[4:09] Okay, welcome everybody to a city
[4:12] council meeting. Uh, it's April 14th,
[4:15] 2026.
[4:16] Um,
[4:18] I was going to say something stupid, but
[4:20] I won't.
[4:21] Hopefully, we'll get through this. I was
[4:23] going to say so
[4:25] >> I know every once in a while.
[4:28] I was going to say this is going to go
[4:29] by quickly and that was not going to
[4:31] happen.
[4:31] >> That's a curse.
[4:32] >> I just cursed the whole thing.
[4:34] >> Okay, we are going to start um with
[4:37] number one there for a work session.
[4:39] >> You should say who's here.
[4:42] >> Oh, thank you. Okay, so we have um
[4:46] council member John's Rhoden and Lunt
[4:49] here in the meeting and council member
[4:51] Hutchkins is online and council member
[4:54] Malovich is excused. Um she's got uh
[4:58] another event that she's working on that
[5:00] required her time this evening. Um so we
[5:05] will start with number one. Um resident
[5:07] request to amend city code 10-11-8.
[5:11] This is landscape features, fences,
[5:13] walls, driveways, and culverts to allow
[5:16] sound barrier fencing along 11200 South.
[5:20] Um
[5:23] do we have that individual here? We
[5:26] don't have Mr. Cabraw or his wife here
[5:29] or Mr. Vanassel.
[5:31] >> Uh they live along 11200 South. We know
[5:35] that 11200 South is becoming a main
[5:38] corridor. We also um know that uh Salem
[5:44] is going to allow a sound barrier wall
[5:47] on their portion of 11200 South that is
[5:50] in Salem. And so they were asking if
[5:53] they could have the same on their uh
[5:56] side of the property. They are willing
[5:58] to pay for it, not asking the city to do
[6:00] it.
[6:02] So uh this would go it would just be uh
[6:06] go through our planning commission. So
[6:08] it would have to have a public hearing.
[6:10] Um but the ordinance that's there is
[6:13] kind of some proposed language that
[6:14] could be possibly used.
[6:17] >> I didn't like the up to 10 ft.
[6:20] That's why it's called um opposed
[6:23] language.
[6:24] >> And I drove um well I worked in
[6:26] Mapleton, my Mapleton office today. And
[6:29] I drove along um the main road from
[6:33] Woodland Hills to Mapleton like from
[6:34] Spanish Fork where it has the two
[6:35] roundabouts under the freeway and then
[6:37] also on Main Street, Spanish Fork. And I
[6:40] would say that those streets have about
[6:42] as much traffic as 11200 would have or
[6:45] more, probably a lot more. And none of
[6:48] them have a eight or 10 foot sound
[6:51] barrier wall. Any of them.
[6:53] >> Have you seen what's coming down? Have
[6:55] you seen that one they put down there on
[6:56] that development of Wood Nails Drive?
[6:59] You know, that new development just off
[7:01] to the right.
[7:02] >> Uhhuh.
[7:02] >> That's what Salem that development
[7:04] coming around the roundabout's going to
[7:05] have and then down here. So,
[7:07] >> how tall is that one?
[7:09] >> What's that?
[7:09] >> How tall is that one?
[7:10] >> I don't know. I haven't measured.
[7:11] >> Steve, do you know
[7:12] >> six feet exist? I'm okay with six, but I don't think I'm good with eight or 10.
[7:21] » And like are we talking like Don
[7:23] Vantasel's
[7:24] spot right there on 200? So some of the
[7:27] homes are actually down below grade
[7:29] right of the street. So 8 ft might
[7:32] actually be 6 ft at street grade. So
[7:35] that would be interesting to see. Um or
[7:37] I don't know if when they do the new
[7:40] road if they're going to try I don't
[7:42] know with offsets and you know right
[7:45] ride rightways etc how far it'll be on
[7:47] their property.
[7:48] >> So have to be on the property line
[7:51] change from what it is.
[7:53] >> Okay.
[7:53] >> They're going to reconfigure the road a
[7:55] little bit but they've got most all the
[7:56] right away.
[7:57] >> Okay.
[7:57] >> Uh that development that's happening on
[7:59] the corner there of the roundabout. I
[8:01] guess be the north and west corner.
[8:02] >> Mhm. So that they that developer right
[8:05] now is is finalizing his plans with
[8:07] Salem and he he gave enough right away.
[8:09] That was the only part they were lacking
[8:11] some width of rightway they needed.
[8:12] >> Okay.
[8:13] >> So he gave that right away there and I
[8:15] think what they were saying is they're
[8:16] going to continue a fence around there
[8:18] and then come down past where the
[8:21] possible future
[8:25] worshiing center will be.
[8:26] >> Mhm.
[8:27] Um,
[8:30] and then down where the county kind of
[8:32] picks up these houses down here below
[8:34] the state center. Um, kind of well that
[8:37] one house has that sound fence. So I
[8:40] think that's what I ask. They just kind
[8:41] of want to continue along there. Now I I
[8:43] don't know. My thought would be match
[8:45] whatever is done along there. Just it
[8:47] all looks, you know,
[8:49] >> right? And like all the ones on Mapleton
[8:51] and that they were all six, they had the
[8:53] sound wall, but they were all the
[8:54] sixfooters. And maybe we can look at see
[8:56] what that developer is doing along the
[8:59] corner there that would basically tie in
[9:01] to where Vanasel is and the guy across
[9:03] the street that wants to do it. See what
[9:06] their plan is for a height and just kind
[9:07] of match that same level across there. I
[9:09] think that would look uniform then.
[9:12] Yeah. I've been having since I saw this,
[9:14] I've been having conversations with
[9:16] Salem um with their uh building
[9:19] department and then I called and talked
[9:21] to Brady Wild today, their engineer, one
[9:23] of their engineers. So, theirs is not
[9:26] considered a sound barrier fence. Um
[9:31] theirs is has has safety factors to it
[9:34] and it's very specific. It's not even
[9:35] just masonary. Um, in some of their
[9:39] places they they do allow the the SIMC
[9:42] style fence. Um, but on Woodland Hills
[9:45] Drive and 11200 and and a couple other
[9:49] uh corridors, they require a a more
[9:52] significant foundation and um and it's
[9:56] masonary.
[9:58] Um,
[9:59] >> is it masonary or pre-cast concrete,
[10:01] Brian? Because
[10:01] >> either either way, I mean pre-cast is
[10:03] fine. He would just he just said
[10:05] masonary. Yeah, but that's what he was
[10:07] referring to.
[10:08] >> Um, so my recommendation after talking
[10:11] to them, um, and I think we
[10:14] >> and and Brady agrees we should probably
[10:16] get Elk Ridge involved as well, um, and
[10:20] at least talk to them and about what's
[10:22] happening. So, they've been working with
[10:24] the county quite a bit. If you, if you
[10:25] notice, the fences on on Woodland Hills
[10:28] Drive are not just any fence. Um,
[10:31] there's requirements. They actually had
[10:33] a contractor put up the fence and it was
[10:35] wrong and they made the contractor
[10:37] remove it and replace it and and the
[10:40] contractor actually gave it to Salem and
[10:41] put it on another house. Um, but it's more than just sound. It is minimum
[10:47] of six feet. Um, now anything higher
[10:50] does require approvals and that would be
[10:53] based on on other things. My
[10:55] recommendation would be to get with to
[10:57] have have Ted and Wayne get with Salem
[11:01] and pro and probably get with uh
[11:03] Elkridge as well and see if we can't
[11:05] come together, come up with a uh a
[11:09] conforming standard that's going down
[11:11] 11200 along that that road and and work
[11:15] with the county that Salem has already
[11:16] worked with to try to flesh this out a
[11:19] little bit better. I'm not sure I'm I'm
[11:22] great with with uh some of the verbiage
[11:24] in this one. Um and I understand the
[11:28] need for higher fencing based on sound.
[11:32] Um but I don't know that that's you know
[11:35] would be would be necessary. But I
[11:38] really think that a collaboration with
[11:40] the three cities is a great way. and
[11:43] Brady agrees completely and would love
[11:45] to get uh together with everybody and
[11:48] sit down and come up with something
[11:49] that'll work for everybody.
[11:54] » Yeah, I mean reading the same thing.
[11:56] I've got kind of the same vision here,
[11:58] like turning that open area into what
[12:01] looks like a compound or a potential
[12:05] junkyard or something. Um,
[12:08] I I my thoughts immediately went to Park
[12:11] City area where I mean, no way, no how,
[12:15] even on the busiest State Road 224,
[12:19] you've got houses that are lining that
[12:21] divided highway. Um, and you know,
[12:25] you're talking one of the nicest
[12:27] communities in the in the country and
[12:30] it's, you know, there there's a road and
[12:32] there's cars, but there's not a
[12:33] soundwall.
[12:34] I I just worry that if we allow
[12:38] a fencing ordinance that that is not
[12:42] very intentional and just say it's broad
[12:44] along 112 1200 South and we're really
[12:47] limiting how we're controlling what that
[12:49] looks like going into the future. Um
[12:53] that's kind of my thoughts. I I think we
[12:56] need to be pretty intentional.
[12:57] >> Get kind of a uniform I mean there's
[13:00] going to be pre-cast fence there, right?
[13:02] Salem's that's they're putting it there
[13:03] with their developments
[13:05] and I think we just need to be uniform I
[13:07] agree with Brian I think we need to get
[13:08] with Salem and Elish let's be uniform
[13:10] along there so it looks intentional and
[13:12] we don't have different styles and
[13:13] different heights and it all looks just
[13:15] a hodge podge of
[13:17] >> don't want it to be an eyesore for sure
[13:19] >> yeah and make it look more uniform
[13:21] what's happening
[13:23] along there
[13:25] and I think what they've been putting up
[13:26] Olympus it's called Olympus pre-cast is
[13:28] who makes I think the ones they've been
[13:30] putting up um I've put quite a few of
[13:32] those spec out with UD do projects.
[13:35] That's what UD do uses too. Those
[13:36] pre-cast concrete. You have to those
[13:38] pillars actually or the supports
[13:40] actually go into the ground. It has
[13:41] quite big bases and rebar and all that
[13:43] stuff. And they do it not only for sound
[13:45] but for crash protection on their busy
[13:47] quarters.
[13:49] >> Yeah. Perfect.
[13:50] >> Okay. Anybody else have anything else
[13:52] they want to get in?
[13:53] >> Just uniformity. I I concur with all
[13:55] >> I agree as well. I like that input.
[13:57] >> I have a question.
[13:59] >> Sure. I'm just curious if their
[14:01] intention or their hope is more than
[14:04] sound barrier because
[14:07] the sound barrier works best if it's
[14:10] closest to the noise. So, you know,
[14:12] it'll be up close to the road. I'm just
[14:14] wondering if there's another reason for
[14:17] wanting.
[14:19] >> Safety generally is why they put those
[14:21] in when you get along busy corners.
[14:23] >> I meant the intention of the family's
[14:25] asking.
[14:26] >> No, I don't know.
[14:28] But perfect. Thank you.
[14:30] >> More privacy is probably
[14:32] >> I think when he came in and asked he's
[14:34] just worried about because that love 200
[14:35] is going to be part of what they're
[14:36] calling the evil beltway.
[14:38] >> Yeah.
[14:38] >> Right. That's going to become a major
[14:40] thoroughare between Highway 6 and I15.
[14:43] You know, this is probably 20 30 years
[14:44] down the road. But I think their concern
[14:46] is now is we better start kind of
[14:48] addressing this because they're worried
[14:50] about all the traffic there and
[14:52] potential for not for noise and safety
[14:54] reasons.
[14:56] >> And I think Salem's actually
[15:00] on one of
[15:03] >> there's a does the trail system is that
[15:05] also planned on that?
[15:07] >> Yes, on 200.
[15:08] >> Yeah.
[15:09] >> And it's on the north side.
[15:10] >> It's on the south I believe.
[15:12] >> Well, so that's a good question. Uh
[15:15] depends on who you talk to.
[15:16] >> Okay.
[15:16] >> It could be both.
[15:18] >> Okay.
[15:18] >> So, it's both county and Salem that are
[15:20] doing trail systems there and uh they've
[15:24] talked about doing it.
[15:27] So the the generally right now they're
[15:29] looking on the north side is where it
[15:30] would go. Um even though we've kind of
[15:33] got a partial one on the south, they're
[15:35] talking about putting it on the north.
[15:37] That's the Sman County talking about
[15:39] that.
[15:40] >> So the rightway there is owned by the
[15:41] county, right?
[15:42] >> Yes. It's a county road. Yes.
[15:45] >> So the question would be if eventually
[15:46] we develop down there, we want to do
[15:49] something, but it's a county right away.
[15:51] So it have to be coordinated if there is
[15:52] development with the county.
[15:55] >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay, let's
[15:58] move to number two. Um, update on the
[16:00] mailboxes. Ted and Wayne.
[16:05] » So, I spoke to Wayne earlier today and
[16:07] so there was no update maybe at the next
[16:10] meeting.
[16:11] >> Okay. Do we have anything from the
[16:13] county? Uh, I did send the I did send
[16:16] the So, we got the 90% design roundabout
[16:19] design plans from the county's engineer
[16:22] and I sent those 90% plans to Three
[16:25] Bridges so they can start developing
[16:28] their site plan for the Mailbox.
[16:30] They've just kind of got that underway
[16:32] so there's no feedback from it yet.
[16:35] >> Perfect.
[16:36] >> It's in there.
[16:38] >> Kind Speaking of that, a quick question.
[16:40] Can do we know I've seen the signs out
[16:42] but on Monday next Monday when they
[16:44] start road construction do we know which
[16:46] section they're going to be working on?
[16:49] >> I think they're coming right up the road
[16:50] with the sewer is what they're bringing
[16:52] first. So there's a major sewer front
[16:54] line that's coming up with the hills
[16:55] right coming from Salem Canal Road.
[16:59] There's going to be a sewer line coming
[17:00] right up
[17:01] >> because I just thought that maybe on
[17:03] Sunday I should post something.
[17:05] >> So I got that message out last night
[17:08] from Jen, right? Um, just a link to
[17:11] Salem's site. She said that they'll have
[17:13] more information on Sunday. Okay. That
[17:16] she'll get and I'll send that over to
[17:17] you.
[17:18] >> Okay. I just thought that Yeah, we could
[17:19] make sure we get that posted. Okay.
[17:22] >> Wonderful. Okay. Uh, number three, uh,
[17:26] we're going to review sections 1 through
[17:28] six of the general plan. Um, so this
[17:31] document has already gone through the
[17:33] community development committee. Um, it
[17:35] has then gone to the planning
[17:36] commission. Um I received the notes and
[17:40] feedback and and requested changes from
[17:42] planning commission. So you are
[17:44] currently seeing in chapters 1 through
[17:47] six. You are seeing the notes from
[17:51] uh or the original of community
[17:53] development with red and then crossed
[17:56] out in red um any additions or deletions
[18:00] from the planning commission. Okay. um
[18:04] to make sure this part of the
[18:07] work session actually can run smoothly,
[18:09] I'm going to request that we keep it to
[18:11] just the council um and staff on this
[18:14] one. Um but let's uh
[18:19] how do you best want to tackle this? You
[18:21] want to just start and go?
[18:22] >> Uh I have something on page six, but if
[18:24] somebody has something before then go
[18:26] first.
[18:29] » Start with page six.
[18:31] >> Okay. just and this is a problem on
[18:33] several of the pages, but that graphic
[18:35] is blurry.
[18:36] >> Mhm.
[18:36] >> And hard to read. So that
[18:38] >> that may be an exporting thing.
[18:40] >> So it's got to be crisped up because if
[18:43] uh people are going to try to print
[18:44] that.
[18:45] >> No, it is blurry. I can render it.
[18:48] >> Okay. There's a few of those. So
[18:50] >> is it the entire graphic or just the
[18:51] text?
[18:52] >> It's the entire graphic because you
[18:54] can't read the percentages on the
[18:55] graphic and then you can't read the key
[18:57] on this side.
[18:58] >> Okay.
[19:00] So I had a hard time.
[19:01] >> Is this built in word?
[19:03] >> No, this is built in um in design.
[19:06] >> In design. So just the alignment of
[19:08] those graphs also. I'm just maybe it's
[19:11] just made. They're all the same graph.
[19:13] They're pie charts. They should all line
[19:14] up and
[19:15] >> Yeah. And a lot of those types of
[19:18] adjustments I'll make um when I kind of
[19:22] finalize.
[19:23] >> Okay. I don't want to be too nitpicky
[19:25] with that kind of stuff. Um, also as
[19:26] we're going through this, if there's
[19:28] anything that is in red that has been
[19:32] removed or added that you, you know,
[19:35] >> have an issue with,
[19:37] >> let's address those as well.
[19:39] >> I've got Yep.
[19:40] >> Okay. Page seven. Who is that in the
[19:42] picture?
[19:43] >> That's We're going to have to remove
[19:44] that picture.
[19:45] >> That's you, Brian, and Ted. And
[19:48] Kirsten's there.
[19:50] >> And I think Slater's there. And
[19:55] >> um okay,
[19:56] >> can we pull it up so that we're
[19:59] following it or does every everybody
[20:02] >> I' I've got I've got a
[20:03] >> I just made for
[20:06] >> page page 13. Uh same thing. Hard to
[20:11] read in the upper right hand corner that
[20:14] graphic especially the smaller one.
[20:16] Figure two race ethnicity percentages.
[20:19] Can't read it.
[20:24] It's very blurry.
[20:29] » Yeah. Okay.
[20:32] I told you I read it and I made notes.
[20:35] So,
[20:36] >> perfect. Love it.
[20:37] >> And um a lot of it was really good. Um a
[20:40] lot of I got to see a lot of the survey
[20:44] results that I hadn't seen before. So, I
[20:46] thought that was interesting. Okay. page
[20:50] 22
[20:52] and anybody if you have something before
[20:54] me when I jump ahead just tell me. Um it
[20:58] was low density and now it says medium
[21:00] density. Why
[21:04] are we considered medium now?
[21:06] And then it says the city has elected to
[21:09] focus on large and then it says medium
[21:11] density lots
[21:14] in.
[21:15] >> Yes.
[21:16] I asked him to change it because R119 is
[21:20] a medium considered medium density.
[21:23] >> Okay.
[21:23] >> And the he what it should read there is
[21:29] low and medium
[21:33] um
[21:34] >> okay
[21:35] >> low being 1acre lots, medium being R119.
[21:38] >> The way it reads right now, low is
[21:40] crossed out and medium. And I just don't
[21:42] want it to look like we're focused on
[21:43] medium
[21:45] in our community. I'm not certainly.
[21:49] Um, and then further down it says
[21:52] elected to focus on large and large is
[21:54] crossed out and it says medium. So it
[21:56] should be can it be or instead of
[22:00] crossed out or or andor.
[22:03] >> Thanks Ben. Are you talking about? Oh,
[22:06] >> page 22, development patterns,
[22:14] chapter three. Yep.
[22:18] Right in there. See how low is crossed
[22:20] out and it says medium and red and then
[22:22] it
[22:22] >> I I I'm requesting that say andor
[22:28] >> promoting low and or medium.
[22:30] >> Yeah. Or something. I just
[22:35] I don't like the lows c I'm sorry if
[22:37] anybody disagrees with me go ahead and
[22:39] say so
[22:40] >> well are we low and medium
[22:44] >> so yeah I I don't think that there's any
[22:47] low density plan in any of our timelines
[22:52] in anywhere in Woodland Hills
[22:56] I think low is not a good term is medium
[22:59] or large in my opinion Um because our
[23:02] 1119 is the smallest. I mean we we've
[23:04] got some limited ones but there
[23:07] >> large density would be like an apartment
[23:09] complex.
[23:10] >> Yeah.
[23:12] Low density is a five acres. Two
[23:15] >> low or medium. Okay. I'm looking I'm
[23:17] thinking lower medium lot size. I wasn't
[23:19] looking at density.
[23:20] >> There's two places.
[23:22] >> Density component. Yeah.
[23:23] >> Yeah. Density. Lower medium. Okay. That
[23:26] makes sense. You're right.
[23:27] >> Yep.
[23:27] >> I don't think it hurts.
[23:29] >> Yeah, it doesn't.
[23:31] Yeah,
[23:32] >> I know it's just a grammatical thing,
[23:34] but I I was like, wait, uh-uh. That show
[23:37] was my response when I read that.
[23:41] So, if we could unstrike those
[23:45] and make them grammatically correct,
[23:48] that would be wonderful.
[23:49] >> Unstrike all of this
[23:50] >> just the large, medium,
[23:53] >> just to mitigate the impact of these
[23:56] constraints.
[23:57] >> Okay.
[23:57] >> Period.
[23:58] >> Right. Is the plan. different than the
[24:00] one I have.
[24:02] >> Okay.
[24:04] Right.
[24:04] >> Yeah. This this was actually an addition
[24:06] from I think your notes industry is
[24:08] considered low density.
[24:11] >> Yeah. But I mean the majority fires are
[24:14] 75 or more,
[24:15] >> right? I'm just saying we're
[24:19] >> overall.
[24:22] >> All right.
[24:22] >> Uh next. And then page 24
[24:26] is also blurry the graphic.
[24:30] >> Yeah, that's not going to change. I can
[24:32] do the key.
[24:33] >> Can you fix the key?
[24:34] >> I can replace I can edit the key and
[24:36] I'll talk with uh
[24:39] >> I'll see if I can't get
[24:41] >> Maybe my eyes are just blurry.
[24:43] >> No, that's that's a that's a good one.
[24:45] >> Can't be stained.
[24:47] >> Page 26. The key. Can't read the key.
[25:01] That is an import. So maybe there is a
[25:04] setting I need to export better here.
[25:06] >> Okay. Um
[25:10] >> sorry.
[25:10] >> Look here for instance that's crystal
[25:12] clear.
[25:13] >> Even like page 30. It's hard
[25:17] to read those numbers at the bottom.
[25:19] number of housing units on the graph.
[25:31] » Yeah, that's an important thing because
[25:33] they're clear here.
[25:34] >> Okay.
[25:36] Um on page 31,
[25:41] the two graphics at the bottom, they
[25:43] look like they're the same.
[25:45] >> Yes, we deleted one of them.
[25:47] >> Okay. Oh, you cuz see yours is more
[25:49] updated than what we have.
[25:51] >> Yes.
[25:51] >> What I have.
[25:53] >> Okay. The numbers were different, but it
[25:56] read the same at the top. So, I was very
[25:57] confused.
[26:00] Okay.
[26:05] I think I might get a gold star for
[26:07] doing my homework. Let's see. Page 37.
[26:11] The key is blurry.
[26:14] >> Yep. also exporting.
[26:16] >> One major comment I had on this is
[26:19] shouldn't we have a future land use map
[26:21] in the plan? This is just a current
[26:23] zoning map, but we don't have a future.
[26:27] >> I think the future and the current
[26:28] aren't the same,
[26:30] >> right? Cuz the current zoning is taking
[26:32] in the future's anticipated. Uh Wayne,
[26:36] you're the one that requested this
[26:37] alteration. What's your thoughts here?
[26:39] >> We didn't want to lock the city into
[26:42] future zoning.
[26:44] But and that's that's what's happened a
[26:47] little bit. We've gotten push back when
[26:50] we've gone to zone something that um
[26:55] that is zoned differently and
[26:59] people have said to us, well that's not
[27:01] what your zoning map shows. And so
[27:05] the proposed zoning map from previous
[27:09] general plans.
[27:10] >> Sure. So, we wanted to leave flexibility
[27:13] in in future zoning as to whether
[27:18] they're individual lots or whether
[27:20] there's a a a development that's going
[27:24] on and not
[27:28] have the residents feel that we're going
[27:30] against the general plan where there's a
[27:34] proposed future zoning.
[27:38] wanted to leave that open depending upon
[27:41] the circumstances
[27:43] that you felt that it should be zoned
[27:45] as.
[27:46] >> Yeah, that that makes good sense.
[27:49] Um the the concern is isn't the entire
[27:52] purpose behind having a general plan to
[27:55] have a plan for the future to say hey
[28:00] with what our anticipated growth is so
[28:02] we don't go willy-nilly hodge podgeing
[28:05] all over the city to say hey this is
[28:08] prudent development based on what we
[28:10] know with future roads with future um
[28:14] density areas with future um you know,
[28:18] influx of of either density housing or commercial or whatever whatever it
[28:25] may be. Isn't this where we should be?
[28:27] Yeah, we may not get it right, but
[28:29] shouldn't we be planning for, hey, this
[28:33] is what's expected to be happening here?
[28:36] Um, and so this is where we want to be
[28:38] guiding the city to because right now
[28:41] we're just saying, yeah, the zoning is
[28:44] just great. We love it. And if somebody
[28:47] wants to make a change, they can make a
[28:48] change.
[28:51] >> Well, and I think there's there's
[28:52] something to that. I think right now
[28:55] you've got these areas here that are all
[28:58] zoned as agriculture, and I don't think
[29:00] they'll always be that way. Right.
[29:03] >> So, and what I've seen in other general
[29:05] plans, just throw feedback, sometimes
[29:07] it'll say, it doesn't say this is how
[29:10] we're doing the zoning. It says this is
[29:13] um some guidance in our zoning. and say,
[29:15] "We're anticipating in this general
[29:17] area, we're going to have some higher
[29:18] density. We're anticipating lower
[29:20] density." So, you're not actually zoning
[29:22] the property now, but you're saying this
[29:24] is what we're guiding the the direction
[29:27] towards the zone. That makes sense. So,
[29:29] you can show kind of a future map says
[29:32] this is what the thoughts are, but not
[29:33] actually zone the property.
[29:36] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and I guess
[29:38] >> different owners that don't want their
[29:40] property zone, something different than
[29:41] what is now. Like I know the hes you
[29:43] know all a land that's all they they
[29:45] don't want to at least Jason doesn't
[29:46] want to zone it's something different
[29:48] now but but you can say this is what
[29:49] we're thinking in this area if they ever
[29:51] sell
[29:52] >> exactly yeah so so that we're kind of
[29:54] preparing to say hey and and and here's
[29:58] the deal I mean I'm a developer and when
[30:02] I look at cities I'm looking at you know
[30:06] very few of us myself included is
[30:08] competent or qualified enough to say,
[30:11] "Hey, the future of Woodland Hills is
[30:14] going to be best suited to have this, this, and this on every acre of
[30:19] land." Right? I mean, I'd love to say
[30:21] that we could, but we're not those
[30:22] experts. We we can't speak to that
[30:25] growth. We can't speak to what the
[30:28] impacts of that growth are, what's going
[30:29] to be necessary. But there are experts
[30:31] out there who can guide us to say, "Hey,
[30:34] based on what you guys have, this is an
[30:36] appropriate
[30:38] expectation for your vision of the
[30:40] city." and also for you know responsible
[30:43] development. And that's that's kind of
[30:45] what I always talked about is we want to
[30:47] develop responsibly and this my fear in
[30:51] this is that we're just leaving it open
[30:54] which is fantastic but it's also failing
[30:56] to plan for what's inevitably going to
[30:58] come.
[30:59] >> What do you can you talk more about what
[31:01] you think is inevitable to come? The
[31:03] forcing of of higher density. What what
[31:06] exactly are you
[31:07] >> development development will come into
[31:09] those areas? right? It will never remain
[31:11] a field forever. And so us being able to
[31:14] say, "Hey, it's not going to be a
[31:15] hodgepodge of whatever proposal comes to
[31:19] us, it's going to be a well um a well
[31:22] planned, well thought out um
[31:24] professionally. Again, I'm not that
[31:27] professional. Um but we should have
[31:30] somebody who's competent and qualified
[31:32] come in and say, "Hey, if you have a
[31:34] thoroughfare like this, this is what's
[31:36] best for a city of your caliber." Right?
[31:39] is put this type of zoning, put, you
[31:43] know, and then you buffer into this. Um,
[31:45] people get so upset about highdensity
[31:48] residential, but highdensity residential
[31:51] does not devalue low density
[31:52] residential. What devalues low
[31:55] residential, low density residential is
[31:58] commercial or industrial. Um,
[32:02] and there's nothing aside from us that's
[32:04] stopping that from happening. But even
[32:06] that is not a good fail safe, right?
[32:10] Sure. So
[32:11] >> that makes sense.
[32:14] >> Trying to find
[32:15] >> you control the zoning in the moment, so
[32:18] to speak. When when there's something to
[32:21] be reszoned or developer comes in, uh,
[32:24] you can tell them, "No, those are not
[32:26] going to be oneacre lots in there. We
[32:29] need we need some higher density." You
[32:33] control that. you're here today and gone
[32:37] tomorrow. Those views change and then
[32:40] you've got the property owner to deal
[32:43] with as well.
[32:45] >> And again,
[32:49] one of our visions is
[32:52] we've always said along 11200
[32:54] is a good place for commercial
[32:57] >> in there. So when somebody starts
[33:01] talking about homes along there, they
[33:03] said, "No, no, no. that's that's
[33:06] reserved for commercial.
[33:09] And so we we didn't want to lock
[33:13] that up at this point in time. There's
[33:16] still a lot of development that will
[33:18] occur down in those lower areas over the
[33:22] years to come.
[33:23] >> Yeah.
[33:24] >> And and you as a council may have
[33:26] different views and things may change.
[33:28] We're there's a lot of pressure being
[33:31] put on now by the state for
[33:35] high density housing, for affordable
[33:37] housing, whatever. And and that's
[33:40] defined. And so
[33:44] rather than lock in on some of these
[33:46] things, we wanted to leave it flexible
[33:48] enough that the council then with like
[33:52] you say, if a developer comes in and
[33:54] says, I've done the we've done these
[33:56] studies and here's a person we paid x
[33:58] number of dollars to and this is what
[34:01] bet best fits this this area. And you
[34:04] have that flexibility in making those
[34:07] determinations at that point in time. So
[34:10] that's the that's kind of the rationale
[34:13] and idea behind not seeking a a zone now
[34:18] or recommending a particular zone u.
[34:24] >> Yeah. So here's the map that there used
[34:26] to be there.
[34:30] » So they don't actually selling
[34:33] commercial options
[34:36] over here.
[34:37] >> Can I make a comment?
[34:42] as the city like we've talked about
[34:44] sewer's coming
[34:46] >> it's very slow but you guys have a
[34:48] target where it's going to start and how
[34:50] it will be fed through that's one area
[34:53] that would be coordin exactly what
[34:55] you're talking about this is where we
[34:57] want to say this is you know sewer's
[35:00] going to be here so this could support
[35:02] this kind of a development I years ago
[35:06] decades Craig was on the planning zoning
[35:08] in Salem
[35:09] And they had a it wasn't the general
[35:12] plan, but they had a giant map on the
[35:13] wall that they colorcoded and said, you
[35:16] know, this is what we're thinking. It
[35:18] could be in flux. And it was in flux as
[35:21] they made changes like developer came in
[35:24] and put in
[35:26] development on the highway. And so sewer
[35:28] suddenly went south, I mean north and
[35:31] then that changed because it opened up
[35:33] more opportunities. But I what you're
[35:35] saying I think is really important.
[35:38] So is the flexibility. Yeah, I think
[35:40] having that
[35:41] >> SA calls there's a uh it's called the
[35:44] future land use concept.
[35:46] >> So it's not really a land use map. They
[35:49] kind of what
[35:51] >> so similar to it's kind of like that
[35:53] only they've said they've bubbled in
[35:54] areas not really like identified
[35:56] specifically.
[35:56] >> So similar to this map here, right?
[35:58] >> Yeah. They just kind of bubble it in say
[35:59] here's what we're thinking would go
[36:01] here. Here's what we're think go here.
[36:02] So it doesn't reszone it or lock it in.
[36:05] Um, but I don't know if that's anyway.
[36:07] I'm just kind of throwing out what I was
[36:08] saying.
[36:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I just
[36:10] >> You call it a concept map, not really a
[36:13] land use.
[36:14] >> Makes sense. Yeah. And and maybe we we
[36:16] look at that word. I just feel like it's
[36:18] important because it protects protects
[36:21] all of us a little bit from,
[36:24] you know, decisions going ary or little
[36:27] one-off things, right? So, I can sit
[36:30] here and say, well, I trust myself to
[36:32] make a good decision, but I want to see
[36:33] what how it impacts the overall um of
[36:37] the city, not just today, but the
[36:39] adjacent property tomorrow, the next
[36:41] day, the next year. So,
[36:43] >> so I like I like the the idea of the
[36:46] concept because we have been hamstrung
[36:50] because of our general plan and had to
[36:52] vote certain ways, didn't have a choice
[36:55] because it was in the general plan. this
[36:56] is what our future is and this is what
[36:58] we plan for it. Um regardless of what
[37:01] the the residents wanted. Um we were
[37:04] kind of I felt I felt that I was was
[37:08] trapped in that decision and couldn't change it. So I like the idea
[37:12] of setting a concept and saying very
[37:15] clearly this isn't
[37:18] a have to. This is what we're this is
[37:20] what we're envisioning, right? Uh, so I
[37:23] like that and and I like being able to
[37:25] have those guidelines in place like like
[37:27] Steve is talking about.
[37:31] » Okay, keep thinking about this.
[37:33] >> That's certainly your prerogative
[37:36] >> to do that. And I don't I'm not
[37:38] disagreeing. I'm just giving you a
[37:40] reason why
[37:41] >> why you're protecting. Yeah, which makes
[37:43] sense.
[37:45] >> Let's keep thinking about that. If you
[37:46] have more thoughts, send them over my
[37:48] way. Um, and again, just so you guys all
[37:51] know, when I was kind of compiling this,
[37:55] I did not insert my opinion anywhere in
[37:57] the document. So, it's just the merging
[38:00] of the two bodies. Uh, next page. What
[38:04] do we got?
[38:04] >> 40.
[38:05] >> Page 40. You may have fixed this
[38:08] already, but in the second paragraph,
[38:10] tranquility of rural life, there was a
[38:12] space missing. It's just a grammatical
[38:16] thing.
[38:19] Uh up
[38:21] right
[38:22] rural life outdoor lighting down down right there. It needs a space and
[38:28] then
[38:31] oh I'm going to open a can of worms.
[38:34] >> Nice guy.
[38:35] >> If anybody has any
[38:37] >> I'm going to open it all your notes for
[38:39] public comment.
[38:41] Um, what? Okay, I understand.
[38:46] But why did we remove in a recent public
[38:49] survey, residents expressed support for
[38:51] preserving dark skies and continuing to
[38:53] limit artificial lighting?
[38:55] This is what the residents wanted. We're
[38:58] just saying what the residents wanted. I
[39:01] understand. We're not saying that we're
[39:02] going to do it.
[39:05] Well, I think there is some
[39:06] falsification in this verbiage to
[39:09] exaggerate what the research the survey
[39:12] actually said.
[39:14] >> Okay.
[39:14] >> Right. So over 80% of residents
[39:17] indicated
[39:18] >> it was 80% of those that took the survey
[39:22] >> which was onlyund
[39:23] >> which is a small small
[39:26] >> respondent
[39:27] >> right? So it just it is stating
[39:32] something far larger than actual.
[39:36] >> Okay.
[39:36] >> Is my assumption here.
[39:38] >> Can I
[39:39] >> Yes.
[39:40] >> I'm going to add that also. I think
[39:41] people didn't understand what dark skies
[39:43] and night skies. When you tell them dark
[39:46] skies, they're two different things than
[39:48] night sky.
[39:51] And it leaned heavily into dark sky
[39:53] which forces regulations. Night sky is
[39:56] what we
[39:57] >> I think it actually used the verbiage of
[39:59] night skies in the survey.
[40:01] >> Did they use the word night sky? Night
[40:02] sky.
[40:03] >> So they used it here. Dark sky. Dark
[40:05] sky.
[40:05] >> Mhm.
[40:06] >> And then here the city should take
[40:09] proactive steps to prevent to preserve
[40:11] our night sky.
[40:13] >> So now
[40:14] >> that's what I think I really agree with.
[40:17] Definitely preserve our what we have the
[40:20] beauty we have.
[40:22] >> Do they want more policing? I don't know
[40:24] >> cuz question one, two
[40:29] used night sky and four used dark sky.
[40:34] >> I guess um
[40:38] I just, you know, if there's some way to
[40:42] make that wording a little more correct,
[40:45] but also
[40:45] >> Diana had a good suggestion, maybe just
[40:47] say not percent of respondents.
[40:50] >> Yeah.
[40:50] Not% of residents.
[40:53] I mean, I just I guess I don't want to
[40:55] discount what the people that took the
[40:57] survey did say and what they expressed.
[40:59] >> The approximately
[41:02] 40% of respondents or 30% that
[41:04] responded, you know, 80% of those wanted
[41:07] or something like that.
[41:08] >> Yeah, some kind of disclaimer. I know.
[41:10] I'm sorry. I'm I know that's a can of
[41:12] worms, but
[41:14] >> it should be there.
[41:15] >> But when you talk to residents, the
[41:17] majority of them do want the night sky
[41:18] preserved.
[41:20] >> The majority do sky. Night sky is fine.
[41:24] >> Yes,
[41:24] >> we we wanted to take it out of the dark
[41:26] sky which implies ordinance changes for
[41:30] lighting,
[41:31] >> I get it,
[41:32] >> etc., etc.
[41:33] >> No, I know.
[41:34] >> It makes sense. Is dark sky trademarked
[41:38] or is it just the
[41:41] >> It is. Yes.
[41:44] >> Huh?
[41:46] >> Yes, it is trademarked. Um both US and
[41:50] international.
[41:54] Yeah, I'll re I'll kind of reddraft that
[41:57] per your guys' input and send it back
[41:58] out.
[41:59] >> Is that okay?
[42:00] >> Yeah.
[42:00] >> Um,
[42:01] >> everything's okay.
[42:03] >> Just a question. All right, let's see. I
[42:07] think
[42:07] >> we'll go back to 39 real quick. We
[42:09] deleted the TDR program. Um,
[42:13] >> 39.
[42:14] >> Yeah, back to page 39. Sorry.
[42:18] um
[42:20] >> strategic open space.
[42:22] >> Was there a reason behind removing that?
[42:25] I mean, what kind of the general idea
[42:28] behind the TDR program is
[42:30] >> we didn't think there was a chance of
[42:32] that even happening
[42:35] and so we felt it was just kind of
[42:38] extraneous. It's an idea but chances of
[42:41] it ever happening
[42:44] in our view again may differ with your
[42:47] own but that's the reason it was reowned
[42:53] » the transfer of development rights can
[42:55] you explain that better Steve
[42:57] >> I can't
[42:58] >> okay
[42:59] >> category
[43:00] >> is that like what we did with a planned
[43:02] unit development if they um gave
[43:06] property to the city we gave them a
[43:09] density bonus then. But the property
[43:12] that was given to the city most of the
[43:14] time was uh
[43:16] >> gorgees
[43:17] >> gorges and gullies that we then ended up
[43:19] having to maintain and have our wildland
[43:22] fire crew.
[43:24] >> It was never buildable in the first
[43:26] place. While it's a
[43:29] unique FE feature, it wouldn't have
[43:32] provided them any benefit and it really
[43:36] didn't
[43:37] >> provide us any benefit maybe. But we did
[43:41] do that with um PBD and Oaks.
[43:45] >> Okay.
[43:46] So, as we talk about that, is is there
[43:49] Joe, you seem to understand it best. um
[43:52] like when we trade off like let's say we
[43:54] allow a higher density for a tradeoff of
[43:57] dedicated land like a right of way or
[44:00] something like that is is there benefit
[44:02] on that front where we can dictate and
[44:04] say okay we're going to give you better
[44:06] density you're going to make the
[44:08] improvements or dedicate right of way to
[44:10] us that we can actually use
[44:12] >> usually do that in a development
[44:13] agreement if you're going to do
[44:14] something like that which they have a
[44:16] choice to do
[44:17] >> okay
[44:18] >> um
[44:19] maybe we need to encourage more
[44:21] development agreements than not. I mean,
[44:25] that's that may be something you want to
[44:26] look at
[44:28] >> as um a council as you go forward. If
[44:30] they bring a you could look at changing
[44:32] the ordinance and say, you know, if
[44:34] you've got more than 10 acres, you're
[44:36] required to bring a development
[44:38] agreement with it that might benefit the
[44:40] city, but that would be down in our our
[44:43] city code
[44:45] >> those changes. It's currently at like
[44:47] five acres or something or
[44:50] >> 50 acres.
[44:50] >> 50 acres. Wow. Okay.
[44:53] >> It's you can do a development agreement
[44:55] with um I think it's 10 acres in the old
[44:58] area
[44:58] >> and any PUD I think requires a
[45:01] development agreement
[45:04] and then zone for a PUD.
[45:07] But if you want to get more creative in
[45:08] how the zoning's going to look or how a
[45:11] development's going to look, then you
[45:12] want to probably definitely look at
[45:15] encouraging those development agreements
[45:18] and a PUD.
[45:19] >> So, so that serves every purpose that a
[45:21] TDR program would, but a little more
[45:23] flexibility, it sounds like. Okay.
[45:26] >> Yeah. A little more customizability as
[45:28] well. I think one thing I've learned as
[45:31] I've kind of worked closer now with
[45:33] developers and Ted and Wayne and
[45:35] everybody is
[45:37] every single piece of land on this city
[45:40] is almost unique to that piece of land,
[45:43] right? I got a phone call yesterday from
[45:45] a resident. I need to call him back, but
[45:47] you know, requesting a variance for his
[45:50] exception on his piece of land. And it's
[45:52] like, well, that'd be great,
[45:56] except I we'd have to do that for every
[45:58] single person. So, we kind of have to
[45:59] stick to certain rules, but it's there's
[46:02] options still also with the variance
[46:04] options.
[46:05] There's still options within people's
[46:07] rights and property ownership.
[46:09] >> Okay, next page.
[46:11] >> 48. Uh, at the bottom, those are blurry
[46:14] as well. A little exporting.
[46:17] >> Hang on. I had some Ted or uh Ben, did
[46:20] you or mayor, sorry, did you fix the
[46:23] ones that were sent in that were just
[46:25] spelling?
[46:27] >> Yes.
[46:28] >> Okay. So, I don't need to bring those
[46:29] up. I don't need until 40.
[46:34] » If you sent it to me, it's either been
[46:37] edited or on my list still to edit.
[46:41] >> I I sent it to you back on the 24th of
[46:43] March. Okay, I received yours and
[46:45] Steve's emails.
[46:49] >> Um,
[46:52] not anything specific on chapter five.
[46:55] So, like back, but I do have a question.
[46:57] Uh, I was thinking about this.
[47:01] We have, you know, three big main
[47:02] corridors out of town. Ted, this is a
[47:05] question for you. As if we were fully
[47:08] developed out, would our roads be would
[47:11] they ever I mean, do we ever need
[47:12] another main corridor? like will we ever
[47:14] be too congested?
[47:17] >> I don't think so because most of the
[47:19] development that that we have left
[47:21] available space
[47:22] >> is at the bottom.
[47:25] >> Um and we're looking at as that develops
[47:28] making some interconnecting roads to
[47:30] different in other words not just one
[47:32] road into there right multiple
[47:34] connections down there. Um, so I don't
[47:37] know that we'd ever have enough traffic
[47:41] to clog up our roads, our three main
[47:42] corridors.
[47:43] >> Okay. I just wondered that as I was
[47:45] reading about the roads.
[47:49] » Winding them.
[47:53] would be a nightmare
[47:54] anyway.
[47:55] >> No, it would for sure. It's already hard
[47:57] enough trying to get trail right.
[47:59] >> Mhm. Our
[48:00] >> traffic counts right now. They didn't
[48:01] they did a study on Wood Hills Drive as
[48:03] part of that round study.
[48:05] I mean out of our city traffic and it
[48:07] wasn't terribly heavy right now traffic.
[48:13] >> Okay. Next.
[48:15] >> Anybody
[48:16] >> just did you see that email that I
[48:17] forwarded on the Bonavville the trail
[48:20] thing?
[48:20] >> I saw that. I saw it.
[48:25] » Yeah.
[48:25] >> It's in my email.
[48:26] >> I I mean they sent it to me. Oh, okay.
[48:28] Wait. On page 63. That little pie is
[48:32] blurry.
[48:34] Yeah, we we'll fix all the graphics.
[48:37] >> Okay. And then 65, the map is blurry.
[48:41] And that's interesting. That's the
[48:42] Bonavville
[48:43] shoreline trail configuration. And
[48:45] that's what the email was about.
[48:49] >> Yeah. Ted and I used or mostly Ted used
[48:52] that and hopefully to be able to get and
[48:55] petition the the funding for the trail
[48:57] project from MAG is the interlocal
[49:00] nature of our trail.
[49:03] Okay.
[49:05] Um,
[49:07] yeah, just I thought this was good. I
[49:09] didn't have any really concerns on the trail one.
[49:17] I almost uh when I first started reading
[49:19] the part of the switchbacks, I was like,
[49:21] it doesn't talk about the the width, but
[49:23] then it does on the next page on trail
[49:26] tread about the width limitation. I just
[49:29] think that's important.
[49:32] because that is a change that's been
[49:33] made.
[49:37] You you suggested in here that it needs
[49:39] more maintenance. Thanks.
[49:44] » Guess who's going to have to go do that?
[49:47] Me
[49:49] with Sherry and crew will be out there
[49:54] in May probably.
[49:56] Um,
[49:59] yeah. So, that was I think that was all
[50:01] I had.
[50:02] >> Most most of mine were simp just
[50:05] graphics unreadable.
[50:06] >> Yeah.
[50:07] >> And I saw that Steve had one of his
[50:09] initial email a lot of that out. So,
[50:13] >> yeah.
[50:14] I I think only a couple things on page
[50:17] 42 or sorry, were you done, Dan? Sorry.
[50:20] >> Yep.
[50:21] Um 42, deleting the the overlay zone for
[50:25] future zone changes in development. Is
[50:27] that kind of a similar mentality we had
[50:29] there? Um
[50:36] » what's planning commission's thoughts
[50:37] there on three?
[50:39] >> Can you read it?
[50:40] >> Use the overlay zone criteria to
[50:42] evaluate proposed site plans,
[50:45] architectural renderings, and
[50:47] development agreements.
[50:50] Uh the section header is explore
[50:53] commercial and mixeduse development
[50:54] opportunities that align with public
[50:57] preferences and community character.
[51:02] So is that excluded primarily due to the
[51:05] fact of
[51:07] um
[51:09] removing that future possible map and
[51:13] changing it to the existing
[51:15] >> number two above it says consider zoning
[51:19] overlays.
[51:21] I I think we thought it was maybe
[51:23] duplicitous a little bit. Mhm.
[51:31] Okay. I mean, if I were if I were to
[51:34] look at those two, I would say that
[51:36] three is probably more applicable than
[51:38] two if we feel like one of them's
[51:40] duplicitus. But I mean, I do like the
[51:43] idea of talking about village commercial
[51:45] or mixed use architecturally compatible
[51:47] stuff. But I also like the development
[51:49] agreements,
[51:50] um, architectural renderings, that sort
[51:52] of thing. So I
[51:53] >> and it's it's more holistic.
[51:56] That one's
[51:57] >> two points out very specific components
[51:59] of development etc. Whereas number three
[52:02] is a little more generic
[52:03] >> and could be applied to two
[52:05] >> whereas two doesn't necessarily apply to
[52:07] three and three is more broad.
[52:08] >> Yeah,
[52:09] >> it's kind of how I feel. So I I don't
[52:10] know. That's just my thoughts is that
[52:12] it's applicable. Yeah. that I mean
[52:16] this
[52:17] >> or if you want to read or if you want
[52:19] just this like I would parlay this one
[52:21] over that because it's just more
[52:23] inclusive because it's talking about
[52:25] full development agreements
[52:26] architectural rentings this is specific
[52:28] to commercial mixuse etc. So, if you
[52:30] want to keep one of them, I think what
[52:32] Steve is saying is this one seems to be
[52:34] more inclusive of everything versus
[52:36] number two.
[52:37] >> Is that what you're saying?
[52:38] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[52:39] >> I would agree.
[52:46] » Okay.
[52:49] >> Um
[52:50] page 50, um the ADG,
[52:54] some opposition to the ADG there. Again,
[52:57] I just wanted to understand that a
[52:58] little bit more.
[53:04] boost number
[53:08] page 50 there.
[53:09] >> Yeah, page let's see architectural
[53:12] design guidelines. Um right there on C.
[53:16] >> Okay, that was my question was which
[53:18] one?
[53:19] >> Yeah, I'm sorry. C one. um ensure that
[53:23] only any overlay or master plan approval
[53:26] includes architectural design guideline
[53:28] options. Um
[53:32] there again I mean without being too
[53:33] restrictive or or too too controlling
[53:37] you know if if we do see something like
[53:40] that doesn't that not give us the
[53:42] ability to dictate that hey this is what
[53:44] we're expecting to see there within
[53:47] architectural design guidelines.
[53:50] I think we're telling them they have to
[53:52] provide it, ensure that
[53:56] and I think that's really pretty strong.
[53:59] Uh it may be a better word to include
[54:03] that
[54:05] in there. I think that's the reason we
[54:07] removed it to not be so emphatic
[54:13] about it.
[54:15] Use the term may instead.
[54:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I mean it makes sense. I
[54:22] guess it's it's just a matter of how
[54:24] important is
[54:28] are dictating,
[54:30] you know, what goes on down there
[54:31] architecturally. Is it
[54:33] >> some things?
[54:34] >> Yeah.
[54:34] >> Some things we can't.
[54:37] >> Um
[54:37] >> so, something like that
[54:41] >> may include clear architectural design
[54:44] guidelines for multif family housing.
[54:48] Unless we establish an HOA, we can't
[54:52] uh determine architectural design
[54:55] guidelines.
[54:56] >> So, and that's where I've got a problem
[54:59] with this page because it says um that
[55:04] it's uh you know, architecture. Well,
[55:06] actually 49 talks about it being um the
[55:11] architectural features and layout are
[55:13] strictly controlled by the city. Well,
[55:16] when it comes to features, that is
[55:17] nonstructural for the most part. I mean,
[55:20] we can control structural features,
[55:22] structural architectural features, but
[55:24] we cannot control anything that's
[55:26] nonstructural. That's very specific. I
[55:28] learned that from Wayne. Um, and so I
[55:32] hate I don't like the way this is
[55:34] spelled because it spells like it's it's worded like we have lots of control
[55:39] and we're controlling the these these
[55:42] architectural features when we're in in
[55:46] reality we're not. It's only the
[55:48] structural ones that we have any say
[55:50] whatsoever.
[55:56] You have a suggested uh alteration
[55:58] there, Brian.
[56:00] >> Um
[56:02] there are a few features through our
[56:04] other codes that we do just a little bit
[56:06] like height of the building
[56:08] and then some of the exterior materials
[56:11] because of our wood codes, but I don't
[56:14] know it's really that
[56:17] >> okay.
[56:19] I think we have to get out of there that
[56:21] the council retains strict control over
[56:23] architectural features and layouts
[56:25] because we don't we can't.
[56:28] >> Well, we don't want to either.
[56:30] >> Yeah. The whole title of that page 49 is
[56:33] just wrong.
[56:39] » Yeah. So, you're thinking right here.
[56:43] I can
[56:45] >> that.
[56:49] » Yeah, that that whole line right there.
[57:01] » Okay. Anything else?
[57:04] Um,
[57:07] page 60 talks about feedback from the
[57:10] city from from the respondents to avoid
[57:13] sidewalks, but a lot of favoritism
[57:17] toward trails. So, I guess in my mind,
[57:21] they were kind of one and the same, but
[57:23] apparently not. I mean, a trail is just
[57:26] a paved pathway and a sidewalk is
[57:30] >> a paved pathway.
[57:32] >> Yeah. I don't know.
[57:34] >> I think a sidewalk has to is is
[57:36] concrete.
[57:37] >> Okay.
[57:39] >> Um
[57:39] >> the width changes a little bit with
[57:41] sidewalk versus trail material
[57:44] >> drainage requirements.
[57:46] >> Okay. So, so when we talk about trails,
[57:50] we're not talking about sidewalks at
[57:52] all. Okay. I mean, I just
[57:54] >> No.
[57:56] >> Okay.
[57:58] And then page 61, my last comment,
[58:00] sorry, was um
[58:01] >> don't be sorry.
[58:02] >> The strong language about the trails. Um
[58:09] » striking here.
[58:10] >> Yeah. Um
[58:14] so so we we struck that out. Um but it
[58:17] seems pretty clear that that's an
[58:19] important thing.
[58:21] >> Yeah. I I actually didn't love that that
[58:24] uh was struck stricken. It is expected.
[58:29] >> Can we soften it somehow? I mean um
[58:34] an important component or
[58:36] >> highly desired. Highly desired. I like
[58:38] highly desired.
[58:40] >> Yeah. I mean is that agreeable at that
[58:42] point? Um
[58:45] >> yeah. If you just if you just put is
[58:46] highly desired and then get rid of the
[58:48] is it is expected. Yeah. Yeah.
[58:49] >> It takes the strength out, but it still
[58:51] gives it strength back, right?
[58:52] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[58:53] >> It doesn't make it like four exclamation
[58:55] points, but it does make it one,
[58:57] >> right?
[58:58] >> Something like that.
[58:59] >> Yeah, I think that's that's good. Does
[59:01] that seem good?
[59:02] >> Yeah.
[59:03] >> When?
[59:04] >> Yeah.
[59:06] >> Okay.
[59:08] >> All right.
[59:08] >> Anything else?
[59:09] >> I've got a couple more.
[59:11] >> I mean, I had some spelling and and
[59:13] things like that on page 46.
[59:16] Um I put in my notes that um the the new
[59:20] numbers for the median Woodlands home Woodland Hills home price is not
[59:24] reflected in the table
[59:26] um because we've added that because
[59:28] we've gotten more data since this was
[59:30] put together that needs to be added to
[59:32] the table um because it doesn't match.
[59:37] >> Okay. So, you're saying this table here?
[59:41] >> I think I think that's the right
[59:43] >> I think that's the right table, but it
[59:45] was a median home where they had put
[59:47] some numbers in and then Wayne added the
[59:50] new median home price
[59:54] and it just did.
[59:55] >> These are these are specific to years,
[59:59] right? So, this is 2020 or 2017 and
[1:00:02] 2023.
[1:00:04] >> I think it's the top one. doesn't match
[1:00:06] what is in the new verb verbiage
[1:00:10] >> as of 2023.
[1:00:12] >> Yeah, these are as of 2023 right here.
[1:00:17] » So, I think the non-correlation actually
[1:00:19] is okay
[1:00:22] because this is now stating the numbers
[1:00:24] of 2025.
[1:00:26] >> Is it related to the one up on the upper
[1:00:28] right? Is that the one you're referring
[1:00:29] to, Brian?
[1:00:31] Um might be
[1:00:36] >> well that's 2023 that's a carryover
[1:00:38] rate.
[1:00:40] >> Yeah that that would yeah should be
[1:00:44] >> oh I don't think
[1:00:45] >> it too long. Dang it.
[1:00:48] >> It's okay. So loan amount factor.
[1:00:51] >> Yeah. I wonder if that's a carryover
[1:00:52] from the table. Huh.
[1:00:54] >> I don't think it is. I don't think it is
[1:00:56] because you've got a
[1:00:57] >> because it has a
[1:00:58] >> you've got a footnote
[1:00:58] >> a footnote here and then a different
[1:01:01] footnote for this one. So I think it's
[1:01:03] not.
[1:01:04] >> So during 2025 there was 25 home 21
[1:01:06] homes sold in Willen Hills for pricing
[1:01:08] ranging from 750 to 3.5. Medium home
[1:01:13] cost price was uh 1.0
[1:01:17] you know25. The average home selling
[1:01:19] price was 1.4.
[1:01:24] So, Wooden Hills medium home price
[1:01:29] loan amounts factoring. It does not
[1:01:31] include utilities for the 2025 estimate.
[1:01:37] >> So, do we just need a bump? Well,
[1:01:40] >> that's up.
[1:01:41] >> That might have been it.
[1:01:43] >> Yeah. My question is, can you can you
[1:01:46] have the median there? That's the way I
[1:01:50] read that is 510 to 880 is a is a range
[1:01:52] median range, right?
[1:01:54] >> Otherwise, we would have to have a
[1:01:55] singular number. If you say median, it's
[1:01:57] a singular value. But if we put in
[1:01:59] median range,
[1:02:01] >> then that gives us the the low end and
[1:02:05] highend capability there.
[1:02:06] >> So, we probably what should jump this
[1:02:08] though?
[1:02:09] >> Yeah, that but well, even the bottom cuz
[1:02:12] you're saying ranging from 750 to 35.
[1:02:15] So, how can the median be 510? because
[1:02:18] it was in 2017 to
[1:02:21] so they're old numbers.
[1:02:22] >> There's some old numbers in there mixed
[1:02:24] with new numbers. Right. These these are
[1:02:26] >> a different table than this one down
[1:02:28] here.
[1:02:29] >> This is
[1:02:29] >> I don't think it's supposed to be. I
[1:02:31] think it was originally on the same but
[1:02:33] let me pull up the original document.
[1:02:36] >> No, it's my question. Is it part of that
[1:02:38] or is it different?
[1:02:39] >> I don't think so. That makes the best
[1:02:40] sense
[1:02:42] >> because if it's different then we want
[1:02:44] to update it. it but if it's the same
[1:02:47] >> I guess the the question would be for me
[1:02:49] is is there value in showing a median
[1:02:52] range over the course of a six-year
[1:02:53] period or should we show the most recent
[1:02:55] data median range
[1:02:56] >> well let me ask this this may help does
[1:02:59] anybody have an issue if I actually just
[1:03:01] remove this
[1:03:04] >> does the old data
[1:03:06] >> the old
[1:03:07] >> that may shift my alignments here which
[1:03:10] answers our question
[1:03:11] >> yeah you can just control C
[1:03:13] >> so there it
[1:03:15] Oh,
[1:03:15] >> there you go.
[1:03:16] >> Okay,
[1:03:18] >> that makes sense.
[1:03:18] >> Now I need to put this back to 550.
[1:03:20] >> Okay, so that makes sense why there's
[1:03:21] two.
[1:03:23] >> Okay.
[1:03:24] >> All right, perfect.
[1:03:26] >> Yeah, because it was it almost looked
[1:03:29] like it because it did that one little
[1:03:30] footnote. It looked like it was almost
[1:03:32] its own.
[1:03:32] >> Yeah.
[1:03:34] >> Does that resolve your question, Brian?
[1:03:36] >> Yeah, but it's I don't know. I've got
[1:03:39] something something is going on with my
[1:03:42] copy of it that I can't see everything
[1:03:44] properly. But I think I think that does
[1:03:47] I think that makes more sense.
[1:03:51] Um the next one
[1:03:56] um page
[1:03:58] 49.
[1:04:00] Um,
[1:04:02] so I guess that one's more of a if we're taking out or because we we
[1:04:08] deleted the or is unbuildable due to
[1:04:11] topographic constraints, we have to get
[1:04:13] rid of the either. Can't have either
[1:04:16] without an or
[1:04:21] » Okay, let me see if I can track what
[1:04:23] you're saying here. Wait, that's on 49.
[1:04:26] >> That's what I've That's what I've got as
[1:04:28] 49. Um
[1:04:31] >> I don't see the strike for
[1:04:33] >> so or is unbuildable due to so the
[1:04:37] either is where
[1:04:41] » yeah I don't
[1:04:42] >> available land within Woodland Hills is
[1:04:44] either platted for future
[1:04:45] >> either you got to pick either
[1:04:47] >> family homes on mediumsiz lots
[1:04:53] » either Woodland Hills is either do you
[1:04:55] see it
[1:04:56] >> I haven't found it yet either
[1:04:57] >> either second
[1:04:59] I say I have it on my finger on it.
[1:05:01] >> Where are you? I'm not seeing where
[1:05:03] you're at on that screen.
[1:05:06] >> You got it, Brian.
[1:05:08] >> Yeah, this is the issue with the way in
[1:05:10] design operates is as I add larger
[1:05:14] chunks
[1:05:15] >> changing stuff. So, I've got an edit
[1:05:18] process now that I get to go through
[1:05:21] after we've done all this kind of a
[1:05:22] layout.
[1:05:24] Okay.
[1:05:25] >> All right. Another thing on same page 49
[1:05:29] um it states this suggests that multif
[1:05:31] family housing such as town homes condo
[1:05:34] and condos can be built in Woodland
[1:05:35] Hills provided the council retains oh
[1:05:37] wait we've already talked about that
[1:05:38] sorry page 50
[1:05:41] sorry about that okay in page 50
[1:05:44] um
[1:05:46] this is where the title is wrong there
[1:05:49] is no realistic opportunity for moderate
[1:05:51] income housing woodland
[1:05:54] >> yeah It's not feasible. I don't I think
[1:05:57] that's just that's that's false
[1:06:00] advertising.
[1:06:01] Um we just don't there's nothing that
[1:06:03] there's no way to make that realistic.
[1:06:06] >> Um
[1:06:07] >> I agree and yeah
[1:06:09] >> so maybe about it at the end of 49. Um
[1:06:13] >> may not be as realistic but the state is
[1:06:15] required to address it.
[1:06:17] >> Yeah.
[1:06:18] >> So we can't just take it out. We have to
[1:06:19] somehow address it in our general. Well,
[1:06:22] I think actually you guys are I think
[1:06:24] there is a potential option for moderate
[1:06:28] income housing
[1:06:30] when it comes to ADUs,
[1:06:32] >> right?
[1:06:35] » That's that's our only option for
[1:06:37] affordable housing.
[1:06:39] >> And I think you've got also basement
[1:06:41] rentals, right? which is why we went
[1:06:44] down that path with the legislation we
[1:06:46] passed over the last couple years was to
[1:06:50] create carve out the ability to have
[1:06:52] some form of moderate income housing,
[1:06:56] >> right? Like I'm planning to just move
[1:06:58] into Steve's guest house here soon. So,
[1:07:01] >> me too.
[1:07:03] >> You want to talk?
[1:07:05] >> But what we're talking about here other
[1:07:06] than other than addressing internal and
[1:07:08] external ADUs is is not moderate income
[1:07:12] housing.
[1:07:13] Is that the dog house?
[1:07:16] >> I think uh it's often used as you can
[1:07:19] imagine.
[1:07:22] >> Um on the title it is moderate incoming
[1:07:25] housing goals.
[1:07:27] >> Hey, it's it's incoming.
[1:07:33] » All right, my last thing is on page 60.
[1:07:40] Uh goal 3A number two.
[1:07:44] >> 3A2. Okay.
[1:07:46] >> States uh limit use of culde-sacs unless
[1:07:48] topography requires it. My opinion often
[1:07:52] land placement um necessitates
[1:07:54] culde-sacs and not just topography when
[1:07:57] we've got a an area that is blocked by
[1:08:02] you know can't can't you just can't have
[1:08:04] a a pull through. There's no U-shaped
[1:08:06] space. There's no cross. You know,
[1:08:09] sometimes I think that it's not just
[1:08:12] topography that requires that that
[1:08:14] necessitates culde-sac and they don't
[1:08:16] want us to lock us into topography and
[1:08:19] have someone who, you know, would like
[1:08:22] to complain about everything that we
[1:08:23] approve say you you say that we're only
[1:08:27] doing topography and you're allowing
[1:08:28] them to do a culde-sac in this one. So,
[1:08:31] that's where I've got a problem. I think
[1:08:33] it it it needs to either add um
[1:08:39] uh land placement or rewarded another
[1:08:43] way.
[1:08:45] >> So limit use of culde-sacs unless
[1:08:47] topography requires it
[1:08:51] >> topography or land
[1:08:53] >> consider appropriate use. Diana had just
[1:08:56] say whenever possible
[1:08:58] >> whenever possible will work
[1:09:00] >> because we do have constraints.
[1:09:02] >> Perfect.
[1:09:04] >> We want our pls to
[1:09:06] >> I don't want to be stuck with topography
[1:09:07] is the only reason to have a cold.
[1:09:10] >> Well, like I said, every single piece of
[1:09:13] land in this city is unique, right? And
[1:09:15] so we're going to have to look at every
[1:09:17] single piece of land
[1:09:20] and figure out what's possible with it.
[1:09:22] >> Yep. 100%.
[1:09:25] Okay, next.
[1:09:26] >> All up.
[1:09:28] >> Sweet. Wonderful. Okay.
[1:09:31] Anything else? Dan. Oh,
[1:09:33] >> Brian, you're good. Steve, you good?
[1:09:36] Janet?
[1:09:36] >> Yep. Good.
[1:09:38] >> Nice.
[1:09:39] >> Is the sun still shining or did somebody
[1:09:41] >> The sun is still shining.
[1:09:44] >> Well,
[1:09:44] >> okay.
[1:09:46] We are going to move on.
[1:09:48] >> We did good.
[1:09:49] >> Um to update on city grants. Ted,
[1:09:52] >> be out.
[1:09:53] >> Okay. No city grants. We'll come back to
[1:09:56] him then.
[1:09:57] >> Oh, Ted's back.
[1:10:00] >> Back.
[1:10:01] >> Pull up a chair.
[1:10:02] >> Um I I really got nothing on city
[1:10:05] grants. No updates. We've still got the
[1:10:06] three we're waiting on.
[1:10:08] >> Well, pull up a chair and go with
[1:10:09] community development, public works, and
[1:10:11] fire department.
[1:10:13] >> Um
[1:10:16] sorry, which ones are mine? Uh
[1:10:19] public works, fire department, community
[1:10:21] development. Um,
[1:10:24] no updates. I talked to the road people
[1:10:26] today. They're actually wanting to get
[1:10:28] started sometime in kind of late summer.
[1:10:30] Um, actually, they'd like to start in
[1:10:32] July doing our roads. I told them we may
[1:10:34] not have the funding in place. So, keep
[1:10:36] that in mind. Um, because we're working
[1:10:38] on the bond that would be somewhere in
[1:10:39] August.
[1:10:40] >> Um, they may opt to start forward.
[1:10:44] >> Yeah.
[1:10:45] >> Pull that timing forward. Correct, Jody?
[1:10:46] >> Because allegedly
[1:10:47] >> with the new budget cycle, right? It
[1:10:49] goes in the new budget
[1:10:50] >> approved
[1:10:50] >> July one.
[1:10:51] >> Yeah, but we've actually already put it
[1:10:54] through the last budget. So, we've
[1:10:56] already got the approvals in place from
[1:10:58] the council. We still
[1:11:00] >> we still have to do a resolution, then a
[1:11:01] 30-day and a public hearing. As soon as
[1:11:06] we do anything, and I haven't gotten the
[1:11:08] timeline, yeah,
[1:11:12] >> has he responded?
[1:11:13] >> Yes, he did.
[1:11:14] >> We had a meeting with him.
[1:11:15] >> Okay, awesome. But the soonest we're
[1:11:17] looking at even be able to pull it off
[1:11:22] would be beginning in July because
[1:11:27] >> what I told them if they wanted to start
[1:11:28] in July realizing there wouldn't be a
[1:11:31] payment coming till August due in
[1:11:33] September or worst case due in August
[1:11:36] that we could probably get them start in
[1:11:38] July.
[1:11:39] >> That makes sense
[1:11:40] >> cuz they wouldn't even submit us an
[1:11:42] invoice till
[1:11:43] >> August probably. Then you got 30 days be
[1:11:48] >> how how's that going to align with the
[1:11:50] uh Woodland Hills? I mean, it's not
[1:11:52] obviously not related, but is it gonna
[1:11:54] >> the construction? They just have to go
[1:11:56] >> construction there and the roundabout
[1:11:58] everything.
[1:11:58] >> Hey, we've learned this from Salem.
[1:12:01] >> Just shut down and everybody will figure
[1:12:04] it out.
[1:12:04] >> That's right.
[1:12:05] >> It will be. So, what what the
[1:12:07] recommendation is going to be? So, most
[1:12:09] of these roads are up here at the top of
[1:12:10] the city. Loafer Eagle Nest at the top
[1:12:13] of Woodland Hills Drive. I think we got
[1:12:15] one little piece on Woodland Hills Drive
[1:12:17] to do.
[1:12:18] >> But what we're suggesting people do when
[1:12:21] all this construction starts taking
[1:12:23] place is go down Summit Creek. Now
[1:12:25] Summit Creek people aren't going to like
[1:12:26] that. But Summit Creek or Willow Reed.
[1:12:28] >> Say Willow Reed for me.
[1:12:30] >> Yeah.
[1:12:31] And then they can go out to
[1:12:32] Loafer. What Salem's trying to do is use
[1:12:34] Gar Bay to head over Loper Canyon Road
[1:12:36] if they want down.
[1:12:37] >> Gotcha. Because even while this road's
[1:12:40] work is going on Woody Hills Drive,
[1:12:42] Salem City is also doing work within
[1:12:44] their city. So if you try and jog
[1:12:46] through Salem, you're probably going to
[1:12:47] get stuck, too.
[1:12:48] >> You're going to have to do a video.
[1:12:51] >> I think you're going to use some chalk
[1:12:53] for that.
[1:12:54] >> Diana Ariel Diana.
[1:12:56] >> See,
[1:12:58] sided with the get you on the council.
[1:13:03] >> Stop.
[1:13:04] >> Not much.
[1:13:07] Um I think you need to do a video about
[1:13:11] the roads when that's
[1:13:13] >> I'm still a little bit confused, but
[1:13:14] yeah. Um
[1:13:16] so we'll have a lot of our roots
[1:13:19] probably going on in the summer as well,
[1:13:20] but I think most of the people can just
[1:13:23] go down some creek or will that will
[1:13:24] avoid a lot of the issues. Head over to
[1:13:26] Loafer Canyon Parkway. It's going to be
[1:13:28] your best bet. Okay.
[1:13:30] >> Um so we could be starting our road
[1:13:32] projects earlier. I've got to balance
[1:13:34] how to do that with a tank project
[1:13:36] because I really don't want to do
[1:13:37] deforest until we finish the tank
[1:13:39] project. So, we may pull that out of
[1:13:40] this one and bring it ketchup.
[1:13:44] >> And to my comment is Salem. Salem
[1:13:46] actually it was the it was the state
[1:13:48] that kept closing all those random roads
[1:13:50] for the
[1:13:51] >> the strawberry pipeline, but
[1:13:55] >> central. Yeah. So, it wasn't all Salem.
[1:14:00] >> You're being very kind.
[1:14:03] for the north.
[1:14:06] >> Um so we'll have some road work going on
[1:14:09] this summer and
[1:14:11] um our booster pump has been replaced in
[1:14:16] the booster pump stations up and going.
[1:14:18] So
[1:14:20] just timely for the summer
[1:14:23] and uh that's really all I've got to
[1:14:25] update on unless you have any questions.
[1:14:30] Ryan, anything?
[1:14:35] » Nope.
[1:14:39] » Um, fireside. Was that next?
[1:14:42] >> No.
[1:14:43] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:14:45] >> Um, so we've got our full-time crew um
[1:14:48] working partially in the city doing
[1:14:50] chipping. Um, the state has let us use
[1:14:55] the state chipper for a little while.
[1:14:57] So, we've got our crew. They're back
[1:14:59] from Nebraska. They've ar so while
[1:15:01] they're waiting for their next call, we
[1:15:02] just haven't been doing some chipping um
[1:15:06] around the city. This will not replace
[1:15:08] our chipper days. This is in addition to
[1:15:11] so they're just going to do some of the
[1:15:12] piles now, but we'll still be having our
[1:15:13] chipper days towards the last couple
[1:15:15] weeks of May. I'm meeting with the
[1:15:17] county guy tomorrow morning to talk
[1:15:18] about it. Uh he's coming up here. So,
[1:15:21] we'll have definite dates uh come
[1:15:23] tomorrow for chipper days, but likely
[1:15:25] the last two weeks of May. So if they
[1:15:28] see chipping on going on now, don't
[1:15:29] panic. You can still put wood out. Send
[1:15:33] me chipping. Um
[1:15:36] we
[1:15:38] uh we'll talk about that later on in the
[1:15:40] surplus equipment. Um
[1:15:44] really I got all got fires because we
[1:15:46] had our EMS uh sorry had our ambulance
[1:15:48] inspection today.
[1:15:50] >> Um
[1:15:50] >> how did it go?
[1:15:52] >> Oh, it was fun. I tell you
[1:15:54] between
[1:15:56] >> me trying to figure out where everything
[1:15:57] was. So it was me down there alone. So
[1:15:58] he had the C team down there, which was
[1:16:00] me. And he came in, sat at a desk with
[1:16:03] his computer, said, "I need to see this
[1:16:04] and this and this." So he saw me running
[1:16:06] around the ambulance, grabbing bags,
[1:16:08] throwing stuff. Looked like the
[1:16:09] cartoons, you know, when you see the
[1:16:11] cartoon characters going this. That was
[1:16:12] me going through and it was you say
[1:16:14] like, "I need to see 12 of these." Well,
[1:16:16] we'd have five in one bag and three in
[1:16:18] another bag. So I was tearing through
[1:16:20] bags, having them spread all over,
[1:16:21] taking stuff out for that one.
[1:16:23] >> Why did they leave you doing that?
[1:16:25] So,
[1:16:26] >> I think Jim's right. We need to have you
[1:16:28] make a video.
[1:16:29] >> That would have been a funny video. And
[1:16:31] there I was hurry, too. I was like,
[1:16:32] "Grab me this. Give me that."
[1:16:34] >> Some Betty Hill music sped up.
[1:16:36] >> It's about what it looked like. But
[1:16:38] bottom line was, uh, we we got just
[1:16:41] about there. There were just a couple
[1:16:42] items we were lacking or expired that
[1:16:44] need to be replaced. Um, he was good
[1:16:47] about it. He said, "Just take us when
[1:16:49] you get it, just take some pictures and
[1:16:50] send to me." He actually did leave me
[1:16:52] our certification sticker. So, I've got
[1:16:54] a sticker already, but uh we got through
[1:16:56] it. We're really close. So, we're almost
[1:16:59] officially certified.
[1:17:01] >> And have we had any other uh possible
[1:17:05] ambulances come up on the
[1:17:07] >> We haven't. I texted him yesterday and
[1:17:09] he said the only ones that are out there
[1:17:10] so far are the two he found and then
[1:17:14] there's one that Ryan came up with. All
[1:17:17] about the same as far as life and miles
[1:17:20] and stuff like that. So, we told them
[1:17:23] we're not in a huge rush, but but you
[1:17:25] know, we want to get something fairly
[1:17:27] soon. So, if nothing comes up in a
[1:17:29] little while, I'll have to look upon
[1:17:30] those, too. Okay.
[1:17:33] Thank you, kid. Uh Wayne, planning
[1:17:36] commission and code.
[1:17:47] Um there's a couple of complaints that
[1:17:50] we're acting on. At least anybody thinks
[1:17:53] that we don't have complaints. So, uh
[1:17:58] we're working on those. Um we've we've
[1:18:01] received a request from
[1:18:03] Summer Creek to update you. There's one lot that they want to add to
[1:18:08] their latest
[1:18:10] um final plaque that they've done. Uh as
[1:18:14] they the reason it wasn't included to
[1:18:16] begin with is they weren't sure the
[1:18:18] topography and with roads and so forth.
[1:18:22] And as they've got in there and doing
[1:18:24] some clearing, they realized that they
[1:18:27] could get another lot out of a larger
[1:18:29] one. And so they've they're they've
[1:18:33] requested to add to that and we'll be
[1:18:36] talking about it tomorrow night in
[1:18:38] planning commission meeting. But just to
[1:18:40] make you all aware of that. Um, we've
[1:18:44] also got uh an annexation that we're
[1:18:47] working on and that will come to you uh
[1:18:52] when all the documentation and
[1:18:55] information is provided and there will
[1:18:57] be a a reszone request with that as
[1:19:01] well.
[1:19:02] >> What's can you give us a sneak preview
[1:19:06] on where the annexation is? It's it's
[1:19:09] part of Elk Ridge and there's been
[1:19:12] discussions with them and they seem
[1:19:14] agreeable to it and it it buts up
[1:19:16] against Summer Creek's property and so
[1:19:19] it would be brought in as part of their development that they're doing
[1:19:24] now.
[1:19:24] >> Nice.
[1:19:25] >> So
[1:19:27] there'll be a public hearing on that and
[1:19:29] we'll keep you informed as that goes
[1:19:31] forward.
[1:19:32] >> Thanks.
[1:19:34] >> It's any questions?
[1:19:37] We've gotten a few on that edge of town,
[1:19:39] haven't we? Because we got the lower
[1:19:41] ones a few years ago. Some of those
[1:19:43] properties annexed in. So,
[1:19:46] >> yeah.
[1:19:47] >> Are the from the enforcement
[1:19:48] perspective, are they the same type of
[1:19:50] enforcement or just different categories
[1:19:52] of enforcement?
[1:19:53] >> Uh, different categories, two of them.
[1:19:55] Yeah.
[1:19:56] >> So, there's nothing systemic in that we
[1:19:58] should be aware of. Okay.
[1:20:00] Wonderful. Okay. Emergency management.
[1:20:11] A couple things to report on. Um, last
[1:20:13] week the state had a
[1:20:16] um statewide convention for the LAPC
[1:20:19] organizations and I attended that up in Ogden. There was good information
[1:20:25] there that I was able to
[1:20:27] uh generate in regards to how it would
[1:20:29] affect Woodland Hills. The biggest thing
[1:20:33] that I thought that came out of there is
[1:20:35] that they were doing studies or they
[1:20:37] have studies on hazardous materials that
[1:20:39] are being stored down in the valley um
[1:20:43] around us such as um Springville, Provo,
[1:20:48] well all around us. uh it they've
[1:20:51] identified locations where businesses
[1:20:53] are storing hazardous materials and then
[1:20:54] they have a software program that
[1:20:56] actually will predict if one of those
[1:21:00] chemical or hazards was to explode.
[1:21:03] What's the impact zone and which way
[1:21:05] would or what kind of plume chemical
[1:21:08] plume would it create and where would it
[1:21:10] go and would it necessitate evacuations
[1:21:14] and or stay in indoors and seal up your
[1:21:17] windows indoors cuz it's too late type
[1:21:19] of deal.
[1:21:21] um the program that is this the county
[1:21:24] is purchasing that service um they make
[1:21:27] it available for us to go over there and
[1:21:29] take a look at that and see how um
[1:21:32] Woodland Hills could be affected if any
[1:21:34] of the close by chemical storage
[1:21:36] facilities would impact us and if the
[1:21:39] wind was blowing our way. So my goal is
[1:21:41] to be able to meet with the county and
[1:21:43] to get access to that information and
[1:21:44] report back on how big of a threat that
[1:21:46] is, if it is even a threat. um they
[1:21:50] thought it was cuz the wind changes
[1:21:52] directions around here and it could blow
[1:21:54] from the north towards us from the
[1:21:57] north. So that was one piece of good
[1:21:59] news, not good news, good information.
[1:22:03] Um there's other information they had
[1:22:05] there regarding the pipeline, the gas
[1:22:07] pipelines. Um but I think we've already
[1:22:09] been addressing that with our um fire
[1:22:12] department's already looked at that. So
[1:22:13] I didn't really dive into that too much
[1:22:16] knowing that there is a uh potential
[1:22:18] risk of an explosion if we had a 6.5
[1:22:20] earthquake. It could rupture our gas
[1:22:22] lines both the main trunk line that goes
[1:22:24] through the city as well as possible
[1:22:25] lines around um each of the streets too
[1:22:28] which could become issues which I think
[1:22:30] is addressed in our emergency plan. So
[1:22:32] I'm not too worried about that one. We
[1:22:33] just need to maybe keep on top of it.
[1:22:37] Um, other than that, um, any questions
[1:22:39] regarding the LAPC meeting I went to?
[1:22:42] Good stuff. I'll be attending the
[1:22:44] monthly meetings, uh, for the county.
[1:22:46] Um, then also right now we are, I'm
[1:22:48] engaged with the VOAD. You guys,
[1:22:50] everybody know what VOAD is.
[1:22:53] Um, that's where she's at right now. Uh,
[1:22:56] she's actually in charge of the event.
[1:22:58] It's a
[1:23:00] Northwest United States Bo conference
[1:23:03] that's here in Salt Lake. And so I've
[1:23:05] been attending that as well. And it's a
[1:23:07] great resource for us be a for me to be
[1:23:09] able to develop relationships with all
[1:23:10] the volunteer organizations that are
[1:23:12] available for us to call upon in case of
[1:23:14] a disaster like we had last time
[1:23:16] including team Rub Rubicon. Um so it's
[1:23:20] building relationships with those
[1:23:21] organizations. So I have direct
[1:23:24] knowledge of who they are and so forth.
[1:23:27] So I'm attending that building those
[1:23:29] relationships. Okay. So, um, I'm still
[1:23:31] in the process of joining the
[1:23:33] organization because I don't have a list
[1:23:34] of all the services yet, but I'm
[1:23:36] working.
[1:23:37] I I've tried multiple times to get into
[1:23:40] the program.
[1:23:42] They're a little disorganized.
[1:23:45] >> It's just like disorganization from
[1:23:47] emergency
[1:23:47] >> for emergency management.
[1:23:49] >> Yeah. Agreed. Agreed.
[1:23:52] >> Agreed.
[1:23:54] >> Bless their souls. Yeah, they're trying.
[1:23:56] >> You know, you get what you pay for,
[1:23:58] right? And it's all free. So, you got to
[1:24:00] work with what you get. Um, the last
[1:24:03] thing I was going to mention was um the
[1:24:05] discussion from the last um meeting we
[1:24:08] had, I talked about the generator,
[1:24:10] backup generator for the building. Let
[1:24:12] me give you a quick update on that. I
[1:24:13] had a meeting with Alan Wakefield who is
[1:24:16] intimately um knowledgeable about the
[1:24:19] current um wiring in the building for
[1:24:22] backup generator to connect to. Uh the
[1:24:25] wiring in the building is already
[1:24:27] established. Each of these rooms that
[1:24:28] has an upside down plug like that is
[1:24:31] powered to the um
[1:24:35] >> backup power,
[1:24:36] >> the backup power panel. So there's a
[1:24:38] panel in there that we need to power up.
[1:24:40] And so every room in the building has
[1:24:43] one or two of those plugs in it that's
[1:24:45] tied to it. Um so that part's good. So
[1:24:48] the only thing we had to do then is is
[1:24:50] be able to figure out how to connect the
[1:24:52] panel downstairs to an outside
[1:24:54] generator. Now, the original plan was to
[1:24:57] put it way out there by the curb or, you
[1:24:59] know, where that big transformer is out
[1:25:01] there, but that's very expensive for a
[1:25:03] temporary solution for what I'm trying
[1:25:05] to do. I'm trying to do a temporary
[1:25:06] solution until we can afford to get the,
[1:25:08] you know, good quality, high quality
[1:25:10] stuff there, which you guys need to
[1:25:12] figure out we're going to get was it
[1:25:13] 50,000, 60,000? I can't remember what
[1:25:16] Allen's call was, but it was up there.
[1:25:18] So, we're trying to figure out how to do
[1:25:20] with like less than 30.
[1:25:22] And so we're going to suppose that we
[1:25:24] put the generator right next to the wall
[1:25:28] of like right down there like straight
[1:25:30] down there and then just have like a 10
[1:25:33] 15t connection to a new box that goes
[1:25:35] out there. We we that's a manual
[1:25:38] disconnect switch. Plug it in there and
[1:25:40] then we run a wire from there to the So
[1:25:43] it's a it's a minimum amount of distance
[1:25:45] that we would need to run that. So um
[1:25:47] Allan's working on getting me the
[1:25:48] pricing um to do all that. and he thinks
[1:25:52] we can probably fit within that budget
[1:25:53] that you guys were talking about last
[1:25:56] time. So, it's in the works.
[1:25:58] >> And then the ham radio equipment also um
[1:26:00] is coming in pieces by pieces. Some
[1:26:03] stuff is 30 days. Uh how much stuff do
[1:26:06] we have left to um come in, do you
[1:26:08] think?
[1:26:09] >> Just the radio.
[1:26:12] >> No, I think the radio's still a month
[1:26:14] away, isn't it?
[1:26:15] >> I think it was like May 7th.
[1:26:16] >> Yeah. So, we got a lot of parts, but no
[1:26:19] radio.
[1:26:21] So, we're working on that. Um, and we're
[1:26:25] also trying to finalize the location
[1:26:26] where we're going to set up the ham
[1:26:27] radio station. And there's a couple
[1:26:29] things under discussion.
[1:26:30] >> Okay. Any questions about those things?
[1:26:32] >> Did you want to talk Great Shakeup?
[1:26:34] >> Yes. I forgot about that. So, uh, the
[1:26:38] state of Utah is participating in what's
[1:26:40] called the Great Shakeup. Um, it's an
[1:26:41] annual event. It's being held Thursday
[1:26:43] the 16th at, uh, 10:00 in the morning.
[1:26:47] uh I registered our city as being part
[1:26:49] of it, but we can be part of it and do
[1:26:53] whatever part whatever kind of
[1:26:54] preparedness we want to do. So, it's
[1:26:56] kind of up to us decide. So, I've met
[1:26:58] with our staff and we're going to do a
[1:27:01] very minimal type of test internally of
[1:27:04] communications and we're going to
[1:27:05] involve as many committee members that
[1:27:07] we have volunteers uh to be like
[1:27:10] emergency
[1:27:12] or citizens responding to a request for
[1:27:15] information on their status. So, we're
[1:27:17] going to be testing a program called Ard
[1:27:18] Pro, which is a software program that
[1:27:21] I've been developing to collect
[1:27:24] information from the general public,
[1:27:25] have it populate into an EOC
[1:27:28] environment, uh, a large screen
[1:27:30] television, for example, and so we can
[1:27:31] see the statuses of everybody. It's
[1:27:33] colorcoded based upon the the the
[1:27:35] severity of their needs. Um, so that's
[1:27:38] the test we're going to do on Thursday.
[1:27:41] We're also going to do a mesh radio
[1:27:42] test. So, we have these little blue blue
[1:27:46] mesh radios that Bluetooth connect to
[1:27:47] your phone. They operate outside the
[1:27:50] cellular networks. So, if the cellular
[1:27:52] networks go down, can we maintain
[1:27:53] communications? The answer is yes, but
[1:27:55] we're going to we're going to test the
[1:27:56] equipment this Thursday as well. So,
[1:27:58] those are the two things we're going to
[1:27:59] test in this environment. I would also
[1:28:02] propose I'm planting a seed now for
[1:28:05] sometime later this year. I would like
[1:28:06] to do a fire test, a fire preparedness,
[1:28:09] cuz the
[1:28:11] state people I've been talking with are
[1:28:13] very worried about how dry our forest
[1:28:16] and everything is going to be this
[1:28:17] summer. I
[1:28:17] >> was going to say, is it going to be a
[1:28:18] test?
[1:28:20] >> Hey, we hope it's a test and not a real
[1:28:22] thing. Okay. And we hope we do this test
[1:28:25] before then, but this initial earthquake
[1:28:28] preparedness test is going to be the
[1:28:30] same thing it would have been if it was
[1:28:32] a a fire. same kind of systems we would
[1:28:35] need to practice using. The only
[1:28:37] difference is the next one I'd like to
[1:28:38] involve more of the city, more of the
[1:28:40] civilians, but that takes a little bit
[1:28:42] more time and planning and
[1:28:43] pre-notification that this is only going
[1:28:45] to be test. Don't freak out. Um, and
[1:28:47] we're going to I want to propose that as
[1:28:49] something we can do later this year.
[1:28:50] I'll work with Steve figuring out when
[1:28:53] we want to do that, right, Steve?
[1:28:54] >> Yeah.
[1:28:54] >> So, that'll be part of our Thursday
[1:28:55] discussion.
[1:28:56] >> Yep.
[1:28:57] >> Okay. So I was going to I was going to
[1:28:58] put that in there too that we are having
[1:29:00] and that's a public meeting the safety
[1:29:02] meeting 5 o'clock on Thursday as well
[1:29:04] right so
[1:29:05] >> is it five
[1:29:06] >> that's four to be here an hour early
[1:29:11] >> all right any other questions
[1:29:13] >> we doing the alarm
[1:29:15] >> on Thursday no this is more of an
[1:29:17] internal um leadership um EMS fire
[1:29:23] >> and I'll probably bring in parks and
[1:29:24] wreck and planning department
[1:29:28] cuz they're all committed people, right?
[1:29:32] >> Yes, they are. They like it or not.
[1:29:33] >> Team work. Team team work.
[1:29:36] >> Thank you. You're welcome.
[1:29:38] >> Okay, we're now moving over to the mayor
[1:29:40] and city council reports. Um SCSD, um I
[1:29:44] have met, we've had that board meeting.
[1:29:46] Um nothing really to report here. Um
[1:29:49] we're working a lot to try and make sure
[1:29:51] that we are acquiring resources in the
[1:29:54] most efficient way possible so that we
[1:29:56] can try and keep um energy costs as low
[1:29:59] as possible. Uh the Nebo power plant
[1:30:01] currently is down one turbine though it
[1:30:04] has been for quite a while and it should
[1:30:06] be back up this month or next month in
[1:30:09] May. So hopefully that will also help
[1:30:12] us. That's a natural gas power plant
[1:30:14] there just over by in PAC. Um and
[1:30:18] that'll help us with our resources
[1:30:19] there. Um Dry Creek Transfer Station,
[1:30:22] those meetings are coming up this week,
[1:30:24] so report on those next time. Um Mag and
[1:30:27] Cog, we really just kind of been getting
[1:30:30] through the legislative cycle. Um and
[1:30:32] I've got meetings of that uh tomorrow as
[1:30:36] well. Um and personnel and legal update.
[1:30:39] Um really not much uh to update on on
[1:30:42] either of those. So things are going
[1:30:44] well there.
[1:30:46] Uh, Council Member Hutchings.
[1:30:49] >> So, um, we have not met with Sumba or
[1:30:52] Mount Nebo Water. Um, so nothing to
[1:30:55] report there. I did have a conversation
[1:30:57] with Ted about water conservation and I I foresee us and I I'm kind of
[1:31:05] thinking sooner than later. Um, but
[1:31:08] that's up to that's really up to the
[1:31:10] mayor. of of we're we're probably going
[1:31:12] to be seeing water restrictions this
[1:31:15] year based on the low water levels. So,
[1:31:18] doesn't necessarily uh hit our aquifer
[1:31:22] fast, but it will hit our aquifer at
[1:31:24] some point. Um, so we need we do need to
[1:31:27] conserve and we need to conserve for
[1:31:29] those around us as well. Um, so
[1:31:33] we're we're going to be looking at water
[1:31:35] restrictions coming up um in the near
[1:31:37] future when when Ted is and the mayor
[1:31:40] are ready to to announce that.
[1:31:42] >> Ted and I discussed this a little bit in
[1:31:44] our staff meeting on Monday. Um so we
[1:31:46] will as we make those types of
[1:31:48] decisions, we will let everybody know.
[1:31:52] >> Okay. Anything else, council?
[1:31:56] >> No, I don't have anything.
[1:31:58] >> Okay. Uh, Council Member Jones.
[1:32:00] >> Yeah, on on that note, one of the topics
[1:32:02] at the last home builders association
[1:32:04] meeting was actually water. Um,
[1:32:08] there there are some lobbyists going
[1:32:09] around and maybe Ted, you you know some
[1:32:12] something about this. Maybe it's
[1:32:13] something that's been a topic on yours
[1:32:14] too, Brian, but um the estimated daily
[1:32:17] use, the EDU rating for Utah is at 400
[1:32:21] gallons per day. Um
[1:32:25] most states around us are less than 200.
[1:32:28] Um so there are lobbyists going around
[1:32:31] and uh trying to get Utah to be be
[1:32:35] cutting that in half at least.
[1:32:37] >> So yeah, what they've started doing is a
[1:32:38] step towards that. So that was a state
[1:32:41] requirement when you're sizing. That's
[1:32:43] why developers are concerned with it
[1:32:46] because they feel like we're oversizing
[1:32:47] the infrastructure which costs more
[1:32:49] money. Um, so the 400 gallons a day was
[1:32:52] something that the state kind of put in
[1:32:54] place as a general here's what your our
[1:32:57] use guideline is. Now they've started
[1:33:01] switching to rather than you using what
[1:33:04] the state number is or they give you.
[1:33:08] determine what your own number is
[1:33:11] through your water use data. you go back
[1:33:13] and look at your own use and then you
[1:33:15] start sizing your facilities in your
[1:33:18] master plan based on what your actual
[1:33:20] data is and there's not they're not
[1:33:22] wrong that 400's fairly high uh compared
[1:33:27] to what like our numbers are. Uh so it
[1:33:31] it'll be interesting to see where that
[1:33:32] goes. But yeah, they're they're going
[1:33:34] that way. I I don't know that I agree or
[1:33:36] disagree with it. I think maybe we do.
[1:33:39] Um, I think it's it's it's better to to
[1:33:43] actually size our facilities on what is
[1:33:45] and what the demands are rather than
[1:33:47] just some arbitrary number.
[1:33:49] >> You saying 400 per household or
[1:33:52] >> Yes. 400 gallons per day per household.
[1:33:54] >> So, you're looking at 12,000 gallons a
[1:33:56] month than per household. Well, 400
[1:34:00] gallons per day
[1:34:03] per household is 400 times 30
[1:34:06] >> is 12,000
[1:34:07] >> 12,000 gallons indoor use doesn't count
[1:34:09] outdoor
[1:34:10] >> which is really high
[1:34:12] >> which is generally about three times
[1:34:13] that
[1:34:14] >> we have a lot of kids.
[1:34:17] >> Yeah, it is Utah.
[1:34:18] >> Ted, what are we at?
[1:34:19] >> Bomb showers,
[1:34:20] >> you know.
[1:34:21] >> Uh I could look our numbers but we were
[1:34:23] generally about half of that probably.
[1:34:25] >> So we're around 200 internal use. We're
[1:34:28] better at the national average.
[1:34:30] >> No, that's just an arbitrary number. The
[1:34:32] state used through some state studies
[1:34:33] years ago. What they are finding is
[1:34:35] they're actually doing cities are
[1:34:36] actually doing their own study to see
[1:34:38] what their actual use is. They're
[1:34:39] finding is less uh not just our city but
[1:34:43] others. So it's not like an national
[1:34:45] average. This is just a state arbitrary
[1:34:48] number they had of the 400 gallons and I
[1:34:50] think it was 800 when you're sizing
[1:34:52] water tanks or something like that. But
[1:34:53] now you don't pay are are the the water
[1:34:56] tank uh the storage criteria is not far
[1:34:58] off what the state is but the actual
[1:35:01] demand which is what sizes your pipes
[1:35:03] has been a little high generally and I
[1:35:05] think that's been the push from the
[1:35:07] developers is we're oversizing all our
[1:35:09] infrastructure. Now I don't know if
[1:35:11] that's going to change the size of the
[1:35:13] infrastructure
[1:35:15] because ultimately you still need a high
[1:35:17] demand for uh fire hazards.
[1:35:21] >> Yeah. And whether you're doing 400
[1:35:22] gallons a day or not, it doesn't matter
[1:35:23] because a fire hydrant flow is what's
[1:35:25] going to determine the size pipe. And
[1:35:27] you need about a minimum 8 inch pipe,
[1:35:28] which is what the state says is your
[1:35:29] minimum piping use. So,
[1:35:32] >> makes sense. Okay. Yeah. So, kind of an
[1:35:35] interesting topic. So, if you're looking
[1:35:37] at that, it's going around.
[1:35:41] >> I like these reports. They're fun.
[1:35:43] Council member Le,
[1:35:45] >> um, we're the Maple Festival on
[1:35:48] Saturday.
[1:35:49] Um, and I think everything is pretty
[1:35:52] much in place. I don't have a flag
[1:35:54] ceremony
[1:35:56] still. Um, I had someone that was trying
[1:35:59] to get they were trying to get with the
[1:36:01] VFW and get uh Spencer was going to get
[1:36:04] somebody for me, but he wasn't able to.
[1:36:06] So, if you know somebody
[1:36:09] uh if not, I'll just tell them not I
[1:36:12] don't know why they need it necessarily,
[1:36:14] but they did it last year and wanted to
[1:36:16] have it again. And then, um, should be
[1:36:18] good. It's 10 to 2 at the park.
[1:36:21] >> Is this a bring your snowshoes type of
[1:36:23] event?
[1:36:24] >> I know it's snowing on Friday.
[1:36:28] » Um, it'll be in the street if it is.
[1:36:31] Yeah. So, if it's wet, odds are it'll be
[1:36:35] in the street. Um, and then we met with
[1:36:37] the finance committee this last week and
[1:36:40] went over what we went over as a
[1:36:42] council. U, they had some good
[1:36:45] suggestions. one of the finance members
[1:36:47] was quite the hawk on the numbers and I
[1:36:50] went back and listened to the recording
[1:36:53] and anyway it's another story but um
[1:36:58] they they did have a couple of
[1:36:59] suggestions they do think that uh for
[1:37:02] council because we don't really get a
[1:37:04] wage they think it should be should show
[1:37:07] us a stipend
[1:37:09] and not pay FICA on that and then end up
[1:37:11] just maybe $1099 council members because
[1:37:14] it's such a small amount and it's it's
[1:37:16] really not a wage. It really is just a
[1:37:18] stipend for gas and stuff. So, that was
[1:37:21] a suggestion they had. And then they
[1:37:23] also requested that anything that's
[1:37:25] 10,000 or more that there be an
[1:37:27] explanation like a breakout. Some of
[1:37:30] those categories have several things
[1:37:31] that roll into there. They wanted more
[1:37:34] detail. Uh but they they liked
[1:37:37] everything. They agreed with all of our
[1:37:39] decisions. They liked everything that
[1:37:41] they saw mostly. Uh but those were just
[1:37:44] some questions that they had.
[1:37:47] >> What?
[1:37:49] >> So when they're asking for a breakout,
[1:37:50] do we need to attend a meeting to give
[1:37:52] them a breakout? What would they like?
[1:37:54] >> I'll be providing that in an email form.
[1:37:56] >> Thank you.
[1:37:59] >> Yes. And uh the next meeting I won't be
[1:38:01] able to attend May 5th. So they've
[1:38:04] actually requested that Jod and or Lori
[1:38:07] be there. spoken with Lori and she's
[1:38:09] planning on it
[1:38:10] >> just so they can answer some more
[1:38:12] detailed questions. There was really
[1:38:14] only one question that I didn't have the
[1:38:16] answer to, but one of the members was
[1:38:17] really bothered that I didn't have every
[1:38:20] single answer that he wanted. And part
[1:38:23] of the budget we we didn't go over in
[1:38:25] council because the fixed costs we
[1:38:27] didn't go over. A lot of it I knew from
[1:38:29] previous discussions, but there were a
[1:38:31] couple of things that I wasn't 100% sure
[1:38:33] exactly what went into the number and um
[1:38:37] he didn't like that. So
[1:38:39] >> that's okay.
[1:38:40] >> Anyway,
[1:38:41] >> we have an agenda for the May 5th or is
[1:38:42] it just going to be discussion of the
[1:38:44] 2027 fiscal year budget?
[1:38:46] >> Yes, I'll then
[1:38:48] >> it'll be the same probably agenda that
[1:38:50] it was last time. You can just repeat
[1:38:53] it. Jen, was there any comment about
[1:38:57] bringing forth these questions in
[1:38:58] advance so you can get answers to them
[1:39:01] and take them back to the committee?
[1:39:02] >> There's a bunch in an email from Mike
[1:39:04] Meyers. He sent an email with a bunch of
[1:39:08] questions.
[1:39:08] >> Thank you, Michael.
[1:39:09] >> And then I have a bunch uh here too. And
[1:39:14] um I put them in the minutes that I
[1:39:17] typed up yesterday.
[1:39:19] So,
[1:39:21] but I could send out the question as as
[1:39:23] well to
[1:39:24] >> it kind of seems unfair to you. I mean,
[1:39:27] there's there it's so broad and the
[1:39:30] questions can run the gamut that and
[1:39:33] there's going there'll be answers to
[1:39:35] them, but that it, you know,
[1:39:38] >> in part there was a piece of it that was on me. you know, by the time I
[1:39:42] was able to coordinate with Lori and get
[1:39:44] through a lot of those numbers present,
[1:39:46] I presented it to them a little bit
[1:39:48] later than I wanted to. And so that was
[1:39:51] really them looking at it for the first
[1:39:52] time in that meeting. So now they're
[1:39:55] going to send me all the numbers and
[1:39:56] questions that they have that are just
[1:39:59] what is this type of question. So I'll
[1:40:01] be able to provide that. So then their
[1:40:03] questions coming in this next meeting
[1:40:05] will be more substantative versus just
[1:40:07] inquisitive.
[1:40:09] >> Yeah. And like I say, they there were a
[1:40:10] lot of on the fixed costs that they had
[1:40:12] questions on that we didn't necessarily
[1:40:13] go over in great detail in the council
[1:40:15] meeting because we went over the
[1:40:16] variables, right? That was the agenda of
[1:40:18] our meeting.
[1:40:20] But it it was good. Like I say, I had
[1:40:22] most of the answers, but there were a
[1:40:23] couple that I wasn't sure.
[1:40:26] So, we'll get Lori in the hot seat next
[1:40:29] time. I'll be in Kawaii.
[1:40:30] >> She knows everything anyway, so it'll be
[1:40:32] good. Okay. Anything else?
[1:40:34] >> Nope, that's it.
[1:40:35] >> Okay. Council member Malovich is
[1:40:36] excused. Um, Council Member Roden.
[1:40:40] >> Uh, no. The only thing after the Maple
[1:40:42] Festival, we have the fire and EMS expo
[1:40:46] that we want to get working on. So, Ted
[1:40:48] and I need to get together, make sure
[1:40:49] that I have an understanding of what the
[1:40:51] plan is for this year, and then we're
[1:40:53] going to get out in front from a
[1:40:54] marketing perspective, just let people
[1:40:56] know what it is. And and it it is
[1:40:59] interesting. You've probably seen it,
[1:41:00] Ted, and everybody here. Just used to be
[1:41:03] a lot of kids that would come and now as
[1:41:05] we age as a city, it may not. I don't
[1:41:07] know if it's grandkids that are coming
[1:41:08] as much or if it's what the dynamic or
[1:41:11] what the demographic looks like from a
[1:41:13] shift. So, we'll take that into
[1:41:14] consideration as we market the event.
[1:41:18] So, but uh that's the next one on the
[1:41:21] list from an event perspective.
[1:41:24] >> Thank you.
[1:41:26] >> Um
[1:41:28] also with you uh Dan.
[1:41:31] >> Yeah.
[1:41:32] >> Uh
[1:41:33] so we talked a little bit today. We've
[1:41:35] got a new program that we're working on.
[1:41:37] Um, and it is a communications software
[1:41:40] that is predominantly focused around
[1:41:42] water and water usage and communications
[1:41:45] around water.
[1:41:46] >> Um, though I think there may be some options there for us to consider.
[1:41:51] >> So, we'll talk a little bit about that
[1:41:52] and then we'll we'll go into deeper
[1:41:55] detail in a future council meeting.
[1:41:57] >> Sounds great.
[1:41:58] >> Um, on that from your IT assignment
[1:42:00] there. So, perfect. Thank you. And Dan,
[1:42:02] we need to meet with uh Woodland Hills
[1:42:05] crew. Woodland Hills Days crew.
[1:42:07] >> Yes.
[1:42:07] >> Probably the end of April. So, kind of
[1:42:09] keep that on your So, I just figured
[1:42:11] that as soon as we got Maple Festival
[1:42:12] over with,
[1:42:14] >> then we could meet and we need to figure
[1:42:16] out a new couple to bring in
[1:42:18] >> for chair.
[1:42:19] >> Uh-huh.
[1:42:20] >> So, um the Lowe's will still be the the
[1:42:23] presiding.
[1:42:24] >> Yep.
[1:42:24] >> But we need a new one like a training.
[1:42:26] So, think if you think of anybody
[1:42:28] >> and not our neighborhood cuz our
[1:42:30] neighborhood's gotten hit pretty hard.
[1:42:31] So, we need to try and get
[1:42:32] >> We're tapped out.
[1:42:33] >> We need another part of town.
[1:42:37] >> Wonderful. Okay. Anything for any
[1:42:39] upcoming city council meetings?
[1:42:45] Anything from you, Brian?
[1:42:47] No. Okay.
[1:42:49] Uh, wonderful. Okay, then it is
[1:42:53] 7:44.
[1:42:55] Let's uh start back up. Let's take a
[1:42:58] quick break and let us start at 7:45.
[1:43:03] » One minute break.
[1:43:04] >> I was thinking
[1:43:05] >> it's 7:41. Sorry.
[1:43:13] » Okay. Welcome everybody to city council.
[1:43:16] Um we are going to have an invocation
[1:43:18] from council member Lunt and a pledge of
[1:43:20] allegiance from council member John's.
[1:43:23] Our
[1:43:27] dear kind and gracious heavenly father,
[1:43:28] we're so grateful that we could gather
[1:43:31] together this evening to work on city
[1:43:34] matters and to discuss
[1:43:37] our general plan and different things
[1:43:39] that need to be discussed so that we can
[1:43:43] make sure that we are covering all the
[1:43:44] ideas that are going to be best for our
[1:43:46] community. And we're grateful for this
[1:43:48] opportunity to serve and to look out for
[1:43:51] our city and its residents. and please
[1:43:53] watch over our community and our city as
[1:43:56] we come into fire season that our
[1:43:58] community will continue to be protected
[1:44:00] and we're so grateful for all those that
[1:44:02] are willing to serve on all the
[1:44:03] committees that we have and for all of
[1:44:06] those that are in need. Please help us
[1:44:08] to be mindful of our neighbors and we
[1:44:10] say these things in the name of Jesus
[1:44:11] Christ. Amen.
[1:44:11] >> Amen.
[1:44:13] >> Please join me in reciting the pledge of
[1:44:15] allegiance.
[1:44:18] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[1:44:21] United States of America and to the
[1:44:24] republic for which it stands. One nation
[1:44:28] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:44:31] justice for all.
[1:44:36] Thank you both. Okay, we'll go into the
[1:44:40] Oh, perfect. We'll go into the public
[1:44:42] comment uh section. So, if there's any
[1:44:45] comments, uh, we'd like to limit them to
[1:44:47] 2 minutes or less if possible. Um, only
[1:44:50] in-person comments will be included as
[1:44:52] part of the official record.
[1:44:55] >> So, do we have any public comment here?
[1:44:59] >> Okay.
[1:45:00] >> Sure, please. We'd love to hear from
[1:45:01] you.
[1:45:02] >> And if you could state your name for the
[1:45:03] record, please.
[1:45:04] >> Absolutely. So, I'm Matt Durant. Um, I'm
[1:45:06] a candidate for House District 64. So, I
[1:45:08] was just hoping to come to the council
[1:45:10] meetings, introduce myself, and just if
[1:45:13] I get elected, I look forward to working
[1:45:14] with you.
[1:45:15] >> Well, wonderful. Thanks for showing up.
[1:45:17] Appreciate it.
[1:45:17] >> Thank you.
[1:45:18] >> Thanks, man.
[1:45:21] >> We'll have to look you up. I want to see
[1:45:22] what your uh platform is.
[1:45:26] >> Diana,
[1:45:29] >> hey, thanks for your mention about her
[1:45:31] soliciting.
[1:45:32] >> Oh,
[1:45:33] >> I of course
[1:45:34] >> I don't know what to do. I've had it.
[1:45:37] Well,
[1:45:38] >> one guy came twice and you know, my
[1:45:41] daughter with Down syndrome is in our
[1:45:42] yard and I don't feel safe with
[1:45:45] strangers in and out and Thank you.
[1:45:49] >> And yeah, you know, when I'm gone to
[1:45:50] work and my camera will register and
[1:45:53] it's just unnerving cuz they're waiting
[1:45:55] for you to answer the door and you
[1:45:56] don't, but they look around and they
[1:45:58] look around in the backyard cuz my porch
[1:45:59] looks into the backyard. So, I always
[1:46:01] catch him on camera looking into my
[1:46:03] backyard and kind of peeking in the
[1:46:04] windows and I'm like, "Get off my
[1:46:06] porch."
[1:46:08] Right.
[1:46:09] >> I'm not always available to immediately
[1:46:11] respond,
[1:46:12] >> of course,
[1:46:13] >> because I'm with someone else. So, if
[1:46:18] >> our hope is that residents will figure
[1:46:20] out
[1:46:22] >> tomorrow,
[1:46:23] >> we uh hopefully everybody will
[1:46:25] understand and know that they can ask if
[1:46:27] somebody does show up, right? um that
[1:46:31] they can ask and you can ask for their
[1:46:34] business license with this city and they
[1:46:36] can't preside it then let us know give
[1:46:41] us a ring. Um, I found somebody the
[1:46:44] other day who knocked on my door and you
[1:46:47] know, I shouldn't maybe admit this on
[1:46:49] the public record, but I got a little
[1:46:50] bit of a kick, you know, when they uh
[1:46:53] when they try and tell me that they do
[1:46:54] have lensure within the city um that I
[1:46:59] haven't, you know, seen. And so we
[1:47:02] walked them right over here and what
[1:47:04] actually had happened is they had gone
[1:47:06] over to a neighboring city and they had
[1:47:08] been told, this is what they're telling
[1:47:09] us, right, that that license covered our
[1:47:12] city as well. And so we were able to
[1:47:14] help them and re-educate them a bit and
[1:47:16] they came back and they provided us with
[1:47:18] their their background check. Um, and we
[1:47:21] were able to issue them a business
[1:47:23] license for Woodland Hills. Um, and so
[1:47:25] they should have that on their person.
[1:47:28] If they do not, they have not come to us
[1:47:30] because they've not been educated. Um,
[1:47:33] and like I said in my message this week,
[1:47:36] um, if you have kids, they don't need a
[1:47:38] business license. Um, but we also really
[1:47:43] personally I'd like to foster that
[1:47:44] entrepreneurial spirit with our our
[1:47:46] young residents. And so, they just need
[1:47:48] to come in, talk with Jody. Jody will
[1:47:51] ask some some questions and it's more
[1:47:53] for their benefit than anybody else's.
[1:47:56] um and then they'll be authorized and
[1:47:58] they can even put on their handouts or
[1:48:01] anything that they are city approved. Um
[1:48:04] and so we can kind of foster that type
[1:48:05] of a thing. But there are some people
[1:48:08] that have carveouts that do not need it.
[1:48:11] So religious petitioners do not need a
[1:48:15] business license obviously. Um but
[1:48:17] pretty much everybody else does. Um, if
[1:48:22] they say they're not soliciting, but
[1:48:24] they want to do a presentation,
[1:48:28] lean back on them and say, "Well, if
[1:48:30] this petition, this presentation has
[1:48:33] anything to do with any solicitation
[1:48:35] eventually, you need a business license.
[1:48:37] You can't try and usurp it." Right? So,
[1:48:41] but if missionaries show up, it's just a
[1:48:43] presentation. And that's why they're
[1:48:45] able to and allowed to do that. Okay.
[1:48:48] >> Is solar a religion? Uh solar uh is a
[1:48:51] religion for some but I don't believe it
[1:48:53] is uh seen in the same light though
[1:48:56] light is involved. It's a different uh
[1:49:00] >> different kind of light
[1:49:00] >> say source.
[1:49:02] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[1:49:04] >> Do we have an ordinance if we have it
[1:49:06] posted no soliciting that can actually
[1:49:09] be
[1:49:10] >> we don't have one that says no
[1:49:12] soliciting in the city.
[1:49:13] >> It just says no.
[1:49:14] >> What about for individuals like your
[1:49:16] home has a no soliciting? That would be
[1:49:18] where you ask them to honor people's
[1:49:20] things, but we can't
[1:49:23] >> enforce it. It public
[1:49:26] >> I could run you some dogs.
[1:49:29] >> Yeah, exactly.
[1:49:31] >> Perfect. Okay. Thank you so much. Uh,
[1:49:34] nobody's online, so we will continue on
[1:49:36] and we will close the public comment.
[1:49:39] So, uh, we will move to the consent
[1:49:41] agenda. So, on the consent agenda is our
[1:49:44] meeting minutes for our March 10th
[1:49:46] meeting as well as our March 24th
[1:49:48] meeting. I'll take those individually or
[1:49:50] collectively, whichever.
[1:49:52] >> I'll make a motion that we approve the
[1:49:54] entire consent agenda.
[1:49:57] >> I have motion. Do I have a second? I'll
[1:49:59] second. Real quick, Jody, did you make
[1:50:02] the change that I sent
[1:50:05] >> change on the March 24th minutes to
[1:50:08] include that you were here in person and
[1:50:11] Mayor Hillier participated elect.
[1:50:15] >> Thank you.
[1:50:16] Brian. Okay. I have a motion
[1:50:18] from council member Lunt and a second
[1:50:19] from council member Rhden. Uh all in
[1:50:21] favor? I
[1:50:23] >> I
[1:50:24] >> any opposed
[1:50:27] >> that motion roll call because I'm
[1:50:28] online.
[1:50:30] >> Yes, we have to do
[1:50:32] >> on the consent. Thank you. We'll get
[1:50:34] this one day. Um so we got to adjust our
[1:50:38] my cheat sheet here.
[1:50:39] >> That's why it says roll call no unless
[1:50:41] they are remote participants.
[1:50:43] >> Never mind. I just need to read what you
[1:50:45] give me.
[1:50:46] >> Okay. Uh council member Jones.
[1:50:48] >> Uh yes.
[1:50:49] >> Council member Hutchings.
[1:50:51] >> Yes. Council member Rhoden,
[1:50:53] >> yes.
[1:50:54] >> Council member Lent,
[1:50:55] >> yes.
[1:50:56] >> Okay, that motion passes. Um, next on
[1:51:00] our uh agenda, we have a discussion for
[1:51:04] the sale of surplus equipment, which we
[1:51:06] will turn over to Ted Mickelson.
[1:51:14] All right, we got two items we want to
[1:51:16] sell and uh it says we have to have the
[1:51:19] council over I think it's $20,000.
[1:51:23] >> Yes, 20,000. Um so one we're looking at,
[1:51:26] as we mentioned before, we're looking at
[1:51:28] selling our fire engine, our our sec our
[1:51:30] old fire engine. Um that one we're
[1:51:33] starting to get. Brian's got some
[1:51:34] offers, at least one offer so far uh on
[1:51:38] the firet truck and I thought it was a
[1:51:40] pretty good one and uh but he's going to
[1:51:42] ask another company that was interested.
[1:51:44] >> They they they are declining to offer at
[1:51:46] this point. So, we have the one standing
[1:51:48] offer.
[1:51:49] >> Okay. So, we do have an offer on the
[1:51:51] fire truck. Uh so, we need to get
[1:51:53] council approval to surplus that one.
[1:51:56] The offer
[1:51:56] >> we need to send that through the
[1:51:58] auction. Brian,
[1:52:00] >> no. We had stated that we were not going
[1:52:03] to send it through the auction because
[1:52:04] it is a specialized piece of equipment
[1:52:06] and this allows us to get more money
[1:52:09] from it. Um, this is actually a service
[1:52:12] that buys engines and refurbishes them
[1:52:14] and resells them um who has offered to purchase it. I got an estimate um
[1:52:21] from one company and then they take a a
[1:52:24] 10% fee once it sells. Um, and this was
[1:52:28] slightly less than that uh estimate
[1:52:30] minus the 10% fee and and believe that
[1:52:33] it's an incredibly good offer. Um, it
[1:52:35] was more than than Ted and I were
[1:52:37] actually uh anticipating to be honest.
[1:52:42] >> This will more than cover the cost of a
[1:52:44] new an ambulance, the approved budget
[1:52:46] for an ambulance. So,
[1:52:48] um I think if we have no other offers,
[1:52:50] we might move forward with accepting
[1:52:52] this offer. Um, our code does allow
[1:52:57] multiple ways of surplusing the
[1:52:59] equipment. It doesn't always have to go
[1:53:00] to auction. So, um,
[1:53:03] >> we'll probably
[1:53:05] we'll send you want to send the offer
[1:53:07] to, um, to the attorneys just to make
[1:53:10] sure they review it
[1:53:13] before we move forward.
[1:53:16] >> Good idea. Okay.
[1:53:19] >> Uh, so that's equipment piece number
[1:53:21] one. So, that will likely be sold. Um,
[1:53:25] and then second item is we've talked
[1:53:28] about the mini excavator.
[1:53:30] Um, I think it's about time we surplus
[1:53:32] that as well. Um, it doesn't run real
[1:53:35] well. One of the tracks are locked up.
[1:53:38] It's going to cost a lot of money
[1:53:39] probably to fix it and we don't really
[1:53:41] use it that much. Uh, the occasional
[1:53:44] need we have for an excavator can be
[1:53:46] done by a contractor, which is what
[1:53:48] we've been doing for, you know, not a
[1:53:50] whole lot more. and we'll have to
[1:53:51] maintain a piece of equipment. So, our
[1:53:52] mini excavator, I think we'd like to put
[1:53:55] that one up on the auction and surplus
[1:53:57] that one.
[1:53:58] >> About how much do you think you'll get
[1:53:59] for that guy?
[1:54:00] >> I don't know. It's going to be a whole
[1:54:01] lot. It needs some work. I mean, it's
[1:54:03] going to be we'll we'll put it up there.
[1:54:05] It's going to be I know less than 10.
[1:54:07] >> Okay.
[1:54:08] >> Be my guess. But, um just because it's
[1:54:11] going to need some work to get it going.
[1:54:14] Um
[1:54:15] >> yeah, I don't think what when was the
[1:54:17] last time we the city used that? more
[1:54:19] than three years ago.
[1:54:21] >> Since I've been here, we haven't used
[1:54:22] it. Diesel Brothers used it once when
[1:54:24] they had to get that pole plane off the
[1:54:26] hill to lift their bucket down. But, uh,
[1:54:29] that's been the last time it was used. I
[1:54:30] know they had a bugger using it. Um, I
[1:54:33] talked to Craig Northrup who used to
[1:54:35] maintain our equipment. Um, his
[1:54:39] recommendation was get rid of it the
[1:54:41] first chance you get because it needs a
[1:54:43] lot of work. Uh, and it was a lot of
[1:54:47] work to maintain. So, no reason to keep
[1:54:49] it and just have to sit there and and
[1:54:52] devalue itself when we can try and get
[1:54:53] some money for it now.
[1:54:56] Wonderful. Okay, then. Uh, thank you,
[1:54:59] Ted. Any questions for Ted?
[1:55:03] >> Okay, then I would entertain a motion to
[1:55:07] proceed on those two items or if anybody
[1:55:10] wants to, we can pull them out
[1:55:12] separately.
[1:55:14] I I move to uh put on for sale, approve
[1:55:17] the sale of them
[1:55:19] >> jointly. Right.
[1:55:20] >> Yeah, jointly.
[1:55:21] >> Okay. I have a motion from Council
[1:55:23] Member John. Do I have a second?
[1:55:25] >> I'll second it.
[1:55:26] >> Council member Rhden. Uh Council Member
[1:55:29] Lent.
[1:55:30] >> Yes.
[1:55:30] >> Council member Rhoden.
[1:55:32] >> Yes.
[1:55:32] >> Council member Hutchkins.
[1:55:34] >> Yes.
[1:55:35] >> Council member Johns.
[1:55:37] >> Okay. That motion passes.
[1:55:40] Wonderful. Okay. Um,
[1:55:43] close session. Um, do we I don't believe
[1:55:46] we have anything that really would
[1:55:48] warrant an update of any sorts. Anybody?
[1:55:53] >> No. Anybody here on the council?
[1:55:56] >> No.
[1:55:57] Okay.
[1:55:59] Then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
[1:56:03] >> It's too early, isn't it?
[1:56:06] >> Hurry. It's 7:15. I I'll motion to
[1:56:08] adjourn to see if we can get done by 8.
[1:56:09] Motion to
[1:56:11] >> second the motion.
[1:56:12] >> We are adjourned.
[1:56:14] >> Okay. Thank you everybody. It's
[1:56:16] >> not even 8:00 yet.
[1:56:17] >> It's still light. iPad to Reco get