time, I will ask, is there a presentation by the applicant?

Ramona. I printed some copies. Okay.

You guys wanted to see the high water mark and the location of the tree. These are going to control. Over here so I don't know. Thank you. Parking on the days of all. And I didn't know if you guys wanted distances from the trees, but this has the location of the trees to where they are and the distances. They're all about 12 feet long, all three trees. There's only the one that's in the middle. That is the concern of the arborist report where the root's going like 45 degrees down and it's about two feet down the slope. So that's why he dug an exploration hole to see if it was coming back up anywhere. But we're going to go with the concrete. Anyways, that is some of the plans that show us just not putting concrete where it is. I believe the creek is 34 feet away. Here's the concern. There's a 10 foot distance and that's as the pro applies. actually goes down the ravine.

I can help you if any of that looks confusing.

Has this parking easement been recorded? Say that one more time. Has the parking easement been reported?

It's been sent to the county. I don't know if it's been reported because he just got all of that stuff done last week. But that's the language he submitted. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anything that you would wish to present in addition to the materials that you just provided us?

I'm sorry, one more time.

Is there anything you wish to present to us in addition to these materials?

No, the original plans where it shows the parking spots, that's what is recorded. So I didn't show you a picture, but it's in the original plans. That's what he's putting as an easement as far as the drawing. I think you guys saw that last time, but it was just, we were putting them, you said it had to be an easement to that property.

But, you know, the person that owns the property works, they're going to be doing the work, actually does own that lot. Yes. Yes. Probably another question. I'm curious from the city's perspective if we still have to have a parking variance. Yes.

Does anyone else have questions for the applicant?

That could have been my confusion. So I thought the easement did that. I didn't know that was a separate thing.

Yeah. We want everyone to listen to the record.

Thank you. You'll have one more opportunity to speak after I finish calling for proponents and opponents. Yes, thanks. At this time, are there any presentations by proponents regarding this application? Do we have anyone online? No. And are there any presentations by opponents to this application? Anyone online? No. And is there a staff response?

As per the previous staff report, the staff recommendation is that the department recommends approval of the application with the condition that the applicant satisfy the Austria Department requirements before building permit is issued. with the parking variance for off-street parking, and also with the other additional conditions of approval, which include that all required building permits be maintained by the restorative board, and erosion control benzene be placed by the restorative board and maintained for the duration of the project.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to make any additional statements before we close the record?

Um,

Sure, one more step. Yeah, I mean, we're closing records, you would have that pros and cons to Yes.

Um, I think that I got everything for you except for the the parking area. So I hope that if that is the only thing I can get approval, we'll do that tomorrow. I just got confused. I thought the easement was did that. So I'm sorry that I didn't have that in the works for you guys. That's all. Thanks.

Are there any proponents to make additional statements? And are there any opponents to make additional statements? This time we're going to close the record and move to deliberation. Who would like to begin?

I appreciate getting all this information. Thank you very much. And I agree that our team plan should be recorded. But I think that's very helpful.

Jamie, I also appreciate getting this information to us. Looks like we've covered everything we asked that the department work. I'm not going to be a problem. The concern of mine and I think others on the commission here, especially in the route that is going to be potentially involved with the foundation. But you're pretty cool with that also to protect it, it looks like. And I appreciate the information about how far you are from the streaming portal. So it looks like there's some room there for you to to build what you're looking to build in the addition. Again, I'll just emphasize that the environment in that area is very sensitive and most important work. So any erosion controls and things need to be maintained throughout construction, not just put up and then ignored throughout construction, which I see many times. I'm so here with that. I mean with that, but those are my concerns. And thank you very much for this information.

Do we have any other points of discussion?

I'll simply add that I think that we've got everything we asked for here and I don't see any positive concern personally.

Do we have a locating? Are we ready for that?

I moved. We're approved. The SR-2602 with the condition that the parking variance is applied for. And you have that. It's important to get your building permit. That's going to be a requirement from the SINSTAD notice.

We also want to add the suggested proper building permits and version of all the solutions.

Yeah. Yes. And yes, I thought that was part of the firm that I was going to be the road controls and that you can be part of the motion. I would make that part of the motion. So let me start over again. I move to approve SR 26-02 with necessary environmental and roading controls. Also media there it's for the party and even. And the other. Yeah, probably probably going to get her after the party. You want to say it's.

Any other session. I said you know. Yes. I'm ready.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. We will now be moving on to the next agenda item.

This is a type 4 legislative hearing regarding the legislative public hearing of 026-01 proposed text amendments. municipal code chapter 1784 short number one z026-01 city of can beach requests to place a short-term rental cap and related zoning ordinance text amendments to chapter 1784 short-term rentals the proposed zoning ordinance cement text amendment would limit the number of 14-day permits in the city of can beach to provide other related minor changes 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 1794, Post 08, Amendment Criteria and Statewide Planning Rules. This legislative hearing to amend the Municipal Code is being held after providing a written notice of the hearing to the proposed amendments to the code to DLCD, In compliance with or s one 976 10 in addition, or us to do 7186 requires the city to provide written notice of the amendments in here. The owners of real property in the city proposed to adopt or amend the code in a matter that limits or forgive its land uses previously allowed. So notice of this hearing has been provided to parties entitled to notice as required by those statutes. Type 4 actions are made by the City Council's adoption of the ordinance. Cannon Beach Municipal Code 17-14050C provides that Type 4 actions shall be decided by the City after a public hearing. The City Council may also request that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing in advance of the City Council hearing to consider the proposal of public testimony and provide a recommendation. The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing in advance of the City Council's hearing to consider the proposed amendments, public testimony, and provider recommendation. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to hear this matter at this time? Hearing no objections, do we have a staff report?

Yes, thank you. The Planning Commission's discussion regarding a short-term rental cap began on April 9, 2024, and has been on the Planning Commission's agenda repeatedly since. At the City Council December 19, 2025, at any retreat, the Council has submitted the short-term rental cap ordinance discussion to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The Planning Commission has held three more sessions on the proposed language changes to place a cap on the number of 14-day permits to 165. The current number of short-term rental permits continues to remain around 200 total permits, with approximately 155 of those permits being 14 day permits. A cap of 165 would equate to a reduction of 17.5% of total permits if projected into the future as current lifetime permits would eventually expire and would then be required to submit for 14-day permitting to continue. The public has suggested limiting future short-term rentals I know the 90 new short-term rental permits to probably use the I want to learn one there are currently 60 said you're I way that you're going to be a tax presentation. Yeah, the whole thing with regard like your search and the only short-term rentals within a 100 feet from that. Well, these are 100 book offers are considered they would account for 55% of that and can be and the majority of the red and brown. Other jurisdictions have implemented proximity-related measures, such as zoning debuffers, and faced attempts to game the system by property owners, where owners applied for short-term rental permits with no independently renting, just to ward off adjacent property from having short-term rentals. Language is included in the ordinance to limit that. And you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, measure 56 numbers for everyone so that people would have an accurate picture that you guys had seen in your previous meetings on this or work sessions and to have the latest available graph. And so following that, we released the agenda, which also held statewide planning goals and comments on that. It also held a I think we'll back it up. This year is we know it shows that but the county will land in the port and we have some in a beach out in line for it is also in there. The class of county housing by assessment was included in the cat class of county housing inventory in each of the structure summer memo was also included. I wanted you guys to have the latest material that we have on Halloween up until tonight's meeting. And that includes all of the studies that were done here at 2425 with Frasier County, which I included in those packets. We also, in the addendum packet that was posted last week, was also a new public comment from Margo Duber that was included. And just today, prior to By this meeting, we've released what we had received over the last week, and that includes two more public comments, one from Christian Zbanek on behalf of Kim Villeneuve, trustee of Kim Villeneuve with Volta Trust, and Kathleen Mitchell. We released that around noon, which is what we normally do on commission days. hearing aids so that we can read the latest in here to you. If you haven't read those, we do have a couple more copies at the table. Just let me know if you haven't seen those two public comments, but that's all the new material that we have. And since the packet was released and posted last, any comments or thoughts?

Any questions? At this time, we'll move to public testimony. This is a legislative hearing, so the quasi-judicial disclosures do not apply. As such, the Planning Commission will commence with taking testimony. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address, and in preparing a representative capacity, identify who they represent. The Planning Commission would like to hear from everyone this evening, so we'll request a public testimony three minutes per person. Would anyone like to comment on these proposed amendments? Feel free to come up.

Evening. Thanks for taking testimony tonight, Planning Commission. My name is Christian Zilpantic. My mailing address is 615 Broadway Street, 7216 Seaside, Oregon, 97138. And I'm here on behalf of Kim Bell and the OOP. who is at 1916 South End Walk in Cannon Beach. I'm one of the very public comments. So if you don't have a copy of the letter that I had written, it should be up here or else I think it's actually posted. I think Jeff sent it. So I'll let that letter and all the details that are in it speak for itself. But it basically has to do with the effect of what these short-term rental caps are going to have on sale or transfer just the way that you define that phrase right sale or transfer you got a lot of folks out there who have these permits already and particularly my clients worry about how this can be transferred to other people to family to that that sort of thing so when you look at other provisions that aren't necessarily in this ordinance they're kind of buried in the definition section of the canadian municipal code it's important to look at those and i think to really redefine those and make them clear in the context of this short-term rental cap, if it goes into the Fed. And again, I'll let the letter speak for itself, but what's not in the letter that I just wanted to comment on publicly is there are other jurisdictions, obviously, that have already enacted short-term rental caps and some that have decided not to enact them at all. So for example, the county, Clatsop County. Clatsop County does have caps But as far as how that relates to transferability, they've decided to let their short-term rental permits be freely transferable. That's to anybody. So for example, you sell your house, you can transfer it to whoever that you sell your house to. City of Seaside does not necessarily have caps. They have kind of a hybrid cap that's based on density of other short-term rental permits. But they also have a transferability provision that allows transfers to certain people, especially by inheritance or other family members. So that, I think, is a good example to take a look at the way that they handle their sort of transfer clause in the context of what's kind of a hybrid cap. So the other aspect of this, the last thing I'll point out is I did not see it in the actual proposed language of the revision for the amendment, but just to make sure that there is a provision there for allowing these permits to be renewed, because I noticed that they expire after a year. And so you don't want to have those expire and then all of a sudden there's a cap. So keeping that language in there will help this ordinance stay much more clear. That's it. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those.

Thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comments?

Hello, my name is Christina Porter. My mailing address is 1400 2nd Avenue North, apartment 289. Seattle, Washington, 98109. I'm a homeowner on East Jefferson Street, and I'm here today to ask a question on behalf of my neighbor, Mary Ellen Kennedy, who is on East Washington Street. Mary Ellen's question is, I currently own a home with a valid 14-day short-term rental permit. Under the proposed ordinance, if ownership changes due to the death of a spouse, probate or transfer to a surviving spouse or a living trust, would that be considered a transfer that automatically revokes the permit? Or are there exceptions for estate administration and inheritance? So if a spouse dies and the house was in the name of the spouse and in the estate planning, the house transfers to the surviving spouse, does the permit transfer? to the surviving spouse? Or is that considered the type of transfer that would cancel out the planning? Does Jeff have that answer?

No, we're not. So that would be a question for our land use attorney. And if you have questions, you can direct it to our planning department. They could help you obtain an answer. Okay.

Okay. So what you're saying is that there is a provision in that?

Right now, we're just taking public testimony. We're not engaging in explaining the code as it stands. And that's something we would refer to our target.

All right. Okay. So I have a question then as a homeowner. I don't understand the reason for the cap. Why is that necessary? What problem are you trying to solve with putting in a new cap?

we tend to take public comment and then we will have discussion and i'm guessing during the discussion that answer this is the first time i've ever been to a meeting like this so i've got no idea how it works but okay

I'm Sandy Dobson, 92400 Beth Road in Astoria. I'm here on behalf of Beachcomber Vacation Homes. I am the general manager of Beachcomber Vacation Homes. We manage more than 100 homes in Cannon Beach and Arch Cape. More importantly, we employ over 45 local people who work every day to help make Cannon Beach the special place that so many people have come to know and love. I also serve as the acting president of the Cannon Beach Chamber of Commerce because I deeply care about the future of this community. Everything I do, rather at Beachcomber or through the chamber, is focused on preserving what makes Cannon Beach so special, while ensuring it remains a place where local families can live, work, and thrive. I've lived in Clatsop County for 42 years. I've raised my children here. And now I have the privilege of watching them raise their own families. Having stable employers that provide good paying jobs is one of the reasons families are able to stay in our community instead of being forced to leave. Beachcomber is not just a business that manage homes. We are a local employer. We provide livable wages, fully paid health insurance for our full-time employees, end of summer bonuses, Christmas bonuses, These are careers that allow people to raise their family here in Clatsop County. Beachcomber does more than just check guests in and out. We answer late night calls, respond to emergencies, make sure the homes are safe, clean, and well-maintained, and work hard to ensure our guests are respectful to neighbors. We remind them of our community's rules and expectations because we know that the people who live here full-time deserve peace and respect. There is something truly magical about Cannon Beach. There's a reason we all live here and continue to love this community. Every day I get to hear why people are coming to Cannon Beach. Some families have been vacationing here for generations, long before I was even born. Others come after experiencing heartbreaking loss because this is where they find comfort and healing. They come to celebrate anniversaries, unite with families and simply spend time together away from the distractions of everyday life. Those visitors also support local economy. They eat at our restaurants, shop at our stores, visit our galleries, hire local services and help sustain business throughout the year. That economic support, economic activity supports jobs well beyond the vacation rental industry. I understand why this conversation is happening. Growth needs to be managed, and it's important to preserve what makes Cannon Beach unique. I also recognize that not everyone shares the same perspective on vacation rentals. My hope is simply that as you consider this ordinance, you also consider the people whose livelihoods depend on this industry. Cannon Beach already has some of the most restrictive short-term rental regulations on the Oregon coast. The current 14-day rule significantly limits how often these homes can be rented while helping to preserve neighborhood character. If the city determines a cap is necessary, I respectfully ask that you consider setting that cap at 200 permits. That cap A cap at that level would provide certainty for our future while recognizing the significant role vacation rentals play in supporting local jobs, businesses, and family. Finally, I ask that you all remember that behind every permit is more than just a house. There are homeowners who have invested in this community, local businesses that rely on tourism, And employees like mine at Beachcomber who work hard every day to keep Cannon Beach clean, welcoming, and one of the most beloved destinations on the Oregon coast.

Thank you.

Does anyone else wish to make a comment?

Michelle, I'm here. You all know why I'm here, because I'm here all the time. Okay, so while I agree with Randy Neal's suggestion of exclusion areas and density restrictions, I originally thought the cap would be a decent step to keep STRs under control and begin to alleviate our extreme lack of obtainable line workforce housing here. I'm holding my first public comment. about STRs from September 2022. Almost four years later, we still have another movement. Please apply the cap now. Thank you so much.

Does anyone else wish to make a comment?

Hi, Jeff Shutt, a newly retired Executive Sheldon Gadsby, right here in Cannon Beach. Speaking on behalf of Kathleen Mitchell, my fiancee from 16-024 Southeast 250th Court in Covington, Washington, 98042. Starting with the short-term rental cap ordinance here. My fiancee first stumbled upon Cannon Beach on a trip in 1988, and it's been an essential part of her life ever since. While attracted to the small towns, in 2015 and has enjoyed and cared about the future of the community. However, she realizes that a stagnant city is not the solution towards a healthy and vibrant community. She respectfully opposes the proposed gap on a 14-day short-term rental permits and the available evidence provided in the staff report summary dated July 23, 2026 does not demonstrate that a 14-day STR is posed a threat to public health safety, general welfare, or have adverse impacts on the parking and congestion issues the city faces, all stated reasons for the cap. Moreover, a fixed cap would unnecessarily limit economic activity and reduce important city revenues while doing little to address the community's workforce housing challenges. If the city determined that a cap is necessary, she urges consideration of a percentage-based approach that can adapt as the community grows. I'm in agreement over there. No one demonstrated public harm. A primary justification for any new regulation should be clear evidence that addresses a documented problem. In this case, the cities are willing to not support the conclusion that 14-day STRs are causing disproportionate impact on the community. The staff report, the public comments acknowledge that Newsom's data collected to the date has not shown STRs to be more prone to complaints than other forms of housing Furthermore, the available data does not distinguish between impacts associated with short-term rentals, hotel lodgings, and those associated with day-use visitors. The number of SPR permits have remained relatively stable for more than a decade at approximately 200 permits with no significant increase in complaints, safety incidents, or other document or problems attributed to 14-day SPRs. Public testimony has also noted that as can be just housing stock has run from The percentage of homes operated as STR is actually declined. These facts suggest that the proposed cap is not a response to a working trend, but rather a precautionary measure unsupported by clear evidence. Without a demonstrated connection between the proposed cap and an improvement in public health, safety, or welfare, parking, and congestion issues, restriction risks appear arbitrary and maybe difficult to justify the property owners and community members alike. A fixed cap will not solve workforce housing. Workforce housing is an important issue. I can attest to that as a chef here. It deserves thoughtful and effective solutions. However, there is little evidence that reducing the number of 14-day STR permits will meaningfully increase the availability of affordable or workforce housing. Comments submitted during the public process have highlighted the lack of evidence that STR is responsible for the shortage of long-term rental housing in Cannon Beach. In addition, the staff materials acknowledge that a capital loan will not create affordable housing opportunities. Limiting STR permits may reduce property owner flexibility, but it does not guarantee that affected properties will become housing for local workers. If the city's objective is to increase workforce housing, Both policies should be designed to specifically achieve that goal rather than relying on indirect measures where effectiveness has not been demonstrated. Fiscally and economic consequences. Short-term rentals provide meaningful economic benefits they can't reach. According to information presented during the public process, STR generated approximately $700,000 annually in tax revenue for roughly $3,500 per permitted unit. These revenues help support essential city services, including emergency response, public safety functions. Reducing the number of SDRs could reduce these revenues and place additional credit on the city's budget for these resources. SDRs also contribute to the local economy by supporting restaurants, such as my property management company, maintenance providers, cleaning services, contractors, and other small businesses. A reduction in SDR activity could have ripple effects throughout the community, local, economically, and potentially affecting jobs, business revenues, and overall visiting spending. A better alternative would be a percentage cap, as we feel. If the City determines that some limitation on SDR permits is necessary, a percentage-based cap would provide a more balanced and adaptable approach than a fixed-number cap has proposed. A fixed cap does not account for future residential growth. As additional housing units are built, which we see all around us, the percentage of homes allowed to operate as STRs would continue to decline regardless of community needs or changing conditions. By contrast, the percentage base cap would maintain the city's desired balance while allowing the number of permits to grow proportionately with the housing stock. For example, the city could establish a provision stating 14-day short-term rental permits shall not exceed 10% of the total housing units within the city. with the allowable number recapitulated annually, not by five years as per now. Such an approach would preserve flexibility, avoid arbitration restrictions, and ensure that future policy remains aligned with the growth of the community. We want to address directly the support workforce housing. To address the workforce housing concern more directly, we encourage the city to dedicate a portion of SDR generated tax revenue to housing initiatives. Workforce housing funds, housing trust fund or a similar program to provide financial support for projects that create housing opportunities for local workers. This approach would connect STR-related revenues to a tangible housing solution rather than relying on a permit cap whose effectiveness remains uncertain. So in conclusion, for these reasons, we urge the Planning Commission and City Council not to adopt Pro 6 cap on 14-day short-term rental permits. The available Evidence does not demonstrate that such a restriction is necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare parking or congestion issues of the community or does it appear likely to solve can beaches workforce housing challenges.

Does anyone else wish to make a comment.

And you're about 956 and regarding 3723 call 300. um in in reply to the economy thing that i've heard a couple of people talking about we're here every day i mean we live here in the winter when it's crumb i'm going to the market i'm in fresh food i might post it there and so are all the people we know who live here so i think the economic thing is kind of the bonus issue it's it's just not sure expense money sure people come in i can't deny that but it's like we are here doing that every day so it's like the kind of cast us aside and kind of just caps my hat for a little bit. Anyway, and this is not part of the housing issue. As far as like workforce housing, this wasn't brought up to deal with that at all. That's not part of the issue. I mean, that is a long-term issue for Canobie. Places like Canobie, you know, vacation places, tell you, right, whatever, that's kind of what you're going to deal with. You know, that's some kind of a problem that we have to kind of figure out. Also, the parking issue, you know, that's, it is an issue. Where we live in Haystack Heights, what started happening because they put the toll in the toll amount of parking, people started to park up the long way. You know, we had access to lanes. That's it. It's not adequate as it is. There are people parking there on weekends that link that one lane. It's like when something happens, somebody needs to get in. We're going to take one car and get a Caddy Wampus, and we're stuck. So parking is an issue. The other thing, and it's particularly close to the home, it's like where these short-time rentals are, and they are at a certain time. I had to call in for one not too long ago on my 7th. It's like people, it's like 11 o'clock at night. I don't know if they're unsupervised kids screaming down and playing loud music. And then when I called up code enforcement, I'm told because they didn't call the police, that might not count. So I thought, you know, they said they would notify the management and the owners, and I was good with that, that's fine. But it's like, what's code enforcement for? You know, so there are issues with short-term rentals. That's just the truth of it. You know, you can't just say that's not, and the parking is an issue. There's cars on the street that, you know, we have four white cars parked in front of a place, that happens. So, I mean, I would encourage some kind of, you know, the percentage thing, that's a possibility. Or the cap now is actually, there's more homes, 165, there's actually, you know, several people have mentioned it's 200, around 200, you know, 190, somewhere in that ballpark that are going on there. How are those places, and I understand some of you don't want to place it, you know, but how are those LLCs or trusts, how are those transfers? Or how do those grandfather out to do so. That's, that is an issue. So I'd like to just say this. I like to care and please do something.

Does anyone else wish to make other comments. We're at once going twice. We have anyone else in the room. Do we have anyone online who wishes to comment.

Yes, we have a zoom user. Okay. No, no.

In the user.

Can you hear us. They're still here.

I don't know if you can hear us, but if you'd like to make a comment, we would like you to unmute and speak when you're ready.

Hello.

I don't want to make a public comment for tonight's hearing.

Yeah, sorry about the technical inadequacy on my end. My name is Herbert Flohrer, PO Box 546, Cannon Beach. And I just wanted to say, Two questions, but they're rhetorical, so I'm not asking for an answer and understanding it's not a discussion. The one was actually that was brought up is pretty good. What problem are we really trying to solve here? I've spoken to you before. I don't want to take a lot of your time because you've listened to me before, but the levels have been so constant for so long that again, what, what, what? And by the same token, what urgency is there here when the levels have been so constant for so long, there's nothing that's changed here, especially when there's been over and over again demonstration that there is no relationship between almost all of the short-term rental housing in town and affordable housing in town. Unfortunately, we all know what the prices in town are. So I personally think a cap's not a bad thing. I've said this to you before. For the future, I don't think it's necessary right now, but I think the 195 to 200 that you've heard is more reasonable than what is basically really a reduction, not a cap. of using the 165, given the total number of the various types of rentals that exist now and might in the future. And finally, I do understand the concerns of some of the folks, notably from Haystack Heights, that have lived in maybe a more residential part of town than some of the parts down maybe near the ocean that are a bit more expensive in terms of the price of homes. And have suggested some sort of solution in terms of number of housing that can be there or boundaries or things like that. I think that's probably problematic. in terms of equity. I'm not sure how that would fly, but I did have a thought. The city seems to have a pretty good grasp on where second homes are. that are unused and where the residential homes are such as Haystack Heights and again understand their concerns and appreciate them. What about having some sort of a boundary that's related not to east of the highway or Haystack Heights but to the number of homes in a given block that are second homes versus residents. And that's all I wanted to throw out there. Sorry to complicate things. And as always, thank you for your time and your efforts.

Thank you. Robert, do we have anyone else on line? No. All right. I will give us one last chance. Anyone else wish to make a public comment at this time? In that case, we will move on to deliberation. Actually, I think we first asked, do the staff have a response there?

I don't think so. I think in the question of why, or first off, on a why front, there's plenty of other testimony, and we'll get into the deliberation discussion-wise. So I don't think that's legislated. I did want to know how it worked. With regards to taking this way and sure I don't know and the language or her finger and the language definition section of the community. It should be noted that those definitions have been in place in 2017 along with the lifetime limited permit or he did from a language for the same time the sale of her. The city's latest attorney also wanted to know The short-term rental permits have been found by courts to your local licenses, which typically are not subject to the state law. Moreover, the courts have upheld caps on short-term rental permits and limits on transferability as a valid exercise of the city's police power to protect the law of health, welfare, and safety of its citizens.

All right. We will move on to deliberations. Anyone want to start?

Where to start? For me, some of the comments about the 165 cap kind of ring true. And I'm more concerned about the density than I am about the number. And I think if we address the density issue, then biotrition will also have a reduction or a reasonable number. that are reduced when those permits are no longer needed. Similar to the grandfather, unlimited licenses, they will be reduced. So like something like a density restriction of 100 feet or even 150 feet, that gets the density out of some of the neighborhoods that have high density and have a lot of STRs in them. The cap, as some comments noted, may or may not be needed because for the last decade, we've had right around the same number, 165 or so. I do realize there may be some value in putting a cap in place so we can control it through future growth. But for me, the density aspect, not having too many in one neighborhood makes better sense than having a cap. And I'm wrestling with... The comments on the exclusion area on the east side of 101, that is an equity issue. There are people on the west side of 101 that would like to have the same thing, and everybody can have that exclusion unless we exclude the whole town. We also have parking issues in every neighborhood, and that's not necessarily due to the SDRs. because the STRs are required to have adequate parking for the number of guests that they can accommodate. They have the off-street parking. The parking issue for me, where on this narrow street that I live on, they park on both sides. And during some holidays this year, you couldn't get a fire truck or an ambulance or anybody down there. If there was an emergency, you couldn't get them down the street. But that's a That's an entirely different issue I think needs to be addressed in a different fashion rather than through the SDR issue. But it is an issue that I think needs to be addressed. And I've made comments to city council for that effect. So furthermore, on the east side exclusion, I haven't heard really adequate factual base for that neighborhood exclusion that is different or unique than any of the other river roads that are experiencing the same kind of issues with STRs. If we were to restrict those, I think there's six units on the other side of 101 right now, if we were to take those and move them through attrition again onto the west side of 101, then that would just increase the density on the west side. And I wouldn't let anybody on the west side allow them to increase the density of people on the east side. They were saying, well, there's a cap on the west side because we have so many. Let's open up the east side. That doesn't seem fair either. So moving them around to different densities and different areas doesn't resonate at this point. I know that neighborhood. I've spent some time in that neighborhood. It's a lovely neighborhood, as many of the neighborhoods in Canyon Beach are. But I just have not heard what I need to hear that makes it so that we can be equitable with everyone while excluding those neighborhoods east of 101. They already are a lot of times excluded from some of the high traffic and the tourist Tourist activity that is experienced on the west side of 101. One other thing that wasn't brought up tonight, but that I've been thinking about, and I mentioned it briefly maybe last meeting or the meeting before, and that is changing the 14-day permits to the twice-a-month permit. So I talked to some of the city staff, and it would make their job easier The other thing it would do, it would reduce the number of visits available to STR units by two per year. So it would give them more flexibility. It would reduce the 26. If you buy 365 by 14, you go on with 26. So you have 26 visits currently, visitors currently. If we were to change it to twice a month, it would give flexibility to the STR order. Maybe you would increase some of the taxes to the city. but reduce the number of visits to each one of those STR units by two per year. That place I'm talking about, they would be able to rent, say, for President's Day and Valentine's Day or for Christmas and New Year's Bowl. So they get a greater income, which means greater taxes to the city. However, at two a month, that's 24 rather than 26. So we have a better reduction, but I think it works for everyone. And in fact, the algorithm that we have to use for once every 14 days is a lot tougher to manage than having just two per month. So that would make it easier, I think, on everybody.

I would just remind everyone that from the staff report, we know city council has asked that we consider a cap only and that that's what we're being asked to consider. That said, I would respectfully disagree with regard to there not being a difference between the east side and the west side. I think that one of the reasons this conversation began was about having the appropriate housing for people to live and work here. And those areas are the people who live and work here predominantly. And I think it is important because one of the purposes of this discussion is about housing to protect that stock of housing.

Well, that said, I recognize we're not making the housing isn't the issue this evening, though, as far as I'm concerned, because we see that really the real issue where the lack of housing, the second homes that aren't used aren't STRs. We've got 10% of STRs, which have been that way for a decade, yet we have a considerably greater amount of homes that aren't used, except for second homes. And if we excluded, in my mind, if we excluded anything east of 101, it would make them less affordable because they'd be more attractive, to people who didn't want STRs. So I think that can work both ways. And on the street that I live upon, I've got four people on the street that are full-time. Three of them work full-time. Three of those occupants work full-time. So in my neighborhood, as well as other neighborhoods, there are still working families on the west side that would like the same kind of consideration as anybody on the east side. So, you know, is it fair to move those six houses over to the west side, which is, in fact, what that would be doing through attrition. Whatever the cap is, whatever the restrictions on density are, whatever is over on the east side will be moved to the west side eventually through that attrition. So you're creating higher density in neighborhoods where People also live and work in the community and taking them from another one. So I understand there are concerns about STRs. I do. I have STRs in my neighborhood. There are four of us that live on the block. We've got about that many STRs within 100 feet of each one of the residents. And if we put in place density restrictions like the 100 feet, then some of them would go away. There's a lot more density in the president's down by the beach, you know, certainly the West side has its fair share density and STR I'd say the percentage are pretty much more than anything on the East side. And you consider all the homes, not just on the Haystack Heights, but also in the other areas by the argument park and so forth.

Does anyone have some comments they'd like to make? I did like the idea of twice a month. I think that that would, I've heard from different management companies that they would like that. I don't think 165 is quite right. I'd like to see it a little higher. I do like the suggestion of a percentage, which would keep us in line with how our growth is.

That's it.

Thank you.

Well, I mean, the only thing that we should be considering is, you know, we're going to want to count the 165. My question was, how did we come up with the 165? You know, I haven't been here long enough, and I was one of my best friends. How did we come up with the 165 or the 200?

That was quite an interesting conversation with city council.

Yeah, the city council and the city council.

Yeah, I, I mean, back when it was, I don't know where that came from.

I mean, I saw the city council meetings and then it's kind of one of those things, but then I'm not sure exactly how it came up. But that's the part of us, you know, that's what I agreed more that, you know, once we get that settled that would be best um we are running about 200 it will be 195 for 200 um and it has been like that for 15 years so again that was my only question um you know it would be the density part that i would be more inclined to and just figure it out getting those down so um

The density perspective, as I understand it, not that we could recommend that tonight anyway, because that's not for us. But Jeff, am I correct that that actually would result in fewer overall permits than the current cap if there was a 100-foot buffer on one of the radii? I don't know.

I don't know if I've actually run that. Okay. I mean, it would affect, I think I said in the staff, 55%. Yeah. It's a large percentage. A large percentage. Correct. So, you know, how that's played out technically, I haven't been running it.

Well, and I know we're here simply to address the cap. However, since we're talking about STR, I think it would be prudent of us to have recommendations concerning the SDR codes taken up to City Council so that we don't have to go through this whole thing again. Maybe there's a footnote or something for them to discuss.

I think it does check. I've heard that number 55%.

I think from you, Jeff, that we have a density of 100 feet, I think it was. I think that's the minimum that I would like to go is 100 feet Maybe you could go 75, but the lot sizes, I'm not sure how that would work out. But I think as a footnote, we should recommend twice as long to reduce the number of visits to the STRs, provide more flexibility, and potentially greater income during the holidays that are put together for STR owners and office to come in. And that will provide more housing during... holidays for retail shops.

Jeff, has that been a point of conversation in terms of City Council recommendations, whether they wanted to consider it twice a month as the most important thing? They have.

All we've been asked is we ask. Yeah. Not to say that, like you said, your recommendations, they're going to get the record. And so they're going to need everything you say tonight. And so

Finally for me I think we're going with the comprehensive plan and livability and quality of life I think a density makes a lot more sense than a cap because the density means that everybody experiences a little bit of space between themselves and the STR if they're an issue and that you know Yeah, my only comments really are specifically to the cap, what we've been asked to discuss. And I have been pretty underwhelmed with the amount of evidence that supports placing a cap other than some public comment around at least do something And that's not an adequate justification to me to make a change in the government. But I really don't support the cap as it's presented to us today.

And would you support the cap if there's a percentage that's supposed to be acceptable?

All I need is a justification. Everyone that I have heard from says this won't affect available housing. that there's no direct I would leave short-term rentals and or you know what was awesome. And no one was presented in the evidence that I'm aware of that says that.

At this point would anyone like to make a motion regarding the recommendation. And remember the recommendation would be to recommend or not recommend that this ordinance be enacted. And then it would not have a city council and city council make the determination. This is just our recommendation to city council.

I move that we recommend to city council that different types of restrictions be considered rather than a cap.

Should we want to recommend what kind of restrictions, maybe about trench density?

Well, that's part of the record. You know, we've talked about density. And, you know, I don't think we need a cap. I'm blessed. I don't think we need a cap because right now, it's been that way for 15 years. And I don't see that that's going to grow or, you know, a cap in my mind. would be reasonable if we were trying to get a handle on the road. But the road just isn't there. After 15 years, we've not seen it. And again, I know we're not addressing the affordable housing issues here. But if you can rent your house out as an STR, you're going to do it probably. And either that or not have, I mean, it's not going to go into the affordable housing group. So trying to put a cap on that just doesn't mean that the houses are going to be affordable to anyone. I think that the lease, the local program that we're looking at very seriously is a much better help than some of the other steps that the city is taking, investing money so you can get funds, et cetera, go a lot farther than this 10% of the total housing stuff in STRs. Okay, so back to my motion. All right. I move that we ask the City Council to forego a cap and consider other restrictions on the STR for a better residential quality of life for that issue.

I think Jeff has a point there. Yeah. Just ask that you maybe make an amendment just to say that you deny the application of the recommended ordinance as written and then what should be perfect.

Thank you, Jeff. I move that we deny the recommended ordinance of the 165 cap and further recommend that the City Council look at other ways of restricting SDRs because there still is an issue that the cap will not solve. How would we want to say that? Should we add recommendations on how to do that?

Such as percentage based on existing consideration of zoning areas. So based on the three items.

Yeah. Existing percentage density and further defecation of restriction on them.

Okay. Is that a second? You have a second?

Any further discussion before the vote? Professor, would you please start the roll?

Commissioner Sinclair? Yes. Commissioner Wake? Yes. Commissioner Pierce-Moshe? Yes. Commissioner Orloff.

Yes.

Commissioner Risley.

Yes. Vice Chair Norris. Yes. The recommendation is that this cap not be adopted and that alternative solutions be considered. At this time, so it will now move on to our next agenda item. And that is a work session item. This is reviewed in February 1762, signs and a discussion of signage in Cannon Beach. This is a reminder that the Planning Commission work sessions are an opportunity for the Planning Commission to gather and discuss pertinent, specific topics. It is so late that the Commission's discretion to allow public input on such topics. After a presentation by staff with relevant material and Planning Commission questions, I will ask for the re-wish to hear from the public. So this will be slightly different than our other items. We will begin the staff report, and then we will decide whether to call or not. So Jeff, do you have a presentation?

Yes, I will have a limited presentation time this time. I want to just bring here from the staff with the work, So, uh, the signage ordinance, uh, in each municipal code 17 to sign, regulates all signs in residential properties or property or downtown or central district to follow on a residential building. The DRB held an initial signage group session in February to continue the discussion in March. How the current ordinance functions from types of signs, dosing of signs, The signing of signs to scope a review not performing and concerns to the local field that visitors to the Oregon coast have come to recognize as distinctly Cancun Beach. The DRB also recognized some of the challenges in current language regarding materials, definitional ambiguities, and administrative procedures. Although the Cancun Beach Municipal Code does not have powers and duties regarding ornaments, commitments as the code states, the purpose of design review is to exercise an aesthetic judgment over development projects within the city in order to maintain the desirable character of the community. The community character is defined by having charm in the design of buildings, keeping buildings small in scale, honoring the community, acknowledging the city's natural setting, and recognizing the arts are an integral part of the community. Since the DRB As such a viral considering application regarding times to ask for their recommendations to be brought forward for your consideration of changes to the sign ordinance. Staff also posted between the local department page of the city of canady's website a signage 2026 page. which hosts the meeting materials for the various science discussions with additional materials regarding the gravity of science ordinances and model ordinances from advocacy organizations and community science ordinances from across the country. The community model ordinances offer a range of science ordinances from Ashland Origins, which is very similar to our current language, to other traditional ordinances, to form-based co-influence versions, such as the Buford South Airline. As the public process continues, staff will continue to update the signage 2026 page with the latest meeting materials, as well as all the materials referenced during the discussions. The design review board met June 11th to make minor revisions and offer the draft, the DRD-recommended signage, Attachment 8-1 for consideration. The major changes including striking references of a building frontage, which has been incorporated under the building frontage, and new definition for incidental signs to clear up the vagueness of the current language. There is also clarification of the definition of a wooden sign and the material allowed under the firmament sign. Major structural changes to the ordinance include placing one total signage square footage, two total signage square footage for business, and three types of signs in the refugee-based area, while introducing a new table to summarize these. Existence and the permitting requirements have been clarified, and new sections describe the review procedures that have been introduced to provide sign applicants clear guidance for proceeding through the process. So, like I said, I've put the actual recommended draft from the DRE in your packets. as attachment A1. Tonight, I'd like to just go through kind of major means or changes or why we've done this. And then I would propose that we do next month a joint work session with the DRP. And I will actually, in the new facilities, give you a new presentation showing all the details. And then you'll have their input, comments and be able to ask some questions and further drill down on some of the points I'm going to go through tonight. But tonight, I just want to introduce the ordinance briefly of how and why it came about, the changes, and then suggest we do that next week. So basically, any community I've ever worked with, The most common question is always a sign. It's like, you know, I don't know where you're at. Signs are always an issue. And it is a ordinance that's often in fluctuation. It's kind of a living document in a lot of communities. And I mentioned that if you go to our website, I've got some best practices from not only playing groups and organizations that deal with signs, but also from Bay, benchmark communities from around the country. And so you can see the range. But I will note that our ordinances, like so much of Canyon Beach, has not been changed in years. And so it does need some changes, and especially I feel that what's happened is that I think that like a wooden sign or things like that, there's a lot of technical changes that happen in the industry of producing signs and the techniques of making those signs. And so unless, you know, that language kind of improves to give that, you know, what is the difference between, or, you know, like when I was doing my first spin, you know, I believe in BRB at that time, you know, had them more open, so if it looked like wood, then if it was fine, you know, if that was fine, make it look like wood, but it could still be with some new technologies. It could be made of, you know, of poly plastic material or something like that that lasts longer or whatever. But, you know, I think it definitely has changed since I went away. Now that I've come back, I do believe that DRBs is one of the main reasons they wanted to change. they wanted to get back to that more 1970s approach or that earlier approach where almost every sign is more of an artwork than truly just a sign. And so they wanted to kind of rein in some of the definitions on materials and things like that, but also look at the process of how it's reviewed and then some of these new things that have come to bear on it like banners and things like that, temporary signage and things like that, and have that process in order to find in that there's administrative approval, then there's more of a minor approval on a signage type of, like a temporary basis or an emergency basis, and then one that would go before review. And so that was my understanding from kind of working with Gary over the last few months on this. And so I think it would be In the packet materials, signage discussion starts on page 263 of the electronic version of the packet. And you will see the striped grooves are the red line versions. And you will also see some that are highlighted. It looks to me in that very last session, we had the final recommendations and minor changes on that. But to walk through, you can see wooden signs. We can find that being a sign made of solid wood and not an engineered wooden composite or a faux wooden finish. We've changed what an incidental sign means, a sign intended primarily for the convenience and direction of the bullet on the premises, which is not advertised, but it's informational only. So we've kind of defined more specifically some of this language. Because what we were finding was a lot of people were putting up a lot of what we would consider, we in the older days would consider incidental signs, but that's sort of a very broad term. There was really no definition. And so we wanted a clear definition and a clear kind of limits where all of those are included in your total square footage of signs. So when you're putting that up, you know, you have to be aware of of all of those calculations and how they calculate to do that. So that, if you move on to like page 267, where we're actually getting into what a sign is, we kind of define that a little better. You'll see number five says the maximum sign face area for an individual shot sign should be no more than 24 square feet or one square foot of sign face for real business frontage. There were originally three different frontages we dealt with. Business, building, and... Business, building, and site. So there were three different. We've narrowed it down to two now. And then, you know, for a limited time, where there are some things that we come across in our compliance, that need better definition, I will have some pictures of those in my next presentation, because we will go through that with you, kind of walking through some of these where, you know, say someone has a neon sign or lit sign, if that's interior and inside the building, does that, is that counting as a sign that's seen from the public? So we'll walk through that kind of thing with you guys. and how the current ordinance can treat that. And then materials, you'll see, which is on page 269 of the electronic version, which is 1762-30. You'll see under J, materials. Every sign, all parts, or portions of the material there must be manufactured, assembled, and erected in compliance with state, federal, and city regulations. you'll see that the original, the current political working code refers to the uniform sign code for 1925. No one has ever known where that is, but it lives and still in our code. So we corrected that and put the more applicable reference there. And then number two, permanent signs should be constructed of wood or have a wood sign based origin. structural components with oil and acrylic paint and recycled water-based paints, or be part of an awning, a windowsill, or be painted on an etched glass. And so what we're trying to do is really define, you know, what a little more heat-traveling light, what it can be. And then color, there's, you know, I mentioned a color in there about bagelow and borax in it, Well, now we define it as best we can in K, which is line 44 on page 5 of the actual ordinance, or 269 on the electronic. But if you look at that, you will also see at the end we included a color range. Those are the color range that is accepted. And then as far as the regulations, like I said, we broke. work that down into basis zone regulations as it currently is with the commercial and those types of uses. And then you have a whole science court of footage permitted per lot. Now that is just, if it was one business on one lot, they could have that thing. And then we have number two, which is for most of ours, which are these business complexes where there's more than one business per lot. So that is total size square footage per business. And so there's very few restrictions. There are a few, but most of ours are done through this total size square footage per business. And you'll see that how that's broken out. And we'll go into kind of a where this came from to the future and presentation of the next month. And then we have the different types of signs. And this is going to get into what we'll talk about as kind of one of the major changes in the procedures of the review. Who does the review of which signs? And so beforehand, it was all freehand, freestanding signs. came before the VRB wall or projecting signs and other side window signs. If the window signs were just painted or etched on, like our language said, then they did not need to come before VRB review. And so the majority of what the VRB full review were for pre-standing signs were those that asked for not real wood design for a window non-mainboard edge. And so that was how we operate. We did change a few of the things in the extension about trying to clear up some of the language and this is a 176250. So we made an A sign other than the non signs internally lying or inside within a nine-foot building, visible from exterior of the building. So what we're trying to say, and this is that, you know, if it's visible from the sidewalk, then yes, and switch or whatever, then that's not going to be allowed. up to three flags of national, state, government, or non-commercial matters. So if somebody wanted to fly a flag right now of their American region or whatever, under our current election decision, you would not be allowed to do that. So we're trying to make that happen. more rational there's people that want to buy a flag you know they're not selling a cola or something like that on that flag you know we're going to allow those kinds of flags they just want to support their soccer team there you go yeah you know i started so you didn't have a big georgia uh Governmental signs and records on public lands will be exempt. Temporary political signs not exceeding six square feet were banned. So I took that from another jurisdiction we named. So we can't remember the political signs or the size of any number. Temporary non-illuminated real estate, we can put a definition there, more clarification on that number, because I had worked in certain jurisdictions I don't think it's used as much here. But in some jurisdictions, some of these real estate signs, you get huge. And we're getting a little bit out of it. So put some clarification on that. And then temporary window signs that advertise seasonal or citywide events, those are also in them. And then the permit kind of process and review process, those are fairly new. We didn't really review them. Couldn't find them or they were not easily located. I wanted to clarify that. And like I said, the review procedures, which is 17-2-2-75, each of the following signs are subject to review by the design review board at non-hearing items. And so what I mean by non-hearing items is it means that people aren't coming and getting pro-con against signs. It just comes before the area and they make the decision on the sign. Each of the following signs are subject to the design of the board chair. Replacement signs for newer existing businesses where a temporary sign is requested, or emergency signs where construction or normal business activities are impacted and temporary signs is warranted. So there's really these two levels. A, the ones that all go before and ask new replacement or existing permanent signs, so Any permit sign I read before, like I said, it was just the first standing signs or both that weren't written or whatever. I think it was kind of an exception. Now, any permanent sign will have included VRV, full VRV board, except for these emergency or temporary type signs that I like. And then... And then a C on that line 299. The emergency board may require the condition of approval to be notified in 48 hours prior to the erection of an approved sign to verify placement, establishment, and material with a sign posted. So what has been happening is we may have a sign approved or wouldn't sign approved. we find out Packard's been in place or whatever that it's not. It's a fold or something like that. And so we now will make the DREP condition that we're there when they put that up and so we're a very popular period. And then you will see a table that kind of explains all of that and we fed back line 341 through 343. And then, like I said, we added those color swatches for, you know, and such. And so any questions or do you need any more, anything that you want us to kind of look at for the whole network?

No, I look forward to hearing from GRB itself. Okay, great. Definitely haven't had to deal with signs. So I look forward to their input because I know they do that.

Looks like there may be a contradiction between line 214 on the square footage of the temporary mom sign. And then in the table, it looks like it shows 12 square feet instead of six square feet. Okay, let me compare the table. Yeah, compare the table. It looks like very well could happen here in them. Well, this is a lot of work. I really appreciate it that they've done here. This is comprehensive stuff. Yeah, I appreciate it. We needed something like this desperately, I think, because, you know, 1985 doesn't exist. Yeah, yeah. And then I was wondering about enforcement. And is there a punitive damages or punitive rather? What do they get as far as punitive

I didn't see where it spoke to that. Yeah, it doesn't look like it goes back and says, you know, if failure to comply or whatever, you know, $500 seems pretty cheap for something like that.

But of course, they have to throw away the sign that's there. It could be very expensive or change it or something like that. So $500 just to cherry on top, maybe. I had a couple of questions. One, in the definitions, this brought me up now, a short-term rental company sign is always posted on the building. What kind of sign is that? I still, from the language, I still can't quite figure it out. I think Daniel's been considering an incidental sign, but I think that's a great clarification. They really don't. Yeah, I don't think we're ready. I had a question kind of around the glare on one 108. I wondered if it would be appropriate to have some kind of dark sky reference in there. And what number do you have? Hi, 108, that's H. Hilaire. Oh, yeah. Just a thought. Yeah, yeah. So, actually, you talked about this one. It's 256, where you talk about signs other than neon signs, internally lighted, or other prohibited signs within a non-commercial building or I can't understand that sentence at all.

Yeah, it is. I think that that sentence alone is, it's been difficult for Valerie to, yeah, for all. But let me see if I can clarify that. But it is not an easy sentence. What we're trying to say is, you know, if it's, you know, if it's not in the merger, then we're trying to have the, I live, I don't know, on Ross Lane. I would go off by on Spruce. One of those houses had a neon sign from inside that said, something like love or something like that. They said it's not in front of the building. It's fine, you know what I'm saying? It's something like that. So I will, I will definitely look at that, though. And they can easily read it.

And my last comment was simply around the sign permit. It's not apparent to me who is the formating entity. Is it community development? Yeah.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. On the interior, you know, signs that are non-commercial, is there, is the city not allowed to regulate in residential? Because it seems like kind of a nonsense.

I mean, well, you know, this firm may not be done, but yes, we could do that. And that's just a, Uh, you know, it hasn't, it hasn't come up. I haven't, I mean, I can say it came up when that my first time here for somebody to be complaining about that time.

And that's why I said, well, maybe that's the point of conversation with therapy. You can ask if they know that that's worth addressing.

I agree.

Well, we're going to be involved with residential. Well, the thing is, I guess if I just ask Jeff whether they could, and it sounds like, in fact, that could be for this ordinance. So it might not be DRV reviewing it, but DRV may have input on whether that makes sense because they have considered signs in a way that we have never considered signs.

When we had a small group working on Dark Sky as an additional code that was

That was addressed with that person.

Right. So this is where we should be thinking about it because this is an opportunity to make sure this doesn't become a citywide issue. Do we have any other comments or questions for the staff? So we have, I'm assuming We need to still discuss where we'd like to open to public input. We will be returning to this conversation with DRV next month. We have the opportunity in this case to still file public input. Would we like to take that opportunity? I don't see why not. Yeah. The public should be involved. All right. So then in that case, I will now ask if there are any individuals here who would like to make comment on this work session item. Hearing none, we will move on. So we have our next work session item, which is the Transportation System Plan. This is a review of the proposed Transportation System Plan implementation. This is a reminder that the Planning Commission's work sessions are an opportunity for us to gather and discuss information pertinent to specific topics. It is solely to the Commission's discretion to allow public input on such topics. After a presentation by staff with relevant material and public Right but it was a question I will ask my mission, but we would like to hear from the public. The staff have a presentation of the sun.

I you know I will. Well, the reason they shouldn't be in the back and said to me if you have a little bit of a Robert page to a bond. Yeah, and I'm not going through the staff before I think you guys are familiar that we have the TSP transportation system plan back in, I think it was 22 back when I was here, and it was adopted. And so I brought it up at the RIP back in the annual retreat. The city council, they said yes, they wanted to move forward on some of those projects this year. So looking through our ordinances, I'll go to that first page, Robert, And it's really the powers of looking at traffic and parking issues to the Planning Commission. And so that next page there, part of the powers there didn't fall under the form under functions as indicated, city or state law, required by city council. And city council, like I said, turned kind of the angle of view over for you guys to look. But if you look at other committees and also... Those that are involved in transportation, trails, parking, all of the different things that the TSP addresses, you will see that Public Works is also under direction of the council to charge with looking at roads, streets, and transportation. And we will recommend strategy and policies for expansion and improvements of these systems. The Public Works has a role to play in this. And then after those projects and improvements are, you know, designed, you know, then they need to go for, some of them may need to go for the DRB. And those public improvements are under 174420 there. And then the TSP also has language regarding improve our corrections or language corrections to our current code. And so as far as our code will rewrite, we, our goal will be to also include these, which should be coming before you guys in a couple of months, with what we're calling our housekeeping change. And so a collection of various language that, I mean, going back to 2020, really, that we've been kind of saying, oh, you know, we're saying we need to change this and this and this. And so we're going to be bringing and packaging those forward. So on the next slide, it says there's a question mark of existence. So what's the existing process? Well, when we got this together, I didn't really know the existing process. And so I went before the Public Works Committee last month, I think it was, and spoke to them with this exact same presentation because my thought was that it's really the public works in your role to be looking for that TSP plan, saying, and hearing and making comments from the public through here and saying, these are the projects we would like to see moving forward, recommending those along with the city council. But previous, the city didn't have that annual look at annual parking, at least parking and some transportation issues And I went back, and that's what these slides represent or taken from the 2016-2017 agendas. Shelton City Council looked at it. The Planning Commission also looked at it. Here's a staff report from 2014 looking at certain items and making certain recommendations up to the city and some of the projects that developed out of that. So when the TSP was... know produced it recommended 58 total strategies and improvements uh and of those 58 we've completed or initiated three by my town uh and we are now in the fourth year and so it's my goal at least to get a process so we started looking at this because If anything that I know, when I came back, I didn't have more parking problems than when I left. And so you will know that we have started, and we'll get to that slide in a second, but we have started, and they started that at the annual works, annual retreat to start looking at certain projects. And one of the things they wanted to do was parking. And so the first thing that they did was to say, what are those first steps in parking? and the hatching of the streets to make them some kind of legible parking stall. That was the first step recommended from that, and then they've already put that into motion. So goals, I'm not gonna go through the goals from the TFP or the objectives and all of that, the priorities, but just to say that they did have a near-term, medium-term, and long-term, 0 to 5, 5 to 10, beyond 10 years, and looking at this and what type of, and then identify for each one of the various areas, whether it's a roadway improvement, a keeping improvement, or whatever, they get them down into the cost analysis, the priority analysis, And then some whatever priority on that. You'll note that that first one under roadway improvements, the intersection of South Henlock, the one that I claimed credit for actually, that was really pretty much completed when we finished that PSP. So I don't know how much people have done. But like I said, there's the transportation management on that front. We've already had conversations with four different apps and mobile apps and parking, charging for parking, because they wanted us to start looking into that, and we will be going to them. I think it's August 11th's work session. We'll have kind of a report back when we found out from that and whether they would want us to start proceeding from that front as well. So there are some things that they wanted to start, the city council to start moving forward. And then this is to come up with a process. And so you'll see on the page, there's 306 of your electronic. That's the one with the 500 steps into the parking strategy. And like I said, we just, driving one street parking stalls in downtown and midtown were one of the new. Third, we've been selling clear electrical signs for one street parking stalls. We, like I said, started looking at the management of those, and that's where the timing restrictions and parking enforcement and all of that, time limited parking, those are the next step. We hopefully, this year, we'll start moving on all of that. So then, the following steps are also part of our partner strategy. So implementation in the actual PSP, which is online and available at our website, you can look through the implementation and funding strategy because they look at what would currently are the funding balance and how much we actually give towards funding per year. And that is one of the reasons we want to start this process because we need to start from a staff perspective If we need to know what kind of projects that the community, you guys as the appointed officials want to see move forward, that gives us the time to say, well, here's our current budget, just even with the strike and how much that costs. We didn't have that in the budget. So we need to start to get to a budget, into the budget process, and then to have line items where we can look at certain things and start looking at grants that are out there and other things that we can stack together to make some of these improvements happen. So even in that TSP report, they do a cost and strain model so that they can say, okay, if you are limited to just the certain amount that you're currently using, here's an approach that you could take. And they did a priorities on that. So that was another thing that I recommend everyone Before we, if we go through with this proposed process, which is the next page, page 310, where I've outlined kind of the process. And like I said, we spoke with Public Works about it. What it really will culminate with is an October meeting or joint meeting with Public Works and the Planning Commission to sit down and have an annual kind of capital improvement plan And to say, these are the projects that have moved through or what state they're at, and then say, these are the ones we've heard over the year. What we've done with Public Works is we have a process for complaints and suggestions and things for new sidewalks and crosswalks or whatever that come into us daily. Those will go before the Public Works at their meetings. And then all of those would then you know, that didn't get completed during the year, that could be completed, some of them can, then they would come to this October meeting and you guys can sit down and talk about what you feel the priorities are moving forward to the city council's annual retreat. Then they put that project list together and that gets the staff some time to say, okay, looking at the budgets and what the grants are available, start piecing together sort of the projects that we can move forward. That is really what I wanted to talk about. I hope I didn't go too quickly through that and just confuse you. But it is a, you know, it's at least a proposed process. I have no, you know, there's nothing I can tell anybody. I don't know. a thick skinned kind of a planner. If anybody has suggestions of a better process or a better way to do this, I'm always open to that. And that's why we want to bring both youth and public work to say, hey, any feedback on this? Do you think this at least gives us a plan? Because currently we don't have a good process for any of this. And I mean, I've worked across the country and I would say this is the only one of the only that I've worked in that doesn't have a capital improvement kind of payment plan. In the state of Georgia, just as you are held, if you are a jurisdiction, you have to complete a 10-year comprehensive plan updated every five years. You turn that in with a three-year capital improvement plan, which has to be updated annually, showing where you are on each one of the projects. And what that does is then get you I think it's called qualify and whatever or something like that. And then what that does is give you access to all of their low-fund grants and loans and stuff like that. And so it's a pretty good process. And, you know, so I work within that, I think, better to have that process so that we can, you know, people want to crosswalk. You get enough people in a room and they say, we need to crosswalk at Gallup. And you say, well, in our conference, in our plan, PSP, it says for the presidential, the first priority is Monroe or wherever. I'm not saying that. You know, that's what you want. You don't want just, you know, whatever the controversy of the day to come at you. So that's why the justification is false.

I don't know what this means, Anna. I'm excusing myself for ignorance here at Mini Mobility Hub.

Okay, yes, a Mini Mobility Hub. So Mini Mobility Hub would be something like, let's just say for instance, we put that public restroom area there. And we had lockers there and facilities for people to change and things like that. We had bike racks there. We also had, that's where the bus stops, right? Well, that is somewhat of a mini-mobility hub. Often they have TV charging stations in part, but a mini-mobility hub is usually where you can transfer from one type of transportation to another, whether it's an pedestrian that leaves their bike at something, or a bus rider that leaves their bike at some place, or, you know, maybe some kind of that.

Yeah, transfer. Thank you. I really like the idea of a process, and that's

super important and jacob you're thinking about process vertical and new projects and planning after we know how we get there yeah thank you so with my uh works how am i planning man very true we although we are a subset of public works we very rarely think about public works and i don't believe public work states about us very much either But we're having a fairly robust conversation right now about trails, which are included in DSP.

Yeah. Yeah. And we have to be a part of that. It should be. And again, honestly, I think, yes, I take the blame for that.

They should have been in this. Frankly, I am too. Because there's really a, I mean, we both come up underneath Chris. Yeah. But There's very little overlap between what works as they do their thing and what parks takes about. Excellent point. One last thing, and it has nothing to do with any of this. Can somebody drive down these streets and think about which sides are posted, no parking on this side, with an eye toward when we're full in the summer, there still would be room for a because it's, it don't work.

So I am honestly saying that that, you know, that I fear to me is what the PM3, the third one on step one, and so it's weird that there's no time to go home through parking. So if that should be put in bus tires and we need to have a, an actual map showing, you know, where, where this public parking and where it is, that he made a party, you know, and so that should be one of our goals, I think, by the back of our meeting. And, you know, hopefully, I know Trevor's probably missing, but hopefully, both of course, we'll be able to get it in now. But I would admit myself, I think it would be good. And at least give us, that's going to be part of the conversation about, you know, when we do this planning about where we need to look at certain changes.

Yeah. A comprehensive review of all streets, their width, their length, and their ability to hold whatever capacity parking needs to be done before we can put in place these restrictions. Because just like one of the commenters this evening said, since they've been charging at Tolavana, parking has exploded into our residential area. And as I've said before here and before, as a matter of fact, before Public Works, that needs to be done at every single beach access point. Near residential areas on both sides of Hemlock are extremely impacted, not only for that affects safety and the ability of first responders, the ability of residents to have a little bit of peace and quiet, The traffic coming through there, the dust.

One thing to note, though, on that, Steve, is what I would say is that what I just promised was kind of a, what I would call, where is that? From more of an operational or police enforcement kind of method. What you're asking for is, I think, a true transportation step that needs to happen. When you look at that, if you're looking at width, you're looking at the capacity of the capacity of the right-of-way areas, the parking, because, you know, a lot of times we say, oh, we need to park on the east side or the west side of, say, the presidential on the ones going west, right, or whatever. But if you look at the number of parking spaces, we cancel out how many are used by driveways and stuff like that. You know, what is the Asking true capacity, and I think that really needs to be investigated.

Yeah. My point is we've got to start somewhere with that. Right now, I'm collecting data, and I'm really glad the Public Works Committee is being integrated into this process. I think it's, if you read their charter, it's definitely part of their charter and so much more that has been ignored by the Public Works Department, and I think sometimes tamped down, you know, with respect to, hey, we don't have a process for that. So really, why even kind of talk about it in the past? And, you know, this 2016 talk about parking, these comments, I totally agree, Judith. 2016 to 2026, in the last 10 years, the parking has, and the visitors, the number of visitors that we have have just exploded. And, uh, It affects quality of life in a lot of ways. And I think that the parking and the traffic patterns and other things are greatly affected for quality of life for residents. Yeah, safety. Yeah, safety. We should even be looking at speed bumps, you know, and other signage that tells us on all railroads, the state mandated speed limit is 15 miles per hour, but you really don't see those 15 mile an hour signs. There's one up in Warren Way as you enter into the Haystack Heights area, but that's a paved road, but close to 15 miles per hour. And I wouldn't even suggest putting speed bumps up in that area because it is more residential than some of the other areas. But yeah, gathering data and the Public Works Committee certainly can play a role in that. I know they've gathered other data about state conditions and so forth in the past and they were efficient with that. We need to start somewhere because if we start putting these restrictions in place, people are going to find other places to park where they can park for greater than three hours or not pay anything or whatever their motive might be.

Does anyone else wish to add things that are gone? In that case, let's move on to the tree report.

There you go. Okay, with that proposed process, then. Yeah, that's pretty good.

Tree report, tree report. On June the 30th, we had a total of 34 trees remain. The joint impact was some destruction. So it's primarily at two properties, one on Elliott and also another one on Haystack. There is a, also a limited expansion requirement due to the number of trees, the number of sites. Other questions?

Just curious, what is new SFD?

Is that a new building?

New Civil Air League. Can I tell you guys, I don't know if you guys know this, when I went up to I served on the building official for the selection committee. And the community development director there was sitting down, getting ready to do the interview. And she said, Jeff, you've been a screen before. I said, oh, yeah, that's him indeed. And he was proud of it. He said, yeah, we're going to have to do a recording on one of our apps.

It's important to have priorities.

Yes.

This is can be.

But speaking as a trophy, I'm always disappointed when there's not more trees required or implanted for that.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So that is influenced by Angelo Vegas. Think, for example, the Stone of Staten Elliot. There's a significant amount of tree density toward the rear end of the zone affected by the project. So there, you know, they have the very high amount of density. They didn't affect the density on site to the point that they need to re-plant it. And that was freaking me one time's up.

Yeah. Yeah, you know, and I have seen what I think is a general trend of folks trying to preserve the trees, I think a little more so than we've done in the years ago. And I think that's really all we need is second look to try to kind of speed it up but it's they're off they're free to do you know build their own punch in that do for the good of your order does anyone have items for good of york in that case we are adjourned yeah but you know city hall should be open next week uh

much moved in over there. We don't have servers working yet or we're not fully online. But yeah, it's going to be great. The next meeting will be there. What does the ceremony include?