Astoria council reviews proposed vacation‑rental license, staff to draft ordinance with 2‑year option and 50‑unit cap

Astoria City Council spent its March 6 work session discussing a proposed vacation‑rental license program that staff say would create an enforceable framework for short‑term lodging, require fire and life‑safety inspections administered by the city, and preserve certain nonconforming lodging uses.

The proposal, introduced by City Planner Tiffany Taylor and discussed with City Manager Spence and Community Development Director John Roberts, responds to council direction and community feedback to provide clearer definitions, enforcement tools and a fee framework for vacation rentals operating in Astoria. "This is really to establish…a portion of a structure that's offered for a dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purpose for 30 days or less," Taylor said while reviewing the draft definition and scope.

Why it matters: Councilors and staff framed the program as a tool to protect housing supply, public safety and the city's land‑use rules while also providing a way to document and regulate existing operators. Councilors repeatedly cited the city's 2019 development‑code change that limited conversions of long‑term housing to transient lodging; staff said a license would document and preserve legally nonconforming uses that predate that change.

Key elements discussed

Definition and scope: Staff proposed adding a formal "vacation rental" definition to the city code to cover rented sleeping units offered for fewer than 30 days, particularly in mixed‑use commercial buildings. Taylor said the draft draws a line between vacation rentals (up to five units in a structure) and hotel/motel uses, which would remain a separate land‑use category.

Inventory and conversions: Taylor told council staff compiled a lodging inventory and identified 43 known vacation‑rental operators; she later said 19 of those properties were converted from long‑term dwellings. Staff also noted the city has "a potential 963 units available" in the broader lodging inventory and 216 new hotel rooms in development, figures staff presented for context about local lodging capacity.

Fire and life‑safety inspections: The draft would require fire and life‑safety inspection as part of licensing. Taylor explained that insurance inspections focus on asset protection, not the same building‑code checks that protect human life: "Insurance inspection…is for asset protection. That's not for, personal, human life protection," she said. Staff advised that state law and building‑code practice make the city responsible for enforcing those safety standards and that third‑party inspectors cannot act in place of the city's building official, though an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with another public agency could allow someone to act on the city's behalf.

Fees and inspection timing: Staff proposed a fee structure that mirrors the existing Homestay Lodging program: an initial $500 application fee, $250 annual renewal and a separate $300 inspection fee were discussed in the packet materials. Councilors and staff explored alternatives: rolling inspection into a single application fee, making renewals every two years, or aligning inspection cycles with commercial inspection schedules (staff noted the fire marshal's commercial inspections run on an 18‑month cycle). City Manager Spence asked staff to provide an accounting of expected staff time per application to justify fee levels.

Cap and eligibility: Councilors discussed an enrollment cap. Several councilors voiced support for a 50‑unit cap to limit growth of short‑term rentals amid the local housing shortage; the idea drew general council consensus in the work session but was not adopted as an ordinance during the meeting. Staff clarified that existing operators on the city's list would be eligible to apply for licenses if they meet the draft standards, and that licenses themselves are not transferable between operators (land‑use approvals that run with a property are separate).

Enforcement and implementation: Council asked about city capacity to run the program. Taylor said the city now has two planners and a full‑time code‑enforcement specialist and believes staff can incorporate the program, pointing to the existing homestay program as precedent. Staff indicated that license renewals, inspections and complaint responses would require ongoing staff time and that fees should reflect that workload.

What council directed (nonbinding at work session): Council asked staff to return with a draft ordinance and fee schedule that considers (a) a two‑year licensing/inspection cycle, (b) fee alternatives and clearer accounting of staff time per application, (c) an explicit inspection and re‑inspection schedule and fee policy, and (d) language preserving legally nonconforming lodging uses. Councilors expressed tentative support for a 50‑unit cap and for using a waiting list mechanism if the cap is reached.

Quotes from the meeting

"This is really to establish…a portion of a structure that's offered for a dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purpose for 30 days or less," Tiffany Taylor, City Planner, said while reviewing the draft definition.

"Insurance inspection…is for asset protection. That's not for, personal, human life protection," Taylor said to distinguish insurance checks from city‑administered fire and life‑safety inspections.

"There has to be some kind of recognition for staff involved in our time to think about if you applied for a brand new vacation rental, there'd be the initial application process, the review," City Manager Spence said when council discussed the rationale for charging fees.

Where the process goes next

Staff will prepare a formal draft ordinance and a separate fee schedule for council review that reflects the direction from the work session. That draft will return to a future council meeting for public comment and formal action; no ordinance or fee was adopted at the March 6 work session.

Ending

Councilors said they expect more public comment as the staff draft is posted; several council members emphasized balancing regulator capacity, business impacts and housing preservation when finalizing the ordinance. The work session concluded without a vote; staff will return with written draft language, a recommended fee schedule and cost accounting for council consideration.