[0:12] [music]

[0:18] [music]

[0:24] [music]

[0:30] » meeting. We're happy to have you here whether you are joining us in person or

[0:35] online. We hope that you continue to participate

[0:38] whichever manner you feel the most comfortable. Now, we're going to do the

[0:42] Pledge of Allegiance. Please join us.

[1:04] Thank you. Before we move through the agenda, I

[1:07] want to quickly go through registration information and share the reasoning

[1:11] about how and why we chair these meetings the way we

[1:15] We welcome everyone regardless of your opinion or your side on any issue.

[1:19] Because we will have people with varying opinions on important issues, the

[1:23] council's goal is to make the meetings a place

[1:26] where people feel safe and comfortable participating. This is the most local

[1:30] level of government and it is a key value of ours to ensure that we have

[1:34] created a respectful and safe environment so that no one is

[1:38] intimidated out of free participation. This also allows us to ensure that the

[1:43] meeting can continue and we can conduct a scheduled city

[1:47] business. We invite each of you to contribute to this space, to speak your

[1:51] mind, and to welcome others to do the same.

[1:54] In order to create a welcoming and safe space, we will pause the meeting at any

[1:59] action that causes a disruption to our ability to conduct the meeting or any

[2:03] safety concern involving threats or unprotected speech.

[2:07] If there are repeated actions or comments, it may result in removal from

[2:11] the meeting. To avoid intimidating others, please

[2:14] avoid the use of threatening and discriminatory language.

[2:18] Do not insult others based on religion, ethnicity, race,

[2:23] color, gender, sexual orientation, or physical ability.

[2:27] Whether you agree or disagree with someone's comment, clapping, cheering,

[2:32] shouting, booing, snapping, gesturing, obstruct- obstructing, or discouraging

[2:38] others from commenting is not allowed. As a reminder, as council members,

[2:44] we refrain from reacting or responding to allow everyone to share their

[2:49] opinions freely. This is to keep our reactions from

[2:52] affecting your ability to share your opinion freely.

[2:55] If you would like to follow us follow up with us,

[2:59] please uh contact council staff uh or if you're in

[3:03] Zoom, you can chat um and ask for contact information.

[3:08] When you're making comments, please address the body and not any no

[3:11] individual not any individual uh elected official.

[3:16] If you have a handout for the council, please raise your hand and council staff

[3:20] will assist you. Council staff are available during and

[3:25] after the meeting to help with any questions or information sharing.

[3:29] The full meeting rules are listed at the door

[3:32] and our staff will post those uh in that link in Zoom.

[3:37] As a reminder, our public comment registration process, individuals may

[3:41] register to come to comment on scheduled public hearing items until the hearing

[3:47] item is closed. For the general comment section, we'll

[3:51] accept sign-ups until 7:30 p.m. The general comment section is limited

[3:56] to a maximum of 1 hour and will only include commenters who register before

[4:01] 7:30. So, if you're here to give general

[4:03] comment, please sign up and remember that it's possible that not everyone who

[4:08] signed up may be able to speak. Finally, this brings us to item A4,

[4:14] which is approving the meeting minutes for April 14, 2026, May 14, 2026, May

[4:22] 21, 2026, June 2, 2026, June 9, 2026, as well as

[4:27] the formal meeting minutes for March 24, 2026, May May 5, 2026, and May 19, 2026.

[4:35] » Move for approval. >> Second.

[4:37] » I have a motion by Councilmember Wharton and a second by Councilmember Dugan. Any

[4:41] discussion? I'm going to call the question. All of those in favor, say I.

[4:45] » I. >> Any opposed?

[4:47] Any abstentions? This motion carries unanimously.

[4:51] This brings us to the This brings us to the public hearing section of the

[4:54] agenda. These are specific proposals before the council that require public

[4:59] hearing. Your comments should pertain to the

[5:02] hearing item, and if you go off-topic, we'll ask you to stop your comment. In

[5:06] order to create this welcoming and safe space, we'll pause the meeting at any

[5:10] disruption to our ability to conduct the meeting or any safety concern involving

[5:14] threats or unprotected speech. If there are repeated actions or

[5:18] comments, it may result in removal from the meeting.

[5:22] Also, as a reminder, please avoid comments that include profanity,

[5:26] personal attacks, discriminatory language. Such comments can be

[5:30] intimidating for others and not They're not persuasive or compelling to the

[5:34] council. If you're on Zoom, you will have to

[5:37] unmute your microphone when your name is called.

[5:41] Each person will have 2 minutes. And when we reach the 2-minute mark, the

[5:45] host will announce time and your microphone will be muted.

[5:50] We'll be calling the names in the order of sign-ups.

[5:54] If you need staff assistance in the room, please raise your hand and someone

[5:59] will be there with you. If you're having technical issues in

[6:02] Zoom and if you need assistance, you can message staff support or Akshay from our

[6:08] staff can assist you. If you're unable to finish your comments

[6:12] in those 2 minutes, please share the rest via email.

[6:16] You can also mail it or call our office. The contact information is listed at

[6:20] slc.gov/council. If you have [clears throat] a handout

[6:24] for the council, you can notify notify the council staff and who will assist

[6:28] you. Public hearing

[6:31] uh number B1 is a resolution for the intention to designate the Sugar House

[6:36] Special Assessment Area. Before we begin taking comments,

[6:42] I will turn the time to Austin Kimmel, council policy analyst, to give us a

[6:46] short introduction. Um Austin.

[6:50] » [clears throat] >> Thanks, council. This is a protest

[6:53] hearing for the proposed creation of a new special assessment area

[6:56] or SAA in the Sugar House neighborhood called the Sugar House Business District

[7:01] 2027 or SHBD 27. The SAA is in the core commercial area

[7:08] of Sugar House and would focus on economic promotion.

[7:11] A second assessment would provide special specialty lighting and signage

[7:15] and would be applied to properties with frontage on portions of 21st South, 1100

[7:21] East, and Highland Drive. This protest hearing gives the public

[7:24] and property owners the opportunity to provide input on the creation of the

[7:28] assessment area, their inclusion in it, and the proposed services.

[7:32] It also initiates a 60-day period during which property owners may file written

[7:37] protests. If property owners holding 40% or more

[7:41] of the total valuation of the SAA protest its creation, the SAA cannot be

[7:47] created and the process ends. If the process continues, the council

[7:51] will will appoint a board of equalization to hold three hearings to

[7:55] consider adjustments to individual assessment amounts.

[7:59] This The process will conclude with the council's consideration of the

[8:02] assessment ordinance, which would officially establish the SAA,

[8:06] anticipated in early 2027 if all according

[8:10] If all goes according to plan. Thanks.

[8:16] » Thank you, Austin. Isaac.

[8:21] Please start with our first public comment.

[8:24] » Our We have, sorry, we have Michael Carter uh, scheduled to speak followed

[8:30] by Melva Sign and then Jeff Goddard. Michael, you may unmute.

[8:37] Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. There we go. Can you hear me?

[8:40] » Okay. Yes. Yes. >> Perfect.

[8:43] Uh, I'm just going to read the letter that was submitted in objection to the

[8:46] assessment. I object to the proposed assessment

[8:50] because the property does not receive a meaningful or proportional benefit from

[8:53] the economic promotion activities for which the assessment is being imposed.

[8:58] The subject property is a small professional office building occupied by

[9:01] long-term tenants including an insurance agency, a medical staffing agency, and a

[9:06] dental practice. These tenants primarily service

[9:09] established clients, preferred clients, or patients, insurance networks, and

[9:12] scheduled appointments. They are not retail, restaurants, entertainment, or

[9:16] foot traffic dependent businesses that would reasonably benefit from festivals,

[9:19] special events, district branding, holiday lighting, wayfinding, or general

[9:23] promotional campaigns. The property is located on

[9:27] 13th East and is not situated on 21st South, Highland Drive, or the other

[9:31] primary commercial quarters targeted by the proposed proposed promotional

[9:35] signage, lighting improvements. While the property may fall within the

[9:38] proposed assessment boundaries, it is located

[9:41] its location and use limit any direct economic benefit from the activities

[9:46] funded by funded by the assessment. In addition, the property does not have

[9:50] meaningful visibility from 21st South about from 21st South. A substantial

[9:56] fence on the adjacent CVS property CVS Pharmacy property blocks all line of

[10:01] sight from 21st South in sub and the subject property as shown I have

[10:06] attached exhibits in the the letter that you will receive later.

[10:10] Motors and pedestrians traveling along 21st South see a CVS property and fence,

[10:14] not my property. Because the assessment costs will

[10:18] ultimately be borne by the property and directly or indirectly by the

[10:22] professional tenants occupying the property, the proposed assessment would

[10:25] require an insurance agency, a medical staff, and dental practice to subsidize

[10:29] programs that they won't benefit from. Uh

[10:32] we request that we be removed from the special assessment district or have our

[10:36] assess assessment substantially reduced. Thank you.

[10:46] » Now, we will hear from Melba Sinyard, who is here in person.

[10:50] Uh followed by Jeff Goddard. Melba, you may walk up to speak.

[10:56] » Thank you. My name is Melba Sinyard. I represent the Utah Restaurant

[10:59] Association. We've been asked by our members to come and speak with you

[11:02] tonight. First, we want to thank you for providing a $500,000

[11:08] uh revenue grant to many of the properties impacted. But, we want you to

[11:12] know that recovery is not finished in the Sugar House area. These businesses

[11:17] are still struggling. The cost of and the impact of construction has been lost

[11:22] revenue, exhausted reserves, meaning restaurants have borrowed all the money

[11:26] they can borrow. They have no place else to go, and many feel that they have

[11:30] received broken trust from Salt Lake City. They were promised that the two

[11:34] lanes would continue and it was reduced to one lane, which has cut their

[11:38] visibility in half. The cost of the environment that they're

[11:42] facing as business operators, labor costs are up 41%, wholesale food prices

[11:47] up 34%, rent up 15%, supplies and consumables are up, and utilities and

[11:53] fees have spiked double digits. These are all problems and whatnot. We feel

[11:57] like that we need to um have support for the Sugar House

[12:02] area, but we don't feel like and the restaurants don't feel like they should

[12:06] be paying for something and fixing a problem they didn't create. We're asking

[12:11] you to consider direct hardship grants from the general fund, a phase-in or

[12:16] hardship exemption for those businesses in the area who who would apply and

[12:21] would would qualify, and that restaurants have a seat at the table

[12:25] where the decisions are made for whether or not the money is collected, whether

[12:30] or not the money is spent, and how they are represented. And so, once again, we

[12:35] thank you for your support of these businesses with your grants, but please

[12:39] consider what these businesses need now. They're also going to be hit with the

[12:42] 12.5% property tax increase that will be

[12:46] assessed to all businesses. Thank you.

[12:52] » Now, we will hear from Jeff Goddard followed by Scott Clark, both of them in

[12:57] person. >> Hi. Thanks. I agree with the last

[13:01] speaker. Um I'm a business owner. Um Guthrie Bicycle in Sugar House, kind of

[13:05] right on the corner across from where the Snow Groves property used to be. And

[13:10] uh with the construction along 21st, it's just hurt our business quite a bit,

[13:15] you know, like we were down the last 2 years

[13:18] a significant amount, and the business offered that $3,000 grant per year,

[13:21] which was pretty much nothing. It didn't help us out with the lost revenue. Um

[13:27] And I feel like so many customers have just been driven away from that area

[13:30] because of that construction for so long.

[13:34] The homeless problems, and I feel like this lighting tax is due to a lot of

[13:39] that copper piping that was stolen and removed.

[13:44] And it's hard to see that, you know, this this assessment go toward the

[13:47] existing businesses as after we've seen so many businesses

[13:51] go out of business. What businesses remain? I feel like it's just going to

[13:55] hurt us even more and make it more difficult for businesses to stay open

[13:59] and new businesses want to come in to that area. It is a great area, but with

[14:03] what's happening lately, it's it's hard for me to see, you know,

[14:08] have a desire to continue being there in the long term.

[14:12] It's nice to have the construction over with.

[14:14] For me, I feel like what good is an event going to do for my

[14:18] business? You know, I don't have confidence that will really do anything.

[14:21] I feel like if it was something about notifying the public in the area that

[14:26] the construction is over with, come back to Sugar House, you know, I'm all for

[14:29] that. But I don't see this exorbitant amount of fees to the

[14:33] existing businesses really is going to really going to help us stay open.

[14:38] That's all I have.

[14:43] » Now we will hear from Scott Clark, who is also there in person.

[14:53] » Thanks for your time this evening, council members.

[14:56] My name is Scott Clark. I've owned a small business in Sugar House for 43

[15:00] years. The building entity is SCSE Leasing. We

[15:06] operate as Clark Executive Detail. We clean cars,

[15:10] boats, motor homes, and we do storage as well.

[15:14] » [clears throat and cough] >> I might receive this assessment,

[15:18] and that was basically on top of my $20,000

[15:22] per year property tax. Um I feel like uh the construction that

[15:28] I've lived through for the last 25 30 years

[15:33] uh has had a very negative impact upon my business.

[15:37] Uh there's proposal to shut down Sugar Mount right next to Sugar House

[15:42] Veterinarian for a period of at least 2 months to come

[15:46] to have the to perpetuate the S-line it up to

[15:52] the Sugar House Center, which is I believe about a quarter mile.

[15:57] Uh that would also have a very negative impact upon my business. Um there's also

[16:02] been 80% of our parking on McClelland taken away by the city

[16:08] through little pop-outs, little build-outs for like little gardens.

[16:13] That's been a very negative impact upon my business for our customer parking.

[16:17] We've had a lot of customers complain about there's no parking, sorry, I'm not

[16:22] coming down. So that's very negatively impacted my

[16:26] business. It's very unconstitutional to

[16:31] do a a a take upon the community members in Sugar House up and

[16:39] above the property tax we're already paying.

[16:42] Um you know, it's just been a negative impact upon me through all the

[16:47] construction that's happened all through Sugar House over the years.

[16:51] So I'd ask the council to reconsider this assessment and give a full

[16:56] abatement to

[17:00] Thank you. Thank you.

[17:06] » We have nobody else signed up to speak on this item.

[17:11] » Thank you all of those that commented. >> Is it too late for me to speak?

[17:15] » It >> I didn't sign up.

[17:16] » I I believe that that you needed to sign up. Um but you

[17:22] um

[17:24] I could I could get him. Okay. Yes, please come come into

[17:28] You have to come in and you have 2 minutes.

[17:32] » My name is My name is Bob Plumb and I own some properties on 2100 South.

[17:38] So, I have four properties that would get this assessment. And like

[17:44] Sky was saying about the what we've been through with the

[17:47] construction and unfortunately, I feel with the

[17:52] construction with the street design and what the final outcome is, it's

[17:57] actually discouraging people from coming into Sugar House instead of encouraging

[18:02] them. So, I don't know how you can

[18:05] advertise that out. It is what it is at this point.

[18:10] And people are avoiding Sugar House because of the changes.

[18:14] So, to take I have one of my properties that I don't know how much money I lost

[18:17] it. The building was empty for a year and a half during the construction

[18:21] because I couldn't get a tenant. Then I had to do milk new build out. And that's

[18:26] expensive. So, to add and then to add on top of what these property taxes have

[18:31] done in the last six or seven years, some of these properties have gone up

[18:35] three times what they were. So, to put this cost

[18:41] on I feel like as a landlord, I'm going to be responsible for the cost. I don't

[18:45] believe I can pass it on to my tenants. And one of my tenants is Chipotle and

[18:50] when I talked to one of the people from their offices,

[18:53] their business is down 50%. And that's after the construction is

[19:01] finished. So, I don't believe what you're

[19:04] proposing to do is going to you're going to be able to

[19:09] fix the problem you created. I know it's not

[19:13] you personally, it's the designers, the engineers, everybody.

[19:16] And same thing with the parking. I have a

[19:20] building now that I can't pick up or drop off anything because they took the

[19:25] parking away in front of the building. They put a median in the road. You can't

[19:29] turn left to straighten out before you go to

[19:32] the buildings. So, now any kind of bigger vehicle can't go between the

[19:36] buildings anymore. So, I can't >> Thank you.

[19:41] Thank you. Thank you. The time is You can send us

[19:44] the the rest the rest of the comment because it's a public hearing and until

[19:49] like we close the public hearing and I can I can allow,

[19:53] you know, people to add their their their thoughts.

[19:57] This is only applicable to public hearing items.

[20:00] Um Okay.

[20:02] Um I think I need a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I move that the council close

[20:06] the public protest hearing. >> Second.

[20:12] » I have a motion by council member Young and a

[20:15] second by council member Dugan. Is there any discussion?

[20:18] » Yes, if I can >> make a comment. So, I appreciate the

[20:22] businesses that have come out tonight um to be able to share your voice and be a

[20:26] part of this process. And process is the word that I'm going to I'm going to

[20:31] focus on in terms of some of the comments. So, tonight at the closure of

[20:37] the public comment period, we are not voting on a final assessment of that

[20:43] tax. What happens next is that it moves to the community to be able to then vote

[20:49] on whether or not this is something that is chosen.

[20:53] The proposal itself was not initiated by any individual up here. It was initiated

[21:00] by um the Sugar House community um in co-sponsorship between the chamber and

[21:06] the community council. I am more than happy to help connect you with those

[21:10] individuals to be able to voice the concerns that you've brought here

[21:14] tonight as well, and to use that to be able to help inform the conversation.

[21:19] When it comes to some of the services that that you've spoken about and some

[21:23] of the needs that we've heard from other businesses, there has been a call

[21:27] related to wanting to see services that we see similar to downtown

[21:33] in terms of being able to have some of the public safety ambassadors who are

[21:38] there providing, you know, more engagement on the street, more real-time

[21:43] support related to some of the security issues that we, you know, are are aware

[21:48] of and that are working on as well. And then as well related to the signage and

[21:53] the event space, it it again is really designed not to

[21:57] replace anything you already have, but to improve upon those efforts to really

[22:03] mimic some of the additional services that those businesses feel could be

[22:08] valuable. Ultimately, this is a decision that is made by those who would be

[22:14] impacted. So, it's it's not a decision that is made exclusively, you know, up

[22:20] here by the council members, but it is a vote by the property owners who would be

[22:25] within this space. And as kind of mentioned before, we do have a process

[22:30] by which businesses can come and be a part of kind of what that

[22:35] assessment looks like in terms of reflecting challenges within that space.

[22:41] So, I I do want the opportunity to be able to connect you with some of the

[22:46] individuals who are also sponsoring this and moving it forward. And again, it

[22:51] moving forward is part of a process, it is not an outcome, and I just wanted to

[22:56] be clear about that is not what's happening tonight.

[23:01] » Thank you for that clarification Council member Young. You made the

[23:05] motion and Council member Dugan made the second. I'm going to call the question.

[23:08] All of those in favor say I. >> I.

[23:11] » Any opposed? Any abstentions? This motion carries unanimously. We're going

[23:17] to item B2 which is a resolution for the waiver of proximity for Silver Side Deli

[23:23] at 21 22 South Highland Drive. We're going to

[23:28] begin taking comments, but before that Austin Kimmel, our Council Policy

[23:33] Analyst, is going to give us a short introduction. Austin.

[23:37] » Thanks, Council members. This is a public hearing for a proposed

[23:40] alcohol proximity waiver for Silver Side Deli, a restaurant at

[23:45] 21 22 South Highland Drive in District 7, also in Sugar House.

[23:50] As of May 2026, state code requires cities to approve an alcohol waiver of

[23:55] proximity before the Department of Alcohol

[23:58] Beverage Services, or DABS, can issue a a retail license to a business near a

[24:04] community location, such as a public park, playground, or library.

[24:09] This business would be across the street from the Sprague Library Branch in

[24:12] District 7 on Highland Drive. State code also requires that the

[24:16] Council may take action on this item 30 days after the public hearing

[24:20] and a vote is tentatively tentatively scheduled for September 22nd. Thanks.

[24:26] » Thank you, Austin. Isaac, can you start with our first public comment?

[24:31] » We do not have anybody signed up for this item.

[24:35] » Mr. Chair, I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a

[24:39] future Council meeting. >> Second.

[24:43] » I have a motion by Council member Young and second by Council member Carlson.

[24:47] Any discussion? I will say just I'm excited that we have

[24:51] this opportunity now. I said it last time. I'm also thankful that the city is

[24:56] going beyond what is required by the law to inform the neighbors about this that

[25:00] we can allow businesses to serve alcohol that makes sense. So, I'm

[25:06] I'm thankful for this tool that we have. The motion was was by Council member

[25:12] Young, second by Carlson. I'm going to call the question. All of those in favor

[25:15] say I. >> I.

[25:17] » I. Any opposed or abstentions? This motion

[25:20] carries unanimously. We're moving on to item B3, which is an ordinance

[25:26] for the maximum daily water use text amendments.

[25:29] We're going to welcome Austin Kimble, who's

[25:32] popular today, Council Policy Analyst, to give us a short introduction. Austin.

[25:37] » [clears throat] >> Thank you. This is a public hearing for

[25:40] a proposal to amend Salt Lake City code title 21A to limit daily water use for

[25:46] new non-residential land uses with some exceptions.

[25:50] The proposed text amendment would cap maximum daily water use for new

[25:54] non-residential properties at 200,000 gallons per day for these properties.

[25:59] The proposal follows a temporary land use regulation or TLUR that City Council

[26:05] adopted on March 24th of 2026 for the same purpose.

[26:09] It aims to make that TLUR permanent by adopting the ordinance since the TLUR is

[26:15] valid for only 180 days, which would expire on September

[26:20] 20th of this year. During the July 21st briefing, the

[26:24] Council requested that a definition of social services be included in the

[26:29] proposed zoning code. The Attorney's Office provided updated

[26:33] ordinance language including a definition, which if the Council

[26:36] supports will be included in the final ordinance.

[26:39] That definition can be found at the top of the attached staff report. Thanks.

[26:44] » Thank you, Austin. Isaac, can you

[26:47] start with our first public comment? >> Yes.

[26:51] Anthony Washburn is here to speak in person.

[27:00] » Hi, my name is Anthony Washburn, resident here of Salt Lake City. In July

[27:04] 21st meeting, when the when the city was proposing this to you guys, something

[27:09] that struck me was that most of the businesses already use under

[27:13] 200,000 gallons a day. And with the drought that we're in,

[27:18] things like that, I would just like to maybe consider dropping that cap to 150

[27:22] or possibly even 100, because if businesses are already using under the

[27:26] 200,000 gallons per day cap, capping it to 100

[27:30] isn't really encouraging anybody to use less water. And I think that we should

[27:35] as a city try to encourage people to to use less water. So, thank you.

[27:46] » We have nobody else registered to speak to this item.

[27:50] » Thank you, Isaac. Um

[27:53] I'm going to need a motion. >> Mr. Chairman, I move the council close

[27:56] the public hearing and defer action to a future council meeting.

[28:00] » Second.

[28:03] » Motion by Council member Dugan, seconded by Council member Wharton. Any

[28:07] discussion? Can I call the question? All those in

[28:10] favor say I. >> I.

[28:12] » I. >> Any opposed?

[28:15] This motion carries unanimously. I'm going to be moving to item B4, which

[28:21] is the or an ordinance for the Northwest Community Plan.

[28:25] Um I'm going to welcome Michael Saunders,

[28:28] council policy analyst, to give us a short introduction.

[28:32] » Thank you, council. So, the administration has proposed an

[28:36] update to community plan for the Northwest community area.

[28:40] This plan will replace the 1992 Northwest Master Plan, the 2010 North

[28:45] Temple Boulevard Plan, and the 2001 Rose Park small area plan.

[28:50] During the February 25th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission

[28:53] unanimously forwarded a positive recommendation for the plan to the

[28:57] Council. The Council was briefed on this item

[29:00] during the July 21st, 2026 work session. During that briefing, the Council

[29:05] flagged several requested changes. Planning has addressed those requests,

[29:09] which were included in an updated draft of the plan in the packet. The plan

[29:14] division has also provided a summary of the changes, which was included as

[29:17] attachment one in the staff report. Thanks.

[29:21] » Thank you, Michael. Isaac, can you begin with our first

[29:26] public comment on this item? >> Yes. Uh and

[29:31] first up, we have Anthony Washburn, followed by Tony Diaz, and then Cindy

[29:35] Cromer. Anthony, you may walk up to speak.

[29:39] » Sorry, it's me again. My name is Anthony Washburn, and I want

[29:42] to thank the city for developing the Northwest community plan, and thank the

[29:45] City Council for giving me the opportunity to give some feedback.

[29:49] I'm speaking as a long-time Westside resident, business owner, and community

[29:53] advocate. I support growth and affordable housing,

[29:56] but want development to happen in a way that strengthens, not destabilizes,

[30:00] existing Westside neighborhoods. The city should consider stronger

[30:03] incentives for developers who provide three-plus bedroom, family-oriented, and

[30:07] workforce housing, including both affordable and mixed-income options.

[30:12] Affordable housing should be distributed throughout the greater Salt Lake City

[30:15] area, rather than concentrated in one neighborhood.

[30:19] The city should evaluate what happens when multiple affordable housing

[30:22] developments, mental health, and treatment facilities are concentrated in

[30:26] just a few blocks. And where appropriate, developers should

[30:30] be required to provide strong property management, security, and ongoing

[30:34] coordination with the city and surrounding communities.

[30:37] I ask the city to take a closer look at the impact of affordable housing

[30:41] concentration, public safety concerns, and transportation barriers. We can

[30:46] support affordable housing while creating more family and workforce

[30:49] housing, dispersing affordable housing throughout the city, improving

[30:53] neighborhood conditions, and making sure new development strengthens the Westside

[30:57] rather than creating additional problems. Thank you.

[31:01] And I did have a handout. Cuz that's only half of what I was going

[31:06] » Staff will get it from you.

[31:11] Next, we will hear by Tony Diaz, followed by Cindy Cromer, and then

[31:16] Adriana Caras. They are all here in person.

[31:21] » Hi, I'm Tony Diaz. Uh I am the chair of the Business Committee on the Fair Park

[31:25] Community Council. Um I'm encouraged to see the start that the Northwest

[31:30] Community Plan puts into place. Small businesses are the bedrock of the

[31:34] Westside neighborhoods. Um they're not just buildings that you pass by when

[31:39] you're driving through the neighborhood. They're the places that

[31:45] that employ us. They are our neighbors. They're the source of community pride in

[31:50] the Westside. Um

[31:53] when these businesses thrive, they reinvest into the neighborhood and help

[31:58] provide economic stimulus as well as job opportunities. Starting and running a

[32:03] small business has never been an easy venture, um

[32:07] but the conditions in the Westside are harder and harder as time goes on.

[32:11] Rising leasing rates, regulatory hurdles, economic uncertainty, and the

[32:15] inability to safely walk parts of our neighborhood make

[32:20] um uh create a great deal of pressure for entrepreneurs and existing

[32:25] businesses. In order to combat these, we need a plan

[32:28] that actively prioritizes what the Westside really needs. And what we need

[32:33] is a welcoming environment where small businesses can get their start and grow.

[32:39] Um in regards to the community plan, uh the Fairpark Community Council uh

[32:44] has a few points that we would like to advise. Uh first, actively partner with

[32:49] the community councils on the west side, business owners, and their employees to

[32:54] directly learn the full scope of their needs. Um this will inform how to make

[32:59] real long-lasting impact. Secondly, enhance through public safety and

[33:03] walkability along our business corridors. If you don't feel safe

[33:07] walking down a street, you're certainly not going to shop there.

[33:10] And last, through policy, encourage developers who build ground-floor

[33:15] commercial spaces to build them in a usable, desirable, and move-in-ready way

[33:21] for businesses that would want to move to this neighborhood.

[33:28] » Next, we will hear from Ann Cindy Cromer, followed by Adriana Caras, and

[33:33] then Dorothy Owen. Cindy, you may walk up to speak.

[33:38] » Um in October of 2022, I happened to be at the Planning Commission for the first

[33:42] hearing on the Northpoint Small Area Plan.

[33:45] I have worked on many of the city's small area plans. The one for Northpoint

[33:49] didn't check any of the boxes I associate with successful plans.

[33:54] Now, almost 4 years later, it appears that I was right. The tools proposed in

[33:58] the small area plan have not been adopted. The land use proposals are

[34:02] environmental nightmares. And now, what would be the final insult, possibly, the

[34:08] Northpoint area has been deleted from the larger Northwest Community Plan.

[34:14] Other small area plans have been incorporated into the larger plans by

[34:18] ordinance. Not so in this case. It is essential in pursuing transfer of

[34:23] development rights to identify receiving areas. And transfer of development

[34:27] rights are most effectively implemented when the receiving area is nearby.

[34:33] I believe that the disconnect between the North Point and Northwest plans is

[34:36] an obstacle to the use of TDRs and I'm saying this more than 16 years

[34:42] after I first brought TDRs to the council's attention.

[34:46] Thank you.

[34:51] » Next we will hear from Adriana Caras followed by Dorothy Owen and then Nancy

[34:57] Philip. Adriana

[35:00] Adriana you may now speak.

[35:02] » Hi, thanks for having me. I'm the owner of 824 West 200 South which is next to

[35:06] Alta View Apartments. I support everything that Tony and

[35:10] Anthony spoke about but let me talk about I I do support a safer more

[35:14] walkable connected community on the Westside. I live in Millcreek. I have

[35:19] every amenity that I possibly could need next to me but the Westside does not. I

[35:23] feel that this community plan starts somewhere but isn't anywhere near where

[35:27] it should be. This I gave you a handout with a bunch of data that came from your

[35:31] own surveys. 56,000 residents live in the Westside of

[35:36] Salt Lake. 29,000 of them commute out. So it's not a walking city. It's a

[35:41] commuting city. 22,000 of those workers commute in. So when you come in to work

[35:46] of those government agencies and all those businesses that are there there's

[35:49] nowhere to eat. I've ridden horses in the Rose Park area for 20 years. My

[35:54] friends work at the state businesses and they say it's a food dead zone. So I'm

[35:58] currently trying to start a business called Coffee on Second in this house.

[36:01] It's a 125 year old house. I've owned it for 9 years. Literally I have three

[36:06] options. I sell it to a developer, I tear it down or I build something with

[36:10] what I have. Basically I have to build with something with what I have because

[36:14] it's not affordable for me to tear down the property and build something new.

[36:18] So in the process of doing this I've had to work with the city to try to put a

[36:22] coffee shop in this house. Let me tell you the process sucks.

[36:25] Sucks for all of us. It's long, arduous. I've paid $6,000 in

[36:29] fees and impact that I haven't even opened the building yet. I haven't even

[36:33] opened the doors. So, it's a hundred thousand plus to open

[36:36] up a business, redo my house, my mom remodel it up to the

[36:39] the ordinances and the construction requirements you bring.

[36:42] So, let me tell you how hard it is to put a business in Salt Lake City.

[36:45] Especially when it clearly says in your statistics that most people want those.

[36:50] The Westside wants grocery, restaurants, healthcare, recreation, and shopping.

[36:54] And 48% of your Westside resident surveys say they cannot access that. So,

[36:58] please look at this plan, put economy as number one. That's what it should do. It

[37:03] will drive all the rest of the

[37:09] » Next, we will hear from Dorothy Owen, followed by Nancy Philip, and then Lynn

[37:14] Skitman.

[37:20] » So, my name is Dorothy Owen. And I first became the chair of the West

[37:25] Point Community Council 10 years ago. I checked it today. And I have with me

[37:30] Lynn Skidmore, who is also here representing the board of West Point

[37:34] Community Council. Um

[37:38] We're here to speak to the Northwest plan that you're looking at and asking

[37:43] you to pause it and to take advantage of the hundred

[37:48] thousand dollar investment that you as a council made in developing the North

[37:54] Point Small Area Plan. In 2019,

[38:00] um this council appropriated a hundred

[38:03] thousand dollars to a consulting firm to come up with that plan, realizing that

[38:09] this was a very important area, very sensitive area,

[38:12] and that the planning commission really didn't have nor did the planning staff

[38:16] didn't have time to do that. Um when you read their report,

[38:21] they talk about how much um community input they did. And we were

[38:27] the community council was very much involved. There were questionnaires,

[38:31] there were public meetings, there were draft comments, in-person interviews. I

[38:36] mean, you know, they have a whole section on it.

[38:38] Um as a result of that public input, their

[38:42] consultants state that uh the plan focus shifted for them.

[38:49] It shifted from developing land use recommendations, which are very

[38:52] specific, to developing tools that would be

[38:57] available to the city to preserve the habitat, mitigate negative impacts,

[39:03] um and determine appropriate improvements.

[39:06] You have a $100,000 investment in the North Point Northwest North Point small

[39:13] area plan for tools to help you do your job.

[39:17] And I think that um

[39:19] it would not be wise to just ignore that.

[39:25] Thank you. >> Thank you, Dorothy.

[39:28] Thank you, Dorothy.

[39:33] » Next, we will hear from Nancy Philip, followed by

[39:37] Lynn Skitman, and then Lynn DeFritas. All of them here in person.

[39:43] So, uh Nancy, you may walk up to speak. >> Good evening and thank you for um

[39:48] accepting public comment on this really important issue.

[39:52] Adriana is my business partner, and we're trying to put in a small business

[39:56] uh locally owned, obviously, on 824 West 200 South.

[40:02] What's important about this plan is not priority 1 2 3, it's priority 12,

[40:09] which is economic growth. And

[40:12] in your own survey, in your own plan, it says 48% of the residents on the west

[40:17] side don't have access to certain resources,

[40:21] small businesses, grocery stores, pharmacies, gas stations, convenience

[40:27] stores. And we want to build something like that. And if we if you all talk to

[40:33] the residents like we have, and we have people who walk by our building every

[40:38] day, we're out there every day. They walk by and say, "When are you

[40:41] opening? We can't wait. There's no coffee shops around here."

[40:46] The The challenge is is that the 12th priority in your plan is economics.

[40:52] You For the residents that exist there right now, there aren't the resources

[40:57] that they're looking for. So, you're proposing building a whole bunch of

[41:01] housing without resources for the for the individuals that live there now.

[41:07] Just yesterday, we had somebody who lived around the corner for our from our

[41:11] shop that we're opening, hopefully soon. And they said, "I want to come work for

[41:16] you." So, our small business is going to provide jobs, is going to provide

[41:22] resources, is going to provide a safe space for people to come and visit and

[41:27] stay and have a great cup of coffee. What I don't appreciate, what I'd really

[41:31] like the council to look at is shifting the economic importance of your plan up

[41:38] higher and move down residential. Thank you.

[41:47] » Next, we will hear from Lynn Skitman, followed by Linda Freitas, and then

[41:52] Heidi Holtan. Lynn, you may walk up to speak.

[41:58] » Thank you. I have no comment. I must have checked the wrong box.

[42:01] I'll donate my time to the other Lynn.

[42:07] » Linda Freitas, you may walk up to speak. >> Thank you very much. I'm Linda de a

[42:11] resident of Salt Lake City and the executive director of Friends of Great

[42:15] Salt Lake working to preserve and protect the Great Salt Lake ecosystem.

[42:19] Um as stated in the introduction of the Northwest Community Plan um and in

[42:24] support of Salt Lake City's overarching vision established in Plan Salt Lake

[42:29] over the next 15 years, the Northwest Community Plan will guide future

[42:33] decisions about growth, development, and community priorities for its unique

[42:38] neighborhoods and their impressive characteristics.

[42:41] With a notable reference to the Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Action Plan as an

[42:45] asset and valuable tool that recognizes nature, wildlife, ecosystems, and

[42:50] opportunities for public engagement, I was disappointed with the exclusion of

[42:55] the North Point Small Area Plan in this vision. This is a tremendous missed

[43:00] opportunity for the Northwest community to expand its reach, its recognition,

[43:05] and its relationship with its neighbor right next door, Great Salt Lake and its

[43:10] shoreline. The Northwest Community Plan proposes to take all of us beyond the

[43:14] 2034 Utah Winter Olympics and into the future.

[43:18] A future that should confirm Salt Lake City's belief in our commitment to

[43:24] preserve and protect the Great Salt Lake ecosystem in perpetuity.

[43:29] If wishes were for brine shrimp, the Salt Lake's Salt Lake City Council would

[43:33] push the pause button on its approval of the Northwest Community Plan and give

[43:37] further consideration of including the North Point Small Area Plan in this

[43:42] vision. Thank you very much.

[43:48] » Next, we will hear from Heidi Hoven followed by Izumi Nakamura.

[43:56] » Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I'm Heidi

[44:00] Hoven. I work for National Audubon Society and I oversee the management of

[44:05] a shorebird sanctuary right on the shores of Great Salt Lake.

[44:09] I am asking you to please pause adoption of the Northwest Community Plan as it is

[44:15] incomplete. It is an opportunity to link plans with

[44:19] the level of detail needed for proper uses of land adjacent to sensitive lands

[44:24] included in the North Point Small Area Plan but not specified.

[44:29] I ask how does the new Northwest Community Plan address the

[44:34] 2040 targets and initiatives of Plan Salt Lake?

[44:38] By leaving out the North Point Small Area Plan and not having conservation

[44:42] tools already in place to be used. These sensitive lands are hydrologically

[44:48] connected to Great Salt Lake and its wetland and upland habitats and its

[44:51] shoreline. I will read if I have time the three

[44:55] bullets that that are here in Plan Salt Lake

[44:58] to meet the initiatives. Support of zoo stewardship of city on natural open

[45:03] space, implementation and promotion of best practices in management stewardship

[45:07] of natural lands, restoration of aquatic and riparian

[45:12] corridors and habitats including daylighting of streams and water

[45:15] corridors and reduction in habitat fragmentation.

[45:20] Please consider pausing and adopting the Northwest Community Plan and push for

[45:25] more thoughtful protections and land conservation programs for Salt Lake City

[45:31] by including the North Point Small Area Plan in the North West Community Plan.

[45:37] Thank you.

[45:41] » Now we'll hear from Izumi Okamura. Uh

[45:45] they are the last person signed to speak on this item.

[45:53] » Hello, I'm a resident of uh Fair Park and recently a member of the Community

[45:58] Council there. Um in reviewing the plan uh there's some things that I would like

[46:03] to um the council to consider is the maintenance of things going forward.

[46:09] I go to the Northwest Park Center very

[46:11] frequently. There were a bunch of updates made there. And um

[46:15] it looked really nice for about a month until they stopped maintaining it

[46:19] completely. Nobody mows the lawn, the weeds are growing. It was just like a

[46:22] lot of investment without actually maintenance going forward. So, would ask

[46:27] for all of these improvements to also include a plan for how to

[46:32] maintain all the improvements so that we don't just invest and have things

[46:36] go to the wayside. Um second point I have is there's a lot

[46:41] about affordable housing and incentives there. And there's potential

[46:46] um I think it said

[46:48] uh that they would consider having incentives for mixed-income housing, but

[46:53] I actually think that that's something that

[46:55] that really needs to be considered for um kind of what a lot of the people here

[47:00] have already mentioned about having businesses incentivizing them to want to

[47:04] be in the area. If we only have affordable housing, um it's not going to

[47:08] create the kind of economy that we need in the area. Um [clears throat]

[47:12] okay, that's all. Thank you.

[47:17] » Thank you all of those that shared their your comments.

[47:21] Um we're going to um ask for I'm going to ask for a motion.

[47:31] » I move the council close the public hearing and defer action to a future

[47:34] council meeting. >> Second.

[47:36] » Council member Petro for the motion and Dugan for the second.

[47:40] Any discussion? I'm going to call the question. All

[47:44] those in favor say I. >> I.

[47:46] » I. Any opposed? Okay, this motion carries unanimously.

[47:50] We're going to move to item B5, which is an ordinance for the

[47:55] ballpark zoning map and text amendment. Uh we're going to welcome at the table

[48:00] Kate Ward, who's council policy analyst, to give us

[48:03] a short introduction. Kate. >> Thank you. In December 2025, the CRA

[48:08] board adopted the Ballpark Next Community Design Plan. Two elements of

[48:14] this project include, first, approximately 4.8 acres of public green

[48:20] space. Of the overall 14.8 acres, um that 4.8 acres, or approximately 32%

[48:28] of the overall acreage, is planned to be green space and outdoor public space,

[48:32] including a creek park and neighborhood fields. Second, the CRA and city plan to

[48:38] prioritize maintaining ownership of a majority of the land included in the

[48:42] rezone. Tonight, this is a public hearing for a rezone proposal to amend

[48:47] the zoning on 14.8 acres of city-owned property associated with the Ballpark

[48:53] Next Community Design Plan for public lands

[48:56] um to rezone from public lands to MU8 and MU5, and a text amendment to remove

[49:04] existing ballpark signage requirements, which were

[49:07] associated with the former ballpark stadium.

[49:11] The planning commission and planning staff both recommend approval. In

[49:16] response to constituent and planning commission feedback, at your July 14th

[49:21] work session, the city council straw polled to amend the proposed maximum

[49:25] zoning amendment. The f-

[49:28] It proposed a maximum zoning um amendment to rather MU8 um to MU8 rather

[49:36] than MU11 as presented by the community reinvestment rezone application. This

[49:42] amended um rezone ordinance now includes changing the 14.8 acres of public of of

[49:50] currently zoned public lands to um MU8 and MU5. Thank you.

[49:58] » Thank you, Kate. Isaac, please start with our first

[50:02] public comment on this item. >> First, we'll hear from Emily Sloan Pace,

[50:07] followed by MJ Powell, and then Christopher Derbidge. Emily is here

[50:12] online. You may now unmute.

[50:17] » Thanks. My name is Emily Sloan Pace, and I'm here tonight as chair of the

[50:21] Downtown Community Council. We urge the City Council not to approve a rezone

[50:27] that results in less green space and less public space than currently exists.

[50:33] Downtown knows what happens when development moves faster than investment

[50:37] in the public realm. While we have welcomed thousands of new residents and

[50:41] extraordinary amounts of construction, we've also watched a once mature tree

[50:45] canopy disappear, replaced with trees that will take decades to provide the

[50:50] same shade and cooling. We should learn from that experience, not reproduce it

[50:56] five blocks to the south. Ballpark already has too little park space in one

[51:01] of the hotter parts of the city and is absorbing significant growth. This

[51:06] proposal could substantially reduce its existing green and public space. Trees,

[51:12] parks, shade, and soil are infrastructure. They are key

[51:16] determinants of health for generations, and importantly, this land belongs to

[51:22] the public. The city is spending significant resources trying to put

[51:27] trees, shade, and green space back where they were lost or never preserved.

[51:32] Ballpark still has something downtown is desperately trying to recreate, publicly

[51:37] owned land available to open for with established green space.

[51:43] Please don't build it away and ask another generation to figure out how to

[51:47] put it back. Preserving the space that exists today should be the floor. With

[51:52] 15 acres of publicly owned land, the city should be asking how much more

[51:55] green space we can create, not how much we are willing to lose. To paraphrase

[52:00] Mr. Wharton's recent comments about the Victory Arch, listen to the community.

[52:06] Make sure this decision is made with the public, not just for the public. Thank

[52:12] you so much.

[52:17] » Next, we will hear from MJ Powell, followed by Christopher Derbidge, and

[52:21] then Janice Loop. >> Uh good evening council. My name is MJ

[52:27] Powell. I am a resident of District 3, but I am a sixth-generation resident of

[52:33] Salt Lake City from the West Side. Today, I deliver my remarks um in this

[52:39] um as it pertains to Ballpark and the rezone of Ballpark uh to share my

[52:44] experience from a boots-on-the-ground level as someone who also interned at

[52:47] the Utah Jazz, and also took a bike there every day public transit.

[52:53] We are not prioritizing public transit the way we need to in areas of this city

[52:58] that have been historically neglected and ignored, and where low-income

[53:01] residents rely on these services to provide for their families. In a time at

[53:07] a crisis where people are having problems putting food on the table, and

[53:10] the conversation results to green spaces, it often makes me wonder if the

[53:14] administration is ignoring the root of the real issues. Economic disparity is

[53:18] more important than where people are going to go hang out in the middle of

[53:21] July and on on a hot day. People are wondering where the free lunch programs

[53:26] in those parks went, where they're going to go.

[53:29] These are the target focuses that the partnerships within the administration

[53:33] should be focusing on, not commitments and pledges to making sure that we're

[53:37] building a thousand trees in an area where we we even have the irrigation or

[53:41] water to sustain those developments. I bring this up because Ballpark is an

[53:46] area that is going to be invested in significantly while the historical

[53:50] residents and current residents of those areas are often ignored

[53:54] while we see gentrification take place. I ask you in every decision you

[53:58] implement when it pertains to this rezone to maybe even look at the people

[54:02] in Midvale who were looking for housing right after an apartment fire where they

[54:07] had nowhere to go. Your priority is the needs of the people that you were

[54:12] elected to represent in the Constitution you serve, not the developers like in

[54:17] the work session I kept hearing people straw polling for. Thank you.

[54:26] » Next we will hear from Christopher Derbidge followed by Janice Lou and then

[54:30] Jeff Sandstrom.

[54:35] » Mayor and councilman, I am Christopher Derbidge of 1407 South Richard Street

[54:40] immediately south of the Ballpark. I support reinvestment in this property.

[54:44] I support adaptive reuse of stadium public amenities, appropriate housing,

[54:48] safer streets, and strong future for the Ballpark neighborhood.

[54:52] I'm not asking the city to abandon Ballpark next. I am asking you to

[54:55] protect the southern residential edge and require the information needed to

[54:59] protect the people who already live there.

[55:02] My first concern is historic preservation and neighborhood

[55:04] continuity. Richard Street did not appear after the

[55:07] Ballpark. The original South Main Street addition plat and the legal description

[55:12] that still governs our properties show that the residential area has roots

[55:17] predating the ball baseball complex.

[55:20] The site changed from community park to Derks

[55:25] Field and later stadium while the small enclave endured. I and several of my

[55:30] Richard Street neighbors came before the planning commission

[55:33] over another development proposed and raised concerns about neighborhood fit,

[55:36] parking, traffic, service access. Ballpark Next itself says it will

[55:41] acknowledge the past and honor the neighborhood history.

[55:44] I ask you to apply that principle to surviving neighborhood, not only to the

[55:48] stadium. My second concern is the existing green edge immediately behind

[55:52] our homes today are areas that include grass, a hill, a scoreboard, a stadium

[55:56] lights, and children's playground and picnic tables.

[56:03] The city's materials identify the ballpark property as publicly owned and

[56:07] show buildings I, J, K up to 45 ft long the southern portion of

[56:13] the site. But the materials we received do not tell us that the legal status of

[56:17] the existing green areas or exactly what happens to those amenities. I'm not

[56:21] asking to assume that they are legally dedicated parkland. I'm asking the city

[56:25] to answer the questions before the edge is committed to the private development.

[56:28] Which parcels contain playground, hill, picnic area, and other green spaces?

[56:32] Who holds title today? Are any of those parcels on the city's open space lands

[56:37] inventory? Thank you.

[56:42] Thank you.

[56:44] » Next we'll follow we'll hear from Janice Liu, followed by Jeff Sandstorm, and

[56:49] then Jim Jenkin. Janice, you may walk up to the podium.

[56:58] » Good evening. I'm here to express my opposition to the

[57:03] proposed zoning map and text amendments for the

[57:07] city owned um property that includes the Smith Ballpark site.

[57:13] As a resident of the community and a Ballpark Community Council board

[57:18] member, I have researched, discussed, and

[57:22] engaged with the planning of the Ballpark site for months.

[57:27] Um after carefully careful consideration, I think the proposed zone

[57:32] changes aligning with the Ballpark Next Plan

[57:36] would negatively impact our community. I respectfully ask that the City Council

[57:43] to forward the proposed zoning map and text amendments.

[57:48] They fail to adequately address the city's equitable equitable distribution

[57:54] of public owned green space essential to protect our environment

[58:00] support greener living and enhance community health.

[58:05] Um public open green spaces are a critical part of the urban

[58:10] infrastructure of a healthy city. Cities around the world are working to

[58:16] mitigate extreme heat and adapt urban life to climate change.

[58:21] Climate forward forward SLC states Salt Lake City is working to create create a

[58:29] clean, green, affordable and resilient community where people and

[58:35] nature can thrive. Integrating quality public green open

[58:41] space into the heart of the Ballpark community is key to this.

[58:47] And I'll just um mention that I'm very disappointed

[58:52] with what was produced um for the Ballpark Next Plan.

[58:58] Thank you.

[59:04] » Next we'll hear from Jeff Sandstrom followed by Jim Jankins and then Fraser

[59:09] Fraser Nelson. Uh Jeff, you may walk up and speak.

[59:14] » I'm Jeff Sandstrom, Ballpark Community Council board member.

[59:19] Resoning thoughts. Can the rezone remain flexible and done

[59:24] in stages? Might be something to think about.

[59:27] Preserving green space on the site is an integral part of the Ballpark Next

[59:31] Community Plan. Does the rezone make green space a priority?

[59:36] It is the number one requested uh item from our neighborhood and

[59:40] community meetings. Since a comprehensive funding plan for

[59:44] Ballpark Next is still to be determined, wouldn't the city be better served by

[59:48] embracing, repurposing, and reimagining the existing Ballpark Stadium?

[59:53] Imagine the top level with enhanced suites, enclosed banquet, and meeting

[59:58] spaces with spectacular views. Imagine canopy over the seating,

[1:00:03] year-round activation and utilization during the Olympics. This is a uniquely

[1:00:08] sized, viable venue that is already owned by the city.

[1:00:13] Proposed multi-family housing feels like it's encroaching on the entire project.

[1:00:17] If the public land has to become housing, consider ownership opportunity

[1:00:23] mid-density housing limited to the north and south boundaries of the property.

[1:00:29] A hotel is an unacceptable use of public land and may not be viable

[1:00:35] and does not promote community engagement. Reminder, the Red Lion, the

[1:00:39] Sheraton, and Ramada were all unsustainable and have been repurposed

[1:00:43] because they were too far from city center.

[1:00:47] This space has been dedicated to public land for more than 100 years. Does the

[1:00:51] proposed rezone focus on community engagement, open space, and green space?

[1:00:57] We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to preserve and maintain a rare parcel

[1:01:01] of public land in Salt Lake City. Thank you.

[1:01:08] » Next, we'll hear from Jim Jenkin, followed by Fresher Nelson, and then Amy

[1:01:13] Hawkins. Jim, you may speak.

[1:01:16] » Good evening, council members. I am Jim Jenkin.

[1:01:19] Um and I stand with the members of the planning commission, the three of them

[1:01:24] who opposed this plan on the basis of uh potential heights, premature timing, and

[1:01:31] particularly insufficient public space. Uh like many speakers, I would like to

[1:01:36] emphasize green space. Um, these public lands may represent the

[1:01:41] last opportunity for green space within the city proper.

[1:01:46] Green space, of course, provides relief from heat for people

[1:01:50] and the surroundings. Ballpark is in a heat island.

[1:01:54] They need trees. They need shade. They need water.

[1:01:59] They need grass. Most of these are not found on a play

[1:02:03] field. I urge the council

[1:02:07] to reject this proposal and to retain public lands designated for the creation

[1:02:12] of green space. I think that releasing so much public

[1:02:15] land without the creation of green space wastes a huge opportunity to increase

[1:02:20] public welfare. And to do so would provide enhancing for

[1:02:25] the development and for the area as well. So, I'm a big green space fan.

[1:02:30] Thanks.

[1:02:37] » Now, we will hear from Frazier Nelson, followed by Amy Hawkins, and then Ze-

[1:02:43] Sarah Snedeker. >> Hi, my name is Frazier Nelson. I'm a

[1:02:47] resident of the Ballpark neighborhood and chair of the Ballpark Action Team.

[1:02:51] BAT doesn't take positions on zoning. We leave that to our colleagues at the

[1:02:55] Ballpark Community Council. But, we do activate our neighborhood through events

[1:02:59] like Pie and Beer Day, which I know many of you attended. And we hold large

[1:03:03] community meetings where residents, business owners, and landowners and

[1:03:07] developers in the neighborhood provide input on plans impacting the future of

[1:03:12] our neighborhood. One thing that we have heard

[1:03:14] consistently throughout every meeting we've held over

[1:03:18] the last 3 years is the need for more public space, public green space, and

[1:03:22] you're hearing that again tonight. This has been a constant not only at our

[1:03:25] meetings and reports from those meetings we have shared with the council and

[1:03:29] shared with the planning commission and the CRA, but from your own studies

[1:03:34] and every single public meeting that has been held on this issue, the one thing

[1:03:39] you have heard consistently is that the plan does not address the need for green

[1:03:43] space that exists in our neighborhood and exists in our city as a whole.

[1:03:47] Now is the time to say that as much of the land as possible should be saved and

[1:03:52] the zoning should reflect the needs that you've heard from the community and the

[1:03:56] needs your own studies have addressed. We've heard over and over again that

[1:04:01] this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and it is. It's a once-in-a-lifetime

[1:04:07] opportunity public lands, save public green space,

[1:04:10] and be responsive to the voices of the community that you've heard from.

[1:04:14] Thanks.

[1:04:20] » Now we'll hear from Amy Hawkins followed by Sarah Sinnett Decker and then Joe

[1:04:25] Revaglia.

[1:04:28] » Good evening. I'm Amy Hawkins and I serve as chair of the Ballpark Community

[1:04:32] Council. My ask tonight is simple. Please do not

[1:04:36] rezone the entire 14.8 acre Ballpark site to mixed-use right now.

[1:04:42] Instead, please consider retaining public lands zoning on the portions of

[1:04:47] the site that are intended to provide lasting green space and heat reducing

[1:04:51] benefits. The city can move Ballpark next forward

[1:04:55] while preserving flexibility to respond to the neighborhood's long-term needs

[1:04:59] for green space and planning for heat resilience.

[1:05:03] Please consider first, Ballpark next was designed to evolve. The plan describes

[1:05:08] itself as flexible guidance intended to adapt to changing market conditions and

[1:05:13] community priorities. Second, the geography of Ballpark Next has already

[1:05:18] changed. The plan was developed around 14.8 acres. Since then, the city has

[1:05:23] acquired three additional properties immediately to the west of the site to

[1:05:27] contribute to Ballpark Next redevelopment. With a larger publicly

[1:05:32] owned footprint, the city has more flexibility to consider where housing

[1:05:36] and amenities should go and whether more of the original Ballpark site should

[1:05:41] stay green. Finally, to our knowledge, no public

[1:05:45] funding plan has been presented for implementing Ballpark Next and we know

[1:05:49] that implementation is going to have to occur in phases.

[1:05:53] This is not an anti-density request. The blocks immediately to the north and west

[1:05:58] of the Ballpark site are already zoned MU-A. One block further west, most of

[1:06:03] 300 West is zoned for 11-story buildings, but we do think this area of

[1:06:07] the city and its future residents deserve equitable access to green space

[1:06:12] and tree canopy. This request today is to ensure that

[1:06:15] Ballpark Next deserves the greatest possible public benefit for the

[1:06:19] neighborhood and the broader Salt Lake City community. Thank you for your

[1:06:22] consideration.

[1:06:27] » Next Next [clears throat] we'll hear from

[1:06:29] Sarah Snedecker followed by Joe Rabaglia and then Kevin

[1:06:33] Latch. Sarah, you may walk up to speak.

[1:06:38] » Hi, good evening. She's asleep, so I'll see if she That

[1:06:41] stays that way. Uh my name is Sarah Snedecker and I live

[1:06:45] on Richard Street just south of the Ballpark with my husband Joe and

[1:06:49] our 5-month-old daughter. Uh Joe bought our house over a decade

[1:06:53] ago and has been fixing it up since, making some much-needed upgrades. One

[1:06:56] last major renovation on the list was redoing the 1980s kitchen and bathroom.

[1:07:01] When we got married and decided to start a family, we talked about whether or not

[1:07:05] to stay in our current house and do the remodel or to move. We waited to make

[1:07:09] that decision until the Ballpark Next renderings were released and we had more

[1:07:12] clarity on the city's intent for the space.

[1:07:15] Although we would miss the B's as our neighbors, we were initially excited to

[1:07:18] see these changes include so much community green space and a library at

[1:07:24] our front door. And this is something that our neighborhood lacks greatly. Our

[1:07:28] street is quiet and a great place to raise a family because of its unique

[1:07:31] positioning as a dead end into the Ballpark.

[1:07:34] We decided to stay relying heavily on these plans that were put out. We took

[1:07:38] out a significant loan to make the much-needed improvements and upgrades.

[1:07:43] We could have spent significantly less to simply up update the look and sell

[1:07:47] it, but we chose to invest in our future home there to honor the history of the

[1:07:51] 1909 home. Not only did we upgrade the typical things for our kitchen and

[1:07:55] bathroom like you know, the typical things, but we

[1:07:59] also furred out walls to add insulation. We replaced old knob and tube electrical

[1:08:03] wiring and added mini splits. And I'm telling you all of this because we love

[1:08:07] our house, we love our street, and we are hopeful for the future of the

[1:08:10] neighborhood. We changed our economic position in order to make it our home

[1:08:14] and to raise our family in. We made this decision because of the

[1:08:17] initial plans that detailed open community green space. And if you go

[1:08:21] forward with the proposed rezoning, we will be harmed and who would benefit? So

[1:08:25] we urge you to please consider voting no on the

[1:08:29] rezone. Thank you for your time.

[1:08:35] » Next, we will hear from Joe Rabaglia followed by Kevin Launch and then Ashley

[1:08:40] Lawrence. Joe, you may speak.

[1:08:43] » Thank you. Good evening and thank you for letting us speak. Uh my name is Joe

[1:08:46] Rabaglia, resident of Richard Street 1396. I am

[1:08:50] here to speak on several concerns. Um one being the proximity of the new

[1:08:55] rezoning of the high-density housing to my property. I am feet away from the

[1:09:00] Ballpark property which would be close enough for the safety of my my

[1:09:06] family um to basically to prevent the

[1:09:11] the the view of apartments above my property. Um

[1:09:16] Safety being first and of my family, uh the second priority is also the

[1:09:22] well-being of my my family. Um the removal of public land would uh

[1:09:29] negatively affect my the the development of my of my child. Uh we would love to

[1:09:33] grow up with a park nearby and uh

[1:09:37] enjoy those amenities. Uh third, the the proximity of the higher density housing

[1:09:42] would negatively affect my property value. I As my wife just said, we have

[1:09:47] spent a significant amount of money to invest in that property that we want to

[1:09:51] stay in for the future. Um and speaking with other investors and

[1:09:56] resources that um the

[1:10:00] the high-density housing would is also negatively affecting their properties.

[1:10:04] Um that's it. Thank you.

[1:10:09] » Next, we'll hear from Kevin Launch, followed by Ashley Lawrence, and finally

[1:10:14] John Allison. >> I should apologize. Going to date myself

[1:10:19] here. Anyone who's played SimCity knows the

[1:10:22] formula. First, all right, you build the shacks, right? Then you build houses,

[1:10:27] then townhouses, then huge mega complexes, and then everything falls

[1:10:31] apart. New residents flock in. That's what

[1:10:33] you're after, right? But those ungrateful Sims are unhappy, and you

[1:10:36] keep getting those little frowny faces that tank your score. You quickly learn

[1:10:40] you have to offer services to get back the little smiley faces. Nothing works

[1:10:44] well enough, though. Eventually, the last thing that everyone does, me, too,

[1:10:49] as a Hail Mary, basically, we start putting in statues, and gardens, and

[1:10:53] parks. Doesn't make any sense. You don't make money off those things, but you do

[1:10:56] it anyways, cuz what else you going to do?

[1:10:58] And that's when things start to change for really no clear reason.

[1:11:02] Real life isn't so different. Ballpark has received multiple new high-density

[1:11:05] projects. For all you're mad. Our census has exploded. We have to offset that by

[1:11:10] protecting this valuable and unique parcel of land.

[1:11:13] Filling each square foot to bursting with no public safe solves a very small

[1:11:16] fraction of the housing problem, while creating subtle, but devastating new

[1:11:20] problems. Our biology actually craves space and greenery. I'm a dude. I don't

[1:11:24] want to believe that, but it's true, right? And we literally suffer in its

[1:11:28] absence. It may not be intuitive, but you need only look at the thousands of

[1:11:31] people who utilize Liberty and Sugarhouse Park every single day to

[1:11:34] observe this point. We settled these questions 70 years ago.

[1:11:37] Rats, like us, are very social creatures. So, Calhoun created a rat

[1:11:41] utopia with unlimited resources, but in a very fixed and overcrowded space and

[1:11:45] just watched what happened. Initially, it thrived. Population

[1:11:48] doubled and doubled and doubled again. But then social cohesion and mental

[1:11:52] health just plummeted. There were huge spikes in aggression, peer predation,

[1:11:56] even parental abandonment, followed by colony collapse every time they ran the

[1:12:00] experiment. Critics argue, "We're not rats." Fair enough. Vallance and Baum

[1:12:04] conducted randomized studies on college students.

[1:12:07] Same thing, to a lesser extent. And we found that increased size, anxiety,

[1:12:11] isolation, dislike, and and disengagement carried

[1:12:15] outside their their environment. I see what you're trying to do for us, but I

[1:12:19] challenge you to consider what you're doing.

[1:12:25] » Next, we'll hear from Ashley Lawrence, followed by John Allison.

[1:12:30] » Hello. I purchased our house on 1400 Richard Street about 9 years ago. It was

[1:12:36] a definitely above my price range, but we invested

[1:12:40] um at it being a reach, knowing that it was a dead-end street and how quiet the

[1:12:44] neighborhood was. What I was not prepared for was the level of crime that

[1:12:47] we have have in the neighborhood, and I feel like we are

[1:12:50] kind of sheltered from that because of the dead end. And so, I'm mostly

[1:12:54] concerned about the opening up of our road to a driving access and the high

[1:13:00] density houses because of that quiet safety that we currently have on our

[1:13:04] street. So, that is what I would like to request for you guys to keep it public

[1:13:08] lands for those reasons. Thank you.

[1:13:14] » Now, we'll hear from John Allison and there is nobody signed up to speak after

[1:13:19] them.

[1:13:23] » [clears throat] >> Hi, my name's John Allison. I live at

[1:13:25] the intersection of Merrimack and Richard Street on the south side of

[1:13:28] Ballpark neighborhood. And I think everyone here has already kind of said

[1:13:31] what I wanted to say, which is to maintain maximum amount of green space

[1:13:34] while also offering housing to people who come to our city and want to live

[1:13:38] here. Um, I'm getting in a bit in the minutia, but if things should open up on

[1:13:43] the south side of the ballpark at Richard Street, I would highly recommend

[1:13:46] this council consider limiting access Richard Street into the ballpark area.

[1:13:51] We have a serious issue with people using Merrimack as a cut through,

[1:13:56] constantly speeding, you know, running up potentially occasionally almost

[1:14:00] running over me, my dog, my wife. And I feel like if you open up Richard Street

[1:14:04] to full access to vehicles, it's only going to be made worse as people enter

[1:14:08] and exit whatever ends up going into the space on Richard Street. And that's all

[1:14:14] I got. Thank you for your time.

[1:14:18] » Thank you. All of those who shared your comments on this item, I need a motion.

[1:14:26] » Mr. Chair, I move that the council close the public hearing and defer action to a

[1:14:31] future meeting. >> Second.

[1:14:34] » Second. >> I have a motion by Councilmember Carlson

[1:14:38] and a second by Napier Pierce, Councilmember.

[1:14:41] Um, is there any discussion on this item?

[1:14:43] » Mr. Chair. Um, I want to say thank you to neighbors

[1:14:49] and to residents of the Ballpark community as well as residents from

[1:14:53] across Salt Lake City who came to share their thoughts and feedback on this

[1:14:57] proposed rezone. I also want to acknowledge that many of the voices that

[1:15:02] were involved in the Ballpark Next plan which took place over a year that helped

[1:15:06] to reimagine what the future of this space would be.

[1:15:11] I hear the concerns about the urban heat island that

[1:15:16] this exists in. We feel the urban heat island that this

[1:15:20] exists in. And I share the concerns around max opportunities to maximize

[1:15:25] green space, opportunities to protect the mature trees that do exist in the

[1:15:30] Ballpark neighborhood, and other ways to bring down the heat island in this in

[1:15:34] this part of the city. Related to that heat island effect and

[1:15:40] to bringing down some of the heat that is experienced in that part of the city,

[1:15:45] I'm appreciative to my colleagues for being willing to re-examine the proposed

[1:15:52] zoning from MU-11 to MU-8 because we know that the taller the buildings, the

[1:15:57] greater the heat island effect. And so I'm grateful that we were able to be

[1:16:02] thoughtful of that. Lastly, I am also grateful and will

[1:16:07] continue to stand steadfast by continued public ownership of the Ballpark site.

[1:16:12] This is a site that's been in Salt Lake City hands for generations. And I'll

[1:16:18] stand very firmly next to that along with what was outlined in the Ballpark

[1:16:22] Next plan specific to Richard Street that it maintains a that it maintains

[1:16:28] being a pedestrian street. So, I know that there are a lot of details

[1:16:33] that we yet don't know about the Ballpark Next and

[1:16:37] down and dirty of what's what's to come, but we do have a a concept of what's

[1:16:41] coming next and would love to stay in conversation with neighbors on what the

[1:16:46] future looks like. And so, thank you to everyone for being here, for caring

[1:16:50] about the neighborhood, and for showing up tonight. Thank you.

[1:16:55] » Any other comments? I'm going to call the question. All of

[1:16:59] those in favor say I. >> I.

[1:17:01] » I. >> Any opposed or abstentions?

[1:17:04] Okay, this motion carries unanimously. Moving on.

[1:17:09] Um we're going to go to item C2, which is an ordinance for mobile

[1:17:15] business tax amendment. I need a motion.

[1:17:23] » I think it's C1. >> C1?

[1:17:25] » Yeah. >> Did I skip C1? I did.

[1:17:28] Going a little too fast here. C1, thank you.

[1:17:32] It's a resolution for the waiver of proximity for Via Veneto Pizzeria at 51

[1:17:39] 511 East 900 South.

[1:17:43] And I need a motion for that. >> I move that the council adopt a

[1:17:47] resolution authorizing the execution of a local authority act

[1:17:51] local authorization for proximity to a community location for Via Veneto

[1:17:55] Pizzeria located at 511 East 900 South, Salt Lake City.

[1:18:00] » Second. >> Second.

[1:18:01] » I have a motion by Council Member Petro and a second by Council Member Dugan.

[1:18:05] Any discussion?

[1:18:08] Okay, this makes sense. So, I'm excited. Uh all of those in favor say I.

[1:18:13] » I. >> Any opposed?

[1:18:16] This motion carries unanimously. Now, actually, C2.

[1:18:20] An ordinance for mobile business tax amendment, and I do need a motion.

[1:18:28] » Mr. Chair, I move that the council adopt the ordinance.

[1:18:31] » Second. >> Um motion by Council Member Dugan,

[1:18:34] seconded by Council Member Young. Any discussion?

[1:18:39] All of those in favor say I. >> I.

[1:18:42] » Any opposed? Abstentions?

[1:18:45] This motion carries unanimously. Now we are in the D section of our agenda. Now

[1:18:50] we're going to go to D1, which is a resolution

[1:18:54] for the amendment to the interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City and the

[1:18:58] library related to tax increment. I need a motion.

[1:19:03] » Mr. Chair, I move that the council adopt the resolution amending the interlocal

[1:19:06] agreement between Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment

[1:19:10] Agency to clarify the exclusion of the Salt Lake City Library tax increment.

[1:19:15] » Second. >> Councilmember Dugan made the motion and

[1:19:19] it was seconded by Councilmember Wharton.

[1:19:21] Is there any discussion on this? I think we should like file a claim. We

[1:19:27] don't like what we're doing here. We tried to make sense with the state

[1:19:31] and the county, but I'm going to call the question. All of those

[1:19:36] in favor say I. >> I.

[1:19:38] » Any opposed? This motion carries unanimously. Now

[1:19:43] we're going to skip E because there is no unfinished business and we're going

[1:19:48] to go to item F, which is the consent agenda.

[1:19:52] » Now for approval. >> And we need a

[1:19:54] We need to remove >> Sorry, with the exclusion of

[1:19:58] um >> Number five.

[1:20:00] » Yes, item number five. >> Second.

[1:20:04] » Okay, I have motion Councilmember Wharton

[1:20:08] and it's seconded by Councilmember Dugan is for the approval of the consent

[1:20:12] agenda except for item number five.

[1:20:16] All of those Is there any discussion?

[1:20:19] All of those in favor say I. >> I.

[1:20:22] » Any opposed? No opposed, so this motion carries

[1:20:26] unanimously. We're moving on to comments.

[1:20:30] Um section G. Um

[1:20:33] and are there any questions to for the mayor?

[1:20:38] Mayor's staff, thank you for being here.

[1:20:42] No? >> Thanks, Council. I've been listening in.

[1:20:45] Great public hearings tonight. >> Thank you, Mayor, for being there. Thank

[1:20:50] you, Rachel, um, for being here. Um, we're now at the general comment

[1:20:56] portion of our agenda. This section is for the public comment of a

[1:21:00] for the public to comment on any city business not scheduled for a public

[1:21:04] hearing. It is limited to a maximum of 1 hour and

[1:21:08] and to only those individuals who register to speak before 7:30.

[1:21:13] Our meeting rules apply to those, uh, general comments. Please avoid

[1:21:17] disruptions or threats or we'll ask staff member to assist you out of the

[1:21:22] meeting. Also, as a reminder, comments that

[1:21:24] include profanity, personal attacks, intimidation, or discriminatory language

[1:21:30] which are not persuasive or compelling to the council.

[1:21:33] They are not helpful to create a respectful and safe environment.

[1:21:37] We will be calling the names in the order of sign-ups. And if you're in

[1:21:41] Zoom, please unmute your microphone when your name is called. Each person will

[1:21:46] have 2 minutes to, um, and to help uh, make sure that

[1:21:51] as many people as possible, uh, can speak during the hour. Anyone in

[1:21:55] person should feel free to come up and stand in line if you so wish.

[1:22:00] Please avoid interruptions so that we so we can use the time for as many people

[1:22:05] as possible. If you, uh, reach the 2-minute mark, the host will announce

[1:22:11] time and your microphone will be muted. If you need staff assistance in the

[1:22:16] room, please raise your hand and someone will be with you.

[1:22:20] If you're having technical issues and, you know, if you're online in Zoom,

[1:22:24] um, and if you need assistance, you can message staff support and Akshay from

[1:22:29] our staff can assist you. If you are unable to finish your

[1:22:33] comment, you can share the rest of your comment via email. You can also mail it

[1:22:37] to us or call our office. If you want that contact information, you can visit

[1:22:42] slc.gov/council. If you have any handout for the council,

[1:22:47] you can lift raise your hand and staff should assist

[1:22:50] you to make sure that that makes it to us.

[1:22:53] Isaac, can you begin with our first public comment?

[1:22:58] » Yes, first we will be hearing from Anthony Washburn

[1:23:01] followed by MJ Powell and then TJ Young. Anthony, you may walk up to speak.

[1:23:09] » I think Anthony is not here at the moment.

[1:23:13] Maybe he's in the hallway.

[1:23:19] » He's not marked in the registration sheet, so maybe we'll just move on to TJ

[1:23:24] Young who does have, I believe, marked there and we can circle back if they

[1:23:29] come back. >> Didn't you I think you mentioned MJ

[1:23:33] Powell before TJ Young. Sorry for >> Oh, sorry. MJ was also not marked, so I

[1:23:39] assumed he was also not there. In that case, yeah, MJ Powell may walk

[1:23:43] up. >> Yes.

[1:23:55] » Good evening, Salt Lake City residents, members of the mayor's administration,

[1:24:00] city council members and staff. My name is MJ Powell and I'm here

[1:24:05] tonight to ask for transparency, accountability, and clarity

[1:24:09] regarding the Salt Lake City My Brother's Keeper initiative.

[1:24:15] I was directly involved in helping bring My Brother's Keeper to Salt Lake City

[1:24:18] and co-led that effort with Ephraim Kum, another former intern of Aaron's

[1:24:22] administration, Mayor Mendenhall's administration, respectfully, pardon me.

[1:24:27] I became involved because I deeply I believe deeply in the initiative's

[1:24:30] purpose, creating meaningful opportunities, removing barriers, and

[1:24:34] improving outcomes for boys and men young men of color. And this is why I'm

[1:24:37] concerned that the public still lacks a clear understanding of what this

[1:24:40] initiative has accomplished and how its success has been measured. When

[1:24:43] questions have been raised about the program's direction and the outcomes

[1:24:47] there within, to my city council member of district

[1:24:50] three, Chris Wharton, as recorded in prior conversations,

[1:24:54] I have asked for receipts and I've yet to receive them.

[1:25:00] So, tonight I'm simply asking for the facts.

[1:25:02] How many young people were served? What measurable outcomes were achieved? How

[1:25:06] much funding was allocated and spent and where did those resources go? What

[1:25:10] programs, partnerships, and contracts or services were supported? What goals and

[1:25:14] metrics were established and what were the actual results? And how was

[1:25:18] community input from those who established this initiative incorporated

[1:25:22] into its implementation? If the administration believes this effort has

[1:25:25] been successful, then that success should be demonstrated through

[1:25:28] transparent reporting and evidence, not simply a designation that the work is

[1:25:32] complete on the mayor's website. The young people this initiative is

[1:25:37] created to deserve serve deserve measurable results, pardon me. The young

[1:25:42] people this initiative is created to serve deserve measurable results. The

[1:25:46] public deserves accountability for public resources and the commitments

[1:25:49] made by our elected leaders deserve to be honored and evaluated transparently.

[1:25:55] Thank you.

[1:25:58] And I've emailed you all about this. >> Yes.

[1:26:01] » It's in your inbox. >> Yes. Yes. Anybody can Yes, please.

[1:26:04] Next comment. >> Next we'll be hearing from T.J. Young,

[1:26:08] followed by Margaret Holloway, and then Nadia

[1:26:13] Mataya.

[1:26:16] » My name is T.J. Young. I'm a resident of Sugar House and I'm here to talk about

[1:26:20] the ICE deportation flights that are happening at Salt Lake International

[1:26:24] Airport. Since July 6th, ICE and Aero have trafficked over 400 friends,

[1:26:29] family, and neighbors out of Salt Lake City, away from their families, some

[1:26:33] before they can exercise their constitutional right to legal counsel

[1:26:37] and receive their due process. I hear the Salt Lake Airport is

[1:26:41] partially under your control. I'm here to ask that you install a public webcam

[1:26:47] where ICE boards planes to help monitor the safety of these Utah residents as

[1:26:52] they're trafficked away in secrecy. Shine a light on what ICE is doing and

[1:26:57] how they're doing it. As they love to say, if you're not doing anything wrong,

[1:27:02] it shouldn't be a problem, right? If there's nothing wrong with

[1:27:05] trafficking peaceful, hardworking neighbors who have no criminal record

[1:27:09] and shackling them at the hands, waist, and feet, let us see. Install a webcam.

[1:27:15] When a loved one is detained by ICE, they just go missing. Their phone is

[1:27:19] seized, turned off, and sometimes they don't appear in ICE custody

[1:27:23] for up to 18 hours. And when they're in transit, including

[1:27:27] aboard an ICE flight, they disappear again, no indication of where they are

[1:27:31] or where they're being taken for up to 24 hours, when hopefully they reappear

[1:27:35] in the ICE locator. They're trafficked in as short as 3 days

[1:27:39] before they can exercise their right to legal representation.

[1:27:43] They're taken to detention centers that are currently having hunger strikes over

[1:27:46] lack of medical care, overcrowding, spoiled food, not enough food, and dirty

[1:27:50] water. This request is not huge, not difficult

[1:27:53] to implement, and not unprecedented. King County, Washington not only has a

[1:27:57] publicly viewable webcam that airs ICE flights, they also share updates on

[1:28:02] flight schedules in advance. Shine a light, Mayor. Shine a light,

[1:28:06] Council. You have an enormous budget allocated to

[1:28:10] public safety. This is the public

[1:28:13] and this is very much about their safety.

[1:28:16] Thank you for your time.

[1:28:22] » Next we'll hear from Margaret Holloway, followed by Naja Mataya, and then Kurt

[1:28:26] Middlestadt.

[1:28:32] » Hey, I learned a lot from >> [clears throat]

[1:28:34] » the other discussions tonight, especially about Northwest.

[1:28:37] I came to talk about the utility fee

[1:28:41] that was not presented, was not told that was coming.

[1:28:44] $30 plus a month is a lot of money to take in. The property tax, we heard

[1:28:49] about the property tax and that's like $50 a year.

[1:28:52] But people that are on limited income, that have gardens, big gardens that

[1:28:56] you're trying to help serve and pass out food to other people in the community,

[1:29:00] are hitting getting hit hard. This and this is going to go on. I never

[1:29:03] would have planted it. I never would have planted it. All my stuff goes up to

[1:29:07] the senior center. I don't even take but I think I had two tomatoes out of my

[1:29:11] whole patch. But we weren't warned. Why didn't

[1:29:14] anybody warn us this was coming? You all knew this was coming.

[1:29:18] And you could have started it last year at $15 and said, "Look, this is what's

[1:29:22] going to happen." This so people could plan things out. But you didn't do it.

[1:29:26] You just said, "Oh, here it is. Sorry, it's been mismanaged for the last 50

[1:29:29] years." We all know that. We all know that. Mayor Jackie tried to straighten

[1:29:33] that out, but she didn't stay. Um

[1:29:37] but it's just so depressing because it it just makes me have to sell my house,

[1:29:42] even that much faster because I can't All my money's invested in my house and

[1:29:46] I'm going to have to sell and move out of state.

[1:29:50] » [snorts] >> But you guys didn't tell us and you all

[1:29:52] knew. You knew this was coming.

[1:29:56] And I don't understand why you couldn't have told us this because that's a lot

[1:29:59] of money every single month. And even if you don't even using it. And

[1:30:04] the renters are like and the Airbnbs, okay? I'm so glad Airbnbs complaining

[1:30:10] because you guys affordable. You're cramming more and more and more. And

[1:30:14] what happens they lease them out to Airbnbs.

[1:30:16] Okay, and you try and crack down on that and I heard Airbnbs upset with the city

[1:30:20] over that and I just laughed. The guy says, "Well, I bought it to invest for

[1:30:23] an Airbnb." Sell it to someone who wants to live there for crime and sex. That's

[1:30:26] what they're there for. 85% of the houses around Liberty Park are Airbnbs.

[1:30:31] If you guys get rid of the Airbnbs, I'm sorry unless they're 8

[1:30:36] » Thank you, Margaret. Thank you, Margaret.

[1:30:41] » Next we'll be hearing from Naja Mataya followed by Kurt Middelstadt and then

[1:30:46] Anne Canavati. Naja, you may speak.

[1:30:50] » Hello, Salt Lake City Council and Mayor Mendenhall. My name is Naja Mataya and

[1:30:55] I'm a lobbying leader from the Wasatch Assembly and we want to thank you, Chris

[1:31:00] Wharton, for replying to our uh policy survey for 2026.

[1:31:05] We hope to hear from all of you about these policies.

[1:31:09] Um we in the Wasatch Assembly believe that local government should protect its

[1:31:13] people and today that I'm here to talk about the immigration policy and

[1:31:18] opposing ICE. ICE has shown itself to be

[1:31:21] indiscriminate, violent, and unaccountable to the public as TJ said.

[1:31:26] This feeling is shared by more and more people across Utah and America as a

[1:31:30] whole. We are encouraged by this body's fight against the

[1:31:35] Salt Lake City Detention Center. This is a big step,

[1:31:39] but we need to do more. We have built a list of policies agreed

[1:31:43] on by our community on the topic of immigration policy, especially

[1:31:46] pertaining to ICE. These are on the pamphlets we have given

[1:31:49] to you and we hope that we can find alignment on all of these policies. Of

[1:31:54] the top three, um Salt Lake City Council has already committed to two of them.

[1:31:59] Stop ICE facilities from being constructed

[1:32:03] and no 287G agreement or municipal resources to ICE.

[1:32:08] Um our third pri- prioritized policy is free legal services for constitutional

[1:32:13] rights violations. Our citizens need protection against the inevitable

[1:32:17] unconstitutional violence of ICE. In general, we want to see municipal

[1:32:21] government in Utah be more responsive, visionary, and able to meet the material

[1:32:26] needs of the people. As others have said today, Utahns are

[1:32:31] suffering from general unaffordability of everything, rollbacks of rights and

[1:32:35] protections, and seeing the destruction of the environment

[1:32:38] for the benefit of no one except for the 1%. At such a crucial time, we need

[1:32:42] municipal leaders who will take action to improve the lives of people and the

[1:32:46] protection of the environment and to take action even when it pushes against

[1:32:50] the state. As we seen

[1:32:53] » Thank you. >> Thank you so much.

[1:32:59] » Next, we'll hear from Kurt Mittelstadt, followed by Ann Canada, and then Olive

[1:33:04] PJ.

[1:33:08] » Hi Council. Thank you for your time tonight. My

[1:33:11] name's Kurt Mittelstadt. Um I'm also a member of the Wasatch Assembly. Um I'm

[1:33:16] here today because I firmly believe that um there needs to be accountability for

[1:33:20] ICE as well as policy reform um at all levels of government. I think starting

[1:33:25] at the local level. Um I also, like my wife just said, want

[1:33:30] to recognize, thank the Council um for joining the fight against um the

[1:33:35] proposed detention center. And appreciate the city taking a stand

[1:33:39] against the expansion of ICE infrastructure in our community.

[1:33:44] Um We, the Wasatch Assembly, are asking

[1:33:47] Salt Lake City to adopt policies that protect residents from immigration

[1:33:52] enforcement, federal immigration enforcement, and prevent city resources

[1:33:56] from being used to facilitate it. Um some of my top priorities of uh the

[1:34:01] Assembly's agenda are um mostly centered around accountability, requiring

[1:34:05] judicial warrants before city facilities, records, databases, or other

[1:34:09] resources are accessed for um federal immigration enforcement except where

[1:34:14] access or disclosures are otherwise legally required.

[1:34:18] Um holding a public hearing on ICE and its impact on Salt Lake City residents.

[1:34:23] Um and requiring city departments to publicly report their interactions with

[1:34:26] ICE and other federal immigration authorities, including requests for

[1:34:30] information, records, access, or assistance.

[1:34:34] Um as you know, I'm sure you're elected to represent the people

[1:34:38] um who live here. We're here as those people asking you to listen, uh respond,

[1:34:43] and act. Thank you.

[1:34:50] » Next, we'll hear from Anne Canada, followed by Olive PJ, and then Kayla

[1:34:55] Medina. >> Hi, MD2 Wasatch Assembly representative.

[1:35:01] You've heard the various policies. We've sent them to your inboxes, so I'll not

[1:35:04] belabor that point. What I will speak to is our need to build a stronger

[1:35:08] municipal pub- uh politic in Utah. As the capital city

[1:35:13] and economic hub of Utah, we have power and leverage,

[1:35:17] both political and economic. I want to see the city wield it to build a

[1:35:21] municipal political movement against ICE and for immigration.

[1:35:25] Silently moving in back rooms does not help build our community's confidence in

[1:35:28] this body. People are begging for authenticity and

[1:35:32] engagement. This body needs to start thinking in

[1:35:35] strategic and populist terms. The Wasatch Assembly is trying to build

[1:35:39] that political movement, and we'd love for you to for you to join it.

[1:35:44] But we must be brave and take risks. Nothing profound has ever come from

[1:35:49] being safe. Our community wants you to take risks to

[1:35:53] expose the Republican Party for the sham it is, make moments to highlight the

[1:35:57] economic contradictions. Start meeting the needs of the community

[1:36:01] you serve. Even the needs that the supermajority

[1:36:05] does not want to hear. The civil rights movement was created

[1:36:09] under the supermajority tyranny of red states.

[1:36:12] There is no excuse for this body to not help us in leading the charge to change

[1:36:17] in creating a new Utah, a better Utah, a more free and prosperous Utah, a more

[1:36:22] just Utah. We need to leave no strategic stone

[1:36:26] unturned. Dream of what a pro-immigrant city looks like, what it looks like to

[1:36:31] welcome dreamers from across the world, what it looks like to build an

[1:36:35] ethnically diverse culture, what it looks like to protect our immigrant

[1:36:38] community from a fascist federal branch and a hateful legislature. People are

[1:36:43] growing tired of a politic of hate. Are you willing to step up and be the

[1:36:47] movement leaders we need on the municipal level?

[1:36:50] I hope you all are.

[1:36:59] » Next, we'll hear from Olive PJ, who is online, followed by Kale Akina, and then

[1:37:05] Brent Stevenson. Olive, you may unmute.

[1:37:10] » Can you hear me now? >> Hello. I am speaking tonight or here

[1:37:15] today, I guess, to express my frustration with the city,

[1:37:19] uh the mayor and the council, uh between arrest ICE arrests at Matheson Matheson

[1:37:25] Courthouse, uh ICE flights out of Salt Lake City

[1:37:29] International Airport, um a lack of overall transparency, and

[1:37:35] what appears to be sort of a stalling, you know, no more

[1:37:40] forward movement in the fight against ICE.

[1:37:44] Uh and then, more broadly, um, the over-policing of our homeless

[1:37:50] population, the lack of social safety net for

[1:37:56] everyone living in Salt Lake City, um, the lack of care and dignity of of

[1:38:03] equitable, uh, medical treatment, um, cooling

[1:38:07] centers, just across the board, uh, your constituents are being failed,

[1:38:13] especially if they have any sort of marginalization,

[1:38:19] um, and it's just it's so frustrating, uh, coming to these meetings, uh, and

[1:38:25] being told to, um, avoid swearing, to speak

[1:38:30] kindly, to remain calm, to not express frustration or appreciation when someone

[1:38:37] says something that we agree with, um, with all the photo ops and with the

[1:38:42] policing of our speech, it feels like the city cares more about its

[1:38:48] reputation, uh, as a

[1:38:51] progressive hub than actually serving,

[1:38:56] uh, the people, the identities, the communities that they claim to love and

[1:39:01] seem to want the clout of uh, championing championing, um, just across

[1:39:07] the board, you need to do more and you need to

[1:39:10] just stop being like this.

[1:39:19] » Next, we'll hear Sorry. Next, we will hear from

[1:39:24] Kylie Akina, followed by Brent Stevenson, and then Matilda Wep.

[1:39:29] Kylie, you may now unmute.

[1:39:36] » Hello. My name is Kylie Akina. I'm a resident of Salt Lake City.

[1:39:41] City Council can implement um, legislation to resist ICE expansion um,

[1:39:46] apart from just the new facility that we've been able to stop. So, thank you

[1:39:50] for that. We can continue forward. I'm urging this council to prioritize

[1:39:53] meetings with many of the attending residents as well and prioritize

[1:39:57] accountability processes in response to human rights violations enacted by ICE

[1:40:01] agents and appropriating city budgets uh, to the rehabilitation of impacted

[1:40:06] survivors. Members of the Wasatch Assembly and multiple SLC residents have

[1:40:10] brought you clear a clear set of demands developed by the people in our community

[1:40:13] and I'd like to echo that while ICE may be a federal agency, the consequences of

[1:40:17] their actions are local. So, dozens of uh, Salt Lake City

[1:40:20] residents um, have also been violently mishandled, racially profiled, do not

[1:40:25] have adequate access to medical care, cannot reach their family members and

[1:40:29] often elders and children are left unattended to

[1:40:32] uh, with no clarity um, or foresight as to what will happen be happening to

[1:40:36] their family members. So, local government has choices about

[1:40:39] whether it helps ICE by allowing violations without ability, ignores ICE

[1:40:44] um, and your neighbors to whom you are accountable to

[1:40:46] um, or actively protects its residents from these abuses.

[1:40:50] I'm again urging Salt Lake City Council to implement the following, provide

[1:40:54] legal services free legal services for city residents whose constitutional

[1:40:57] rights are violated by federal immigration enforcement, require

[1:41:01] judicial warrants before city facilities, records, databases and other

[1:41:04] city resources are accessed for federal immigration enforcement except where

[1:41:08] access or disclosure is otherwise legally required, pass a resolution

[1:41:13] calling for the abolition of ICE and require city departments to publicly

[1:41:17] report their interactions with ICE and other federal immigration authorities

[1:41:20] including requests for information, records, access or assistance.

[1:41:25] Um, you are the elected to represent the

[1:41:28] people who live here regardless of their backgrounds. So, thank you for upholding

[1:41:32] that.

[1:41:38] » Next we'll be hearing from Brent Stevenson, followed by Matilda Webb.

[1:41:43] Brent, you may unmute.

[1:41:48] » Hello, my name is Brent. I'd like to make comment on the short-term rental

[1:41:51] ordinance, specifically in legal zones with some real-world context. First off,

[1:41:55] um we've had multiple dates reported to us for licensing requirements. We were

[1:41:59] told we had to comply by July 1st. That was postponed to August 8th. That was

[1:42:03] then moved up to July 23rd. It continues to move. For STRs with HOAs, that's

[1:42:09] putting the HOAs in a difficult spot, seemingly needing them to seek their own

[1:42:14] legal counsel for a poorly and hastily written bill with many flaws and

[1:42:19] oversights. I want to call attention again to how hastily this was put

[1:42:22] together. There's evidence of this by a recent grammar email report, and in the

[1:42:26] working session last month, when the council challenged the creators of the

[1:42:29] ordinance for the work logic that went into the requirements, such as the 10%

[1:42:33] allowance in multi- family unit buildings, the 200-day

[1:42:37] maximum, etc. Without exception, the ordinance creators, including their

[1:42:41] legal counsel, could not support their logic or provide any detail around how

[1:42:45] these requirements were put together. That working session concluded keeping

[1:42:49] the ordinance intact as is, with the council asking that ordinance team to

[1:42:53] come back with data supporting the with real-world use cases.

[1:42:57] This is a clear conflict of interest. That team is now incentivized to come

[1:43:01] back with predetermined findings with

[1:43:05] evidence as compared to using evidence to inform their findings and the

[1:43:08] ordinance in turn. I'm worried that the considerable lack of due diligence,

[1:43:12] public hearings, formal studies, etc. are being glossed over for ulterior

[1:43:16] motives to effectively shut down short-term rentals in Salt Lake.

[1:43:20] Uh on the 10% cap on multi-family buildings, I need to comment that

[1:43:24] condominiums are not considered multi-family because they're

[1:43:27] individually owned and managed. They're most commonly looked at as single-family

[1:43:31] homes. This is well-established in cities like Denver and Seattle. The

[1:43:35] precedent has been set avoiding lawsuits and penalties. This was even confirmed

[1:43:39] by Arturo Garcia over email on June 25th, but the city continues to

[1:43:43] flip-flop asking for positive enforcement and an ordinance revision

[1:43:47] for condominiums. Thank you.

[1:43:53] » Finally, we will hear from Matilda Webb who is here online. And after that, we

[1:43:58] have nobody else registered to speak. Matilda, you may unmute.

[1:44:04] » Hi, my name is Matilda Webb and I'm a resident here in Salt Lake City. And I

[1:44:08] just wanted to um comment towards uh the City Council and their

[1:44:14] lack of stance seemingly um on ice. I have uh

[1:44:21] the fortune of working with a lot of youth in our community and I'm seeing

[1:44:25] more and more often children that have no idea where their parents are, are

[1:44:30] unable to locate their parents, um and often times case workers that also are

[1:44:35] unable to locate parents or give their children any sort of um real answers.

[1:44:41] And it is heartbreaking and frustrating. And I would love to see um our City

[1:44:47] Council step up and be more vocal about um

[1:44:51] the way that our community is being treated and the way our citizens are

[1:44:55] being treated. I would love for them to be an example for for our children and

[1:45:00] our youth in how you stand up for others and look out and care for your

[1:45:04] community. Uh

[1:45:06] I I I appreciate the the words that that are spoken during these meetings and the

[1:45:12] sentiments and the photo ops and you know, we're out here building our

[1:45:17] community, but that that's not what what we're actually seeing out every

[1:45:23] day. And I would just love to have more um

[1:45:26] more action taken by City Council. Um, I don't have the the cheat in front of me,

[1:45:32] but I absolutely agree with everything that the Wasatch Assembly is doing and

[1:45:37] saying and the things that they are asking. I would be thrilled to see even

[1:45:42] one of those things being taken seriously by our City Council

[1:45:46] um, and I would love to see our youth grow grow more into uh, community

[1:45:51] building as well. But, having the leaders in front of them

[1:45:56] show them how that looks. Thank you.

[1:46:02] » Thank you for all of those that commented or

[1:46:06] participating in the meeting. Uh, thank you everyone. Um,

[1:46:10] this concludes the Salt Lake City Council meeting for today.

[1:46:13] Um, and this meeting stands adjourned.

[1:46:22] » [music]

Salt Lake City Formal Meeting - 08/18/2026

Transcript