Cannon Beach's STR Cap Isn't Settled — Here's What's Actually True

Sep 2

11 min read

Ecola Creek mouth and beachfront cottages at Cannon Beach, Oregon, with distant sea stacks. Wikimedia: Cannon Beach, Oregon (2014) - 19.JPG

Somewhere on a coast-host Facebook group right now, someone is telling a new buyer that Cannon Beach is capped at 165 short-term rentals. It isn't. Not yet, and maybe not at that number at all. What's actually true is messier and more useful: a draft ordinance floated that figure, a city commission pushed back on it, and the council hasn't voted. Getting the sequence right matters more than repeating a headline number.

This is a live file, not a finished one, and treating it as finished is the exact mistake that gets an owner blindsided — either by underwriting a purchase against a cap that never lands, or by ignoring a process that could genuinely change how many new 14-day permits the city issues going forward.

Here's the timeline as it stands, sourced to the city's own hearing materials and Planning Commission record, with a clear line between what's proposed and what's adopted. This is not legal advice.

The Draft: ZO 26-01 and Proposed Section 17.84.055

In February 2026, draft text under Zoning Ordinance 26-01 (proposed as Section 17.84.055) floated a maximum of 165 14-day licenses citywide, no new lifetime unlimited permits going forward, and a waiting list with a 45-day application window when a slot opens up. That's the number that's been circulating. It was a proposal, not an adopted rule, and it still is.

The intent behind the draft was straightforward: cap the fastest-growing permit class, phase out new unlimited permits, and give the city a managed process for filling vacancies as they open — rather than an open-ended queue with no visibility into when or whether a slot becomes available.

The Planning Commission Pushed Back — July 27, 2026

On July 27, 2026, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that council not adopt the 165-unit cap as written. Instead, the commission pointed to alternative approaches worth exploring: density buffers, percentage-based limits tied to housing stock, or zoning exclusions rather than a flat citywide number. That recommendation is advisory — it goes to council, it doesn't bind council, and it doesn't mean the cap conversation is over. It means the specific 165 figure, as drafted, did not have commission support going into the next stage.

A public hearing on the ordinance was noticed for September 8, 2026. Whatever comes out of that hearing — adoption, a revised number, an entirely different mechanism, or another round of delay — is the actual thing to track, not the February draft number that's already been publicly challenged by the body that reviewed it first.

It's worth understanding why the commission pushed back rather than just that it did. A flat numeric cap treats every property the same regardless of zone, density, or neighborhood impact, which is part of what made density buffers and percentage-based limits appealing alternatives to the commission — those mechanisms scale with the underlying housing stock rather than applying one static ceiling citywide. That's a meaningfully different regulatory philosophy than the February draft, and it's worth watching which direction council actually leans at the September hearing.

What the Permit Counts Actually Look Like

Staff told the Planning Commission in July 2026 that the city had roughly 200 total STR permits, with about 155 of those in the 14-day class. A 165 cap on that class, if adopted, would represent something like a 17.5 percent reduction over time — not an immediate mass revocation, but a ceiling that tightens as lifetime permits expire and aren't replaced.

That's a shift from earlier council-level numbers. Materials from July 2025 counted 196 total permits, including 42 lifetime and 154 14-day, with some councilors at that point floating a range as wide as 125 to 195 against roughly 195 active STRs. The point isn't which number is exactly right today — it's that the count itself has moved across cycles, and a host underwriting a purchase or a renewal should pull the city's current 'Current Short-Term Rental Permits' list rather than quoting any figure in this post as fixed.

Notice, too, that the total permit count and the 14-day-specific count don't move in lockstep across these reports. That gap reflects the lifetime and five-year unlimited classes phasing out gradually as those permits expire and aren't replaced — which is a slower, quieter form of the same reduction a hard cap would achieve faster. A buyer evaluating a property with an existing unlimited permit should understand that class is shrinking on its own timeline, cap or no cap.

The Fiscal Argument Council Is Weighing

Finance Director Tim Collier told council the general fund receives roughly $600,000 annually in lodging tax revenue tied to short-term rentals. That figure is part of why this isn't a simple regulate-or-don't debate — a meaningful cap reduces a revenue line the city already relies on, which is likely part of why the Planning Commission steered toward buffers and percentage limits rather than an outright ceiling. Watch this figure alongside the permit count; the two arguments move together in council discussion.

None of this changes what a current holder needs to do today, which is keep their renewal current. Materials describe current holders who meet renewal deadlines as retaining their permits under the existing framework — the cap conversation, as drafted, targets new 14-day applications and unlimited-class replacement, not existing compliant holders.

That $600,000 figure is also a useful reminder of why this process has taken this long and gone through this much back-and-forth rather than moving straight from draft to adoption. A council weighing a meaningful cut to a revenue line it already relies on has real reason to move carefully, gather commission input, and consider softer mechanisms before committing to a hard number — which is exactly the pattern this timeline shows.

Who This Affects, and Who It Doesn't

This matters most to three groups: an existing 14-day or unlimited holder tracking their renewal and resale value, a buyer underwriting a purchase that depends on transferring or obtaining a permit, and a prospective host currently sitting on a waiting list or planning to apply once a slot opens. If any of those describes you, the September 8, 2026 hearing is the date to watch, not the February draft.

This does not describe a Manzanita host — that's a different hall, a different county, and a different process entirely, covered in our Manzanita rules post. And it doesn't apply to Cannon Beach's own unlimited class the same way it applies to 14-day licenses; the draft specifically targeted new unlimited issuance, not existing unlimited holders' renewals. This is not legal advice. Confirm the current status of ZO 26-01 and any adopted cap language directly with Cannon Beach Community Development before you make a purchase, renewal, or wait-list decision.

If you're on the buy side of this equation, build a contingency into your timeline for how you'd handle a scenario where the property doesn't already hold a transferable permit and a cap or wait-list is in effect by the time you close. That's a very different financial position than buying a property with an active, renewable permit in hand, and the difference should be reflected in how you price the offer, not discovered after closing.

A Quick Self-Diagnosis: Where Do You Actually Stand?

Before reacting to any headline about the cap, figure out which of four positions actually describes you, because the right next step is different for each one. If you hold a current 14-day permit and your renewal is up to date, the draft materials describe you as keeping that permit under the existing framework — your task right now is simply staying current on renewal, not reacting to the 165 number at all. If you hold a lifetime or five-year unlimited permit, the draft targets new issuance of that class, not your existing one, though you should still confirm your own renewal terms directly with Community Development rather than assuming.

If you're a prospective buyer evaluating a property that already carries an active, transferable-in-practice permit, your diligence should center on confirming that permit's current standing and renewal history with the city before you write an offer — not on the cap number itself, since an existing compliant permit isn't what the draft ordinance is aiming to shrink. And if you're considering a property with no existing permit, or you're weighing whether to apply fresh, you're the group most exposed to whatever comes out of the September 8 hearing, because a new 14-day application is exactly what a future cap or wait list would govern.

Sorting yourself into one of these four buckets before you read further coverage of this ordinance — including this post — keeps you from applying a headline written for one situation to a different one. A lot of the anxiety around this process comes from treating 'Cannon Beach might cap STRs' as a single fact that applies uniformly, when in practice the draft language treats renewals, transfers, unlimited issuance, and new 14-day applications as four separate tracks.

Common Mistakes Hosts Make Tracking This Process

The single most common mistake is repeating the 165 number as settled policy — in a listing description, in a conversation with a lender, in a Facebook group post reassuring or alarming another host. It hasn't been adopted, the body that reviewed it first recommended against it as written, and treating it as fixed is exactly the misstep this post opened with. A close second is assuming the 45-day wait-list window from the February draft is an active, functioning process today; it was proposed language attached to a cap that hasn't passed, not a live queue you can sign up for right now.

A third mistake, more common among buyers than existing holders, is assuming a permit automatically transfers with a property sale. The city's 14-day application packet describes those permits as non-transferable, which means a purchase decision that depends on 'the permit comes with the house' needs independent verification, not an assumption carried over from how permits work in other coastal towns. And a fourth mistake is applying Manzanita's or a different Oregon coast town's cap or occupancy rules to a Cannon Beach property because the towns sit close together geographically — Manzanita runs through its own Tillamook County hall entirely separate from Cannon Beach's Chapter 17.84 framework, and the two processes do not share a cap, a waiting list, or a hearing calendar.

The throughline across all four mistakes is the same: this is a live municipal process with a specific hearing date, not a settled fact you can absorb once and repeat indefinitely. Revisit the city's own materials — not secondhand host-forum summaries — each time you need to make a decision that depends on the current state of this ordinance.

One Owner, Multiple Properties: How the Cap Framework Reads on a Portfolio

Cannon Beach's permit framework is built around one permit per owner per property, which matters if you're considering a second Cannon Beach rental rather than your first. Each additional property needs its own application, its own inspection, and its own standing under whatever cap or wait-list mechanism is eventually adopted — owning one compliant, renewed permit on an existing property does not carry over any priority or exemption to a second address you're considering.

That structure has a practical implication for anyone thinking about expanding a Cannon Beach portfolio while this ordinance is still in draft: a second property acquired now, without an existing permit already attached, is subject to exactly the same new-applicant uncertainty as a first-time buyer with no track record in the city. Existing-holder status on one address doesn't insulate a second address from a cap, wait list, or revised approval process that lands after the September hearing.

If portfolio growth in Cannon Beach specifically is part of your plan, the more resilient approach is prioritizing properties that already carry an active, renewable permit with a clean compliance history over properties where you'd need to secure a brand-new 14-day permit under a framework that's still being finalized. That's not a guarantee — nothing about a live ordinance is guaranteed — but it's a meaningfully lower-risk starting position than betting a second acquisition on a process that hasn't reached its September hearing yet.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Cannon Beach capped at 165 short-term rentals?

Not as of this writing. A draft ordinance (ZO 26-01, proposed Section 17.84.055) floated a 165-license maximum for 14-day permits in February 2026, but the Planning Commission voted on July 27, 2026 to recommend council not adopt that number as written. A public hearing was noticed for September 8, 2026. Confirm current status with Community Development before treating 165 as adopted law.

What did the Cannon Beach Planning Commission recommend instead of a flat 165 cap?

On July 27, 2026, the commission recommended exploring density buffers, percentage-based limits tied to housing stock, or zoning exclusions rather than a flat citywide ceiling. That recommendation is advisory and goes to council for further consideration, not a final decision.

How many STR permits does Cannon Beach currently have?

Staff told the Planning Commission in July 2026 the city had roughly 200 total permits, about 155 of them 14-day. Earlier July 2025 council materials counted 196 total, including 42 lifetime and 154 14-day. These counts have shifted across reporting cycles — pull the city's current permit list rather than quoting a fixed number from this post.

Will a Cannon Beach cap affect permits I already hold?

Draft materials describe current holders who meet renewal deadlines as retaining their permits under the existing framework. The cap conversation, as drafted, targets new 14-day applications and new unlimited-class issuance rather than existing compliant holders. Confirm your specific renewal status directly with Community Development.

Why does a lodging tax figure matter to the Cannon Beach cap debate?

Finance Director Tim Collier told council the general fund receives roughly $600,000 annually from STR lodging taxes. That revenue dependency is part of why council is weighing softer mechanisms like density buffers or percentage limits alongside — or instead of — a hard numeric cap, since a steep cap could meaningfully reduce that fiscal line.

Is there a waiting list for Cannon Beach STR permits?

The February 2026 draft ordinance proposed a waiting list with a 45-day application window when a slot opens under a future cap. That mechanism has not been adopted as final law. Confirm with Community Development whether any wait-list process is currently active before assuming your application would be queued.

When is the next public hearing on Cannon Beach's STR cap?

A public hearing on the ordinance was noticed for September 8, 2026. That hearing, not the February draft, is the point where a revised number, an alternative mechanism, or further delay is likely to become clearer. Confirm the hearing outcome directly with the city.

Does the proposed cap apply to lifetime unlimited permits too?

The February 2026 draft specifically proposed no new lifetime unlimited permits going forward, rather than capping the 14-day class alone. It did not describe revoking existing unlimited holders' current permits. Confirm the current treatment of the unlimited class with Community Development, since draft language can change before adoption.

Should I buy a Cannon Beach property assuming I can transfer or obtain a 14-day permit?

Not without confirming current permit availability and transfer rules directly with Community Development first. Permits described in the city's application packet are non-transferable, and a future cap or wait list could affect whether a new applicant can obtain a permit at all. This is not legal advice — verify before you write an offer that depends on it.

Does this cap conversation apply to Manzanita or Clatsop County properties too?

No. This is a City of Cannon Beach process under its own Chapter 17.84 framework. Manzanita runs through Tillamook County with its own separate hall and rules, and unincorporated Clatsop County properties like Arch Cape fall under a different desk entirely. Confirm the correct office for your specific address.

Work with Crest & Cove Creative

A buyer who underwrites a Cannon Beach purchase against a 165-permit cap that hasn't been adopted is pricing a rule that may never exist in that form. Name the failure mode the guest can check on the listing.

Whatever the council decides on September 8, a compliant listing still needs to convert. We help Cannon Beach hosts build listing copy and pricing that hold up regardless of how the permit count settles. Send the live listing draft and the facts you can actually cite.

Reach out at crestcove.co or (256) 998-7502.