Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll call our meeting order. May I have an approval for uh our agenda? Is there a second? Uh any second. Uh any further discussion caller? Yes. Commissioner St. Cla. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner B. Yes. Commissioner W. Yes.

Yes. Our agenda is approved. Um moving to consideration with amendments from August 28. Are there any amendments to the no amendments? May I have a motion to approve amendment? Motion require amendments. Seconded. Any further discussion? Okay. Um, that's what we call the Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Mus. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Wade, yes. Commissioner B.

Yes. Yes. Commissioner approved. We'll move to the public comment section. Uh at this time we'll call for public comment. If you have public comment um something you'd like to bring before the planning commission that is within the perview of the planning commission, we welcome you to come forward at this time. We do ask that you keep your uh testimony or comments to three more. Is there anyone who'd like to come forward with public comment at this point?

I think you're better.

Okay. Tim Rainey, PO Box 429, Genevich. Um, I think you're all probably pretty familiar with my views on on the CO2502 um thing. About half of it I like, about half of it propulsive. Um, but I really think you got a procedural problem. Um we've got a problem. We've got two issues really. Um one is that um this housing committee has been essentially judged to have been an illegal committee. Uh as it was explained to me by city management, it was kind of fine until we published the I think measure 56. Is that right? notice. And

Tim, can I jump in for just one second? I don't know how this works. It seems to me that your testimony is direct to something we're going to be considering later tonight. Oh, how about that? Well, I'm not saying I do or don't want. What I'm suggesting possible in this man's discussion of our council is if you would like it a part of a record, it might be better if you brought it forward at the time that we had that specific ite might be a procedural thing that could be important later. Okay. Opinion outside of that or I think our general practice has been to hear the testimony on the item at that time. Okay. My apologize.

No, it is a little thanks for we'll come back to it. Okay. So, we're um the new city attorney is on as well. Okay. So, um the new city attorney Um, so is right there and she attorney starting in January. Uh, taking over for Ash. Ash. Okay. Ash is her person. Thank you. Okay. Um, and you said she would like to make a statement. Yes. Okay.

I just wanted to introduce myself. Um, I am here just to observe. I'm not taking over for Ashley until she transitions away from the firm until in January. But I'm sort of trying to gain ground on everything that's going on at the city. So Missy is still your go-to attorney as far as land use goes. I'm more general counsel and I can there for questions as needed, but I'm just going to be in the background. Um, pay no attention to me, but it's nice to meet you.

Okay. Well, thank you for being here with us tonight. Thanks for being good. Um, we will move to our first item, the quasi judicial hearing, continuation of the judicial hearing, public hearing cu6. William Rasmmanson on behalf of Maxine Seagull, applying for a conditional use permit. William Rasmmanson of Nash LLP on behalf of Maxine Seagull, application for a conditional use permit for the placement of a new shoreline stabilization structure. The property is located at 39115 Ocean Avenue 400 map 410006 BC in a residential moderate density R1 zone. The application will be reviewed against the criteria of CBMC 17.10 oceanfront management overlay zone and 17.86 conditional users. At the last meeting, the conclusion of our August 28th, 2025 hearing, a person requested that the record be left open and the hearing continued. The planning commission voted to leave the record open for 21 days. During the open record period, the planning commission received a challenge to the qualifications of commissioner chair Newton to participate in the hearing and the decision regarding the application in an impartial manner. C. Can be municipal code states the planning commission shall deliberate and vote on such a challenge. A commissioner who is subject to the challenge will not vote on the motion. So brave new waters here for us. uh my suggestion and certainly we are a body that will come together in terms of how we handle is that I talk a little bit about how the decision I did in terms of the question that being asked of us and then I turn a vote to the vice chair step out of any kind of voting position I will not vote and then depending on how you all feel about that step back into the chair or step into the fine okay I wrote some stuff down here just to make sure I got this all Okay.

Um, well, first first let me say there was a question about who Diana Turner is in relation to me. Lots of different a few different I talk patients. D Turner is my wife. I assume that I don't know everyone know that but it is something that's in small hands because we sometimes assume more than the show that is my wife. Um, it has been suggested that that relationship is a conflict and it has not been what I have taken the position I have. I've been asked at the beginning of the last meeting and it was asked at the end of our last meeting during the open record that that is not a conflict. Um, our training is taught us we've been coached by our council that that bar is around a financial interest. I have no financial interest uh relative to any outcome with the seagulls. I have no financial interest in front of the dunes. Um so and I've spoken with the Oregon Court of Ethics or excuse me the Oregon Ethics Commission. Um and they've validated my opinion and really it does come down to a financial position of some kind of financial gain. Uh there was a question about my involvement with Friend of the Dunes. Was involved with Friends of the Dunes from roughly 2014 to 1718. we were involved I was involved with a couple of um it might have been three I can't remember but some pretty at least two pretty high-profile doom grading applications um I made sure that before I came on the planning commission I had no involvement with friends of doom and that remains true that I participated in no meetings I involved in none of the discussions um had no financial involvement friends of dooms and in coming to the position where I could sit with you to start this meeting last time on this particular issue. I consider what I'll do about I'm going to step out. Well, first of all, if you have questions about I certainly want to

answer them and if there are none, I'll step down from any kind of further direction. Are there any questions? No. Anything? Okay. M you want the chair off? No, I this chair is great. Thank you. Um, this is our opportunity to deliberate. Does anyone want to begin a conversation around the concerns of the group?

Um, I actually have no concerns. The question was asked. I think Clay did some soularching and he concluded that um the question was asked could answer the question and he affirmed. So, I'm I'm pleased. I'm happy to [Music] right here.

Nikki, I'll just send him that I have absolutely no concerns. I appreciate Clay's gesture. I don't think it's necessary. Yeah, I confir uh I think there obviously or from what said and I believe him that he has no financial ties uh and no real interest in other than the code that we are here to represent cities that he doesn't have any conflict whatsoever. So I think I probably closest to this um clearly no financial interest personal bias is the harder thing to cure than to ver I don't see that in this case um would have been better to disclose this as a potential bias possibly in the beginning but I don't see that being part of our consideration beyond be something that happens and the spoken method especially with my first go to as well. So with their back has their back and over there is

and I would say for myself I consider Clay an incredibly upstanding member of our commission with unbelievable integrity. So I have the utmost faith that if Clay has examined his own bias, he's done so honestly and in the interest of being as fair as possible. I would also note that we are in a small town. All of us will have connections to individuals related to virtually every issue. We will never be able to insulate ourselves. We know that city counselors have been asked the same question and have answered as they did that they did not have a conflict when their spouses took action against the city and in this case I think the same applies but we accept that Clay has done what he needs to do instead bias

in that case is anyone interested in question. Well, I I guess I'm confused. So, is is did Clay recuse himself even though we all trust that he has no financial or personal bias in the case or is he just stepping back so we could talk about him in front of his face? Yes, exactly. He wanted to see our faces while we speak. He has not refused his son. Okay, good. So I think at this point we should have a motion. I move to have bring you as chair.

Please call the role. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Sorry. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner St. Yes. Commissioner, yes. Vice Chair War, yes.

Thank you for pointing out these,

but nonetheless, I I do feel important that we've tried the best chance to have this project be in a relief situation like that. So thank you for that everyone. We'll proceed closely. Okay. So um our record is closed. Um let's move to consideration of the application. Actually I stepping down I will stepping out position as chair for you to return to. So, thank you. Um, the public hearing on CU2506 was closed um or the record is closed. We'll move to consideration of the application. Who would like to begin our conversation? Well, all um I visited the site several times and it's uh obvious to me that there's some road problems running on there and that it's a very lowlying property. I think I heard at one point it was one of the top three or top 10 lowlying properties along Canton Beach for residential properties to join. And then here's an there's public access right next to it. Uh that is not as not anywhere near like the hay stack on any of really it's it's uh probably only 7 to 10 ft in elevation from the beach to the top of the stairway. I think that uh two things may be solved with the vegetative wrap and that is one maybe the saturation of the soil and the

erosion issue maybe uh also solved to some extent by the educated career grad. Uh what's not going to be solved in my opinion is the over topping and the potential for flooding of the property itself from the waves of the energy coming up. So it may be a partial solution. Uh whether it's temporary or how long term that's going to be is another question. But um I think that vegetated rip wrap would probably benefit them in two ways that I've described. But the other ways they're hoping for no over topping or no flooding. I think that uh I don't know if there's a solution to that at that property at that elevation.

I don't think we solve the problem. I still don't see how we get to this being a critical need when they have 30 feet of blood in front of them between the front and their home. There is still alternative options that I think have not been fully and today you and I started to try to have this conversation with the expert but we were cut off by the attorney. We still haven't heard a full exploration of reinforcing the cut and to me there is some excellent vegetation at the top of that and I am very concerned that we actually damage by saying sure go ahead and take all of this wellestablished willow at the top put in rock put in sand and it's very very difficult to get new vegetation to take so to me I would I don't feel like the alternatives have been explored enough there's a critical need that this is the least invasive option because they do have block space already in existence. I'm not seeing this critical need that our code requires that we find.

Yeah, I I I agree. I would like to know more about that. Um looking at looking at flood zone, there's four areas that are similar to this including this film. There is surfing open search. There's the stepping motion lodge. There's bon and then there's the smithing site. Um I rebuilt the entire floor of the surfing because of water intrusions and storms. I've known that logs have come through chance K at 70 right. We all know what park looks like after a storm. uh midway. This is the lowest of those three similar zones where we go from DE to AEX. is low and that's where I find challenging is is I do feel resentment for something and because of the massive waves I do not know a organic method is for or not hydro but we were talking about organic is going to suffice yes we don't have to I think flooding is the flooding is going to happen but the more this more of the bank is taking away a greater extent of flooding is going to happen and we have a midway point right behind our house for high pressure lines and if that gets damaged because we have been neglected to provide them proper barrier then that's going to fall on usually so I think there's more to just consider than what is that on surface here I think that we need to look a little deeper on um to what the extent of the possibility of damage and we're going to continue uh possibly pollution.

The thing is that their erosion rates has been this the same as the average for the entire earth. It really has not been extensive with only vegetation. So to me to immediately say well something's not working their erosion rate actually not bad at all. So that's why I think a reinforcement approach we make sure that toe is reinforced in such a way that the upper part of the bank that is currently secure remains secure. They are not experiencing high rates erosion. It doesn't matter if they're low or not. They're just not experiencing that. And we all agree that over topping is not going to be fixed to the river. That's a completely separate concern and it probably has to do with the fact that they're right next to set stairs. And that's a really really important city access. So I don't suggest that the city that access. So I to me we aren't looking at a situation that even necessarily solved

but like we were asking about that. I

I think that would have been I would have been very interested in that conversation. and 100% I know we all said we know it's there already people that um I have seen what happens when it's taken away and not in place again have to park um you know within two three years of project starting how much disappear so there is great potential for this been and and it and I don't think it's going to slow itself down in any because of that there I just feel as though this application isn't the right application

and I think that there's room to do something really creative here and take advantage of existing vegetation and realize it needs to be protection.

I guess we're going to have to change I don't know my thinking on shoreline stabilization has evolved. Um, you know, I look at it like the state made a decision for many things beyond a certain point, giving a city the ability to tighten those restrictions, which we've done. And I'm pleased that we have, but we have a pretty pretty bad code and describing what somebody like the seagulls are supposed to do when they and they're the best people to decide. I think they have a problem. I mean, it's not for us to decide when somebody thinks they're they're watching their shoreline mode that, you know, they don't have a serious problem. It's their choice and we need to prove that they don't.

I got to stop you right there. They never Yeah. Well, I think I think when I go down this list of what they are supposed to do, priorities for shoreline stabilization, they go down it, they've done A, they get to C. We stop and say, well, wait a minute. I know that says planting riparian vegetation, but what it really means to u um a taco or whatever you call those

you know a breed I'm a how is a a citizen supposed to know what they're supposed to do when you've got um planning repair that's what they have and then you go down um where Whether red wrap, bullhead, bulkheads or seaw walls are proposed of protective measures, evidence should be provided that the high priority priority measure methods for higher priority methods for uh erosion control will not work. Um, I know this has been a point of contention in the past, but I seem to recall the applicant saying showing uh a statement from the state and they were sure on showing my protection that the vegetated the burrito will not burn in high velocity white environment. That was actually a point that Will and I went back and forth on key aspects of the sage that the states guide on erosion control address high um wave environments. It's on pages 35 to 36 and the guide book says when referring to vegetative stabilization it says the erosion control mechanism is among the only designs of the vegetative stabilization that can survive environment. So the the takeaway I had was they were saying this type of vegetative u solution won't work in this kind of wave environment that states which you know I'm always looking for do I feel like this is a fair thing I feel like I can make a fair judgment and anytime you have a situation where you have people hired that you have to there's there's this are they coming at it with a completely unbiased opinion right I never felt like I didn't And I never had a completely bio stabilization. I kind of felt the time they were coming around. We want a rebetant and we're going to go for

rebentment and nothing else will work. But the guy says these vegetative stabilization will work. So I have the stakes opinion and I have to play will show something I and maybe up. Yeah, maybe he mischaracterized it. I don't know. Um I think

but what we have again what we have is at least has hired experts and a lot of them and we have um prince of the dunes and I appreciate everything they do come and give us the presentation you gave us at the last time you did this and I think what we'll try to do is say each of the each of the claims that the opponent is making here um you know our by the fact and I felt I rebuttal was pretty clear now um I mean if we want to put ourselves in position of judging the quality of witnesses we have experts who are paid we have non non-experts who volunteer their time who is better to make that

judgment is not a non expert that's the guy yeah so so what you're saying is nobody You never come in and say I have to have her breath. No, I'm not at all. I'm saying they have to use lesser measures first. And they have they have according to according to our code they have. They've done everything except where you interpret it to say something. It does.

Well, I think I think if you you think about the age of that particular document, that's what people knew at the time. I I think though that that the general premise that a the least possible damaging method I think that's the important piece of that. The fact that it doesn't specifically mention u you know clay burritos or this newest interlocking log mechanism. I don't think that's the important point. But it it is when we try to avoid superimposing our opinions on the code and simply reading what it says.

Well, that we do have documents. I would not agree that vegetative approach has failed given that there's only vegetation at that site right now and it is not particularly eroded and it is experienced only the erosion rate that is the same average as the entire outpost. So, I don't even agree that there's failure at this point. I understand that we are trying to be as sensitive as we can as a group to the land owner's concerns, but to be honest, there's not a failure at this time. And when there is,

and so that's why like this is why we want to find another solution. We are looking for the least invasive however and what I read the code to say is that our job is to say would this particular stabilization be the least invasive and we have not heard that yet because there may be an alternative that allows the vegetative process that is already there to continue to work but with reinforcement

and and there and there said we consider that in accordance with with what the code requires. and we respectfully disagree. So again, we come down to um making our decision based upon the credibility of the one as an expert and uh was paid and that I I agree would reflect a little bit on their objectivity a little bit. And then we have friends that do who come in and present examples of other ones that have worked. And you can argue whether they've worked or whether they're even relevant because they're such different situations. And and um what does work mean to you?

Yeah, but work means getting into fixing a problem at the minimum expense over time. The minimum expense. But expense is not part of our code. Well, that's my definition of work. But we have the code and the code does not include economic considerations. [Music] And are we ignoring the Surf Rider the Surf Rider opinion? I you bring it up Friends of Dunes, but Surf Rider also has a pretty strong opinion on this as well.

I appreciate their opinion, too. And I I I want to say that I share the desire to protect that. But um again the pictures I mean as I was looking at it and in some of them she's comparing a January photograph to a June photograph and saying see there's a roach and um the reality is there wasn't any evidence in there that these rip balls cause problems and and and writers I mean the entire sorry Mike the entire surf rider presentation shows how rip wrap walls create problems.

The photographs though I I agree, my apologies. I agree that the photographs were not a true representation of situations in the same time and even the same season.

So, so can we also recall that we had three experts speak to us in Michigan. It was July 15th. One of them was Melissa Cotay who works for glucose engineering. She builds riff wrap structures. She said unequivocally, "Yes, rip wrap causes shrinking of the beach." She still builds the structures. She agrees that there are times when they are necessary. I would trust that she does not have skin in the game when that level of expert says yes, it does cause shrimping at the beach.

Yeah. And I hear that and I also regret and maybe I shouldn't but it's not in her case this depends on the hydraology of the beach and all the other things. So again you know if I were to look at that same situation what I grew out of that is in 100 years that shor 250 ft wet east and none of this is going to matter. So um that puts me back in the situation where I argue we're going to lose our beach anyway. Why not help these people who think they need protection get the protection that their experts are telling them? So we are here. We are not here to give people what they

Well, and that's what I was trying to start with is when I'm going through this code, I'm flabbergasted. You're telling me I haven't done everything that I'm supposed to do. Oh, forgive me. Uh, as a citizen, I didn't know about uh vegetative breeds. How can they possibly know um the finding of preparing vegetation means um a vegetative breed? There are multiple documents that refer vegetative restoration. I would remind you that these individuals did hire experts.

They were very well equipped to receive input on what options there were and how they worked, where they were called. They also had Stephen Robert to consult with. I feel that there are plenty of opportunities for applicants to find that information.

Okay. Well, I was just going to end up disagreeing on that and a little bit just briefly and say that you know many of the other homes there have a vegetative brick record. Uh so we have one piece wet or maybe a couple of small pieces there that don't have this rib breath. Some of it's vegetated, some of it's not. So how much are we really protecting by not allowing these folks to what is vegetated? Uh because we're looking at maybe 50 ft or maybe I'm not sure I have 50 wide. So we have 50 ft that doesn't have this but much maybe 80% of the rest of the residents in that lowly line area have them. So are we really protecting anything by disallowing the 50 court section? I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'm asking a question.

One good question.

The the other thing is that um how many iterations of whatever we want to require are the landowners required to travel? I mean, do they try something that's little teeny baby steps every couple of years? They have to go in, spend more money, tending thousands of dollars because the burritos were successful and they lasted four years and that's a success. We have curbing the erosion, helping the vegetation um and even with soil saturation, helping with that again, not the over topping and not the flooding. But uh then they have to go and spend thousands of dollars to repair that. But there is a lot of education there now. And I wish that there was a way there's a way that that could be incorporated into whatever the solution might be because having been down here this week, it's hard to tell what's even underneath that vegetation and how bad the erosion is because the vegetation is so thick and thriving. Uh but I but I really think that for a 50 foot swat of a of a beach we have already pretty much given away the bomb when when we're looking at that whole stretch down there. We've already allowing the state's already allowed the city has already allowed that rib raft uh to be there. And so what are we really protecting by not allowing these homeowners to feel comfortable in their home? The other thing I don't want you I don't think during the team guys that I would be comfortable sleeping in the lower floors of that that home uh the waves or the the waves and the the action come right up into that area. And I don't I don't know that I would feel comfortable being

that close. So So that begs the question, why would you build? Yeah. If you don't feel comfortable in your home, why would you build it? It was Well, it was the 1970s, right? So the we didn't have uh probably the potential at that time to have the wave that close. I imagine I don't know for sure here in 1973 or 77 when it was built but this is a motion you were it was this wasn't the original 88 it was 06 I think it was

oh okay I'm sorry I misunderstood I thought this goes back

but you know to to to answer your your query you're right there's this question Why does it matter? And I think it matters because there's that tons of food truck 5,000 pets. We say yes to this one and then someone next door says, "Oh, what about me?" And pretty soon we've 20, 50 feet at a time. I also think we have a precedent issue. If we start to make a decision based on something that's not the code but based on our concern for land owners, our personal preference, the concept that oh whatever this 50 is already surrounded by RIP, we're creating really really poor precedents for other situations. We will be meeting many many RIP record applications and I would like to see us as a body as a fully rigorous app approach that we can replicate every single time so that we are not later accused of making decisions that were not the compliant. Can I throw something because I had I had that same question. Sorry. One criteria would be how low the elevation particular case.

I think that some kind of matrix existed that that compared elevation over mean sea level versus the modeled wave energy. I think there could be a scientific rational, but it doesn't exist. it needs to exist or something that we could work with. Well, if it doesn't exist today,

that's an interesting proposition because basically it says charging up to short of rip wrap um because there's no science and then when we decide we've done enough, we'll let rip wrap is basically what we're saying. And I I think honestly if somebody comes in with a strong case, which I think they had, they tried to answer the questions, I picked up a couple new arguments from um Miss Turner um particularly in her reply this week that I thought were good, but not quite cogent. And I I just think again, we're just we'll just I'm sorry. I'm just be laboring beating a dead horse and I'm

completely dead. I'm beating a dead horse. Yeah.

Yeah. I I I think your questions are really good and um and the question you had that that I really gone back and forth on is gosh, there's crap all over that section of the beach. And you know maybe in a little different words than what you said Mickey the the counter to that is we we have to protect our process so that we have something that people can consistently come back to. Now this is this is kiss a debt in public meetings but if they have done a vegetative if they have done the the the bur vegetative burrito and if they and it isn't intentionally tent which we've been told by the state people have done but if they have made a good faith effort and that doesn't work then and they come and say give me the next level because I should say we believe I would vote for that. I voted for Rick Rap in the past. When I stopped voting for it was when I realized people were not following OK and that was brought to our attention by people who had no bias in the conversation. They're just telling that just the code of the state. After that I I had to start following through in our code overlaying it with what's written by the state's guide book on control. Hey, we have to follow what's I have so much compassion for people in that situation where what about me? You guys did it back in the past. We don't know the relationships that happened back then in terms of who owned a grading company and everybody that worked somewhere else. I don't think I don't think things were done the same way we do. I don't think they had as many conversations about whether it should be in conversation or not as we have in the world we live in today. But we my goal in sitting on this body that I'm going to follow that code. I've lost friends over that conversation. I've had people chase me down the parking lot that I used to shake hands with over that conversation. But there's a pretty prescriptive path that I've answered that question to myself on that particular on that particular piece. I've said gosh

things but it's a code and I got a problem. Well, I guess the question is did they satisfy? We're drawing whether or not they satisfy the code to uh whether they satisfy the question as to are less would lesser measures work and then you get into and you can take that down a lot of different rabbit. What is it to work? You know, I'm You know, listen, if if if someone came in here and said, "Hey, we we poured the end of the side and it blew away in in a season or one king tide, but I'm not going to come in and go, well, it worked. It it held the wave back for a season." That's not fair. It's also not a a reasonable expectation it's going to work based on what we know and have been told by experts and read from people who have no dog in the fight is a long-term fix for that. It's possible that these vegetative can work. I can't unequally tell you based on anything that's been presented to me in terms of what I've interpreted that that won't work. And and until I can do that, I can't say that I satisfied them.

Here's I guess here's where um I was persuaded. It's not it's not is there no way that thing can work. Did they meet the burn by the part one or is the other is based on everything of that? Who won the argument? is not um I I happen to think that in this case they I think that's where I see it the other did not meet their work.

Yeah. Okay. So I I mean I have the same quandry since I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know what the answer is. The thing that we really haven't talked about yet tonight that to me ended up being the the big key to all of this is the understanding that there isn't a permanent fix. That no matter what you do, there's a there is an annual maintenance cycle. It's got to happen. And there and no one can prove to me that any of that ever happened on any of the examples of rip wrap or burritos or any of that stuff that we've seen. Nobody kept records. There's no way to prove it yet. We've seen what happened in just one season with erosion. We know people have to go back that it has to be replanted. That that's a part of it. So I I I I feel sorry for the folks that are in the position that they're in. I know that um I don't know what to do. I know what I how I feel about with them. But what I wanted to say is if we as a group choose to to render an opinion, I want to insist on a written maintenance plan that that can be followed and um enforced because that's what's missing. No matter what they put out there, it this, you know, what they proposed with the uh rip sand covered rip wrap, the sand is going to be washed away in in a season. It's got to be put back and and I want to hear somebody tell me that's what they intend to do. There are no permanent fixes.

No, that you can add as a condition. Anyway, I don't know if that helps or not, but that's kind of where I came out of it. I saw tons of data that was just as confusing as can be to me and it seemed like the question was always Yeah. but how was it maintained and it didn't

Yeah. And and to your point, Les, I the permanent fix is to move away from the beach and and it's hard for me to feel sorry for someone that owns beachfront in Canon Beach. I feel sorry for people that don't have homes, not those that that live on the ocean that have this is their their big problem. I mean, they just they recently built the house. They had an architect. They put it on stilts. I haven't seen water go through the home yet. Uh Jay, you've had instances of homes or buildings being destroyed. That hasn't happened here. So, uh, Mike, you you you you asked who won the argument. I mean, let is is it time to vote? Are we can debate this for more months? I mean, how long have we been on this issue?

I think it's time to vote. I agree with you. Would someone like to make a motion? Yeah, we'll make a motion to approve C2506 for additions written and enforcable maintenance plan included. Second. Is there a second? Second. Further discussion. Um, unless you had said you wanted a maintenance plan associated with an improvement. Yes. Okay.

And I believe Jay mentioned that. Um, I think I think if we're going to go forward with anything, it should be some something more put in place.

And I would state that they were surprisingly clear that there is not a particular intention to the report specifically reference we will try education for those three years and if it fails it fails. So I do not agree that this is an applicant who's intending to work hard to maintain vegetation. So you talk about maintenance, you're going to talk about enforcement and it's going to have to be written somewhere that it actually is enforced which problematic huge problem

which what which is problem writing it or insisting it I mean the current documents require pictorial evidence to be filed on on an annual basis, but I don't believe that it exists in our record. Also, how do you enforce that it's going to be continually refunded? And how do you enforce that it's poker willow and not grass? We at least cla and I sat on the application when these exact same individuals came and asked for cobble merm, they put on this villow and what is there is your stress.

So, is there an additional condition that you'd like to add to my motion? I'm asking for ideas how we make sure that enforcement occurs because it would be a condition will be required and that it last for they continue every year plan if that I think it is let me make one more suggestion for maybe a modification to your proposal we do it tenatively it's proposed tenatively so we can come back and review any endorsement provision we come up here tonight as well in the maintenance provisions. Are you okay making a motion that senator

explain it? So that would be the opinion comes back. We come together to approve the opinion and then it's we come back. We look at the language, make sure it's written as we intended it and then I think and then we Okay. So make a motion to approve C2506 for the written and enforceable maintenance plan. that includes a hook or willow preyear maintenance plan that the owner must document and set to the city just tenative approval

and three years is gone. So we're talking at least five years total uh approve uh proposal approval of C2506 enorable maintenance plan that includes plan schemes by maintenance plan that is written and I I like it. But same for the discussion. So writing with with a maintenance with an enforcement plan, I feel like we don't feel like we got enough. We're gonna if the concern is we want something that is not going to be a bunch of rocks and I'm assuming that's what that's resting but we need to be more specific um that sand and and and um poker will replaced as needed annually for a period of 5 sand and rock and rocks reposition. So name [Music] seems like you want to have some sort of licensed um landscape profession put together up front. Um and as well as you know in addition to the plants it would have to do some sort of maintenance schedule

professional certified on this roof areas trying to come up with something. Um I think you got a pretty comprehensive definition know what maintenance is. Can you repeat it?

Uh well, you're right. Um approval of C2506 for the condition that we have a written enforceable maintenance plan that based on yearly or annual review for 5 years by a landscape professional that includes turbo willow sand replacement and river rock. And are we okay with the French drain creating a point source? That was part of the application or the discussion was to include a French drain. I think that's a significant concern. [Music]

I what I'm concerned is that if we approve this as is I would be fine if we are specifically not approving the French. So that would have to be a separate application. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we do have a lot of water dumping under our beach, but it still is a point source that needs to be addressed. So, let's just say, yeah, no French strength. So repeat them one more time and then let's

Okay, let's uh shot approval of C2506 with a condition that there's a written forceful maintenance plan based on a yearly maintenance written by a licensed professional for 5 years that includes hooker willow sand plate and rip raft adjustment not to include French for additional downside. Ripcraft adjustment um needs to be better defined in my opinion. I feel like maintenance of the rip and maintenance of a physical. Yeah, that's what replacement of repraositioning.

Repositioning. Right. So again maintenance sat through so many of these conversations. I mean there just my mind is depending on what what is replacement how much do we allow because all of a sudden now replacement replace let's just include the rip treatment adjustment as year that's as a percentage of you know replacement just I think you can just say a maintenance plan by a licensed professional I don't think we all That's we're we're looking to improve the the application to add.

So maintenance is going to be part of that means moving rocks for adjusting that's going to be part included in your it makes sense to me but if it's a clinic intention and I can understand how it might be. Um the reality is take it out because then they're just going to have to come back and ask if they want to put rocks back in. So take it out. I mean, I think that would just be common sense part of the maintenance. Yeah. I don't know, but just just out common sense.

Okay. Yeah. Uh here we'll see 25 uh with the um condition that we have written enforceable maintenance plan based on year by a licensed landscape professional on yearly basis that would include corporate well of sand and sand replacement and not to include French training for silent drainage. Will you read the part just after the the maintenance plan one more time please by licensed professional landscape? Okay, keep going.

Um that will that on a yearly basis for a term of five years that will include hooker will replace train.

So I'm just talking in my head. They don't have it. You can play this out. So many different ways to get done. You've seen kind of reports king damage through them. A lot of the a lot of the plantings are are missing. Um I guess it falls under enforcement. What's the timing of when that has to be replaced

on an annual basis? Yeah. I mean, that's what they're repairing out here now. The the old Jack Ramsey house is a bad angle. They go out and fix it. They do now. Yeah. Um, well, I mean, you guys honestly I my mind could get in so many different ways where we've got that, but I'm going to go be quiet. So, we have a motion. We have a second. We have have we satisfied your concern about um coming out of generator. Yeah. Again I mine was yes. Any further question?

Commissioner. No. Commissioner B. Yes. Commissioner Or yes. Commissioner Musk. No. Commissioner North. No. Commissioner Wade. No. No. Discussion. Um, we just the motion to those things were failed.

Okay. And so, how about this? I move that we reject the application. I'll second. Yeah. Is there further discussion? Can I suggest if there's going to be a denial, it's very helpful to the staff who's writing the findings for denial to discuss the specific criteria that the commission feels about. Okay. Would you like me to amend or would you like to just withdraw yours and make a new one? Yeah, make a new one. I withdraw.

All right. I move that we titatively reject on the basis that this project has not shown that there is an immediate need for this level of state shoreline stabilization. They have not shown that they have tried all possible alternatives that are of a higher priority than this alternative. That's where I'll stop and then we can review the findings.

Does anyone have anything to add? I'm happy to amend that motion. Okay. Okay. So we have a second a little bit further discussion about any possible amendments to the motion as made. Can we read the motion chair?

So I move I tentatively move that we reject this application because they have not shown that this structure is the minimum necessary to provide the level of protection required because they have not shown that there is currently a critical need for this level of protection. uh just uh during the discussion, robust discussion prior to the voting, there was some discussion about the experts who have submitted evidence into the record and one of the commissioners uh referenced an an expert that was not the expert. I want to say the name is Emily. Again, if the if the commission wants to discuss um their choice to believe one set of experts over the other set of experts, that would also be beneficial in direct.

Okay. Can I just add and that we find the the um expert for the opponents in their and their point this is not this is going to cause problems most critically. Now over the country I mean I'm talking it seems suing at this we have relied on the state guide book we have relied on information from Jessica Cotay of coast engineering we have relied on information from surf writer and information submitted by friends of the dunes that includes multiple scientific research arch articles by authors whose research focuses on shoreline shoreline stabilization.

Are we trying to add credibility to what we're saying or because I I in general I would think that you know the the burden of proof is on the applicant. It wasn't that we need to go testimony more than not. Yeah, I think that I think it's enough to if there's something I'm missing in terms of why it wouldn't be enough.

Typically, when an applicant submits to be approved, expert expert reports um and the planning commission may choose not to rely on those reports, particularly if there's expert reports. um an explanation of the choice not to rely on those or not not to believe them is helpful to uphold that I'm comfortable with it given that that's exactly what we did discuss it one more time

I don't know if I'm going to remember all that No, right. You can do this. All right. So, I move that we tentatively reject this application because the structure the applicant has not met the burden of proof to show that this ferine protection structure is a minimum necessary to provide the protection required and because the applicant has not met their burden of proof to show that there is a critical need for this protection at this time. In making this decision, we also considered the state guide book. We considered input from experts such as Jessica Vote from the Blue Coast Engineering Firm. We considered expert testimony provided by Surf Rider and by Friends of the Dunes. And specifically we also considered the scholarly works and research conducted by individuals who who do research on shorelines and shor. Okay. Any further discussion?

Commissioner Sinclair. Yes, Commissioner Mus. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. No. Commissioner Wait, yes. D2506, it's denied. We'll move to our next Excuse me. Um, you want to reconvene to review the Okay. Um,

it's going to be important probably next Thursday. People can do because that enough time to do the finance. Um, again, we're getting close on 120 days. So you got to get relevant notice and the appeal period so that if they choose to get the council uh and council has time to act on application. Okay. So on next Thursday there anybody prefer 11 any times anyone wants to and this can be like uh you know people can call in.

Yeah. I assume we will probably maybe do it in the timber city hall conference room. So if anyone wants to be there but for the most part everyone we've done it in the past where people have just participated by

any particular uh any time for me.

Yeah. So 11. We'll move to our next item. Thank you. B2503 of CD 257 Scott Robertson on behalf of Eric and Joan Witcher for a conditional use and variance for residential build in a wetland record 2537 Scott Roger hired general contract on behalf of Eric Butcher for the obstruction of new drawing wet bracket subject property is located on the corner atlock and fix street backed by 300 map 50019 AD in a residential meeting of the RA zone. The applications will be reviewed against the criteria of the municipal code 1702 an overlay zone and 17.86 conditioner code 17.90. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter at this time? Does the uh commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or personal bias? Has any commission has any commission member had any exparte contacts or made it sit? The application is for the construction of new single family dwelling of partially built property that is within sign number.

Existing development consists of elevated frame and subterrane utility connections. The existing development is authorized by Oregon Department of State Lands Removal Field Permit 41880 RF that was issued in June 2009. This application seeks to complete development of the property for utilization of these existing on-site resources in order to minimize steering activities. Wetland delineation 2024-0284 shows two distinct wetland areas totaling approximately 840 square ft. The remainder of the site falls within the 50ft department area. No tree removals will take place as there are no trees pressed on the property. Moving into criteria for the wetland overlay zone requirements. The first staff comment is due to the site's characteristics that there are no opportunities for development outside of the delinated wetlands or their bubber area. The applicant proposes to utilize portions of the existing 2,470 square foot pilot driven structural framework connections that were previously installed to cargo residential completed. The applicant's intention is to minimize ground for the activities that could adversely affect the wetland through your use of the framework. The applicant previously filed applications for development of property file C number 25.4 and E number 25.2 which the planning commission reviewed and denied during its phase 2025 hearing. The proposed dwelling will have a footprint of 1,250 square feet with an additional approximately 900 square feet of developed surface area and will provide off street parking decks and stairways to access the well. As the proposed footprint and other landscape hardcape areas exceed limitations imposed by 1721,

the applicant is requesting a variance to these stand. Continuing on, the primary mitigation measure taken by the proposal is avoiding ground disturbing activities by utilizing the existing driven structure to serve as the foundation of the dwelling rapidly on debt. Additional mitigation measures specified by the application are detailed in the staff report. In order to expedite the staff report, I will continue on into the storm water management section. The staff comment is that the application narrative exe states that storm water will be retained and discharged into the Wland Barber area. Alternatively, storm water can be connected to existing municipal infrastructure as necessary. Moving into condition of use overall standards staff report is that the subject property is zoned residential medium density R2 and a single dwelling is permitted use in that zone. The surrounding neighborhood is residential in nature and the property was originally intended to be developed as a single family dwelling. The proposed structure conforms to the development standards of the R2 zone regarding setbacks building height and flooring grade ratio. Municipal infrastructure is present in the sixth street and northwalk street public rights of way and is sufficient to serve the residents. No significant traffic impacts are anticipated by the proposal. Moving into the variance criteria. The staff comment is municipal code 1710270B restriction regarding maximum building coverage on a wetland block of record to 1,000 square ft with an additional 400 square ft allowing for other improvements such as

off street parking areas, walkways, patios, etc. The application proposes to use approximate 1,690 square ft of the existing 2,470 ft elevated pilot steel framework to support a 1,250 ft house and approximately 500 ft of elevated decks and portions. Unused portions of steel framing will be removed during construction. An additional 350 ft of ground carton will be required for an offering parking area and walkway. The prior construction of the bio supported foundation is not considered to be a violation of the municipal code or any type of self-induced hardship which would disqualify this matter from being considered as part request. And that concludes the staff report.

Thank you. Have you received any additional correspondence that we do not have? No. Okay. Thank you. I'll now call for public testimony. The pertinent criteria to be considered are noted from the staff reports are listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or municipal code which the person testifying believes applying to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on that issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. Sorry, only read it 100 times. Planning Commission shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for judicial written testimony, arguments or evidence. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair, state their full name and mailing address and if appearing in representative capacity identify whom your edition of

Good evening commissioners, thank you very much for hearing us. My name is Scott Robertson with Higher Ground General Contracting. I was 672 North Hemlock Street here in Ni Beach. So, um we were here end of May and if you might recall and uh we since then we've taken your guidance that we received that night into consideration and I've been able to meet with Robert and Steven a couple of times and so they've been offering some additional guidance and so we've done several rounds of revisions and have u it was deemed just too large initially and so what we've done is We've made a number of changes and really uh proud of you what we've been able to achieve now so that we don't have to be asking for nearly as much in terms of variance agreements. Um it's it is a unique situation in that we are in an active wetland area right there is why that steel structure was built initially. So it keeps us up off of there and that protects that. And then um so we had initially like a lot of really a lot of deck space because we're trying to just utilize all that existing steel structure and we didn't want to get in there and start removing that and and risk damaging the wetlands or have it be a high impact type situation. So um we've reduced that greatly, shifted the house slightly to the east, slightly to the north. uh we have achieved the off street parking that we wanted for the hour of the active wetland now there and um so with that we're just simply here to show that we've made these substantial changes and u we've got the whole team here so I'm going to have Joseph take off now you Joseph Schaffer land use planner my address is 1211 Southwest 5th in Portland 97204.

Um, as Scott indicated, we've made some changes in response to the feedback that we've heard last time. Uh, in particular, last time, uh, we had a variance request for the radius area of the front porch, which it encroached into the setback. The maximum setback is 15 feet or excuse me, the minimum setback is 15 ft. And uh we still have the radius on the porch, but we shifted the building slightly to the north. The house our prior designs had the house of up to 10 ft of setback. Um the minimum setback requirement is 5T. Uh so now by shifting it, the closest the house is uh to the neighboring lot line is 5T for this eastern section of the house. middle of the house at 8 feet. Uh this little stoop and stairs down are five feet and then this little bump out is six feet. So we still meet the north set back and we keep our radius uh in front of the house and the front set back variance gives away. Um you may also recall that previously we had a variance for the parking location in an effort to sort of reduce the ground disturbance. We had proposed these same two parking spaces essentially a little bit to the south within the rightway. The preference from the commission was to ensure that we had our two parking spaces out of the rider. And so now they've moved just into the private lot you sell which are just dark line. Uh and then we have a minimum walkway as flagstone path and uh you may recall

that there is a a larger uh front entrance elevated pilings and Jacob will explain more to you in a minute about the other reductions uh in the deck which are pretty substantial. And then lastly, Gabby is back to talk about the mitigation plantings. Um, obviously by reducing the size of the deck, that creates more opportunities for her to plant more plants. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You may have answered this or may have been. What's the depth constructor?

It's on steel pylons. No, the the surface itself the death surface probably in a some type of a composite decade for the rain to drain through water. Absolutely. Yeah. Be impeous.

Yeah. And and speaking of pvious and this was mentioned in the staff report. You may recall last time we discussed the storm water rain drains and you know back and forth and and uh our current plan is to leave it right on the site. Um we know there was you know historically some discussion about public works not preferring that but that is our preference. That's our proposal right now. Um certainly if the city says well great house but we want the storm water to go in the pipe you know we're open to that but certainly Gabby our wetland advocate here is adamant about let's put it on the ground

that's too good any other questions uh sorry I forgot to state this part of what I was supposed to do introduction. I'm here representing Eric and Joanne Witchard are the owner and they're actually present here with us this evening. Jo there.

These are just city.

Yes. Evening. Uh, my name is Jacob Chavez. Chavez is my is my company. I, uh, my home is at 7873 Southeast 11th Avenue in Portland, Oregon. And, uh, I'm here also representing Eric and or Joanne and Eric. um uh my colleagues here uh went over a lot of the details the square footage of the area and like that and I was part of also what I was planning to present. So I'll go ahead and just read what I was playing present to you as well. So there may be some duplication here. Um just want to say thank you for the opportunity to present this design to you this evening. With the customer and contractor's support, it's been my honor to develop this home design. Over the past two years, an enormous amount of energy has gone into this effort. The goal has been simple, to create a home that is an asset to the city of Canon Beach while meeting the simple program of my guidance. Although this done architectural review, I hope that you can see the intent has been to enhance and support the character of the neighborhood. This home will be a proud member of the community's architecture. We've designed We've designed this home to have a humble pride and a strong sense of connection to the outdoors and a calm sense of community while preserving as much of the wetlands depositing. As you can see, we've reduced the decks significantly. The previous proposed exterior improvements presented earlier this year in May was 1,711 ft, 1,187 ft of which was the deck. We've reduced the exterior improvements to 878 square

feet. Now 497 square feet of which is decked. Uh the footprint of the design is is 1248 mentioned uh 1250. It's just head out of that. Um we've also moved the house to the north by 3 ft and to the east by 3 ft. We have done this to preserve the curved front deck while moving it out of the front setback. The home design now meets the all setback requirements. We preserve what we believe is an important or important components of these exterior spaces of the design. I'll describe his exterior spaces and present why they're important. The front porch has been reduced to 231 square ft. The covered portion of it is 90 square feet and the uncovered is 141 square feet. The cover porch provides important protection for the entry of the home and provides a refuge from inclement weather. In addition, it softens the visual mass of the structure and it softens the twotory wall here. The uncovered curved portion uh reinforces the symmetry of the center feature of the home and also helping to soften the massing while providing a sunny location when weather allows to connect with the neighbors. The west deck has been reduced to 217 square ft. This deck has a covered area of 62 ft and an uncovered area of 155 square ft. The this area provides an important place to cook and dine outdoors while being able to enjoy the sunset and clear degrees. The areas of the remaining exterior improvements are as follows. Parking now completely on site and out of the rideway which is 324 ft. the entry stair which is 57 square feet, the north stair from the main level to the grave which is 22 square feet and the east stair

from the main level to the grave which is 27 ft. In addition, we have specified outdoor lighting and have ensured that all features me meet the outdoor meet the dark sky requirements and that can be found on page seven of the snow documents. Those aren't in the printouts here, but they're in the application. Electronic comments. Yeah, the electronic version within the packet. Yeah.

I just want to thank you for the time and the opportunity to provide this beautiful home to to you today. We've worked hard to develop design and we hope that meets your approval. At this time, I welcome any questions and comments. I I would like you to So I understand that you moved the structure to the north. Yes. I won't ask how you did that was a fixed metal substructure, but I'm sure you figured that out.

But you made a point and I think it was an important one that you also considered the the solar access of the property to the north. And I was kind of curious, how did you move closer to the property yet improve their solar access or at least maintain it? Well, I'm not claiming that we are improving it or claiming it. Um, it will have a the slight impact um, you know, moving to the north for sure. Um, but the uh, the configuration of the roof, you know, that we um, from the initial design was was always with the intent to provide as much as the home to the north. Um but in order to we want to reduce the number of variants that is that we've been asking for. Um and in doing that you know we felt that this curved portion of the front deck was important to the design the architecture um and this was a this is a way to um take it out of the varian request.

I have a similar concern. Have you reached out to the neighbor? I know that he was able to attend lots of time. Earl and I are have fairly regular contact. I lived in the neighborhood right there. So, yeah, we see each other. If I'm say attending to the lot with the vegetation, we have the invasive species issues that I've been dealing with. So, yeah, I get to see him and we've gotten to be we have a great rapport. Is he aware shifted a little bit closer? Um, yeah, a little bit to the north. To speak to this gentleman's question about that, how do we do it? It's just by eliminating. Well, we had deck wrapping around the entire house and so now by shifting the house and then the deck goes so we get to utilize but the frame was already there.

Yeah. So the frame was all Yeah. that the driveway the parking area will be gravel or permeable. Yeah. had the initially, you know, thought was that that it would be gravel and that we are completely open to the possibility of some type of a herous um paper situation as well. Okay. I just know that that formul key issue is obviously implanted by wetland law. We want to be sure that there's many impervious surfaces as possible.

And then grassree, you know, we're completely amendable to grass. We only ask if you don't insist on so-called permeable permeable pavements or painting uh that will be fantastic for a month and then will silt up and not be effective. Are you familiar with the grassree? I don't know.

Okay. So, it's a product that is essentially cinder blocks are typical like 8 by6 cinder blocks. Imagine those tilted on their side and they're in an X pattern. So I think the net effect, don't quote me on this, but you have essentially I'm going to guess close to half and half cinder how many 50% it's 50% cinder block 50% grass and I've seen that in my neighborhood

when we talked with public works about this particular wetland code they actually voice a preference for gravel because if there's So water thing it's the least damaging for them have to come in and repair something to keep in mind that the city would probably prefer gravel currently gravel because we're certainly open to changes as

suggested then you're the driver you're the decider so sounds like gravel what we want to do so that's you do know gravel over road base seed with grass which I think right you know a grass creek alternative you're your face and you're a permanent resurface and have some green space to it. So I think what you have question is about the one thing I I have tit and I were talking about last week I went back and looked at your previous um I I think house put the right idea here in the front. Um I don't think the solar access is going to be a huge deal. They have giant trees in the back there. Um it is no impact to anymore. One thing I do know is the is that your east entrance is still not find because of the steps into the side.

Yeah. Right there. If you rotate it 90 degrees, make 36 inch feet, then you're gonna be within your setback. We have an eight foot setback. Yeah, we have we have a foot requirement there. Um, your face just says that. Yeah. Um, like I say, and I can tell you that actually

um the only the only thing that I've talked to you about is your construction management plan and that that you have are stating I think is reasonable. One thing I would like to see is that you have your dumpster in on toward the toward the west side of the side. I think for myself I prefer to see that actually in where the parking area and that way you're again. You do know that you're going to have parks just landscape fabric that is our standard for protection wet during construction. Um but the weight of that unit that dumpster put it on where passing would be higher. Excellent.

Yeah. Interesting. We actually had that in one of our iterations. You had the dumpster there and you have plenty of parking on site. You know the west side you have a large open open area the right way. So yeah you have plenty of parking in the right close park. But I you do that a lot better.

Okay. Thank you. One further question. We also have Gavin for easy reference. Um this figure details how we determined in house question. Thank [Music]

Robert, will you transfer me? I'm going to come in on my phone if that's okay. I'm going to log off here and join back on my phone. Would

you let me wait until I step back on? My name is Daddy Vender. I'm a biologist with ecological lands. My professional address is 1157 3rd Avenue, sweet 220A in Long Beach, Washington.

Okay, good. and um let us know when we got our back.

Fair. Okay, great. Um so I wanted to start by talking about how we determined um impacts of permanent and temporary to wetland buffers because there was quite a few questions about that. One of the comments we received is that the decking even though it would be built over the existing steel structure should be considered a permanent impact due to its ability to prevent infiltration of water below the deck. We've taken that into consideration and we've determined that the decking, the home, and the driveway, which has the gravel surface, should all be constituted as a permanent impact. Uh, and based on the figures uh our firm has put together, permanent impacts total 2,782 square ft. We've also taken into account temporary impacts, which is where you'll see construction equipment accessing the property. And those areas will be lined with bark chips and landscaping fabric, which after construction is complete, will be removed, regraded if necessary, and receded with a native sea mixture. Um, overall with the changes we made to the site, we're now able to meet the mitigation ratios required in Canon Beach's code. We're actually slightly over mitigating for the permanent impacts at a 1.03 to1 ratio. We're proposing a combination of trees and shrubs for the 25% tree base and 75% shrubs in addition to the native sea mixture which will be spread and all available and butter areas following instruction. That's really nice. Short and quick. Any questions? I'm going to ask the same thing I asked last time, which is for weed control, no herbsides through code. I want to be really clear that everyone agrees this time does not include using herbicides.

I actually listened to a hearing a couple of months ago where the Galler was trying to do something with the blackberries and and she was she was supposedly citing a study that showed that trying to do it by hand was less effective than the chemical, which I don't agree with. And so yeah, I think we talked about this last time. I've been trying to with the tarps and the salt and how you seeing it. Yeah,

report does contain performance standards for invasive species control which restricts the use of chemicals. Our performance standards also include a contingency plan in case we're not meeting survivability standards. So if by year three of the proposed five-year monitoring period we're not on track to meet those standards, we come in and re-evaluate and develop them in plan and essentially we have determined what the appropriate extension period may be. Yeah. And would be on the chemical question, you know, we'd be happy with the condition of approval uh to that effect.

Any other questions? removing you like previously moving that dumpster you might reduce your impact to not have as much over on that side as well there less than less impact that's great thank you one thing I actually forgot to point out here is that when we determined our mitigation ratio that's slightly over that one one that's required in the code that does not include any of the restoration for off-site areas which will be temporarily impacted. Any further questions? Thank you very much. Is there anyone further on behalf of

the questions now between each other and the other board? All right. One other thing that that will also provide protection around the street that are not on the property with that one. Okay. You know shown on your rightway to the north are not on your car, right? And east. Yeah. And that'll be my Right. Yeah. I see.

I've had forever out there actually. We had a really great team of volunteers that cleared that. There was a little there's a little drainage fit that comes from the main wet line through and um and they also planted some cedars at that time. So they cleared the dust and and so yeah, also we can do whatever we need to with that. Thank you.

There we final question actually you'll have another opportunity to present but other questions at this time question. Okay. Uh and we will move to uh presentations by actually that was by the so are there any presentation trials one online. Okay. Uh moving to presentations by confost [Music] uh you have the final opportunity to add anything you'd like before we report into consideration. If there's something that you would like to add to what you think already now the opportunity to do that. Um, Joseph Schaefer again and I would like to add that I think we're feeling very well received tonight and we would like very much to have a project approval and uh I think we talked about a couple conditions that you might want to clarify in the decision to nail these things down uh regarding the construction management plan locating a dumpster on the gravel area that'll eventually be the off streetet parking um tree protection with fencing for the trees located on the neighboring properties to the north and the east that trees are available or visible there on the site development plan. uh and a redesign of the steps leading down from the east door to ensure that they are out of the side setback and uh also clarification that no pesticides will be used for herbicides will be used for uh treatment of invasive species.

Scott is going to keep digging forever and ever. Do you have any sons that can pick that up? I've got it. I uh and I think that covers them all. Did I miss any just to sort of sum up? I guess I'm good. One last thing I would like to add is that for the local area residents that have been here for any length of time, you know, with witnesses with this steel structure been sitting there for ages. I forgot to mention that in the beginning. I mean, this has been going on now for 15 years, I think, plus. And so, I'm just so excited as a person that lives right behind that to have the opportunity to finally develop that lot, just finally have a really beautiful home there to just um improve that neighborhood. And it we all like to walk around there and so it's going to be I think it's a really communication. And I have gotten a lot of positive support from the neighbors, too. So, I've gotten to know um Kim and Eric to the east and and Carol of course there to the south and um totally Gian and Wes um and uh general just positive vibes I would say about it. So, thanks so much.

Thank you. I do have one clarifying regarding the step entrance. Uh 176080 projections into required yards. Item number D building entrances unroved landings may project more than not more than 36 entrances into required front yard, rear yard or side yard. So the eastern section may be permissible as a permitted projection. Um, that's fine. We appreciate that clarification, but if there's a way to redesign them, to keep them out, even if they're allowed, what I'm hearing is the commission's preference would be to not have a setback at all.

Yeah. Looking here,

I mean, I I think we're open to doing either way. It's a fairly simple change. Um would require a little bit of additional steel fabrication, I think, to to put a landing on there. But, um, but some ways it's it would actually be a little more, um, functional stair, I think, if it if it did have a landing and then extended down to to the north rather than coming down the stair into a fence. Um, so I actually like that design and I would I would recommend that to the other. Okay, final comments questions we'll close the record. We'll now move now I'll now close the record and move to our deliberation. would like to start everything satisfied with the thought and uh actually I'm ready to make a motion for the discussion anyone else but I don't think

I I would just like to ask a question of the commission and wonderful job they really listened to us and I appreciated all that but it so really all being asked for is uh where our code allows 1,000 square feet, they want 50. You know, where we allowed an additional 400 ft, they've got 500 ft of deck and and 350 ft of driveway. Now, I don't have a problem approving it as it applied, but it kind of makes me wonder if we've got certain size square foot limitations in our code. Shouldn't we discuss why they it's okay to be bigger than that? I haven't heard anybody talk about it. It's a beautiful house. I think the reason for it being danger is the property was already um basically touched with these still beings. They're going to shrink it a little bit and turn I guess what I would call is turning lemonade in or lemon city lemonade. And that's the difference I think that would distinguish it from somebody who just came in and said I want 1200 square foot home on a with a 1,000 foot limitation. I can accept that. I just wanted to have that function.

The existing structure is what did it for me. I've seen that existing structure there for years and years and uh the footprint that is greatly reduced from the original structure. Structure is there. It's it's an eyesore as it sits and I think this is a vast improvement. They've done things to mitigate any wetland issues uh that we have with the additional plantings. I think that the weather will be healthier in the long term from from the plantings and actually from this design all the water on the uh on the property itself permeable surfaces where possible uh but again I think it comes down for the the existing structure that's sitting there corroing on on the web. Unless I really appreciate that question and

to me it's not necessarily aesthetic but it's what does it do to wetland to remove portions of the structure as I understood from our conversation last time there were certain portions that were easier to remove than others at what point it becomes a disturbance to actually do the removal isn't part of my concern and in terms of water remaining on site I think That is a really important condition. I noticed there was a comment in the application that if the city would allow a turn in that site,

do we want this to come back to planning commission if there's any problem with that? We do. So I think the condition could be read as water remain on site, the city disapproves water remain on site, reapply to the planning commission and then we can have discussion about varian talk public works and have that conversation about how to keep the water outside. Very good.

You were beginning to make a motion. Do we I'm sorry. Um we feel like we need to do this kindly or do we feel this is just something that you need ahead of I think we can you know with part of the condition that if our conditions without water or perable services or any of the other things that it comes back for further

yes I move to approve B25-3 B25- 07s under the following conditions that the stairs are reconfigured to allow 5 ft setback on the east dumpster and the construction plan is placed in the proposed parking and the proposed parking area. The herbicide and pesticides are not used in any of the removal of invasive species or there's some reason to use pesticides. They're not used. The parking area is in 3/4 minus. Uh they grass bill, but I don't think that needs to be retirement. uh that there are tree protections on the east and the north that are off property but need to be protected and that the water is maintained belong to the property itself.

Okay. with with um it comes back if this Oh, yes. The provision that it uh if any of these uh provisions are that it comes back for review to the commission. I for the discussion plan, please. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Wade, yes. Commissioner Matusk, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Sinclair, yes. Commissioner B,

yes. Yes. E2503 and C2507 are approved. Thank you. Do we want to take a break or do we want to either be at

5 minutes? Next item is a text for legislative hearings regarding continuation of legislative public hearing begin continuation of legislative public hearing ZO2502 proposed text code chapter 17 Z2502 city can reach request for housing related to zoning or chapter 17.04 mission 17.30 30 residential zone R1 zone 17.2 residential meeting zone 1701 176 general requirements for the legacy 17.6 Am I hearing myself or what is that [Music] 1768 Austrian parking 17.7 the land review 17.72 080 accessory dwelling and a new section 1760.200 public benefit dwelling owner occupancy requirements. The zoning text amendments request will be reviewed against the criteria of the miss code 17 94.0608 amendments criteria to the state authority. This legislative hearing to amend the municipal code is being held after providing written notice of the hearing and proposed amendments to uh to the code to DLCP in compliance with OS197.619. In addition, RS227186 requires the city to provide written notice of the amendments and hearing the owners of real property when the city proposes to adopt

or the code in the matter that prohibits land use previously allowed in affected zones. Notice of this hearing has been provided to parties to follow the notice as required by those statutes. Type four actions are made by the city count are made by the city council's adoption of an ordinance. Canon Beach municipal code 17.1405 C provided that type four actions shall be decided by the city after a public hearing. City council may request that the planning commission hold a public hearing in advance of the city council hearing to consider the proposal public testimony and provide a recommendation. The city council has requested that the planning commission hold a public hearing in advance of the city council's hearing to consider the proposed amendments public testimony and a recommendation on it just because we follow. Okay. Uh does anyone have direct to the jurisdiction listening to hear this matter?

Is there a staff?

Yeah. Christine indicated she wasn't going to be able to make this meeting and at the last meeting there's a updated September 10 2025 memo from her that addressed a couple of the changes that the plan commission requested of her at last um last meeting and those were dealing with the uh u public benefits uh dwelling occupancy where there's some changes in uh section one that discussed um uh where it was talking about one sold the initial buyer the dwelling unit remain occupied as personal residence and the title holder receiving the public benefit um housing allowance for the title holders renter. Um there was a mod modification to uh the dwellings to be rented from 12 months to six months and then there was a modification to change the limitations for the EU from 800 uh uh from 600 square ft to 800 square ft. So those were the um requested changes. And then there was a request from the plan commission that sometimes when the council um adopts the actual ordinance that the effective date is usually 30 days after uh the council adopts an ordinance and there's some discussion and there's going to be a recommendation from the plan commission that that be changed to 90 days from the standpoint. if there were people out there who had plans submitted that uh they could be impacted by that 30 days. So again, these are all the changes that were requested and then um the plan commission is making a recommendation to council with regards to the um proposed housing amendments um and then the council would have a hearing uh prior to

adoption. So I can answer any other any other questions but those were really the the directives she was given and the changes that have been made. Thank you. Other questions?

Is there any additional correspondence? I think um you recall um we had one I think I believe J Mo that we forwarded to everyone today. So that was the additional correspondence. Okay.

I believe Mr. Moore was on he had some questions about getting on quite a kid. We put it on the agenda and got the forward the information because it got um to us pretty late. So we making sure that we submitted those comments through the plan commission. Okay. Thank you. So we'll move to public testimony. Uh this is a legislative hearing. So for leadership disclosure do not apply. As such commission billing testimony persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair state their full name and mailing address not physical address and if appearing in a representative capacity identify from the present. Uh, would anyone like to come forward?

Take another shot at it. I'm Tim Ray, PO Box 429 Beach. Um, as I mentioned earlier, most of you know kind of my general feelings on uh 252. There's some parts of it that I think are great, some parts of it that I called for myself, and some parts that I think are kind of an abomination. Um, but whatever you think of the content of 252, I don't think it's viable. I don't think it will ever withstand the legal challenge because and and I I say this with no backwardlooking judgment or anything. I think that the people who met with the housing subcommittee and these other subcommittees met in good faith and thought they were doing the right thing. But I believe our our city uh has essentially taken the point of view that these meetings were not were not legally formed. Uh and so the transition from these meetings to a measure 56 notice is where we got in trouble. And I don't think that uh I wish legal counsel would would opine on this, but but I think it'd be very difficult uh for this, no matter what the content is, to to ever survive uh the legal challenge. Um, second, I was really concerned that uh the city bulletin, which is published by the city and the city is responsible for its veracity and content had some blatant errors in it um that I asked the city to amend or or publish and to my knowledge they have not to this date. One of one

of the errors was that um floor area ratio was con confused with lot coverage. Uh and it it really is um important to figure out what floor area ratio is and lot coverage is. And uh the the city bulletin um got the wrong impression there. Um the other thing that was there, Commissioner Wade uh was quoted as saying, which she's perfectly capable of saying, and don't question any of that, that um and under the current conditions, you can build lot line to lot line. And now if we do a 46 FAR, um that would leave some room for nature. Um he's entitled to his opinion, but he can't build mind. I think that um definitely painted the public's perception of uh of CO2502. Uh and finally, um Herbs Works, the city's consultant, knew or should have known that they they should not have been conducting these meetings in the way they did. Um I've been personally frustrated that we've spent a little over $300,000 uh on Herbs Works in the past three years. um 90,000 in the past year and we're not getting a lot of product out of them and uh um I would have liked them to have a little more leadership. Um I personally am not a big fan of consultant efforts because I think consultants have vested interest in drawing things out and building as much time as possible. Um, so I think uh it might be um worthwhile for the planning commission to consider whether Herbs Works is

serving the city's best best interests. Um so I just don't I don't think that this you you could vote to vote down 252 and then start the effort using the same work product again with a different committee. and that may be completely appropriate, but I don't think that the lineage here will survive the legal challenge. Thank you. Thank you.

Um your testimony was great. You you've done this before. Thank you. I didn't state it at the time, but uh if we could keep testimony three minutes to those people coming forward, if there's anyone in the audience, we'll first anyone else who'd like to come forward this time forward. 719. What is the comprehensive plan? It's an order process that determines community goals and aspirations in terms of community development that serves as a foundation for other planning documents like zoning or ordinances and provides a cohesive framework to achieve community goals related to sust sustainability, equity, and livability. So I took stuff from our comprehensive plan reading into I don't know if we've all have kind of comprehensive plan as committee members. So this is just on the housing policies in order to maintain the city's village character and diverse population. The city will encourage the development of housing which needs meets the needs of variety of age and income in groups as well as groups of specials. uh to the extent the city shall endeavor to accom accommodate affordable housing in a manner that disperses it throughout the community rather than concentrating it on specific locations. The city recognizes that there needs to be a balance between employment and the housing in the Canon Beach area and that the city cannot rely solely on other communities to provide needed affordable housing. The city finds that the transient occupancy of dwelling units constitutes a visitor oriented commercial use in the city's residential order areas. In order to maintain the residential character and livability of its neighborhoods and to prevent the adverse effects of transient occupancy of dwelling units, the residential neighborhood, it's necessary to eliminate, limit, and regulate the transient occupancy of dwelling units.

These are points. The city will purge and support the development of housing units in conjunction with the commercial uses in order to provide additional housing to both provide a diversity of use in city's commercial areas and to provide security to commercial areas. This amount is the backwards. Unfortunately, this has become extremely convoluted and turning land owners into unwilling land landlords and so on when it should have been a 100% community involvement not just group not just a group of all property owners and one mapping inventor. I propose we take uh that we what we've learned in this last year apply a definitive timeline have an actual community involvement for renters or workers that reach the gears of the city every day. I ask all of you in this room when's the last time you woke up and wondered today the day my home turns into an Airbnb. For some of us it's a daily fear. Please start this conversation back with hearing the very real problem of housing insecurity. And final note, I think Marcy has done a really great job and I think city staff tried really hard and did a good job and I think Marcy's the good person for this job. So that's it.

Thank you. Thanks. Anyone else here tonight who'd like to pass? Um no. Um anyone online? Yes, we have J Moore. Please, please um go ahead. You should be coming over here.

Hello. Hello. Oh, can Oh, you can hear me now. Excellent.

Yeah, I got to master Zoom here first. So, anyway, so my name is Jay Moore. Uh my wife and I own a home at 1388 Pacific. We bought this house about a year ago. The house was built in 1930. So this this thing has got some old bones to it. Uh we bought the home uh with the assumption that we would be able to remodel or rebuild the home under the current zoning regulations in place when we bought it. The zoning at the time would allow us to remodel or rebuild a home of similar size to the existing home. The home is about 3,000 square ft and it's been that for decades. The city is now considering changing the zoning and only allowing us to remodel or rebuild a 2300 ft home. You are proposing to take 700 ft away from me. This is complet This completely invalidates the calculations I made to justify the purchase of this home. How how can the city uh justify changing the rules on existing homeowners? homeowners who have made decisions and investments based on the current rules. I've written three detailed letters to the planning commission documenting my oppos opposition to this ordinance or amendment. So, I'm not going to speedread all three of these letters to you tonight because I've got three minutes. Numerous numerous other homeowners have also provided very wellthoughtout and articulated public input. I encourage all homeowners, planning commission, and city council members to carefully read this input. I understand the desire to create more affordable housing in Canon Beach. I have absolutely no issue with this. I think that's good. My issue is with the FAR reduction. If the prel primary focus is affordable housing, then address that. If you want to force homeowners into building smaller houses, then address far. The co-mingling of these two issues has created an untenable

situation. Trying to incent homeowners into building ADUs by threatening to reduce their buildable space is not an incentive. The other disincentive is that homeowners can no longer use the primary structure as a short-term rental. Let me discuss my particular situation. Uh based on the size and the position of my lot, there really isn't a reasonable place to build an ADU. The only possible place for me to build that ADU would be between the back of my home and my view of the ocean. I'm not sure who would do that. Secondly, you want me to give up 700 square ft, but will you will then give back most of that space if I put it into an ADU? This give back is not space for my family to use. On top of losing space for my family, you will not allow me to rent the primary structure home as a short-term rental. This is a s serious financial penalty. So, bottom line, you will take away 700 square ft that I currently have and have planned to continue to use in my remodel or rebuild. However, you will allow me to divert that taken buildable space if I spend the money to build an ADU. This will no longer be space for my family. As if this is not enough, you then eliminate the opportunity for STR income, which would help me set off the crazy price that I paid for this home. You have tried to position the STR reduction as an incentive to build affordable housing. There is no incentive, only disincentives for me. Bottom line, leave the STR alone. Focus on serious options for developing significant affordable housing, duplexes, multifamily, incent building

on city-owned land. There are a lot of options other than trying to take my property away. So, that's it for me. Thanks for listening. I'm the new kid on the block. I don't want to act like I'm stirring the pot here, but I'm I'm still trying to kind of figure out how this this works in Canon Beach. So, I may be asking questions that are on the fringe, but I'm going to ask him because I'm learning. So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on that?

Okay, we'll ask more time for anyone public testimony. Once, twice. Okay, we move to our close the Well, we are at now a point where we could close the discussion and just move to our deliberation. How do people feel about that? We've had three sessions on this hearings on this. Let's do that.

Close it and make some sort of recommendations. Is that the goal? Okay. So, we're going to close for public testimony and we'll move to our deliberation. Who'd like to start? Well, I guess first we need to decide uh whether or not we feel like um there are issues with the way that this was constructed because there's no sense in going forward can agree that it was constructed while the code change. I'm glad you brought that up. It's a it's a it's um we've we've heard from a number of people including 10 years 9 that there's concern about notices. I I always like to address these things as best I can so people know that they've been heard. Um I do feel like as planning commission we're not in a spot to make a decision for whether something did or didn't happen. That's

did he not hear not in the back? Okay. So, as the planning commission, I don't know that it's in our purview to make the decision that we have or have not followed. I can say that from my experience and I'll speak only from myself. We have tried to follow the advice we've been given, the training we've been given the best we can. So the assumption is that since it is to us then it was all fally done and uh we can continue on. We have not been briefed by the city attorney. So I don't think you tried to make any legal determination or we are only making recommendations.

And the last thing we should do is take legal advice from Tim Ramy. Well, let's let's I'm I'm not saying take legal advice from anybody attorney. Uh so, yeah, I just want those questions answered. We're going to spend a lot of time on it going forward. I think that we should assure ourselves that we're not wasting our time by by moving forward on this. And I think I'd like to have some questions answered about some of the guidelines that we're making.

In fairness, I feel like I just have to say I mean Tim R is not the only person to bring this up has been brought up enough times. It's a serious issue. I think we do need to have

serious conversation about something else. Tim gave a recommendation that you know I'm not opposed to the work product going back and starting over. I really am not. I mean, you know, I hate to see people object to content based upon process as opposed to hitting the issues straight up, but um if we wanted to make a recommendation to the to the city council, and it's not a bad one, you know, we are passing this on this point. We recommend perhaps that you slow down, send it back to the council. We just start over. This is the work product we have. And

what would you do differently about what we've done? I, you know, I can't figure out a single damn thing that we could have done to move the ball forward. Agreed. Um, and involve the public. We have to record. Um, unfortunately I find drafting anything by committee to be uh well I'll I'll skip my my word for it but they're not direct to individual

anyway. Um again um and with the trees too I mean if people don't like the trees and they want to say it was illegally come up devised or written hey fine let them say it. We'll start over. We get to the same damn place. uh we just waste a lot of time doing it and it's unfortunate because the trees are coming down and um we're losing opportunities to build affordable housing or at least try to incentivize it. But hey, let's be big boys and girls. I will never apologize to any anybody for what I did. Um, and I won't apologize um, publicly like I'm a a school boy and you know I find parts of this process just uh, hard to deal with. But I'll leave my personal opinions aside. Let's just send it to the to the to the council and say this is a good work product, but we have a process issue. We're back in that space where people are pointing fingers. Let's start them. So instead of saying what about just saying this is a good product city position very aware of this issue I'm sure that it will be taken up at that level I don't think we need to weigh in on process

that's not what we were asked for okay we were asked to provide a recommendation whether this is a good product I think we follow that lead and we don't interject ourselves into something we really don't have purview over I will say that from my personal perspective there has been an amazing amazing amount of opportunity for public input.

Before that housing group was even formed, Marcy had presented the idea or our give back based on Jeff Adams original work. That housing group was formed knowing that that was likely to be a central component of anything that came out of the work product. We had a legal counsel who would told us a focus group would find because it was only providing recommendations to a consultant who works for the city. Now it was not a recommendation directly to any governing body. Furthermore, we had I think at least five joint sessions that were open to the public. We received public comment. Much of it was public comment from the people who work here and who said how desperately we need to deal with the situation. not send it back to the drawing board, but do something. Furthermore, in each one of those sessions, RAC provided a very clear update on what the focus group suggested at the time. So, there was a lot of public opportunity to know what the work group was doing. So, I overall plus of course we've just had preherence. I overall feel that in if we look at the spirit of the public moving law I can I agree that maybe in the future we need to be more aware and we've learned some lessons we now know that there was recent legislative change that has definitely changed the landscape and we should all be aware of that but at this point there has been an incredible amount of opportunity I saw that I think the test one of the tests for is have we if there was a defect and we're not here to judge that but if there was a defect have we allowed and considered an opportunity for security we've had three sessions on I can't even get through the chair instructions we're in such a unique position because just never done that before we've had three different hearing we've talked about the

issues that have been brought before us that we thought were relative and some that even weren't and we haven't voted yet We do not know what how we stand on this most controversial issue which seems to be the follow. We may not agree but it is open. It's public. People have had their opportunity to present their opinions to us.

We have considered that and we are going to present back to the community those things that we we're going to present to the city council those things that we believe the public has shared and we believe should be considered by them. So after that, I don't know what she's doing or what you're going to accomplish in something that someone believes could have been handled better that we didn't attempt to do to begin with. Imperfect very likely there's something that could have been done that better. Breaking the law. I I maybe we will know. Maybe we won't. We don't know the history. But we do know we've made a good faith effort to try to run a profit that people could give up their their contribution could and we could make good recommendations and from there you know I I don't know what else you do. I mean if someone doesn't want changes to rec I looked at some of the historic doc and these changes are controversial 30 years ago they were duking it out and to change is not something people like to see and it inevitably is going to have someone really happy and someone not so happy. All we can do is our best to balance what's fair from a from a diverse group of people who do not share with I agree.

I can agree with Mike. I think we viewed this spot regardless if we sent it back or not. There are some great ideas in here. Also some things that uh I seem to need a little bit of work. That's why we're here. Uh I'm satisfied that we're here under put it uh to do this work that's been presented to us. So I had to ask the question and I think he's satisfied.

You know I'm struggling with what what role the planning commission is expected to play in this particular one. there are and particularly leaning on a lot of the public input that you've received. There are are what I would consider three or four strong objections the specific pieces of of you know certainly the bar reduction is probably maybe the biggest one but there are others about you know this could be considered a taking and there may be a legal challenge looking at that I don't I can't render an opinion on that but if we're is it the place of this body to deal with that or or is it the place for this body to I'm not quite sure what we're supposed to do, but to send it on to council and share those kinds of concerns that we've had to make sure that the public comment, the public input is carried forward. I don't I don't know exactly what to do. I think we're just here to make recommendations to the to the council uh and give further public input which we have done. Um and we go through this with a different set of eyes and some same sets of eyes and then make determinations recommendations. Would we like uh with that in mind, should we maybe dive into some of the yes

more controversial recommendations we discussed? How about the bar conversation?

Well, I'll stand by my comment of last week and that is when I say wildland, I mean 5 foot setback to 5 foot setback, not necessarily the wild line itself to the wild line itself. just to clarify that. Uh the other thing is with the 46 something less 6 that we have now it does go does give us options on any piece of property to be able well on the property. It also leaves us uh the room for a 700 800 square foot ADU on the property and senator do that with 46 and an additional 800 ft. Now, one of the comments did talk about uh the thinking of his currently 30,000 square foot home. As I understand, you talk about grandfathering in a rebuild or remodel that doesn't expand on that 3000, but you can continue to use he or she can continue to use their 30,000 home and rebuild it as as it was as a grand. So that will alleviate the taking. Can I can I jump in that one here for a second? If you had a 30,000 foot house built in 19 I I don't know what Mr. 30 that house would be built for a very different floor plate today. At what point do we allow or what is the distinction between we're going to build it just exactly what it was the 1930 standard to uh considering a different floor plan within 3000 ft.

the code addresses that situation. So, so we would then say, and I know the code does currently, but would we consider some sort of allowance for some change going to offset the idea that comes, hey, I've got a 3,000 foot house. You're coming to me now saying, I've only got 2,300. Could there be could there be some allowance for change? Give me an example. I mean, you're saying take not go 3,000 something less.

Keep the 3,000 in the paper. I'm just ripping dropping. I'm just thinking off the top of my head. So, someone's got a 3,000 ft house. They can rebuild 3,000T house currently with the same for plate. We allow them some percentage of change to that corporate. So, you know, one of the challenges to these older houses, again, I don't know the specifics of any one individual's office, Mr. more specific, but often have really small bedrooms. Um, if you wanted a larger bedroom, you could have Yeah. Well, the floor plan. Yeah. I think that

I think that's in if we have a house in 5,000 foot block that's currently built to 6 that should be rebuilt to the current code that it's standing on prior to our involvement with this. So, they would be able to rebuild. They chose three bill to the point 6F but would still be held current standards such as setback social setback and lock is that everybody's understanding in terms of

so yeah we're saying you would create a special pre-existing use provision related with this ordinance because what we have in the rest of the is a pre-existing use condition but if you rebottle it essentially for the value of this what is it 60% 50% 50% probably real market value market value then you can't build on your pre-existing but currently Mr. more for instance as long as he remodels at less than 50% current market value can do that and he can do that further hope whether we change F never know how houses are model that

no I'm saying that you know I think the that's my question are we trying to suggest to council that that's something for the state a special grandfathering pre-existing cause within this code or we saying that we're okay with the way that the current vote works.

I lean toward the current vote. I think if you try to create a special one here, basically he's emptying every house that's owned up to this point and you can basically kiss it on the back. Right. I I'm sympathetic to Mr. Moore's concerns and I I agree with Nikki. There are options he has. Um you wouldn't be able to Rebuild a 3,000 home 50% natural disaster by choice, right?

If he chooses if he chooses to take down part of it or remodel, then he's subject to the existing code. If that remodel is at a cost of 150%. Speech.

Yeah. what you're talking about is a nonforming structure. If there was an act of that, a person has the ability to kind of rebuild what um was there previously. With a non-conforming structure, there are certain values associated with like 50% of the assessed value in a certain amount of time that gives you some expansion ability provided that that expansion is meeting like the setbacks, you know, things of that nature. So there is some wiggle room they you know that the probably the biggest concern is the fact that when you make such a change you're creating less non-conforming structures for the ones that are now over uh the 2300. So that is probably the probably the um you know hardest aspect of the change is creating that conformance. Is that what you're trying to say? Wait,

there was always a ref. You know, there's something about the link from the city page to the municipal code that isn't working. You got to shut that out cuz I go to Eco 360 and I get it, but not on the homepage. Sorry, interruption. Um, it's a recognition that um the non-performing structures, the non-performing uses provision can be clarified and that needs to be done. Um but um I think that that provides a lot of options to people who bought a house on the assumption that they could update it. That's only existing structure though. We're talking about rebuilding and not taking away from somebody that already has something and that's trade by grandfather and how we could put a put that language where um if someone chose to rebuild their house they would have to conform to standards other than F.

Right. I know that coverage just the F component would still remain the same for them at that point. Yeah, maybe that's a recommendation you pass. Yeah, I I think taking you

Yeah, the only other thing I was going to talk about was when it appears that in 1979 the the zoning ordinance must abandon some bash are completely changed and there's a section 17.88.060 060, which is called pre-existing uses. And it kind of talks about, hey, if these uses were allowed prior to 79, it's kind of like a grandfathering situation. And maybe instead of just the pre-existing uses of this session, there could be some type of pre-existing structure kind of mimicking maybe this session that could potentially address some of the concerns that such as those who are over, you know, the 2300 that let's just say 3,000 because that's what we're talking about. and that might give them the opportunity to then use a section similar to this and allow those people to continue to have the ability to keep that same square footage. So, I think that uh that is and that one's just it's in the non-conforming uh structure section. It's called pre-existing uses because there's non-conforming uses and non-conforming structures. And then this talks about that pre-existing uses and maybe there would be something about pre-existing structures

pre-existing if they are something you know I'm not saying that's right I'm just saying it has the opportunity to try to address that situation. Thank you. Yeah, because I I have a issue with taking somebody's square footage away if they want to rebuild uh they purchased the home with certain expectations uh you know financial financial considerations uh maybe especially so that's one thing that I think we have to look at. Thank you. Anyone else? Well, just we're still talking about F, but

yeah.

Um, conceptually, I still don't even like the notion of reducing what they are. I mean, I know this isn't exactly a correct statement, but I don't think it's our property to take back away since it's been given to property owners under the conditions that they bought their property, whether it's been built or not. I mean, if the city wanted to to consent this, I still think and and I brought it up last time and Mickey, you corrected me because, you know, if we let it go much above 6, then we start affecting the character of our neighborhoods. And I get that, but that's feels so much better to me. We're giving an incentive rather than taking something away only to turn around, try to give it back with restrictions. I don't like it. Um, that's an aspect of this that I don't think I'll ever be comfortable with. Even though I I like the goal of what we're trying to do, but I don't think that F reduction is the right way to do it. I don't have a better solution, but I don't like it.

Well, you know, codes change all the time um to benefit the community, benefit the future. I think we have a duty here to look at the future and take action uh to see, you know, kind of determine what we want our village, our city to look like uh in the future. So, we were at 0.5 before the 6, we're looking at 46 or something a little smaller than 60. Um because things change. Um we're going to have or potentially going to have a grace period so the people who are keyed up uh construction ready, shovel ready or architect ready, whatever wherever they're at in the process will have some time to complete their their own with the current code. Uh we talked about three months talking about six months. Um, I read some of the comments talking about even 24 months. I think that's a little wrong personally, but uh, you know, we could we can entertain any of those numbers uh, to give people a chance if they're ready to build to go ahead and build and not take anything away from them if they're ready to go. With a 46, I think going forward for all time, it's going to be cheaper than 60 on our survey. Does that make it affordable to most families? Probably not in Cam Beach. Discussed that also. But you know, u whether you sell in five years or 50 years, it's going to be less expensive than a 26 F most likely. There are some expensive smaller homes but we're talking about incorporating some some aspects of portability coupling that with the F

then that's something I think we need to look at. The other thing I think about the point46 or reduce fashion, it gives the ability of the architect, the uh contractors to move that structure around on that farm and say what's important to the city. Uh I think what's important to the city and the residents uh is nature and trees and uh you know kind of a a coastal field. If we've got60 and I've seen them in my neighborhood and other neighborhoods, uh, it really reduces a lot of the nature of we when I say we, I guess, but I I think that, you know, the Chamber of Commerce just came out and said we had more than 10 million visitors. Well, it wasn't because we're got 600 uh by off. I'll tell you that. And uh it's it's because we do protect what's important or what bring people to this area and I think that uh there were some other comments about current FS of different people who sit on this commission and I I failed to see how the current F of anybody's property sits on this commission uh would have any uh significant effect on what we're trying to do going forward, what we're trying to protect. whether 10,000 square thousands per pound. I think it's a drawing.

Yeah, that's the unfortunate piece. We do have people who have said this needs to be done. We have a survey that says it need that the problem with home housing security is linked in a large way to cuts. There are cities like Portland who have already reduced their ARS. um they were driving toward more density. I you know I don't mind that one of the features of this is that maybe we preserve some trees and preserve our character but the reality is the way this is structured it does create density. You know I I don't want to ar argue with anybody who says well wait a minute you're you're restricting me because you know it's what they believe it's important but I will say to somebody um like Mr. more that that the house that ADU can be used for his family anytime you want just like another house has older children I don't know maybe it's a good thing but I don't want to get into that it's just that we are building density right into this and without it you know you get a little bit of housing maybe in the opportunity zone and you if we were to give up on anything it would be creating more density and uh and uh um public benefit We just don't have enough incentives there, but the F reduction creates immediate drops for more density.

Also, I would just point out that most of the homes in this town are not 6. So, it's not as though suddenly everyone's in a home that's 6 and now suddenly you can't have that. No. So this isn't as though it's actually taking something that exists for the majority of the home trans.

So you know I think you know my personal opinion on on fire reduction. This is forward. These are serious proposals that were thought through by people who had a lot of data and looked at other communities and found that these made these changes made differences there made improvements. Um the council might decide um we don't want to go there because there's an outcry. I would encourage them to try to get out and talk to more people than just the people who come in here and complain.

Yeah. But I would like to push it through. I mean, it's a package. You've got a package of of opportunities here that the city can pick and choose from. None of which are silver bullet. All of which will happen.

I I I am so conflicted on this far question. I passionately believe in affordable housing in the first place, but it is absolutely coming in at least in some part of my mind on the back of someone else thought they had had an expectation for what they had in front of them. And that yes, laws do change or excuse me, yes, codes do change, but the laws and the idea that we have or are putting into something into place something that could be considerably taken is something that needs to be seriously considered because at some point um we are asking someone to give something up. We have specific examples of people saying you are putting this on my back and I'm struggling with that. But we we have at J's suggestion increase the amount of time to allow those people who actually have invested in that an opportunity to finish the process

and off more time 90 days as we know from some of the permits we get to is that's already that 90 is just something that's already so maybe that's the conversation to have but I would be open to that conversion I think just the hard is just too hard what would feel like the right middle ground that we don't incentivize sudden people who actually did weren't planning to expand expansion but at the same time people didn't completed

I think it was 9 or 12 months maybe that rather see 12 months would be the minimum to start complete in my opinion some of them start. So I think that that's for me an argument not to make it because I could see incentivizing people who might not ever change but 90 the first put it into but they but but none so

so they're you know that's where I think that may have work with the grandfather That's right. That's all we have and we don't take away but we give the opportunity to complete or get in motion the the permitting process goes on the date that you on the basis of the code there whatever we so that's something that kind She wants to get on board and get things moving, but this is their opportunity to do so before historically. I like history as much as I one thing that I have I have here is Ryan was original language that he his recommendation that Steve and Robert do in 1993 when they changed it 5.6 there and not advocating either just something to put in your record before you guys know that I don't know Steve Harris on it. He knows that in finding for the amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan change.5.6 6 R and R2 RM. He states that city recognizes the importance of its existing residential neighborhoods in defining the character of community and will strive to accommodate new residential development in a manner that is sensitive to the scale, character and density of existing residential development pattern. The city may be well into a variety of floor area ratios. Proposed floor ratio requirements will accommodate homes that can provide for a broad range of housing needs while assuring sub are consistent with scale of existing residential

meet this criteria that's from 1993 we know the history of they approved that in March of 93.5 and I would say for those very reasons we're looking at 46 Would you expand on that a little bit? How do you see that being the same reason? What what am I

see? And I think we had a vision for this town which we have drafted through by him and through him uh to our current standard 6 and and I'm not I'm open for discussion do we are we doing something that would drastically improve one crisis and two the character I feel we have two things on the I don't think they're mutually exclusive though and I think that uh 46 for me and the constituents that I've spoken with uh think that something smaller than 6 more in line with what they want going forward than the current. that uh we're seeing a lot of uh homes, newer homes in say the last 10 maybe 15 years that are much larger and they stick out. They're not in character with the New York village feeling. Not all of them stick out, but there are a lot of them built without I think that much imagination. uh they're built in rectangles and cover 96 of the lot. They got hardcape all over and I just don't think they they have uh they have the appeal that we're looking for. And you know, I thought folks have said, "Well, you're taking away the value of my lot." And I said, "Well, to that I'm thinking I think the value of this city is its character and its appeal. So if we take that away, it might lessen the value of

your law to not increase the value too much regardless of its size and I think lot appropriate means not but

so borrow speaks to is absolutely what we want to achieve. Now also we have a little bit different vision now uh for in various reasons. I'm not sure why this committee was committee was put together in the first place if there was a lot of public input or public outcry for something like to to be done but I think it's a move in the right direction to at least look at that and reduce it to something less than 6 and again some of the neighbors that that I have that have recently built have built to that 6 they didn't intend in the in the first iteration of their design to be at 6. They wanted something smaller. When they get into conversations with the contractor, well, I can build you something that's a lot cheaper per square foot if you let me put it all under one roof, make a rectangle. we should keep our focus on for a while. I have

and and to that to that point my concern would be as we've discussed and and the reason that this goal effort began this is a way to incentivize more affordable housing or at least workforce housing without the city needing to find money to do the incentive

process. Right? So if we think about it in 2000 for going back to the housing, if we were to quote unquote incentivize by allowing more than6 F, I then think we really do begin to run into issues with overbuilt neighborhoods that does truly truly impact the experience for neighbors. So the idea was yes there's a little bit that is being taken not in a legal sense but in a conceptual sense from current land owners when they are now confined to 46 it's not a big difference but it does allow the city to do something really really important

it was a public benefit the benefit that we were hearing and still are Michelle said artic articulated quite eloquently. man is we have a problem. You know, in ' 88 we updated code to put ADUs in. Um, so what was that in 93 96 we updated code to give that's all we get anymore. We're not getting diversity. We're just getting the biggest possible house and it's taking away opportunities for people to build homes that um fit the budget or to provide units that fit the budget. and we have delivered that actually. Now the city and the council as elected representatives need to decide whether that is enough benefit. I don't think we should put this entirely on the backs of the citizens either. I think the city can invest something.

Well, they can't. That's the own. So, that'll be another problem. Yeah, that's another problem. I'm just saying incentivizing is one thing. Relying entirely on Let me show you how it works. Steve, we could do this and we could say 46% 800 square foot ADU get you up to somewhere 60 a little bit over 6% actually.

Um, you know, you can't shortterm rent it. If you want to live in it, you can. Uh but you know, if you want to make a little bit of money, extra money, we've got this lease off uh lead program and we can actually help bring down that um market rate a little bit for people we need to be here in this community. I mean, so you know, I I hate to to break it to people that um has no impact on density, but it does. I'm I agree with everything you said.

I think another issue that I have is that are we talking what character can we preserve presidentials or south or north? Northtown is all mostly RC. Somehow is mostly R1 ask [Music] do we have to include the R1? Do we just concentrate on the R2 or the small island and duplex where we have opportunities specifically to increase what's the R1?

Yeah, that's not the place that we're trying to concentrate. I think we're concentrating on But I think therapy the expanded opportunity for housing is important just that's the only thing we can get out of our and that's what we're trying to get bump up the size of the ad that means they have a smaller larger but the ADU is on top of the way this

I mean so for improvement I think there that you know maybe they don't get that you know just I I like the idea of doing both R2 myself I think that it just increases the opportunities for them

yeah I don't think presidents are the only area worth protecting There there are one zones um different neighborhoods that also deserve the same consideration. We have a couple cottages on my street, but they'll be coming soon. I don't honestly

it would it would be nice I think to be able to see what this the community feels about just the reduction in F away from all the other considerations that that are part of this are is I mean that's a lot of the the negative feedback that I think we've heard is well I don't want to reduce it. Well, it's it's so hard to understand when it's mixed in with the the givebacks, the the ADU possibilities, the duplexes, and when you can't do it and when you can. And I just don't even know that if you just came back with the argument, you know, this will be more like the village character we want. We'll have more room for trees. All those positives that you were extoring, Steve, would would the community say, "Yeah, you know what? Point six was always too big." I don't think you'll get that feedback.

No, the the point is the give back. It's not the point is not to reduce the Father. But I don't think it is because it's an opportunity. It's all those give backs are kind of going forward and and have strings attached that some people will home. It doesn't feel like a give back. it feels like a give back something we took and you know I mean I we had some some some feedback that said look you know you're you're mixing too many different things together and and frankly that's part of the problem with this is it's very confusing just to me

you know uh I don't know I I've already kind of said I I feel bad about trying to reduce the F just so I can give it back that's just my personal feeling I think that's the Most valuable thing though that you've got to give back as an alternative. I mean the you reduce setbacks and waving partner requirements. I don't know that anybody cares about that.

Well, I don't think they were simply changing the code. You would have been allowing ADU to be put there as well. That's two two separate structures. It's two separate things. So the could be 800 for your primary residence or primary structure. 46 that's pretty straightforward. I think there should commission council and vote on every issue that public every issue comes up. There's no confusion.

Where are we on the truth of the city council? Now, but

I I think we need to consider that we, you know, our purpose to give the city council something that's easy to navigate and is not going to wind up taking 8 months, nine months through considerable negotiation again, which maybe we could work out ahead of time for them to deliberate. And I think that's our responsibility to give them something that's my personal opinion we have. It's a it's a serious officer proposal. It's one that um you know if you look at any any academic housing you look at any city um it's coming down to you got to shrink houses density. We just add a little bit by adding building the density into the shrink. So, um this is this is this is not this is what you let people decide. It's not what you

Yeah, that's what they say. They're elect. So, we are attacking remorse for the people in some sense. And yeah, I mean, you know, I hate to see you guys break it down and say, I like this piece, but I don't like that. um you know, you basically destroy a package that, you know, hits the um the city at multiple points and gives us different opportunities to build housing recognizing that, you know, we're not going to change the market. The best we can do is incentivize. But isn't that our responsibility? I didn't think of blind by having many talk about every single point before just

the way I talked about every single point, you know, I I don't envision this as something that was before us as we could line it up and veto over. So, um, you know, again, it's a it's a a serious proposal that the council will need to decide. Well, I'm not sure this for this ter. So, um, and I'm hearing that voice some of my own concerns around the largest of the issues. I think there are some places that there's room for some compromise. Well, we tried to find

I don't know that we have session from anywhere but you know there are other things I know Mickey's instead of 60 you could go to 65 right and give that the upside 65 or for the public benefit if you decide if the city decides to do that I absolutely I can't get there Yeah, I know.

Well, what about the F and R2 for duplexes? Have we discussed that?

Yeah, that's what I was just talking about and and could for duplex give a little bit more. Again, you're right. Whoever's concerned about FC benefit there. You know, I hate to think that a city like Hannah Beach cannot learn from its errors and and move forward and that people can see that yeah, there's pain, but we have a primary suicide and that you know, so we have two on we have a number of people saying 89% that I recall when we surveyed and we got some pretty high results saying affordability is the answer

and we've also had pretty tremendous turnout not exclusive ly proposed to a number of people very concerned about this issue of far from being taken to you know why is why is this why is it the first option the city's consider considering for example affordable housing we've been working it since 1988 well laws have changed codes have changed yeah and I'm not saying we don't need to continue working it's just um that we're easily taking in a sense that I you know I'm not I'm not judge I'm very certain there's no legal t um

I think well then I think we need to get attorney because we haven't sitting here we have as well that does course I was asking somebody to build a 100 foot house on a th00and foot um piece of property is not

the the court has ruled that if you have a set of I mean there's different rulings on this and I'm not an attorney of nor pretend to be but my recollection on significant laws around takings are if I buy a property with a certain set of expectations and you come in as a jurisdictional buy and take away some piece of that I have a right to become it has to identify

it has to be a sign it has to be a very very significant reduction in the market value. So going from 3,000 ft² to 2300 ft² the property value the investment back expectation has not been reduced significantly. There is a case in which a lady had a lot that was I think a wetland lot said you changed code she could have built a 400 ft house the court upheld that it was not a taking because she could still build 400 ft on her property. So when we talk about the difference between 3 and 2300 we are not approaching what the court's about to call that is not going to get taken. I I think that due compensation comes in when talking about rights of way talking about you know the real property devaluations by just.5% or so and personally I don't see where Chin treaties been as a taking unless it was something very significant and there was no reason behind sense.

Yeah, I that's a tough one for me. Yeah, the legal is different for the world. If I could just say too, I do think that the the risk assessment that will be done by the city council recommendation for them would likely include some questions the city attorney about um potential risks or but I guess luckily perhaps it's not necessarily something the planning commission needs to worry about from a from a city. Yeah, started to determine legalities again.

So, what's next on the agenda after F?

Well, that's for the group. That's what we want to talk about. Any concerns? Well, I mean, I think we you are we've talked about um you know, the taking issue, you know, at least know a little bit more about it. Anyway, what about the parking? That was something that came up quite a bit. You know, it's one thing to weigh parking requirements on property, but that pushes them all out on street parking, which seems I think the the gist was just going to make things work. Is that a well please?

Most of the renters of the ADUs potentially will be seen that a lot of them don't have cars they can walk to. I don't know anybody that doesn't have a car.

They're well everybody that comes in for the the conference camp that they have every summer they bring their cars with them and they do work downtown. a lot of them. Um, many of the hotel workers seasonally do not have vehicles. But yeah, in in my circle too, last agree that everybody's got a car or two. Still, it's one of those things where we've figured out the parking in this city because one of the things that's preventing us from making a quiet change is both downtown and here in our residential. I mean it it's I can't decide the trailer I'm not here to do it but I see that parking does brings reducing the problems does help people build.

Oh yeah. Well and specifically for me I could put an ADU either in or attached to my house if I didn't have to meet the park. I mean, so that's probably a huge burden for me right now, but that isn't the public feedback that Well, there's another aspect of 1300, and it's downtown. I I do like the idea of the opportunity zone and maybe and empowering somebody to create workforce housing down on right between first and second but you know they want that you give them um really compartment. Yeah.

Now you know the discussion always was how much of that building you want to be affordableizing? how much you want to sell toward you know lower cost condos and um you know it gets really deep from there but what we decided was that downtown we could only be four affordable there is a bigger parking issue you want to create housing that's affordable for people who you know get in five or $600,000 that you might change parking for them but we didn't go that far again it's you know it's like we tried to go right down the middle between people who were and don't do all this stuff and people are saying you're not moving fast enough and all we can do is try to find a set of things that would lay out that we could lay out in a in a many fashion that would allow people allow the city to meet its obligations under it was as simple as that

needs to be addressed citywide as a city the policies and etc for that other ine Maybe hopefully hopefully soon.

Yeah, but I don't have a problem with the uh we re not requiring these additional parking spots for an ADU. I think that's a good car in saying small as the ADU is. It's not like there's three cars for that zero. I think it works best in the R2 for deoxy is our biggest opportunity increase or not a huge impact on what we need to build in we have decent marketing closest ability and most direct ability to increase our

I don't know the difference between duplexes they use it. I mean, philide, right? They're they're both accessible dwelling units. One's a little bigger than the other. I don't I don't get one shut down and that's we did get a lot of individuals coming at their tour joint sessions saying that they were looking for smaller units. So, I think that we shouldn't assume that everyone needs a duplex because I think Many of our workers are actually single or maybe a couple of doors.

Yeah. Housing often used for people to want to be sharing in fact working live in the same house 35 years old. He came out heard about that. So that's where I think again [Music] that's R2.

We're not touching R3 where we have you know R1 R2 is very straightforward. Well, yeah. I prefer cash than if we go, you know, it's an incentive like that. I mean, yeah, I like detached also gives flexibility again proper. Yeah.

And you know, you know, we look at the structure that's going down seaside from there. They they are not going to have a set park for every one of those four buildings with a small parking lot. So they're making concession for parking there and they're built for large housing in a very small which I think we need to

I wish we had one. I wish we could do or find buy find a way to her that is really to utilize that hard any other issues that we need to address. You know, I I'd love to know what we need to move forward and move this forward. Uh could you discuss the uh restrictions or you know, requiring folks to live in a 46 taking away the SDR to be benefited for that.

Well, I thought that was a simple part of this is that there's no reason to move forward if SDRs are allowed with an ADU with any of those givebacks. [Music] Yeah, they give back.

Well, here's what I think we can do to move forward. grandfathering uh in some language that Steve discussed 70s uh 79 something like that kind of verbiage that allows a rebuild of 3,000 square foot home where one currently exists so we're actually not taking anything away um discussion of the waiting period the grace period or waiting period before this code is enacted some recommendation to council for that maybe 9 or 12 months we talked about we can some some um and then I think put forward bar 46 uh which is not arbitrary but derives from other cities experiences. Um I think basically those three things um

and with Marcy's um changes with the red lines with Marcy's changes I think we can put forward a motion addressing those issues for so the motion would be um recommend forwarding this to the planning commission and all with its own lang to the council. Yeah. To the council. And that's that's what you're suggesting.

Yeah. with the the changes to uh uh for the grandfathering end of the non-conforming um code non-conforming previously existing with the proposed grace period or waiting period before enacting the code and with FAR know I haven't heard anything besides 6 or 46 but I do two I would select 46. I I I don't think we need to call that out if we just recommend very good change to that. 46, but I haven't heard any address.

I don't think she picked up for 6 month. Yeah, she did mention it's in the table that she said for this. All right. side of the red. See it? September 10. It's at the very end of the packet. It's way down there. Last few the last few pages report. What do we think about that? It's a good motion. Nice. I like to see 12.

I'm sorry. I like to see one year and I said nine 9 months. Okay. Anybody else? How people feel about 9 to 12? Yeah, we could make the recommendation. It should be a period of time. Let them let them decide at the moment. I feel like that's very good. And in terms of honing in on the your your idea around uh do we want to offer any more specific language or we want to let them work on? Well, I think the language similar to what Steve offered that has been in the previous code

would just be a recommendation that they consider that or do as is with the recommendation that the council consider that additional language. Yeah, that's a good idea. Yeah. With additional language grandfathering in the pre-existing homes to be rebuilt, etc., etc. So, I think with those items out of the way, we might be uh ready to do a motion. I think pretty darn close right there. Anybody else have anything?

I just need to make it because you're so good. But I do it.

All right. I move that uh we approve uh Z25-02 with the following recommendations that we allow nonconforming language to grandfather in existing FS. They before a certain time. Want to put that in that we recommend a 46 F and that we also recommend a waiting period in of approximately 9 to 12 months for implementation. Pardon me for implementation of the changes.

Yes. to for implementation of the proposed changes and to include Marcy's and to include Marcy's changes of second further discussion. That's what you call Commissioner Matus. No. Commissioner White. Yes, Commissioner B. Yes, Commissioner Clair. Yes, Commissioner Or. Yes, Commissioner.

Yes, Jeremy.

Um, yes. Recommendations to um city council for D2532 are hereby adopted. Any forward to the city? happened before. Okay, let's move on to the tree report. Yes, thank you. The month of August, it was relatively busy. Approximately 111 trees were approved for removal. 107 of which were for construction that primarily came from two lots on Monica court. The other the 3900 replanting requirements were relatively minimal um due to the number of trees maintained across once in town. questions go to the order

just have one question order I don't want to prolong things but when we put conditions on a new permit how is that documented for planning so that for instance as permit process goes you're able to track it so I'm just thinking this approval we did for the model six how does that get tracked You want to talk take that one?

Yeah, I want to take it out. So during plan review, we are going to evaluate and include any sorts of board reviews and approval. So, for example, planning commission or design review and we're going to include the conditions of approval from those reviews into the conditions or either the planning review and order building permit is applicable and or there are other administrative requirements such as a permit X number of trees are going to be replanted attached to the building permit as condition approval. Um other things such as kind of standing conditions like what we have for time for operation of machinery during excavation permits also applied as you know to the building permit. So you can actually see a number of planning conditions attached to the building program. They kind of trickle down through either planning commission for design or administrative

and then it's really just kind of sticking on your out calendar. Make sure I mean I I don't know how else to really do it other than putting it out there as a reminder to yourself a year from whatever the date is to, you know, give yourself a 30-day whatever prior to it to be able to remind yourself not saying that's

but it truly is the way often times we do it. You know, or some things may be stat building permit. It may be that we go prior to the final inspection we're reviewing to outstanding condition. For example, [Music] accuracy until those conditions are satisfied. Elephants [Music] I'm glad to hear it because it seems like everything.

Anything else? No. All right. Thank you everyone for meeting. Thank you.