[0:11] Good evening. We'll call this meeting to
order. The August 19th, 2026 city
[0:15] council meeting at 6 p.m. Uh,
first we have roll call. I know that
[0:22] Melissa will not be here tonight and we
have two from Snow online. Everyone else
[0:25] is present in person. Um, please join me
for the pledge of allegiance
[0:36] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[0:42] stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
[0:47] for all. Thank you. [clears throat]
[0:52] » Okay. First item or next item, I guess,
item four is consideration of the
[0:58] agenda. And before we talk about the
rest of the agenda, [clears throat] uh
[1:02] because Melissa couldn't be here, she
sent James and I uh a memo or a letter
[1:07] and said we can read this um on her
behalf. I have an unexpected meeting
[1:12] tonight. I cannot be excused from. I
have a request regarding the letter
[1:17] received from Lisa Walter Setillac
regarding water in the Lil Wing
[1:21] subdivision in Li my absence tonight.
Please read the following statement into
[1:25] the record when the counselors are asked
about agenda item number four being the
[1:30] uh consideration of the agenda. I
Councilman Stinson would like to propose
[1:35] a motion to amend tonight's agenda. I
would like to amend the agenda to
[1:38] include a section responding to a
citizen concern letter received. This
[1:43] request is followed by a request for
review of current water access points
[1:47] for existing homes and [clears throat]
homes in process in addition to a
[1:52] placement of a moratorum for any further
granted water access permissions in the
[1:57] little globe subdivision to ensure
compliance with Oregon health
[2:01] authorities requirement for safe water
use and reporting. I am requesting this
[2:05] amendment to the agenda and moratorum to
be placed so that additional time can be
[2:10] completed or additional time for
complete review of existing houses that
[2:14] have been granted water access. In
addition to review
[2:18] or to review the current systems that
have been reported as finalized by Dune
[2:22] City, ensuring that the developer has
completed all steps to ensure compliance
[2:26] within the
uh OA water system management program
[2:31] for OR 333-061-0061.
[2:36] So, we got this this morning. James and
I did just a little bit of research and
[2:41] um I'm not sure if if uh adding it to
the agenda would be effective tonight
[2:45] because we've got some investigation to
do. But more importantly, you have a
[2:50] meeting on Monday,
>> Monday little Inc. uh community and or
[2:56] members of it and our attorney from
Elcott.
[3:00] » Okay.
>> Concerning that same issue.
[3:01] » Okay. So, we we have a little bit of
preliminary information from the
[3:04] attorney and it it's probably not timely
for us to try to do anything tonight
[3:09] without
>> the rest of the story.
[3:11] » Can I make a motion that we have this
after the investigation that um our city
[3:17] manager is doing that we place this on
the agenda of the very next meeting?
[3:20] » I think that would be the best and then
and then depending on what comes out of
[3:23] that he can make a report that we should
take action or we shouldn't we should do
[3:27] something else. And so, yes, I think
that would be appropriate. We'll we'll
[3:30] put that following uh the first meeting
of September. Um I'm presuming
[3:35] everything occurs on Monday
>> and and I would suggest that we sloww
[3:38] walk any new requests.
>> Okay.
[3:41] » So the period
>> the other part of that uh so I checked
[3:45] there are only two lots uh that are
owned by the developer and lot one lot
[3:51] and two I believe lot one do I
understand that correct m and lot one
[3:55] has a house under construction. uh
pulled that permit April of this year.
[4:00] So there's Jerry [clears throat] Debry
was the original developer. He owns two
[4:04] parcels. One has a house under
construction. So there's not a lot of
[4:07] action that's going to happen, but yeah,
we can have that discussion uh depending
[4:11] on how the the attorneys the meeting
goes and we'll come back with with
[4:16] information.
>> Sounds good.
[4:17] » All right.
Thank you. Um,
[4:21] so having had that discussion, I think
we will not change this agenda unless
[4:26] there's something else, but we'll be
prepared hopefully certain weeks of the
[4:30] I think it's [clears throat] September
3rd.
[4:32] » Now, that takes us to consideration of
the rest of the agenda. Do any of you
[4:36] have suggestions for revision?
>> I have a revision on the July 15th
[4:42] uh minutes on page three yesterday
midway down. It looks like I didn't
[4:48] change one of the headers. It shows
155.2.140
[4:53] protection of wetland areas. It should
be 155.2.5.150
[4:59] additional standards for
I can't read my hand review. So that
[5:05] needs to be amended please.
>> So it's the heading the protection of
[5:07] wetland area is 155.2.150
>> 155.2.5.150 2.5.150
[5:14] additional standards for reviews.
>> Okay. Gotcha.
[5:19] » All right. Uh
>> did anybody want to change anything else
[5:22] on the agenda before we get to the
consent?
[5:25] » I just have a question. We have received
two letters this week. One from Holly
[5:29] Collins about social media policy and I
think we received one from Geneva
[5:36] Jackson.
um that basically is about the same
[5:41] issue. So I think that would be a timely
issue for us to discuss seeds. Are they
[5:45] the
>> No, that would be um under announcements
[5:49] or correspondence or systems input,
however you want to do that.
[5:53] » Um but they will be in the packet at the
end. Um and you have it all emailed to
[5:58] [clears throat] you, correct?
>> Yeah.
[6:00] » Okay.
>> We can discuss them under correspondence
[6:03] most likely.
>> I I say that we don't make any
[6:06] decisions. we hear back from the
attorney on his decision on it.
[6:10] » Well,
>> this is a separate
[6:12] » separate issue
>> issue. Yeah.
[6:14] » And I can print out a copy of the email
if nobody if somebody doesn't have it on
[6:18] them.
>> Rich, the attorney hasn't addressed this
[6:20] issue at all. We haven't asked him. It's
the elder issue that we ask.
[6:23] » The attorney has addressed this one as
well. Um yeah. Um preliminarily, he
[6:27] doesn't um see an issue, but he was
leaving town, so he says he's going to
[6:32] look at it more thoroughly next week.
Um, so there's no official opinion on
[6:36] what may occur.
>> Okay. Well, shouldn't we as a council
[6:40] discuss it or do we need to wait for the
attorney's opinion?
[6:44] » Because it would seem to me uh the
attorney's going to come back and say
[6:48] this is what I think is the case. This
is maybe what you could do.
[6:54] » I think it would be similar to what you
just did and that we can put it on the
[6:58] agenda for next week. Right now it's
just correspondence which doesn't really
[7:01] open itself to debate and discussion.
>> That's fine. Okay. So I make a motion
[7:05] that we put that item on the next agenda
as well.
[7:07] » We can certainly do that.
>> I didn't know [clears throat] that
[7:10] you're trying to get started
question.
[7:12] » Okay. Good.
>> Is that a place?
[7:16] » Yeah.
>> All right. Any other discussion about
[7:19] the agenda?
>> Seeing none, I need a motion to approve
[7:24] the agenda. So move.
>> Second. Thank you.
[7:32] All those in favor?
>> I
[7:36] we got it.
>> Okay, that's unanimous. Uh so item five
[7:40] is consideration of consent agenda. Uh
all items here will be considered are
[7:46] considered routine and will be enacted
by one motion. There will be no separate
[7:49] discussion of these items. Uh if you
want to discuss one of them, then we'll
[7:53] pull it from the consent agenda. the
discussion. May we have one correction
[7:56] in the meeting minutes of the July 15th?
Uh, anybody else have any suggestions,
[8:02] questions, or concerns?
>> Just one question.
[8:07] I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Do we
have any fund balance in here, James?
[8:12] Did I miss it?
>> You may have missed it. Um, or I may not
[8:14] be in there. Um, we're having some
problems with our QuickBooks. We went
[8:18] from a desktop version to an online.
>> Yeah.
[8:20] » And we're kind of in a state of limbo
right now. Um, but I can certainly
[8:24] provide that for you. I did make a new
graph there that just shows the
[8:27] percentages of what's spent
[8:32] and we didn't we haven't reconciled yet
July. So that's why I can't really
[8:37] number because it wouldn't be official
in fact to reconcile it.
[8:41] » Yeah. Thank you.
>> Any other questions?
[8:45] Seeing none, entertain a motion to
approve the consent agenda.
[8:49] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, Rich.
[8:53] All those in favor of approving consent
agenda with the one correction to the
[8:58] July 15th meeting then I
[9:03] » All right. That was uh unanimous as
well. Okay, that takes item six
[9:07] announcements correspondence.
[9:14] Well, we I only remember seeing one
letter, but we got two letters in that
[9:18] will be in the packet as correspond. Um,
and then did you have any other?
[9:26] » Um, no. I'll address my stuff under
reports.
[9:29] » Okay.
>> Um, and so for announcements and
[9:31] correspondence. Um,
>> okay. Thank you. Then item seven,
[9:37] citizens input. I have a number of cards
that say either citizens input or water
[9:43] pressure. Starting with Mr. Schneider.
Since it's not on the agenda, we'll have
[9:47] you put in.
>> Okay.
[9:49] » Yeah. Thank you. Jerry Schneider. Uh
Stephanie and I live at 83369 Osprey
[9:53] Way. Uh we have during the summer, I'm
not sure if anybody else has had this
[10:00] issue, but uh we have had issues with
varying water pressure from zero early
[10:05] in the morning uh to something that sort
of passes for water coming through the
[10:11] pipes. Um this has been uh an issue that
has been ongoing probably since the
[10:17] beginning of summer. Uh I would note
that we did not have any phone calls
[10:22] from South Coast Water asking us to
actually conserve water, but we noticed
[10:27] that the pressure has been greatly
reduced uh and sometimes doesn't even
[10:33] doesn't even run. So our issue here is
that certainly for uh people who get up
[10:40] early in the morning uh perhaps still go
to work, need to be able to take a
[10:44] shower, use the toilet, whatever you
need to do, right? It's hard to do
[10:48] without water. If there's like an
emergency
[10:52] situation, that can be a problem also.
So, we wanted to throw this out there
[10:58] and let people know that we were
experiencing this. I don't know if
[11:01] anyone else is experiencing this, but
this is something that we are concerned
[11:06] about. Um, we will probably continue to
talk to um
[11:12] » South Coast Water. uh we some kind of
dialogue with them but I wanted to make
[11:17] folks aware here uh that this was a uh
this this was a situation that we have
[11:24] been experiencing.
>> Understood. Thank you.
[11:26] » And I can address that. Um
>> Deb Williams had brought this Deb
[11:31] Williams brought this issue up to
council probably month and a half maybe
[11:35] two months ago.
>> Um
[11:36] » that would be about right. Yeah.
>> And then we had a meeting scheduled with
[11:40] South Coast Water is it or Southwest?
South Coast,
[11:43] » South Coast Water. Um, that had to get
cancelled because there was a
[11:47] miscommunication between myself and Deb
um to confirm the dates. So, I put Deb
[11:52] in direct contact with the general
manager at South Coast. Um, I don't know
[11:57] what has come from that or anything. I
can give you the same information if you
[12:00] want and let you all
go to them directly. Try to schedule a
[12:05] date. You're more than welcome to use
the chamber council or chambers here.
[12:09] Um, and I can facilitate that meeting
for you. Thank you. Do you have a card I
[12:14] can add?
>> No, but I'll be
[12:19] » nicely done. All right. Anyway, yes,
that'll be fine. Yeah, I I I know where
[12:25] to find it.
>> Okay. And they have been fairly
[12:28] responsive to me. Um I don't know about
you, but apparently they had some big
[12:32] project in place that was supposed to
address this, right? They wanted to wait
[12:35] a month till they got the final report,
which they say they now have. So, they
[12:39] should be ready to address this whenever
we get a date set.
[12:41] » Great. There was I'm sorry.
>> Can I say something? We've talked we've
[12:45] talked to them a couple times and talked
to uh um one of their um technicians who
[12:51] told us that it's the water low water
pressure is due to people over
[12:57] irrigating
>> and he said he even said, "Oh, it's it's
[13:01] someone on Davis and we know about it,
but they're not doing it."
[13:06] » Yeah. Yeah. This that seems to be the
that seems to be the situation. So, um,
[13:11] yeah, and we also understand, uh, I
won't take too much more your time. We
[13:15] also understand that there was some
issue apparently with the main pipe that
[13:18] comes up from the lake that feeds the
system once it's purified and goes into
[13:24] the tanks. Uh, our understanding was
that it was undersized. Uh, that it
[13:29] should have been larger, but we have no
idea if that's if that's even going to
[13:34] be happening. So, that may be changed.
You're shaking your head over there and
[13:38] kind of chuckling. Uh, is there there's
something you wanted to add to that
[13:41] because
>> No, I I spent a lot of time in water
[13:44] systems. So,
>> Oh, okay. Well, that's somewhat
[13:48] accurate.
>> That that was that was my comment before
[13:52] the meeting ever began. So,
>> all right. Well, thank you very much.
[13:56] » Thank you. [clears throat] Uh, next is
Jeie Jackson. Uh, city, you put city
[14:01] water.
>> Yes.
[14:02] » Problems.
>> Yes.
[14:04] » Same issue or a different issue? uh in
Kansas City issue since a lot of people
[14:08] had water problems. So when Duke City
first came to Westlake, my family's been
[14:14] here for my family originated here over
a hundred years ago. My grandparents and
[14:18] parents lived here. And back in the 60s,
people in Westlake were not only
[14:22] frightened by the notion that this could
all turn into a park, which turned out
[14:26] not to be true, and many people knew
[clears throat] that at the time. But
[14:29] the real issue that a lot of people were
told, oh, we'll have good, safe city
[14:34] water and sewage, but Doom City wants to
do that for us. Well, that was back in
[14:38] 1963. This has never happened. And so, I
really feel for you all that this has
[14:43] been an ongoing problem since the very
inception of Den City. I know you offer
[14:50] us nothing more than Westlake offered
us. In fact, you're an extra layer of
[14:53] government we don't need. And um it's
really sad and yet I'm I am running for
[14:59] council because I'm really frustrated
with the fact that with all the water
[15:02] available in this area, we can't seem to
get our act together to make it where
[15:07] people get to people's homes. And you
know, I think it's really telling that
[15:10] Melissa herself who's on the council has
had water problems. A lot of you have,
[15:15] Duke has. and that when we were offered
all that COVID money from the federal
[15:19] government, administrator Mills chose to
spend it on bringing water to the people
[15:24] of Wink like Duke, but not to nothing
was done for the people in West Lake.
[15:29] Nothing has ever been done for us. I had
suggested that some of that money could
[15:33] be used. put in a simple water machine
because during CO we were having to
[15:38] drive all the way to town, expose oursel
to who knows what every time we had to
[15:42] go to [clears throat] the grocery store
and touch everything and be with
[15:46] everybody despite our masks. And I said,
if you could simply put a water machine
[15:51] in here by city hall like the grocery
stores in town have, why can't Dune City
[15:56] simply put in a water machine so we know
we can have safe drinking water? And my
[16:01] answer I was that question was never
answered. Miss Mills ignored me and
[16:05] obviously everybody got new computers, a
lot of grants for wish that Doom City
[16:09] wanted, but nothing for the people of
Westlake and water and I feel for you
[16:13] all. This isn't just about Westlake.
Obviously, a lot of people are
[16:17] struggling with water in Doom City.
>> Yeah.
[16:21] » Yeah. Interesting history. Um, next,
Chris John.
[16:30] » Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity
to talk and fellow neighbors. 82% of the
[16:34] hotel owners
um of the STR hotel owners do not live
[16:38] in Dune City. I will be speaking about
the non-owner occupied hotels. These
[16:44] investors do not belong to any of our
neighborhoods. They only want to extract
[16:48] as much money from the community as they
can. They do not care if they ruin a
[16:52] neighborhood because they are not part
of Dune City.
[16:56] uh they they distanced themselves from
us uh with bad actor property managers.
[17:01] If a rental property owner cared about a
neighbor neighborhood, they would rent
[17:05] long-term, put more rentals into the
market, help our workforce, and build
[17:10] community. Instead, they do the
opposite. They open hotels and force
[17:14] city residents to be neighborhood
police. If you have a valid violation in
[17:19] a complaint, good luck getting any
meaningful action from anyone in a
[17:23] timely fashion.
Four active STRs have been operated for
[17:27] years without wastewater approval from
Wayne County as required by a permit.
[17:31] These are illegal permits issued by Dune
City and I submitted violations on these
[17:36] 7 months ago and again at the last
council meeting. There's no valid excuse
[17:41] for this and these permits should be
terminated per ordinance 256B items
[17:46] 123.05
section A4 and B2.
[17:50] Two hotels were operating for two years,
never had a chance to use permit from
[17:54] Lane County. They've since exited the
STR pool. The ordinance is not a
[17:59] one-sided document. The city has a
responsibility to follow it as well. Two
[18:04] weeks ago, I made you aware of that
there were eight STRs advertising higher
[18:08] occupancies than the permits allow.
Currently, two weeks later, there are
[18:12] seven, and one of these does not even
have an approval. There's no excuse for
[18:16] this. takes less than 5 minutes to
change advertising through Airbnb and
[18:20] VBOS. It is safe to assume that all of
these hotels are exceeding the allowable
[18:26] occupancy and they've been doing it
probably for years.
[18:31] One of them, 84284 Alder Drive County
allowed six occupants, advertises for
[18:36] 15. This permit needs to be revoked and
issued a cease and desist. The investor
[18:42] has not paid the septics maintenance
contract in some time. The local septic
[18:46] maintenance provider was forced to
cancel the contract and Lane County
[18:49] management division, Lane County Land
use division has issued a disinvested a
[18:54] violation of warning just this past July
14th. This permit needs to be revoked
[19:01] and issued a cease and desist.
It's as if you've signed off on the
[19:06] ordinance and never looked back. And
this burden has left our neighborhoods
[19:10] feeling marginalized, manipulated,
misused by both the city and the hotel
[19:15] operators. This is all because you did
not and are not still still not
[19:20] following the ordinance.
I have one question and that is do the
[19:24] Winning Hams, the owner of two STRs,
have a business license.
[19:33] » I have no idea. I think we we
>> this is more we for them to
[19:37] » Yeah, sure. [clears throat]
>> I think staff could probably check on
[19:42] that. Thanks.
>> Get back to you.
[19:44] » What was the question, sir?
>> Do the Winninghams, the owner of two
[19:48] hotels, have a business license?
>> Great. Thank you.
[19:51] » Winningham.
>> Winningham. I want to know where these
[19:55] hotels are.
>> Yeah. Short-term rental is a hotel in my
[19:58] neighborhood. It's not a hotel. Sure is.
All right. Uh, I got one more for Geneva
[20:06] Jackson.
>> Well, it sounds like you tabled this for
[20:10] two more weeks. So, I can table my
comments for more weeks.
[20:15] » Oh. Oh. Oh,
>> yeah. Regarding uh regarding the um
[20:21] » social media,
>> the the social media sites.
[20:25] » Very good. That's all the yellow cards I
have for those. Anybody else before we
[20:29] move on? Uh that'll take us to item
eight, reports,
[20:35] uh mayor's report. Um
we've got a couple of events coming up
[20:41] on September 12th at the Florence Event
Center. This for the whole community,
[20:44] the Beat the Wave disaster preparedness
from 9 to 2. That's a Saturday. Um it's
[20:49] within Florence. Everyone's invited. Um
it's free September 19th here at city
[20:56] hall. Right. The shred shred will be
here in the parking lot again,
[21:01] » but it will be here. I can't remember
the date.
[21:02] » Yeah, that was the 19th. I believe it's
the 19th. So, second, we did this a year
[21:06] ago for residents bringing documents to
shred. Uh, we split the cost with a
[21:10] local business. We shred city documents
and then we have opportunity to shred.
[21:15] Um, we shred all our secrets and you can
shred your tax forms. I'm kidding. It's
[21:19] all the old out ofdate stuff that needs
to be purged. But um uh last year we did
[21:24] it and had a I don't know a dozen
residents come. We shredded like a six
[21:29] big roll of trash cans full of
documents. So and it's free to you. Uh
[21:35] that's all I have.
>> James, thank you. Um just to note that
[21:41] the autism camp at Camp Baker will be
August 27th through the 30th. Supposedly
[21:46] a big event. Um school starts on August
31st. We have a city newsletter that is
[21:52] online. You have to subscribe to get it.
Um, please do that. And if any of the
[21:57] counselors or even citizens have an
article they want to put in there that
[22:01] is appropriate, um, please just [snorts]
send it to me prior to the first. We can
[22:06] make sure that it's up there. Um, we've
had two dog bite incidents in the last
[22:10] month or so. One of them was pretty
severe, but um as you know, we don't
[22:15] have an ordinance or a control agreement
with Lane County. Um so Eagle went out,
[22:22] documented um just for the sake of
documentation if anything should come of
[22:26] it. Um but I just wanted to point that
out to you in case somebody catches you
[22:30] in the hallway or something and and
unleashes on you. Uh the two radar
[22:35] trailers are deployed on clear link and
an STR update subsequent to the last
[22:41] council meeting. Uh 5175 Russell did
receive a revocation notice. It's
[22:47] effective August 27th if they don't
appeal. If they do appeal, they're
[22:52] allowed to continue to um post until the
appeal is heard by council. So and that
[22:59] was all I have.
>> So let me ask you a question. Did you
[23:03] see the dog bites?
>> Yeah.
[23:05] » Okay. So, were these dogs off leash or
on leash?
[23:08] » One of them was off leash at uh the
federal campground just down the street.
[23:13] I tried to contact um the Forest
Service. They weren't interested in
[23:18] coming out. Um I talked to the owner or
to the person who had been bitten and I
[23:23] went out there to try to talk to the
owners of the dog, but they weren't in,
[23:25] although their camper was still there.
Um and then on the second one, like I
[23:29] said, Eigor did go out there and make
contact. It was on the leash. It was a
[23:32] dog that was well known to the person
who got bit. It was just a fluke
[23:36] incident.
>> So, do we do we have any kind of leash
[23:40] law at all?
>> Not that I'm aware.
[23:42] » The county does, right? We're silent.
So, did we have dogs in the news
[23:46] ordinance? Did we ever talk we talked
about wild animal?
[23:48] » That would be more barking and noise
like you can't become a newsless if you
[23:53] had food or but it was for wild animals.
>> Yeah. Wild
[23:56] » 35 stitches was a definite.
>> Oh, that's good.
[23:59] » Wow. Is there a reason why we don't
still have anything with Lane County? We
[24:03] used to.
>> I don't know. We should. Um, that's
[24:05] certainly something I'm going to look
into which is why I bring it up, but we
[24:08] don't currently.
>> Yeah. Because we don't have our own el.
[24:11] » And Eber did some research as to a
facility in Eugene where we could if we
[24:16] have strays
>> bring them there. Um, but we would have
[24:20] to transport the dog.
>> Transport him.
[24:22] » Transport and we would have to payundred
I think $25 to deposit the dog and plus
[24:28] $25 a day which if the owner came back
and got the dog we could charge the
[24:32] owner but if they don't we're stuck for
that. So we're probably not going to
[24:36] move forward with that.
[clears throat]
[24:39] » All right.
[24:43] Uh permit report. Pam we've got your
notes in here. Did anybody have any
[24:47] question about the building?
[25:02] » Question.
>> I just have one question. Uh do have we
[25:06] given any kind of city credential to our
employees and representatives fan and
[25:13] anybody else that might go to an address
if they were asked for identification,
[25:18] » not a ID card. Um, Igor and I have
talked when I was at my last agency as a
[25:24] director. Um, during a wildfire, I
couldn't get through the CHP line to get
[25:28] to the 911 center. Um, suit and all
didn't really seem to matter. So, I went
[25:33] online. I bought a badge for like
[clears throat] 80 bucks. And next time
[25:37] we had a fire, they let me right
through. So, we talked about maybe
[25:41] making one for Eigor. But
>> give out business parts to everybody.
[25:45] [clears throat] and he's got a city
shirt and his hat on his personal
[25:49] » walk around the Dune City shirt every
day. So,
[25:52] » but no, we don't want to get you into
just about anywhere.
[25:56] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Yes.
[25:59] And then the other report is complaints.
You should also have that in your
[26:06] packet. Any questions for Igor?
[26:13] » Igor continues to go above and beyond
with um not focusing necessarily just on
[26:18] STRs, but with the dog bites, he was at
both scenes trying to make contact with
[26:23] people and making sure everything was
properly documented and everybody was
[26:26] happy. So, pass off anywhere. Can I ask
a maybe not a related question, but um
[26:33] some citizens expressed a concern about
people who fish in the ocean and rinse
[26:38] their boat in the lake.
>> And I've seen this myself and taken
[26:42] people would come off the ocean and they
want to wet dip their boat off the boat
[26:46] ramp and
>> wet flush it, right?
[26:48] » Flush it. So,
>> do we have any kind of responsibility we
[26:53] can
>> No, Susan's brought that up before as
[26:56] well with the water.
>> Susan's got her hand up. Yeah, because
[26:59] it's a state water body. We
>> Right.
[27:01] » We like
I wouldn't even know who to call, you
[27:06] know? I mean, it's like if you if you
saw somebody doing that or if you wanted
[27:11] to say, "Look,
you know,
[27:14] » I think there's a sign at what week, but
>> I think if you launched your boat and
[27:18] drove 100 feet and put it back on the
trailer, you'd be fully compliant if
[27:21] your boat was registered." You know what
I mean?
[27:24] » You go ahead. Yeah,
>> student.
[27:27] I have documented several boats doing
it. Sent it to Lane County, sent it to
[27:33] the county commissioner who sent it to
other people at Lane County. And Lane
[27:38] County wrote back to me and said they
were not prosecuting and they did not
[27:43] care even though I had
uh boat numbers. I had people's names. I
[27:50] documented several things and um they
said they weren't going to do anything
[27:55] about it.
So my question would be
[27:58] » even though there it's their ordinance
that's up there next to the boat ramp.
[28:02] » So could we have an ordinance that finds
people for doing this?
[28:06] » Who's going to take care of?
>> I'm just asking the question.
[28:09] » We can't because it's Oregon water and
we have to go through the county and go
[28:14] through Oregon. Us having an ordinance
about them being doing something the
[28:18] water would not have any weight.
>> Yeah. Okay. Is there any signage that
[28:24] warns people off? There's one.
>> There is. And that's what I I took a
[28:27] picture of the sign. I took a picture.
Lane County has an ordinance and they
[28:31] said they will not prosecute.
>> Okay.
[28:34] » Wow.
>> And the launch ramp on Silkus is the
[28:37] counties and the launch ramp at Wing is
the states,
[28:40] » right?
>> So depending on which location you're
[28:41] at, it's different people, too.
>> Right.
[28:43] » In both in both cases, it's state water
once you're on the lake.
[28:49] Well, we need a sign that says, "We know
who you are."
[28:56] We need a scuba div.
>> I was very I was very obvious about
[29:01] taking pictures of them and of the
people on the boats and they were not
[29:06] concerned.
[29:14] » Yeah.
>> No. So, yeah, it has been a complaint
[29:16] over time.
[29:21] Okay. Uh there's nothing else on that.
That will take us to item 11 public
[29:28] hearing.
This is land use file PA25-014
[29:35] legislative amendment chapter 155 of the
Dune City Development Code. If approved
[29:41] or when approved, the amendments will be
adopted via ordinance number 275. The
[29:46] planning commission, excuse me,
recommended approval and adoption of the
[29:51] amendments with revisions as noted.
The city council is recommending the
[29:55] public hearing tonight to continue the
hearing from August 5th.
[30:00] The hearing is open and oral and written
comments will be accepted. Starting at
[30:06] uh 6:31 p.m. that public hearing
and we are
[30:22] 91.
>> Yeah. The traffic impact.
[30:26] » Yeah.
>> The same. And I have one yellow card
[30:31] from Geneva Jackson. Was there something
specific you wanted to speedrun?
[30:34] » I just want to make sure that when we
get to the sections where we're talking
[30:40] about permitting Yeah. that
we that when we are talking about
[30:47] issuing developers permits
or developments
[30:52] that water access
has it has been covered before this
[31:00] permit was followed forever. So, I'm
very glad that um that you have a letter
[31:07] to that effect and I'm simply asking you
to do that in 275.
[31:13] » So, when you say water access, do you
mean lakefront lots getting to the lake
[31:18] or you mean drinking water?
>> Permits for
[31:21] we are requesting that B city actively
put a moratorum on any further permits
[31:26] for water access and little vote until
the developer follows through with
[31:31] making our water safe. I want do I want
legislation like that in 270
[31:40] » right now if they don't have a
reservation they cannot get water
[31:43] » nobody
>> you want us to put that on
[31:47] » we don't
>> Yeah that's a tricky um because we've
[31:51] got homes that have lake water
individually they have their own phone
[31:55] and there's no one else involved in
their system we have individuals with
[31:59] wells and then we have individuals on
community systems. In that case, the
[32:04] Little Wings community system that
requires a third party's review and
[32:07] approval. Um,
and and which is not the city. I mean,
[32:13] we don't provide that approval. That's
through state law. And I think it's it's
[32:18] uh the county does it in Lane County,
right? Is it Lane County Health that
[32:22] signs it off or does it go to the state
for the community system? The
[32:25] » community system is the same county.
Okay. traffic, right? So,
[32:30] » anyway, we'll we can talk about that. I
mean,
[32:33] » thank you.
>> Yeah, that's a tricky spot because we
[32:35] have the city has some municipal law
rights, but we don't have a municipal
[32:39] system and and then there are people
that are not attached to the city's
[32:44] municipal rights. They have their own
right, and we don't even participate in
[32:46] the process. So, um there's a variety of
ways to get the drinking water. There's
[32:51] a a this is similar in goal to having a
a functioning septic system. We're not
[32:57] supposed to be issuing permits if you
don't have a functioning septic system.
[33:02] And this is similar similar concept.
>> Yes. So one of the one of the
[33:07] [clears throat] challenges in Oregon
there's a number of ways to get
[33:10] drinkable water. One is a system. You
don't even have to have access to a lake
[33:15] or a well. And Oregon still will allow a
building permit to be issued. It's one
[33:20] of the few states that I'm familiar with
that you can simply have a holding tank
[33:24] and say, "I'm hoping that it will rain
or I will buy water in a water truck."
[33:28] So, that's sort of the lowest. The bar
is set pretty low there to get a
[33:33] building permit and build a home. All
you have to have is a black barrel next
[33:36] to your house and uh and the ability to
buy water. Um but anyway, we'll see.
[33:42] » Just that that would just be a sentence
or something on the revis.
[33:47] » Yeah. Well, raise your hand if we get to
a spot where you think it fits.
[33:50] » Okay, I'll do that.
>> Okay, thank you. Uh, and with that, we
[33:54] will go back to traffic impact study
prepared by engineer currently licensed
[33:59] by the state of Oregon. Period. And we
are at E conditions of approval
[34:04] if I notice correct.
>> Yep. Okay.
[34:12] So, there are some strikeouts in E.
Anybody have any comments on those?
[34:20] If not, we can go to F,
[34:24] which is access driveways.
[34:34] And then there's a number of specific
options outlined there. Option one, two,
[34:39] and three.
And then subdivisions, fronting on an
[34:43] arterial.
Any
[34:53] comment there?
>> Um,
[34:59] so subdivisions, how many how many
people how many
[35:04] requiring before they have to put in a
alley?
[35:10] Well, it's an alley or a street
or well, it says alleys, comma, local or
[35:18] collector streets for individual. So,
it's either or. It's not a street and
[35:23] it's a direct access via an alley, a
street
[35:27] because definition.
It's basically the smallest.
[35:32] » Okay. [clears throat]
[35:36] Any other comment on what the fourth F4
[35:42] page and let me know if it's been raised
or any shouts out. You can hear us right
[35:50] Susan.
[35:53] » Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. We're on five. Double
[35:56] frontage lots when allow furniture on
two or more streets. Access shall be
[36:00] provided first from the street with the
lowest classification smaller of the two
[36:03] streets.
Yeah. at the neighborhood street be
[36:06] backed up to our material.
Item six is a new added flag.
[36:14] » What is a flag?
>> Oh, it's where you got two parcels in
[36:18] front of each other. So you build the
driveway [clears throat] or the alley or
[36:21] whatever you want to call down side or
share
[36:23] » house behind.
>> Yes. And so that long stick looks like
[36:26] flag if it's a rectangular lot. So yeah,
you got behind it. One of them fronts
[36:30] the road and one of them has that
privable access
[36:34] and it says we will only allow flag lots
through a variance profits. Um
[36:39] one of the homes we used to get a lot of
complaints about was a flag lot and
[36:42] they've since sold it moved but um they
complained there were people driving
[36:46] through the yard but it was dedicated
access because there were two parcels
[36:49] there. It was a sore spot as long as
they live there. Um, and I understand
[36:54] they have sold and moved. So, we haven't
heard about that one lately. But I get
[36:58] that everybody should have direct access
whenever possible.
[37:04] Access facing
[37:23] So, I have a question about spacing.
[37:28] It says minimum of 50 foot separation
uh under local streets. So, when we have
[37:35] and we've talked about this prior, when
we have those shape lots and maybe you
[37:39] only have 30 foot inch,
does that require a variance? Rapunzel,
[37:45] if you have narrow lot, you can't get
the 50 foot.
[37:49] It says minimum 50 ft.
What do you do with a odd shape if you
[37:54] don't have more if you don't have
sufficient frontage?
[38:01] » Is that a variance or is everyone
entitled to a single point of access
[38:05] regardless of frontage width?
>> It might be a variance. Um
[38:10] » because it doesn't say in that section.
>> It doesn't say in three, does it?
[38:22] The three just says may be restricted in
some land uses.
[38:26] Um so is 50 ft separation between
driveways.
[38:32] » Yes.
>> Right. So I think you need a variance
[38:35] language if it's impossible to build
that.
[38:39] » Right. Is that what you're
>> saying? Right. If you had two narrow,
[38:42] they're odd shaped lots and they both
had 30
[38:45] » three feet of frontage and you couldn't
get the separation and uh what's the
[38:50] language for that lowest level uh
variance that the staff could review the
[38:55] condition
>> type three.
[38:59] » Yes,
>> because I would hate for that to have to
[39:02] go to planning commission to get just
get two driveways on two parcels
[39:06] adjacent to each other. That's a lot of
time and expense. But yeah, I think we
[39:11] don't have any language in this section
that says or you can get a variance. It
[39:15] just says you shall have 50 feet.
>> You have access
[39:21] » in Westlake. You will have trouble
getting 50 feet between the 50 foot
[39:26] lots.
>> Right. Right. So I would add a paragraph
[39:30] four that says access spacing can be
addressed in the variance process or
[39:35] something
>> at a staff level.
[39:36] » At a staff level. No. Well, then you
can't be a variance if you want it to be
[39:40] staff level.
>> Well, what's that lowest level? Isn't it
[39:43] type three variance? We've talking about
adding that language in this, right?
[39:48] » Three variance is strictly planning
commission.
[39:51] » Oh, okay.
>> And city council. Um,
[39:58] type four or type two then where it's
just staff.
[40:04] If it's
>> none of those,
[40:06] » if it's
>> I would suggest that if you think that
[40:10] it's impossible for this to ever be met
that we create another tiny section of
[40:17] code related to the variances, but call
it what I think cities are now calling
[40:24] adjustments.
>> Sure. which um a
[40:29] planning official,
city administrator in this case, could
[40:35] review the plans and determine the safe
spacing.
[40:38] » Okay.
>> Safest spacing based on standards we
[40:44] » desire is 50 ft, but when they're too
narrow,
[40:46] » yeah,
>> then it's a case by case. In West Lake,
[40:49] there are few if any undeveloped lots,
so that's not really an issue for West
[40:54] Lake, but there may still be some small
lots.
[40:59] » Yeah.
>> That it could be a problem. I can't
[41:02] think of any offhand, but there might
still be.
[41:05] » Yeah. So,
>> but if they rebuild and de if they
[41:09] demolish and rebuild, they have to go by
this code. And I don't think Westlake
[41:14] should always have to get a variance for
when they build.
[41:19] » So that I I like Rapunzel's idea. We
need an adjustment section. Are you
[41:24] suggesting that that just be the end of
this current section?
[41:28] » No. Um it would be
probably in the variance section.
[41:35] » Okay. Um
[41:41] » so so it would be like a modified
variance instead of going to the
[41:46] planning commission if there are the
criteria for the planning official to
[41:53] make a decision
[41:56] non-discretionary disc decision they
would have the authority to do it and
[42:01] the language would have to be written
into the adjustment section.
[42:05] non-discretionary.
>> It seems like um if there's nothing in
[42:10] place to go before the council or the
planning commission and you're asking
[42:13] staff, then it really is
>> then discretion,
[42:17] » right? And we've [clears throat] already
had problems with that in the past, but
[42:21] I can understand you not wanting it to
be a full
[42:23] » You know what I think? I think I
[clears throat] just sent us on a clase.
[42:27] Um I was thinking accesses and
driveways. It says access facing
[42:30] driveway access shall be separated from
other driveways and streets. But one is
[42:34] local streets. It's local streets should
be 50 feet apart where they came
[42:38] together so we don't end up with those
weird like fiveway intersections. Um I
[42:43] was just thinking driveway but I didn't
read the whole sentence. Minimum 50 foot
[42:47] separation
[42:51] from the near side of the street
required for local streets. That's more
[42:55] for street mapping. So that would be
that's not even the same thing that I
[42:59] didn't even do.
>> I think yeah this wasn't about driveway.
[43:01] That's my fault cuz I'm reading access
spacing and driveway. This is about
[43:05] street spacing. Arterials
will meet at four-way stops determined
[43:10] by policies and stand.
>> And then we have it under H. We have
[43:12] access points under H.
>> Yeah.
[43:15] » So we're back in the same 50oot
separation. So I I like Rapunzel's idea.
[43:21] Maybe we could ask Rapunzville and James
to craft that language.
[43:33] just put in there if a 50ft separation
is not possible then it would need to go
[43:37] to a variance of
>> oh
[43:40] » no
>> no
[43:40] » no not a variance for that
>> I think just finding the safest place to
[43:45] place a driveway
>> under age
[43:48] » but that would be the
>> under that could be under the discretion
[43:51] of staff there so
>> you're talking about age right here yes
[43:56] » yeah that's just saying that you can
have more than one driveway.
[44:01] » That's a different thing. It says two or
more accesses separated by 50. You can
[44:04] always have one. Yeah.
>> So, if you decided if you wanted two
[44:08] driveways as long as you maintain the 50
ft, go ahead.
[44:11] » Right. But it wouldn't eliminate the the
original driveway. You would always have
[44:14] a driveway. You can also have a shared
driveway in the next section. If they're
[44:17] close together, up to four four lots can
share a driveway. So, nobody would ever
[44:22] be stuck without a driveway. Nobody
would be landlocked. Um, so, so strike
[44:27] my stupid question in the beginning. Um,
and read the whole question or the whole
[44:33] statement.
Yeah, and you're right, Chris, that's
[44:38] two access points per lot if they
maintain 50 ft. So, that would be in a
[44:42] different case. That's where you have a
lot of plage and you want two different
[44:45] drive like a horseshoe pter.
>> Yeah. Or main building and you have an
[44:50] accessory building you want to be able
to drive around. Doesn't our current
[44:53] code say unless you're a corner lot, you
can only have one driveway?
[44:59] » Well, this is the proposed
>> language. So, that would change that if
[45:05] you had sufficient frontage. Yeah, you
could have two of the maintained 50 foot
[45:09] separation.
[45:12] So, this would be when you get to H, it
would be for people with a lot of
[45:16] frontage and they wanted the pair drives
access point. back to number five at the
[45:21] top of the page where it says if you
have a corner lot then you have to go
[45:26] with the street that has the lowest
classification for your entrance.
[45:31] » No front that could be mid block too
where
[45:35] uh like your son's he's got a a street
in front of him and a street behind him.
[45:39] His driveway is on the smaller street.
>> Yeah.
[45:41] » He happens to be on the corner but if
you were in the mid block you'd have the
[45:44] same thing. You'd go to the you'd go to
the smaller road would be the the
[45:48] address.
>> Yeah. cuz she's saying you can't have it
[45:51] U-shaped and go from one road to the
other road. Is that what you were
[45:55] asking?
>> Well, we've got a place down off of
[46:00] Clear Lake.
That's a corner lot. They had a
[46:05] driveway. They opted to cut through the
fence and put in another driveway and
[46:11] haul stuff in there.
It's not a legal driveway.
[46:16] Was that
>> was it a temporary thing for
[46:20] construction or
>> No,
[46:25] » temporarily longterm. [clears throat]
[46:32] So,
>> but if they if the way our code is read
[46:35] in the past, if they paid for the second
driveway, that particular piece of
[46:40] property could give.
[46:45] » But they've never done that and they
won't quit using it.
[46:50] » So, just because they didn't want to pay
for the second driveway permit,
[46:55] » I mean, how much is that?
>> $400.
[46:58] » That's not that much for a driveway.
[47:03] But then you got to put in a cover. You
have to
[47:06] » as concrete in. So
>> but still.
[47:14] » All right. So do we need to change any
of this language all the proposed
[47:20] there's some strikeouts and some further
adjustments?
[47:26] Well, I the only the only comment I
would have was that it's impossible for
[47:30] us to read into this code every single
little right
[47:34] » anomaly every possibility in the
universe.
[47:36] » It would be nice if our city staff had a
modeicum of this threat and to address
[47:43] things that we don't want to have to
spend that much time on.
[47:46] » Right. I agree. So, you know, whether
that's an adjustment section or
[47:51] something,
uh, I'd like to see something like that.
[47:55] And at least you're memorializing that
process. So, people are saying, "I need
[48:00] an adjustment." Okay, that's a process.
That is a process. So,
[48:07] but I don't know if it belongs in this
section or in some other section, right?
[48:11] Suggesting, you know, there's going to
be all a lot of little weird situations
[48:14] that come up. I'm not sure everything is
worth the variance process.
[48:18] » No, you're right. I agree. U
probably
[48:26] way back in the beginning where it has
like jurisdiction and uh
[48:34] we may have to look for a spot where
that should land to say um
[48:39] you know
adjustments can be made by the planning
[48:44] staff or the city administrator or city
administrator or assenee or something
[48:48] where it's not appropriate where it
doesn't call out that this required a
[48:51] planning commission, you know, action.
Some things do,
[48:56] but you're right. Instead of putting in
the driveway area,
[49:00] » put away up front and say, you know,
>> so James, would you be comfortable
[49:04] writing that?
>> Rapunzel.
[49:07] » Yep.
>> I just think you ought to come back to
[49:09] us with that and it could be global in
the front as the mayor suggests.
[49:14] » Hold the phone, please.
>> [laughter]
[49:17] » So, there's another question that came
before uh that the council was talking
[49:22] about that the planning commission is
going to be considering and uh we
[49:29] haven't gotten there yet, but I think
that the language that could be
[49:33] appropriate would be under the
adjustment section.
[49:37] Um, so it's it would be a new section to
this code
[49:43] » and it could be applicable to other
issues than the one the planning
[49:50] commission is going to be talking about
specifically.
[49:53] » Yeah. So I think the two of you could
get together and tell us where she land
[49:58] craft something for us to look at. two.
>> At the very beginning
[50:05] in 155.1.1
there's a description of the subsections
[50:12] and the description of 155.5 which is
the variance standard says
[50:20] 155.5 provides standards and procedures
for variances and non-conforming
[50:25] situations. This code cannot provide
standards to fit every potential
[50:30] development situation.
The city's varied geography and
[50:35] complexities of land development require
flexibility.
[50:40] 155.5 which is variances provides that
flexibility while maintaining the
[50:45] purposes and intent of the code.
[50:51] So I read that but we don't have an
adjustment section here do we?
[50:56] So we simply the the way it the way it's
done in other cities is that there's the
[51:05] variance section and either contained
within that is what's called adjustments
[51:12] sort of like mini variances if you will
or the adjustment section can be a
[51:18] separate section.
So, so the planning commission will be
[51:23] discussing that and figure out where the
best place to put it should be.
[51:29] » Sounds good.
>> If it
[51:32] [clears throat] agrees that it should
be.
[51:33] » Yeah, it sounds good.
So on on section H where it's a single
[51:39] family uh uh can have two access points
and say in this example right here where
[51:46] we've got somebody that already has a
driveway point but wants another one.
[51:51] Does that have to go through planning
commission and then council in order to
[51:55] get approval for the second driveway?
Well, this language, no. It just says if
[52:01] they've got 50 foot separation, it would
be approved. It's it's approvable. It
[52:05] would be covered. So yeah, it would be
[clears throat] like you only got 46 ft.
[52:09] » I'm just looking to make sure that it
was simplified for that.
[52:12] » Yes. So that particular case, we're
adding that that you could have because
[52:16] it did save one. Now it says you could
have two if they maintain 50oot
[52:20] separation.
>> Yeah.
[52:22] » Okay. But you shall apply and give that
approved you future.
[52:26] » It will be on your building plans
recite.
[52:31] » I'm saying I'm thinking you have a lot
and you have a homeowner that's bought
[52:36] this lot and they're needing to get in
with the lot. I think a big
[52:42] consideration is where and how they're
want to configure their home on that
[52:47] lot.
>> Sure.
[52:49] the access would be a big deal where you
put that
[52:54] » right
>> best place safest place
[52:57] » right so this doesn't drive the location
and this allows to if you've got
[53:00] sufficient fun but you're right that's
part of the review process both the
[53:04] design like where do I want it and then
you have site visibility and that sort
[53:08] of thing that will make it work
[53:17] [clears throat]
and then the next I is just a heading.
[53:20] We deleted all the red shared driveway
and now it's one and two. We have couple
[53:24] of choice shared but access of four tax
slots and an access must be reported as
[53:32] condition.
[53:35] So that one we simplified all that
language. It's just allowed.
[53:42] Any comments there?
[53:50] And then if none gay street access
[54:00] you show section four being I deleted.
Uh
[54:06] I have a four that's all red line. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you. Yeah.
[54:24] right three and then delete four
[54:32] K driveway standards and fire access.
[54:38] Okay.
[54:45] Let's see.
Okay. Has some strikeout language. I
[54:49] think some new range.
[54:59] So uh in K I would suggest we change the
sites valley fire marshal to the
[55:09] designator they're using now western
lane fire
[55:13] » fire marshalia
[55:21] good catch
[55:29] Any other comments there?
[55:36] » If not, we've got one standard. That's
just a new number.
[55:51] Construction details.
[56:04] New section is E to ensure proper storm
water management cover or weather storm
[56:09] drain may be required.
[56:21] And then the whole section on long
driveways was stricken
[56:27] because that is now up above over 150 ft
gets reduced but western lane fire
[56:34] asset.
>> I have a question on D. E where it says
[56:39] to ensure proper storm water management
any driver with the slope exceed 10%
[56:43] shall be designed by a engineer to
licensed engineer
[56:48] seems like a lot of money to spend on an
engineer to figure out 10%.
[56:54] I mean, the culver is going to go
downhill.
[56:57] You know what I'm saying? It just seems
like
[56:59] » I got to make
the engineer.
[57:03] » That's what I used to do.
>> Well, look where you're at now.
[57:10] » They stopped paying for culverts where I
was.
[57:12] » I just think I think a homeowner can
come up with a plan and put it in there
[57:17] and say, you know, we're going to put
this size cover, you know, this grade
[57:21] [clears throat] without have to hire. So
this is a driveway. This is on private
[57:25] property because we have that
requirement steep slopes but it's what
[57:29] it's steep slopes uh and and public
roads, right? So that already requires
[57:35] engineering.
Um what do you think? You see this
[57:43] » on 12% slope and better. I think things
got to be engineered. Okay. Yeah. And I
[57:50] would ask um
if you do get into those steep slopes,
[57:55] who's sizing the culbert? Are they
sizing it based on what's on sale or are
[57:58] they sizing it for a, you know, for a
area of low rate?
[58:02] » Well, this is just saying a driveway
with excess of 10.
[58:05] » Yeah. And the ones Pam usually sees the
culvert is just crossing the driveway
[58:09] because, you know, you're you're
leaving, you're either coming to or from
[58:12] a street and you're either above it or
below it and maintain. just the ground
[58:17] of the building. That's
>> so you're not at pond every time it
[58:19] rains there where your driveway meets
the road. So I get that. Um I guess
[58:24] there's there's a number of ways this
could rear its ugly head. So um
[58:32] but I'm open.
>> We got a couple places out there that
[58:36] could issue driveways.
[58:43] » I know. Well, if the if it's not done by
a licensed engineer, who's who's doing
[58:47] it?
>> The contractor. Okay.
[58:52] » I mean, it's not rocket science.
>> No, it's not. It's hydraulic science.
[58:59] » Go ahead. Another comment.
>> Yeah. If this is, you know, time for
[59:03] public comment. I I'm very concerned
that you want to even have a two long
[59:09] road, multiple driveways into a home.
I'm very concerned about the loss of
[59:14] trees already with all the rebuilding
we're projecting and I love this
[59:18] environment.
We love the forest in the trees and our
[59:22] animals and we're having a lot of
erosion problems because of new homes
[59:26] and trees being cut down. I don't see
why one home, unless it's especially
[59:31] larger or has an odd location needs two
driveways. It concerns me the loss of
[59:37] trees. what this is planned to change to
put in all these air because driveways
[59:42] are roads. They aren't. I hope they
won't be asphalt. That's very bad for
[59:46] the environment. Gravel is safer. So,
those are concerns I have if we're
[59:51] talking about extra.
>> Yeah, this is an allowance. This isn't a
[59:53] requirement. This is on a large lot. You
could get a second drive. This isn't a
[59:57] requirement to have two driveways. So, I
understand probably will be an
[1:00:01] infrequent
people have shops or concern. Yes.
[1:00:07] Right.
[1:00:10] Oh, well Pam, you make a compelling case
for not having engineers. Pam,
[1:00:15] » did you say there's an issue with
driveways at 12%?
[1:00:20] » In your opinion.
>> So, this language says in
[1:00:23] » excess of 10.
>> This is an excess of 10. So, we're
[1:00:26] putting airs on two that came
10 and 12.
[1:00:30] » Yeah. So, I think just leave it the way
it is. Good,
[1:00:34] » you know.
All right. Can
[1:00:39] » I interject something on that?
>> Yeah,
[1:00:41] » ask a question. The house across from us
when it was filled, the short-term
[1:00:45] rental, it's not that much of a smoke,
but we had flooding with muddy water
[1:00:49] three times that scoured out some sand
and rocks and brought it like a river
[1:00:53] down our driveway. And after the third
time, the owner finally put in more
[1:00:57] drainage, but he said he wasn't required
to.
[1:01:01] He said it wasn't necessary. So, I was,
you know, I hate to see,
[1:01:05] well, I'd like to see everybody have
some kind of drainage or some kind of
[1:01:09] evaluation even that, you know, I agree
with Jack because maybe a licensed
[1:01:13] » engineer, but I just am concerned
because I know how much we got from that
[1:01:18] property without much of a slower.
>> Yeah.
[1:01:20] » And I when we built our house, they said
he had to have a a drainage plant. Even
[1:01:25] if they didn't, we would have done one
anyhow. But I just hate to see that
[1:01:28] going backwards at all just because of
the problem we have in this area.
[1:01:32] » I agree. Most most places it would be
either an engineer or an architect that
[1:01:36] would have to draw the site plan and
show a drainage pattern and that you put
[1:01:41] that water back wherever it went before
you developed. You know, you put a house
[1:01:44] in the middle of it, but you need a
drainage swale or something to get it
[1:01:48] historic location so you don't cause any
issues. So the other thing I'm thinking
[1:01:52] is if people see okay in excess of 10%
that gives them plenty of motivation to
[1:01:57] cut and slope their driveway at 10% or
less%
[1:02:02] » right. Exactly.
>> There's some motivation
[1:02:05] » come up with a drainage plan or cut it
at 9%.
[1:02:10] » But I mean at nine still feet but if
you're on dirt.
[1:02:18] So, the question is, should we change
it?
[1:02:28] » No,
>> I don't want to get you.
[1:02:30] » Okay. No, move it up. Move on. All
right. Thank you. Um, any other comments
[1:02:36] on that page? We've got a big the big
long driveway was freaking
[1:02:46] » and then a bunch of language was added
in vision clearance
[1:02:52] triangle at where you meet the street.
[1:03:06] I think it's appropriate because we have
lots of agitation that makes difficult
[1:03:11] some
[1:03:15] putting the clarification in there I
think will be helpful over time.
[1:03:28] I guess I got a question on F. It says
if a lobby or parcel of this requires a
[1:03:35] driveway that meets requirements for
further division Y in excess 5 acres
[1:03:43] the easement shall be 50 ft wide. Yep.
So that if you carved it up you'll have
[1:03:48] sufficient space for access. And then
the page before was if it was a public
[1:03:53] street it would be 60 ft wide. So it'll
be a little room for a little zero
[1:03:58] street. You don't have to leave 50 ft of
improvement. You got to have access.
[1:04:02] » So you don't end up with a tiny little
street feeding a bunch of
[1:04:06] » And we have a couple of those 14 ft wide
um in a 24 Eastman
[1:04:13] [clears throat]
[1:04:17] » here. All righty.
Any comments on page 95 that's got the
[1:04:22] side triangle
[1:04:26] which [clears throat] are the same
numbers that were in the holding with
[1:04:29] some clarifying language
the length of each leg on the triangle
[1:04:34] same
[1:04:46] page is basically now reserved
for
[1:04:52] street trees, fences, walls,
landscaping, all the red line
[1:04:58] takes us to vehicle and bicycle parking
[1:05:07] rich
[1:05:12] bicycle parking.
Sure. Okay.
[1:05:28] » [clears throat and cough]
[1:05:36] » So we have some new numbers
mostly for categories of things we don't
[1:05:41] have in city just
future proofing I
[1:06:34] So the heading is so go ahead. Here it
says businesses and professionals and
[1:06:42] we're striking government
[1:06:49] one ter
right at the bottom of page 97.
[1:06:59] What do you think, Jack? Government get
a pass again?
[1:07:05] » I don't They don't They don't show up at
a different spot. So, you're right. Put
[1:07:11] back.
[1:07:15] » What section is that?
>> It's the chart. It says uh use and
[1:07:19] parking spaces required. At the bottom
of 97, it said business and professional
[1:07:25] and it used to say and government
>> and we struck government,
[1:07:29] but we still have a parking requirement
just like a business. And then the
[1:07:33] heading says standards for development
of vehicle and bicycle. And the bicycles
[1:07:37] are all the way on page 105 for
commercial and multif family. Should
[1:07:43] that happen, you have to have two bike
spaces for four dwelling units for for
[1:07:48] five vehicle spaces
in commercial
[1:07:56] does not apply. Single family or duplex
housing.
[1:08:11] Any other comments on parking? Not
really our biggest challenge.
[1:08:21] » Anyone? Anyone?
[1:08:33] Seeing none, we can go all the way to
page 106 if you want.
[1:08:49] It is 5.3.4 public facility.
[1:09:02] » I have a question.
Go ahead.
[1:09:06] Um, mine is um
page
[1:09:18] see where is it? Um,
it's in C
[1:09:25] 2
C.
[1:09:30] Uh, the last end of it, it says shall be
recorded in the office of the city
[1:09:34] recorder. We really don't have an office
of the city recorder and I thought we
[1:09:38] had um
>> that's county recorder.
[1:09:43] » It says city recorder
[1:09:48] » county.
What section is that in? C
[1:09:53] » that is in C. Common facilities for
mixed uses.
[1:10:00] Wait,
[1:10:08] » uh, are you on page 98?
>> No, mine says page 100, but mine is not
[1:10:15] uh like yours, so it would uh probably
be 99 for you.
[1:10:21] » Gota. Yeah, page 99. I don't lowerase C.
>> Yeah, at the top.
[1:10:28] » Yes, you're right. That should say
should be recorded as a county recorder,
[1:10:34] office of a county recorder.
>> Well, I just know we don't use city of
[1:10:39] recorder. So, it would be in Dune City
Hall or if it was for Dune City. Uh, we
[1:10:46] don't use that term anymore.
>> And if it's a recorded document, it
[1:10:50] would show up in a title search when
there's two parties. So, I would say
[1:10:54] » county record.
You might want to have it in the city
[1:10:59] and the county because if it's part of
the property,
[1:11:02] » the city would have a copy as part of
the file, but then it's recorded. It
[1:11:06] shows up when you do re it would be
legally binding.
[1:11:12] » Does that make sense, James?
>> I um I know that Lyla used the term
[1:11:17] recorder quite a bit and it is in the
job description and charter,
[1:11:20] » but we don't record documents.
>> But we don't physically record it.
[1:11:22] Right.
>> Right. [clears throat] And this is joint
[1:11:24] use where you need something permanent.
So if someone buys, they can say yes, I
[1:11:28] still have access. [clears throat]
It's not just a handshake dealing,
[1:11:33] right?
Otherwise, you find yourself potentially
[1:11:39] a parcel that doesn't have legal access.
You get a few.
[1:11:43] » So are we are we changing that language
to just uh I would say county recorder
[1:11:48] that way it gets recorded. Yeah, it
doesn't record. Yeah.
[1:11:52] And then the project file would
obviously have a copy low but
[1:11:55] [clears throat]
you'd get a recording number you know of
[1:12:01] it would be available on
[1:12:05] Thank you.
[1:12:09] Now we're back to 106.
[1:12:31] » What heading are you at now?
>> Uh 155.3.4.
[1:12:36] We at the public facility standards.
[1:12:51] So, I'm jumping ahead, but on the next
page, it says something about having
[1:12:56] city engineer.
>> Yeah,
[1:13:00] we have a city engineer.
>> Yes.
[1:13:02] » Under contract. Yeah.
>> Thank you. And then and B is a variance.
[1:13:06] This one's probably appropriate because
you're talking about like street widths
[1:13:09] and layouts and that is a more formal.
>> So it says that could be granted by
[1:13:15] varian. And I agree on that one. That's
for change. You're talking about street
[1:13:19] network.
[1:13:37] » Section EI has a handwritten note.
>> Eating street location with engrave.
[1:13:43] » Yeah. um conform to the master road
plan. Is that replaced with
[1:13:49] transportation system plan?
>> Yes. Okay.
[1:13:52] » Yeah, [clears throat] that's
on um section A number two, the
[1:13:59] development of new streets and
additional streets with improvements
[1:14:03] planning shall be dedicated to the city.
>> Yeah, I didn't know the city wanted to
[1:14:08] continue to acquire streets.
If they're public, they'd be dedicated
[1:14:12] to the city. And if they're private, so
that that depends on what it's a new
[1:14:17] subdivision versus a new exterior tree.
So, we have both possibilities.
[1:14:26] » Thank you.
[1:14:48] When you get to 109, we have the chart
of street right away
[1:14:53] and bathing with.
So, we just talked about those streets
[1:14:57] and lot frontage and it said if it was
private and you can have five 1acre lots
[1:15:01] or grand 5 acres, it was 50 feet, but if
it was public was 60, but when you get
[1:15:06] to here, local street is 50.
electors in arterials are 60 and
[1:15:11] greater. I think the other one should
say 50. They can vote 50. If it's a
[1:15:16] neighborhood street, you know, the last
plan I think 50, not 60.
[1:15:21] Most of our older public streets are 50
kilome at least. the the off the
[1:15:26] arterial
>> and what's our train talking about going
[1:15:28] back to
>> so it was where it was that access
[1:15:31] standard that
I was thinking it sounded wide and my
[1:15:38] chart recommends
our
[1:15:45] best
[1:15:55] When the arterial says 60 to 120 ft.
>> Yeah, we we don't even down
[1:16:03] 120 ft on highway
right
[1:16:12] fences away.
[1:16:17] So James on page 40 94F
this is the private one
[1:16:24] minimum driveway easement is 50 ft and
then I think you backed up
[1:16:29] uh on J street access on page 93 it says
greater than 5 acres if it has if it
[1:16:38] fronts a street for at least or at least
six feet never mind that the frontal
[1:16:43] should not go where it's so we our
stream width called 50 ft and the
[1:16:47] easement width was 50 ft. So, we're
good. I like that
[1:16:52] if you [clears throat] guys like that.
>> Yeah, you're right. It does go up to
[1:16:56] really big city width. 124 arterial
six plus, you know, left but
[1:17:13] All
[1:17:26] right.
[1:18:30] on
page I think it would be your page 110
[1:18:34] or 112.
>> Yeah.
[1:18:36] » Section I
my version had a bunch of red lines but
[1:18:43] it says restore the original.
Has yours already restored by yours?
[1:18:48] Okay. [clears throat]
[1:18:51] » I only have one red line in the title.
Uh
[1:18:56] um street alignment and connections.
>> I got I got a whole section that says
[1:19:01] restore you know we talking about number
one or we talking about one through
[1:19:04] five.
>> And I think I got the version he's
[1:19:07] talking about where they were not
stricken.
[1:19:10] » Oh okay.
>> It was just the title.
[1:19:11] » So we do have one through five.
>> Yes.
[1:19:14] » A and B.
>> Yes. Five A and B. And the title
[1:19:18] said street alignment and connection.
And it used to say street alignment and
[1:19:22] connection shall be constructed to the
specifications of the city engineer.
[1:19:26] That part was stricken but it lists the
whole section. So yeah one through five
[1:19:30] with back in if that makes
>> then same thing with the day restore
[1:19:34] original. Is that right?
>> Yeah.
[1:19:39] » And maybe with K as well.
>> Yes. Yes.
[1:19:42] » And we have M
>> M
[1:19:46] » all of that all stays.
O.
[1:19:52] » Yeah.
>> Oh, wait. Page. You are
[1:19:55] [clears throat]
[1:19:58] » S is has a bunch freaking out. It says
street name. No street name shall be
[1:20:03] used without fire approval by the
county.
[1:20:09] » Do you know with the county approval, do
they go to the fire department? Any
[1:20:17] street
>> street names? Yeah.
[1:20:19] names would probably be counties.
>> It says, this just says county because
[1:20:23] where I came from, they went to the fire
department as well because when people
[1:20:25] got money, fire department would say it
either rhymes or it sounds too close,
[1:20:31] you know, if it causes confusion. So,
they used to work fire department.
[1:20:38] I know Venita, no Thai, um any of those
places, I always get a deal saying, you
[1:20:45] know, does the street name conflict with
anything else?
[1:20:48] » Gotcha.
>> And none of them affect us.
[1:20:51] » Okay.
>> So, not to get ahead of ourselves, but
[1:20:55] on the next page, we have W and X that
are also restored,
[1:20:58] » right?
[1:21:07] Mayor Beth on um section I the street
alignment connections I still have it in
[1:21:13] place alignment and shall be constructed
to the specifications of the city
[1:21:17] engineer you said that is
>> shows that line strapped
[1:21:21] » okay
[1:21:26] » because I think at one point that's all
that said in the whole section was
[1:21:29] stricten I think and the recommendation
came back published you know standard
[1:21:34] and then
>> you can still have an engineer.
[1:21:38] » So one one comment on restoring it back.
>> Yeah.
[1:21:43] » Um
the language that you're restoring to is
[1:21:50] probably pretty outdated.
So, at some point you might want to
[1:21:59] contact your city engineer and see if he
has updated language for each of these
[1:22:06] uh
sections, street alignment,
[1:22:11] sidewalks,
[1:22:14] intersection, dead end streets, etc.
that
[1:22:22] and I guess that would lead into Jay
where typically
[1:22:27] uh sidewalks, planters, bicycle lanes,
things of that nature are typically done
[1:22:33] within the rightway and would be
construed as
[1:22:37] public property. So why would the
adjacent property only be required to be
[1:22:42] maintaining
sidewalks?
[1:22:47] Okay. Oh, says master plan contract
and sidewalk curves and planners should
[1:22:53] be continuously
obligation of the adjacent property.
[1:22:57] » Yep.
>> That's what
[1:22:58] » So that
Yeah.
[1:23:02] » So if you're going to build it, you're
going to own it and I'm going to have to
[1:23:05] maintain it.
>> No, you're going to build it in a public
[1:23:09] rightway and you're going to maintain it
in a public rightway.
[1:23:12] » Yeah.
>> We don't have any of this. It's not much
[1:23:14] of a issue.
[1:23:19] We don't have a single piece of sides,
[clears throat]
[1:23:22] » but it's common. If it does, it's a
possibility to Reno does it. Eugene does
[1:23:28] it. Uh, Reno makes you remove the snow.
Just somebody slips in the snow. You
[1:23:34] have the problem. I don't live in Reno.
[1:23:39] No, that that's a you're right. You are
correct.
[1:23:44] the way it's word. I don't agree with
it. I think it's the city's problem. I
[1:23:48] do too.
>> I agree with Rich.
[1:23:53] » They own it. I I don't own it. We have
them. If I'm paying the taxes on it,
[1:23:58] then I own it. So, if I own it, then I
can say who gets to walk on
[1:24:06] J,
>> right?
[1:24:07] » The irony is in a lot of cities.
>> Yeah. So they make the adjacent property
[1:24:12] owner respond
>> for the sidewalk regardless.
[1:24:15] » Yeah.
>> I mean if you have a tree that pushes
[1:24:18] » and the landscape strips too they're
mowing water.
[1:24:21] » Right. Exactly.
>> Yeah.
[1:24:23] » No. I'm not m
[1:24:30] » I have city input here that takes care
of the whole problem.
[1:24:35] » Just says get rid of them.
me.
[1:24:39] » Not my words.
>> Okay, back.
[1:24:46] » So, we're back to striking section J.
>> Well, sounds like all the sections I say
[1:24:52] for store
probably need to be reviewed against
[1:24:56] whatever your current standard is out
there. It varies depending on where you
[1:25:00] are.
>> I mean, there's from a roadway design,
[1:25:03] there's nothing that jumps out. I mean,
it's this is crazy, man. like 500
[1:25:07] radiuses
turn around at the ends. You can 45 is a
[1:25:12] reasonable radius. It's a big one,
>> but that makes sure the trash trucks and
[1:25:18] fire trucks can turn around back up.
It's not a bad.
[1:25:23] » Yeah, I was just going off statement
that if we're restoring to a previous
[1:25:27] version that it's probably updated. It
needs to be built against whatever the
[1:25:31] » it's updated and it's a little bit
clunky. So your city engineer may have
[1:25:36] some more adequate language that's more
current. And there's also some
[1:25:41] references in here to the master road
plan which is misnomer. It should be
[1:25:47] master transportation
plan.
[1:25:50] » So we get this one reviewed by the
engineer. Come back to it after we get
[1:25:54] input from them.
>> It's up to you.
[1:25:58] I mean this this language I know is is
really quite old. So if
[1:26:04] » what's the name of the plan now
transportation plan?
[1:26:09] » I think it's transportation
>> transportation
[1:26:12] » is the new name.
>> Okay
[1:26:14] » is the correct name
>> really. Okay.
[1:26:20] » And if we're going to do that which
sections did you want me to submit? I
[1:26:24] don't want to just throw a bunch at them
because they're not
[1:26:30] [clears throat]
would be
[1:26:36] I think this session was on
[1:26:43] let's see
[1:26:48] transportation standards 155.3.410 for
one. Okay. I think all this is in one,
[1:26:57] » right?
>> I see.
[1:26:59] » Okay.
>> And that's got all the street widths and
[1:27:02] lengths and turn around and that's
[1:27:08] curves and yeah
that's private. Okay. Then we can
[1:27:14] probably jump forward to the next page,
go to 120 public use areas, and then
[1:27:19] we'll just let it expert review that
section,
[1:27:23] come back to it if we get comments
or changes.
[1:27:30] » We'll just we'll jump up to 120 since
110 to the
[1:27:33] » Yeah, absolutely.
>> And then [clears throat]
[1:27:35] whatever recommendations, we'll go back
on that. Does that make sense for
[1:27:38] everybody? Okay. And so age 113 for me.
Uh 155.3.4.120
[1:27:46] public use areas.
[1:27:53] [clears throat]
[1:27:57] » A big simplification. We deleted a whole
bunch of words.
[1:28:02] the dedication from the existing
constitutionalities
[1:28:09] for
city playgrounds and other public use
[1:28:12] areas
[1:28:21] and the next questions 13 sanitary sewer
and water service approved.
[1:28:28] But I think this is
uh to Geneva's point
[1:28:34] section 130 sanitary sewer and water a
is water supply all shall be served by
[1:28:39] state approved water supply period
covers all the possibilities
[1:28:46] and then B sanitary sewer all served by
sewage disposal system that conforms to
[1:28:51] city county and state department of
environmental quality data and currently
[1:28:56] everything inside the city would the
onsite
[1:29:00] uh the generic term would be is that
what system
[1:29:04] » so under B do we need to be more
specific because when you say all lots
[1:29:08] shall be served by a sewage disposal
disposal system that conforms to city
[1:29:13] county and state department
environmental quality standards that
[1:29:16] doesn't mean it's been certified by the
county that have isn't that the big
[1:29:21] question
>> no the county is only a change in use
[1:29:26] » okay
>> that we we require ired for the
[1:29:28] short-term rentals. For everybody else,
it's a simple inspection. You know, five
[1:29:31] things now inspected.
>> Okay. And they they couldn't even get a
[1:29:34] building permit without
>> right. It goes in.
[1:29:37] » Yeah, that's right. Okay.
>> And then there is a small possibility
[1:29:42] that someday we see a tiny package plant
where septic isn't working out. You you
[1:29:49] could see a tiny but it would still was
black because it's something that
[1:29:53] wouldn't be
[1:29:57] That takes us to 140 storm drainage
improvements
[1:30:04] just points to
>> and says go to 141.
[1:30:09] » No, sorry.
Yeah.
[1:30:13] Chapter 141 service water management
[1:30:19] and 150 is utilities
[1:30:23] meaning not water underground utilities.
[1:30:41] So this requires new to serve the lot is
underground unless throw 50,000 volts
[1:30:48] and then it can be above ground
for partitions, subdivisions, PUDs and
[1:30:54] commercial.
[1:31:02] Anybody go in there?
[1:31:06] because
everything going backwards is all above
[1:31:11] ground. So we're we're 90% above
[1:31:21] going forward.
[1:31:27] Yeah. Yeah. Get in distribution
transmission. It's an expensive
[1:31:30] [clears throat] barrier.
[1:31:34] Easter.
[1:32:15] DM 116
should be city code instead of just city
[1:32:28] » 116. Oh,
[1:32:34] um
[1:32:38] I did a reading about meters. So, we now
have for anybody on Dune City water
[1:32:43] rights, we have a meter.
So, is this section because it says
[1:32:48] electric meters and water meters. Do you
know of problems reading meters? Is what
[1:32:54] is what we're doing working organ water
system installed? I have not
[1:32:59] » as far as I know
>> when you pull building permit and then
[1:33:01] they read them and they report back. So,
so as far as you know
[1:33:07] » heard that there's any big problem.
>> The only problem would be the fact that
[1:33:11] to have somebody go read them outweighs
the amount of money we get from the
[1:33:16] actual rights from why everybody's had
to update theirs so that it's all
[1:33:22] electronic now.
>> Yeah. I'll have to visit that because we
[1:33:25] did a year ago and it sounds like we're
still short. We'll visit that in the
[1:33:29] budget mean when that starts up.
>> This is okay. But we don't know of any
[1:33:36] problem. So
>> funding bridge because that was still
[1:33:42] e
city inspections. Is that section you're
[1:33:45] looking at
>> near the inspection? City inspection
[1:33:49] should be uh satisfied of the city code,
not just the city.
[1:33:57] The improvement shall be inspected
during construction
[1:34:01] when satisfaction is ceased
[1:34:08] and applicable code
is you could condition that are not
[1:34:13] code. Which one are you on? to the
inspection.
[1:34:23] 190 is the installation section and then
you get to
[1:34:28] and this is for utilities.
Well, my plan
[1:34:44] is the city
adopted code.
[1:35:06] Then indeed, not about city inspections
at all. It's about survey monuments that
[1:35:11] were disturbed.
It says it'll be restored by a surveyor.
[1:35:16] I think that should be its own subject.
We've got city inspection, engineer
[1:35:20] certificate, and ad build. And I think
we should have the survey monument that
[1:35:24] should be restored by licensed survey or
something because it doesn't fall.
[1:35:27] » Can we make Can we make that E and then
engineer certification?
[1:35:32] » Sure,
that makes sense. Keeps them in order.
[1:35:35] » Can you repeat that, please?
>> Yeah. In the the last sentence in city
[1:35:39] inspection is about survey monuments. It
says monuments disturbed by improvements
[1:35:44] will be replaced by a licensed surveyor.
That has nothing to do with the city
[1:35:48] inspections. It should be its own
section for survey monuments. We'll make
[1:35:52] that E. Survey monuments disturb will be
I mean the same exact words. It just
[1:35:58] should be E and then F will be engineer
certificate anodes.
[1:36:02] » Okay.
Call E monuments period.
[1:36:07] » Yeah, there you go. E
[1:36:14] and then put that same sentence
and that makes perfect
[1:36:32] and then surface water management see
chapter Excellent.
[1:36:36] [clears throat]
[1:36:49] All right.
[1:36:56] That takes us to solar access and get
some
[1:37:00] » pointed comments on solar access. That's
>> I thought you decided to delete that
[1:37:06] whole sentence.
>> I I think we did. We We had it in the
[1:37:09] discussion, but we hadn't gotten to it
because it talks about permanent
[1:37:13] permanent protection for solar
yet the trees continue to grow and the
[1:37:17] shade moved and
>> it's not exactly
[1:37:22] the best location in the in the United
States for solar panels. So,
[1:37:28] » and then we're also wanting to maintain
a a right not trees and not cut the
[1:37:35] trees. So we got a lot of shade which
sucks for penders. So
[1:37:39] » yeah the priorities trees are more
important than solar
[1:37:43] » and I think I mean just like all
ordinances right you go looking for all
[1:37:46] the good stuff out there and this is
somebody else's idea um when there's
[1:37:52] federal dollars to do it. I just don't
think that's
[1:37:56] » not saying you can't have it if you want
it right. It's just not being protected
[1:37:59] in perpetuity.
>> That part is in order. I don't think we
[1:38:04] need it.
>> Yep.
[1:38:10] » Wow. That was a lot of pages.
>> Yeah.
[1:38:14] » Motion cut it off
in the evening.
[1:38:18] » What?
I felt like Fox had a go there. Thank
[1:38:22] you.
[1:38:25] » 154 application review procedures. We
start there [clears throat]
[1:38:30] next meeting.
>> Uh September 3rd, correct?
[1:38:35] Oh, we need a second on that, do we? No,
we're just we're just Any other comments
[1:38:40] from the public before we close the
public hearings? We're we're through
[1:38:44] 155.3. Go ahead, John.
>> I just have a an invitation for
[1:38:48] everybody. Um, the Wing Plus
presentation is having a picnic this
[1:38:53] Saturday night. Hang on. This is still a
public hearing.
[1:38:56] » Oh, I'm sorry.
Okay. So, no other comments? Anybody
[1:39:01] else on chapter 155? We'll close the
public hearing at 7:39
[1:39:09] and
we will start up on page 126, give or
[1:39:14] take, division 155.4, four application
and review procedures at the next city
[1:39:20] council meeting. Now,
we have a comment we should have got
[1:39:25] during
concerns earlier. Go ahead, you're on.
[1:39:30] Sorry about that. No, that's okay.
You're on the planning commission, so
[1:39:33] you get an extra 30 seconds.
Uh this Saturday, uh hot dogs,
[1:39:39] hamburgers, even veggie burgers at the
open meeting hall at 12:00.
[1:39:47] Good food and a whole lot of dessert.
>> So inviting everybody if they're hungry.
[1:39:55] Thank you.
[1:40:08] Okay, we're to item 12. For the good of
the order, dude, you got it.
[1:40:13] » Well, I did have something to say, but
I've been advised by I have powers to
[1:40:19] stand down on it, so I'm going to do
that.
[1:40:21] » Okay. Well, thanks for coming,
>> Rich.
[1:40:28] All right, Chris. No input. Thank you,
>> Larry. I've got some exciting news.
[1:40:33] » So, I'm gonna pass this down.
Uh, I'm happy to announce that Darlings
[1:40:42] Resort and RV Park have been designated
FAA seplane base.
[1:40:48] » Cool. So, what we've done,
we've restored the history here in this
[1:40:54] place. Uh I think was was it Bob Jackson
who ran the sequel news? Anybody know?
[1:41:00] » No, that was from I don't think he had
seen
[1:41:03] » No, but I mean did he operate the base?
Cuz I saw his
[1:41:07] » marina for many years.
>> So he would have been respons.
[1:41:11] But anyway,
>> yeah,
[1:41:13] » the seine base of what here and in FAA
language it's known as five J as in John
[1:41:23] 2. So, a pilot speak that's 5 Juliet 2.
And so, between Rich and I, we prepared
[1:41:30] an FAA application to restore that SE
plane base with a water runway
[1:41:38] realignment. It used to be close to the
waterfront hotel.
[1:41:42] Oh, thank you very much. It used to be
over there by the waterfront hotel and
[1:41:47] we've moved it. If you look at this map,
it's now running straight up towards
[1:41:53] Don.
>> Do you see where they located that at
[1:41:55] onex?
[1:42:00] » Yeah, I see that.
>> We can't build a hotel.
[1:42:02] » I'll show you a better way.
[clears throat]
[1:42:04] » That's uh that's a
>> I know.
[1:42:10] Don't worry about that.
>> I just noticed that.
[1:42:12] » Yeah, it's it's fixed.
>> So, we can't put any you look at this
[1:42:16] map. If you look at this map, this is
where it's located at. Okay. So, the uh
[1:42:21] the exciting news is is that I've
reached out. It's already in a lot of
[1:42:25] the aviation charts and data and that
sort of thing. So, it's available for se
[1:42:29] plane pilots all over the place to see.
Uh but I've invited the uh state board
[1:42:35] and department of aviation. They're
going to come out and inspect in a
[1:42:39] couple of weeks. And so, I told him, I
said, "Come on out because we're going
[1:42:42] to go get some good barbecue at
Darland's."
[1:42:45] » All right. and he'll come out and go,
"Yeah, there's a big lake and there's a
[1:42:48] dock." And you know, he'll say that you
are now officially a sea plane base as
[1:42:52] far as the state of Oregon is concerned.
So, this is pretty exciting news. And I
[1:42:57] want to thank uh Greg and Jan Murphy who
also assisted because there needed to be
[1:43:03] cooperation between the two SE plane
bases. They
[1:43:05] » I was going to ask there still is a
designated movie. Correct. If there is
[1:43:09] Jan Greg and Jan Murphy operated SE
plane base so we had to coordinate with
[1:43:14] them to have non-conlicting traffic
patterns
[1:43:18] » right
>> and among SE plane pilots we talk to
[1:43:21] each other just like general aviation
pilots talk to each other so we have a
[1:43:26] coordination of things we do to
coordinate air traffic and avoid
[1:43:30] conflicts and that sort of thing. Uh so
it's pretty exciting news and uh uh for
[1:43:36] my part I'm I'm hoping that we will have
a a sponsored splash in a splash in is a
[1:43:44] an event where you invite SE plane
pilots all over the western US. There
[1:43:48] are some big big events that are already
held in in the western US. There's one
[1:43:52] up in Tanglefoot which is up there in
the northern part of Washington State
[1:43:57] and Idaho. There's another one at Clear
Lake in California. And these are folks
[1:44:01] that will fly in and take advantage of
our local motel and restaurants and do
[1:44:08] tours and that sort of thing. And I
think it'll be a lot of fun.
[1:44:12] » So, one of the things that we'll have to
work on is there's a if there's a lot of
[1:44:18] sea planes, we have to find a way to
move them around. And they sometimes
[1:44:23] call those goat boys
like buoy.
[1:44:28] So sometimes we have more than one
airplane trying to dock his engine out
[1:44:33] » and you bring him in as with a taxi
boat. But I think it's going to be very
[1:44:37] exciting and
>> it took about about what six months I
[1:44:41] think.
>> Yeah.
[1:44:42] » To get this approved. So it's pretty
exciting. And you'll see on the
[1:44:45] registration page that Darling Marina
Resort RV Park is the owner and I'm his
[1:44:51] designated manager.
[1:44:55] But anyway, I think it's great news.
Yeah.
[1:45:01] » Okay. And Susan says, "Not feeling
well." She chimed on or [clears throat]
[1:45:05] logged off.
So that's all the comments. I need a
[1:45:10] motion to adjourn.
>> Thank you, Chris.
[1:45:14] » Thank you, Rich.
>> All those in favor?
[1:45:19] » That's unanimous.
7:45 p.m.
[1:45:25] will be involved. But when we found it,