City of Astoria Joint Work Session on Housing - City Council & Planning Commission - Feb 18, 2021
Youtube Auto-Generated Transcript

Welcome & Setting the Stage
Strategy #1: Adopt Supportive and Inclusive Comprehensive Plan Policies
Strategy #2: Establish Minimum Density Standards
Strategy #3: Revise Maximum Density, Height or Bulk Standards in Higher density Residential Zones
Strategy #4: Support High Density Housing in Commercial Zones
Strategy #5: Streamline and right Size Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
Strategy #6: Facilitate “Missing Middle” Housing Types in All Residential Zones
Strategy #7: Encourage Cottage Cluster Housing
Strategy #8: Promote Accessory Dwelling Units
Strategy #9: Incentivize Affordable and Workforce Housing
Strategy #10: Limit Short Term Rental Uses in Residential Zones
Astoria Land Supply
Public Comments
Councilor/Commissioner Discussion

Welcome & Setting the Stage
hour:minute:second
0:00:18	well uh welcome everybody i think
0:00:20	looking at the screen that was a great
0:00:22	idea cindy to
0:00:23	stop screen sharing for a minute so we
0:00:25	can see each other
0:00:27	until we get to the slides later it
0:00:29	looks like everybody's here but i'll
0:00:31	i'll have mr estes do a roll call for
0:00:33	the city council and then i'll have mr
0:00:34	asked mr moore to do a roll call for the
0:00:36	planning commission and just
0:00:38	that way we'll have it on the record
0:00:39	who's here for this joint
0:00:41	work session of the city council and
0:00:43	astoria planning commission
0:00:45	so mr estes okay councilor hermann
0:00:49	here councillor raqqa your
0:00:52	councilor hilton here councillor
0:00:55	brownson
0:00:56	here and mayor jones here
0:01:04	great i'll ask for my commissioners uh
0:01:07	commissioner corcoran
0:01:12	you're muted can you unmute yourself
0:01:19	come back to me yeah commissioner
0:01:21	corcoran are you present
0:01:23	yes thank you commissioner womack
0:01:31	you're also silent
0:01:37	right we're not picking up any audio
0:01:39	from you sir
0:01:54	we'll skip mr womack oh he commissioner
0:01:56	womack raised his hand in presence
0:01:59	commissioner croning here
0:02:02	commissioner price here commissioner
0:02:05	henry
0:02:06	here vice president fitzpatrick
0:02:09	here and president moore is present
0:02:13	okay thank you so i uh i thank everybody
0:02:16	for gathering this evening this is
0:02:18	actually something that i'm pretty
0:02:19	excited about
0:02:21	it's going to be very interesting and
0:02:24	housing of course see mr estes thinks
0:02:27	i'm being sarcastic i'm actually not i
0:02:29	i actually think this is going to be
0:02:30	very interesting because there are some
0:02:32	interesting proposals that we're going
0:02:34	to be talking about
0:02:36	and that the council will be um
0:02:38	providing some direction
0:02:40	so that the planning commission's
0:02:42	efforts will be very focused and
0:02:44	targeted in an
0:02:45	effective manner and that so that we
0:02:48	also can hear the input from planning
0:02:49	commission and counselors
0:02:51	on some of these topics that are in some
0:02:53	cases uh
0:02:54	could be controversial and um
0:02:58	but it's hopefully really make some
0:03:00	forward progress on how we can address
0:03:01	the housing issue in astoria over the
0:03:03	next
0:03:04	year so without further ado i'll
0:03:07	turn it over for an introduction to um
0:03:09	to mr estes
0:03:11	thank you mayor so i'm going to give
0:03:14	a bit of a chronology in terms
0:03:18	of some
0:03:21	planning processes that went into
0:03:24	development of the county housing study
0:03:28	which was completed a couple years ago
0:03:31	and i know that members of the planning
0:03:34	commission and city council
0:03:35	have been able to review that document
0:03:38	and we're going to be having
0:03:39	some direct discussion about
0:03:43	some recommendations included in that
0:03:46	study a little bit later on but
0:03:47	i kind of want to talk a little bit
0:03:48	about some
0:03:50	um things that led up to the creation of
0:03:54	the housing study
0:03:55	so about um
0:03:59	15 years ago the city
0:04:02	started their buildable lands inventory
0:04:07	update and a buildable lands inventory
0:04:11	is something that is required by the
0:04:13	state of oregon
0:04:15	to analyze and assess how much
0:04:18	available land for
0:04:22	residential and
0:04:25	what they call employment lands are
0:04:30	available in a community in a city
0:04:34	and that
0:04:37	is a requirement of the state to it's a
0:04:40	requirement of the state
0:04:41	to have a 20-year land supply
0:04:45	of developable
0:04:49	residential and employment lands in your
0:04:53	urban growth boundary and
0:04:57	to be able to set the stage for this
0:05:00	um astoria has a little bit of an
0:05:03	anomaly
0:05:04	in that our city limits boundary
0:05:07	is outside of our urban growth boundary
0:05:10	most communities in the state their
0:05:12	urban growth boundary is outside of
0:05:14	their city limits and then whenever they
0:05:16	want to
0:05:17	um develop or they're going to need to
0:05:21	develop they'll
0:05:22	they'll annex that land we have the
0:05:24	opposite
0:05:25	when our urban growth boundary was
0:05:28	created
0:05:28	in the 1970s when all urban growth
0:05:30	boundaries were created
0:05:33	our ugb was commensurate with our city
0:05:36	limits line
0:05:38	and a group which is still around today
0:05:40	called the thousand friends of oregon
0:05:42	sued and one uh
0:05:45	saying that our urban growth boundary
0:05:49	was too big it had uh
0:05:53	too much land in it for needed
0:05:55	development in the future
0:05:57	and it was uh ratcheted in inside
0:06:00	of our city limits so
0:06:04	um when we took on the
0:06:08	buildable lands inventory analysis
0:06:11	we were looking at uh
0:06:14	how much land is there still for
0:06:17	development or redevelopment within our
0:06:20	community and
0:06:21	there is a whole process on a procedure
0:06:24	which is established by the department
0:06:26	of land conservation and development
0:06:28	dlcd
0:06:29	on how that has to be analyzed so
0:06:34	after several years of analysis and
0:06:37	meetings through the planning commission
0:06:39	planning commission recommended
0:06:41	approval to the city council and
0:06:44	ultimately the city
0:06:45	council stated that they wanted
0:06:49	more information um they
0:06:52	they felt that at the time perhaps the
0:06:54	analysis which was done
0:06:57	didn't um include enough
0:07:00	of a uh of a need for
0:07:03	additional land to be added within
0:07:07	um our urban growth boundary in the
0:07:09	future and they asked
0:07:11	uh and staff to go back and do
0:07:14	additional analysis some of the
0:07:16	conclusions that came out of that
0:07:18	buildable end
0:07:20	land inventory uh
0:07:23	was that uh there
0:07:26	is a federally owned piece of property
0:07:29	zoned residential
0:07:30	over by emerald heights that
0:07:34	under state law must count and apply
0:07:38	towards vacant available residential
0:07:40	land but in reality
0:07:42	it's not going to be developed because
0:07:45	the federal government
0:07:47	held a uh held that as
0:07:50	a wildlife preserve and as long as the
0:07:53	federal government held that land as a
0:07:55	wildlife preserve
0:07:57	then that um that wouldn't uh
0:08:01	be developed the interesting thing is
0:08:03	the state of
0:08:04	oregon does not count federal land
0:08:08	held in wildlife preserves as
0:08:11	being eligible to remove that land as
0:08:14	as being developable we had to count it
0:08:18	as saying we had that is available land
0:08:21	for meeting our land need um
0:08:25	additionally there was a finding that
0:08:27	said
0:08:28	that we had a deficit of low-density
0:08:32	residential lands in our community
0:08:36	um that is for more like single-family
0:08:39	residential
0:08:40	type of development that we didn't have
0:08:43	enough to meet
0:08:44	our 20 our required 20-year land supply
0:08:47	but the council at time felt that um
0:08:50	that maybe there was even greater need
0:08:53	that that wasn't
0:08:54	analyzed and what the council asked for
0:08:58	was rather analysis being done via
0:09:02	gis or by digital maps they wanted
0:09:07	site visits of every property in the
0:09:09	city limits of astoria
0:09:11	and analysis done on the street in
0:09:14	person
0:09:16	so we hired another consultant um
0:09:19	patrick wingard some of you may remember
0:09:21	patrick
0:09:22	he is actually now a department of land
0:09:25	conservation and development
0:09:26	representative down in eugene
0:09:29	but we hired patrick wingard to do that
0:09:32	um walking analysis analysis of the
0:09:36	entire city limits
0:09:37	of astoria um and come to
0:09:40	find out that there there there was a
0:09:43	little bit more additional
0:09:45	um land that was that was needed um
0:09:49	it wasn't tremendous in terms of how
0:09:51	much was needed but there there was
0:09:53	and um a gain in terms of
0:09:57	uh single-family or low-density
0:10:00	residential land so that was
0:10:01	adopted about 12 years ago give or take
0:10:06	so after that the
0:10:09	city council asked for some
0:10:12	housing analysis to be completed and our
0:10:15	community development department and
0:10:16	staff at the time
0:10:17	completed that housing analysis um
0:10:21	and uh and there were some
0:10:23	recommendations at the time of what can
0:10:24	we do
0:10:26	to be able to address housing need and
0:10:28	there are some recommendations
0:10:31	for some code amendments uh to be able
0:10:33	to be done
0:10:34	um at that time
0:10:38	and the council
0:10:41	was not looking at wanting to move
0:10:44	forward with an
0:10:45	urban growth boundary amendment at that
0:10:48	point in time
0:10:49	really looking at what can we do to add
0:10:53	some additional housing
0:10:57	within our existing urban growth
0:10:59	boundary
0:11:00	and there were requests
0:11:03	to be able to consider
0:11:06	amendments to our accessory dwelling
0:11:10	unit ordinance and so we moved forward
0:11:11	with that
0:11:13	at the planning commission level and
0:11:16	throughout that process there started to
0:11:18	be concerns raised
0:11:20	by citizens that some of the amendments
0:11:23	proposed which were adding additional
0:11:26	height or additional
0:11:29	buildable area through lot coverage or
0:11:32	setbacks
0:11:33	um community members felt that that was
0:11:36	not
0:11:37	appropriate for um for our city
0:11:41	and ultimately the city council
0:11:45	had the planning commission and staff
0:11:48	stopped working on code amendments
0:11:50	dealing with
0:11:51	additional provisions that would allow
0:11:56	denser development within residential
0:11:57	zones but said
0:11:59	continue working on uh accessory
0:12:02	dwelling units to
0:12:03	allow them more readily and that went
0:12:06	through the planning commission
0:12:07	and was ultimately adopted um
0:12:10	by the by the city council so then
0:12:13	subsequent to that
0:12:15	the members of city councils and the
0:12:19	county commission
0:12:20	at one of their joint meetings discussed
0:12:22	the possibility of having
0:12:24	a joint county housing study and that
0:12:27	you know each one of the communities in
0:12:29	class of county
0:12:32	had housing needs but could there be a
0:12:35	greater
0:12:37	look at analysis county-wide
0:12:40	and so um the city of astoria and all
0:12:42	the cities in classic county
0:12:44	partnered uh in development of the
0:12:47	county housing
0:12:48	study which was completed a couple years
0:12:51	ago
0:12:52	and um the buildable lands inventory
0:12:55	which i mentioned
0:12:56	and you know all the other analysis was
0:12:59	was
0:13:00	included in this analysis and so what
0:13:03	came out
0:13:04	of this county housing study
0:13:07	were some implementing recommendations
0:13:11	for the various communities so
0:13:15	um we're going to be going over some of
0:13:17	those as i said
0:13:19	more specifically tonight so after the
0:13:22	county housing study was adopted
0:13:25	affordable housing was becoming a
0:13:26	statewide
0:13:27	issue and the legislature
0:13:30	passed laws that uh
0:13:34	required cities over 2500 people
0:13:38	to update their codes to be able to
0:13:43	uh promote more accessory dwelling unit
0:13:46	usage and and
0:13:48	we've gone through a process recently
0:13:49	and that was actually adopted by the
0:13:50	city council
0:13:51	um earlier this week so that that has
0:13:54	been
0:13:55	addressed and it's uh required by state
0:13:57	law
0:13:58	um that we do that work and it's been
0:14:00	completed
0:14:02	there were some additional provisions
0:14:04	included in that legislation
0:14:06	which applied to cities 10 000
0:14:10	population of 10 000 and more to address
0:14:13	missing middle housing to be able to
0:14:16	provide
0:14:19	additional residential densities
0:14:23	in residential zones to be able to
0:14:26	provide
0:14:28	some additional housing and we'll go
0:14:29	into more about what missing middle is
0:14:31	in a little bit
0:14:32	so astoria as we all know is
0:14:36	has been right below 10 000 people
0:14:40	since world war ii and
0:14:43	um the department of land conservation
0:14:46	and development
0:14:48	uh which we have to we work with in
0:14:51	developing the codes
0:14:53	um wanted the city of astoria
0:14:56	to develop the the missing middle code
0:14:59	provisions
0:15:00	um how because they were saying you know
0:15:03	at some point in time you could get
0:15:05	above
0:15:06	10 000 and they're suggesting that we do
0:15:08	it
0:15:09	um now as a proactive approach
0:15:13	in the end the city of astoria chose not
0:15:16	to go to that route
0:15:18	um as we hadn't achieved the 10 000
0:15:21	population threshold and conveyed to
0:15:24	department of land conservation and
0:15:25	development
0:15:27	if and when we do reach that threshold
0:15:29	you know we'll go through that process
0:15:31	at that point in time
0:15:33	so the planning commission
0:15:36	over the past year or so initiated some
0:15:39	code amendments
0:15:40	as i was talking about earlier to
0:15:42	address the
0:15:44	required accessory dwelling unit um
0:15:47	language that's mandated by the state
0:15:49	and also
0:15:50	started looking at an another some other
0:15:54	housing types like group housing
0:15:56	um as a part of this code amendments uh
0:15:59	to factor in with the the county housing
0:16:02	study
0:16:02	so this last fall the
0:16:06	planning commission
0:16:09	moved the accessory dwelling unit
0:16:11	language forward and
0:16:13	and put a pause on the group housing
0:16:15	language because of
0:16:17	some consternation coming from citizens
0:16:19	about
0:16:20	that that type of use so
0:16:23	um during the planning commission
0:16:27	meetings
0:16:29	there was some concern uh raised by some
0:16:32	commissioners
0:16:34	uh with some of the missing middle
0:16:37	um concepts uh that are uh
0:16:41	you know encouraged by the department of
0:16:43	land conservation and development
0:16:45	and also which are included
0:16:48	in the county housing study as some
0:16:51	implementation
0:16:53	uh items to to be able to consider so
0:16:56	in our community development director
0:17:00	meg leatherman
0:17:02	putting together a scope of work to
0:17:05	move forward on the next round of
0:17:08	housing code amendments
0:17:10	um it was suggested
0:17:13	that we have this meeting tonight
0:17:17	for the planning commission and the city
0:17:19	council
0:17:20	to dialogue about the recommendations
0:17:24	in the housing study and
0:17:28	what the mayor will ultimately be doing
0:17:31	is
0:17:31	is will be going through in each one of
0:17:33	the strategies and
0:17:34	and between ms leatherman and myself be
0:17:37	providing
0:17:38	some background information about
0:17:41	what these uh these recommendations
0:17:44	could mean
0:17:46	the mayor will be facilitating
0:17:48	conversation and dialogue between the
0:17:50	members of the planning commission and
0:17:51	city council
0:17:52	and then ultimately looking to the city
0:17:54	council to provide some guidance
0:17:57	to the staff of the planning commission
0:17:58	on what they would like
0:18:01	us to be able to work on moving forward
0:18:03	the purpose of this is
0:18:04	if there's a provision or a
0:18:07	recommendation in the county housing
0:18:08	study which
0:18:10	um is really just a non-starter or not a
0:18:13	no-go
0:18:14	it would be helpful to be able to be
0:18:16	able to understand that now
0:18:18	so that we are not pursuing something
0:18:20	that ultimately is
0:18:22	there's really just no interest from the
0:18:24	council in considering
0:18:25	and we're not asking for the council to
0:18:28	say
0:18:28	hey what what are we ready to approve
0:18:31	but it's
0:18:32	what are you wanting the planning
0:18:34	commission and staff
0:18:36	to investigate to be able to dive in
0:18:39	deeper
0:18:40	and to be able to work through a code
0:18:41	process
0:18:43	further uh to be able to to look at
0:18:46	you know this isn't if you say hey we're
0:18:48	interested in in
0:18:49	setting minimum density standards this
0:18:51	is not saying hey we're wanting to
0:18:53	actually do that it's it's worth digging
0:18:56	into and looking at
0:18:57	more and so that's what at least we're
0:18:59	going to be looking for
0:19:01	uh this evening from
0:19:04	this whole process so that that's my
0:19:07	introduction are there any questions
0:19:09	before
0:19:11	um i turn it over to ms leatherman and
0:19:13	she starts working us
0:19:15	through some of the provisions and the
0:19:17	county housing study
0:19:20	hey brett this is bob levine i know i'm
0:19:23	not on either of those commitment
0:19:24	commissions but are you looking for any
0:19:27	public comment tonight at all
0:19:29	that would be the mayor to decide since
0:19:31	he runs the meeting
0:19:33	so typically at a work session we
0:19:36	typically
0:19:38	have frankly few people attending so
0:19:41	public comment is not an issue
0:19:45	public comment is not typically a
0:19:47	formally a part of a work session
0:19:50	on a few occasions when we've had a work
0:19:52	session
0:19:53	end with enough time and there were one
0:19:55	or two members of the public
0:19:56	who wanted to say something uh i've
0:19:58	invited them to do so
0:20:01	i would say um at the i i we're going
0:20:03	through
0:20:04	quite a long list of items when we are
0:20:07	finished with all the discussion
0:20:09	uh if it's not too late
0:20:12	i would certainly be happy to
0:20:15	offer up public comment to whoever's
0:20:19	not a member of the the council or the
0:20:21	commission that wants to make a public
0:20:23	comment
0:20:24	okay i think you're really looking for
0:20:26	public comment
0:20:27	on each individual topic as we as we go
0:20:29	through it
0:20:30	thank you you're welcome
0:20:35	any other questions before we get
0:20:36	rolling
0:20:38	you know i go ahead uh commissioner
0:20:40	price
0:20:41	thank you uh yes cindy price i i
0:20:45	uh mr city manager that was the most
0:20:48	concise
0:20:49	and entertaining uh summary of the
0:20:52	history
0:20:53	of of what's been going on with the
0:20:55	development code and earth boundary that
0:20:57	i've heard
0:20:58	thank you that was very helpful
0:21:05	yeah i i'm just i wanted to add a
0:21:07	general comment for the
0:21:08	city councilors just kind of following
0:21:10	up on
0:21:12	mr estes comments
0:21:15	you know as you go through these
0:21:17	different items that were in the county
0:21:19	housing study that
0:21:20	ms leatherman is going to tee up for us
0:21:23	you know they all so many of them have
0:21:25	to do with some aspect or another of
0:21:27	increasing density
0:21:30	increasing allowable height or bulk
0:21:34	increasing maximum lot coverage
0:21:36	decreasing
0:21:38	minimum lot size decreasing setbacks
0:21:40	decreasing parking standards
0:21:43	and many other things that we'll go
0:21:44	through one at a time they're all about
0:21:46	more density and certainly what we've
0:21:48	all seen in the past is when
0:21:50	proposals come forward to increase
0:21:53	density in some way
0:21:56	members in the neighborhoods typically
0:21:58	uh there's
0:21:59	opposition and i think we just need to
0:22:02	understand that
0:22:03	up front and if there are things that we
0:22:06	tell
0:22:07	the planning commission that we would
0:22:10	like them to work on and explore
0:22:12	further and possibly bring a
0:22:13	recommendation
0:22:15	i think you know it's kind of incumbent
0:22:17	upon us to know if these are things that
0:22:19	are going to generate
0:22:20	opposition that you know
0:22:23	are we willing to stick up for good
0:22:25	recommendations despite
0:22:28	opposition because the worst thing that
0:22:29	can happen is to have
0:22:31	you know the planning commission spend a
0:22:32	year developing code amendments at our
0:22:34	direction
0:22:35	and then as soon as there's some
0:22:37	community opposition to those code
0:22:39	amendments we we
0:22:40	we all say oh no never mind we weren't
0:22:42	really serious about it so
0:22:43	i i would just have that as a broad
0:22:47	statement at the beginning i think if
0:22:49	we're going to give direction we need to
0:22:51	understand the ramifications
0:22:58	if there's no other questions then i
0:23:00	guess we'll turn it over to ms
0:23:01	leatherman
0:23:04	all right thank you mayor jen is my
0:23:07	screen
0:23:08	shared no he's not right now
0:23:12	okay i audio audible by anyone you still
0:23:15	have the option to do that
0:23:20	so okay thank you i'm sorry you're hard
0:23:23	to hear
0:23:25	okay
0:23:35	okay thank you mayor counselors
0:23:38	commissioners
0:23:39	um in 2019 the county and its cities
0:23:42	undertook a study of current and
0:23:43	projected housing
0:23:46	needs and conditions and came up with
0:23:49	recommended
0:23:50	strategies to address housing supply
0:23:52	with local needs
0:23:54	a result of this study was the classic
0:23:56	county housing strategies report
0:23:58	as we've heard the recommendations were
0:24:01	broken down
0:24:02	into five different categories land
0:24:05	supply
0:24:06	policy and development code development
0:24:09	incentives
0:24:11	funding tools and uses and regional
0:24:14	collaboration and capacity building
0:24:16	my presentation tonight is solely going
0:24:19	to focus on
0:24:20	the policy and development code section
0:24:23	again as brett stated with the goal of
0:24:25	getting some direction
0:24:27	from the group on a future code
0:24:30	amendment
0:24:34	okay
Strategy #1: Adopt Supportive and Inclusive Comprehensive Plan Policies
0:24:38	so the first strategy is to adopt a
0:24:41	supportive and inclusive comprehensive
0:24:43	plan
0:24:44	and just right now what
0:24:48	we're planning on doing is to have the
0:24:50	city staff
0:24:51	address that through part of our code
0:24:53	amendment
0:24:55	so i'm going to move on um to the
0:24:58	specific
0:24:59	strategies that are that deal with
0:25:01	development code
0:25:03	and and mayor and council and
0:25:05	commissioners it's going to be kind of a
0:25:06	tag team between ms leatherman and
0:25:08	myself
0:25:09	throughout all this and so you'll see us
0:25:10	kind of going back and forth
0:25:12	you know it's uh you know with this you
0:25:14	know we've got
0:25:16	whenever we do any code amendments we're
0:25:18	looking at
0:25:19	are there portions of the conference of
0:25:21	plan which need to be
0:25:23	updated commensurately with those code
0:25:25	amendments and so
0:25:27	that will be looked at you know as a
0:25:28	part of this whole process as we
0:25:31	move forward
Strategy #2: Establish Minimum Density Standards
0:25:36	so the second recommended strategy in
0:25:39	the policy and development code
0:25:41	section is to establish minimum density
0:25:44	standards within
0:25:45	residential zones this is the most
0:25:48	direct
0:25:49	method to ensure land is used
0:25:52	efficiently
0:25:53	and to adopt these minimum density
0:25:55	standards with
0:25:57	and they can be different based on the
0:25:59	different zones
0:26:01	a minimum density standard would
0:26:02	prohibit residential developments that
0:26:05	do not meet the intent of the zone
0:26:07	for example large lot detached homes
0:26:10	would be prohibited
0:26:11	in higher density residential zones but
0:26:14	the minimum density standard
0:26:16	would allow for small lot detached
0:26:18	houses or townhomes
0:26:20	a good example of a minimum density of
0:26:23	astoria already has
0:26:25	is the millpond zone which
0:26:28	has established a minimum density
0:26:30	standard of 18 dwelling units
0:26:32	per acre to accomplish this
0:26:36	it is recommended that we prohibit or
0:26:38	significantly limit
0:26:40	single family homes in our high density
0:26:43	zone which is
0:26:44	r3 and to only allow single
0:26:47	family homes in the r2 zone
0:26:50	which is our medium density zone um
0:26:54	only if the single-family home can meet
0:26:57	the minimum density
0:26:59	or maximum lot size requirements um
0:27:02	also as part of the strategy it's
0:27:04	recommended that the city
0:27:06	continue to allow the use and repair of
0:27:09	single-family homes in these zones
0:27:11	and allow the conversion of larger
0:27:13	single-family homes into multi-family
0:27:18	dwellings
0:27:20	so the development code currently allows
0:27:23	single-family homes
0:27:24	in all residential zones and the code
0:27:28	does not have maximum lot sizes
0:27:32	and minimum densities for the r2 zone
0:27:35	it has minimum lot sizes and maximum
0:27:38	densities
0:27:38	so the inverse the conversion of
0:27:42	single-family homes
0:27:43	into multi-family is allowed in the r2
0:27:47	as a conditional use and is permitted
0:27:50	outright
0:27:51	in the r3 but i would like to point out
0:27:55	that the associated standards such as
0:27:58	parking and lot size
0:28:00	highly restrain the conversion of
0:28:02	single-family to multi-family
0:28:06	and on this slide that i have here you
0:28:08	can see
0:28:10	the uses that are permitted in each
0:28:12	residential zone
0:28:13	outright and then those that are
0:28:15	conditional
0:28:19	and i think that's all i have for
0:28:22	strategy
0:28:23	number two if we want to go ahead and
0:28:25	open it up for discussion or actually if
0:28:27	brett if you want to kind of talk about
0:28:29	maybe some history or some of the
0:28:31	nuances
0:28:32	sure so you know
0:28:36	this leatherman if you go back one slide
0:28:38	um
0:28:40	so on the first bullet where it says
0:28:42	update development codes to prohibit
0:28:44	or significantly limit new single family
0:28:46	detached housing
0:28:48	in high density zones like the r3 zone
0:28:50	so
0:28:51	where we've got the most amount of
0:28:54	vacant land residentially zoned land in
0:28:58	the community
0:29:00	is many of those areas are zoned r3 so
0:29:03	think about
0:29:04	uh tongue point that whole area
0:29:07	is zoned r3 multifamily
0:29:10	that so under the current development
0:29:14	code
0:29:16	um there could be a new subdivision
0:29:19	built out there which would be a single
0:29:20	family detached
0:29:23	subdivision and be permitted within our
0:29:26	zoning ordinance
0:29:28	what the recommendation here is is say
0:29:31	okay if we have
0:29:33	areas of town which are zoned high
0:29:36	density that we should be
0:29:37	looking to achieve and realize
0:29:41	higher residential densities um
0:29:44	in in that area and so saying that
0:29:47	you know if tongue point were to be able
0:29:50	to redevelop
0:29:51	that it would be built at a duplex
0:29:54	or multifamily
0:29:57	[Music]
0:29:59	residential density and
0:30:03	on the second bullet what it's saying is
0:30:06	okay in that medium density
0:30:08	zone which is supposed to include single
0:30:10	family
0:30:11	right now includes single-family homes
0:30:13	and duplexes and
0:30:14	and you can build multi-family for
0:30:16	conditional you say
0:30:18	you know the target here is this will be
0:30:20	the the middle ground between
0:30:22	our low density r1 zone and our higher
0:30:25	density r3
0:30:26	so if there is going to be single family
0:30:30	homes
0:30:30	in in that zone it's going to be they're
0:30:33	going to be built
0:30:34	at a higher density standard and this is
0:30:37	um there are provisions in
0:30:41	zoning ordinance ordinances uh elsewhere
0:30:44	in the state
0:30:45	which uh deal with this and say if
0:30:48	there's going to be development in a
0:30:50	specific zone
0:30:51	development must happen at a minimum
0:30:54	threshold
0:30:55	uh to be able to be allowed and it's
0:30:57	it's trying to achieve again
0:30:59	a certain residential uh capacity uh
0:31:03	within a community
0:31:05	but as the third bill bullet says is
0:31:07	saying
0:31:08	if if in the r2 or the r3 r3 zones if
0:31:12	there are any existing single family
0:31:14	homes
0:31:14	um it's allowing that use to be able to
0:31:17	con
0:31:18	to continue and not make them
0:31:21	um not so non-conforming um
0:31:25	and it's not taking away a necessary a
0:31:28	specific right that's already given to
0:31:30	them and it allows that to be able to
0:31:32	con
0:31:32	to be able to uh continue into the
0:31:34	future so
0:31:35	that's all the additional comments that
0:31:37	i have on that mayor
0:31:39	i want to turn it over to you for
0:31:41	discussion
0:31:42	okay thanks mr estes and why don't we
0:31:45	start with uh
0:31:46	how about members of the planning
0:31:47	commission
0:31:49	do you have any comments or thoughts on
0:31:51	it and um
0:31:52	we may or may not be able to see you on
0:31:54	the screen so
0:31:55	use that as raise hand function on zoom
0:31:58	or just unmute
0:31:59	yourself can they unmute themselves jen
0:32:02	or do you have to unmute them that you
0:32:03	can unmute yourself or use the raise
0:32:05	hand function either way
0:32:07	do we want to drop the screen share
0:32:08	while we have this discussion
0:32:10	maybe if we can if that's easy to go
0:32:12	back and forth let's sure let's do that
0:32:16	and can i test my audio can anyone hear
0:32:18	me yes
0:32:19	loud and clear counselor price i thank
0:32:22	you
0:32:22	uh don't you go ahead
0:32:25	well thank you um i i have uh
0:32:29	one simple question and one basic
0:32:30	question the simple question is did
0:32:32	did the council adopt the county housing
0:32:35	plan has that been adopted
0:32:38	or i i mean yeah it's it's not it is a
0:32:42	it has been accepted is the the word
0:32:45	that we use where it's not it is not
0:32:47	law and so because it's not there was
0:32:51	there was no
0:32:52	there was no vote on it and all of that
0:32:54	to say this
0:32:55	because because this leads to actually
0:32:57	to my bigger question
0:32:58	which is um to ask really the
0:33:01	council this is my question is really
0:33:04	what do you want
0:33:06	what do you want if if you do you want a
0:33:08	city that is
0:33:10	10 to 15 000 people with inclusive
0:33:13	housing
0:33:14	and that comports with
0:33:18	a maximum or some some number of
0:33:22	standards that sort of equate to density
0:33:25	um if that's
0:33:26	you know sort of what you want then i'm
0:33:29	pretty sure that the estuary planning
0:33:31	commission
0:33:31	um along with the city staff knows
0:33:34	how to write code for that but my
0:33:38	question has always been what am i
0:33:39	writing code for
0:33:41	and i understand that there are
0:33:43	recommendations and some things are
0:33:45	actually
0:33:46	already state law but is that really is
0:33:49	that what estoria
0:33:50	wants have you had that discussion
0:33:56	so we haven't had that discussion as to
0:33:59	you know to use one of your example what
0:34:00	is the desired population of astoria
0:34:03	i mean what mr estes has said you know
0:34:05	for many years it's been hovering right
0:34:07	at that
0:34:07	9 500 to 9 900
0:34:10	it goes back and forth by a few hundred
0:34:12	according to the county housing study
0:34:14	it's going to go up by about what one
0:34:16	and a half percent a year
0:34:18	or something um the
0:34:21	the new census is going to come out and
0:34:22	probably say we're just over ten
0:34:24	thousand or it may still say we're nine
0:34:26	thousand nine hundred and ninety four
0:34:28	uh i i don't know um
0:34:32	but uh we have not had the discussion
0:34:34	how big do we want to get
0:34:36	i think the discussion that we've had
0:34:38	indirectly has been
0:34:40	that we want there to be adequate uh
0:34:42	housing for the people that want
0:34:44	housing i don't think that we are uh
0:34:47	you know interested in in building a
0:34:50	let's have a flood of
0:34:51	5 000 new living units in the city so
0:34:54	that 5 000 people can move here
0:34:57	but certainly i'm hearing from lots of
0:34:59	people that at
0:35:01	certain certain types of housing are
0:35:02	very very difficult
0:35:04	to find even for people who already live
0:35:07	here
0:35:08	and i so i'll i'll i'll speak for myself
0:35:11	let the other counselors speak i think
0:35:13	that we do want
0:35:14	more housing at certain areas that have
0:35:17	certain types of housing that have been
0:35:18	identified in the housing study in which
0:35:20	we certainly welcome
0:35:21	comment from the planning commissioners
0:35:23	on and that
0:35:24	that would mean there are more people in
0:35:26	astoria but i wouldn't say
0:35:28	i think 15 000 would be on not not
0:35:30	probably very
0:35:31	reasonable of where it might go but yeah
0:35:34	we do want
0:35:35	more housing and the multi-family
0:35:37	housing unit that's
0:35:39	that's been uh not moving forward
0:35:41	currently but plan for tongue point with
0:35:43	about 130 multi-family units i mean that
0:35:45	that alone would probably put the city
0:35:47	over that 10 000 threshold
0:35:50	um if if that gets built and gets filled
0:35:53	with people
0:35:55	i don't i haven't heard any counselor
0:35:57	say he or she is
0:35:58	you're interested in some dramatic
0:36:00	transformation of the city into a
0:36:02	from what we have now to a metropolis
0:36:05	but um what i would envision is
0:36:09	areas of town individual lots
0:36:13	and groups of lots that do have higher
0:36:16	density so for example
0:36:19	if you've been by safeway lately you've
0:36:20	seen that
0:36:22	the development plan for that lot george
0:36:25	bruce lot
0:36:26	former lot immediately west of safeway
0:36:29	that's been graded now and that uh
0:36:31	that's expected to continue moving
0:36:33	forward if everything gets
0:36:35	resolved with the engineering permits
0:36:37	and that'll be about 60 new units of
0:36:40	a combination of permanent residential
0:36:43	units
0:36:44	and short-term rentals so there's 60
0:36:47	there's 60 additional housing units that
0:36:49	pop up in one
0:36:50	relatively small lot so that's i mean in
0:36:54	my mind to answer your
0:36:56	question very long way commissioner
0:36:58	price that's kind of what i envision is
0:37:00	that you've got little pinpoints around
0:37:01	the city where
0:37:02	there's much higher density uh but not a
0:37:05	dramatic transformation of the entire
0:37:07	cityscape
0:37:10	so i would kind of interpret that if i
0:37:12	could just carry all the conversation
0:37:14	here just for another minute
0:37:15	as you you're being interested
0:37:18	and i'll just speak to you personally at
0:37:20	this point since i don't know
0:37:22	how everybody else feels but you're
0:37:24	you're interested
0:37:25	in sort of preserving the
0:37:29	livability of our established
0:37:31	neighborhoods
0:37:33	um and in areas that are new
0:37:36	or that are more commercial um
0:37:40	including density there um
0:37:43	by all the things that we've talked
0:37:46	about setbacks and
0:37:47	you know substandard lots and this that
0:37:48	and the other um
0:37:51	that's what i i'm sort of hearing so i
0:37:54	would
0:37:55	because some of the things some of the
0:37:56	just because some of the things a lot of
0:37:57	the things that we spend a lot of time
0:37:59	on at the planning commission
0:38:00	and you will too when we send something
0:38:03	to you is
0:38:04	is you know the small things like
0:38:06	setbacks and this and that and it
0:38:08	there's small things that take place
0:38:11	between
0:38:12	maybe one property on a block but it can
0:38:15	really
0:38:15	change the nature of the neighborhood
0:38:17	it's not building
0:38:19	60 units um in an empty lot
0:38:22	you know in flatland somewhere you know
0:38:24	what i mean
0:38:27	yes and so i would i would i would say
0:38:29	that um
0:38:30	no i i i am interested in seeing some
0:38:33	changes in existing neighborhoods
0:38:35	so i i'm not confining my my interest in
0:38:38	amendments to only
0:38:40	currently undeveloped lots but
0:38:42	commissioner fitzpatrick you had your
0:38:44	hand up
0:38:45	yes thank you uh mayor jones uh
0:38:48	i i would also like to thank mr
0:38:52	estes uh city manager estes for his
0:38:55	efforts in discussing the
0:38:57	history of this and the urban growth
0:38:59	boundary and
0:39:00	i would point out that we do have
0:39:04	a very unusual situation in astoria
0:39:07	in that our borders are not artificial
0:39:10	they are they are there and they are
0:39:13	permanent
0:39:14	uh three sides we are surrounded by
0:39:16	water and so the only
0:39:18	direction we could grow is to the east
0:39:20	and that
0:39:22	uh seems to be federal lands and so on
0:39:25	so
0:39:25	we do have some restrictions that don't
0:39:29	apply to other places like salem or
0:39:31	portland where they make the laws that
0:39:33	tell us that we have to
0:39:34	to come up with housing supply and
0:39:37	so on i don't want to get too far into
0:39:39	that
0:39:41	um for a number of reasons but
0:39:44	getting back to mrs price's uh ms
0:39:48	price's statement um
0:39:51	the population is going to grow based on
0:39:53	the number of people that want to move
0:39:55	here
0:39:56	and so we can plan for 15 000 people but
0:39:59	if they don't show up
0:40:00	um we're we're going to stay at 10 as we
0:40:03	have for
0:40:04	for several decades um
0:40:07	getting back to the portion that that
0:40:10	had just been presented up there
0:40:12	on page five it states that 73 of the
0:40:15	needed units
0:40:16	project are projected to be ownership
0:40:18	units with 27 percent
0:40:20	being rental and i would point out that
0:40:22	most ownership units
0:40:24	will be single family uh
0:40:27	sorry i'm i'm just calling them sfrs or
0:40:30	single family residences
0:40:31	i know that we're trying to take the
0:40:32	word family out tonight hopefully we can
0:40:34	use family but nonetheless
0:40:36	um ownership units will be mostly
0:40:39	single-family some will be condos
0:40:41	very few of those will be multi-family
0:40:44	um
0:40:46	i did ask um
0:40:51	our uh i asked ms leatherman
0:40:54	for numbers about single-family and
0:40:57	multi-family that have been built over
0:40:58	the past 10 years i do want to go over
0:41:00	that
0:41:01	but getting back um
0:41:05	when we ensure that properties are zoned
0:41:07	for fire
0:41:08	for higher density and not developed at
0:41:10	lower densities and this is page seven
0:41:12	strategy one from the housing report and
0:41:14	then also from
0:41:15	the um the
0:41:20	the post that we had up there anyhow i
0:41:23	would like to suggest
0:41:25	that we make an exception for smaller
0:41:28	lots
0:41:28	in an r3 or r2 and by smaller i mean
0:41:32	somewhere around 4 500 square feet
0:41:35	um and i i'm not sure what our current
0:41:37	minimum
0:41:38	lot size is in r3 but i hope that we can
0:41:41	allow
0:41:42	4 500 square foot lots and that
0:41:45	the single family residents would be
0:41:47	more appropriate on smaller
0:41:50	r3 and r2 lots than multi-family so i
0:41:54	would hope that we would allow that
0:41:56	exception there
0:41:58	um rather than making it a requirement
0:42:00	to put multi-family in because we need a
0:42:02	sam
0:42:02	single family residence and it doesn't
0:42:04	make sense to put multi-family in
0:42:06	nothing gets built so um
0:42:09	exceptions for situations like that if
0:42:12	we have a 10
0:42:14	or 12 000 square foot r3 lot i think it
0:42:17	should be built as multi-family i don't
0:42:19	think we should
0:42:20	allow a single family on that but i do
0:42:23	think that when we do a smaller lot
0:42:25	uh that we do allow a single family on
0:42:28	there
0:42:30	and that would fall under page 10
0:42:33	strategy one number four
0:42:34	encourage a variety of housing types
0:42:36	because we definitely need
0:42:39	according to the housing study and and
0:42:41	my
0:42:42	experience working in the
0:42:44	[Music]
0:42:46	housing industry in the county in the
0:42:48	past 18 years
0:42:49	we need more single-family not just
0:42:52	multi-family
0:42:53	and i think i will leave it at that for
0:42:56	right now thank you
0:43:01	uh thank you uh mr fitzpatrick
0:43:04	i think anyone else have a comment right
0:43:08	now
0:43:08	feel free to just unmute yourself and uh
0:43:10	chime in
0:43:12	mr mayor i have some thoughts please
0:43:15	this is
0:43:16	uh commissioner moore um
0:43:19	so in uh one of my concerns about
0:43:24	is is we need to be cognizant of
0:43:28	increasing the economic opportunity
0:43:32	such that developers come in and start
0:43:34	tearing down houses
0:43:36	to to capitalize
0:43:39	on those economic opportunities so if
0:43:42	we're talking about
0:43:43	increasing density in the r1s and twos
0:43:46	i would be very concerned that
0:43:51	that we make it too affordable for some
0:43:53	of our older homes
0:43:54	that maybe aren't on the registry to be
0:43:57	removed
0:43:58	in favor of more dense structures that
0:44:01	don't necessarily add any character to
0:44:03	the city but they might bring more
0:44:04	people um so that's one thought that
0:44:08	i think we should keep in mind um as
0:44:10	commissioner fitzpatrick was talking
0:44:12	about lot sizes
0:44:13	i know all three of the zones for single
0:44:16	family
0:44:16	the all the minimum lot size is 5000
0:44:19	feet i can see
0:44:20	lowering that a little bit uh really on
0:44:23	all levels
0:44:24	um most of the zones you know require a
0:44:27	certain amount
0:44:28	extra to build a two a multi-family in
0:44:31	another 1500 or 2500 square feet for
0:44:34	example i could see
0:44:36	achieving the increase in density by not
0:44:39	changing the
0:44:40	minimum lot size by much but by
0:44:45	removing the requirements to have more
0:44:48	land
0:44:49	to build a duplex that kind of thing
0:44:53	but again i'm real concerned about
0:44:57	creating minimum densities creating
0:45:00	opportunities
0:45:01	to have existing housing supply removed
0:45:05	in favor of new ones
0:45:07	because i don't want to lose the
0:45:08	character that our city has
0:45:12	thank you so mr estes or ms leatherman
0:45:16	do either one of you i want to address
0:45:19	that idea of what you know what existing
0:45:21	protections are in place
0:45:22	that would keep a developer from
0:45:24	purchasing
0:45:25	a home and what
0:45:29	at what point is a home protected from
0:45:30	being torn down for the purpose of
0:45:32	putting up a you know a multiplex
0:45:35	yeah i mean right now the protections
0:45:38	that are in place
0:45:39	are if a property is designated historic
0:45:45	so that's that is the protection that's
0:45:47	in place that
0:45:48	and i think what commissioner moore was
0:45:50	referring to
0:45:51	is concerns about
0:45:55	properties which are not designated
0:45:57	historic maybe have historic character
0:46:00	and um if there was a
0:46:03	a property in one of those zones that it
0:46:05	was not designated
0:46:06	historic the vulnerabilities that could
0:46:09	be there
0:46:10	what i would say is that um what
0:46:14	is um so we there are no
0:46:18	recommendations in the county housing
0:46:20	study which talk about
0:46:21	adjusting the r1 zone so if you look at
0:46:24	that there's
0:46:25	there's provisions for r2 and r3 but
0:46:28	r1 um is uh
0:46:32	which is the lowest low density
0:46:33	residential um
0:46:36	zone um is is not included for any
0:46:39	densification provisions um
0:46:42	now r2 there's language about adding
0:46:46	prohibitions on single-family residences
0:46:50	except for certain lot sizes
0:46:52	there are recommendations that ms
0:46:53	leatherman is going to be getting to in
0:46:55	some
0:46:56	subsequent slide which does have
0:46:58	recommendations for
0:47:00	additional height um
0:47:03	and building mass in the r3 zone and we
0:47:07	we do have um our three
0:47:11	single family residences in our three
0:47:13	zone um my house
0:47:14	my single family house is in r3 zone uh
0:47:17	so
0:47:18	i mean it um my house is designated
0:47:20	historic
0:47:21	but there are others in my neighborhood
0:47:22	which are not so um
0:47:25	you know it's that's i think the point
0:47:26	that that uh
0:47:28	commissioner moore's is getting at
0:47:30	trying to boil it down a little bit more
0:47:33	meg did you have something you want to
0:47:34	chime in on well i was just going
0:47:37	state that whatever i mean right now um
0:47:42	what protects it from someone coming in
0:47:44	and tearing down a single-family home
0:47:45	and doing a multiplex is the zone
0:47:48	but however we whatever we zone it we
0:47:50	allow multi-family in
0:47:52	the r1 then they could do that and the
0:47:54	r2 is a conditional use so they
0:47:56	couldn't without a conditional use
0:47:58	application
0:48:00	so that's one way of controlling that
0:48:03	also besides the historic component
0:48:08	and of course other communities worry
0:48:10	about those homes with character being
0:48:12	torn down
0:48:13	just to put up a mansion and that's kind
0:48:15	of the opposite
0:48:17	extreme so uh you know mr moore's
0:48:21	commissioner moore's concern is that you
0:48:22	tear it down if we make it more luke
0:48:24	more
0:48:24	if we make it possible to put up a
0:48:26	multi-family home where they're
0:48:27	currently not allowed
0:48:28	to tear down a home with character to
0:48:30	put up a multi-family and make a profit
0:48:32	i don't think that's any different or
0:48:35	worse than
0:48:36	tearing that same home down to put up a
0:48:38	mansion
0:48:41	yeah and i think you know as we get
0:48:44	through the slides there's going to be a
0:48:45	variety of different housing types that
0:48:47	are
0:48:48	what we would call hot you know higher
0:48:50	density that
0:48:51	might be more compatible for houstoria
0:48:54	in certain areas and that's
0:48:56	i think part of the discussion is
0:49:00	what maybe what housing types would be
0:49:02	beneficial because
0:49:04	we want to solve the affordable housing
0:49:06	problem or at least workforce housing
0:49:07	we want to the rental rates keep going
0:49:09	up great and so
0:49:11	this is one one way to do that so it is
0:49:14	trying to strike that balance
0:49:16	between um being able to
0:49:19	to do that to to meet the compatibility
0:49:22	and character of the city at the same
0:49:24	time
0:49:24	with um addressing the issues we have
0:49:27	with
0:49:28	the housing costs um and i
0:49:31	i do see uh a counselor raqqa has a hand
0:49:35	up and
0:49:35	some another person i don't know if we
0:49:38	i'm sorry not to tell you not to take
0:49:40	over the meeting from you mayor i i
0:49:42	don't have any okay sure well
0:49:45	um commissioner price asked us a more
0:49:48	general question of what the council
0:49:50	wants and
0:49:51	i would like to give you a more general
0:49:53	answer uh without getting
0:49:55	into the specifics of exactly how we
0:49:58	would get there
0:49:59	and speaking for this counselor um
0:50:02	we are in a situation right now where
0:50:04	there are so
0:50:05	few homes available for sale
0:50:09	that prices are being bid up to the
0:50:11	point where
0:50:12	it would be difficult for anyone to
0:50:14	afford unless they're moving here from
0:50:16	san francisco or seattle
0:50:18	having sold the home there so i want us
0:50:20	to try
0:50:21	through the changes that we make to
0:50:23	create a situation where the woman
0:50:26	who works in one of our restaurants and
0:50:28	her husband who manages a
0:50:30	lodging property can actually fulfill
0:50:33	the dream they've had for years now of
0:50:35	actually being able to
0:50:36	buy a home or when we have somebody
0:50:39	who's hired by the college
0:50:41	at a middle as a mid-level manager or by
0:50:43	the city or by a company
0:50:45	that they can actually find some place
0:50:46	to buy and live
0:50:48	i think that's my goal as a counselor i
0:50:50	don't want to have 15 000 people here
0:50:53	necessarily
0:50:54	um and you know astoria has sort of
0:50:58	over a couple hundred years has
0:51:01	found its sort of watermark for what
0:51:05	population seems to work here
0:51:07	i just want for those people who do work
0:51:10	here
0:51:10	to be able to have a place to live and
0:51:13	we're not there right now
0:51:14	so that's my bottom line
0:51:19	so ms sullivan just to be to be fair to
0:51:22	the other
0:51:23	guests that aren't on the commission i'm
0:51:25	going to ask you to hold
0:51:26	public comment until later uh you know
0:51:30	and just keep the discussion to
0:51:31	counselors and commissioners for now so
0:51:33	counselor herman
0:51:38	and you're muted
0:51:43	thank you i do support exploring this
0:51:46	strategy further
0:51:49	commissioner fitzpatrick and chairman
0:51:52	moore make some great
0:51:53	important points um about
0:51:57	ensuring that we retain a story of
0:52:00	special character
0:52:02	and not pass some sort of ordinance
0:52:05	that would cause historic homes they may
0:52:08	not
0:52:08	may not be listed as historic but
0:52:10	nonetheless they add to our overall
0:52:12	character
0:52:13	we don't want to do something that would
0:52:16	encourage a developer to tear them
0:52:18	down for multi-family housing but that
0:52:21	said
0:52:21	i think it's definitely worth exploring
0:52:24	prohibiting
0:52:25	single-family housing future
0:52:28	developments in the r3 zone
0:52:30	particularly i i don't know if we can do
0:52:33	this but
0:52:34	particularly if there's a way we can
0:52:36	incentivize
0:52:38	workforce housing and that may not be
0:52:41	doable
0:52:42	um but i think it's worth exploring
0:52:44	prohibiting
0:52:47	single-family housing in the r3 zone but
0:52:49	a question i had is
0:52:51	what if a single-family house there now
0:52:54	were to burn down
0:52:55	would that homeowner be able to rebuild
0:52:59	as a single family house
0:53:02	yeah do you want to answer that better
0:53:04	no you can go for it
0:53:06	the development code has a
0:53:09	non-conforming
0:53:10	use provisions that um
0:53:13	well they addressed that basically i
0:53:14	mean in that kind of situation
0:53:16	um yes they could rebuild it was burnt
0:53:18	down
0:53:20	now it's construction based on choice um
0:53:24	there's certain percentage that's
0:53:25	allowed i think it's 25
0:53:27	something to that degree but but a whole
0:53:30	house has
0:53:30	gone down then yes okay thank you
0:53:36	and i would note that what's on the
0:53:37	slide for the recommendation was update
0:53:39	development codes to prohibit or
0:53:41	significantly limit
0:53:43	new single-family detached housing so
0:53:45	not necessarily outright prohibited
0:53:47	possibly require as i think along the
0:53:49	lines of what commissioner fitzpatrick
0:53:51	was suggesting that
0:53:52	you know to allow single-family homes
0:53:54	but on a much smaller lot you know with
0:53:56	you know five feet between houses or a
0:53:58	cottage cluster type thing or maybe
0:54:00	i'm not sure what it's referred to in
0:54:02	mill pond where the houses are just a
0:54:04	few feet apart but
0:54:05	you know very densely packed
0:54:08	single-family homes
0:54:09	if there's a if that meets an a consumer
0:54:12	need which
0:54:12	right now it does seem to it's i know
0:54:14	there are people looking for
0:54:15	you know small starter homes that are
0:54:17	typically tiny homes on tiny lots
0:54:19	and there aren't many of those
0:54:23	and just to add on to that mirror it
0:54:24	does one of the recommendations is to
0:54:26	allow the continuation of single family
0:54:28	homes and the repair of them and
0:54:30	restoration of them as well so
0:54:32	it's not saying to get rid of them
0:54:33	completely um
0:54:35	but just from like the r3 basically like
0:54:38	um
0:54:38	counselor jones said oh sorry herman
0:54:42	[Music]
0:54:44	was leatherman you want to throw that
0:54:45	slide up again yeah
0:54:47	you can just have sort of final comments
0:54:49	on this one before we move on to the
0:54:51	next one
0:54:52	yeah and mayor you're correct you know
0:54:53	the the um
0:54:55	mill pond neighborhood i mean those lots
0:54:57	are i think closer to 3 000
0:54:59	square feet i mean they're they're
0:55:01	pretty small with very shallow setbacks
0:55:04	and but those are considered
0:55:05	single-family res uh residences
0:55:07	in mill pond right
0:55:11	so i guess we'll ask if any other
0:55:14	if the commissioners have additional
0:55:16	thoughts just speak up at any time
0:55:18	otherwise i'll just ask the council you
0:55:20	know what guidance do we want to provide
0:55:21	the commission on
0:55:23	looking into these areas you know so
0:55:24	i'll for myself
0:55:26	i'm in favor of uh of looking into these
0:55:30	recommendations on this slide
0:55:34	i'm enthusiastically in favor
0:55:39	yeah i think they're reasonable
0:55:42	uh and worthy
0:55:47	i'm with uh excuse me can you hear me
0:55:51	moving forward on this uh this slide as
0:55:54	well
0:55:58	i just want a real quick comment um my
0:56:02	sense here
0:56:03	is that you know what we're talking
0:56:06	about here
0:56:07	is creating more homes uh
0:56:10	more homes available for sale with our
0:56:13	with all our limitations here in astoria
0:56:16	uh with buildable lots we're just trying
0:56:20	to find ways
0:56:21	to get single-family homes
0:56:24	in different places if i'm hearing this
0:56:26	right and we're
0:56:28	at this point in time not really
0:56:30	addressing
0:56:32	workforce housing or unnecessarily
0:56:35	uh affordable housing or apartments
0:56:39	and and i think those topics are going
0:56:42	to come up on
0:56:43	subsequent slides later this evening
0:56:45	yeah real quick just to touch on that
0:56:47	and i mean just
0:56:49	we're not going to go into a whole lot
0:56:51	of detail about that but
0:56:53	we have to remember that in the state of
0:56:56	oregon
0:56:56	um what is referred to as inclusionary
0:56:59	zoning
0:57:00	has only recently been allowed
0:57:04	in the state which is where a
0:57:07	jurisdiction requires that if there's
0:57:09	going to be a
0:57:12	multi-family development that a certain
0:57:14	number of units be affordable
0:57:17	and um the only way that it's allowed
0:57:21	now in the state of oregon is if the
0:57:23	city
0:57:24	pays the difference to the developer
0:57:27	and so that our problem comes to
0:57:31	that source of money to be able to pay
0:57:32	the difference to
0:57:34	incentivize it so that's that's kind of
0:57:37	the the nexus which is allowed
0:57:39	by um by the state
0:57:42	and when we talk about single family
0:57:43	homes we also are talking about duplexes
0:57:45	and triplexes as well right i mean not
0:57:47	just
0:57:48	freestanding homes but just also
0:57:51	no we're you're shaking your head no
0:57:53	we're we're just on single family homes
0:57:55	here
0:57:55	yeah i mean so in single i mean so when
0:57:58	we're talking about single family
0:58:00	we're talking about um one unit
0:58:04	on one lot so that's that'd be a single
0:58:06	family home
0:58:08	there there is a provision so like in
0:58:11	you can have multi-family structures
0:58:13	that are divided
0:58:14	down a common you know
0:58:17	a common building line but that
0:58:20	development is still considered
0:58:21	multi-family
0:58:22	in in in
0:58:26	in terms of how it's looked at zoning
0:58:28	wise
0:58:30	says this discussion goes on forward
0:58:34	you know to address the initial point
0:58:37	that
0:58:37	uh commissioner price made
0:58:40	you know i'm not looking at a giant
0:58:43	increase in population here in fact
0:58:45	there's not one forecast i i think the
0:58:48	focus really is
0:58:50	what's been discussed here if a person
0:58:52	wants to move this
0:58:55	a couple things person wants to move to
0:58:56	this town but there's some
0:58:58	options for them some housing that they
0:59:00	can find
0:59:02	and then get it also having enough
0:59:05	housing stocks so it frees up some of
0:59:08	the smaller
0:59:08	less expensive stuff for starter homes
0:59:10	so i think that's
0:59:13	really important um we we're there it's
0:59:16	going to be more discussion
0:59:17	going on but i do want to stress that
0:59:20	even if we don't have much of a gain in
0:59:22	population
0:59:24	we just don't have the housing to allow
0:59:26	people the flexibility to find something
0:59:28	that's suitable
0:59:29	for their particular needs and that's
0:59:31	what we need to do
0:59:37	okay if i could if i could throw one
0:59:39	more thought out um
0:59:42	we have a lot of single family homes in
0:59:44	r3 currently especially you know between
0:59:46	irving and franklin
0:59:47	on the north slope uh that's all r3 and
0:59:50	along the
0:59:51	marine drive by the bridge uh pretty
0:59:54	much
0:59:54	all i mean majority single family homes
0:59:58	um what and i'll direct this question
1:00:01	towards uh mr estes and
1:00:03	and ms leatherman are undeveloped r3
1:00:06	lands especially out near uh blue ridge
1:00:09	and the tongue point
1:00:10	would it be worthwhile to pursue an r4 a
1:00:14	new zone
1:00:15	that imposes these restrictions these
1:00:17	minimum lot size restrictions so we're
1:00:18	not
1:00:19	um imposing or risking the redevelopment
1:00:23	of our existing
1:00:24	supply in the developed r3s that are
1:00:27	downtown
1:00:29	would it make sense to to rezone
1:00:32	the areas that are undeveloped so that
1:00:34	we're
1:00:35	we're sure that we get the density that
1:00:37	we're hoping for
1:00:38	out there and just to create a wild idea
1:00:41	i'd
1:00:42	be interested in hearing your thoughts
1:00:43	on that
1:00:46	i think it's worth exploring and i don't
1:00:49	know if
1:00:50	you know r4 might be what it's called
1:00:53	and i think
1:00:54	what later on we do have a zone
1:00:57	um called uh it's cr
1:01:01	compact residential that is not
1:01:05	um actually delineated anywhere on the
1:01:07	map it hasn't been utilized and there's
1:01:08	history to that as well
1:01:10	that law allows cottage cluster um
1:01:13	so i think there's different options um
1:01:16	but
1:01:17	again i think we could explore that i
1:01:20	don't regret
1:01:21	more yeah i mean i think it can be
1:01:23	explored but i think there can also be
1:01:25	um specifics in terms of the
1:01:28	application of the prohibition
1:01:32	of single-family detached units in on
1:01:36	certain areas maybe that's it's if
1:01:38	there's a focus
1:01:39	if we keep the r3 zone we focus and
1:01:42	apply it
1:01:43	on those areas that are not planted yet
1:01:50	perhaps
1:01:53	okay i think we could move on to the
1:01:55	next slide then
Strategy #3: Revise Maximum Density, Height or Bulk Standards in Higher density Residential Zones
1:01:57	can i make one comment uh mayor jones
1:02:00	please yeah please
1:02:01	okay uh commissioner fitzpatrick here uh
1:02:04	i do appreciate
1:02:05	councillor raqqa's statement uh about
1:02:09	the middle class uh working class
1:02:13	they're trying to buy homes here and
1:02:15	they they just don't exist and the
1:02:17	prices are being driven up
1:02:20	i've gone over some notes i've spoken to
1:02:22	the council
1:02:23	at least three times in the past 10
1:02:25	years about the importance
1:02:26	of that type of housing there's there
1:02:30	has been
1:02:30	considerable discussion about workforce
1:02:33	housing the importance of workforce
1:02:34	housing and
1:02:35	and continuing to provide workforce
1:02:37	housing and i have
1:02:39	continued to ask the city council and i
1:02:41	will again
1:02:42	at this point in our work session to
1:02:45	remember
1:02:45	that there is a lot of missing housing
1:02:49	for people that maybe even want to own
1:02:53	single family
1:02:54	uh or have a larger home
1:02:57	people wear
1:03:00	a household where two people are working
1:03:02	full-time
1:03:03	at above minimum wage and or
1:03:06	professionals coming from out of the
1:03:07	area doctors
1:03:09	or people that are going to work for the
1:03:11	county in a higher level
1:03:12	position or people working in the city
1:03:14	in a higher level position
1:03:16	they can't find housing and i see these
1:03:18	people personally
1:03:20	uh they're trying to provide a
1:03:21	two-bedroom apartment for me because
1:03:23	there's nothing else available
1:03:25	and at one point now with
1:03:28	zillow and so on they will say well you
1:03:31	can look up my current home
1:03:33	and it's a four-bedroom two-story with a
1:03:36	three-car garage and they're saying this
1:03:37	is what i'm looking for
1:03:39	and that doesn't exist in the city limit
1:03:41	certainly there are places where it
1:03:43	could be built
1:03:45	but again i i
1:03:49	i appreciate council raqqa's
1:03:51	acknowledgement
1:03:52	that workforce housing
1:03:55	is not the only type of housing that is
1:03:58	in short supply
1:04:00	and people who are employed uh
1:04:03	two wage earners in a home or or
1:04:07	higher paid professionals deserve to be
1:04:09	able to find housing in astoria as well
1:04:12	so i do again encourage
1:04:16	the council to consider the importance
1:04:18	of that type of housing
1:04:20	not just high-density multi-family
1:04:24	that's a very good point i appreciate
1:04:26	you mentioning that and that you know i
1:04:27	don't know what the answer is to that i
1:04:28	mean to some extent
1:04:30	uh if there were an additional
1:04:34	up upscale condo building built
1:04:37	in astoria that would end up freeing
1:04:40	some of those homes i think because the
1:04:42	people i know
1:04:43	tend to be seniors that live in the
1:04:45	condos they used to own one of those
1:04:47	three or four bed bedroom homes in
1:04:50	astoria
1:04:51	and then they moved into the condo when
1:04:52	they were no longer able to take care of
1:04:54	a home
1:04:55	and there are probably a lot more people
1:04:58	seniors that are living in some of those
1:05:00	single-family homes in astoria that
1:05:02	would move into a condo if they were
1:05:04	more available and free up some of those
1:05:06	homes and then that would free up some
1:05:07	of the starter homes i don't know
1:05:09	i'm not sure what so what solution were
1:05:11	you looking
1:05:12	to address the concern you just raised
1:05:14	commissioner fitzpatrick
1:05:16	that that's a i sincerely appreciate
1:05:20	that statement said
1:05:21	it's interesting that you bring up the
1:05:23	upscale condos
1:05:24	um in in my career i have found that
1:05:28	upscale condos are
1:05:30	often transitional housing um
1:05:33	the the doctor that's moving to town
1:05:36	that wants
1:05:37	the bigger home may buy an upscale condo
1:05:41	and live there until his house is built
1:05:44	uh out in the country
1:05:45	or or in an area where the house that he
1:05:48	is looking for can be
1:05:50	built and as you said a lot of the
1:05:53	uh seniors if that existed and and
1:05:56	if you go to columbia house which is
1:06:00	i would say more owner occupied or
1:06:03	full-time resident
1:06:04	occupied than than the cannery condos
1:06:08	by 39th street but
1:06:11	when those types of properties when the
1:06:14	upscale condos do
1:06:15	exist people that have lived in the
1:06:18	larger
1:06:18	four bedroom homes will move into those
1:06:22	condos because they like it and they
1:06:23	will be with other people that
1:06:25	that uh are in a similar situation and
1:06:28	that frees up
1:06:30	the inventory of the existing four
1:06:32	bedroom homes
1:06:34	for someone that might need more space
1:06:37	and the people
1:06:38	who don't need all that space anymore
1:06:40	are able to move into
1:06:42	the the upscale condo so it's a very
1:06:46	good um analogy there and thank you for
1:06:49	that
1:06:49	mayor jones mayor johns
1:06:54	please oh yeah i as we get into some
1:06:57	more detail it looks like i'd like to
1:06:59	parallel the conversations of
1:07:01	researching these options all of which i
1:07:03	think are reasonable with the
1:07:04	refinements that others
1:07:06	have kind of mentioned um but the
1:07:08	conversation around density i think in
1:07:10	astoria is a
1:07:12	one that needs to be um enhanced
1:07:15	um you know we're talking now about
1:07:17	specific things
1:07:18	um but we've already approved adus
1:07:22	in all zones and uh so there may well be
1:07:26	density coming to the r1
1:07:27	your r1 backyard you know this spring um
1:07:31	i don't know that people understand that
1:07:34	or if it will even be much of an issue
1:07:36	you know i i don't know what the actual
1:07:38	results will be but
1:07:39	um there's a lot of movement on density
1:07:41	and i think what people
1:07:43	are concerned about their home being
1:07:45	their primary investment most times
1:07:47	is why do we have to do this and so
1:07:51	since i've been on the commission
1:07:52	learning about
1:07:53	goal 10 and state laws requiring cities
1:07:56	to do this
1:07:58	that has allowed me to as a homeowner
1:08:00	adjust my attitudes about
1:08:02	some things we have to do because it's
1:08:04	state law and we really
1:08:06	don't have a lot of flexibility and
1:08:09	frankly that's an easier sell to me
1:08:11	as a homeowner than it is a selective
1:08:13	thing that we're choosing to do
1:08:15	and so the drivers of density i think
1:08:17	need to be visited as we do the research
1:08:19	on this by
1:08:20	lots of folks um because i i it
1:08:24	appears to be here to stay and it's
1:08:25	threatening to homeowners and it doesn't
1:08:27	need to be
1:08:28	um i was definitely intrigued and i
1:08:30	agree with the statement that i read in
1:08:32	some of the readings that
1:08:33	creative and careful code written with
1:08:36	regard for neighborhood concerns
1:08:38	can reintroduce housing types to
1:08:40	neighborhoods
1:08:41	and so i think there are ways to do this
1:08:43	but i sure feel like i would not be up
1:08:46	to speed on this had i not been on the
1:08:48	commission and it's an important of
1:08:49	enough big picture thing that i think we
1:08:52	would be benefited to talk about why we
1:08:55	need to densify
1:08:57	and then um conversations about how we
1:08:59	identify i think become less sort of
1:09:02	uh strife written and that's all i have
1:09:05	for now
1:09:08	thank you
1:09:11	may i add one more comment go ahead
1:09:14	thanks i do recognize that we need
1:09:17	housing at all levels
1:09:19	all types but we have a limited land
1:09:22	supply if i'm understanding
1:09:24	what i've read correctly and
1:09:28	people with two decent incomes
1:09:31	have a lot more choices in buying power
1:09:34	to
1:09:35	you know find something that may not be
1:09:37	ideal for them but at least
1:09:39	they've got more choices whereas i look
1:09:41	at people our workforce community
1:09:43	who are the backbone of the service
1:09:45	industry that is now a major driver in
1:09:48	our economy they do not have those
1:09:50	choices
1:09:52	so i really i personally feel that we
1:09:54	need to
1:09:55	focus on trying to bring more
1:09:59	um higher density types of housing so
1:10:02	duplexes
1:10:03	multiplexes and within that hopefully we
1:10:07	can do something
1:10:08	regarding attracting workforce housing
1:10:10	but i just see that we've got a limited
1:10:13	land supply and we want to use it
1:10:15	as wisely as possible not to stuff the
1:10:17	city
1:10:19	but just to try to
1:10:22	allow more people to live here who work
1:10:24	here
1:10:27	mr estes and ms leatherman is there any
1:10:28	difference at all as we go through these
1:10:30	discussions in multi-family units that
1:10:32	are
1:10:33	owner-occupied units versus rented units
1:10:38	well i know that certainly i mean you
1:10:40	can
1:10:41	you can if you're able to purchase a 350
1:10:45	000 house now put 20 down your
1:10:48	your monthly payment is only about a
1:10:51	thousand dollars a month i think not
1:10:53	including utilities and
1:10:55	try running the same size apartment for
1:10:58	that i mean
1:11:00	is there is there a difference in how we
1:11:02	would encourage multi-family
1:11:04	buildings that are owned as opposed to
1:11:07	rented or do you see there be any
1:11:09	difference
1:11:10	yeah i mean so in terms of and again
1:11:13	right now
1:11:14	um this evening we're talking
1:11:17	um about things more from the regulatory
1:11:20	standpoint
1:11:22	and with regards to the regulatory
1:11:24	standpoint
1:11:25	multi-family by law can include
1:11:28	rental and or for purchase through a
1:11:32	condo
1:11:33	you you you don't have a difference
1:11:36	between
1:11:37	a um a condom
1:11:40	use and a apartment use um i'll
1:11:44	say that um in
1:11:47	um probably the the late 2000s
1:11:52	in portland um condos were the rage
1:11:55	and many apartments were converted to
1:11:58	condominiums along the way
1:12:00	and so those are those are um
1:12:03	in um our land use
1:12:08	term repertoire it's they're one of the
1:12:11	same they're they're not differentiated
1:12:16	thank you i if i could
1:12:19	yeah please i would point out that a lot
1:12:22	of condos
1:12:23	uh in in my experience from what i have
1:12:26	seen and
1:12:26	and we have um we've got the
1:12:29	complex down at 39th street as i
1:12:31	discussed i think
1:12:33	the last time that we had
1:12:36	a survey with the addresses of the
1:12:38	mailing address for the
1:12:40	owners their owner occupancy there was
1:12:42	about 27
1:12:44	and that might be different there's a
1:12:47	recently
1:12:48	converted condo complex facing
1:12:51	franklin avenue but accessed from grand
1:12:53	in the
1:12:54	1100 block uh that is
1:12:57	also there are part-time residents
1:13:00	in in that portion i think a lot of the
1:13:03	condos do become
1:13:05	uh second homes and and not necessarily
1:13:10	owner occupied
1:13:11	and and i would have to very
1:13:15	very respectfully disagree with
1:13:17	councillor hermann
1:13:19	as a housing provider that provides
1:13:22	virtually only uh workforce housing
1:13:27	they our workforce has a very good
1:13:32	inventory that they can look at i i
1:13:36	i'm not sure where counselor herman is
1:13:40	getting her
1:13:41	information but my first hand experience
1:13:44	is that i have a number of units that i
1:13:47	can offer to people in workforce
1:13:50	and the people who want something nicer
1:13:53	that it doesn't exist
1:13:56	have the right to live in astoria should
1:13:58	they choose to but they will not
1:14:00	choose to live here if they cannot find
1:14:03	housing
1:14:03	and and i don't have workforce housing
1:14:06	people telling me they can't find
1:14:08	housing
1:14:08	i have people that are professionals and
1:14:11	who for whatever reason have to make
1:14:13	more
1:14:14	than workforce housing or i'm sorry than
1:14:16	workforce
1:14:18	uh income people and that housing does
1:14:21	not exist
1:14:22	so again i i would respectfully disagree
1:14:25	my disagreement is based on
1:14:26	on my experience in providing housing
1:14:29	workforce housing
1:14:30	and not being able to provide or point a
1:14:33	direction to where
1:14:35	working professionals could live if they
1:14:38	wanted to live
1:14:39	in australia and i think we have noticed
1:14:41	at the speed level
1:14:42	and the county level and if you talk to
1:14:44	the hospital and and some of the larger
1:14:46	employers
1:14:47	they are having trouble finding housing
1:14:49	for
1:14:50	the people in the upper level uh
1:14:53	income and i don't think that they
1:14:55	should be punished
1:14:56	for their level of income or their
1:14:59	desire to live
1:15:01	in a nicer home i think it's important
1:15:03	to remember
1:15:05	we need these people here as well as the
1:15:07	backbone
1:15:08	of the workforce and we need to make
1:15:10	sure that we will have
1:15:12	a suitable amount of inventory for those
1:15:15	people to choose from
1:15:16	so that we can fill the jobs in the
1:15:18	upper end as well as the lower end
1:15:22	and i think that's been my point all
1:15:25	that since i've been on council that's
1:15:27	been
1:15:27	the point that i've understood is that
1:15:30	we have a housing problem
1:15:31	across the board that we need to
1:15:33	increase in all
1:15:35	facets it's not just one or the other
1:15:38	uh or one over the other so i think that
1:15:41	this
1:15:42	i look forward to the rest of this
1:15:43	discussion what else you have to offer
1:15:46	here
1:15:47	uh as far as options you know exactly
1:15:50	we have a lot of actually have a fair
1:15:53	amount of
1:15:53	uh housing coming in right now so
1:15:57	keep that in mind as as we have this
1:15:59	conversation we have
1:16:01	uh we have a hundred apartments
1:16:05	that are going to be showing up in the
1:16:07	next year or so
1:16:08	uh who knows you know we've got the
1:16:11	tongue point development if that comes
1:16:12	along at a decent pace
1:16:14	there'll be a number of uh single fam
1:16:16	you know
1:16:18	how housing created out there so it's
1:16:21	it's not that we're
1:16:22	it's not happening it's where can we do
1:16:26	a little bit better and make sure we
1:16:27	have the opportunities
1:16:32	thank you all let's um
1:16:35	i'll turn it back to ms leatherman for
1:16:37	this next slide
1:16:39	well this is uh thank you mayor mr
1:16:42	strategy
1:16:42	is you know somewhat along the same
1:16:45	lines of
1:16:46	what we've been talking about as we kind
1:16:48	of um
1:16:50	progress through the conversation i
1:16:52	think the
1:16:53	with the revising maximum density height
1:16:56	or bulk standards
1:16:57	what what it's really driving at is um
1:17:00	trying to identify those areas where
1:17:03	maybe
1:17:04	there would be a good it would be a good
1:17:06	place for a higher density
1:17:08	and then also putting in very clear and
1:17:10	objective standards
1:17:12	on how that would be compatible like the
1:17:16	step
1:17:16	step down height they're talking about
1:17:18	here or what types of units potentially
1:17:22	would be more compatible if it was
1:17:25	up against lower density housing
1:17:28	so i don't know if i have much more to
1:17:31	add to this one
1:17:32	um and i don't because we
1:17:36	i think a lot of you covered it already
1:17:38	and i think the key again is finding a
1:17:40	balance
1:17:42	and creating clear standards um
1:17:45	i'll say that right now the r3 zone
1:17:48	allows multi-family outright already
1:17:52	but the standards and and i have heard
1:17:54	this
1:17:55	since i've been here for eight months
1:17:58	the standards
1:17:59	really limit it um with the parking
1:18:02	um being one of the standards and lot
1:18:05	coverage and such
1:18:07	a lot really prohibit the conversion
1:18:10	so um i think
1:18:14	i i think it's definitely worth looking
1:18:15	at um
1:18:17	not saying that it will find the perfect
1:18:19	place for
1:18:20	for these this type of thing a higher
1:18:22	density but i do think that having
1:18:24	really clear standards in place instead
1:18:26	of more discretionary
1:18:28	is important for a variety of reasons
1:18:32	one being that it's better for someone
1:18:34	who wants to
1:18:35	to pursue the project they know up front
1:18:37	what they're getting into
1:18:39	but also if we look at the specific
1:18:42	places where we want that ahead of time
1:18:44	we can create standards that we can all
1:18:47	agree
1:18:47	will be good for the community and that
1:18:50	area and what we're looking for so this
1:18:52	is kind of like
1:18:52	diving in deeper to how we could make
1:18:55	higher density work
1:18:57	within residential zones um
1:19:01	and i think if we got the go ahead we
1:19:04	could probably find some areas of that
1:19:06	where that would be good
1:19:10	i would just add that
1:19:14	when we had code amendments going to the
1:19:16	city council
1:19:18	like um five years ago
1:19:22	there were proposals to revise
1:19:25	maximum density height and bulk
1:19:27	standards in the
1:19:28	r1 r2 and r3 zones
1:19:32	this scenario which is included in the
1:19:34	housing study is just
1:19:36	for the r3 zone so if there's not a
1:19:38	proposal to
1:19:40	occur increase height mass in the
1:19:43	low density or medium density it's
1:19:45	really just in in the high density zone
1:19:47	uh so it's it's a difference than what
1:19:51	came to city council um five years ago
1:19:58	yeah thanks for making that distinction
1:20:00	and
1:20:02	those of you who are either on council
1:20:04	or attending council meetings and
1:20:05	remember there was a
1:20:06	significant opposition to that but again
1:20:08	we're this
1:20:09	recommendation is not talking about r1
1:20:11	it's talking about r3
1:20:13	so any comments from the commission
1:20:20	i'll add mayor um that i i do think that
1:20:22	um
1:20:24	involving the neighborhood you know and
1:20:26	maybe looking at sub areas and
1:20:27	involving neighbor and having a good
1:20:29	public process for this type
1:20:31	of change would be a critical i agree
1:20:34	with what i'm hearing
1:20:36	from the commissioners and counselors on
1:20:37	that for sure
1:20:41	mayor jones i have
1:20:45	in my experience six years on the
1:20:47	planning commission now
1:20:50	i would say without a doubt the single
1:20:53	greatest resistance item we have seen
1:20:56	is height uh we've seen that in the
1:21:01	in the commercial zones and anywhere
1:21:05	any application that's come through that
1:21:07	touches on
1:21:08	heights or maximum heights draws the
1:21:11	biggest crowds
1:21:12	and well i have always been in favor
1:21:16	of uh
1:21:19	height i think the height the higher
1:21:22	buildings
1:21:23	don't block views any more than the
1:21:25	lower buildings
1:21:26	except in extreme circumstances
1:21:30	um i i just want to say that this this
1:21:32	is
1:21:33	the single item that draws people out in
1:21:36	resistance
1:21:37	um but i would certainly be in favor of
1:21:40	looking at
1:21:41	raising heights in r3 and even in the
1:21:45	commercial areas where
1:21:47	i think we'll touch touch on that maybe
1:21:49	in the next strategy
1:21:51	even increasing heights in our
1:21:53	commercial zones for
1:21:54	for higher for high rises
1:21:58	you know astoria style high rises of
1:22:00	apartment buildings that may be able to
1:22:01	go into
1:22:02	commercial zones anyway i just thought
1:22:05	i'd
1:22:05	toss that out there that the heights is
1:22:08	going to meet some resistance
1:22:10	thanks commissioner and that is
1:22:12	certainly exactly what i was referring
1:22:14	to with my earlier comment that if we
1:22:17	were to uh as a council
1:22:18	if we were to give the planning
1:22:20	commission guidance to spend their their
1:22:22	precious volunteer time developing
1:22:24	[Music]
1:22:25	proposals for um increasing heights that
1:22:28	you know we should have the be willing
1:22:32	to stick to our guns
1:22:33	knowing that there would be some
1:22:34	opposition to it if we think that's the
1:22:36	right thing to do to
1:22:37	increase the available housing in the
1:22:39	community
1:22:40	other thoughts this is commissioner
1:22:43	womack
1:22:45	i agree with commissioner moore that
1:22:49	this is definitely going to be
1:22:53	the one item that we're talking about
1:22:55	tonight that will have the most people
1:22:58	chime in on height is always an issue
1:23:00	i'm also in support
1:23:02	of the height the height increase in
1:23:04	both commercial
1:23:05	and in the r3 and just to speak
1:23:08	to the rest of the counselors about the
1:23:10	economic standpoint of being able to
1:23:12	provide housing
1:23:15	being able to have a higher structure of
1:23:16	course gives a developer
1:23:18	the ability to provide
1:23:22	more units per square foot so
1:23:25	but again i think if the council the
1:23:28	council would have to really need to
1:23:29	support this
1:23:31	and there would definitely need to be a
1:23:32	lot of community engagement
1:23:34	for any traction i would think on this
1:23:36	[Music]
1:23:40	if i could this is commissioner croning
1:23:41	i'd second kind of with the two previous
1:23:43	commissioners and that
1:23:45	i think one thing that we get challenged
1:23:47	with is there's a set of
1:23:49	codes that people need to follow but a
1:23:51	lot of the multi
1:23:54	multi-family housing or group housing
1:23:56	type ideas still come
1:23:57	as conditional uses and a big one is
1:23:59	compatibility with the neighborhood and
1:24:02	uh the r3 zone abuts r1 almost all the
1:24:06	way around
1:24:06	astoria and so there's the argument of i
1:24:09	live in r1
1:24:10	r3 just happens to be across the street
1:24:12	and this will change our neighborhood
1:24:14	and so
1:24:14	when we start looking at is this
1:24:16	compatible with the neighborhood what is
1:24:18	the council
1:24:19	how does the council want to write this
1:24:21	into us to write this into code so that
1:24:23	we can design it compatible the planning
1:24:25	commission does have kind of a clear
1:24:28	path to approve conditional uses or
1:24:30	maybe even some of these are out of
1:24:32	conditional use process
1:24:33	if if it's agreed that that's the right
1:24:35	path forward so just some of that
1:24:36	ambiguity that comes up every time a
1:24:38	conditional use comes would be helpful
1:24:44	a great uh comment and yeah the question
1:24:47	is if you if you live on that
1:24:48	street that is the r1 if
1:24:52	does that mean the only thing that can
1:24:53	be compatible is something that looks
1:24:55	identical to your street
1:24:57	or is it something that looks very
1:24:59	different but has some
1:25:01	some transitional architectural features
1:25:05	built into it like like those indicated
1:25:08	here
1:25:08	so step down heights and facade
1:25:11	articulation
1:25:13	i think i mean a classic example of this
1:25:15	one i'll just toss it out there
1:25:17	is the the former school site
1:25:20	at 8th and irving which has been you
1:25:22	know a subject of
1:25:24	some previous attempts at development
1:25:26	and
1:25:27	there was feelings by some that the only
1:25:29	thing that's suitable for that site are
1:25:30	single-family homes i
1:25:32	largely identical in size uh
1:25:35	to the ones on the neighboring street
1:25:38	and others who felt that a multi-family
1:25:40	home could be appropriate for that site
1:25:45	are any other comments from
1:25:47	commissioners or counselors
1:25:50	i'd like to speak go ahead excuse me
1:25:53	okay
1:25:54	uh brookly henry speaking um
1:25:57	so i've kind of just been listening
1:25:59	tonight i have to admit i'm a little
1:26:00	undecided on
1:26:01	what my opinion is but in terms of um
1:26:04	just having a future discussion and
1:26:06	getting the public involved
1:26:08	um so without doing
1:26:12	a really in-depth analysis of the
1:26:14	housing
1:26:15	study um i know there are some people on
1:26:18	the meeting who are kind of experts
1:26:20	in all the attached documents and um
1:26:24	i'm wondering and we don't have to
1:26:25	answer this question tonight unless
1:26:27	somebody
1:26:27	wants to but i'm kind of wondering um
1:26:31	how urban infill uh landslide topography
1:26:35	tsunami topography all um i know that
1:26:38	urban infill is kind of a different
1:26:40	topic but it to me it's kind of a
1:26:41	sustainability
1:26:42	um topic but in terms of safety and
1:26:45	welfare
1:26:46	the tsunami and landslide topography
1:26:50	i just wonder um if that's being
1:26:52	considered
1:26:53	in while we're laying out future housing
1:26:56	sites and trying to
1:26:57	figure out how to increase housing
1:27:03	so that's something that i i'd like to
1:27:05	um for to make sure that we
1:27:07	kind of don't lose sight of that in
1:27:09	terms of just building letting people
1:27:10	build anywhere without
1:27:12	um any thought of people safety and
1:27:15	welfare because i
1:27:16	i feel like when people move here from
1:27:18	out of town they kind of don't know
1:27:19	where they're getting
1:27:20	themselves into and um
1:27:23	[Music]
1:27:24	i feel like it should be disclosed if
1:27:26	people are buying property that's on a
1:27:28	on a landslide or in this tsunami the
1:27:31	tsunami inundation zone is a little more
1:27:32	obvious but
1:27:33	there are a lot of active landslides
1:27:34	around town and i feel like people don't
1:27:36	really know about them unless they
1:27:38	have a background in landscape
1:27:40	architecture or engineering or
1:27:42	some kind of a field where they know to
1:27:44	look at jis maps and things like that
1:27:46	so i wouldn't you know i wouldn't feel
1:27:48	good about
1:27:49	endangering people or offering people an
1:27:52	investment that could
1:27:54	be destroyed any more than i would feel
1:27:56	good about taking away people's views
1:27:58	or overcrowding the city so i just i
1:28:00	would like to make sure that we
1:28:02	take that in into consideration if it's
1:28:04	not already very clear
1:28:06	so mr harrington perhaps do you want to
1:28:08	address if
1:28:09	if someone uh is going to be
1:28:12	this
1:28:16	if someone wants to build a new property
1:28:20	how does how does the city account for
1:28:22	the slide zones in the permitting
1:28:24	process
1:28:25	yeah so let me first talk about things
1:28:27	from the bigger planning
1:28:28	aspect um the state of oregon
1:28:33	um does not factor in
1:28:38	tsunami inundation zones with regards to
1:28:40	um
1:28:42	urban growth boundary limits
1:28:46	and that is one of the challenges that
1:28:48	have been seen for coastal communities
1:28:51	is there's the concern about development
1:28:54	within
1:28:55	tsunami inundation areas while at the
1:28:58	same time
1:28:59	the state does not provide
1:29:02	any flexibility on the ugb side
1:29:08	and so that's not a factor that's that's
1:29:10	considered
1:29:12	um additionally um
1:29:16	there the state would also say there can
1:29:20	be
1:29:20	properties within slide areas that are
1:29:24	developable under the right conditions
1:29:27	so um when
1:29:32	and we know that a lot of astoria
1:29:36	is in historically slide areas that have
1:29:39	slide over the years slowed
1:29:41	slid over the years that being said we
1:29:44	are and have been continued to work on a
1:29:46	landslide
1:29:48	hazard ordinance that would deal with
1:29:51	that more specifically
1:29:53	i think this question came out in terms
1:29:54	of notice came up at a
1:29:56	at a more recent city council meeting
1:29:58	and our city attorney had
1:30:00	had noted you know i mean there are
1:30:02	limitations on
1:30:03	what can be included on deeds however
1:30:06	there are
1:30:07	um you know due diligence provisions you
1:30:11	know that
1:30:12	that go into play when someone's buying
1:30:14	a house and so but
1:30:15	i mean i think that can be looked at
1:30:16	more but i think they're
1:30:19	we're not going to be able to answer
1:30:20	that question tonight but it's it's
1:30:22	there there are some limited limiting
1:30:25	factors to be able to uh to be able to
1:30:28	have to be able to consider
1:30:29	commissioner henry
1:30:36	the questions or comments from the
1:30:38	commissioner or the council
1:30:43	yeah so i guess i'll go ahead
1:30:46	uh just so
1:30:50	because they were talking about heights
1:30:51	and developments uh
1:30:55	in c3 zones and i'm just trying to
1:30:58	picture astoria and
1:31:03	where's an example of where we would be
1:31:05	building a big
1:31:06	tall building in a r3 zone in astoria
1:31:11	i just can't i don't know where that is
1:31:15	tongue point
1:31:19	okay all of tongue point yeah except for
1:31:22	the industrial
1:31:23	areas but that's about it right
1:31:27	um no i mean there are other i mean
1:31:29	there are other parcels i mean
1:31:31	the the uh development that the mayor
1:31:34	had mentioned at the
1:31:35	beginning of the the meeting um
1:31:39	over by that's that's a commercial zone
1:31:42	um what's that
1:31:47	is what could astral point be built into
1:31:49	something that would want to go higher
1:31:51	some future time that location i don't
1:31:53	know the property name now
1:31:56	yeah i mean i'd have to i mean who was
1:31:58	putting up the zoning map a little bit
1:32:00	earlier i mean
1:32:01	look at the um
1:32:05	r3 is the
1:32:10	i mean if you look the central area is
1:32:14	r3
1:32:19	but i mean i guess the question is is
1:32:24	well that's where i think ms leatherman
1:32:26	was talking about
1:32:29	you know having standards for
1:32:30	adjacencies
1:32:33	um you know adjacent uh looking at
1:32:37	existing development and how that's
1:32:39	that's ultimately applied
1:32:43	but in terms of larger vacant if you go
1:32:45	to the east
1:32:46	is leatherman towards tung point
1:33:00	so if you look at you have emerald
1:33:03	heights
1:33:04	and the developable land around
1:33:09	there and then there's r2 and then r3
1:33:12	there's uh the r3 over and tongue point
1:33:19	this yeah i think that's interesting and
1:33:21	and it
1:33:23	i mean those properties are very
1:33:26	different than
1:33:27	the properties in on the north slope
1:33:29	south slope you know
1:33:31	up on top of the hill where we have a
1:33:33	lot of existing residential
1:33:36	um and i they're like different issues
1:33:40	different populations that respond to
1:33:42	them uh
1:33:44	positively or negatively
1:33:52	so i'm just wondering too you know how
1:33:54	serious
1:33:55	of uh consideration is it when we start
1:33:58	talking about
1:33:59	heights and whatnot how many situations
1:34:02	are we
1:34:03	likely to find that it's going to make a
1:34:05	difference one way or the other
1:34:10	well i mean i think it makes it easier
1:34:12	to um
1:34:15	get support if it's you know we're not
1:34:18	this isn't this isn't this graphic that
1:34:21	we're looking at now is not something
1:34:22	that
1:34:22	potentially then would be foisted on
1:34:24	every neighborhood in the city this is
1:34:27	a fairly finite number of of areas
1:34:32	and in several of which i think there's
1:34:34	nobody currently living to find it
1:34:36	objectionable because there's nothing
1:34:38	there yet like the tongue point lot
1:34:39	which currently is unbuilt
1:34:43	so just if the council wants to give you
1:34:46	know
1:34:46	guidance to the planning commission
1:34:47	whether we want them to pursue this or
1:34:50	not
1:34:50	i am in favor of it
1:34:58	well i i especially like it in areas
1:35:00	that are currently not developed
1:35:02	if there's a way to limit it to that
1:35:05	because then we're not stepping on
1:35:07	anyone's
1:35:08	whatever yeah and i agree with that i
1:35:11	mean i
1:35:12	i think that we're there isn't a lot of
1:35:14	development i think it's a great idea to
1:35:16	be able to
1:35:16	maximize its potential um
1:35:20	because we will have less trouble with
1:35:23	that
1:35:23	you know again we try and do something
1:35:26	like that at the
1:35:28	old lewis and clark school area
1:35:31	it's is nothing but trouble
1:35:39	i think it's worth exploring i think
1:35:41	even in town i think of smaller
1:35:44	multi-story apartment buildings such as
1:35:47	the franklin apartments fit really
1:35:50	nicely
1:35:50	into the neighborhood it's a mix of
1:35:52	multi-family and single-family housing
1:35:55	so if there were a way we could write
1:35:57	the code so that it
1:35:59	perhaps restricted the size
1:36:03	in a more densely populated neighborhood
1:36:06	but four stories to me there but
1:36:08	certainly not seen out of scale
1:36:10	whereas it might in some other
1:36:22	neighborhoods
1:36:24	okay well if there's no more comments on
1:36:26	this one let's move along to the next
1:36:28	slide
Strategy #4: Support High Density Housing in Commercial Zones
1:36:31	okay so we're moving on to the
1:36:33	commercial zones
1:36:35	now um
1:36:39	and supporting high density housing and
1:36:41	commercial zones
1:36:42	um everyone
1:36:46	uh talking tonight seems to be pretty
1:36:48	educated on the benefits of
1:36:51	having housing um closer to
1:36:54	town i'm assuming because of just the
1:36:57	smart comments everyone's making tonight
1:37:00	but having higher densities um
1:37:04	in the commercial zones um will help
1:37:06	bring residents closer to the services
1:37:08	that are that are provided that they
1:37:10	need
1:37:11	and the amenities it'll be more
1:37:12	convenient for them it'll be walkable
1:37:14	so it's better for their health there's
1:37:16	a variety of different reasons
1:37:20	and specifically with this with this
1:37:24	strategy they're talking about adopting
1:37:27	[Music]
1:37:28	a minimum density standard and
1:37:32	what we have right now is on the slide
1:37:35	and the c4 multi-family housing is
1:37:39	permitted
1:37:39	outright um but then through
1:37:43	in the c1 through c3 um there it's
1:37:47	not really spoken to um so it's
1:37:50	something that i think we could look at
1:37:52	and explore further
1:37:54	um with uh when it comes to conditional
1:37:58	use or not
1:37:59	it does allow um single-family
1:38:02	developments
1:38:04	in the c3 below or behind commercial or
1:38:08	above
1:38:10	same thing with the tfd which is
1:38:13	like basically a duplex um
1:38:17	so uh james leatherman can you
1:38:20	yeah can you spell out what c1 c2 c3 and
1:38:24	c4 zones are for
1:38:25	for everyone in terms of what the zoning
1:38:28	classification is
1:38:30	sure
1:38:34	and the names of them is that yeah i can
1:38:37	do i mean
1:38:38	yeah i have conceived one is
1:38:40	neighborhood commercial
1:38:42	c2 is is tourist commercial c3 is
1:38:45	general commercial
1:38:47	and c4 is central commercial
1:38:51	yes like central commercial is the the
1:38:53	downtown
1:38:54	zoning district
1:38:58	so just wanted everyone to kind of have
1:39:00	a little bit of understanding in terms
1:39:01	of the differences
1:39:02	of what those commercial zones are um
1:39:06	and to clarify the mayor was talking
1:39:08	about the the residential development
1:39:11	to the west of the safeway that's in
1:39:14	a c3 commercial zone
1:39:18	to kind of understand conceptually what
1:39:20	that type of land may look like
1:39:23	another suggestion that the report
1:39:26	includes
1:39:26	is considering townhomes in the
1:39:29	commercial zone
1:39:30	um see in the c4
1:39:33	[Music]
1:39:34	they can be developed at higher
1:39:35	densities and can provide a good
1:39:38	like transposition area between
1:39:39	commercial and residential
1:39:43	as an as an example
1:39:49	i don't really have much so do people
1:39:52	see some reasons to uh
1:39:54	oppose these recommendations any
1:39:56	thoughts on these recommendations
1:39:58	well and i would go that ms leatherman
1:40:02	aren't there
1:40:02	i mean in terms of allowing
1:40:04	[Music]
1:40:06	multi-family residential if you go to
1:40:08	the other slide the prior slide
1:40:13	allow multi-family housing outright
1:40:16	there are some zones which do that
1:40:19	already
1:40:21	um yeah c3 and
1:40:24	right so it's so there we have that in
1:40:26	place
1:40:27	in um like for instance the city of
1:40:30	warrington did not
1:40:32	originally allow multi-family housing
1:40:36	in their general commercial zone i think
1:40:38	they've since
1:40:39	modified their code to be able to allow
1:40:41	that
1:40:42	but our general commercial um
1:40:46	zone already included that i guess the
1:40:49	question is
1:40:50	um you know we allow
1:40:53	multi-family housing is it conditionally
1:40:56	in the c4 zone
1:40:58	and so you know that's uh
1:41:04	that question should downtown should
1:41:06	there should it be allowed
1:41:07	outright rather than conditionally
1:41:11	um the the tourist commercial zone is
1:41:16	actually a zone which we're
1:41:18	working to do away with um it's
1:41:21	uh it's it's kind of been one that's uh
1:41:25	that we've actually been rezoning away
1:41:27	from over time and the c1 zone is
1:41:30	example of c1 the neighborhood
1:41:31	commercial zone is around
1:41:33	um up on niagara near
1:41:37	the peter pan market that would be an
1:41:39	example of c1 zone
1:41:52	so any thoughts on these recommendations
1:41:58	not sure if there's any other i'm trying
1:41:59	to see if there's any other c1s
1:42:01	neighborhood commercial over in
1:42:03	alderbrook um
1:42:05	over um by then alderberg park
1:42:08	yeah they and they those can be um
1:42:13	really successful um but again i think
1:42:16	the standards that are in place
1:42:18	are really limiting them for being
1:42:20	successful right now with parking
1:42:22	and such and that would be something we
1:42:23	could we would look at based on this
1:42:25	recommendation if
1:42:27	the city council wanted us to
1:42:34	mr mayor commissioner moore here
1:42:38	i would support those recommendations
1:42:40	i'd also like to
1:42:42	re-emphasize that height increasing
1:42:45	heights
1:42:46	for residential structures in commercial
1:42:48	zones might be something we could
1:42:49	consider
1:42:50	um if in a c4 c3 for example
1:42:54	there's a limit a height limit for
1:42:56	commercial uses
1:42:58	i would not be against bumping that up
1:43:01	if someone wants to add a couple of
1:43:02	stories for residential
1:43:04	for apartments or whatever so something
1:43:07	to think about
1:43:10	i would similarly be in favor of
1:43:14	uh proving these i presume that we're
1:43:17	moving on to parking
1:43:19	if we uh if we're not then i would like
1:43:22	to address parking
1:43:23	at this point but otherwise i'm in favor
1:43:25	of the recommendations
1:43:30	yeah the next strategy is parking
1:43:35	the next okay so we will go to strategy
1:43:37	pipe thank you
1:43:42	well i'm in favor of exploring these
1:43:44	recommendations
1:43:48	i am too
1:43:52	i'm not opposed to the concept i just
1:43:55	feel like i need more information
1:44:01	those are the concepts i think that
1:44:03	height will probably be the biggest
1:44:04	obstacle
1:44:08	[Music]
1:44:12	okay well if uh there's no other
1:44:15	comments
1:44:17	we can move on to the next one
Strategy #5: Streamline and right Size Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements
1:44:25	yeah so this deal again with parking and
1:44:29	trying to
1:44:31	make housing easier
1:44:34	in a variety of types i want to say that
1:44:36	because parking
1:44:38	is one of the factors that is limiting
1:44:40	it right now
1:44:43	so scaling the requirements by a number
1:44:45	of bedrooms right now this
1:44:47	single family dwelling a single family
1:44:49	dwelling requires two parking spaces
1:44:52	um providing a credit for on-street
1:44:54	parking
1:44:56	allowing shared parking and providing
1:44:59	reductions or waivers um
1:45:03	we have a little bit of we have the um
1:45:08	the targeted reductions or waivers
1:45:09	there's a
1:45:11	section in the development code that
1:45:12	addresses that
1:45:15	but the parking standards um
1:45:18	i guess that's the question is do you
1:45:19	want us to investigate how
1:45:21	a reduction in the parking requirements
1:45:23	for single-family homes or other
1:45:27	dwelling types yeah
1:45:31	i would add on there are
1:45:35	jurisdictions in the state of oregon
1:45:38	that have reduced the number of required
1:45:41	parking places
1:45:43	for single-family residences to be
1:45:46	a minimum of one space and
1:45:49	the state of oregon's department of land
1:45:51	conservation and development
1:45:56	model code for rural communities
1:45:59	also recommends one parking space meant
1:46:01	a requirement of
1:46:03	uh only one parking place um
1:46:06	i know that at least in
1:46:10	league of oregon cities conversations
1:46:13	about
1:46:14	affordable housing code amendments you
1:46:16	know there's sometimes
1:46:18	some discussion whether or not the state
1:46:20	legislature will will say
1:46:22	um there could only be a requirement of
1:46:26	a minimum of one statewide that hasn't
1:46:29	gone into
1:46:30	effect but uh kind of i guess the
1:46:33	question here is
1:46:35	do you want to be able to do that you
1:46:37	know particularly with
1:46:38	uh single-family residences
1:46:43	allowing for um
1:46:46	some changes to be scale requirements by
1:46:50	number of bedrooms we actually do that
1:46:52	already for
1:46:53	multi-family units our code already does
1:46:57	that
1:46:58	um this other recommendation providing a
1:47:01	credit for on-street parking and saying
1:47:03	okay if there's
1:47:04	a street with a good amount of on-street
1:47:06	parking that
1:47:07	that parking requirements can be reduced
1:47:09	what that will
1:47:10	in turn mean is in some cases
1:47:13	uh there'll be more parking on on street
1:47:17	at the same time i look at
1:47:20	our historic residential neighborhoods
1:47:22	that were built before
1:47:24	cars and a lot of the homes
1:47:27	um don't have two parking spaces to
1:47:30	begin with within our
1:47:31	existing historic neighborhoods um
1:47:34	they may have one um
1:47:37	off-street parking place but not always
1:47:40	and so that's why you see some of the
1:47:43	neighborhoods
1:47:44	in the historic neighborhoods and town
1:47:46	have more
1:47:47	cars parked on the street at all times
1:47:49	and kind of the question is
1:47:51	how do you this would have could apply
1:47:53	infill
1:47:55	it could apply to new development
1:47:56	tonight just uh
1:47:58	just to be able to set the the
1:48:01	perspective a little bit more in terms
1:48:02	of what this could mean
1:48:10	well i'm in favor of uh moving in this
1:48:13	direction
1:48:14	again if it's if it's good enough for
1:48:16	the
1:48:17	historic neighborhoods it could be good
1:48:20	enough for
1:48:21	new development
1:48:26	yeah i have to agree if you go up 8th
1:48:29	street you look around there's some some
1:48:30	of the homes on 11th
1:48:32	they're they're all parking on the
1:48:33	street so
1:48:35	i i think we should streamline this and
1:48:37	take a good look at it
1:48:39	um just we're going to increase housing
1:48:42	we can't
1:48:43	we can't limit people's use of their
1:48:45	vehicle i guess
1:48:49	so i i don't mean to interrupt
1:48:54	uh counselor hilton i'm not able to hear
1:48:56	you and i would really
1:48:57	uh i look forward to meeting you in
1:48:59	person uh i don't know if your
1:49:01	microphone is not on or what might be
1:49:03	going on there but
1:49:04	i i wasn't able to hear any of that i'm
1:49:06	i'm sorry sean i guess i have to talk
1:49:08	really loud
1:49:09	um can you hear me now sean not well
1:49:13	i could are other people able to hear
1:49:16	counselor hilton i've i've turned my
1:49:18	head on
1:49:20	his his it's pretty low so
1:49:23	maybe counselor hilton if you just speak
1:49:25	loud and get right up to the microphone
1:49:27	it might make a difference
1:49:28	those mics are a little funny especially
1:49:32	with the mouse
1:49:32	if i take my mask off yeah
1:49:38	still a little light but you just get
1:49:40	your mouth right up to the microphone
1:49:42	might help
1:49:48	hear me now mr fitzpatrick
1:49:51	a little better thank you um
1:49:55	i would say that on street parking in
1:49:58	astoria if you look in the historic
1:49:59	districts like brett was saying you look
1:50:01	on 8th street and you look up 11th
1:50:02	street
1:50:03	you look in those neighborhoods that
1:50:05	that's the way our community was built
1:50:07	um even bond street you know there's
1:50:10	a lot of those homes were built with no
1:50:12	without cars in mind
1:50:14	so if we're going to increase housing we
1:50:17	need to streamline
1:50:19	some of the requirements we're going to
1:50:20	put on future homeowners in future
1:50:22	development
1:50:23	so there has to be a way for us to
1:50:26	maybe encourage maybe encourage people
1:50:28	to get out of their cars
1:50:31	also
1:50:34	thank you i might add that it's my
1:50:37	strong belief that
1:50:39	uh first of all i agree with all the
1:50:41	bullet points here
1:50:42	i think we should explore this but i
1:50:44	would add that
1:50:46	it's my strong belief that we as a
1:50:48	society have reached peak
1:50:49	parking we aren't going to need more
1:50:52	parking
1:50:52	than we currently have
1:50:56	especially in our story i don't expect
1:50:57	our population to grow
1:50:59	much maybe it'll grow some but
1:51:02	looking into the future and it might be
1:51:04	10 or 20 or
1:51:06	40 years into the future we will
1:51:09	eventually have vehicles that drop us
1:51:11	off and go park themselves and
1:51:14	we aren't going to need parking in front
1:51:16	of businesses
1:51:17	and we won't necessarily need to park at
1:51:20	our house there might be
1:51:21	they might drive off and charge
1:51:22	themselves somewhere else so i really
1:51:24	don't see
1:51:25	looking forward deep into the future
1:51:27	that we're
1:51:28	we're that we need to focus on providing
1:51:31	lots more parking and i'm
1:51:33	strongly in favor of of starting to
1:51:35	reduce
1:51:36	those requirements right now
1:51:38	[Music]
1:51:40	you know i think those are interesting
1:51:42	observations uh commissioner moore
1:51:44	and i kind of wonder where those cars
1:51:47	are actually going to drive off to to
1:51:49	get charged because again we don't have
1:51:51	uh space for that either it appears
1:51:55	it will go to the hole in the ground
1:51:57	[Music]
1:51:59	hey be gentle on the hole in the ground
1:52:02	um but i i think that you may be right
1:52:06	about
1:52:06	pecan vehicles and hopefully vehicles
1:52:09	will actually
1:52:10	uh become smaller as well to create more
1:52:13	room and that people will be less
1:52:15	reliant on
1:52:16	motor vehicles with the exception that
1:52:19	we're still sort of in
1:52:21	we're not in a large urban area where we
1:52:23	have mass transportation as an
1:52:25	alternative we're still sort of stuck
1:52:27	if we really want to get around in
1:52:30	vehicles so we're going to have them
1:52:32	and i do get concerned about
1:52:36	you know this argument well it was good
1:52:38	enough for historic homes it's good
1:52:40	enough for new homes i i don't buy that
1:52:42	i
1:52:42	i think we're in a different age um i
1:52:46	think it's our k it's just
1:52:47	circumstantial that we you know we're
1:52:49	stuck with
1:52:50	uh no parking in some of these older
1:52:52	homes you know those that have garages
1:52:54	are too small to fit
1:52:55	a modern vehicle so we're stuck with
1:52:58	that
1:52:59	that's just the way it is but that
1:53:00	doesn't mean going forward when we
1:53:03	have new homes that we don't maintain
1:53:07	adequate parking as part of the
1:53:09	requirements
1:53:10	for that coming in i mean i have i had a
1:53:13	problem with
1:53:14	being forced to eliminate parking as an
1:53:17	issue when adding adus because now we
1:53:20	can add 80 us to
1:53:22	any single family home whether it has
1:53:25	parking or not
1:53:26	and so we get more vehicles in the
1:53:29	street uh we have a lot of narrow
1:53:31	streets
1:53:32	that you know you can you end up having
1:53:35	one lane
1:53:36	roads to go up and down because of all
1:53:39	the cars parking along the side
1:53:41	so i think it it is an issue and i
1:53:44	think that we need to be think seriously
1:53:48	about
1:53:50	what we are if we're going to try and
1:53:53	reduce parking
1:53:55	requirements we need to be very careful
1:53:57	about that as far as i'm concerned
1:54:00	but i'm you know all this is worth
1:54:03	exploring
1:54:04	and i'm willing to look at
1:54:07	more details as they come down but again
1:54:10	also we're here not to just load on to
1:54:13	the planning commission
1:54:14	we want to make sure that it's realistic
1:54:19	right i had a few comments if i could
1:54:24	go go ahead okay so
1:54:28	i i appreciate the comments of the city
1:54:30	manager estes uh
1:54:32	councillor hilton uh president moore i
1:54:35	look forward to
1:54:36	i hope i'm around in 40 years to see
1:54:38	that and and councillor brownson
1:54:40	made some good comments as well i i
1:54:43	um getting back to the housing study on
1:54:47	page 16
1:54:48	um and the graphic that we have up here
1:54:51	um
1:54:53	i i appreciated a number of points in
1:54:56	the housing study and and
1:54:58	one of them was the scale requirements
1:55:00	by number of bedrooms
1:55:02	and i agree completely with this
1:55:03	statement and and i would point out that
1:55:05	in most cases the
1:55:06	the closer to the downtown core that
1:55:08	people live
1:55:09	uh or a good percentage of workforce
1:55:11	housing or our workforce
1:55:13	members are employed the fewer cars per
1:55:15	bedroom or per unit
1:55:18	so so as we
1:55:21	say the merwin it will be interesting to
1:55:24	see how
1:55:25	that affects because i think a large
1:55:27	number of people there
1:55:29	won't have cars um
1:55:33	and in my own experience with with my
1:55:35	rentals the smaller the unit
1:55:36	the the fewer the cars i do
1:55:39	want to be careful i'm i'm aware of a
1:55:42	few cases where families with no
1:55:44	off street parking and minimal frontage
1:55:46	have three
1:55:47	four or five cars and they're they're i
1:55:49	i don't mean to embarrass anyone but
1:55:51	it's a reality there there are two homes
1:55:54	within a hundred feet of my office that
1:55:57	have three four and five cars per unit
1:55:59	25 feet of frontage and no off street
1:56:01	parking
1:56:04	this leads to a real issue and at some
1:56:07	point we either have to incentivize
1:56:09	people whose
1:56:10	homes have no off street parking minimal
1:56:13	frontage to reduce the number of cars
1:56:15	that they own
1:56:15	and i don't know how that looked but i
1:56:18	prefer that over the alternative which
1:56:20	would be to
1:56:21	de-incentivize the ownership of large
1:56:23	numbers of vehicles
1:56:25	meaning neighborhood parking districts
1:56:27	and limiting the number of parking
1:56:28	permits per home
1:56:29	so again i don't know how that looks but
1:56:32	but again the
1:56:33	in most cases the smaller the unit
1:56:36	and the fewer the the bedrooms per unit
1:56:39	the fewer the cars
1:56:40	but there are still those households
1:56:44	that collect vehicles and and it does
1:56:47	create
1:56:48	a parking issue for others
1:56:51	the allow shared parking again from the
1:56:55	the housing study um
1:56:58	and the graphic here in a an application
1:57:02	that we had in front of us
1:57:04	uh sometime in the past year uh i stated
1:57:07	that my vote regarding shared parking
1:57:09	pre-pandemic was different than my vote
1:57:11	uh during the pandemic and i would state
1:57:15	that residential
1:57:17	contrary to the what the housing study
1:57:19	says and i don't think that in 2017
1:57:21	2018 they were looking toward the
1:57:23	pandemic
1:57:24	but during the pandemic the residential
1:57:26	spaces do not clear out during the day
1:57:28	as they did in the past as someone who's
1:57:32	around his properties on a regular basis
1:57:36	and i noticed the parking patterns which
1:57:38	are highly unusual but i won't get into
1:57:40	it at this point
1:57:42	um the patterns have been since the
1:57:44	pandemic that
1:57:45	the cars are there more often than
1:57:49	than they had been in the past so i
1:57:51	don't know
1:57:52	how often those cars will be will be
1:57:54	moving
1:57:55	um so
1:57:58	that could create issues that we had not
1:58:00	foreseen or even considered and
1:58:02	certainly that
1:58:03	hadn't been considered in the uh in the
1:58:06	housing study
1:58:06	thank you thanks commissioner
1:58:11	councillor hermann did you have your
1:58:12	hand up i did yeah thanks
1:58:15	i like the strategy but getting back to
1:58:17	what councilor brownson said and what
1:58:20	commissioner fitzpatrick touched on i am
1:58:23	concerned about where the cars are
1:58:24	going to go because the coast is still a
1:58:27	place where you really need a vehicle
1:58:29	to be able to get around for the most
1:58:31	part and i think most people come
1:58:34	with one vehicle per person if they're
1:58:37	adults so
1:58:38	that's a pocket concerns me
1:58:42	and i think that commissioner
1:58:44	fitzpatrick
1:58:46	sort of nailed it there too because
1:58:48	there are it will be interesting post
1:58:49	copic
1:58:50	because a lot of people are working from
1:58:52	home right now and
1:58:54	though some will go back to work a lot
1:58:56	of people are going to continue now to
1:58:58	work from home they've seen how it works
1:59:00	and
1:59:01	that definitely will impact parking
1:59:10	okay well do any counselors object to
1:59:12	exploring this one
1:59:14	with with considerations that have been
1:59:16	offered
1:59:18	i think it's well worth exploring
1:59:21	i'm good
1:59:24	okay then let's uh move on to the next
1:59:28	one
1:59:34	okay strategy number six uh brings us
1:59:36	back
1:59:37	to housing and residential zones and it
1:59:40	suggests
1:59:41	that we allow what is termed the missing
1:59:44	middle
1:59:46	as a outright permitted use
1:59:50	the missing middle includes housing
1:59:53	types like
1:59:53	duplexes triplex's garden or courtyard
1:59:57	apartments
1:59:58	cottage cluster and townhomes
2:00:01	graphic here i think
2:00:05	what is a key takeaway from this
2:00:08	with allowing it if we were going to
2:00:10	allow it outright
2:00:13	is to ensure the housing type is
2:00:16	compatible with the neighborhood
2:00:20	and again this this i kind of mentioned
2:00:23	this
2:00:24	earlier but we do have a zone
2:00:27	um it's called compact residential that
2:00:31	has not been identified anywhere in
2:00:34	astoria
2:00:35	i think that would be very uh
2:00:40	good potentially to identify maybe a
2:00:42	location where we would want that and
2:00:44	allow units like this or
2:00:47	cottage cluster for example because we
2:00:50	also have that
2:00:51	uh it's pretty minted outright in the
2:00:54	compact residential zone
2:00:56	and that's just a suggestion based off
2:00:57	of the recommendation from the housing
2:00:59	report
Strategy #6: Facilitate “Missing Middle” Housing Types in All Residential Zones
2:01:02	but again it's limiting the building
2:01:04	size
2:01:06	to be compatible and again public
2:01:09	involvement
2:01:10	i think would be important um
2:01:14	and like all the other ones this is
2:01:17	trying to address
2:01:19	the housing needs that we have so um
2:01:23	brett i think there's a background uh
2:01:26	history
2:01:27	on the cr zone that you maybe wanted to
2:01:29	touch on
2:01:30	yeah so um i'll touch on a couple things
2:01:33	so first of all
2:01:35	the cr zone which allows for
2:01:38	the um cottage clusters
2:01:41	was developed as a part of the
2:01:44	riverfront vision plan
2:01:46	implementation and um
2:01:50	and so the there was there are parcels
2:01:53	of land
2:01:54	along the waterfront uh that include
2:01:57	the city-owned public works shops
2:02:01	site as well as uh the property
2:02:05	formerly owned by george brew now being
2:02:09	developed as residential
2:02:10	that under the riverfront vision plan
2:02:13	were to be um developed as
2:02:17	more of cottage residential development
2:02:21	and part of the concept was to allow
2:02:24	higher density residential
2:02:26	within that area but not
2:02:29	on as tall um
2:02:32	or um as as massive and
2:02:36	structured um that was recommended by
2:02:40	the planning commission
2:02:41	to the city council uh
2:02:44	george brew at the city council public
2:02:47	hearings
2:02:49	testified in opposition to
2:02:52	the rezoning of his property to allow
2:02:55	cottage cluster and the city council
2:02:57	agreed and did not re-zone
2:03:00	those any of the properties uh to allow
2:03:03	cottage cluster development however the
2:03:07	text was adopted so we have
2:03:10	we have um allowances for
2:03:14	this type of use but the
2:03:17	the map amendments were never approved
2:03:19	by the city council
2:03:21	um you know one of the items that you
2:03:22	know it's included in the housing city
2:03:24	is to
2:03:25	is that cottage cluster development is
2:03:28	is a way to be able to achieve higher
2:03:31	densities
2:03:32	but maybe not at at
2:03:36	taller heights it's used
2:03:39	in infill situations quite commonly
2:03:43	because
2:03:44	you don't have specific lot lines if you
2:03:46	make you or
2:03:47	you'll go to that exhibit showing a
2:03:49	cottage cluster development
2:03:51	um you can see here i mean this is a
2:03:52	case where
2:03:54	um if there's home ownership this is
2:03:58	done by
2:03:58	um a condominium type of situation
2:04:01	um and you have shared parking um
2:04:05	and shared uh ownership of of
2:04:08	open space but it's still a
2:04:10	single-family dwelling
2:04:12	um this is a something that could be
2:04:14	considered for the central school site
2:04:16	um perhaps um is
2:04:19	as a possibility but uh that's the
2:04:22	history on
2:04:23	on the cottage cluster issue
2:04:26	with regards to the missing middle
2:04:28	concept
2:04:30	this is part of what the state
2:04:32	legislature
2:04:34	is now requiring cities of ten thousand
2:04:37	more to start um allowing
2:04:41	duplexes outright in
2:04:44	single family zones and it's and it's
2:04:47	prescribing that cities of a certain
2:04:49	size
2:04:50	must amend their development code uh
2:04:53	you know to to comply with certain
2:04:55	provisions which the legislature
2:04:57	says will will will
2:05:00	assist with that middle uh
2:05:04	missing middle housing so that's kind of
2:05:06	tied in as well in terms of
2:05:08	uh to this whole concept
2:05:16	well i think this is a very positive
2:05:18	direction for us
2:05:25	other thoughts i agree i love the idea
2:05:28	of more compact residential developments
2:05:31	particularly smaller
2:05:33	single family homes for buyers who can't
2:05:36	afford a 400
2:05:37	000 house which seems to be around the
2:05:40	going rate these days in astoria
2:05:42	so i think this makes a lot of sense and
2:05:45	would really
2:05:46	fit in with our character
2:05:51	so i guess i'm just to clarify from here
2:05:53	and there is there's some interest on
2:05:55	the cottage
2:05:56	uh the cottage cluster uh
2:06:01	kind concept integrating that throughout
2:06:03	the community what's
2:06:04	i'd like to be able to get some thoughts
2:06:07	on
2:06:08	um you know more of some of these
2:06:11	other types of um
2:06:15	of housing uh in some of our
2:06:19	lower density zoning districts to be
2:06:22	able to
2:06:22	accommodate more duplexes triplexes
2:06:26	within
2:06:26	some of our lower density zones
2:06:30	well i was including that in my
2:06:31	enthusiasm okay
2:06:33	okay i just want to make sure that was
2:06:34	good i i support that as well
2:06:37	um would that include the r1 zone
2:06:40	um it it could i mean i guess that's uh
2:06:44	i guess yeah i'm thinking more the r2
2:06:48	r3 but you know again i'm trying to keep
2:06:53	an open mind
2:07:00	so if i could go ahead
2:07:03	[Music]
2:07:04	so um i i agree uh
2:07:08	strategy six there page 17 i completely
2:07:11	agree with the statement
2:07:12	and would again remind that we do have a
2:07:15	missing middle-class housing group as
2:07:17	well
2:07:18	and and the missing middle can
2:07:21	satisfy a part of that and
2:07:25	i do love cottage cluster housing
2:07:28	uh it's i would just remind that it's
2:07:31	important to limit the size of the
2:07:32	housing so we don't wind up with another
2:07:34	mill pond situation
2:07:36	and limiting the spark footage was part
2:07:38	of what we had discussed
2:07:40	as the planning commission in 2013 and
2:07:42	2014
2:07:43	that mr brew asked the council to reject
2:07:47	if we do have an opportunity to
2:07:51	to provide cottage housing
2:07:55	somewhere else i hope that again we do
2:07:58	limit
2:07:58	the housing because that's where it
2:08:00	works and and
2:08:02	people who are willing to live smaller
2:08:05	um
2:08:07	and and so you you wind up with a
2:08:09	smaller footprint of the house
2:08:11	and then a little more common area
2:08:14	that doesn't make it feel so crowded and
2:08:18	on
2:08:18	again the the
2:08:22	cottage cluster housing is a fantastic
2:08:25	alternative to
2:08:27	the larger homes on larger pots and it
2:08:30	certainly allows
2:08:31	people with with lower income to
2:08:35	to purchase their own home or even
2:08:37	people who can afford something larger
2:08:38	to live
2:08:39	smaller which allows the larger
2:08:41	properties to go to
2:08:43	the households that need the larger
2:08:45	space
2:08:48	yeah i agree with that and i also i
2:08:50	think that
2:08:51	um i like them personally better than
2:08:54	condos
2:08:55	right so uh not to have a shared wall
2:08:59	with somebody
2:09:00	you know if if i'm selling my home
2:09:02	because i want to simplify
2:09:04	and i will get there um something like
2:09:07	that
2:09:08	would be much more appealing probably
2:09:11	than
2:09:12	than what a condo would be i
2:09:15	i think that any place we can do that
2:09:17	would be great i was
2:09:19	out and sisters and they have a new
2:09:21	development on their
2:09:22	west side and it looks like cottage
2:09:25	cluster is part of that
2:09:27	and it's a lovely part of the community
2:09:29	it's very nicely done
2:09:31	and uh it's attractive and i think we
2:09:33	can do those sort of things here
2:09:35	you know we have tongue point we have
2:09:37	that
2:09:38	uh the old school area there
2:09:42	so i'm in favor of it i'm a little bit
2:09:45	more skeptical
2:09:46	about duplexes and triplexes
2:09:50	in r1 zones but i'm comfortable in r2
2:09:53	and r3
2:09:54	where we have reasonable lot size
2:09:57	again it's i'm not sure
2:10:01	personally how
2:10:05	i'm not totally comfortable with going
2:10:07	after density
2:10:09	i want additional housing but
2:10:13	density i want to be careful with
2:10:22	okay i support the strategy
2:10:25	for the different types of housing not
2:10:28	just the cottage clusters
2:10:29	i agree with commissioner fitzpatrick
2:10:31	that i would want to
2:10:33	limit the size of the individual
2:10:35	detached single family homes in those
2:10:37	cottage clusters so you don't end up
2:10:38	with uh
2:10:41	the homes the size of the one you may
2:10:44	have been referring to
2:10:45	mr fitzpatrick has recently been built
2:10:48	um
2:10:49	that was not really in keeping with the
2:10:50	mill pond concept
2:10:54	and mayor if i may just for information
2:10:58	that what ended up happening is people
2:10:59	were um who purchased they would
2:11:01	purchase two lots and combine them
2:11:04	um so that would be something that we
2:11:06	could look at with this
2:11:07	cottage cluster if we went that way yeah
2:11:10	okay thank you
2:11:11	and this lets you know there is a the
2:11:14	mill pond
2:11:15	development plan allowed a certain
2:11:17	number of lots
2:11:19	to be combined into double lots and so
2:11:21	that's that's been tracked by
2:11:23	community development staff over the
2:11:25	years to ensure that
2:11:26	there's not an exceedance in how many
2:11:29	times that could happen
2:11:31	thank you
2:11:35	other comments on this topic yeah
2:11:38	i'm in i'm in line with my fellow
2:11:40	counselors and
2:11:41	you mayor that this would this is a
2:11:43	great thing to look out for our
2:11:44	community
2:11:45	definitely is
2:11:49	and if you didn't hear that mr
2:11:51	fitzpatrick he supported the concept
2:11:57	anyone else okay we've um
2:12:01	out of courtesy to all of your wellness
2:12:05	it is 7 43 let's take a brief recess
2:12:08	until 7 50 that gives everybody seven
2:12:11	minutes to stand up and stretch and
2:12:13	refill your
2:12:14	your glass
2:12:24	back everyone and thanks for coming back
2:12:26	and
2:12:27	we're ready to continue i think we
2:12:31	finished up strategy number six with the
2:12:33	consensus of counsel to
2:12:35	pursue those and we're ready to move on
2:12:39	to strategy number
2:12:40	seven mr mayor yes please
2:12:44	um i i thank you um i would like to
2:12:48	clarify
2:12:49	an earlier comment there was some
2:12:50	speculation about what i meant when i
2:12:52	talked about
2:12:54	millpond i was not talking about one
2:12:56	specific
2:12:57	property but the project overall
2:13:01	and and i i want to be very careful
2:13:04	about that um in 2003
2:13:08	2004 my partners and i owned
2:13:11	the entire block there between 23rd and
2:13:14	27th and i believe that the
2:13:16	home that people think that i might have
2:13:19	been referring to
2:13:20	i i believe that i sold the lamb to
2:13:22	those people and and i am not talking
2:13:24	about
2:13:25	any specific home i think anybody can
2:13:28	make their own opinion about
2:13:31	homes that have been built out there my
2:13:33	statement
2:13:34	was uh based on the expectation in
2:13:37	the early 2000s and in 2003 when i
2:13:40	started buying property there
2:13:42	that it was going to be smaller homes
2:13:44	more modest homes and
2:13:46	and geared more towards workforce
2:13:49	housing
2:13:50	and if you go down i believe it's 23rd
2:13:53	i'm not sure if that street is a
2:13:54	numbered street still or
2:13:56	or if it has a name but if you pull it
2:13:59	out of the
2:14:00	the co-op and go
2:14:03	right towards the water there is a
2:14:05	single level home it used to be red i
2:14:07	don't know if it still
2:14:08	is but but it after uh
2:14:12	you know as you get closer to the water
2:14:14	on the left hand side there is a single
2:14:17	level home there
2:14:18	and the expectation was that that's what
2:14:22	people would want there and it didn't
2:14:25	uh pan out that way and kind of like we
2:14:28	had with
2:14:29	a hotel down on the water when we um
2:14:32	in in the riverfront vision plan we had
2:14:35	said
2:14:36	you can go up to or this wide or this
2:14:39	and this but there wasn't the
2:14:41	expectation that someone was going to do
2:14:42	all of that
2:14:44	and the trend then in mill pond was not
2:14:46	so much
2:14:48	um putting in the the modest housing but
2:14:51	people started building to the absolute
2:14:53	limits uh height-wise
2:14:57	setbacks and and so on and and instead
2:15:00	of
2:15:02	800 to 1200 square foot houses which
2:15:04	again was my
2:15:05	expectation and i thought that designing
2:15:09	a home that was
2:15:10	just under 2 000 square feet might be
2:15:12	too big it turned out to be one of those
2:15:14	smaller homes there
2:15:16	and i don't think about on the the
2:15:19	custom lots
2:15:20	in in that area some of the the condos
2:15:22	and so on were a little smaller or
2:15:24	larger but nonetheless
2:15:25	i was not making a comment about any
2:15:27	specific property there
2:15:29	but the overall expectation had been 800
2:15:32	to 1200 square feet and and
2:15:34	then they wound up with the the 1200
2:15:38	square feet being
2:15:39	the smallest 2000 being the next
2:15:41	smallest and and
2:15:42	much larger from there so i do want to
2:15:45	clarify that
2:15:46	i um well thank you yeah
2:15:49	our interest in limiting the
2:15:53	the home size in the cottage development
2:15:56	was so that we would have 600 to 1200
2:15:59	square foot
2:15:59	homes for people who wanted to live
Strategy #7: Encourage Cottage Cluster Housing
2:16:02	small so we didn't wind up with people
2:16:04	buying
2:16:05	a lot with our expectation
2:16:08	that it was going to be a six or seven
2:16:10	hundred square foot home and someone
2:16:11	putting a 2
2:16:12	000 square foot home on there so thank
2:16:15	you yeah thanks for that clarification
2:16:16	and uh i apologize for incorrectly
2:16:19	inferring
2:16:21	what house a particular house you're
2:16:22	referring to and i i i appreciate that
2:16:24	background too
2:16:25	on i probably stations were
2:16:29	and um i guess the lesson learned there
2:16:31	is if we if we want to
2:16:33	have cottage clusters or any other type
2:16:35	of housing of a certain size let's be
2:16:37	very specific in
2:16:39	in what's allowed and what's not allowed
2:16:41	yes and i'm not suggesting that anyone
2:16:44	else was wrong in thinking that that's
2:16:47	what i was saying
2:16:48	i should have been more clear so i i
2:16:49	take full responsibility for not having
2:16:51	been more clear
2:16:52	in my statement but i i hope that uh
2:16:55	that there's a better understanding of
2:16:58	what
2:16:59	i intended in my um
2:17:02	ambiguous statement thank you thank you
2:17:07	okay so we can um we kind of talked
2:17:10	about college clusters but we didn't
2:17:12	have this slide up so what more do we
2:17:14	want to say about this
2:17:15	uh ms leatherman um i don't think
2:17:18	much more i think again just underlining
2:17:21	the conversation just now about um you
2:17:24	know
2:17:25	regulating the size of each cottage
2:17:28	our unit um and then
2:17:31	we know how to develop code standards to
2:17:34	ensure um
2:17:35	that they that they work the way that we
2:17:37	want them to
2:17:39	and then chris we'll work through those
2:17:40	details with
2:17:42	the code amendment and the planning
2:17:44	commission
2:17:46	but i don't have much more
2:17:50	okay yeah consistent with what i was
2:17:53	thinking
2:17:53	and are there any other comments or
2:17:55	questions about
2:17:57	the bullets on this slide or are we
2:17:59	ready to move on
2:18:01	can i just add one anecdote about
2:18:03	cottage clusters
2:18:04	um that we should keep in mind
2:18:09	when i lived in kirkland washington in
2:18:11	2004
2:18:13	we were moving out of the area and there
2:18:16	was
2:18:16	about a year before they had allowed
2:18:18	their first little cottage
2:18:20	development near my home and i think
2:18:23	they built
2:18:24	eight little 800 to 1200 square foot
2:18:27	cottages on this plot of land with a
2:18:30	central uh park in the middle
2:18:32	and it all looked great when we moved
2:18:34	out of kirkland in
2:18:36	2005 those little
2:18:39	cottages were selling for about 380 000
2:18:44	and i would just like to point out that
2:18:46	while these cottage clusters are
2:18:48	are neat and would be a great living
2:18:51	arrangement for a lot of people they're
2:18:52	not going to do anything
2:18:53	to provide affordable housing in any
2:18:57	sense
2:18:57	because they'll be very desirable and
2:19:00	we're not going to be able to
2:19:02	control the prices they'll be as
2:19:04	expensive as any other
2:19:06	house in the area just thought i'd throw
2:19:08	that out there
2:19:12	thank you commissioner are there other
2:19:18	comments
2:19:22	okay i guess for uh if
2:19:25	if ms leatherman if you don't have any
2:19:27	more questions from the council about
2:19:28	our intent with this one i guess we can
2:19:30	move on
2:19:31	no and i mean the rest um
2:19:36	i think it's going to be um pretty quick
Strategy #8: Promote Accessory Dwelling Units
2:19:38	as well
2:19:39	uh mayor because the uh strategy number
2:19:42	eight addresses accessory dwelling units
2:19:44	which
2:19:45	um we just took through a code
2:19:49	the only consideration i think would be
2:19:52	if we wanted to
2:19:53	um allow two adus
2:19:58	per lot outright
2:20:02	or you know kind of if we wanted to
2:20:04	modify what we've already adopted
2:20:08	i mean i i personally would not have a
2:20:10	problem using the language on the slide
2:20:13	about allowing 2a to use if one was
2:20:16	internal or or attached so it didn't
2:20:19	look like you had two completely
2:20:20	separate
2:20:21	little houses on your lot besides the
2:20:23	primary house but
2:20:26	it would look the same as if you if you
2:20:28	built an adu next to your
2:20:30	primary house and then and then
2:20:31	converted your basement to an adu
2:20:33	from outward appearances would be no
2:20:34	different to the neighborhood
2:20:38	well this is where i would have to
2:20:40	disagree again
2:20:41	sure outwardly it would look the same
2:20:44	but again i get back to the density so
2:20:46	if these are in already being allowed in
2:20:52	r1 lots which are already small and
2:20:55	parking is already limited and to have
2:20:57	three
2:20:58	on a 5 000 square foot lot i just think
2:21:02	we're just asking for trouble when we do
2:21:04	that i think
2:21:07	expanding to everybody getting to have
2:21:10	one
2:21:11	is more than enough for our community
2:21:16	i would agree with that i i think the
2:21:20	concern would be
2:21:22	we really don't have any adus
2:21:25	at this point so we don't know what the
2:21:30	repercussions if if that word is allowed
2:21:34	might be and i would strongly
2:21:37	recommend seeing how one adu
2:21:41	works out we happen to be
2:21:44	in the boom portion of the real estate
2:21:48	cycle
2:21:49	10 years ago we had 30 vacancy
2:21:53	population hasn't changed too much but
2:21:55	we are
2:21:57	at a housing shortage at this point
2:21:59	let's see how one adu works
2:22:02	um and then consider allowing more later
2:22:05	if
2:22:06	if if it
2:22:10	is necessary
2:22:13	allowing 280 use basically is saying
2:22:15	we're allowing a triplex
2:22:17	in a single family zoning which doesn't
2:22:20	really even exist anymore but
2:22:22	it's going to have quite an impact on
2:22:24	the neighborhood
2:22:28	and i might go back just one step
2:22:30	further too
2:22:31	when we were first talking about adus
2:22:33	back four years ago
2:22:35	and did our first zoning amendment to
2:22:39	allow adus my thoughts then and i think
2:22:41	are still the same
2:22:43	the number of people that will actually
2:22:45	build adus
2:22:46	i think will be few i think testament is
2:22:49	what
2:22:50	uh commissioner uh fitzpatrick just said
2:22:52	is that
2:22:53	you know there's i think we there are a
2:22:56	few adus in town but
2:22:58	very few and we'll wait and see but
2:23:01	i just don't think we'll see a lot of
2:23:03	that
2:23:07	my concern being that because of the
2:23:10	cost
2:23:11	there aren't going to be as many adus as
2:23:13	as
2:23:14	people might think because they they
2:23:16	certainly cost a lot more
2:23:18	and then the people who are interested
2:23:21	in building them find out what
2:23:24	laws are the the
2:23:28	mods that are restricting what housing
2:23:31	providers can do and
2:23:32	and making it harder to be a housing
2:23:34	provider and so they decide
2:23:36	not to do the adu so what we will have
2:23:39	especially with the
2:23:40	removal of the owner occupancy
2:23:42	requirement is
2:23:44	people will be coming from out of the
2:23:45	area buying a single family residence in
2:23:48	an
2:23:48	r1 zone turning it into a triplex and
2:23:51	you will have
2:23:53	a larger number of people living
2:23:56	in the area than was intended or
2:23:58	expected certainly for the neighbors
2:24:00	and an out of area
2:24:04	owner who may not be taking care of the
2:24:06	issues that that triplex is creating for
2:24:09	the
2:24:10	for the neighborhood
2:24:13	so yeah so you may have one triplex and
2:24:16	and no adus
2:24:17	anywhere else or no de facto duplexes
2:24:21	anywhere else for quite a while
2:24:24	i would really like to see how a duplex
2:24:27	in a single family residence works
2:24:28	before we start allowing a triplex
2:24:30	especially
2:24:31	if we are going to remove an owner
2:24:32	occupancy requirement and i would prefer
2:24:34	not to but i'm not sure if the state
2:24:36	allows us to do that thanks commissioner
2:24:40	commissioner price
2:24:42	thank you uh if i recall correctly
2:24:45	over a period of um i don't know three
2:24:47	or four years before the council started
2:24:49	talking about adus
2:24:51	four years ago there had been something
2:24:53	like four or five
2:24:54	permits it was very very low but in the
2:24:57	intervening four years we have
2:25:00	more and more people who are buying
2:25:02	homes from out of the area
2:25:04	they have much deeper pockets and we
2:25:08	also have the
2:25:09	issue now of investors buying homes
2:25:12	and so these are people who have deeper
2:25:14	pockets they have
2:25:16	more of an ability to build adus and so
2:25:19	just to just to build on what
2:25:21	commissioner fitzpatrick was just saying
2:25:23	that
2:25:24	i think it is it's prudent to
2:25:28	do what the state has required us which
2:25:29	is to allow one adu
2:25:32	and see how that goes over i would give
2:25:34	it you know four or five years
2:25:37	and and see how that works before
2:25:40	allowing two
2:25:45	thank you any other comments
2:25:51	yes um i will just say i think it's
2:25:53	worth exploring
2:25:55	in the r3 zone this can be a way that
2:25:59	home home ownership is more affordable
2:26:02	so
2:26:03	i look at it from the other side as well
2:26:06	so i think it's worth our looking at
2:26:11	i agree and i um i even think that
2:26:15	looking beyond the duplex to the triplex
2:26:18	is worth considering because some of
2:26:20	those i've seen
2:26:22	some units that are triplexes that are
2:26:24	very tasteful
2:26:25	and i know that you know you can't write
2:26:28	taste into the code but um still i i
2:26:32	think it's worth discussing
2:26:37	thank you councillor hilton any comment
2:26:41	yeah i'm i'm i'm along with mr
2:26:43	fitzpatrick
2:26:44	and also with bron tom bronson i believe
2:26:47	that uh just
2:26:48	one i i think one is a would be a good
2:26:52	good limit to start with and then we
2:26:54	could make an adjustment
2:26:56	because we if we establish two we can't
2:26:58	go backwards
2:26:59	once they start putting them in there
2:27:01	and and i would also look to the future
2:27:04	and say what if all of a sudden it just
2:27:05	stops
2:27:07	so and that means growth all of a sudden
2:27:10	what if it just
2:27:11	crashes so those are those are my
2:27:14	thoughts
2:27:16	thank you council raka any comment
2:27:19	yeah i think i'm sort of in the same
2:27:21	place where let's see what happens with
2:27:23	one before we go to two
2:27:26	okay so that on on the issue of
Strategy #9: Incentivize Affordable and Workforce Housing
2:27:28	considering allowing 280 use that's the
2:27:30	consensus of the council is to
2:27:32	to hold off on looking at that um other
2:27:35	than that we've already implemented the
2:27:36	state requirements so
2:27:38	going on to strategy number nine
2:27:42	uh yes so um this speaks to
2:27:45	incentivizing affordable and workforce
2:27:47	housing and
2:27:48	right now staff is recommending that we
2:27:51	address this separately as its own topic
2:27:53	and not included as part of this
2:27:55	amendment
2:27:56	because it will require additional
2:27:58	administrative capacity and oversight
2:28:00	but also
2:28:01	because it's going to necessitate a lot
2:28:04	of collaboration
2:28:05	um with other partners and discussions
2:28:08	that i think are separate um
2:28:12	a lot than what we're talking about
2:28:14	right now
2:28:16	yeah i would add on i mean this is
2:28:18	really not as much development code
2:28:20	oriented as much as looking for other
2:28:24	ways to incentivize and i think this
2:28:25	could be
2:28:26	a another subsequent work session topic
2:28:29	that gets into a whole lot more specific
2:28:32	detail which is
2:28:33	very much more council direction
2:28:36	directed because it may come down to
2:28:39	dollars and cents and policy
2:28:41	levels so we were not
2:28:44	um looking at any direction from council
2:28:48	tonight but looking at coming back to
2:28:50	this
2:28:51	at a latter time with more discussion so
2:28:56	okay that's a good plan and i i do think
2:28:59	we have a few members of the public
2:29:01	who are attending specifically to talk
2:29:03	about affordable housing so we'll offer
2:29:05	them the opportunity to make a
2:29:06	comment at the at the end on this topic
2:29:09	even though we're not going to tackle it
2:29:11	tonight but yeah i would agree that this
2:29:14	is going to be a standalone topic
2:29:17	are there any any comments from
2:29:19	commissioners or council on this
2:29:20	at this time
2:29:24	i i look forward to seeing this as a
2:29:28	specific meeting because there is so
2:29:30	much here
2:29:31	um i would just add in addition to since
2:29:35	we're in policy and development code it
2:29:37	says to provide expedited
2:29:38	permitting for projects with affordable
2:29:40	units and i would add the importance of
2:29:43	local municipalities communicating with
2:29:45	the elected officials in portland and
2:29:47	salem
2:29:48	about the negative effect that the
2:29:50	so-called tenant protection laws
2:29:52	uh that have been enacted in the past
2:29:54	five years have had on the housing
2:29:56	supply
2:29:56	uh because it is negative um and
2:30:00	and it has done nothing to help with
2:30:03	this
2:30:03	and it has chased people like myself
2:30:06	out of the um the housing market and
2:30:10	and resulted in more corporate
2:30:15	uh more corporate housing providers and
2:30:17	fewer mom and pops like ours
2:30:19	and while it's
2:30:22	very rarely discussed in in general
2:30:26	it is a well-known and very highly
2:30:29	discussed topic
2:30:30	within the profession um and and again
2:30:33	at
2:30:34	a larger meeting we can get into that
2:30:36	but i do think it's important that
2:30:38	local municipalities have to communicate
2:30:41	to portland and salem that their uh
2:30:46	whatever works for them or whatever they
2:30:48	believe might work for them
2:30:49	does not work for us and that uh
2:30:53	that certainly would be true across a
2:30:55	broad spectrum
2:30:56	spectrum of policy issues
2:31:00	right i would i would be happy to uh if
2:31:02	you would like to write
2:31:04	up a sort of concise summary of those
2:31:06	key points
2:31:07	that i i would be happy to convey those
2:31:10	that what opportunities i have to do so
2:31:13	great thank you mr mayor you're very
2:31:16	welcome
2:31:17	so um in that case let's move on to the
2:31:19	next
2:31:20	slide
Strategy #10: Limit Short Term Rental Uses in Residential Zones
2:31:24	so um
2:31:28	what within the city of astoria we talk
2:31:30	we call short-term rentals home stay
2:31:32	lodging and um i believe
2:31:36	we have yes we have addressed all of
2:31:38	these
2:31:39	except we do not collect a tax
2:31:42	or assess a penalty fee we do
2:31:46	require a license and charge for a
2:31:48	license and a renewal every two years
2:31:51	us but it's it's not necessarily a tax
2:31:55	the rest of it
2:31:59	we have addressed already adopted a code
2:32:01	recently
2:32:02	yeah now isn't there a penalty fee if we
2:32:05	find
2:32:06	somebody illegally renting out a whole
2:32:08	house as a short-term rental
2:32:10	is there not a penalty for that
2:32:13	yeah uh mr mayor we deal with it from
2:32:17	a case-by-case basis i don't um i don't
2:32:20	we don't necessarily have a set fee uh
2:32:23	with the code enforcement component we a
2:32:26	lot of
2:32:26	time i think what we're i don't know as
2:32:29	a legal situation our legal
2:32:31	kind of situation and when it gets to
2:32:32	that yeah the
2:32:34	the municipal court judge would assess a
2:32:36	penalty fee if it was taken to court
2:32:39	okay okay so only if it goes to court so
2:32:43	if we either find on our own or it's
2:32:45	reported by someone and we look into it
2:32:47	and someone
2:32:48	someone is illegally renting a house and
2:32:50	if they comply then there's no penalty
2:32:52	it's only if
2:32:53	we have to take them to court that it
2:32:54	gets to be a penalty so
2:32:56	what's the deterrent to doing it
2:32:59	yeah i mean so i mean the whole thing is
2:33:02	then you're going to go through the
2:33:03	process of
2:33:04	going through municipal court and i mean
2:33:07	if it's found in violation
2:33:08	the judge you know is able to
2:33:12	um assess the penalty if found guilty
2:33:15	um you know for you know
2:33:18	violating the code and what's what's the
2:33:22	current status of our uh
2:33:25	our internal resources manpower to be
2:33:28	able to
2:33:28	periodically just check and make sure
2:33:31	you know at some point
2:33:33	a year ago you know there was a report
2:33:35	made that uh
2:33:37	we feel like we've gotten those under
2:33:38	control and there are very few if any
2:33:40	that we're actively
2:33:41	illegally running out their homes are we
2:33:43	are we able to periodically check that
2:33:45	still we do periodically check it
2:33:48	uh yes um could we could do a better job
2:33:52	honestly
2:33:53	but yes um like we've talked about um
2:33:58	with the city council goal setting um
2:34:01	about
2:34:02	the community development resources and
2:34:04	the need i think
2:34:05	it's tied to that if we want to improve
2:34:09	it
2:34:10	i will say that ms leatherman
2:34:13	we've gone through you know talk a
2:34:15	little bit we've gone through our first
2:34:17	renewal period for uh those uh
2:34:21	those licenses and maybe want to talk
2:34:25	briefly about
2:34:26	going through that process that is
2:34:27	something that we did do this last year
2:34:30	yeah we required um the
2:34:34	every two years they were required to do
2:34:35	a review a renewal of their license and
2:34:39	we
2:34:39	um asked that they get a fire inspection
2:34:43	safety inspection like life safety fire
2:34:45	inspection
2:34:46	um and each one of the each one of the
2:34:49	licensed
2:34:50	um homestay permitted
2:34:53	individuals went through that and so we
2:34:56	we do have
2:34:56	quite a few that are in compliance um
2:35:00	and we we do periodically check airbnb
2:35:04	uh and those other types of sites
2:35:08	to see if there's any out there that
2:35:11	we're not aware of because we we do
2:35:13	have a list um and keep track of them
2:35:16	um at this point in time
2:35:20	and mayor i would note one thing um you
2:35:23	know ms lothman said we don't
2:35:25	we don't collect taxes we all have a tax
2:35:27	on
2:35:28	the the use itself but we do collect
2:35:33	uh transient lodging taxes and remember
2:35:35	we do have
2:35:36	another agenda item after this which
2:35:38	actually is the focus
2:35:40	of um of the issue that ms
2:35:43	brooks is going to be talking about the
2:35:45	transient lodging tax collection
2:35:48	yeah and i'd like to add today i was
2:35:50	just going to point those two things out
2:35:52	and
2:35:53	on the next agenda item uh one that will
2:35:56	be
2:35:57	one of the things that potentially in
2:35:59	working with the state will have the
2:36:00	ability to
2:36:02	identify uh locations of
2:36:05	uh home states that might not have been
2:36:07	in compliance
2:36:08	or that we can't find otherwise we'll
2:36:10	have a just another
2:36:11	way of finding those and have a better
2:36:14	be
2:36:14	better able to enforce uh homestay
2:36:18	violations and um yeah i think
2:36:22	we did i think we did a really good job
2:36:25	uh
2:36:25	in setting up the code for home stays uh
2:36:28	we did it
2:36:29	very proactively and to uh
2:36:32	protect our housing
2:36:36	i i'd have to say i'm surprised about
2:36:38	the penalty fees
2:36:40	um perhaps my recall is faulty
2:36:44	but i thought when we we passed the
2:36:47	prohibition on whole house rentals
2:36:50	that we had also approved a fee of a
2:36:52	thousand dollars per day
2:36:54	for violation that is correct however
2:36:57	that is issued by the code enforcement
2:37:00	officer but can only be assessed by a
2:37:02	judge
2:37:04	because then there's a there's a there's
2:37:07	a fee
2:37:09	but remember everything is determined by
2:37:11	a legal process
2:37:13	and it doesn't stick with staff
2:37:18	it's part of a whole it's the part of
2:37:19	the legal process if someone is
2:37:21	if someone is uh if you get a if you get
2:37:24	a citation for speeding
2:37:26	um it's ultimately you know if it's
2:37:29	taken to
2:37:29	court you know ultimately the judge is
2:37:32	the one
2:37:33	i mean the person can pay the fee but
2:37:36	the thing is is
2:37:37	it's it's ultimately convict if they
2:37:40	challenge it it can it's and
2:37:41	that's where these go what we we the
2:37:45	the threat of a fee is what gets people
2:37:48	to comply
2:37:50	and so yes there are ways that there are
2:37:52	ways to be able to
2:37:54	say okay there's there's going to be
2:37:56	these these fines in place
2:37:58	but um then
2:38:02	it goes to court and that's where the
2:38:05	judge can
2:38:07	um can also reduce fees
2:38:10	can change that and it's and it's all
2:38:11	part of the whole code enforcement legal
2:38:13	process
Astoria Land Supply
2:38:18	okay then it looks like we're ready for
2:38:20	the last slide which has to do with
2:38:22	astoria land supply
2:38:25	so i'm going to touch on this right here
2:38:27	and i mentioned the urban growth
2:38:29	boundary
2:38:30	issue earlier um
2:38:33	this astoria land supply there is
2:38:38	a recommendation in the
2:38:41	county housing study to look at the
2:38:44	buildable land
2:38:45	inventory and address urban growth
2:38:48	boundary
2:38:50	issues um at the council's goal-setting
2:38:53	session
2:38:55	i mentioned this and
2:39:00	that going through an urban
2:39:04	growth boundary amendment is a very time
2:39:07	intensive
2:39:08	labor-intensive politically intensive
2:39:11	and cost-intensive process
2:39:15	and um i do want to clarify something
2:39:18	that commissioner fitzpatrick
2:39:20	mentioned earlier um
2:39:24	that there that were were hemmed in we
2:39:27	are hemmed in of course on three sides
2:39:29	by water
2:39:30	but we are not hemmed into the east um
2:39:34	we there is federal ownership to the
2:39:36	east
2:39:38	however there are numbers of a number of
2:39:40	parcels
2:39:42	that are inside our city limits but
2:39:45	outside our urban growth boundary owned
2:39:47	by the county
2:39:48	and by the city these are
2:39:52	parcels um that
2:39:55	you know through an urban growth
2:39:57	boundary amendment process
2:39:59	could be looked at and determined
2:40:03	um where there could be
2:40:06	um any expansions or any swaps
2:40:09	to take out that federal ownership and
2:40:13	then there could be the discussion with
2:40:14	the county
2:40:15	and with the city is to transfer of
2:40:19	ownership of those lands
2:40:21	it should be noted that if we are
2:40:24	talking about
2:40:25	urban growth boundary swaps or
2:40:28	amendments to address
2:40:30	our our state
2:40:33	noted deficiency that will be to the
2:40:37	south and to the west of cox cone hill
2:40:40	uh in what is many times
2:40:43	seen as our urban forest and so
2:40:48	the the question is coming saying
2:40:51	does the city council ultimately
2:40:55	[Music]
2:40:56	want to be able to address that urban
2:40:58	growth boundary swap
2:41:00	issue that's that's included in our
2:41:02	buildable lands inventory
2:41:04	and also to address our single-family
2:41:06	deficiency
2:41:08	if so this will be needing to be looked
2:41:11	at
2:41:11	several years out we would be looking to
2:41:14	see whether or not there was any
2:41:16	any grant monies the department of land
2:41:19	conservation and development
2:41:21	used to have a more robust grant process
2:41:24	however with funding constraints at the
2:41:27	state level
2:41:29	those were becoming more and more of a
2:41:30	challenge and
2:41:32	if the council wanted staff to do that
2:41:34	we're going to need to build that into
2:41:36	the community development departments
2:41:37	and public works departments
2:41:39	work plan both both departments would be
2:41:42	highly engaged and we would need to
2:41:44	start looking at budgeting for that
2:41:47	um i get questions from counselors
2:41:49	periodically about
2:41:51	what happens if we don't
2:41:54	address the deficiency and i think that
2:41:58	may have come up when we had the land
2:42:00	use training session with our
2:42:02	dlcd rep lisa phipps earlier this year
2:42:06	there used to be something which is
2:42:08	called periodic review that
2:42:09	cities had to go through to ensure that
2:42:12	that cities were in compliance with
2:42:15	statewide planning goals
2:42:17	like the land 20-year land supply
2:42:22	that is not happening as regularly
2:42:25	due to budget issues
2:42:28	at the state level um and just the the
2:42:31	intensity it was it was taking so
2:42:35	i'm willing to put that out there to say
2:42:37	is this something that the council is
2:42:38	wanting to hold off on
2:42:41	the and this is not a quick and easy
2:42:43	fast goal
2:42:44	but if it's something that the council
2:42:45	wants us to start
2:42:47	working on um ms letterman and myself
2:42:51	and public works director jeff
2:42:52	harrington will need to be starting to
2:42:54	look out several years
2:42:55	to be able to plan for that so that's
2:42:58	just kind of a policy question more for
2:43:01	the city council
2:43:08	there's some significant things on uh
2:43:10	staff's plate
2:43:11	this year i'd hate to throw this on
2:43:14	there right now
2:43:16	that urban forest um west and south of
2:43:20	coxcomb hill um how much of that
2:43:23	has it been assessed for buildability it
2:43:25	seems like it's an awfully steep terrain
2:43:28	area
2:43:28	and not an easily buildable area or is
2:43:32	that
2:43:32	is am i wrong yeah and so so first of
2:43:34	all i am not talking about this next
2:43:36	fiscal year we're looking at one to two
2:43:38	fiscal years out but we need that much
2:43:40	time to even start planning for that
2:43:42	um i would say that um that it's not
2:43:45	um there there has been a no analysis
2:43:49	and that's what has to happen
2:43:51	as a part of an urban growth boundary
2:43:53	expansion
2:43:54	is that there has to be analysis taking
2:43:56	a look at
2:43:57	at ease of where the the preferred
2:44:00	places
2:44:01	uh to be able to develop from topography
2:44:04	standpoint
2:44:05	what are the preferred standpoint for uh
2:44:08	providing utility services
2:44:10	um what is the best way environmentally
2:44:12	to
2:44:13	to be able to expand and how is the best
2:44:15	way to
2:44:16	expand in terms of social aspects
2:44:20	in terms of looking at connectivity to
2:44:22	neighborhoods and
2:44:24	and and parks and those types of things
2:44:28	it's uh
2:44:29	there's a it's a whole analysis that
2:44:32	would have to be conducted
2:44:34	uh to be able to look at an urban growth
2:44:36	boundary expansion
2:44:38	and and so that's what would would be
2:44:40	occurring okay
2:44:42	so i think we'll have to talk about this
2:44:44	at a future work session
2:44:46	a little more detail before we would be
2:44:48	in a position to give give you guidance
2:44:49	tonight on uh
2:44:51	whether we want to start planning for
2:44:52	this several years out
2:44:55	okay
2:44:59	and so ms leatherman was there anything
2:45:00	else on your agenda for tonight
2:45:05	um no uh just thank you to every to
2:45:08	everyone on the council commissioners
2:45:09	and public for
2:45:10	uh attending and providing input
2:45:13	[Music]
2:45:15	and being very well schooled on the
2:45:18	report
2:45:19	made the conversation go very smooth so
2:45:22	thank you
2:45:23	thank you for an excellent presentation
2:45:25	and
Public Comments
2:45:26	so we earlier we had a request by mr
2:45:29	levine and by ms
2:45:30	sullivan for comments and so if either
2:45:33	of the two of you
2:45:35	are still interested in making a comment
2:45:38	or asking a question
2:45:39	um please please do so you can either
2:45:42	unmute yourself or um or do the raised
2:45:44	hand function
2:45:56	okay i don't see looks like they're both
2:45:58	gone
2:45:59	and i'm not sure if miss sullivan is
2:46:01	still i don't see her either
2:46:05	okay was there anyone else who wishes
2:46:07	wish to make a comment
2:46:10	okay ms stacy stahl
2:46:15	you are muted
2:46:20	hi thanks for inviting tonight the
2:46:22	public um my name is stacy
2:46:24	i'm i'm from jvb management and we own
2:46:28	five properties buildings in the astoria
2:46:31	and warrenton area
2:46:33	and i submitted some notes to megan
2:46:36	earlier today in case it's some
2:46:38	information that might be useful for you
2:46:41	to know what the public is asking for as
2:46:43	far as
2:46:44	apartment rentals i think it's important
2:46:46	and
2:46:47	i haven't heard anything like that
2:46:49	tonight but i understand that
2:46:51	isn't exactly the reason for the meeting
2:46:54	well it is the reason but not the core
2:46:57	issues
2:46:58	so i wanted to offer myself up as a
2:47:00	contact
2:47:01	of someone who might be able to help and
2:47:03	letting you know
2:47:04	what's happening out here in the
2:47:06	trenches while you were talking earlier
2:47:08	i looked online
2:47:09	on two of the popular websites
2:47:13	rentals.com and zumper and i found
2:47:16	three apartments available in astoria on
2:47:18	one of them five
2:47:20	on the other which is incredibly low
2:47:23	inventory i just wanted you to know um
2:47:26	i get approximately six calls a day
2:47:29	for apartments we have a waiting list of
2:47:31	34
2:47:33	single people and families looking for
2:47:36	rentals right now since december 15th
2:47:39	there's been a huge increase i'm
2:47:41	noticing so i thought that was important
2:47:43	to note
2:47:45	many people moving from outside this
2:47:47	area
2:47:48	wondering where they're going to go in
2:47:51	tears so
2:47:52	it's a huge problem and i know that it's
2:47:55	also
2:47:56	hard for locals um the local workers
2:47:59	which that was addressed
2:48:00	to be able to afford the rentals we have
2:48:03	available
2:48:04	let alone the deposit they might have to
2:48:06	come up with
2:48:08	um so i i don't know if i'm speaking for
2:48:10	the little guy or not or what is
2:48:11	happening here but
2:48:13	i'm taking an incredible amount of calls
2:48:16	i have nowhere to refer them to i don't
2:48:18	know what to tell them exactly other
2:48:19	than that we don't have vacancies
2:48:21	and to be able to put them on a waiting
2:48:23	list and like i said 34 people on a
2:48:25	waiting list is kind of a big deal
2:48:27	so i'm noticing a turn to
2:48:32	more calls more desperation
2:48:35	and less answers so i just wanted to
2:48:38	throw that that out that we're available
2:48:39	i gave the
2:48:40	information to megan she's got it in
2:48:42	writing and my
2:48:44	my um how to reach me if you need to so
2:48:47	thank you very much for allowing me to
2:48:49	thank you for a few things yeah thank
2:48:51	you miss dawes very helpful i appreciate
2:48:53	that
Councilor/Commissioner Discussion
2:48:54	information right commissioner price
2:49:00	oops thank you i just thought i'd go
2:49:03	over
2:49:04	my couple or three or five takeaways
2:49:07	from the evening
2:49:08	and i suppose the main one is that the
2:49:10	council is really interested in the
2:49:13	planning commission looking at
2:49:14	all of these strategies there are
2:49:18	a couple of tweaks here and there the
2:49:20	the real work will come into the
2:49:22	planning commission
2:49:23	and staff and council eventually because
2:49:26	there were some cases where you
2:49:28	said things like neighborhood specific
2:49:31	and that's
2:49:31	always where the trouble comes in or the
2:49:34	difficulties coming in
2:49:36	is writing code that allows for what you
2:49:38	want to allow for
2:49:40	but only in certain
2:49:43	not even just places like zones but in
2:49:46	certain cases so that can get tricky
2:49:50	i also heard from
2:49:55	mainly i think commissioners but i do
2:49:56	think council agreed
2:49:59	that uh looking at perhaps an r4
2:50:02	zone would be interesting protecting our
2:50:05	ones
2:50:06	and our two zones had some interest on
2:50:10	the council
2:50:11	looking at safeguards to protect the
2:50:14	demolition
2:50:15	of homes in the r2 area for the purpose
2:50:18	of building
2:50:19	something larger and that conversation
2:50:22	sort of took place in the context of
2:50:24	historic
2:50:25	districts or historic homes but astoria
2:50:28	has a south
2:50:29	slope that is not at all designated
2:50:32	historic as
2:50:33	far as i know but
2:50:36	that place has beautiful views as well
2:50:40	and uh is a lot of r2 that could be
2:50:43	subject to the sorts of economic
2:50:45	incentives for
2:50:47	demolition and bigger buildings that
2:50:50	commissioner moore brought up um
2:50:55	i was glad to hear that the focus uh
2:50:58	isn't strictly on workforce and
2:51:00	affordable housing at least not rentals
2:51:03	because
2:51:04	ownership equity is what builds wealth
2:51:07	for people and we really need to give
2:51:10	people as much as we can
2:51:12	the opportunity to build equity
2:51:16	and let's see what else but also
2:51:20	one of the big takeaways was to have a
2:51:22	greater conversation and wider
2:51:24	conversation
2:51:25	about the whys of the things that we're
2:51:27	doing
2:51:29	and not just the how um thought that i
2:51:32	had was that
2:51:33	if we when we do increase density in
2:51:36	residential neighborhoods commercial too
2:51:38	but
2:51:39	we i think we do address lighting we
2:51:42	certainly address
2:51:43	lighting in commercial areas we don't so
2:51:46	much in residential areas and so
2:51:48	lighting and noise will need to be
2:51:49	considered
2:51:51	in in terms of increasing density
2:51:55	and let's see
2:51:59	another thing was there was this i was a
2:52:02	little confused about this business of
2:52:05	a population not growing and i don't
2:52:07	want to stick just to population but i
2:52:09	do know that there
2:52:10	are certain um uh
2:52:14	certain things that kick in that are
2:52:15	quite big ticket items or that change
2:52:18	many of the rules that we kind of live
2:52:20	by when we go a bunch over 10
2:52:22	000 and if we were to stay there so you
2:52:25	know if there are a hundred department
2:52:26	units or
2:52:28	some sort of units being built in one
2:52:29	place and
2:52:31	40 someplace else that is an additional
2:52:34	140 people
2:52:35	because they're either they're all new
2:52:38	or
2:52:39	so you have to do you do have to figure
2:52:41	in population growth it's going to
2:52:44	happen
2:52:44	if we follow um and
2:52:47	and enact most of these strategies we
2:52:50	will be building
2:52:52	for future generations a very different
2:52:56	city than we live in right now
2:52:58	and so i just think that's something
2:53:00	that we really need to keep in mind
2:53:02	and be very clear about talking about
2:53:05	the big picture because
2:53:08	citizens don't have time to get into
2:53:10	this nitty-gritty they don't care
2:53:12	it's too nitty-gritty even for some of
2:53:14	us planning commissioners who
2:53:16	are really dorks about the stuff um so
2:53:19	it's really important to
2:53:20	show that yes this change here looks
2:53:23	small
2:53:24	but it could have a large impact
2:53:30	so anyway that's what i took away from
2:53:31	tonight and and thank you
2:53:36	thanks commissioner
2:53:41	i'd like to touch uh on something that
2:53:44	uh
2:53:45	commissioner fitzpatrick brought up a
2:53:47	couple of times um
2:53:50	and i fear it's a dead-end road but but
2:53:52	one of our issues in terms of
2:53:54	availability of housing is second homes
2:53:58	and i just i just want to ask again is
2:54:01	there anything
2:54:02	at all that is legally possible for
2:54:06	the city to do in terms of discouraging
2:54:09	purchases second homes
2:54:13	there is not a ability to prohibit
2:54:18	second home ownership however
2:54:21	i think the the main policy
2:54:25	that the city has had in place
2:54:28	um throughout the years
2:54:32	which has limited those numbers is
2:54:35	not allowing full house
2:54:38	vacation rentals in residential zones i
2:54:41	think that's a
2:54:42	a an item that is a policy that was
2:54:45	established
2:54:46	many years ago and that has
2:54:51	had a reduction effect because people
2:54:54	can't buy it and then
2:54:56	you know then rent out their full home
2:55:01	and generate revenue while they're not
2:55:03	using it
2:55:04	i think that more recently when the
2:55:07	council
2:55:08	passed homestay lodging code provisions
2:55:11	that doesn't allow
2:55:14	um homestay lodging with kitchens i
2:55:16	think that further
2:55:18	um you know went towards addressing that
2:55:23	that issue and
2:55:26	i would say that even more
2:55:29	um you know we've
2:55:32	seen the council prohibit conversions
2:55:36	of existing residential units and
2:55:39	commercial zones
2:55:41	to homestay lodging or two short-term
2:55:44	rentals
2:55:45	it's not homestay lodging in a
2:55:46	commercial zone but to short-term
2:55:47	rentals
2:55:48	um and i think that
2:55:52	addresses the issue um somewhat in
2:55:54	commercial zones
2:55:56	um so but counselor in terms of a
2:56:00	flat out prohibition we just don't that
2:56:03	is a question that you know we've
2:56:04	had conversations with our city attorney
2:56:06	about in easel pine that we just don't
2:56:08	have that ability
2:56:09	to do that in terms of just prohibiting
2:56:12	a second home out
2:56:14	outright
2:56:18	and which is why i would again reiterate
2:56:21	the importance of
2:56:22	not removing the owner occupancy
2:56:26	requirement on an adu so that
2:56:30	if if someone needs to rent a portion of
2:56:33	their home
2:56:34	to be able to keep their home they have
2:56:36	that option but if somebody needs an adu
2:56:39	to augment the income uh
2:56:43	to allow them to have a second home here
2:56:45	it it
2:56:46	doesn't help uh the issue it it it
2:56:49	creates the issue rather than helping
2:56:51	find a solution the challenge is this is
2:56:54	one of the provisions that the state
2:56:56	legislature said
2:56:57	we had to remove from our from our code
2:57:00	so that that's
2:57:01	that has been per the state legislature
2:57:04	the importance of them understanding
2:57:06	that portland's problems
2:57:08	aren't necessarily our problems and
2:57:09	their solutions may not be solutions
2:57:12	there and certainly aren't solutions
2:57:13	here
2:57:18	and one topic we're obviously not going
2:57:19	to delve into tonight
2:57:21	is um is the issue of
2:57:24	incentives and
2:57:28	revenue creation through things like
2:57:30	construction excise tax and looking at
2:57:32	system development charges but i know
2:57:34	we're gonna
2:57:34	it'll be a topic at some future future
2:57:38	time
2:57:41	we have had the issue that quite a few
2:57:43	people have raised to me of
2:57:45	um derelict homes and vacant homes
2:57:49	homes that are owned by somebody but
2:57:50	just not lived in and they're not trying
2:57:52	to rent them out of short-term rentals
2:57:53	they're just leaving them empty
2:57:54	and i remember um when i was walking
2:57:58	door-to-door
2:58:00	right after mayor a couple years ago i
2:58:01	was up on a street near arlene lemier's
2:58:03	house and
2:58:04	a neighbor came out and pointed to me
2:58:06	just within
2:58:07	view of her front stoop that house
2:58:11	some guy california owns it never comes
2:58:13	here that
2:58:14	that house somebody in portland owns it
2:58:16	they come here like one weekend a year
2:58:18	i was i was just kind of shocked how
2:58:19	many single family homes there are that
2:58:21	are
2:58:22	owned by someone and not lived in and i
2:58:25	don't know if there's any way
2:58:27	the only way you could identify all
2:58:29	those homes uh
2:58:31	would be just really to ask neighbors to
2:58:33	point them out and then go
2:58:35	knock on doors and have some sort of
2:58:37	citizen campaign to try to get homes
2:58:39	back on
2:58:39	in them being used as residences again
2:58:44	i don't know if that's something where
2:58:45	there's enough of them some of you that
2:58:47	have lived here a long time probably
2:58:48	know some of these houses i mean is that
2:58:50	something that's worth
2:58:51	pursuing
2:58:55	mayor jones you could probably if the
2:58:59	city's software allows it you could
2:59:02	evaluate the water use of homes and
2:59:06	run a report on homes that don't use any
2:59:08	water for three months at a time
2:59:12	again these are houses that are legally
2:59:14	owned they're not being they're not
2:59:16	violating
2:59:16	any laws and it sounds like there's
2:59:19	really still nothing we can do about
2:59:21	that
2:59:21	even if i own a house and i don't live
2:59:24	in it but i own it yeah it's not against
2:59:26	any it's not against any law
2:59:28	i don't know if it's even worth pursuing
2:59:29	just approaching people
2:59:31	saying hey we've got a housing shortage
2:59:32	and how'd you like to sell your house
2:59:38	i think this is where it comes into the
2:59:40	issue of incentives
2:59:42	and if we did have a program that could
2:59:44	incentivize
2:59:46	uh redevelopment that would be one thing
2:59:48	to you know we'd be able to
2:59:50	we've had success in code enforcement
2:59:54	over the years where we've had maybe
2:59:56	it's a
2:59:57	a house that's become derelict um
3:00:00	that is vacant um that we've been able
3:00:04	you know the one that i there's one
3:00:06	that's on niagara that i can think of
3:00:08	and really
3:00:09	that case um the parents had passed away
3:00:13	the kids owned the house
3:00:14	the kids were couldn't figure out what
3:00:16	they were going to do with mom and dad's
3:00:17	house
3:00:18	and it was just sitting there muldering
3:00:21	but it came to the point became a code
3:00:23	enforcement issue and and through the
3:00:25	court enforcement process
3:00:26	um they were pushed uh to do something
3:00:30	because they
3:00:30	you know the house was just starting to
3:00:32	deteriorate um
3:00:34	i mean we so we've had some of those
3:00:35	types of of
3:00:37	successes over the years but i think
3:00:39	there's could be more talked about in
3:00:41	terms of incentives
3:00:42	um to be able to get those um
3:00:45	those homes back into into use
3:00:49	thank you are there any other members of
3:00:51	the public who did want to speak
3:00:53	just use your raise hand function on
3:00:54	zoom
3:01:00	if not any last comments from
3:01:02	commissioners or counselors
3:01:06	okay i really appreciate everyone's time
3:01:08	tonight this has been a little over
3:01:09	three hours but it was a really good
3:01:11	discussion
3:01:12	very important topics that are very
3:01:14	important to our
3:01:15	community members so with that
3:01:18	i thank you have a great evening stay
3:01:20	american off your hands
3:01:22	and maybe we still have another agenda
3:01:24	item oh good
3:01:26	[Laughter]
3:01:28	this is just council right just city
3:01:30	council correct
3:01:32	okay so uh any commissioners are free to
3:01:35	leave
3:01:36	the public is welcome to stay if you
3:01:38	like uh other than that
3:01:39	uh those of you who are leaving have a
3:01:41	great night thank you
3:01:42	and city council stay here for the next
3:01:45	item
3:01:46	thank you mary jones and staff and other
3:01:50	counselors and commissioners thank you
3:01:52	everybody good night
3:01:54	thanks everyone thanks good night
3:01:58	good night
3:02:01	so mayor um the next agenda item
3:02:05	is coming from uh finance
3:02:08	uh director susan brooks and as i
3:02:10	mentioned a little bit earlier this is
3:02:12	dealing with
3:02:13	collection of transient lodging tax
3:02:17	may recall that several years ago there
3:02:19	was discussion about the state
3:02:22	starting to collect transient
3:02:26	lodging tax and uh
3:02:29	collecting on behalf of cities and
3:02:33	um like happens with uh
3:02:36	marijuana tax collections and
3:02:39	distribution
3:02:40	and the legislature put in some
3:02:43	protocols to allow for that and then
3:02:46	there's been
3:02:47	over the past years
3:02:50	development of how this would work
3:02:53	through the state and the state's now
3:02:54	started to roll out the program
3:02:57	i think there's some counselors that
3:02:58	have participated in some of the
3:03:00	meetings
3:03:01	about this uh this issue along with our
3:03:04	finance department staff
3:03:06	and ms brooks was prepared to outline
3:03:09	what this could look like if
3:03:12	the state collected it rather than the
3:03:14	city
3:03:16	and looking at those pros and cons on
3:03:20	both sides so i'm going to turn it over
3:03:21	to susan
3:03:25	everybody hear me okay
3:03:28	yes okay um thank you for allowing me to
3:03:31	bring this
3:03:32	uh to the council um i wanted to give a
3:03:35	brief history of the legislative
3:03:37	legislative actions that have led up to
3:03:40	this point
3:03:41	in 2017 there was legislation
3:03:45	passed at the state level
3:03:48	which would allow the state to enter
3:03:50	into agreements with local governments
3:03:52	to administer collecting lodging taxes
3:03:57	but not much progress was
3:04:01	made at that point because there were
3:04:04	clarifications that need to be
3:04:06	needed to be made those were made in
3:04:08	2018
3:04:09	and most recently in 2019 um
3:04:12	three bills were passed that determined
3:04:16	that a certain percentage of the
3:04:19	collections would be
3:04:21	withheld from lodging intermediaries
3:04:24	which
3:04:25	created some problems for us and still
3:04:28	create some
3:04:29	problems for us because we don't
3:04:30	necessarily know who we're getting
3:04:32	money from when we get third party
3:04:35	intermediary
3:04:36	payments and it also allowed
3:04:39	for the collection process of the state
3:04:42	so the state did hold a meeting on the
3:04:45	22nd of january
3:04:46	to interested stakeholders to outline
3:04:50	what they could provide and some of the
3:04:53	benefits of the state collecting
3:04:57	the tax responsibility would
3:05:01	assist with the providers and the
3:05:05	intermediaries
3:05:06	who are collecting they're already
3:05:09	remitting information to the state
3:05:12	and so having kind of a one-stop shop
3:05:16	would assist in the collections
3:05:19	and the follow-up and
3:05:23	just so everybody understands the
3:05:26	transient lodging intermediaries
3:05:28	include online travel companies and
3:05:31	travel agencies
3:05:33	and the transient lodging
3:05:36	facilities can include hotels and motels
3:05:39	bed and breakfast facilities
3:05:41	spaces used for rv parking
3:05:44	could actually um include erecting a
3:05:47	tent
3:05:47	during periods short periods of time the
3:05:51	resorts and inns are
3:05:53	part of that lodges and guest ranches
3:05:55	cabins some condominiums apartments
3:05:58	duplexes and homes as we've been talking
3:06:00	about tonight any other type of dwelling
3:06:02	unit where a portion
3:06:03	of or in some areas all of that are used
3:06:07	for temporary stays which is
3:06:08	usually defined as less than 30 days
3:06:11	so the department of revenue would
3:06:14	provide for tax collection
3:06:16	they would provide for filing
3:06:18	enforcement and i want to stress
3:06:19	filing enforcement of the taxes
3:06:23	not code enforcement they would provide
3:06:26	for
3:06:27	conducting audits on the transient
3:06:30	lodging
3:06:31	reports and the taxes that are submitted
3:06:35	they would provide quarterly activity
3:06:38	reports back to
3:06:39	the local government they would
3:06:42	distribute the local taxes net their
3:06:45	expenses
3:06:46	so that's kind of a really broad
3:06:49	overview of what could be provided
3:06:52	um there there is a maximum
3:06:57	cost that's proposed right now and this
3:06:59	is probably one of the larger
3:07:01	um negative in uh
3:07:05	aspects of the proposal because it's a
3:07:08	maximum amount i don't anticipate that
3:07:11	they would actually have to charge this
3:07:15	amount
3:07:15	in even in the short term because i
3:07:18	think a lot of
3:07:20	smaller municipalities but probably
3:07:23	globally across the state it's going to
3:07:25	make sense for more agencies to get on
3:07:28	board with this
3:07:29	and the per filer
3:07:33	fee on a quarterly basis should go down
3:07:36	but right now the maximum has been set
3:07:38	at 175 dollars
3:07:40	per filer per quarter and that means per
3:07:44	reporting entity or hotel or motel
3:07:47	or third-party entity
3:07:50	or short-term lodging host we would have
3:07:53	to pay
3:07:55	175 dollars per quarter to the state
3:07:57	that would be deducted from our
3:07:59	distributions
3:08:01	currently that just just doing a pretty
3:08:04	round number that could be about eleven
3:08:06	thousand five hundred dollars worth of
3:08:08	fees per quarter
3:08:10	max i think it would be less than that
3:08:13	um i feel that kind of like
3:08:16	with other um consolidated
3:08:20	collections with marijuana tax and
3:08:22	everything as more people
3:08:24	sign on we see those costs from the
3:08:26	state
3:08:27	reducing um so some of the positive
3:08:31	aspects that we would anticipate
3:08:33	seeing if we decided to go
3:08:36	with this program is there would be
3:08:38	centralized tax reporting and collection
3:08:41	the forms would be standardized through
3:08:44	the state
3:08:45	the filing and communications would all
3:08:48	be centralized through the state we
3:08:50	would post the information
3:08:51	on our website and of course assist with
3:08:55	directing people to the appropriate
3:08:57	website
3:08:58	providing links and providing that
3:09:01	information if people call
3:09:03	but um there's some continuity there and
3:09:06	like i said um
3:09:08	any any of these agencies or are these
3:09:11	hosts are already having to file with
3:09:14	the state so they're having a file with
3:09:15	the state
3:09:16	they're having to file with us locally
3:09:18	and they're having to file with the
3:09:19	county as well
3:09:21	so this would be more of a one-stop shop
3:09:25	the state also has a larger capacity for
3:09:29	filing enforcement than we do in our
3:09:31	department
3:09:32	we kind of share that those duties i
3:09:35	have one person assigned in
3:09:37	in the finance department for that and
3:09:39	it's kind of
3:09:40	one of many jobs that that person does
3:09:43	whereas the state would have a workforce
3:09:47	that's dedicated to nothing but
3:09:50	the transient lodging taxes also the
3:09:53	state has a much larger capacity for
3:09:55	audit
3:09:56	and because they are a larger entity um
3:09:59	their uh their ability to follow through
3:10:04	and maybe not even have to get to the
3:10:06	point of following through but just
3:10:07	sending out a letter
3:10:09	um would probably carry a lot more
3:10:11	weight than a small
3:10:13	municipality like us um
3:10:16	so they also have the ability to follow
3:10:18	up on complaints and tips that we would
3:10:21	have um regarding filing capacity so if
3:10:25	they got a tip or a complaint that
3:10:28	somebody was operating a short-term
3:10:30	rental
3:10:31	and not not paying the taxes
3:10:34	they would have a broader bandwidth to
3:10:37	follow up on them
3:10:39	um we currently
3:10:42	um probably have 150 to 200 hours a year
3:10:47	and it it it varies that are spent
3:10:51	by the one staff person just dealing
3:10:54	with the reports
3:10:56	follow-up phone calls
3:11:00	you know doing calculations of penalties
3:11:02	and interest if those
3:11:04	apply and so that time could be freed up
3:11:07	and directed to other tasks that aren't
3:11:11	being
3:11:12	accomplished right now
3:11:16	the this also aligns with the transient
3:11:19	lodging ordinance
3:11:20	of of other municipal municipalities
3:11:23	across the state
3:11:25	it makes it easier for the um users so
3:11:28	the the people who are providing the
3:11:30	lodging
3:11:31	they would get a consistent set of rules
3:11:34	um
3:11:36	across all the different agencies if
3:11:37	it's consolidated at the state level
3:11:42	and the department of revenue has a
3:11:44	better ability to work with the
3:11:46	third party intermediaries and the
3:11:49	ability to
3:11:50	produce better compliance with the
3:11:52	larger host
3:11:54	platforms than than we have
3:11:57	the ability or bandwidth to do the state
3:12:01	also would have
3:12:02	capacity to cross-check um transient
3:12:06	lodging tax
3:12:06	providers through their databases and
3:12:10	research online hosting platforms for
3:12:12	compliance as well
3:12:13	so if they see somebody posting online
3:12:16	and they're not getting a report from
3:12:18	them
3:12:18	they would have additional capacity to
3:12:20	check up on them
3:12:24	for some lodging providers it would
3:12:26	actually be a positive to move to a
3:12:29	quarterly basis
3:12:30	the city of astoria actually um collects
3:12:34	it requires reporting on a monthly basis
3:12:37	and we collect taxes on a monthly basis
3:12:40	so if we
3:12:41	um move to this platform
3:12:44	it would change it from a monthly to a
3:12:46	quarterly and i
3:12:48	know for some smaller entities
3:12:51	that would be preferable
3:12:56	again we anticipate that the program
3:12:58	cost will probably not
3:13:00	be as high as the maximums that have
3:13:02	initially been set
3:13:04	that's based on our experience with the
3:13:07	consolidated marijuana tax collections
3:13:11	we feel that we would benefit from
3:13:14	reduced
3:13:14	expenses associated with the increasing
3:13:18	use of the
3:13:21	the entities in paying for their taxes
3:13:25	with credit cards so we're incurring
3:13:27	credit card fees
3:13:28	which reduces the net amount that we
3:13:31	bring in
3:13:32	um having that flow through the
3:13:36	state um that potentially would be a
3:13:39	cost we would not incur
3:13:43	and the other pro is that this really
3:13:46	isn't a new
3:13:47	um program model for the state and
3:13:51	um it should with more participation by
3:13:55	in
3:13:57	agencies such as ourselves it should
3:14:00	enhance the overall data metrics for the
3:14:04	state
3:14:05	as a whole so some of the negatives that
3:14:08	we see
3:14:09	is that um the quarterly reporting
3:14:12	versus
3:14:13	um the monthly reporting that we have
3:14:15	right now
3:14:16	will create a three-month lag in
3:14:19	revenues coming in
3:14:20	to the city whenever
3:14:24	if we initiate this at that point in
3:14:26	time we will see a lag in collections
3:14:29	and reporting
3:14:31	um as i said the expense
3:14:34	that would be netted against the revenue
3:14:37	for the collections
3:14:38	is is a downside and
3:14:41	the time frame that it'd be necessary
3:14:43	for us to adjust
3:14:44	our code to be in compliance with the
3:14:47	required format
3:14:48	for the um the iga with the state
3:14:52	is going to be a little bit of a hurdle
3:14:55	for us to come
3:14:57	get through initially for establishments
3:15:01	that are struggling to meet
3:15:02	the obligations of paying their taxes
3:15:04	right now
3:15:07	the quarterly filing could mean that
3:15:09	they get further behind
3:15:10	and then they could be become subject to
3:15:13	penalties and interest
3:15:15	and probably have a much stricter
3:15:18	oversight from the state
3:15:22	where we've been a little more flexible
3:15:24	and and worked with them
3:15:26	um and it also takes the face-to-face
3:15:29	aspect of reporting to the local um
3:15:32	agency out of the picture although i
3:15:36	will note that
3:15:37	probably 90 percent of our interactions
3:15:41	uh right now are via email mail or the
3:15:45	phone right now
3:15:46	so it would be a small percentage that
3:15:47	we may deal with
3:15:49	on a face-to-face basis for tax
3:15:52	collections um for for those
3:15:56	that maybe five percent they would not
3:16:00	be dealing with this on a face-to-face
3:16:02	basis any longer
3:16:04	so we're just looking for um
3:16:09	some input and guidance because there
3:16:11	will be a little bit of work that will
3:16:12	be necessary
3:16:14	uh moving forward to see if this is the
3:16:18	direction that council would like us
3:16:20	to proceed with so
3:16:23	my uh first question ms brooks
3:16:26	is do you want if it were up to you
3:16:31	do you you're the one that has to deal
3:16:33	with this on both ends do you
3:16:34	want to do this is this your preference
3:16:38	um i think this would be a good thing
3:16:41	for
3:16:41	us i i think that it would be a good
3:16:44	thing
3:16:46	to have this more consistent
3:16:49	for the user as well as for us as the
3:16:52	city
3:16:53	um although initially
3:16:57	had the when we got into the program for
3:17:00	the marijuana taxes
3:17:02	that was kind of a a new department a
3:17:05	new
3:17:06	startup and it was a little difficult
3:17:08	but now that
3:17:10	things you know the kinks are worked out
3:17:13	it's nice
3:17:14	good reporting um
3:17:17	and it's we don't have to chase down
3:17:19	people
3:17:20	they get very good compliance the state
3:17:23	just has that bandwidth that they get
3:17:25	very good
3:17:26	compliance with the program
3:17:30	so we're pretty excited about it my
3:17:32	staff is pretty excited about the
3:17:34	possibility
3:17:35	i i support it i would say you know that
3:17:39	you know i think just the things i mean
3:17:41	there are definitely benefits
3:17:42	in terms of trying to get assurance of
3:17:46	collections i think there's some
3:17:47	and comes into the enforcement item that
3:17:51	was being discussed earlier with
3:17:53	uh regards to home state lodgings that
3:17:56	um ms leatherman was talking about
3:17:59	um you know i think they're definitely
3:18:01	some efficiencies there
3:18:02	i think the one thing just the council
3:18:04	to be fully aware of is
3:18:06	what it is that ms brooks said is is
3:18:08	removed
3:18:09	is those folks those hoteliers those
3:18:13	home state lodging owners are
3:18:15	no longer would no longer be working
3:18:17	with folks
3:18:18	in astoria but rather folks in salem
3:18:21	and um and if there are
3:18:25	issues or if they get behind
3:18:29	we don't have uh
3:18:32	ability to to nuance those because
3:18:36	the state will be managing the contract
3:18:38	so that that's
3:18:39	you know something just to be aware of
3:18:40	from and understand from a policy
3:18:43	standpoint
3:18:44	and and i would like to add too that we
3:18:46	still would be dealing with
3:18:48	the code enforcement issues um that
3:18:51	would not be take
3:18:52	you know so that that is separate from
3:18:56	the tax
3:18:57	collection issues and um
3:19:00	so we still would be dealing with those
3:19:03	people
3:19:04	you know those entities as far as um
3:19:08	if they're following the the proper
3:19:12	um code requirements for the zone that
3:19:15	they're in
3:19:16	and reporting correctly but um
3:19:20	as far as the tax collection that that
3:19:23	would be
3:19:23	handled by the state
3:19:27	well in addition to some money that
3:19:29	would be saved in terms of our staff
3:19:31	time
3:19:32	do you also foresee susan that there
3:19:35	would be
3:19:36	perhaps better compliance and better
3:19:39	remittance particularly by those more
3:19:41	distant
3:19:41	entities in this case i do
3:19:44	um that is exactly what we've seen from
3:19:47	the inception of the marijuana tax
3:19:50	program to where we are now um
3:19:54	that there is better compliance
3:19:58	which would tend to offset some of the
3:20:01	cost
3:20:02	of us doing it yes
3:20:07	and and i i would like to say too the
3:20:09	audit aspect is
3:20:10	is um pretty attractive to me as well
3:20:13	because it
3:20:14	it would cost us additional funds
3:20:18	to hire somebody to do the audit we
3:20:20	don't
3:20:21	have the capacity right now to go out
3:20:24	and audit a hotel's books
3:20:26	we have the ability to in their
3:20:29	um i mean yeah we have the ability
3:20:32	through
3:20:32	our agreements with the
3:20:36	tax collector uh person at each
3:20:40	in um host or or in
3:20:43	or hotel but we don't have
3:20:46	the capacity in the department and staff
3:20:50	to send somebody to a hotel and spend a
3:20:53	week or a month looking at their books
3:20:56	and comparing those with the reports we
3:20:59	could hire somebody
3:21:01	an accounting firm to do that and and
3:21:03	it's
3:21:04	you know with it and it would have to
3:21:07	cycle
3:21:08	because you would never hit all of them
3:21:09	in one year one year
3:21:12	but the state has a much larger capacity
3:21:16	to do
3:21:17	that type of activity as well
3:21:21	i've been in favor of this generally
3:21:23	since it was first brought up
3:21:25	to my attention and i know that the
3:21:28	state
3:21:29	is rolling it out now also because
3:21:32	they've
3:21:32	increased their capacity they've
3:21:34	upgraded their systems
3:21:36	so that they're able to do a better job
3:21:37	tracking all this stuff
3:21:39	so just their ability to do that and to
3:21:42	collect all the taxes that are there
3:21:44	and that
3:21:48	our city departments get a little relief
3:21:52	for just one less thing you know we can
3:21:54	focus on more important things to our
3:21:56	city
3:21:57	than trying to track down these things
3:21:59	and we're we're trading nuance for a
3:22:01	hammer
3:22:02	i think as far as collection goes so
3:22:06	um i think that's all right and i
3:22:09	i hope that financially it sort of
3:22:12	evens out but even even that you know
3:22:15	if it costs us a little bit more to go
3:22:17	this way it may be
3:22:18	money well spent
3:22:22	i agree it sounds like the positives far
3:22:25	away far
3:22:26	outweigh the negatives
3:22:34	just thinking trying to take it all in
3:22:36	uh
3:22:37	i think if it streamlines the work that
3:22:40	you have to do susan
3:22:41	and the state is able to get that money
3:22:43	for us which we need
3:22:45	and and yeah there'll be some lag times
3:22:47	what you're saying
3:22:48	um but as long as we get the money
3:22:51	that's the important thing
3:22:52	and uh if they have the power to enforce
3:22:55	it and power to audit
3:22:56	i think that's a very very important key
3:22:59	even though there are
3:23:00	friends and neighbors and they are
3:23:02	hotels um
3:23:04	it's it's important so i agree i think
3:23:07	you should go for it
3:23:10	uh unanimous very good
3:23:13	all right that was easy
3:23:17	all right i didn't have another two
3:23:18	hours of
3:23:20	presentation for you we are too
3:23:25	well if you could put the numbers up on
3:23:27	the screen
3:23:29	for it just kidding
3:23:32	i have some but
3:23:36	all right is that it for the agenda
3:23:37	brett that has got it
3:23:39	okay very good thanks everyone for uh
3:23:42	sticking around tonight and getting it
3:23:44	done
3:23:45	yeah great meeting thank you thank you
3:23:47	all right
3:23:48	you uh in early march
3:23:51	yes thank you
3:23:55	thank you bye goodbye