Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

At this time, I'll call the meeting to order. Our first item will be approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve? I move to approve the agenda for this evening. Could you please call the role? Commissioner Wade, yes. Commissioner, Commission, Commissioner Mus, yes. Commissioner Sinclair. Yes.

Commissioner. Yes. Vice Chair. Yes. Chair. Yes.

The agenda is approved. We will move on to consideration of the minutes from the January 25th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Are there any amendments? Minutes. Not hearing any amendments. Do I have a motion to approve? I move to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? Could you please call the role? Yes. Yes. Yes. Commissioner.

Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Vice Chair. Yes. Yes. Next, I will be calling for public comments. This is an opportunity for public comments for non-aggenda items or non-hering items. These are items that would be within the purview of planning commission. Would anyone like to make public comment at this time? Please come up and I'll ask you to state your name.

My first PO box 664. Uh I'm here to talk about what you're going to work on the STRS. Uh I want to uh applaud uh going forward on a cap. I'd like to go farther. I want to support sorry to interrupt but it four hours like it's actually going to be very very soon. We had a one item get canled. Would anyone else like to make comment? We would move on to our action items.

Could I ask if the item that was what the item that was cancelled with regard to because that might be fine here? Absolutely. Our item number four which is AA2601 Michael Shelton for administr that item has been postponed until the March 26 meeting and I will be stating it on the record as well. Okay. Postponed until March 27. 26. Yes. 26. Okay. Any do could I know why or is that I'll just make the announcement when it comes.

Okay. Okay, so we have election of officers um and introduction of a new commissioner. I would like to start by welcoming Robin Rizley as our newest commissioner. I know this is not your first time on planning commission, so this is a welcome back. Thank you so much.

Um moving on to election of officers. As you're aware, every year we need to reelect our officers. Uh we'll begin with the chair position. I am filling in for the chair tonight. Um, we'll be calling for a nomination for chair for this year. And although it's slightly odd, I'd like to say that I am nominating Blake Newton as our chair for the coming year. Any other ideas? We have a second. Anyone else with nominations? Okay. Um, any further discussion? In that case, Tesla, could you please call the role?

Oh, I'm sorry. Who said first and second? I hear I was the nomination. Robin was the second. Commissioner Matis. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Wade, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner absolutely vice chair. Yes.

Was that to me? Do I get to vote? No, you don't. No. Okay, we have we have a chair for the year and that is Clayton. Next, we need to elect a vice chair. I'm going to call for a nomination. I'd like to nominate Mickey Morett. Do we have any other nominees? Any further discussion? Tessa, could you please call the role? Commissioner, yes. Commissioner,

yes. Commissioner Mat, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, sorry. Commissioner, yes. Vice Chair, I abain. Yes.

Voting is complete. Mimar Ritz for vice chair. We are now moving on to action item four. This is a quasi judicial hearing regarding AA26-01. Michael Shelton for an administrative appeal of the denial of development permit 25-40. This is for the consideration of a guest house at 231 East Monroe Street in a residential medium density R2 zone. The appeal will be reviewed pursuant to Canon Beach Municipal Code section 17.18 request for review of decision. I will note that at the end of the day on February 18th, 2026, the applicant emailed staff to request a 45day extension to the 120day rule and to continue the item to the next meeting which is March 26, 2026. At this time, this item will be continued I'm going to move on now to our fifth agenda item. This is a work session review of chapter 17.84 short-term rentals and a discussion regarding an ordinance amending chapter 17.84 Day four, short-term rentals, seeking to cap the total number of short-term rental permits to 165 per year while abolishing and deleting references to the 5-year program. This is a reminder that the planning commission work sessions are an opportunity for the planning commission to gather and discuss information pertinent to specific topics and it is solely at the commission's discretion to allow public input on such topics. After presentation by staff of the relevant material and planning commission questioning, I will ask the planning commission whether we would like to hear from the public at that time. Right now,

I would ask for staff's presentation.

Thank you. Uh Jeff Adams, community development dire director here at TN Beach. Uh and I've got some slides there. Uh and I've got to make a note. Make a note. Tessa and Robert make a note we need to present. I mean I need to print off over here. Anyhow, so sorry I got these small visuals, but uh we are looking forward to the new city hall in August, which will just be thanks. So anyhow, um this is a short-term rental cap ordinance 2601 and it's a uh work session on that. Um it came up I I should you go to the first slide there Robert next. Okay. Uh that is a actual agenda from 2019 in November. uh the first working group, short-term uh rental working group that was held uh and talking about the short-term rental task force that was uh appointed at that meeting to start and uh talking about the and this is how long we've been talking about this is what I wanted to bring up is that short-term rental task force meetings that started back then in 2019 uh with submission with a mission statement uh and scope of work and I would note that if you could see that scope of work it says in Canon Beach it says areas of analysis Canon Beach uh seeing an increase of short-term rental activity is it's a question is Canon Beach seeing that if so are they geographic

concentrated B if so are they uh related to intensity or duration of use C if so Are there other concerns? Two, if can is can be seen an increase in ST STR influence complaints? If so, and then goes on from there. Three, are there current issues with STR program? Uh four, what are the resident neighborhood impacts of the SDR program? Five, what are the fiscal uh impacts of the short-term program? And then next slide, please. um talks about the timing uh how often was going to meet it became a quarterly uh and then the composition was 7 to 11 members and they were specifically made up of certain segments of uh the public and the business sector uh short-term rental owner short-term rental operating and that ran for a five-year period to collect data and that was the reason that that uh was one of the driving forces for getting that going because uh there there's a lot of uh concerns and issues about uh short-term rentals. So, uh this next slide shows you that continued uh Joy has uh been since 2023, we've had uh their city council requested amendments to be considered in November 14th to the short-term rental ordinance including a cap of 200 December 19th, 2023. made the city council agenda again, held further discussion on the CAP and other changes to short-term rental program. April 9th, 2024, planning commission held a discussion on short-term and rental regulations. On April 16th, 2024, city council held a discussion on changes to short-term rental ordinance, including CA ordinance requirements, violations, inactivity. Uh July 30th, 2024, city

council requested the planning commission relocate the short-term rental from title 17 zoning to title five businesses. Uh that will not go so well from what I understand. September 26, 2024, planning commission discuss that relocation. It continued to October, it continued to November. Uh December uh 17th planning consider give permission considered STR relocation and recommended denial. Uh January 9th we came back back up at the annual retreat for for bring it back the short-term rental cap at least. And that is how we're got we've uh ended up here today. Next slide please. Uh so this is your Canon Beach short-term rentals from 2015 to today. And you can see it has from state steady at 200 right around 200 or even below 200 uh every single month. Those are monthly little talls up there. Uh 14 day you can see is that bottom our largest lifetime there around three of those or and that's slowly fading away. And then the five-year program was ended as part of that task force where was part when that came about. Uh, next slide please. In the U staff report, I've also included this which was a herbs work thing from classic county housing study. Next slide, please. Oh, well, can you go back to a second, but you'll notice the big blue section down there at the bottom is Canon Beach. And that big blue section that's packing in down there at the bottom is not shore terminals. That is seasonal homes. And so that's one thing I want you to note on the next slide. So I took back when I was here part of that 2019 study. This came from I think let me see

this came from the uh US 2010 census 2019 short-term rental data. And this shows a breakdown uh a better breakdown or you know using census numbers real counts and real estate compared to seaside and gearart and you'll see the dark green are short-term rentals that's 2010 da housing data for short-term rental dark green or seasonal recreational or other what we call second homes stand bright green. Uh sold not occupied is that slim to none. Uh for sale only the yellowish one. Uh the other green color is rented not occupied. This one right here for rent is that very little pale one there. Then you've got red occupied housing units and owner occupied housing units. Okay? And I want you to see uh us compared to our regional coastal comparisons. And you'll note Ann Beach from 2010 24.3 rent occupied 17.6 seasonal 42.7 and 11.4% short-term rentals. Let's go to today. Show me the chart. Okay. Uh regional housing 2020 number denial housing count numbers. exact same numbers from the previous 2010 to 2020, but now I've updated to 2026 calling around getting their short-term rental data as well as ours. And you'll you can see the comparison. We have now gone from 24% owner occupied down to 21.7%

owner occupied down from 17.6 renter occupied to 15.6 6 render occupied and 11.4 short-term rentals down to 10.3 short-term rentals. Where is it going? Seasonal second homes 42.7. We've increased to 48.4. So that's what the data says. Okay, next up. Okay, this is our tax revenue shortterm. And you can see that's pretty steady adding up to around $700,000 uh on short-term rentals. Uh so next up please. Okay. So as part of that you notice I said in the mission of that task force uh part of that mission was to collect data and so part of the complaints or part of that collection was in complaint you know that or the whole section what about complaint so we had our code official back then uh collect that kind of data and so back in that back in the day you'll see this is 2022 city data from complaints this is kind of what we found. Uh so if you'll see we track them by were they internally generated complaints or externally generated as in the city staff complaining or were collecting the complaints or are at least from external sources and you can see that's split next uh reported okay so who reported them self would be code official the time not Daniel but the code official the dime that was self public works, planning, finance, citizens, and anonymous. Okay. Next up, type of contact blank. So, they

didn't really record any type of contact, but in person, email, no contact, and a phone call were over here. Next up, uh, complaint types. And then here's the breakdown. So, at that point in time, back in 2022, the data collected back in that time was short-term rental. This one right here, this is rideway, property complaints, parking, overgrown lot, rubbish, outdoor merchandising, noise, other business license, animal, and vehicle signs. So that's how next uh SDR related. And then you can see uh this is the ones that had short-term rental and other things. So not just short-term rental. So, you know, things that were maybe short-term rental parking issues also break down further that data. So, next up and then uh other things that we collected back then were came from our audit and we really drilled down into some numbers of audit and so I'm speaking a little bit about uh some also to Mr. Neil's comments in here because uh Mr. Neil when I moved away one of the things I really missed time. Okay, so let me just read the staff report on this topic produces some limited data, graphs and recommendations. However, I believe this topic some more robust discussion and some additional data and my favorite one. I got to leave this to this topic seems to have a financial significant impact to the town. The staff report does not do it justice. It merely states that there's a $3,500 tax impact per unit. Okay. Well, one of the reasons is because we don't like this kind of data. We don't collect down to this granular kind of data. We have some data code for code official did not do that after that five years uh kind of

left. It's something that we can do. We can start collecting that back. We can start accumulating it and bring it back to a task force or whatever you want or bringing it back to you. But that's one of the things. Uh but you know there there's there's data out there you know to answer some of Ry's questions maybe some of this will because it's only from 2022 it's not going to be a change drastically because of what you want to go back to that slide shows our steady line it's hasn't changed much so next okay so we're past that types okay so this is back using the 2021 audit at that time we had uh 14 day was 62% 20% was lifetime and 17 was 5 years but remember no more five years that's pretty much going into this number. So next up, nights by time. So at that percentage of nights for 40% uh 14 day, 35% lifetime, 24% 5 years. So I would expect right now we're more about 60% 65% uh in the 14. Okay, next up stays by 40% 14 days uh and 24. So we have about 65% stage by pack product compared to 35%. Okay, next one stays per unit per pack by year. Okay, so how many stays per unit period by year lifetime 5 year 14 day this is taken 2018 audit 2020 audit 2021 data and whereas Mr. uh Randy said uh it will be double now

it's more like okay so 14 day compared to lifetime it's about trip impact for you know how many uh if you want that intensity okay next up nice per unit per k right there next one lead per unit per k you'll see 14 day uh you've got a 6 day a little longer stay as compared to the other NEXA total number of nights by type per year and you'll see lifetime over here five year 14 day and so five years are no longer going to be here so this is going to be probably twice the number of live time okay next

is that it Yeah. So, you know, we do have some of that data and, you know, I don't think that that's far off there. Uh, but I think it speaks to some of this some of this that R uh Randy spoke about. you know, uh whether the tax revenue is is it how much the impact, you know, if you go to uh travel to Oregon, they'll tell you for class of county in the latest, which was I think 2024, it's about $1,000 per party per stay. And that's estimating about two nights uh per that group stay in class of county for travel. Um, and so you can get some of those numbers, but how it plays out and how that uh plays out considered that as a second home, you know, I mean, I'm not an economist and I'm not going to make those kind of guesses. Uh, so I I we didn't put that in there. Um, but next up, uh, so that's kind of the LA the last slide of the 2022 kind of numbers comparing the numbers that we had back then. Okay, next up. Okay, keep going. All right. And so on our website, you can go to the short-term rental page, which is if you go to our main front page, go Yeah. Sorry. And you'll go to the business and then you go down and on that short rental page, you go to business short-term rentals. You can click on our map and you can zoom into those short-term rentals. Uh and I think rain hits fly to certain areas. That's something you want to look at and you know if you wanted to drill down into certain uh you know uh I think the most intense that we have is likely if you go to the center street you can head over to center street

because it has the most uh li has the most lifetime unit. You can see right there that area per little block, two blocks area. And there's others, you know, that may have two or three per block, but that's really the the one with the most if you're especially looking at the double the intensity per thing. Uh but you know, uh as far as this uh next thing that will be that do you guys we can get that we want to bring this back, but I want to go. Could I ask the quick question then I repeat those know this but so the lifetime ones were they grandfathered in at some point either or

so they have to stay that way or they they get to stay that way. Yes. As long as it stays within that trust that family or that trust. And then map they're showing there those are all permitted. So, if I had a concern that a place was being used like a short-term rental, I could check there to see what status

we keep a spreadsheet and a map on there as other areas. If you go up and down the coast, you'll see plenty of those as well. And uh and then if you had a complaint, there's also a complaint uh form on the website. Uh so someone just to kind of walk you through some of the things that have been talked about since 2019. Uh you know I mean we talk about this in our every quarter. Uh but 14day is a limit. Okay. I mean the 14 day is is already a limit. And so when we talk about cal you know there's different ways to limit things but the 14 day is already a a limitation of sorts. So uh and other districts you'll see which is did not we were the only one to do 14 day uh limitation that I knew of uh at the time period when I was here first time and so when I came back uh I've noticed that at least one other community has started to use that technique for lending. Uh another is just a flat cap. Some some areas do a flat cap. Others do a percentage of homes 10 13 15% of homes. Others do a geographic or limitation uh you know maybe uh either by including or excluding services. Okay. And that can be done by district. Okay. So they may put in a a district uh you know seaside I think that is famous that they have I think around that boardwalk district and certain districts that they allow it but other districts they do not allow it some do that exact same thing by a location in other words an overlay type you know uh so that it's not just in one district it may just be different areas over and then a proximity some per block

you know they may say well you can have up to three or four per block or something like that. Others do it by a buffer path of zone an area say 200 feet. You can only have two or 200 feet or something like that. So those are other limiting things that I think Randy also brought up those uh points. Uh you know one that keeps continually being brought up is east of Highway 101 a stack height area. So no short-term rentals on that side. um twice per month rental instead of 14 days. In other words, um we hear quite frequently and even there are stats that might prefer uh just from audience and other perspectives that it be twice a month instead of every 14 days because it's a little a little confusing, a little more difficult to do. And then inactivity requirement. So let's just put it this way. So uh uh a lot of you talk to them. I've talked up and down the coast far in preparation for this meeting and you'll get this comment. Well, yeah, we have about 200 now, but you know there's only like 85 active and you know why is because we put a cap on it and so everybody got a permit and uh and then the other one that also they do is because they buy they get the permits so that they don't have anybody here. So they get the 200 foot buffer. So they get a permit. They don't do any short-term rentals. They don't do they're not enacted, but it keeps anybody from doing a short-term rental around them. And so these are other techniques that are being told, you know, that's the beauty of enforcement and us, we get to have to deal with that. So when you think about what you're doing, you got to think about what we have to do and the use of

our resources. And that's not just, you know, if you want something done, let's just say for instance, signs, okay? If you want signs to be patrolled and to be administered, well, if you've only got one code enforcement officer out doing signs, short-term rentals, what else is all the little things in the pie chart? Think about that. So maybe resources towards that if you're going to be going into more limitations and more things the eyes on the street type of activity let alone the answering the calls doing this call backs and things that we have to do on our side. So got to do that because you know what it's budget time it's budget time and I get a so the other thing is inactivity and then strengthen by oh so the inactivity so if you do not so those people that do that little loophole and they they want what uh what what some jurisdictions are doing now well you have to keep it active every three months or every six months or every year you have to show short short-term rentals And so you have to evolve that. The other thing is strengthen violation. So we've heard time and again at least our ordinance isn't strong enough and quick enough uh to give violations or penalties. And so that's the other. And so next slide please. So in the proposed amendment, this is the draft that uh that I think before you guys or whatever. Uh it was kind of hard for me to track it, but this was from Steve. Steve had drafted this up prior to me and I really didn't change it because I didn't know what's what it uh history was a few guys council. So that is the one that I proposed to you and all that's really doing at this point. I made a few tweaks to his just to get rid of some of the

stuff I know was in there that needs to get rid of like looping. I mentioned the five-year program. uh clarification on dwellings because we do weldings. We do whole unit kind of things if you're not uh uh kind of homeay or whatever some jurisdictions call them or you can rent out a room or three room or a floor or a level. U so uh clarify that in the language clarifications regarding only one SDR permit per property per home. Okay. Right. Uh, so we can have if you're an owner, you can't have two and you can't have more than one property. Short-term rental caps at 165 for 14-day license or 165 14-day license. We have 154. Uh, the reason the staff doesn't go into recommendations on any of this about it because quite frankly, I think it stayed the same. I don't think it's going to grow. first uh I think that 14 days kind of limits it. limits the people who are doing it and you'll notice it we have decreased and it continues to decrease and the reason I don't really go into recommendations and and all the uh uh you know financial balance sheets and all that is because I think it's operating as it has really for like the last 10 years and I think it will continue to to do that at least from what I've seen and so you know I don't know will that ever reach 165 that's where I'm at. But again, personally, if I were projecting this, I don't know. We're not adding enough units. If you want to go back to those seasonal and occupancy units, all we're doing is adding second homes because they're the f primary owners and occupiers are leaving or they cannot stay here. Uh they can't uh waiting list provisions established. So we put in these waiting

lists that may ever procedures for selecting and notifying nest available and then a 45day window established for licensing. Um and that's really the only changes I made to it. Next and then so I I the amendment process. A lot of people said you know I got a lot of calls this week about this because they were saying oh no you know do I need to get an application in? I need to uh you know and I wanted to tell people we still have to go through the papa. We still need to go through that notice period notice to everyone go through the planning commission public hearing phase. The planning commission's recommendation from the city council. City Council holds the public hearing and then the city council then has consideration adoption and usually uh until period effective date sometimes even some a month or two or sometimes a little longer to establish these things. So you know this is not going to happen uh in a month or whatever. We're not going to even probably get you go to the next slide. Uh yes. Yeah. I project that if you guys come to a kind of general agreements today, I could draft something up, get the papa, the notice in to everybody, and then we would hopefully maybe hold up a first public hearing in April on that. But that's likely going to be the earliest we have a hearing over the short term. Yeah. So, I wanted to just kind of give you the quick short uh the quick uh rundown of it. Uh I'm happy to answer any questions but you know it sensitivity is also up to you guys on just to talk over what I've spoke about but then talk amongst yourself but then you know you're you're welcome to take over the comment as well. So any questions?

I do have a question about complaints and I notice we have a code officer here. Um, do we see any pattern in complaints where we have more dense areas of short-term rental or is it not related to density? Doesn't seem to be density though. I could grab some just selection. I trust your instinct. Thanks. Are you finding that there are some people that are permitted that aren't using them? Yes.

What is the ratio or number? Um well we have uh some software that checks uh for booking activity and what I'm seeing is uh in the summer of this past year we had a 41% uh wow ving activity and so below that's surprising to me. Are you finding that a lot of people that are being managed by the um companies having issues or are they outside of of the management companies?

Um it it depends. We have a number of uh active properties in here whether it's with a local command company or they have a local rent and use uh site to host themselves. Um I I haven't noticed a significant difference that said the local um tend be a little bit easier to go.

My other question would be related to the question of a 14-day versus twice a month. of the 14 days. Do we have any way of tracking the data on how many days per month on average a 14-day permit currently is rented out? We I think we did that then. That would be Yeah, we could do that. It I don't think it could be much different than that. uh it probably increased maybe a little bit uh but um I I couldn't find the stats but I know it was on average five nights. Okay, that's helpful. Thanks. Yeah, that I think that was around six or seven. Okay,

Jeff, when uh folks have mentioned to eliminate the STR licenses on the east side of 101, what rationale are they using or is there a reason for East Side 101? What's uh

I think I think Randy says, you know, and he's he noted that there was an increase. Um you know, I haven't gone back and looked and tracked that number. hasn't grown or substantially grown. Uh but yeah, I think they they do that because I believe that a lot of people just see that as more if you want to call workforce size housing, a larger percentage of owner and renter long-term home occupied housing over there. That's another thing I really haven't uh been tasked or I haven't looked into that yet. Be happy to do that. bring that back where you're when you guys do take this to the uh April meeting.

Okay.

I can I can kind of look at that kind that seems like they're pretty evenly dispersed throughout the city though. I mean there the center street uh got a few more a little bit higher density but the rest of the city is uh pretty well dispersed. But I guess if we could increase the number of rentals um on the east side of 101 by eliminating STRs up there, that might be a consideration. Um because uh you know, I think that that's not as lucrative to have an STR license on the east side. So it might also be a incentive for people to actually put their homes to it for a long term. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else with questions for staff? I think we have comments from I think we definitely should just wanted to thank you Jeff for bringing back data to our meetings. I appreciate that. Yeah. Um so the next question would be is the rest of the commission willing to hear public comment? Absolutely. Okay. So at this time I would like to open up the meeting public comment. Please raise your hand if you'd like to speak. Come on up. Okay. Andrew Toner, PO Box 664.

In my years in Canon Beach, I've never met a person, a resident here that says, "Wow, I love living next to a short-term rental." Never ever have I heard someone say, "Wow, those short-term rentals provide such a social utility and feeling of community." uh if it were up to me, we'd have a vote to to the people of this community whether we want them at all. But in move that that's a conversation for another time. Uh and move that I support uh Randy Neil's suggestion of density. There are certain areas like you know on my street which is not a very taco street there's three in a row. Whether they're, you know, all operating above board, I do not know, but it just it just creates these chunks of deadly anti-human. Um, so I support Ry's 100 foot radius or whatever, whatever you like. Um, I would also say in thinking about this today and and you all are mentioning these ideas of uh maybe we should have an exclusion zone on AAC heights or the east of the 101 or wherever that is. That to me seems to acknowledge that STRs are uh a nuisance that people don't want them in their neighborhoods and that doesn't connect with me because I live on the north end. So by virtue of where I live, I'm going to be stuck with a nuisance. That doesn't seem just or fair at all. And again, I think it goes to underscore that people that live in this community aren't really in love with STRs as their neighbor. There may not be anything they can do about a a second home, but you know, an STR of a business in a neighborhood that doesn't provide any

social utility to that neighborhood. Would anyone else box 719? I agree with I understand that running the city is often about the bottom line as a working artist that struggles to pay rent in the winter and I probably I I probably understand the impending bottom line more than I should. But on the flip side, as an artist, I have the power of free thinking and belie in the strength of community. I personally would love to see no short-term rentals at all. Um 30 days uh only, like many other coastal tur, but the ever important bottom line finds a way. For optics sake, I'd love to see the cap push through. And I'd say that Ry's ideas are definitely a good way to contain neighborhoods we have remaining. I'm proudly part of a group named Atoria Housing for all in Atoria. Obviously, it's a grassroots coalition of community members working to address the housing crisis with the mission of creating solutions that ensure housing availability for working families, seniors, and long-term residents. um when the graph that we showed you earlier um that you you seen uh that's labeled a number of vacant homes used for seasonal use in short-term rentals. It's when it's shown in these meetings. There's an audible gas and a little bit of a chuckle when they uh get to Tanny Beach's number because we're so high. I think we're 68% of um uh nonoccupied homes. uh by the end of the meeting people usually ask uh end up asking me how do people find any place to live and my answer is always they don't all I'm asking is that or saying is that we need to stop tipping towing around and they need action thanks for your time

that's it I think it's 48% I think it's not time

yeah would anyone else like to make a My name is Brian Pox 1061. I am the owner of Beachcom Vacation Homes. We have been in business since 2014. I've been doing short-term rentals in in Canon Beach since 2007. So, I work for Linda Sweeney. And then in 2014, my wife and I and Sally Whis uh opened our own company. Um, we currently own uh where Michael's Music used to be, those cottages. We bought those um in 2020. We employ 37 employees that are local families here in this area um that depend on short-term rents. We have families that come and stay. I have a family on Forest Lawn, actually three families that come rent the house in a 14-day license. They It's all split up. They've been coming from anywhere from 15 to 28 years. There is a lot of families that come here that they feel Canon Beach is one of theirs and they get involved. I've had homeowners that have bought homes here. The reason they can move here eventually is they've had them as a short-term rental for 3 to four years and then they relocated into that home and are now residents in this area in Cat Beach. So, I'm not against a cat. I'm not against rules and regulations to control things. I just would like to see the task force brought back with people that are pro-shortterm, anti-shortterm, and really come back to the table with some real ideas and some of and some things that would benefit the community and the business community. Thank you. Would anyone else like to make a

public 3187 probably for so the the violations data and the percentage data what I did not see is for example is it out of say 200 houses is it the same 10 or 12 houses causing most of the issues for example the old uh 5 10% % of the people are generating 90% of the complaints. Um, you know, just speaking from that earlier data when we were looking at it before, we didn't see that. But like we said, we haven't been tracking it since 2020.

To me, to me, that' be the way to track it because you're looking at broad type changes perhaps. But if it's 10 houses out of 200 and they're the repeat the offenders, what happens then? Yeah, I mean we can it's definitely something we can look at in the old data at the end what we you know Daniel and I can look at you know more research coming into this next meeting. I I just think that'd be an important number to know if I I can five or 10% of the people who caused 90% of the problem do something with those 5%. It wasn't that previous. Okay. So, but I've been a little

there are as I if I remember correctly in the code there are violations uh if you have certain violations your permit is in jeopardy and can be taken away. They're also trying for those houses if they continue to violate SPR regulations, neighbor complaints, that kind of thing. They don't respond in a timely manner. Uh those types of issues are addressed in the code so that we can do exactly what you uh get on those people that are violated.

Anyone else for public comment? I actually came for the event that was cancelled tonight postponed but uh definitely feel really strongly about this topic. I am Maria Hosi uh PO Box 1132 um and I'm full-time resident. I love my neighbors. I love my neighborhood and the community. And I have only, this is my sixth year here, my sixth winter. So I've only been here that long. And I have seen so many people have to leave this town because they cannot find a place to live. And um would be people who are working in any of the local businesses. Um, I have friends who operate local businesses who cannot keep staff and can't reopen the days they want to because uh they cannot get staff who can live here. Um, so many young, vivacious, creative, warm people who add so much to this community and they have had to leave one by one. I mean so many and that is absolutely directly because of yes seasonal second home owners but also short-term rentals. It absolutely is. Um those homes, cottages, smaller places that could be affordable for some of the the best parts of our community are are going just for

profit for some and tax revenue for the city. And it is not it's not but it is our loss of our community. It's such a great loss. Um and it just it happens a lot. So I I hope that will be given a lot of consideration. Thank you. We have anyone else for ahead? We have follow Randy Neil. Mr. Neil, would you like to speak? Uh, can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Um, first of all, there were a bunch of slides that were presented earlier that just your address first. Randy Neil, PO Box 1092. Um earlier there was a bunch of slides that got presented that never made it on Zoom and they're not in the packet. So I'm hoping those could get published or something. Yes, we will be sure those are published.

Um and then secondly, I'd like to support Brian's uh comment of getting the right people in the room and coming up with the right solutions. Um, you know, my main, uh, concern tonight is making sure we all understand what problem we're solving. Um, Maria just talked about, you know, short-term rentals are an obstacle to having affordable housing. And I totally disagree because if, you know, if short-term rentals went away, those 35, they'd just be bought by second homeowners. and uh you know, Cana Beach is sort of an unaffordable place to buy and an unaffordable place to build. Um so really the only thing the cap and short-term rental restrictions are really doing are dealing with livability. And then I submitted the two suggestions. One is, you know, Haystack Heights people came and that's what started this conversation about six months ago that said they've been seeing an increase um of short-term rentals in theirs. You know, we've had the issue once before on the uh the RV park side. There's really no good reason for expecting uh short-term rentals to be viable or an asset to the city east of one Highway 101. Um yes, it might be different. You know, one neighborhood against the neighborhood in terms of who's footing the problem, but it already exists. There's only seven or eight. and rather than let them grow, uh, let's nip it in the bud and slice it off. Seaside doesn't allow, uh, things east of Highway 101. And then the other one is doing a cap does nothing for livability. Um, you know, Haystack Heights may end up with even more uh, short-term

rentals. Um, a place like Taff that already has like four out of seven houses um, could end up being seven out of seven houses. Um, so the density thing is a very simple solution to at least space them apart so they're at least two homes away or something like that. And you can see by the little map snippets that I've done that there's like 30 or 40 uh uh occurrences where there's, you know, basically adjacent uh short-term rentals to the tune of two of them, three of them, four of them, five of them. Um and doing a 100 uh you know foot uh limitation on them would at least start to space them out a little farther out through the city and you know spread some of that density. Uh either it would eliminate short-term rentals or at least it would, you know, press it farther out into places that aren't uh at their fair share of uh short-term rentals. um you know and then you know there's been the conversation about uh um complaints and things like that and I've looked at the you know our um ordinance and what happens and you know just a quick compare against the seaside you know they have good things we have good things they have bad things we have bad things but in general ours moves much slower and it's uh much less punitive um for violations and I think that's what people come and you know complain about is they submitted a complaint to code ordinance but you know the rules the way they are stated take forever and nothing really happens.

So, so again, I support Brian's uh um suggestion to, you know, let's let's look at Thank you. Do we have anyone else on the line? Robert,

okay, at this time, let's move to deliberation. Who would like to begin? I'll begin. Um, let's start with east side versus west side STRs. You know, the people on the west side of 101 say, "Why why do all these STRs have to be in my backyard? Why can't you guys share the painting if that's what it is uh with us? If if there is a viable property on the east side, why can't I use my property as an SPR?" However, I certainly see the other side of that, which was what I mentioned earlier. they may be more apt to do a long-term rent club envelope there, but to Ry's point, they also may just want to sell and we have another vacant home. Um, and you know, I've got STRs in my neighborhood like everybody does here, I think. Uh, and I find that really as far as u building a neighborhood, they are really not much different than having a vacant house there. I know my permanent neighbors. Uh, I interact with them. Uh, I don't interact with a vacant house any more than I interact with an STR visitor. In fact, actually an STR visitor, I will go up and I'll ask them where they're from, how long they're staying, you know, they're walking their dog, what they're enjoying. I g give them some restaurant tips. So, actually, I think versus a vacant home, maybe an STR has a little bit more value than uh a vacant home as far as a neighborhood feel. At least somebody's there uh coming and going. Um see what some of the other notes were. Um I think that uh also to Rainy's point makes a good point in the the affordability. I think if if we restrict

the SDRs uh and make those homes not affordable as a recreational home that they may just sell them and it will be a second home for somebody who can't afford it and get an SDR license if vacant also. I'm not sure that there is uh the ability to um make the kind of money while living in Canon Beach that is necessary to live in Canon Beach. I don't know what the solution to that is. Uh we of course uh we're looking at uh different things right now that we passed on to the city council with respect to um uh ADUs and um making those more affordable and easier to build. Um also need restrictions on some of the homes. uh and maybe maybe if we restrict the STRs, those speed restrictions uh could play a more vital role. Also, I would love to see a a bigger sense of community. I would like to see more people actually living here than uh just vacant homes. I think that on my entire block there are four of us that are there full-time and there are 21 homes. So, it's definitely an issue and I appreciate everybody's comments today and um work toward solution.

Thanks. Other comments online play less.

Yeah, excuse me. I've got a couple of thoughts. Um, I think I'm going to mirror Ry's comment about I'm not clear on what what this rental cap is trying to solve. I I know that we've talked about it for years. Um, I even took part in some of the prior short-term rental task force meetings uh at Hawk anyway. Uh, but it's not clear to me what we're going to achieve by doing it. I I truly believe there is a place in Canon Beach for a reasonable short-term rental. It uh it's for those families that can't afford to stay in a hotel. Maybe there, you know, I think they fill a gap that we need to keep. Um the the concerns I have were more about the abuses that might occur. It it really has more to do with the enforcement than uh in my opinion than any particular number of short-term rentals. Um I think uh somebody made the comment about the difference between seaside and and Canon Beach is the pace of enforcement. It's glacial in Canon Beach. Um, that's a that's an area that I would love to see some thought put into. Anyway, that's my thought. I I I think we need to have short-term rentals for families to come to Canon Beach that cannot afford to stay in a hotel or it's not practical for that type of of situation. That's it.

Thanks, Les. Anyone else? Any comments? Sure.

Um, being a realtor, I have been selling second homes and primary homes for 35 years. And most of the people that are second homers can afford to not be in their homes all the time. They um the ones who do use the short-term rental pieces want to permits want to be able to use them when it's not being rented. Uh I don't see any like Randy saying any openings for that to help the workforce housing. I personally feel that workforce housing will have to be established through city um ownership or as Ry's suggesting some kind of a or your husband um who has great ideas about how to accomplish that. Um, I person and I'm sorry, Andrew, but the short-term rentals in my neighborhood I'm just fine with. I think they work really well. Um, sometimes I think the second home people that don't have permits are the biggest um problem. I have one person next to me who's in their hot tub till 4 in the morning and we hear some wonderful stories, but um they're not the short-term rental um problem. I also would like to see that we look into the permits and make sure that the people that have them are using them because I think that's a shame not to do that. And just to put in a good

word for the management companies, I think they're exemplary. Um, I would like to see the cap at what it is right now if we have to do that.

Yeah, I'll I'll second that on the management companies. Anytime I've had a complaint with any of the short-term rentals, they've been right on it. I have on on two occasions used the online city complaint form uh when I didn't get a good response from an SPR that uh was near me u and uh they responded to that also but uh the response that I've got from all the companies in Canyon Beach has been pretty immediate. uh they pick up garbage. If there's a outside light on, they'll contact the renters and say, "Hey, you know, there's a bothering the neighbors trying to write in their in their living room. Could you turn that off?" And it gets done. Uh the nice thing about SPR was to your point also is that they're going to leave in a few days if they're a problem. You know, you don't have to um put up with a regular neighbor if they're a problem for too long, you know. However, all my neighbors are pretty good. I can't believe it's pretty good. But uh that was kind of tongue and cheek that uh there have been bad neighbors in in the year. But um STRs, you know, at least they're only there for a week or two.

So Jeff, would you like to speak? Yeah, I was just gonna say to uh both Ry's point and to lesson's uh lesson, you're never ad hoc to any but but uh I I just want to say there just because I put up April as a proposed date, there's nothing to rush on this. You know, you can send this to a task force. You can do whatever you want. Uh there's no timeline on this. this has been brought back to you guys to you know to look at and give us direction on uh I just wanted to say you know even tonight's meeting you know um some great questions the reason we have public meetings I mean Ry's comment made me start thinking you know I'd love to look at our demolition permit sales in the last 10 years and uh short-term rentals and others because that comment about short-term rentals becoming long-term rentals or we I I tend to agree that that's not going to happen. Uh in fact, I believe it's almost could be a historic preservation because some of these little cottages are staying short-term rentals because they they have a role to play in that. If we remove that, uh I could be jeopardy and they'd be demolished and put in a big second home. And I'm going to look at that. I mean, I that just intrigued me to start thinking about that uh uh number to see if we have any of that occurring because uh you know, I just know the demolitions I've seen lately, you know, they're losing some of these older uh condes and stuff. Uh you know, I don't see if there's any trail in that. So,

I I want to I'm just driving around. We found out that there was, you know, the amount of usage of those short-term rentals was 40%. And I think that's ridiculous. I think, you know, um, we need to think about how can we, uh, enforce something where it isn't being used. And if it's not being used, let's open that up for someone who isn't going to use it. Short-term rentals, they are income for our city. We only have income for our community, and there's value for that. Um, and I would like to continue to push for additional support for our coic code enforcement officials. So, I think he's underhanded in in all this and needs additional backing for sure. We can't do our code for you know looking at our short-term open. And the the interesting thing to me is that if only 40% are being used, that means a cap really isn't a problem because if you just make sure that whatever is held was actually in use, you get a far fewer permits. In fact, because it sounds like the data without a cap, the number has been slightly decreasing over Jeff. Is there anything there? I I was reading through it. I didn't see anything about the lifetime um lifetime short term. Uh is there any regulation there in the house of soul that that lifetime is terminated?

Okay. Yeah. So if I'm hearing correctly, I hear a lot of questions from the planning commission. Are we at a point where we think this needs more analysis before moving on to suggesting bring something back? Well, if there it sounds to me like there's nothing really pressing that needs to be done this evening. The caps the uh anything else to do with the short-term rentals. Doesn't sound like anything's on fire right now. U so that might give us some time to put together a task force to look at u all aspects of STR. I know we did that once and we have some good data from that. Um the other side of that is I hate to prolong you know this and kick it down the road kick down the road seems like nothing gets done. Um but if there are are members of the community that have further input besides just what we've heard tonight and they want to dig into it deeper. Should we give them the opportunity to do that through joining the passport?

Well, one thing I wanted to say is tonight is the membership awards banquet at the chamber and it's being held at the Pelican. I know they have about 80 people that are there. So, we may be missing an opportunity to hear from some of the people because they're getting prices. So, anyway, A lot of this language just you know correction language is short of 7D45 which is license you know we're talking about the inclination of the fire which is already taken care of changing rental dwelling is just small language but I agree you keep all this house may um may want to continue it for further

my understanding would be Council should convene a task force if that would be done. So we would be passing a recommendation. Yeah, you want to pass that recommendation if that's what you want to do. But you might want to hold a metal work session and develop what you recommendation. Yeah. Oh go.

Sorry I didn't put my hand up. I just jumped. Sorry. I I've been biting my tongue on this, but I I it seems like there's two things coming up. One is the affordable conversation which we've had largely on our focus for a long time trying to help figure out a very complicated situation we're in and unique along our coast. Well, more unique or more uh exaggerated probably is a better way of putting it. Um along the coast and then there's the nu the the nuisance section or code enforcement section. So there's two pieces to this. What ultimately are we trying to solve by taking this on again? We have taken it on many times as Jeff pointed out and at what point do we get into community fatigue? I mean, we have so many things we're trying to solve for. Um, and I I I agree with some of the comments and I I don't think this is going to solve our affordable crisis uh in the town and I think we could really get into a situation where we get into just more contentious conversations. I cannot imagine that work session uh with people coming together on that. I mean I I remember this last time it was incredibly contentious. People very upset about it. We did come to some some places um you know that's it's been some time and know it's not perfect but we've got so many other issues in front of us. I just I a part of me is just like why would we take this on right now? I I think the question of why Les's question is a good one. Um, I'm not saying we don't do it, but I think we need to really as a group understand why we would do it and what what what sort of community bandwidth do we burn at the expense of something else we're trying to get to.

Think that makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, for what it's worth, I feel the exact same way. So, thanks, Clay. Yeah, if we were to I think if we were to move forward with this draft as it's written today, I I can't imagine anybody getting upset because it doesn't change anything. I mean, it doesn't mean doesn't mean anybody can't get a permit that's got a permit. Um, it's just a clean up of the code. There's probably some value in something like that. But I think some of these bigger issues about well what neighborhoods should be allowed to have them versus which ones should be protected from them. Those are the big ticket items that are going to be so controversial. And I'm completely with Clay. I don't see how we why we should take that on with no no clearer understanding of why it's important. But I'm willing to pass it as it stands right now.

The public would like to speak. Generally, we don't allow that work session.

It is a work session. And and the other thing I was going to say to that and what I want to remind everybody before I forget, March 5th, next week is a housing uh what we're talking about the other element that keeps coming up workforce housing, affordable housing. that discussion and public input will be next uh Thursday March 5th 6 o'clock here same bad um and so yeah um so that that I wanted to respond to but the other is yes if you could just send it forward tonight the one thing I would say but from all the discussion I have at least have me bring revised language for our enforcement because that that keeps coming.

Well, you know, the one thing I'm sorry, Mickey, go ahead. No, go ahead.

The the one thing that I we we just, you know, I I I don't know that we're I'm learning I'll just speak for myself, but the one thing I would be concerned about with that, Jeff, is if and I I'm with less. I think this is probably okay. just if if we just pushed it forward, it doesn't change much. But I I do think there will be the perception there could be the perception that we didn't run a fair process on this and didn't have a enough public comment or, you know, people were, you know, tied up at an event or they weren't notified. I I just I feel like we've been down this road before and we end up in so many side conversations that take us off of the master conversation that um I would I would be very lerary of moving this ahead uh just for the sake of having it all for our desk. So Clay, what do you think about having Jeff come back for a second work session with some revised language around the violations so that there's something more substantive to address in that regard?

I think it's a great idea.

I I I think it's a great idea. So if we have an interest in that we can propose a second work session was revised in bridge. So I move to have an additional work session where we take care of the housekeeping elements of these changes. Uh and also put in some more robust language as it relates to violations violation penalties. maybe looking at one of the other nearby communities that was mentioned uh and come back at a later date to to discuss this. Hopefully not too soon.

Okay, so we have a motion. We have a second. We have a second. Any further discussion? Less got his hand up. Sorry, I missed that. Less.

That's okay. Um there was one other topic that kind of got mentioned. I think it was Jeff probably in in his early thing there there's been some conversation around the language of rental every two weeks versus rental twice a month that I think it based on my understanding does merit some discussion. Um and I'll just throw that out there as maybe another topic that would be worth delving into at the next meeting or the next work session. Yes, I think I've had a discussion with Brian about that in that if you rent for Christmas, you can't really do New Year's, too. So, there are pieces of that that could be valuable. So, would you like to rephrase your motion to include a discussion around

Sure. In fact, Sure. Uh, thank you. Uh I move to uh take care of the housekeeping elements of the proposed code changes uh in the document as well as bring back some additional code around violations, penalties and actions on those violations and penalties as well as discussion on the every 14 days versus twice a month rental frequency

and do we have a second? Second. Okay. Any further discussion? All right. In that case, Tessa, could you please call the role? Commissioner St. Clair. Yes. Commissioner W. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Lesley, yes. Commissioner, yes. Vice Chair. Yes. Chair N. Yes.

Motion pass. We will now be moving on to ourformational items. We first have a tree report. Robert up. So this is the tree report for the month of January. A total of four were removed. One was hazard. Three were dead. And there was a rep of any questions. In that case, we'll be moving on to good of their order. Does anyone have items for good of the order?

To say welcome, Robin. I remember when you and I sat in uh the city council chambers. you were first stepping on stepping off of the planning commission onto city council and I was just stepping on uh as the junior uh planning commissioner. I think that was November maybe 2018 17 I can't remember exactly but some time ago. So fun to be sitting here with you again and to uh really appreciate you being with us uh with all of your commitment over the years to the city. Uh thank you so much. It's an honor to be here with everybody. Anything else for the mirror? In that case, the leading is done.