The city of Yachats’ consultant says zoning changes in small communities are not usually enough to have a big impact on types of housing, but other incentives and time are needed to make changes work. (Cascadia Partners)By GARRET JAROS/Lincoln Chronicle
YACHATS – Efforts by the city of Yachats to update its housing code will continue in May and a final draft of changes is expected to go before the city council sometime this summer.
But a critic of the changes is calling for a voter referendum to decide whether the proposals should take effect.
The firm hired by the city to revise housing codes to create more options for affordable housing shared community feedback along with the resulting revisions during a joint meeting of the city council and planning commission last week. Staff with Portland-based Cascadia Partners cautioned that changing codes for what is allowed is just a first step in removing regulatory barriers and will require subsequent policy work to ensure the housing is available for whom it is intended.
Even the term “affordable housing” is a bit of a misnomer because what is affordable for some may not be affordable to others, thus the conversation around revising codes has centered on “workforce housing” as an umbrella definition. Workforce housing is based on average median incomes, which in Yachats is just over $67,000 a year. Types of workforce housing suggested by Cascadia include accessory dwelling units and so called “missing middle housing” such as multiplexes, townhouses and cottage clusters.
Cascadia planner Rachel Cotton told the council and planning commission that workforce housing is the hardest to build “Without any sort of subsidy …”
Cascadia began its presentation with an overview of community feedback, which has included online surveys and well-attended community meetings, most recently in early April.
The city of Yachats is trying to come up with changes to its housing codes to encourage more “affordable housing” but there’s even debate about what that means. (Cascadia Partners)Much of the feedback indicated a desire for adding workforce housing while also preserving Yachats’ character and for allowing a wider range of housing in residential and commercial areas. Some people questioned whether changes would “move the needle” enough to create workforce housing. Others said changing the housing codes are not necessary and will negatively change the community.
“We also heard a desire to ensure that new housing is affordable and going to be available for year-round residents,” said Cascadia’s Rhey Haggerty. “This was a big topic that we heard a lot about.”
That will take subsequent policy work that might include financial incentives for builders such as reducing system development charges, tiered permit costs and reduced utility connection fees — and even deed restrictions ensuring new housing cannot be used for vacation rentals or second homes.
Community members also expressed concern that increased housing density could strain water availability and lead to parking issues on narrow streets.
Haggerty said there is a lot of community support for accessory dwelling units as a “gentle infill option and as a solution for older residents to age in place by downsizing or offering them for caregivers.”
Increasing the allowed size of ADUs from 1,000 square feet to 1,200 was also suggested to accommodate more than one person, as was decreasing setbacks from the street from 20 feet to 10 feet in lower intensity residential zones.
Cotton said the impact of covenants, conditions and restrictions in property deeds also came up often. Many areas of Yachats have them and the belief is even if regulatory changes are made CC&R restrictions would not allow some of the proposed housing types.
The Oregon Legislature has been moving intentionally toward combating some of these systematized forms of “not in my backyard” attitudes that have limited fair housing across the United States, Cotton said. Starting in January, House Bill 2138 will void all private restrictive covenants and homeowner association rules that prohibit middle housing, she said.
“And this again gets to fair housing and access to housing issues that are a matter of state policy… So this really does have potentially an impact on Yachats,” Cotton said.
How much change Yachats can expect from the proposed changes to the housing codes is uncertain, and the changes are highly variable and market dependent, according to Cascadia. The consultants also said that zoning reform alone is insufficient to have significant impacts on small coastal towns due to high land costs, limited number of builders and high system development charges.
Yachats is relatively unique, Cotton said, and there’s not a lot of research that looks at small, coastal, vacation destination communities that have implemented progressive code changes like these.
“There are some peer cities in Oregon including Bandon, Rockaway Beach, Nehalem and Newport that have very recently made some of these changes,” she said. “So, it’s sort of too soon to tell what the ultimate impacts are. But we just wanted to be clear that just changing the regulations alone is often insufficient to have a significant impact in places like Yachats.”
Cascadia’s consultants also highlighted the latest round of proposed code changes based on community feedback.
For ADUs, identified as the most popular housing choice, they addressed concerns about proximity to neighbors. Allowing ADUs to have a setback of just 10 feet from the street instead of the current 20 feet was balanced with not encroaching on neighboring properties.
“You can get closer to the front lot line in which case you would not be close to your neighbor,” Cotton said. “But you can no longer be closer than the standard side setback. We think that’s a good swap to be responsive to all the concerns that we heard. And make it more possible to build accessory dwelling units in the lower intensity zones.”
Yachats council and planning commission members listen to city planner Katherine Guenther last week during a join meeting to hear updates on proposed housing codes. (Garret Jaros/Lincoln Chronicle)Council & commission feedback
Councilor Catherine Whitten-Carey asked where tiny homes fit into the codes.
“Tiny homes are now included to be allowed in a manufactured home park, by state law,” Cotton said. “So that is a change and that is included in the code amendments.”
City planner Katherine Guenther added they can be classified in different ways. If they are on wheels and can be towed, they are classified as recreational vehicles – which is how the city would classify them. And if they are on a foundation “it basically becomes a house” and falls under the small-homes specialty code.
Mayor Craig Berdie asked for a concise description of what is allowed on an R-1 lot with the changes.
What’s being proposed and has not changed since Cascadia’s last meeting with the council and commission, Cotton said, is to allow up to two dwellings or a duplex on a standard 7,500-square-foot lot in the R-1 zone. There is also a provision in the proposed code that if a property is non-conforming “you are allowed to add an ADU even if you are on what’s considered a sub-standard lot as long as you have hookups to utilities,” Cotton added.
Parking is another big concern that has been raised.
An example is the designation of only 1½ off-street parking spaces for each side of a duplex – three in all – for what could likely be two families with two cars each would add congestion or not be practical on narrow streets.
Planning commissioner Loren Dickinson referenced a parking study several years ago that showed parking on streets in some residential zones is not feasible. Berdie added that design standards should consider that.
Cotton said parking concerns are valid and added what is being suggested is minimum not maximum requirements for required onsite parking.
“Our experience is developers are very attuned to what someone is looking for when they buy a house,” Cotton said. “In Yachats they probably want room to park two cars right? So they can still provide more parking. This is just saying you have to provide at least one and a half spaces per unit. And the existing standard that was already in place — we didn’t touch.”
“It’s still open for conversation if the council and planning commission feel really strongly that you really want two spaces per unit for duplexes, you can do that,” Cotton said. “With the understanding that it’s an affordability piece we’re talking about. If you’re using the land for parking, rather than building housing, the housing is going to cost more as a result.”
The city of Yachats has been working with a housing consultant since 2022 and hopes to finish up code revisions this summer. (Cascadia Partners)Next steps
The next steps will be meetings in early May with the city’s project management team and an advisory committee to review the latest changes. There will also likely be one more work session with the planning commission and council later in May followed by commission hearing in mid-June for a first reading of the proposed amendments.
In order to properly notify the public, any recommendations from the planning commission will likely not go before the council for an adoption hearing until mid-July or August.
Yachats resident Don Phipps, a critic of many of the proposals because of the effect he believes it will have neighborhoods, spoke during the council’s public comment period to say he considers the rezoning plans too significant for just the planning commission and council to decide.
Phipps said he and others plan to file paperwork to seek a referendum “so that all property owners and residents of Yachats can vote these changes up or down.”
He went on to list a litany of what he deemed as failings in the process including his being allowed to leave three responses on the most recent community survey.
- Garret Jaros covers the communities of Yachats, Waldport, south Lincoln County and natural resources issues for Lincoln Chronicle and can be reached at [email protected]
The city is considering subsequent policy work that might include financial incentives for builders such as reducing System Development Charges (SDC), tiered permit costs and reduced utility connection fees. To operate municipal services like water/sewer, permit processing, and utility connection are all services that generate costs for the city. For instance, delivering water to a home is expensive requiring a water treatment plant plus a network of underground plumbing systems to transport drinking quality water from its source in the hills to the east of Yachats and connecting to a home(s). If the city provides builders/property owners with financial incentives or reducing those SDC’s, then who pays? The answer is that the city will have to raise water/sewer rates and/or introduce a special fee (tax) like a storm drain fee. Ultimately the residents and businesses will bear the burden of subsidizing these policy incentives for the sake of population growth in these zoning change proposals for “Affordable Housing.”
I agree with Mr. Phipps…” a referendum “so that all property owners and residents of Yachats can vote these changes up or down.” In light of the costs and the discrepancies on existing residents, a referendum is imperative. David Diamond’s comment is also very relevant and will impact all residents and businesses in Yachats. Yachats is a very small municipality with a population of slightly more then 1,000 full-time residents. Growth is not needed nor desirable, plus the “work force” in Yachats couldn’t afford the costs associated with buying or renting in Yachats.
Mark, you seem so unconcerned about Yachats’ work force that you put them in inverted commas. Why? Don’t you believe they exist? Or are they simply undeserving?
People who work at Dollar General or C&K or cook and clean for us deserve to live where they work. They should not have to drive for miles to low-paid jobs, while rich Yachatians enjoy their second homes or rent out their air b&bs.
People who work in Yachats don’t have to drive “for miles” if they don’t want to. Yachats is a very small town geographically and someone who works in Yachats can live within walking distance of their job and not live within the Yachats city limits. There is plenty housing very near Yachats and absolutely no reason anyone has to live within the city limits to work here.
“Workforce housing is based on average median incomes, which in Yachats is just over $67,000 a year.” 52 weeks in a year, 40 hours a week = $32 an hour. Whaaa??? Are they including retirement income in the calculations? Most of the workforce that I come in contact with make minimum wage, which is $15 an hour for less than 40 hours a week. Once again, I’m seeing “planning” exercised by elites who don’t really need help finding affordable housing. Years ago, I mistakenly applauded a “tiny house” development near Waldport that was supposed to be for low-income workers, but the development turned out to be used for vacation rentals.
Clemencia,
You just hit the nail on the head. The term Yachats affordable housing is an oxymoron and won’t suddenly become available because the city changes the zoning codes to allow plex units, ADU’s, Cottage Clusters etc. What is likely to occur is for many more second vacation homes (for deep pocket folks from out of town) to purchase or rent. The city could really help local businesses and their work force by offering subsidized public transportation on the busses that already run from cities like Newport and Florence to and from Yachats.
We’ve had: (a) years of planning commission meetings that have included direct feedback and input on updating the code, (b) a significant amount of collaborative work between the City and the Cascadia consultants that included citizen survey results, (c) there have also been numerous city council meetings on the topic where the public has had a chance to listen and provide additional input. I don’t feel that a referendum is necessary. Our elected city councilors and mayor are intelligent, receptive, and they are centered on ensuring and sustaining the quality of life in Yachats that we presently enjoy. If undesirable effects of any part of the new code (whatever its form) are widely felt to undermine the livability here, this council or a future one can make subsequent adjustments. Given that the proposed code is being designed to allow for more economical housing costs—something that is clearly needed— while retaining the privacy, beauty, and extraordinary natural setting that we presently enjoy, these modest changes do not feel like a dangerous change. I trust the Council in this case to consider what is best, modify the plan as necessary, and vote on it. There may be times when a plebiscite is needed; this doesn’t feel like one of those times.
Recently I attended a meeting concerning the upcoming zoning code changes. The meeting was not about whether these zoning changes should or should not be enacted -that has already been decided- but about airing any minor issues residents may have about the zoning changes and hearing suggestions about possible remedies for these minor issues.
I happened to be sitting at a table with Mayor Berdie and three people who sit on the panning commission and I commented that these zoning changes would fundamentally alter the character of Yachats to which the Mayor agreed was the case. I then mentioned that this was such an important issue concerning our town and lives that the residents and property owners should be able to vote on this and a referendum be held. All three city leaders answered in unison with “No!” With one planning commission member adding “that’s what the elected us for”.
I would suggest taking a look at the new condo at the corner of 9th street and Hwy. 101 (across the street from Dollar General) to get an idea of what our city leaders have in mind for our “Gem” of a town.
This is too important for us to allow a handful of people to determine the future of Yachats without any regard to the voting public.
There were numerous meetings that any citizen could have attended prior to the one you mentioned that you attended, including planning commission meetings at the early, mid, or late stages of this years-long process. If people agreed that the code needs to change to address the economic issues that have arisen since 2020 making housing in Yachats virtually unaffordable for the majority of our local workforce, suggestions other than the near finalized ones could have been offered at anytime during the past several years. Waiting til near the end of the process, and then, when it’s not going the way one wants it to, asking for a referendum to check the City Council, well, that’s not the smoothest way to engage in the democratic process.
As I stated above there is no compelling reason for housing within the Yachats city limits to be affordable to the local workforce as there is plenty of affordable housing very near to the city. Why the insistence on having cheap housing within the City of Yachats? Explain the dire need for inexpensive housing within the city limits that would entail changing the character of the city?
I have worked in some extremely expensive municipalities in California where the local workers had absolutely no hope of ever living in those places yet there were plenty of people working low wage jobs there. Someone who waits tables in a Santa Barbara restaurant cannot buy a home in Santa Barbara.
“Cheap housing” is not a thing in either place, but the vast wealth differences between Santa Barbara and Yachats makes the two cities a poor comparison in the context of this conversation. Maybe that’s the problem. There are meaningful differences between middle-class Yachats seeking to create conditions that allow for affordable workforce housing and ultra-wealthy Santa Barbara doing so. If maintaining an economic gap is important to one’s peace of mind, Santa Barbara might be a better landing spot than the central Oregon coast. Is a little economic diversity a bad thing?? We’re not talking about creating a “low income neighborhood,” with drugs and gangs and drive by shootings. This is about facilitating the integration of more affordable housing while retaining the lovely character of the village. Here’s a little thought experiment: bring to your minds eye an employee you’ve met and interacted with at the Drift Inn or Luna Sea or C&K, etc., and imagine your comfort level if they lived next door to you. If that feels scary or unpleasant, then maybe you’d prefer that Yachats become a 55 and older community?? To me, having younger people living in Yachats, including younger families, would enhance the livability of this place, and it would ensure that our downtown is able to attract and retain a quality workforce while enriching the city.
Excellent comment! This referendum demand, coming after years of planning and community meetings, sounds like a last ditch effort to keep the poors out of town.
This was beautifully said. I appreciate you voicing your perspective. I hope it opens the eyes of others to the plight of everyday citizens. Yachats is no longer the little village that I came from, precisely because of the opinion that workers should not be seen or heard of outside of their jobs.
There was no analysis done that actually showed that the proposed changes would make Yachats affordable for our local service industry workers.
There is a reference to “rich” second-home owners in Yachats. Although I am labeled as one of those, I’m neither rich and my house in Yachats is not a second-home. It is the only home I own. We never have input on what happens in Yachats because we are not registered voters in Oregon. But I certainly would support a referendum on this issue. That is the democratic way to do it and it allows all resident Yachatians to be part of the decision.
Homeowners, whether on site or absentee, pay dearly for their homes in Yachats, through property taxes, house and flood insurance, tourist fees at local restaurants, and water rates, which charge for water you never use when you’re not here. Presently water rates also pay for road renovation in the town. I have yet to understand how water usage is connected to road construction and repair. How nice if that issue had been determined by referendum. I wrote a letter of inquiry but never received a response. It was a done deal.
Absentee owners pay so resident owners are not left covering all the costs. Yes, that is the price we pay to have place in Yachats. I accept that logic and knew it fully well before purchasing. But it is hardly ever recognized when we’re labeled “rich”. Absentee owners pay more than their fair share to have a place here, thus supporting the local town without impacting it when we’re not here. No water usage and no flushing of toilets unless we’re in town. But the costs of home ownership occur on a 12-month basis, fair or not.
A few people saw the potential cash cow of water accounts, calculated the untapped cash flow and cashed in. Time for democracy to prevail and let all homeowners, whether local or absentee, to have legal input into decisions that will affect homeownership in Yachats for years to come. I wonder if working people could afford the utilities in this town even if the price of a small home were affordable.
Let democracy prevail with a survey of all home owners in Yachats. If not that, then a referendum of registered voters.
Jim O’Brien
Oro Valley, Ariz. (November to May)
Yachats (May to November)
Hi Jim, Here’s a city of Yachats link to the City Manager’s slide deck on the work that has been done on this issue (below). It will provide you with some helpful info. I understand that you can’t vote here (including on a referendum) since you’re not domiciled in Oregon, but Yachats has a video feed (and recordings) of all of its City Council and the various commission meetings. In addition, as a property owner the monthly water bill contains a link to the city newsletter each month (actually available to anyone in the world who has internet access). Utilizing available city resources might help you feel better informed and more comfortable about any changes that are being proposed (about anything). Best wishes and hope to see you around when you visit. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/44cd23fc19c04dbcac71c82c0d895642
If one wanted to rent a finished condos in Yachats for $2500 a month and followed the government’s guideline of 30% of your gross income for rent or mortgage, one would need to earn $8333 a month. (I’m not including utilities, which are high in Yachats.) That’s $99,996 a year in salary. There are 2080 work hours in a year, so that translates to c. $48 dollars an hour.
Is this the “workforce” hourly wage in Yachats?
The average family wage in Oregon is well below that figure. And that’s precisely why cities throughout Oregon have been revising their building codes in an effort to bring down the cost of housing. College grads in their 30’s and 40’s are struggling to buy starter homes, and rents are through the roof for everyone. This speaks to how important it is to provide lower cost alternatives than exist now. ADU’s will accommodate some of that. New housing approaches as laid out in the proposed code changes may also help.
The 30% of earnings housing calculation is still being used but it’s ridiculously outdated since the 2020-21 Covid shutdown, when housing prices went through the roof. “The 30% figure originated in the late 1960s/early 1970s (initially at 25% for public housing) and was raised to 30% in the early 1980s. It has not been revised upward or downward at the federal level since then.” (From a mortgage co. website).
ADUs might be a small solution to lower costs for houses in some areas. There are many more things that could be done at the state and Federal levels. See all the suggestions I’ve included in my substack article at: https://drjpobrien.substack.com/p/the-constipated-chain-of-home-ownership
Height restrictions?