This story was originally published on LincolnChronicle.org and is used with permission.
After years of analysis and work by consultants, Yachats’ planning commission and city council are working to finish proposals to amend rules that could allow for more types of housing across the city.
The effort stems from the city’s goal to create more affordable housing options for working class people in a city of 1,000 predominately populated by well-to-do retirees. Yachats is also a popular tourist destination with 125 houses operating as vacation rentals and an estimated 60 percent of all houses set aside as second homes.
City officials say amending the outdated housing code could allow accessory dwelling units, duplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and multiple-unit housing in residential areas currently dominated by single-family homes.
The proposals, the city argues, could open an avenue for local workers and their families to weave into the fabric of the community. It is also hoped some proposed but “optional” code amendments will allow for older homeowners to better age in place by allowing in-house or accessory dwellings.
Yachats’ 100-page housing code, which was adopted in 1992, must be updated to align with Oregon law — a mandate specific to cities with an urban growth boundary. State law requires every incorporated city to maintain a 20-year supply of buildable land to accommodate projected housing and employment.
But what has raised the ire of some community members are the city’s suggested optional amendments. Critics contend those will negatively change the face of the community and lead to unintended consequences that will not create more affordable housing.
The draft to amend the code is now under review by the planning commission, which is going through it line-by-line with another work session scheduled July 21. Public hearings by the city council will not likely occur until the fall.
While some critics claim they are just now hearing about the proposed housing code amendments, there have been public meetings in various forms over the past year to inform and get feedback following two years of housing studies by the consultant. The city also conducted an online survey, which had an arguably low number of responses.
There has also been public testimony at planning commission and city council meetings over the past several months. But because of continued questions about the proposals, the city is hosting a public “listening session” from 4:30-7 p.m. Tuesday, July 14 in the multipurpose room of the Commons.
A little history
The initiative to update zoning codes has been in development for several years “representing an incredible amount of heavy lifting and community vision,” city manager Bobbi Price told the planning commission in May.
The city hired Portland-based Cascadia Partners, an urban planning and land-use firm to develop a housing needs analysis in 2022. The analysis noted a lack of land for townhomes, duplexes and multi-unit housing and emphasized the need for more housing types and affordability.
From the analysis came the realization that for years basically nothing but single-family homes had been built and that residential areas zoned for higher density had been filled with single-family homes, according to city planner Katherine Guenther.
The analysis led to a housing implementation plan in 2023 that identified strategies to meet housing needs and recommended specific code changes to meet those needs. That then dovetailed into 2025 and 2026 with the current effort to update codes.
“It’s important to remind everyone this project is not a sudden or singular pursuit to build affordable, middle-housing or attainable housing overnight,” Price told the planning commission in May. “Rather, it is the essential municipal function to update outdated, and in some cases, non-compliant local municipal codes.”
According to the housing needs analysis, Yachats has sufficient raw, buildable land within its urban growth boundary to accommodate projected population growth over the next 20 years. The city’s total estimated building capacity is 326 housing units, which exceeds the baseline projected need of 271 units.
But while there is a surplus of land for single-family homes, there is a mismatch between capacity and actual need for alternative housing types, according to the analysis. If historic development patterns continue – 75 percent of all housing built in Yachats since 2000 have been detached, single-family homes – the city faces a projected deficit over the next 20 years of 23 townhomes or duplexes and four multi-unit (five or more) and a surplus of 61 single-family homes.
Yachats currently has what are called “non-conforming” housing types — accessory dwelling units, cottage clusters and duplexes — that were grandfathered in prior to the city adopting its comprehensive land-use plan in 2019.
Required vs. optional
There has been some confusion expressed by planning commission members around which of the proposed code amendments are required by the state and which are optional.
The state’s required changes include:
- Allowing single-room occupancy housing in all locations where housing is allowed, at densities and with parking standards dictated by state requirements. The state has also removed occupancy limits that may discriminate based on family relationships. “We can no longer say who lives under that one roof,” Guenther said. “You could have multiple unrelated people, each with a private room with a door that locks and either a shared kitchen or bathroom.”
- Allowances for siting affordable housing. “Basically, what that is saying is that the city cannot require a zone change or conditional use permit if certain criteria are met for proposed affordable housing projects … ,” Guenther said. “The one that may impact us here … (are) places of assembly for religious institutions. So, if the Baptist or the Presbyterian church wanted to use some property for an affordable housing project. They would get certain considerations a developer might not get.”
- Density and height bonuses for affordable housing on land zoned for residential uses. “But again, we don’t have any of this stuff, we don’t offer bonuses,” Guenther said.
- Administrative approval of subdivisions, partitions and non-conforming uses;
- Removing design and development standards for manufactured homes that do not apply to detached single-unit dwellings;
- Allowing siting of prefabricated structures such as tiny homes that do not meet definition of manufactured home parks, and not applying a minimum lot size greater than one acre to manufactured home parks; and
- Allowing RVs to be used as a residential dwelling in RV parks and manufactured home parks, if connected to water, electrical and sewage systems.
The optional proposed changes, which community feedback can help to shape before the final amendments, include:
- Allowing accessory dwelling units in all locations that allow a detached unit dwelling;
- Allowing a wider range of middle housing types — plexes, townhomes and cottage clusters — in residential zones;
- Allowing two-unit dwellings in the R-1 zone and three-unit dwellings in the R-2 zone;
- Allowing non-residential and residential uses on the same lot in retail, commercial zones;
- Modified development standards (including lot area and coverage) for ADUs, middle housing and multi-unit housing; and
- Modified parking standards for duplexes and ADUs.
Community feedback
The proposed changes have received pushback and opposition from two of seven planning commission members and some residents countered by support from others. While most of the commentary has played out on local Facebook pages, 14 people testified during the public comment period at the planning commission’s June 16 meeting.
“We’ve heard that there’s worry and concern that the draft that’s before us is a done deal, and I want to ensure you all know that it is not,” Price said at the meeting. “Last week, the planning commission held two intensive work sessions, where they did go line-by-line on the review of the draft, raising concerns and proposing changes.
“The job of our planning commissioners is to take the template that was provided to us by the consultants, and make sure that it fits Yachats, fine tune it to fit Yachats, (and) hear your voices to make sure that it fits Yachats.”
People who spoke in support of the proposed optional changes mentioned ways the code could be tweaked to include a future prohibition of single-family dwellings in the commercial district, adding language to enforce density standards at the time of development, and increasing the suggested number of off-street parking spaces for duplexes.
Another proponent said “gentle density” already exists in Yachats and pointed out that ADUs, duplexes, and bed and breakfasts on King Street coexist with the neighborhood without changing its character. They also said allowing an additional unit per property will help residents accommodate family members, downsize, or share housing costs through rentals.
Expanding housing options is vital to creating a stable workforce and customer base that protects the local economy from a sole reliance on seasonal tourism, one person said, while also noting the four-year process to study housing issues and develop codes has offered ample opportunities for input that some critics say did not happen.
Bob Barrett, pastor of the Yachats Community Presbyterian Church, said he recognizes the community’s fear of change and peoples’ desire to preserve the city’s character. But, he said, the community has to balance that against the severe housing crisis facing local workers.
People who spoke in opposition to the optional amendments emphasized that state law does not mandate housing capacity analyses or dense zoning changes for towns with fewer than 2,500 residents. They also argued the city is pursuing unnecessary measures that threaten the small, rural, and quiet coastal character of the community.
They raised concerns regarding the city’s infrastructure and environmental constraints, noting that Yachats faces regular summer water shortages and an aging pipeline system. Residents living in the areas already zoned for duplexes said the introduction of multi-story buildings, ADUs and cottage clusters would drastically impact property values, eliminate green spaces, and worsen traffic.
Several speakers criticized the city’s lack of public engagement, stating that most residents were left unaware of the proposed changes. They also expressed skepticism the proposal would generate actual workforce or affordable housing, predicting instead that developers would build high-market-rate units and second homes for wealthy retirees and that ADUs would could quickly turn into unmanaged private vacation rentals.
Don Phipps, who has led the charge against the optional changes with at least 46 lengthy posts on Facebook since April, challenged the city’s justification for the up-zoning, testifying that the data used to claim “broad support” was statistically unreliable due to flawed, unrepresentative sample sizes. He further noted that resident surveys failed to mention affordable housing or specific zoning modifications. Phipps said he has formed a group to oppose the proposals and is calling for a voter referendum to decide the issue.
In a Facebook post Tuesday, Phipps suggested local businesses could pay for a shuttle to transport workers who cannot afford to live in Yachats to and from town. He also floated the idea of building worker dormitories on land zoned for motels.
“To live in the dorm, workers would have to be working for the for-profit businesses that would contribute to the construction and maintenance of the dormitory,” Phipps wrote. “Dorm rooms would have shared bathroom facilities and there would also be a shared kitchen. But the rooms would be private. There could also be a dormitory facility for families.”
That drew a response from a self-described business owner and longtime local worker Emily Jayne who has struggled to find affordable housing and who suggested opening up seldom-used second homes for long-term renters.
“Oh, so I don’t deserve my own home!?” she wrote. “I get a dormitory!? That is so unhinged! I get to be bused in like some animal to serve the rich. No thanks! We are skilled labor! Don’t treat us like we deserve sub-par homes so that the rich can go out to dinner!”