[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]