Okay, everybody we're gonna have to get started.

So I'm okay to see.

All right.

We are going to start tonight's city council meeting.

Today is Tuesday, September 2nd.

Uh we are conducting this meeting as a um housing workshop, one of the installations in our housing workshop.

We will do public comment at the end of this works workshop session.

And so if you're in person and would like to make public comment, there are some blue cards on the back table back here.

Please fill one out and bring them up to um Dustin or Justin here in the back.

Uh if you're online, then we will um take public comment um after we take in-room comment, should there be any.

And Lynn Pays is going to be facilitating this meeting, and so I'm gonna turn this over to you now, Lynn.

Thank you.

Um good to be with you.

Um I'm actually excited about our meeting tonight because uh this is the participatory part of the discussion where council members officials get to uh uh weigh in on uh your priorities.

And that's our focus tonight.

Look, before we get into the details of this, I wanted to have gonna give Dustin some time to walk through these rests that I assume you've all been sent.

You all received these.

Okay.

Um as you know, the first two meetings we had were educational, we got information from various experts, etc.

etc.

Based upon that those briefings that we had in our first two meetings.

Uh a questionnaire was prepared.

That questionnaire was then sent out to all of the all eight of the elected officials.

And uh because of the way that was set up, it is impossible to determine which response came to so we don't know you don't.

So they really are eight anonymous uh responses.

We track these responses both in terms of how many votes certain items got.

And because everyone was asked to pick their top ten items.

And then of those top ten to prioritize them.

So on these charts, you will see, and Justin's going to walk through these, but you'll see that we track how many votes an item received.

And then we also tracked how those uh items were prioritized by those who voted for it.

So you want to look not just at how many votes they got, but how high a priority was it.

And that's reflected in the bar graph.

So um, so I'm gonna let Dustin walk through that.

And then what I want to do with our with our um following his introduction and explanation of the of the data points that we have.

And thank you all for throwing those out.

We appreciate you taking the time to read through this and I hope provides response.

Then I want to then I want to take some time with all of you to walk through and sort of talk about what we can learn from your responses.

That makes sense.

But Dustin, why don't you go ahead, sure?

Thanks, Lynn.

Uh so I I'm you guys all saw the six graphs we put together, and then I sent out the kind of raw data sheet as well, which is a little bit more complicated to look at.

Taking that data, I think it's turning it into something that's easy to read.

And so I'm just gonna walk through those to make sure that everybody understands uh what they say and um how to read them.

So there are six graphs.

Uh the first one that we're on here.

Uh let me walk through it.

So a couple commonalities you'll see between the first three graphs.

We have not included any of the issues, and the issues are on here A1 through K1.

And if you reference the uh uh reference sheet that we provided in the packet, uh you'll be able to see which issue is A1, which issue is K1, and everything in between.

But a couple commonalities.

We did not include anything in this graphs that received zero selections from an elected official.

So for example, if uh A1 had received instead of one elected official picking it had received none, it would not be on any of the graphs.

Another commonality that you'll see between all six of the graphs is they're color coded by the category.

So each uh of these issues is categorized into these categories A through K, and they're color coded here, and it's the same color coding all the way through to make it a little bit easier to read.

So for example, category A is severe housing shortage, right?

Okay, it has uh particular issues in it, A1 through uh A6, which you can open the uh questionnaire record sheet in order to understand what those are.

So this first graph uh it covers how many selections, how many elected officials selected each of the issues.

Uh and so for example, we'll use A3.

A3, three of you said, hey, this is one of my top ten most important issues.

Uh, if you look at G4, six of you said this is one of the most important issues to me.

We go on to the next slide, and what we did is um we decided to use a weighted score model in order to come up with uh basically a single combined score for each issue.

And so the the weighted model, what we did is we said everybody has selected as many as ten issues and they've ranked them one through ten for every issue that somebody ranked as their number one concern, that issue would have received one score of ten points, nine points for the number two, eight for three, four for number seven, down to one point for number ten and zero points if you didn't select a rank it at all.

And so what happens then is you're able to uh assign a total score to each issue.

So I'll use issue E2 as an example.

You see that it received 26 points.

So for E2, it was selected as a an area of concern by three of you, and it was ranked number four by somebody, number one by somebody, and number two by the third person.

And so it received a score of seven plus ten plus nine, which is a weighted score of 26.

Okay, so the weighted score is a good way to get an understanding of the level of concern uh that you all have for each issue, taking in consideration folks who think it's a big concern and folks who think it's not a concern or didn't select it at all.

And so in this graph, uh you'll see the weighted score for every issue that was selected by at least one elected official, and again, they're colored, they're color-coded for each of the uh issue categories.

Graph three basically combines graphs one and two, so you can compare them side by side.

So you look at issue A1, you'll see that it again it was selected by one elected official, and it received a uh weighted score of eight, which means that one elected official ranked it as their third concern.

And so this graph is a good way for you to compare side by side how many elected officials picked each issue as a concern, and what was the resulted weighted score for each issue.

We also have a key at the bottom of this graph, and this key gives the short title, uh just as a quick reference for uh every issue on the graph that received at least a weighted score of 10.

We couldn't fit them all, but we received a weighted score of 10 or more.

We've uh listed the short title on this graph.

Justin, before you want to talk about your bug read whatever.

I just think in terms of this uh bar chart, it's interesting.

If you look at, for instance, I won, one person listed that and it got a weighted score of two.

So only one person voted for it, and it was really number nine on every not very important.

In contrast, I three, one person voted for it, but it was their top priority.

So you see how you see how the number of votes also corresponds to the weighting votes.

That makes sense.

Okay, quite thanks, Clint.

So the first three charts were all of the issues.

Okay, we're we're trying to narrow it down a little bit, and so the the kind of staff that we took at that was well, what if we look at to narrow down what if we look at the issues that were only selected by at least three of the elected issues?

You know, you could change that, it could be four of the elected officials or two or five or whatever, but we chose three uh to try and narrow it down.

So you'll see everything is still color coded.

You can see the uh uh category that each of the issues are within, but these are just the issues that receive at least uh three of you saying no, this is an important issue to be on the side.

You can see the short title for each of those issues, and they're still organized in the same the same fashion, right?

Which is alphanumerical order, uh, and again, this one just shows how many elected officials selected each of those uh starting at at least three.

Same as the second chart, this chart shows uh just the weighted score for each issue that was selected by at least three elected officials, and then finally, similar to chart three, this shows those two side by side, but again, it's only issues that were selected by at least elective.

That is the end of the charts.

Does anybody have any questions about the charts?

We wanted to make sure that we had a uh everyone had the same understanding of how to look at them and to the data.

So I'm happy to answer the questions about those.

And if not, I'll turn it back over to Lynn to start the discussion.

Any questions?

Okay.

Lynn, what do you want me to pull up for you?

Do you want any to hold up right now?

Or leave it here for now.

Um anyway, thank you to to Liz and Dustin and maybe probably others who helped facilitate this.

Um I think this is really valuable because I like it when the picture tells the story.

And I think it does that.

So what we want to do tonight is we want to if you go back to uh your third graph, um, you can see that there's a whole bunch of categories there.

And and if we came away and said, do this.

Um if we if we looked at all of those, we would, you know, we would be so fractured in our approach, we'd never get anything done, right?

So well, our our goal tonight is to narrow that broad range of topics down to sort of not a specific line item, but an area of focus or priority for the elected officials, and ultimately, and this is why we ended up with the three or more, um, forward and back, backwards forward, which is why we ended up with this graph.

If it didn't, we figured if it didn't receive at least three votes from council members, maybe there's not enough interest to pursue it.

But we also know that there's some ambiguity and a lot of overlap in these categories, and somebody may have put their top priority in D2, and other people put it in D1, and so that's why we don't want to get hung up on individual line items, but rather broad categories.

Our goal tonight is to come away with three or four sort of big picture priorities that we are then going to give to James and Jake, and to say, now here's our goal.

Here's what we want to here's what we'd like to focus on.

Go help us find some tools to start doing.

Right.

So think of this as in effect a companion to our general plan.

It is aspirational, it's goal-oriented, it's priority oriented.

This is not the night to talk about tactics.

Well, how do we do it?

That's the next B.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

So a couple of interesting things.

One, no one of these topics received eight votes.

So there wasn't unanimity on anyone.

If you take the ones that received four votes or more, there are only seven categories.

If you expand it to three votes or more, it's 14 categories.

So that's sort of the scope of what we're looking at.

To me, as as I look at this chart, and I and I want to tell you, I'm not, I don't care where we end up tonight, right?

My goal tonight is to know what the eight of you think, and to have the eight of you reach a consensus on priorities and goals.

So I'm going to tell you what I think I'm seeing in these charts.

And then what I want you to do is to tell me, yes, we agree with that, or no, we don't, or you've left something out, etc.

etc.

And Dustin, I think there was one more page that we want to talk about that has everyone's top priority on it, right?

Yeah, I'm happy to pull up the data.

I can have Liz pull data sheet.

Do you want to pull that up right now?

Sure.

Because as I pointed out earlier in uh graph number three, it showed that there was one vote, only one vote for something over here, but it was that member's top priority.

Okay, so if there's something out there that one of you thinks is really important, and none of your colleagues thought so, then we would want to take a minute and to say, tell us why you think that was important and why did it show up over here when everybody else put it over here?

So maybe we're we're missing each other on the minutiae of the categories, right?

We want to make sure as much as possible, we don't leave out anything that someone feels strongly about.

Uh, but if there's only one of you who cares about it, and the other six six or seven don't, then we're gonna move on, right?

But do you want to explain this chart, Dustin?

Yes, this was in your pack as well.

This one's not as nice to look at.

It's it's it's quite a bit more complicated, but it has all the raw data uh in it.

And so the uh the first section, which is the uh respondent ring selection, basically it has each respondent at the top one through eight, and then if you go down each column, you can see which issue uh that respondent selected and where they ranked that issue, right?

So respondent one, you can see that they selected D1, D2, D3, and you know, they ranked D1 number one, for example, right?

Um if you go over to uh column T, you'll be able to see the total number of elected officials who selected uh that particular issue.

If you look at column B, uh this is the number that column says the number of times that that particular issue was ranked as someone's first most area of most concern, right?

Their number one ranking.

So for example, you know, D1 was ranked somebody's uh first choice one time, where D2 was ranked uh three elected officials first highest priority area regular and see everywhere where uh somebody ranked uh their top issue.

Um X shows it's separated by sections, so sections uh A through K, and it says how many elected officials picked at least one issue within that category.

So, for example, if you look at uh sections C at the top there, it says that uh five of you selected at least one issue within category C that was of concern.

Um I won't go over the weighted ranking column that just assigns a ranked score to each issue, and uh I think that's I think that's that's fine.

Anyway, if you're a real data nerd, this is you know, this is page you you'll thrive on, you can dig into all the details.

I don't intend to, but that's where you can find the breakdown uh if you need if you want to reverse them.

So if we can go back now that I've lost control of the screen, uh Liz, if we can go back to graph number uh I guess six.

Um so this is the one, this is only the chart that were of the items that received three votes or more.

Um, and so takeaway for me is if you just at a glance, it's pretty easy to see that a lot of you felt strongly about the Lime colored topics.

Lots of votes, lots of prioritized votes, right?

Those topics tend to reflect um concern about types of housing or the variety of housing.

Okay, so just to give you a sense, um those topics that I can find it down here.

I'm looking at the spreadsheet here.

It's these are the general topics there.

Um limited options between single family homes and apartments, obstacles to middle housing, appearance and neighborhood integration, housing for seniors, lack of affordable options for first-time home buyers, housing diversity for a wide range of demographics, and minimal construction of smaller homes.

That's D1 through D7.

Every one of those topics received at least three votes.

So if I were looking at this chart, I would say that's priority number one, broader range of housing.

Just at a glance.

Okay.

Um, and I do want you to say something, so you bash later, but um, but so that's number one.

That was the first thing that jumped out.

Second thing that jumped out at me is oh, and one more thing.

If you look at A3, A3 says the title is focus on single family homes.

But then the narrative in A3 is new construction often prioritizes traditional large lot single family homes, neglecting other denser housing types.

So even A3, which was ranked high, tends to be the same as the lime colored topics, meaning we need we need a broader range of housing types.

Okay, so that seems to me to be number one priority, based upon your the your response is the questionnaire.

Uh, item number two seems to be focused on more housing or greater density of housing, and that's reflected in topic F1 and D7 and A3, and a little bit in D5.

Now, question for you is that what you meant to say?

One, we want more different kinds of housings, and we want more housing, meaning more of it.

Because those were the first to me, if that would be A and B in terms of your the rankings and the votes on the on the board.

Feedback comments.

So if I were putting up list of priorities, this would be the biggest circle, next biggest circle, A and B.

Yeah, I was gonna comment on what you were talking about, Lynn.

No matter how you slice and dice this, no matter which graph you're looking at, the the the grouping of D, um, very clearly uh is the one that rises at the top kind of things in terms of uh the need for, and I would say oh, I mean, you know, my perspective is the need for different types of housing as well as the need for additional housing as well.

So uh I I think you know, one of the things that I appreciate the most about this exercise is just giving everyone an opportunity to give voice and to be able to quantify the voice of what it looks like macro to be macro, very much looks like D.

That would be the you know, the place that would be of most value to focus our efforts.

Anyway, so that's that's what I would have taken away.

Any any other comments or one?

Oh, uh I guess I want to learn a little bit more about why you didn't identify G4.

You sort of that were your head.

That's right.

That's where I was going next.

Okay, cool.

Because I debated whether whether this was A is clearly the D category.

The second one, second priority is either the amount of housing, like more housing, or what I'm gonna mention next, which is reflected in G4, and that is more owner-occupied housing, and that is reflected in G4, uh, which is we need tools to enforce owner occupied housing.

E2, you see, only three people voted for it, but it got really high ranking.

That's 20 E2 there, that's condos.

Okay, and A3 again, focusing on single family homes.

C2 uh reflects there, three votes in the orange, talks about the impact of renting on building wealth.

So all of those focus on the importance of ownership, building equity, owner-occupied, and you all know owner-occupied housing has a different impact on a neighborhood.

It's received differently than rented housing.

A lot easier to sell to persuade your neighbors to accept greater density if it's owner occupied than if it's rented.

Right.

And close behind that two and three, in whatever order two and three are more volume of housing and owner occupied housing.

That to me are the one, two, three takeaways for this survey, this questionnaire.

Feedback, yes, no, you agree, you disagree.

One other comment, and and I think you alluded to this earlier, D4 housing for seniors had five people comment on it but weighted a little lower.

I feel like accomplishing D like one and two is going to provide housing for seniors.

Yeah, so this is the really interesting one.

You look at that, D, which one is it?

Housing for seniors is D4.

So five people voted for it, but each of them basically only gave a score of three.

Okay.

And then you look at the next one, lack of affordable housing D5 for first-time home buyers.

Only three people voted for it, but they've all ranked at very high.

But again, both of those senior housing and starter homes are subsets of a broader variety of housing.

I just wanted to point that out because I feel like we would still be addressing D4 and D5, our seniors and our first time home buyers, by doing the missing middle because really that's what we're trying to fill in so that we have greater options available to first-time homeboys or to seniors who are downsizing and et cetera.

So the whole cycle of the of a you know, home kind of so I I guess that's what you're really hitting at is that we are touching on these others.

Right.

And and when you talk about missing middle or or variety of housing, you're talking about things like slightly increased density, but think of the sorry, then back that up.

In a traditional zoning model, we had right lines drawn around residential areas or single family neighborhoods only, commercial areas and office areas, right?

And you live over here in the single family neighborhood, and then you get in your car and you drive over here to shop or you drive over here to the office to work.

All of those edges have gotten blurred over the last few years.

All of us now spend a substantial amount of time working from home.

There is less demand for commercial space because there's so much shopping online.

You don't necessarily go to the mall as much, and there's a dramatically reduced need for office space because I have a home office.

And so all of those categories have gotten blurred, but in terms of housing, there's been a bright line typically between single family residential and multifamily.

Owned, rented.

And what I think we're here, what I think I'm hearing from you is we need more options between those two, perhaps uh in terms of product, and perhaps in terms of location.

I don't know, we'll explore them.

But that's when I'm looking at your feedback, that's what I'm seeing.

So what I want you to do tonight before we finish is say, yes, you read it right, or no, you didn't stop, you're going the wrong direction.

Because our planning staff is going to take this and go to work on it between now and each.

That makes sense.

Okay, so those are the three big categories I saw as a takeaway.

Then there were two smaller categories, and I don't these only came up based upon when I when we started to look at those, the categories where there were three votes, maybe not, we're not sure there's a majority of the council to support that, but when we start to look at the three vote categories, other couple of other priorities came up as well.

Number one is lower cost housing, meaning the difference between market rate or affordable housing.

And when we think about affordable housing, a lot of times we think about subsidized housing or low-income housing.

No, it can just be starter homes, for example, that tend to be affordable, or something that is um not necessarily market rate, because we've negotiated for some kind of a reduced price product.

Okay, so don't think that's just low income or homeless housing.

Anyway, those are reflected in only two categories.

D7 is starter homes, or sorry, sorry, smaller homes, D5 is starter homes.

D7 refers to the size of homes.

Bigger homes typically cost more than smaller homes, and nobody's building small homes.

So that's one aspect.

Um the other item is um was the location, appearance, and integration of differing housing types, and that's reflected in D3 and in G2.

Right?

Just to give you a sense.

D three says appearance and neighborhood integration.

A key challenge is designing and integrating denser housing options into established single family neighborhoods in a way that is visually appealing and maintains neighborhood character.

And then G2 is appearance is key, aesthetic concerns from residents.

Opposition is often rooted in aesthetic aesthetic concerns.

Residents want new development to look and feel like the existing neighborhood and are particularly resistant to a parking lot.

So one of the questions I want to ask you is taking the traditional zoning model, single family rental here, multifamily over here.

Are you talking about blending those and allowing more density in one neighborhood and more owner occupying, right?

Are you really talking about integrating a higher density product housing product into the neighborhoods?

Is that what you want?

Because then Shane, who wants to downsize, can buy a smaller home in his neighborhood without having to move across town and be dislocable.

Anyway, so I need your feedback.

What did you intend then?

Um again, there's to me there's three big top priorities, and then these sort of two secondary ones.

One is and the secondary ones again was lower cost housing, particularly for starter or smaller homes, and second, integrating a variety of housing into more of our neighborhoods.

So it is integrated throughout the city and not just all clustered camp.

Yes, no, maybe you're the policy makers don't want to make it.

I mean, I'm happy to share my thought.

Yeah.

Um I think your analysis went way deeper than I had imagined.

Because I saw this, and I'll tell you what my brain said.

I see four big buckets of stuff to work on here.

We have bucket one being D, bucket two being F, bucket three being G, and bucket four being a combination of A, C, and E.

So I took that, and I I probably went more like a hundred thousand foot view.

I think you're more like in the 30 to 50,000 range.

Because I didn't put that much thought into it.

I just saw big buckets, because in my mind, what I the direction I I think we should go is there's not one solution to these issues.

There's not one silver bullet here.

It has to be approached from multiple different directions.

So that's why I think my brain went that way, and like, oh, D.

The big section for D is um limited housing stock variety, and we've all kind of you know on a lot of those, it's the majority of us selected that as the highest priority.

So obviously that's probably gonna get the most work, and the same thought process for those various buckets.

Because I I think I don't have enough information to really answer some of the questions you've asked.

There's a ton of detail that goes in to the solutions, and I think that's what we're asking James and and company to bring back is some of that detail, but from a high level, I I feel like we've carved out four categories, at least in my brain.

I'm sure everybody's gonna interpret a little bit different, but in my brain, we've got four four paths forward to this massive problem.

Okay, hold on, hold on.

Who's taking notes here?

Okay, somebody back there.

Because what we want to end up with is the big buckets, right?

So go ahead, share with us what you think big buckets are.

Well, again, I just did like big bucket one is the category of D.

We know what we know what D is.

Okay, the second biggest would be F.

The third biggest G.

And what is F?

Uh F would be zoning and land use regulations.

Okay, but but what's the policy direction you are giving staff relative to zoning and land use?

Well, and that's where I think I stopped short of you.

You went a step further than I did.

I didn't.

I'm looking at this like big buckets, and and so I I mean that's where I'm coming from.

Like I don't have enough information to answer that.

Specific question because I was looking at it more broadly.

And I hope you know my colleagues are looking at it a little more kind of fine-tuned than that.

I think that's where we're gonna get to some sort of path forward but I just saw these these big categories and now the I think the troubling one would be combining A C and E into something and I don't know what that is.

Clearly none of us felt like B was an issue not soaring housing costs.

So all of the items under there you know we did prioritize.

I'm not saying they're not important we just chose not to uh prioritize them in this in this but perhaps too there's there's things there under section B that can be intertwined so again my initial reaction was looking at the numbers the way it's weighted I like how it's weighted up there um that those are our big categories and from there we've got a kind of fine tune a little bit so I'm hoping you all have fine-tuned in and gone a little deeper because I just went broad it's too too big of an issue to to pick like I think two or three things that well let me back that up it's too big of an issue to have two or three tactics so when we meet at the next meeting I hope there's a lot more tactics beyond just a couple but I do think having sort of this multifaceted approach will help the city get to where it needs to that's probably the most concise way I can say one thing that helps me think about these big buckets is also to think about some examples of where I can find these things in the city as it exists today.

One of those examples when we talk about D in here about um uh housing for seniors and multiple types of housing one example I can think of is by me and I'm not gonna pick on Shane I'm gonna get on Bruce Klein because he has retired uh but Bruce Klein and I live not too far apart from one another um so if if you think about 7th east and 110th south there's pretty good integration of senior housing and single family housing uh as well as some commercial not too far from there.

So those are some examples to be where I think that we have some um you know some different housing types that actually work well together uh where we have right now that to me is what I envision when we're talking about D is to think about those kind of examples where we have um uh some owner occupied which uh uh pretty sure a vast majority of these units are owner occupied their multifamily they're senior housing and they integrate well with single family house so those are some examples over on seventh east and 110th south that that to me is kind of what I picture the talking about an example yeah and and I'll add to that because I feel like we've had a lot of conversations around what what these solutions could look like in terms of that gradual move where we're thinking about what what does multifamily like and how could it look different than it ever has before so that we have this it's not a stark line it's it's you know we're just slowly moving from single family home homes to you know I don't know the correct words for that but slowly getting towards more density but clearly we are all emphasizing that as we do that the emphasis has got to be on okay owner occupancy.

And so the fact that G4 scored so high that we don't have a tool or or a tool belt to enforce that if if we're if staff is looking for direction I mean I think that is a clear one that it's actionable.

I'm a little different than Zach in terms of um I don't want tonight to be just about big buckets I want to I I like how you have teased out so I would say I agree um that there's a clear you know D1 and D2 um that's more specific than just saying D is you know limited housing we are saying that we want to remove obstacles to middle housing for example.

So that is something I feel like staff the goal tonight is to provide some some clear direction what are the obstacles to middle housing and what we as policymakers do about that.

Because we all agree we need more middle housing and so removing obstacles could actually address several of these things.

Specifically, and I know this came up, and where I where I don't necessarily see some potential solutions in here, but I know it's gonna be part of what staff brings back, but I was so uh intrigued by the governor's office presentation on what they are trying to do around occupancy as things that have never been done before.

And so how do we again tap into what uh the governor's office is doing?

What are your recommendations in terms of acting upon that kind of so I feel like we've got really good more specific than just the big budget?

I really like where we're headed.

Other thoughts, yes.

Um, okay, so I'm trying to remember when I was going through this exercise, you know, how I was thinking about it, and um I think it was kind of a blend between super high level and um is in depth as we're we'd be talking right now.

Um, but listening to your analysis um of the data that we've provided, I would generally say that I agree with what you've outlined and the finding findings that you've come up with from that.

Um I generally see the limited housing stock as the biggest issue, the biggest impediment that we have.

You know, when I when I think about housing um and being in different communities, looking at housing, helping you know, buyers become homeowners or maintain homeownership.

Um the thing that gets me about our particular situation is more about um maybe the lack of a balanced housing.

And so I'm kind of thinking about it in a balancing kind of way or maybe a rebalancing kind of way.

Um, and so you're you know, where are we talking about these pockets or um areas of potentially increased density?

I do think that there are um options for some appropriate increases in areas that um help to blend the two, you know, um like on the fringes of each.

Uh when I think about the housing, that both, you know, I I think that as a state and and maybe as a city during this conversation during these questions, we've identified, you know, what we're there's a lot of focus on first-time home buyers and um seniors, and generally speaking, I think that there is a lot of overlap in those two populations being at different you know spectrums of their life cycle that uh both um by by taking care of the the missing middle accomplishes um accomplishes housing for both sectors, you know.

Um I just I I want to make sure too that I I say from a how from a senior housing standpoint, I want to be careful that we don't pigeonhole senior housing into just 55 and older communities where they're segregated from other neighborhoods.

You know, there are definitely like like Ryan was pointing out, we we have areas where those exist and those are fantastic.

And uh, I know a lot of um seniors are looking for um situations like that, but there's another population of seniors who are more active who want to maintain integration with um you know a fuller life spectrum of uh neighbors, and for senior housing in that context, it's more about style of housing, you know, having primary um primary floor or main floor primary bedrooms, you know, reducing the need for stairs, reducing the lot footprint so that the yard is more manageable, or you know, in an HOA or something where um they take care of a rent yard, for example.

You know, I have neighbors that um moved to one move to a 55 and older in South Jordan because um they couldn't find what they were looking for in Sandy or anywhere close.

Um they were also really concerned about the location uh to hospitals to shopping to um some of those other uh amenities that they need for their daily lives, and so considering that you know, and in terms of potential location, um, and then another family wanted to stay in Sandy and they found one of the last remaining homes just west of Pepperwood off Highland in that HOA area where the lots were smaller and they were built a few years ago, and so I just wanted to point that out to everybody from a senior housing standpoint that we're not just talking segregating seniors into 55 and older, in my opinion.

Um I think that um again, generally speaking, that well, can I ask you a question, Lynn, first because I I feel like I may be a little bit confused about the objective for tonight.

So when we talk about identifying issues, you know, we've got like the broader category of issues, which is like D limited housing stock, and then within that there's multiple individual issues.

Are we identifying you know, issues, categories?

Like what do you see as a successful outcome?

Well, that's that's what you need to tell us.

Can I say something related to that?

So this is just my thought, right?

So uh it's been eight months ago now, right?

The council we held those budget priorities workshops, and you remember during those workshops, what we said was we should get a specific with your priorities until we start losing agreement, right?

And so I feel the same way about uh this if they want to get as specific as saying, no, there's this one issue, right?

Marcy pointed out uh obstacles to middle housing.

She's that's it, that's the issue.

That's what we want to focus on.

You guys want to get that specific?

That's great.

But if if there's not agreement to get that specific.

In my opinion, what would be a big win is if we walked away with a a statement of some kind, like a goal statement.

So I'll I'll give you an example.

I just wrote this down, and it's based on uh Lynn's lens analysis, what you put over.

So it may not represent you know what you guys are looking for.

I'm just trying to give you an idea.

So I wrote down, you know, the issue is that we need a larger variety of housing, more housing, and that we want it to be owner-occupied, right?

If we can leave with that type of a statement, then it allows us as staff to say, okay, well, we know what the goal of council mayor is.

What options can we bring back to help achieve that goal?

And if we can get more specific than that, great, but if we can't, and there's agreement that hey, a statement like that, that mid-range, like that's enough for us and is a win.

That's that's why I would agree with that.

And what that does for for James and his team is it gives them something to say, okay, this is what the council wants.

This is their priority.

This is the goal, let's go find tools.

And they're gonna bring back a broad range of tools, and you're gonna say we hate that, maybe like right.

And you'll sort through that at our next meeting.

But and this is what concerns me.

If you just say to staff, we want to prioritize that, zoning and land use regulations.

That gives staff no direction.

It doesn't tell them what you want, what the goal is.

If you say to them, we want higher density, that tells them what to work on.

Or or if we want integrated housing, but you need to give them direction.

That's all.

And so the the three topics that that we've talked about so far, I think does that.

If there are more, you can put on the list, great.

If not, stop with those three, hold it in, we're done.

Well, well, that's really helpful.

And I just yeah, can I so I'd all just really wrap up my thoughts really quick.

So when I was doing it, I you know, obviously, there are a lot of really important issues for myself.

I decided to focus on what I believed were more within the city's ability to influence than maybe some of the others, you know, and interest rates are high, they're very difficult.

The city doesn't have a whole lot of um tools to be able to come up with to affect that.

So I tried to focus my priorities on what I felt the city could um reasonably accomplish.

Uh so uh and and with that, you know, I just want to make sure that it's clear from a from a density standpoint.

Um, you know, what we're talking about as we talk about increasing the density to levels of you know, apartments, condominiums, things like that.

I think that um, you know, the cairns offers a um obvious uh near transit location for that.

Um, you know, density, I think is a little bit subjective because you know, once you go from one to two, you're more dense, you know.

It it what is high density to one person may be different for the other?

It's all subjective and contextual.

And so um, I just wanted to add that disclaimer as we talk about density that I am personally not speaking about putting apartments or large-scale condos in the middle of single family neighborhoods.

Um, but I do think that there is some appropriate integration with with the beginning of increasing density uh maybe in areas, maybe along you know, arterials or collectors, you know, where they're kind of on the fringes and can blend or bleed with other segments of our planned community.

Um anyway, but overall I would say I agree with where you're gonna thoughts.

You're trying to raise your hand already, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

I I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to get you an answer tonight because there's a lot more that I need.

Um I think maybe you can explain this to me.

But I I mean, I'm wondering, you know, the types of housing and the categories we have, how many senior housing units do we have in the city?

How many single family homes on R18 or smaller, R 10?

And I just chose kind of two numbers between quarter acre and smaller.

Um, how many townhouses do we have?

How many apartments?

I mean, the apartments, and then even all of these, are they rented units?

Are they owner-occupied?

Um, duplexes, twin halls, you know, how many of these ADUs do we have?

You know, looking at that, but I think that there's we have this from what I'm hearing on some of this, you know, and it's trying to pick this out and flip through graphs and you know, and not as not being as familiar with everything that you are, but I mean, that's you know, okay, well, we want a more a bigger variety.

That's an excellent plan for South Jordan that's building and has an infinite amount of land, well, not infinite, but a significant amount of land they can build on.

We are fairly built out.

So looking at that, the percentage of the available areas that we have, um, you know, what is something that we can try to impact in the next 10 to 15 years if that's kind of a time frame of looking because there's not a whole bunch of building going on right now, um, versus in 50 years, okay.

Is this neighborhood as we start to move in this neighborhood, what's that going to look like?

Um, I I mean, we can come up with and say, well, we want this type of housing, we want more of it, but there's no land for it.

There's not a place for it, you know.

Then that's we can want all we want, and it's not going to be feasible.

Um, so I mean, looking at areas that we can develop, or is this just more about well, you know, general plan perspective in another 50 years when the city decides to do no general plan, which I know we're looking at 10 years, but you know, something here.

Well, we may have to start changing this.

Um, but I mean, where we what what we have right now, it seems I just I think that there's probably we have to decide, you know, what percent of our housing, our housing stock do we think is fair, do we want to have available for senior housing?

Oh, we currently have one percent, and we'd like to have 10%.

Um, you know, hearing numbers like that, you know.

I mean, a lot of our city, large portion of it is that single family.

But are we looking at the smaller lots?

Are we looking at the larger lots?

What percentage is that?

And what would we like to see?

What do we think is you know, an idea, a direction, because then we can look at areas and say, okay, I mean, it's just I so that A3, it had three elected officials that chose that, and it you know, had that weighted ranking of 21.

So if you just take an average there, then that put it at, I mean, it was the third highest priority, which is I mean, there's only like two others that are really higher than that.

But you go back to that A3 and it's talking about single family homes.

Well, it says it says there's been a restricted focus on single-family homes, and A3 says we have neglected other denser housing types.

And is that because the preference and people have been buying more of the single family homes?

Is that what I mean?

So, has that been the preference in the past?

I mean, it's just it's good question.

And and and we're not gonna get into tactics tonight.

And I don't yeah, but the but if if the if if the if the if the statement uh the preference of the council is to say we'd like to explore a broader range of housing options, how senior housing can be all the way from a single family home on one level with no stairs to an assisted living facility.

And that's and I think those are all senior housing, right?

Okay, they're different models.

And well, and that's and you take even like I mean, a an apartment complex with an elevator, yes, that's still main floor living.

I think that's more of a not necessarily just you know, I mean, oh, I have a just a rambler, not a basement, but main floor living is kind of put you know, that's that's senior house, but how many of those do we have available?

And I mean, what does that look like?

Because we don't have large chunks of land to say, you know what, I think this should be great.

We have 10 acres over here, let's you know, half this and half that.

Sure.

And I I remember the city typically doesn't build housing.

Right.

We simply enable it, and we say, here you can do the X in this area.

But um but one of the one of the challenges, I think one of the concepts that staff may bring back is the concept of what kind of middle housing can you do on a redeveloped half acre or acre?

You don't need 10 acres, right?

If you if you're integrating this into neighborhoods appropriately, if right, what does it look like in smaller bits and pieces?

Because they're not monolithic large apartment buildings, they're small ones.

Right?

The height is no different than the house next door, but it has multiple units.

Well, it's a so those are all examples.

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole, but but if you're asking how how would we do this?

Well, I don't know.

This purpose of this meeting is aspirational.

Well, and that's what my question was though, is so you know, speaking of density, you know, and not wanting to plug some giant building in the middle of a single family dominant single-family neighborhood.

Um, you know, putting in, if you were talking about smaller housing units, either that's going to be stacked, which then we have height limitations, or they're going to be very small, and not necessarily that mean for living, because many people don't want a 600-foot square, you know.

I mean, that's they want maybe two levels on something.

But looking at that, of okay, because we just don't have a lot of big areas.

So are we talking when we're integrating more into some of these predominantly single family homes?

And that was a question that popped up somewhere.

Is that are we are we just looking at duplexes, you know, or s or like town halls, or is it short answer is I don't know.

That's what you're kind of looking at tonight.

But then we like something between single family and apartment buildings.

Okay, that's what that's what D reflects.

But you're right going down the the path of infill because we are built, and a lot of it will be in bill, and what will be acceptable and what will the council want to do in neighborhoods and on the peripheries of neighborhoods and in shopping centers and things like that, but there are areas that you have to look at on what you'll what will be right for Sandy City to put on in-fill properties.

I mean, that is obviously one of the toughest decisions to make, and what the residents look at the most is how do you integrate something into a neighborhood, and what does that look like and feel like to you?

Doesn't it also not just infill though?

I mean, are we talking redevelopment?

Yes, um, older homes perhaps that gets sold, maybe homes that sit on a one-acre lot, and and that gets subdivided into four quarter acre lots, and that's a new filling just off though, just to give you a sense of the case.

That's that's that's infilling.

That's a type thought of an infill because you're within an existing going into something else.

Thank you for clarifying because I was so redevelopment can be in the end.

I was seeing that as two separate things.

Thank you.

Yes, so I I know you know, we've we've we've hit this since the first workshop when we were just receiving information, right?

But everybody wants to jump into the nitty-gritty details of how we're gonna do something.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Well if everybody wants to do that, the problem with the problem with this with this issue, except the problem with this issue is that's perfect.

It's such a big one, and I think most of the issues are big issues, rarely much micro, right?

But it's this macro issue, and in order for us as staff to successfully come back and say, here are some options on how to tackle it, we have to first understand what is the issue that we are trying to tackle.

And so Alice and I totally understand.

You know, you're saying, well, what about X, Y, Z, A, B, C, all these things, but I think you have to set that on the shelf for now and say we're gonna get into that level of detail, we're going to answer those questions, but first we have to pick what are we gonna work on first.

And it doesn't mean we're not gonna work on the other stuff as a city, but what are we gonna work on first?

And as I just said a minute ago, as detailed as you can get about that is great, but I think we should stop at uh where there's generally broad grade.

So I I'm wondering if we don't want to put some type of a statement up on the screen, and we can kind of edit it until we get to something that folks are happy with.

But I'm not leaving this, so I can put a pause on that.

Okay, okay.

Sorry, yes, I want to go over there, but I don't want to cut off any discussion if I didn't have to at this juncture.

If not, I want to point out something else interesting.

What else is interesting from this graph or this questionnaire response is what's not there?

Okay, if the governor were filling out this graph, what would what's his priority?

Starter homes, right?

35,000 starter homes.

Okay, starter homes on our draft only got three votes, less than a majority of the council.

So one of the questions I'm at staff will ask ourselves is are are we just looking at broad wrench or is starter homes priority?

Okay, perfect question, right?

The other thing that is not here, nobody emphasized affordability.

B got no votes at all.

Actually, maybe got some votes back on number one, but minimal votes, right?

Less than no, none of them got three votes.

So D5.

Lack of affordable options for first-time home.

Right, but that's only three.

Not even the majority of council.

But it's now there is another one.

There's I think D7 is um smaller houses, which tends to be starter.

So there's overlap, right?

But I didn't see starter homes being Sandy City's top priority.

That's the point.

Second, I didn't see much in here about affordability.

And what and some of you may have been feeling like Brooke.

We can't control that anyway, so I didn't prioritize it.

I care about affordability, but we can't control.

Others have made others of you may have been feeling like, you know what?

We're going to address affordability by building more supply.

And so we care about affordability, but it's an indirect approach rather than a direct approach.

Now, why am I raising this?

And this is for the benefit of staff.

It makes a lot of difference if what we want to build is more housing, but we're okay if it's market rate.

And we hope that if we do this and other cities do this, that over time the market will adjust because we're building more of the product.

That's an indirect approach to affordability.

That's very different than a direct approach, which is we're gonna let you build more density here, and we're gonna make you sign a deed restriction that you won't sell these units for more than 80% of AMI, etc.

etc.

etc.

That's a direct approach.

So just want to make sure I'm hearing you right.

I did not see anything in this in this questionnaire response that says it is a priority for this council to take a direct approach in addressing affordability.

Is that what you meant to tell us?

I have something on that.

Okay.

Um that's part of my comments.

So I'm never been a stay in color inside the lines kind of person, so restricting my uh priorities to this graph to these categories, there's a lot of bleed.

But these are familiar topics because we've gone through our general plan update, we um approved priorities for the state affordable housing plan where we are emphasizing affordability.

So this isn't new for us, and I think it's building on conversations that integrate what we've heard from our residents in the pace of progress.

There is greater appetite for density in Sandy more than there was uh almost six years ago when I took office.

Density was uh, you know, just kind of like a conversation ender.

Now people understand if I want my children or grandchildren to live in Sandy, we need new tools, we need new types of housing.

So there's been a shift, and as we're talking about kind of gradually adapting expectations for this generation of leadership, what I see our role is is to make some improvement, not to solve the state's housing crisis, uh Sandy City us alone, but to do our part to do a lift where we can tackle city priorities.

Uh Alison mentioned identifying the room we have for growth, what's left.

We've did we've done that in the general plan update.

We can access that information pretty easily.

I think just as important is identifying areas that we don't want growth, and we've we hear very clearly from our residents, those are our established single-family neighborhoods where people have bought in and built uh their dream, their largest investment and expectation of zoning zoning security.

So people are not going to feel um every neighborhood in Sandy is up for grabs for densification.

So identifying where we can change, where we can make reasonable change for this generation of city leadership and city residents, and where we should keep hands off.

I think those two go hand in hand, and one conversation is just as important as the next.

So zoning stability, when I'm um when I look at this zoning options, zoning stability and meeting the expectations of established neighborhood, that needs to be addressed in the conversation as importantly as where we can change.

Uh transit affordability is key for creating new housing density and also creating uh resident buy-in for new housing.

So if it's connected to tracks, front runner, uh where you can reduce parking requirements, where you have walkability to get to work, to get to entertainment, to get to uh new destinations around the city.

That's key.

It's not everywhere where where density works, but there are still opportunities and great opportunities in Sandy for concentration of height, a concentration of density.

Where is that?

In my view, it's in our Cairns district in our Sandy Central district, where our new growth is going to occur with sports entertainment between the hockey to the south, soccer to the north, between tracks and I-15.

That's where people expect it's going to happen.

That's our new vision of the downtown Sandy.

That's what we also heard in our general plan update.

I think the interesting part of this discussion is what are the tools when we get to what are the strategies, what are the tools we can offer to achieve that?

What can we offer to the development community?

What can we offer to residents?

What can we offer to our own employees to achieve these?

So some of my thoughts, maybe they exist in the bar graph, but I just want to put them out there on the on the record.

New housing, smaller lots, higher density adjacent to transit, that's a key priority for me.

Home ownership is a key priority for me.

I feel like we've done it, we've done our part for apartment rentals, focus at the city on home ownership, allowing people to achieve the American dream of home ownership, even if it is it's not a single family housing, it might not be.

So that keeps the neighborhoods intact and it keeps it allows a pathway to home ownership for people who couldn't otherwise afford it.

So it's those incentives for especially for frontline workers and first-time homeowners.

So Dustin, I don't know where that fits in the bars, but I wanted to put that out there.

But and if if we talk about densification, we need to talk about value added to our existing community members, people who have the expectation of zoning stability, and where there's value added, if it's going to create new parks, trails, connectivity, new housing options for their loved ones, uh, owner occupancy and affordability, that's something our residents can get behind.

But to talk about density for the sake of meeting a state's goals, I think it doesn't really land very sympathetic to Sandy residents who are you know already feel threatened by the amount of rentals and the density and the congestion that we have in the city, but if there's value added as a selling um reminder, first of all, we have residents who want this.

Uh and when we have better public resources, better public infrastructure as a result of new growth, then it is value added, and that and our existing homeowners are incentivized.

Back to the general plan.

We've got a solid plan for densifying our parents district, we've got a solid plan for creating shoulder and transition neighborhoods and our commercial neighborhood commercial centers, and we've got great design elements.

We have a jumping off point, and we have I believe a community that's ready to walk with us through this process.

But as long as long as we're doing it methodically and transparently, and it's not throwing everything into play all at once.

I started with our generation of Sandy residents, we can do our part to lift, but we're not going to be able to solve it all.

I want to manage expectations and identify the areas we have for growth and identify the areas we have for preservation.

Thanks, Mayor.

Brian, you had your hand up.

Oh, uh, I just wanted to comment you were talking about um starter homes, and I see these as integrated one example, you know, cotton channels to be our starter homes.

So mixing can be mixing the bug to me is tackling the historical problem.

Okay.

I just wanted to add that.

Yeah, relative to the mayor's comments, it's it's an interesting uh pattern to watch.

Um I don't know how many of you were aware, but several years ago, the state the state mandated that every city allow internal accessory dwelling units.

Right.

Um so years ago, zoning enforcement used to go out there and enforce if you had another family living in the basement because this was a single family home and could have two families living there.

The state by legislation said everywhere, everyone everywhere can have two units in that house statewide.

Right now, this session, they are seriously considering a bill that will say the same thing, a statewide mandate as to external accessory dwelling.

That means everyone can build a little house in the backyard.

That turns every single family neighborhood into a two-unit neighborhood.

Okay, that is that doubles the density of the city overnight.

Okay.

Now they're putting some guardrails on it, and they say, well, the primary home has to be owner-occupied.

That by definition means the person in the rear in the back of the house, backyard is a renter.

And that's essentially a flag lot, right?

And sometimes that flag lot is higher because it's on a smaller footprint.

So sometimes it's looking over the fence and it creates privacy issues, and it what used to be sort of an open space in the backyard, now there's a sense of okay.

That's happening.

This densification you're talking about is happening, whether we like it or not.

The only question is whether or not you're going to try and control it or steer it, or whether you want what the state report.

So can I add to that?

Um, because I I want to make sure we're clarifying we're speaking as individuals, we're not speaking on behalf of the city.

I don't know that I entirely agree with something you said, so I want to make sure the we is not assumed.

Um because I I think there I guess I get a little nervous about boldly declaring pants off zones for the same for the same point.

That's a collective yeah, so I'm not flying.

I am just letting the group know that that I think the variety can fit in a single family community.

We've learned that from one of the presentations that it can look like a large single family home.

Aesthetically, it fits the neighborhood, and yet um, because we are intentional, we are providing some higher density that has the look and feel of a large single family home.

So I'm a little nervous about just declaring single family homes are off limits.

Single family home neighborhoods are our hands off because I don't think we get to the solutions we have to do.

And just to that point, I appreciate that clarification, right?

You haven't voted on anything yet.

Um but ultimately James and his team are going to bring back tactics, and those will include zoning changes, either either code changes or map changes or both, right?

And by majority vote, you will decide where so if you think of think of a range of housing that is not just A and B, but maybe A B C D E F G.

And you'll decide where that range fits in what neighborhood.

So there'll be a lot more detail we can.

So, you know, listening to some of the conversations here amongst council members and um other elected officials.

We're we're the city, we aren't private landowners, and so even in this exercise in the context of trying to provide tools and steer it to some extent, we ultimately don't generally make the final decisions, you know, unless we have some very specific development agreement or something like that, right?

And so, like I just again, like I appreciate as somebody who likes the details, you know, how detailed some of us are getting in our thoughts, but I also think that it's important that we try to maintain some level of uh generalities or um variety, you know, even in the single family home conversation, you know.

I think about my own community driving up Wasatch Boulevard six or seven, eight years ago, um, Garbette came in and developed a plot of land by Highland Drive off of Los Ash.

There's still single family detached that can you know consider so higher density, it I feel it fits within the context of the surrounding neighborhoods that are all detached single family, but the density is much greater compared to those you know around it.

And so it doesn't necessarily always have to be like attached units or per se, right?

And so um the the variety of housing uh is one aspect, but I don't know that we have full you know full control except for where we can maybe influence through some codes or zonings or other tools that we're going to hopefully hear about.

Um, you know, uh I agree that densification for the sake of densification doesn't make sense, definitely would never you know purport to uh to to say that uh I think that one of the benefits that we need to also consider for some of our east side neighborhoods is the closing of schools, you know, Canyon School District is having very real conversations about closing quite a few schools in our um you know, northeast east side quadrant of our city.

Um the cost of housing is not the only component, but it is absolutely a component to that, you know, they aren't having the problems necessarily in the middle schools and in the high schools from an attendant standpoint, it's the elementary schools, and when you think about the families that you know that the family demographic of uh family that have elementary school age children and their ability to purchase a large home on a large lot in our east side neighborhoods, you know, that's um few and far between.

So you're not getting a lot of those.

Maybe when their kids are older and they're more established in their careers and they have middle schoolers and high schoolers, can they move up to that?

You know, but from an elementary standpoint, if if if that's a concern for those with elementary age kids in our neighborhoods, I think you know, considering uh uh variety and balanced housing in those areas, you know, um keeping sport open is also a community benefit.

Make sure I said other thoughts or comments before we go to Justin's suggestion, Justin suggests.

So this conversation reminds me a lot of the general plan adoption, and we made some pretty big changes.

Now I voted against the general plan, and because I had some concerns over what we were implementing or proposing to him.

To me, it goes back to um is the question what do we want, or what will we allow?

Um, because we can't strip property owners of their private property rights, and so um I just I am the question of starters.

I love the idea of starters.

I mean, I love the idea of starters.

If we are a built-out city that has infill projects, predominantly in-fill projects on a fairly small scale, then what better than to do single family detached homes with smaller sizes on smaller lots that what fits better, right?

And so um, and if that increases affordability, then I'm okay with that.

And if what we're talking about is allowing for smaller homes on smaller lots, then I think that ought to be in our repertoire of things that we might consider.

Um I also think that we may be fooling ourselves into thinking that we get to make these funds because they're coming at us.

I mean, they've already been coming at us.

Some of these we've been able to repel from the legislature or put them off till a later time, but all this discussion about even smaller homes on smaller lots and all these are all coming our way before we'll ever get these new set of rules put together.

So I for me, I think this exercise is really all about us as elected officials getting comfortable and having a vision about what our city could look like and how we could accommodate people in the various um parts of their life.

Um our family.

Um it's not just single family detached homes on quarter acre lots.

It should be I don't know whether we'll ever reset back to in days of old when houses were affordable.

I I've lived in my home for 25 years, it's doubled.

The price of my home is doubled in the time I've lived here.

We're not going to reset back to 25 years ago when that was the value of my house.

So we have to we have to think about how can we accommodate our families.

You said um I've been thinking about the comment that you said about we want to build more denser housing and more of it.

I don't think about building more of it, but the but the physics are if we build smaller homes, we'll be able to build more of them.

And the benefit is the main benefit is they'll be less expensive.

And so that's the way I think about it.

I think about accommodating our population and our families from young adults and young fathers to the middle aged high earners to the elderly who are moving out of Sandy because they can't afford to live here anymore.

They don't want to see that happen, and this is home for them.

They've lived here 40 or 50 years, they don't want to move to Eagle Mill, they don't want to move to Saratoga Springs.

That isn't home.

Um so um I think not that as much about um what do we want as what will we allow?

That is part of why in the um general plan adoption, I you guys will remember that I wanted to remove the minimum density, right?

Why would we do that?

A property owner, we're we're telling them they they have to build at least three homes on an acre.

What if they don't want to?

It's their land, why don't they get to do what they want to do, right?

So I can't help but always factor in that part.

Um is the private property right and the vision of that homeowner or what or the property owner for what they want.

Um and so I uh I don't know that my goal is building more, but building, I think it is important on this if we're planning for a sustainable city to have various housing stocks.

I think that's what I think that's what sustainability is.

Different um uh different times of life, different needs of our sandy families, and so they don't need to crack the city.

Um so there's something for them here at Sandy where they've always um but so in specifying you know what are the new set of rules going to be but the but it uh you asked you asked earlier, is this is this a statement of what we want or what we will allow?

Yes, yes of all because what I mean the city's the big card the trunk card the city has to play is we get to tell people how many units they can put on an acre of ground, right?

We don't force them to build it.

So if you have big ground, we don't force you to build on it.

If you have one home on an acronym, we don't force you to tear it down and build five, but we do get to tell them how many units you can put on that on that on that land and how tall it can be and how far it has to be away from the edges, and how much parking it requires.

We get to set all the rules.

Now, we may do all of that, and the development community may or may not respond.

We don't build we enable it.

But it back to the model I was describing at the beginning between the sort of traditional single family neighborhood and your multi-family neighborhood.

If we give them a broader range of options and a map showing them where they can do it, you will have some people come in and say, I'd like to do that.

Talk about what it has to look like.

And we'll get into those discussions.

How much will we move the needle?

I don't know.

But it is it is goal setting.

This is a companion to the general plan.

And wherever we end up tonight, Jake and his team will sit down and say, Okay, their plan says this, housing is this, okay, and we'll compare that and tweak them.

And I remember I said during that adoption.

You know, establishing a general plan.

Well, we have to do it by law, right?

But establishing a general plan as a vision is one thing.

Um establishing it as a zoning map is another altogether.

And that feels a little bit like that's what we're getting toward.

Well, let me let me just I don't mean to interrupt you, but but what I think the general plan, because they're so painful to adopt, we only do it once every like 20 years.

So it tends to be a long view toward the future.

I don't I don't you tell me what you want to do, but I'm hoping that this zoning plan is a short view.

Here's what we'd like to do in the next couple of years, and in order to do that, you're going to have to come up with some tools to implement.

So if you have hypothetically, if you have a zone that says one unit per acre, that doesn't allow for a very broad variety of uses, and maybe that neighborhood's okay, you leave it as is.

And another party city, you say, no, no, this is not a busy street.

We ought to allow broader range here.

So on this part map part of the city, we're going to change the map to say it's still zone for X, but we'll consider if you want to bring in an alternate housing cut time.

So and it can be ABC or it can be ABCDEFG.

It can be a broad range or just a few.

That's up to you.

But what we need tonight is the general direction.

I'd like to see more of that.

Go help us find some tools to do it.

But this is not this is not a five or ten year vision.

This is a, I would think, two or three years.

This is more like an action plan.

Yeah.

A general plan is looking away out.

But this what Lynn is talking about is something that happens now.

I mean, that's creating an action plan that changes your code immediately based on what he just said.

Well, I mean, too, I I feel like to a certain degree, we did that with the passage of the general plan.

We were telling the development community and the property owners what our vision would be.

How are we going to say this is our vision, but come to us with a plan and we're going to say no to it, right?

If it's if it's defined in the general plan.

Now, if you're going to get into great, I mean, and we already increased density citywide.

Some a lot less than some one part of the city than every other part of the city.

Well, we did that.

And so I think that just is looking at a uh in a long approach where it takes longer to get there.

I think this is looking at it in a very short approach where it can happen by just amending the plan, you know, amending the ordinances here you're moving quick on it.

Hypothetically, other than rather than waiting for someone to bring it in, you are taking the action to amend that quickly.

But but how if in whatever whatever, wherever you think this is a book, if you said we're open to a broader range of missing middle housing here, whatever you think missing middle is, right?

Um we're broader, we're open to that.

So you can have X, which is what's on the books today, and you can come in and ask for X plus if you design it right, if it's integrated, if it looks right, feels right in the neighborhood, and we're open to that.

That opens the door to other opportunities that don't exist today.

Now, I don't know what that looks like in the details of it, where you want it, where you don't want it, but that's the concept.

This is right, Jake.

This is very timely discussion for us because we are following up the adoption of the general plan with the full code rewrites that we've funded that we're putting out to bid, and um in some ways, um well, we have the general plan, and it does indicate to the development community, oh, the city may be more open to this type of housing in this location, which is great.

In some cases, we're telling developers now we don't know how we can do that right now.

We don't have the tools to do that.

Um in some cases, the general plan being general, um, how do we want to implement that?

When we rewrite the code, how do we want to specifically implement that?

Um, how far do we want to go with DUs?

Um, how far do we want to go with flexible single-family neighborhoods, or what do we want those edges where we've already indicated where we're open to more variety of housing?

Or what do we want those edges where we've already indicated where we're open to more variety of housing?

What do we want those to look like?

So we we will be um getting into this in every depth possible with the full code code rewrite and and these this again.

This discussion um these discussions would need to have happened at some point in order to get there.

Being that the council has um initiated these workshops at this point in my mind is very helpful to setting that tone and directing um those efforts that are that are coming.

So we have indicated um to the development community here's where and what we might like to see, but we currently don't have the right tools to implement a lot of that vision.

So okay, I don't I don't want to get bogged down in this, so I we've not heard from one council member.

Do you have anything you want to add?

Uh no, I I think it's a good discussion.

I don't have a lot to add.

I the owner occupancy is interesting to me.

Can we not zone for that?

The state code prevent us from doing that.

You can when you own a property, you own the full bundle of rights to that property, including the right to live in it or to rent it.

So you can't zone for owner-occupied housing.

You have to use different tools.

But is that specific to Utah?

Like, do other states do that?

No.

Their response to us is we haven't determined if we want it to be a renter pro rental product or an owner occupancy product.

But when we do that, a lot of times we see investors come in and purchase those properties.

Because even they can't control what the property owner does with those properties.

Whether the person that buys it.

Yeah, don't go down the rabbit hole tag.

That's that's next meeting.

But I just want to make sure you got a chance to share any thoughts before we before we move on to what I I think Dustin suggested.

No, I appreciate the conversation, and um, yeah, I think it boils down to um variety of housing.

I really like what Council Member Housman said at the top of the meeting about that one issue solves a bunch of others, and then we want our um units to be owner-occupied, and we might have to do some zoning reform.

So if we could put that into a statement, um I would I would support the initiative.

And I don't know that it has to be one statement, it can it can be a bulk bullet point list.

Sure.

Right.

Dustin, you want to take a crack at this?

Yeah, sure.

So I I'm just trying to move this forward.

So if you're looking at the results and then kind of listening to the conversation, I just wrote something, and James gave it his full thump.

Sweet.

Uh I think the better for all let me let me pull it up.

It's not uh ultra specific.

And you guys are welcome to make it more specific to scrap it, to put in a bullet points, whatever works for you.

It's just my my stab at it.

So let me give me just a second.

Oh, the dissipation is killing you.

While you're doing that, can I add a quick comment?

I think Cindy, your comments kind of resonated with me well, and it's why I'm struggling with this.

Because there's so many nuances that are outside influences on this huge conversation that I'm struggling trying to get to specificity to some degree.

And you said it, you know, I think quite well that uh and and I'm just struggling.

I can't get half back for some reason.

My brain will not allow the nuances to go away.

So I'm I'm struggling with this.

I'll just be completely honest with everybody.

This will probably help, you know, having at least something to look at and aim at, but there's just so many factors outside of this conversation that are playing that are playing into at least my thoughts.

So I just wanted to make comments.

I think your what you shared is is important.

That's I'm that's why I'm having a hard time.

So here's here's what I drafted just now.

I didn't draft it before the meeting, it just happened.

Again, I don't know if it hits the points, if it hits up point, no points.

Uh no ownership here, so nobody needs to worry about hurting my feelings.

But I wrote our goals to encourage housing for residents across all life stations.

We want to encourage and allow a larger variety of housing, including housing for seniors, first time home buyers, and middle housing, more housing in the right locations, and we want the housing to be owner-occupied.

Chris Run.

What'd you say, Zach?

Chris Sor.

You're distracting us.

Oh, sorry.

Um that's in a narrative sentence or sentence threats.

You could put the same thing in board points, but the concepts are there.

So you just say, but we can't control if it's owner-occupied.

That's I didn't say that.

You can't do it through zoning.

There are other tools.

G4 said you want more tools.

We're gonna bring back more tools.

We wouldn't have put it on there if there weren't possibilities.

Okay.

And so including housing for seniors.

Is that specific?

Is that more tools or zoning and you're saying, oh, in this area, we're only going to have to don't go down the rabbit hole yet.

No, I'm just trying to clarify.

One of the priorities on the list was more housing.

And among that was senior housing.

And among that was starter housing.

That's just with under the umbrella.

And I just want to make sure that we can we can want all we all we want.

But if the state is going to come in and say, sorry, we're going to do this, then to not have it.

So I'm just making sure that this is stuff that we're going to do.

Well the state is going to do what they're going to do.

What this does is it incentivizes and encourages.

Right?

We can't force anybody to build us.

No.

Okay.

But we create we create a place where it isn't it is inviting and encouraging for them to do something.

Okay, so we we can't force anybody to build.

Can we limit the type of building?

Even with the state coming in with some of the new things.

We do that already.

We talk about continue that's subject to subject to whatever the state does.

Well, Allison, something you want to remember when we're talking about tools.

You've got a stick or you've got a carrot.

Right.

And a lot of things people call it the stick.

But there's a lot of potential incentivizing things you can do with care for these types of uh goals.

Which it didn't, I just want to make it.

Among the policymakers here, my question is is there anything you think that is in there we ought to take out?

Is there anything that isn't in there you think we ought to include?

Yeah, I mean, I mean uh don't get hung up on the language, right?

We just want to make sure we have the concepts because then we're gonna take those concepts and go back and come up with a range of tools.

If though if that's really your priorities, and if you want to get more specific, right, feel free.

James would love it for more specific always.

Well, one term that I think I've heard a couple times, Cindy mentioned it, mayor mentioned it.

We've all kind of mentioned it in some capacity, is uh ensuring that our city is sustainable, like having a sustainable city, I think it's how you said it, something along those lines.

I think that uh in my mind is a is uh something that we could put in a bullet point that I think gives you a little bit of direction to make that what we're doing all this for at it.

In my mind, I think you know, when I see that it's like we're maintaining our population, we're doing everything we can to attract new population to the city, etc.

etc.

And so um I just I wanted to call that out that I've heard it a couple of times.

Again, I've got a completely different perspective on this entire exercise, but I've I've heard it a couple of times, and I feel like we're missing something like that in this in this paragraph that's up there.

Can you describe to me, Zach, what you get a little bit more detail?

What do you mean by sustainable?

Sustaining the city, sustainable housing for residents, whoa, sustainable has a lot of genes.

Okay, I'm just gonna continue to say this.

I'm having a hard time with this.

But it where I'm stabbing with that is ensuring that we have the population to keep our city moving forward, and we need homes to put these people in.

And so that that's where I'm kind of going with that, is is driving population, but to do that, we have to have places for them to live.

And I I don't know if I can go any further than that.

I'm barely getting there to be honest with you.

No, that's what's wrong with it.

I didn't have that the same thing, like my term was balanced, you know, like having balance.

So I think, yeah, you're right, that there's a lot, like there's a lot of us that have said something like that.

I don't know if that idea resonates, but the idea I think was the same.

Thanks for building.

Yeah.

Well, and I want to add to that because it's momentum is coming to mind.

Like I feel like the balance and the perpetual sustainability of the city is in all life cycles.

If people can call Sandy home, regardless of what life stage they're in, there will always be a home for them in Sandy.

So that builds momentum.

It keeps it keeps us moving forward as the city because we will appeal to anyone who needs a home.

We don't right now.

But that's kind of the momentum, uh, the effort, whatever effort we make, hopefully moves us towards greater momentum than we currently have in terms of people calling city, you know, able to stay in Sandy, but then also coming into Sandy because there's a home for them now.

I think that goes back to what do we want Sandy to look like and some of so if you take the life cycle of somebody who is purchasing a home or renting a home, whatever that is, you know, you've got your first-time home buyers, you have your middle lifers, and then you have your experienced lifers.

Um how big are those groups?

You know, right now in Sandy, we have a lot more of the experienced people, you know, this we have an aging population, and if all of those people wanted a single or main floor living unit, and if we said, okay, we were gonna wipe everything out and start all over, you'd have 50% of the housing stock as a main floor unit to accommodate many of those that are in that later stage in life.

So I mean, what do we think it should be looking?

I mean, it's how many um senior single floor living units are we looking for?

You know, what does that look like?

How many of these entry-level um smaller lots, smaller home, or you know, high density with those housing units, how many of those do we think we would like to have in the city?

How many single family homes, you know, on a regular lot with the backyard that's fenced in, you've got the dog, kids, whatever that is.

In each of those life cycles, how many of those do we want?

What percentage are we looking for?

Because I think that changes as well.

And then you've got the state that may come in and say, well, you know, your single family is actually going to turn into it to residents, you know, lots.

But you know, what what is that idea?

Do we have an idea?

Do we want to have?

I mean, we've talked a lot about the that that step down or step up housing because it can go either way, that middle housing.

Um, and and I think we all agree that we don't have enough of that, you know, and that's and we probably don't have enough of that just within the valley itself.

Um, but what percentage of the of our housing stock do we want, and if that's more of where we should be going in that direction.

I just I don't know.

I think the market is gonna help us a lot with that, but I think again, I think that's way down the road.

Like right now, it's can we generate momentum?

Can we generate momentum by increasing variety in our homes so that we are providing for all life stages?

I think that tonight that's all we're trying to accomplish is what is our goal.

I was simply trying to unpack a little bit of what Zach was saying before.

Well, responding to Dustin's question, what do you mean by that, Zach?

So I didn't want I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

No, that's just how I was trying to understand sustainability.

I think what Brooke said is probably a little bit more where I was trying to land is that balance a little bit.

I understand what you're saying with momentum, I get where you're coming from.

Um but I think I was striving a little bit more towards finding some sort of level ground to start with.

And this great discussion.

I guess the question we can we can add the word sustainable or balance or whatever it is.

For instance, when Sandy was built out, my guess is that a large percentage of the city got built out as single family resident detached residential with a certain size yard.

If it were getting built out today, you might still have all of that being single family detached, but they would probably have smaller yards, they might have bigger homes, right?

So the market sort of the marketplace has changed, and we may have an imbalance in our housing stock.

And we don't have enough of A, and we have too much of B or more than we need of B.

So I think just Dustin was trying to capture this with residents across all life stages, but if you want to put in something like sustainability or balance, we can do that.

This is just broad direction to staff to bring back tools.

So I think we're I think we're close to a summary statement of the responses from your questionnaires.

So I'm hoping, but the thing I would add.

If there's something you think is left out, let us know if you if there's something in there you disagree with things you think needs to come out.

So my only other feedback to what we've sort of drafted really is um more in terms of guidance to staff, like James who said, I would love more specificity.

So I am looking for removing obstacles, incentivizing rather than you know, um I would like more care at rustic, you know, like I believe what we have control over is removing obstacles.

So what are the obstacles?

How do we unpack them?

How do those obstacles contribute to the challenges?

What's within our control?

Um, and what are the tools to do it?

I so I don't know if if that helps you with any, and I don't even know if I'm I could be out on an island and the only one that thinks that, but um, that's kind of what I'm looking for when you come back because I do feel like it's it's that's the biggest piece.

What are the obstacles?

How do we that?

So I was fine with it being more general, but I can also be more specific.

I part of my qu one of the questions I was gonna ask staff is reading that, like what what things in that statement would you like clarity around that may be more helpful for you coming back to us the next time.

Um is that too general for you, or what what elements or aspects would you like to see further clarified?

I think the parting of parentheses is pretty straightforward where you describe the actual housing that you're looking for.

I mean you're saying exactly so that that's super helpful the way that that's stated.

Well, and and there's a there's a general range of this description in the description of category D.

Yeah.

I mean, those are all descriptive that I think will give SAS guidance system.

I I think it was just one thing.

I think it'll be interesting to see what we determine in the right location to be.

See, that's my I mean that that's a result.

That's that's a difficult one, but we're not there yet.

We'll look at that.

I mean, that's I don't want to take us down that rabbit hole.

That's why I didn't bring it up.

You did bring it up.

I don't have to.

Well, they added generally speaking, if if you think of the range of missing middle housing, that could be a duplex to a fourplex, town homes to walk-ups, you know, et cetera.

Right.

And you may not want all of that range in every every portion of the city.

You may say we've got high density in the cairns, we've got low density on the east side, let's graduate this process, and you may come up with a map that graduates that process across the city.

I don't know.

That's why you guys get paid the big bucks to make those decisions.

But all none of this will happen until we get four votes from council members to go.

Well, here's the issue is can you all right now agree on the appropriate location in our city for every possible type of housing?

Probably not.

So it's all 500 bucks each.

If you can do that right now, but I don't think, and this is no slight against you.

I don't think anybody can just do that to look at it as a group right now.

I think it depends on the individual and maybe what it is that's being proposed.

And right, what's sober hood look like?

You know, all those facts.

We start where we have agreement.

We explore it further.

If we have agreement, we move forward.

If we don't, wait, right.

But well, all I'm really trying to do is to say, is this the goal?

And if it is, great.

Thank you.

Good night.

Good night, it's been good.

We'll go to work on it, come back and talk again in a month.

If that's not the goal, tell us what it is.

I I would like to hear more on Brooke's question, because I I don't know if I I heard you like fully land on the whole thing.

We stopped at like including housing for seniors, first-time home buyers, and middle housing.

Well, I don't want to completely direct what the council wants us to look at, but but I think I think those that you've listed out, we can we can look at those.

I mean, you're you're given directly to say that I think I think in working with staff, they're not gonna come back with a single recommendation.

They're gonna come back with a variety of broad range of options.

And you're gonna say we like these, we don't like those.

I get it.

I wanted to make sure you got the opportunity to finish your thought because I heard you stop.

Let's clarify one word not in here is affordability.

Is that a an assumed underlying foundation of what we're talking about?

That's that's or is that what I heard outcome?

What I heard was an indirect approach to affordability rather than all these things are going to somehow provide it to be more affordable, rather we create more housing stock, makes an overall bigger picture of housing, creating more affordability.

So in an indirect way, we're we're looking at affordability, is what we heard, right?

Oh I think we want to state it though, just because I I mean a lot of these that are being built, I don't consider for me in my life $750,000 being affordable, yet we're seeing a lot of those being built.

Yeah, and if that is something that that we'd like to see something less than 750,000, we probably want to state that.

I mean, you can you can build townhouses for 750,000.

I think too what a lot of cities probably something would come back to is redevelopment funds is a way to fund some of these, and that has to be affordable, right?

We can't use that for market housing.

That's something to think about too.

But that's a that's something we could bring back as something that would indirect that would affect wherever we can use that fund, it would help.

I think providing that if I can clarify here, imagine that you are negotiating with a developer to say, okay, we'll give you more units if the if might be if the units are over on the if might be if the units are 450,000 or less.

What I'm hearing here from your questionnaire responses is nobody here is really interested in making the afford making the price of the unit a negotiating point in that development.

Because that changes that's severely what led to big change what we would come back with.

Because not only do you have to negotiate for it, but then you have to enforce it, you have to monitor going for it.

That might be how the body feels, but it's not how I feel.

That's why reducing parking stalls for more affordable housing.

Um but exactly I would want to like lead out on that.

So if but if you have a negotiation point, say what would we reduce your parking if you make it more affordable, if you bring down your price point.

But what we need to know, and this is a point worth discussing.

Do you want us to focus on the price point as part of our negotiations and to look for tools in doing so?

Or do you just want to build more housing and let the indirect effect of building smaller units, more units have an indirect effect on affordability?

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, I'm hearing two.

What you just said that's wrap up.

The indirect approximately, because there's so much for direct two votes for indirect.

Because staff needs to know whether or not affordability is something we need to require as we negotiate these duties.

So okay, the state has done a lot of incentivizing for affordable developments, and those aren't necessarily happening like I think they would like to see.

And so I do get a little worried about focusing too much on the affordability aspect because affordability, like again, can be subjective, or are we using the state's standpoint from a you know minimum income standpoint, you know, like that would need to be defined too.

Um, I generally think that from an indirect way, I makes more sense if there are opportunities for us to have more influence over you know affordable units with you know, maybe there are some tools that we can consider that are appropriate, but it gosh, I can't remember what meeting it was.

It was a couple of weeks ago, and there I think it was a developer or somebody was talking about all of the different lever levers that you push and pull have an opposite reaction or effect, right?

And so I just also want to be careful that we aren't guiding this in a direction that ultimately um defeats the purpose because we didn't consider that if you push this lever, then one has to get pulled over here, and nobody's willing to consider pulling that lever, you know.

And so I think incentivizing personally affordability in an indirect way, you know, makes more sense, and uh smaller houses, smaller lots, uh you know, from a from a again, a real estate agent who researches the MLS pretty much daily, I could tell you that those houses are more affordable.

And five yeah, then five thousand square foot homes on quarter acre, third-acre, half acre ecola.

So anyway.

Yes, I agree with what we're saying.

That's that's that's four people four thumbs up for indirect that you want to add five, okay.

Okay, good.

That's good direction.

I'm both okay.

Nuance.

No, I think we all have the same goals, it's a question of how to approach it, right?

So it's it's not like we're trying to pull different directions.

Karen, I'm both too.

Um I I just want to make a comment about if we're talking still a little bit about in the parentheses and the variety of housing.

One thing that the mayor said that I liked is like the idea of public servant living and kind of doing that.

I'm just super sympathetic to like you teach in our community, if you fight fires for our community, you should be able to live in our community.

Yeah, I we put it, we've been put in two examples of types of housing, but I think we're talking about all the missing middle, right?

And workforce housing.

Great, which is what you're talking about.

So the total range.

A lot of those people are first time.

Yeah, yeah.

I I intended these to be you know examples of what brought up.

You guys would like me to add another example.

Happy to, but I don't know if the examples have to be exhausted necessarily.

So long as we're not going down a path of mandating employees that they have to live within the city.

Like there are times where they're not gonna want to work and the same city.

So we're gonna other thoughts.

This is our kind of our full statement.

This is this is the uh latest version of the massaged statement.

Right.

Um about those two message, um to try to capture the focus or the collective priorities of our elected officials in Sandy City.

And that's not saying it would captured everything, but this this is the priority, or these are the priorities.

Um sustainability, uh the underlying goal.

I would say uh the underlying goals should be to uh keep Sandy special, right?

Maintain the unique character of Sandy while we create new housing stock so that we don't lose our identity of who we are in as a city as we move forward.

So uh word smith that Dustin, but to create uh to maintain that uh uh the community character while we embrace uh new housing options and want something about the character of our city in that any other thoughts.

If not just I just have so much heartburn over that.

Any other thoughts that people want to verbalize?

Okay, in the right locations because it's that is that is.

Do you want us to stay in the wrong location?

Um, here's the thing.

That is the premise on which I voted against the adoption general.

Right.

And so to me it sounds like we are picking winners and losers again.

And um, I just want I would love to be more comfortable with the definition of what the right locations might be.

I I a hundred percent agree with you, but in terms of if if the if the sense is we're going to increase density, that could be big apartment buildings, it could be twin homes.

We want each of those in the right locations.

We will have a lot more discussions about what is the right location for each, right?

And you get to vote on that.

But I think I think what this is what this is in my view of that phrase is to say we recognize that not everything is not not everything is appropriate everywhere.

So we want to be sensitive to location.

But it's up to you as to whether or not you collectively you feel like but ultimately you get to make that decision.

I'm I'm good with I'm good with this because the purpose of this is to give you just enough uh to come back and and help us consider possible next steps.

This is not something that we are publishing as a mission statement with, you know, I mean, I feel like the goal has been accomplished.

I think staff tell me if I'm wrong, you you understand what we're chasing here.

And you'll be able to deliver, right?

Of course.

Yeah.

This is for our internal use.

I mean, obviously, there's people watching online, they're all seeing you know, this goal statement, but it is for our internal use to help come up with potential tools, right?

And ultimately, if we have another housing meeting and we collectively feel like the mark wasn't hit for some reason, then we can have a discussion and create another workshop to go into market data seats.

And in fact, we we initially anticipated four workshops.

Um, and then Dustin said, or maybe five because the reality is we we're probably not gonna hit the mark with whatever tactics we bring back for the next week.

You're gonna say, I don't know, that's not big.

More of this, right?

And then we'll come back and bring something more refined and meaningful problems.

So but it will be it will be a process that you direct, right?

And and you tell us what the target is, we'll move in that direction, bring you back tools, and you get to pick which tools you want to use.

All of this is directed and controlled by the elected officials.

We're just trying to reflect and pursue your priorities with that context, uh so these are areas of exploration.

Yes.

Okay.

So we include a mention of uh how housing can also achieve public safety goals with workforce housing.

I know you I'm sorry I had to step out for a call, but uh is that that's consistent with this.

We talked we talked about workforce housing being part of this range of uh missing middle housing.

So is uh seniors, first-time home buyers, missing middle.

And I don't know, public safety.

You want to put in workforce hours.

It is workforce house with the house bid example.

Everybody brought it off.

Yeah, and I'll I'll mention again the parentheses are just exhaustive list.

And it's not prioritized.

It's just very hard.

I think we could discuss this a lot longer.

I don't think we will get a lot out of the process.

So, in the interest of moving forward, this is not a vote.

Right?

This is just direction staff.

Uh I'm gonna ask all of the elected officials to give me a thumbs up or thumbs down with the statement we've got on the screen.

Yeah, I'm good.

Cities aside.

That's fine.

That's fine.

If you're in between, Allison.

You're you're an in-between.

Well, I just think you know, something about promoting sustainable road.

Because that's I mean this is a goal, but you know, encourage housing.

Never city encourage housing.

Well, you know, but I mean, what type?

I mean, I know we get further into it, but I'm still working on it.

Well, what I what I saw was six six thumbs up and two sideways.

Okay, I'm gonna take that as a broad enough consensus to move forward.

So again, this is just directional.

Not this is not decision meeting, this is just a direction meeting.

Thank you for your participation.

Thank you for your support.

Um, this is one more step in a longer process.

Um I'm guessing staff James and his team will probably want at least 30 days before the next workshop to work at this, bring back tools.

Oh, we have that date set already.

We have October 7th.

It is tentatively October 7th, but we'll need as a planning group and have a conversation about whether or not that's realistic.

We just have to crack.

When is the league conference?

The league conference is the first part of the first part of October.

Let's see.

There's a housing workshop there with all the tools.

First and second uh the tools on how cities execute on these goals.

I think that would be good for us to have that under our belts and time to consider that before we revisit this.

Yeah, the lead conference is the first and second of October.

We met on the seventh.

That would obviously we would obviously have those discussions that we could see.

Um I think we have accomplished all I intended to do on this topic tonight.

So thank you to Dustin and Liz, Council staff and some staff, and thank you to all of the elected officials for your patience support through this process.

Thank you for painting in another great workshop.

Appreciate it.

So we are at the point of taking our public comment now.

I have one card from an in-room commenter.

If there's anybody else that would like to make public comment, please allow a card and uh I will go ahead and call on you.

So once we get through there, Justin, you can talk to the online residents.

And um, but the first card I have is for Perry Harrison.

Oh that's not on the video.

Why don't you video?

Yeah, there you go.

Um, thanks everyone for letting you join.

Obviously, wasn't able to continue in the primary, but it's been test to still be involved and participated in this public forum.

Um as many of you know from my banking of housing.

And so invested and what kind of solutions various municipalities and other groups are working on affordable housing.

Um I think it's key as you're looking at housing affordability to not just consider a market approach.

We we have to look at what got us in what we are right now, which is market-based approaches.

There has been some limitation over time as related to zoning issues, um, limitations put on by cities on developers of what they could or could not build.

Um but ultimately the market has decided what the value of the home is and it will maximize that value long term.

If we are serious as Sandy City residents about having actual affordability, there will need to be an unmarket like approach, which involves things like deep restrictions, subsidies, RDA funds, all sorts of things that will absolutely need to be part of this conversation if that is a priority.

It sounds like it might not necessarily be a priority, and that's okay.

But if that is meant to be a priority, I would highly recommend exploring those.

Um I think as relates to owner occupancy, that is a solution that has been explored in many other cities.

Um it's traditionally done via deep restrictions.

So that can't be done in a zoning context, but absolutely can be done at a city level.

That when you're in the process of negotiating what those um changes in land use would be, you involve deep restrictions.

Um similar to that same sort of comment.

Um, my understanding of state laws there's no spot zoning, meaning you can't to city's concern, you can't just pick winners and losers around the city and can define what that specific area gets used as.

Really, the only opportunity now as a city to be able to impact what type of things are built is either a general zoning that applies to the whole city, and you can build whatever you want within that zone, or working through a planned development process at the UT or master plan, at which point you can actually have more say in the type of stuff that gets built.

That's the sort of thing that I'm working on with Heroin City as they're trying to define a small lot style something.

They want it to address a lot of concerns that you're having, but they want to make sure that it's not a bunch of developers coming in, just maximizing the return on their land.

Um, I think overall I want to say, you know, it's 10 years as a for-profit home builder, and then three years now as a nonprofit home builder and having to be the career that I want to do for the rest of my life.

Don't take for granted the fact that market-based solutions incentivize people to look out for their own interests first.

You are not here to look out for developers' interests.

You are here to look out for the residents' interests and the city as a whole.

And so when you're looking at what you want to take for granted, oh, well, if we pass zoning that allows them to do more housing, we make it specific that it's meant to be used for a senior context or a starter home, but ultimately there is no clear definition of what they have to do to get these rights.

They will push those boundaries as far as they absolutely can.

And it's been shown time and time again.

Again, I'm a home builder, I understand it.

That is their market incentive to do so.

But you have the opportunity now where you are setting up these chances to do something a little different, that you can define what you want out of that developer.

And as long as it's reasonable and clear and doesn't involve a bunch of negotiating, that you have the opportunity to really set a path around.

Thank you.

Uh, I don't have any other cards.

So with that, we'll go ahead and if you'll address our online audience, that would be great.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh, if you're joining us virtually via Zoom and you'd like to comment on any city business, go ahead and click the raise hand button on your screen now.

I'll call your name in the order in which you raised your hand, and you'll have three minutes.

No one raised hands, madam chair.

All right, thank you so much.

We'll go ahead and close the general house that is in comment portion of the meeting, and we are now at our standing reports.

And so, Mr.

Fradto, if you wanted to go ahead with the agenda calendar review.

Of course, I'll be I'll be really quick.

Um next week, we only have a couple items on the agenda.

Uh, our emergency manager is gonna give uh the council report on the Salt Lake County multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan, which is quite a mouthful.

Um, and then council members uh Stroud and Robinson, uh, you guys may remember a few months ago they mentioned a possible new uh council award uh related to um uh former uh member of the CDBG committee, uh Don Verde.

Uh so there will be uh some information brought forward on that, and then tentatively we may be bringing forward the uh RFP to present for the upcoming management study, which will be with the public utilities department uh policy requires us to issue that RFP by the end of September.

And we've been working on it.

Uh we're hoping to be ready to present it next Tuesday.

If not, we'll be following.

Uh that's it.

I stopped my report there.

Thanks, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, a little bit, Mr.

Frato.

So we are at council member business, and I think we'll start over here, Mr.

De Kaiser.

Go ahead.

Just a couple things.

I know we mentioned the South Chamber golf tournament.

You mentioned that last week, but I was able to go back to our River Oaks Golf Club golf yesterday just with my family.

And I just think we have such a gem.

I have now discovered it from the course instead of watching from afar.

And I I actually found more balls in the like whatever than I lost.

So it's a win.

So I just want to thank Mitch and the whole the whole team.

They just do an outstanding job there.

I was able to go to the Sandy Amphitheater last night as part of how we're rotating roles and sort of just observing things.

And it was just an outstanding concert.

And I love watching our volunteers.

Love watching our our police officers who were there, our first our our fire personnel as well, just always mindful of the experience for those who are attending our concerts at the Amphitheater.

I'm out of my norm.

It'll probably come back to me if it comes back.

Okay, you did remind me that I okay.

So a couple of things.

I did get a chance to attend a concert at the amphitheater as well.

And it is a great opportunity to go and watch the inner workings.

And we're all always come up and have a talk with you and want to show you describe how things are working.

And it's always a great opportunity.

And to notice things, you know, also things like parking and pedestrians, things like that.

There are things we're still working on to get addressed.

People getting there, and uh jaywalking that's happening for people getting things like that as well.

Um we wrapped up Shrek, so the art school wrapped up Shrek, except for the great production, and I did get a chance to work concessions there when I always do a great job.

They boy, that layout that they have, all the things that they have for sale.

And um Bright Star is next up to that uh for the art skill.

So we'll be coming with information about that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I remember really quickly.

Oh, and he's not even in it.

Change.

Oh, you are here.

Um, my third one was was uh we we all witnessed the rapid response um of James to the concerns that were shared last week during our city council meeting.

So I wanted to thank you for that, team.

Um, and then in addition, just some inquiries that have come in this week via email and how quickly you turned around and responded to those, and just a willingness, and Dustin as well, uh both of you, a willingness to just be open and and listen to residents and hear, hear what is troubling them, understand what it is, um, and then where appropriate share history of you know these challenges, how they've come up elsewhere in the city, what we've done to address them, what our options are, but always just being open to hearing the concerns and not shutting anyone down.

I'm very grateful for that.

So that was my third.

Uh, just really quickly, um, and Jad you are here.

I thought you left also.

Um, I had a phone call from some residents, one resident in particular, who was the driving force behind the changes to the STR code.

Um, as you'll all recall when that was presented, we were hearing feedback continuously from a group of residents regarding a specific home.

I spoke with one of those residents that did approach us.

I think it was not last week, but maybe the week before.

Um, and that problem has fixed itself.

And so uh I did want to pass on that the work we've done here has addressed that significant issue for that those people in the neighborhood.

And so uh I wanted to pass that along.

And and again, I just appreciate the work that was done and gone into that because it did make a huge difference uh for an issue that was coming up.

So I just wanted to pass that along.

I thought it was some good feedback to share with the group.

I forgot to do it last week.

Uh, but uh I thought we'd all want to want to hear about that.

So what we have there is working wonderfully.

That's all that I have.

Thank you.

Council member Strauss.

Um that's been a while since I've been.

Uh you know, and I think you know, last week a lot of the stuff was mentioned, you know, the health center theater wrapping up their cultural events they've done for the past six, well, six weeks over the summer, and that's they're always wonderful to go to and kind of see just different cultures that are around and be um highlighted.

So that's always fun throughout the summer, looking forward to next year.

Um, the uh Trans Jordan opening of the center down there, and looking forward to residents coming as mentioned.

Um, and then the ALJ, and that was something I wanted to break up.

So you're talking about you know, the uh the SDR, but you know, seeing in the briefs that we get how they are moving forward, and you know, and then specifically the one I think it was just last week, maybe the most recent that there was a you know resident that took out like 14 cars or something because they didn't want to come through that process, and so just having that tool, how um important and transformational in a lot of these problematic areas, you know, in cleaning up the city and making sure that you know, as people are driving through that they know that they are here at Sandy.

So, you know, I community development, you know, through all that process, you know, thank you for working with that and you know in the council and supporting that, you know, to ensure that we've got that.

Um then uh this one was mentioned, but you know, the police fire annual guns versus hoses, you know, softball tournaments 1919.

No quite the score on that, but you know, that's always fun to go and watch and see how they're doing.

So we'll start with regular stuff next week, mini meetings.

Oh, thank you.

Uh Mayor's work.

Yes, last Wednesday we uh went to the transfer station open house, and that was really great to see the savings and efficiency, uh, things to get excited about when you were in city operations, how we manage our waste.

It's not glamorous, but it's so important to quality of life, convenience, and maintaining strong environmental standards in our community.

So finally, we're seeing that whole campus activated for transport station, our public works facility, and the household hazardous ways.

So convenient for Sandy residents who will begin October 1st.

Sandy residents will be able to take their trailers full of lawn uh materials if they miss the bulk waste.

It's not the end of the it's not the end of the world for six months, they'll have place they can take it locally right here in Sandy, drop off the trailer or back of a pickup truck full of uh debris.

But not only that, but the household hazardous ways being able to take paints and stains and detergents and all the household uh materials.

You don't have to travel all the way over to the dump on the west end of the valley.

It's right here in Sandy, the household hazardous ways, the transfer station for materials lawn clippings, or if you're moving and you just have a boatload of material you want to get rid of, you take it right there to the transfer station.

So convenient for our residents and a great savings for our city.

Uh saves the mileage, the wear and tear, and the time, staff time to drive back and forth across the valley, especially in Bulkways.

So congratulations to uh Trans Jordan to Salt Lake County and for Sandy City for getting all those capital projects off the ground and in service.

This past week I've had the chance to visit our some of our schools.

I visited Alter Altera Elementary.

Uh today was at Edgemont Middle School.

They opened after having the first two weeks online due to asbestos mitigation.

Their school uh still under construction, but it was great to have the kids back, and they were very excited to well, as excited as middle schoolers get, I'll say some look um more excited than others.

But they were uh teachers were so happy to have them back.

There was a big welcome back from Penyan School District.

They do it great.

And then tomorrow McLess sacrament to talk to the uh great schoolers about building citizenship skills.

So it's always wonderful to spend time with our young citizens in Sandy, and uh such a privilege to see and hear their ideas for how we can grow stronger together as a community and learn together.

Just a reminder, slow down in our school zones.

And then finally, um Pandra Hawk, many of us know from serving, she's uh served the city in so many different ways, but currently she's on our historic committee.

Uh she was named Super Senior by Fox 13 for her volunteer work at Timpledale Park and for caring for the orchard at the New York Pulson House at the north rim of the trail at Dimpledell.

She's done so much, she handwaters the trees and has uh served as a uh docent of the orchard and an educator, and she's just a great example that there's opportunities for service at every stage of life in Sandy and service-minded people like Sandra are really what makes our city so great.

So and then uh speaking of the arts and concerts, Teddy Swims performed in Sandy at the RSL Plaza, uh and it was great to hear his music, it's a great general admission crowd, it was standing room only, and I think the capacity was about 12,000, and that was a really successful concert, and um people were really happy to be able to see Teddy Swims perform in Sandy.

That was a big a big get for our city.

So look forward to more concerts with and working with RSL.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Yeah, look for the Saturday.

Uh there will be a first responder ceremony starting at 9 a.m.

here at City Hall on South South of City Hall outside the first responder statue.

Uh that includes six different faiths from our community that will be putting that on.

Um they'll be doing a service project later that morning at 10 a.m.

at Alta High School.

Um that includes both a uh blood drive, which will start earlier and end later, and uh putting together hygiene kids will be the majority of that service project.

Uh next Tuesday uh before council meeting uh in the morning at uh on the night.

Uh police and fire will set up the flags for around City Hall, and then at 5 30, volunteers are going to be setting up the flags.

Um for uh our annual killing fields, thank you.

Um and then all of that will come down on the 15th, so it'll be there all week and all weekend, and then on the 15th we'll we'll be taken down by volunteers again on 5:30 p.m.

So welcome to attend any and all of those.

Thank you.

Still have a few open spots for volunteers.

So if you request a volunteer, go to the website and sign up.

Okay.

Thank you.

And that brings us to the very end.

Do I have a motion?

Sure.

All in favor, say aye.

Good night, everyone.

Thank you.

Good job, Lynn.