[0:01] all our joint work session to order um Jeff will you please call the

[0:08] RO it is that's F I'm happy too isn't it a joint work or are we not we didn't

[0:13] label it that way oh okay our work session with a few invited guests who

[0:17] happen to be our planning Commissioners uh je you please call the

[0:22] RO sure uh c ma pres coun small here councel here here

[0:30] c c hson mayor Pam here thank you for that Jeff um I'm gonna go through our

[0:37] city council meeting agenda for tonight uh please throw out any questions or

[0:41] changes uh for staff to address um so we don't have anyone

[0:46] signed up yet for um public comment tonight um we do we will have a response

[0:53] to a public comment for Mr Bill Lesley uh his last public comment that we'll be

[0:58] addressing tonight on our consent agenda we have our city council meeting minutes

[1:03] from our June 5th and June 12th meeting minutes we have an adoption of financial

[1:09] sustainability plan and parks and uh for par plan for Parks and Recreation sandet

[1:16] Advisory Board appointments request for street closures and exclusive use of

[1:21] minic Park to the 2023 Mountain Festival loan authorization on drinking

[1:27] water transmission line design contract Amendment for leeway engineering

[1:31] Solutions on representative Services as well as the adoption of the city manager

[1:36] recruitment position profile and hiring procedures under new business we have

[1:41] three public hearings this evening one for a 2023 24 Master Fee and

[1:47] charges uh public hearing for the revised moratorium raising limit on new

[1:52] Wastewater connections and a public hearing to adopt our transportation

[1:57] system plan we'll then wrap up our evening with a report from our city

[2:01] manager and our committee and Council reports with that let's go ah and get

[2:05] this work session going on our clear and objective code audit

[2:10] yeah okay clear and objective code audit Tyler you want to get kick started yeah

[2:16] I will just turn it over to Kelly really quick and let you introduce the

[2:20] presenters that we have tonight and yeah um as you'll remember because uh the

[2:26] city council was the one that decided to fund this project and and made it kind

[2:31] of a goal moving forward to take a closer look at our code and make sure

[2:34] it's clear and objective and make sure that different Master plans are properly

[2:39] incorporated into the code um as you'll remember we were getting some challenges

[2:42] from different land use applicants uh and their attorneys uh to highlight a

[2:47] few shayle Meadows Bon Terrace I think they've used PD was in there as well um

[2:53] so with that the city council decided to fund uh this project and we've been

[2:58] working closely with uh Mig APG um and Kate and Kathy and

[3:05] they've been a tremendous resource and just been doing a lot of the heavy

[3:09] lifting and uh myself and a few of the planners that were here a few months ago

[3:14] were assisting with that um and we've also been getting a tremendous amount of

[3:19] support and uh kind of detailed analysis from our City attorney as well on some

[3:26] of the heftier subjects that are kind of difficult to interpret or hard to

[3:32] analyze for what we need to do with those different code sections so I want

[3:36] to thank Josh for really being there and helping out a lot during this project um

[3:39] and with that I'm going to turn it over to Kate and Kathy and let them kind of

[3:42] introduce themselves again and go through the uh go through the slideshow

[3:47] for the work session perfect thank you welcome thank you thank you for having

[3:51] us here I'm Kev I'm a principal with mapg and I'm Kate Rogers I'm a senior

[3:58] planner so we have a presentation tonight and uh

[4:03] we will be of course if you do have questions uh feel free to interrupt us

[4:07] we'll keep this informal and uh just wanted to give you you obviously

[4:11] received a very large packet of information um and so this is intended

[4:16] to be an overview of that and just kind of get the conversation started um so oh

[4:22] and yes can you hear me okay better now right thank you um great so with that um

[4:29] I'll take the first slide so our again the purpose of the

[4:34] meeting is to um give you a very and again keeping this very high level uh

[4:39] just a little bit on the maybe a reminder even on the project background

[4:42] and purpose uh a status you know what we've accomplished so far uh and then a

[4:48] high level overview of the public review draft that's the packet the large packet

[4:52] you received and we had um as you noticed in your cover memo for that I

[4:57] think there's some key issues decision points that we'd like to talk about and

[5:01] then just very briefly next steps so with that next

[5:06] slide so again on the next slide thank you sorry section break there so the

[5:12] project purpose and you may recall this from a prior work session that the

[5:16] primary project uh purpose has been to um implement or

[5:22] 19737 requirement that uh a government adopt and apply only clear and objective

[5:27] standards conditions and procedures to the of housing now there are exceptions

[5:31] to that for some historic districts um and there are also that does not

[5:36] necessarily prude two track system so if you do offer a clear and objective track

[5:41] you can also offer a flexible or discretionary track to the applicant but

[5:45] the applicant has to be able to choose a clearing objective track for the

[5:50] development of housing so that was the primary focus and and I guess the other

[5:54] important thing and it's the last point on that slide is that those regulations

[5:58] um should not cannot uh discourage needed housing through unreasonable cost

[6:02] and delay um and so next slide as we went through the project as we've been

[6:10] going along and working on it with staff um we were able to incorporate some

[6:14] other amendments um that came about through changes recent changes to state

[6:19] law and also um because the timing worked well to coincide with your

[6:24] transportation system plan there are also amendments and updates um that came

[6:28] out of that Pro process that are now included in this packet so we've been

[6:32] able to sort of pull those in um as well as some minor changes and code clean up

[6:38] that were either identified by City staff or the City attorney basically

[6:42] whenever you crack open a code you're going to find some things like that and

[6:45] I like well you know let's pick those up so um but I would say

[6:51] 99% of the Amendments that are in front in that packet in front of you as you're

[6:56] reviewing that those are going to be to Address given obje

[7:00] code issues I have a question I was gonna let it go it's gonna bug me all

[7:04] night I don't ask it now um so for a while there be had plan developments

[7:09] right it's at the right verbage and we decided not to do those

[7:12] anymore um I'm just I'm fixating on her talking about the two tracks that you

[7:18] have to give a developer at the very beginning I wasn't i' never really knew

[7:22] about that or thought that through so like not that we have those available at

[7:26] this time but could we potentially have a clear objective path and then like a

[7:31] planned development path that would then kind of so I could see as a developer

[7:36] maybe I'd want i' forgo the clear an objective so I could have the more of

[7:40] the flexibility that comes with a plan development possibly but as a city I

[7:44] might like that more now because with all the clear and objective stuff it

[7:48] makes this over here maybe more appealing to us so you that's kind of a

[7:52] move we that's one way to do it exactly right yeah I mean some jurisdictions do

[7:57] um have like a like a plan development um approach uh others do it through

[8:03] individual adjustments to the standards so for example um they'll say okay you

[8:09] you have to meet all the standards if you don't want to meet any one of these

[8:12] standards you request an adjustment to that standard different ways to provide

[8:16] that second track either kind of on a point BYO basis or a more sweeping

[8:20] approach so you'd have to really kind of incentivize that second track to get

[8:24] somebody off of the cleared objective track probably right yeah it it will and

[8:29] again that you know there's a balancing because how strict the clear and

[8:33] objective tract is that flexible tract looks more or less appealing for the

[8:38] individual developer right so there's some tradeoffs there thank you it just

[8:41] was a concept I yeah so uh okay I

[8:51] guess uh also just wanted to not like for example and this was um I think

[8:57] something that come up as a prev you know area of Interest which is the

[9:02] dark orn opportunity that as a part of this project so that

[9:08] one let's see thank you oh um and then uh yeah thank you great so uh just

[9:15] wanted to highlight what we've accomplished so far I mean obviously the

[9:19] um major accomplishment was getting that huge packet of code amendments to you um

[9:25] and um it's it's okay that door has to stay

[9:30] slightly open

[9:34] [Music]

[9:37] Moment sorry about that oh no problem okay yeah it's fine okay yeah um so with

[9:44] regard to the schedule you know we've been really busy as Kelly mentioned

[9:48] working with staff City attorney working through these amendments we come through

[9:52] multiple internal drafts trying to get them dialed in before they came to you

[9:58] um and you know we've been doing other kinds of like uh Outreach amongst City

[10:06] staff and so forth in different departments to make sure that the

[10:09] Amendments made sense for everybody so that gets us here uh to with that draft

[10:16] you um and you that's definitely a major Milestone um we'll be talking a little

[10:22] bit about the next steps at the end but um we are here now in June obviously

[10:26] with that this uh this is noted and the schedule is a um city council Planning

[10:31] Commission work session in the grp a few planning

[10:37] Commissioners um with that I'll just move

[10:40] on um and the um thank you uh so the overview and Kate I'm gonna hand this I

[10:48] think off to you to cover the questions just quickly noting for the overview

[10:53] again it's huge package we realize that I mean it's a lot to go through most of

[10:59] those changes um are what we would call policy neutral and when we say that you

[11:04] know hear us say it a lot what we tried to do was how the outcome the same for

[11:10] an applicant that would walk in the door today they were expecting a certain kind

[11:14] of ability to develop uh a certain intensity and you know the height

[11:20] setbacks the general amount type of development that they can do today that

[11:24] while the rules as far as like maybe under go a discretionally processed to G

[11:30] or standards are discretionary it's housing the rules are

[11:34] clear and objective but the same general outcome is expected so that's what we're

[11:38] trying we're not trying to necessarily this isn't an opportunity to radically

[11:44] change the you know height set back the fundamentals of the zoning

[11:48] it's it was intended to um just get the standards that you have

[11:55] clear an objective so you may see things that you're like oh w could change that

[11:59] this is this is not the project to do that because we really haven't sold it

[12:03] to the community as that right we're trying to say this is trying to stay

[12:07] true to what you have today and get a clear and objective so may see if things

[12:12] that you want to revisit and that's okay we can note those but you know again

[12:17] it'll be a decision with the council that we're not looking at policy changes

[12:20] exactly exactly for the for the most for the most

[12:26] part that's the caveat yeah exactly happens and you'll see that in the

[12:30] questions that have when sometimes when you ask or when you try to convert

[12:35] something to Cle objective stand you have to make a choice right and so there

[12:40] are sometimes they're they're small and again we're trying to keep it as true to

[12:44] policy mutal as you can not to make a policy change but there are choices that

[12:49] sometimes have to be made and we'll talk about those choices um in some of the

[12:53] important ones that are still um needing some you know would' like to

[13:00] so with that yeah yeah than Kathy yeah can go to the next slide please um so

[13:06] yeah I'm just G to talk through the we have eight kind of policy questions that

[13:11] we have for you all that are where you all have um really decisions to make

[13:15] about um potential changes and what what is allowed or what type of Standards

[13:19] apply to um a certain type of housing a certain type of development that would

[13:25] cause potentially different outcomes than what is um what would be allowed

[13:28] and give current code so so so I'm sorry I just G have to ask a question real

[13:33] quick sure because you know for example this this

[13:38] is the first one but it's like um it like under the C1 Zone my

[13:45] understanding or or the C3 zoning that multifamily uh was allowed on top of and

[13:52] now we're saying it's doesn't have to be on top of and so what I see that

[13:59] happening then is that basically you know you have a 10 acre commercial space

[14:02] and eight acres is apartments and two acres might be something else and so

[14:07] that's a huge change in what we're going to get as far as we want our commercial

[14:12] to be commercial because we need commercial and instead we're going to be

[14:15] flooded with Apartments so that is a huge policy change no that's that's

[14:21] actually not so the C2 currently says housing has to be above the C3 General

[14:27] commercial Village commercial as you remember with B run Terrace it

[14:31] can be behind beside or above and so that's I think that's the policy

[14:35] question they're getting to here on this slide but like C1 you didn't even allow

[14:40] multif family no it's it's allowed right now on top yeah C1 uses roow houses D

[14:48] it's a conditional it's a conditional use in the C1 Zone currently it's a

[14:52] conditional use and we we can't have it be a conditional use any

[14:56] longer so this is all pressured by the two rules 2001 and all the rest

[15:03] right this is not something no you want to explain that Kathy yeah so again this

[15:06] is this is um not necessarily related to midd housing right this is applying to

[15:12] for example a multi family and so this is about having clear and objective

[15:18] standards so the the challenge is so right now we have a housing type so

[15:23] multi family housing that is not contained within a commercial building

[15:26] so Standalone multif family is a conditional use in your C1 Zone and

[15:32] it's a minor conditional use in C3 what state law tells us so we understand it

[15:38] is that if you're going to allow a housing type at all you have to allow it

[15:43] through a clear and objective track so it could be allowed

[15:47] outright uh but it can't be the only way to get to the housing type can't be

[15:52] through conditional use so you got a choice now you could

[15:56] say well fine we're not going to allow it at all right or we're only going to

[16:00] allow it above we're not going to allow it because again this is multif family

[16:05] that is not contained within a commercial building so if it's

[16:09] maintained within a commercial building that's different so the just so clarify

[16:13] the condition right now is that it has to be on on top I mean it has to be part

[16:19] of the commercial not the condition the the permitted outright use is that it

[16:22] can be above there's another use listed in the C1 for standalone multip family

[16:29] without commercial without commercial and we can't we either have to as K will

[16:33] explain we either have to remove it from the code or we have to move that to a

[16:37] permitted use which I doubt you'll want to do as a group okay I'm not seeing

[16:42] multif family in the C1 except for a conditional use exactly that's what

[16:47] that's what they're saying yeah so so we need to get rid of all the conditional

[16:51] use is kind of what I'm understanding right right that can't be the only path

[16:55] for Housing Development type of housing devel I just want to make sure but we

[16:59] also have the option of not allowing it at all exactly yeah so that's the that's

[17:03] the decision that's the direction we want for you all tonight and that's

[17:06] that's actually what's recommended in the in the draft amendments in your

[17:09] packet um yeah so it's a conditional use today stand when again we're talking

[17:14] Standalone multi family it's a permitted use if it's part of a mixed use

[17:17] development either above or beside or behind a commercial use um and so on the

[17:23] next slide are kind of the three potential approaches to addressing this

[17:28] section sorry put Z that's that's the map just to point out where those zones

[17:33] are so the recommended option which is refed in the draft amendments in your

[17:38] packet is to um to actually eliminate um Standalone multifam and conditional use

[17:44] so basically would only be allowed in the C1 and C3 zones as part of a mixed

[17:49] use development so that would address the concern that you had where you know

[17:54] you could have a whole property taken up by just multi family development so it

[17:58] have to be part of a mixed use development so that that is the

[18:02] recommendation um and again the sort of alternative to that would be to create a

[18:07] new clear and objective path to approval for Standalone multif family if you

[18:12] wanted to encourage multif family development in those zones you could

[18:16] allow it um and you would have to establish a new set of you know criteria

[18:21] and standards to permit that use um and I guess I just wanted to highlight that

[18:27] um and you may have noticed it m but a few of these are going to change the

[18:30] uses that are permitted for those propagators and that is going to trigger

[18:34] poten measure 56 noce um and so that always raises questions in the community

[18:40] what does this mean and why is that happening that I guess we wanted to

[18:43] highlight that's one of the reasons this particular item is in front of you is we

[18:47] have a recommendation it's in the draft that you have in front of you but it's

[18:51] an important one and it will be one that might get some conversation

[18:56] going Kelly we have a complete Standalone multif family in the SE one

[19:04] right unpleasant what's that one residential compound I forget the

[19:09] side stream yeah we do we do have a few yeah you're correct we have um so we

[19:13] would be we have at least one or two on beers and we have and we have at least

[19:18] one or two on Hood Street okay right um and they were all

[19:24] they were either approved through the conditional use permit process like the

[19:27] one on Hood was just put in my like six years ago or they might there's a few of

[19:31] them that might predate zoning code I think one of them

[19:35] that um is owned by Mr fleshman might predate the zoning code because it's

[19:40] probably from the 60s um so what would that become then

[19:44] would they that be a conditional or no what would happen is in the future if

[19:48] you went with what staff's recommending is it would have to be entirely

[19:51] commercial or it would have to be commercial with residential associated

[19:55] with it but it wouldn't be able to be just pure residential anymore what does

[20:00] that do to the current owner than that complex to do not do when would this

[20:07] impact we would have to put it as a non-conforming existing non-conforming

[20:11] use and they would only not be able to rebuild if an x amount of like 80% or

[20:17] more of it was destroyed during a fire burn down it wouldn't re un unless we

[20:22] have given exemptions to that as well so it's a possibility they can still

[20:26] rebuild it good chance fair amount of those are

[20:30] gonna especially the new one on hood are going to stay there for quite some

[20:34] time yeah yeah the one on Hood six years old that's gonna be there for a good

[20:38] years for long but I'm thinking of some others that have got some age on them

[20:42] there's a pretty old one on Hood right next to the new daycare center that is

[20:46] in pretty bad shape uh can you just explain to me what

[20:52] um understand vertical mixed use we describe what horizontal mixed use

[20:57] is uh just like commercial here and then Apartments attached to

[21:03] it okay so horiz yeah yeah I'm trying can you give me an

[21:08] example of what one would look like I can't picture anything like that yeah

[21:11] there's not many good examples out there not locally in Sandy at least

[21:16] um it's more often on a larger development site where you have space

[21:20] for say a commercial P but then maybe in the back you have you know multifam they

[21:25] behind the commercial home is 21st

[21:30] 21st retail up front commercial retail up front and then around the sides of

[21:35] the condos might see that more like a village like a

[21:39] village is is togate togate

[21:44] has live at toate I don't know that's a that's actually a good question Carl

[21:48] that that might be on a separate lot though could not live next to they're

[21:51] not and not and on a separate I've never

[21:56] lived there okay just

[22:00] so so Kelly going back to the buildings that we were talking about before Rich's

[22:05] question if those buildings sold would they then fall under the new

[22:10] code or would they be under the code they're they're under they're

[22:14] non-conforming and that runs with land longevity that runs with the land it

[22:18] doesn't run with the owner okay correct and we you know just so you know

[22:23] we have other if you go to our non-conforming use section 1708 there's

[22:28] other things in there um that once were allowed in different

[22:32] zones and have been removed and now they're just existing nonconformities

[22:38] so just so I understand all the uses that so because you're talking about

[22:44] everything um Hood Pleasant all those I mean it's a huge area that you've got

[22:48] that map you know the pink area I mean it's every can you show that yeah it's

[22:53] that whole thing south of the Big Green you know it's it's everything and so

[22:58] what are are we saying that also is allowed

[23:01] you know duplexes uh single family attached all

[23:05] that that's permitted use right now under C1 I'd have to pull up the

[23:12] zoning code yeah just permitted uses duplexes single attached single detached

[23:18] blah blah blah yeah but most of those if if you keep reading it says comma or not

[23:22] a comma sorry it says like single attached existing prior to adoption of

[23:26] this code so that's that's a great case of an existing use that wouldn't be

[23:31] allowed today but they're already built and we continue to allow them so nothing

[23:36] none of those would be allowed at no this has nothing to do with single

[23:42] family homes they're already not allowed in the C1 we don't allow new single

[23:46] family homes this is only for multif family hous okay so what I'm trying to

[23:50] picture is what does this area look like after all this gets done and what I'm

[23:54] hearing is that whole Pink Zone in there is nothing but commercial with

[23:59] multifamily above it no we're not saying that well assum assuming it all gets

[24:06] eventually developed out to what it was zoned as no I would say the majority of

[24:10] it will just be commercial and there'll be some Lots with commercial with

[24:16] residential you guys are saying the same thing I would say the majority because

[24:21] of how financing works with mixes I'd say the majority will not be commercial

[24:26] with but I get but you saying just want to make sure everything in that area is

[24:30] either commercial or Comm or that mixed use commercial with commercial with the

[24:35] multif family directly attached to it it's one those two things nothing else I

[24:40] mean I'm not saying that's great I'm just saying my concern is that like

[24:43] y'all don't y'all kind of took away all the parking requirements and and so

[24:47] there's been this just big push to do Apartments as we saw in beer uh Deer

[24:52] Point or bull run or whatever it's called and so you know they don't they

[24:56] didn't really like the commercial they wanted to do the multif Family

[24:59] Apartments and so given that's my understanding of what the market is then

[25:04] I see this as being you know where it could be done and there's no parking

[25:09] requirements and I just you know that's not that's not true the code still

[25:13] requires parking for residential development it just doesn't require it

[25:18] for commercial development in the downtown okay well and again it's just a

[25:24] matter of that given the push for apartments

[25:30] and it's a 45 foot what what does that translate to floors

[25:34] stories what I would what I would say is that the code amendment that we're

[25:39] proposing and the reason why I proposed it this way is because I thought this is

[25:43] what counts with favor yeah is that it is removing the flexibility for more

[25:49] Apartments without commercial in the downtown that's what it would be doing

[25:52] and I get that and I support that Kelly I'm just trying to understand you know

[25:56] what what the developers will do with that you know because they've got a

[25:59] different you know angle on it and interest and understandable so I'm just

[26:04] trying to figure out so so these could be like five story places is that right

[26:08] I'd say four be 45 feet is that you can build five with 45

[26:13] feet not with the ground floor commercial yeah really hard to do

[26:18] because you need hot more height for that ground floor if you're G to be

[26:21] commercial so it' be [Music]

[26:25] challenging how many more of these questions are

[26:30] I think this is one of the more complex ones though just see but I mean are we

[26:34] dancing around the options you have an option to remove it

[26:39] we have an option to leave it in are we missing anything else that we

[26:43] should be considering or is that do you want us to vote as we go along or what

[26:46] that that be helpful ping Council for a proposal that

[26:51] will be in front of us in the future I struggle with I struggle with voting for

[26:56] it right now we're not voting we're polling polling

[27:01] yeah we need directions so that when you get it next time in September the code's

[27:04] written that people not looked at this me too I think it's pretty I I

[27:10] understand the need to clarify and really figure out what we're doing but

[27:13] at the end of the day I mean it's a pretty easy choice for where this

[27:17] Council directionally has that this is to recommend

[27:22] it thumbs uped for the most part you'll see

[27:28] options are the option that is in the code the packet and so I think if you

[27:34] were to tell us we think you went the wrong direction

[27:39] we'd want to know that we' want to fix that for we're pretty good at that and

[27:43] and just so you know the the recommended options are what I it was my best guess

[27:49] at what I thought you would want yeah so I might have missed the mark on a few

[27:53] but that's what I that's what we tried and Kelly the plan is to have one

[27:57] more works session right in September be discuss this before and and

[28:04] that'll give the council if you choose to two and a half months or so to look

[28:07] at the 300 pages of text if you want to look through all that

[28:16] exy really was carry on okay so the the second question is is

[28:22] related that's also looking at the C1 and C3 zones um and this is looking this

[28:27] has kind of more more to do with addressing issues with the design

[28:30] standards so they are pretty detailed um design standards kind of enforcing the

[28:35] sort of Sandy style in downtown and in the village uh commercial uh districts

[28:41] and um that we the attempt with this code amendments again staying policy

[28:46] neutral is to try out where there are discretionary standards today where

[28:51] there possibilities to leave them as is and not touch them we tried to go that

[28:55] route so um when you when you're thinking about mixed use development

[28:59] which as we just talked about is allowed you can have residential as part of a

[29:03] mixed use development um it gets a little bit tricky if you're trying to

[29:07] maybe apply a different set of say you want to apply the discretionary

[29:11] standards to the commercial portion of the development but you can only apply

[29:15] clear and objective standards to the residential portion it gets really

[29:19] tricky especially if it could be mixed on the same floor it might be a little

[29:24] bit more straightforward and we were finding it would have been more

[29:26] straightforward if you didn't allow residential on the ground floor at all

[29:31] you still allowed it on the second floor and above so you still allowed the sort

[29:35] of vertical mixed use development but you wouldn't necessarily allow the

[29:39] residential to be just attached to a commercial business as the the current

[29:43] allowance is in the C1 zone or beside or behind a commercial business in the C3

[29:48] zone so if you enforce that kind of Separation by saying dwellings must be

[29:54] above commercial uses um on the second floor above

[29:58] then you can continue to apply the current um somewhat discretionary

[30:02] standards to say ground floor window requirements entrance um detailing some

[30:08] of those standards are not entirely clear and objective today and so um if

[30:12] we don't want to have to modify those as apply to residential or maybe apply a

[30:17] different set of Standards um to those features on a residential component of a

[30:23] building it's it's much more straightforward to separate them so

[30:27] getting to the um the options here on the next slide so the

[30:31] recommended option is to again limit the residential development so it's only

[30:36] allowed above a commercial business um so that doesn't include

[30:41] horizontal exactly so no again kind of a further restriction beyond the one we

[30:48] just discussed to say it has to be above a commercial business um so that's the

[30:52] recommended option that's in your packet the um a second potential option is to

[30:57] keep the current allow es for residential uses as part of a mixed use

[31:01] development um which could be again beside or behind or attached um but

[31:06] apply a different set of Standards to just the residential portion of that

[31:10] building for that development um in that case it would probably make the most

[31:15] sense to apply the multif family design standards um but in that case you're

[31:20] you're ending up with kind of a tricky situation both for staff to interpret

[31:23] and for applicants to kind of try to parse out what applies to what part of

[31:26] the building um but that is that is an option that that's an approach that some

[31:32] cities have taken in their codes possible maybe not ideal I think it'd be

[31:36] very it'd be difficult it didn't seem like it fits

[31:40] the clear and objective it just seemed like it puts a lot of gray in the whole

[31:46] business I mean based on the conversation you guys had on the first

[31:49] item my guess is you're going to go with the recommended

[31:53] option keep it pretty simp yeah justar that you guys are kind of bringing in

[31:59] the Sandy style stuff versus the multifam design standard and can you I

[32:05] mean can you apply the Sandy style to the commercial part and the correct the

[32:09] other that'll work and clear objective that is that is an option what

[32:17] we've done in the SE in the um village and sorry what they call the downtown

[32:24] and Village Center design standards is to where they do apply or could apply to

[32:30] residential um to make them clear an objective so just to modify them sort of

[32:34] the minimum amount to make clear an objective everything that we didn't have

[32:37] to touch we just left as is that we knew wouldn't apply to housing a lot of the

[32:42] standards um apply just to the ground floor so as soon as you say residential

[32:47] is not only can't be on the ground floor you sort of solve that problem of is the

[32:53] standard discretionary it doesn't matter if it's not going to apply to

[32:55] residential and presidential count be on the ground floor and it's a standard

[32:59] related to the ground floor no problem right so that was that was kind of one

[33:03] way we were looking at the solution um obviously there's kind of a hybrid

[33:08] solution if you were only concerned about really the Sandy

[33:12] standards um on the ground floor on in kind of major streets then you could we

[33:19] could come up with a hybrid solution that says well it's still okay to have

[33:23] mixed juuse building where there's ground floor residential it's attached

[33:29] either behind or beside or maybe just behind um but it's uh provided that the

[33:35] frontage on these major streets is only commercial right so then you would get

[33:42] you could still allow some of those other forms of attached multif family

[33:48] right um instead of just above you could have it the side or behind um as long as

[33:54] those frontages were still ground floor commercial and so that was

[33:59] the other like kind of the hybrid approach we talked about that after

[34:03] actually we come up with the recommended approach which was the most coton dry

[34:06] like okay above the ground FL and then we were like well maybe if you wanted to

[34:11] retain some of that flexibility we come over the highway that would still

[34:15] protect the important commercial streets so problem as I see it is is that you

[34:21] have a number of current situations that have that residential problem and you're

[34:25] going to end up having the question whether you're going to put apply a

[34:29] Sandy style to it or not on residential on the ground floor or or not so there's

[34:35] going to be some complexity in this no matter how you play it but you're

[34:39] talking about new Stu so just stay away from the

[34:44] current yeah I mean well and I guess if somebody were to come in for a major

[34:48] alteration then the if it was in if it was

[34:52] a if they're doing a major alteration of a residential building apply resal

[34:59] standard rather

[35:02] than you interet I think so I think so yeah a developer that came in on a

[35:10] arterial Street on the front fronted side but a not a main if they're on the

[35:15] corner lot per se they might want commercial on the front of the building

[35:18] but then on the on the back side of that building wrap around residential on the

[35:22] ground floor because it's not on the the main arterial yeah and that would be

[35:26] more attractive to a developer who's got a small partial on the corner who's

[35:29] trying to maximize their their livability within that section if you

[35:34] made it all commercial just left the ball commercial they're they're they're

[35:38] going to have to find parking for that residential on the back side I just I

[35:43] just think that might be a

[35:47] problem we're just pulling here now I think there'll be some

[35:52] conversations like yeah so so just quick question

[35:59] um in thinking so this does not prevent say I build the commercial building with

[36:07] residential on top and then I want to do like a rooftop bar as part of my

[36:13] downstairs business yeah you can still do that do

[36:17] that yeah there's nothing the code saying that think yeah

[36:25] so place we if we get a rooftop bar proposal we'll make it happen

[36:36] good I just want to make sure we're not doing anything that's

[36:39] GNA okay so generally no concerns with the recommended approach remember number

[36:44] two okay um question three has to do with this is another kind of permitted

[36:49] use question and it has to do with zero lot line dwellings um which are um they

[36:57] they can either attached or detached and attached zero lot line is basically what

[37:01] we think of as town homes so they're sort of um attached homes on individual

[37:05] Lots um and then detached zero lot line is there actually on the next slide

[37:11] there's a graphic that kind of illustrates yeah um so that you

[37:15] basically move all the the houses over to one side of the lot so there's a zero

[37:20] setback on one side and then you have more of a setback and all lots more of a

[37:23] sort of use usable side yard on the other side so currently in the um single

[37:29] family residential zone or sfr Zone these type of zero lot line

[37:34] dwellings are uh minor conditional use so again as we talked about you can't

[37:39] have just this discretionary um process for allowing this type of of housing um

[37:45] so again you all have a kind of a choice to make either you can develop a new

[37:50] clear and objective path and I guess we're getting into the options on the

[37:52] next slide um you can develop a cleared objective path to make sure to make

[37:56] those permitted use and develop a new set of um standards or actually you

[38:01] could you could pull over existing standards that apply in the other

[38:05] residential zones where they are permitted

[38:07] outright but the recommended option kind of following the same theme is just to

[38:13] not permit those um those types of zero lot line dwellings in the sfr zone so

[38:20] you could still have single regular single family detached but no Town Homes

[38:24] as a permitted or conditional use we never turn them into a

[38:30] dup that's that's my question is you know single family residential is

[38:34] supposed to be just single family homes and then we got pushed into requiring

[38:39] duplexes so Town Homes were never an option and so so so now we're still only

[38:46] talking right about duplexes and single family homes yeah duplex will still be

[38:50] allowed but this would remove if you go back to the previous slide it'll remove

[38:54] it'll remove the thing on the left so you you'll have to have setbacks so

[39:00] if you if you remove it as we're recommending each side is going to have

[39:03] to have setback and what it effectively does is

[39:07] it it's kind of density control a little bit because you'll get with this design

[39:11] you get more houses on less acreage because you don't have setbacks

[39:15] on your one side of your house um I personally think it's bad

[39:21] design and we have some in the Sandy Bluff neighborhood and people get very

[39:26] confused and very upset when their neighbor has to basically what they

[39:30] would consider trespass in the to paint the side of your house people think it's

[39:35] middle to paint this side of your house you literally have to go on your

[39:38] neighbor's property and there's easements for it but I I don't really

[39:41] like the design at all but the caveat that I I'm kind of coming around to is

[39:46] that previously this Council again I didn't support it but allowed duplexes

[39:51] to be detached which I don't even understand how that makets the

[39:54] termination the definition of duplex and so now you can have a detached duplex

[40:00] which is basically two separate houses and then and now you're allowed to uh

[40:05] subdivide it so now you've got instead of having single family of 7500 youve

[40:09] got two small small Lots so that's where I don't like that because I think that's

[40:14] we've got a lot of already zones for that so if you reinstated that a duplex

[40:19] had to be attached had to be attached how would this affect that this

[40:26] doesn't affect duplexes this is for a single lot of record with

[40:30] one dwelling on it that's what a zero lot line dwelling

[40:35] is yeah this doesn't really have anything to do with duplexes just so you

[40:38] know okay that's confus because if you can have a detached

[40:43] duplex in my mind I mean those are two single dwellings that you can then

[40:47] subdivide you see it's kind of semantics there if you could subdivide if you

[40:51] could build two DET a detached suplex and then subdivide it that's two

[40:56] dwelling so this is in this example if this was a

[41:00] subdivision this is lot one this is lot two this is lot three they're all

[41:03] different lots of record they all presumably have different owners all

[41:07] this would be doing would be making setbacks on both sides of the house what

[41:12] you're talking about is you could have two units on this two on this two on

[41:15] that for the duplex Provisions but that's allowed by that house bill and

[41:19] that has nothing to do with they would still be subject to setbacks depending

[41:23] on how we correct it correct ex we can't we can't create that would limit that

[41:28] that's no but if it was attached you couldn't subdivide it because it's not

[41:34] it would be a zero light line well wouldn't

[41:38] it it's it would still be it would still be called a duplex if it if it goes

[41:43] through the middle housing land division process which is required by by law to

[41:47] beow um it's still considered a duplex even after after it's divided yeah it is

[41:53] very confusing understand and you know definitely understand and appreciate

[41:56] your confusion because you're right I mean functionally

[42:00] it might feel like you had a duplex and two units on one lot and and somebody

[42:08] divided that through a middle housing land division it's going to look like a

[42:13] two unit townhouse built functionally right it's going to be each lot's going

[42:17] to be or each unit is going to be on its own lot they're going to be attached it

[42:21] is still technically a duplex it's right I mean under the law that's still called

[42:25] a duplex this is a different set of Provisions in your code unrelated to

[42:30] that this I think predates that those changes um and it

[42:35] just says that these types of zero lot line uh developments and it puts them

[42:41] through a conditional use process and again if you're gonna offer a housing

[42:45] type in a Zone it needs to be either yes or no can't be it can't be aaz so um

[42:53] can't go to a discing process so that's that's the problem we're trying to solve

[42:56] is and I understand there's this other confusing believe me yeah it is

[43:02] confusing um but that the problem we're trying to solve is really to just get to

[43:08] what's the best clear and objective answer for this particular problem and I

[43:13] think I generally was there anybody that would like us to like change from the

[43:19] recommended approach I like all right we should probably move on we only we only

[43:24] got about 15 minutes left I would we should just start with that question

[43:28] every

[43:31] time okay just cont I'm not asking well this one's a

[43:38] little bit less maybe a little bit less straightforward but um this is about

[43:42] Transit Street building orientation requirements so um in the current code

[43:46] the city um defines Transit streets as arterials and collectors and other other

[43:52] streets are identified in the transit plan um and residential development has

[43:56] to be quote unquote oriented toward the transit street so that's a current

[44:01] requirement but that what what does it mean for a building to be oriented

[44:04] toward the transit street is kind of the the clear and objective issue that we

[44:08] needed to resolve um so we we created some um new standards for what it means

[44:14] to be oriented so it means either face the street you know the entrance faces

[44:18] the street or it's you know within up to 45 degree angle from the street that was

[44:22] pretty straightforward but part of what city staff have been interpreting the

[44:27] oriented toward the transit Street to mean is that it's within a certain kind

[44:30] of distance from the street so it's not set way back on the lot it's not really

[44:35] oriented towards the transit street so um on the next slide yeah the

[44:39] recommended option is to establish a maximum distance or a setback between

[44:44] that building entrance and the transit Street to say you're oriented towards

[44:48] the transit Street if you're within X distance which we haven't defined yet in

[44:53] the in the draft um and that would make that

[44:56] requirement clear an objective um and would kind of be consistent with the

[45:00] purpose of those requirements which is to encourage kind of active frontages

[45:05] pedestrian friendly development at question how does this work with a

[45:09] flag

[45:12] lot I think that's a great question I think it's

[45:17] actually I think we I think we did add something about

[45:22] that that's a really good question that's a really good question though

[45:29] section oh it it already has one exceptions for flag Lots thank you uh

[45:34] yeah it is in there yeah but that is a great

[45:37] question we all good with the recomended approach we're good with that and you

[45:42] know we we recommended some or we're thinking of recommending somewhere in

[45:45] the range of 20 to 30 feet distance from the street as qualifying is being

[45:49] oriented so it's kind of visible from the street readily sort of reachable

[45:54] from the street um but not trying to be over

[45:57] you know still trying to provide some flexibility between the minimum and the

[46:00] maximum setbacks Kelly is that about what dearco

[46:04] is right now all you know those houses that all have the garage in the back and

[46:09] the they face Street out front yeah they are they all about that yeah yeah yeah I

[46:14] would say so yeah and I think for the most part when we the code says it has

[46:17] to be a minimum of 20 I don't think we really run into an instance where they

[46:21] anybody's put it further than like 30 feet but we're just thinking that it

[46:25] could happen where you said it would way back and then it kind of defeats the

[46:28] purpose of the code like somebody put a garage at the front of the property and

[46:31] the house in the back of the property prevent that because the front door has

[46:34] to be yeah within you know 25 30 okay same

[46:41] as the drive and they could always request

[46:50] variance I think we're all gonna be okay with the new addition on this one okay

[46:57] uh well right so thank you and I guess you all had a chance to read the memo on

[47:01] this this is a change in in state law um and and it is a little bit confusing

[47:07] changing um how one interprets uh what it means to be a family and um having

[47:14] that not be based on uh the fal relationship of the occupants and so we

[47:20] found a way to solve that you all saw our recommendation I think which was to

[47:26] set number of bedrooms uh as the distinction between congregate living

[47:32] and uh an individual dwelling unit other jurisdictions have done that uh as a

[47:38] solution to this same problem we haven't seen anybody come up with anything

[47:42] better um that's also um objective and isn't using the relationship of the

[47:49] people the occupants so um and without it again there is really no distinction

[47:55] between congregate living and house likewell I will add on this one we had

[48:00] about a 45 minute conversation maybe longer with Josh and this is the best we

[48:07] could all come up with this was one of the hardest things actually in the whole

[48:09] code yeah how did you come up with eight I mean it's what other cities are using

[48:14] that that I think right yeah I mean it also you know you start yeah it was it

[48:21] was really hard it was a hard call I mean and you know obviously if you felt

[48:25] like that was too higher low let us know I mean it's you can

[48:29] change the number the premises though that they're going to base it on

[48:34] bedrooms and so bedroom house I'd need more than one

[48:39] family this still though doesn't allow for like people Liv in crawl spaces and

[48:45] things like that no it Nota that's a non-habitable living yes correct you are

[48:49] correct want to think about shed too I will point out you have a circular

[48:56] definition oh so the fact that you're defining

[49:00] family as those that live in a dwelling unit then you Define dwelling unit in

[49:03] terms of things that are occupied by not more than one family means you actually

[49:07] have a circular

[49:10] definition I want to look at that we'll have to take a look at that

[49:16] yeah y but is is anybody against the eight-bedroom

[49:20] understand it yet is this just in congregate living zone or no no this is

[49:26] this is saying if your house has more than eight

[49:31] bedrooms than your congregate housing and the reason why is because we can't

[49:35] Define what constitutes a family is that the deal because I I'm trying to think

[49:39] of an eight bedroom house at this point there there is I don't think there is

[49:42] any inan I think the largest one I know was like six but but what you would see

[49:47] what this is intended to get at is if somebody wanted to build a congregate

[49:53] living facility and they were intending to build say 10 bedrooms 12 bedrooms

[49:57] whatever it is it could go it if you don't have a limit then that's actually

[50:04] considered it's no different than a single family house right because it's

[50:07] if there's no limit on the size of a single family house and has a kitchen a

[50:12] single family would this be the S and Scenic the old Hospice place would that

[50:17] be I don't remember how many bedrooms no because that's that's actually that is

[50:21] actually built as an assisted living facility but this would this would

[50:25] prevent somebody from basically buying a lot putting in a 12

[50:31] bedroom house and then turning it into Cong housing essentially or dorm or

[50:38] dorms it's a very complex one or yes correct it

[50:46] is okay moving on then uh to a quick question about uh adjustments so this

[50:52] actually came up later in our review process and so um this change I don't

[50:58] believe is in the this one didn't make it into the draft right or is it oh okay

[51:02] excuse me yeah this came up very late in our conversations with City attorney

[51:07] where we were looking at the city's review criteria for type one

[51:12] adjustment and that's for um to vary up to 10% problem is a type one doesn't

[51:18] really work for the type of approval criteria that you're applying to a type

[51:22] one adjustment those are require too much discretion on the staff and so they

[51:28] really need notice to to make that kind of decision so our recommendations

[51:34] really straight forward which is just get rid of that type one adjustment um

[51:38] there's no change needed to the type two because it was already up to

[51:42] 20% so it just it care of it um and so I think there

[51:49] are recommendation very straightforward just get rid of the type one any

[51:55] concerns with that one okay okay great again I me so that means you can't have

[52:00] a type one adjustment right so people that want adjustments will apply for a

[52:05] type two adjustment which have today and that gets you up to 20% just like it

[52:12] does today none of that's going to change the opportunity to do a very very

[52:16] small adjustment using the type one is gonna have to go away because the

[52:20] approval criteria have too much

[52:24] FIB unfortunately that mean you're giving too much

[52:28] authority to the director that's what without notice without

[52:31] notice yeah yeah yeah no it's it's it's not a problem to have authority and if

[52:36] there's discretion in the decision making organ law typically requires that

[52:41] there's um notice and an opportunity to appeal if there's exercise discre it's

[52:48] that's exactly the thing so it's allowing me to basically issue decisions

[52:52] on variances T code without allowing anybody to comment yeah that's the

[52:56] problem yeah so okay uh let's move on then so

[53:02] uh eight um I don't if all of you had a chance or familiar with this or had a

[53:08] chance to read the memo on this one it'ss

[53:13] awesome right exha exha is it going to pass it

[53:19] did it's

[53:22] already it's I mean we're still referring to it as descend dates because

[53:26] that's how people know it but it's it's it's passed it's LA and it does require

[53:31] local governments to allow affordable housing that beet certain definitions

[53:35] and criteria um in a wide range of zones and sites

[53:42] um uh well in in as I said in a wide range of zones and sites and depending

[53:47] on the ownership of the yeah it's it's in single family residential um there

[53:54] are some density uh and intensity requirements so and

[53:59] again I don't want to I guess I know that's not yeah well I'm being trying to

[54:03] be mindful of your your time here um I guess the thing that's a little bit

[54:08] challenging about applying Senate Bill 8 so it it applies right now some can come

[54:13] in and apply under that Zach would apply that statute directly without it being

[54:19] in your development code because that's the way it's set up some jurisdictions

[54:23] have found that that is difficult to do because you know they wrote it for the

[54:29] Statewide and there's it doesn't answer all of the questions that a planner at

[54:33] the counter might face when somebody comes in and actually applies and so uh

[54:40] we've gone ahead and written a code section that helps it's intended to help

[54:44] your staff apply that statute the statute applies that part's true and U

[54:51] but it's really unclear and there's some gaps in like how well how what does it

[54:54] actually mean there's some density bonuses height bonuses it's hard to know

[54:58] what those mean um in in City s zones and which zones get what and what about

[55:05] zones that don't allow housing like right now so we don't know what the

[55:09] density is how do you calculate that so our recommendation is to go ahead and

[55:16] include something in the code just to make life easier it doesn't change the

[55:22] effect that's in effect right so it's only

[55:27] what you know whether you want it in your code or not as a as a way to hope

[55:32] you know if it does if somebody does apply under that to make life a little

[55:37] easier but you know you don't have to and we are getting inquiries about it

[55:41] already from two different developers I just don't you know I don't understand

[55:45] enough about it to even make a recommendation I'm very concerned that

[55:49] you know they can put in a huge shelter in a single family residential

[55:53] neighborhood without you know it's not a shelter it's whatever apartment it's

[55:58] affordable housing and and because what was considered needed housing is now all

[56:03] housing and it's that kind of stuff so I just feel like I wish we had we could

[56:09] hire some consultants and I get that we're not supposed to be putting

[56:11] together anything that you know doesn't follow the code or doesn't follow the

[56:15] new law law that's coming down but I want to see some Consultants who could

[56:19] take that and understand where you know that I if this was happening in high

[56:24] density which we have a bunch of that's fine that's where it belongs but to to

[56:30] allow all this to happen everywhere height to to have our density our

[56:34] minimum lot sizes and our our maximum densities in these zones thrown out to

[56:44] completely guys if I if I I agree I agree but if I may I I think what

[56:50] Kathleen's asking for is kind of what is in the recommendation right I mean well

[56:55] what I mean mean by that is is whatever this new chapter is that applies the

[57:00] statute is going to have to come in front of this council with some back and

[57:04] forth with our staff to approve and so what I'm hearing is is you want to look

[57:09] at that statute and figure out the best way to address that in our community and

[57:13] that's exactly what creating this chapter would do is develop our our way

[57:20] of implementing that Statute in San that's 100% correct and if you don't

[57:25] adopt anything then there's no code provision on

[57:28] density or height right so they can they can choose anything and I cannot deny it

[57:34] that's in the yeah in the non-residential zones where there are no

[57:37] density standards for housing um under if yeah if you appli the statute

[57:42] directly they could say well there's no limit on density so we can build as

[57:46] dense as you know the site allows but as we've interpreted that sort of missing

[57:51] provision in the statute we added a density standard that applies the the

[57:57] maximum density or the medium density R2 zone so that that is an actual kind of

[58:03] different outcome based on the current draft as we've drafted it in the

[58:08] proposed amendments that would be different than if someone just came in

[58:11] if you didn't adopt anything are you saying that are the densities that are

[58:15] currently in R1 still apply to this they apply except you get a density bonus of

[58:22] 200% so you double and that Ian I me honestly if you if you chose to sort of

[58:28] disregard that and develop your own standards I think an applicant could

[58:32] probably make the case to Luba or whoever that you know you're not

[58:36] following the statute and they could do they could do what's

[58:39] allow that's crazy but the but the essential question in front of us is do

[58:44] we want and no offense with you Kelly I love you I trust you but do we want

[58:48] Kelly just having to figure out how to implement the statute in here or do we

[58:53] want to move forward with a chapter that lays out very straightforward for how

[58:57] Kelly and the staff should implement this statute I think the recommendation

[59:01] is the way to go right and I am getting inquiries about

[59:07] this already in Sandy all right what zones industrial our C2

[59:13] on but just a minute just a minute M with a Mortor okay

[59:19] ahead they know about

[59:22] that just a minute left I'm G to touch on one last question

[59:26] very quickly talk about um you know our schedule to come back to all so uh yeah

[59:31] we've got tree removal um for Park maintenance and so there are some

[59:35] existing exemptions uh related to tree removal and uh in kind of looking at

[59:41] this section and talking to City staff U the recommendation here is to add a new

[59:48] exemption um from City own parks and natural areas Trail installation

[59:52] maintenance safety improvements and general Park maintenance to allow uh so

[59:56] basically just to create the exemption so you're not going through a perating

[1:00:00] process internally anything to add to that I

[1:00:05] would really like to change this so that our P staff can go remove trees in say

[1:00:10] mining in certain areas and they don't have to get a tree permit it's just can

[1:00:15] can you say existing Trails because I could see where that might go to and I

[1:00:20] don't want to put more stuff into it is it intent to be existing Trails it' be

[1:00:27] paral they would still have to get a permit if it was like within the within

[1:00:33] a certain distance of our creeks and within like a wetland but that's like a

[1:00:36] DSL requirement right right but otherwise if it was like an Upland tree

[1:00:42] that was dead and Tiana and her crew just wanted to remove it they just they

[1:00:46] can just go do it they don't need a check in what if we had a one of our

[1:00:49] neighbors wanted to do that for their house I read it's a city owned

[1:00:53] Park I hate that we stand yeah I hate that we get you know not for

[1:01:00] us but definitely for you I definitely understand and appreciate that but with

[1:01:06] limited Staffing right now it's it's it is a pretty big burden on staff so what

[1:01:10] do you do because I have right now we're processing tree permits excuse me though

[1:01:14] I mean I wasn't required to get a tree permit when all those seedos had to come

[1:01:19] down because PGE butchered him so right those are in the right way I believe

[1:01:25] though well no was it was based on the size of my lot oh yeah that's true okay

[1:01:29] and so similar to a park that's got a big area and a lot of trees you're gonna

[1:01:35] have to break a few eggs to make the off yeah you're correct coun all I just

[1:01:39] don't like the double standard I agree with and then also does this address the

[1:01:44] need to maintain John viewpoints view given that you're 400 feet from the

[1:01:50] river no well I actually that's a good question I'll have to look

[1:01:57] back I'll have to look into

[1:02:03] that I think so all right I I think it would if you put maintenance in there I

[1:02:08] would think so I think so too it's an existing View Corridor it is yeah yeah

[1:02:13] that's a good question but I I think we would yeah we would include that in and

[1:02:16] I would add Trails like Carl said into the road utilities trails

[1:02:26] making sure covers so do you want us to give you

[1:02:30] kind of just a general um next steps just for a couple minutes

[1:02:34] sir just take a second yeah so I mean basically I guess we'll be back in front

[1:02:39] of you um to talk about the proposed amendments um for another work session

[1:02:45] in September and um following that work

[1:02:49] session we'll be making fun edits and then aing for hearings November December

[1:02:54] we're hoping to wrap this all up by the end of this year perfect that's our goal

[1:02:58] so you want to get it done good okay let do so for that thank you very much for

[1:03:04] your sorry we're always rambunctious group really appreciate your question

[1:03:10] terrific so a really good question so yeah um I think about this summer to

[1:03:15] look over that lovely document and of course if you have questions for us

[1:03:21] Kelly is probably the easiest very much thank you to the

[1:03:26] members that joined us this evening really appreciate it uh we're going to

[1:03:29] close our work session we will convene our council meeting at 7:10 thank

[1:03:35] you let's go ahead and call the city council meeting into order please join

[1:03:39] me for pledge of

[1:03:42] allegiance I pledge alance to the flag of the United States of America and to

[1:03:48] the for it [Music]

[1:03:51] stands indivisible andice

[1:03:56] excuse

[1:04:00] me all right I'll do a quick review of tonight's agenda I'm going to be calling

[1:04:05] for any CH proposed changes to tonight's agenda I will'll then go to public

[1:04:10] comment um Jeff did we have anybody submit online not online mayor all right

[1:04:15] so we have two submitted um for public comment I'll be calling your names at

[1:04:18] the appropriate time uh then we'll have a response to the previous public uh

[1:04:23] comments that was by Bill Lesley well the response from staff uh to that at

[1:04:28] that time then we'll get into our consent agenda our consent agenda has

[1:04:31] our city council meeting minutes from our June 5th and June 12th meetings the

[1:04:36] adoption of a financial Su sustainability plan for parks and wreck

[1:04:42] Sandy N Advisory Board appointments requirements for street closures and

[1:04:46] exclusive use of minding park for the 2023 Mountain Festival loan

[1:04:51] authorization drinking water transmission line design contract

[1:04:56] Amendment for leeway engineering Solutions owner representative Services

[1:05:01] the adoption of city manager recruitment position profile and hiring procedures

[1:05:07] under new business we have three public hearings and so if you're here just

[1:05:11] speak uh for one of those public hearings wait till this time um for the

[1:05:16] public hearings to testify don't do it during our earlier uh we have public

[1:05:20] hearing for 2023 24 Master fees and charges a public hearing for revised

[1:05:26] moratorium raising limits on our new Wastewater connections and a public

[1:05:31] hearing for Trans our transportation systems plan we'll then have a report

[1:05:36] from our city manager and we'll end our evening with our committee and Council

[1:05:40] reports with that Jeff will you please call the role yes counc pres counc small

[1:05:47] here counc Sheldon here counc Walker here councelor exner pres counc Hinson

[1:05:54] here mayor pulam here thank you for that Jeff with that I will call for any

[1:05:59] proposed changes to tonight's agenda hearing none we'll move forward

[1:06:05] to public comment um the first up for public comment that I have is uh Nancy

[1:06:10] Becker and Nancy you'll have three minutes uh Jeff will'll let you know

[1:06:15] when you have can I wait till later it's it's about the uh oh it's

[1:06:20] about the fees so we'll go ahead and wait for the fees at that time with that

[1:06:25] um we have Michael Jenkins um Michael uh you will have

[1:06:29] we'll provide five minutes of testimony Jeff our city recorder will give you a

[1:06:34] 20 second uh warning so when you have 20 seconds left uh and I have your

[1:06:38] information here so if you'd like uh you you get the mic the mic that way it

[1:06:43] picks up what you're talking about so you can either oh this mic can get you

[1:06:48] right here at the table yeah it'll hear I the absolutely

[1:06:54] sir wel [Music]

[1:07:05] my name is white gens I'm the US Marie

[1:07:11] corette been in your town for a year and a half

[1:07:17] homeless you haven't heard a be party out of me you haven't had one complaint

[1:07:23] about me being homeless in this town now I've been through a lot of stress

[1:07:30] and operations I've had my gallbladder out I've had a double hery out my

[1:07:36] gallbladder was in me for three years because they couldn't get me health

[1:07:40] insurance get me in almost died I had my heart done I've had six inches of my leg

[1:07:49] now I got third degree burdens on my leg they put me in housing over at

[1:07:56] father's house and then they got me into the to a

[1:08:01] motel they put end up putting me into the budget over on

[1:08:05] mopin been there for 49 days I got pictures to show all you guys that I

[1:08:13] lived in a pig pin couldn't pick up or nothing no cleaning no nothing bent was

[1:08:21] going in there I ended up with B me I had a detox in the board Mission to get

[1:08:28] out of there now the people that have getting my housing and stuff they're

[1:08:32] supposed to have a $28,000 two whatever kind of mobile home

[1:08:39] I supposed to work in this this gr money that we're getting it's supposed to pay

[1:08:45] for it off me and my dog will be happy but what I'm coming tonight to tell

[1:08:50] everybody about is I need help now I don't want to be in crack out

[1:08:56] I'm not a crackman I ran against Ted wheeler for mayor and I am a man out

[1:09:02] there on the streets I work with the homeless I take many of them off and put

[1:09:07] them in places and I use CBD hip and mushrooms you got blue pills coming your

[1:09:14] way you got problems I got Solutions I'll sit down talk about it but my thing

[1:09:21] tonight is I need help I went to your office today you're to see the chief to

[1:09:28] explain to him my issue he wasn't in I went to the next person in mind is this

[1:09:34] officer right here I said where do you want me to sleep can't sleep at the bus

[1:09:39] stop anymore well it seems like the other

[1:09:43] night when I rolled in here after a a sheriff on

[1:09:48] mlin threatened to put a gun a bullet through my dog's head because he's

[1:09:55] walking get too close to me and I said a service

[1:09:58] dog he's going willing to put a bull through my dog's head he's going to put

[1:10:02] a bull through my head he talked to my caregiver told him he even said that

[1:10:08] what am I going through why do I have to do this you guys ain't got nothing this

[1:10:14] down for me a told me today I get to get tickets written on G to write me

[1:10:19] homeless Nas well that's okay I have a income

[1:10:25] this dog is on is hurt too he's on medicine he's on bed rest he's over at

[1:10:31] the daycare you know put him in there me my

[1:10:37] money I'll do anything for my dog you're not going to shoot my dog I need help

[1:10:43] reporting this they got me help they didn't get me I will

[1:10:48] say he did leave me to the amp bar I went to the amp Barn the an Barn had 15

[1:10:56] people there in 10 minutes to help me he shows up with the county now tomorrow I

[1:11:04] get to see the the the other who is

[1:11:09] it supposed to Resource through I'm hoping disability so I can turn in these

[1:11:16] claims that I'm showing to you now I can cut off here mayor I would like to have

[1:11:23] 10 15 minutes with you after sit down have a cup of coffee I want to show you

[1:11:29] my video when I went through at that motel and see what I want you to see

[1:11:35] what I had to go through and then you can decide because I asked to show video

[1:11:40] tonight that was refused but I respect that my name is

[1:11:46] Michael J AKA por chop I will be running for there the next gool around but I

[1:11:53] need help now that's it God

[1:11:57] bless thank you um and I would like to speak on the water behalf when you get

[1:12:03] to that please Absol oh okay absolutely and then uh let's be in touch see if we

[1:12:07] can May set up that coffee thank you for your

[1:12:12] time all right with that let's uh move ahead in our agenda uh we have the

[1:12:17] response to our last meetings um public testimony thank you mayor um two parts

[1:12:24] to this response first uh I was not aware at the time that we had an issue

[1:12:29] with the um only accepting credit card payments and not accepting Cas or check

[1:12:33] for business license renewals and so we have made some progress or working on

[1:12:38] making some progress there to alleviate that Rebecca has been doing case-by case

[1:12:43] um check payments for those that need it in the short term and then we're working

[1:12:46] with the vendor to figure out what options we have as far as a weting that

[1:12:49] to make sure that all of our business owners can renew their licenses um in a

[1:12:54] convenient way for them and also you know gets us the the revenue that we

[1:12:58] need in a mutally beneficial way so thank you and i' like to thank Mr Lesley

[1:13:03] for his public testimony uh you don't always uh implementing changes you don't

[1:13:08] you don't always see the unintended things or sometimes the things you mean

[1:13:11] that to not do and and that's why we have public testimonies to hear how the

[1:13:15] changes we make impacts our community so if you're listening thank you Phil for

[1:13:20] your testimony always enjoy the engagement May there is one more part to

[1:13:24] that yes sir regarding the cost of the rental license for a rental property um

[1:13:30] the research that we have done showed that a couple of the cities in clamus

[1:13:34] County charge anywhere from $50 to $100 ours 85 there are a handful of cities

[1:13:39] that don't charge anything for rentals but we're kind of you know middle of the

[1:13:43] road of those that do charge um Mr Lesley didn't think that the council was

[1:13:49] fully aware of the rate increase when that uh was adopted last uh December uh

[1:13:55] when we pulled the staff report it was clearly identified in the staff report

[1:13:57] the prior rental uh license amount then the updated proposed rental license so

[1:14:03] we feel confident that you know we provided you with the entirety of the

[1:14:07] information that you needed at that time um of course if the council would like

[1:14:10] to revisit that rate where do that but this time we're kind of middle the road

[1:14:15] those CL County cities that do

[1:14:19] charge I have a comment about that but you only wait till the fees come around

[1:14:23] we talk about fees uh sure you can ask a question now if you

[1:14:27] what did they get for that like they we don't go around and and you know do code

[1:14:33] checks or you know anything like that for rentals I mean do they even see us

[1:14:38] at all for $85 I don't have a good answer for you

[1:14:42] off the top of my head I know that you know from a um business license

[1:14:46] recordkeeping perspective it's nice to know what properties are rental so if

[1:14:49] there are issues with you know tenants police can get involved and contact the

[1:14:53] property owners so that's one mechanism um we also can then cross reference in

[1:14:58] the utility billing software with those uh landlords so that if you know

[1:15:03] Bill is unpaid we can make sure we have the correct contact information to get

[1:15:06] hold of the property owner um but beyond that I'd have to reach out some my he

[1:15:12] here more

[1:15:15] information thank you all right with that we'll move ahead to our consent

[1:15:19] agenda um unless there's uh questions or discussion I'll um a mo

[1:15:29] adopt I'll make a motion to adop adopt the cons

[1:15:33] agenda is there a second second there's a motion from councelor Smallwood and a

[1:15:37] second from councelor exner to adopt the consent agenda all those in favor

[1:15:41] signified by saying I I oppose May motion carries moving ahead uh to new

[1:15:49] business um I am going to open um this public hearing it is

[1:15:56] 22m Tyler with the staff report thank you

[1:16:00] mayor um so the council is fully aware that we like to uh review our fee

[1:16:05] schedule annually and bring that back at the start of the new fiscal year to make

[1:16:08] sure that the costs that we are charging for services match um the actual

[1:16:13] expenditure related to those services and so what I'll do tonight is just run

[1:16:17] through sort of these different categories of fees um don't think

[1:16:20] there's anything too much shock here as we discussed uh most of the this during

[1:16:25] the budget process uh and so with that I'll just jump right in the first

[1:16:30] section of fees that we're updating or proposing updates to are miscellaneous

[1:16:34] fees and you can see they're pretty uh low dollar amounts here just trying to

[1:16:38] get the fee schedule updated to the cost of printing for some of those larger

[1:16:42] documents if they are requested from the public as well as um updating some copy

[1:16:47] charges to 50 cents to reflect the actual cost associated with providing

[1:16:51] those services to the public I feel free to interupt as I go

[1:16:55] if you have questions on anything specific uh the next category of fees

[1:16:59] that we're proposing to increase would be the Planning and Building fees uh

[1:17:03] last year we did a 2% increase which was closely tied to um CPI we're proposing a

[1:17:09] 6% uh to these categories of fees um again tied to CPI for January to January

[1:17:15] of 2023 that 6% was sort of carried through

[1:17:18] the budget in various spots as well because we do typically tend to tie

[1:17:22] things to CPI to make sure that we have a constant

[1:17:25] um Baseline of measurement the one item to note here two items to note I guess

[1:17:31] uh the first is that um you know I think probably the first question you would

[1:17:36] ask is how is this going to impact uh a building permit it's about $350 more for

[1:17:40] the average single family home permit um and then second item to note is that the

[1:17:46] state of Oregon requires a 45 day notice before we adopt fee changes for building

[1:17:53] and planning fees building fees specifically we noticed the state on

[1:17:57] June 14th and so because of that um we can't formally adopt the building and

[1:18:02] planning fees tonight we'll bring that back at a later date but part of the

[1:18:06] state's requirement that we also hold a public hearing and so we wanted to tie

[1:18:09] all the fees together in the public hearing give everyone the opportunity to

[1:18:13] provide the public comment we can still provide written testimony um up through

[1:18:18] the end of July then we'll bring that back at the August 7th meeting just to

[1:18:21] adopt this one section of fees

[1:18:25] uh next is water rates and so as the council's you know very aware we have

[1:18:30] significant reinvestment going on in our water system talked a lot about that

[1:18:34] during the budget process the different projects we're going to have going um

[1:18:38] throughout this bium and I believe the council saw the updated rate model

[1:18:42] several months back uh but there's no significant changes to that uh model

[1:18:47] since the last time you saw it which indicated the need of a 36% rate

[1:18:51] increase in water charges affected with this upcoming fiscal year

[1:18:55] and what that equates to to the average customers anywhere from $10 to $20 per

[1:18:59] month you know we we use the Baseline of s CCF generally speaking we talk about

[1:19:04] the average customer and so if that's um you know being consistent there it's

[1:19:09] $15.31 would be the monthly increase

[1:19:14] um and to help offset that rate increase we are are proposing the addition of a

[1:19:20] reduced um water rate program similar to the Wastewater utility assistance

[1:19:25] program that we have currently and so this would adopt the new rate increase

[1:19:29] of 50% of the regular rate so that increase will only be about

[1:19:34] $765 or so for the average customer if they were on the reduced rate program

[1:19:40] about 43 customers currently so because the sentence starts with the proposed

[1:19:45] changes also include the addition of reduced water rate for a single family

[1:19:48] home with three so is is that something that's only applying to the folks that

[1:19:52] are on the assistance program so we would basically if you're enrolled in

[1:19:57] the Wastewater utility assistance now we would automatically enroll you in water

[1:20:00] so we don't need to do another application process or anything like

[1:20:03] that the 3/4 inch meter is the vast majority of single family homes um we

[1:20:08] can't really propose a change to a multif family unit because we don't have

[1:20:14] a way on our end to determine if there's one member that would qualify versus

[1:20:18] another tenant that wouldn't qualify so this gets the most bang for your buck as

[1:20:23] far as you know the most eligible yeah just that whole sentence though

[1:20:26] kind of implies it's applying to everybody all yeah that that's not the

[1:20:31] intent it's just three quer inch water meters but everybody has those they

[1:20:36] would have to meet the same eligibility requirements as the yeah my point is the

[1:20:40] sentence doesn't say anything about the eligibility of of the assistance program

[1:20:44] it just says gotcha um for clarity it would

[1:20:49] follow the same program guidelines as the Wastewater assistance program it

[1:20:52] would just be changing the title on the application to water and waste water

[1:20:57] system other questions on water yes okay

[1:21:05] um why so Sky View Acres just looked it up to see who they were why are their

[1:21:12] water rates

[1:21:16] a114 versus everyone else is they're 416 going up to $6

[1:21:25] so it's one of our wealthier that's been a ongoing H contract that we've had

[1:21:32] we've applied the same rate increases um you know to them as every other type of

[1:21:37] account um but I don't know the backstory on how that rate was initially

[1:21:42] determined I can absolutely do some research there and figure out that would

[1:21:45] be fantastic is that like Mountain Shadows no it's Virginia Court Virginia

[1:21:50] Court hence my question I someone lives there

[1:21:57] interesting but yeah does the Mountain Shadows and all those other folks that

[1:22:01] get some water from us pay different rate be good question yeah so we have

[1:22:05] the wholesale rate which is a little bit more expensive than the normal single

[1:22:08] family home payer um which is dry blank now those two big ones are

[1:22:17] Alder Alder Creek and there's one other one that I can't think of now the top of

[1:22:22] my head but those fall under that whole sale category

[1:22:27] all right uh next up is Wastewater so similar story here lots of capital uh

[1:22:33] investment that needs to happen in that system uh the rate model that we've been

[1:22:36] working off of although it's been revised 118 times

[1:22:42] literally it uh shows a 16% rate increase that's

[1:22:47] needed and so that would bring the average uh residential customer to about

[1:22:52] $167 more per month uh again that rate ref to be effective

[1:22:56] on the upcoming July 2023 utility bills questions on water seeing none

[1:23:04] okay uh storm water again this was presented in the budget process

[1:23:08] currently the storm water fee is $5 per equivalent residential unit uh we're

[1:23:12] proposing a $3 increase to um up to 8 and that really you know helps right

[1:23:19] siiz the storm water budget starts paying off the debt that's uh recently

[1:23:22] incurred for the Emergency repairs that we had and so this one is an important

[1:23:28] structural step to make sure that the swim water fund remains solid going

[1:23:32] forward and next up on the list is Sandy net so we're not proposing any changes

[1:23:37] to the normal um uh Fiber service for Sandy net at this time but Council might

[1:23:44] remember that last June we added a couple multi-gig

[1:23:48] services with what we thought were competitive rates come to find out

[1:23:52] they're a little bit higher than our competitors so we're not having anyone

[1:23:55] taking those services and in order to remain competitive on those multi- gig

[1:23:59] Services um we're proposing a slight rate reduction on the 2 gig and 5 gig

[1:24:05] service in addition to that we are working on developing or have in process

[1:24:11] um the capability of offering 10 gig here soon and so we need to establish a

[1:24:14] rate for 10 gig service and because the 10 gig installation is a little bit more

[1:24:20] um time consuming and high level than the standard uh installation charges

[1:24:24] we'd be proposing to change the installation for 10 gig service to 300

[1:24:28] instead of just

[1:24:31] $100 and then Library some uh small changes here some rate reductions

[1:24:37] actually very rarely do we get to um talk about rate reductions but you'll

[1:24:41] remember during the budget process again uh Sarah's Mission and and really the

[1:24:45] whole Library Network's mission of reducing fines and ultimately trying to

[1:24:49] go fine free and so this proposal would reduce the maximum due fine from $5 down

[1:24:55] to a dollar um and that change is already reflected in the budget so

[1:24:59] there's no budgetary impact reduced Revenue

[1:25:04] there and then last but certainly not least hold up question sorry sorry to

[1:25:09] interrupt your no nope so uh it's h we've we've crossed out the cultural

[1:25:14] pass so are we doing away with the cultural pass

[1:25:18] entirely my understanding is that there's just no charge for that I don't

[1:25:22] believe the cultural p is being disc continued so are we giving special

[1:25:30] privileges as far as no overdue rates to certain people while other people pay

[1:25:36] overdue

[1:25:39] rates I don't believe so um I'm not quite sure if I understand the question

[1:25:46] though as far as well I'm wondering what the cultural past is I guess and so I'm

[1:25:51] I guess right there um and hence and hence are we giving special privileges

[1:25:55] if you have a cultural pass you don't have to pay an overdue fee but everybody

[1:25:58] else does so that's that's all I'm getting at no the cultural pass um I

[1:26:02] don't know the whole listing of things that it can can get you access to okay

[1:26:07] but there's you know a variety of I mean I assume it's like a social you know

[1:26:13] Museum that's what I figur I just if we're not doing overdue I'm just

[1:26:18] wondering that's all yeah uh no thank you for question my question

[1:26:24] we are discontinuing um that that daily that daily uh overdue right there as

[1:26:32] proposed um I haven't heard of an issue of it being significantly misused or

[1:26:36] held overdue um or you know held uh for a lengthy period of time but I can

[1:26:42] definitely follow up on that one as well I'm sure it's not that big of a deal I

[1:26:46] was just

[1:26:50] app and then um so last but certainly not least Parks and Recreation

[1:26:54] um so last meeting June 5th the council um during the work session received a

[1:27:00] presentation from Melle and John about the fee structured changes that they

[1:27:05] were proposing to make based on the financial sustainability plan that was

[1:27:08] just adopted earlier this evening uh and so these updated fees reflect those

[1:27:13] changes that were presented at the last meeting there was some discussion about

[1:27:17] maybe a higher um initial hourly rate and then a lower rate for subsequent

[1:27:24] hour after that to capture you know The Upfront cost of of rentals we opted not

[1:27:29] to make that change in this go around because we are going to be revisiting

[1:27:32] this on an annual basis to really sort of get to the root of what do we need to

[1:27:36] do with parks and R to make it sustainable this is the you know vital

[1:27:41] first step in that but as you may recall from the last meeting we also were you

[1:27:46] know working on the time Windows of certain shelters and you know do we have

[1:27:50] enough availability for the general use versus you know just the reservation at

[1:27:54] the peak hours and so this is our first cut at sort of a revamping of the whole

[1:27:59] fee structure in that

[1:28:02] department I would just ask are you guys those so people know yes we'll make sure

[1:28:09] that we have information on our website about the rentals and then we can throw

[1:28:12] up some signs at the various shelters people know it does a pretty significant

[1:28:17] change to past practice where it's been first time for service so we'll make

[1:28:20] sure that we get that that message out y thank you

[1:28:25] and with that uh mayor I would just recommend that um you hold public

[1:28:30] hearing rece any public testimony andish up thank you for that

[1:28:37] re we're gonna go ahead and move ahead um with public testimony for this um if

[1:28:42] you're online please use the raised hand button if you wish to testify if you're

[1:28:48] uh in our meeting via telephone please use star9 to raise your hand uh if if

[1:28:54] you're here in person and you wish to testify please raise your hand you'll be

[1:28:58] provided three minutes each uh you'll get a 20 second warning um from Jeff

[1:29:05] please remember to state your name and address for the record we'll start with

[1:29:08] Nancy and then we'll get to you m uh Nancy Becker at 14585 Bluff Road um

[1:29:17] par and Sandy uh storm grain fee um is increased by

[1:29:25] $3 and I have been told that it will be increasing to 10 by next year uh that

[1:29:32] would be twice what it is now we don't even have a storm drain in front of my

[1:29:37] house we have a ditch it drains into our side

[1:29:45] Lot why am I being charged $10 or soon to be $8 or possibly even currently now

[1:29:53] when

[1:29:56] there is no storm drain in front of my house there's nothing everything that

[1:30:01] comes down from the church on down and in front of my place and into my little

[1:30:07] side lot that I also own

[1:30:11] um also what can a senior citizen on a

[1:30:16] fixed income do as far as fees go I believe you were mentioning that there

[1:30:24] was an average increase and it's minor but it turns out to be

[1:30:30] $183 72 cents per year my neighbor who lives directly

[1:30:36] behind me now has her daughter and son-in-law living with her because after

[1:30:42] her husband passed she can't make it on her

[1:30:47] own and she's not happy about the fact that she's having to give up some of her

[1:30:54] house sorry but I love her um everything is going up except for Social

[1:31:01] Security um water use um oh sorry I can't see um

[1:31:10] but yeah sewer is going up everything else is

[1:31:14] going up and I have some other questions also PGE pays to the city of Sandy cell

[1:31:21] service pays to the city of Sandy I see city of Sandy in a lot of my regular

[1:31:28] bills and so it's not just from water and property taxes or you know garbage

[1:31:35] that comes through here I don't know if garbage gets part of the pay something

[1:31:40] to City of Sandy or not but anyway you normally don't see me here but whenever

[1:31:46] he dages me along and offers me ice cream on the way

[1:31:51] home you know otherwise I be home with my yores thank you but yes the major

[1:31:57] thing is the 18372 a year that means a lot to those senior citizens and yes I

[1:32:06] along with my husband are both now considered senior citizens and on a

[1:32:13] fixed income and so yes I do hit Safeways to

[1:32:19] hit what's on sale I do not buy anything that is not on sale except for my yorkis

[1:32:26] godet that is the only thing that iour on and so anyhow these they need to go

[1:32:34] someplace rather than up all the time I'm

[1:32:39] sorry I am sorry but I have a lot of friends that fing this thank you n

[1:32:46] really appreciate it all right Michael we'll do the same

[1:32:50] drill as last time

[1:32:55] let me move this chair for you sir hey

[1:33:04] puppy my name is Mike chin uh I've Liv for the last year and a

[1:33:10] half right down here uh where the park is right above

[1:33:16] the park Dan Hugh's house right there looking right over the

[1:33:22] park last year half I take my wheelchair and go down to the

[1:33:28] steill then I had to crawl all through the dirt and just

[1:33:33] bark now there's a house right down there below me that has two senior

[1:33:38] ladies in there that had her heart attack they brought her ex-husband te's

[1:33:42] a senior in there and they got wood in their front yard from last winter when

[1:33:50] the cherry tree fell on mik my B during the

[1:33:55] snowstorm we rode into the city hall you guys sent me a letter back saying it's

[1:34:01] an accident from God well that accident from God is my

[1:34:07] home got destroyed $300 bill that's all fix it it's done done

[1:34:13] solution but what I'm saying too is you got problems in that park with the trees

[1:34:20] during all these storms those trees are crashing down I 13 trees have been down

[1:34:25] in that down there we had one at the end of what is that street he lives

[1:34:34] on I'll get you the streak but there was a big tree that fell down hit one house

[1:34:39] and hit the next house over there we were out electricity for five

[1:34:44] days why that five days was going on I couldn't use my breathing machine

[1:34:50] couldn't use my pack machine

[1:34:55] Dan was wife was contacting the electric company and they could even come out

[1:35:01] with a power source to get me stuff to breathe I mean we need emergency things

[1:35:06] for these elderly when the power goes out for two or three days because of

[1:35:12] these fires we got to come up a solution you know also I want to put on

[1:35:18] the table that Rose City lab on Johnson Creek will do any kind a water Tes

[1:35:24] they'll send them to your to everybody in Sandy and they'll do a testing so you

[1:35:29] know what's going on with your water with all the drainage and stuff even his

[1:35:34] house we the The Neighbor Next Door to us when all this happened that the

[1:35:41] neighbor up ahead of us built this building don't know if it's permitted or

[1:35:46] not but anyways when the building went up three houses down from us that water

[1:35:52] went down and flooded the Bas down there when it did that it soaked the park just

[1:35:58] made it a sponge down there 20 seconds I I would like you guys talk more about

[1:36:05] that and do more investigation in the park trees so one of these kids get

[1:36:09] killed God bless thank you sir appreciate your testimony can I make

[1:36:14] $900 and I'm on Social Security I get 170 in food

[1:36:19] stamps that's what I get thank you sir appreciate it all right um with that I

[1:36:27] will now I call for the staff recap and recommendation uh yeah thank you mayor

[1:36:33] um i' just like to reiterate that all of these changes were proposed or discussed

[1:36:37] during the budget process um and so our budget as uh it has been adopted and

[1:36:42] effective July 1 includes these changes

[1:36:50] um yeah Kathleen has a question um Nancy did bring up a good point or I

[1:36:55] kind of a thought of it is what about franchise fees are they part of this or

[1:37:00] separate are they going up these uh those are totally separate um those

[1:37:06] depending on the provider are either negotiate not negotiated but identified

[1:37:11] in um like the franchise free agreement like garbage for example we have a a

[1:37:15] sole you know exclusive use agreement with them uh so those are not being

[1:37:21] modified at this time although the r rates from those other providers are

[1:37:25] also increasing all you know seeing PGE increases or Northwest Natural increases

[1:37:29] and so because it's percentage based on what we get for franchise fees we will

[1:37:32] see additional Revenue coming in because the rates are more on on the other

[1:37:37] provider side but we're not changing the percentage rates on on the city and is

[1:37:41] there an opportunity to change them like we've changed it for all the residents

[1:37:45] we can definitely explore that sure I think there a couple there I believe are

[1:37:51] maximums so we need to you know figure out

[1:37:54] those maximums but we can look into that great thank you all right unless there's

[1:38:00] further questions I will yes just want to respond as well um to Nancy um and I

[1:38:08] and you represent everybody out there who doesn't want to see a pay in or a

[1:38:14] rate increase so you're representing a very large number of pretty much

[1:38:19] everybody right nobody wants to see a rate increase I just want you to know

[1:38:24] that we've spent the last I've spent the last couple of years and several of us

[1:38:29] in various committees and and the council itself especially around Water

[1:38:33] and Wastewater trying to understand our current situation and trying to

[1:38:37] understand what it's going to take so that the freshwater continues to flow

[1:38:41] and that the the sewage is properly treated in a way that doesn't bankrupt

[1:38:46] the city and the the terrible truth of it to my own surprise you know when I

[1:38:54] came on councel was that for many many years the the rates had not been

[1:39:02] collected to basically adequately maintain the system it's like buying a

[1:39:06] car or any other house and not doing any maintenance on it you go enough years

[1:39:11] all of a sudden you're facing just this massive update and that's where we're at

[1:39:16] and it's terrible and people are like well why are they still going up and why

[1:39:20] the sad part about some of these rats particularly waste water today is we are

[1:39:24] still not recovering the true cost even as high as this new rate's going to be

[1:39:30] it's not quite to where we have to be just to pay our own way moving forward

[1:39:35] and that's but the impact to people whether on fixed income or not it's it's

[1:39:39] huge and we acknowledge that and I wish there was a different way the mayor has

[1:39:43] done a phenomenal job and our consultants in terms of trying to get

[1:39:46] grants we've got our our public works department has uh acquired very low

[1:39:52] interest loans but when you're faced with those kind of

[1:39:57] jumps you don't really notice it so I just want to know it's it's top of mind

[1:40:02] but it's also something that we feel like is very very necessary to so to

[1:40:06] speak to keep the lights on so may I also say that today I just got

[1:40:13] my P Bill and it said $44 for a distribution

[1:40:20] fee distribution I understand sorry

[1:40:30] [Music]

[1:40:34] no oh we can take public testimony

[1:40:42] sure Greg Becker 14585 Bluff Road uh it was on the uh increases in water and uh

[1:40:52] sewer uh you're showing 36% this year it is a banum I just wanted people watching

[1:40:59] to know it's two years so 36 this year proposed 36 next year same with the uh

[1:41:07] with the sewer 26 I believe this year 26 next year and then when you compound

[1:41:14] them that 72 isn't 72 it's 73 to 74% and the same with uh with the other so uh I

[1:41:22] just wanted to it clarified that uh it's going to be doubled up again next

[1:41:28] year app little is there a motion to close the

[1:41:35] public heing is there a second a second motion

[1:41:40] by councelor walker and a second by councelor exer to close the public

[1:41:44] hearing we're now um in

[1:41:49] discussion was there was there a vote on oh

[1:41:53] I just all those in favor signify by

[1:41:57] saying I I oppose n motion carries we're now in the

[1:42:04] discussion well I hate rate increases for one but I know we need them and I

[1:42:08] think D the great job explained that we're paying for past mistakes today and

[1:42:14] I I heard our constituent say that they don't even have a sewer in their yard

[1:42:18] and goes for the same for kids for parents that don't have kids in school

[1:42:21] anymore paying the school fees it's it's just part of what we have to do for our

[1:42:25] community to live and I'm going to support I'm going to continue to support

[1:42:29] this rate increase because city is don't thing I would and I agree um

[1:42:36] both counselors is that just reminder that we do have some opportunities for

[1:42:41] those who are on call assistance I call it fixed income to get a reduced

[1:42:50] price as long as they qualify and I think that's if you're in that kind of

[1:42:54] boat probably should touch base with the city and I know they've been open about

[1:42:58] giving those kinds of discounts so don't forget to do that if you are in that

[1:43:03] kind of a condition I represent some of those senior folks don't have a fixed

[1:43:08] income yet but I get the part about needing to look at what your future is

[1:43:15] when you're getting to be kind of old all right

[1:43:20] um any further discussion or MO motion to

[1:43:26] adopt I'll make a mo motion to adopt the fee increases for just by is there a

[1:43:32] second I'll second it a motion by councelor exner a second by councelor

[1:43:37] Hokinson to adopt resolution 2023 D28 the Master Fee in charge of schedule all

[1:43:43] those in favor signify by saying I I I oppose n motion carries thank you all

[1:43:51] right moving ahead to another public public

[1:43:53] hearing I open this public hearing at 7:50 p.m. for resolution

[1:44:02] 20232 um I will now call for any extensions from the hearing

[1:44:08] body hearing then I'll Now call for any conflicts of interest from the hearing

[1:44:14] body all right Josh you want to give us a staff report welcome by the way thank

[1:44:19] you good evening mayor and city council you know the city of sany has had a

[1:44:24] development moratorium in place since October of last year and at the last

[1:44:29] city council meeting city council approved a consent decree to settle some

[1:44:35] uh outstanding enforcement issues with EPA and DEQ relating to the Wastewater

[1:44:41] capacity issues that were the basis for that

[1:44:44] moratorium purpose of this uh agenda item is to align the terms of the

[1:44:49] moratorium with the consent decree and also to

[1:44:53] uh make some other changes based on staff's experience with the moratorium

[1:44:56] to date the general uh result of approving this measure would be to

[1:45:03] significantly loosen the terms of the moratorium that's currently in effect

[1:45:08] most significantly more than doubling the

[1:45:12] amount of additional flows that will be allowed from new construction um under

[1:45:17] this these changes versus the existing moratorium the moratorium um in front of

[1:45:21] you this evening also provides that city council will re-evaluate it within six

[1:45:26] months or when uh we have the results of the stress test that the Waste Water

[1:45:32] treatment system is currently undergoing whichever is sooner and we do expect the

[1:45:36] results of that stress test this fall in addition um I received from

[1:45:42] counselor Walker a few questions this afternoon I just want to make sure to

[1:45:45] cover those um there's a question about the uh language about middle housing

[1:45:51] land divisions and duplex that is a clarification under the

[1:45:56] existing moratorium it says that we're allowing those to go forward when the

[1:46:02] duplex is already built the the new language in front of you clarifies that

[1:46:07] could actually happen before it's built this doesn't have any impact on whether

[1:46:10] a duplex can be built or not it's just a matter of the timing of the land

[1:46:16] Division and that land division the only effect that that land division has under

[1:46:20] cville 458 is regarding the ownership of duplexes it allows for um a person who

[1:46:27] who occupies a duplex to Lo own the land underneath their duplex versus having

[1:46:32] that land be um the same land underneath both units of the

[1:46:37] duplex there's also a question about why annexations are proposed to be allowed

[1:46:42] under this new version of the moratorium they weren't previously in

[1:46:47] discussing that with staff um the original reason to not allow

[1:46:53] annexations was more of a a messaging and a avoiding confusion issue rather

[1:46:59] than a liability issue U not wanting to create a expectation that because you're

[1:47:05] annexing you're going to be able to develop your

[1:47:07] property but it doesn't create a vested rights problem or ORS 9204 problem for

[1:47:14] the city to allow indexations and allowing them would allow for uh some of

[1:47:20] these developments to kind of start take these potenti future developments that

[1:47:23] start taking those initial first steps towards um being able to develop in the

[1:47:28] future when there's capacity to allow it and then finally there's a question

[1:47:33] about the language about septic systems this is not changing anything

[1:47:38] about when septic systems are allowed or not allowed it's just saying that if you

[1:47:42] are in one of those very narrow circumstances where you're allowed to

[1:47:45] have a septic system that the moratorium would have apply to you because you're

[1:47:49] not impacting the wastewater treatment system

[1:47:54] happy to take any other questions um but staff's recommendation is to hold

[1:47:58] hearing and uh the new moratorium as presented thank you we'll move ahead to

[1:48:04] public testimony uh first I'm going to provide some guidelines to those who may

[1:48:09] wish to speak uh first uh public testimony needs to be on the topic of

[1:48:14] the public testimony please try to avoid repetition if someone else has already

[1:48:18] expressed the same thoughts it is sufficient to state that you agree with

[1:48:22] the statements of a previous speaker even if that's all you say if you have

[1:48:27] documents Maps or letters that you wish to have considered uh by the body they

[1:48:32] must formally be placed into the record of this proceeding to do that either

[1:48:36] before or after you speak email your materials to recorder c. sandy. r. us

[1:48:45] and staff will make sure your evidence is properly processed all right to offer

[1:48:50] public testimony of three ways of doing that if you're online please click the

[1:48:53] raised hand button and let us know that you wish to testify if you're here

[1:48:58] please raise your hand when it's time to testify and I'll call on you for your

[1:49:01] time to testify and if you're participating via telephone please dial

[1:49:06] star9 to raise your hand and wait to be recognized oh then I call on each person

[1:49:12] to speak each person will receive up to three minutes to testify and the city

[1:49:16] recorder will let you know when you have 20 seconds

[1:49:19] remaining um all right with that I will now call for anyone who wishes to

[1:49:26] testify okay see there anyone online yet may I don't see any raised hands all

[1:49:32] right let's first go with you Mr Becker just a question reg Becker 14585 Bluff

[1:49:39] Road uh I see we're wanting to increase uh the I believe it's EF

[1:49:46] efus okay from uh 100 something to 300 will this increase the amount of money

[1:49:54] taken in by the city and if so how much I know could that affects your

[1:50:01] budget well it will definitely affect the budget because what basically with

[1:50:05] this is is more that that's the increase of people that are able to hook into our

[1:50:11] was with new developments that are so that will allow more developments to

[1:50:16] come developing so yeah I mean the short answer is at some point yes it'll it'll

[1:50:21] increase the revenue we have unfortunately the erus that are proposed

[1:50:25] in this INE hit our property tax rules for many

[1:50:29] many more years so yeah okay I was just just curious because it's more than

[1:50:35] double so whatever we're taking in now I would imagine it would then be double

[1:50:40] yeah we'll take more in fees it'll increase the property tax you know

[1:50:45] Revenue in come up as well okay but also we usually issue about 80 to 120

[1:50:51] building permits a year so this 300 is you know could be for the next two years

[1:50:55] or so depending on how many applications we get so it's kind of just allowing for

[1:51:00] some of the normal building permit issuance that we've had all along no it

[1:51:05] just kind of brings up lots of other questions thanks great appreciate it all

[1:51:10] right Michael you're up and remember we're talking moratorium for housing

[1:51:15] here housing yeah yeah the voucher is $1800 that's what the that's what's on

[1:51:22] the plate and that's supposed to pay your rent and part of your electric bill

[1:51:27] you know I told him today I want my Bou right here in s the orgon so I'm G to be

[1:51:32] P I'm gonna be paying all these fees that I'm seeing and how am I going to do

[1:51:37] that on $900 I

[1:51:41] ain't you know I want you know and I want to say something about the

[1:51:47] Wastewater and stuff I'd like to see you look out of the box and maybe hire an

[1:51:51] outskirt first to do your water testing your

[1:51:56] asbest all that can be done at Rose City as right now there's licens and

[1:52:04] everything ready to go he's doing all the water testing and I think Sandy

[1:52:08] needs it I really do I took some samples around Sandy and already ran into the

[1:52:14] lab we have a problem with a lot of stuff but I'm not going to bring it up

[1:52:19] tonight we can talk get your Construction guy can get a hold of Dan

[1:52:23] Hughes over at Rose City lab we can help you out we about the fish the

[1:52:28] environment and everything else we can do soil samples and all that Rose City

[1:52:32] lab God bless thank you sir appreciate your time all right with that uh I lost

[1:52:39] my spot um all right we're to the staff recap and recommendation

[1:52:46] Josh the uh moratorium resolution in front of you would enact new moratorium

[1:52:52] to align the terms with the consent decree and make the other changes that

[1:52:55] are outlined in the staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions you may

[1:52:59] have all right thank you I will now call for a motion to close the public hearing

[1:53:04] I think a motion to close the public hearing is there a second second motion

[1:53:08] by councelor Sheldon a second by councelor baiton to close the public

[1:53:12] hearing what do you guys think should vote on this I just got a question for

[1:53:15] the record okay when does this if this passes when when does it become affected

[1:53:20] immediately that's it thank you assistant memers close public hearing so

[1:53:24] all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose n all right motion carries all

[1:53:31] right uh we're now on the discussion or additional questions can I make a motion

[1:53:35] to adopt yeah I move to adopt resolution 20

[1:53:40] 23-27 second right there's a motion by councelor Smallwood and a second by

[1:53:44] councelor Walker to adopt uh resolution

[1:53:52] I post name motion carries all right thank you everybody for that uh moving

[1:54:01] ahead guess what I'm doing we're opening another public

[1:54:08] hearing 2023-24 at

[1:54:12] 800m I will now call for any extensions of the hearing

[1:54:17] body I'll Now call for any conflicts of interest from the hearing body

[1:54:23] all right Kelly you're up with the staff report you want

[1:54:28] come so this is kind of the hopefully the final step in a oh I don't know how

[1:54:33] many years we've been doing this project um at least three or four years it seems

[1:54:37] like um and I'm not going to go into it we really longwinded here because we

[1:54:42] just had a work session recently it then went to Planning Commission uh and

[1:54:46] they're recommending approval of the ordinance and the tsp that's before you

[1:54:51] tonight and with that I'm going to turn it over to consultant Ria with dks

[1:54:55] Associates hello see again I just need to get on

[1:54:59] Wii I talk uh thanks everyone so so last time you were here now you can only

[1:55:05] drive 25 miles per hour everywhere not updated

[1:55:09] [Laughter] your that is something

[1:55:15] else I think she called

[1:55:19] you R do you need any help with the slides no I okay I'm going off my phone

[1:55:23] see she's been here so many times she's feeling comfortable with

[1:55:27] it this Project's been the never ending one I need

[1:55:38] to

[1:55:45] anybody if you like I can share the slides

[1:55:50] too might

[1:56:01] I guess I

[1:56:09] should I was trying to join meeting

[1:56:16] [Music]

[1:56:22] there you

[1:56:31] are quick of people all right how's that everybody hear me see

[1:56:37] me all right I just need to share my screen

[1:56:42] now this hold on a million

[1:56:46] clicks get where I want to go

[1:57:00] wonderful all right thanks everyone and you guys have a very full agenda tonight

[1:57:04] obviously so I am going to zip really fast through some of the first slides I

[1:57:09] think it's Stu you guys know um so as far as our process um

[1:57:15] again I'm not going to read all these of you guys have questions but this is a B

[1:57:18] list of why we're updating the tsp the current one was adopted in 2009 14 years

[1:57:23] old there's a lot of plans um that we need to incorporate and things have

[1:57:26] changed a bunch since then um we're looking at addressing

[1:57:31] congestion making sure we have a Strategic investment plan um some grants

[1:57:35] make sure you guys are set it for Grants and also there's a development code

[1:57:38] update that comes with it um here's a quick schedule you can see as Kelly said

[1:57:42] we were at the very end feels good to finally be wrapping this up and this

[1:57:46] only goes back to September 2020 I did not want to have a wrap around wrap

[1:57:50] around wrap around that shows everything that we've been doing so this is just

[1:57:54] like yeah the last eight months um of course we've had a bunch of

[1:57:59] public Outreach we had a community we've had two Community surveys and then we

[1:58:02] also had a table at Futures pest um some input from the surveys this

[1:58:08] was what was important to them again I don't I'm not gonna go through all this

[1:58:11] but congestion comes up a lot driving comes up a lot safety comes up a lot um

[1:58:16] we had asked the community about some high priority projects on the bypass

[1:58:20] came up as a top number one and three projects dearco 211 um and then some

[1:58:27] connectivity improvements in the southwest part of town and then Highway

[1:58:30] 21 on its own were several were themes of improvements that people would like

[1:58:34] to see so any questions on that I know that was fast but like Kelly said we

[1:58:38] just had a work session and I know you all did your homework books all right so

[1:58:42] I'm G to jump right into priority projects um again we have nine goals

[1:58:47] that we developed everything that we are identifying as a priority are always

[1:58:52] reaching back to make sure we're advancing these goals for the

[1:58:56] community um here it just shows yeah we work from the vision the goals um we

[1:59:00] came up with evaluation criteria looking with all of the issues that we have at

[1:59:04] the city you know what are the long list of improvements that we could do and

[1:59:08] then again reaching back to those goals what should our Priority Solutions be

[1:59:12] and also based on what we can afford which comes up to the funding shortfall

[1:59:17] that's probably the theme for tonight what we'll probably talk about the most

[1:59:20] um if we take all of our tsp projects they add up to $710

[1:59:25] million but to be fair 390 million of that is the bypass and those are all in

[1:59:30] today dollars um so if we take just the high

[1:59:35] priority projects that came out of our initial screening that's $57

[1:59:40] million and looking at the 20-year forecast of Revenue that's coming in and

[1:59:47] expenditures that will be going out we roughly have 10.8 million to spend for

[1:59:52] yeah and I will get you your questions yeah and I read Kelly sentence me too so

[1:59:57] um what we do through the tsp process is we will have two packages of projects

[2:00:02] one that we call the financially constrainted project list that's what in

[2:00:06] Oregon we call that that's what can we afford with that $10.8 million what is

[2:00:10] our priority that we're going to spend on and then everything that's left over

[2:00:15] the $710 million we put that on what we call an aspirational project list but I

[2:00:20] will clarify um we are required to do this for a tsp just so we are having

[2:00:25] conversations about what are our priorities and making sure that we have

[2:00:28] a financial lens when we're making that decision but other than that um you can

[2:00:35] go after a grant on anything does not matter what list it's on if a

[2:00:39] development comes in and they have Frontage improvements or an offsite

[2:00:42] impact they will also build that as a mitigation it does not matter what

[2:00:46] project or what list that project is on this is just showing that we've given

[2:00:50] some Financial thought to what our priorities

[2:00:54] are um and then I'll get um councelor Walker's question so what when into our

[2:01:00] financial estimate is we worked with the city and we looked at the last five

[2:01:05] years of all Transportation Revenue that came in so that's your portion of the

[2:01:10] state gas tax right you have a local gas tax um there's a registration fee that

[2:01:14] you get from Clackamus County you collect transportation systs and

[2:01:17] development charges You've Won grants like there's other things that come in

[2:01:20] that to do but then we also subtracted out all the expenditures based on your F

[2:01:25] averages which are your maintenance and your personnel and any other

[2:01:29] expenditures street lights um all of that gets subtracted

[2:01:33] out um so of that 10.8 million most of it over $9 million is what we're

[2:01:40] estimating the city will collect with their transportation system development

[2:01:44] charges so when we do our 20-year forecast and we estimate what we think

[2:01:49] the traffic volumes will be like in the city that's based on some land use

[2:01:53] projections the growth in households and jobs um so then we assume that if that

[2:01:59] amount of development happened and we apply your system development charges in

[2:02:03] today dollars this is how how much we could expect and we know that escalates

[2:02:07] over time but so do cost estimates right for all the projects um so yes we're not

[2:02:12] spending any of this money on maintenance like we're not stealing

[2:02:15] maintenance money that's what councelor walkr asked steal yeah no well we are

[2:02:21] not you know using so that was my concern is that you know our road

[2:02:25] maintenance fund got depleted the other question I had related to that was um

[2:02:31] have we taken out the bond payments for 360 second that's all just funded that's

[2:02:35] in its own pocket over here and then you also did have a question and it'll come

[2:02:38] up I'll get to in a second but the ODOT so we did ask ODOT for a not a promise

[2:02:44] estimate on what they possibly could maybe spend on their facilities in the

[2:02:49] city yeah well we know um and they did give us a number is right around a

[2:02:52] million dollars um and you will see we do list ODOT as the leading Agency on

[2:02:57] all projects that are within their right away because they would have to be the

[2:03:01] lead it's their Road um but that doesn't mean there would not be obviously a cost

[2:03:05] sharing if there's something that's really important to the city um and ODOT

[2:03:09] maybe doesn't think it's as big a priority in the future there would be

[2:03:13] you know some sort of cost sharing that we'd have to come up with for though so

[2:03:16] that's why they're the lead agency but they are by no way saying we are going

[2:03:20] to 100% pay for all those projects so good thank you sure here good

[2:03:26] questions nice to know them in advance so I'm just going to go through these a

[2:03:30] little quick so these are all of the projects that we are putting on that

[2:03:34] financially constrained project list based on conversations I've had in work

[2:03:39] sessions with the public um and then with Planning Commission hearing that we

[2:03:42] had these were the top of how we would like to spend that roughly one or $10.8

[2:03:47] million that we have so uh there's a couple pedestrian projects um they add

[2:03:53] up to just under $2 million and they include on 362 doing some sidewalk

[2:04:00] infill fairly long can see it's almost a million dollars of sidewalk infill and

[2:04:05] then several times um project P3 we've talked about infill of some Pro

[2:04:10] sidewalks on Bluff Road as well so those are

[2:04:15] included so I guess that's it so any question on the sidewalk infill projects

[2:04:25] and then there are quite a few roadway Crossing projects that total up to 1.3

[2:04:29] million though the majority of these are covered with a is it still pending Kelly

[2:04:35] or have you I haven't applied for it yet oh but you're okay yeah a future safe

[2:04:40] rout to school Grant um that the city feels extremely confident that they will

[2:04:44] be successful in winning so and and that is included in our re Revenue estimate

[2:04:48] as well we're not showing them as funding because we don't 100%

[2:04:52] no um but these are not part of the 1.8 we assume they could be funded by the

[2:04:57] safe gr safe grats to school money and based on previous conversations with the

[2:05:01] council I think it was around the budget hearing

[2:05:03] process I believe that's when it was um it sounded like the council wanted

[2:05:09] additional considerations for starting some additional conversations with the

[2:05:13] school district to find out what their commitment would be towards the project

[2:05:17] before I apply for another Grant so I think that's sure that's why I'm not

[2:05:21] proceeding at I think those conversations need occur first okay and

[2:05:25] you'll see most of these are fairly low cost some are get a little bit higher

[2:05:30] but they're all curb extensions marked crosswalks appropriate signing for

[2:05:35] crosswalks by school some of them are um like flashing beacons depending on the

[2:05:39] condition so it's it's a lot of just traffic calming and yeah Crossing

[2:05:44] improvements um around the middle school and around the elementary

[2:05:48] school here's some more of them and around the library as well and around

[2:05:52] the library as well yep so they have so those are all the cost Crossing projects

[2:05:57] any question on

[2:06:00] those well the one the um Bluff Road one and so re

[2:06:06] reallocate existing roadway space to provide buffered blue bike bike Lanes

[2:06:10] which project number sorry I'm sorry C7 okay thank you about the real the space

[2:06:16] for bike Lanes on 26 and so that's between Bluff and 36 second is that

[2:06:22] right left at 26 wait at 3 C7 right C7 so it's Bluff Road on Bluff Road at at

[2:06:32] the highway so not by

[2:06:37] 3602 says one B by provide buffered or separated bicycle facilities at the

[2:06:43] intersection

[2:06:47] Crossing for C7 I don't yes in the middle description

[2:06:54] part third third line down in the description modernize Cur ex sentence

[2:06:59] pedestrian scale lighting oh separate or bicep sorry I now I found it so yes so

[2:07:05] are we getting ready of one of the lanes for that stuff

[2:07:10] or when I asked somebody else they thought that was that ODOT had come and

[2:07:15] said that they were interested in bike Lanes from 26 to 3602 oh well so this is

[2:07:20] on Bluff Road right not on the highway so but again at that intersection if

[2:07:26] you're planning I mean are you getting rid of one of the turn Lanes or

[2:07:30] something to do these bike I don't think so that is not the

[2:07:34] intent no no I think it'd be rest striping the lane Lids I think it would

[2:07:37] be narrowing the lanes yeah I don't think we we would definitely not be

[2:07:42] promoting losing there's not enough Lanes to lose yeah

[2:07:46] that's the other project do in Portland is they just get rid of the lane and

[2:07:50] paint it green so the the other project you're talking about was something that

[2:07:53] ODOT was interested in and I think they even came and spoke before the council

[2:07:57] like pre-co and I actually just re-engaged

[2:08:00] with them on another project and they didn't mention it again don't re-engage

[2:08:04] no it was about something else and they said well we might proceed we might not

[2:08:08] who knows so don't bring it up again no we were talking about something

[2:08:13] else other issues thank

[2:08:19] you and then the next group of project or driving projects that total up to

[2:08:24] approximately $7 million I'll go through these a little bit um so D3 is the 26

[2:08:31] 360 second Drive intersection Improvement that you all know that's um

[2:08:36] already through design under construction and that'll be adding that

[2:08:39] North Leg um D6 is Highway 2 Le at practor

[2:08:46] this one came out I believe through our work session people have commented that

[2:08:50] it's really hard for um the Northbound approach the Northbound approach is too

[2:08:55] far for the westbound left to turn so it's a it's a very cost- effective

[2:08:59] $155,000 to restripe that intersection and make it better for truck

[2:09:04] maneuverability um D9 is Highway 2 11 at dearco um which is tied and I'll get to

[2:09:13] that it's tied to d27 they're kind of twins together um D9 is the actual

[2:09:18] Improvement project we set aside half a million dollar

[2:09:22] for an unidentified project there we're not exactly sure what we need d27 is the

[2:09:28] project that could do the study um I know this intersection has been a high

[2:09:33] priority for Council Planning Commission and the public uh it's pedestrian

[2:09:37] Crossing bicycle Crossing vehicle Crossing it's a safety

[2:09:41] issue um just the level analysis that we do we've done for a tsp we know in the

[2:09:46] future you know it would benefit from a roundabout or it would benefit from a

[2:09:50] traffic signal but because of the grades it's not an obvious just plug in and

[2:09:55] Improvement in a walk away we don't think um so we would like to study it

[2:09:59] more to make sure that we're moving forward with the right improvements and

[2:10:03] that that includes um digging in a little bit deeper like with the civil

[2:10:06] engineer help and actually taking a look at what it would take to be so the way

[2:10:11] this is set up is we could look at it through a study which is project d27 and

[2:10:15] then once it's determined this is just a placeholder for $500,000 to cover

[2:10:20] whatever type of improvement movement um would come out of that it's a bit of an

[2:10:25] estimate right because we don't 100% know what it would be but we want to

[2:10:28] make sure because it's a high priority that it is included in our plan so any

[2:10:33] questions on that no

[2:10:37] okay um and then D let's see d4a 15a um the B rate extension which is

[2:10:44] funded the 362 Drive Extension to Bell which is funded

[2:10:51] D20 is just um an extension of dearco at 26 um which we we've talked about as

[2:11:00] well over the Vista loop let's see some of these are just

[2:11:04] Redway connections that are even in the current plan that D21 f is the Village

[2:11:08] Boulevard extension which is over by Cascadia Village Drive so we want to

[2:11:11] make sure that that collector extension is included um d24 is Highway 211

[2:11:17] roundabout at Gunderson I know the city currently has a consultant on board

[2:11:22] to start the preliminary design I guess full design of that with the cost

[2:11:26] estimate um and if you remember there's some background with the developer

[2:11:30] paying some money towards that and yeah you gotta spend a certain amount of

[2:11:33] money about a certain amount of time yeah and there's there's ongoing we're

[2:11:37] still looking at that it might right now we've identified it as a roundabout but

[2:11:41] it might turn out to just be turn Lanes we just don't know yet until we get a

[2:11:45] actual official cost estimate yeah but it will be there will be improvements to

[2:11:49] the intersection yes now let's see d27 is the study that I

[2:11:54] talked about towards 211 dearco and D31 is setting aside a

[2:12:00] million dollars for future planning for the bypass to keep that

[2:12:05] moving based on I think Council recommendation from an earlier

[2:12:10] meeting and that's it for the top driving projects any questions on those

[2:12:15] yes please um so like the the dearco road extension you've got 3.9 and but

[2:12:21] the the funding source talks about developers and partial SDC credits and

[2:12:30] so why would we be including like four a $4 million project that then we would be

[2:12:36] but the developers would be paying for or the sdc's would be paying for uh

[2:12:41] which projects oh D20 D20 well I will say this

[2:12:47] gets a a little bit confusing because we all the the transportation system

[2:12:51] development charges will be coming into the city right but then the city does

[2:12:56] have to give some credits back when they pay them um but when we typically do a

[2:13:03] tsp we don't account for the credits because we don't know what that's going

[2:13:07] to be so we're we are trying to keep this somewhat high level and not get to

[2:13:12] such a level that we're making so many assumptions on you know decisions that

[2:13:16] may not have for 5 10 15 20 years that it's then I don't know we're so off base

[2:13:22] I guess so we're trying to keep it high level so we're we just want it to be

[2:13:27] shown that it could some of it could be Frontage improvements right depending on

[2:13:31] what type of development like if a developer comes in and builds all of it

[2:13:34] or it could be Frontage improvements on a collector that already exists we know

[2:13:38] that there's going to be some funding by development um but they will also all be

[2:13:42] paying their system development charges would also be covering it I I answered

[2:13:46] your question all the way but it's hard to have that crystal ball to know

[2:13:49] exactly for any of that other than SDC credits yeah uh most

[2:13:55] likely not no yeah because they would they'll be constructing

[2:14:00] it excuse me they have to construct it to local Street standards and then

[2:14:04] anything above and beyond that you you know that then they we have to give them

[2:14:07] credit um I think I know what you're asking so there there is a chance that

[2:14:13] it will cost less than that yeah and then out of the 10.8 million we'll see

[2:14:19] some savings on that one and then that money can be shifted to another project

[2:14:23] that's currently not on the this nor yeah that's currently not on the

[2:14:27] financial constraint list so I think that's what you're asking correct yeah

[2:14:30] the flip side is costs go higher go faster and El skate higher than we were

[2:14:34] think yeah that's part of that Crystal bar ball

[2:14:37] piece very good question anyone

[2:14:42] else okay um there's three safety projects that have been identified um

[2:14:48] installing an Adaptive signal system on us 26 uh that would be again we're

[2:14:53] expected to be funding by Oda on that one um just extending the Adaptive

[2:14:57] signal that you have so that allows the traffic signals to be more responsive to

[2:15:02] current conditions and not just run like on a on a timing plan that someone said

[2:15:06] this is what Saturday at noon is supposed to look like so when it's

[2:15:09] Memorial Day and it doesn't look like a typical Saturday the signal system is

[2:15:12] smart enough to react and help people scoot through so that's a that's a good

[2:15:17] one for safety because the safety aspect is there's a lot of people either make

[2:15:20] bad behavior when there's a lot of congestion and a lot of rear end so it

[2:15:23] really helps with that um and then us26 um at tenik Road I believe that also

[2:15:29] came from a council Workshop um just some some concerns with traffic near

[2:15:35] where all those businesses are all in the driveway so this sets aside some

[2:15:38] money to take a look at that in more detail and see if there's something we

[2:15:41] need to do either closing driveways consolidating driveways maybe there's a

[2:15:45] median or raising access management or something like that there's some

[2:15:48] strategies there that could could help with safety so and then the third one um

[2:15:52] I think this one's been along the whole time doing a speed zone study on us 26

[2:15:57] um on the east side of town so we've set aside some money for that as well where

[2:16:00] the city could work with ODOT to get that done and we could see what the

[2:16:03] appropriate speeds could be out there especially with you know the new

[2:16:07] development that's going to pop out at dearco across from the loop um we're

[2:16:12] going to see you know more movements out I think on the east side so it's a

[2:16:16] timely study any questions on those that last

[2:16:19] part I just oh sorry talked about the the opportunity to to do speed limit

[2:16:24] reductions on a much larger basis remember yep like Bluff and stuff yeah

[2:16:30] so the state does have a and we've emailed I've been emailing

[2:16:35] the staff a little bit about it but the state does have very strict requirements

[2:16:37] on how speed limits are set there are statutory speeds that you are allowed to

[2:16:42] put up with no study and that is 25 miles an hour below and then 55 or

[2:16:49] higher um anything between that so 30 to 50 um if that is the appropriate speed

[2:16:55] you have to do a speed study following the state's guidelines and approved by

[2:16:59] the state before you can do that but some cities do pass an ordinance that

[2:17:03] we're just going to have a statutory speed oh sorry 25 but that wouldn't

[2:17:09] affect the Odo facility oh absolutely not this is this would be even if

[2:17:14] council did decide to adopt that and all your city streets are at 25 this study

[2:17:18] would still be needed because the OD off off facility would be I thought you

[2:17:22] asking beyond that yeah both but where but where are we

[2:17:28] budgeting maybe it's more directly towards Tyler where are we budgeting to

[2:17:33] be able to go through that process and do those studies for key areas in town

[2:17:38] there's probably some flexibility within the street fund to do some of those

[2:17:41] studies and we're transferring 600,000 of the arbit doll this coming by anym

[2:17:46] sort of right siiz that so we need to allocate 2030 $40,000 there just some

[2:17:51] studies that say OD does them for free other

[2:17:55] than staff time to request them to do it and you have to wait and get in line but

[2:17:59] there's no charge for the state to process those so it would be great for

[2:18:03] I'm sure Jen I don't know who's off to table for this I'm hoping I'm not uh but

[2:18:08] to prioritize um let's allow OD do to do

[2:18:13] some and get in line for that for the last priority areas and then maybe we

[2:18:18] take on the re the ones that are really concerning for Council to make sure that

[2:18:22] we're getting going and prioritizing and getting those done so the the state

[2:18:26] won't let you do them yourself unless you go so the rules just changed about a

[2:18:30] year or two ago that it used to be the state could only do them now cities are

[2:18:34] allowed to do them but you do have to go through like TR like a city staff has to

[2:18:38] go through training with the state and then they kind of hold your hand while

[2:18:42] you do the first two or three then those get approved and that's to change it

[2:18:46] from 35 to 25 yes that's to change from 35 to 25 and then after that you can do

[2:18:50] on your own so just to be have the staff

[2:18:56] available but is it

[2:19:01] is councelor maintenance

[2:19:06] volunteered it just takes a long time side down here well there planners it's

[2:19:11] a little different than the we're talking 450,000 tax paare dollars versus

[2:19:15] not spending anything I think that's pretty sign so that's why I said let's

[2:19:19] prioritize right let's allow OD to do the ones that aren't that big of a deal

[2:19:22] but if there's some that we feel really intentional about wanting to tackle like

[2:19:27] reduce speed on dearco you know um not dearco on 211 right there right like

[2:19:34] let's prioritize the ones we feel like is worth us doing that but the ones last

[2:19:38] to your point we'll send them OD dos way that's that's what

[2:19:44] yeah good yeah all right and this is just the figure showing all the projects

[2:19:49] that I just describe so kind of helps geographically to see where they're

[2:19:55] at um I did not want to leave out Transit projects um though these reflect

[2:20:00] the transit master plan that you all adopted a couple years ago we did want

[2:20:04] to make sure that they were included in here um to show that we are looking and

[2:20:09] coordinating Transit as one of the important modes that goes with walking

[2:20:12] and biking and driving as well so those are all included in here though all of

[2:20:16] the funding does not come out of tsp funding Transit as their own

[2:20:22] funding and then I did just want to let you know there's a couple changes that

[2:20:26] have occurred in the tsp H off the presses today since you guys got your

[2:20:31] packet they're pretty minor but I did want to let you know on page 43 we did

[2:20:35] add reference to um a Highway 211 to Barker Road proportionate share fee that

[2:20:41] you may be familiar with the city um has collected or is going to be collecting

[2:20:46] from a couple developments so we wanted to make sure

[2:20:49] that was noted as a fun funding source in the TS well as one of the things that

[2:20:54] funds Transportation that's not included in the 10.8 to be clear and it is clear

[2:20:58] in the text um and then it's also a part of appendix L within the

[2:21:03] tsp and then on page 47 um and on page 48 we just for that D9

[2:21:10] project and that d27 project with both referred to Highway 21 dearco the

[2:21:14] improvements and the evaluation we just made some updates to the description and

[2:21:18] the cost estimate to make sure that those were clear as well Bally the text

[2:21:23] just got a lot longer because people were a little bit confused by how the

[2:21:26] two went together so I know you guys haven't seen this

[2:21:30] before do you have any questions do you have any questions about the

[2:21:33] proportionate share fee that I'm mentioning I know I've talked the

[2:21:36] Planning Commission about it but and just so you know part of the reason

[2:21:39] these were out at the last minute is because of a meeting that we had last

[2:21:42] week with a developer who will be paying this fee yeah so we just wanted to have

[2:21:47] extra Clarity to the coverage for the future so you guys can collect your fees

[2:21:52] as as we would like any questions on that and we do we

[2:21:58] have updated the TS so there is a new version that includes all of this we

[2:22:02] have tonight okay that's G to be stashed established where in our website I

[2:22:08] suppose so people can see it so we can access it so all these changes uh that

[2:22:14] rear talking about I think they're all included in the packet that are and then

[2:22:18] yeah once it's adopted hopefully it's adopted tonight and then we will put it

[2:22:21] on the website okay all the corrections in there it'll be it'll be the corrected

[2:22:26] version correct all right and then um as part of

[2:22:30] the tsp update we had a subc consultant um Mig that was working with us on

[2:22:36] making sure that the development code was up to Snuff and was consistent with

[2:22:41] anything that was coming out of the tsp for recommendations um so they did a

[2:22:47] pretty detailed look at any anything transportation related and tsp related

[2:22:52] um they wanted to make sure they were eliminating any discrepancies because

[2:22:56] there was some language in that between sdc's and the updated tsp so that was

[2:23:00] fixed um they also put some more multimodal objective and recommendation

[2:23:05] language in there to make sure you're getting the improvements that you

[2:23:08] want um eliminating vague and subjective language that's always important right

[2:23:12] we want to make sure that the terminology and the tsp is the same in

[2:23:15] the in the development code um and then yeah just ensuring future transportation

[2:23:20] is supported by the plan transportation system making sure like all the

[2:23:23] standards match um and then with that just letting

[2:23:27] you guys know that there's an SDC amendment that you guys will be seeing

[2:23:32] in the future you'll be looking at if you want to increase your rates for

[2:23:35] transportation um after the tsp is adopted we have an updated project list

[2:23:42] okay wait so you say

[2:23:47] SDC so so this has caused a lot of confusion right starts with an S sorry

[2:23:53] you're right yeah so we could say SMC which is Sandy municipal code in the

[2:23:57] future I agree I

[2:24:01] think two different two different the plan yeah they wrote this

[2:24:07] slide not me Transportation related code amendments will be coordinated with

[2:24:11] future code amendments for housing related modifications yeah and you guys

[2:24:15] are going to see a pack in on that in the fall but I was also true that you

[2:24:20] guys are update your transportation system development charges now that you

[2:24:23] have a new project and so when does that happen uh this year they you're working

[2:24:28] with yeah we're under contract yep soon as I get this adopted and we got us all

[2:24:33] set we can move forward on that and with that that's

[2:24:38] it thank you thank you so much we'll move to public testimony

[2:24:44] now um yes yes sir we're almost there uh I got to read some guidelines first

[2:24:49] please try avoid repetition if someone else has already expressed the same

[2:24:52] thoughts is sufficient to state that you agree with the statements of a previous

[2:24:55] speaker even if that's all you say if you have

[2:24:59] documents um Maps or letters that you wish have considered by the body they

[2:25:05] must be formally be placed in the recording of This proceeding to do that

[2:25:09] either before after you speak email your materials recorder c. sandy. or. us and

[2:25:16] staff will make sure your evidence is properly processed all right here's the

[2:25:19] public testimony opportunity if you're online please click the raised hand

[2:25:24] button in order to testify if you're through the phone dial Star 9 to raise

[2:25:28] your hand if you're here in person physically raise your hand if you wish

[2:25:32] to testify yes sir uh one second is anybody online I don't see any raising

[2:25:39] all right Michael you get three minutes here on the topic of uh our trans

[2:25:45] transportation system plan and you get a 20 second warning when you're done

[2:25:51] my name is Mike Jens if you go down here right out of the out of here you go past

[2:25:57] those donuts and you go into that intersection now you're heading down the

[2:26:02] hill to go down to the park does everybody know where I'm

[2:26:06] at okay that part is the most dangerous part of this whole Mountain over here me

[2:26:14] crossing right there is bad now down the street

[2:26:20] I've been hit and run by going in to the Gateway bar to

[2:26:26] the back end over there I got hit and RAM knocked in the

[2:26:31] ditch with this dog got a $500 bill for my bet bill and I got I've been through

[2:26:39] [Music] surgery the mountain going down the

[2:26:45] trash cans you got to find a better place for them from from Thursday

[2:26:52] Wednesday through until they're empty and then it's another two days so that's

[2:26:57] four days out of the week I have to go out in the street with my dog to come up

[2:27:02] the mountain I can't move all them trash cans that needs to be

[2:27:08] approached crossing over there from

[2:27:14] McDonald's or by Mark

[2:27:18] over you have to go all the way

[2:27:22] down go across and then come back up and get onto the

[2:27:27] bus that's all difficult problems there the handicap

[2:27:34] ramp over here it's coffee shop if I don't have my dog I can't get up and

[2:27:41] that's code I like you to look at the code some

[2:27:45] of them we can't the there spots like going over

[2:27:50] here at the transit center going from up from where the bus is up to the bathroom

[2:27:58] sidewalks all tore up and there's multiple spots in the city that you can

[2:28:04] and I would be willing for the city to walk with whoever wants to go and see

[2:28:11] how a handicap has to get through the city that's all I got to say God bless

[2:28:15] our street that we live on over there has

[2:28:21] probably 14 children on it living on the street up on the corner where the bus

[2:28:28] stop is there's it's not safe they come

[2:28:33] whipping up whipping down there's not no there needs to be more signs for these

[2:28:38] bus stop deals and they need a bike path out of

[2:28:44] there 20 seconds I'm good thank you Micha yes

[2:28:49] sir all right any other public

[2:28:53] testimony all right I'll Now call for the staff recap and recommendation yeah

[2:28:59] I I will comment on a few uh things that the um public testimony just covered

[2:29:06] um I do agree that there's some sidewalks that need to be repaired

[2:29:09] throughout Town um and that will be one of the things we're going to be looking

[2:29:13] at when we have the new code enforcement specialist I've already noted a few um

[2:29:17] it's just going to take time to go through those right left s and then

[2:29:21] follow through with enforcement as you can imagine sidewalk

[2:29:25] replacement is actually one of the hardest code enforcement violations to

[2:29:28] tackle because it's timec consuming and expensive so but it is it is on our

[2:29:32] radar end list so thanks for the comments on that uh I did want to point

[2:29:36] out a couple other things that were brought up there um right over here from

[2:29:41] Joe's Donuts down the street to mik park I do agree that that is not done

[2:29:46] properly and that will be when the pad town homes go in which we're still

[2:29:50] working with them on their plan revisions I just talked to the developer

[2:29:53] today actually when that goes in that's going to all be fixed at that point so

[2:29:57] that is in the works and I I'm hopeful that that will happen in the next year

[2:30:00] or two uh and I do agree it's not a good situation

[2:30:05] um the one other thing I will comment on is the crossing at Bart and

[2:30:12] Industrial that is something I think we it is worth looking into more um I've

[2:30:16] actually noticed that myself when I was jogging around town during covid that

[2:30:20] the cross walk over the along the highway actually is on the opposite side

[2:30:25] of the street than the transit bus stop correct so it is it is actually

[2:30:29] something it it was a really good comment and it's it was on my radar two

[2:30:32] years ago and then it fell off and so that's something we will talk to Odon

[2:30:35] about there's one other thing on that stretch right there if you go where the

[2:30:40] pizza parlor is the sidewalk in there on this

[2:30:44] side there's no sidewalk so I got caught on my wheelchair my dog

[2:30:50] at the end of the sidewalk and we had to go across against traffic up there I'm

[2:30:57] physically blind that's why I have a service dog that's all I gotta say look

[2:31:02] into that area too please and and the one last thing I will say that that just

[2:31:06] uh reminded me when we did do the walkability study in downtown Sandy I

[2:31:10] think you're a part of that curl um when we did do that we actually did have

[2:31:14] people with both physical impairments and vision impairments go along with the

[2:31:19] walking group group and that's some of the recommendations that actually made

[2:31:22] it into that document which are being adopted as part of the tsp so we we did

[2:31:26] do that in our downtown at least so um with that I the only other thing I would

[2:31:31] say along the lines of a staff recap is that I would just recommend approval of

[2:31:34] the ordinance all right thank you Kelly I'll Now call for a motion to close the

[2:31:38] public hearing make a motion to close the public hearing for a second second

[2:31:43] motion by councelor Sheldon a second by councelor hson to close the public

[2:31:46] hearing all those in favor signify by saying I I

[2:31:50] oose Naes public hearing is closed at 8:38

[2:31:55] p.m ready for yeah I'm ready motion yeah I'd like to make a motion that we adopt

[2:32:01] ordinance 2023-24 would you like a first

[2:32:07] reading so good Jeff but read fast very short one may this is ordinance

[2:32:15] 2023-24 an ordinance adopting the 2023 city of Sandy transportation system all

[2:32:21] those in favor of the first reading signified by saying I I I oppose ma

[2:32:28] motion carries can I get a second Reading Please Miss mayor this is

[2:32:32] ordinance 2023-24 an ordinance adopting the 2023

[2:32:36] city of Sandy transportation system plan I will call for a motion to approve

[2:32:42] this one so motion to approve the second reading I'll make a motion to second is

[2:32:46] there a second second I motion by councelor Walker second by councelor

[2:32:50] exner to adopt the second reading all those in favor signif by saying

[2:32:55] iOS nay motion carries thank you everybody thank you Kelly your team than

[2:33:03] thank all right oh my goodness gracious where's my agenda all right report from

[2:33:11] the city manager appreciate

[2:33:17] it all right got a couple exciting talk about tonight you know my my one meeting

[2:33:22] record of sub two hours is now shot so I'll just take up the next 20 minutes or

[2:33:27] so anything

[2:33:31] else just a reminder that we have the longest day Parkway this Thursday 6:30

[2:33:36] bstone park hopefully we'll see you all there um similar you know setup as we've

[2:33:40] had in the past passports and trying to get everyone every Booth to talk to all

[2:33:45] the Departments and staff that we have here and learn about what we do when we

[2:33:48] have to offer you really goingon to wear a b shirt I

[2:33:51] Amar tonight really all right t-shirts

[2:33:58] though and I will not be cooking no you'll be getting stunned by

[2:34:03] these that's right come on by all right so we haven't been to this particular

[2:34:07] event before where do you want us and when so there is

[2:34:11] a um you have as much of a roles you would like to have but yes there's a

[2:34:17] role so there's a admin SL counil section hot dogs ice cream to I man the

[2:34:26] barbecue I'm sorry what time does it start starts at

[2:34:30] 6:30 get closer to

[2:34:38] 5king there there's SP for people to volunteer yeah I do the I do the

[2:34:45] barbecue there's somewhere to there's usually ice cream to hand out Carl's

[2:34:50] usually hanging out with the bees Lorie's usually with uh the firefighters

[2:34:56] I don't think and then we're also the end of

[2:34:59] We're the end of the passports so if you want to be in the raffle that you can

[2:35:03] but if there's there's also if there's a say Department that you know you want to

[2:35:07] go hang out at you can go hang out at that Department's area or go over to

[2:35:15] ours it's a good event yeah

[2:35:20] um reminder that we do not have a council meeting on July 3rd city office

[2:35:25] is closed on the 4th obviously for the holiday um so no meeting on third got

[2:35:30] the Fourth of July fireworks all scheduled and ready to go thanks to

[2:35:34] Melle and Carol and that team down there permits Chief G support

[2:35:38] it as far as I know okay um don't look at

[2:35:43] me I did did you notice that be a different chief on July 4th

[2:35:50] and that week really kicks off the whole Mountain Festival uh event so we'll have

[2:35:54] the parade on Thursday um if any of you are interested in partaking in the

[2:35:59] parade and haven't reached out to Jeff or relle team yet please do

[2:36:03] so there be a Grand Marshall at the front I know the mayor's planning on

[2:36:08] being at the front that was my understanding but if you'd like to you

[2:36:12] know tag along with the city Department we'll have that option available too

[2:36:16] feel free to nuts with candy nuts with candy exactly

[2:36:22] and then let's see shout out to Greg thanks um you know we had the some

[2:36:27] homelessness issues next to the library with potential Wi-Fi problems he spent

[2:36:32] his time uh yesterday sort of rebuilding the Wi-Fi network so to speak so we're

[2:36:37] hopeful that that issue has been resolved we'll to test it out and make

[2:36:40] it stop maybe on the way home tonight to see if the Wi-Fi is working or not but

[2:36:45] um we we heard the concern from the council members and took that seriously

[2:36:49] so thank you PR for making that a priority this week and then last but not

[2:36:53] least um the the special service contract program um some of you may be

[2:37:00] familiar with that it's a grant program that a couple nonprofits are recipients

[2:37:04] of and it's going to be that time again for a review for those

[2:37:10] applications last time the panel was mayor polio counselor Walker and

[2:37:15] counselor exner going to keep the same panel or would you like to change things

[2:37:19] what was it for again the special service contract program that require

[2:37:25] some sort of report out from those beneficiaries of those grants yeah so

[2:37:30] the old program guidelines were Loosely followed I think we sort of uh the

[2:37:36] council had a desire to tighten those up and have an annual report provided I

[2:37:40] could check in on the status of those reports to see where things are at the

[2:37:43] stat it's almost ready for distribution to the city council so you will have

[2:37:48] that in hand before it's time to reports

[2:37:54] that's and that's it for me all right thank you sir thank you H Don uh just

[2:38:01] want to say a recommendation that maybe we pull

[2:38:07] um board appointments out of the consent agenda moving forward just so we can

[2:38:11] recognize those people who bothered to take the time to apply and go through

[2:38:15] the interview process and get selected and we can give them more you know

[2:38:19] thanks uh especially if they choose to attend at the beginning of the meeting

[2:38:22] potentially so if any of those die hards are actually listening tonight I just

[2:38:26] want to say thanks for the sandy net uh people who interviewed and uh are

[2:38:31] willing to to join that board second item I I was it was

[2:38:36] interesting to listen to Mike here talk about

[2:38:40] his his issues with Mobility around town given that we've talked about the tsp so

[2:38:45] many times and it's it's just interesting what that difference set

[2:38:49] eyes will point out that we might have missed or or frequently Miss and so uh

[2:38:55] thank you for that and en you guys count a wheelchair and a service dog going

[2:38:59] down the road and I but hang on not not your time right now but it's all right

[2:39:05] but I want to thank you for bringing those things up and as you encounter

[2:39:09] other difficulties to make sure that you politely make the city office aware of

[2:39:14] them yes sir thank you that's it uh there's been a number of fixes

[2:39:21] going on lately in the city some of that's odot's responsibility and some of

[2:39:26] that is ours and I just wanted to recognize the fact that all that is

[2:39:31] going on and uh there's been a little bit of communication issues there but by

[2:39:36] and large I was very impressed by both sets of contractors they seem to be very

[2:39:42] earnestly trying to do the job right I appreciate that sometimes contractors

[2:39:47] are not the most polite people we seem to be getting the right folks

[2:39:52] this time uh one thing that uh I know this is going to be the Public Works

[2:39:58] aren't here tonight so I noticed that the islands in front

[2:40:02] of John O Scott and the four service are needing mowing we do such a great job

[2:40:09] right there where the old waterfall is and it looks such a beautiful piece of

[2:40:14] part of the Sandy and and you just go a block and a half and you see all these

[2:40:18] sedes we really need to mow those relatively more often um and in the mode

[2:40:26] of looking good I noticed today I was at the library and on the west side of that

[2:40:32] a lot of the beams are really starting to look rough and not only is it a rough

[2:40:37] look but it's also tough on the maintenance of it to be able to

[2:40:42] longterm you're going to end up being more expensive if we don't treat them

[2:40:46] relatively often and I do know as an old property manager if you don't keep your

[2:40:51] building up and running clean cleaned up with the bird poop and all the rest of

[2:40:56] things that are there you're going to get people disrespecting it and I know

[2:40:59] that some of our um folks who like to Camp there maybe that's part of the

[2:41:04] reason why they think that is a place to do that uh same thing with our city and

[2:41:10] um police station I know that we put that in the budget to paint that puppy

[2:41:14] and I think that's really time that we should hopefully get that soon it's in

[2:41:18] the budget yep I I know it's in the budget I just like to see it get done

[2:41:23] and that's

[2:41:25] it I didn't talk about art

[2:41:34] tonight I don't much I just um you know with regards to

[2:41:40] the laws that are getting passed uh and and what that does to our city I hope I

[2:41:46] think we all have a common goal up here to make sure that we have a diversity of

[2:41:51] housing of high medium and low housing and some affordable housing and things

[2:41:58] like that I think we all want that I think what worries me is that when we

[2:42:03] have no ability to control that I really want to see us push our push Consultants

[2:42:09] to give us some tools to um you know how to word code to achieve

[2:42:16] that that common interest you know to follow the the guidelines but also give

[2:42:21] us you know protect some of the things that we want to protect and not have

[2:42:26] high density everywhere in our city because that's not what people moved

[2:42:29] here so I hope we can continue to kind of uh work with those

[2:42:36] ums that coming down a bonus it's a bonus man that that got you

[2:42:43] going 200% yeah you ever get a bonus of 200% on your salary or anything

[2:43:01] I want to Echo what Don said about the boards and stuff I think that's a great

[2:43:04] idea so thank you for bringing that up and I think it's very welld deserving um

[2:43:10] the Carl kind of stole the median thing but I do notice even like around dearco

[2:43:14] and stuff uh some of those meetings are kind of high get the bushes of grown a

[2:43:18] little bit and it's to the point I'm not so big on it but it actually affects you

[2:43:24] um and so especially as cars are coming up grass gets higher it's hard to see

[2:43:31] cars and with kids and stuff out at school now and stuff I think it's

[2:43:34] extremely

[2:43:37] critical um that's really all I have looking forward to Summer

[2:43:43] cool uh Parks Board met last week uh talked mostly about the Community campus

[2:43:49] Park uh put a task force together for Park

[2:43:52] naming and uh park for and then also I believe they'll be moving forward with

[2:43:58] the uh with Trail it'll be funded Grant funded so lots of good stuff going on

[2:44:04] over there so that's that thank you did not have a Planning Commission meeting

[2:44:09] but the last one I had we did the tsp which came T today so that was done and

[2:44:13] then Economic Development was last week um and we took the Strategic plan and

[2:44:19] prioritized projects to start moving forward with that were approved and then

[2:44:25] the only other thing I have that wasn't really answered maybe Tyler can give me

[2:44:29] an answer because of the delayed

[2:44:34] um votes on agency budgets um our Wastewater project yeah

[2:44:41] where where are we at on that is it has it been pushed to September like

[2:44:46] everything else or are they going to stream mind it you're in the the next 10

[2:44:51] days do we know and and then in either case do we

[2:44:57] have a proactive plan of reaching out to keep that message alive for for S

[2:45:02] because I saw I saw Nell's email last week and I was just I didn't hear

[2:45:07] anything about what we were doing about it just to know if

[2:45:11] I oh that's part my report the f are you good yeah okay TR be returning

[2:45:19] that um all right couple things is I'm going to be one is thank you to Don and

[2:45:25] Rich for working together with me and Jeff thank you Jeff on the council rules

[2:45:31] um and so we'll either be having that in I think we decided to probably put that

[2:45:35] on the city council meeting agenda instead of a work session because

[2:45:39] there's quite a bit of consensus around it um but we'll be able to talk and

[2:45:43] amend and talk about whether we want to adopt it or not and then we'll we'll

[2:45:47] look to adopt it rather than take up whole work session of course this

[2:45:50] Council knows we can table things you know to a future meeting if it's not

[2:45:55] right where we want it to be but we feel good there was a lot of consensus should

[2:45:58] be pretty straightforward uh the other is um you thank you Josh for the memo

[2:46:03] that you distributed out late last week to Council on some of the housing

[2:46:08] different issues uh let's make sure that everybody kind of takes an opportunity

[2:46:12] to absorb that I think it was about nine pages so there's a lot there um but I

[2:46:17] will be looking at schedule work session to kind of bring everybody's heads

[2:46:21] together on that um there's a lot of U Mo there a lot of what you can't do and

[2:46:27] even some of what we can do isn't really that feasible to do uh but there are

[2:46:32] some items in there for discussion I think uh that would be good for us to

[2:46:35] touch base on um and then the other thing I'd like to have a work session

[2:46:39] coming up on is government relations and so that kind of gets to um legislative

[2:46:45] session will be ending I believe on Sundays the 25th uh that's

[2:46:49] constitutionally mandated um the Capital Construction

[2:46:54] committee did meet uh this morning they're not done there's a lot of things

[2:46:58] that go towards the end it's not looking great um for our ask um I think there's

[2:47:06] a variety of things around that um mostly um

[2:47:10] political you know we had with the Senate walk out and uh some of the

[2:47:15] things that are surrounding that in the flow of session and somewh our

[2:47:19] representation our representation involvement and some of those things um

[2:47:25] uh and I I think in the work session we want to do some reflection on our ask on

[2:47:29] the size of our ask and we saw kind of the size some of the projects that are

[2:47:33] looking like may get funded or more kind of the

[2:47:37] five to eight million Range 14 for a variety of reasons which kind of buck to

[2:47:43] the side they really staffed for agency budgets uh quite a bit this last time um

[2:47:49] um but yeah that'll be something we want to reflect on but the other thing I want

[2:47:51] to talk about with government relations is is what we're going to how we're

[2:47:55] going to utilize our consultant uh in the meantime uh both for preparing uh

[2:48:00] for legislative ass that maybe in a short session as well as a coming long

[2:48:04] session I think there's a lot um to do at the county level especially with

[2:48:09] implementing some of our transportation system plan goals with the broader

[2:48:13] County transportation system um that's going on and then the other thing I

[2:48:19] wanted when session's over I wanted to utilize nellon something I wanted to

[2:48:23] kind of get your guys' feelings on um Lori uh let me in about a week ago she

[2:48:29] additionally serves on the board uh for the Sandy Community uh action center and

[2:48:35] there's an issue going on with the action center right now uh with the

[2:48:38] Oregon food bank uh the Oregon food banks who provides the food uh to the

[2:48:43] Sandy Community Action Center they have not received a food delivery in over

[2:48:47] three months almost three months almost three months that goes out to some of

[2:48:52] our folks most at me um my understanding is kind of what occurred was is that

[2:48:57] there was an audit of facility that found uh two things one was that they

[2:49:03] were selling peanuts at the front door for how much it was basically I can give

[2:49:07] you a quick I almost gave an update so so there was either a complaint from a

[2:49:14] person shopping or we had a kind of a surprise visit I kind of tend to think

[2:49:19] it was a surprise visit um and a volunteer had set some stuff out and

[2:49:23] some things were being sold so the center made maybe

[2:49:26] $100 the other issue was that a staff member was

[2:49:30] asked if the action center uses IDs and the person said well I maybe have asked

[2:49:36] for an ID once Oregan food bank took that and has run to the wall with it and

[2:49:41] so they put us on a 90day suspension that 90-day suspension uh during that

[2:49:47] time they have also cut off all food to the action center from Fred Meyer

[2:49:51] Grocery Outlet um Starbucks because the organ food bank has gone and got in

[2:49:56] Partnerships with all these places so the biggest thing we've we've been able

[2:50:01] to find vendors in other places but we cannot find any proteins and so we have

[2:50:05] people who cannot get any meat right now um despite our best efforts multiple

[2:50:10] Communications multiple meetings uh we are getting a complete and total

[2:50:14] runaround from the people who are supposed to be helping us at the organ

[2:50:18] to advance from mixed messages to every time we meet it's a different set of

[2:50:22] parameters of what we must do to get thees of the ordered food bank um we

[2:50:27] have now met with I think five we're I think staff member number six we're

[2:50:31] still getting nowhere so now we're starting to go to their board of

[2:50:34] directors I ask Stan to potentially get um the governor's office involved in

[2:50:39] this um we've got some board members who would like to start talking to the media

[2:50:43] it's I mean it's really out of control what bothers me the most is that uh

[2:50:47] they're taking punitive action against the action center it's actually hurting

[2:50:51] we have 600 people that rely yeah and so and so that's what it's hurting over

[2:50:58] that we may have asked for an ID and so it's just it's

[2:51:02] very it's just it's really a bad situation so I have some connections in

[2:51:07] government Nelly has some connections that I don't have government and what

[2:51:10] I'm asking to do is basically spend about a week and not a lot of time but

[2:51:14] really to kind of brainstorm with Nelly see who we can proactively who she knows

[2:51:18] who I know that we can kind of reach out to in the governor's office and other

[2:51:22] places that have an in at the Oregon uh food bank to kind of try to leverage

[2:51:26] just to get it moving a little bit to get some deliveries going to the action

[2:51:29] center for our community is everybody okay with me utilizing our lobby

[2:51:33] representation to do that after because I have some tactical okay have we

[2:51:37] already reached out to the board of directors yeah I mean we're we're have

[2:51:43] you st no no well you mean that of the Oregon food bake well that's what I kind

[2:51:49] of wanted so we both kind of run those I know some of them and Nell know some of

[2:51:53] them so I wanted to kind of just divy it up with her so yeah I mean I know

[2:51:57] because you know sometimes when you go to the governor's office that's kind of

[2:52:00] like going over everybody's head and you know then yeah you want to start lower

[2:52:04] before we go there yep I hear you and I'm sure you probably have yeah and I

[2:52:08] don't disagree but we're at we started here and we' we've gone up the food

[2:52:12] chain and it's it's the same song and dance so um you know and it's it's to

[2:52:19] the point words I I don't yeah I'm I'm past frustrated so I'm ready to

[2:52:26] actually look to get out of our partnership with the Oregon food bank on

[2:52:29] a permanent basis if it were up to me that's where we would be it's not solely

[2:52:33] up to me so um it's it's just ridiculous so we'll do a little bit of work on that

[2:52:38] thank you for that really appreciate it um and then remember Thursday is going

[2:52:43] to be a lot of fun uh make sure I will as well but it feels like I I love like

[2:52:48] the preemo you know is where how things are all going to land and where to plug

[2:52:52] in it's really buttoned up you're doing a great job organizing it so uh that's

[2:52:57] all I have thanks everybody appreciate it thanks

City Council - 20 Jun 2023

Transcript