[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,

Dunes City: City Council Meeting - August 19th, 2026

Transcript