City of Cannon Beach Agenda

CITY OF CANNON BEACH AGENDA

In keeping with the Governor's social distancing direction and to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the City of Cannon Beach has issued an Administrative Order, Effective immediately, all public access and participation for City Council, Commissions, Boards and Committees meeting will be virtual until further notice. Please visit our meeting page on our website for information on how to connect to Zoom or give public comment.

Meeting: City Council Date: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall

CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA

CONSENT AGENDA

( 1) Consideration of the Minutes of the March 2nd Regular Meeting March 9th Work Session March 15th Work Session with CBRFPD

PUBLIC COMMENT

The Presiding Officer will call for statements from citizens regarding issues relating to the City. The Presiding Officer may limit the time permitted for presentations and may request that a spokesperson be selected for a group of persons wishing to speak.

ORDINANCE

( 2) Consideration of Ordinance 21-02 for the Purpose of Amending the Municipal Code by Amending Chapter 5.04.060(C) Fees Imposed If the Council wishes to adopt Ordinance 21-02, appropriate motions are in order.

PROCLAMATIONS

( 3) Consideration of Proclamation 21-01; Sexual Assault Awareness Month If Council wishes to adopt Proclamation 21-01, an appropriate motion is in order.

( 4) Consideration of Proclamation 21-02; National Child Abuse Prevention Month If Council wishes to adopt Proclamation 21-02, an appropriate motion is in order.

( 5) Consideration of Proclamation 21-03; Arbor Day If Council wishes to adopt Proclamation 21-03, an appropriate motion is in order.

( 6) Consideration of Proclamation 21-04; Earth Day If Council wishes to adopt Proclamation 21-04, an appropriate motion is in order.

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected]

ACTION ITEMS

( 7) Consideration of Making and Appointment to the Public Works Committee Council will vote by roll call. If Council wishes to appoint an applicant to serve on the Public Works Committee an appropriate motion to appoint is in order.

( 8) Scope of Review Determination for Moon Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Cottage Industry Conditional Use

( 9) Application for Waiver from Requirement to Remove an Encroachment of Private Improvement into Public Street Right-of-way If Council wishes to approve or deny the waiver request, an appropriate motion is required.

(10) Consideration to Approve an Agreement with DA Davidson If Council wished to approve the agreement and authorize the City Manager to sign, an appropriate motion is in order.

INFORMATIONAL/OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS

(11) Monthly Status Report

(12) Mayor Communications

(13) Councilor Communications

(14) Good of the Order

ADJOURNMENT

To join from your computer, tablet or smartphone Join Zoom Meeting https://zoom.us/j/99261084699?pwd=TkpjbGcxS0pCOGlMOCtSbSsxVWFMZz09 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

To join from your phone: Phone: 1.669.900.6833 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

View Our Live Stream: View our Live Stream on YouTube!

*Note Public Comment: If you wish to provide public comment for this virtual meeting, you must submit it by noon, the day of the meeting, to [email protected]. All written comments received by the deadline will be distributed to the City Council and the appropriate staff prior to the start of the meeting. These written comments will be included in the record copy of the meeting.

You may also request to speak during this virtual meeting. You must submit by noon, the day of the meeting, to [email protected]. Except for a public hearing agenda item, all Public to be Heard comments will be taken

City of Cannon Beach Agenda April 6, 2021 at the beginning of the meeting for both Agenda and Non-Agenda items. If you are requesting to speak during a public hearing agenda item, please indicate the specific agenda item number as your comments will be considered during the public hearing portion of the meeting when the public hearing item is considered by the Council.

Please note that agenda items may not be considered in the exact order listed, and all times shown are tentative and approximate. Documents for the record may be submitted to the City Manager prior to the meeting by email, fax, mail, or in person. For questions about the agenda, please contact the City of Cannon Beach at (503) 436.8052. The meeting is accessible to the disabled. If you need special accommodations to attend or participate in the meeting per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), please contact the City Manager at (503) 436.8050. TTY (503) 436-8097. This information can be made in alternative format as needed for persons with disabilities.

Posted: 2021.03.30

City of Cannon Beach Agenda April 6, 2021 Minutes of the CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 2, 2021 Council Chambers

Present: Mayor Sam Steidel, Council President Mike Benefield and Councilor Robin Risley in person. Councilors Brandon Ogilvie and Nancy McCarthy via Zoom.

Excused: None

Staff: City Manager Bruce St. Denis, IT Director Rusty Barrett, City Recorder Jennifer Barrett, Public Works Director Karen La Bonte, Chief of Police Jason Schermerhorn, Emergency Manager Rick Hudson and Finance Director Laurie Sawrey in person. Community Development Director Jeff Adams via Zoom.

Others: City Attorney Ashley Driscoll

In keeping with the Governor's social distancing direction and to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the City of Cannon Beach has issued an Administrative Order, Effective immediately, all public access and participation for City Council, Commissions, Boards and Committees meeting will be virtual until further notice: https://zoom.us/j/130039909?pwd=YlhEMU83Vkd6TGVhVzhqa1NuQWpKdz09 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

To join from your phone: Phone: 1.301.715.8592 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor Steidel called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

Steidel asked for a motion to approve the agenda.

Motion: Ogilvie moved to approve the agenda as presented; Risely seconded.

Vote: Benefield, McCarthy, Ogilvie, Risley and Steidel voted AYE: the vote was 5:0 and the motion passed unanimously.

CONSENT AGENDA

( 1) Consideration of the Minutes of the February 2nd Regular Meeting February 4th Special Meeting & Work Session February 9th Work Session February 10th CBE

Steidel asked for a motion regarding the minutes.

Risley requested Carolyn’s public comment be put online from the February 4th meeting. Risley had corrections to the February 9th minutes.

Motion: Benefield moved to approve the minutes for February 2nd, 4th, 9th as amended and 10th: McCarthy seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Steidel asked for public comments.

Patrick Nofield 271 W Kenai I stand corrected regarding an email sent to the Councilors last week regarding the dilapidated building on S. Hemlock. The developers have 4 months left to complete the improvements on their building permit. The building has been vacant for more than 15 years, noting concerns with the building. This is a nuisance and public health hazard. I wonder why it was issued a building permit with such a dilapidated structure. The location is a gateway to Tolovana Park. My question is would the City of Cannon Beach allowed waterlogged eyesore of a building with no movement for almost 2 years if it was located downtown, probably not. So why is it acceptable in Tolovana Park? It needs accountability and enforcement of our codes. If progress is not made in the next few months, I hope the City will not provide an extension and declare it a public nuisance. In response to McCarthy’s question, I wonder if Adams can speak to that, Adams replied I issued a 2nd letter, and they have till Friday to make progress. They started roofing, got the notice and requested a new set of plans which is due Friday, or I will post a public nuisance. We are trying to work with them to correct the building. They started work on the landscape, followed up and they corrected everything. We are working and they are trying to make an effort and if not, corrective actions will be taken on Monday.

PUBLIC HEARING

( 2) Application for Waiver from Requirement to Remove an Encroachment of Private Improvement into Public Street Rights-of-Way

This is a hearing regarding the Application for Waiver from Requirement to Remove an Encroachment of Private Improvement into Public Street Rights-of-Way requested by David Slansky and Susan Tompkins. The request for waiver is to allow a circular brick paver parking spot located in the public right-of-way. The property is located at 3678 Pacific Street (Tax Lot 02902, Map 51031DD). The request will be reviewed against the criteria of the Municipal Code, Section 12.38.060, Waiver of Requirement.

No one objected to the jurisdiction of the City Council to hear this appeal at this time. Mayor Steidel asked if any Councilor had personal bias to declare. Rilsey replied I have a conflict. I represented the buyer and will recuse myself. McCarthy added I wrote a story about house and interview them about two years ago. Driscoll noted for Risley’s conflict she did business with the property owner. Risley I represented the seller in the sale of the property, adding it was unique and got to know the buyer as well and benefited financially. Driscoll added it may not be an actual conflict of interest under state law, but you can choose to recuse yourself. Risley replied I chose to recuse myself.

Mayor Steidel asked if any Councilors had any conflict of interest. There were none. Mayor Steidel asked if any Councilor had any ex parte contacts to declare. There were none. The commissioners declared their site visits.

La Bonte read her staff report.

Mayor Steidel asked if there was any additional correspondence. Steidel noted the received additional

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council March 2, 2021 Page 2 of 11 correspondence today. Steidel stated the criteria applicable to this request are in Municipal Code Chapters 12.38.060, Waiver Requirement. Testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward criteria described in the staff report or other criteria in the Comprehensive Plan or Municipal Code which you believe to apply to the decision.

Is there a presentation by the applicants?

David Slansky and Susan Thompkins via Zoom Slansky stated thank you for hearing our request. Thompkins added we purchased the house about 3.5 years ago and noted the building history of the materials. We looked at options to keep up with the Victorian theme of the home and didn’t think about applying for a permit, which now are sorry we didn’t. I would like to say we did bring in cobblestone from city of Portland and finished the project when it was brought to our attention that there was a problem. We did not apply for a permit to build a turret. We talked to David and he did a drawing, but we have nothing going in that area. I it is only a thought at the moment. Also, our cobblestones are completely removable and like gravel it is easier than asphalt would be. We do not intent to make it permanent, there is just sand between the cobblestones. The thought that was in keeping with the idea of the right-of-way and the City being able to access it. Slansky added I built that and didn’t realize there was a right-of-way and looking back on it of course there is. I wasn’t thinking about it, it didn’t occur to me. It seemed to be part of the property with weeds and off street parking. This is not a situation where I knew it was a right-of-way and we are asking for forgiveness later. The neighbors have been very positive and supportive of it. Putting the right-of-way issue aside they feel it’s an enhancement of public and their property. It strikes me in awe that asphalt would be permitted, and this wouldn’t be. You’d have to bring in heavy equipment with asphalt and we can pick up the stones. We are certainly willing to enter in any agreement that could be recorded that we will agree to remove it if a project needed to be undertaken or repairs with 24 hour notice. In meantime we would like an attractive pad and place to park cars off the street. Thompkins added 3-4 neighbors sent in letters initially when we applied and others have submitted letters for tonight. Steidel replied yes we have several.

Are there any proponents who wish to speak? There were none.

Are there any opponents who wish to speak? There were none.

Is there a staff response?

La Bonte reported the staff role is to effectively and consistently uphold the code that is in place. We have to enforce the code even when the area looks nice. There has been a variety of things encroaching in right-of-way. Just like these, it was an innocent mistake, but I have had to enforce the code. With this situation there has been some neighboring residents that have had to repair or correct encroachments so it’s difficult to allow some and not others. We have a viable solution, there is ample room.

Does the applicant wish an opportunity to rebut anything?

Slansky replied I am not in favor of causing other property owners problems, but there are clearly attractive driveways made out of concrete that are encroaching as much in the right-of-way as we are. That is not to say two wrongs make a right, but there is already some inconsistency. We feel that what we have done fits on compacted gravel, the stones are heavy, so they don’t scatter in the

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council, March 2, 2021 Page 3 of 11 wind, just sand sifted in between them. That moveability/non-permanency should be considered and be granted a waiver. Thompkins added if we are not allowed to put a removeable paver on our right- of-way than what are you going to do with all these homes that we see in walking distance to ours that are out of compliance. We would like to ask for something called flexibility because of the uniqueness of the property and wanted to stay in character with that property which is Victorian. This is something that goes with the house and already has cobblestones on the property.

Steidel closed the hearing and moved to consideration.

In response to Ogilvie’s question to La Bonte, if this structure was not there and they wanted to build it, and required a waiver what would happen, is it in a location where the driveway would be anyway, La Bonte replied the key consideration is access to the infrastructure underneath where they want to put the pad. In response to Ogilvie’s question is this the location of their driveway, La Bonte replied no. In response to Ogilvie’s question where is the driveway, La Bonte replied it is on the drawing from Vonada adding there is a 50 ft right-of-way on Pacific. In response to Ogilvie’s question where on their property would their driveway be, La Bonte replied that is where Tolovana depicted where the driveway would be on their property, a discussion ensued. In response to Ogilvie’s question if Pacific Ave. was paved and they wanted to meet with driveway would that be approved, La Bonte replied yes they have the option to meet the street. In response to Benefield’s question even though it’s in the right-of-way, La Bonte replied yes, it has to match the street even if the street is not paved. La Bonte added the guys have the tools to quickly cut the asphalt to get in there. If they don’t know what’s there they may have issues.

In response to Steidel’s question what are your concerns about cobblestone, La Bonte replied they are heavy. St. Denis added we may damage the stones if we moved them as well. Steidel noted that’s the risk they take by putting in the public right-of-way, and on top of that, it is public parking. La Bonte noted concerns of potential tripping hazards. St. Denis added I appreciate that the owners offer 24 hour notice and they will move, but we do not always have 24 hours when something happens. Steidel noted I am in disagreement with pavers, they are easy. They are not hard, in fact if I were to prefer over anything else over straight gravel they make sense in that situations. I think more importantly is the property owners understand that at any time the City can come and dig it up and at any time someone can park there. They are asking for the waiver. If this had come before they did anything, and it came to me I would say no problem. I don’t see any issue personally – but your job in enforcing the code is important and you have done a good job on that. Here they are asking for a waiver and that is our area. Benefield added I agree. If there wasn’t a viable alternative that their architect showed, its movable and very attractive. But there is an alternative that avoids the issues staff mentioned. I tend to require that it be moved. In response to McCarthy’s question how easy is it to move those pavers, La Bonte replied I haven’t tried to move them. St. Denis added these are bigger than you would buy at home depot. McCarthy asked are not cemented in, Benefield replied they are set in sand. La Bonte noted if we had a waterline break and was flooding homes, I wouldn’t be picking them up onsie twosie. I would be bringing in an excavator.

Ogilvie noted one of the letters we received made what I feel are disturbing accusations about either our code inspector or saying someone waits until money has been spent and worked one before filing a complaint. St. Denis replied in some neighborhoods there is someone that appoints themselves as code enforcement. From our staff, our code enforcement meets weekly, they review issues and they become aware when public works was doing a drive thru in the city. La Bonte added I don’t think they are referring to our code enforcement officers. I think there is a healthy debate in

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council March 2, 2021 Page 4 of 11 the neighborhood about what is being allowed for some and not others and as in many areas neighbors will call in and complain. Schermerhorn added I talked with them and they said it was a neighbor and not staff who did this. Benefield added there are situations where there is encroachment that hasn’t been identified or complaint issued, and some have had to remove, and others haven’t. I am a bit of a rule stickler if all you have to do is go to Council and can do it. La Bonte replied there has been many encroachments that have had to be removed or adjustments made. In one situation it was only 6 inches and they did it to abide by the code. There has been many who have obliged to follow our code. St. Denis added people can be creative to try to avoid people from parking in front of their house. If you do not’ want us to enforce, then fine, but if we want to enforce this we need to. When we get a complaint, we try to resolve the issue. But a lot of people would prefer the plants go all the way out so people can’t park. This is a little different, this isn’t blocking. But we deal with people who block as well. Steidel agreed adding I have never had a waiver come to City Council, so that opportunity is available. Now we have it, and it’s a positive development, not a boulder. That’s what I am looking at, the waiver aspect. We did a good job on the code enforcement aspect. Benefield noted if we grant a waiver we are doing it because they didn’t know and most the others are because they didn’t know where their property lines were or didn’t know you can’t put something there. It’s not because there is not other options. If we take that as our rule you might as well give up on code enforcement. Steidel added for me looking at what happened, that is a situation that is a positive one and not a negative one. It’s a workable material.

Driscoll noted the options are to approve, approve with conditions or deny. If we are heading to approval I would like to discuss conditions. It might be helpful to review the criteria for which Council should be considering. Driscoll read the criteria 12.38.060 adding this is the criteria set for Council to make this decision. St. Denis added if the Council is inclined to approve, I would set two conditions. If we reach a situation that the stones need to be moved that the city will do by mechanical means and take no responsibility for damage to stone. And when comparing this to people putting rocks out in the road, this is in line to where the driveway would go, so it’s a little different. I think that if that is the inclination that we make that distinction as part of the motion so not to create a terrible precedent. We would handle it by mechanics as we would with gravel. Driscoll added that is where I was going. I would want that condition attached, some sort of indemnification, condition and acknowledgement that it is still a public parking spot. St. Denis added acknowledgement that it’s in a driveway and not an attempt to take over a right-of-way. In response to McCarthy’s question when you say indemnification, we would not be held liable if something was to happen with the pavers, Driscoll replied yes we would likely still be named but owners would have to take over and step in our behalf. Benefield added so 10 years from now if something happens who will know there is this agreement in place? La Bonte replied we put it in the address by file records. In response to Benefield’s question would it be recorded, Driscoll replied we can look into it to see if there is a way to do that. It could be precedent setting to other properties, a discussion ensued. Driscoll noted language similar with what is in the right-of-way permit. In response to Steidel’s question does every house that has a paved driveway to a paved street need a right-of-way permit, La Bonte replied yes. That typically happens when we do street work and notify the property owner about the apron option. They work with the paving company separate from the City, otherwise it’s just ¾ minus which is the standard. Another thing to consider it to change our code that addresses this type of thing. There is grasscrete and this will open up discussion for people coming to Council for requests. In response to McCarthy’s question there is an alternative location for them to move the pavers, they can move up into driveway, La Bonte replied yes it is in the architects drawing and shifts it back on the private property. Ogilvie noted I put a tape measure and it appeared to be 14-15 ft over the property line. St. Denis replied there is

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council, March 2, 2021 Page 5 of 11 another location.

Motion: Benefield moved to deny the request for a waiver: McCarthy seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield and McCarthy voted AYE; Councilors Ogilvie and Stiedel voted NAY. The motion ended in a tie.

Motion: Ogilvie moved to approve the request for a waiver with the conditions that St. Denis and Driscoll made: Steidel seconded.

St. Denis noted I sited a couple conditions, but staff has not reviewed them from a standpoint of approval. Is it possible to amend the motion to approve with appropriate conditions, and I would like to broaden them in case something comes up. Steidel replied we can also table so we can work on it, McCarthy replied I agree.

Ogilvie rescinded the motion.

Steidel added this is tabled to the April 6th meeting. In response to St. Denis’s question do we need a motion, Driscoll replied you can, and looks like you can have a two two with what happened today, and you need majority to pass and are you thinking the vote may change? McCarthy replied yes, the vote may change. Driscoll added if you knew this was not a majority then there is no reason to bring it back to next month. But it sounds like it is open and may change.

RESOLUTIONS

( 3) Consideration Of Resolution 21-09 For The Purpose Of Approving Changes To The FY 2020-2021 Budget By Increasing Appropriations in the General Fund to Allow for a Specific Purpose Grant from the National Association ff County and City Health Officials (NACCHO)

Hudson summarized his staff report. Hudson introduced Bob Kroll (139 West Way) who shared a brief PowerPoint presentation. A copy is in the record file. Benefield thanked Kroll for the hard work. In response to McCarthy’s question where would you put the tent, Kroll replied these would be stored at the Tango cache site where the MRC’s current tent is. Red cross does not typically allow pets in the same tents so we would want this close by. It is always good if people can take care of their own pets. We would put this next to the current one, store all the pet supplies and have more room for things that go into the cache site.

Hudson with CERT, MRC & DART we are incredibly fortunate for not only a lot of volunteers but they are very knowledgeable and they are going out and getting grants and funding the program. I recommend accepting the grant and approve the budget amendment. Steidel noted I support the grant process 100%. I do have minor issues that I keep trying to inject into the emergency team and will take that back to the emergency team. It doesn’t need to be addressed here. Risley noted I think it’s a wonderful thing as people will be more comfortable in a situation. Kroll added a big part of the grant proposal was to provide training for volunteers and community, noting examples. We are also trying to help people be ready for less serious events.

Motion: Benefield moved to adopt Resolution 21-09 for the purpose of approving changes to the FY 2020- 2021 budget by increasing appropriations in the general fund to allow for a specific purpose grant from the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO); Risley seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Council thanked Kroll.

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council March 2, 2021 Page 6 of 11 ( 4) Consideration of Resolution 21-10 for the Purpose of Raising The Short-Term Rental Rates

Adams reported we brought building and land use fees for an adjustment now we are bringing short term rental (STR) fees per your request. I spoke with the finance department about rolling out these fees and would request to amend the resolution to start July 1st. Adams reviewed the attachments, adding I contacted each location for comparison to ensure correct fees. This came up in STR task force today. It is not to raise fees to be in line with others in the region. We have not increased fees in 10 years or so. We have low fees. We have a STR task force, a code enforcement and more activity to monitor. We are one of the few jurisdiction that does a yearly audit which we are just finishing and hopefully will have update by the end of the month and will be available online. McCarthy noted I appreciate your research and the quick turnaround on this. I feel it’s more in line with what the other cities are doing. Benefield added I would like effective date delayed to July 1st to coincide with budget. Ogilvie added can you speak to the STR task force meeting today. We received an email from Bob Neroni suggesting the fee schedule can be oriented more to a square foot option. No other city does that and it seems like it would be quite cumbersome for the city to enact. It seems equitable on paper, but not practical. Can you respond to that? Adams replied we didn’t talk about that at the meeting, and that email was sent afterwards, no one else mentioned it. I do know that Seaside does theirs by occupancy. But that is the only one that I know of. It might be more trouble than worth for tracking and monitoring. Risley added I would think proximately to the ocean would be more relative than square feet if you were going to go in that direction. Adam’s replied that’s the kinds of stuff we can look into when we do the analysis with the STR Task Force and we will be back for yearly review. Steidel added looking at the Seaside breakdown and it’s fascinating and I like your proximity to the ocean. Almost thinking if we are going to wait until July anyway time to have that discussion between now and July if Council wants to proceed with. I wouldn’t mind especially if the task force was interested with that. Risley added to look at reverse, the houses further from the beach wouldn’t have the income at all and they could be huge. Benefield noted I would like to spend more time and maybe do prior to next year’s review rate and adopt what we have now for July 1. Between now and then we can research equitable way of doing it and allows the time to get it done. I like to see us make those kinds of adjustments next year. Ogilvie added I am not sure using proximately to ocean is the way to get what we want, I agree with Benefield, lets approve what’s before us and the STR task force do their job.

Motion: McCarthy moved to adopt Resolution 21-10 for the purpose of Raising the short-term rental rates effective July 1; Ogilvie seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

( 5) Consideration Of Resolution 21-11 For the Purpose of Approving Increases and Decreases to the FY 2020-2021 Budget By Making An Intrafund Transfer of Appropriations for the Recycle Bailer Repair

La Bonte summarized the staff report. La Bonte added the part is in route and as soon as it arrives repairs will be made and in the meantime, cardboard is stacking up and we will work with WOW for assistance in case the part is further delayed. St. Denis noted under 2.008.100 interruption of service emergency we authorized the acquisition of the part but need you to approve the resolution to transfer the funds from contingency. La Bonte added we did a request for bids to replace bailer in case it was needed, and the 2nd of 3 bids were anywhere from $75,000- $100,000 to replace. I am hoping this part carries us on for several more years. Ogilvie noted thank you for making that point, the machine has worked faithfully for 30 years and done a fantastic job and fully support the recycle center moving forward. I fully support the resolution and improvement the existing equipment. Driscoll noted public contracting rules in our code for over $10,000 you need additional bids, but there is an exception for emergencies which this was. I wanted to bring it up to make it clear and this is the 2nd time it’s come up recently. Our code is more restrictive than the state code, and we can make adjustments to this code. Ogilvie replied at this time I am comfortable with how we are doing it. It’s an emergency and we are being kept in the loop and I appreciate what you are bringing up.

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council, March 2, 2021 Page 7 of 11 Motion: Ogilvie moved to adopt Resolution 21-11 for the purpose consideration of Resolution 21-11 for the purpose of approving increases and decreases to the FY 2020-2021 budget by making an intrafund transfer of appropriations; Risley seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

ACTION ITEMS

( 6) Scope of Review Determination for Moon Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Cottage Industry Conditional Use

Adams read his staff report noting Moon has submitted just the conditional use which is different from the Planning Commission application, giving an overview. This appeal would be on March 9th and it has already been noticed. In response to Ogilvie’s question even though it’s a work session, Adams replied it will be noticed as a voting meeting. In response to McCarthy’s question when we look at it next week will we have the minutes from the Planning Commission and any correspondence regarding the request, Adams replied yes if you decide to limit to just to the Conditional Use (CU) we will pass along the entire record which includes the minutes and public comment. In response to Benefield’s question if limited to CU are you saying they are no longer asking to partition into two parcels, Adams replied yes that is correct and they are not asking for any of the other requests they brought forward. Benefield added it seems like a new application and should go back to Planning Commission. Adams replied you can remand this back if you would like to do that. Benefield added it seems like significant changes from what the Planning Commission reviewed. With all the changes we are just substituting ourselves with the Planning Commission. Risley agreed. McCarthy added I think it is making too many changes for us to change and would prefer it to go back to the Planning Commission as well. Ogilvie noted a consensus has been met and I do have a different opinion. I would be willing to hear as the applicant as requested. Steidel replied I agreed with Ogilvie, but we can take back to Planning Commission. In response to Ogilvie’s question if that is what we are doing what is the specific task or requirement to put on this, Adams replied you have asked for it to be remanded to the Planning Commission, so it will be heard as a CU. In response to Ogilvie’s question can the applicant appeal back to Council, Adams replied yes. In response to Steidel’s question would it be a new appeal or a continuation of this process, Adams replied my understanding is this is remanded back they will hear and make another decision and that can be appealed. Steidel added remanded back to Planning Commission as presented tonight. McCarthy noted Jeff Moon’s hand is up, is it too late for him to say anything. Steidel replied we can let him speak.

Jeff Moon: 220 Ogden Drive, Oregon City I really would like you to hear and make a decision instead of remanding this back to the Planning Commission. I think when we tried the first time it was too much for them; they had a lot of other things and had over a 200-page document. I am making an appeal and the appeal goes to Council and I didn’t have a rebuttal last time. Moon gave an overview of the changes from the Planning Commission until now. We only have 3 places to park downtown and have 5 trucks. I am just asking to move forward and John lives there. My brother lives next door and would be the one employee for the cottage industry business. I would like you to make the decision next week if possible.

Steidel stated is sounds like we feel there is substantial change from what was originally decided to what we have been asked. Moon noted there were 5 requests before and now there is only 1. Steidel replied you still have the option to appeal back and it’s our process we need to work through.

( 7) Consideration of Making and Appointment to the Parks and Community Services Committee and a renewal to the Design Review Board

A roll call vote was called for the DRB renewal. All Councilors voted to renew Dave Doering.

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council March 2, 2021 Page 8 of 11 Steidel asked if any of the Parks & Community Services applications were asked if they would like to speak.

Betty Gearen: I watched meeting last week and love what Committee is doing and think could be valuable for that committee. My values are education and I hope people who visit can have a wonderful experience and interested in the education offering for the Committee.

Beth Holland requested to speak, but was not on Zoom when called upon.

A roll call vote was called for the Parks and Community Services Appointment. All Councilors voted to appoint Betty Gearen for the Parks vacancy.

Motion: Risley moved to appoint Betty Gearen to the Parks and Community Services Committee and renew David Doering to the Design Review Board; Benefield seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

( 8) Cannon Beach Police Department 2020 Annual Report

Schermerhorn presented the 2020 annual report. A copy is in the record file. Schermerhorn answered Councils questions. Ogilvie noted the benefit of tracking the cases between tourist and locals may assist with future options on how to use TRT funds. Council thanked Schermerhorn. Schermerhorn added we have a great crew, and I am very proud of them. A discussion ensued regarding distracted drivers. A discussion ensued regarding the number of accidents on Highway 26 and Highway 101.

( 9) Consideration of Approving Contract for Auditing Services

Sawrey summarized the staff report. Sawrey noted Isler also does our room tax audit. Sawrey noted they use Isler throughout the year when they have questions, so it is not just once a year. In response to St. Denis’s question does Isler have someone in Astoria that is easily accessed by us, Sawrey replied yes, Jennifer is our audit manager and lives in Astoria. St. Denis noted when they come here, they are very professional and a good operation.

Motion: Benefield moved to approve the contract amendment extending auditing services for three years as per the attached proposal letter dated January 15, 2021 from Isler CPA; Ogilvie seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

(10) Update Regarding on Street Dining discussions

St. Denis gave an overview of the Zoom call with the Chamber of Commerce last week. McGregor’s is interested. We want to do everything we can to keep people working and the business going. If we can create additional dining opportunities and they can accommodate our conditions, it makes sense. Some people are saying if you allow 2-3 spaces for dining why can’t I do it for takeout. My view is dining is different from takeout, and dining can be a make or break it, when takeout does not. St. Denis gave an overview of protection ideas. Schermerhorn noted I thought McGregor’s withdrew, La Bonte replied they delayed due to the level reducing to low risk. St. Denis added I feel good that we are giving the business the opportunity if they want to come forward. McCarthy noted I attended the zoom call and it didn’t seem to be much interest in it at all. Have you gotten any feedback outside the meeting, St. Denis replied not that we are aware of. Risley added I listened to it also and feel the same way. St. Denis added going to the 50% helped, but we are creating an opportunity to help. In response to McCarthy’s question how many spaces per restaurant are we looking at, St. Denis replied I do not know, it

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council, March 2, 2021 Page 9 of 11 depends on what they ask for and it will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Steidel noted the conundrum with takeout vs sit in dining is if they want to do take out, limit them to one space. St. Denis added if the Chamber or anyone has an idea that could help we will bring it to Council. We haven’t heard anything right now, but we want to help. Steidel noted I think if McGregor’s were to do something other may follow.

(11) Matanuska Overflow Notice of Civil Penalty

La Bonte summarized the staff report. There will be a notice that is required to be posted in the paper about the incident. There are options for an appeal or an alternative. Staff recommends paying the fine. St. Denis summarized the options, requesting a motion accepting the fine and not appealing, noting the constraints of staff time/workload. St. Denis added we have other pump stations in the same condition as Matanuska and this is why we are pushing for improvements. A discussion ensued regarding the alternative of the supplement environmental project. Steidel noted it may be good to have some environmental projects on our shelf should we end up in a situation like this in the future.

Motion: Benefield moved to approve paying the civil penalty of $1,650, not filing an appeal of the fine and declining the option to replace the fine with a supplemental environmental project; Risley seconded.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

PROCLAMATION

(12) Consideration of Proclamation 21-01; Red Cross Month, March 2021

St. Denis reported this was requested by Jenee Pearce-Mushen as she wants Cannon Beach to be the first to make the proclamation.

Motion: Ogilvie moved to adopt Proclamation 21-01, declaring March 2021 Red Cross Month in Cannon Beach; Benefield seconded.

Pearce-Mushen reported thank you for supporting the red cross and this will be the first city on the coast to adopt the proclamation.

Vote: Councilors Benefield, Ogilvie, McCarthy, Risley and Mayor Steidel voted AYE; the vote was 5:0 in favor and the motion passed unanimously.

INFORMATIONAL/OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS

(13) Monthly Status Report

(14) Mayor Communications

(15) Councilor Communications

Steidel noted in my mayor communication about central dispatch, Seaside is being persnickety about their jailhouse funding. Hopefully one day will have a county wide system.

(16) Good of the Order

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council March 2, 2021 Page 10 of 11 St. Denis reported J. Barrett and R. Barrett are loyal to the City and the first and second Tuesday of the months are considered date night. Tonight is their 8th anniversary and I wanted to thank you both for what you do.

Schermerhorn reported Happy Birthday eve to McCarthy.

Ogilvie reported I want to thank all staff involved in light of email received from Bill Kabeiseman regarding the LUBA decision. Thank you to Adams and staff. Benefield added a lot of people worked hard on that, not just here but also the community organizations. I thank Bill for guiding us to this. Risley added and Friends of the Dunes and ORCA. St. Denis added the city and everyone else prevailed regarding foredune management decisions made at the city and prevailed at LUBA.

ADJORNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

ATTEST:

______Jennifer Barrett, City Recorder Sam Steidel, Mayor

Minutes, Cannon Beach City Council, March 2, 2021 Page 11 of 11

Minutes of the CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Council Chambers

Present: Mayor Sam Steidel, President Mike Benefield and Councilors Nancy McCarthy and Robin Risley in person. Council Councilor Brandon Ogilvie via Zoom.

Excused: None.

Staff: City Manager Bruce St. Denis, IT Director Rusty Barrett, City Recorder Jennifer Barrett, Police Chief Jason Schermerhorn, Public Works Director Karen La Bonte, and Fiance Director Laurie Sawrey

Others:

https://zoom.us/j/130039909?pwd=YlhEMU83Vkd6TGVhVzhqa1NuQWpKdz09 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

To join from your phone: Phone: 1.301.715.8592 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor Steidel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Steidel asked for a motion to approve the agenda.

Motion: Risley moved to approve the agenda as presented; Benefield seconded.

Vote: Benefield, McCarthy, Ogilvie, Risley and Steidel voted AYE. The vote was 5/0 and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Steidel asked for public comment. There was none.

DISCUSSIONS

(1) Water Capacity Report

La Bonte read the staff report. La Bonte presented Travis Tormanen, PE from Windsor Engineers. Tormanen presented a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the report and recommendations, a copy is included in the record copy.

Risley noted I appreciate what you have done however not sure it actually ties in with part of the ECFR goals which have to do with salmon habitat and I think that piece is missing from your report. Tormanen replied, ok, we’d be happy to look at that if you’d like us to. Risley replied if you talk about water and how much we have, do we have enough to support the fish as well which is part of our agreement with ECFR? Tormanen replied you can only use the West Fork sparingly and you haven’t used it the last 3 years which helps. This also supports coming up with a backup water source, so you are not reliant on the reserve. La Bonte replied a state objective for the 5- year water conserve management plan was the meter module change out program and that’s a big part of the report that the state expects us to support conservation which supports the fish protection. Risley added I would like to see it all meld together more. It doesn’t feel like everything has been considered to make it whole. La Bonte replied we can do a second phase of this if you want. Originally this was to address our capacity and be firm on knowing we have enough to support our community and estimated growth. In response to Steidel’s question are there are limits on how much we can draw from the creek, La Bonte replied yes, and there are limits on what we can pull and we’ve never even come close to what our agreement allows. Benefield added I thought those agreements were to ensure sufficient water flow for the fish, La Bonte replied yes and we are not putting that at risk. Benefield added something outside the watershed as an additional source, I’ve been told of another spring that is in the south of the area, its not been developed but it is known, has anyone studied or made an effort to see what’s available or if we have rights to it. La Bonte replied personally I’d like to better understand our watershed and what’s available and efforts to expand with what’s not tied to the watershed. I would like us to delve into that and secure the funding to do so. Something to take a serious look at. Benefield added it’s an area above the south reservoir. St. Denis noted where the water that comes from the spring enters the system, sometimes it can enter 90 miles away, I have never seen where the water that falls into the watershed that recharges the creek. Risley added we have to be careful about if we have development on the east side we consider the trees that are there are they are our water source in a lot of ways and if you take that away you deplete the water source. I’d like to see them put something like that in there too. Steidel noted a couple of old historic springs are nothing compared to Haskell compared to productivity. Would be good to study the geography in the area to find the little springs so we have the ability to at least have the rights to them. La Bonte added and we can document and know what would be at risk if we see significant impacts with climate change. Steidel noted we have a few wells in the area which would be good research. The Brailier spring in South Wind is a productive spring and I think the city has water rights to it. That was good report and they did an excellent job at presenting it and making it understand it. St. Denis added Tormanen and his team have done a wonderful job for us and we appreciate them.

(2) 2020 Accessibility Assessment & Recommendations for Improvements

La Bonte read the staff report. La Bonte introduced Mike Passo. Passo thanked for inviting and been in the accessibility assessment world for about 30 years. Back in 2015 was the first-time visiting Cannon Beach and I did an assessment at that time on the rec capacity and trial system. This year followed up with another assessment and I have to tell you the City should be very proud for what you provide for people of all abilities, especially the staff with their commitment and interest in the issue and willingness to go where needs to go to be more accessible. I commend you all on everything I have seen so far. Passo gave an overview of how he does the assessment noting he looks at the code level, universal design level – these are not law requirements but a higher level of improvement for the city, and finally look at maximum access. Through the report you’ll see the different levels of recommendations throughout. The conclusion did a different take on the report and provided a checklist of things to do over the next 5 years and only 5 are code level issues which is the least amount I have ever seen on an assessment. The staff can use the checklist and revisit every 6 months or once a year. The only ones that really are code level important are the first 5 in the checklist. Generally speaking, wanted to give a 30,000-foot view you’ve done a great job on providing access. The beach chair program is new since my last visit and definitely pushing the leading edge on that. I heard about the program through friends first and the person running the program is very knowledgeable and enthusiastic and dedicated to the idea. This provides some really great access and always being used in the summer. If you can expand or provide chairs that are a little more independent might be a nice addition. The 30,000 view in Cannon Beach is you pretty much got it, you just need to tell people about it, noting options on how to spread the word and suggestions from the report. Passo noted issues with Tolovana Park that occur with sand accumulation and driftwood. The more I think about it, Whale Park being downtown has great potential of providing additional

Minutes - Cannon Beach City Council - March 9, 2021 Page 2 of 4 access which bookends the town with access. Passo noted firm access does not have to be concrete and the driftwood wouldn’t be as big of an issue. Other opportunities would be signage noting examples. You guys are really strongly on the right track and I always hesitate to tell a City that, because they may sit back and not do anything. It’s easy for these to fall off the radar but put in your calendar for once a year and keep the different elements in mind and look at anything that has changed over the year. Benefield noted I really like the checklist idea it’s a great way to look at it. Many of these recommendations deal with Tolovana Wayside park which we don’t own or operate. What’s the relationship there and has it gone to the state to address these issues. La Bonte replied yes and no. It would be a partnership between us and submitted a letter of intent for a transportation grant to redo the vehicle ramp and let them know the dynamics out there. We all know it’s a maintenance high cost to the city when it was originally put in and didn’t have a good engineering design, and our opportunity to fix if we got the grant. It would be a partnership due to the ownership; we own the ramp and the accessibility ramp is on their property. If we combine the two we can reduce maintenance costs and will be an outstanding project for many reasons. I like Passo’s idea of considering Whale Park of a secondary access and you are right, we would need to partner with State Parks to proceed. St. Denis noted to Passo the next time you come, we are working with a surf shop that moved in with the city and they are involved with adaptive surfing about setting up a program at Tolovana. It’s on the radar now. Passo replied it’s a unique situation and I’ve seen it in Hawaii but nowhere else. I talked with Greg at Bahama Boards and was very excited about building a program like that. St. Denis gave an overview of Greg taking over the wheelchair program. Steidel noted I appreciate the sample brochure you presented and hope we can work with the Chamber to put this out as it’s almost ready. McCarthy added I like the idea of the brochure too and would be perfect for Farmers Market and would be one of our most popular brochure. La Bonte added that is something les talked about when we discussed updating our evacuation routes. This report has gone to the parks committee for feedback and had lots of discussion about midtown restrooms and Tolovana ramp due to the opportunities. Council thanked Passo.

(3) Finance Report

Sawrey gave an overview of the 2nd quarter of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021. A copy is in the record file. Everything is looking good, and I can’t complain. Our population certified on the 14th is now 1,740 citizens. Laurie noted a correction under general fund, 3rd paragraph down where it says expenses year to date. Sawrey gave an overview of why the beginning fund balances are what they are due to COVID and our conservative numbers. Sawrey added we did a room tax audit results about a month ago and this si the first one where we owed money to the lodging operators. In response to Benefield’s question do you do this audit yourself, Sawrey replied our audit firm Isler did it. Council thanked Sawrey.

(4) Fireworks Enforcement Update

Schermerhorn gave an update of the ordinance that was passed last year. Schermerhorn gave of the staff report. Steidel noted the awareness point is critical, knowing some of the folks who have abused fireworks in the past, they did it because they wanted to. I think the judge is very correct in what he did and discussing and reducing the fine, to me the big kick in the pants is getting a fine. Having a judge that has that ability, as far as I am concerned, respect for us, I think the guidelines will help him. Schermerhorn noted this was January 1st and pouring down rain. Risley replied it wasn’t raining, explaining the circumstances of the incident. I am sorry I couldn’t talk to the judge because what he said was not accurate. Schermerhorn replied it is past that point now and I may have been off on the rain. Risley added I don’t like that he did his service in Washington I think it should be here. In response to McCarthy’s question can we monitor that it happened, Schermerhorn replied he has to report to police there and show proof. A discussion ensued regarding fire danger with fireworks in the summer. Schermerhorn added I am working on spreading the word and working with State Parks and the Fire Chief. The fire chief is working with state parks regarding Arch Cape and working on getting Oregon State Police involved and working on getting someone at Crescent Beach as well. robin disappointed that fine was reduced so much, he disregarded it. In response to Benefield’s question it says up to or not to exceed, if someone gets a violation what do they actually receive, a ticket that shows the amount, Schermerhorn replied yes. In response to Benefield’s question so it shows the max and they can go to court to discuss and the officer can’t make changes, Schermerhorn replied yes

Minutes - Cannon Beach City Council - March 9, 2021 Page 3 of 4 but the judge can. In response to McCarthy’s question will you have a form that the officer fills out, Schermerhorn replied yes it’s a checklist that they complete and submit to the judge. Steidel noted citizens helping out maybe giving them the list as well so they can make notes to help out.

(5) Farmer’s Market Business License Fees

St. Denis summarized the staff report. Last year we did not have the Farmer’s Market and this year we are not sure what will happen this summer. The draft ordinance in front of you is to reduce the fee to $40 again this year. Looking at not starting until July 21st and think the fee should be low enough to not keep potential vendors away. We may be recommending a lower dollar amount to make sure we are not pushing people away due to the short market season. A discussion ensued regarding the potential start date and potential rate. Steidel added I appreciate getting the vendors back. Benefield added I can see a nominal $10, certainly not more than $20. St. Denis replied I like your idea. Some people who are not sure if they are going to be here every week it’s not a big expenses and they may be willing to pay it with not knowing how often they will come. We will put this out with a lower number.

(6) Good of the Order

St. Denis reported there is a Budget Committee meeting tomorrow at 1pm and a work session on Monday at 6pm with the fire department.

McCarthy added I thought it was an interesting meeting the Chamber had with restaurants with the Fire Department about the Food & Beverage tax. A discussion ensued regarding the audio and attendance.

In response to Ogilivie’s question how long allotted for budget meeting tomorrow, St. Denis replied less than 2 hours, depends on questions, but less than 2 hours.

McCarthy reported Coffee with the Councilor is Monday the 15th at 10 am

ADJORNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m.

ATTEST:

______Jennifer Barrett, City Recorder Sam Steidel, Mayor

Minutes - Cannon Beach City Council - March 9, 2021 Page 4 of 4

Minutes of the CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Monday, March 15, 2021 Council Chambers

Present: Mayor Sam Steidel, Council President Mike Benefield, Councilor Robin Risley and Nancy McCarthy in person. Councilor Brandon Ogilvie via Zoom

Excused:

Staff: City Manager Bruce St. Denis, IT Director Rusty Barrett, City Recorder Jennifer Barrett, and Public Works Director Karen La Bonte

Others: Fire Chief Marc Reckmann, CBRFPD Board Memebers Dave Herman, Garry Smith, Rick Shafer, and Bob Cerelli in pseron. Mark Mekanas via Zoom.

https://zoom.us/j/130039909?pwd=YlhEMU83Vkd6TGVhVzhqa1NuQWpKdz09 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

To join from your phone: Phone: 1.301.715.8592 Meeting ID: 992 6108 4699 Password: 365593

CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Mayor Steidel called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

Steidel asked for a motion to approve the agenda.

Motion: Benefield moved to approve the agenda as presented; Risley seconded.

Vote: Benefield, McCarthy, Ogilvie, Risley and Steidel voted AYE. The vote was 5/0 and the motion passed unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENT

In response to St. Denis’s question to Reckmann are you treating this as an official meeting, do you need to do anything to call this to order, Reckmann replied we are good, we are going off the City’s meeting.

Steidel noted we have no public comment at this time but may have some after the presentation.

DISCUSSIONS

(1) Cannon Beach Rural Fire District

Marc Reckmann introduced himself noting this is a joint meeting with the Cannon Beach Rural Fire Protection District with myself, Dave Herman, Garry Smith, Rick Shafer in person. Mark Mekenas is on zoom and Bob Cerelli will be joining soon.

Reckmann presented a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is included in the record file. Reckmann noted this has been altered from the past presentation with new information and feedback from the public.

Bob Cerelli arrived at 6:12 pm.

Reckmann asked for questions and discussion. Reckmann noted the board/special district does not have the ability to do this, it has to be the City or County. Steidel thanked Reckmann for the presentation and opened it up for discussion.

Risley noted you used certain cities as comparison, what does Gerhart get, Reckmann replied I didn’t pull that one. Risley asked can you get that for me, Reckmann replied yes. Risley added the reason why is they are open to inspections and doing things. I think the size of the fire department may be similar too. In the county – you relay on Cannon Beach and our restaurants to provide this tax where Arch Cape is under the county jurisdiction. I don’t see much income coming in from the Arch Cape area. Smith replied this would be a tax for just city of Cannon Beach. Risley replied but you cover the whole area. Smith added we can’t institute a tax on our own. The city has to do it. Risley replied there is cross over with Arch Cape since you have a truck in Arch Cape. Smith replied that is the city rating, not the district rating. Reckmann added it would help the whole district, but when look at what you are responding to in Arch Cape we are responding to resident. 90% of time outside the city limits. We are responding to taxpayers. Cerelli added one of county commissioners live in Falcon Cove and been on budget committee for fire district and is aware of finances and finally getting in position to try to get money out of county to help the fire district. In response to McCarthy’s question how much money could be raised, Reckmann replied I don’t know without hiring someone to do a study. I’ve asked restaurants but no one really is willing to give their sales receipts out. That is where the try for 3 years comes in. Does it do enough, does it not, we really don’t know. In response to McCarthy’s question so you don’t know if it would be enough, Reckmann replied I don’t. In response to McCarthy’s question are you proposing to take the whole amount, Reckmann replied I was thinking 85% since the city has the legwork and has to do all the work. If we do 3 year at whatever percentage we decide to see if that worked and then readjust if needed. I am in favor if we do this of really collecting money and then budgeting it as we don’t know how this will turn out. You budget an idea of what you get for lodging tax based off previous years, but we don’t have that. I looked at Yachats and Ashland but I don’t know if we compare. Ashland generated about $3million a year, Risley noted they are a bigger city and Yachats doesn’t have as much tourism. Steidel noted we gathered some information the last time we talked about this, St. Denis replied we gathered some information. Steidel noted I think Ashland had a 6% adding they recently went back and reassessed everything. Reckmann noted both Yachats and Ashland are using 5% and both had said there hasn’t been a downside to the restaurants. Steidel added my assumption from my interaction with tourist from the gallery are most expect to pay a sales tax because thy are from someone else. It will be the Oregon population who will say wait a minute. Reckmann added several restaurants noted concern with their staff having to explain this to their customers. We want to make sure there is verbiage supplied for why and how. Risley noted Ashland has a population of 21,000. Benefield added you are in a real bind and so is the city. We have a lot of expenditures coming up in the future and the F&B tax is a source that has been and continues to be considered. To make the decision to release that potential to go elsewhere gives me a problem. We don’t know how much it is either and doing it the city gets all the blame for it and the fire district gets revenue. Maybe if we educate and explain, but we get flack all the time for increasing water rates that needs to be done. It doesn’t affect the residents as much but I still go out to eat. You are right there is an expectation the fire department is there to serve people. This can’t be the only fire department having a similar problem, the structure is all wrong. Is this a lobbying effort? They created a lodging tax to bring more people here and it worked and now we have a problem. Reckmann replied the fire organization went to the state and it fell on deaf ears. The Nestucca fire district has been leading this to the state with no avail. Benefield replied I understand it’s a horrible problem and don’t see asking the city to raise taxes on the restaurants is the proper solution. It’s a solution but not sure it’s the right one. Smith added would you rather see property taxes raised? Wouldn’t they prefer the tourist industry? Benefield replied I don’t think they want to see anything raised. Smith noted I think you would look at it from that standpoint to support the fire

Minutes - Cannon Beach City Council – March 15, 2021 Page 2 of 5 district and you have the capability to do that. Benefield replied you make a sound argument, but you are asking us to go and raise taxes on our businesses to support a fire department that serves beyond our city. Steidel added we are not raising taxes on the business we are raising taxes on tourism through businesses. Benefield replied but you get the same flack. When you pencil it out it makes sense. Reckmann added the motels keep a half percent or so of the tax they raise to offset their costs and it should be the same for the restaurants. They need something for the reprogramming and what ever they need to do. Steidel added in a situation where the city would be gaining theses funds also so we have a reserve and can have a grant system for those who need to retool. There are some that don’t use systems and would have to change if we do this. I would like to have some reserves to help restaurants who don’t’ have the ability yet. The fact that we work with transient room tax for so long and had a very aggressive anti attitude when started. We will run in the same issues but in hindsight has been so effective and not detrimental to businesses at all. I don’t see where this will impact businesses with an ice cream cone, a fancy dinner it may, but that’s the whole idea. The ones coming from Seattle won’t notice. Benefield added I don’t think there is a better solution. The lodging industry didn’t like it, and no one wants to raise property taxes. If the city has a need then the F&B tax the quickest easiest way to recognize revenue. If we do it, it needs to be worked out in advanced and need to know what kind of revenue you can expect. I understand the issue and problem and haven’t seen a better solution locally but better to deal at the state legislation level. What keeps you from going out on the ballot for a larger amount every 5 years? Reckmann replied I think what keeps it is morals. When I look at what we are responding on, its hard to go back to the voters and try to raise taxes when its not the residents we are responding to. I don’t think there is any interesting on going back to voters except for continuing on what we have. The restaurants, after the meeting, said the 89 cents is a good balance if we can get some tourism money to balance. Smith added if the fire department can go to the state legislature why can’t some of the 70% go to public safety and still allow the city to keep theirs. So for ORLA set such a strong lobbyist against that. If we can’t work out agreement with city to look at other revenue, with the training and equipment mandates from the state, we are stuck with providing the services we provide and that’s all. What we are asking you to consider is this tax as a way for the city to help with personal we are ok with equipment. Reckmann added what Smith eludes to is we are only responsible for fire protection. EMS falls under county and is owned by Medix. We are not legally responsible to respond to EMS and most communities expect it, but not all do. We are not going to stop, but its an unfunded liability. The ambulance service area is county ran and you bid on it and Medix has the contract for it. In response to McCarthy’s question when this brought up before legislation said you can’t do that, do you know if you can now, Reckmann replied you can, a discussion ensued.

Steidel noted I am in support of trying to sort out means to do this and sort out details. The chamber can help. This goes with what Benefield was alluding to, how firm could we make an ordinance that you can’t change this for a length of time so some future council can’t change it and say let’s add some more money. St. Denis replied you can’t tie a future council’s hand. Benefield added we can confirm with Ashley. Reckmann noted feedback from the Chamber was that city has authority to enact and that was loud from several don’t put it on the ballot, the fear was a clash between restaurants in town. In response to Benefield’s question you said you went to the county for the tax, Reckmann replied I didn’t go, the county investigated doing this about 5 years ago and chose not to. What I understand they chose not to because they didn’t feel it was a viable option and would get so much backlash from it. Talking with people who were in it they didn’t feel it would be worth approaching them again as not enough change to consider it. Benefield added if they did county wide they could benefit each fire district in the county and show how it is benefiting everyone. Reckmann replied we are the only district that covers the city, all the other cities have their own fire department. We are the only district. In response to Ogilvie’s question for clarification of why not putting it on the ballot, Reckmann explained they had concern of this being a political issue between restaurants, adding I am just relaying the info they said. Ogilvie added I am not against this going through Council but not seeing an issue with going on ballot. Benefield noted the benefits of being on the ballot adding it would be transparent and registered voters would be the ones to pass or reject and could go a long way to get it done. I don’t like the idea of Council making the decision. If this is done it should be on the ballot. And them seeing it’s not on their property taxes would be a good way of them seeing it. Steidel added I see the argument between the restaurants concern but I agree with Benefield, it’s the residents that are footing the bill for tourist swimming in the ocean when its 4 degrees. Once they understand that really well which is an educational campaign to me it s no brainer. Smith noted the city can take over the fire department, Steidel replied we don’t see us wanting to dot hat as your operation is so efficient, Smith added and your expenses would go up. Steidel added

Minutes - Cannon Beach City Council – March 15, 2021 Page 3 of 5 I see this as a good and our emergency management as a selling factor that we are prepared. We can say you will pay more for an ice cream cone but we have a good service that we are offering for this. I think this a viable option. Smith added the fire department has seen a good response when we put things out there and if advertised in an way to show that we really do need this. Steidel added this is one of those its no skin off our backs if we put it on the ballot. If it’s a no go, we start thinking of something else. It would be good for us to hash out the details, make is nice and clear. You mentioned 85% as a possible number it depends on the details. Reckmann added I’ll reach out and find numbers to see what it would generate. Ashland used a consultant company to see what it would generate and I’ll start looking into some of that. I hope we can move forward. We talked about it for 3 years and would like to move to put on a November ballot if it goes in the right direction. Ogilvie noted you mentioned that raising the hotel room tax was a not go because of the 30/70 split remind that the 30 is something and an option. Not something we should just take off the table because its there. In response to St. Denis’s question how much are you looking for a year, Reckmann replied the difference is $800,000. Steidel noted I think this merits some detail. I don’t’ know the ballot situation and sounds like the way to go just for everyone’s comfortableness. It comes down to what we ask for how do we present it. that comes from getting a basic number on how much could be make possibly. Benefield added I don’t want to lose what Cannon Beach’s needs are too. Steidel added parking was mentioned by someone and would rather focus on emergency preparedness. Lets continue the conversation with more details.

Smith thanked the Council for listening.

(2) Good of the Order

St. Denis reported we have things coming up and if this option was not available, we would be looking at tax increases to move forward. We could find ourselves in a high tax base. Steidel replied I read your email on where we may be headed on the City Hall discussion. McCarthy added I would like to see us return to discussion on the City Hall/Police Department. St. Denis added to put it on the November referral things need to be in mid-august for any consideration. Benefield added can we include on the work session on discussing the garage for police department. St. Denis added we could potentially modify the design here if we are going to be out in a few years. But if nothing on the horizon may need more significant changes.

Steidel noted since this last year has been weird as far as TAC money. do we have opportunity to shift for the timing so the funds we gain can cover the events for the plan year? So, we have money we grant instead of grant then budget money. St. Denis replied TAC is getting ready to meet and the financial situation is different. There were people saying we are not doing our event this year; can we do a rolled back version to make things happen. Both coaster and Paul Dueber are looking to do something more with Buskers Happy Hour. There is some optimism. When we did the meeting and grants there were a lot of people who said we can’t do something this year. The finances are significantly different than we thought it would be. Benefield noted that may give us an opportunity to build a reserve. Steidel added it’s a fund from last year is what we were hoping to get to. McCarthy noted we took money from that for the school, St. Denis replied yes but we paid back the majority and are close to being whole again. There was discussion on if TAC could modify the proposal. Council said no to hold what the request is. Would there be any movement on that so that TAC could consider new requests or a modification if someone came in with a modified event? In some ways I feel the way we did in the past we lock ourselves in. Risley replied I thought we were talking about different buckets of money and they wanted to do all three. I don’t see a problem with them working within the events total for that year. They have the experience to do that but no go to the other buckets. St. Denis added you are right there were several items for discussion. I would recommend that you give them the discretion for a modified process. Risley added they need to consider what at the time is allowable by the state too. McCarthy added I think you are asking to allow flexibility on the proposal. St. Denis replied some are going into October, can we do a modified program for this year? I think that there was a lot of pessimism so a lot pushed off and not sure enough of a benefit for modified programs coming in. McCarthy added if they want flexibility for next year that is fine but this year is a wash. Steidel noted let them put their feet in the water and see how it works. Benefield added see a problem arising if everyone has flexibility and it exceeds the total amount. St. Denis replied I was thinking something small, just seeing there seems to be interest on trying to

Minutes - Cannon Beach City Council – March 15, 2021 Page 4 of 5 make some things happen and do we want to allow the ability to use the funds. Such as Tolovana Arts Colony, if they were to use the bandstand could they modify their request for more concerts, noting what was done last year to help get people out. Risley replied one of the issues was when people requesting a certain amount of money people not add more to it. It would just be for the request amount. St. Denis added what I am proposing is if Tolovana Arts Colony cut back to two concerts but could do four, could they provide ethe funds for two more. Risley replied they should come to us with a proposal. St. Denis can we do another round? McCarthy added last year we were flexible to allow things in the summer but we don’t normally do. St. Denis replied lets evaluate the process with where we are now.

Steidel noted the 4th of July parade is quickly approaching. Should we start considering if we are going to do that or not. A lot are thinking it could happen, its an outside event. St. Denis replied when Hudson was talking he said we are maybe 10% vaccinated in Clatsop County and looking at pushing out more. If we are able to get more people vaccinated that may change things but we would need time to plan and pull it together. Risley noted but there is also the influx of tourist. St. Denis replied they will be here on the 4th already. Benefield added but without a parade they won’t be clustered together on both sides of the street. Reckmann added I think the 4th of July parade is more for the community than tourist. Its about us and our community. St. Denis added perhaps look at the May regular meeting to see where we are and if you say go we’ll put it together. Steidel noted I had a chat with Tiffany who said we’ll have another 10% soon, a discussion ensued. May regular meeting we will discuss 4th of July.

ADJORNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.

ATTEST:

______Jennfier Barrett, City Recorder Sam Steidel, Mayor

Minutes - Cannon Beach City Council – March 15, 2021 Page 5 of 5 PUBLIC INPUT RECEIVED

CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 21-02 FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 5.04.060(C) FEES IMPOSED ______

Agenda Date: March 9, 2021 Prepared by: Bruce St.Denis, City Manager

BACKGROUND

On June 9, 2020 Council approved Ordinance 20-15, reducing the business license fee for Farmers Market vendors only, for the 2020 season only, as an emergency ordinance in order to allow the vendors time to apply for their business licenses before the proposed start date of July 21st. The 2020 Farmers Market was cancelled due to the COVIC-19 pandemic.

ANALYSIS/INFORMATION

This reduction was discussed at the March 9, 2021 work session. Council provided input and direction to further reduce the fee due to the unknowns of the 2021 market season.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends Council adopt Ordinance 21-02.

Recommended motion:

"I move to adopt Ordinance 21-02 for the purpose of amending the municipal code by amending chapter 5.04.060 C fees imposed. "

List of Attachments A Ordinance 21-02 DRAFT

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected]

BEFORE THE COMMON COUNCIL OF CANNON BEACH

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL ) ORDINANCE NO. 21-02 CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 5.04.060(C) FEES ) IMPOSED )

WHEREAS, the City Council understand that because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cannon Beach Farmers Market may operate substantially fewer days in 2021; and

WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to reduce the business license fee for Cannon Beach Farmers Market participants in correlation with the possibility of reduction in market days.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CANNON BEACH ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Notwithstanding Cannon Beach Municipal Code chapter 5.04.060, for the 2021 Farmers Market Season, Cannon Beach Farmers’ Market vendors shall be required to obtain a business license at a reduced fee of $10.

Section 2: As the Cannon Beach Farmers’ Market is scheduled to begin mid-June, and vendors must obtain a business license prior to operating at the market, this ordinance is an emergency and shall be effective upon adoption.

Section 3: This ordinance expires at the end of the 2021 Farmers’ Market season. If a vendor continues to operate in the City of Cannon Beach after this time, the vendor must obtain an additional business license pursuant to chapter 5.04.060.

ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Cannon Beach this 6th day of April 2021, by the following roll call vote:

YEAS: NAYS: EXCUSED:

______Sam, Steidel, Mayor

Attest: Approved as to Form

______Bruce St. Denis, City Manager Ashley Driscoll, City Attorney

City of Cannon Beach Ordinance 21-02 page 1 CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATION 21-01; SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH ______

Agenda Date: April 6, 2021 Prepared by: Police Chief Jason Schermerhorn

BACKGROUND

Sexual Assault Awareness Month is intended to draw attention to the fact that sexual violence is widespread and impacts every community member. Every individual and community in Oregon has a role to play to help eliminate sexual violence by working together to promote social change.

Some disturbing statistics include: over 20 million American women and men have been the victims of sexual violence; every 98 seconds another person experiences sexual assault; 93 % of all sexual abuse is committed by someone the victim knows and oved 50% of sexual assaults go unreported each year.

With leadership, dedication, and encouragement, there is evidence that we can be successful in preventing sexual violence in our community through increased awareness and community involvement. This is the reasoning for the proposed proclamation.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the proclamation

Suggested motion:

“I move to adopt proclamation 21-01 for the Purpose of Designating the Month of April 2021, as Sexual Assault Awareness Month.”

List of Attachments A Proclamation 21-01: Sexual Assault Awareness Month

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected]

BEFORE THE CITY OF CANNON BEACH

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNATING THE ) PROCLAMATION NO. 21-01 MONTH OF APRIL 2021, AS SEXUAL ) ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH )

WHEREAS, Sexual assault effects Oregonians every day, whether as a victim or survivor or as a family member, friend, partner, neighbor, employer or co-worker of a survivor; and

WHEREAS, Oregonians of all gender identities experience sexual violence, including an estimated 1 in 4 adult women who has been the victim of rape, and nearly 1 in 5 men who has experienced sexual violence in their lifetime; and

WHEREAS, Certain populations in Oregon experience much higher rates of sexual violence due to systemic oppression and inequity; and

WHEREAS, Compassionate, courageous, and dedicated individuals, local organizations, and other partners have provided services and support for victims and survivors, and worked to prevent sexual violence for decades; and

WHEREAS, Sexual violence is preventable and all communities are strengthened by encouraging healthy, non-violent interactions, relationships and social norms; and

WHERAS, Every individual and community in Oregon has a role to play to help eliminate sexual violence by working together to promote social change.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of Cannon Beach does hereby proclaim the month of April 2021, to be

SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH

and asks all citizens to join advocates and communities across the country in playing an active role to prevent sexual violence.

PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Cannon Beach this 6th day of April 2021, by the following roll call vote:

YEAS: NAYS: EXCUSED:

Sam Steidel, Mayor Attest:

Bruce St. Denis, City Manager

City of Cannon Beach Proclamation 21-01

CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATION 21-02; NATIONAL CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH ______

Agenda Date: April 6, 2021 Prepared by: Police Chief Jason Schermerhorn

BACKGROUND

April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Every child in Cannon beach and beyond deserves a happy, healthy childhood, free from abuse and neglect. In 2017 in Clatsop County alone, over 130 children were victims of abuse and neglect as determined by the courts. This number represents the tip of the iceberg, with many more children suffering unnoticed.

Child abuse prevention is an investment in the future of our communities. What it means is paying attention to what is happening in our towns. It means addressing the opioid epidemic and taking care of people who parent alone, helping parents who are in violent relationships, and helping parents who struggle with mental health problems. And it means making sure our families have a place to call home: a homeless parent is much less likely to be able to provide safe care for children.

Child abuse is not acceptable in Cannon Beach, Clatsop County, or our society as a whole and it can be prevented. The Clatsop Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program has asked that the City of Cannon Beach support the prevention of child abuse by proclaiming the month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Month.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the proclamation

Suggested motion:

“I move to adopt proclamation 21-02 for the Purpose of Designating the Month of April 2021, as Child Abuse Prevention Month.”

List of Attachments A Proclamation 21-02: National Child Abuse Prevention Month

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected]

BEFORE THE CITY OF CANNON BEACH

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DESIGNATING THE ) PROCLAMATION NO. 21-02 MONTH OF APRIL 2021, AS CHILD ABUSE ) PREVENTION MONTH )

WHEREAS, every child is precious and deserves to grow up in a healthy, safe, nurturing environment free from the dangers and harmful effects of child abuse and neglect; and

WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect impacts our entire society and can cause traumatic psychological, emotional and physical harm, resulting in long-term economic and societal costs; and

WHEREAS, child-focused prevention and intervention programs offer positive alternatives and outcomes for children and encourage families to develop strong, durable ties to their communities; and

WHEREAS, child abuse prevention succeeds through partnerships among parents, child-welfare agencies, mental and physical health care providers, schools, law enforcement agencies, churches, businesses and community members by fostering loving, supportive and violence-free homes; and

WHEREAS, all citizens need to be more aware of the effects of child abuse, neglect, and prevention in order to encourage healthy parenting in healthy communities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Common Council of Cannon Beach does hereby proclaim the month of April 2021, to be

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

in the City of Cannon Beach.

PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Cannon Beach this 6th day of April 2021, by the following roll call vote:

YEAS: NAYS: EXCUSED:

Sam Steidel, Mayor

Attest:

Bruce St. Denis, City Manager

City of Cannon Beach Proclamation 21-02

CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATION 21-03; ARBOR DAY ______

Agenda Date: April 6, 2021 Prepared by: Karen La Bonte, Public Works Director

BACKGROUND

Cannon Beach has a "Tree City USA" designation by the Arbor Day Foundation in honor of its commitment to effective urban forest management. We are one of more than 3,400 Tree City USAs. The Tree City USA program is sponsored by the Arbor Day Foundation in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service and the National Association of State Foresters.

National Arbor Day this year is April 30, and Arbor Day activities will be included in the modified version of the 12 Days of Earth Day festivities in Cannon Beach.

The annual tree planting ceremony will be during the 12 Days of Earth Day festivities.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the proclamation.

Suggested motion:

“I move to adopt proclamation 21-03 for the Purpose of proclaiming April 30, 2021 as Arbor Day in the City of Cannon Beach.”

List of Attachments A Proclamation 21-03: Arbor Day

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected]

BEFORE THE CITY OF CANNON BEACH

FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCLAIMING ) PROCLAMATION NO. 21-03 APRIL 30, 2021 AS ARBOR DAY IN THE ) CITY OF CANNON BEACH )

WHEREAS, in 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees; and

WHEREAS, the holiday called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska; and

WHEREAS, Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation; and

WHEREAS, trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, lower our heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen and provide habitat for wildlife; and

WHEREAS, trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires and countless other wood products; and

WHEREAS, trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community, and

WHEREAS, trees, wherever they are planted, are a source of joy and spiritual renewal,

BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Sam Steidel, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Cannon Beach in the State of Oregon do hereby proclaim April 30, 2021, as

ARBOR DAY

in the City of Cannon Beach, and I urge all citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands; and

FURTHER, I urge all citizens to plant and care for trees to gladden the heart and promote the well-being of this and future generations.

PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Cannon Beach this 6th day of April 2021 by the following roll call vote:

YEAS: EXCUSED: NAYS: ______Sam Steidel, Mayor

Attest: Bruce St. Denis, City Manager

City of Cannon Beach Proclamation 21-03

CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

CONSIDERATION OF PROCLAMATION 21-04; EARTH DAY ______

Agenda Date: April 6, 2021 Prepared by: Karen La Bonte, Public Works Director

BACKGROUND

April 22, 2021, marks the 51st year of the Earth Day celebration. As part of the Earth Day celebration each year, the Parks and Community Services Committee coordinates the 12 Days of Earth Day event to educate the community and visitors about the unique, complex coastal environment and ecosystem of the area.

ANALYSIS/INFORMATION

We would like to take this opportunity acknowledge and recognize Earth Day and the work that the Parks and Community Services Committee and volunteers have done to continue the tradition of the 12 Days of Earth Day.

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the proclamation.

Suggested motion:

“I move to adopt proclamation 21-04 for the Purpose of proclaiming April 22, 2021, as Earth Day in the City of Cannon Beach.”

List of Attachments A Proclamation 21-04: Earth Day

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected]

BEFORE THE CITY OF CANNON BEACH

FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROCLAIMING ) PROCLAMATION NO. 21-04 APRIL 22, 2021 AS EARTH DAY IN THE ) CITY OF CANNON BEACH )

WHEREAS, the first Earth Day was enacted in 1970 and engaged over twenty million Americans to advocate for a cleaner environment; and

WHEREAS, April 22 marks 51 years of Earth Day; and

WHEREAS, Earth Day now has become a worldwide event and has highlighted some of the most critical environmental issues on the world stage; and

WHEREAS, all species play a unique role in the complex web of life and contribute to the ecosystem services on which all life on Earth depends, and hence, protecting our species is crucial to the survival of this planet and its inhabitants; and

WHEREAS, the Parks and Community Services Committee has played an integral role to educate the community and visitors about the unique, complex coastal environment and ecosystem of the area by coordinating the celebration of Earth Day through a 12-day program of educational and community activities.

BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Sam Steidel, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of Cannon Beach in the State of Oregon do hereby proclaim April 22, 2021, as

EARTH DAY

in the City of Cannon Beach, and I encourage all of its citizens, businesses, and institutions to use EARTH DAY to celebrate the Earth and promote the protection of our species.

PASSED by the Common Council of the City of Cannon Beach this 6th day of April 2021 by the following roll call vote:

YEAS: EXCUSED: NAYS: ______Sam Steidel, Mayor

Attest: Bruce St. Denis, City Manager

City of Cannon Beach Proclamation 21-04

CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

SCOPE OF REVIEW DETERMINATION FOR MOON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A COTTAGE INDUSTRY CONDITIONAL USE ______

Agenda Date: April 6, 2021 Prepared by: Jeff Adams Community Development Director

BACKGROUND

The City of Cannon Beach Planning Commission (PC) rendered a decision to deny the Conditional Use (CU#21- 01) for a Cottage Industry for an automotive towing operation in conjunction with a new residence for Jeffrey D. Moon, Tax Lot 00400, Map 51032BC, east of Highway 101, north of E. Surfcrest Ave., a 1.1 acre Very Low Density Residentially zoned vacant property, at its January 28, 2021 regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The PC’s Findings are attached as ‘Attachment B.’ Jeff Moon requested a review of the decision, in an application and letter received February 10, 2021, within the 14 consecutive calendars appeal period, from the date the final order was signed. The City Council held a Scope of Review meeting as a non-public hearing item on March 2, 2021, remanding the item to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the matter on March 25th, and after considering the proposed changes, upheld its previous decision to deny CU#21-01. The Findings are attached below as ‘Attachment C’. The City Council shall use the application and request for review, under the guidance of 17.88.140 & 150 to inform their decision on whether to restrict the review to the record before the Planning Commission, limited to additional materials that it feels are warranted, de novo, or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. The applicant has requested a limited scope of review for the reasons provided in ‘Attachment A’ and the item has been noticed for the next available public hearing, meeting notice requirements, for May 4th, 2021. Please note that due to Oregon’s 120-day rule a final decision must reached by May 5th, 2021, or an extension granted by the applicant.

List of Attachments A: Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission Application, Jeff Moon, with attached Request for Review of Decision, Jeffrey D. and Jodi R. Moon, dated February 10, 2021 and stamped received February 11, 2021; B: City of Cannon Beach Planning Commission Findings for P 21-01, CU 21-01, SR 21-01, SV 21-01 & V 21- 01, Requests by Jeffrey D. Moon, for Tax Lot 00400 of Map 51032BC. C: City of Cannon Beach Planning Commission Draft Findings for Remand of CU 21-01, Requests by Jeffrey D. Moon, for Tax Lot 00400 of Map 51032BC.

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon- beach.or.us • [email protected]

Chapter 17.88 PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS AND HEARINGS {…}

17.88.140 Request for review of decision. An appeal of a development permit, design review board or planning commission decision shall contain the following: {…} D. For a review of a decision by the design review board or planning commission, if a de novo review or review by additional testimony and other evidence is requested, a statement relating the request to the factors listed in Section 17.88.180.

17.88.150 Requirements of a request for appeal of a development permit, design review board or planning commission decision. An appeal of a development permit, design review board or planning commission decision shall contain the following: A. An identification of the decision sought to be reviewed, including the date of the decision; B. A statement of the interest of the person seeking the review. For a review of a decision by the design review board or planning commission, a statement that he/she was a party to the initial proceedings; C. The specific grounds relied upon for review. For a review of a decision by the design review board or planning commission, a statement that the criteria against which review is being requested was addressed at the design review board or planning commission hearing; D. For a review of a decision by the design review board or planning commission, if a de novo review or review by additional testimony and other evidence is requested, a statement relating the request to the factors listed in Section 17.88.180.

17.88.160 Scope of review. A. An appeal of a permit or development permit shall be heard as a de novo hearing. B. In an appeal of a design review board or planning commission decision, the reviewing body may determine, as a nonpublic hearing item, that the scope of review, on appeal will be one of the following: 1. Restricted to the record made on the decision being appealed; 2. Limited to the admission of additional evidence on such issues as the reviewing body determines necessary for a proper resolution of the matter; 3. Remand the matter to the hearing body for additional consideration; 4. A de novo hearing on the merits.

17.88.170 Review on the record. A. Unless otherwise provided for by the reviewing body, review of the decision on appeal shall be confined to the record of the proceeding as specified in this section. The record shall include the following:

1. A factual report prepared by the city manager;

2. All exhibits, materials, pleadings, memoranda, stipulations and motions submitted by any party and received or considered in reaching the decision under review; 3. The final order and findings of fact adopted in support of the decision being appealed;

4. The request for an appeal filed by the appellant;

5. The minutes of the public hearing. The reviewing body may request that a transcript of the hearing be prepared.

B. All parties to the initial hearing shall receive a notice of the proposed review of the record. The notice shall indicate the date, time and place of the review and the issue(s) that are the subject of the review.

C. The reviewing body shall make its decision based upon the record after first granting the right of argument, but not the introduction of additional evidence, to parties to the hearing.

D. In considering the appeal, the reviewing body need only consider those matters specifically raised by the appellant. The reviewing body may consider other matters if it so desires.

E. The appellant shall bear the burden of proof. (Ord. 89-3 § 1; Ord. 79-4 § 1 (10.083))

17.88.180 Review consisting of additional evidence or de novo review. A. The reviewing body may hear the entire matter de novo; or it may admit additional testimony and other evidence without holding a de novo hearing. The reviewing body shall grant a request for a new hearing only where it finds that:

1. The additional testimony or other evidence could not reasonably have been presented at the prior hearing; or

2. A hearing is necessary to fully and properly evaluate a significant issue relevant to the proposed development action; and

3. The request is not necessitated by improper or unreasonable conduct of the requesting party or by a failure to present evidence that was available at the time of the previous review.

B. Hearings on appeal, either de novo or limited to additional evidence on specific issue(s), shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Sections 17.88.010 through 17.88.100.

C. All testimony, evidence and other material from the record of the previous consideration shall be included in the record of the review.

Attachment A

Attachment B

Cannon Beach Planning Commission Findings

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF P 21-01, CU 21-01, SR 21-01, SV 21-01 & V 21- 01, JEFFERY D. MOON COMBINED APPLICATIONS TO PARTITION LOT 51032BC00400 INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS (TAX LOT 00400, MAP 51032BC), WITH ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COTTAGE INDUSTRY AND SETBACK REDUCTION REQUEST, SIGN VARIANCE AND VARIANCE REQUESTS TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE CENTER, INCLUDING GARAGE AND TOWING SERVICE FACILITIES. THE 1.1 ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, NORTH OF E. SURFCREST AVE. IN A RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW DENSITY (RVL) ZONE. THE SETBACK REDUCTION REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR A TEN-FOOT SETBACK ALONG PROPERTY LINES, RATHER THAN 20-FEET. THE SIGN VARIANCE REQUESTS EIGHTEEN SQUARE-FEET OF SIGN FACE INSTEAD OF THE ONE SQUARE-FOOT PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT ALSO REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION TO 15,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS, RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED ACRE LOTS IN THE RVL DISTRICT AND TO ALLOW FOR PRIVACY SCREENED FENCE ENCLOSURES FOR VEHICLE STORAGE INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED ‘ENCLOSED STRUCTURES,’ FOR COTTAGE INDUSTRIES. THE REQUEST WILL BE REVIEWED PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTER 16.04 SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTERS 17.08 RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW DENSITY, 17.80 CONDITIONAL USES, 17.64 SETBACK REDUCTIONS, 17.56 SIGNS & 17.84 VARIANCES.

Agenda Date: January 28th, 2020 Prepared By: Jeffrey S. Adams, PhD

GENERAL INFORMATION NOTICE Public notice for this January 28th Public Hearing is as follows: A. Notice was posted at area Post Offices on January 6th, 2021; B. Notice was mailed on January 6th, 2021 to surrounding landowners within 250’ of the exterior boundaries of the property, Cannon Beach Rural Fire Department, Department of Land Conservation and Development; DISCLOSURES Any disclosures (i.e. conflicts of interest, site visits or ex parte communications)? EXHIBITS The following Exhibits are attached hereto as referenced. All application documents were received at the Cannon Beach Community Development office on December 30th, 2020 unless otherwise noted. “A” Exhibits – Application Materials Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 1

A-1 Application packet, including P 21-01, CU 21-01, SR 21-01, SV 21-01 & V 21-01, Received December 30, 2020; A-2 Wetlands Determination Report, Tax Lot 400, Cannon Beach, Clatsop County, Oregon, (Township 5 North, Range 10 West, Section 32), Prepared by NW Regolith, December 29, 2020; A-3 Moon Title & Deed packet, various dates; A-4 Revised Lot 400, Plot Plans and Topographic map, labelled Exhibits 1-3, received January 19, 2021; A-5 Moon Garage Elevation Drawing; “B” Exhibits – Agency Comments B-1 Email correspondence from Karen A. Strauss, PE, ODOT, Planning and Development Review Unit, received January 19, 2021; “C” Exhibits – Cannon Beach Supplements C-1 NA “D” Exhibits – Public Comment D-1 Email correspondence from Scott Evansen, Jana Scherer, Joan Evansen-Janusevskis, Erica Rangel and Cooper Janusevskis, received January 11, 2021; D-2 Email correspondence from Lesley Daoud, received January 13, 2021; D-3 Email correspondence from JoAnne Ellison, Barbara Fantozzi-Stockton, Robert Ellison, Kelsey Fantozzi and Curt Stockton, received January 12, 2021; D-4 Email correspondence from Larry Sellers, received January 18, 2021; D-5 Email correspondence from Terrie Huckaba, received January 18, 2021; D-6 Email correspondence from Jay Janecek, received January 13, 2021; D-7 Email correspondence from Jay Janecek, received January 19, 2021; D-8 Email correspondence from Mark Gibson, received January 19, 2021; D-9 Letter received January 19, 2021, from Jim Webb, Webb’s Scenic Surf, dated January 17, 2021; D-10 Email correspondence from Dan and Cathy Young, received January 20, 2021; D-11 Letter received January 21, 2021 electronically from Brian Taylor and Kelli Truax-Taylor, dated January 20, 2021; D-12 Letter received January 21, 2021 electronically from Karen Meili, dated January 20, 2021; D-13 Letter from Gerald B. Sroufe and Maureen Dooley-Sroufe, dated January 19, and received January 22, 2021;

BACKGROUND

Jeff and Jodi Moon are seeking to partition a 1.1 acre property (Tax Lot 00400, Map 51032BC), north of East Surfcrest Ave. and east of Highway 101, zoned Residential Very Low Density (RVL), into two parcels, of approximately 35,000 and 15,000 SF, through a variance request for reduced lot sizes from the one-acre required in the RVL zoning districts, as well as, a variance request to allow for a privacy-fence enclosure for auto storage, rather than as required by the cottage industry standards to “be stored in an enclosed structure.”

The applicants are requesting a conditional use to operate a cottage industry for an automotive service center, including garage and towing service facilities and asking for a sign variance to permit an eighteen square-foot sign, rather than the one square-foot allowed under the cottage industry provisions.

The property is to be accessed directly off of Highway 101 and an ‘unlimited’ access easement accompanies the deed to the property. The property has 24% slopes and will require a geo-hazard report before any construction will be permitted. There is also a wetlands delineation report provided by NW Regolith, dated December 29, Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 2

2020, identifying delineated wetlands on the ODOT right-of-way, adjacent to the subject property, but no delineated wetlands on the subject property. The property is also void of lands in the Special Flood Hazard Area.

ANALYSIS/INFORMATION Staff was originally approached by Gary Moon, of Gary’s Cannon Beach Service Center, at 280 N. Hemlock, in 2019 to discuss options available in Cannon Beach for relocation of the family-owned service center. Mr. Moon stated his hopes of finding a solution for keeping his business within Cannon Beach, with the limited available commercial lands. Cannon Beach currently has 35.5 acres zoned for Limited Commercial (C1), which conditionally permits ‘gasoline service stations’ and just 6.4 acres in General Commercial (C2), which permits outright ‘vehicle repair or storage’ facilities. Yet, of the 6.4 acres in C2, 41% is owned by the City, utilized by the RV park and Public Works, while another 25% is an electric substation of Pacific Power.

The business has now changed hands to the sons, operating under the Gary Duncan Moon Trust, but the goals are still the same, to move the operations out of the downtown commercial area and stay within Cannon Beach. The brothers approached the City in 2020 to further the discussion and various options were considered. As mentioned above, there are currently no vacant C2 properties, and with the transition of the business to towing and repair, moving away from fueling and service, the C1 district is no longer an appropriate location. Rezoning the property to C2 was discussed as an option, but such a change would allow all the outright and conditional uses of the district to remain with the land into the future.

After further discussions between applicant and staff, the application packet for partition and various other requests was presented. The application packet proposes two family homes on a two-lot partition of the 1.15 acre parcel. The two residences are proposed for the eastern portion of the steeply sloped terrain, while a proposed conditionally approved automotive service and towing facility would operate as a ‘cottage industry’ on the western portion of the property. The proposed 4,000 SF garage facility will house a business garage/workspace, including a mechanic’s bay and an office. The facility will be limited to the building height requirements of the RVL zoning district and be accessed off of a shared access drive, via a ‘universal’ access easement connecting to the northern-most 35-feet of the property. The 35,000 SF parcel is also proposed to incorporate an approximately 2,500 SF privacy-screened parking facility to store vehicles and parts.

The staff report is arranged to facilitate the decision-making process. The lot-size variance request would be a logical starting point, as all other requests follow from whether a reduction in lot sizes for the RVL district is granted. The Cannon Beach Comprehensive Plan (CBCP) and Cannon Beach Municipal Code (CBMC) 16.04.130(A)(2) General Development Policy 5, states that the density for the RVL shall generally be 1 unit per acre, while the RL district be 4 units per acre. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow densities more in line with the RL district than the RVL district. If the variance is granted, the PC can then move to consider the other requests, yet if the variance is denied, the partition application and all other requests, may not move forward, as the 15,000 SF parcel requested would fall well below the dimensional requirements of the RVL district.

The partition request criteria follow the variance request, as the PC can then review this two-lot partition through the subdivision criteria of CBMC 16.04. The main points at issue for the partition request are the access of the property, the geo-hazard and environmental constraints and the service delivery concerns of expanding the city’s infrastructure to incorporate this proposed development. The partition request is accompanied by a setback reduction application and conditional use request to allow for ten-foot smaller setbacks and a cottage industry to operate in this residential district. The applicant also seeks, in conjunction with the cottage industry, a variance request to allow a privacy-fenced parking enclosure to be permitted, rather than the ‘enclosed structure’ required. The final application is for a sign variance to allow for a larger sign to be hung from the proposed garage. Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 3

Procedurally, the PC may opt to review each application as an independent decision, making motions and decisions on each application, in the suggested order provided by the Staff Report, or in an alternative order at the PC’s discretion, or choose to combine the review, reserving the motion and decision until all application materials are considered.

Procedural Requirements This application is subject to ORS 227.178, requiring the City to take final action within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. It was submitted December 30th, 2020; and determined to be complete on January 5th, 2021. Based on this, the City must make a final decision before May 5th, 2021. The Planning Commission’s January 28th meeting will be the first evidentiary hearing on these requests. ORS 197.763(6) allows any party to request a continuance. If such a request is made, it should be granted. The Planning Commission’s next regularly scheduled hearing date is February 25th, 2021.

Variance Criteria & Discussion The Moons have requested a variance from the lot size requirements of the RVL zoning district, CBMC 17.08.040(A). The Planning Commission must find all four criteria of CBMC 17.84.030(A) are met for approval. 17.84.010 Purpose. The purpose of a variance is to provide relief when a strict application of the zoning requirements would impose unusual practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships on the applicant. Practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships may result from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from geographic, topographic or other conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity or from population densities, street location or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. No variance shall be granted to allow the use of a property for a purpose not authorized within the zone in which the proposed use would be located. (Ord. 79-4 § 1 (8.010)) 17.84.020 Conditions. Reasonable conditions may be imposed in connection with a variance as deemed necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or neighborhood, and otherwise secure the purpose and requirements of this chapter. Guarantees and evidence may be required that such conditions will be and are being complied with. (Ord. 79-4 § 1 (8.020)) 17.84.030 Criteria for granting. A. Variances to a requirement of this title, with respect to lot area and dimensions, setbacks, yard area, lot coverage, height of structures, vision clearance, decks and walls, and other quantitative requirements, may be granted only if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted by the applicant, all four expressly written findings are made:

Findings: The applicant requests a reduction in lot size in the RVL zoning district, from one unit per acre to a 15,000 SF lot size, or what equates to approximately 3 units per acre. This is a quantitative requirement and thus eligible for a variance. 1. That a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified requirement would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and would be inconsistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan; and

Findings: Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 4

Cannon Beach has limited commercial development along Highway 101 and has many policies in place to limit further development along the scenic byway. The Cannon Beach Comprehensive Plan (CBCP) states that there should be “a distinct edge to the town which defines the separation of urban from rural and natural resources uses” and that “in order to maintain the scenic character of U.S. Highway 101, commercial uses along the highway shall be limited to existing commercial zones (C-1). Future public uses along the highway shall be consistent with the maintenance of the scenic character of U.S. 101.”

The applicant first proposed a rezone to split the zoning from the western half of the partition to C2 General Commercial, and the eastern portion into R2 and although the applicant weighed many options and chose to limit the possibility of the property being utilized by other C2 uses by proposing the variance the Planning Commission finds that the applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the proposed location is an appropriate location for a C1 commercial facility.

The PC finds there has been no ‘unnecessary hardship’ in evidence, as presented by the applicant and that the application would be in conflict with the comprehensive plan.

2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; and

Findings: The PC finds no ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property,’ unless one were to consider the commercial or light industrial use of the intended operation. Yet, the purpose of variances specifically state “No variance shall be granted to allow the use of a property for a purpose not authorized within the zone in which the proposed use would be located.” The PC discussed whether this application was a variance to allow two homes or rather, a relocation of a business, in essence, with the two homes as secondary to the primary ‘commercial’ use. The PC finds this is not the intent of the variance standards or the cottage industry standards. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the near vicinity; and

Findings: The City will require an access permit that meets ODOT standards, which is likely the variable within the various applications that has the greatest potential to cause a public safety issue. There are many businesses operating off of state highways along 101 and the other state routes, however, the uniqueness that Cannon Beach holds with regards to highway development, is that Cannon Beach is very likely the only jurisdiction in the state which doesn’t have an endless stretch of businesses accumulating along and accessing directly on its state route. The PC has limited evidence to find that the application is dangerous or safe, for that matter, but there’s ample evidence that the complete package, with its reduction in setback standards, sign variance, enclosure variance and other requests would be detrimental to the intent of the comprehensive plan’s goal of keeping the Highway 101 corridor a scenic by-way and one of the true gems of the Oregon Coast. 4. That the granting of the variance would support policies contained within the comprehensive plan.

Findings: As mentioned above, the CBCP states that there shall be an area maintained for the operation of these types of services, yet the area off of Elk Creek Road is outside the three commercial centers of downtown, midtown and

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 5

Tolovona, and thus may be seen to satisfy this policy. It is at the discretion of the PC whether the current commercial districts satisfy the CBCP, and if not, what steps the city needs to take to meet such needs. The PC can find no compelling evidence in the record that these requests would support the need for increasing the density of the district to allow two homes and a commercially oriented cottage industry at this location. The applicant offers no substantial testimony stating the need for such density increases, or for that matter, a substantial need for the relocation of the business. B. Variances in accordance with this section should not ordinarily be granted if the special circumstances on which the applicant relies are a result of the actions of the applicant, or owner, or previous owners.

Findings: The PC finds that the ‘special circumstances’ being requested are primarily driven by the applicant’s desire to move a commercial business onto a property not intended for the densities requested and in a location not suitable to the densities and intensities of use requested.

Partition Criteria & Discussion Partitions are handled through the subdivision ordinance, Title 16: approval of a preliminary plat, followed by approval of a final plat. Partitions are subject to the criteria in Cannon Beach Municipal Code (CBMC) 16.04. Newly-created lots in the RVL zone must meet the standards in CBMC 17.08.040. These requirements and selected approval criteria are addressed below.

16.04.130 Applicable standards. In making its decision, the planning commission shall determine whether the proposed subdivision or partition complies with the applicable standards of this code and the policies of the comprehensive plan, in conformance with the requirements of Section 17.88.110. Where this chapter imposes a greater restriction upon the land than is imposed or required by existing provisions of law, ordinance, contract or deed, the provisions of this chapter shall control. Pursuant to ORS 197.195(1), the city has determined that the following comprehensive plan policies are applicable standards for a proposed subdivision or partition. A. General Development Policies. 1. General Development Policy 4. The city shall control excavation, grading, and filling in order to: avoid landslides and other geologic hazards; protect adjacent property and structures; provide for appropriate drainage improvements; minimize the extent of vegetation removal; minimize erosion and sedimentation; and protect the aesthetic character of the city. 2. General Development Policy 5. The density of residential development throughout the city shall be based on the capability of the land in terms of its slope, potential for geologic hazard and drainage characteristics. Density limits throughout the city shall generally be:

Net Density Standards

Dwellings Per Acre High (R3), (RM) 15 Duplex or medium (R2), (RMa), (MP), (RAM) 11 Moderate single-family (R1) 8 Low (RL) 4 Very low (RVL) 1

3. General Development Policy 9. To control development in areas with slopes exceeding twenty percent and areas subject to potential geologic hazards so that potential adverse impacts can be minimized.

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 6

4. General Development Policy 10. When site investigations are required in areas of potential landslide hazard, a site specific investigation shall be prepared by a registered geologist. Based on the conclusions of this investigation, an engineered foundation design by a soils engineer may be required by the building official. When site investigations are required in areas of potential coastal erosion hazard, the site specific investigation shall be prepared by a registered geologist with expertise in shoreline processes. Based on the conclusions of this investigation, protective structures designed by a registered civil engineer may be required by the building official. Site investigation reports shall meet the city’s criteria for the content and format for geologic hazard reports. 5. General Development Policy 11. Site investigations by a qualified soils engineer may be required for the construction or development of property identified by the Soil Conservation Service as containing weak foundation soils. Site reports shall include information on bearing capacity of the soil, adequacy and method of drainage facilities, and the length of fill settlement necessary prior to construction. 6. General Development Policy 12. Site investigations by a registered geologist shall be performed, prior to development, in any area with a slope exceeding twenty percent. Based on the conclusions of this investigation, an engineered foundation design by a soils engineer may be required by the building official. 7. General Development Policy 14. To ensure that development is designed to preserve significant site features such as trees, streams and wetlands. 8. General Development Policy 15. The city shall regulate the removal of trees in order to preserve the city’s aesthetic character, as well as to control problems associated with soil erosion and landslide hazards. 9. General Development Policy 16. To provide flexibility in regulations governing site design so that developments can be adapted to specific site conditions. E. Housing Policies. 1. Housing Policy 1. In order to maintain the city’s village character and its diverse population, the city will encourage the development of housing which meets the needs of a variety of age and income groups, as well as groups with special needs. 2. Housing Policy 3. To the extent possible, the city shall endeavor to accommodate affordable housing in a manner that disperses it throughout the community rather than concentrating it at specific locations. 3. Housing Policy 5. The city recognizes the importance of its existing residential neighborhoods in defining the character of the community and will strive to accommodate new residential development in a manner that is sensitive to the scale, character and density of the existing residential development pattern. 4. Housing Policy 6. The city shall preserve and enhance the qualities that contribute to the character and liveability of its residential areas. These qualities include limited traffic disruptions, uncongested streets, and a low level of noise and activity. 5. Housing Policy 11. The city will provide flexibility in regulations governing site design so that developments can be adapted to specific site conditions. 6. Housing Policy 12. The city will consider the use of cluster development and planned development techniques as a means of preserving common open space, protecting significant natural features, and providing for a variety of affordable housing types. 7. Housing Policy 13. To the extent feasible, higher density housing developments should be located in proximity to the city’s major employment areas and arterial streets. G. Overall Policies-Geologic Hazards. 1. Geologic Hazard Policy 1. A site specific investigation performed by a qualified expert shall be a prerequisite for the issuance of any building permit in the following areas, and delineated on the master map: a. Those areas consisting of landslide topography developed in tertiary sedimentary rocks (TOMS); b. Any property containing, or adjacent to all or part of, an active landslide; c. Any property having beach frontage; d. The area south of Maher Street underlain by the Astoria Formation (Tma units); e. Within the two stream drainages south of West Way. 2. Geologic Hazard Policy 2. Development requirements for the city are:

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 7

a. Structures should be planned to preserve natural slopes. Cut and fill methods of leveling lots shall be discouraged. b. Access roads and driveways shall follow the slope contours to reduce the need for grading and filling. c. Removal of vegetation shall be kept to a minimum for stabilization of slopes. d. Drainage patterns shall not be altered in steeper areas. Roof drains shall be channeled into natural drainage or storm sewers. e. No development shall be allowed to block stream drainageways, or to increase the water level or water flow onto adjacent property. L. Water System Policies. 1. Water System Policy 4. Large developments or heavy water users shall make equitable contributions to the improvement of the water system, and shall pay all costs associated with the extension of the water lines. 2. Water System Policy 7. Subdivisions (requiring a connection larger than one inch), planned development, motels or other uses having large water demands shall be approved only if sufficient water capacity is available. 3. Water System Policy 8. Water lines in proposed developments shall be adequately sized to meet future needs at the projected usage of density, including fire flow requirements. 4. Water System Policy 9. Fire hydrants or other fire protection devices shall be installed by the developer of major developments to the satisfaction of the City and Fire Protection District. M. Sewer System Policies. 1. Sewer System Policy 3. Large developments shall make equitable contributions to the improvement and expansion of the sewage treatment system. Subdivisions or developments other than single- family residences and duplexes shall be approved only if sufficient capacity is available to meet present and future needs. 2. Sewer System Policy 4. Sewer lines in proposed developments shall be adequate to meet future needs of the development and shall be designed so as to minimize excavation of the road surface for future connections. N. Fire Protection Recommendations. 1. Fire Protection Recommendation 1. In cooperation with the Cannon Beach Rural Fire Protection District, the city shall maintain and develop a strong fire protection system. Subdivisions and other developments should be reviewed by the fire department to determine if the sizing of the water system and placement of fire hydrants is adequate; developments should be allowed only if the water system is capable of providing adequate fire flow. 2. Fire Protection Recommendation 2. The city should adequately assess new development in any area to cover the cost of future water system improvement or for fire protection. 3. Fire Protection Recommendation 3. Fire hydrants or other fire protection devices shall be installed by the developer of major developments to the satisfaction of the city and the fire protection district.

Findings: The applicant seeks a variance, under the provisions of CBMC 17.08.040, to permit a reduction of lot size from the one-acre required under CBMC 17.04.0 the RVL zoning district, to 15,000 square-feet (SF). This would be an increase in density to that more in-keeping with the Residential Lower Density (RL), which, it should be noted, is a district that does not permit cottage industries.

The subject property is in an area of steep slopes and through CBMC 17.50.020 requires a geologic site investigation report, which the applicant has contracted the services of Tom Horning, of Horning Geosciences to perform. In addition, any excavation, grading or filling will be held to the standards of CBMC 17.62, Grading, Erosion, and Sedimentation Control at time of construction.

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 8

A wetlands determination report has been submitted on behalf of the applicants, by NW Regolith, which finds delineated wetlands on the adjacent ODOT right-of-way, but “no wetlands within the study area.” The wetlands area delineated should not be impacted by the proposed development, unless the ODOT review of the subsequent access permit requires a deceleration or acceleration lane or any widening of the travel surface south of the proposed access point. The ODOT representative has been forwarded notice of the development and application materials, and any future development will be required to meet ODOT access requirements.

The request is for a two-lot partition, with shared access easement. The PC finds that there is not ample evidence in the record for the lot-size variance, which renders the partition request moot, as the minimum lot size requirement for the RVL district is one acre. With only 1.15 acres available in the parent tract, the application is denied.

Setback Reduction Criteria & Discussion The applicant has requested a setback reduction along all property lines from the required 20-feet, under 17.08.040(B), to 10-feet along all property lines. The following criteria must be met. Chapter 17.64 SETBACK REDUCTION 17.64.010 Provisions established. A. Reduction of setback requirements without variance procedure but following the procedures required by Chapter 17.88 of this code may be approved by the planning commission where the following criteria are met: 1. Total building coverage shall not exceed forty percent; Findings: As the applicant states in their application materials, the proposed lot coverage of parcel one, containing the home and garage would be approximately 20%, while parcel two would be 27%. 2. Significant views of the ocean, mountains or similar features from nearby properties will not be obstructed any more than would occur if the proposed structure were located as required by the zoning district; Findings: The PC finds that the site plans provided indicate that the placement of the structures along the north and west property lines, abutting the neighboring properties would not require the requested setback reduction. In public testimony, the applicant stated the setback reductions were due to the location of existing trees. Yet, there is no evidence in the record showing that this is the case and how such tree locations impact the proposed placement of structures , utilities and access. The ten-foot setback along Highway 101, which would not impact significant views from neighboring properties, would likely impact the views of citizens, as that is a reduction request of ten-feet meant to help buffer the garage and proposed privacy-fenced parking enclosure from the heavily used scenic highway. In fact, the cottage industry requirements of CBMC 17.80280 state that 20-feet of ‘sight obscuring landscaping’ shall be maintained between the use and adjacent properties or public streets. The PC finds that the setback reduction to ten-feet would violate this standard and denies such a request. 3. The proposed building location will not interfere with solar access of buildings on adjoining property; Findings: There appears to be no evidence of any impact to solar access of the adjoining property from the site plans provided.

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 9

4. It is the purpose of setbacks to provide for a reasonable amount of privacy, drainage, light, air, noise reduction and fire safety between adjacent structures. Setback reduction permits may be granted where the planning commission finds that the above purposes are maintained, and one or more of the following are achieved by the reduction in setbacks: a. Tree protection, b. The protection of a neighboring property’s views of the ocean, mountains or similar natural features, c. The maintenance of a stream corridor or avoidance of geologic hazards or other difficult topography, d. The provision of solar access, e. Permitting construction on a lot with unusual configuration, f. Rehabilitation of existing buildings where other reasonable alternatives do not exist, g. Protection of a wetland or wetland buffer area, or h. Permitting construction on an oceanfront lot where the effect of the application of the oceanfront setback requirement of Section 17.42.050(A)(6) reduces the depth of the lot located within the required setbacks to less than forty percent of the lot’s depth. Under this standard, a reduction in the required setback shall be considered only in the setback opposite of the required oceanfront setback; Findings: The PC finds no evidence that the request furthers a need to allow ‘(e) Permitting construction on a lot with unusual configuration.’ In fact, there is no evidence in the record of how this property has an ‘unusual configuration.’ Further, since the partition parcels are of their own making, the request fails this criteria. 5. Adjacent rights-of-way have sufficient width for utility placement or other public purposes; Findings: The applicant has proposed granting utility easements, which will be required to be shown on the plat prior to approval. The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans with the applicant and any utilities must meet city standards. 6. The reduction would not create traffic hazards; or impinge upon a public walkway or trail; Findings: The applicant has contacted ODOT and the ODOT correspondence is attached. The setback reduction would not alter traffic or any public walkway. 7. Any encroachment into the setback will not substantially reduce the amount of privacy which is or would be enjoyed by an abutting property; and Findings: As mentioned above, the site plan does not indicate that the structures will impact the properties to the north and west, as they fall within those required by the underlying zoning. The setback reduction along the western property line would likely not impact privacy, yet the PC finds that such a reduction would run the risk of increasing the visibility from Highway 101 and have a detrimental impact to the scenic corridor. The southern property’s privacy would also be jeopardized such a reduction. 8. The proposed building location will not interfere with the ability to provide fire protection to the building or adjacent buildings Findings: Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 10

There is no indication that a setback reduction will hinder the ability to provide fire protection to the proposed structures.

Conditional Use Criteria & Discussion

17.80.110.A: This section establishes the first of six overall conditional use standards: A. A demand exists for the use at the proposed location. Several factors which should be considered in determining whether or not this demand exists include: accessibility for users (such as customers and employees), availability of similar existing uses, availability of other appropriately zoned sites, particularly those not requiring conditional use approval, and the desirability of other suitably zoned sites for the use.

Findings: While Gary’s Cannon Beach Service Center has been a contributing business member to the Cannon Beach community for over forty years, the PC was provided no persuasive evidence regarding the need for such services in Cannon Beach, let alone relocated to a residential area, zoned for very low residential densities.

As CBMC 17.04.125 states, “Cottage industry” means a small business activity which may involve the provision of services or manufacture and sale of products, is carried on by a member of the family living on the premises with no more than one other person employed by the family member, and is not detrimental to the overall character of the neighborhood.” The applicant has provided documentation that indicates the current ownership of the garage as, Moon Gary Duncan Trustee (according to Clatsop County records), while the subject property is under a different ownership of Jeffrey D and Jodi R. Moon. CBMC 17.80.280(A)(5) requires ‘other than family members residing on the premises, no more than one other employee may be hired.’

The PC finds that such commercial uses should be limited to the City’s commercial districts. The light industrial activity of a garage, tow facilities, including a non-enclosed fenced area to store vehicles and parts, was not in- keeping with residential activities. In agreement with the ample testimony given by surrounding owners that the requests would detract from the residential nature of the area, the PC finds the application fails this standard.

17.80.110.B: This section establishes the second of six overall conditional use standards: B. The use will not create excessive traffic congestion on nearby streets or overburden the following public facilities and services: water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical service, fire protection and schools.

Findings: There are many standards which speak to limiting traffic congestion and additional traffic generation, but the City does not have an ordinance in place requiring a traffic impact analysis. The applicant has not provided any materials that attempt to estimate the traffic flow in and out of the property, but the nearest Highway 101 access point is located over four-hundred feet south at E. Surfcrest Ave. There are no Highway 101 access points to the west along this adjoining stretch of roadway and very limited residential driveway access to the north.

The E. Surfcrest Ave. access currently serves eleven parcels, containing four residences. This conditional use permit would place a 4,000 SF automotive service garage on a very low residentially zoned property. The current Moon garage is just over 3,000 SF and if the current parking area is any indication of future or expected use, there would be ten to twelve vehicles onsite at any given time, which equates to a need for an approximately 5,000 SF parking lot area. The applicant stated in public testimony projected numbers less than these proposed by staff, but no evidence was presented showing actual usage.

While vehicle trips per day is the usual calculus for measuring impacts to roads and surrounding uses, with single-family detached residences averaging approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has not

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 11 provided any evidence estimating the number of trips per day. The PC finds no compelling evidence to support the approval under these criteria.

17.80.110.C: This section establishes the third of six overall conditional use standards:

C. The site has an adequate amount of space for any yards, buildings, drives, parking, loading and unloading areas, storage facilities, utilities or other facilities which are required by city ordinances or desired by the applicant.

Findings: The applicant has asked for a variance to allow for an approximate 2,500 SF privacy-fenced enclosure, which they have indicated as a gravel-surfaced area. This enclosure would be the primary location of vehicle and parts storage. The cottage industry standards require an enclosed structure and the applicant is asking, below, for a variance to allow relief from providing all storage under roof.

From a review of aerial maps, there are ten to twelve vehicles parked at Gary’s garage over a series of exposures, which would equate to approximately 5,000 SF of parking area needs. The project has not advanced to a level where building and landscaping/lighting plans have been provided, but any structure must meet 17.80.280(A)(10) will require DRB approval. Without the granting of the variance request, the PC finds non- compliance.

17.80.110.D: This section establishes the fourth of six overall conditional use standards:

D. The topography, soils and other physical characteristics of the site are appropriate for the use. Potential problems due to weak foundation soils will be eliminated or reduced to the extent necessary for avoiding hazardous situations.

Findings: Mr. Horning has been contracted to provide the geohazard report for the site and any recommendations will be incorporated into the building review.

17.80.110.E: This section establishes the fifth of six overall conditional use standards:

E. An adequate site layout will be used for transportation activities. Consideration should be given to the suitability of any access points, on-site drives, parking, loading and unloading areas, refuse collection and disposal points, sidewalks, bike paths or other transportation facilities required by city ordinances or desired by the applicant. Suitability, in part, should be determined by the potential impact of these facilities on safety, traffic flow and control and emergency vehicle movements.

Findings: A private driveway access easement will service both properties, with an ODOT access permit required prior to approval. The applicant states that it will be a paved access and that it will be a low traffic area. There is no evidence provided to substantiate this claim. The PC finds that adding density directly to Highway 101, would be contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan.

17.80.110.F: This section establishes the sixth of six overall conditional use standards:

F. The site and building design ensure that the use will be compatible with the surrounding area.

Findings:

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 12

The applicant has proposed that by allowing Gary’s to relocate to this location outside of the downtown business area, it “allows for beautification of one of the city’s main districts.” The standard, however, requires that the building design be compatible with surrounding residential area. As the applicant points out this stretch of Highway 101 is heavily forested and very few of the structures along the route are visible. The PC must find that the design ensures it remains compatible. The application materials provide an elevation drawing of the proposed garage, with a statement from the application that “the business’s building/garage will be constructed in a simple metal design, meant to blend into its surroundings.” The applicant responded in public testimony that the building would be clad in vinyl, wood composite or some other non-metal cladding if approved. Yet, although the application might meet the CBMC 17.54.030(B) requirements that “structures or buildings, more than one hundred twenty square feet in size, accessory to a residential use shall not be metal clad (metal roofs are permissible),” the PC finds that the introduction of a commercial facility in this scenic corridor, with a reduction in buffering, would be detrimental and incompatible with the surrounding area.

17.80.280 Cottage industries. A. The following specific conditional use standards apply to cottage industries: 1. Materials, vehicles or parts shall be stored in an enclosed structure; 2. Noise, odor, smoke, gases, fallout, vibration, heat or glare resulting from the cottage industry shall not be detectable beyond the limits of the property; 3. Sight-obscuring landscaping of at least twenty feet in width shall be maintained between the use and adjacent properties or public streets; 4. The use must be a low-traffic generator; 5. Other than family members residing on the premises, no more than one other employee may be hired; 6. Signs shall not exceed one square foot in area and shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 17.56; 7. Off-street parking and access shall be designed to be adequate for customers without creating a commercial parking lot appearance on the site. Chapter 17.78 shall apply; 8. Uses involving nonresident employees and the delivery of materials shall limit their hours of operation to between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; 9. Waste disposal shall comply with Department of Environmental Quality requirements; 10. A structure built to house a cottage industry shall be reviewed by the design review board subject to pertinent criteria in Chapter 17.44; 11. The cottage industry shall only be operated by residents of the property and shall not be leased, sold, conveyed or any interest therein transferred separately from the residence. B. The planning commission shall review cottage industries upon the receipt of two written complaints of violations of these standards from two separate households within two hundred fifty feet of the boundary of the affected property, or a complaint from the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing to review the complaints. C. The planning commission shall hear the evidence presented, and may, with adequate findings of fact: 1. Approve the use as it exists; or 2. Require that it be terminated; or

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 13

3. Impose restrictions such as limiting hours of operation. Decisions of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council. D. New complaints which are substantially similar to those previously acted upon will be heard by the planning commission only after a period of six months has elapsed from the date of the earlier decision, unless the planning commission believes that any restrictions it has imposed have not been followed

Findings: The applicant requests relief from providing an enclosed structure for storage of vehicles and parts through a variance. The cottage industry standards call for limited hours of delivery operations from 8AM to 6PM and the applicant has indicated normal posted business hours, along with limited ‘emergency’ towing operations, where vehicles are stored in the storage facility for a limited number of hours. The PC finds that the enclosure of goods in a building is central to the allowance of a cottage industry in a residential district and cannot find compliance on this standard. The applicant has asked for a setback reduction which would also limit the twenty-foot ‘sight-obscuring landscaping’ buffering the ‘cottage industry’ from Highway 101 and a sign variance from the one square-foot limitation of the cottage industry standards. The off-street parking area is not clearly indicated on the site plan, yet it should be noted that it will be required before DRB approval is granted. The PC finds that the reduction of the setback along Highway 101 is in strict contradiction to (A)(3) and violates the standard. Variance Criteria & Discussion A second variance has been requested to allow for a screened parking enclosure, rather than the required ‘enclosed structure,’ the PC must find compliance with all four criteria of CBMC 17.84.030(A) below to approve the request. 17.84.010 Purpose. The purpose of a variance is to provide relief when a strict application of the zoning requirements would impose unusual practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships on the applicant. Practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships may result from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from geographic, topographic or other conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity or from population densities, street location or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. No variance shall be granted to allow the use of a property for a purpose not authorized within the zone in which the proposed use would be located. (Ord. 79-4 § 1 (8.010)) 17.84.020 Conditions. Reasonable conditions may be imposed in connection with a variance as deemed necessary to protect the best interests of the surrounding property or neighborhood, and otherwise secure the purpose and requirements of this chapter. Guarantees and evidence may be required that such conditions will be and are being complied with. (Ord. 79-4 § 1 (8.020)) 17.84.30 Criteria for granting. A. Variances to a requirement of this title, with respect to lot area and dimensions, setbacks, yard area, lot coverage, height of structures, vision clearance, decks and walls, and other quantitative requirements, may be granted only if, on the basis of the application, investigation and evidence submitted by the applicant, all four expressly written findings are made: Findings: The applicant is requesting that approximately 2,500 SF of enclosed space, intended to house vehicles and parts be allowed to be a privacy-fenced enclosure, screening all things from view, rather than under roof. The applicant doesn’t provide details of the fencing being proposed and the only detail of the parking area design

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 14 indicates that it is to be a gravel-surfaced area in the southwest portion of the parcel containing ‘Jon’s’ House. The enclosure is proposed to be located at the same grade as the Highway 101 travel surface, falling slightly below the proposed garage, which from a sight-line perspective may require the fencing to be taller than a standard six-foot fencing, with appropriate vegetative buffering.

1. That a strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified requirement would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and would be inconsistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan; and

Findings: There is no evidence in the record that this request would alleviate unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty and nothing that gives a compelling reason that waiving this standard would be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. In fact, the CBCP speaks of maintaining visually attractive commercial areas and a distinct edge to those commercial areas. The applicant must provide adequate evidence that a proposed enclosed privacy-fenced area would serve the same ends as that of an ‘enclosed structure.’ The PC finds the application fails this standard. 2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone; and

Findings: Again, the application materials do not provide evidence on an ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstance or condition’ that would compel one to believe that this variance request is unique to this property and finds non- compliance. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the near vicinity; and

Findings: The PC finds no evidence supporting such health, safety and welfare claims. 4. That the granting of the variance would support policies contained within the comprehensive plan.

Findings: The PC finds that the request to redefine for this application the term, ‘enclosure,’ would be detrimental to one of the city’s residential areas and diametrically opposed to the concerns over maintaining the aesthetics of the Highway 101 corridor and limiting the sprawl of commercial development, cornerstones of the Cannon Beach Comprehensive Plan. B. Variances in accordance with this section should not ordinarily be granted if the special circumstances on which the applicant relies are a result of the actions of the applicant, or owner, or previous owners.

Findings: The PC finds no compelling basis to allow the movement of the relocation of the commercial uses requested in this location, under these circumstances and must deny such requests.

Sign Variance Criteria & Discussion Finally, the applicant requests relief from the strict ‘cottage industry’ conditional use requirements, which require, under CBMC 17.80.280(A)(6), that ‘signs shall not exceed one square foot of area.’ Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 15

17.56.070 Variances. A. Variances to the sign requirements of this chapter may be approved by the planning commission following the procedures of Chapter 17.88 where the planning commission finds that the variance meets the following criteria: 1. The variance would permit the placement of a sign with an exceptional design, style or circumstance; 2. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to abutting properties; 3. The granting of the variance would not create a traffic or safety hazard. B. Applications which request a variance based on factors listed in subsection (A)(1) above shall be referred to the design review board for a recommendation on whether the applicable criterion is met. Findings: The sign proposed, as seen in the application materials, is the historic sign from Gary’s and at a sign-area of less than 18 SF is the only sign currently proposed for the 35,000 property and 4,000 SF structure. The applicant has stated that it would be located on the northern side of the garage, although confirmation of the exact location may be required by the PC and will be required by the DRB, upon their subsequent review. It should be noted that there is a note on the sign variance application form that states, “Sign variance applications must be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the Planning Commission hearing and consideration. The Design Review Board will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission,” but this stipulation doesn’t appear to be codified in the CBMC. As mentioned above, the applicant must meet DRB approval for the garage before the issuance of a building permit. The PC finds that since the application for the conditional use has been denied, so must the sign variance in this RVL location. Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission must find that each application is in compliance with the Cannon Beach Comprehensive Plan prior to granting approval. Select CBCP policies follow:

A compact development pattern where various land uses are readily accessible to residents and visitors.

A distinct edge to the town which defines the separation of urban from rural and natural resource uses.

Compact commercial areas that are pedestrian oriented and are readily accessible from adjoining residential areas.

Visually attractive commercial areas which reflect the coastal location and incorporate a high degree of pedestrian amenities and landscaping.

13. In order to maintain the scenic character of U.S. Highway 101, commercial uses along the highway shall be limited to existing commercial zones (C-1). Future public uses along the highway shall be consistent with the maintenance of the scenic character of U.S. 101. (Ord 84-08; Ord 96-16)

MIDTOWN POLICIES

3. An area east of U.S. Highway 101, in the vicinity of Elk Creek Road and the Sunset Boulevard exit from U.S. Highway 101, is designated for non-retail-oriented commercial and enclosed recreation uses. A redesignation of this area, from C2, General Commercial, to C1, Limited Commercial, to permit retail- oriented businesses, shall not be considered. Upon annexation, the City may consider a designation

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 16

change to General Commercial use for an area abutting the General Commercial area. (Ord 88-03; Ord 84-08; Res 79-02)

4. The area north of Elk Creek Road on the east side of U.S. Highway 101 (south of the Ecola Creek Wetlands) shall be designated for residential and recreational vehicle park use with an emphasis on low-income housing alternatives, which could include mobile homes. Ord 88-03; Ord 84-08; Res 79-02)

5. No additional land shall be zoned Limited Commercial, C-1. (Ord 94-07; Ord 88-03)

THE ECONOMY POLICIES

8. The Zoning Ordinance shall maintain an area outside of the three commercial centers for commercial activities requiring an extensive land area. Examples of uses to be provided for are: building material sales, warehouses, contractor shops, and enclosed recreation uses. (Ord 88-03; Ord 84-08; Res 79-02) COMMUNITY APPEARANCE & DESIGN POLICIES

1. The City shall cooperate with the State Highway Division and other appropriate entities to improve the appearance of the U.S. Highway 101 corridor from the Cannon Beach junction to the City's northern entrance. The City's objective will be the creation and maintenance of a forested buffer on either side of U.S. Highway 101, if practicable. (Ord 88-03)

Findings: The Planning Commission considered the argument that the Comprehensive Plan requires the maintenance of an area outside the three main commercial areas for what might be considered light-industrial uses and finds that the C2 district east of Sunset provides the necessary area for such facilities. The PC finds that the extension of light industrial or commercial into the RVL zone, especially along Highway 101, was not the intent of the ‘cottage industry’ ordinance and fails to support the many other policies of the Comprehensive Plan protecting the integrity of residential areas and the scenic Highway 101 corridor.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Motion: Having considered the evidence in the record, upon a motion by Commissioner Knop to deny P 21-01, CU 21-01, SR 21-01, SV 21-01 & V 21-01, second by Commissioner Kerr, the Cannon Beach Planning Commission on a vote of seven in favor and none against, unanimously denies the Moon variance request for lot size reduction in the RVL district to 15,000 SF, V# 21-01a., two-parcel partition, P# 21-01, setback reduction to ten- feet along all parcel lines, SR# 21-01, conditional use permit to operate a cottage industry, CU# 21-01, variance request for a privacy-fenced enclosed parking area, V# 21-01b., and sign variance, SV# 21-01.

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach P# 21-01, CU# 21-01, SR# 21-01, SV# 21-01 & V# 21-01 17 Attachment C

Cannon Beach Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Conclusions

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF REMAND OF CU 21-01, JEFFERY D. MOON APPLICATION REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A COTTAGE INDUSTRY FOR A TOWING OPERATION, FOR THE 1.1 ACRE PROPERTY, TAX LOT 00400, MAP 51032BC, LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 101, NORTH OF E. SURFCREST AVE. IN A RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW DENSITY (RVL) ZONE. THE REQUEST WILL BE REVIEWED PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL CODE, CHAPTERS 17.08 RESIDENTIAL VERY LOW DENSITY AND 17.80 CONDITIONAL USES.

Agenda Date: March 25, 2021 Prepared By: Jeffrey S. Adams, PhD

GENERAL INFORMATION NOTICE Public notice for this March 25th Public Hearing is as follows: A. Notice was posted at area Post Offices on March 3rd, 2021; B. Notice was mailed on March 3rd, 2021 to surrounding landowners within 250’ of the exterior boundaries of the property, Cannon Beach Rural Fire Department, Department of Land Conservation and Development; DISCLOSURES Any disclosures (i.e. conflicts of interest, site visits or ex parte communications)? EXHIBITS The following Exhibits are attached hereto as referenced. All application documents were received at the Cannon Beach Community Development office on December 30th, 2020 unless otherwise noted. “A” Exhibits – Application Materials A-1 Application packet, including APP 21-01 for CU 21-01, Received December 30, 2020; A-2 Minutes of City Council, January Scope of Review meeting, remand decision; A-3 City of Cannon Beach Planning Commission Findings for P 21-01, CU 21-01, SR 21-01, SV 21-01 & V 21- 01, Requests by Jeffrey D. Moon, for Tax Lot 00400 of Map 51032BC;

Please note: City of Cannon Beach Planning Commission Record for P 21-01, CU 21-01, SR 21-01, SV 21-01 & V 21-01, Requests by Jeffrey D. Moon, for Tax Lot 00400 of Map 51032BC public record can be found at the Cannon Beach city website (www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us), under the January 28, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting page.

“B” Exhibits – Agency Comments None received as of this writing Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 1

“C” Exhibits – Cannon Beach Supplements C-1 NA “D” Exhibits – Public Comment D-1 Lesley Daoud, Email correspondence, received March 16, 2021; D-2 Scott Evansen, Jana Scherer, Joan Evansen-Janusevskis, Cooper Janusevskis & Erica Rangel, Email correspondence, received March 16, 2021; D-3 Pamela Rowland Roberson, Letter received and dated March 19, 2021; D-4 Beth Holland and Mike Morgan, Email correspondence received March 24, 2021; D-5 Amber Fowler, Email correspondence received March 24, 2021;

BACKGROUND The City of Cannon Beach Planning Commission (PC) rendered a decision to deny the Conditional Use (CU#21- 01) for a Cottage Industry, for an automotive towing operation in conjunction with a new residence for Jeffrey D. Moon, Tax Lot 00400, Map 51032BC, east of Highway 101, north of E. Surfcrest Ave., a 1.1 acre Very Low Density Residentially zoned vacant property, at its January 28, 2021 regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The PC’s Findings are attached as Exhibit A-3.

Jeff Moon requests a review of the decision in an application and letter received February 10, 2021, within the 14 consecutive calendars appeal period, from when the date the final order was signed. The City Council held a Scope of Review meeting on March 2nd, to discuss the terms under which it wished to review the matter, according to Section 17.88.160 of the Cannon Beach Municipal Code (CBMC).

The applicant requested a limited scope of review for the reasons provided in Exhibit A-1. The applicant sought an appeal limited to the conditional use for cottage industry, for a single homesite and accessory structure, to house the garage. The applicant intends to provide new evidence for the towing operations, including a new site plan for the towing business.

The City Council remands the Conditional Use application back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration, under CBMC 17.88.160(A)(3), due to the significant changes to the application.

Procedural Requirements

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 2

This application is subject to ORS 227.178, requiring the City to take final action within 120 days after the application is deemed complete. It was submitted December 30th, 2020; and determined to be complete on January 5th, 2021. Based on this, the City must make a final decision before May 5th, 2021. The Planning Commission’s January 28th meeting was the first evidentiary hearing on the request and was remanded back to the PC for further consideration by the City Council on March 2nd, 2021.

Conditional Use Criteria

17.80.110.A: This section establishes the first of six overall conditional use standards:

A. A demand exists for the use at the proposed location. Several factors which should be considered in determining whether or not this demand exists include: accessibility for users (such as customers and employees), availability of similar existing uses, availability of other appropriately zoned sites, particularly those not requiring conditional use approval, and the desirability of other suitably zoned sites for the use.

Findings: The Cannon Beach Planning Commission (PC) finds that transportation policy #4 of the Comprehensive Plan adequately speaks to the intent of protecting the scenic values of Highway 101 corridor:

The City recognizes that the Highway 101 corridor has significant scenic attributes. These attributes include: two travel lanes; a forested corridor that creates a sense of enclosure and continuity; the lack of adjacent commercial development; and a limited number of access points onto the highway. The City will cooperate with the Oregon Department of Transportation in protecting these elements of the Highway 101 corridor through Cannon Beach.

The PC finds this policy, just one of many limiting the commercial footprint and directing development along the corridor to respect the distinct edges of these commercial zones. The PC discussed the ‘essential service’ nature of having a towing service within the Cannon Beach footprint, but could not find that necessitated an interpretation of ‘cottage industry’ to allow for such an expansion of a commercial use into the Residential Very Low Density district. The Commission could not find evidence of compliance with this standard.

Findings: There are many standards which speak to limiting traffic congestion and additional traffic generation, but the City does not have an ordinance in place requiring a traffic impact analysis. The applicant has provided an estimate of 16 round-trips of additional traffic flow in and out of the property, but there is no traffic study in evidence. The nearest Highway 101 access point is located over four-hundred feet south at E. Surfcrest Ave. There are no Highway 101 access points to the west along this adjoining stretch of roadway and very limited residential driveway access to the north.

The E. Surfcrest Ave. access currently serves eleven parcels, containing four residences. While vehicle trips per day is the usual calculus for measuring impacts to roads and surrounding uses, with single-family detached residences averaging approximately 10 vehicle trips per day. The applicant states that there will be an estimated 16 average round trips, or 32 vehicle trips per day for the two employee operation. The ODOT traffic Average Annual Daily Trip counts for that stretch of Highway 101 remain around 6,000.

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 3

The Commission expressed concern regarding left-turn maneuvers during peak traffic season and were not satisfied with the applicant’s testimony on diverting left-turn maneuvers seasonally to the Tolovona exit would provide appropriate safety. The Commission could not find satisfactory evidence to find compliance.

17.80.110.C: This section establishes the third of six overall conditional use standards:

Findings: This conditional use permit would place a 4,000 SF automotive service garage on a very low residentially zoned property. The current Moon garage is just over 3,000 SF and if the current parking area is any indication of future or expected use, there would be ten to twelve vehicles onsite at any given time, which equates to a need for an approximately 5,000 SF parking lot area. The applicant states that the garage/storage facility will house the business’s four tow trucks and one service vehicle, along with towed vehicles, yet one must question whether it would be possible stored all the towed vehicles within the enclosed facility. The applicant states that “towed vehicles are usually stored for no more than 30 days until they are moved to body shops or the wrecking yard,” but the Commission was not satisfied that even placing and policing an outdoor storage limit would be adequate to house vehicle storage during peak seasons. The Commission was not convinced that the impounded automobiles, which are often kept for up to 30-days, awaiting the completion of the lien process, wouldn’t result in a ‘junk-yard’ of vehicles stored in this residential and highly visible and scenic area. The Commission failed to find evidence to support this criteria.

17.80.110.D: This section establishes the fourth of six overall conditional use standards:

Findings: Mr. Horning has been contracted to provide the geohazard report for the site and any recommendations will be incorporated into the building review. Meets criteria.

17.80.110.E: This section establishes the fifth of six overall conditional use standards:

Findings: A private driveway access easement will service both properties, with an ODOT access permit required prior to approval. The applicant states that it will be a paved access and that it will be a low traffic area. There is no evidence provided to substantiate this claim and as mentioned above there is not adequate evidence to find compliance.

17.80.110.F: This section establishes the sixth of six overall conditional use standards:

F. The site and building design ensure that the use will be compatible with the surrounding area.

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 4

Findings: The applicant has proposed that by allowing Gary’s to relocate to this location outside of the downtown business area, “it will allow for beautification of one of the main tourist areas of Cannon Beach.” The standard, however, requires that the building design be compatible with surrounding residential area. As the applicant points out this stretch of Highway 101 is heavily forested and very few of the structures along the route are visible. The PC must find that the design ensures it remains compatible. The application materials provide an elevation drawing of the proposed garage, with a statement from the application that “the garage/storage facility will be a metal building with Alura cement lap siding along the bottom and Alura 8 inch OC panel siding above the lap.” As stated elsewhere the building plans would also be required to meet DRB approval prior to construction. Although the City of Cannon Beach may not currently have an awaiting available location for Gary’s garage in its commercially zoned areas, the Planning Commission doesn’t believe such paucity in light industrial type space warrants turning areas designated for very low residential into commercial areas without vetting through a zoning and map amendment process. The Commission fails to find evidence of compliance with this standard. 17.80.280 Cottage industries. A. The following specific conditional use standards apply to cottage industries: 1. Materials, vehicles or parts shall be stored in an enclosed structure; 2. Noise, odor, smoke, gases, fallout, vibration, heat or glare resulting from the cottage industry shall not be detectable beyond the limits of the property; 3. Sight-obscuring landscaping of at least twenty feet in width shall be maintained between the use and adjacent properties or public streets; 4. The use must be a low-traffic generator; 5. Other than family members residing on the premises, no more than one other employee may be hired; 6. Signs shall not exceed one square foot in area and shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 17.56; 7. Off-street parking and access shall be designed to be adequate for customers without creating a commercial parking lot appearance on the site. Chapter 17.78 shall apply; 8. Uses involving nonresident employees and the delivery of materials shall limit their hours of operation to between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; 9. Waste disposal shall comply with Department of Environmental Quality requirements; 10. A structure built to house a cottage industry shall be reviewed by the design review board subject to pertinent criteria in Chapter 17.44; 11. The cottage industry shall only be operated by residents of the property and shall not be leased, sold, conveyed or any interest therein transferred separately from the residence. B. The planning commission shall review cottage industries upon the receipt of two written complaints of violations of these standards from two separate households within two hundred fifty feet of the boundary of the affected property, or a complaint from the planning commission. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing to review the complaints. C. The planning commission shall hear the evidence presented, and may, with adequate findings of fact: 1. Approve the use as it exists; or 2. Require that it be terminated; or 3. Impose restrictions such as limiting hours of operation. Decisions of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council. Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 5

D. New complaints which are substantially similar to those previously acted upon will be heard by the planning commission only after a period of six months has elapsed from the date of the earlier decision, unless the planning commission believes that any restrictions it has imposed have not been followed

Findings: The cottage industry standards call for limited hours of delivery operations from 8AM to 6PM and the applicant has indicated that “Gary’s towing business is generated by phone calls and emails. The business serves Tillamook and Clatsop counties in Oregon and Pacific County in Washington. Business hours are 8 AM to 5 PM. Most tow calls occur during business hours. The only exception is an after-hours request from a local law enforcement agency to tow a vehicle from an accident scene (1-2 per week), or a local service call attended with Gary’s service vehicle (1-3 per week).” It should be noted that the conditional use provisions under CBMC 17.80.280(B) provides an avenue for surrounding land owners to complain and receive a public hearing and an ability to terminate a use that is not meeting the conditions of use. The cottage industry standards state that only one other non-family member may be employed on the premises. The remaining employees must be family members ‘residing on the premises.’ The applicant has stated that the shop will be family operated and limited to two employees. The applicant has stated that they “plan to plant bushes and trees along the west and south side of the garage/storage facility to help minimize the view of the building from the highway” and “plant bushes and trees along the property line north of the private access road.” Off-street parking area is not clearly indicated on the site plan, yet it should be noted that it will be required before DRB approval is granted. The Commission finds no evidence that the towing facility will provide as an adequate storage area for impounded vehicles and does not wish to see the scenic Highway 101 converted to a vehicle storage yard. The PC is wary of examples of other coastal communities and their Highway 101 corridors and desires to maintain the uniqueness of the aesthetic qualities of the Cannon Beach 101 corridor. Comprehensive Plan The Planning Commission must find that each application is in compliance with the Cannon Beach Comprehensive Plan prior to granting approval. Select CBCP policies follow:

A compact development pattern where various land uses are readily accessible to residents and visitors.

A distinct edge to the town which defines the separation of urban from rural and natural resource uses.

Compact commercial areas that are pedestrian oriented and are readily accessible from adjoining residential areas.

Visually attractive commercial areas which reflect the coastal location and incorporate a high degree of pedestrian amenities and landscaping.

MIDTOWN POLICIES

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 6

change to General Commercial use for an area abutting the General Commercial area. (Ord 88-03; Ord 84-08; Res 79-02)

5. No additional land shall be zoned Limited Commercial, C-1. (Ord 94-07; Ord 88-03)

THE ECONOMY POLICIES

Findings: The Planning Commission finds that General Development Policy #13 and Community Appearance & Design Policy #1 adequately capture the desire of the Cannon Beach community to create and maintain a forested buffer, a scenic corridor throughout Cannon Beach’s Highway 101 corridor. The PC recognizes the role Gary’s Garage has served the community over the years, yet there are zoning processes to address such needs, including map amendments of the zoning code to locate areas which might better serve an expansion of such commercial needs, rather than utilizing the ‘cottage industry’ conditional use standards to ‘stretch’ such commercial or light-industrial uses into highly visible, directly accesses residential areas along a scenic by-way. The Planning Commission cannot find compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.

PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION MOTION: Having considered the evidence in the record, upon a motion by Commissioner Newton to conditionally approve the Jeff & Moon application for a Conditional Use permit for a Cottage Industry, and a second by Commissioner Patrick, the Cannon Beach Planning Commission failed, on a vote of three in favor and four opposed, to approve application number CU 21-01, as discussed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans for the garage must meet DRB approval. 2. No more than 4 licensed vehicles are permitted to be parked on the property outside overnight. 3. Appropriate screening and buffering from Highway 101. 4. ODOT access permit approval. 5. ODOT approved striping and signage for Highway 101 access and maneuvering where required. 6. Posted hours of operation for service and towing shall not exceed 8 AM to 6 PM. 7. Only one non-related family member is permitted to be employed on the premises.

Vote: Yay: Knop, Newton, Patrick Nay: Kerr, Bernt, Bennett, Johnson

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 7

SECOND MOTION: Having considered the evidence in the record, upon a motion by Commissioner Kerr to deny the Jeff & Moon application for a Conditional Use permit for a Cottage Industry, and a second by Commissioner Bernt, the Cannon Beach Planning Commission, on a vote of four in favor and three opposed, denies application number CU 21-01. Vote: Yay: Kerr, Bernt, Bennett, Johnson Nay: Knop, Newton, Patrick

Cannon Beach Planning Commission | City of Cannon Beach Remand of CU# 21-01 8 CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

APPLICATION FOR WAIVER FROM REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE AN ENCROACHMENT OF PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT INTO PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF- WAY ______

Agenda Date: April 6, 2021 Prepared by: Karen La Bonte, Public Works Director

BACKGROUND

In late October 2020, a member of the Cannon Beach Public Works staff noticed that cobblestones had been placed in the City’s right-of-way adjacent to 3678 Pacific. No right-of-way permit had been submitted for this address. Public Works staff turned the matter over to the City’s Code Enforcement Officer in early November 2020. He talked with the homeowners, David Slansky and Susan Tompkins, and they agreed that they would remove the cobblestones the next time they were in town.

In late November 2020, the homeowners applied for a right-of-way permit. In their application materials, they acknowledged that they had already completed most of the work on the 24’ x 24’ cobblestone parking pad, prior to applying for the permit. The homeowners were advised by City staff that their options were to remove the cobblestones or submit a right-of-way waiver application. This waiver application was submitted to the City in late January 2021.

In the waiver application packet, the homeowners stated that there are no City utilities that run under the cobblestone parking pad. This is inaccurate. Water, sewer, and storm lines run along Pacific, and two of those utilities are located underground in the City’s right-of-way. In the event of an emergency, such as a water line leak, Public Works staff would need immediate access to the right-of-way to perform repairs. Asphalt cuts are relatively easy to implement to gain fast access to the below ground facilities which is why the code currently specifies asphalt or compacted dirt for right-of-way surfaces.

ANALYSIS/INFORMATION

Municipal Code Section (12.38.060 defines the 3 criteria by which waiver applications should be evaluated.

4. Criteria. The Council shall determine whether the application meets the following criteria: a. i. That there is an exceptional circumstance which does not generally apply to other properties.

It is acknowledged that the structure may have historical significance which could be interpreted as an exceptional circumstance that does generally not apply to other properties.

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected] However, the project architect has stated that the paving design can be accommodated completely on the owner’s property where it would potentially relate more closely to the to the historical structure. The case has not been made that the cobble stone parking pad needs to be in the right-of-way to support the historical nature of the home.

ii. That requiring the removal of the encroachment would create a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship that is not proportional to the proposed action of the requested building permit.

To date, the homeowners have not submitted building plans for this property. However, at the point that they do, unless this encroachment has been resolved, the building plans would not be approved per municipal code 12.38.050.

Secondly, the homeowners have not proved a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship. Staff recognizes that it may require a cost or additional labor to move the cobblestones back onto their property, however this would not be any different than what other homeowners have had to do.

b. That granting the request will not adversely affect the ability of the city to utilize the right-of- way, or adversely affect adjacent property.

First, let me say that approval of this waiver and the precedent that it could set will definitely impact the city’s ability to access the right-of-way in those instances when utility repairs are necessary. We arrive on a scene prepared to cut asphalt to get access to the ground below or start digging in the compacted dirt which is the other driveway apron option allowed by code.

If the justification for approval of this particular waiver is that the city has the large equipment it needs to remove the cobblestones to get to utilities in front of the property, the same argument could be made for many other types of encroachments.

Staff has serious concerns about the precedent that would be set if this criterion is used to approve the waiver. The ability to facilitate removal of obstructions with large equipment can also apply to hedges, structures, flowerbeds, fences, large boulders, decks, or yard statuary, all of which have ended up being relocated by owners in similar cases.

Dealing with right-of-way issues can be difficult and controversial. There have been numerous instances in which staff enforced the right-of-way use standards per the code where the property owners were quite upset at being told they would have to remove obstructions. In each case they were told that they could apply for a waiver but apparently decided not to do so after they found that they could not meet the code criteria. They often spent thousands of dollars removing objects or plantings that they had spent even more money on having installed without a permit in advance.

Lastly, but most importantly, Municipal Codes 12.36 and 12.38, as adopted by Council, also protects the City from liability that arises from encroachments in the rights-of-way. The City exposes itself to significant risk by allowing private parties to utilize the rights-of-way for personal purposes. Those liability factors include personal injury of a private party, as well as the added costs to the City when employees are working in the right-of-way and the encroachment has created a difficult or hazardous situation.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff feels that the City has, to the best of our ability, consistently enforced the right-of-way restrictions currently incorporated into the code. And that those restrictions serve the city well in terms of our ability to maintain our infrastructure. We do not feel that the information included in the waiver justification warrants that this property be treated differently than how others have been treated in the past.

Staff also has a concern of the possible precedent that approval of this waiver might set.

Staff recommends denial of the waiver request.

If Council no longer feels that the current right-of-way standards are appropriate then it is suggested that council review those standards and make appropriate adjustments to the code.

List of Attachments:

A ROW Permit Application Packet from Homeowners B ROW Waiver Application Packet from Homeowners C Map of Utilities in Pacific Avenue ROW D Architectural Drawing from Tolovana Architects E Comments Received on Topic

Attachment A

Attachment B

CITY OF CANNON BEACH APPLIGATION FOR WAIVER FROM REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE AN ENCROACHMENT OF PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT INTO· PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Please fillout this form completely. Please type or print.

· Applicant Name: David Slanskv and Susan Tomokins Mailing Address: 1005 NE Cornell Road Hillsboro. OR 97124-3338 Telephone: (503) 819-0750 "' Property-Owner Name: 01�1 \, (if other than applicant) l��J I_J Mailing Address: 1005 NE Cornell Road Hillsboro. OR 97124-3338 lJ i Telephone: (503) 819-0750 Property Location: ��-----�-,------,----3678 Pacifice ( street address)

Map No.: """5-'--10'-=3-'-1 =-D=-D ____ Tax Lot No.: _2_902______

Encroachment Description: please attach a sketch or copy of survey. Use additional sheets as necessary.

See sketch and photos included with the attached. Right of Way permit application and. that permit ' application's upporting documents '

Explain how this encroachment represents (1) an exceptional circumstance that does not generally apply to other properties; or (2) that requiring the removal of the encroachment would create a practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship that is not proportional to the proposed action of the requested building permit.

(1) relevant circumstances include: there are no water mains, sewer lines, utilities, etc. presently underneath, or paved street ablove nor current plans for such; the current cobblestone pad project rests on compacted gravel and sand, with the spaces between each cobblestone and the ones adjacent to it filled in with swept-in sand; the stones are riotsecured with cement,.mortar, or any other adhesive; the cobblestones are more readily removeable than an asphalt pavement (asphalt paving is currently permitted by the right of way ordinance); cobblestones are rare and are a unique visual enhancement to the property and community; and the property owners would remove then when a public works project so required . 1 f a 8 a h (2) the laid cobblestones reflect many days and h�urs of hard labor leveling sand and ston� l�Jln� nnon e c. · Frn�nctl 0 epa r rnt em

Waiver Application Fee: $400.00 JAN tit 2021

City of Cannon Beach, Planning DeP,artrnent,P. 0. Box 368, Cannon Beach, OR 97110 • (503) 436-8042• FAX (503) 436-8053•TTY: 503-436-8097• Email: [email protected]

Attachment C Attachment D

Attachment E

From: Karen La Bonte To: Jennifer Barrett Cc: Kelsey Balensifer Subject: FW: 3678 Pacific Street Application for Waiver Date: Friday, February 19, 2021 4:57:53 PM Attachments: image002.png

DISCLOSURE NOTICE: Messages to and from this email address may be subject to Oregon Public Records Law.

From: David OLLIVER Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 1:30 PM To: Karen La Bonte Subject: 3678 Pacific Street Application for Waiver

We are writing in support of our neighbors' request for a waiver from the requirement to remove an existing circular cobblestone parking pad which encroaches on the undeveloped public right of way in front of their home. Prior to the painstaking installation of this parking pad, the area involved was a mud puddle and reflected poorly upon both the subject property and the city right of way. The septuagenarian owners worked all last spring and summer installing this attractive replacement, and forcing them to now remove it would require far more effort and expense on the part of the owner, or the city, than should be asked in order to return it to it's prior "mud puddle" state. We grant that the owner should have applied for a permit to install this attractive substitute, but it remains unclear whether they knew of the necessity for such a permit. This cobblestone pad is not cemented in place, nor are there any impediments to the city workers should it be decided that the right of way must be utilized. There are no water, sewer, natural gas or electric lines buried beneath the sand holding the cobbles in place, and natural drainage is able to occur due to the permeability of the sand underlayment. In short, we can find no reasonable reason to deny this request other than administrative caprice. Thank you for considering our input. David Olliver and Cassandra Ekblade 3679 Pacific Street Cannon Beach, OR CANNON BEACH CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT

CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH D.A. DAVIDSON & CO. FOR MUNICIPAL ADVISOR SERVICES ______

Agenda Date: April 6, 2021 Prepared by: Bruce St. Denis, City Manager

The City is considering issuing debt for the purpose of financing the improvements to the Cannon Beach Elementary School. This debt would not be G.O. Bonds. This debt would be backed by the full faith and credit of the City. One of the first steps is to retain a financial advisor to assist the City. Our earlier contract with D. A. Davidson & Co. expired on December 31, 2019.

ANALYSIS/INFORMATION

Matt Donahue of D.A. Davidson & Co. will serve as the City's financial advisor. A financial advisor has a fiduciary responsibility to the city as opposed to using an underwriter. Although the company charges hourly, Mr. Donahue expects the actual fee would be between $15,000 - $20,000 depending on what the City requires. Bond counsel fees will also be necessary. These costs can be rolled into the amount of the proceeds from the debt issuance.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends Council approval of entering into an agreement with D. A. Davidson & Co. to provide municipal financial advice for the financing assistance. Staff also recommends Council direct the City Manager to sign the agreement.

Council may make the following motion:

“I move to approve the Municipal Advisor Agreement and Municipal Advisor Disclosure Statement with D. A. Davidson & Co. and approve the City Manager to sign all required documents”.

List of Attachments A Municipal Advisor Agreement B Municipal Advisor Disclosure Statement

PO Box 368 Cannon Beach, Oregon 97110 • (503) 436-1581 • TTY (503) 436-8097 • FAX (503) 436-2050 www.ci.cannon-beach.or.us • [email protected]

City of Cannon Beach Monthly Status Report

To: Mayor and City Council

From: City Manager Bruce St. Denis

Date: April 6, 2021

Planning Commission:

The Planning Commission will meet on March 25th, to consider the following items: ● Continuation of V 21-02, Jay Raskin request, on behalf of Stan and Becky Roberts, for a variance of the Oceanfront Setback for the construction of a new residence. ● Public Hearing and reconsideration of CU 21-01, Jeffrey D. Moon remand from the City Council, for a conditional use permit of a cottage industry. ● Public Hearing and consideration of V21-03, David Vonada request, on behalf of Robert & Heidi Klonoff, for a variance of the front-yard setback requirement for a garage in conjunction with a residential replacement. ● Informational Items: • Tree Report • Portable Storage Container Discussion • Good of the Order

Design Review Board: ● The Design Review Board meeting of March 18th was cancelled due to a lack of applications.

The Chair of the DRB, approved minor modifications for the following addresses: ● None

Short-term Rentals: Staff continued to process short-term rental permits in February:

Program Number of permits

14-day permit 118

Lifetime Unlimited permit 48

5-year Unlimited permit 40

Total permits 206

New short-term rentals this month 0

Pending short-term rentals 1

Building Permits: Staff processed a total of 9 building, 9 mechanical and 8 plumbing permits in February:

City Manager Report April 6, 2021 1 of 6 Permit Type # of Permit Fees Value Affordable Affordable permits Housing Housing Surcharge, Surcharge, Fiscal Current Month Year to date

Building 9 $12,252.59 $ 852,495.00 $ 8,524.95 $ 181,371.28

Mechanical 9 $1,672.20

Plumbing 8 $2,644.00

Monthly Total 26 $16,568.79

The Building Official spent approximately 15 hours per week providing building inspection and plan review services to the City of Astoria, under an Intergovernmental Agreement.

Other Planning/Building Matters: ● The CD Staff supported the City Manager’ Office completing three Public Records Request(s) for the month, accounting for approximately 5 hours; ● The CD Department processed six Development Permits; ● The CD Director continues to meet and approve on-site Emergency Outdoor Service & Parking Plans for restaurants extending their dining services; ● The CD Director under the Emergency Order and ROW Facilities Permit for extending outdoor dining options for COVID-related temporary on-street dining, met with the owner-operators of MacGregor’s to discuss ROW plans; ● The Plan Review committee discussed the Extension and Expansion of COVID-related signage and temporary parking for Ecola Seafoods; ● The CD Director attended the monthly TSP call with the project management team for the TGM/TSP, reviewed initial materials, prepared stand-alone website, completed addendum to allow for additional parking utilization study and scheduled a work session with City Council for April; ● The CD Department completed compiling the Najimi Appeal Record for the Land Use Board of Appeals; ● The CD Department received a Land Use Board of Appeals Notice that the Foredune Management Plan Update decision was upheld by the state; ● The CD Director continues to work the City Manager, CREST Executive Director and Denise Lofman, regarding proposed solutions for bank stabilization of the North Bank of the Ecola Creek Estuary and has scheduled a work session discussion with City Council in April; ● The CD Administrative Assistant, Katie Hillenhagen, compiled, processed and reviewed the STR yearly Audit; ● On March 2nd, the CD Department hosted the quarterly STR Taskforce meeting; meeting presentation and yearly audit information can be found on the City’s website, under the STR page; ● The CD Department reviewed and Council adopted an update to the STR Fees, which will take effect in July 2021; ● The CD Director approved archaeological permit no. 3037 review for ODOT’s US101 Ecola Creek to Arcadia Beach roadway project; ● The CD Department received four Request for Qualification submissions for CB Code Audit project, for review and selection; ● The CD Director amended the Special Events ordinance language, along with a new application brochure for work session in April;

City Manager Report April 6, 2021 2 of 6 ● The CD Director attended a Webinar on March 9th, on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment and state legislation; ● The CD Director and CBRF Chief met, on March 10, with owners and operators of 3115 S. Hemlock LLC, for a site inspection; ● The CD Department updated the Land Use applications to incorporate the recently adopted fee schedule; ● The Plan Review Committee is working on updating the Development Permit application, permitting, review and inspection procedures in preparation for the Code Audit;

Public Works Department Report - March

Water • Tapped 4” water main and installed new meter service at 123 W Surfcrest. • Installed new meter service at 280 E 5th Street. • Upgraded service and installed new setters at 4688 Logan Lane and 107 E Jackson Street. • Vactored on Gulcana and Gogona Streets to prep for water main replacement on Pacific Street. • Repaired service leak at 375 Fir Street. • Entered LTE data in Beacon and Caselle. • Educated customers on Eye on Water system (267 customers signed up total). • Installed 212 new Cellular LTE meters (952 LTEs installed total). • Conducted monthly meter reads and rereads. • Serviced water tank at Coaster Properties Building. • Completed weekly locates and work orders. • Notified multiple users of water leaks.

Wastewater • Continued sourcing parts to refurbish Basin #2. • Finished replacing 8 air valve actuators in Basin #1. • Refurbished all air valve actuators in Basin #2 that were not working correctly. • Replaced gearbox oil and motor for clarifier rake, then painted and prepared it for install. • Installed gearbox/motor to rake in clarifier. • Replaced aged wet well level control floats at Haystack. • Conducted quarterly generator fueling. • Conducted quarterly lateral and wet well cleaning in the downtown area for repeat trouble areas. • Restored beach outfall at W Nelchena. o Removed rocks, sand and organic debris that plugged the drainpipe. o Found and restored maintenance access to that site as well. • Installed two new service laterals for 123 W Surfcrest and 280 E 5th Street. • Completed city-wide Inflow & Infiltration source inspection. o TSR was in town assisting with locating I & I sources, as well as updating lateral inspections in the Tolovana area that were last inspected in 2012. City Manager Report April 6, 2021 3 of 6 • Replaced aging control transformer on the chemical tank’s mixing motor at the wastewater treatment plant. • Organized and loaded old DVDs of old sewer inspections onto the city server. • Cleared vegetation and dug debris away from the ends of the effluent pipes over in the wetlands. • Troubleshot the soft start (that was recently replaced) on pump #3 at Matanuska Pump Station.

Roads & Storm • Cleaned out the ADA ramp at Tolovana wayside. • Cleaned outfall pipe at Nelchena. • Installed a catch basin and pipe at W. Surfcrest. • Conducted a city-wide pothole sweep. • Rebuilt storm system on N Hemlock and Ecola Park Road. o Added a new catch basin. o Placed 400 ft. of 12-inch ADS pipe. • Located a long-buried standpipe junction at Nelchena to fix sewer overflow flap gate that was stuck open.

Parks • Adjusted scope of Sitka beach access stairs replacement project, to cut costs. • Removed stickers and graffiti around town. • Assisted HRAP with removing a 3,000-lb. fishing net from the beach. • Removed English ivy. • Helped with a stormwater project on Ecola Park Road. • Assisted Recycling with bailer repairs. • Installed new posts, nets, strap anchor and strap at 2nd Street tennis court. • Installed new memorial plaque at bandstand. • Picked up 2,000 pounds of turf fertilizer and started spreading it. • Removed a hazard tree at Les Shirley Park. • Begun installation of 60 yards of engineered wood fiber as a protective surface at City playgrounds.

Emergency Management – March

• Started to draft grant for Homeland Security Grant for 2021 – Quick turnaround expected • Emergency Management Budget organized • Assisted with Community Bulletin deployment • Expedite security options for the cache sites. (this was shelved as a priority budget cycle) • Wayfinding Wednesday – We participate first Wednesdays of each month • Bi-Weekly MRC communications training and participation • Communications and Coordination with Clatsop County Emergency Management * Communications Plan (Clatsop County), • Coordination and collaboration with Clatsop County Public Health for COVID daily updates • Weekly COVID-19 Situation Reports City Manager Report April 6, 2021 4 of 6 • Vaccination updates • Vaccination site coordination with Public Health • Ongoing updates when significant issues arise to Staff, Council, Community (Weather, Outbreaks, State Mandates ) *Staff report delivered to council for ECFR – emergency road access for fire suppression • Coordinated 2 ECFR tours with Parks committee, ODF, CBRFPD, GreenWood, Staff members • Attend weekly Cannon Beach Chamber and Business meetings to receive and to deliver up to date information • Working on MOU with Neighbors to the East (Green land forestry) South with –(EVCNB ). CERT coordination *MOU draft completed for EVCNB • North Tank Radio (KMUN – HAM- GMRS) tower development continued – Detailed plan for antenna *Progress, received CUP and starting the building permit • Clatsop County communications plan assistance • CERT vaccination assistance for seniors – Library • CERT community mask delivery (Final mask delivery for COVID-19 event) • EOC improvements made with back up computer placement, Cameras added to EOC PW, Conference room. • Public Works handheld radios purchased; programming completed

Haystack Rock Awareness Program (HRAP) – March

• Eleven seasonal Rocky Shore Interpreters have been hired and trained, one vacancy remains. • HRAP has applied to host two Junior Rocky Shore Interpreters through ClatsopWorks. • Communication Coordinator interviews conducted; new hire will join in April. • Two students have accepted to intern as Sea Grant Scholars with HRAP from June – August, one project will revolve around virtual field trip research and the other will work jointly with Friends of Haystack Rock on a Tufted Puffin advocacy project. • Welcome the Puffin ceremony and activities are scheduled for April 17th – 18th. • Pigeon Guillemots have been spotted nesting at Haystack Rock. • Five individual Black Oystercatchers have been seen around Haystack Rock.

City Manager Report April 6, 2021 5 of 6 Public Safety Report – February 2021 Staffing: Authorized Assigned Sworn 8 7 Code Enforcement 1 1 Admin/Support 2 2 Parking/Information 6 0 Lifeguards 10 0

February 2021 February 2020 Station Activity: CBPD Walk-in 101 138 CBPD Incoming Phone 272 255 SPD Dispatched Calls 39 48 Overnight Camping Warnings 20 47 Local Security Checks 2834 3052 Traffic Warnings 145 339 Traffic Citations 30 34 DUII Arrests 1 2 Alarm Responses 10 6 AOA, Including FD 27 44 Citizen Assists 9 22 Transient Contacts 7 17 Total Case File Reports 161 216

Cases of Significance: Hit & Run: 1 Case Warrant/Fugitive Arrest: 2 Cases Criminal Trespass II: 2 Cases PCS Psilocybin Mushrooms: 1 Case Theft I: 1 Case Criminal Mischief II: 1 Case Theft II: 1 Case Criminal Mischief III: 3 Cases

Traffic Citations: Driving with a Suspended License: 1 Citation No Operator’s License: 2 Citations Oper. Vehicle Using Mobile Device: 7 Citations Driving Uninsured: 2 Citations Fail to Wear Seatbelt: 1 Citation Careless Driving: 2 Citations Fail to Obey Traffic Control Device: 1 Citation DUII (.13%): 1 Citation Violation of Basic Rule/Speeding: 13 Citations (71/55, 48/30, 72/55, 73/55, 99/55, 73/55, 71/55, 39/25, 38/25, 76/55, 77/55, 36/20, 45/25)

Code Enforcement Activities: During this period, 20 municipal code violations were addressed and resolved or pending resolution.

City Manager Report April 6, 2021 6 of 6