Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, hi. Good evening. Thank you everybody for being here today. My name is Clay Newton. I'm the chairman of the planning commission here. Welcome to this planning commission meeting. We've got a big agenda that we're going to try to move through a lot of information. Um, some of this stuff we're going to be talking about is contentious. Uh, I was not here for the last meeting. I've listened to it twice. Um, also talked about the audio for those of you online who had troubles. Uh, we have improved our audience. Um, We have a point to try to uh work through some of these contentious issues with you. We've heard you on some of the concerns you had about our process last time and we're going to talk as a group about how to address some of those concerns and also keep our processes moving along. There are two items tonight. One is legislative, one is quasi judicial. Um the quality judicial is over 600 pages something like that they potentially could go on for a little bit rightly. So there's a lot of detail to it. Um but it does uh leave some questions in terms of the order of the agenda and I'll come to that. So our meeting is now called to order. I'd like to talk about the agenda pretty much. We have the quanticial issue ahead of the legislative issue which is now in its second meeting before us. Um and there are a number of people here who I as much as I know they'd love to sit through a quas judicial forum on top of the legislative. I don't think that would be fair. So my concern is this is an item that's been brought before us legislative issue been before us already. Maybe we should have that ahead of Is there any reason why the order was missing would

No reason. Okay. Commissioners, any thoughts on that? No objection. Okay. So then we're going to flip-flop the order with the hopes that we're moving through the legislative relatively quickly and then we'll do this short. So may I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? 17. Further discussion. Okay. So we call voting. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Sinclair, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner B. Yes. Commissioner Wait, yes. Yes.

Uh, looking at the consideration from our minutes from the last meeting, are there any amendments to the minutes? No. May I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Seconded. Please participate. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Bait. Yes. Chair. Yes.

This section is for people who do not have something within the purview of our conversation. If you have something that you'd like us to consider that it is within the virtue of the planning commission, please feel free to come forward at this time. You'll have three minutes to speak to us on and then we will move on to evaluation. Is there anyone who has public comment for this time? No. Okay. Move into our first continuation of legislative public hearing. B52 proposed text amendments to code chapter 17. City of Canon Beach request for housing relating text amendments to chapter 17.4 definition 17.30 residential density one 17.30 Third reading two residential medium density R2 zone 17.40 limit to commercial one zone 1760 general requirements and regulations 17.68 street parking 17.7 design 17.72.080 accessory dwelling in section 17.6.2000 public benefit dwelling owner occupancy requirements. The zoning text amendments request will be reviewed against the criteria of the municipal code section 17.9460A criteria and state park. This legislative hearing aids to amend the code is being held after providing written notice and hearing to the proposed amendments to the code to TLC in compliance with RS7197.610. In addition, O RS227.186 requires a city to provide written notice of amendments and hearing to owners of real property when the city proposes to adopt or amend the code in a manner that in a manner that limits are prohibited from land use previously allowed in the affected zone. Notice of this hearing has been provided to

parties entitled to notice as required by those statutes. that four actions are made by the city council adoption was municipal code 17.14.050C provides that type four action shall be decided by the city after a public hearing. The city council may also request that the planning commission hold the public hearing in advance. The city council meeting to consider the proposal public testimony and provide a recommendation. The city council has requested that the department commission hold the public hearing in advance of a city hearing to consider the proposed amendments public testimony and provide a recommendation. Okay. I am going to just interject a little bit of um my take and what I heard from our last meeting. A little discussion out loud discussion on point commissions as to how we move forward to address some of the concerns that I raised that we can address this. First and foremost, we are going to do our best to respect you as people who've taken the time to come here tonight and voice your concern about what we are considering tonight. In exchange, we have that you respect our process, this process that we are trying to manage through less than perfectly at some imperfect process. It's imperfect at every level. We are doing our best to hear and incorporate what we're doing into that conversation. We continue to do that. If we get to the place where people are not being respected and that includes both sides of this conversation, I will stop that conversation. We are going to be respectful. This is a small community, we owe that to them. We are going to find a way to move ahead as well. With that in mind, we're not going to move ahead exactly as we did last time. There's a number of people feeling concerned that the process did not allow for them to be heard. We're going to try to amend the process so you can feel like you're a part of the conversation that we're having. That said, we have to balance job of being able to move ahead. We're not going to get into arguments about whether we disagree or philosophical opinion about this, that or the other. We are going to try to run a process that incorporates some of what

you're saying allows you another opportunity to come back after you've heard our discussion and that way we will feel like we have done our best to meaningfully address some of the concerns we're hearing. And I've read I think there's some great testimony. One of the things that I've heard many times is that this process wasn't fair to the public. It came blindsided. It is not our intention to have that be any part of what this process is for. Our intention is to hear you to feel like you've been a part of this process and to make decisions from it. We are limited somewhat by our law forms that you get as confusing to you sometimes as they are to us. It's the state requires it's a law. Got a lot of attorneys on either side helping push that. And I think it can be confusing. You have a question about it, we'll do our best to answer. We have a whole bunch of people here tonight that have a lot more experience than we do that can help us through them. That said, we are running this process with the idea that you're a part of it. It doesn't mean the meetings that happened that I was or wasn't a part of were an effort to exclude you. And I've seen many letters to that point that say you're you're trying to run this through or you guys have an alterior agenda. We don't even I don't even know the agenda of my my partners. I've heard them in multiple conversations over the last two years on this issue. It isn't something we just snuck through. It's all public. We don't entirely agree and you're going to hear that tonight and we get into the details of this conversation. But sorry, I'm losing my point. My larger point is we're doing our best to try to find a process that works for everybody. And it's not easy, but we're going to try. So, let's be respectful of one another to jump into this and see what we can come up with. And I guarantee somebody's not going to be done. But that's what happens when we have this. One of the larger questions is why are we doing housing, affordable housing? Yes, it's a huge problem. It's being driven out of in multiple ways, whether it's the surveys of the the voters in this town or the state legislature

pushing this. But we also have a code that's 30 years that was originally 30 plus years. It's outdated. It needs to be updated. Times change. Things change. hard. We'll try to get through it respectively on with one another. All right, enough about that. So, I propose and I do not have the final say on this. I'm the chair, but we're equal voters here. I propose that we begin our meeting in the same fashion. Listen to people who were sitting through this meeting and our last meeting. We take their testimony. We're able to consider that as part of our deliberation. We deliberate. We let people know how we're feeling on certain specific items that we've heard over and over again, uh, that we agree with, that we disagree with. And then at the end, um, keep the record open so that people may submit letters, um, but know that we wouldn't be ruling. Now, I know that some people are feeling like this needs to go to city council, faster, and like I said, it's just one idea I have. I'm well open to any other idea you guys have in ter of making sure people feel like one we're moving this process ahead well but two we are being respectful of one of the main concerns we which is there's not an opportunity for exchange anybody want to shout in terms of process you're proposing that we do public comment public comment we deliberate We talk about what we're liking, what we're not liking,

okay?

What we push forward. We leave the record open. We don't close the record. We allow people the opportunity to submit additional written comment after they've heard what we had to say. We don't make any room tonight. We consider that additional testimony in our next meeting before we come up with. And would your intention be to keep the record open to such a good extent that there's also public comment at the next meeting or do we close it after seven days the way that we do when we have a quasi judicial we close the record and come back and complete deliberations. Um I my just to leave it someone wanted to come back to the next meeting you know whether they leave that as a part of the legislative um conversation or whether public I'd like to leave open for public comment on our next meeting actually verbal comment I think we need we need conversation amongst ourselves providing have to um for you to respond to our deliberation and then they can sign next or next

I think Melissa's on she doesn't Melissa you don't need to chime in right now but as we get to that moment I'm sure she could help uh speak to how we can at the end when we decide what we want to do how the record should be open and things like that so I'm sure she'll an opportunity at that point in time to have further discussion about that.

Okay, with that in mind, here's my understanding what we are going to allow public testimony at the beginning just a few minutes of this meeting. We are going to deliberate the body. You're going to hold the record open. You may submit your additional written testimony. The record will be held open when you meet again to decide. I'm going to commit us to a decision. We may not we may stand here tonight. I don't know. But under the assumption that we are potentially going to make some sort of decision at our next meeting, the record will have been open. You will have the opportunity to submit additional testimony and you'll be able to come before us and submit additional oral testimony. Is that a good information with everybody?

Yes. All right. Let's do that then. So, um, uh, at this point we'll open up the meeting. Mr. Mr. Chairman, could I make one comment? Sure. real quick. Um, at the last meeting there were several people from the public that kind of mentioned, hey, how did we get to this point? You know, how did we how did we get here? And if you wouldn't mind, I just kind of like go through a short um little history in terms of how we got to this point we're at today.

Okay. just so about some people had a a legitimate um concern in terms of meetings and and who were involved and and how we got to this point. And so just wanted everyone to know a little bit of the history. Um oftent times throughout this process of the zoning code amendment, we've worked with the city council who has joint work sessions with our planning commission and design review board. Um, one of the things that was talked about um, a long time ago, probably this was around January of 2024 was the initial process. Uh, we had lots of discussion on affordable housing, what we can do, different types of things. And during that, uh, some of the the comments were about the wetlands and how we did the focus group and how that process uh, happened. And so there was some initial conversations between the council, the plan commission, and designing review board that that might be uh a good way of proceeding to get to some housing um amendments. So that first kind of general conversation took place in January uh 31st of 2024 at that joint council work session. um in February uh 29th of 24 that um uh joint the council held a meeting. It was joint work session once again with the planning commission and the design review board. And one of the items was that was discussed during that meeting was uh the potential of creating a focus group that would focus on some of the housing amendments. So again that was uh you know discussed and um the thought was hey at the next uh meeting let's have a little bit more concrete uh

direction in terms of what that might be. At the March 27, 2024 meeting, um we started to talk about a public workshop and the housing focus group and um uh our consultant from Marcy McNe McNeely gave an overview of the housing task force group. Um there was a lot of discussion in terms of okay certain people were going to volunteer um uh to do that made up of some council members, some design review board members and some planning commission members um and a survey was done as well at that time and so a lot of that discussion um and that was that survey Marcy with just the group or that was the whole city. Yeah, that was city maybe on that touch a little bit on that. And then um uh then there was an actual workshop that we had and then at the um uh May 29th 2024 council uh work session with groups. it was um there was a lot more discussion in terms of parameters in terms of what the code amendments could be um you know the FAR the public benefits different things like that. So there was uh some general consensus by the group at the time that planning commission or that the uh focus group should move forward, get it to a more concrete or to a more uh draft uh level and then present that to the plan commission at uh that time uh when when we thought it was ready. There was approximately about 12 meetings of that focus group um from that time May 29th until the ordinance started.

And pretty much what the um uh what the focus group was was an advisory committee created to advise planning staff and the consultant in terms of the parameters of what that amendment could be. So, I just wanted to share a little bit of, you know, how we got to today and I hope I can answer questions on that, but I'm hopeful that we didn't do as good of a job as we should have last time to inform you as to how we got to today. And um I'm not sure if that helps or not, but I at least wanted to be able to provide that information.

Um Marcy, thank you again for being here tonight. One thing we didn't talk about is you're involved in this conversation tonight and certainly we're going to leave. We have questions as we move through collaboration. We have you'd like to add that you thought was important here after being through that first thing. I wonder if it might be helpful for me to just um clarify a couple of things that I've seen in the comments preemptively. some things that um we've seen I've seen a number of questions asked about uh can everybody hear no without a microphone it's a little hard to hear Marc maybe can you hear me okay in the back no we can okay

actually this room does not have great so I guess is that better okay so um can I go ahead

yes Uh so there were there were some questions about um where did the 600 square f feet or ADUs come from? Why 600? Why not 800? And 600 is just what exists today. We're not making any change to that. Um there was also some question about what could be done to encourage things like ADUs and we have through these amendments proposed several things that I think really encourage them. One is requiring removing the requirement for parking. Right now to build an ADU, you have to provide two parking spaces for the primary dwelling and one parking space for the ADU. We've removed that third space. Now you can do an ADU with under the proposal. Anyway, you could you could build an ADU without any parking without having to provide additional onsite parking space. We've also um proposed to remove ADUs from design review. That's something that Canon Beach really needs to do because you're out of compliance with state law currently. And in one of the examples, um if you apply for a public benefit dwelling, you can do your ADU exempt from the floor area ratio. So, it's like getting a bonus of FB. That was something that somebody suggested might might encourage me to use. And then there were some questions about does the public benefit requirement force me I guess to be a landlord was one way I might describe that common question. And no, it's completely optional. You do not have to apply for this. It's just that it allows you to get some of the additional zoning gives that are in the proposal. And um a

public benefit dwelling can be something that you use for your own family. So there were also questions about does this make it impossible to have a multi-generational unit or a caretaker uh unit or no? This is actually very uh I think it's very good for that purpose because you could build an ADU. You could get the exemption from F. You could then have a unit that you could house the caretaker in and it would still be eligible for a public benefit. Well, the goal there is that it doesn't turn into a short-term rental. We are trying to grow more long-term rental and uh housing options. And there were common questions of does this affect a pre-existing house if I'm if I have more um than the allowed floor area ratio, can I rebuild? And yes, you can. Non-conforming rules allow you to rebuild what was there before. And I think it's good to mention that if you don't um this may not even affect you if you know what your lot area is in your dwelling area is and you were to calculate the floor area ratio. You likely will find that the floor area ratio reduction does not even affect you. And so it would be helpful maybe at some point during the presentation to show how everyone can figure out their floor area ratio. It's complicated. It's it's a um it's not a very complicated formula once you understand how it works. Um and is the proposal um I think it's might be the last thing I would say is we are encouraging more housing through these amendments, but we're not we're deliberately not trying to add more to

the short-term rental inventory. there's already a limit on the number of short-term rentals that can be licensed in the city. And so, um, there were some questions about the possibility that we're taking away short-term rental possibilities from homeowners in this area. And I want to make it clear that there's already separately a limit on short-term rentals. And I think that's all unless you have any clarifications that you'd like me to make. I don't have anybody. That's all. Thank you.

Okay. At this time, we will take uh your public testimony on this matter. If anyone would like to come forward, please uh raise your hand. I'll recognize you. Come forward and set your name and mail address. And then we'll have 30 minutes of Brandon, please come on. name is Randy Neil, PO Box 1092. Um, I tried to submit something on Monday. I don't know if it made it to the public record. So, I have a couple of handouts. One can go to you guys. One can get past around here. Um, the comment is our code audit was hijacked. It began as a valiant effort to improve our city's housing codes to align them with Oregon statutes to explore poss policy changes that support housing and livability goals and then amend the code to implement preferred concepts. Several Oregon cities are doing the same thing. A quick Google search uncovered what Yah is doing. A brief article, news article describes what they're doing and attached is basically how they're communicating that to uh the rest of the community. And this isn't done. This is just what they're doing in process. And I'll contrast that to the document drop approach our city leaders have chosen to follow. No community outreach, no buyin from residents, putting forth significant code changes without any public awareness, making the legal notice incomprehensible, creating policy changes that have no link to providing a wider range of housing options. Just a midnight letter drop under your medocks. The whole topic of fire reduction, public benefit dwelling, and be restrictions are put forth as necessary solutions to uh housing issues. They are not. These should be dropped. Another Google search of the term public benefit dwelling basically draws a blank except for the

can of beach references of course. However, Google searches regarding community housing trusts, land trusts will deliver dozens of examples of ideas of how to move forward. It's time to liberate ourselves from the hijackers. Let the consultants do the work that you were brought here to do and then execute that work using a process that works best. one with public input, community engagement, and logical solutions. Um, I encourage you to uh review the Yah's example of how best to communicate with the public.

Thank you. Is there someone who's able to We got time. All right. If anyone else would like to hear

Yeah. You're nice.

Um um Michelle Alg P Box 719. Uh back in October 2024, I came to you as a member and the only renter on the house and focus group. I spoke about the importance of third places aka an informal gathering space aka coffee shops, cafe cafes, hair salons, bookstores, and so on. I explained how important they are and most specifically to the helping professions that and how suburban planning has helped destroy local public life and the community support it once. I spoke to you about mixed use spaces being the meeting hardware community. I told you how I played board games with uh uh above the candy kitchen with the fourth generation family that owns the business below the meet and then meeting at uh coffee at El Creek or watching a movie with friends in one of the apartments above White. Not only are all these mentioned business and apartments full-time residents 365 days a year, they are this town's beautiful beating heart. You may not see this personally, but it's it's here. It's always here. Just beating. The heart creates community events. We are in schoolboards. We are our home caregivers. We are hair stylists. We are firefighters. We are volunteers. We show up over and over and over again. This is the definition of community. I told you I felt that downtown Man has shrunk and shrunk out of community fair. I reminded you things are not the same as they were 30 years ago, much less five years ago. Smaller footprints and higher density is what's needed to supply housing. I have a dim outlook seeing that almost every rental in constant danger by by allowing unlimited STRs making housing insecurity more than a threat than it's ever been. The focus growth was blocked in the beginning by not offering these meetings to the public. We had three-day workshop with extremely knowledgeable specialists where they created exercises to illustrate ways we could utilize different areas. For example, an empty lot downtown incorporating mixed use building in a variety of different capacities. They also showed us ideas

with gandering pathways and cottages around the RV park. It felt innovative and slightly hopeful. I thought there I thought we were in agreement with parking restrictions downtown being a piece of constraint. The there was even an incorporated slide with a quote from a counselor first saying, "It's like we're making space for cars and not for people." And I 100% agree. The idea here is to encourage people to do the right thing for our community, not just a playground for unoccupied 3,000 foot homes on 5,000t lots. I realize you are inundated with protests of the new far suggestion. This is not my hill to climb or die on. That's a rich man's name. I'd rather I'd like to hear you discuss the visiting downtown finger restriction restrictions and expanding the downtown amendment to include hemlock on March and first a third why just half of the block on half of the block. It's a good step we should believe in. You all know my name and my PO box and you're probably aware that I keep fighting for actual realistic housing solutions. Thank you for hearing me out.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to come forward at this time please? Hi, my name is Lai Ala PO Box 1038. I know some of you in this room, but some of you I don't. Uh, I have lived here for 35 years. I'm 37. Um, I am a small business owner. I am the person that she's talking about. Uh, I have an apartment. I own the Whiteboard Gallery. I own a hair salon. I've worked in the service industry in this community for over 20 years. I helped open the Warren House Pub like when I was 14. There were opportunities available for people my age and younger uh for housing that just doesn't exist anymore. My childhood of home was available for my parents who both now have thriving businesses in this community but cannot afford to live in this community. They live on 26. um they there was a house available for them to rent when they were young in their 20s that then when we couldn't afford to buy it because it was getting sold out from underneath us. I have friends and co-workers and everyone that when they were in their 20s, they now have um they now have businesses, families that they've put down roots in this community and they they only were able to do that and continue to be part of this community because they had housing opportunities when they were in their 20s and they were working in the service industry. Um, I I value so much being able to live right downtown in a mixeduse place. The parking lot behind my apartment has been empty for multiple years. Um, they originally wanted it to be mixed use, but it was said that it needed to have seven parking spots in order to be a restaurant on the bottom and then apartments above. Well, the parking lot is seven parking spaces, so there's nowhere for them to build. There's no there's no growth

opportunities. Um, you know, when we're talking about adding apartments above other places, I we're not talking about skyscrapers, right? I mean, my building is three stories. It's not extravagant. It's not going to detour from the quality of life in Canon Beach by having an extra story on the top of a downtown building to be able to make sure that your hairdresser, your barista, whoever it may be, has a place to live and has opportunities to vote in this community, get married in this community, uh thrive in this community. It's incredibly important. And um and I feel as though every year that I stay here, I know I'm never going to be able to buy a house in this community, even though I own a business here. I I work seven days a week. I donate my time to the American Legion. I host karaoke nights. I I donate my time all over the place. Um, I don't want to leave this town, but I feel like every year it gets closer and closer to me being pushed out of this community that I grew up in.

So, thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Jeffrey, does anyone else have please box 1382? Um, first of all, I have no animosity to anybody on this board, but I'm really disappointed by the process. The process stinks. It wasn't done properly. you fed our consultant to the lion last the last uh planning commission meeting. She didn't explain anything. Nobody Everybody was confused here. It's really sad that it went this far. But I want to tell you that my objections, my primary objections are the FAR. I think taking the FAR from 6 to 46 has there's no justification. It's not going to increase affordable housing. If you want to increase affordable housing, raise the FAR. Make the FAR go up for a triplex or a a forplex. Make it 75. Make it point8. If you want to have affordable housing, you want to have some density on certain lots. If people are not happy with having a forplex on their block or in their neighborhood, then make it so there's a distance between them. Maybe every other block you could build a forplex. But if you really want to increase affordable housing, allow multiple units per lot. That's the way it's going to happen. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else talk? Um, my name is Eric Pox 97. Um, I'm

speaking on behalf of myself as one of the members of the task force or group, however you want to describe it, that uh helped draft these ordinances. Um, and I just hear this proposal, but I just wanted to say I really encourage you guys, I'm super excited to hear lots of comments, a variety of comments coming in, variety of comments coming in online as well to really consider these and make some sort of progress towards change because this is as as Wall-Ally said and as as Michelle said, this is extremely important to do something. We need to make make some sort of strides towards figuring out affordable housing and making sub substantive change to our community to encourage that sort of construction. This is one prong among a whole bunch of different prongs in order to try to address this. This is not the standalone beone thing. We're not going to solve it with just a ordinance change. There's lots of other policy things that will need to take place and maybe outside the community. But I think just encourage take into consideration that's being said like like Michelle said the F reduction is not a pill to die on. It's just it is something that experts did recommend would make would make a some sort of dent in this but if that's not allowable to the community like have a real discussion among the planning commissioners and full full consideration from public about it. So thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like anybody online?

My mailing address is uh 1889 East 4675 South Salt Lake City, Utah. We will be full-time residents here next summer we're building right now. I think there's a lot of encouragement in all of the public comments because what it shows is you have a really engaged uh group of citizens who really care about this town and I think the biggest challenge is all of the coupling of things that shouldn't be coupled. Um, last month we talked about the FAR restrictions and the affordable housing issue and they don't seem to be connected. Um, I think we can try to make them connected. I just don't think that's the solution. And as I read through all of the public comments, people have a lot of really great ideas and it sounds like there were even really great ideas that came out of that group and they just didn't make their way into the proposed ordinances. I also someone who absolutely thinks that the planning commission should protect the charm of this town and I think there are lots of other ways to do that. But my biggest concern is that those three issues shouldn't be tried to be put together into one um solution especially if the real actual crisis issue and it sounds like it is is affordable housing. I think it's a crying shame that you have people that work in this town that can't live in this town. I think it's horrible that you have people that own businesses in this town that don't have a chance to actually buy and own a home in this town. And there are so many ways we can do that. I I don't even know this place very much. And just the little limited research I've done shows there is land here that could be incentivized for that very reason. And so I'm just pleading with you to pay attention to what citizens here are saying. And I consider myself a citizen because I'm we're a homeowner now and we cannot wait to be here. and I want to get involved and try to help in some of these challenges, but the coupling of things that shouldn't be coupled I think is just causing problems and it's avoiding

the actual solutions that people here need. And kudos just I appreciate what you said last time and you being here. I just we've got to solve this and the FAR restrictions feel like just a bait and switch to take care of another concern that has nothing to do with the portable test. Thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward?

Okay, we still no one on anyone online. Okay, but we will move to our deliberation now and discuss what we've heard in our last meeting, this meeting, and what we thinking ourselves. who would like well just from a broad guidance I think there's some things we've heard many times over seems far and apparently is the most competent something that you guys don't agree um but there's a number of other issues um that I've heard we should talk a little bit about what we've heard that we agree with um maybe address some of the larger themes and then begin to share our personal feeling on some of these things so we can begin to see where we are as in terms of how we agree. I know we're going to need some further discussion towards bones. How does that sound?

I'm confused. Do you want to start talking about what we're going to improve it before we start sharing our opinions on the overall structure of the thing? It seems a little bit backwards and I feel like you you really need to get all of us um commenting on how we feel about the effort before we start talking about commenting on how they're both the the drafts. Okay, good. Want to start there? Yeah. No, no agenda on the side. Great. I think we do need to address the maybe disconnect in terms of why F. Sure.

And maybe that hasn't been explained appropriately, but I I think it it might help people to understand that the city can't just hand out money. the city doesn't have the ability to go buy vacant land for instance. So part of what the consultant came up with was it was what can the city do without a pot of money and one option was this incentive structure. You know I think that's a very good point. There were a number of letters that came in that I I I read and I thought there must be some misunderstanding on on the bar issue or this would not be coming up in a way think. It just felt personal honestly

and so I think with an explanation on our part you suggested just a basic understanding of how as far as calculating a real simple one how far it's calculated and then we can talk a little bit about how we come to the connection between incentivizing and some of the other things we have to consider. So, could you give us just a quick little moment there?

Sure. I'd like to show a picture from So um floor area ratio is one way of controlling the total mass of a building and you currently allow 6 in on a 5,000 square foot lot uh in R1 or two and in and some other zones. Actually, the larger your lot, the more floor area ratio you get because it's proportional to the lot. And that may maybe something else that I've kind of heard in the comments is that people think it's a fixed number, but it actually goes up uh with the larger lot. And there are a lot of larger lots um even though there's a 5,000 square foot lot limit for new lots per the R1 and two zoning. um that zoning came into effect in the 70s and many of these neighborhoods were plotted long before that and the lots don't match the 5,000 some are smaller but many are larger. Um so that means that the larger your lot the larger your floor area ratio is but to do your own calculation to just look at this little diagram um you need to know what's the floor area of your house. So imagine those two uh slices of of a building are

A1 and A2. That's the floor area for a twole house. That's the habitable space as defined in your zoning code. So A1 and A2 would be a floor and a half, the first floor and the second floor.

Exactly. And then B here is site area. So you need to know what your site dimensions are. And it then um the square footage of B sorry the square footage of A1 and A2 or your your floor area is then divided by B your site area and and the proposal here was to take the 6 down to 46 and then give it back in the form of if you have a public dwelling uh dwelling you get it back um if you have a ADU, you actually are even exempt from it. You can add it without it counting toward your port value ratio. So a lot of cities are doing this because the 6 F while it's historic, it has not always yielded the best results. Um it's the H homes have gotten bigger and on bigger lots they're bigger bigger bigger homes which is one of the reasons why a fasttracked code amendment several years ago was to not allow the consolidation of lots if you remember that was because um the city was seeing a lot of applications for lots that have been consolidated and then maxing out the floor area ratio. So this proposal is just to bring it down to 46 for your by right. Um but if you do a public benefit dwelling you get a number of um you get some benefit for doing that and the table uh in the code amendments package explains these. Um, if I could just kind of run through this quickly in R1

example, floor area ratio at 46 would allow you to have um no public benefit dwelling um needed here. You you would have a 24 300t dwelling. If your lot were strictly 5,000 ft. If it's more, you get more. If you um do an ADU, it would be a 1,700 square foot dwelling and a 600 foot ADU. There's no bonus there. If you do a public benefit dwelling, you would get some additional room on your site, a 10ft front setback instead of 15. Uh some relief from the tree code. Anything in dormers would be exempt from the door area ratio. Um that's a modest increase. If you go to a single dwelling as a public benefit dwelling um and an ADU then you you can get up to 2900 square ft and with the ADU bonus it's almost close to what it is today 6. So what we're trying to do is encourage you to build some additional units instead of just one. And the benefits are even a little bit greater in our two because we also allow duplexes but it's essentially the same system and that's I think unless you have questions about how that works or

just a clarification. So you said that the larger the lot then the larger the F. But really the larger the square footage for the F stays the same.

The F is a proportion of your lot size. So, if you have a um 10,000 square foot lot, which there are, believe it or not, some some units that are between 5,000 and 10,000 square ft in our one and two, um you would get whatever the site area allows you to have 6 of that site area is what you could build. Yes, most basically no, but I I think what was said was that you get a larger F with the larger lot size, but the but really I think you were saying larger square footage

rather than a larger F. Thank you for clarific clarification to the floor area ratio calculation. As Marcy noted, it is based on volume and volume on tablet space which is greater than or greater than 6'8 in height. But we also take in consideration uh one blocks that are greater than 6'8. you take in consideration garages and carports that are enclosed on more than well they're enclosed three sides. So those are going to add to that edge of that BR calculation. So all that square footage, first floor, second floor, basement's over 6'8, um att 6 foot eight, garages, carports, and if there is a accessory dwelling that's that all goes under just talking about all the enclosed bonds of the structure and accessory structures as well. That's the point that is clear. It does the strength at the F the way this was proposed actually does increase density you know um the F reduction if you look at the way we operate today we get perhaps a 3,000 square foot house on a 5,000t property somebody will come in for conditional use on an ADU or uh we'll grant that and we have absolutely no restriction on it so how that's used so it can go the short-term rentals. What we were looking at is basically we're getting the big houses and we're getting the ADUs and we're getting absolutely no benefit in this city whatsoever. So, we were kind of sitting there going, okay, um, how do we kind of just adjust

time time it so that at least we get some AUs with that, some increase density. So, what we said is we're going to give you 46% 2,300 ft. We'll let you add 600 ft if you which gets you to that original moment to begin with. If you just get us a public benefits dwelling to make it something that a local can live in. Our concern wasn't so much affordable as housing security. We just wanted to create five 10 houses a year or units a year where people would go out and perhaps say, "Hey, you know, I got my 2,300t house. I can add 600. I get 3,000 square ft, which I already which I which I used to be able to get. I don't need that. I needed 2,300, but hey, I'll add 600. It can't be used for short-term rentals, but I can get long-term rent out of this. Now, it wasn't ever intended to be the solution. You know, we talked about it and I talked to a lot of people in the city. Money has to go into this. The only way this is going to work is if the city takes in a little bit of money. And there are a lot of proposals going on out there for example lease to locals which might actually when you put it together with the incentives we're trying to create the bar reduction might actually create a lot of housing and at least take away the housing security that was the point the issue of housing security that was the point of the fall reverse I still think it's a good idea in my personal opinion you might say that well stopping on a 3,000 square foot isn't so Well, maybe you should give them a little bit more just as a true incentive. And that's worth a discussion worth having. But I honestly feel that with the FAR reduction and the public benefits language we're offering and the fact that you have to create a ADU that somebody local can live in or a house is going to live in is a is a lot

better than where we are today. We are starting to create units slowly and you know there's other stuff going on out there. I know I've talked to people today are looking at housing trust um and trying to get charitable money to go in and create housing trust on vacant properties. There's a lot of stuff going on that fits into the framework um but none of it works without money. So what we try to do is just give a template. Okay, here's your starting point. public benefit. What we want is places where our citizens can live and that's business owners and people who work hourly wages and all that other stuff. That's what we want. And the counter thing to that is, and we've had multiple conversations on this, and we have different views among the different groups that met was we were trying to protect one of the things that we were told were very important to citizens, protecting this small village-like character. And so we could one of the suggestions we heard even here tonight and we've certainly talked about before is increase the bar at home. That wasn't what we heard people say they want. They did not want to have units stacked and even more parking issues and units stacked on top of much here.

Well, we always investigated, you know, the RV park has come up. We've talked about that. It come up again. I guarantee you that we'll upset someone with that conversation. But we are talking about it. We're talking about police. We're talking about a number of other things. This is one tool we have. Is it the solution? Absolutely not. The only solution. It is one part. It is part of the larger solution. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is it the solution that's going to end all this stuff or not? But in trying to balance the things that we've been told are important about the people who come before us, the people we've served, this is one kn in the direction

and it's it's how he's tied together. God forbid we actually do a little bit to retain their rich character. At the same time, we create housing for people who need housing security. That was that was my that's what I wanted out of it.

Also, I would say that very large homes are expensive, especially given the cost of using today. So, the more that large homes are built, the less families and people who work here that even have a hope of purchasing that property. So, if the goal is homes that someone who owns a business locally can afford, it's going to be a smaller unit, it's going to be a small home or a duplex. It's not going to be a 3,000 square foot home.

And then you add to that, you know, the the limited commercials going over here. I know, you know, when we started talking about this, people were saying, "Gosh darn it, you're moving too fast." And other people were going, "You're moving too slow." when we came down right with it. Yeah.

You know, that was what we heard. So, it's like, okay, so let's see if we can manage this over here on this piece of property that looks like there's space to build without going down and destroying hemlock, which happens to be one of the top 10, you know, village scenes in all of the country. So, let's let's see if we can create some mix commercial h uh housing over here and let's and and do it right and peacefully and if we can pull it off. Guess what? We got other we got other streets that we could do this. But, you know, again, I mean, you could go farther with that. We wanted it to be for people who work and live here. You could say we're only going to reserve 25% of those and everything else will go to, you know, smaller condominiums. You know, again, those are the levers that we were playing with and we didn't want to drift over into, hey, let's turn it loose and create a land rush over here because we had the parking issue and people were saying, don't mess with parking. It's already bad enough. So, we figured, well, if we're going to give up parking, we better get something out of it. And that was public manual housing. That was housing to be used by locals. That was the goal. Sorry,

one of the things I heard mentioned was somebody said, you know, I think it was one of the letters, you know, a half a million dollar house is just this unattainable running two house for someone who simply true. And that's probably pretty true. You know, it's really expensive real estate here. But if we have an opportunity to find to try to nudge the ability for people not to have we have people who come to us for the 2-hour commute beach each way every day just to come to work in Canada beach to serve us our food and our restaurant to mow our lawn to do all the things we need from people in this to to rescue us on the beach. We're asking them to go further and further away when

they don't they don't need money they just need a place. Are they going to buy that place? Realistically, probably not. A lot of them are actually afford. So, we're trying to find a way to balance the needs of the multiple people in this community. And it does cause some sacrifice on both sides. People that say they want a house, market forces have probably made up pretty. It's just a hard reality. But that doesn't mean that we can't make an effort to try to find housing support in our community as a part of a greater hurt on all of our part. And it's it's each of us. I've been told I'm a I'm only going to speak to myself because I'm mad about this testimony. I have a small house. I have no intention of tearing it down. Um I'm blessed to have a second home. Um I've been called a hypocrite. Maybe my mother not in my backyard. My FAR is well under the bar that I'm going to build tonight. It comes at a cost to me. I can't build a 3,000 foot house if I perhaps vote for tonight. There's a cost in that. And the cost to me personally, I'm sharing with you. It's a cost I'm willing to give in exchange for the privilege I have living in one of the best communities on a coast in the world for that matter. People say not not what is it can and can't.

Yeah. Cannot be can. There's a lot of different cam can go north, go south, and you can see what can Yeah. Um, you know, it's been called Canot Beach for as long as I can remember. And uh if that means that we are moving in the direction of a comprehension plant, keeping the village character, protecting our rare mom, pop main street, uh protecting nature, buffer zones, wetlands, trees, uh because we want to keep the village peeled, which is why we're all here, why we come here, and why uh chamber of commerce, I think, said we get now more than 10 million visitors a year for this place, is because it's unique and it's something worth protecting for us and generations to come. Uh what I would propose is that uh so first of all, I think I made it clear last week that I'm not a proponent of deed restricted uh tariffs. I think that they'd be hard to police and what's the punitive damage if somebody steers away from that in five years or 10 years or the next generation if they gain several hundred,000 by having net. that's larger than the 46 by building a d-restricted property. Is the penalty going to be the difference in financial gain that they had? Is it going to be $10,000? Is it going to be 25? And if it's something less than the financial gain, then it's really not punitive.

What I'd really like to see, Steve, is um I don't like restrictions. You know, if we can get the the city to kick in some money into this game to start building proof of concept that turns a deed restriction into a lean and just has to be satisfied before the house is sold. And you might require the whole bid. I mean, if you kick in money, if you give tax breaks, if you give up fee breaks, I mean, there's a lot of leverage you can play with, but if you start giving money, you might advertise over a period of years and say at the end of that time, do what you want, but it remains a lean until it's advertised off. That would be a better approach. We that's a policy issue. We didn't have money to play. So, there our solution.

Yeah. Um well we can talk about those too but I propose that we just use the carrot in that we increase the F for anything that's duplex triplex forplex uh the higher density housing and and for a single family dwelling reduce it to 46 uh if they or and for ADUs also increase it for ADUs. So if you want to build a single family house you're on the 46. If you want to build something with an ADU or duplex, attached duplex, triplex, something that creates a more affordable housing, then we raise that F to accommodate that.

All right.

The other thing is, I'm with you, Mike. The city needs to to put some money forth on this. And I was talking to a couple people on the budget committee that say that the city has some money that we could do something with as far as creating uh housing at the RV park or the other lands the city owns. uh because if we want to create a community and move in a direction to have affordable housing, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is our police officers, our first responders, fire department. uh you know besides the the other essential workers here uh those are the ones that you know are on the front lines of providing services for the uh guests to the city as well as the residents to the city and and we need to provide housing for those guys too. Oh yeah.

So how do you envision ensuring if you were to just say cross the board that friction allow an increased F for multiple units. How do you ensure those don't become second home affordable units?

I think that's the right concern. Don't restrict and yes it may not be enforceable but at least it's in place. So if we create a 501c3 or contribute to a 501c3 that has our interests in mind then we can and and their charter is a certain charter and then charter does not include STR that does not include second homes it includes affordable housing uh and we contribute to that then I I think there's a way we can do that without creating uh second we we as part of the city. So where does the city get at that? Because right now the city has

that much

the city has uh I've estimated 11 to 17 11 to 15 million in surplus right now and that's increasing from what I understand with talking to a couple members of the budget committee over the past four weeks. uh you know, but that's an investment. If if we just have that money in savings, it's not working for us to create the community that we want to live in, that we want to have that we want to have people live here and be able to afford to live here. Uh you know, we need to put our money where our mouth is. You know, we pay taxes so that we have a quality of life and share this quality of life with people who are are working here and raising families here. And I I really think that uh from what I heard city can intervene at some and there have been other suggestions uh that private donation uh either in kind or um a piece of property or cash uh can all be contributed to this fund and it doesn't need to be managed by the city. uh if the city wants to hire a manager, they can do it themselves or the 501c3 could be there.

So you would increase that radar. So individual land owner could come just say I'm going to build a duplex. They could choose to build the duplex without this 51c3. In that case, they could create second home units through this process that increases density of second homes without corresponding benefit without any benefit. I'm I'm really worried about the concept of creating an open process. I don't understand that.

I think that's that's complexity of this conversation. We all started a joint sessions talking about oh the city can just put some money in and do this or we talked about the B part. We realized there were some really large infrastructure issues. So I I do think there are opportunities that have been missed in the past couple of decades. You know when the best time to plan a tree is is 20 years ago the best time right now. So I think we need to do something. Yeah.

Uh move forward, discuss different ideas whether it's you know contributing to a 51c3 with the charter of creating uh affordable housing uh maybe something like that and the lean uh on properties that over a period of years may uh be satisfied. Um, but I definitely think that the 46 for a single family dwelling is something that I want to move toward something like that. And I'll tell you the one of the reasons why is because if you build a lot line to lot line home, you have no room to place that structure anywhere on that property other than pretty much right in the middle. If we have a 46, we have greater opportunity to protect our buffer zones, our wetlands, trees, and whatever other flora that we want to protect. Um, and it's not just cutting it down, putting it in 3/4 minus, and putting up the stick uh right in the middle. I've got a couple of neighbors that intended on building 46 or smaller. I think it was probably a point 4. Well, uh, they get started and, uh, the architect and the the, uh, the builder whispers in their ear, you know, we can build you a lot more square footage for about the same cost uh, by putting it all under one roof and just creating a rectangle on here and cutting everything out. And while their intentions were point4, they ended up with 6 because you know uh they could do it and for very little uh much more money but purchase that home is really much more than is uh greater than the sum I guess. So it costs more uh for that home, much more

than the point4 home. And and I think 46 also goes to more affordable. Not much. We're in Canon Beach after all. Uh this is a place where a lot of people want to come and live. So it's never going to be as affordable as maybe we'd like it to be, but we do want people in our community and we we should invest in that as a city. and uh move move in a direction that I know that uh anyone like talking about anybody else. [Music]

No, I I think that's about it.

Oh, I think I'd like to just clarify where that 46 came from. It's not just an arbitrary number. is based on 2,000T home average 2,000T home with a single car garage. That puts us right around 2,300 ft. Um whether 446 is the right number or not, that's just the bas. And second point again is that we have two opportunities to increase housing intensity. R1, we only have a single octave that's in 80. It's in the R2 zone where we are allowed to access. I ruined that sort of a little bit when that in the language right here I agree with Steve I like to see the AUS and say an R1 bump up a little bit. um if especially if we're going to reduce the size of that AR and in the R2 figure out have better incentives for duplexes so that people don't just come in the single family home good so to redevelop an R2 it's going to be a we're not going to gain it out unless it's a very small property or res or we can add a second and now create a dash So, so in that scenario would that be something like it's 46 for a single family let's say 6 for a duplex or I mean do you have varying FS depending on the structure? Yes, that's what I would I would suggest that we we just like we vary our based on zone, we can vary it within the zone itself and especially in trying especially saying okay rather than having a single box and actually promote smaller structures and the advantage I think on the detach is that again we can move them around on the lot and you know we have the ability

also to reduce the set pad back uh on some of those detach uh or ADUs u and so therefore place them strategically so that they protect more of what's valuable here. We're not going to protect everything because there are property rights and uh etc. But we can protect more. Yeah, it's a great question though. Yeah, that's why we can move around smaller structures rather than again having if I understand. And so when you're saying to incentivize the duplexes that would be with the public benefits

then however we got nobody for that if they're not or but just to where you know I you know using some of our housing fund to to pull off the the connections the service connection fee. So again, I think my my question would have been how do we keep it from becoming second home due crisis, which is why I'd love to see it within the public benefits process only and not an across the board annual change. No, I mean I I could agree with you. I I do have a little problem with the restrictions as well, but I think that's going to continue on

and certainly this is just a a recommendation to council, right? And hopefully this becomes refined in that process, right? Yeah, but I feel that's our our our duty to present something to them that's going to be fairly easy for them to agree. You know, we have we put our tree. We've we've seen this process before. We've done our treatments in February. It is now

one of the proposals um I mean in the proposal it does allow a deflex in R2 um with an ADU to reach up to 62. That was intentional. Yeah. Right. So that that's kind of aligned with the goal of increasing allowing and increase for additional. I'd like to see the FC increase for R1 also for an ADU. I think that without being an STR or second home people, but I think that 600 or 800, whatever that number might be,

it's actually not counted. for publicenefit, right? You already get a free ADU, so to speak, on top of with currently public benefit. Yes.

We had a discussion. Do we, you know, in in R1 where the only opportunity to increase that housing is with uh any do we take that R1 out of the public benefit? We're not we're not going to get short-term rentals. Our short-term rental was our cap and probably right now we have 193 42 15 day city council's deliberate on reducing those 165 um if they reduce 165 there no short-term reference issue until they reach that out there there are ways to come many and that just ended up with second homes that could

I think with increased standing and potential for but with a single family of Jun condominium in R1 zone is condominiums allowed in R1 zones I guess they changed the ability to come so we do have an issue that we have to I do agree maybe bumping up you know especially we cut this up Yeah.

I mean from like 600 to 800. Yeah, 800 would be reasonable especially with cut and there are if that's the direction that we go 4.46 is the number we agree on. Should we talk a little bit more about the question of public benefits deed restrictions and whether there is as you say some alteration to the current amendments that would make that more accountable to the community or perhaps you know for whatever that's challenging but it's written fairly straightforward

it is So I wonder we have we have three you know and that's whether we or not. Yeah. In addition very three very clear rules to contain or have a lot of benefit.

I know the only thing I may have is the rental period for 12 months because we do have a lot of season worker here that are only eight lifespan. So maybe 12 months is not the correct number that we want to car. I've lived in places decades now from month to month, three months, six month. So maybe what exactly do you think six months? Six month will allow them to have their statement award and then have the ability to write month from there after.

Right. if they want or you know that that way we can accommodate more of our workers I think is great again sort of forces but um for people that were trying to promote housing I don't think that works for them it doesn't mean you couldn't offer a longer lease is the best minimum I think as long as it's not so small that it it makes sense for someone to rent it for two months or a month just use it for a Sure. For the public sense that 6 months is to give you the public. Exactly.

So that's a proposal to um change the dwellings make only the rent for periods exceeding 12 months um to six months. Right. Marcy, I think we discussed this last time, but we want to be clear that rentals do count as useful residents, but I think that we discussed last time the language wasn't entirely clear constitute to clarify that the dwelling unit shall remain occupied by the owner or the renter.

Perfect. Sorry if I missed this, but is do we have a number of the the amount of 5,000 square foot lots that would potentially be affected by this? Are there 20? Are there 100 vacant lots that could potentially be affected by this? Are there seven? Has anyone quantified that? Well, I think we heard from a number of people that, you know, they might have a housing existing that, you know, maybe they had planned on demolishing, right? Adding them to their would

Well, yeah. I mean, that's every house to sell. But if you tear it down, you're going to be building to whatever stand they have set. So yeah, that's that's more that challenging process.

I think no matter how many 5,000 square foot lots we have, whatever's there, if it's a low number, it's really worth protecting. If it's a high number, it's protected anyway. I mean, I don't know what a high number or a low number is, just relatively speaking. But whatever number it is, uh, we're to the point where we probably have to do something to preserve what we have left to keep the the quaint village feel uh, in our neighborhoods. And um, again, what draws all of us here? When you say protect, well,

I mean I mean with a 46, there might be some room for nature in there. There's room for acquaintance. There's uh we don't we take away that space. You know, the space is kind of why we're here, right? So, we're protecting space,

right? We're protecting the space uh around the home because if we build the law, the loft line, then we're taking away that space that we enjoy that is room for nature. And the one thing that we're not prop about are design standards to maintain our tin. Um and that's one thing that you know we can mess with me know but we don't have a clear set of guidelines to design around or allow people to design around we're going [Music] to be a recommendation all of our designines going through make them learn objective then

and and increase know just increase the language that's needed you know right have very limited. Um, you know, we look at historically we look at, you know, Rainbow Station or places that have be that have very strict design guidelines that are inclusive, very clear and very descriptive and so especially in our community, you know, that's what we're talking about preserving the bar. That is one way that we're going to do that. There needs to be a recommendation because goes if we when we vote on this and if it's forwarded that needs to be a recommendation you can't stop here. I mean if you're going to open up mixed commercial um here on um spruce you don't have design guidelines to make sure you get something you like. So you better hurry and get those complex.

And that's why I want to keep it for 10. Yeah. Not any giveaway done or design review for ads for this career yet. We're not likely to do that, but don't think we should step away from class. Absolutely. Not until we have our guidelines in place.

I do know to Marcy's credit when we began the code audit process. One of the first conversations was around the design standards. And I know that Marcy is ready to do that. The city says so. We we've got wonderful examples of this town, not swine, but we have some very historic historical signs that we draw from to to do that. And I think we have to prioritize that just as much. You know, we have we're doing two things here at the same time. We're trying to preserve, but also trying to promote additional housing. Um, you know, it's it's going to get messy no matter what we do because we'll

make mistakes. But we shouldn't deal in the line. shouldn't go into this final routine and better understand it. I feel like we have a number of items that we haven't touched. themsel we're going to allow this or just to think about this or you know that's what we're trying to do in the community that I feel like the design standards are definitely its own piece that it's going to require coming back allowing Marcy to to really present an overall okay

process So, I don't I don't feel like we should try to take that off that. No, I I agree. It's something that we're going to have to do on a separate company, but it's something that we can't just put on the way side because if we're going doing this, we need to do that pretty much next and our process is going to change. It'll be a lot harder. You don't?

Yeah, we we haven't really talked about C. I really don't have any comments on C1. I think it's pretty fair and objective on what we want to do. It's such a limited area for the opportunity to do that. So I, you know, I really don't have too much, you know, good. I don't have any liberated on that section. We talk about um talk about parking kind you know somewhat the production of the parking anyone has a sort of going line.

Yeah it is you know it's something that again if you if you start messing with parking downtown you need start need to think about the knock on effects. So that kind of you know everything all at once. What's that movie? Um the um the show will be everything all the time, all at once or something like that. But we have a lot of issues. Parking is another one that needs to go there to um counseling because we need to start doing that now.

Well, the parking we're still talking about our own. It's not about city downtown, you know. So, but our our own R2 is our most our areas are are um actual south not downtown. Now, if we start putting ADUs uh in the residentials, then there already is a parking issues with the narrowness of the street and not parking on one side or the other. Sometimes not even parking on the street. So, you know, it I don't know if it makes sense to increase housing and not require increased parking requirements, but I think that uh there would be a benefit to not continuing to or changing it to not require that additional parking spot so that we can get some affordable housing. I think a lot of the people who work here, they wouldn't be able to walk and not even need a car. So really, it wouldn't be a moot point to have an additional parking spot because it wouldn't wouldn't be necessary for a lot of the folks that work in town.

Did you have a comment? You said there are other things we need to get out. Well, you know, it's I think I was more thinking about just our big picture time go over tonight and actually we got a good conversation. We're not going to but um so thinking about time what how we want to focus the rest of the show or maybe set a time 45 minutes 30 an hour and a half an hour with it we want to spend another half an hour do we want to put a time limit at all do we want to I don't know how much more there is

I think s already talked about I think I think really what happens is if they come back we we will have another hearing. There will be more com staff. There will be more questions. Yeah, let's get some input from the conversation time. Okay. We've got another meeting. Okay.

But I I like some of the comments tonight. I feel like we've moved forward in terms of where we are. One thing I heard a couple of times was some sort of a more ter but basically a a period of time between the time it was enacted uh the time move it forward kind of move it forward and the time it is actually a force. So someone who has plans are actually remodel demolish they have has a chance to finish those plans or start their project. I don't think that I'm sorry that's what I brought up last time is that I think we need some sort of we need to recommend morator of designing a home will not have time to either get it finished getting or maybe that's what's necessary to So all they have to adj they need a 30-day clock and they put it for their 60 days. Uh no I think it's considerate 3 to 6 months from my profession knowing how much you know at what stage would I be that this takes effect that I would be able to complete her ready set of plans they just have to be perfect hypothetical J um you know you notify the community of restrictions on trades and all of a sudden they're returning the neighborhood starts coming down um you notify people with restrictions on fire and also a lot of houses are going to be

spread. Um there's there's a negative impact there there may be but I still did that only provide people opportunity that are in the process complete that process because people are tens of thousands of dollars and unfortunately have to be designed based on something that they're not going to be able You realize that any day we said it's considered arbitrary, right? Somebody's going to say, "Well, why didn't you do six months in one day?"

Then we put it to city council that that representation. I could see something that from in between place where if you're really serious, you just step on the gas, you can get it done, but it doesn't create such a window that would say process now just that would be perfectly legit. No, they have good plans. Yeah, we got I think if someone really seriously should we leave in some amount of time say okay make a decision I would be trustful.

So this is to delay the time from adoption to in effect to 120 days instead of the it's just that that's a recommendation like we said in the end that's going to be a council decision. It was a council decision. Now, let me ask you this. If somebody wanted to start today, they finished that and their permit plans in 120 days. [Music] I mean, people in the process to be able to complete the process.

That just says, well, you got to be 30 days into the process in order for this to actually be in process rather than you can't start today. have 90 little

do we have three things now? There's an 80 year allowance from 600 to 800 in R1. um change the public benefit growing allowance from 12 months to six months and delay the time for the doctor to going into effect to 90 days

only if everyone rehearsal. Okay. Okay. RC is this is this like as I understand it these are modifications you would add to this to send it forward to city council

these are from from a procedural standpoint these are modifications we're considering and we're going to come back to and vote on at this point next month after further public comment after further public comment further deliberation we have a chance to think about Steve you have questions Yeah. Um the 800 strictly R1 or was the 800 ABU 800 square feet in any zone? Is it R1 or R2? ABU period is 800. I think that because you just specifically said R1.

I thought Jay was trying to sell for R1 and the fact there. This is this would increase the ADU square footage allowance from 670 to 80 in R1 and R2. I would be a little less comfortable with that just because in R2 they already have duplexes. The first time you got a duplex of 26 plus we can do that starts to see are we increasing the square footage. I think it makes sense to increase the duplex square footage in R1 for sure. RG buttons are only Oh, sorry. So, yes.

If they're not allowed in R1, that's not the consideration. Okay. So, so only in R1 we allowed 800 but R2 standard 600. That's what I'm thinking. Okay. But already because you could have a duplex anyway. If you add 800, it's worth it starts to increase it. Yeah, I agree. Now, let's further that conversation. Are we going to increase that or I thought it already was increased for public benefits? Yeah, I think it's up to I don't have the table.

There's 62. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Let me just pull that up again. Yeah. So, in R2, it's a for public benefit dwelling duplex is five and the uh AU is exempt. That was the proposal. So 253.

Yeah.

I have done it. You can square feet each. So they don't have to be the same size. out and then you get your 600 if we keep it at 600 square foot you additionally so your effective MB is about 62 what is 600 600 that's keeping it as proposed and not increasing it to 800 that's just the proposed one so if we went up another 200 f feet what would that be that would be 3300 square 6.

So, you know, that doesn't seem all that bad to me. To keep things simple, I'd rather keep it 800 in each of the zones. That way, we are actually giving some more incentive for these public benefits. And it's almost like a dry place anyway. for you that kind of effective.

So the question on the table is should we increase it from 600 to 800 for both R1 and R2? What do we going from 600 to 800? I realize we get more square footage, but what do we get in terms of the benefit to having it? It's one unit either way. Is it for a couple? I think it's an incentive to do to build it kind of because you can rent it for more 600 for a family. Yeah. too. But

yeah, I can see that for a couple you might get a couple and an 800. You probably won't get What if you want the other? What if you had the ability to take an 800 unit and split it and you had more? So instead of one, you get two points. Well, now you have two. That certainly increases the building cost because then you'd have to have two restrooms and two kitchens. It increases. Yeah. Is portion reasonable? It's a it's a small. Yeah. But you know there's there's municipalities where

but that I don't think that I think that works itself. Yeah. But you know we are planning so we can well you can always take that that last the public benefit drilling duplex with a public drilling well you and one of those units at 400 square f feet and the other 2500us 400 I mean you could have a wide variety of units and you could do it I think we should talk about and think about that's into that session Sure. That's correct discussion.

I'd like to hear more uh from Mike and others about uh the uh we or the deed restrictions and how that's

I haven't had a chance to research it. It only came up on, you know, everybody kind of understood that um restrictions were kind of difficult. We we all know we couldn't get to that point. What is our hook? Um so I just you know I I was actually after our last meeting and I thought well you know what about what's the tax mean and could we fashion something where if we contributed money we could take a look just impose a lean on it that needs to be satisfied before the house is sold. Uh it's not a restriction that doesn't tell the buyer how they have to use it. It just gives the city its money back so I could reuse it for the next opportunity. Um I I still I mean we have Melissa up here. I I don't know if we can create a leaning or city can do something like I just don't know but it's worth looking at.

Comes down to enforcement as well. We are city staff are stressed. Well, you know what happens with a lean is you just file it and somebody goes to sell. It's like, oh, there's a lean on that. You need to satisfy this amount of money. It's just, you know, we have a public a public officer or code enforcement officer answering calls from barking dogs to a neighborhood. He's stretched out for I don't I don't think it requires that. What What is the title switch to increase? It's a court restriction. It's a closing restriction. Yeah, the time search it up. There's nothing we need to do except five.

Does that preclude that property then that lean from becoming a second home? What it does is if you decide to convert any, you know, the question is, you know, then you've got a fund to continually update and create more houses. But that how they cure you after it changes hand is no longer there. But you have an opportunity to go create another one if there's you know efforts based on opportunity.

Yeah. And what we hope to do I mean when we looked at this it was like some people said you guys got to create 300 units. We need to do it now. That was the county. Some of us said 75. I think Steve said 10. We were lucky to create we'd be lucky to create 10 units a year. But if we created them it would be great. I

think the next time there's another people that I think the other thing we got to remember is we're talking about policy that council is going to set dollars and things like that. We need to stay focused on the zoning ordinance and what we can do. These other questions are great and they're good discussions, but they're not anything that's going in the zoning ordinance and they need to be comments to the council or to the public to bring to the council and spur the interest that way. So, it's just I'm not saying bad ideas, but we got to stay focused on what we can really do. But it should be a recommendation. Again, my my strongest recommendation after sitting through this and upsetting a lot of people

was we need money to make this work. It's It's not a lot. Maybe I don't know. I'm not even gonna throw a number out, but I I know there are a lot of grasswork groups people that are trying to figure out how we do some of this stuff and it's independent of this and none of it will get done without money. So, just I mean, so if we just say money, that opens the door to things like that. But I think Steve's point is really well taken. What we have the ability to do here are zoning changes. Do we think these zoning changes are appropriate? Do we think that they're effective? Should they be a recommendation or not? So, I think that it's Thank you, Steve, for reminding us. Yes, sir.

So, is there a practical limit to raising bar for for any of these various reasons beyond the 6 range? I mean, is there any consideration of going to 7 something even more? And what would the downside to that? Well, the downside would be you lose the community card

and you're going to have the neighbor to the point 7 going, "What do you guys think?" You're going to upset a lot of people that my concern has always been and I think it's probably because of what's been expressed that we're kind of we're coupling reduction in the bar which is kind of more tied to George's character in some ways, but it also is gives us something we can give back, get what we want. that that sounds disingenuous to me to to take something and then say, "Well, I'll give it back if you do something I that you I want you to do." Uh but if we could come up with a way to not feel like we were taking something away just to create that incentive and and one of the ways that I still don't quite understand is why we couldn't go to a a higher bar. Now, I I grant you if if it's one big square building, I'm gonna hate that. But but if you did that for a triplex that was cleverly designed, I don't think that's as bad as what you might think.

Well, that's the problem is that triplexes aren't in the RC.

Well, so duplex in an AP that what you're saying is okay, let's say we still stay with six and we increase the size of the APU. that's going to automatically choose to go through automatically reduce size because all together same thing with duplexes I mean I don't know about eight games with duplexes I'm still kind of sketchy on that but if we say okay if you wanted to there to smaller you know it's more flexible in this rotation on you know we're not taking away that's a good argument that you have the channel that we're trying to public [Music]

yeah I was just going to say you know the R3 is like our multifamily zone and you might you know right now that's at 6 you might be able to take a look at a district like that and potentially increase it if you chose to do so. So that's might be another option. But do we bring the hard to our discussion? And I'm not saying it, you know, we're going to still be talking and having conversations. This is what we focus on, but that could be something that we look at whether it's now down the line, you know, of considering that. Yeah, it's just unfortunate that the R3 is so there's not a lot of

comparison because of that. Maybe it's smaller and it's just kind of like what we talked about on Spruce. Maybe it's an opportunity to try it in a small area and see how it works. I looked at I tried to looked at several cities that had kind of pursued this this process and one of them I think it was I think it was Portland but um I noticed that they they didn't just limit it to like the R2 zone or in that case it was a R or something but you know they they tied it to a portion of that you know they didn't say you could go 6 and the whole the whole zone but you know they tied it to approxim proximity in their case to public transportation. That kind of made sense to me and we could conceivably consider something like that I would think.

I can't imagine how that could be done. How do you decide what portion of that area gets treated differently in the sort of spot zoning type of approach which I think has some legal but as a reminder started at.5 in this city and it was later increased to 6 but if we think about the history of when most develop there was an F of.5 and I remember that Jeff Adams had a really great figure showing changes over time but the vast majority of the city the F well below 0.5 so I also think that we could try to take a step back to the conversation and there's that sense of something being taken but if we actually look at what homes people are living in right now most of them are probably 46 cents.

Well, that's the medium. Oh, sorry. It's 22, right? 247. So, you know, I think we can also realize this isn't like suddenly you've lost a bedroom. Yeah. No, and I would certainly agree with you. It's just that it doesn't feel that way. The optics are different from the the way that it's packaged together. We But I think that's good information. And, you know, I went back and checked mine. I'm at a.3, you know, on my house, right? I'm well below. And it's But I I don't know that that's the way you we've sold this. And I don't think that's common. What do you mean?

How are people feeling? Who's breaking? I feel like it's been a productive conversation. They have a little more understanding of where we're at on this and So I focus on time. You guys feel like calling it call on this back up next? Yeah. Yeah. Before we hold that, are there any other recommendations besides those three? Is there something else to be talking?

I I'm sure there are discussed a lot, but I you know to bring them up now discussion. I think go pretty deep. So why don't we come back up again? Thank you everyone. If we're going to continue it continue it to date certain um I don't know that the next two plan commission maybe dates are September 25th and October 23rd. So those are the next two that are coming. So if the plan commission wants to continue the process I would recommend that and continue with those dates. I think we need to continue the momentum. I'd have to pick it up in Sultan.

I move I move to put it on the agenda oncember 25th. Second to be here. Um are you still in or not? my susp. We'll wing it with action.

Okay. So, I feel like I've got confessions on that. We will um continue this meeting to the September 25 should be. Thank you everyone for being here. Would you like us to prepare a one page description of these points as I understand them? Yeah, that'd be great foration. I would imagine we'd want a draft of the changes. Yeah, absolutely. You'd want the changes in the draft change document.

I don't know about that. I think how about sample the differences from propos like what you've done before with the boxes and yeah I think that would be how we looked at the initial ones and I'll start not that but a summary I think it could be done on a single page

that'd be great yeah and we'll get that in people can view it before we leave okay thank you again everybody appreciate your finger tonight. Why don't we just pick how do people feel about? Okay, next item tonight is a quasite hearing public hearing 25506 William Rasmmanson on behalf of applying for William Rasm on behalf of Max application for conditional use permit for placement of a new shoreline stabilization. The property is located at 395 m 400 map 410 BC in a residential event. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of CNB 17.100 oceanfront management overlay zone and 17.86 conditional use. Does anyone object to jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does any uh commission member believe he or she has conflict of interest or imperson contact or made a

sighting? I reached out at one time to Mrs. seagull to start a pin tape about a meeting in town that I thought might help with um that may qualify contest. I reached out to communicate about a meeting um surf where a number of organizations were coming to talk about the um the project down at on Creek with the um with Breakers Point. I thought that was an opportunity to meet with a number of people that were influential and coming together on a decision that I remember sitting on the planning commission and hearing both sides pretty mad at each other and now they were they've come to a good place and thought they might be an opportunity to meet some people there who would need help situation that I frankly had passion for tough spot and that's why I reached out ultimately uh let's See, there wasn't many and I never got any kind of video on that. They didn't

I did. You did. Good. So, I have that context. I don't know um that qualifies as any kind of concern for people. I wanted to bring it down. [Music] Listen to it now. I have no concerns. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Okay. Let's move it. Uh I move.

Yes. Um the applicant request conditional use of approval for the installation of a shoreline stabilization structure to address flooding and the potential for structural damage. Uh due to its location, the property is understood to be at risk of flooding due to storm surge and other extreme high tide events. And the application materials include imagery showing water on the northwestern portion of property. Application materials state the ocean bluff is eroding and that there is an immediate need for stabilization in order to prevent erosion that will result in damage to oral loss of the residents. The property is eligible for a shoreline stabilization structure as development existed on the subject property on January 1st, 1967 and photos of the air conditions of project area included in the staff report. uh previous application history um in a reverse chronological order is in 2021 condition use permit C2105 was approved for a nonstructural shoreline stabilization consisting of 50 cubic yards of cobble and sand and then conditional use permit CU number 2405 was reviewed by the planning commission and denied that was an application for a shoreline stabilization structure that decision ision was then appealed to city council through appeal application 251 which affirms that these city councils are referred the planning commission's decision moving into the applicable criteria for the oceanfront management oh waiting the applicable criteria um for the ocean front management zone the staff comment is that the underlying zone is residential moderate density R1 and shoreline stabilizations are a condition limited use in that zone. Conditional

approval of shoreline stabilizations are permitted on lots that consist of beach dunes or other for dunes that are conditionally stable and that are subject to wave over topping or ocean undercutting or in dune areas that are subject to ocean flooding. Robert, I'm going to have you pause for just a second. Can you see what happened to Commissioner Matusk? I have attempted to bring his phone in as a panelist a couple times and he has not responded. talking.

I'm here. It's the first time I saw it. Thanks. I've been here the whole time. Okay, great. Thank you.

As this is a structural improvement, it will be necessary for the applicant to obtain a shoreline operation permit from working parts and recreation department. required to start work. Application materials do not indicate if OPRD has been contacted regarding this proposal. However, shoreline alteration permit does require a local land use authorization proposal that can be issued as per conditional approval number one. The proposal conditionally meets this criteria. Moving into the conditional uses for shoreline stabilization, the subject property is within two FEMA inventory flood hazard areas. The BE coastal high brisk and AE high flood risk elevations range from approximately 15 feet above sea level on the west to approximately 24 ft on the east. The Sotera geotechnical report exhibit A3 states the bluff has eroded 4 to 5 ft during a 10-year period. The proposed shoreline stabilization will not generate any pedestrian or vehicular traffic or affect off streetet parking in its vicinity. Our storm water alpha is present on the northern portion of the Midway Street Rideway uh which is parking 30 ft wide. There are no identified impacts and the ability of the alpha to perform its function that would result from this project. The proposed reetment would measure approximately 24 ft wide and serve the property's western lot line. It will be approximately 14 ft tall with a slope of 1.5 high over one vertical I'm sorry 1.5 horizontal over one vertical with a portion of the structure located below beach level. The application does not propose to place any part of the structure called the subject property. application materials indicate the exposed pull-off base or is subject to erosion particularly during high tides and stronger events.

Um the two properties immediately to the south of the subject property are known to have shoreline stabilization structures consisting of rip wrap and supporting vegetation such as willing. The bluff on the property to the north of Midway Street rightway which is 3887 Ocean Avenue is largely covered in vegetation and is unknown or is present. The adjacent property north of that 3863 Ocean Avenue does not have a shoreline stabilization or significant presence of vegetation. A conditional use permit for a non-structural shoreline stabilization was approved on that property in 2022. moving into the shore stabilization cell. Um, due to the project's location on the border of the state vegetation line, the project will require coordination with Oregon parks and recreation department. Moving on, the applicant's proposal will replace and previously approved nonstructural stabilization authorized in January 22 that is no longer present due to erosion. Application materials detail why a nonstructural means of stabilization would be ineffective at the subject property given its location within flood hazard areas and exposure to high energy efficient waves. There are no publicly funded expenditures that would be required for this project. Um, no significant visual impacts have been identified. The application materials state that if the bluff becomes compromised by erosion, the residence will be adversely affected and may become structurally damaged. The property's location is exposed to high energy wave events and engineering studies commissioned by the applicant indicate that nonstructural stabilization will be insufficient to provide protection to the residents. And that concludes the staff report.

Okay. Any additional correspondence? All correspondence received for 2:00 p.m. today has been distributed. Okay,

we will now move to public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in comprehensive plan municipal code which the person testifying believes apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements are sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal bon issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may expect an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. The planning commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony or any evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name, mailing address and appearing in representative capacity identify name. Is there a presentation by the

There is. Yeah, Oh Well, Will Ratson. Thank you, Chair Newton. Was this is Miller Nash on behalf of the Maxine is Martin Seagull. My address is 1140 Southwest Washington Street 4974. The screen is a little smaller in this room. I might have to try to zoom. I will submit a packet also for folks that aren't able to follow along on their own screens if this gets too small to read some of these. Uh tonight, uh we're here uh with a similar application to what this commission heard last year for the benefit of the new commissioners. This is a 50 foot um wide ocean fronting lot down the south end of town on Ocean Avenue. Marty and Mimi bought this property decades ago, built their retirement home on it around 2026, and since then have been having the ocean come closer and closer and closer to their back door. We're going to you're going to hear from three of us today. I'm going to give a brief intro. You'll hear from Mimi Seagull, the owner of the property for brief secret from the owner, and Adam

Ree, one of the engineers on this project, geologic engineer. And then I'll close with a couple of the key criteria. Mistake. I was trying to follow one last but I'm not distracted with that because I can't see that very well. Sorry.

Let me shut that down. I'll just reorientation purposes. This is subject site from the ocean. Uh you'll see a couple things that make this site unique. It's very low the one of the lowest homes in Canon Beach by elevation. I think Robert sited 15 feet for part of the site. Uh the bluff is getting eroded closer and closer to the home as we're causing the bluff surface to get greater than vertical at point undercut. Uh which is here from our geological engineer clear sign of instability and active erosion. uh that bluff is getting overrun by waves during king tides during the last several years this has happened. These haven't been particularly intense king tides but nonetheless the waves are getting closer and closer to the seagull's home. This picture is taken kind of right across the western base of their home. So, it's looking to the north and you can see waves run up uh just west of their home here and in backing uh this is the north side of their home running past the western wall of their home just north of their home coming in literally of their house flowing along their foundation. Uh this is just a some shots of the neighborhood to show most of the seagull's neighbors are protected by rapment because of the extreme erosion down in this part of town. Uh to the north of them, eight of the 10 houses are protected by river and south of them. The first five median houses are protected by river and there's gap two and there's about five more. Just kind of a little gap. But unfortunately, it's also the lowest point in this area. This is a picture of the northern wall of the house. So there's a right of way, midway rightway immediately north of the propert. This is kind of a picture from a beach

access. And you can see a gentleman with a path by the house showing exactly how close these waves are starting to get. Again, last couple years, not really intense records, but nonetheless, the way to get close, you know, you can look at that maybe that man's distance maybe a little bit more, I don't know, 7 to 10 ft of having the ocean at their foundation, at their house, uh, risking structural damage as the extensive reports show. And it was alluded to that our package is 600 pages. I apologize for that. Um it's just what frankly I felt like the swing boats on this commission asked for last time was the expertise we brought plus a little bit more expertise. Um the new information that you have in the packet includes ecologic enhancement assessment from Daniel Collins. Uh the swing vote at this commission commissioner McCarthy said she thought she could have got there to vote in favor of this application which by the way went down three to four. It's a very close split boat. Um, very hard boat and I appreciate everybody ting all the way through it. The swing boat said she could have got there. She just could have heard from an expert who actually specialized in ecologic restoration projects who spends time planting willows, who spends time not just putting up river. I felt like our set of professionals just only wanted rip. Dan Collins for over 10 years has specialized in public and private clients doing vegetation based erosion control. mounted clients, King County, Washington, um largely estate and riverine climates. And uh you'll see in the packet at exhibit 810 or report from him explaining why those projects won't work on this subject site. Also, we got a postal engineer David Simpson over 40 years have happened with FEMA in private practice with public and private

clients. Uh some of the questions we got from this commission and from the council were related to uh it sediment transport and wave runup and how kind of like from whole beach standpoint what's going on here. Uh so we brought him in from that standpoint. We can read this report the A4 he had some great insights and then an updated geotechnical investigation design report from geotechnical engineer Troy Bull and Adam Reese at your career. Adam is with us tonight to kind of answer detailed geologic engineering questions about what's going on in the site including the report is a very robust alternal walk through cobble worms clay those all the other veterans uh before I get into the criteria though I want to pass it over to the owner meeting just for a brief statement on why we're here

well thanks for letting us breathe here before you Um, Mimi Sable, 9515 Southeast 15th Street in Belleville, Washington. And I wish like heck that I were giving you my local address because we're desperate to move down here, but we can't do that until our house is safe. And there's no secret that we're our age is advancing and our housing is declining and it's urgent that we be allowed to move to our retirement home. Um also as Adam will tell you another set of urgency is that our not only is our health our health eroding but our hillside is eroding and we're anxious to break that. Um we want to thank staff and the commission. You've always been polite with us and I really appreciate your diligence in reviewing 600 pages of application materials. our team of experts has really been superb. And I I thank our neighbors uh and local experts for supporting our request. And I also want to give a shout out to um the opponents who created and we shared their concern with. So we've been vacationing in Canada Beach for four decades. Our first home was on the Pacific and with with great um appreciation we were able to purchase on the ocean in 2006. That's our history with a community that we absolutely love. I'm hoping that in addition to the experts when you will hear tonight um

that you'll take a look at letters from your local building professionals because they care about the community as much as we do. And they have said without exception that these trusted craftsmen that nothing short of a vegetative prep solution is going to work in our house. And um the these are the experts who have built your homes and I hope that you'll trust some of their knowledge and their hands-on experience. Um I'll I'll let you go because I know you want to hear from the true expert. But I I do want to thank you again for your attention and for cons reconsidering how it was. Yeah. So, uh any of you have heard this uh before, but there's as Will said new information. you know, we hear each time uh concerns, you know, some misconceptions, some uh you know, problems and so what's Adam Reese with 411 Southeast Avenue representing the signals and I'm a certified engineering geologist. So uh so just you know going through you know I had heard components and even some of you and deliberations you know that uh the misconception that you know the seagull went into this or we as professional went into this process with a pre-prescribed solution here and we don't do that. Um I think you could try on early in our our report you know more

of an explanation that uh that we understanding what the the state rules are and processes here and how challenging I think can be. You know, we start with you know the least impactful non structural solutions evaluating each one of them and then identify what the solution that is the appropriate long-term effective solution for the location would be. I think we've gone way above and beyond with this particular study for pointed out at city council level. Wow, this is really much much more than what anybody would have ever ever done and that's true. Uh you we've looked at each of of the potential alternatives that um uh you know could be potentially implemented in this but but really is a unique exceptional area from an original standpoint and a flooding standpoint within beach the report details that very much how this isn't just any site you know along the beach here it's exceptional in terms of flooding and it's actively eroding uh place. Uh we looked at you know the the you know uh uh nonstructural solutions that have been implemented elsewhere and and here uh h parks have not really been implemented here but they've only been implemented a couple of places on the coast. uh and they're large scale projects when when a dynamic travel reitment isn't a you know single family resident individual uh project because as essentially the pilot of that project you know had been done 50 yards of cobble you know beach has gone this season um that tells you that that that wouldn't work in that location and even if it could it need 10 times the area to

do a a 10% slope um kind of cover that's just not a viable option in many ways they were born in this location. Um the the other one which actually was interesting like kind of unique to Canon Beach the the clay structures which you know you guys have heard of elsewhere because they have there only been a couple of them done and they're here. Um and and we go into detail about those that have failed here and those that uh seem to have worked uh say 20 years ago and why the conditions in those two locations where uh a vegetated burrito structure fighting with willows happened in one specifically is sheltered by uh hastack rock. That's the uh 1836 1860 Pacific Drive example that's brought forward as being so entirely different erosional conditions in in that location in that location. In addition, it's rock and things like that. So, it's a it's it's a very different erosion environment than there's the one at 3276 Pacific Avenue in North. Nobody seems to know too much about the construction of that or what's going on, but you walk out there and you look at that. It's a rocky. It's protected by Oh, here we go. You see? So, that's that that's, you know, the site that we're talking about if anybody can, you know, actually see that on the left. It's a rotten, you know, that that's that's what we're striving to basically install here uh is to get that kind of condition and you know that that that's a different erosional condition.

The best analog is uh you know 3188 you have that there where there's a claim of destruction that's not failed that has failed it's been reconstructed failing again. So this is something that's that's that's not working in a place with you know the similar bank conditions natural bank conditions that is and you know so ultimately you know we've gone pretty great expense to evaluate the alternatives here locally. um something like that. Some some shoreline protection is required for that. Basically to maintain, you know, you saw the photo where the flooding is coming up past the house nearby or down elevation is about a foot higher, you know. Um so so maintain the very limited bunk that they have stop erosion so that they're not dealing with flooding that that encroaches on foundation flies off the pines results in cellular u and ultimately that's what's needed there. Um, you know, just to to dial in probably qualifies under go 18. Um, there's there's an imminent need for shoreline protection here as is really well documented and this is the least, you know, this is the alternative the least reasonable shoreline protection alternatives for this location. Hope that covered everything that I intend to. Yeah, thanks. any any uh discreet questions Brown we can ask before I jump into the key criteria.

Well, there'll be an opportunity to ask some questions about your proposed um your design again for the for for the uh stabilization we're proposing. Absolutely. We will make time for that. Do you want to

No, I don't want to disrupt. I had some questions. Cone extent that you were talking about Cone that's something similar down at you know that that's somewhat natural on the RGB but it would look like that you know where it would be a wish condition that's really kind of brilliant there but it's more like what they you know what they've done in Cape Blood if you've ever seen the the that are the other examples at the southshore of the uh Columbia River.

Yeah. Acres and acres design. So you know that wouldn't the uh width of it also be restricted by the property line what also extend space to we need both the state of Oregon and maybe 20s to come along with putting cobble on the beach and frankly I think we came in here and said we're going to cover canon beach with cobble you have another contentious meeting here Great

circle back question and yeah we'll wrap up anybody but your questions at any point but at the end there's really two key issues and there's multiple criteria that feed into them but really two key issues. One, if there's a critical need and demand here for protective structure, and two, if uh lesser structures, higher priority, lesser mitigation measures and just high limitation could uh could work here. Before I get into those two things, I just want to clarify that applicable standard or burden of proof here. Some of the criteria say things like the lesser structures will not work. That kind of sounds like we have to prove beyond the reason that it won't work. Uh he's pausing judicial hearings. The evidentary standard throughout throughout is a prepoundonderance of the evidence and as these cases I kind of site here say that just basically means it's more probably true than not. So is it more probably true than not that a cobble burn won't work here? Not is it possible or inconceivable situation that it could work here? Um, so as we as I walk through these criteria and you see the words, keep in mind we just need to show it to our library that we can protect me and me and Martin's home. So regarding uh the need, as you heard from Adam and as you hopefully read in the multiple reports, uh there are several very unique vulnerabilities jeopardizing the seagull's home. Uh this is my punch list of things that are documented in the findings of terra David Simpson and mera. This is one of the lowest elevation homes in Canada beach. It has a very short undersized and eroding bluff that's getting close to their home. The bluff takes direct hits

from waves in the everywhere. The bluffs because of that bluff face has been steepened to near vertical points in vertic beyond vertical waves over top that little short bluff and run up to the home just west of the foundation of the home currently and now north of the foundation of the home with two sides we've got water coming up satellite swashing around uh it's in DEA's most severe coastal flooding zone you'll see it's on the south end of Can only in that area and within all of Canon Beach just one of maybe a handful of structures in that very most severe coastal blowing zone. Uh and new fact that we picked up in this application, the western bluff is actually elevated a little bit on the property. So that as it erodess to the east, that crest elevation is actually coming down a little bit. That might be one of the reasons why we're seeing more water get closer to the home as they get closer as as the right approach.

It's diverting the energy then from the higher portion of the bluff down to the lower.

Um I don't know about diverting energy. the ability for the bluff to absorb energy and basically flow the wave run up to the home is reducing and that's why we're seeing at this picture the water getting right up next to the hometown and ask Adam if necessary I can go ask our our coastal engineer Adam Simpson as well leading experts on the west coast so wave energy this is doi so it's not just if you for some reason don't really for some reason. The other experts in the record, Dogami has this map in the high hazard zone here. This um really shows some of the most critical risk. This is FEMA's flood um kind of flood hazard map. And it's it's hard to see at this scale, but in the in the materials in the record, you can see more clearly. Um the only propert the only property on the south end of the town that's bisected by this little triangular behind this guy right here home. The couple of properties just north of them are actually set back further and land further east. So they're not in that area and then the line cuts out to west before it hits their neighbor to the south. So it's really just the sequence. That line designates the wave the moderate wave action boundary line. That is where FEMA expects one and 1/2t waves current one and 1/2t waves to be hitting things. They do that size of wave and mark that because that is the height historically shown with severe structural property damage. But you don't want to happen to your house in this situation. You don't want your house sliding down a hill in a landslide zone. You don't want one and a half foot waves hitting your house. And that's what FEMA now says to expect at sequence home. Uh this is me pulling out some of what I think are the most precient uh

provisions from some of our engineering reports and our ecologic restoration expert report. Uh this is Certa Adam and his his um geologist partner Troy Golding with the continued retreat and reduced result in elevation with blunt base and the eastward movement of wave runup the risk of structural damage to the existing residents is significantly increased. I'm not going to read all of these uh just to save everybody what's second tonight. Uh but this is from uh coastal engineer David Simpson. The types of structural damage from coastal wave storms to which the seagull residence is vulnerable. This is today include direct force of flowing water, impact by wave carried debris, inundation by overland water, flowing water as specified in the definition of the be zone that's representing map we're just looking at and weakening of foundation foil strength. One of the things Dave really talks about in his report is that having water slashing around your foundation is awful. And you have several pictures of broken structures from where that happened where it wasn't, you know, the ocean picking up a log and smashed into the house, which is what I kind of thought of in this situation. It's water slashing around causing ground subsidance, foundation breaking, doors breaking, windows breaking, home destroyed. This is again the picture been just one of the pictures showing kind of how the waves have been running up the last couple of years property. Now I want to shift over to kind of that second key criteria. This is where we have an alternative analysis from Adam. He went by all those other structures in Canada Beach and where plate burritos have been tried, vegetative burritos and whatnot. The canon beach code though actually it doesn't say assess all alternatives and find the least impactful alternative. It says there's five priorities and

basically go in order try you know try option A if that doesn't work not try show option A doesn't work show option B doesn't work and keep going down until something will work the priorities for line stabilization control are from highest to low we are proposing option three vegetative councelor Hayes pointed out there's not really anything between the planting of vegetative vegetarian vegetation and vegetated reg basically or try all the things we've assessed that we don't that we're confident will not work but there's not really something with code right now I think yeah has a good point um and historical reference I guess for the new people uh it was alluded to that the signals tried things before in 2007 they first uh right when they finished their reconstruction of their They first tried sand uh with planting over the top. The records doesn't really show what it was. I assume we put each grass, but we don't know. That washed out in a year or a couple of years. Then again in uh 2022 they saw water getting close to their home. What can we do? City OPRD said well we can try we can try stand cobble. Hence that mini cobble thing. It's not really called B. to the point Commission was making but try to play cobble sand and plant it including with willow that washed out within a year following year they reput everything in tried again that wash out within sever so they've tried planting a repairing vegetation and it's not that 50 yards

and but they tried they scattered the plants destroyed and the ecologic habitat expert in the record column says that's to be expected at a high wave energy site. This is DLC's guide book. This is just a picture of DLC's guide book on erosion control practices. This is page 35 if you want to pull it up yourself where it talks about vegetative stabilization. You can kind of see the text below here. It's actually talking about using burrito bags and shoot and planting it not dissimilar from what we've looked at at some of the sites in Canada region. The fifth bullet point down says vegetated stabilization dot dot dot is only suited areas with mild to moderate erosion. DLCD says if you have high energy wave site like this, it's not going to work. Uh again, it's not just Ian Adam and the other experts, the state of Oregon. Uh this is Dan Collins, Nikotera, the arborist and ecological restoration expert. He concludes in his report which is in the record of 810, the extent of erosion threats caught by wave action at your bluff were confirmed. This is a high energy shoreline. This condition jeopardizes non-engineered techniques methods for restoring shoreline flow stability. To be frank, in my opinion, vegetative planting alone or as part of a burrito droigation measure would not work at your site. It actually goes on um he's the expert on plantings to note uh that uh vegetated reetment actually provides the best opportunity for vegetation to take to the site. Now if you basically if you put willows and other planting beach grass on cobble or on sand that's likely

to erode but the reetment makes enough spaces within the rocks you know and come in whip over the sand come over top the soil or the willows to actually have a chance to take root and then maybe come down flow more. So from a standpoint of what proposal actually gives vegetation the best take on this thing. It is a vegetative cert I won't read but certa similarly concludes nonstructural nature based alter won't work again because the high energy wave environment just makes it so they won't take they get destroyed and coastal engineer David Simpson even more forcefully points out that in his opinion soft solutions alternatives to rock will not work because this is a high energy shore Um this is just uh this is about a half mile but um somewhat similar condition. So you know when we talk about what work what can take and what a higher energy wave site looks like. This was just November last year was actually when we were in hearings for the application last year. um first uh King Tai's event of the year. Wasn't a particularly big one. It was a particularly crazy one, but this is just uh what it looks like when these waves come up. Hold on a second.

Okay, this is active right um last November just try to see you get a feeling for like wave energy. And we got all of those logs. They are all on the beach. They get picked up and smashed into the wall. Kind of like that. But some of those things are over a ton of piece. and plants, sand, bubble like you saw when we tried would just get thrown around, washed out and not and with that pause whatever questions question. Sure. So go another question.

It was finished. So that wraps applicants comments. If you have any questions that you want for any of us, that would be a good time. We're not going to go there. We'll ask later.

All right. Very comprehensive question. Very comprehensive. Okay. Um, are there presentations by proponents? No one here in the audience. Is there anyone online? Oh, I'm sorry. I wrote the letter back up a little bit. You're welcome to come up. So, name's Keith. I We have a house at 3 863 Ocean Avenue. We are second house to the north. It's again all bank along there. Other sides of this have rip wrap. And when you notice the rip wrap, it's all along there. It's all had an opportunity instead of overgrown on it. It doesn't look like doesn't belong there. So, I I would really support bring in some root wrap and getting some growings on it. I did we did put cobles and sand in planters twice the same years that singles did. And we have ours is slightly different. It's a scenario opening that was just trying to plug waves were coming up into our front yard. So we plugged that with Sandy Cos. We've lost all of it the first year. The second year we lost 50% of it and now I've got about a third left of it right now. Uh and what is exposed now is really the cobbles. So when the cobbles disappear this year high tides, it's going to be gone.

that it really doesn't work. Um, so that you have a redentment and then you have a small area that was open and you

Yeah. Yeah. It's the lowest part quite a lot. Uh, and it actually had just eroded through there. Um, the reason why I really want to get a plug too was there's a tree that we have one of the very few uh, spruce trees that's right along the coast along that stretch. and I really wanted it to save it. It probably would have gone um and the city was pretty decent when we got a building without saving that house. It wasn't part of my approval process, but the mayor really wanted to stay so I wanted to thank you. Thank you. Uh yes, sir. Please come forward. Sing date 1889 east or 4675 South in Salt Lake. We also own the property at 3216 Pacific Avenue uh here in Canton Beach and uh as my wife said earlier, we'll be here full-time in a few months. We've been through this process for the last four years trying to stabilize our shoreline property and uh our property was in a similar state as the seabs but not quite as advanced. We had a very rigid vertical shoreline that have been eroded several inches a year for the years that we own the property while we were trying to get permits to put up the the stabilization. Um the the notion of a a vegetative rip rock stabilization is is no small feat. It's a significant financial effort and it is also a really great opportunity to stabilize the

shoreline in a way that looks like it belongs in Canon Beach. And it does belong in Canon Beach. those rocks, the sand that goes over the top, the vegetation, if it's a chance to take hold inside those rocks, is exactly the look and feel that we all come here. And at the same time, you're protecting very valuable family properties. And so in our case, we lost all of the vegetation we planted in the first year that we planted it. We'll be back at that planting again as soon as the king tides are done this year and continue to build it up so that someday we can have something that actually is sort of stabilized and that's exactly what the seagulls are asking to do. It's the same plan that we follow and we feel like it's a great solution. It's not encroaching on any dunes. It's not doing anything else to pulls in sort of anything else you wouldn't want on the beach and we just it's a it's a long process but for those of us that care are signing up to do it and I just I know the seagulls to be some of those folks. So that's my testimony. Just a quick question for you. I I remember um you had earlier a few years ago I think that was it was it um European or American beach grass that we were plantings

I would have to ask and beach landscape I don't know um but I know that they harvested it from this area okay and brought it to our property to plant my recollection that beach grass. It was It was beach grass. I just don't know anything beyond that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Question. Sure. I was curious whereabouts relative to the sting property south. We are north and about well I don't know the exact distance but we're just north of the toana parking lot. Okay.

And they're south maybe half a mile four blocks. four block. So, we're in the same general. I was just curious. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to come forward? Anyone online? No. Okay. We will move to opponents. Are there presentations by opponents? Yes. Come on.

I honestly couldn't tell if please go ahead. No, go ahead. They're all

I'm Judy Martin, 6280 Gear Street West Lynn, associated with the property um at 555 North Laurel in Canada. That's pretty.

Um, I came tonight because, um, I wanted to find out how the conditions had changed from the last application and I've learned a lot. Um, I wondered has anyone used your home in the last you haven't directed last. We can maybe question please. Um, when I looked I I didn't have time. We found out about this on Tuesday and I didn't have time to go through all the material, but in looking at some of the pictures, it looked like there was a um in near their home on the north side, it looked like there was a shoot coming up like a beach access and it might be on the neighbor's property, might have theirs, and it might be an old picture. But anyway, um I was thinking that maybe some of that water has been coming off that chute, you know. And the other problem I see is that if the houses on the south side have rip wraps that can scour out the beach from in front of that and also send more powerful waves to neighbors that don't have that uh protection there. And so I have two ideas. Maybe you could have a whole section of Canon Beach where they have rip wrap reetments, you know, and there's no places to send more powerful waves to the neighbors and then their grandchildren just wouldn't have a beach, you know, in front of them. And those people would have chosen that, you know, and then the people who want to do burritos and stuff like that could live in another section

of city. And then my question to you is um seems like when I was reading no matter what kind of revenant you do, you have to have beach access. Is that true in your clothes for for the private? Oh, well, I'm just doing this for Okay. So, you can just block it off. Nobody can. You can. It's okay if nobody can get down on the beach from the stones.

Yeah, we're not really in a format. We're so large back and forth, but I think the answer I gave you is as much as I can give you in terms of on the beach, but I don't want to. Please don't stop. Oh, no. That's all. That's the ideas. I I was kind of um really wanting something uh more eological and more in line with her codes and more in line with what I thought was happening in the last application. But I think the seagulls need relief what I guess and whatever you decide and thank you for your work. I think you're right.

Okay. Um are there other proponents or people who are against You won't see me if I let me try this and see [Music] how one day in this. Take a moment. You can't see it, can you?

Oh my goodness. Okay. All right. So, if you could increase the size of your slide up on the screen, that would We can't see that really well though. Yeah, that's the best I can think.

All right. So, I'm Diana Turner, PO Box 211, Pan Beach, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Friends of the Dunes of Pan Beach. We celebrated our 11th anniversary this summer. We are thankful for each of you for your service, especially on nights like this when the package is huge and the week before brought such unpleasantness. First, I'd like to uh join Surf Rider and Orphan Shores Conservation Group in asking for a continuence. As I know you know, two engineering reports of the additional documents is a lot to get through. um while also preparing testimony in one short week. But the good news um is that after recently considering and unanimously denying this Stephanie in application and being affirmed by your city council and then denying this very similar first application and again being affirmed by your city council, you are well positioned to review and once again deny this application. I'd like to make clear that Friends of the Dunes believes that oceanfront homeowners should should be able to protect their real estate investments. Our codes and state codes, however, set a high bar for hard armor leans. And as Judy mentioned, that's because we lose the beach when you hard armor. There's no question about that. It is a fact. So you were all in the position of weighing the public speech and an individual property owner's need for protection and finding that balance. And that's why the state code and the state code is looking for the minimum.

Yes, they need some protection, but we want to protect the people's speech above an individual speaker for protection. Um uh so and in those times when our criteria uh is a little unclear, I ask that you think of the spirit of the criteria. So an example that was given by Mr. Rasen was that we go from vegetation to veget burrito to fall into a vegetative um stabilization. That's something you've already decided. It was affirmed by your planning comm or excuse me, the city council. It was stated in the findings. They did not choose to take that to Luba for a legal look because it's reasonable and it is accepted. I asked Paley Bond who wrote the dietary region control why she sensed vegetative stabilization why not just burritos and she said because we are innovating. If you are doing a true job of evaluating a site you're doing windwave studies you're doing modeling. you're starting with minimal, which she had done, minimal, believe me, and then you move up from there. And so there wasn't one thing or one name that she could put on this. And so it is a main category, and that's okay. I'd also mentioned that the at the greater they too are doing what in our code would fall under some sort of, you

know, naturebased soft uh solution. And there's not a name for it. A log jam with some plantings with some latching with some There's not a name for it because that's what true coastal engineering professionals who have experience in that do. They go to a site, they learn it, they study it, they design for it, and they're not going to point to other rebetments and say, "Oh, that didn't work there." because those are conditions are different and so it can't work here. That's too simplistic. That is not bringing your engineering mind to a task. Okay. Um so in this application the criteria has not been met still has not been met. At the city council meeting, Cameron Wallet Orca suggested the seagulls work with the community to reach an erosion pinch control design that follows the code and the community's need to preserve the beach for all of us. Mayor M second the suggestion. Mr. Rasmusen however said he would just bring the application back. Mrs. Seagull did reach out to Cameron and she did give Mr. Rasperson the name of three coastal engineering firms with deep knowledge of building oceanfront nature-based revetments. Instead, as you have before you, they found an old school coastal engineer with no experience in nature-based solutions and a lot of experience and putting down rip wrap and an arborist who works on banks, river banks, which of course is nothing like the high action wave environment that Mr. Raspersonson and Mr. Reef has spoken about at length. So, this team's new report presents a

lot of signs of the same scientific information. But in this report, they're leaning heavily onto the untrue assertion that this is an exceptionally little law and is experiencing exceptional flooding that puts their short-term rental in immediate jeopardy. A lot of their justifications are based on multiple unlikely scenarios all happening at the same time leading to extraordinary damage to their real estate investment. So let's talk about flooding. A lot of the discussion revolves around flooding and over dropping. A couple of things. Rip wrap does not solve flooding. It is an erosion control measure. It will also not stop over topping or tsunami hazards. Mr. Ree affirmed this both at your previous meetings and at the city council appeal hearing. I took a seminar on alternatives to both bulkheads put on by Washington state for their agency people and for planners continuing hours. The first thing we covered is that hard structures do not solve flooding and flooding is never an acceptable justification for hard armoring. They also explained that flooding cannot be solved on a single lot basis. That's why river levies run for miles. Their engineers suggest a French drain buried in the rip wrap. Rip wrap cannot be improved in order to house a draining system. And if a French drain is installed, that will bring extra concentrated water onto the public's beach, causing additional erosion on that beach. Rip, once again, is just for erosion control. That's it.

They also spot the danger of the Hazard zone rating. All or almost all of the ocean fronts have that rating. It's not an automatic bone for hard armory liqueification. Same thing. Most if not all have it. Low lying. The seagulls knew that they built their house on a low lot. Mike Morgan at the city council appeal hearing stated that the house is built raised to allow water to travel under it in the extent of extreme water inundation. Raising a house is considered the highest degree of water protection that is available. That's what you do when you've tried everything else. a seaw wall, a bull gator. Okay, coastal flooding. Um, let's see, I lost my place. Okay, let's also remember that this low line has been experiencing the average rate of erosion as the rest of the county for the last decade with only the most minimal measures of having some vegetation. We have no idea what it is. You've been given no information on that. So some vegetation. Now we heard tonight that it it disappeared after one year. Where is any documentation on any of this? Then that would mean that for 14 years they left their slope with just sand. So one can assume that the erosion was not very severe if they were comfortable leaving it for 14 years with nothing on it. This again shows that the erosion at this site has not been severe. Okay. Then you heard about the cobble that was put down on the beach and you guys

approved that in 2022 and at that time Mike Morgan was their uh representative and he said we're going to put down a minimum amount of cobble on the toe of the slope to give it a little bit of a protection and it did. It gave it a little bit of a protection. And there are people on the coast who every year put down some cobble because that's all they need and it works. So what if the next year you have to buy some more and gather it up and put it back? We all have maintenance of our property. We all have yearly maintenance, weekly maintenance. This does not prove that the measure did not work. And they say that in their report he says that the erosion rate was only the average but that was because there were other other systems in place. Well that that means the systems were those systems were like what one year of plantings and then some cobble only 50 cubic yards didn't even require an OPRD permit as a structure because it's not a structure. It's not it's not considered an erosion control structure. They only got a drive off permit. They also has made these claims again as they did at the city council hearing with you guys that they somehow collaborated with OPRD and OPRD designed this and and suggested these things. At the city council uh appeal hearing, there was a letter from Tyler Blanche, the permit coordinator. He did do a site visit. They did discuss the site and different uh characteristics of it. They did not tell them what they needed to put down. They said, "You want to put some cobble down?" Sure. Here's your drive on verdict. It's as simple as that.

So, you know, could this change? Could the ocean shore become suddenly really dangerous, even more dangerous than it inherently is? Yes. But our code requires that there's a critical need today right now and currently there is none. There has it has not been demonstrated to you. So now I would like to share some slides. So as I said the main goal of goal 18 is to limit hard armor in order to protect and preserve our beaches. And as Nick Reed with the DCLD explained, the priority is to the beach above an individual property owner structure. Owning on the ocean front is inherently physically and financially risky. I spoke to a professor who works in this area and he said he's often asked if a specific site or house would be a good a good bet. And he's he says it's like I tell people go stand at the edge of your glove with all your money and throw it over the edge. And if it's worth it to you, if that you if that experience is worth it, then it's worth it. If it's not, it's not because the ocean will always move west. That's what it has to do. It's a living breathing piece of this earth and that's what it does. We can't engineer our way out of it. And I got to also tell you that I'm always asked when I talk about this kind of work. People will say, "Oh, I'm two blocks off the ocean. When will I be ocean front? You know, will my kids?" It's understood at the ocean.

This isn't some uh surprise. So uh Mr. Ree claimed that this process did not begin with a solution in mind. His uh report from the last application states otherwise in it says the owner is concerned with near-term impacts to the residential structure and wishes to construct a reventment. So that's a statement he made in his last report and you know it's still it's still true today. This is what he does. He knows best and it's what his client wants. So again, I would just say an earnest consideration of less harmful erosion control measures would include studies, modeling, consultation with experts, burst and soft structure erosion control solutions. Chris works on river banks in Washington. So project need and this is from this report. It says based on the observed conditions, erosion potential, high energy and impacts of flooding of the on the existing structure, there is a reasonable need for the implementation of a robust shoreline protected structure at the subject. Reasonable need is not what our criteria demands. Critical critical. So minor scouring at the toad that's only planted with European beach grass is not uh is not proving that there there's some uh amazing erosion happening that requires shrap.

So um the vegetative burritos that are in our town are also in highway impact areas. So the impact of flooding is that the picture of some water pulled at the top of the beach access stairs. What is the impact that there's water that got on Midway Street? Um the structure has not been impacted or there's been no evidence of it. So this is uh from their report and it is a picture of the property line and the area um between the two lots is that public access. It's quite large. You can see that the seagulls have a very small sign that so to discuss the notes to this map. So north is the unimproved Midway Street. You can see the seagulls, you know, how they look at that. So, this was taken yesterday and it's the stairs that run right next to their property um right next to their slope, just uh north of their slope. And I think really this is their problem. They got a lot of water coming up these stairs. So, maybe that's something that they can address with the city. So, this is the only evidence you've been presented with with water on the property. We see it pooling at the top of the stairs and then it curves around a little bit in front of the hedge and the hedge has overgrown into the um I don't know when this picture is taken. You notice there is no date on this um but you can see still unaffected lawn and there is no water running horizontal to the bluff. There is no proof of over topping or splash.

There's only proof that water came up those stairs. Okay. And you know, I wonder they've been in the house for 20 years. why there aren't multiple pictures if this is a truly um worrying common occurrence that has them worried about their foundational soil and their structure. Last winter we had a storm that took a woman off of her feet, bashed her into the shore and against the seaw wall at G Street. I'm sure you saw on the news or Facebook. Where's pictures from last winter? So, this is a um taken from the this is taken yesterday from the top of the stairs looking east to the city's utility station. The hedge material um has now grown into the beach access. And can you guys see this? right here is a fence that runs along the property line between the city station and the property to the south. And if you draw that, and I know this is imperfect and we really need a survey, but you can see that again the seagulls don't have much of a of a sideyard. And then this is the reverse angle from the fence on the utility yard. And again, this just gives you an idea kind of curls to the to the left, but pretend it goes straight and it comes here. It gives you an idea again of where the property line seagulls um seagull site is. So, we're back to the picture of Rooster Seagull's I don't um standing in his yard. I don't even know if that's his

yard. That could be the beach access. We don't really know. Um the photo was taken from Midway and it's the only evidence of debris coming onto the property if it is indeed coming onto the property. Um again you will notice there is a lot of lawn, there is a walkway, there is a deck, there are two decks that are unaffected. No debris has reached it. We also aren't provided with a picture of debris running horizontal to the block. It seems as though if this were a common occurrence, we would see evidence of this happening in all areas that of the property that are affected by the ocean front. We don't. So again, I don't know that that you have been uh pro has been proven to you that there is wave overpping and debris coming after us. So, this is a photo taken yesterday from the top of the stairs looking south. And you notice how full and tall the fronting hedge and the upper willows are. If these, again, we have a rough winter. If they were being beaten up by talking, they would not look like this. They would not look this full. So this is um a graphic that professor Peter Rogerio presented at the shoring management education presentation that we had on July 15 and he took the information from Meredith Leon's uh PhD dissertation and pulled information specific to Canon Beach and what this represents the S is for safety hours the times when it will be safe to be on the beach. C is collision. That's when you expect, you know, collision hours from the beach.

And O is over topping. And he's looking at 2020 to 2030, 2050s to 60 and 90 to 2100. And then you see on the far right the graph that shows you by color um how severe uh the impass will be. So if we look at O, it's white. There is no over topping now or I should say if there is any, it's very minimal. And this is all this is for all canon beach. You're looking at a white line for this decade and 50 to 60 and 90 on. So again they have not proven that there is overt topping and flooding happening in a meaningful way and even if they had rip wrap would not solve it. This is undisputed. So um you saw earlier they showed you a picture of the property looking pretty beat up in April. This picture is from November 24, 2024. And you can see that the European beach grass has rebounded since their April pictures and that it stood up to the king tides. And you know, common sense, common sense tells us that vegetation can can flourish here if it's used in a vegetative burial or some other structure. So this picture was taken yesterday morning of their house. You will see that the vegetation has grown much much higher. Let me go back. So that was November, not even a year ago and this is now. Notice that poker

willows are only at the top of their slope. For whatever reason, they have chosen to just plant hookers at the top. Um, it should be brought, you can see their neighbor to the south here over here. Um, it should be brought to the bottom of the slope like the neighbor to the south. And, um, you'll notice though that they've got plants growing in front on the flat beach even. So this isn't an area that is has such high wave action that vegetation or vegetation works. So this is a closeup of the seagull's property line to the north. And you see that the seagulls beach grass right here to the left. And then you see a transition into their neighbors hooker willows which are doing very well. Comes all the way down to the slope to the flat beach. And there are plants in front of it. And then this is the same neighbor to the north. And so just a longer view giving you the full, you know, length of their uh structure. And you'll see that the Harvey Hooker willows are providing erosion control. And what's interesting about this property, and this was discussed, I can't remember if it was with you guys or at city council, is that this if you just draw a line down the center of the house, well, you can see it. You can see so on the right on the ground, you see big boulders. For whatever reason, the owner didn't know why. Half of this doesn't have rip wrap and half dusk. So, um, but you can see that the base is

almost exactly the same. The hook envelopes are holding their own.

So, you know, could you go back to that and just run through that one more time? Um, so you can see right here, this is kind of where the rock starts. Very what? What? What are we looking at?

Okay, so this is the neighbor to the south of the seagulls. And I I had showed you previously, you can see where the seagulls have hooker willow on top and then European beach grass. And the European beach grass isn't holding out as well, right? So that's this one. Yeah, I can't really see that slide. You may have seen it on your screen, but it doesn't read at all. Oh, I'm sorry. So, um, and again, I'll present I'll give this to you guys on paper when, um, during the continuous period. So, I was trying to show that you have the European beach grass on the left and you have the hookers on the right. and the hookers are doing better and they they consistently do better than European beach grass. It's the plant material that works in Canada beach. So, this is just a long view of the neighbor's property to the north and um you know, you see that there are logs that are running up to it, but you also see that there's ground material everywhere here. So this idea that the wave action is so fierce that vegetation will not work is not supported. And then this is the one um sort of neighbor to the south where their slope has one one half hooker willows on second half rip wrap. But you can tell the hooker willows are doing a good job. When when you looked at long view, there's not a huge indentation where it's just hookers. There's not huge cutout, you know, from some sort of erosion that's happening there.

You'll also notice that the rrap is coming forward because though it's presented to you as a permanent solution, permanent long-term solution, it's not. Its strongest day is day one and then it goes down from there. So, the rip wrap also requires maintenance. You heard Mr. May speak to that. So this is the belleaguered burrito. Um and the property uh next to it is actually the days. This picture was taken November 23rd, so just a few months ago. And on the left you see that next to 3188, this structure is a roof wrap structure. And again, you see that these huge boulders have moved their way over. Um, the other thing to remember is that this slope, as you can see, is not designed well. If you look at the today's property built, the representative form, the slope is different. So, um, as the OPRD representative, uh, discussed with you guys in July, what was that, 24, 23, um, this, this revenue has not received uh, great maintenance. And you see that in the picture in the guide book where all the plants are dead and it just been planted. Um and then at this time of year it was uh the plants were kind of too late to really establish. So um it was struggling. These people want regret. They asked for it from the state multiple times. So um so one wonders if they're just trying to

help along that process by having a family structure. I can't say for sure. Did you want to say something? I'll handle that was inappropriate. So, next we're having a dialogue about appropriate or not. I don't.

So, next to their house, you will see today's property and you'll see that as we move forward as well. So, this picture was taken yesterday and um Nathan's has a curb. They've gone ahead and uh replanted done some replanting uh added sand to the blanket. Um but once again they've elected to plant the European beach grass rather than hooker willows which is the plant material most successful in holding bluffs. It also discourages people from clining on bluffs. And so if they were going to host the first, they would be able to remove that mess possibly because people don't want to, you know, climb on as they hurt. So uh this is another angle of 38 3118 taken yesterday. Once again, there's no watering apparatus happening here. So fingers pro crossed for this guy. Um, so the 3188 looking south now, you'll notice that their southern neighbor, um, who has, I believe, a 2-year-old remnant, has also had to do extensive maintenance. And in fact, they've installed a wall. So, you will also notice that their property is fronted with cobble. So while during in throughout this report we were told that Congo is ineffective. It was ineffective for the seagulls. It is uh dangerous and yet of this reant designed by Mr. Ree we see a lot of power. So makes you wonder.

Okay. So 1858 to 1868 Pacific. This is taken August 2024. So 24 year old successful burritos. No record of repair or maintenance with the city o or opd. It's referenced in the erosion control guide as a success. Now, the applicant says it doesn't uh count because uh there actually wasn't a need for erosion control here. I'm sorry, what was that address? Who said that? Me, Commissioner.

Sorry. So, um this is 1858 and 1860. What's Pacific?

Yeah. And um if you were on Pacific, it's there's like a little alley and then and and then you see the back of the houses, so it's a little bit harder to find. Um he also says, "Well, the beach is is wider here." Well, one of the reasons we should wonder if the beach is narrower and losing sand and to north and south is because that is where the preponderance of rip wrap is. Rip wrap mirrors beaches. Rip wrap stops bluffs from being able to provide sand to the beach, which is their job. So if you want to keep the beach the same width, you have to allow for erosion. It also brings crossshore transport. So it takes sand and it pulls it deep into the ocean where it has a harder time getting back on the beach and may never return to the beach. And it's also affecting the ocean and the ecosystem that lives there. So here are real repercussions. Our criteria says that there can't be damaging repercussions. There are not. So this is at 3276 Pacific. Nick's 22 years old. This picture was taken August of 24. This is the one that Mr. says is um not representative of a clay burrito or vegetated burrito because of the preponderance of cobble. OPD's permit says it is. It says that it was a clay geotech burrito. The fact that 22 years later there's not excuse me 21 years later there's not clay does not mean that that was not a clay burrito. It means it was a successful clay burrito. The hover willows were able to establish and then the roots

extended into the rock and their holdings explode. Again, we're told this doesn't isn't applicable because there's cobble and cobble doesn't. So, on the one hand, cobble can't be effective. But on the other hand, this is effective because it's called the beginning. We talked I talked about um it's not that there can be no protection. There just has to be the right amount. So I can't say because I'm not an engineer, but possibly this is the right amount for the seagulls. I don't know. It has never been seriously tested or looked at. So and this would be less than the huge rip wrap rocks that they're proposing. So again, it's finding what will provide some protection with the least amount of destructions to the public speech. So, Yakell has not proven the impact of this fortified trap structure will not negatively impact the public's ability directly on the beach or will not harm ocean ecosystems as required by 17.86210 section E1B. So uh not proven the rivercraft will not pose long-term and reoccurring costs to the public is required on CBNC 178230 when the beach is drowning due to the scouring in front of the rip wrap redment and when those beach access stairs don't have sand under them and need to be rebuilt because of the scour scouring from a rip redment there will

be a cost to the community. Coastal engineer Jessica Cotay at the education session said that beach nourishment costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's what we'll be left with having to pay for sand to come onto our beach. This is something that's done regularly on the east coast. Hasn't happened here, Oregon. It has happened in Washington. Because of this, because there will definitely be costs, this application needs to be known. Erosion occurred while concurrent mitigation was conducted and therefore the erosion rate of an unmitigated shore at this location would have been inherently greater than the observed erosion rate. This is from this current report. So if the concurrent mitigation measures in place reduce erosion rates, then they were effective. Period. He's saying they worked. It wasn't as bad as it would be if nothing. So if one year of vegetative something, you have no idea what they did. um and a little bit of alabaster erosion then these are the techniques that should be more robustly used. That's what our hope requires a real engineered by an experiencer practitioner of soft structure solution that is maintained and monitored. You questions.

Questions? Okay. Are there others that anybody online? [Music] Okay, Kia, please go ahead. Thanks. Um, I did send over I have a slideshow with just a few videos. Um, I sent it to the planning email address. I figured it would be easier to share screen that way. Um, but I can do it on my end if that's preferable.

On your end, if you sent it after 5:00, which you apparently did, it did not enter the record. We close the office at 5. we close our email at five, so you will have to share it on your end. Okay. And if we may have your your full name and um mailing address, that would be great before you get started.

Yeah. My name is Kai Hazard. My address is 80198 Highway 202 Seaside 97138. Okay. Um I won't be able to go slideshow mode. Hope that's okay. But we go on. Um so first of all, thank you for this opportunity um to speak tonight and for I'm sure what amounts to many hours already given to this case. Um, as I said, my name is Kaia Hazard. I'm speaking on behalf of the Surf Rider Foundation, um, our North Coast chapter and our members here in Cana Beach. Surf Rider has submitted joint comments with Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, and I hope you all had a chance to review those this afternoon among the many other materials that I'm sure you had. So, I won't rehash those, but I do have a few things that I think are important to highlight. So ultimately I would like to ask the planning commission to once again correctly apply your city code and deny this application for rip wrap or at the very least grant a continuence so that the seagulls are provided with enough time to contact an engineer who specializes in natural designs and to meaningfully investigate alternative options. So, first I want to address the misconceptions and misrepresentations of rip wrap that I've heard from Mr. Rasmusen and those who have testified in support. While rip wrap will protect the property for a period of time, not without its maintenance. And while it

may look natural to some people, I keep hearing this phrase thrown around that it looks like it belongs, but that is really missing the point. It's not about the appearance of the rip wrap. It's about the impact that rip wrap has on the beach. Rip wrap reflects wave energy back onto the beach leading to greater erosion of the beach in front of the structure. And that's the issue that is being opposed here, not the appearance of the rip wrap itself. As far as the additional exhibits that they've included, um, it leaves a lot to be desired. Dan Collins may have experience in the Puet Sound, but that's a far cry from the highwave energy environment of the open coast. And alarmingly, the new retired engineer that they hired um spent over 20 years at a company that proudly advertises their services on their website as quote, "Typical projects include the design of revetments, breakwaters, seaw walls, jetties, and groins." So, this does not seem like someone with an expertise in natural solutions, nor someone willing to look outside of the typical status quo of shoreline armoring. Therefore, despite the inclusion of this new report, the application remains largely unchanged, again, without meaningful analysis of alternatives, and therefore it should again be denied. Um, I think it's also important to point out here, as did Diana, that their next door neighbors to the south have rip wrap on only half of their property. Um, the other half, which abuts the seagull property, is planted um with hooker willows and it seems to be holding up just fine. The important point here

being that this half of their property, the northern half of their property is classified in an identical highwave energy high flood risk area as the seagulls according to the maps that we see in the application that we've again seen tonight. So this seems to be proof that a similar design would work on the seagull property as well. An engineer that specializes in this type of uh this type of design will be better able to weigh in on it than someone who designs seaw walls or works in estuaries when addressing um Canon Beach Municipal Code section 17.86.210 in section 7 of the application regarding the requirement that long-term or recurring costs to the public are avoided. The applicant argues that this standard is purely in reference to financial costs and that regardless the proposed rip wrap quote will have no meaningful impact on the public's interest. However, this is simply not true. The science on shoreline armoring, as I'm sure you all know, is well doumented and irrefutable. And that science shows that rip wrap hastens erosion of the beach. So, this is where I want to show you a couple of examples of that um of that great cost that our coastal communities and our beaches and the public at large have bore due to rip wrap on the Oregon coast. So, um let's see. Oops. Can you guys still see that? Is it too small? pretty pretty tight.

Okay. Um so the city of Canon Beach has taken jurisdiction over shoreline armoring permits because of the desire for greater control over what happens to our beach. Accordingly, the city has codified the prioritization of natural solutions. You've done that so your beach doesn't end up looking like Salishand, which is pictured here. This is an area that doesn't have public servants who care in the same way that Canon Beach's public servants care for the shoreline and the health of the beach. Properties at Salashan are getting exceptions to goal 18 from Lincoln County and that has resulted in an entire peninsula being armored and the beach disappearing in a matter of years. So, um I'm not sure if any if everybody can read that quote. Um, this is from one of our Surf Rider members who lives near that area. Uh, he says, "Rip wrap has already destroyed my favorite beachwalk, the beach on the spit at Salian. I used to be able to walk it at all times of year. Now, because of massive rip wrap, the ocean comes all the way into the rip wrap, even at low tide, blocking all of us beach walkers and agot hunters. Ultimately, I am sure it would be less expensive to dismantle some of the homes and let nature take its course. I suspect Salian is fighting a losing battle at what must be a huge expense. Um, next we have a photo of a similar situation just south um at Nescoin. You can see the waves. Uh, this entire stretch is armored with massive rip wrap and you can see the waves are coming all the way up. This beach is essentially lost. I apologize it's a little blurry, but

um this next one is at Pine Beach uh in Tmont County. Um, these photos are a before and after of a collection of properties um that received a goal 18 exception and they ripped out all of their natural shoreline full of trees and vegetation and driftwood which naturally accretes sand in order to place rip wrap there. So they're now completely vulnerable to the ocean. Beaches are dynamic systems and when we interrupt these natural cycles with immovable structures like rip wrap, it throws everything off. The solutions that will lead to more resilient communities here in Canon Beach and elsewhere on the Oregon coast are going to need to be innovative and they're going to need to mimic nature's dynamic design. So, next is a series of photos. These were all taken one after another. Um, headed north. This is Lincoln Beach. So, you can see there's a nice wide beach here, similar to Canon Beach. As you go just north, um, you see some rip wrap here protruding out way out onto the public beach. Just north of that, you can see some rip wrap. It looks like this entire stretch is rip wropped. And as you can see, you get to a point where you can't walk on the beach anymore. This is not even a very high tide when these photos were taken. Um, but as you can see, the rip route has just eaten up the beach. And finally, in this last photo, you can see it's also fully rip wrapped. And there are spots where you maybe you can get

down to the beach, but your access along the shoreline has been completely cut off. So, when I see these photos, it just makes me sad. And I'm sure that some of you have the same reaction. Um, our beaches are precious to us and once they're gone, they're gone. So once again, I ask that you deny this application and I thank you for your time and your consideration of my comments. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else? That's it for another one. Okay. Would the applicant actually respond? I'm going to raise a procedural issue first and then move on to the substantive things. Uh I don't procedural item give you and chair and council uh Ryan an opportunity to ponder how you want to think about future. You should be able to

some reason I see an invite to

Thanks. going to try out. I'm glad it's not

just just for you. Yeah, just so first the procedural thing. Um, I'm going to respectfully object chair to your participation in deliberation or decision making on this matter. Don't need to respond now because I don't think you're going to deliberate or make any decisions tonight. But after the

last set of hearings on this, several members of the community reached out and were saying that you have some sort of real close relationship with Diana Turner and and maybe also Bren the Dudes. Uh, so I respectfully request that you recuse yourself. Uh if you choose not to, I would just suggest and we get counel from upper Brian of course that you fully disclose whatever the nature of that relationship might be or those relationships might be again why you think you would not have a bias or conflict of interest and I heard you speak several times about having a good clean process where everybody feels like it's fair. I believe you want that. Um so I'm going to launch that dive into this substantive stuff and come back to that whenever you guys feel like you're ready. Um first off I want to address the the kind of dialogue that was referenced about Cameron Loz engineering firms. Uh actually what happened was Cameron Loz suggested that uh applicant or I reach out to professor Wro who is a OSU professor who specializes in coastal erosion. um and get in contact with Washington based engineering firms that do coastal that do uh nonstructural. I tried I I spoke with Professor Wro several times. Professor Wro gave me three referrals. I reached out to all of them including Blue Coast Engineering I believe was referencing. I reached out to Blue Coast Engineering on May 1st of this year. Uh, two of the firms got back and flatly declined to get involved in this case and one of them didn't get get back at all. I don't remember if Blue Coast was one of the ones that flin uh we absolutely did do that. Uh we're

kind of we were kind of getting faulted for using a a washing firm in in Nikotera and Dan who does almost exclusively vegetation uh based erosion control. Uh and not having one of those people down here. Uh I researched and tried to find somebody that's actually an engineer or expert and done one of these down here. people that have worked on the ones I was able to identify any engineer associated with them. I am not sure such a person exists. I tried those. I tried those routes and frankly that's just doing it out of good faith, you know, like we didn't have to do that. Um, but I was trying to be responsive to what community were saying. Mayor actually suggested that. Sure. Didn't want long mayor suggestion. Uh, so we turned over those rocks and they were, you know, not the perfect solution found, but pretty dang good on work. Uh, I also want to say there's a lot of people that don't find her. I don't I'd rather have a pristine teach as well, right? Heard me say as much, but it's necessary at some circumstances. And the code allows it. It has it as a third option is vegetated rip. And we can't just pretend like that's not an option in a code. it it's it's there because it's necessary in some unlimited circumstances. This is one of those circumstances. Um next I want to just try to quickly run through the examples of these successful clay burritos elsewhere can reach and Adam you want to try to spend like people are tired maybe just like 30 seconds per minute on each of these I'll put them up you tell them. Yeah, I mean the one on the left that you know honestly

I'm not going to be reciprocally insulting as others have been here but in terms of trick photo angles you know trying to you know deliberately disingenuously show angles if you walk right up to the the vegetation at the very top of the slope there in the left and you took a photo of it would look like just vegetation. But you're looking at that, you see it's not just cobble. It's big angular. That's not natural, right? I mean, there's rip wrap within that material in addition to cobble that that is all rock. And also I just point out the elevation here where the vegetation starts about the same elevation as a single tiny little there's no vegetation growing down here. Angular rock here's 1856 to 1860. I mean the one thing I about this is that the slope is set back. It's not angled up again at the bottom is angled rock that's you know identified as as being successful. uh you know and again the point of of my point of why that one may have been successful again 20 and 25 years ago when these things are installed at least thinking of the conditions are not different now in terms of sea level rise storm surge and all of that kind of stuff. So what you plant 25 years ago or 20 years ago that you get to grow on a slope like that that you can't now is pretty substantial and it's sheltered by sea staff and this is the last one we actually talked about is already in our original

application. I don't know about they need to revisit it but need to be reconstructed that planning the reason they're talking about why there are not willows on the lower part of the seal slope of this slope it's the ocean erosion would not allow plants to grow there it's so straight no need to get on the documentation of vegetation disappearing one There's a request that the fire would provide documentation that vegetation disappeared. This uh photo on the left is a photo from April 20, 2023. Recall that in 2022, cobble and sand and vegetative plantings including willows were put there. What you can see in this picture, we did that all the washing away. If you smush your face up close, you can see little shoots of plants sticking up. that is the willows that were just down too low to survive uh where the fruit was coming in. So there's uh the evidence of that and I just say there was a lot of hot shot taken at the engineers that have worked on his project and the arborists and the certified eologic restoration expert. They're all excellent professionals. I work with professionals every day in my life and I take this group over many a group. Um sometimes they push back and I respect that in them and I personally appreciate the work that done on this project uh to get it to this point and they're right. the experts are right and it's it's not even just the experts but it's the you know the state of Oregon can't do vegetative deformation but the state of Oregon said vegetation

vegetative stabilization is only suited to areas with mild to moderate erosion every expert that's looked at this has said without a doubt and the state's not say this is high erosion area um I respectfully submit we've met our burden on this and with the one thing I also know and I hope you know is nobody's proposed an alternative and somebody actually nobody said I'll work here nobody said no actually here's an argument on why a vegetative structure work here despite the state saying work so it's easy to take pot shots at say something else microwork but without an actual alternative there's nothing there in my personal opinion in my professional opinion too. And and lastly, I'm just going to touch briefly on K's point about rigraph potentially cutting off beach access in some situations. This proposal, it's not to bring anywhere past the neighbor to the south neighbor to the south. Now I think actually on property um with how far east the reetment extends out our proposal is to actually keep it on the seagull property and um the toe of it will actually be buried beneath the sand under any expected conditions. Um so there will not be any like loss of north beach access even if even when the waves are running up to the block. I would also say whether whether revelment's there or not running out the existing conditions here have revelment immediately letting the across from the south running out further onto the beach than we're going to go. So access at this particular location is not an issue. Adam, is there any other points you wanted to make before we answer questions? No. And I believe that you all have been through this enough times and heard, you know, and understand expertise.

You know, both of the opponents who spoke at length said a tremendous amount of things that, you know, were not factual, were conjecture, were disingenuous in the way that they presented them, were stated as as fact or stated as science. you know to make statements like the science is well documented and they are irrefutable. What is that? Where is that? Is it you know is that in their um so you know think that I would say to the same kind of thing if there was an expert that would back up their points they they probably would have hired and had them here supporting all that organization with all the people that are closing one local resident. you know, if if there were experts that would be stepping up, they they would have had them in one of these hearings. So, I'll leave it there.

That's all I got for glad to answer any questions if you have to have any late hour

questions. I have a couple of questions, but I just I was curious talking about the angular rock at the base of some of the structures that have maybe have clay burritos underneath. Would that look here? So, you know, when I look at these photos and I've gone to the site, vegetation looks really healthy at the top of the block. Is there some way to do a hybrid approach where you use smaller armored rock if cobble doesn't work at the toe to protect the toe but not need to go to the extent of an entire armored structure?

Well, as soon as you use an angular oper from a geotechical standpoint make a slope and that's why for instance h burn has to be a low long So if you're building a more vertical or something that would fit on the property um and again maybe you could construct it in the same way that you were doing this with larger you know angular rock again the purpose is for it to stay there and and and not move. you could probably you know use it again non-native material or have the same level of permal

I think in short it can on some sites like site for example I'd say that's probably what they did you just need enough elevation you know to be able to hit the the toe is the most vulnerable spot uh down at the bottom and then as you move up from there it just depends on how far your waves Um, but a smaller rock will be displaced. Yeah. Right. There's a way to

to bring together everyone's concerns and still because it sounds like really the issue here is the toe. There's a lot of horizontal distance from the top of the left to the proper to the hole itself. If there was any way to protect that that toe area without needing to go the distance of an entire structure. I think if we had more elevation we could on some sites actually there's one site I have in mind state that talking about already we're working on quasi cobble burn in cous county right now so we can officially say we're doing non structural stuff out in ma um but that is uh something that some literature talks about is like a hybrid type structure um but you just need enough room and bottom this particular site is as short of love as you you have anywhere in town that I'm aware of in some sites you could I don't think you can so so expanding length is would you're proposing 14 ft of elevation and 21 ft of down surface would 7 ft of elevation uh changing to a of a riper would that be enough to resist the the media erosion at the base. Keep in mind we're looking at this. We're looking at the top about seven ft. Like seven feet building on top of the sand and so it would you know get under.

Yeah. So so you know the way that you can address we're talking about 21 ft about 14 ft. You know what? Twothirds of that is is actually under the sand to support the structure king and to the the defense later, you know, that's 8 ft down or whatever it is. So, your total elevation from what we see at the beach today. It's less than that. Look at the picture I saw. I was I was out on the way on the beach from from the existing from where we're standing at the base of the like look at this picture. Look at this picture.

So it's like seven. Yeah. This this dog tail is half my body. So it's maybe three dogs another back down because it's sloping down behind it. So that big whippy becomes even more significant problem. I'm just trying to get a relationship because I was out there a couple days ago. No, I understand. I I very much want to come to Can Beach with that application. I'm going to find some land owner where that works. Uh it's just not the site.

But you're saying this this particular site that that was not an option. do some sort of hybrid where we go a certain amount of existing grade and then we don't go just on top of sand first. We'll have a base key, but how do we go the entire height from the existing grade to the top of the bank? He's thinking like bring like go down first down. Yeah, we got rock up some elevation and then put, you know, sand or cobble or something. Given how low our elevation is here, you already got waves coming over the top of this thing.

But your total structure is not going to be taller than the black. So for the over piece, it's coming over the top. It's coming over the top. Stand up there. It's not and you're substantially just trying to maintain the limited power that they they have. That's sort of sight specific. Yes. Anywhere else along each condition?

Absolutely. I mean that's very much the point of all this sites investigation. And if the seagulls own one of these sites, we would come in with that application, which is roughly I think what these guys kind of did in reverse on accident engineering is have uh angular rock rip type stuff at the bottom and then some sort of judy vegetation stuff on top. And you can see, you know, you still end up with frozen, but you get um willow vegetation at top. The reason it doesn't work on our site or on the sequel site is that um you can see the vegetation here like on this side is already roughly the elevation that is the top of the seagulls tiny little block. So it's like if we if we say we only here and then try to put our vegetation type stuff up at the very top it's not tap because they're roasted high energy effects and what we see today summertime not a lot of wave action left you see maybe the base of the brewer but that's going to exponential increase when we start in winter weather.

Yeah. I mean, yeah, you can summarize grass that has grown on the sand over the course of the summer and is saying that that means grass will grow, you know, but it's not going to be very,

right? I mean somebody could go somebody could go out and take the best picture possible around this time of year during summer and how quickly somebody could go and take the worst possible picture at the you know end of the king tie season and I would say protect somebody's home needs to survive the ground you know one of the things that that um we talked last time um and I'll bring up again just to make sure you haven't address it before record is this idea that um and I forgot to address this there's no chance I remember this hour but one of the uh stop one of the readers presented in the Oregon guideber book is represented as a solution in a by way of energy but here you have the Oregon guide book saying this is a solution it's less than 20 whatever years and now you're coming in and saying no they're wrong that they're look at that speak to that specific example in that specific photo and that specific reference in the guide book that photo was taken as it points out in in in the DLC guide book right after it was constructed um and so I don't I don't understand you know something that was taken right after it was constructed and referenced in a book as as an example of of vegetative structure the next year and then subsequently failed.

What is failure question? I've heard many times that something won't work. Dumping sand over the edge doesn't work well. But I guess technically one if you spend $70,000 which is approximately what I I understand not a contractor but what I understand that structure to to cost maybe 70% before it rip the constructure and and he built something like that and then had to come back the next year and reconstructed some of the materials there but you probably have to start from the bottom which is how you construct that from a geotechnical standpoint. So $50,000 the next year. Then it happens again because you can't get plants to grow on it because you know erosion's happening and you're hoping you might get that five year period where the kink tides aren't as bad and maybe some willows take but you reconstruct it again. You reconstruct it again. That's fine. So, so you could you could you could blow plastic on top of it.

Is that an failure? That particular site is not a high energy site. It's in Canon Beach, but DLCD does not say that it's a high energy site. Well, actually, can you tell me which page or project you're talking about? We can we can talk about it more detail later. we have a continuation but I can tell you that's what I remember hearing and it's one of the challenges that that I have on the back of the page when I talk about again it is on my mind if they

so what I just said didn't answer answer your question like if if if you know an engineered structure which is what it is there's plastic within that it crosses the line of what should be a nonstructured solution and and it's still fails and then somebody has to come back and and and and reconstruct it and then come back and and and do that again because it's it's it's not working. Well, here's the thing. All of these fail will break fail. So, they're all going to fail. Question is what is the what is how do we balance this financial consideration which isn't part of our photo but it's person is a personal consideration for us. I don't want students to be out a bunch of money chasing a solution here. At the same time, we're being told that the beach is being eroded by rivercraft. So now it's a financial consideration at the expense of the public and we have to think about so we personally think about it from a level of compassion for disability. But where's the compassion for the public? I know it's the cost to the public.

The cost is the loss of one of the most beautiful potentially the loss of one of the most beautiful beaches in the world. the reason we all here and live on the beach to begin that's a big statement isn't about

of course you a conversation I want to have this conversation so we have now thank you I would just say we tried our best to answer your questions and um I'll certainly plow back through that DLCD guide book and try to find what site you're talking about um page 35 says this is an appropriate high energy site and I've never seen a high energy site where it works re-engineers and certified ecologic restoration

again the reference to where it worked I mean we have a site that's listed as high energy in beach that's lasted 20 years worked I I respectfully do not think that's a high energy site I will find it and be ready to talk about it and come back next month. Well, hi. Hi. Thank you. Thank you for letting me interrupt. I wanted to clarify whether the applicant is asking uh for a continuence. There isn't time necessarily in the 120day clock unless the applicant is is agreeing to a continuence to next month

or are you asking for an open record period or have you not asked for anything yet? discussed there has been a request to continue the se several other organizations request to continue including just from my past commission that's what they were likely to do but I I have not made any specific request regarding 777 or date or anything like that and so do I understand that the applicant would agree to an extension or are you not agreeing to an extension Um I you mean an extension of the 120day clock?

Uh a continuence. If you agree to the ex uh to continue the hearing, if you agree to that, then we have we do get to extend the 120day clock. If not, I would suggest a 777 open record period. And this would be the the conclusion of public public testimony. Well, I'm sure I can find that reference and and uh fit it out in written testimony and I frankly think both this commission and the public have heard enough to know what direction they want to go on this. So, I I think the 777 is probably best for everybody to keep this thing moving forward, not

Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Yeah, thank you for asking. Yes. And um I do want to uh address the the matter that Mr. Resmusman uh raised. Um if you are Mr. Rasmusen, is this the conclusion of your presentation? Yes. Okay. So, you know, uh, commissioners, we we have a a challenge from, uh, the applicants council and the applicant as to the impartiality of one of the commissioners. And I do think that it's important to get that on the record. So, with the with the chairperson's indulgence, I'd like to just uh

ask you a couple of questions, maybe more than a couple, but I would like to start and just ask you uh you know, whether you think there's anything that prevents you from assessing the the facts of the application that are under review and whether you have the ability to set aside any personal views and evaluate the application based on the facts. Yes. Uh I think that question is more just I I thought I might have heard you say counselors. I think the question should be just direct. So solely to me the counselors don't have another correct just just to the chairperson. Correct.

I have no question about my ability to be impartial on this issue based on my background relationship with proponent or I wouldn't be sitting here where I've accused myself of it. I have gone uh been very careful to make sure that I not jeopardize. And so you understand your responsibility in this quiz judicial setting that you need to remain unbiased and set aside your personal views. Yes. Okay. And that you've been appointed to sit impartially and make a decision based on the facts. Yes.

Okay. Now with that in mind, um it is something that was brought up after this this objection was brought up after we had a question about impartiality. I would uh part of our record being requested to be open and it is the first hearing. Um and my understanding is that we have to grant that attention based on it being first request. we may revisit this is the board as a group um the next time you sit down and if after you're talking with the group they feel differently about that I do that well I feel confident I want to make sure that not jeopardized by my opinion

that appreciate that uh so I I believe what we're doing um and I'd like director soi to to jump in here if needed is uh the record is going to be open for any evidence argument advance her testimony for 7 days from tonight. After that, there will be another 7-day responsive only open record period, and that is only for responding to evidence that is submitted during the first 7-day period. And at the conclusion of the second open record period, the applicant is entitled to a 7-day period for final argument. Then we'll reconvene.

Sure. Can you walk us through why you feel it's imperative that we run that specific process on this record in terms of the time?

It is a timing issue and um I think director Sakalowski has a a bit better handle on the the timing in order to build in a potential appeal to the city council. I I I don't have a calendar exactly in front of me known exact dates. I know that when we ran into this situation the last time, the concern was the council including plan commission decision bindings, scope of review setting up the next an appeal hearing before um council if it was give if it was appeal um we'd be like right on the edge as far as 120 days. So I believe even the last time I can't quite remember but I thought we did 777 in order to keep it going and still have a meeting at next month which would give us the time should it get appealed to incorporate all the time necessary to meet the 120 days it was appealed to council. So from my perspective I definitely think it's the right thing to do. It gives everyone the opportunity to add additional testimony. Um, and keeps us on track should we face an appeal that needs to go to council. Okay.

I support the 777 thing. I'll second that. If that was a motel, do we need to also continue this hearing and indicate that this is being continued until September 25th? Yes. You could include that in the motion for the 777 and continue to our next meeting that's covered

which will be for deliberations only. There won't be public testimony. So I move that um we continue to the 25th of September and that um we limit testimony to the 777 mechanism that has been laid out. I second that. Further discussion. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yeah. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Lee. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Chair.

Yes. This application was uh continued until our next moving.

Yes. Trees remove for construction. She totally sick.

The order I don't care.