City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Good evening, everyone. Even even in the back row. Good evening. I was gonna call names, but I decided not to. Okay, I would like to welcome everyone to the first city council meeting of in our new council chambers of Thursday, August six, call the meeting to order and ask for approval of the agenda.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. So first on the agenda, we have public comment. And if you would like to make public comment for anything other than our public hearing on housing later in the meeting, Raise your hand. You'll come up to the podium. You do need to make sure that the mic is on. Red means it's not on. Green, it's on. And you will have three minutes. There will be a visual timer on the screen. And so when it gets close to three minutes, at three minutes, you need to stop. even if you're in mid-sentence. And please remember to be kind and respectful. So who would like to be the first person in the chamber, the new chamber, to make public comment? And don't forget name and spelling address also.

Oh, microphone.

Thanks.

Oh, it is on. Now it is. A few years ago, Kurt Anderson and I planted a couple of varieties of roses down at the Chamber of Commerce between the tennis court and on Spruce Street. And for three years, I picked out these two varieties, Linda Campbell and Knockout. And for three years, I deadheaded and weeded those beds. And then I said, you know, this is city property. They need to take care of these roses. And so I could give you a whole history of what's happened over the years, but I'm just going to give you a history of what happened this year. So in May, Kurt Anderson has, we went over how to prune the final pruning on these roses, which he's done every year very well. And so in May, there were somebody that went down and weeded out about 10 to 12 feet on the north end of this bed of roses. And the bed is the length of the tennis court, which is 110 feet. So that got weeded out. And then the city did not do a thing in June and July. And then about a week or so ago, this lady came in and cleared out the south end, about 10, 12 feet. And then she complained about the city not taking it. And so the city brought some people down to weed out the beds. So what I find disturbing is that it was a weed patch all those months. Here you are in the center of Cannon Beach. And you have this weed patch, and the weeds were so tall that you couldn't actually see the roses. So I know with my experience as curator with the Rose Gardens in Portland, that if the city spent an hour to an hour and a half once a week, I would not be here talking about this problem because it doesn't take that much care to take care of bed of roses. So I feel embarrassed to go by that area with the city not taking care of what should be beautiful beds. Both of these roses are excellent roses. They're hardy. They're solid red. But this year, because the weeds had taken over, the Linda Campbell is normally about twice the size as Knockout, which is a Floribunda. And when you go down there and look at them now, they're both the same height. And they're both the same height because the weeds had taken over And they weren't getting the nutrients and the attention that they should have. So that's a big complaint of mine that the city needs to address. The second thing that I... You're almost finished. The second thing that I wanted to address is that about two weeks ago, my neighbors on Braylor Street had some visitors that put two lights on above the garage. And it had a covering, but the covering was coming out like that. So all of the lights, and these are 100 watt, 150 watt bulbs. They were shining on my property. You've reached your time limit. Okay. Okay. But anyways, you need to address dark skies. Okay. Dark sky issue. When I called up the city. Thank you. Law enforcement officer. He said there's nothing he could do because it's not in the code. So we, the city needs to carry that on. Thank you.

Okay. Next. Michelle.

That was really good. Okay.

Check one, check two. Okay. Michelle Vallegara, GaleBox719. Okay, the evening when planning made the decision to not support the cap on STRs, I went home and found an envelope slid under my door from a landlord. This is it. My heart went to my throat. The irony was not lost on me. After living in this 390 square foot cottage for a mere 18 months, the scary notice was just a 6% rent increase. The fact I was elated with a simple rent hike should be a wake up call to anyone within the sound of my voice. I read the sigh of relief that I still have a home. I know from personal experience from one of the many places that I've lived that was converted into an STR, the fear is very real. I'm hearing lots of breakdowns of numbers and concern with a slight drop in income from TLT tax or STR owners not being able to profit from their additional home. This thinking is wild to me. Why are we not asking ourselves things like, How can the workforce save money on gas and transit time? Why do we not have a reliable public transportation for a large amount of commuters from Seaside and Astoria? Why are we prioritizing profit over people? Why are we not concerned for the peaceful existence of our aging community, renters and homeowners alike? Why are we not protecting areas with younger families that have children playing and riding bikes in their neighborhoods? Again, why are we prioritizing profit over people? Valuing money over people is not the best way to maximize the bottom line. The government should not be run like a business because its primary goal is public welfare and equity rather than financial profit. It should not be harder to find a full-time rental than it is to wait in line for an available STR license. There's even a term for this. It's called the Airbnb effect, which is the economic impact where a high concentration of short-term rentals drive up local housing prices and long-term rents, reducing housing availability and pushing permanent residents out of communities. Why are we prioritizing profit over people? We talked for long enough. Action is required. I'm not under the mistaking impression that a cap will generate more housing. It simply protects the current citizens. Keeping places like Haystack Heights and the RV park residential and maintaining the security of a current long-time rentals. While I'm holding this rent raise in my hand in the brand new multi-million dollar building, I feel like me and my friends that suffer from housing insecurity are simple footnote, a forgotten casualty that faster than we are realizing are being shoved out of town. Thank you. Thank you. Next.

Come on up.

Clarice Roth, PO Box 88. I'll try and keep it short. Thank you. The people who wait tables, cook food, make the beds, plant the flowers, sell the paintings and sweatshirts in town, keep this town beautiful and functional for all the thousands of people who come to our home each year. They're also the people who are begging you, our city leaders, to stand up for us. We are being pushed out and we need to see steps taken to protect our ability to stay in our homes. I was very happy to see this council ask the Planning Commission for a cap on STRs. It is a step in the right direction and shows us that you care. I was frankly disgusted to hear about the vote at the Planning Commission, not only the unanimous outcome, but also the unethical way it came about. Just like we all need to see our city leadership take steps to preserve our housing, we also need to see legal and ethical standards upheld and how our city makes choices about our lives. I'd like to see this council continue to push for a cap on STRs and push to correct any unethical violations that have come about on our city committees and commissions. Transparency and honesty will help us all work together to fix our city's issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Amber.

Hello, I'm Amber Fowler, PO Box 657. I would just like to second what Clara said and what Michelle said and what we've talked about so many times, dozens of times, actually. Seemed like the council was all in agreement about a cap. I don't know why it just didn't get done. It's like the single smallest, easiest step we could do. So I do want to encourage us to do that. Just get it done. Move to the next action item. I also want to second what Hank slash Daryl said about our planters and our wonderful landscaping that we could have in Cannon Beach that needs to come back to Cannon Beach. I did bring this up in our budget committee meeting about allocating funds to take care of our landscaping. And I would like to second that as a important need that we have. So STR cap, please, please, please, please. And Beautification. We need it. It's a beautiful town. Let's make it even more beautiful. Thank you.

Thank you. Next. Hello, Council.

My name is Jacob Bond. I've been a business owner and a full-time resident homeowner since 2008 in Cannon Beach. I want people who work here to be able to live here. I want people who work here to be able to raise families here. We need stewards of our community, not people who want to bleed it dry for every cent possible. Corporate interests will buy up properties to use as STRs. This small beach town will be owned by corporations and multimillionaires who do not live here and do not truly care about Cannon Beach. For the full-time residents and people who call this town home, they will worry about who might be in the vacation rental next door to them this weekend and the next and the next. Always stressed out about who's coming and going, how loud the party might be, how much respect or lack thereof the short-term renters might have for the full-time residents and the neighborhood they're trying to foster. Always strangers, always creating a sense of caution, not allowing us to feel welcome and comfortable in our own homes and neighborhoods. I want tourism. I want people to come here and see and feel the magic and to add to our town's economy. But I'd say we've got our hands full as it is. Canada Beach isn't a community anymore. It has become a theme park. I want a cap on short-term rentals. Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Jacob, mailing address. Thank you. Next. Go on up.

Hello, Councilman. My name's Andrew Hecox. I live in Puyallup 86. I manage one of the hotels here in town and none of my employees are able to live in the community that they work. I'd like to support what Michelle and Claire had to say about the cap on short-term rentals. I'd like people that work in the community to be able to live here. I think it's a special community.

I'm happy to live in Cannon Beach.

Sometimes the roads between here and Seaside are a challenge, especially in the wintertime. Often my staff have issues just making it to town. I think a cap on short-term rentals will offer an opportunity for some of those folks to maybe find housing in town.

Thank you. Next. Anybody want to? How much money you got? We understand what you said. Dark roses and dark skies. We got it.

Lynn Halderson, PO Box 1151. I've called Cannon Beach home for the past 15 years. I've been hearing the same problem regarding housing in all its forms since that time. Now the conversation has shifted to SDRs and the debate on if there should be a cap on the amount of which we have in town. My answer is a resounding yes. For years, residents like myself have come before council asking you to prioritize people who live and work here. The problem has only become worse. Every day I see firsthand how difficult it is for businesses like mine to find and retain employees, not because people don't want to work here, quite the opposite, but because they can't find a place to live, let alone a home that is affordable. It's folks like this who keep our town running, who have no choice but to live in neighboring towns and commute every day. And during our busy summer season, the commute becomes even longer and more stressful. I recognize how close many of us, including myself, are to that same reality. If I were to lose my housing tomorrow, there would be virtually no long-term options available in Cannon Beach. And after living here for 15 years, that's a frightening reality. I understand how important tourism is. My livelihood depends on visitors too, but tourism is also dependent on the people who make this town function. Visitors come here because Cannon Beach is vibrant, beautiful community of people, artists, shops, restaurants, not just a collection of vacation homes. I urge you to prioritize long-term housing and cap and place a cap on short-term rentals. Every home that remains available to local residents is an investment in our future of the town. If we continue to allow housing to disappear from the long-term market, we risk losing the workforce, families, and community that make Cannon Beach special. Thanks.

Thank you. Next. Anybody else in the audience? Oh, Andrew. Got to be quick, Andrew.

Andrew Chonry, PO Box 664. I just want to echo everything that's been said, and I want to urge council tonight to take steps to appeal the planning commissions or overturn the planning commission's denial of short-term parental cap. If it were up to me, that cap would be drastically lowered. Perhaps even, you know, I think there are a lot of people who'd like to see them gone out of our neighborhoods, their businesses running out of our neighborhoods. And everybody has explained why it makes them uncomfortable. So I don't need to do that again. We've been at this for so long, it'd be so nice to move on to the many other steps, because this is just one little step. And it should be You know, it should also be done with the proposed density cap. But we just got to be able to get something, put a point on board for housing.

And I would like to make sure everyone realizes it is on the agenda next Tuesday, August 11. Any other public comment? Yes.

This is my last session here. So although I'll be around finishing up the last bits of this building, I just wanted to give you guys another thank you for allowing us this opportunity to help create a new space for you guys. And hopefully you'll love your new home. And I just wanted to thank you all again.

And you do need to give your name and mailing address.

Jason Bragg, Tigard, Oregon. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? Safe travels home. Is there anybody on Zoom? If you would raise your hand if you're on Zoom and we will let you speak. No hands up. Okay, one last time for the audience and one last time for Zoom. Okay, thank you. Okay, so the first item on the agenda is an introduction of our building official in training.

All right, thank you. I can't... Can't say enough. This is the first item on the agenda in the new building. This is exciting right here. In an effort to develop a more resilient organization within a succession planning framework, the Community Development Department posted a new position building official in training and received a highly qualified internal applicant for hire, assistant public works director Trevor Mount. Within the next five years, the community development department expects to see a transition in both the community development director and city building official positions and has taken a proactive approach during the last budget cycle, requesting an additional position to serve 20 hours in training for the building official while serving their main 20 hours in public works. Such a transitional position puts both the Community Development Department and Public Works Department in a favorable situation, where Mr. Mount can support the hiring and training of a new Assistant Public Works Director, while Mr. Butler can assist Trevor in his transition to full licensing certification towards City of Cannon Beach building official. Mr. Mount is expected to do the coursework required to achieve Oregon building inspection and building official certification, while providing inspection coverage and training with Mr. Butler in the field. Mr. Mount is a proven leader and learner, as his over 18-year career with the City has demonstrated. His deep understanding of the Public Works Department, City's infrastructure and utility systems, along with his unparalleled talent in developing community trust Through his daily face-to-face interactions with community leaders, citizens, contractors, and agency partners, makes him the perfect person to serve as the building official in training. Not to mention his unprecedented 48-month in a row reign as employee of the month. Mr. Mount will train under Mr. Butler who has served the city and region for nearly 10 years. Through those 10 years, Mr. Butler has at various times served the cities of Manzanita, Astoria, and Seaside where he continues to serve in helping them train their next building official. Mr. Butler will continue to serve in his full capacity as he supports Mr. Mount's transition. Mr. Mount began his shared duties on August 1st and will continue to develop his knowledge of the city's building and development systems over the coming year. We welcome Trevor to the community development department and look forward to working, I mean, watching him develop into the next great Cannon Beach building official.

Thank you. And congratulations, Trevor. Okay, next on our agenda, we have some resolutions. First one is resolution 2616. And Tim is ready to present.

Hey, thank you, Mayor, members of the council. The resolution before you is for the First Amendment of the Holland Family Trust, purchasing the Holland Family Trust property known as Haystack Hill. It has been reviewed both by the city and the buyer's attorneys. And the main reason, two things, was the agreement had to add Sunset Park and Recreation Foundation as the collector of funds. and the resolution amends the original agreement for now the buyer, us, can extend automatically for 90 days and then upon mutual agreement after that. And if there are any questions.

I move to approve Resolution 2616 for the purpose of approving the First Amendment of the Purchase Sale Agreement with the Holland Family Trust for the purchase of the property known as Haystack Hill.

I have a question.

Hold on. You can have questions after. Okay, so second. Okay, now. Okay, on Attachment B.

It says under now, therefore, the parties agree as follows. And it shouldn't say the purchase price less the percentage that goes to sunset rather than the purchase price being put into escrow because they're putting in, they're taking, it looks to me from reading this, that they're taking their percentage out prior, you know, before putting it in escrow, right?

The property is still purchased for 3.1 million. The fundraising is going to capture the additional 200,000.

So they're going to list it for more to cover the

Well, we've already made the agreement on what we'll purchase the property for. So when they are taking in the fundraising, they're going to have to collect more than that. Okay.

And whatever they deem is necessary, they'll just do. So we're not part of that at all. We don't have to worry about that.

No.

Okay. Good. Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. Roll call, please, Jen.

Council President Kerr.

Yes.

Councilor Ostrander. Yes. Councilor Hampden. Yes. Councilor Hayes. Yes.

Mayor Knopf. Yes. Okay, thank you. Next we have resolution 2617, Tim.

Okay, last month we brought before you the change from Orca to the Sunset Park Recreation Foundation. So we workshopped that, work sessioned it, and before you now is the official agreement and just looking for approval to move forward with fundraising.

I move to approve Resolution 2617 for the purpose of approving the agreement with SPRF for the purpose of collecting funds for the purchase of Haystack Hill. I second.

Any further discussion? Roll call, please, Jen.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, next we have an ordinance, ordinance 2605.

Yes. So essentially, these edits that are before you tonight, these are the recommended revisions that you requested on July 7th, at your meeting on July 7th. And so this red line is just a reflection of those edits.

Okay, anybody, any questions?

So in the whereas clauses, those last two bullet points that are in there, those are the two that were not copied over that were referenced during the last meeting?

Correct. So I found the website that the prior city attorney had relied on for that information. And I basically, I just copy pasted the other bullet points that were present on that website into the whereas clauses.

Okay.

You ready?

Okay.

I move to approve the first reading of ordinance 2605. Second.

Ordinance 2605, an ordinance amending Cannon Beach Municipal Code Chapter 6.14 to regulate elk interactions. Discussion? Any further discussion?

Not about the ordinance, but about this particular topic. would like to see us do some, obviously some more stuff. So during the fireworks discussion, we had yard signs go out and all that stuff. I'd like to see something like that incorporated in with this now that we are working PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Hopefully we all vote yes approving this ordinance that has this this sort of verbiage on yard signs and go out seasonally during calving season during rut and then come back in, in the same manner that the fireworks signs have been going out. PB, Lupita D Montoya, And I look at this as the first step in many things that we PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Yeah, and the yard signs, then any any additional materials can can now be based on this ordinance.

yeah and i i agree i agree with eric and i think that um you know since we've been sitting here three cows and two calves were right here um and there's a lot of people in town so we do need to get this information out as much as we can and we need to continue having the conversations about other steps we're going to take to help um I don't want to call them a problem. They're beautiful animals, but they're a problem in town. And we all, most of us know my opinion on where I think part of what we need to do, where it goes.

Any other discussion? Okay, roll call.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I'll move to approve the second reading and adopt ordinance number 2605. Second.

Ordinance 2605, an ordinance amending Cannon Beach Municipal Code chapters 614 to regulate elk interactions. Roll call, please.

Councilor Hayes. Yes. Council President Burke. Yes. Councilor Ostrander.

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Knopf.

Yes. So ordinance 2605 has been adopted and will become effective in 30 days. Thank you.

Yeah, I want to agree with Eric on the we need to keep pushing this. We've got some nice response so far to the campaign, and we need to see those materials out in town where people can see them. And I also think that I would sure like to see this hit the news that we've passed an ordinance like this.

So yeah, that'd be great. And I think the yard sign idea is a great idea. I really like that.

And there's in public places in the city park, the tennis courts need a windbreak for pickleball be nice to get a printed windbreak that has little like Elker beautiful stay away sort of whatever, whatever messaging that's can be printed on that windbreak for for the pickleball court scene.

I mean, we do have obvious areas, the City Park and Les Shirley Park, that it's frequently an issue. So it shouldn't be that hard to educate a lot of people. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Ready to move on? Next, we have an appointment of City Committee, the Design Review Board. And is the applicant in the audience or on Zoom? No. OK. Would anybody like to make a motion?

Does anybody know?

No.

Michael?

I've never.

I had a couple of questions for him, but I don't.

So would you like to table this to the next committee?

I would. I would like to.

And ask them to either be in person or on Zoom? I think we would like, sorry, Michelle, but I think we would.

I mean, his application is pretty well-rounded. There's just, there's a handful of questions that I had that I wasn't sure that.

Yeah, I agree with you. Okay.

I mean, I want you to be full of it.

I'd like to be a person. So can we table it and send out an amended agenda or should we wait until September?

Can I get some columns that are available?

Okay, that's good. And if he's not available in August, and see in September, if he can be and the motion on here. I know. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I'm very okay with tabling that checking on his availability and having it on that agenda when he is here. Okay, next we have the Tourism and Arts Commission grant awards. Bruce.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. On May 18, 2026, Tourism and Art Commission meeting, the Commission completed its review and recommendations for the FY26-27 Tourism and Arts Fund grant awards. The budgeted amount in the TAFT award for FY26-27 is $550,000. In the next sentence, there is an error in the number. It says the total grant award recommendation for FY26-27 is $297,281. And then it goes on with another $786. So it's not $297 million. It's $297,281. In addition to the TAF award funding, there's $511,000 in the budget. for a tourism purpose. Any questions?

Well, at the last meeting, we had some discussion about the chamber's ask that was a $92,000 ask. And Tourism and Arts Commission went ahead and awarded them $11,000. Were we going to wait till tonight to discuss really what should happen there? I had my concerns that they asked for $92,000 and I would like to know what they can accomplish for such a fraction of that.

We had this discussion at the work session when we talked about this and decided that as a consensus that we were fine moving forward with not granting the Tom Preston- Any of that dollar amount and asking the Chamber to come back with a revised. Tom Preston- Right revised budget so that's. Tom Preston- That was our discussion that was pretty lengthy during our last work session about this.

And that was my recollection also.

Right. Tom Preston- And that's also in the in the packet here, it says at the work session in July Council discussed awarding it. Tom Preston- And for them to reapply later.

I move to adopt the FY25-26 Tourism and Arts Fund grant awards with the following changes by removing any grant to the Chamber, Hanna Beach Chamber of Commerce for stewardship and marketing.

Second.

Any further discussion?

OK, roll call please, Jen.

Council President Kerr.

Yes.

Councilor Ostrander.

Yes.

Councilor Hinton. Yes. Councilor Kane. Yes. Mayor Knopf.

Yes. Okay, thank you. Next on the agenda, we have the LLC 2026 legislative priorities ballot. Bruce.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. The voting process to determine the League of Cities 2728 legislative priorities has begun. Each city is asked to review the recommendations from each of the policy committees and provide input to the League of Cities Board of Directors, which will formally adopt the League of Cities 2728 legislative agenda. During the October meeting, the League of City's Board will formally adopt a set of priorities based on the ranking process through the survey and their evaluation. Each city is permitted one ballot submission. The information included in the agenda material is some of the recommendations that would be voted on by the League of Cities.

So I would suggest what we do is each counselor give their five and then we'll... So Eric, would you like to go first?

Sure. So I had a first comment before giving my five and there is a lot of reference to AI in their legislative priorities. And I think that should be basically an automatic disqualifier for us putting it on a ballot when it includes AI. A lot of the AI... Things that are in the proposal that they would like to see prioritized are AI that essentially takes away jobs and also leads to additional data centers being built in places that are currently voting down data centers. And I thought that was kind of gross that AI was, or that League of Oregon Cities has that many things in here prioritizing pushing forward AI. Having said that, there is one, I did not write down the actual names of them. I just wrote down slang for each of them. So funding homeless programming was one that I noted. Let me see where that, what it was actually called. I don't know.

No, I think if you give us.

Okay, so funding the homeless programming, funding housing production. The transportation packages with the caveat that they are supporting funding for rural communities, rural highways, supporting local renewable energy source production, so long as that's a substitute use for locally produced solar and wind at house and neighborhood level scales, and providing the, whatever it's called, the priorities for that. And then support local electric grid hardening. That's something that pretty heavily impacts us for our year-round transmission and distribution here in Clatsop County and Cannon Beach.

Okay.

So that was my five.

Jen, was that a good way to do it? Are you getting enough information? Yeah. Okay. Lisa? Yeah, sorry.

It was hard to pick out just five. Right. But I picked out public meetings law clarity. Community energy resilience disaster planning infrastructure funding water reuse and ratepayer assistance.

Okay, and I selected the public meeting law clarity full funding for housing production. the transportation package, infrastructure funding for water and wastewater, and great peer assistance.

Gary?

I have infrastructure funding, the public meetings, law clarity, and strengthening economic and workforce development, and kind of had a toss-up on the others.

And Vienna. Okay. So I am going to be brutally honest. I got fell down a rabbit hole on Zio 2502 in 300 and something, almost 400 pages. And I only gleaned over it and I really don't have an answer, but I like all of your input. Okay.

So then we'll tabulate that and, and get the ballot out and let you guys know. rather than wait for the suspense here. So you and I will, it's okay with you. Okay. Okay. Next on the agenda, we have a public hearing. This is a hearing for ZO 2502, City of Cannon Beach Request for Housing Related Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments to Chapter 1704 Definitions, 17.3 Residential Moderate Density R1 Zone, 17.32 Residential Medium Density R2 Zone, 17.34 Residential High Density R3 Zone, 17.4 Limited commercial C1 zone, 17.6, general requirements and regulations, 17.68, off-street parking, 17.7 design review, 17.72 accessory uses generally, and a new section 17.60200 public benefit dwelling owner occupancy requirements. The zoning text amendment requests will be reviewed against the criteria of the municipal code section 17.94060A amendments criteria and the statewide planning. Planning Commission. I'm going to open the public hearing and ask, does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the city council to hear this application at this time? Do any counselors wish to disclose any potential or actual conflicts of interest? Okay, I'd like to request the staff report. Jeff?

All right, thank you. The initial evidentiary public hearing on the above entitled matter was open before the planning commission on July 24 2025 and the matter was continued to August 28 2025 in September 25th 2025 after considerable public input and commission discussion, the planning commission closed the public hearing deliberated and recommended the City Council the text amendment of the zoning ordinance be approved and added four further modifications as summarized in the attached September 25, 2025 Table 2 Modification Summary Table. The City of Cannon Beach Council is now holding a hearing to consider adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance housing text amendments. The purpose of this amendment is to further affordable and workforce housing through the introduction of public benefits to incentivize housing while providing clear and objective language and furthering the inclusion of middle housing in the majority of Cannon Beach's residential areas. The proposal would change the way in which the city regulates housing and introduce incentives to provide more affordable forms of housing. The housing ordinance amendments are summarized in the Table 1 Code Amendments Summary Table and Table 2 Modification Summary Table. Procedural. During this hearing and possible further hearings on the matter, the Council will hear evidence regarding the proposal, conduct deliberations, and make a decision to approve or deny the proposed text amendment. This is an opportunity for everyone who has an interest in the proposed Housing Ordinance text amendments to have their voices heard. Staff and City's Code Rewrite Consultant, Marcie McAnally of Herbs Works, will provide an overview of the proposal. Then the Council will accept testimony during the hearing the council will deliberate and then decide what action will be taken, such as continuing the hearing or making a formal decision to approve or deny the proposed zoning ordinance amendments. Applicable criterion findings, as you know, text amendment 178670 criteria are simply just two things. Before an amendment to the text of the ordinance codified and its title is approved, findings will be made. that the following criteria are satisfied. One, the amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Two, the amendment will not adversely affect the ability of the city to satisfy land and water use needs. And then it also must meet the statewide planning goals. So it's three simple criteria that you go through on a zoning text amendment. But I want to highlight a few things from our comprehensive plan that I've highlighted in the findings. In our Conference of Plans, it states the City endeavors to accommodate affordable housing in a manner that disperses it throughout the community rather than concentrating in its specific locations. Number two, City recognizes that there needs to be a balance between employment and housing in the Cannon Beach area and that the City cannot rely solely on other communities to provide needed affordable housing. The City encourages and supports the development of housing units in conjunction with commercial uses in order to provide additional housing to provide for a diversity of uses in the city's commercial areas and to provide security to commercial areas. Comprehensive plan also says the city will encourage the provision of permanent housing in downtown by providing zoning incentives for mixed-use structures which incorporate housing. It also states the city recognizes the scale of residential development shall be controlled in part through standards for lot coverage and maximum growth square footage. Furthermore, the city of Cannon Beach is building at a residentially zone developed density of 5.9 units per acre. with just 61 acres of developable land available within the city's urban growth boundary. According to the Clatsop County Cannon Beach Buildable Land Study, the city would require over 50 additional acres to meet its 20-year need by 2045. The city of Cannon Beach has historically produced just 1.6 units of affordable housing each year. The needs report would require the city to produce 15.2 units per year to meet its horizon, 2045 horizon. The City of Cannon Beach recognizes that workforce housing is critically needed in our city and across the county to support local businesses, working families, and people of all incomes. The 2025 Cannon Beach Housing Assessment found that 42.6% of the city's Cannon Beaches renters are cost burdened or paying over 30% of their house income on housing. And so the staff report, just to summarize, I'm going to just a couple points that I want to make is that We have felt that this is really, I mean, even back in 2022, it's not going to be done in one zoning ordinance amendment. This is what we call, Marcy and I have called an enabling language to let other ordinances come in behind and to provide further policies and programs for implementing more affordable and workforce housing. So, you know, we've heard comments, public comments and others, you know, does it all have to go through in one package? No, this can be split into other components. You can split off things and we'll incorporate them in that next, as I always say, is the next package through. But we are already currently at work on housing, architectural standards and form-based code. And we would put those in with that package that comes through. So keep that in mind for any other modifications that you consider. So I'd like to turn it over to Marcy now and let her tell you about these updates that we're asking for.

Good evening, Marcy.

Good evening, Bayer and Council. I'd like to share my screen, if possible, so I can go over a brief. So, Marcy, you're muted. I'm not muted. Is this better? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?

I'm wondering if she could just call in on her phone and do the audio through her phone.

Can you hear me now?

Remember, this is our first meeting. There's going to be a glitch or two. Please be patient. So far, it's gone pretty good. Can you hear me now?

Yeah, we can.

Can you hear us? Yes.

I'm wondering if we could get someone else to try.

I was going to suggest, it looks like Jay had his hand up if he's willing to, if Barb would permit him to test his mic and see if it's our audio coming through, if it is truly her side. And who is it? I believe that's probably Jay Orloff, I would imagine.

It's Jay Moore. I can hear her fine. I'm on Zoom. I can hear Marcy. I'm here on Zoom.

Jay, I don't think they can hear you, though.

I tried.

Let's see here.

Marcy, were you able to hear Jay when he was just talking?

Yes.

So it's our audio.

It's our theory. So I wonder if we have to turn the TV up or something like that. Yeah.

Oh, OK. Marcy, do you want to try using your phone and seeing if you can dial in?

I just got a message. It sounds like the audio is also getting output all the way to YouTube as well.

It is.

So YouTube and other Zoom members can hear it. It's just whatever connection into this room that we're missing.

And it's a YouTube loud and clear. Are they hearing?

I don't know. I didn't get that info.

Well, come on, Eric.

I'm in break.

Okay, we're going to take a five minute break with everybody's going to have their fingers crossed that when you come back, it'll all be working. Thank you.

That's my plastic. So I...

okay we still have so stated that new dwelling units under this provision would not be eligible for short-term rental licensing that continues to be part of this ordinance it also included duplex standards amendments to off-street parking reducing from two spaces per dwelling to one and zero for adus And then design review underwent a lot of changes, striking reference to housing and ADUs. Then as a result of those hearings at planning commission, they had asked for some changes and these are those modifications that came back in September. They added to the public benefit definition the title holder's renter. They reduced the period required from 12 months for long-term rental to six. And they asked to increase the ADU square footage from 600 to 800 square feet. later, as a result of our work sessions with you and staff work just this year, there were some additional changes made and they're shown here. I'm just going to go through this relatively quickly to point out that they are in the red text added to the purple or magenta text from before. Triplexes are now defined and they are now allowed in R1 in addition to duplexes. And then in the duplex R2, triplexes have been added to that zone as well. And in the high density, so-called high density zone, R3 apartment and multi-family dwellings are allowed. And I think lastly, or next to last, is public benefit dwellings have a modification to their parking requirements of zero required per unit if it's a public benefit dwelling. And the additional strikethroughs to make design review comply. And then some non-conforming. I'm gonna jump down to the very end because this was a result. These were the results of a request at the last work session about updating the nonconforming language to allow nonconforming buildings to continue to exist. The last thing I'll talk about, if you want to, I'll just highlight that at Councilor Ostrander's request. I prepared some research on FAR as floor area ratio, as it has been used by Oregon cities to limit housing size and or incentivize affordable housing. And I summarized that in a two page, I think two or two and a half page memo. And I'm happy to discuss that more when it is appropriate. I'm going to stop sharing now and allow the hearing to proceed.

Can I just add one thing? One of the things I didn't catch Marcy's saying, but the Planning Commission also had put, and it's the last item that they had requested was Planning Commission requested the timeline from adoption of amendments to taking effect. To be extended to nine months to a year from the usual 30 days was also one of their recommendations.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so I'm going to open the public hearing. no i'm going to call for public testimony and state the request will be reviewed against the criteria of municipal code section 17.94.060a amendments criteria and the statewide planning goals oral to testimony will be limited as specified below oral testimony is limited to three minutes for proponents and opponents, 15 minutes for proponents and opponents if representing a group of five or more people. The pertinent criteria to be considered or noticed in the staff reports, testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed towards those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal code which the person testifying believes to apply to the decision. persons who testify shall first receive recognition state their full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify whom they represent are their presentations by proponents anybody in the audience and is there anyone on zoom if you would raise your hand please Are there presentations by opponents in the audience? If you'd raise your hand? And is there anyone on zoom? Is there a staff? Oh, sorry.

Is it Jay? OK. This is Jay Moore. Are you looking for people to have public comment on 2502? Yes. OK. So I've got three minutes? You do. OK. I'll talk fast. First of all, your new digs there look great. And the sound quality, other than the glitch, is great because Zooms in the past have been really challenging. So I've submitted input on 2502. four times now, both Planning Commission and the City Council. So I don't want to try to...

Excuse me, could you please state your full name and mailing address?

Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. First name Jay, last name Moore, M-O-H-R, and I don't have a post office box yet, but I own a house on Pacific Street. So I'm a fourth generation Oregonian, born in Eugene, spent a lot of time on the coast as a kid. Opportunity to buy a house in Cannon Beach came up, so I bought this house in October of 2024. House is 100 years old, and it's full of asbestos, lead paint, a mess of wiring. I knew when I bought the house, I was going to have to do something significant to it to make it safe for my family. So I'm now in the process of redesigning this house. Well, up pops 2502 after I bought the house, and I learned that I cannot rebuild the house as it was built today in terms of the footage. It was very, very disturbing to learn that. So I've talked to a lot of people in the city about this. Everybody is all in favor of affordable housing, workforce housing. But this FAR reduction, there's little to no support. If you go back through the Planning Commission documents, you will find virtually no people speaking in favor of a FAR reduction. Everybody is against it for the most part. I might be exaggerating a little bit, but generally that's the case. And this idea of the FAR reduction is off base. It doesn't move the needle in terms of housing. There have been a lot of other techniques, methods discussed in terms of like the RV park and things along that line that are significant. handicapping a homeowner by taking away, basically confiscating their property, taking it down 700 feet from what they thought they owned. It's just not right. That's not an American thing to do. And then what you do is you take that 700 feet away and then you say, oh, by the way, you can have your property back if you build an ADU. But then you have to become a landlord and And by the way, you can't use your main house as a short-term rental anymore. It just doesn't make any sense. The number of ADUs that will be built will probably be minimal. There's like one or two a year built is my understanding. This just doesn't make any impact. And then you're taking people's property away. It just makes no sense at all. Focus on the things that will move the needle. In terms of the planning commission recommendation, go back and watch the YouTube. It was a very noncommittal decision. There was indecision up to the very minute of the vote about what they wanted to do on the FAR. At the end, it was late. They kind of threw their arms up and said, let's put it up to the city council and let them vote on it. But as Jeff mentioned, there were some stipulations. One of the stipulations was moving the approval to nine to 12 months or delaying it. And the other thing was grandfathering. They never described what grandfathering was.

Okay, Jay, you've reached your three minutes. So can you wrap it up very quickly?

Where does grandfathering and the nine to 12 month deferral, where is that documented? How is that going to be memorialized if you move forward with this reduction?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anybody else on Zoom that would like to speak? I see your hand. Anybody? Okay, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? Sharon? No, come on up. I'm glad those things happen to other people besides myself.

My name is Sharon Amber. I'm at PO Box 101 Cannon Beach. And since someone spoke against this, I just have to say, yeah, there are people here who would like to see it. And the reason being is there are so many vacation homes that are like 10,000 square feet. and they don't need to be, you know, just across the street. An investor came and built a house that's humongous and it is a vacation home. And at the very end, he added a piece that was on his neighbor's lot. And then he added another piece that was on our public ground. And you know, it's who needs a house that big, especially as vacation home. You know, I think my home exceeds it by maybe 100 square feet, but my house is too big for me. And I just, I think that people building right out to the very last line they can excludes a lot of trees and a lot of the things that we come here, that we want to be here for. There are... People come here and they come here because it's lovely and it's beautiful. Unfortunately, so many people bring the same things that they don't like at their own place. And they're making it more and more like the city all the time. And I've been here 40 years and I love what we have here. And, you know, this is one way to preserve it. So thank you for hearing me out and you have a great day.

Thank you. Okay, is there anybody else that would like to speak on Zoom or in the audience? Okay, is there a staff response?

No, I don't have a response. Marcy, do you have anything?

I don't either have a response.

Okay, so I'm going to close the public hearing and move to consideration. Who would like to start?

Well, I just would like to say that I did sit through the plan.

Oh, sorry.

I did sit through the planning commission hearings and listen to them all. And everybody who spoke against reducing the far was a person who had a very large house often on the oceanfront and often as a vacation home. So I you know, they came in force to object. Oh, my goodness. They came in force to object to the reduction of FAR. That doesn't mean that there's not a lot of people in this town who would like to see a reduction in FAR. It was just that they felt like their personal space was being invaded in some way, and that's why they spoke out. So I disagree totally with the notion that the majority of people don't want the FAR reduction. And the other thing is I have a couple other points in this, Jeff, that I don't understand. One is why was the nine months to a year adopted? I understand 30 days is really a short time, or way too short, but where did the nine months to a year come from? I just remember it being thrown out as a number, but what's the rationale behind it?

I'm going to, if Marcy may know better, because I wasn't here during that, and so my assumption was because of the possibility of the FAR, but I don't know. Marcy, anything?

I think it just reflected a concern about the degree of change that was happening and the ability to allow people to adjust over a longer time frame than 45 days.

In other words, give them time to build their 5,000 square foot house on the oceanfront. Yeah, I mean, that's what the result will be. But that's just my opinion. The other thing I was curious about was 1772-020-E. where it says you crossed out or shall not obstruct significant views of the ocean mountains or similar features from adjacent buildings. So that's fences. So before you could not build a fence that obstructed your neighbor's view of the mountains or the ocean or the forest. Now you can. Why is that change in there?

Well, it's not clear and objective. And so this is part of that clear and objective approach. We still have fence regulations that limit the size and heights of fence. This just doesn't allow, you know, to say that a certain type of view, a subjective kind of consideration of the view.

So none of the prior requirements that if you build a house or you block someone's sunlight or you block their solar access or you block their view, all those things are going to go out the window because they're not clear and objective?

That's my understanding. That was the intent of the clear and objective language.

Is there a way to write that in a clear and objective manner? It might take a few extra sentences of explanation, but isn't it possible to do that?

Some cities do impose a view corridor to maybe achieve what you're talking about, but they're usually limited to a certain area, a certain view from a certain viewpoint. There's actually two similar red cross-throughs that take place on page number 30 and 31. And they are very difficult to make clear and objective. You're essentially prohibiting certain buildings from meeting the allowed development standard. And it requires a person who feels their view is being obstructed to call on it.

I'll just add to that, that in my experience with other communities, it's very difficult to regulate these sorts of things clearly and objectively. I think if you are going to regulate, you probably should do so based on height or other objective criteria. And I know that what you're describing isn't really a one size fits all sort of a situation. But unfortunately, that's kind of when at least when it comes to housing development, that's what we're left with with the state legislature. Another way you can potentially regulate is not through your development code, but instead, for permits through your municipal code. So instead of in connection with housing development, anytime, maybe a fence is repaired or replaced on an existing structure. Maybe that could be through your muni code and your muni code doesn't have to be clear and objective.

That's too bad because I just remember many, many planning commission meetings where people, neighbors were upset because their solar acts, their sunlight was blocked. Someone builds a huge house next to them and blocks out all the natural light into their home And we could turn it down because they were blocking the natural light. And now we can't, now Planning Commission can't do that anymore.

And I'll just say, you know, there's still private actions that property owners can have against one another under just ideas of real property. You know, just the idea of perhaps blocking your neighbor's sunlight, if that's for solar panels or for other, you know, just your personal enjoyment. There is case law for a private action between those two parties. It's just that the state has told us that the cities cannot regulate those things.

Okay. That's really a shame because most people don't have the money to sue their neighbor or the desire. And Marcy, I remember from all the discussions on the housing when we did this from the very beginning, one of the things that... I remember in our housing discussions was, and I felt very strongly about this, is that I didn't want to see any of this happen unless we had an STR cap. That was, we talked about that and then kind of were assured that we were going to get an STR cap and it was going to happen because it was part of the package. And now it seems like it's, you know, in la-la land and no one really knows what's happening with it. To me, I can't separate them. To me, it has to happen together. The STR cap has to happen before we even consider these amendments. That's my opinion. Because I always operated under the assurances that that would happen. And that was how I always did all my thinking in your meetings that you held, was with that in the back of my mind, and now, you know.

And that STR cap is still coming your way, so you still have that on your, you have an agenda next week of the discussion on the work session, and then when you would like to hear it, yeah.

Are you proposing we table Lisa? Councillor Kerr? Are you proposing that we table this until after we've heard the caps and council makes a decision? I don't know.

I actually don't. I can't. I can't. I don't know. I mean, I'd like to hear from other people. I'm just I feel I kind of feel a little blindsided.

So I agree.

HAB-Jacques Juilland. : Go ahead, so I came into this meeting tonight with an idea i've spent the last weeks and months sleepless trying to wrap my head around some of the particular things specifically the fa our reduction in here. HAB-Jacques Juilland. : When the packet was released and we got the information from marcy it was. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, It kind of made the money in the waters even muddier I generally had resolved that there was case study of reduction in fa are leading to smaller homes that were cheaper more densely. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, More more densely developed into areas and the packet that Marcy provided us has information from Portland and where they went the exact opposite direction they Josh Triplett- For their single family left their affair alone, then allow to duplexes little bit more FAA or triplex is a little bit more far and which resulted in smaller cheaper more homes being developed more residences being developed infill in their areas and. Josh Triplett- That pretty much completely broke my mindset on the this. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, One particular thing of the housing amendment which like my counselor Hammond said is 300 pages of stuff in here, but that that pretty much broke my resolve of the fa our reduction being the PB, Harmon Zuckerman, The right move or like solidified as the right move for us to take and I'm, I would like to PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Propose the we table that particular discussion, the FAA discussion and it's I went through and looked and it looks like there's really only two two slash five references in 17.030, M040, D1 and 2, and then 17.32040, L, which should be D. It looks like it had a typo. 1, 2, and 3. Those are the two references for reducing FAR, just not changing those, moving forward with the rest of what's in this plan, and moving that discussion of FAR to the same time that we had, because Jeff made reference just here in this presentation of form-based code and architectural code coming before us soon, moving that FAR discussion to that discussion with the form-based code and the architectural code. Seems like that makes more sense for that to be grouped together with that, whether we decide to go up, go down, go sideways, go all sorts of in a circle with FAR, doing that there. as opposed to holding up all of the rest of this housing code, which has tons of things that have had proven benefits in other communities for actually making housing more developable, the reduction on the requirements for ADUs, not having them go to DRP, the reduction for parking for ADUs, the stuff in downtown, the C1 stuff between second and third, all of those adjustments very clearly can move the needle in something for development in the medium term in the future. The FAR seems kind of muddied. I thought it was solid. I was sold that that was the solid way to go. I'm not so sure, especially with some more recent stuff that came out. So those are kind of my thoughts on what I would like to see happen with this code right now.

And I would say that I would not even consider this code without the reduction of the FAR, not for a second.

You would hold up the ADUs getting out of DRB. You'd hold up the... the development of residential but partial.

Without the FAR reduction, yes. Because what that is, is it creates a public benefit. It creates a carrot, a reason for people to feel moved to, or to have a desire to build an ADU or to build a duplex because they get more FAR. All you're asking, all you're getting- I'm not saying you're- You're getting infill. You're getting density dense, like a city. This is not- portland and what marcy gave us as an example of portland doesn't i did what as soon as i saw portland on the top of it i didn't care because that's a completely different environment than we have here. And all you'll get is infill and still get 3,000, 4,000 square foot lot houses. And they're not going to put an ADU on because why would they? And it's just, I think it all has to work together. I think it'd be a huge mistake just to increase infill without reducing the FAR for single family homes.

So- Josh Triplett- The my my suggestion my what I would like to see is not increasing all of that stuff it is. not moving forward with the FAR reduction, but moving forward with the things that had nothing to do with the FAR reduction, the things that were not tied to it in any way. The rest of this code is not tied to that FAR reduction. The rest of this code is essentially standalone. Getting ADUs out of DRB has nothing to do with FAR, not one iota. It has everything to do with clear and objective standards, but it has nothing to do with dealing with FAR, and neither does eliminating the requirement for the parking space for an ADU. Those don't have anything to do with an FAR, whether it goes up or down.

But encouraging people to build FARs instead of just building a single family home to build ADUs instead of a single family home. That's what that whole FAR reduction is, because it's supposed to, you get additional FAR if you build an ADU, which is not counted towards FAR. You get all these different benefits. What you'll end up with is every freaking square foot of the lot. covered with building. You'll have no trees left. You'll have no natural beauty left. You'll have no setback, huge setback reduction. So you'll have this conglomerate of houses all squeezed together. I don't think that's what people want. I don't think they want to live in a dense city type environment. What is wrong with reducing the FAR for single family homes? It makes total sense to me. And it is an additional incentive for people to build ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, because they get all these benefits, including additional FAR. So you don't have every square foot of your lot covered.

We still have a 50% lot coverage requirement. That's a maximum 50% lot coverage, which includes driveways, which includes your load decks. That's true.

50%. You still have that. Look at the house up on, I guess it's Laurel, where there's zero... There's not one tree on that lot. That house goes out to the very edges of the property and they are within the code.

There were trees on the lot before they built too.

Well, there's because they have a huge interior deck that is under 30 inches tall and allows them to build the walls to their house to the edge of the property. You can't see the ocean walking down the street from on either side of that house. So I think that without the FAR reduction, and I don't, I didn't, as I said, I did not think that Marcy's comparisons or information from other cities was actually very relevant to our city here, our town.

Well, I think I agree with both of you.

Thanks, Garrett.

I think this could move forward without the FIR because it's something that I think... you know, we really need to look at carefully. And at first I was opposed to FAR reduction, but I did see it as a way to incentivize the building of additional dwelling units. You get a give back. I've just become a little buried in the details of what it's going to take for someone to take advantage of these public benefits. It's something that works for a developer. They know what they're doing. They can deal with tenants. But when it comes to someone who wants to build a home, really all we're going to end up with is more second homes, more smaller second homes. And I think the intention here, the reason we would reduce FAR is to add dwelling units. And so I'm still very uncomfortable with what it would take. And again, it's hard for me to imagine any single homeowner thinking, Well, yeah, I'll go that route. I mean, maybe there will be some, but I'm also concerned that we're kind of going backwards on the possibility of building an ADU without restrictions. So now we're taking away the FAR and there's no give back for building an ADU. So that seems to be, to me, a piece that's missing. So some of this, again, it seems to make sense for a developer, but if we're really trying to add dwelling units to someone that wants to build a home, I'm skeptical. I would love Jeff or Marcy to convince me that that's really something that is possible here.

I wonder if I could pull up the language that's in 17.3040 in R1 and go through it with you because I'm a little unclear when some of you are saying that we're doing away with the FAR. I am not understanding that to be true. Would that be okay if I?

Yes, please.

Okay, so I'm looking at this language here. Let me make it bigger. This is on page 15. The language here says the floor area ratio for permitted or conditional use shall not exceed 0.6. That, as I understand it, remains. Except for, and this is the new language, the following uses which are subject to FAR and FAR exemption. FAR allowance of 0.46 applies to a single dwelling, modular home, with or without an accessory dwelling unit. a public benefit dwelling which satisfies the requirements of the public requirement, public benefit dwelling provision, which is that new provision. The exemptions are a public benefit accessory dwelling unit would be exempt from that FAR and for a public benefit dwelling, any habitable square footage within a roof or dormer. So I just, I'm not totally clear when you say that we're doing away with the FAR, if I understand what Eric, you're describing, we would be getting rid of all of this here, but we would leave the 0.6. Is that, am I understanding that correctly?

That was my suggestion. Essentially not doing the FAR discussion for now and having it as part of that form-based architectural discussion and leaving it essentially status quo where we're at now. 0.6 for the FAR in Josh Triplett- All in all, our residential zones and the 50% lot coverage leaving that as it currently stands so developments would still be developed the same way they're currently being developed in terms of Florida ratio and lot coverage.

Okay. Why would someone build, why would someone build a duplex subject to all, all these different requirements when, why would a builder not just build a $3.5 million home of 3000 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot. And you know, sell it for a ton of money what where is there an incentive to build adus where is there an incentive to build um duplexes or triplexes if you take away that far benefit that you get i think you take away the drive to build additional housing and i think you'll end up with just infill lot of it will be um vacation homes and you'll just have more vacation homes than you have now i think that it's a huge a huge mistake i really do um and i think that in the from the very beginning as i said before when we started these discussions as the uh you know advisory committee um That was built in to the discussion, a reduction of FAR for single-family homes. What's the big deal? What is so terrible about reducing the single-family home to 0.46? I don't understand why that's such a huge ask. I think the people who have already have their giant houses, we can't that they they get, you know, that's grandfathered in.

Again, the reason to reduce it would be because you're hoping that they would choose to have a give back.

It's a carrot. Right, but the give back the give back requires a deed restriction and you're going to be hard pressed to find people i'm not saying I don't agree with what you're saying, but that deed restriction. Even for the incentives that come with that the incentives in by no way outweigh the deed restriction.

Well, certainly if there's no FAR give back, then they really wouldn't. But if there is, that adds a little more incentive.

It does add a little more incentive, but then you're asking them to be a landlord. And that's even because in order to get that public benefit, you have to rent that property.

And not just be a landlord, but there's a lot of requirements because it needs to go through the city housing office. And again, that might be something developers are used to. If you're developing a development, I think developers are used to doing that where they have to devote. They're given a little bit more to make sure that you're producing some affordable housing. The disconnect to me is moving someone from building a house to building a house in an ADU or from building a house to building a duplex.

So maybe the solution is take the north end of the RV park put in, have that land donated, put in 12 little cottages with a central community garden in the middle of it and 12 cottages around it. The price could be way reduced because the cost of the land wouldn't be in there. And then you have, you start with that as an experiment and forget about, because if this is just going to produce more short-term or not short-term, but more vacation homes, then there's no point in doing it.

Well, there's a real possibility that just, you know, if you do...

Without a deed restriction, that's what you'll get.

If you do a program that no one takes advantage of, what you end up with is more smaller homes that are likely to be second... Vacation homes.

That's right. I think unless you ever did restrict.

So there's got to be enough incentive in whatever the program is to build the additional dwellings.

So I agree. I think what the things that you get back or some of the things are things that I discussed during the budget meeting, the SDC fees and all of those PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Additional fees that go into developing that make development so much more expensive in Canada beach. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Tied to the the public, the public dwelling the public benefits package as as part of the incentive as as the reason why somebody would be more interested. Oh, I, they can actually develop an ad now instead of paying $12,000, $13,000 in fees that do nothing except for go into city coffers to... That doesn't benefit them in any way. And it's not construction costs, it's just fees that go away.

I think, you know, those kinds of incentives could potentially push someone. The more and more carrots you give someone, you know, potentially tax breaks the SDCs. That... might push some people into that kind of complicated public benefit program. But what it seems like is missing to me is just a basic, you know, build an ADU and you get a give back, build a duplex and you get a give back on FAR without all the strict restrictions. And oh, no, someone might use it for their family. to come and visit, their kids to come and visit. They might use it as their office. They might use it as an art studio. Oh, no. I just don't understand why we fear that.

It's not that we fear it. We're trying to promote additional housing for people who live and work here. And that's the whole point of this thing, this ordinance. And my fear is that without all those carrots and all the restrictions, like the public benefits, all that, and the deed restrictions, you won't get that. It's just not going to happen. I mean, maybe this, like I said, maybe this is not... If this is so unpalatable... to people to have all these restrictions and the deed restrictions, et cetera, then the city just needs to donate land and we need to get

I think both.

That's true.

And we need to be purchasing property and working to create a housing truck and making that happen.

A program like this might be palatable for someone who wants to develop a stretch of property on Spruce Street downtown.

Right. That's a sort of a separate part of this.

Now, that would be something where someone who's in the business, they're going to build some affordable units and be a tenant that can deal with all those restrictions. But again, I just don't see an individual homeowner participating in this program. And when they don't, then we get more empty second homes.

And I don't think that 800 square feet is going to be a benefit for someone who wants a second home here to put a deed restriction on their property. And even though they might not be here 11 and a half months out of the year, they're still not going to want somebody living in that ADU on their property for the two weeks a year that they are here. One thing I will say is the public benefit. It looks like... Planning Commission said something about any rental must be for more than six months for long-term rentals in that public benefit definition. I think that should absolutely be no less than 12 months, the way it was written originally, because that's housing security. That gives everybody a little more housing security. I would like to see it actually be a little longer than that. I would like to see 24 months, but I understand that 12 is probably going to be. So I think that that would need to be changed there. I agree with you, Diane. I am too. Everybody agree with that? 12 months?

I agree. I believe the conversation at the commission was for seasonal, getting seasonal workers. And I think that was the target, opening it up to allow people that are coming in for just the busy season of the year.

So that doesn't allow for long-term rentals for the people that live and work here all year. Yeah, right.

We're less seasonal than we've been.

The season is getting longer and longer.

It's 12 months now.

Is there some way to make a distinction in doing this between somebody that wants to build their house and might consider building a duplex or an ADU and a larger lot that somebody is looking at developing multiple housing units in?

Can I, can I just, yes, it's great. And if people were looking around, where's that, where's that boy's coming from? Sorry. I'll just say Jeff. Yeah. So, um, on that note, yes, it's what we used to call our three property, right? It was it's that's where you built apartments and multifamily complexes. I would remind you that I think it's down to around 6% or something like that. That's left of our three property. We are, I think that would still be under the proposed changes of middle housing and things. I think that it's still the only district we still would allow multifamily in. I'm not sure. I'd have to check that, but I think that's the only one. We allow up to triplexes in everything, but only multifamily, I believe, in R3. I can review that. But anyhow, that is what you're describing. And that is also one of my, you know, points. And when we had this discussion and I read what everyone says in public comments about, you know, we want affordable and workforce housing, we have very, very little land And I agree with everyone up there that says we need to do all the things that we're talking about here. And that's what I want to emphasize, because if you go on right now to ZillowRental.com, whatever that the cheapest you're going to find in the city of Cannon Beach is $2,500. So if you keep hearing that you're going to build accessory dwelling units that will just magically be affordable without a deed restriction, not going to be the case unless they are doing it from their heart at a below mark, well below market. And I can say that anecdotally, because I live in one, right? So, and it's well above those marks, and so that's what, you know, that's what I want to impress when you just make this discussion. Yes, I think you need to do all the tools you can use, and these are just various tools to use, and I want you guys to discuss it, but I did want to clarify the point that our three property is really now the only properties really you can do what you're describing, Gary. And that I think is just around 6%. We can bring those numbers back when we talk about the form-based and architectural stuff.

Well, you're both making a case that I should raise the rent on my duplex. But I would like to see more market rate rentals too. because we're doing nothing to drive the price down of market rate rentals. In fact, I think we could drive them the other way if they're just become something that there's fewer and fewer of out there. So, you know, we need market rate rentals for you. We need it for police officers. We need it for firefighters. It's also a need. Mm-hmm.

Does the public benefit provide a cash incentive for landlords?

So that's the other point I forgot to bring up. We are discussing that next week, that all of the steps, unfortunately, in the next 500-page packet. But I've tried to limit as much as possible and reference the materials you should have already, most of these that we've talked about. But those are the next decision points we'll talk about on just that, what we give them back.

And because of that, I have to agree with Eric. We need to wait on the FAR. I think that we could pass all of this public benefit. There's so many things in here that are That are good I just I don't see how reducing the far is going to make a difference, but I think that that is one thing in that in that public benefit. is some kind of cash incentive. there's no other way unless like Jeff said you find someone. Out of the goodness of their heart. that's going to rent it for less than what it values at. And the only other thing that's going to bring down housing prices is capping the STRs. It may not lower them significantly, but it will bring that price down because they will no longer be an investment property.

That's right. It's a tool in the toolbox.

And that's what it is.

And I just want to say, Deanna, the reduction of the FAR, the whole purpose of that was because it's a huge incentive. You get additional FAR, you're allowed to build if you build an ADU, or if you build a duplex, you get to build on a bigger, With a deed restriction. Only if there's a deed restriction. You have to have a deed restriction whether you'd reduce the FAR or not. Because if you don't, you're building more density and permitting it as second homes. There's nothing to stop it from being a vacation home. In fact, you'll have a town full of little vacation homes. If you don't have a deed restriction, that's the only way this will work.

It's going to be a homeowner that uses both their primary dwelling and their secondary dwelling.

They get no benefit for that.

Well, they get rent from the person who's renting it, or they get... They get I mean, you know, they are forced to be a landlord if they're if they have a duplex. That's true. I don't think that's such.

I mean, but I think you could still have a duplex without having a deed restriction if you didn't want that public benefit. I mean, there has to be there has to be some there has to be some middle ground there. You can't just say, well, you can you can buy this property and but and this is how big you can build your house. But everything comes with a deed restriction. I mean, you can't go family house doesn't but if but if I'm going to rent, but if I'm going to rent my house, I have a duplex, I build a duplex in town. And I'm going to rent both sides out. I don't want a deed restriction.

You could do that. It'd have to be, it'd have to be, FAR would have to be 0.46. Right.

On a duplex. Yeah, it'd be pretty small. It would still be 0.46.

So nobody's going to do that.

What is that? Doesn't that equate to about 2,300 square feet, 0.46? Isn't that about 2,300 square feet on a 5,000 square foot lot? Yep. So, I mean, I think that I can probably look at a couple people here that would be happy to live in 1,000 square feet. Yep. um so and i would be happier as an owner not to have that deed restriction as long as it's very and i and i'm pretty sure that i read that somewhere in jeff's gift to us um so but the deed restriction just says you have to rent it you have to it's it's talking about the amount of money you can rent it for But I don't think that's true, not yet, because it hasn't been established what that is yet. No, it isn't.

But it has to be a certain percentage of... That's to get the public benefit from the city.

To get the public benefit, yes. To get the public benefit. But if I want to build a duplex and rent it out...

Without getting a public benefit. Without getting public benefits. Yeah, that's true. Except that how many people who buy land in Cannon Beach are building duplexes now? Well, no, I'm... You know, beautiful... mostly vacation homes. Sometimes they build homes to live in. Sometimes they're beautiful. Sometimes they belong in California. That's true. I give you that.

Part of the point of the FAR reduction is if you offer a give back on FAR for a duplex, for an ADU, then they may decide to do that, to maximize their square foot. Unless you penalize them so much and make it so burdensome on them.

It isn't much of a penalty. I don't think that this ordinance, as it's written, puts a huge a burden on a builder. I don't, on someone who wants to invest.

I'm not, I don't understand builder. I only understand someone who wants to build a home and do they want, they're going to build a second unit and become landlords over a, uh, restricted rent unit, uh, It's hard for me to wrap my head around that being actually...

It has to be rented for a certain amount of time, 12 months, for example. So that's one restriction on it. If you do it without the public benefit, you can rent it for six-month times if you want.

I guess I would just like to see a decent give back for unrestricted additional units. And then if you want to... build in all kinds of additional incentives for this public benefit dwelling. I would love it if people would take it up on that. And again, I think some developers would. But as Jeff is pointing out, we have limited space left and whatever we get built is we're going to have it for a hundred years.

Right.

So if we have a single house, single family house at 0.46, that's what we've got for a hundred years. If we have a duplex, I think, I don't know, what are we, what, what's that going to happen to that over a hundred years? What's going to happen to a house in an ADU over the next hundred years? I just, it

Well, I mean, I can't predict what's going to happen. I don't even know if we'll be here in 100 years. So that, you know, I'm not worried about what happens in 100 years. I'm worried about trying to find, trying to incentivize housing now, you know, and I don't think that this, without the additional give back of additional FAR is going to work. I don't understand. People are not, people... When you pay $100,000 for a lot that's 50 by 100, the chances are you're going to maximize the size of your house and make it as big as nice as you can.

I agree with you. That's why I think a unrestricted give back on the FAR, that people would actually do that because now they're building to their maximum, but we're getting two units out of it.

Why would they build two units when they don't have to? If they have the money to buy the lot to begin with, do you think they have to build a duplex to- The other choice is to have a smaller home.

And not have a place for their snowbird parents or their kids to come and visit.

Because you have a reduction of FAR. Is that what you mean? Why would they have a smaller home? Right. Okay. So that's my point. That if you reduce the FAR for a single family home, then you... might incentivize someone to build a duplex.

Yes. Unless you make them go through this entire public benefits requirements.

Unless the requirements to do it are too much for somebody to actually do it. And I agree with Gary. There needs to be a half step in the process where there are givebacks for building those additional units without the onerous, the Josh Triplett- Forcing forcing somebody to be a landlord, but still some still still require them to do something, but I agree getting getting that half step of getting more permitting more units duplex triplex and the ad that's what whatever without having to meet those extra requirements. And then you get even more givebacks if you decide, okay, well, I want to take advantage of this. You get some more financial givebacks. You get some more FA, whatever it is.

I just think it's going to happen.

It just seems like what every community tries to do is to get more dwelling units built. They're trying to encourage people to... build ADUs. They're trying to make it easier to build ADUs. They're trying to give some incentives for building ADUs.

What's going to stop people from just building duplexes and one half is a vacation home and the other half becomes a vacation home?

I don't understand what you mean by vacation home.

Restrictions or people are just going to build more houses and they're all going to be vacation homes. You have to have some carrot that you dangle in front of their face to make them want to build. Most people don't, when they build a home, they are not, or they buy land in Cannon Beach. They're not thinking, oh, I want to do the best thing for this community. And I want to you know, make sure that working people have a place to live here. They're not thinking that way, but they might think that way if they get additional benefits like additional FAR and less parking requirements and forgiveness from the tree code, provisions for having to pay a lot of money to cut down a tree, all those things, if they were getting that back, that might incentivize them

So I don't, I don't think there were having an argument about whether or not a discussion, not an argument discussion about whether or not the public benefit provision that's in here should be in here, should not be in here. I feel like in general, we have all kind of agreed that needs to be in there, that that new language that's. If I'm reading the room correctly. So I don't think we're talking about getting rid of that requirement. It's just what do you have to do in order to meet that requirement? And then what are the givebacks from that requirement? I think that's the point that we're arguing here. It's not whether or not that provision exists.

But you started the discussion by saying you wanted to, you thought the FAR should not be one of the requirements, and that should be taken out. And to me, that is the most important.

For this discussion to get this going forward.

Yeah, to get something done.

So rather than us sitting here talking about it.

Hella Pannewig- I don't I don't think we have enough acceptance, it doesn't it doesn't a bunch of people who have large homes came in and complained at the planning.

Hella Pannewig- That is that is not what got to me I laid out what got to me at the it was it was the actual empirical data that was provided to us from in the packet. Hella Pannewig- empirical data provided to us in the packet right. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, That indicated that it is not as clear cut as initially thought and is initially discussed and what we as as the housing group all we were, we were all on board. This is PB, Harmon Zuckerman, This is the way this is going to do it because we have we have this amount of data saying this. because marcy yeah led us to think this is the way to do it exactly and she still thinks it is and she provided us additional data that shows that this is not as clear-cut as initially thought and and that data is not clear-cut oh absolutely none of it is and i i'm concerned that that puts us in a position where we like gary said we'd get smaller just smaller vacation homes smaller yes smaller um Second homes and vacation rentals because they won't jump into the long-term rental market or whatever it is.

I think they're more likely to do that without that FAR as an additional carrot. I think exactly the opposite of you on that FAR reduction. I think that is the biggest incentive in this whole thing. And I don't know, Marcy, I mean, have you changed your mind about FAR as an incentive? Additional FAR, is that what your data is showing now that that doesn't work?

Well, what I was asked to show was how other cities have used FAR to incentivize smaller forms of middle housing. And so I did. I warned you last month when I was asked to do this, that Portland's going to be one of the examples. It's one of the best examples. It's getting national attention. It's been very, very successful. What it does is it allows unrestricted FAR give back. starting at 0.5 and then going up the more units that you build. Then if you also provide their bonus or their public benefit aspiration is for affordability. So that's what they require. But if you provide that kind of unit that meets their affordability requirement, then you get even more FAR. But there is a step in there. I think it's kind of what Gary is referring to as the unrestricted FAR give back or Gary is referring to it that way and Eric is referring to it maybe as a half step. It doesn't require you to provide the public benefit to get that. You just get it. to provide more housing. And it's been very successful at producing more smaller housing. That is affordable. And the affordability, just Mark, I'm talking about affordability with a capital A. I'm talking about market rate more affordable. The document that I provided a link to shows that the cost of a house in Portland under this program has been reduced from $250,000 to $300,000 on average. That's a huge reduction. It's made a lot of housing available to people who couldn't have entered the market before.

But in your example, I thought the only big difference was is where the FAR, the number of that, in other words, 0.5 or additional, is just a different number than what you have suggested in here.

It is that, but it also does not only, you don't have to provide a public benefit dwelling to get it, the give back.

Well-

But it's only a FAR give back. There's no other carrots involved.

Correct.

Unrestricted.

And understand that Portland is starting from a place of no parking is required at all. No parking. Now, that's also a big incentive. It makes it a lot easier to build housing if no parking is required. But but Canada Beach has unique problems in that you don't have on street parking to the degree that, say, Portland does. So we did not really discuss that.

Yes, and that Portland is a city as opposed to us being a small town. So the fact that their F.A.R. is higher, you know, they start off with a higher FAR than you've proposed here. It makes more sense there. I mean, the number isn't what we're arguing about or discussing. I think it's the whole idea of a give back. And I don't think that without the incentive or without having public benefits that all this isn't going to work. People are going to be very unhappy with the result. There isn't going to be more housing for people and not with the price of land the way it is in in Cannon Beach. It's just not going to happen unless we have as a public benefit give back. It just won't work with deed restrictions. I just I don't think Portland is a good example of how that's going to work here because Portland has more land, number one, and it doesn't have land that's so expensive and so sought after. Portland has empty buildings all over the place. Technically, so do we. Well, yeah, for a different reason. They just have unrented, unpurchased buildings everywhere.

Councillor Kerr, you made a good point that I think these are two separate issues. One is the FAR give back and one is the public benefit dwelling and the requirements to have the benefits of a public benefit dwelling. And I think that what's happened over the intervening months is these two issues have gotten really conflated and confusing. But if they could... If you could debate them separately, I think it should be encouraging that the public benefit dwelling requirements and allowances and all the things that are happening, the lease to locals program, the SDC waiver, the things that you will be discussing, those are very strong incentives for a public benefit. But I don't think you have to tie the FAR to that. I think the FAR give back can be a separate incentive.

You know, I'm thinking back to the very first meeting you held yesterday. with the advisory group when you had these drawings of a development in the RV park. It was really nice. I mean, it was all different kinds of housing. You know, it was middle housing, it was low income housing and it was, you know, upper middle class housing, all in the same with trees everywhere. And I think there was a coffee shop and maybe even a recreation building. I mean, it was, I'm thinking back to that and, and, you know, it provided so much housing for people. It was, I'm thinking back to that now and with longing,

Well, I think that's that's another step we can take. But right now we're trying to address well more of increasing density.

I don't think that's your goal.

And correcting all of the other issues that this ordinance corrects. Getting DRB uninvolved in residential structures so people developing residences don't have to pay the additional $400 and the additional month or two-month or three-month delay that it takes to get a hearing in front of DRB. increasing substantially the costs to develop any sort of residential when you're doing a duplex or when you're doing a AD right now. The rest of this has that in there.

And when you say increased density, what makes you think it's going to... I'm just not understanding why you think that increased density is going to benefit the people who live and work here in town without the deed restrictions. Why would it?

Because some of them are going to convert to full-time rentals, if not by the person that builds them, by the person that buys them, by the person that buys them next, by the person that buys them next.

I would love it. There's no guarantee that would happen. No. At all.

So we're looking for a guarantee, but the result is going to be that we get more smaller, empty, vacant second homes.

No, if you have a deed restriction on it, that you don't get these public benefits unless you- So then you just stop development entirely. The people that- No, they got to build like four or six single family homes. I'd rather have stopped development than have more empty homes.

I mean- I think that's what you're going to get though, because we live in a tourist community and it's sad and it's unfortunate. But unfortunately, I think that that's what's going to happen. And I don't think that there's- there would have the incentive would have to be huge, but I'm going to go back to something else really quick. If we press forward with when we press forward with the FAR, because I still agree with Eric, that's FAR is the biggest part of this package. And there are some things that we can do to get things moving along. And if we continue down the right path with this and we stay on it and we don't let keep kicking the can down the road, um, we can get all of this done before anybody could buy a house or build a house or get their bill. I mean, we could get things done quickly if we really put that as our main focus. If we do go to a FAR restriction or lower it to 0.46, what does that do? Could it bring more vacation homes? Probably yes. Is it going to bring ADUs? Maybe some. And that's good. There are probably, like the Lease to Locals program, a few people that will take advantage of that public benefit program. It also keeps our houses smaller and it will also bring down the price of housing. Not a lot, but it will bring it down to start making things more palatable again for people to purchase. One thing that I would actually request though that if we were to go with reducing the far um with all of these other things that are already in this packet that the plan that there's grandfathered language

There is already in there.

But it's not clear. It's not written clearly, and there needs to be clear grandfathered language on what that means for the current homeowner, how long they've needed to own their home before, how long that grandfathering is for.

Grandfathering, Deanna, I think you have to have it. Legally, you have to. You can't be retroactive. It's illegal in the state. to have a retroactive statute go into effect on something that already exists. That would never happen. We've never done that ever here.

Well, I believe that is what was said at another meeting is that the amount of destruction to a home would have to be like 95% before it could be built to a grandfathered standard.

No, if a house burns down or something like that, you can rebuild it in the The same footprint it was before. Right, right.

But it is to 80%. Is it 80% language? It's been 80%.

Okay. I couldn't remember clearly what the percentage was. The percentage on that, that would bother me at all. But your house burns down. But if somebody buys a house that's 3,300 square feet, it's been there that way for 20 years. They need, I guess, remodeling. There's issues with remodeling. There's all kinds of things that I've heard through the course of people talking that they've had issues with being able to get the permitting that they need from the building department to do these things to their houses. So I think that there just needs to be, I guess maybe I just need to sit down with Jeff and look at the grandfathering language a little better and understand it, what's in there.

I think there's so much good work in here. You know, months... and months or years of work. Jeff's previous employment got some of this started. But to me, it feels like we're close. We're just missing that level of unrestricted give back for an additional dwelling unit. and go ahead and build incentive in for the public benefit that a developer would take advantage of. And the worst thing that happens is people can build what they can build now, but they build it in two units.

But would they not have to have parking and would they not have to have, would they get all those benefits that are listed in here?

You know, I don't have it in mind, but no, I'm thinking the FAR give back is, unrestricted FAR give back is what's missing here. And most of the other benefits are then the next level up to that public benefit dwelling.

unrestricted give back? I don't follow you. So you're saying, oh, you're talking about to what the restriction is now, 0.6. Is that what you're saying? Oh, okay. So that if you, well, in other words, just change the regulations so that in all zones, you can build a duplex or a triplex that's 0.6. Yeah, that doesn't bother me. I don't think people do it, but it doesn't bother me.

I know people do it here.

No.

Yeah.

I don't know. I mean, that's, I don't know about the amount of square foot, but they're, you know, the choice is, you know, build the four, six or maximize their build and build the 0.6. And I would think that that's enough incentive to, that people would add a dwelling unit to their investment.

Right. So we're back to that 0.46 for a single family and you get six for building a duplex.

Right.

Yeah. I think that's what's proposed here. It's much more complicated, but I think that's the crux of, that's the major give back to me, that and the parking.

except it's not to build an unrestricted second unit. We're now going backwards from what you could build today.

Well, you can't build an unrestricted second unit now. There's all kinds of restrictions on it. Square footage that's allowed on an ADU, are you talking about on a...

I'm talking about no deed restriction.

Oh. No deed restriction.

So right now you can build to 0.6 and you can add an ADU. So now you can build to 0.4 and your ADU has to come out of that.

0.4.

0.46.

Okay. No. And then you just. It doesn't count towards floor area ratio under this. Under this, I think it doesn't count as first floor air ratio.

I think we've had a really good conversation this evening. And I think that we've all learned a lot about how we feel about these things. But I think until we separate, like Eric suggested, until we separate far from the rest of these housekeeping items, I don't think we're going to be able to get to an end result. I don't understand that. Why? Why? Well, because right now, if we voted on this, I would vote no. I would vote no on the whole package. And I don't want to do that, but I want to.

If we got the FAR, I would vote no. So, I mean, I'm just saying, you know.

But we need to know. I think we need to know. So do we table it?

I guess I would look to Jeff or to Marcy on, from what you've heard, a recommended path forward.

I would suggest that you table it until at least next week's public benefits discussion.

And STR cap. Yeah.

Because they have to go hand in hand.

And I've got about three other things on the agenda.

But we came full circle on that, about tabling it.

Are we all in agreement to continue?

Yeah, that's fine. Can we have the STR language as a as actual the actual cap as an actual vote at the next meeting?

Yeah, move it to an action item.

We don't have time with notice if I know that's too short for that.

Yeah. So even from the day that Planning Commission made their recommendation, we wouldn't have been able to do it. Yeah.

Okay.

Well, unless we had an additional meeting.

Yes, you can call one.

But September, I mean, our first September meeting is September 2nd, I think. Yeah, it's early.

Yeah. September 1st.

September 1st. Well, that's true, yeah.

That's actually not even enough time, is it? Oh, wait, no, that's enough time. Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Because this is legislative, it has to print in the newspaper, so no, we do not have enough notice for the first, because it has to go in the newspaper, and the newspaper has to have at least, I think it's only about, you know, the right, so that would definitely be doable for an STI, as they carry those right out into August 19th.

Okay, so let's make sure. Can we do that notice?

When you're referring to that notice requirement, is that a local code requirement?

You're talking about the... Week in advance? Yeah.

No, it's 20 days, but I have to have a several-day notice to the newspaper to run it, and our newspapers only run three days a week.

I see. Yeah. Got it.

So we're limited just because of the newspapers.

Often you can notice a subsequent hearing on the same topic just by stating the date and time at the hearing that you're currently progressing in.

They're talking about the SDR cap.

Oh, I apologize. I understand now. Apologies. Okay. So September 8th, for sure.

Yeah. But we can still talk about it at next meeting. Right, right.

Yeah. Because we have to let them know what kind of language we wanted.

And then for this discussion, can I put it on September 1st to continue this discussion?

So what day of the week is that? It's a Tuesday. Oh, first?

And what's going to be different on September 1st?

I was just going to say what?

You will have had your public benefits discussion and your first discussion on SDR cap on how you want that. So you'll have both of those discussions.

And we'll get some input from both Marcy and Jeff on how to, I mean. We're going to get clarification on the grandfathered.

part of it, right?

And that 12-month requirement. And the 12, yeah. Because I think, didn't you ask consensus on that?

Yeah, I think 12 months is the way to go on that. I agree with you. So anything else that we need to vote to continue?

Yeah, I'm going to vote to continue.

All right. Yes, I mean, I would think you would.

I would recommend reopening the public hearing and then voting to continue.

Well, is there a possibility that we could look at an option of what it would look like to have a very basic far give back for the multifamily as without a deed restriction as a step one, and then have it let it build up to the additional deed restriction, additional benefits, the additional lessening of setback requirements. Is that sure? Is that

Possible, Marcy? That'd be interesting.

Is that going to take us months down the road?

Are you talking about by next week to have these amendments, these modifications shown to you?

Just a summary of what it would look like.

We have to remember. We're talking about next Tuesday's meeting?

Yeah. That's not possible.

I wouldn't expect that. It's taken the city how long to get this far?

So by the September 1st meeting, do you think it's doable?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, so we need a motion. Oh, I need to open the public hearing. Okay, I would like to open the public hearing. And would someone like to make a motion?

I make a motion to continue this hearing to September 1st. I second.

Any further discussion? Okay, roll call, please. Jen?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Kind of want to invoke no on that.

And then I need to close the public hearing.

Okay. You don't. Public hearing will be open so we can continue receiving public comment. Yeah, I reversed that.

Thank you, Eric. Okay. Next on our agenda, we have the monthly status report. Does anybody have any questions on the monthly status report? No. Okay. And then we have, um, mayor communications. Um, I just want to let you guys know, I'm going to go to the small cities meeting in, um, Bay city tomorrow morning. Um, since I am not going to go to the mayor's conference in Ashland and anybody have anything for a counselor communications and go to the order.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I've short thing I brought it up last meeting that seven plex on Pacific is still for sale. And I think we should seriously consider where did Jeff go PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Because I think I think council should seriously consider taking action on either purchasing it or take take action on getting that so it doesn't become two separate PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Multi million dollar homes and it can continue to be a seven-unit development that can provide housing for Cannon Beach.

I went by that there, and I'm not sure if I had the right place, because somebody had said, or you, I think, needed a lot of work.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, On the interior. Oh, PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I have not seen the interior. That's my understanding from somebody who's taken PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Good. Yeah, I'll say outside looks great. Obviously the city would do due diligence to figure out what specifically needs to be done there by PB, Harmon Zuckerman, It's owned by a local, local family. It's not. It's not like it's owned by an investment firm that's just looking to turn turn it and make some money. So I think, I think it's a really good opportunity. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, To for the city to take action and do something. And my understanding of I've talked with PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Jeff briefly about it and Tim Collier briefly about it and in terms of like what what it would take to do something like that and PB, Harmon Zuckerman, It sounds like Council can make the decision just by stuff, whatever we want to buy. We can give staff direction and say, hey, go buy that thing. Their suggestion was for us to develop a policy of how we choose properties that we want to buy for this particular purpose. And I think we should definitely do that. But I don't want that to disappear while we're stuck in the mud of figuring out what that policy is, because this seems like a no-brainer.

What's the asking?

I believe it's 1.8. I'm I'm sure with negotiations, it wouldn't come out to 1.8, but that's the asking price, 1.8 for a seven unit development.

How much sooner?

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, There's, there's 2 million in to 2 million and allocated in the current affordable housing, we could use that to purchase that very, very possible and PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And I, my suggestion, I would, I would love to see the city take some action and follow that action up with the policy of how PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We'd make additional decisions afterwards and based that decision based essentially on what we're finding with this

Yeah, I think that's a great idea. And then would the city hire property management?

I think 100%. The city should not be managing it. The city should be the property owner is similar in the way that the RV park is run. Somebody else does that. We don't do that. We don't have that expertise. We hire, do an RFP for an organization like CCA or CAT that does housing in the county and let them do their thing for that sort of stuff. And then the city can then have taken action of creating some sort of forward movement on housing.

Yeah. And I know, I know that that place has communal kitchens, which is interesting. So it would, there's some interesting things about it, but there are some interesting things that almost looks like anyway, I'm not going to go into that, but, um, I agree that we should move we should move forward needs to learn before we make a decision about.

Obviously, about purchasing it or something right, but we have to see what it looks like inside and.

it's going to need a remodel.

And yeah it's that. A remodel and a. you know, gutting and rebuilding. Two separate things.

Can I make a note to you all on that? Is that all right? Other communities that I've seen, I mean, I hear that you're kind of talking about two separate things, the cost of the purchase and then the cost of the remodel. And, you know, we could discuss this. I'll probably discuss this with staff as well. But something I've seen other communities do who are valuing affordable housing is once you've purchased a property that has potential for affordable housing, you do an RFP to select a developer who will remodel the site for you. And then you'll agree to restrictive covenants that the developer agrees to as well. And that will essentially price cap the rent for that building into the future. So essentially it's privately owned, but has a city hand in the management and design and construction of that project moving forward. And you have an ability to put restrictive covenants on the property without much pushback from the private entity because they're partnering with the city.

Wow. That's basically happening up at Elk Creek. And speaking of which, are we good on that?

Are we all okay?

That was my comments about it. I just wanted to say it again and get it out there and my pitch again for PB, Harmon Zuckerman, We need to develop a policy of how we choose them. And I think this one is a no brainer for moving forward on it and then following up with Apollo an actual written policy of how we that PB, Lupita D Montoya, We almost, we need to have it on an agenda because we can't PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I probably

Make you know, take care of the order.

Yeah, right. And of course, you have to know that there's no mold in the walls. It doesn't have to all be torn down because yeah, the due diligence and go through and make sure.

Yeah. So can we should add it to an agenda? Everybody in agreement with that?

Yeah, we couldn't just have somebody look at it, though. Do we have to have it be an agenda item for somebody just to look at it and provide staff direction from go to the order to

investigate or does it actually have to make it to a real agenda item?

I don't think you need to necessarily make a formal action. I think all the staff who would be taking actions on this particular item are in the room tonight and have heard general consensus from council that you are interested in this. So my advice would be maybe let staff go away and do some preliminary investigations and then maybe they can come back at a work session and give you some initial information.

Have you got that housing person hired yet?

Yeah.

So it looks like you're going to be looking at some property.

No, to look at the property first. No, coming for them before the next.

To hear a staff assessment of options on the property.

Right. Right. You guys clear on that? Clear as mud. Okay. Sorry.

Elk Creek.

I think it'd be fun to do that.

Have we heard an update from Elk Creek on when they're going to be beginning to displace the tenants?

No.

So I guess it's not, I guess that's communication of some kind.

Yeah. I checked with David Brown, actually just followed up with him last week. I tried to check in once a quarter. The grants fell through, can't remember when it was, June, May. They're coming up with another plan and they're supposed to be bringing that back in the next month or so.

So they have no update. Nothing is happening up there. Did they get that $300,000?

No, we still have the $300,000. Okay. We just have it earmarked.

Should we talk about a contingency on that?

Or?

I don't know. I mean, I don't know if they're not. That was to rehab two units. Is that correct?

That was going to be our, yes, that was going to be our share to help them do that.

And all their grants fell through.

Yes, to my knowledge. That's what David told me. I think a lot.

I think that's kind of the norm right now is grants just aren't coming. Oh, great.

Yeah, right. Yeah.

I feel good that nobody's losing their housing anytime soon, but I feel bad that those aren't going to be refunded.

I think as we find more information, if They come to us and need a larger contribution or something of that sort, then we would bring it back to Council at that time notes to a bunch of them if we had to.

$16 million.

It's a lot.

It's a lot of money.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else have anything for good of the order. Well, I do have one item tonight is Bruce's last city council meeting date of retirement is tomorrow. And, um, I would like to thank you for all of your service and, um, your, uh, the new facilities and, uh, good luck in retirement.

Yeah, I think, I think if we look at, uh, what has happened in the last few years, and I think of things like public safety, things like the lifeguard program, things like the police station, the funding of the fire district, you know, the emergency operations center out of the tsunami zone, you know, this building being solved, the financial condition of the city. There's a lot to be thankful for. So thank you.

Thank you, Bruce. Thank you. If