[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