[1:23] [music]

[2:44] Heat. Heat.

[3:06] [music]

[3:13] » [music]

[3:19] [music]

[4:17] » I think we are ready to start. Welcome

[4:20] everyone to the July 1st, 2026 city

[4:22] council work session meeting. Uh our

[4:24] meetings are public and you're welcome

[4:26] to join us in person or by watching uh

[4:29] from the council agenda page. You can

[4:31] also join us through Zoom or [snorts]

[4:33] watching in YouTube. We continue uh we

[4:36] hope you continue to join us whichever

[4:37] manner you feel the most comfortable. Uh

[4:39] this is a work session meeting during

[4:41] which there is no public comment. You

[4:43] can join us tonight at 7 p.m. for a

[4:45] formal meeting uh to share your

[4:47] comments. We of course welcome your

[4:49] feedback anytime. You can send us your

[4:51] feedback by mail at PO Box 145476

[4:56] Utah 84114.

[4:58] You can also email us your comments at

[5:00] council.commentsslc.gov.

[5:04] You can also call our 24-hour phone

[5:07] comment line at 80153576544.

[5:15] Comments we receive on agenda topics are

[5:17] shared with council members and posted

[5:18] on our website slc.gov/counsel.

[5:23] Our first agenda item today is a

[5:25] resolution for a waiver of proximity for

[5:28] Silverside Delhi at 2122 South Highland

[5:32] Drive. We're gonna welcome at the table

[5:35] Austin Kimmel, council policy analyst,

[5:38] um to give us a an introduction and uh

[5:40] we're going to have Nick Norris, uh

[5:42] planning director, and Turo Garcia,

[5:44] director of finance operations, and

[5:46] Jennifer Madreal from the city licensing

[5:48] manager, um at the table, too. Austin,

[5:53] >> thanks, council members. This is a

[5:55] » thanks, council members. This is a

[5:55] proposal to consider a request for an

[5:57] alcohol proximity waiver for Silverside

[6:00] Delhi, which is a restaurant at 2122

[6:03] South Highland Drive in District 7.

[6:06] During the 2026 legislative session, the

[6:10] Utah State Legislature approved a new

[6:12] process for cities to authorize

[6:13] variances when a restaurant wants to

[6:16] serve alcohol but may be too close to a

[6:18] community location such as a public

[6:20] park, playground, or library.

[6:24] Before a retail license can be issued by

[6:26] the Department of Alcohol Beverage

[6:27] Services or DABs, the city council must

[6:30] approve an alcohol proximity waiver.

[6:33] These variances require a public hearing

[6:35] and after 30 days from when that public

[6:38] hearing is held, the council may approve

[6:39] the waiver. With that, I will turn it

[6:41] over to Arturo.

[6:43] >> Thank you, council members.

[6:46] » Thank you, council members.

[6:46] >> Thank you, council members. I'm going to

[6:48] » Thank you, council members. I'm going to

[6:48] go ahead and uh skip a lot of my

[6:50] information since Austin did an amazing

[6:52] job. Can you speak closer to the

[6:53] microphone? So, sorry. Thank you.

[6:58] » Um, because this restaurant's located

[7:00] across the street from the library, the

[7:03] state law requires the city to hold the

[7:04] public hearing and approve a waiver

[7:06] before the Utah Department of Alcohol

[7:10] Beverages and Services can issue an

[7:12] onremise alcohol license. Um, if we can

[7:16] go over to the next slide, please. Um

[7:20] so the direct uh pedestrian path um from

[7:25] the library located to the entrance of

[7:28] the proposed restaurant is approximately

[7:31] 389 ft which exceeds the requirement in

[7:35] Utah code. However, when it's measured

[7:38] in a direct line um it's short by 110 ft

[7:43] as we will see in the next slide.

[7:46] We can.

[7:48] Thank you. So, the current zoning

[7:50] permits um restaurant and does not

[7:54] require land use approval to serve

[7:57] alcohol. This is an MU1 zone. Um in the

[8:02] planning report, the library has an

[8:05] outdoor reading area at the rear which

[8:07] is not visible from the restaurant and

[8:10] there's also a children's area in the

[8:13] basement of the library. Um, in the same

[8:15] building, uh, where Silverside Deli is

[8:18] located, there are other restaurants

[8:20] that are licensed to serve alcohol. Um,

[8:23] these restaurants were approved before

[8:25] the current proximity rules. And then

[8:27] just south of the library, um, is Sugar

[8:31] House Station. That's on the bottom

[8:34] right on that picture. And they are, um,

[8:38] classified as a bar and restaurant

[8:39] establishment.

[8:42] Um just uh

[8:44] and just to conclude as well um the

[8:47] straight line is approximately 90 ft. So

[8:50] it's short by 110 ft. So planning

[8:54] division finds no impact to the library

[8:57] if the if the straight line waiver is

[9:00] approved. And if we can go to the last

[9:02] slide please.

[9:04] So, public input is required before

[9:06] council may authorize local consent and

[9:10] uh we would need to wait 30 days before

[9:13] um you may authorize business license to

[9:16] sign off on the on the waiver.

[9:19] Any questions for me? Council members,

[9:27] » just make there's also a restaurant I

[9:29] think right next door adjacent to the

[9:31] the library and then there's uh the

[9:33] restaurants across the street at the

[9:35] corner of 21st and Highland. So I've I

[9:39] think this is an easy waiver to approve

[9:43] from my perspective. [snorts]

[9:45] >> Yeah. The use directly south the library

[9:47] » Yeah. The use directly south the library

[9:47] is actually a bar,

[9:49] >> right?

[9:49] » right?

[9:49] >> 21 and over.

[9:50] » 21 and over.

[9:50] >> Yeah.

[9:52] » Yeah.

[9:52] So

[9:53] >> yes, thank you for the information.

[9:54] » yes, thank you for the information.

[9:54] Yeah,

[9:54] >> thank you for that.

[9:55] » thank you for that.

[9:55] >> Thank you, council.

[9:58] » Thank you, council.

[9:58] >> I appreciate the the information. I

[10:00] » I appreciate the the information. I

[10:00] appreciate this process that the

[10:01] legislature allow us to to to have. Um

[10:05] and um I I also want to highlight that

[10:08] the city um

[10:10] does,

[10:12] you know, additional uh takes additional

[10:15] steps to communicate with the neighbors.

[10:17] They're not required by the law, but we

[10:20] uh we want to ensure that the neighbors

[10:22] uh nearby know about this. And so we

[10:24] send them, you know, some mail uh to

[10:26] ensure that everybody has a voice at the

[10:28] table when these decisions are made. So

[10:30] I appreciate uh that process uh that is

[10:34] beyond what the law requires. Now we are

[10:37] moving on to item number two, which is

[10:40] an ordinance uh for a maximum daily

[10:42] water use text amendment. We're gonna

[10:44] keep Austin Kimmel at the table, our

[10:46] council policy analyst. We're gonna keep

[10:48] Nick Nick Norris at the table. Thank

[10:50] you, uh, planning director, but I want

[10:52] to welcome Laura Briefer, director of

[10:53] publicities,

[10:55] uh, to the table. Austin,

[10:58] >> thanks, council members. I'll just give

[11:00] » thanks, council members. I'll just give

[11:00] a very quick introduction before handing

[11:03] it over to Nick. Um, this is a proposal

[11:05] to amend Salt Lake City Code, Title 21A,

[11:08] to limit water use to new

[11:10] non-residential land uses with some

[11:12] exceptions. The proposed text amendment

[11:15] would cap maximum daily use for new

[11:17] non-residential properties at $200,000

[11:21] 200,000 gallons per day for these

[11:23] properties. This mirrors a recent

[11:26] proposal the council approved in March

[11:28] of this year in in which it uh limited

[11:33] the maximum daily water use in chapter

[11:36] title 17 of city code which regulates

[11:40] per public services like utilities and

[11:44] defines that maximum water use. Um I'll

[11:47] turn that over to Nick now to go into a

[11:49] little bit more details.

[11:51] >> All right, next slide please.

[11:54] » All right, next slide please.

[11:54] Uh so as Austin just mentioned, this was

[11:56] in this proposal's in uh reaction to the

[12:00] temporary land use regulations that the

[12:01] city council adopted on March 24th of

[12:04] this year. Uh under state code, they can

[12:07] be in effect for 180 days unless the

[12:09] city makes those temporary regulations

[12:11] permanent, which would have to happen

[12:13] before September 20th, 2026.

[12:17] Um next slide.

[12:21] So just to recap why that temporary land

[12:23] use regulation was enacted primarily due

[12:25] to um a couple of u climate related uh

[12:29] realities that we are facing uh with the

[12:32] warmest

[12:33] um winter on record also I think the

[12:37] driest and uh that that trend is mostly

[12:40] continued at least for our area and so

[12:43] if not gotten worse. So um next slide.

[12:48] So the key changes here really uh focus

[12:51] on the exempt land uses. You can see the

[12:55] uh stricken language is the old exit

[12:59] code before the temporary land use

[13:00] regulations and underlined is new. The

[13:04] primary change is that uh it was related

[13:08] to govern owner operated facilities that

[13:10] primarily provide social services and uh

[13:13] our zoning code. There's been some

[13:15] questions about what that means and our

[13:16] zoning code doesn't define what a social

[13:18] service is and but it does direct us to

[13:21] Webster's dictionary when we don't have

[13:24] a definition

[13:26] and that definition is a of social

[13:29] services is a program or effort designed

[13:31] to promote human or societal well-being

[13:33] specifically organized help for people

[13:35] who are in need of assistance with basic

[13:36] needs such as food, housing, safety or

[13:39] job training or with medical needs such

[13:41] as addiction or mental illness. So

[13:43] that's the definition of that that we

[13:45] would use when we're interpreting our

[13:46] code. And I believe that's all we have.

[13:53] » Thank you. Can I'm going to ask my

[13:55] typical water usage question. Can you

[13:57] give me an example, what does 200,000

[14:00] gallons of water a day look like?

[14:04] >> That is actually a pretty high water

[14:07] » That is actually a pretty high water

[14:07] use. And when we first uh enacted the

[14:11] changes to title or to chapter 17 and

[14:14] the land use ordinance back in 2021

[14:16] 2022, we did an analysis of um all of

[14:21] the large water users on our system. And

[14:24] what we found is most industry can fit

[14:27] within that 200,000 gallons per day. So

[14:30] that includes things like some food

[14:32] processing,

[14:33] >> breweries.

[14:34] » breweries.

[14:34] >> Exactly.

[14:36] » Exactly.

[14:36] um some government other government

[14:37] facilities, hospitals, those types of

[14:40] things. Um and uh it it really um we

[14:44] really didn't have a lot of uses above

[14:46] 200,000 gallons per day except for some

[14:48] extreme outliers like um oil refining.

[14:52] Um, and just to give a little bit more

[14:54] context, when we did that analysis, it

[14:56] was in large largely in response to a

[14:58] lot of proposals we were getting uh in

[15:01] areas of the city that were just being

[15:04] developed, such as the northwest

[15:05] quadrant in a much more industrial

[15:08] context. And we wanted to make sure that

[15:10] we were being good stewards of our water

[15:12] resources um as we move forward. and

[15:15] also a result of a growing water smart

[15:18] workshop that Nick and I attend attended

[15:20] for a couple of days to think about the

[15:22] ways we tie land use and water together.

[15:25] >> So then acknowledging that most of our

[15:27] » So then acknowledging that most of our

[15:27] industry especially you know we

[15:30] inherited the refineries like you said

[15:32] they've been here a century now so we

[15:35] we're learning to coexist with them but

[15:36] they are not the template for what we

[15:38] are moving forward. So with the

[15:41] understanding that most of our industry

[15:43] is well within this 200,000

[15:47] and with the acknowledgement that I

[15:48] think my district has the only remaining

[15:51] rural land in the city um and does not

[15:54] have

[15:56] large farms, although I probably should

[15:59] ask what 200,000 [clears throat]

[16:01] agricultural gallons accomplishes. Um

[16:04] I'm wondering how we arrived at these

[16:05] exemptions because we don't have it for

[16:08] hospitals and for um agriculture. I'm

[16:12] willing to have the conversation, but I

[16:14] don't know of a homeless shelter that's

[16:16] housing enough people to justify a

[16:20] typical average use exemp exemption that

[16:23] exceeds 200,000. It feels like it leaves

[16:26] us open to a lot of twisting of words

[16:30] and intentions with facilities. Um, also

[16:33] houses of worship, coffee made on Sunday

[16:36] mornings in the nonLDDS and the filling

[16:39] of the communion cups should well be

[16:41] within that 200,000. So on an average

[16:45] typically expected use for houses of

[16:48] worship and social services. I'm really

[16:50] struggling with why we're providing that

[16:52] as an avenue for exemption. I'm even

[16:54] struggling with why the agricultural or

[16:57] the social services or the hospitals

[16:59] since they're well within it. But I'm

[17:01] never willing to gamble on the safety of

[17:03] people. And

[17:04] >> so like if something happens in an

[17:05] » so like if something happens in an

[17:06] emergency, I'm not going to hold anyone

[17:07] accountable if they use 201,000 gallons

[17:11] to make sure that our neighbors are safe

[17:13] during the big earthquake. We're talking

[17:15] about zoning for everyday expected use.

[17:18] How did we arrive at those

[17:20] classifications for exemption? It feels

[17:22] like we're creating too much latitude

[17:24] for people to push us. AI services might

[17:27] be considered social services at some

[17:29] point. I think um that goes to the

[17:32] process that we took in 2021 and 2022

[17:36] and I'm looking to Nick too because we

[17:38] received some feedback from stakeholders

[17:41] as we put that those ordinances forward.

[17:44] Um and so for instance, the um

[17:47] agricultural community was very

[17:49] interested in being exempt from the

[17:51] those from that cap even though we don't

[17:53] really have that much agriculture in the

[17:55] Salt Lake Valley. Uh some of our larger

[17:59] water users um on our system do consist

[18:02] of um uh churches and church properties

[18:07] um or or processes associated with uh

[18:11] those institutions as well as a lot of

[18:13] other government facilities like like

[18:16] our parks and cemetery and those types

[18:19] of things. So we tried to we tried to

[18:21] cut we tried to find a natural break in

[18:26] uh to leave us some flexibility and to

[18:29] make sure that we have flexibility with

[18:31] those types of social services. Um but

[18:35] you know that's why we're at the table

[18:37] again [laughter] looking at whether that

[18:39] ordinance needs to be revised. I hope

[18:42] that answers your question.

[18:44] >> Yeah. Part of it is the way the zoning

[18:45] » Yeah. Part of it is the way the zoning

[18:45] code defines what an institutional use

[18:47] is so broad.

[18:48] >> Yeah. that it could be interpreted that

[18:50] » Yeah. that it could be interpreted that

[18:50] lots of different things might fit

[18:52] there. And so this was an attempt to

[18:53] narrow it down to institutional uses

[18:56] that generally provide some public good.

[19:00] >> But if I understand what

[19:01] » But if I understand what

[19:01] >> I'm in general support of this

[19:03] » I'm in general support of this

[19:03] ordinance, I think you've done exquisite

[19:04] work. I am okay with us taking it even

[19:06] further. I was just in the Carolinas and

[19:09] they are under a drought. This isn't

[19:10] just an US thing. This is a human

[19:12] behavior thing. We have got to get our

[19:14] heads and our hands around the water

[19:16] crisis and start to manage things more

[19:18] responsibly. It is literally a human

[19:21] survival issue. So for me in my in my

[19:25] two cents, I'm I would be happier if we

[19:27] went even stricter on this and did not

[19:30] create so many ex exemptions.

[19:33] >> I I I agree. I mean I circled the place

[19:37] » I I I agree. I mean I circled the place

[19:37] of worship when I when I read that. Um I

[19:40] I understand that trying to balance the

[19:42] you know the the pressures that we are

[19:45] under. Um but I'm not sure that there's

[19:49] going to be a lot of need for you know

[19:52] for that but there's always a process to

[19:55] negotiate I guess at some point. Um but

[19:57] I don't know if there is this is an a

[19:59] good opportunity to show that we uh to

[20:03] show in an in ordinance that this is uh

[20:08] this is that important. Um so I don't

[20:10] know any other thoughts

[20:12] about keeping narrowing it even more

[20:15] maybe. Yeah, I'm I'm open to that idea

[20:17] because you you raised some good points

[20:19] because originally back in 21 when we

[20:21] were discussing this uh uh there was

[20:24] some uh discussion on lowering it from

[20:26] 200,000 down to 100,000 or $150,000

[20:30] gallons a day uh because uh all the

[20:35] businesses I think in Salt Lake City

[20:37] except for a couple outliers were below

[20:41] that line. Uh but we came to the

[20:45] consensus that 200,000 was a good

[20:48] number. But you you bring up and this is

[20:50] to close some of the loops that we had

[20:52] there. But also just because again the

[20:54] water's so precious. Uh and maybe that

[20:58] maybe it is say we need to look at just

[21:02] there is no exceptions on that in this

[21:04] case except for maybe some um city

[21:07] functions. So,

[21:11] I'm not uh I'm not opposed to it. So, I

[21:14] would I'm open to having a conversation

[21:16] on that one.

[21:17] >> Yeah, I would love the AI data center

[21:19] » Yeah, I would love the AI data center

[21:19] that's dedicated to uh preventing

[21:22] teenage suicide could be considered a

[21:24] social service and then become exempt

[21:27] from this. You know, I I I just think

[21:29] that we don't see what's coming. And the

[21:31] I what I do know is protecting water is

[21:35] a basic human need and [clears throat]

[21:37] that to me falls under public safety

[21:39] like making sure there is a fireman or

[21:43] police person responding when they call

[21:44] 911.

[21:46] >> Yeah.

[21:46] » Yeah.

[21:46] >> Will you repeat your definition of

[21:48] » Will you repeat your definition of

[21:48] social service? Um was that in a slide?

[21:51] >> No.

[21:51] » No.

[21:52] >> No. Just sorry. What was that?

[21:53] » No. Just sorry. What was that?

[21:53] >> Social services your definition because

[21:57] » Social services your definition because

[21:57] >> I'm not sure. Yeah. I would love a

[21:59] » I'm not sure. Yeah. I would love a

[21:59] little more clarity on what that means.

[22:01] >> Yeah. So, that was that definition I

[22:03] » Yeah. So, that was that definition I

[22:03] read. Um,

[22:04] >> will you repeat it

[22:05] » will you repeat it

[22:05] >> and I'm happy to read it again. It says,

[22:06] » and I'm happy to read it again. It says,

[22:06] "A program or effort designed to promote

[22:08] human or societal well-being,

[22:10] specifically organized help for people

[22:12] who are in need of assistant with basic

[22:14] needs such as food, housing, safety, or

[22:17] job training, or with medical needs such

[22:19] as addiction or mental illness.

[22:22] >> Okay.

[22:26] And will that be that definition be

[22:28] included on the on the on

[22:30] >> so it's not included in our code and

[22:33] » so it's not included in our code and

[22:33] what our code says is if we don't define

[22:36] a term then we use the current version

[22:40] of the Webster dictionary and that

[22:42] definition is directly from the Webster

[22:44] dictionary. The the downside of that is

[22:46] that we don't control the Webster

[22:48] dictionary.

[22:49] >> So that could change. Um and so it's

[22:51] » So that could change. Um and so it's

[22:52] very easy to add a definition like this

[22:54] or to our code or simply remove that

[22:57] except exemption. I I prefer that we add

[23:00] the language into the code that we think

[23:03] it is the what our interpretation of the

[23:05] social services is and we control as

[23:07] many variables as we can because to that

[23:10] point I it would be very hard for people

[23:13] to say that there is a an AI you know

[23:15] that is dedicated to you know because

[23:17] it's very clear in the definition but I

[23:19] but I I do I would prefer that we

[23:22] include the the the definition but we

[23:25] also we explore narrowing it even more

[23:28] um if other council members feel like it

[23:30] seems like maybe three of us are sort of

[23:32] support um to add more more narrowing if

[23:38] that makes sense.

[23:38] >> So I do think that because this is a

[23:40] » So I do think that because this is a

[23:40] temporary land use we're limited to this

[23:44] section of our code. We are about to

[23:48] start a process with public util

[23:50] utilities where we review all of our

[23:52] land uses and where they're allowed to

[23:53] see if there's other land uses that

[23:56] might need to be subject to further

[23:58] restrictions. Data centers is obviously

[24:01] one of those whether it's a closed loop

[24:03] system or not types of things. Some, you

[24:07] know, in like the North Point area, data

[24:08] centers are required to have a closed

[24:10] loop which uses significantly less water

[24:12] than an openloop system. So, those are

[24:15] all things that we can that we plan on

[24:18] looking at, but that might be outside

[24:20] the realm of this unless you're adding

[24:23] more specific uses that

[24:26] would otherwise be prohibited.

[24:27] >> Council member Napier Pierce,

[24:29] » Council member Napier Pierce,

[24:29] >> Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, just

[24:32] » Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, just

[24:32] clarifying when you say narrowing, do

[24:34] you mean lowering the ceiling

[24:36] >> of of the water? No, I meant giving less

[24:39] » of of the water? No, I meant giving less

[24:39] exceptions or naming less exceptions.

[24:41] So, we're not talking about messing with

[24:43] the 200,000. Okay. Thank you.

[24:46] >> The,

[24:47] » The,

[24:47] you know, to to your comment a second

[24:50] ago, I will love the administration to

[24:54] uh to put that lens of, you know, across

[24:57] the board. And one of the things that we

[24:59] we talked uh uh many times in the past

[25:03] and and between us is the issues of

[25:06] lawns and you know complexes and you

[25:09] know I would love to see a a harsh

[25:12] approach across the board and see what

[25:14] levers we can we can pull even if it's

[25:18] you know for the future for new

[25:20] approvals but also trying to figure out

[25:22] what to do backwards for those that have

[25:24] been approved and how do we incentivize

[25:26] them or you know what what levers do we

[25:28] have? I think this council feels very

[25:31] strongly about you know the use of

[25:33] water. Um and we want to find the tools

[25:36] and we are a little odds and trying to

[25:38] find out what tools we have available.

[25:41] Um, it might also be a good idea at some

[25:44] point when we have some time to go

[25:47] through our updated water supply and

[25:49] demand plan um that looks out the next

[25:53] 50 years or so and our updated water

[25:56] conservation plan because in addition to

[25:58] the land use code, there are some

[26:00] recommendations

[26:02] um for chapter 17 that at some point

[26:06] might be interesting to discuss around

[26:08] um wasted water ordinances and things

[26:12] like that. Um that are less targeted at

[26:15] a type of land use and more targeted at

[26:18] a much more careful stewardship and

[26:22] management of the water. Um and in

[26:25] addition to that a lot of other

[26:26] engagement. So you know working with our

[26:29] community members who are large water

[26:31] users and doing audits on their

[26:33] facilities and things like that. So um

[26:36] there may be a lot of tools in our tool

[26:38] box um that we are using now that could

[26:40] also be um enhanced.

[26:43] >> Thank you so much.

[26:44] » Thank you so much.

[26:44] >> Yeah,

[26:44] » Yeah,

[26:44] >> that will be amazing to see. Council

[26:46] » that will be amazing to see. Council

[26:46] member D.

[26:47] >> Yeah, I just want to also make sure that

[26:48] » Yeah, I just want to also make sure that

[26:48] we all are aware that we have to have

[26:50] this approved by September 20th because

[26:53] that's a six-month deadline. So I think

[26:55] we just backed that but I think we're do

[26:58] we have a public hearing on this stuff?

[27:01] But I'm all I'm open to the to the more

[27:04] restrictive language on the uh as you

[27:08] said chair

[27:09] >> I think we have time right maybe

[27:11] » I think we have time right maybe

[27:11] hopefully

[27:12] >> I just want to make sure that part is

[27:13] » I just want to make sure that part is

[27:13] yeah

[27:13] >> okay thank you for that

[27:15] » okay thank you for that

[27:15] >> the definition

[27:17] » the definition

[27:17] >> yeah can we just is it clear that the

[27:19] » yeah can we just is it clear that the

[27:19] the council would like the definition of

[27:21] social services to be included in the

[27:23] final ordinance

[27:25] >> feel okay without including the language

[27:27] » feel okay without including the language

[27:28] >> and with that are we looking at the

[27:30] » and with that are we looking at the

[27:30] larger ordinance to potentially even

[27:32] pair down the exemptions even more.

[27:35] That's the temporary with the longer

[27:36] term. I'm happy with that.

[27:39] >> All right, we'll provide you with an

[27:40] » All right, we'll provide you with an

[27:40] updated ordinance reflecting that

[27:42] definition.

[27:42] >> Thank you so much.

[27:43] » Thank you so much.

[27:43] >> Thank you.

[27:44] » Thank you.

[27:44] >> Thank you.

[27:45] » Thank you.

[27:45] >> Uh moving on to item number three.

[27:48] » Uh moving on to item number three.

[27:48] This is an ordinance to uh for enhancing

[27:51] transparency for public for police

[27:53] automatic license plate reader systems.

[27:56] The council will receive a brief

[27:58] introduction from Michael Sanders.

[27:59] council policy analyst and Hannah

[28:01] Bickery, senior city attorney uh joining

[28:03] us at the table. Our chief readers are

[28:06] here as well for questions if we have

[28:08] any.

[28:11] Michael, it's your time.

[28:17] Okay,

[28:18] great. [sighs]

[28:21] Thank you, council. So,

[28:24] in December of 2025, the council held a

[28:27] public hearing regarding a 2024 COPS

[28:30] grant, which, if approved, would have

[28:32] accepted $224,000

[28:34] to purchase and install automatic

[28:36] license plate readers on major egress

[28:38] and ingress roads as part of a multi-

[28:40] agency effort to improve public safety

[28:43] and reduce criminal activity. During the

[28:45] public hearing, many constituents

[28:47] expressed that they were concerned

[28:49] regarding the Salt Lake City Police

[28:50] Department's use of ALPRs, particularly

[28:52] as they related to privacy, civil

[28:54] liberties, and the potential for abuse.

[28:57] Following the public hearing, council

[28:59] chose to defer action on the grant, and

[29:02] then council leadership requested

[29:03] council staff to work with the

[29:04] attorney's office and police department

[29:06] to craft an ordinance to address

[29:08] concerns related to the police

[29:09] department's use of ALPRs. That's what

[29:12] we're going to present to you today.

[29:14] Next slide.

[29:17] So this ordinance will be housed in the

[29:19] same section of code as the bodywn

[29:21] camera ordinance. The chapter is going

[29:23] to be renamed to technology use and the

[29:26] chapter will then be split into two

[29:27] parts. It will retain the bodywn camera

[29:29] ordinance and add this new ALPR

[29:32] ordinance. It will create regulations

[29:35] over four main categories. Authorized

[29:37] uses, the sharing of ALPR data,

[29:39] training, and audits and reporting. Next

[29:42] slide.

[29:45] The ordinance allows for the Salt Lake

[29:46] City Police Department to use ALPRs as

[29:49] outlined in applicable federal, state,

[29:51] and local law. And the slide here

[29:53] outlines the allowed uses from state

[29:55] code.

[29:57] Next slide.

[30:04] Additionally, state law allows police

[30:06] departments to use ALPRs to verify valid

[30:09] vehicle registrations, confirm vehicle

[30:11] identifications, verify insurance

[30:13] information, and identify stolen

[30:15] vehicles. Next slide.

[30:20] Our proposed ordinance also includes

[30:22] several expressly prohibited uses of

[30:24] ALPRs. Our ordinance would prohibit the

[30:27] use of facial recognition, targeting an

[30:29] individual based on their exercise of

[30:31] their first amendment rights and

[30:33] discrimination against an individual

[30:35] individual based on race, color,

[30:37] religion, sex, sexual orientation,

[30:39] national origin, age, disability, or

[30:41] genetic information. Next slide.

[30:46] One of the things that make ALPR systems

[30:48] effective is data sharing. This can be

[30:51] seen in some recent successful stories

[30:53] of the recovering of missing or

[30:55] endangered persons. And entities sharing

[30:58] data with each other helped to resolve

[30:59] crimes quicker. For an entity to receive

[31:02] direct access to our ALPR system, they

[31:05] must enter into a formal with us. And

[31:08] lines 58 through 100 of the proposed

[31:10] ordinance outline the terms which must

[31:13] be included in thatou.

[31:15] Next slide.

[31:18] It's important to note that when we

[31:20] enter into an MOU for ALPR data sharing,

[31:23] entities are granted controlled query

[31:25] only access. They can search but they

[31:27] cannot alter any data. Next slide.

[31:32] So these bullet points here outline some

[31:34] of the highlights of theou requirements

[31:36] such as requiring the entity to use best

[31:39] practices, maintain audit logs, and

[31:41] report data breaches. If at any time

[31:43] they are found to be in violation of

[31:45] theou, their access can be revoked upon

[31:47] termination of theou. Next slide.

[31:52] So all users of the ALPR system either

[31:54] employed by Salt Lake City or by other

[31:56] entities must complete training. Next

[31:59] slide.

[32:01] Audits. So the ordinance as drafted

[32:04] requires a Salt Lake City Police

[32:06] Department to conduct quarterly audits

[32:08] and to complete an annual comprehensive

[32:11] review. I like to think of these in

[32:13] terms of big A and little A audits. So

[32:17] the department will complete four little

[32:19] A audits every year where they are

[32:21] essentially taking batches of the ALPR

[32:24] query data and ensuring baseline

[32:26] compliance with ordinance and policy.

[32:29] Then the annual big A audit will cover

[32:31] overall system use, access controls,

[32:33] data retention practices, and compliance

[32:36] trends. The annual review will be posted

[32:38] publicly on the police department's

[32:40] website.

[32:41] And next slide.

[32:45] So the final four slides contain some

[32:47] points which have previously been shared

[32:48] with the council that I just want to

[32:50] remind everyone of regarding Salt Lake

[32:52] City Police Department's ALPR use. I'm

[32:54] not going to read all of them, but I

[32:55] just want to hit a couple of the main

[32:57] points. So the city's contracted ALPR

[33:01] vendor is Vigilant Solutions. The ALPR

[33:04] system is used exclusively for criminal

[33:07] investigations.

[33:08] Next slide.

[33:11] To be able to search or query the ALPR

[33:14] system, users must log in and document a

[33:16] case using a case number, choose an

[33:18] authorized purpose, and an authorized

[33:20] reason for the search. Next slide.

[33:25] So, all of these queries are auditable.

[33:29] Currently, the audits are conducted by

[33:30] nonsworn civilian staff. And I just want

[33:33] to note that recommendation 1.3 of the

[33:36] 2025 performance audit of the Salt Lake

[33:39] City Police Department uh stated that

[33:41] quote executive leadership of the Salt

[33:44] Lake City Police Department should

[33:45] consider the merits of an internal audit

[33:47] function. The inclusion of an audit

[33:49] function could identify inefficiencies,

[33:51] ensure compliance, and improve the

[33:52] department's performance. Next slide.

[33:59] So just now one note on the real-time

[34:01] crime center. ALPRs are a key component

[34:05] of the real-time crime center and also

[34:08] there have been some concerns related to

[34:09] AI usage with ALPRs. The real-time crime

[34:13] center does have limited AI

[34:15] capabilities. However, it can only be

[34:18] used for object recognition and any use

[34:20] of object recognition is reviewed and

[34:22] verified by human before use for any

[34:24] investigative purposes. It is not

[34:27] generate. It is not generative AI and

[34:29] facial recognition is not used. Next

[34:32] slide.

[34:36] So that's all we have. And just a note

[34:39] on the sequencing of this. We're

[34:41] scheduled to set the date for public

[34:42] hearing on this ordinance on August 18th

[34:45] and it's proposed to hold a public

[34:46] hearing on September 15th. And with

[34:49] that, I'll pass it back to the council

[34:51] for question and discussion if we have

[34:53] any questions. We've got me legal and

[34:55] we've got the police department here as

[34:56] well.

[34:57] >> Yeah. I want to highlight that um the

[35:00] » Yeah. I want to highlight that um the

[35:00] work uh on sorting through this uh from

[35:03] from the the agency, the our chief and

[35:06] their their staff, legal team and uh

[35:08] Michael and the council staff uh to make

[35:11] this happen. I this is an ordinance that

[35:13] started on this side of the aisle. Um

[35:15] you know uh as a response from this

[35:18] council uh to ensure that the city has

[35:23] uh clear

[35:25] boundaries uh and a clear process and

[35:28] how to uh use these data uh and how to

[35:31] use these tools correctly. So I I really

[35:33] appreciate uh the the the ordinance that

[35:36] we have in front of us that we requested

[35:38] as a council. Um, so council members, I

[35:41] don't know if you had had a chance to

[35:43] review u any other questions you have or

[35:45] or thoughts. Council member Ritro,

[35:50] >> I want to start by saying thank you to

[35:51] » I want to start by saying thank you to

[35:51] the police department. This issue, as

[35:54] you know, when I look at it is so much

[35:55] bigger than just license plate readers

[35:57] and what you do, but you're the tip of

[35:58] the spear because it's really visible.

[36:02] Um, so thank you for the hard work

[36:04] already. When we talk about the training

[36:06] that the sworn officers are receiving,

[36:09] is this a generalized data

[36:13] management kind of training? Is are we

[36:15] talking about all places? Are we talking

[36:17] about all the ways that we're capturing

[36:19] data or are we specifically training

[36:21] them just on license plate readers? And

[36:23] if so, is there something unique to the

[36:25] license plate reader? I, you know, I was

[36:28] just asking council member Warren. Like

[36:29] it's really funny to me that the state

[36:31] has approved this and said guidance for

[36:33] it, but they still won't do red light

[36:34] cameras. In my mind, I can't understand

[36:36] what the difference is and why we're

[36:38] allowing one and not the other. So, from

[36:40] the experts who actually use it, is

[36:42] there something unique about the license

[36:44] plate readers that we're training on or

[36:46] is this just a comprehensive we're

[36:48] making sure that anyone who interacts

[36:49] with our people's data, they're going to

[36:51] protect it?

[36:53] >> I'd like to pitch that to Chief Fred.

[37:01] I have not personally been through the

[37:02] license plate reader training here at

[37:03] the PD and probably based on this uh

[37:06] ordinance if it passes we'll be

[37:08] adjusting that training but I think

[37:10] historically the training is really

[37:11] focused on the license plate reader

[37:14] program and the policy uh policies uh

[37:16] that we have around it specifically but

[37:19] we're certainly open to broadening that

[37:22] uh given the other technologies that we

[37:24] utilize. Um, so we could definitely

[37:26] broaden it.

[37:27] >> I just I just worry that we like forests

[37:29] » I just I just worry that we like forests

[37:29] and trees overfocus on one thing when as

[37:32] I said this you all are doing work that

[37:34] you shouldn't have to do. This is a this

[37:36] is a technology thing that we should be

[37:38] off someone out externally should be

[37:40] offering you guidance on how to protect.

[37:42] But I don't think any system I've not

[37:44] seen the business or the municipality

[37:46] that's prepared to step into this. So, I

[37:48] just want to make sure we don't get too

[37:50] in the weeds on just license plate

[37:52] readers and we're cognizant of all the

[37:53] ways that we're collecting data and

[37:55] we're protecting people in every way

[37:57] that we're collecting that data and

[37:58] using it. Um, we talked about the access

[38:01] being revoked for those who can access

[38:04] the system. So, can you help me

[38:06] understand that too? Are we saying that

[38:09] another agency, let's say the ex X city

[38:14] police department, do they is it like we

[38:16] have an ongoing

[38:19] access agreement with them and then they

[38:21] can only use that access when they come

[38:24] with a valid case number or is each

[38:27] incident of accessing it a new license?

[38:31] So, so if if another police department

[38:34] wanted to access our system, they would

[38:36] have to enter into a robustou that uh

[38:39] Miss Vigory worked on extensively and

[38:42] she could speak to that. But each time

[38:45] that the system is accessed, a case

[38:47] number, a reason, and crime type has to

[38:51] be entered for each query and then

[38:53] that's logged and tracked. So we're

[38:57] saying if they even once are found to be

[39:00] in violation then the entirety of their

[39:04] ability in going forward is compromised.

[39:07] >> We can just turn it off. Yes.

[39:08] » We can just turn it off. Yes.

[39:08] >> Okay.

[39:09] » Okay.

[39:09] >> We have a flip of a switch.

[39:10] » We have a flip of a switch.

[39:10] >> And then how does this work in cases

[39:13] » And then how does this work in cases

[39:13] where other levels of government have

[39:16] privacy or preeemption capabilities? Do

[39:19] state, county, state, or federal have

[39:22] the ability to come in and use the

[39:26] supremacy clause and say, "Well, we can

[39:28] just have this information since you're

[39:29] capturing it anyway."

[39:32] >> No. State statute governs the types of

[39:35] » No. State statute governs the types of

[39:35] uses for the license plate reader. Um,

[39:37] the only way that if if someone didn't

[39:40] agree to those uh to to the to the to

[39:45] theou that we're developing and agree to

[39:47] follow state statute, we would refuse it

[39:49] and the only way they could they could

[39:51] get access to the data would be a court

[39:52] order or warrant at that point.

[39:54] >> So DEA, FBI, all of them, they could

[39:57] » So DEA, FBI, all of them, they could

[39:57] have their access revoked and we would

[40:01] be able to stay in control of that until

[40:03] some Supreme Court decision changes

[40:05] that.

[40:05] >> That's correct. Yeah, we we could turn

[40:07] » That's correct. Yeah, we we could turn

[40:07] it off and then if they wanted to compel

[40:10] to us to turn over information, it would

[40:12] have to be through a court order or a

[40:13] warrant.

[40:14] >> By that point, the person sensibly is

[40:17] » By that point, the person sensibly is

[40:17] not driving around anymore and we can't

[40:19] use them the real time tracking.

[40:21] >> Yeah.

[40:21] » Yeah.

[40:21] >> Okay. Thank you.

[40:22] » Okay. Thank you.

[40:22] >> Yeah. And you know, every agency that

[40:24] » Yeah. And you know, every agency that

[40:24] needs access, including federal

[40:26] agencies, need to enter an anou with the

[40:29] city. Um so you know any federal agency

[40:34] uh law enforcement agency needs to enter

[40:35] into an agreement with us to get access

[40:37] to the data which I think is uh how we

[40:40] want this data to be used so we have the

[40:42] control of it. Um I do want to uh give

[40:47] the time to two council members have uh

[40:49] comments before me but I will keep mine

[40:52] for later. So council member Carlson and

[40:55] then council member Wharton.

[40:57] Uh Chief, thank you so much for being

[40:59] here um with us. um have received some

[41:03] uh questions and as you know there are

[41:05] questions from the public about the role

[41:07] of automated um license automatic

[41:09] license plate reader systems and I'll

[41:11] just name that we have um with this

[41:14] particular tool we can have some things

[41:16] some values in conflict with each other

[41:18] both the value of public safety and

[41:21] public order and also a value around

[41:24] concerns about privacy and so I'm

[41:27] holding both of those values in my mind

[41:29] and I recognize said there can be

[41:31] concerns about them and so my questions

[41:33] are really um from a spirit of trying to

[41:35] understand the technology its

[41:37] limitations and what happens um in

[41:40] instances of misuse. So I have one

[41:43] specific question but I saw on the slide

[41:46] and this goes back to my trying to

[41:47] understand this technology. I saw that

[41:50] um there's a capability to search but

[41:53] not alter data. I don't know if that was

[41:55] if we can go back to that slide. I

[41:57] wanted to understand what that meant for

[41:59] other entities and what does it mean to

[42:01] alter data and how is that different

[42:04] from just searching for it.

[42:05] >> I think what this slide was intending

[42:07] » I think what this slide was intending

[42:07] but Michael can comment on this if I'm

[42:10] misunderstanding.

[42:11] >> Yeah, Scott, that's slide seven.

[42:13] » Yeah, Scott, that's slide seven.

[42:13] >> Um, and do you want to comment or do you

[42:15] » Um, and do you want to comment or do you

[42:15] want me to go ahead? Yeah. So, so

[42:17] essentially I think what we're saying is

[42:18] if another department misused the the

[42:22] the system and so they did a query

[42:24] inappropriately, they didn't have a

[42:26] criminal reason or they didn't it was it

[42:28] was not in good faith. Um that that

[42:32] police department personnel could not go

[42:34] in and and and like change the data or

[42:37] delete the transaction. Like the

[42:39] transaction is logged and that goes for

[42:41] our people too. Once a transaction is

[42:43] logged, it can't be it can't be edited

[42:45] or or or changed or or deleted. So, it's

[42:49] it's logged. And I think that's what the

[42:50] slide was intending.

[42:52] >> Okay. Thank you. I was trying just

[42:54] » Okay. Thank you. I was trying just

[42:54] trying to understand what what that

[42:55] distinction meant. Um the next is that I

[42:58] saw in the staff report that um if uh

[43:02] individuals access um this data for an

[43:05] inappropriate reason or for not the

[43:06] reasons identified um uh both both state

[43:10] code and this proposed ordinance. Um

[43:13] staff would be held accountable for

[43:14] misuse. I understand that's a policy

[43:16] direction, but I'm curious, you know, if

[43:19] we can ensure that there is swift

[43:21] accountability.

[43:23] >> Sure. regarding regarding misuse of this

[43:25] » Sure. regarding regarding misuse of this

[43:26] given that there have been nationwide

[43:27] some instances although narrowed of

[43:30] police officers using this technology um

[43:32] for inappropriate reasons.

[43:34] >> So there are already currently state

[43:36] » So there are already currently state

[43:36] laws in place not directly related to

[43:38] ALPR but re related to sharing criminal

[43:41] justice information inappropriately

[43:43] accessing it inappropriately. So, a

[43:45] classic example is um an officer looks

[43:49] up the driver's license of a of a of a

[43:53] former girlfriend to find out where

[43:55] they're now currently living and get to

[43:57] get an address. That type of that type

[43:59] of behavior. Uh currently, state statute

[44:02] does not prohibits that. And so what

[44:06] would typically happen in a case like

[44:07] that and same with any LPR abuse um that

[44:12] if it was one of our own officers um

[44:15] that information maybe was captured in

[44:16] an audit or someone called in with a

[44:18] concern um and we found an issue we

[44:21] would internally investigate that and

[44:23] and likely pass that to another police

[44:26] department to to review for it's a class

[44:29] B misdemeanor to misuse criminal justice

[44:31] data and we would likely refer something

[44:34] like that to another police department

[44:35] to have a criminal review. We would do

[44:36] our own internal review. And then if it

[44:39] if it reaches the level of of criminal,

[44:41] whether they're prosecuted or not, that

[44:43] that is also any any class C or B

[44:46] misdemeanor offense is also referred to

[44:48] peace officer standards and training. So

[44:50] then you have a third bite at the apple

[44:52] essentially, which is now post will be

[44:54] looking at their peace officer

[44:56] certification. So there's an internal uh

[44:59] investigation that could result in

[45:00] disciplinary issues for policy

[45:02] violations, a criminal review

[45:03] potentially in in certain cases, and

[45:06] then the the the certification uh

[45:09] investigation as well. So those three

[45:11] areas.

[45:12] >> Okay. And um last last question, just

[45:16] » Okay. And um last last question, just

[45:16] really trying to um understand this

[45:19] technology. Um an officer who is trained

[45:22] to use the technology is able to access

[45:24] it. um of course with a case number and

[45:27] of course for a criminal reason. Do they

[45:29] access that alone or is there someone

[45:31] else who it's just recorded that the

[45:33] query took place?

[45:35] >> It's my understanding that it's just

[45:37] » It's my understanding that it's just

[45:37] recorded that the query took place.

[45:39] >> Okay. Do we know if the technology has

[45:42] » Okay. Do we know if the technology has

[45:42] um any capabilities for a second um

[45:46] almost like a matching key associated

[45:48] with it to ensure and prohibit misuse?

[45:51] So essentially you're asking like a

[45:53] supervisory approval.

[45:55] >> Yes. And and I understand that might be

[45:58] » Yes. And and I understand that might be

[45:58] at odds with wanting to get the

[46:00] information in a timely fashion.

[46:02] >> I don't know if the technology allows

[46:04] » I don't know if the technology allows

[46:04] for that type of capability. I would

[46:05] have to go back and look.

[46:06] >> Okay. Thank you.

[46:07] » Okay. Thank you.

[46:07] >> But we I'll do that for you.

[46:09] » But we I'll do that for you.

[46:09] >> Thank you.

[46:11] » Thank you.

[46:11] >> I'm going to take a note on my phone.

[46:12] » I'm going to take a note on my phone.

[46:12] Just

[46:15] » Thank you. Um Chief, so does

[46:19] um

[46:21] you said state code defines what it can

[46:23] be used for and one of them is criminal

[46:24] investigation.

[46:28] Is there any more um like guidance or

[46:32] specificity there? And the reason for my

[46:35] question is, how do you prevent um

[46:40] um an officer from just saying, "Oh, I I

[46:43] was investigating a crime, but it turns

[46:46] out there was no crime here, but they've

[46:48] already accessed the information." I

[46:51] mean, other than just declaring that

[46:54] they're researching it for a crime, like

[46:56] how what other controls are there?

[46:58] >> Yeah. So, a a case number. So, not only

[47:01] » Yeah. So, a a case number. So, not only

[47:01] that it's a crime, but the crime type

[47:03] and then a case number that has to so

[47:05] that has to associate back to a report.

[47:07] So, so if if someone put a case number

[47:11] in and we found that it's not a real

[47:13] case number, you know, that's going to

[47:15] be in that would be a ter terminable

[47:17] offense in my opinion. Um, but we can go

[47:19] back to the report and look at the

[47:21] specific reason that was outlined in the

[47:23] report for the for the check. But what

[47:26] if it's um

[47:28] there is a case number, there is like a

[47:30] legitimate investigation,

[47:32] but they're

[47:34] um they're accessing accessing

[47:37] information that isn't related to that.

[47:40] Like, does that make sense?

[47:41] >> We would have to catch something like

[47:43] » We would have to catch something like

[47:43] that in an audit or, you know, based on

[47:45] a complaint that came in. Um and and and

[47:49] that may be a situation where there was

[47:52] nefarious intent, but it may be that um

[47:54] we need to educate, but I mean that

[47:56] that's one of those things that would

[47:57] have to be caught in an audit, I think.

[48:00] >> Okay.

[48:00] » Okay.

[48:00] >> You mean someone putting a case number,

[48:02] » You mean someone putting a case number,

[48:02] a real case number

[48:04] >> apparent related to what they're

[48:07] » apparent related to what they're

[48:07] searching for?

[48:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. or they or maybe even they

[48:12] » Yeah. Yeah. or they or maybe even they

[48:12] create a a I don't know how hard it is

[48:14] to get a case number to say there's an

[48:16] open investigation, but maybe they do

[48:18] that just to get the data that they want

[48:20] and then they're like, "Oh, I I

[48:22] investigated it's closed case."

[48:25] >> Yeah.

[48:26] » Yeah.

[48:26] >> Well, the generated case number that

[48:27] » Well, the generated case number that

[48:27] goes into our records management system,

[48:29] I mean, that's I mean, it's a you know,

[48:31] if you generate that, then it generates

[48:32] a a report and then it requires a

[48:35] supervisor's review and approval of that

[48:37] report. Mhm.

[48:39] >> So, you know, if someone did that and

[48:42] » So, you know, if someone did that and

[48:42] you know, I mean, again, there's there

[48:43] there are ways there are there are

[48:45] people maybe that would do that and with

[48:47] nefarious intent, but I think we would

[48:49] be able to catch that with our regular

[48:50] controls.

[48:52] >> Okay.

[48:53] » Okay.

[48:53] >> Conser Pierce.

[48:55] » Conser Pierce.

[48:56] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chief.

[48:58] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chief.

[48:58] Um I

[49:00] maybe this is a question that's already

[49:01] been asked previously, but in our staff

[49:04] report it says uh the city's contracted

[49:07] mentor is Vigilant Solutions and only

[49:10] authorized SLCPD personnel and approved

[49:13] law enforcement partners are permitted

[49:15] to access this information. So who are

[49:18] the approved law enforcement? those who

[49:21] would go through the training for our

[49:23] department and then for other police

[49:27] departments, those who enter theou and

[49:29] then receive the training.

[49:30] >> Okay. So, it's not just some random

[49:33] » Okay. So, it's not just some random

[49:33] police officer in Syracuse who happens

[49:36] to have a case number. And

[49:38] >> if if Syracuse, there's a couple ways

[49:40] » if if Syracuse, there's a couple ways

[49:40] that could go. So if the Syracuse Police

[49:42] Department wanted to access our license

[49:45] plate reader, they could reach out to

[49:47] they could reach out to us and ask us to

[49:49] conduct the check. We would at that

[49:51] point take a case number. We would ask

[49:53] for the reason and the crime type and

[49:56] then we could run that and provide the

[49:58] information or if they wanted to access

[50:00] the system directly themselves, they

[50:02] could enter into theou go through the

[50:04] training and then have uh all of the

[50:07] outlined uh steps that they would need

[50:10] to take. So auditing, best practices and

[50:12] technology, all those things that we put

[50:14] into theou. So those are the two ways

[50:16] that another department could get access

[50:18] to the information.

[50:19] >> Do you think it is um

[50:22] » Do you think it is um

[50:22] >> feasible to have a human gatekeeper

[50:27] » feasible to have a human gatekeeper

[50:27] instead of just the the query system

[50:30] that you were talking about?

[50:32] >> Yeah. I mean those are the two ways,

[50:33] » Yeah. I mean those are the two ways,

[50:33] right? We could have them call us on the

[50:35] phone and request that and that's

[50:36] >> No, I meant for every request. for every

[50:39] » No, I meant for every request. for every

[50:39] request

[50:40] >> feasible.

[50:40] » feasible.

[50:40] >> Um,

[50:41] » Um,

[50:41] >> so then you have a second set of eyes on

[50:44] » so then you have a second set of eyes on

[50:44] every request.

[50:45] >> I mean, we we could, but it's the same

[50:48] » I mean, we we could, but it's the same

[50:48] information being provided, whether it's

[50:50] put into the system or given to a human,

[50:52] that the same information would be

[50:53] provided. Okay.

[50:54] >> Does that make sense? member, you mean

[50:56] » Does that make sense? member, you mean

[50:56] that a a person from our police

[50:59] department um

[51:02] approves basically the the in inquire

[51:06] before it release the information?

[51:08] >> Is that what you mean?

[51:09] » Is that what you mean?

[51:09] >> Yeah.

[51:10] » Yeah.

[51:10] >> Okay.

[51:10] » Okay.

[51:10] >> But I mean they would provide this. So

[51:12] » But I mean they would provide this. So

[51:12] the case number, the crime type, and the

[51:15] reason that they have to provide now,

[51:18] whether they provided that verbally or

[51:20] into the system, it would it would

[51:22] likely get approved and then the

[51:23] auditing would would check. You know, we

[51:25] would do our regular audits to go in.

[51:26] >> I'm just trying to look for a guard rail

[51:29] » I'm just trying to look for a guard rail

[51:29] just to prevent abuse. And I don't know

[51:31] what that would be, but we could think

[51:32] about that for sure.

[51:33] >> Thank you.

[51:34] » Thank you.

[51:34] >> You're um you had a a point

[51:36] » You're um you had a a point

[51:36] clarification, right?

[51:37] >> Yeah. Just for Victoria, [clears throat]

[51:39] » Yeah. Just for Victoria, [clears throat]

[51:39] the there was a focus on the license

[51:42] plate readers. With this one,

[51:44] >> there is a group, a working group within

[51:46] » there is a group, a working group within

[51:46] the city right now working on data

[51:47] privacy issues.

[51:48] >> Yeah.

[51:48] » Yeah.

[51:48] >> They will be addressing the components

[51:50] » They will be addressing the components

[51:50] that you're talking about and also they

[51:51] will still review this to ensure that

[51:53] it's consistent.

[51:54] >> Yeah. And I wanted to add to that that

[51:56] » Yeah. And I wanted to add to that that

[51:56] we have flagged that concern from you.

[51:59] Um but I think this is what this is

[52:02] necessary right now. uh we have we are

[52:05] using this this readers right now

[52:08] without this boundary. So this is a

[52:11] incredible step forward from the city to

[52:14] actually put it on code on the code not

[52:16] on a policy from the department on our

[52:18] code and we also have a similar

[52:21] ordinance right now with body a cam uh

[52:23] camera ordinance. So uh maybe at some

[52:27] point we will have to have an umbrella

[52:30] ordinance uh that manages all other

[52:32] pieces of data including drones and what

[52:34] other other tools that are coming our

[52:37] way. But what I do think uh this

[52:40] [clears throat] ordinance adds is a a

[52:42] clear process um and a clear auditing

[52:45] process to which we need. I will

[52:48] personally and I was um follow this al

[52:52] all along while we were going through

[52:54] it. I wanted to highlight that uh

[52:58] criminal is a piece uh key to the

[53:01] searches. They has to be a criminal case

[53:03] not a civil case. Civil cases cannot be

[53:05] searched. Um which I think is is very

[53:08] important to me and to this city. Um I

[53:11] will also personally would like that

[53:15] while we pass this ordinance we ask for

[53:17] report to the council when there is

[53:19] misuse much like when there is a

[53:21] critical incident. um because I think it

[53:24] is important for us to know when another

[53:26] department or internal hopefully not uh

[53:29] mis misuses um and I will personally

[53:33] like to explore if there is I have a

[53:35] high level of trust with our officers uh

[53:38] and you know with your leadership and

[53:40] how you're going to ensure that our

[53:42] officers follow as much as you can

[53:45] follow the law um but I would love to

[53:47] explore additional auditing if possible

[53:50] to other agencies so anybody else that

[53:53] requests access to us that we have extra

[53:56] eyes on them. Um I I wonder uh if there

[54:00] is a way of asking them to send us a

[54:03] report of all their inquirs, you know,

[54:05] and why, you know, it's basically put

[54:09] them on on their job and say all of

[54:11] these were your requests last week or

[54:13] next last month, you know, can you tell

[54:15] us, you know, if there is any mismatch

[54:18] because I want them to feel obligated to

[54:21] follow our rules. Um I wonder if there

[54:23] is a a process in ourou to say to them

[54:27] you have to justify because then it is

[54:29] an additional is an additional set of

[54:31] eyes from their side.

[54:33] >> I believe in theou m miss vickery is

[54:37] » I believe in theou m miss vickery is

[54:37] that the case or we can cont if if it's

[54:40] not the case we can definitely review

[54:42] what might what might work there.

[54:45] >> Yeah I can in terms of the ordinance and

[54:47] » Yeah I can in terms of the ordinance and

[54:47] what it requires I can speak to that. So

[54:50] under section C, sharing ALPR data, if

[54:53] you look at section 1 I, um that sets

[54:58] forth that the receiving governmental

[55:00] entity shall establish, maintain, and

[55:02] implement self- auditing procedures

[55:04] designed to monitor its compliance with

[55:06] the terms of theou.

[55:08] The receiving governmental entity shall

[55:11] document the results of such audits in

[55:13] an annual written report which shall be

[55:15] made available to the police department

[55:17] upon request and retained by the

[55:20] receiving governmental entity for no

[55:21] less than 5 years. The receiving

[55:24] governmental entity shall properly and

[55:26] in no event later than 5 days after the

[55:29] discovery provide a copy of any annual

[55:32] audit report which finds the material

[55:34] violation of the memorandum of

[55:36] understanding to the police department.

[55:38] And then section J is also relevant and

[55:41] provides um I'll just sort of paraphrase

[55:44] this that it that the city at its own

[55:47] election can come in and audit at any

[55:49] time.

[55:50] >> Okay. Also, if I recall in here, it

[55:54] » Okay. Also, if I recall in here, it

[55:54] requires any breach or misuse to be

[55:57] reported within 24 hours of the Salt

[55:59] Lake City Police Department.

[56:01] >> So, if they catch some misuse, they have

[56:03] » So, if they catch some misuse, they have

[56:03] to report it.

[56:04] >> Is that it was 24 hours?

[56:06] » Is that it was 24 hours?

[56:06] >> I think I saw that somewhere. Yeah.

[56:07] » I think I saw that somewhere. Yeah.

[56:07] >> Yeah, that's K. Section K.

[56:10] » Yeah, that's K. Section K.

[56:10] >> Okay. [clears throat] I think that's

[56:11] » Okay. [clears throat] I think that's

[56:11] that that is encouraging to me. uh you

[56:14] know uh council member Petro, council

[56:16] member Carlson

[56:17] >> um this might be something where I need

[56:19] » um this might be something where I need

[56:19] to come over and talk with you more

[56:20] because as we've been talking it occurs

[56:21] to me there's two different ways in

[56:24] which the license plate readers are

[56:26] being used that are slightly different.

[56:28] So there's the DEA coordinating with you

[56:32] to find out if this person was in this

[56:34] area doing this, which is a much longer

[56:37] term, much more premeditated, able to

[56:41] submit the case number. And then there's

[56:43] the emergent, we need to know where this

[56:47] car is heading because there we believe

[56:49] they have a abducted child

[56:50] >> mapping. Yeah.

[56:51] » mapping. Yeah.

[56:51] >> And and we're collaborating and I'm not

[56:54] » And and we're collaborating and I'm not

[56:54] really sure of what the process looks

[56:56] like in each of those. I love the way

[56:58] we've been talking about these, but it

[57:00] feels to me like in the emergent

[57:02] situation, there's a different level of

[57:05] vulnerability versus the not. So, it

[57:07] might not be the time to do it right

[57:08] now. I know we're trying to keep to a

[57:09] schedule, but as we've been talking, it

[57:11] just occurred to me and and I was

[57:13] talking to Council Member Wharton about

[57:15] it. How do we in light is does the real

[57:19] time crime center have something

[57:20] different that offers a level of

[57:22] protection than maybe that more

[57:24] deliberative longerterm research-based

[57:26] kind of use of this technology would

[57:28] have and and just making sure that the

[57:30] protections are there in all of those

[57:32] implementations.

[57:33] >> I think the process would be fairly

[57:35] » I think the process would be fairly

[57:35] similar uh again but we could definitely

[57:38] look to see on those you know emergent

[57:40] issues if there's something that we

[57:42] could do for a double check.

[57:43] >> Thanks. Yeah. What what level of

[57:45] » Thanks. Yeah. What what level of

[57:45] vulnerability you mean when it's

[57:46] something more, you know, urgent.

[57:49] >> So like if if if there's if if a child's

[57:52] » So like if if if there's if if a child's

[57:52] been abducted, which is always the

[57:53] everyone's example for why we need this.

[57:55] Um that would be something like Leighton

[57:58] calling saying they're heading your way.

[58:00] We need access to your system to see if

[58:01] this license plate comes through. Right?

[58:03] Like any other city could call.

[58:05] >> But they need to still have a case

[58:06] » But they need to still have a case

[58:06] number, don't they?

[58:07] >> Still need a case number, a crime tie.

[58:09] » Still need a case number, a crime tie.

[58:09] >> Would you have a case number at that

[58:10] » Would you have a case number at that

[58:10] point if if if they're already in

[58:12] pursuit? If if if our police if police

[58:15] in a different jurisdiction

[58:16] >> happen on something, someone takes a kid

[58:19] » happen on something, someone takes a kid

[58:19] and and leaves, there would be that

[58:21] >> at a minimum there would be a dispatch

[58:23] » at a minimum there would be a dispatch

[58:23] number. So a call for service, it would

[58:24] be tied to a call for service number and

[58:26] then later if there's a a police report

[58:28] generated, it could be used that. But

[58:30] either way, I see

[58:31] >> whether it's a dispatch uh incident

[58:33] » whether it's a dispatch uh incident

[58:33] number or a case number, we could track

[58:35] it back. these those those really urgent

[58:39] issues are the like only honestly

[58:41] compelling things like these help our

[58:44] police officers know how to track things

[58:46] in real time. So that to me is the most

[58:48] compelling but it also feels like that's

[58:50] where it would be the most tenuous. You

[58:53] all are actively doing the work. You

[58:55] don't have time to be an administrator

[58:57] while you're being a pursuer. So um you

[58:59] know so just making sure that we don't

[59:01] drop balls in that and we can use the

[59:04] power of this without compromising

[59:05] safety.

[59:06] >> They can always if they haven't

[59:07] » They can always if they haven't

[59:07] generated a case number in their records

[59:09] management system they can always

[59:10] provide the dispatch. There will always

[59:12] be an incident number from dispatch. So,

[59:14] >> okay,

[59:16] » okay,

[59:16] >> Carlson.

[59:17] » Carlson.

[59:17] >> Um, I just want to echo uh my gratitude

[59:20] » Um, I just want to echo uh my gratitude

[59:20] to Council Member Petro for asking these

[59:22] um larger questions about data data

[59:24] privacy across all of the different

[59:26] platforms that we use and how to ensure

[59:28] that the data that we do collect

[59:30] regardless of the type of data that we

[59:31] collect is secure. Um I have faith in

[59:34] the police department to maintain that

[59:35] security of data. Multinational

[59:38] corporations not so much. So, I want to

[59:40] ensure that we are well protected in

[59:42] that regard. Um I feel like in uh you

[59:46] know our role as a council and policy

[59:47] makers it's about you know surfacing all

[59:50] angles of an argument and thinking about

[59:52] how to how to find the best way forward

[59:54] and so you know we have I frame this

[59:57] conversation as uh both a public safety

[1:00:00] concern but also could be a concern

[1:00:02] about privacy and so I wanted to give

[1:00:04] you chief an opportunity to talk about

[1:00:07] what might be the benefits from a public

[1:00:09] safety perspective of this technology.

[1:00:12] Well, first I would just like to talk

[1:00:13] about the privacy, the civil liberties

[1:00:15] uh concern. We we want to have

[1:00:19] technology to do our jobs, but that has

[1:00:21] to be something that the public at some

[1:00:24] level trusts and we have to make it

[1:00:26] sustainable. So, I just want to put on

[1:00:27] the record that the privacy, the civil

[1:00:30] liberties and protections are extremely

[1:00:32] important to us in the police department

[1:00:33] and we're willing, as I've said in the

[1:00:34] past publicly, we're willing to engage

[1:00:36] with individuals who are concerned and

[1:00:38] and hear them out and try to learn. As I

[1:00:40] mentioned earlier, we've had the ACLU in

[1:00:42] a couple times, and as I've said also on

[1:00:44] record, they they don't always agree. We

[1:00:47] don't always agree on on issues, but I

[1:00:49] appreciate that they're an organization

[1:00:50] that's willing to come in and listen,

[1:00:51] and they've been into the Real Time

[1:00:53] Crime Center, and we've talked to

[1:00:54] license plate readers. Um the but the

[1:00:59] the the example that I used earlier

[1:01:01] today is you know when when cars were

[1:01:05] invented this you know if police

[1:01:07] officers stayed on horses and didn't

[1:01:08] adapt to the new technology the police

[1:01:11] car we would be behind the curve and and

[1:01:14] I think as adop technologies are adopted

[1:01:16] societal you know in society at some

[1:01:19] level we we would like to be able to use

[1:01:21] those technologies and what we're

[1:01:22] finding and I can use a couple examples

[1:01:24] we we had Uh it was this was this was

[1:01:27] publicly communicated so I can share it.

[1:01:29] But back earlier this year we had a

[1:01:31] triple homicide in Wayne County. Uh this

[1:01:34] an individual went on a killing spree

[1:01:36] down there and then left the state. And

[1:01:38] it was license plate readers that

[1:01:39] identified where the individual was and

[1:01:41] he was over in Colorado within a and

[1:01:43] within a tw a short 12 hours. The triple

[1:01:46] homicide was was uh the individual was

[1:01:49] arrested and and we prevented

[1:01:51] potentially additional murders in in

[1:01:53] that case. So this is the type of of

[1:01:56] ways that we're using the technology. I

[1:01:58] could share other cases. Um uh there was

[1:02:00] an individual earlier this year who was

[1:02:02] coming from a different state. Uh had

[1:02:05] been making some threats and it was a

[1:02:07] license plate reader that indicated yes

[1:02:08] actually they're broaching they're

[1:02:10] coming into our state and we were able

[1:02:12] to make an intervention and deal with

[1:02:13] that issue. So, this goes on on a

[1:02:16] regular basis and um again uh we we want

[1:02:20] to use this technology responsibly

[1:02:22] because we want to prevent victimization

[1:02:24] in in our cities. And so, uh we we

[1:02:27] appreciate the council for being willing

[1:02:30] to dialogue and and listen and and and

[1:02:34] uh be open to the uses of these

[1:02:36] technologies and we want to we want to

[1:02:38] we want to use them appropriately.

[1:02:42] » Any other thoughts?

[1:02:45] Just sorry one more thing. I just want

[1:02:48] to thank you for um for having or other

[1:02:53] organizations come in like ACLU and look

[1:02:55] at this um because I mean this is an

[1:02:59] ordinance that or this this whole area

[1:03:03] um of LPR's

[1:03:06] is really difficult for me and I have a

[1:03:08] lot of conflict as uh as just a resident

[1:03:12] as a as an attorney as someone who

[1:03:15] practiced criminal defense for a little

[1:03:17] while like I I really have a lot of

[1:03:19] conflicts internally with this, but I

[1:03:23] also um recognize the you know the

[1:03:27] examples that you've given and countless

[1:03:29] others of the public safety aspect of

[1:03:31] this. And so I really am trying to

[1:03:33] balance all of that and having groups

[1:03:36] that I'm sure

[1:03:38] it's, you know, difficult and there are

[1:03:40] probably some officers that feel

[1:03:43] uncomfortable having some of these

[1:03:45] organizations come and do those checks,

[1:03:47] but I think it it to me means a lot and

[1:03:49] I think to the community means a lot

[1:03:51] because at the end of the day, we've got

[1:03:54] a lot of these procedures and controls

[1:03:57] in place. Um, and I think we've done the

[1:03:59] most the best that we can, but there is

[1:04:02] an element of of like judgment and

[1:04:05] trust.

[1:04:06] >> There is,

[1:04:07] » There is,

[1:04:07] >> you know, these are still humans that

[1:04:08] » you know, these are still humans that

[1:04:08] are operating this. There are still, it

[1:04:11] sounds like we've tried to think of

[1:04:12] every way to to narrow it that we can,

[1:04:15] but you know, at the end of the it's

[1:04:19] just like what police officers do every

[1:04:21] day in their job. there is an element of

[1:04:23] trust there that they are

[1:04:26] um the good guys and they're using this

[1:04:28] information for good and um I think

[1:04:32] have in a time where people have a lot

[1:04:34] of distrust in a lot of organizations

[1:04:37] not not just government but many

[1:04:40] organizations

[1:04:41] um and that includes public safety being

[1:04:44] able to say that we

[1:04:47] um have other organizations that come in

[1:04:50] and look at this maybe we don't agree

[1:04:52] with them. Maybe they make

[1:04:53] recommendations and we don't adopt all

[1:04:55] of them, but to me it adds a lot of

[1:04:57] credibility to what we're doing. And so

[1:04:59] I really appreciate that piece of the

[1:05:01] program. And I I hope that never

[1:05:03] changes.

[1:05:04] >> Okay.

[1:05:05] » Okay.

[1:05:05] >> Thanks.

[1:05:05] » Thanks.

[1:05:05] >> We're committed to hearing all

[1:05:07] » We're committed to hearing all

[1:05:07] perspectives and and doing our best to

[1:05:09] to find that balance like I know you're

[1:05:11] all seeking as well.

[1:05:12] >> Thank you, Chief. Thank you, staff, for

[1:05:14] » Thank you, Chief. Thank you, staff, for

[1:05:14] working on this. This is to me an

[1:05:15] ordinance that u [clears throat] says uh

[1:05:19] as a city where our values are and how

[1:05:22] we want to use the tools correctly and

[1:05:25] how we don't want them to be used. Um so

[1:05:31] I think to me is is uh is a powerful uh

[1:05:34] tool uh to put in an ordinance. We could

[1:05:37] have [clears throat] left it as a policy

[1:05:39] for the department uh to to come up uh

[1:05:42] but uh knowing the value of these tools

[1:05:45] but at the same time knowing the risks

[1:05:46] of these tools uh we feel very strongly

[1:05:50] about putting this on the code um and I

[1:05:54] uh I know that many of us have expressed

[1:05:56] at some point or another uh that we

[1:05:58] don't want to see misuse of these tools.

[1:06:00] We don't want that to be our tools, what

[1:06:04] our taxpayers are uh paying to be used

[1:06:07] in the wrong uh by the wrong um

[1:06:10] purposes. So I am uh I'm excited that

[1:06:13] this ordinance is in front of us finally

[1:06:14] and looking forward to u other data

[1:06:18] privacy issues within uh the city. So

[1:06:21] thank you for the presentation. Thank

[1:06:23] you for the time. I appreciate your

[1:06:24] time, Chief.

[1:06:25] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:06:29] Thank you, Hannah, too, since I

[1:06:31] mentioned everybody as well. Um,

[1:06:34] moving on to uh item number four, an

[1:06:38] ordinance for the Northwest Community

[1:06:40] Plan. We're going to keep Michael

[1:06:42] Sanders, council policy analyst, the

[1:06:43] table. Uh, we're going to welcome um I

[1:06:47] only have Kelsey Linquist, planning

[1:06:49] manager, on my uh on my uh on my list,

[1:06:53] but yes, welcome all of you.

[1:06:56] >> Okay. Thank you, chair. So, the purpose

[1:06:58] » Okay. Thank you, chair. So, the purpose

[1:06:58] of this briefing is to go over a

[1:07:00] proposal to update a community plan for

[1:07:02] the Northwest community area, which

[1:07:04] includes Rose Park, Fair Park, Jordan

[1:07:07] Meadows, Poplar Grove, and West Point.

[1:07:10] The plan also includes the North the

[1:07:12] North Temple Station area plans for the

[1:07:14] four track stations in the plan area.

[1:07:17] This plan will replace the Northwest

[1:07:19] master plan, the North Temple Boulevard

[1:07:21] plan, and the Rose Park small area plan.

[1:07:24] During the February 25th, [music] 2026

[1:07:26] planning commission meeting, the

[1:07:28] commission forwarded a positive

[1:07:29] recommendation to the council. And with

[1:07:31] that, I'll pass it to the planning

[1:07:33] department.

[1:07:35] >> Thank you, Michael.

[1:07:36] » Thank you, Michael.

[1:07:36] Good afternoon and thank you for the

[1:07:39] opportunity to present the draft

[1:07:40] northwest community plan. My name is

[1:07:42] Kelsey. I have two members of my team

[1:07:45] with me today, Olivia Specco and Alicia

[1:07:48] Cely. Cassie Younger, one of the project

[1:07:51] managers, is out of town. All three

[1:07:53] members of the team were critical in the

[1:07:55] update process.

[1:07:57] Um, we do have a lengthy presentation,

[1:07:59] but we will make it in time and all

[1:08:01] three of us will be presenting today.

[1:08:03] So, I will now turn the time over to

[1:08:05] Olivia to get us started.

[1:08:09] Thank you. If I could get the next slide

[1:08:11] here. Um, okay. So, first to give a

[1:08:15] quick overview, the Northwest community

[1:08:17] plan builds on the city's overall vision

[1:08:20] established in Plan Salt Lake while

[1:08:23] recognizing that the Northwest has its

[1:08:25] own unique opportunities and challenges.

[1:08:28] The purpose of this plan is to establish

[1:08:31] a clear vision for the community,

[1:08:34] identify values and concerned uh

[1:08:37] concerns expressed by the public during

[1:08:39] engagement, um create a framework for

[1:08:42] implementation, and define measurable

[1:08:45] targets that allow us to track our

[1:08:47] progress through 2040.

[1:08:52] All right, next slide.

[1:08:55] Throughout the community engagement and

[1:08:57] planning commission process, comments

[1:08:59] were provided concerning the

[1:09:01] relationship between the North Point

[1:09:03] small area plan adopted in 2023 and the

[1:09:06] Northwest community plan. Yes, on

[1:09:09] record, North Point is part of or within

[1:09:12] the boundaries of the Northwest plan.

[1:09:14] Nevertheless, the small area plans,

[1:09:17] policies, development standards, and the

[1:09:20] future land use map will take precedence

[1:09:22] for development in [clears throat] that

[1:09:23] community.

[1:09:25] There are however targets, policies and

[1:09:27] initiatives in the Northwest plan that

[1:09:29] address riparian areas, air quality,

[1:09:33] natural environment, public lands,

[1:09:35] trails, and water conservation that are

[1:09:37] applicable to all of the Northwest

[1:09:39] community and that includes North Point.

[1:09:42] Next slide.

[1:09:46] Okay, so this process began with an

[1:09:48] existing conditions analysis so we could

[1:09:51] get a better understanding of today's

[1:09:53] Northwest community. Uh some of the

[1:09:56] highlights um we found in ways that

[1:09:58] Northwest differs from the rest of the

[1:10:01] city include that the area has a larger

[1:10:05] share of families with children and

[1:10:07] larger households. The area also has a

[1:10:11] slightly lower medium median income

[1:10:14] household compared to citywide and

[1:10:17] approximately 63% of residents identify

[1:10:21] as part of a racial or ethnic minority

[1:10:23] group in this area compared with about

[1:10:26] 35% citywide. Next slide.

[1:10:31] Thank you. Um, public engagement was a

[1:10:34] huge part of developing this plan.

[1:10:36] During the initial phase in spring of

[1:10:38] last year, staff attended nine community

[1:10:40] events, conducted six stakeholder

[1:10:43] interviews, and received more than 140

[1:10:46] survey responses.

[1:10:48] Um, what we heard, some of the things we

[1:10:50] heard over and over is that residents

[1:10:52] expressed a desire for more family-sized

[1:10:55] housing, safer parks and trails, better

[1:10:59] transit options, protection against

[1:11:01] displacement, and continued support for

[1:11:04] the neighborhood's cultural diversity.

[1:11:07] After preparing the draft plan, we

[1:11:09] returned to the community um through

[1:11:11] additional outreach at neighborhood

[1:11:13] events, community organizations, and

[1:11:16] public meetings to gather feedback on

[1:11:18] our draft plan. Next slide.

[1:11:23] Okay, so this plan is organized into 14

[1:11:27] chapters which align with plan Salt

[1:11:29] Lake. Each includes a guiding principle,

[1:11:32] targets for the year 2040, and

[1:11:35] initiatives to get us there. Um, in

[1:11:37] addition to these chapters, the plan

[1:11:39] contains a station area plan for our

[1:11:42] fixed rail stations, a future land use

[1:11:45] plan, and an implementation matrix. And

[1:11:48] we will go over each of these today.

[1:11:50] Next slide.

[1:11:54] All right. The Northwest Community Plan

[1:11:57] is shaped and structured to support the

[1:11:59] overarching vision established by Plan

[1:12:01] Salt Lake by utilizing the plan's 14

[1:12:04] adopted guiding principles. This plan

[1:12:07] applies to the same structure, including

[1:12:09] measurable targets, achievable

[1:12:11] initiatives, and identifies existing and

[1:12:13] supported city policies.

[1:12:16] The following slides will mostly cover

[1:12:18] two targets and their associated

[1:12:20] initiatives. Please note some guiding

[1:12:22] principles have many more targets and

[1:12:25] initiatives all of which are detailed in

[1:12:27] the draft plan online. Next slide.

[1:12:31] All right. We'll start with

[1:12:32] neighborhoods. The guiding principle is

[1:12:36] neighborhoods that provide a safe

[1:12:38] environment opportunity for social

[1:12:40] interaction and services needed for the

[1:12:42] well-being of the community therein.

[1:12:45] The identified targets and associated

[1:12:47] initiatives include increased public

[1:12:49] safety by supporting the city's public

[1:12:51] safety plan conduct and conducting an

[1:12:54] audit of lighting in parks, alleys, and

[1:12:57] hightra corridors and prioritizing

[1:13:00] improving lighting in areas with

[1:13:02] greatest public safety concerns.

[1:13:05] The second target is balance per capita

[1:13:07] investment in public infrastructure and

[1:13:09] services compared to citywide averages

[1:13:14] through conducting a capital improvement

[1:13:16] equity analysis that can help guide the

[1:13:19] allocation of taxpayer dollars for

[1:13:21] maximum community benefit. Next slide.

[1:13:28] growth. Uh the guiding principle for

[1:13:31] growth is growing responsibly while

[1:13:33] providing people with choices about

[1:13:35] where they live, how they live, and how

[1:13:37] they get around. The identified targets

[1:13:40] and associated initiatives include

[1:13:43] increase the number of dwelling units

[1:13:45] that provide three plus bedrooms by

[1:13:48] modifying zoning regulations to increase

[1:13:50] a broad mix of housing types,

[1:13:52] specifically those larger units that are

[1:13:54] available both for rent or purchase.

[1:13:57] encourage infill sites that support

[1:13:59] mixeduse development and support

[1:14:02] mixeduse zoning along corridors. We'll

[1:14:04] talk more about that with a future land

[1:14:06] use map. The second target is to

[1:14:09] increase the total land area that can be

[1:14:11] used for mixeduse development outside

[1:14:12] [clears throat] of the power district.

[1:14:15] Um to ensure that the zoning near the

[1:14:17] power district permits a diverse mix of

[1:14:20] housing, retail and open space in antip

[1:14:23] in anticipation of population growth and

[1:14:26] a high volume of daily users. Next

[1:14:29] slide.

[1:14:32] for the housing chapter. Uh the guiding

[1:14:34] principle for this chapter is access to

[1:14:36] a wide variety of housing types for all

[1:14:38] income levels throughout the city,

[1:14:40] providing the basic human need for

[1:14:42] safety and responding to changing

[1:14:44] demographics. Uh the only target

[1:14:46] identified in this chapter um is to

[1:14:49] increase the diversity of housing types

[1:14:50] for all income levels throughout the

[1:14:52] city. Um and proposed initiatives um to

[1:14:55] accomplish that target include

[1:14:56] supporting policies that the city's

[1:14:58] already adopted such as thriving in

[1:14:59] place and housing SLC as well as

[1:15:02] considering requiring um zoning

[1:15:05] incentives for larger developers to

[1:15:08] provide more family-friendly housing not

[1:15:09] only in the number of bedrooms provided

[1:15:11] but also in design elements and

[1:15:13] amenities provided on site and then

[1:15:15] removing zoning barriers um and

[1:15:17] streamlining the permitting process for

[1:15:19] infill housing development. Next slide.

[1:15:25] For the transportation and mobility

[1:15:27] chapter, the guiding principle is a

[1:15:29] transportation and mobility network that

[1:15:31] is safe, equitable, reliable,

[1:15:34] affordable, and sustainable, providing

[1:15:36] real choices and connecting people with

[1:15:38] places. Um, the first target we want to

[1:15:41] highlight here is to increase the

[1:15:43] percentage of dwelling units within a

[1:15:45] quarter mile of a bus, transit stop, or

[1:15:48] high comfort bike facility. Um and the

[1:15:52] initiatives here are primarily to

[1:15:54] increase density along existing transit

[1:15:56] routes and then once new routes or

[1:15:58] transit amenities are added to

[1:16:00] prioritize transit oriented development

[1:16:03] um and also per performing analysis and

[1:16:05] collaboration and community engagement

[1:16:07] to manage parking needs uh which was

[1:16:09] something that we heard a lot about um

[1:16:11] in our outreach. The second target we

[1:16:14] want to highlight uh for this chapter is

[1:16:16] to increase the percentage of funding to

[1:16:18] improve neighborhood connections and

[1:16:20] general maintenance. Um the first

[1:16:21] initiative to support this is to support

[1:16:23] the implementation of recommendations

[1:16:25] from the SLC West connection study uh

[1:16:29] which is currently ongoing and also to

[1:16:32] prioritize connecting the Jordan River

[1:16:33] Parkway Trail to the Folsam Trail. Next

[1:16:36] slide.

[1:16:39] Air quality. Um the guiding principle

[1:16:42] for this chapter is air that is healthy

[1:16:44] and clean. Um the target that we want to

[1:16:46] highlight here is to increase the number

[1:16:49] of actions to address the harmful impact

[1:16:52] of existing polluters. We know this is a

[1:16:54] particular concern in on the west side

[1:16:56] and in this community and something we

[1:16:58] had a lot of conversations about. Um so

[1:17:00] the initiatives

[1:17:02] um in this regard are to increase the

[1:17:05] tree canopy to help filter out

[1:17:07] pollutants, reduce the industrial and

[1:17:09] manufacturing uses in the area to

[1:17:11] mitigate those impacts and then

[1:17:13] implement increased land use buffers

[1:17:15] along um highways, major roadways and

[1:17:18] other um heavy polluters and sensitive

[1:17:22] land uses. Um sensitive land uses really

[1:17:24] being anywhere where people are

[1:17:26] breathing. Uh next slide.

[1:17:32] Okay, thank you. Um, our guiding

[1:17:34] principle for the natural environment is

[1:17:36] to minimize our impact on the natural

[1:17:39] environment. Uh, one of our targets is

[1:17:41] to increase the urban tree canopy.

[1:17:44] Initiatives for this include identifying

[1:17:47] streets that could support

[1:17:48] rellandscaping of medians to increase

[1:17:51] tree canopy and educate residents on the

[1:17:55] costs of tree irrigation and offer

[1:17:57] information on species that are low

[1:17:59] water use. Another target for this um

[1:18:03] for this chapter is to promote community

[1:18:05] investment in the Jordan River Parkway

[1:18:07] Trail and the Folsam Trail. Um,

[1:18:10] initiatives include connect the Jordan

[1:18:12] River Parkway Trail to the Folsam Trail

[1:18:15] and downtown beautifification and

[1:18:18] connectivity efforts, formerly known as

[1:18:20] the Green Loop, um, and support the

[1:18:23] initiative to daylight a portion of City

[1:18:26] Creek along Folsam Trail. Next slide.

[1:18:30] Okay. [snorts] For parks and recreation,

[1:18:32] our guiding principle is to protect the

[1:18:35] natural environment while providing

[1:18:37] access and opportunities to recreate and

[1:18:40] enjoy nature. One of our targets is

[1:18:44] increase public safety and comfort for

[1:18:46] all users within park spaces so that all

[1:18:49] visitors feel safe and comfortable

[1:18:51] regardless of age, gender, um or

[1:18:53] ability. This is something we heard over

[1:18:55] and over again in public outreach. Um

[1:18:58] our um implementation for this is to

[1:19:02] implement bilingual and universal

[1:19:04] wayfinding signage along and towards the

[1:19:06] Jordan River Trail, Fulsome Trail, and

[1:19:09] nearby parks and add types of uses and

[1:19:13] activities to our parks that can

[1:19:14] encourage year-round activity. Um and I

[1:19:17] know Kelsey mentioned this before, but

[1:19:19] uh we these are only some of the

[1:19:21] initiatives associated with these

[1:19:23] targets. There are quite a few in the

[1:19:25] plan. Um, another target is to expand

[1:19:29] the Jordan River Trail to the North

[1:19:31] Point area, specifically north of Center

[1:19:34] Street. Um, initiatives include

[1:19:37] encouraging active uses for development

[1:19:39] along trails and coordinating with

[1:19:42] private property owners abuing the

[1:19:43] Jordan River and other sensitive

[1:19:46] riparian areas to extend the Jordan

[1:19:49] River Parkway and preserve the land.

[1:19:51] Next slide.

[1:19:55] beautiful city. Our guiding principle

[1:19:57] for this chapter is a beautiful city

[1:19:59] that is people focused. Um, one of our

[1:20:02] targets is to increase efforts to

[1:20:05] activate the Jordan River and Folsam

[1:20:07] Trail. initiatives include include

[1:20:10] activation requirements for development

[1:20:12] near the Jordan River and along Fulsome

[1:20:14] Trail requiring elements such as

[1:20:17] riverfacing windows and doors, riparian

[1:20:20] corridor friendly landscaping and

[1:20:22] outdoor amenities. Another initiative is

[1:20:26] identify key locations along the Jordan

[1:20:28] River and Folsam Trail where small-cale

[1:20:31] mixeduse zoning could help promote

[1:20:33] placemaking.

[1:20:35] Um, another target in this chapter is to

[1:20:38] establish visually attractive and

[1:20:40] distinct gateways into the Northwest

[1:20:42] community. This can be done by

[1:20:45] identifying streets that can be

[1:20:46] designated as gateways and cultural

[1:20:48] corridors uh where art and culture

[1:20:51] efforts are focused. Work with city

[1:20:53] departments to apply rights of way

[1:20:55] standards that would support the

[1:20:57] creation of city gateways and explore

[1:20:59] incorporating art features into city

[1:21:02] funded projects. Next slide.

[1:21:06] For preservation, the guiding principle

[1:21:08] is maintaining places that provide a

[1:21:11] foundation for the Northwest

[1:21:12] neighborhood to affirm our past. Um, as

[1:21:15] far as the 2040 targets, first is to

[1:21:18] increase the number of properties listed

[1:21:20] on the National Register of Historic

[1:21:21] Places through identifying priority

[1:21:24] areas for uh surveys and also supporting

[1:21:27] neighborhood initiatives to create new

[1:21:29] local historic districts or um add

[1:21:32] places to the National Register of

[1:21:33] Historic Places. And then the second

[1:21:35] target uh for preservation is to ensure

[1:21:38] city-owned historic resources are

[1:21:40] actively maintained and preserved uh

[1:21:43] through providing access to city- funded

[1:21:45] workshops and education regarding um the

[1:21:48] city's building preservation incentives

[1:21:50] to make sure that people are aware of

[1:21:52] these uh programs and understand how to

[1:21:55] take advantage of them for eligible

[1:21:57] properties. um and also supporting

[1:21:59] partnerships for the successful adaptive

[1:22:01] reuse of the Fisher Fiser mansion which

[1:22:03] was identified by the community as an

[1:22:06] important cultural asset. Next slide.

[1:22:10] For arts and culture, the guiding

[1:22:13] principle is vibrant, diverse, and

[1:22:15] accessible artistic and cultural

[1:22:17] resources that showcase the community's

[1:22:19] long-standing commitment to a strong

[1:22:21] creative culture. The first target is to

[1:22:24] increase the total number of cultural

[1:22:26] community events celebrating the

[1:22:28] diversity in the Northwest neighborhood.

[1:22:30] Um, this is something that Northwest

[1:22:31] residents are really proud of. Um, and

[1:22:33] so initiatives that go along with this

[1:22:35] are to collaborate with neighborhood

[1:22:37] stakeholders to bring more cultural

[1:22:38] events to the neighborhood. Um, for

[1:22:40] example, exploring bringing a farmers

[1:22:42] market to the neighborhood and then

[1:22:43] continuing to support the fairgrounds as

[1:22:45] a year-round entertainment destination.

[1:22:48] Um, and the second target for arts and

[1:22:50] culture is to increase public art in the

[1:22:52] Northwest community. Um, which can be

[1:22:55] supported by identifying a pathway to

[1:22:57] revive a youth arts program, working

[1:22:59] with the arts council to um to support

[1:23:03] the project support grants and then

[1:23:06] increasing opportunities to access arts

[1:23:08] and culture by um easing land use

[1:23:10] regulation and where those are allowed.

[1:23:12] Next slide.

[1:23:15] Okay. The guiding principle for the

[1:23:17] equity chapter is a welcoming community

[1:23:20] that celebrates the diversity of the

[1:23:22] Northwest and ensures access to

[1:23:24] amenities for all residents. Um, and two

[1:23:27] really important themes that stood out

[1:23:29] here that aren't talked about in other

[1:23:30] chapters um are access to food and

[1:23:33] access to medical care. So, the first

[1:23:36] target in this chapter is to improve

[1:23:38] access to healthy, fresh, and affordable

[1:23:40] food within the community. Um the

[1:23:42] initiatives include partnering with

[1:23:43] nonprofit organizations that are already

[1:23:45] working in the area. Wasach community

[1:23:47] gardens is one um to improve fresh fresh

[1:23:50] food access. Support um improving the

[1:23:53] existing grocery stores available in the

[1:23:55] area. And then again um exploring

[1:23:57] bringing a local farmers market to the

[1:23:58] Northwest, especially prioritizing one

[1:24:01] that accepts SNAP and other subsidies

[1:24:03] that benefit low-income families. Um and

[1:24:06] second, ensuring that zoning supports

[1:24:08] new medical facilities. um by supporting

[1:24:11] programs to improve access to health

[1:24:13] care for uninsured individuals um which

[1:24:16] is a high proportion of residents in the

[1:24:19] Northwest compared to other Salt Lake

[1:24:21] City communities and also include

[1:24:23] consider including u medical care

[1:24:25] facilities in city funded projects and

[1:24:28] supporting models for popup or mobile um

[1:24:32] medical clinics and care that can bring

[1:24:35] care directly to Northwest residents.

[1:24:37] Next slide.

[1:24:42] All right. Economy. Um, our guiding

[1:24:44] principle for the economy is a local

[1:24:47] economy that fosters entrepreneurship,

[1:24:50] supports small businesses, and promotes

[1:24:53] lively neighborhood commercial

[1:24:54] corridors. Um, our first target is adopt

[1:24:58] zoning policies that promote the growth

[1:25:00] of small-scale neighborhood retail. Our

[1:25:03] initiatives here are allow previous

[1:25:05] commercial buildings in residential zone

[1:25:08] neighborhoods to reestablish commercial

[1:25:10] and retail use, ensure zoning

[1:25:13] regulations result in pedestrian

[1:25:15] friendly spaces and amenities, and

[1:25:18] explore opportunities for accessory

[1:25:20] commercial units. Um, our second target

[1:25:23] is provide financial subsidies for

[1:25:26] businesses that can fill gaps in

[1:25:28] existing retail offerings

[1:25:30] uh with initiatives that include

[1:25:32] consider the creation of a special

[1:25:34] assessment area in the North Temple

[1:25:36] district to finance infrastructure

[1:25:38] improvements and provide ongoing

[1:25:40] services and support the community

[1:25:43] reinvestment agency in operating a a

[1:25:46] retail subleasasing program.

[1:25:49] Next slide.

[1:25:53] government. Our guiding principle here

[1:25:55] is a local government that is

[1:25:58] collaborative, responsive, and

[1:25:59] equitable. Um, our first target is

[1:26:03] increase the number of residents

[1:26:04] participating in the government process.

[1:26:07] Um, our initiatives are utilize online

[1:26:10] engagement tools, translate public

[1:26:13] facing materials, consider modifying the

[1:26:16] timing, location, and types of public

[1:26:19] meetings that seek public input, and

[1:26:21] increase access to public employees and

[1:26:24] elected officials by more participation

[1:26:27] in local events.

[1:26:29] And our second target is ensure more

[1:26:32] equitable responses to zoning

[1:26:34] enforcement and city maintenance. Um,

[1:26:37] our initiatives are support an equitable

[1:26:40] percentage of capital fund spending in

[1:26:42] underserved or historically excluded

[1:26:45] areas and track zoning enforcement to

[1:26:48] ensure it is equitable across the city.

[1:26:51] Next slide.

[1:26:55] Okay. Um, this is water smart Utah. Our

[1:26:58] guiding principle is reduce water use in

[1:27:01] order to ensure sustainable water levels

[1:27:04] for future generations.

[1:27:06] Our target here is update zoning

[1:27:10] regulations to reduce the amount of

[1:27:12] water demand and per capita water use

[1:27:15] for future development.

[1:27:17] Initiatives include support decreased

[1:27:19] lot size and configuration standards.

[1:27:23] allow increased density where

[1:27:25] appropriate to maximize water efficiency

[1:27:28] and to consider prohibiting land uses

[1:27:30] that consume large amounts of water.

[1:27:33] Next slide.

[1:27:36] All right. [clears throat] In addition

[1:27:38] to the 14 guiding principles um and the

[1:27:41] associated chapters, the Northwest

[1:27:43] Community Plan update also includes a

[1:27:45] new future land use map and the state

[1:27:47] required station area plan for the four

[1:27:49] track stations within the community.

[1:27:52] Let's start by discussing the future

[1:27:54] land use map. Please note I'll be using

[1:27:56] a friendly acronym known as flum for the

[1:27:59] rest of the presentation.

[1:28:02] So what is a flum?

[1:28:04] I know [laughter]

[1:28:06] it's a it's a mouthful if I don't. The

[1:28:08] flum guides future development within

[1:28:10] the community by establishing a flexible

[1:28:13] framework that offers adaptability

[1:28:16] enabling the community to evolve over

[1:28:18] time. It is a tool used to evaluate

[1:28:21] requests to amend the zoning map to

[1:28:23] ensure that they are consistent with the

[1:28:25] vision of the community, align with the

[1:28:27] policies and support the specific

[1:28:29] initiatives while also supporting

[1:28:31] citywide needs and goals. What doesn't a

[1:28:34] flum do? It does not alter existing

[1:28:37] zoning. Any requests would go through

[1:28:39] the standard review process for a map

[1:28:41] amendment and would require approval by

[1:28:44] the city council. Next slide.

[1:28:49] To guide the creation of the flum, the

[1:28:51] team developed six principles based on

[1:28:53] city policy, the targets established in

[1:28:56] the plan, and community feedback. The

[1:28:59] principles include the following.

[1:29:00] [snorts] Enhance and activate identified

[1:29:03] corridors as vibrant areas. I'll go more

[1:29:06] into that um in a following slide.

[1:29:09] Protect the Jordan River's riparian

[1:29:11] corridor. Encourage new infill housing

[1:29:14] development. Utilize utilize moderate

[1:29:17] density to buffer regional mixed use.

[1:29:20] Activate Jordan River Parkway and Fulsum

[1:29:22] Trail and encourage appropriately scaled

[1:29:25] commercial development throughout the

[1:29:26] community. Next slide.

[1:29:30] All right. This is a Flum comparison

[1:29:32] map. The exa existing map on the left

[1:29:36] illustrates the future land use

[1:29:38] designations in existing zoning. The

[1:29:41] future land use map on the right is what

[1:29:43] the draft plan includes. As you can see,

[1:29:46] there are changes that reflect the six

[1:29:49] principles. Additionally, it's important

[1:29:51] to note that these new designations were

[1:29:53] developed for community plan updates

[1:29:55] going forward. This ensures consistency

[1:29:58] with all future land use maps within

[1:30:00] community plan updates. Next slide.

[1:30:05] All right, the corridors. I want to

[1:30:07] highlight one of the more significant

[1:30:09] changes in the Flem. The team identified

[1:30:12] the corridors listed on the screen using

[1:30:14] the following factors.

[1:30:16] Complete streets, planned rightway

[1:30:19] improvements, hightraic areas, that's

[1:30:22] pedestrian, bike, and vehicle as yeah,

[1:30:26] pedestrian, bike, vehicle, and bus

[1:30:27] lines. New development that can be

[1:30:30] supported by established community.

[1:30:32] opportunities for properties to

[1:30:34] transition from residential to mixed

[1:30:36] use.

[1:30:40] And you'll see in these corridors that

[1:30:42] are identified on the screen, they are

[1:30:44] primarily um [clears throat] low scale

[1:30:47] mixed use. Uh the lightest purple is one

[1:30:51] to two stories and then the medium

[1:30:53] purple is two to three stories. So a

[1:30:56] small transition to the residential

[1:30:57] neighborhoods. Next slide, please.

[1:31:01] A station area plan is required by state

[1:31:04] law for any fixed rail station. And this

[1:31:06] community has the following four

[1:31:08] stations. The Jackson Uklid, Fair Park

[1:31:11] Station, Power Station, and the 1940

[1:31:14] West Station. The North Temple Station

[1:31:17] areas are the primary location of growth

[1:31:20] within the community that will

[1:31:22] accomplish the following. provide areas

[1:31:25] for a mix of housing types with the

[1:31:28] densest housing closer to the stations

[1:31:30] and a mix of housing throughout the area

[1:31:33] with a focus on ownership opportunities.

[1:31:36] Improve sidewalks, trails, bike paths,

[1:31:39] and streets so that people are safely

[1:31:41] traveling and comfortable throughout the

[1:31:44] station area and into the surrounding

[1:31:46] neighborhoods. connected public spaces

[1:31:49] that give a people to uh give people a

[1:31:52] reason to visit the parks, use the

[1:31:53] trails, and support the local

[1:31:55] businesses.

[1:31:56] Improve the Jordan River by activating

[1:31:59] key stretches while providing

[1:32:01] appropriate wildlife habitat and

[1:32:03] encouraging the use of the river as a

[1:32:05] recreational asset.

[1:32:08] support existing local businesses and

[1:32:10] promote more entrepreneurship

[1:32:13] and balance the needs of regional

[1:32:15] attractions within the community and the

[1:32:17] current and future residences as well as

[1:32:19] business owners.

[1:32:22] Next slide please.

[1:32:24] So there there's a lot of acronyms but

[1:32:27] now yeah station area plan is SAP um and

[1:32:30] flum. the the sapflum is on the screen.

[1:32:34] Um it is um highlighting within the the

[1:32:39] radius around those station areas.

[1:32:42] You'll see that there are primarily

[1:32:45] um four colors of purple. The darkest

[1:32:48] purple is the JRF that re that reflects

[1:32:50] the power district that has the highest

[1:32:53] intensity uses along this corridor. the

[1:32:57] um the kind of moderate purple which is

[1:33:01] surrounding the power district is a step

[1:33:04] down from the JR district and then that

[1:33:07] purple kind of dilutes as you further

[1:33:09] get out from those stations.

[1:33:14] Um, a couple a few objectives of this

[1:33:18] flum are to again create opportunities

[1:33:21] for mixeduse development within the

[1:33:23] station areas and allow for higher

[1:33:25] densities on land closest to the

[1:33:28] stations and then decreasing densities

[1:33:30] further away from the station. Um, to

[1:33:34] support the development of the power

[1:33:36] site as indicated in the DA between the

[1:33:38] city and the property owner. analyze

[1:33:40] zoning to identify and remove outdated

[1:33:43] and ineffective regulations and then to

[1:33:45] promote that home ownership that we

[1:33:46] mentioned before. Next slide.

[1:33:51] We're almost done.

[1:33:53] Okay. So, planning commission boarded a

[1:33:55] unanimous recommendation for adoption to

[1:33:59] um the city council on the 25th of

[1:34:01] February. Next slide.

[1:34:06] This is a QR code. The draft plan is

[1:34:09] still live on shape SLC.

[1:34:13] Next slide

[1:34:15] and then the three of us are here to

[1:34:17] answer any questions.

[1:34:20] >> Council member,

[1:34:23] » Council member,

[1:34:24] >> thank you.

[1:34:25] » thank you.

[1:34:25] >> Uh always lovely to have you all using

[1:34:27] » Uh always lovely to have you all using

[1:34:27] your expertise to focus on my home. I

[1:34:30] appreciate everything you've done. Um

[1:34:32] going to ask a million questions now in

[1:34:34] no specific order.

[1:34:36] >> Okay. We talk about things like per

[1:34:38] » Okay. We talk about things like per

[1:34:38] capita investment. I don't need an in

[1:34:42] response right now, but I'd like to go

[1:34:43] deeper on that. I'm particularly worried

[1:34:45] about this because at the next

[1:34:46] redistricting, my district will inherit

[1:34:49] about 6500

[1:34:52] to 9,000 people who are incarcerated,

[1:34:56] who will never show up, who will never

[1:34:58] be able to participate in a beautiful

[1:35:00] city in a meaningful way. What does that

[1:35:03] do to per capita investment? What does

[1:35:05] that do to my district? I want to just

[1:35:07] talk about that. That's a longer term

[1:35:09] conversation I want to have. Um, we have

[1:35:12] four years before the census will tell

[1:35:15] us, then redistricting will follow that.

[1:35:16] So, um,

[1:35:20] can you clarify? You said the JR the

[1:35:22] Jordan River Trail should go north. It

[1:35:24] does.

[1:35:25] >> I I saw you write down that question, so

[1:35:28] » I I saw you write down that question, so

[1:35:28] I pulled up my map.

[1:35:29] >> I've written my bike. I was like, am I

[1:35:30] » I've written my bike. I was like, am I

[1:35:30] riding my bike on something not the

[1:35:31] Jordan River Trail?

[1:35:32] >> It's confusing. Um, we have received

[1:35:36] » It's confusing. Um, we have received

[1:35:36] quite a bit of public input from the

[1:35:39] Jordan River Commission that the Jordan

[1:35:41] River Trail should extend north um into

[1:35:44] the new newly annexed area of the city.

[1:35:48] So, essentially, I just pulled up my map

[1:35:51] 3500 north. It it doesn't extend that

[1:35:55] far north and it is a challenge.

[1:35:57] >> It goes all the way up to like Leighton,

[1:35:59] » It goes all the way up to like Leighton,

[1:35:59] doesn't it? There's a section that

[1:36:01] doesn't connect that maybe we just maybe

[1:36:04] we're just like illegally riding on some

[1:36:07] sidewalks and stuff [laughter] there.

[1:36:08] >> Okay. I've not experienced a disruption.

[1:36:11] » Okay. I've not experienced a disruption.

[1:36:11] I I'm open to it. I just was like I

[1:36:12] didn't

[1:36:13] >> It's a challenging section of of the

[1:36:15] » It's a challenging section of of the

[1:36:15] river because we we don't we would

[1:36:20] on the east side. It would have to

[1:36:21] switch to the west side of the river and

[1:36:23] then back to the east.

[1:36:25] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I noticed

[1:36:28] » Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I noticed

[1:36:28] that there's a ton of focus on the TSA

[1:36:31] area, you know, around those station

[1:36:33] area plans, which makes sense since

[1:36:35] that's that's where we'll densify. What

[1:36:37] I worry about is if we don't call out

[1:36:39] supporting the growth around that. So,

[1:36:42] my neighbors are getting stressed out

[1:36:44] when it feels like we are supporting all

[1:36:47] of the um apartments and things being

[1:36:51] put in, but no one ever comes and puts

[1:36:54] traffic calming on the roads where we

[1:36:56] are. Even though the number of roads

[1:36:58] going in is increasing or the the the

[1:37:01] usage on like Redwood is a mess, you

[1:37:03] know, no matter what time of day. And

[1:37:05] that's a state road. So, I'm not calling

[1:37:06] out our transportation department. I'm

[1:37:07] calling out state investment there. Um,

[1:37:10] so you know, like yes, the TSA, but as

[1:37:13] we're doing that, I' I'd like some

[1:37:15] specific call outs to making sure that

[1:37:18] the residential, you know, not just

[1:37:20] infill development, but what it means

[1:37:22] for any of it to be developed and for

[1:37:24] that density to increase so that people

[1:37:26] who stay even in things that might not

[1:37:28] densify can still have a reasonable

[1:37:30] expectation that their kids can ride

[1:37:33] their bikes and not have to confront

[1:37:35] Teslas going, you know, 70 m hour down,

[1:37:38] 1200 watt. test. Um,

[1:37:42] we talked about housing and while I'm a

[1:37:44] huge team player, we take more than one

[1:37:47] for the team, we take about a dozen for

[1:37:49] the team when it comes to not just

[1:37:51] affordability, but rehabilitative

[1:37:52] housing. So, I don't love that the only

[1:37:54] thing that was called out there was that

[1:37:56] we would comply with uh the house the

[1:38:00] housing throughout the city. I really

[1:38:01] want to talk about workforce housing.

[1:38:03] Right now, we have housing that if you

[1:38:05] can afford a half million dollar

[1:38:07] mortgage um and have some economic

[1:38:10] mobility, you can buy one of the one of

[1:38:12] the homes that have historically been

[1:38:13] there that have some land. We have a

[1:38:16] space if you are coming out of jail and

[1:38:18] like the other side village and those

[1:38:19] sorts of models or need a place to

[1:38:21] rehabilitate. We don't have housing for

[1:38:23] teachers and firefighters and the union

[1:38:26] workers who have historically called

[1:38:28] that place home. We need workforce

[1:38:31] housing. We need housing for the people

[1:38:33] who have called the work the west side

[1:38:35] home, who continue to call it home, who

[1:38:37] have made it the coolest place to live

[1:38:38] in all of Utah. So, I really would like

[1:38:40] a specific call out for workforce

[1:38:42] housing and the particular demographic

[1:38:44] we're incentivizing there. We always

[1:38:48] feel the economics and we'll always end

[1:38:50] up with the deeply affordable and

[1:38:51] rehabilitative housing if we don't. Um,

[1:38:55] in the staff report there was a call out

[1:38:56] to ebike vouchers and other things to

[1:38:59] help with air quality. If we don't

[1:39:01] include something about infrastructure

[1:39:05] around initiatives like that, we will

[1:39:07] never have success. So if we have micro

[1:39:10] units over there,

[1:39:12] where are people supposed to keep their

[1:39:13] ebikes?

[1:39:15] We are living multi-generationally.

[1:39:17] People are asking for more than three

[1:39:19] bedrooms. My neighbors were refugees

[1:39:21] from Somalia who had grandparents,

[1:39:24] parents, and children all in the same

[1:39:26] house. They do not have the extra space

[1:39:28] for bikes. If we really really really

[1:39:30] want to contribute to not just

[1:39:33] possessing an ebike but to using it, we

[1:39:37] need to look at the infrastructure

[1:39:38] around that biking. We need storage. We

[1:39:41] need winterized storage. And we need

[1:39:43] security. I don't ride my bike to

[1:39:46] Smiths. Well, because it's easy enough

[1:39:47] for me to walk there from my house, but

[1:39:49] I don't ride my bike to Smiths because I

[1:39:51] can't be guaranteed that when I get out,

[1:39:53] it will be there. There is not a bike

[1:39:54] lock that the people who are intent on

[1:39:56] taking it have not figured out how to

[1:39:58] cut through. We need an infrastructure

[1:40:00] so that people can be sure that when

[1:40:02] they come out those bikes will be there.

[1:40:04] There's no amount of hoping for an ebike

[1:40:07] situation or even a biking culture that

[1:40:10] we can promote without going deep on

[1:40:13] building the infrastructure there. Also,

[1:40:16] if this is the place in the city where

[1:40:17] we're inviting in people who are

[1:40:19] refugees and new Americans, as we very

[1:40:22] proudly are, biking culture might not

[1:40:25] exist if your family was figuring out

[1:40:28] just how to get to a safe place. You

[1:40:30] didn't grow up riding a bike. So, the

[1:40:32] initiatives over there and the

[1:40:34] infrastructure over there is going to

[1:40:35] look different. And it shouldn't be

[1:40:36] condescending, but we should be open to

[1:40:38] the idea that that's an assumption we've

[1:40:41] started with that's already a couple

[1:40:42] steps down from where people are in

[1:40:44] their ability to adopt it. Um, I love

[1:40:47] that we called out arts and my neighbors

[1:40:49] are the most creative. We have a real

[1:40:51] difficulty with finding any venues in

[1:40:54] our area. Um, you know, even in other

[1:40:57] places, uh, even Marmalade has a little

[1:40:59] bit of a a a small, so maybe this is

[1:41:02] something we want to talk to the library

[1:41:04] about. Um, I know that Day Riverside is

[1:41:06] on theirs, but we don't have a

[1:41:09] winterproof way to gather. We do have a

[1:41:12] fantastic river trail and we've been

[1:41:14] hearing a lot about busker fest and and

[1:41:15] ways to try to support those things, but

[1:41:18] venues are huge on the arts. Um, on

[1:41:20] preservation, we just don't have as many

[1:41:23] landmarks. No one cares where the union

[1:41:26] plumber rested his head. We only care

[1:41:28] where the notable name who but what

[1:41:32] makes our west side so special is that

[1:41:35] the union plumber rested their head

[1:41:36] there. So I'm I yes let's put things on

[1:41:39] the national register but those tend to

[1:41:42] commemorate moments or locations.

[1:41:47] I would love to see a forward-looking

[1:41:48] preservation that would commemorate

[1:41:50] movements that would look at like the

[1:41:54] rose is called Rose Park because if you

[1:41:56] look at it from the air, it was in the

[1:41:59] shape of a rose and if your house was on

[1:42:01] a petal, it had a red roof and if it was

[1:42:04] on the stem, it had a green roof. And

[1:42:06] the names of the streets are types of

[1:42:08] roses. And it happened all after World

[1:42:10] War II. This is a really interesting

[1:42:12] postwar movement and it was specifically

[1:42:15] designed from people returning from war

[1:42:18] to be able to have a house and it led to

[1:42:22] post-war prosperity in a way we've never

[1:42:24] seen. That's not one person's story. The

[1:42:27] Westside is our collective story. So, as

[1:42:29] we're looking at preservation, yes, that

[1:42:31] National Historic Register, but if we

[1:42:33] could figure out ways to commemorate the

[1:42:35] movement, the thing that happened there,

[1:42:37] the story of the people, not the person,

[1:42:40] I think we're going to get more bang for

[1:42:41] our buck on the history that we're

[1:42:43] trying to preserve over in that area.

[1:42:46] Um, under the economic development, I

[1:42:49] think we need to go beyond just

[1:42:50] subsidies. I love I'm thankful anytime

[1:42:52] someone wants to help, but we actually

[1:42:54] need an active destigmatization. I go to

[1:42:57] other districts to eat dinner. I don't

[1:42:58] know that other people come to my

[1:43:00] district to eat dinner except for Red

[1:43:02] Iguana and then everyone who passes

[1:43:03] through thanks to reality TV stops there

[1:43:06] and technically that's Alejandra's even

[1:43:08] though I'm a share that we we share in

[1:43:10] this plan. Um so we need an an active

[1:43:13] destigmatization.

[1:43:15] We need a strategy to signal to everyone

[1:43:17] that not only is it safe but this is

[1:43:20] actually really viby. Lena has put this

[1:43:23] already in the um economic plan, but if

[1:43:26] we can call out, it's it's it needs to

[1:43:27] go beyond just giving money to an issue

[1:43:31] and it needs to go to storytelling,

[1:43:33] narrative building, marketing, and

[1:43:35] really emphasizing economic possibility

[1:43:37] beyond just that. And then finally, um

[1:43:41] when we talk about the water smart, we

[1:43:43] have to call out what our water prices

[1:43:45] are doing. My neighbors could not be

[1:43:47] more frustrated that they are using less

[1:43:51] water, doing their job, sacrificing

[1:43:54] yards that they may have historically

[1:43:56] had and paying more than they ever have

[1:44:00] and then watching institutional

[1:44:01] neighbors have never have all their

[1:44:04] sprinkler heads working, you know,

[1:44:06] watering the the sidewalks and, you

[1:44:09] know, like never feeling. So, as we're

[1:44:11] doing that, we have to call out what our

[1:44:13] water rates and what our water

[1:44:15] strategies are doing. And we need to

[1:44:17] figure out how to promote water smart in

[1:44:20] a way that is responsive to those

[1:44:22] frustrations. Maybe even policy that can

[1:44:25] be responsive to it without making

[1:44:28] people feel like charity cases and while

[1:44:30] promoting

[1:44:32] people want to conserve over there. But

[1:44:34] we just have to we have to know that

[1:44:35] these frustrations are there. If you ask

[1:44:36] my neighbors to conserve one more time

[1:44:38] and raise their rates at the same time,

[1:44:40] I guarantee you they're going to mutiny

[1:44:42] and they're just going to like, you

[1:44:44] know, start watering for the fun of it.

[1:44:47] So, um, yeah, but thank you. I think

[1:44:50] everything is it's amazingly

[1:44:52] comprehensive the way you've looked at

[1:44:54] the community. Thank you for

[1:44:56] capitalizing on our strengths. Um, some

[1:44:58] guidance for how to engage with partners

[1:45:01] who could preempt us, I think, might be

[1:45:04] helpful. you know, some priorities in

[1:45:06] negotiation things, those sorts of

[1:45:09] things might be helpful since we know

[1:45:11] that we are increasingly losing um

[1:45:13] traction both on the industrial front

[1:45:15] with the port and with the power

[1:45:17] district. Um but thank you. I appreciate

[1:45:19] everything you've done.

[1:45:21] >> Any other thoughts?

[1:45:23] » Any other thoughts?

[1:45:23] >> Thank you very much. Just from this the

[1:45:26] » Thank you very much. Just from this the

[1:45:26] uh staff report just talks about some um

[1:45:29] does the administration have any

[1:45:31] specific projects with cost estimates

[1:45:33] associated with it? I mean, council

[1:45:35] member Petro listed out a bunch of uh

[1:45:37] concerns, but also, you know, um

[1:45:41] you know, beauty the beauty of this

[1:45:43] program, this plan, but any cost on some

[1:45:46] of the stuff because it's a great plan,

[1:45:48] but is there

[1:45:50] thoughts on the dollar on to to

[1:45:52] implement some of those things, get

[1:45:54] things moving? Yeah, in the

[1:45:57] implementation matrix there are if you

[1:46:00] want to pull that up

[1:46:03] >> and that's at the very end of the plan.

[1:46:04] » and that's at the very end of the plan.

[1:46:04] It

[1:46:05] >> is at the very end. Um it yeah it

[1:46:09] » is at the very end. Um it yeah it

[1:46:09] provides four resources. So staff,

[1:46:12] finances, time and community like how

[1:46:15] involved will the community be and is it

[1:46:17] primarily on the city? Right. And we

[1:46:20] evaluate each of these initiatives

[1:46:22] associated with the identified targets

[1:46:24] as far as um what type of investment

[1:46:28] from each of these resources that will

[1:46:30] be. Uh there are quite a few that the

[1:46:32] finances are high and quite a few that

[1:46:35] it's low. Right. We can do these things

[1:46:37] in house and start to knock out some of

[1:46:39] these zoning changes. Um work with

[1:46:42] transportation on some of the identified

[1:46:44] issues you just mentioned um etc. some

[1:46:47] of the other items that we've identified

[1:46:49] might be more costly and knowing our

[1:46:52] budget concerns, they might not happen

[1:46:54] in the next five years. We know that.

[1:46:56] But as far as going out for bid, we have

[1:47:00] not done that.

[1:47:03] >> Okay. I I there was a few things that

[1:47:06] » Okay. I I there was a few things that

[1:47:06] call my attention. Um I sincerely I

[1:47:09] appreciate the the work put into this

[1:47:12] and I think I um I love measures of

[1:47:16] success and this is what that this is

[1:47:18] right is understanding how we are going

[1:47:21] to um measure or or uh know if we're

[1:47:27] doing good or not uh and setting that uh

[1:47:30] standard for ourselves. Um and I think

[1:47:34] uh in the section of government uh it

[1:47:36] says you know increase the number of

[1:47:38] residents participation. I I want us to

[1:47:41] think big and strong about that. Um I

[1:47:44] want us to get the west side or or at

[1:47:47] least this area of the west side which

[1:47:50] is you know the majority of your your

[1:47:52] portion in district one but there is

[1:47:55] several slivers of of my district in in

[1:47:57] it. Um but I want us to match uh other

[1:48:01] portions of the city. I know that's hard

[1:48:03] to do um for for multiple reasons. Um

[1:48:07] but that will require a lot of money and

[1:48:10] a lot of time from our city and you know

[1:48:12] a thoughtful plan on how to do that.

[1:48:15] It's just not just increase it but match

[1:48:18] it. Um, and to me that's that would be

[1:48:21] the real measure of success uh when

[1:48:23] we're talking about government and uh it

[1:48:25] equity costs more and it's harder to to

[1:48:29] get uh too. So I uh and I think that to

[1:48:32] me is the key to the success of this

[1:48:34] project if if we have more of a westside

[1:48:36] voices participating in all levels of

[1:48:39] the city. Um

[1:48:41] and um

[1:48:44] that to me is the the the key piece uh

[1:48:47] that I want to see from from this this

[1:48:49] part of the city. I I I can tell you

[1:48:51] about a million other pieces that I have

[1:48:53] thoughts, but sincerely if we have more

[1:48:55] Westside voices at the table,

[1:48:57] participating with the city, knowing how

[1:49:00] to tell us when something is wrong,

[1:49:02] advocating much like all the

[1:49:04] neighborhoods are advocating for, you

[1:49:06] know, signs or, you know, potholes or

[1:49:09] whatever it is, um we will have a more

[1:49:12] equitable city by itself. It will just

[1:49:14] happen. Um so I I think that to me is

[1:49:18] the key to this plan. um and beefing up

[1:49:22] that government portion of of that. I

[1:49:24] think it is on us uh to get more

[1:49:28] neighbors participating. Um I really

[1:49:30] appreciate the work. I appreciate the

[1:49:32] amount of engagement that uh that you

[1:49:35] are uh that they you put together to get

[1:49:38] feedback from the community. Um I to me

[1:49:42] uh when we're talking about government I

[1:49:44] also want us to ensure that we respond

[1:49:47] and and you mentioned this in in in the

[1:49:49] plan but in the equitable manner uh when

[1:49:53] issues uh raise and I

[1:49:56] I

[1:49:58] know that my neighbors our neighbors are

[1:50:00] saying many times if this would have

[1:50:02] happened in X neighborhood east side it

[1:50:05] would have been different. Um, I tend to

[1:50:09] disagree most of the time with that

[1:50:11] argument, but I also have found our city

[1:50:16] mistakenly uh not purposely doing

[1:50:19] something different sometimes much like

[1:50:22] when we uh the unfortunate accident with

[1:50:25] killing of those you know 100 plus

[1:50:28] trees. It took us a while to get an

[1:50:31] actual response from our city really to

[1:50:34] to come up with a plan on how to

[1:50:36] mitigate that that mistake. It was a

[1:50:38] sincere mistake. It was a terrible

[1:50:40] mistake, but it was a sincere it wasn't

[1:50:42] purpose. But the city took a while to

[1:50:45] respond and it it really took, you know,

[1:50:48] really the press the community to just

[1:50:49] be upset about it. But this one example,

[1:50:52] if would have happened in a different

[1:50:54] neighborhood, it it would have been uh

[1:50:57] catastrophic for for many of us

[1:50:59] politicians. Um and I wish sometimes we

[1:51:03] responded the same way. Um and I know

[1:51:06] that we try very hard. Uh and I know

[1:51:09] that it's not, you know, this

[1:51:10] administration and this city has done an

[1:51:12] incredible work in and in and bridging

[1:51:15] this gap. I want us to not just bridge

[1:51:18] over the gap, but reduce, you know,

[1:51:20] eliminate the gap, fill it up. Um, and

[1:51:22] it's not going to be easily solved. It's

[1:51:25] going to take a while, and it's going to

[1:51:27] take a lot of money and time. So, I

[1:51:29] appreciate the work. I appreciate the

[1:51:30] administration and the work that you

[1:51:31] guys are doing to to solve this and the

[1:51:34] plan and envisioning this. So, thank

[1:51:36] you.

[1:51:37] Can I you you you jog my memory because

[1:51:40] it's not just um investing. It's

[1:51:43] investing in ways that make sense to our

[1:51:45] neighbors that are responsive. And

[1:51:47] especially as we gentrify, the people

[1:51:49] who are likely to respond are people who

[1:51:52] have had the experience with government

[1:51:55] where their voice has been heard and

[1:51:56] responded to. That is not my historic

[1:51:59] That is not our historic neighbor. That

[1:52:01] is not a refugee population. that is not

[1:52:04] a blueco collar worker who is retiring

[1:52:06] here who is used to being overlooked.

[1:52:09] And so if we're serious about equity, if

[1:52:11] we're serious about not gentrifying,

[1:52:13] about creating a mixed income community

[1:52:15] where the new people who can't afford

[1:52:17] the half million dollar mortgages are

[1:52:19] welcome alongside the teachers,

[1:52:21] alongside the person in rehab, alongside

[1:52:23] the historic, then our outreach and our

[1:52:26] responsiveness has to be consistent with

[1:52:28] things that are meaningful and it has to

[1:52:31] go look for the people who won't be the

[1:52:36] lowest hanging fruit on response. We can

[1:52:38] very easily on the west side, especially

[1:52:40] once the power district gets up and

[1:52:42] going, create a falsified data set that

[1:52:44] will become the agent of gentrification

[1:52:47] and will be responding to the community.

[1:52:51] But I think um it's I don't I I think

[1:52:54] it's it's really almost a cruel thing

[1:52:56] for me to say on the record because it's

[1:52:58] not not only is it not easy, there is

[1:53:00] probably no clear-cut way to do this.

[1:53:03] This is a very customized we have to go

[1:53:06] and understand our neighbors and

[1:53:08] neighborhood in a way that city

[1:53:11] government hasn't historically. It's the

[1:53:13] paradigm shift. But I think if that's

[1:53:15] what we're really intending, and I think

[1:53:17] all of us in this room are, um, there's

[1:53:20] a level of responsiveness that isn't

[1:53:22] just showing up when 911 is dialed, not

[1:53:26] just, uh, making sure that we don't

[1:53:29] inadvertently block access to Cottonwood

[1:53:31] Dog Park by not having a bridge there

[1:53:33] for a year and a half. It's it's going

[1:53:38] and asking questions

[1:53:40] in ways that they can be heard and then

[1:53:42] responding in ways that are meaningful.

[1:53:44] So, thank you for bringing that up

[1:53:46] because I think you're right. We we

[1:53:47] could inadvertently decrease

[1:53:49] responsiveness from the people who were

[1:53:51] actively trying to protect with this

[1:53:52] plan as the changes come if we're not

[1:53:55] really strategic with that.

[1:53:58] >> Thank you. I appreciate the work that

[1:54:00] » Thank you. I appreciate the work that

[1:54:00] you've done. Uh thank you for the time,

[1:54:02] the presentation. Thank you for making

[1:54:04] it clear. Um, I love this presentation

[1:54:06] also because it's uh user friendly. I

[1:54:08] sometimes plans get overwhelming. So, I

[1:54:11] appreciate how you done it. So, thank

[1:54:13] you so much for your time.

[1:54:14] >> Thank you. And we will follow up with

[1:54:16] » Thank you. And we will follow up with

[1:54:16] those changes.

[1:54:17] >> Thank you. Um, council members, we're a

[1:54:20] » Thank you. Um, council members, we're a

[1:54:20] little behind. We're going to uh move on

[1:54:23] to um item number five is another

[1:54:26] informationational is anformational

[1:54:27] item, central community plan update.

[1:54:30] We're gonna um welcome at the table Kate

[1:54:32] Witt council policy analyst. Megan

[1:54:34] Booth, principal planner. Chrissy

[1:54:36] Gilmore, planning manager and longtime

[1:54:38] friend. By the way, we know each other

[1:54:40] for 15 years. I don't know which doesn't

[1:54:43] happen.

[1:54:45] Great. Thank you. The planning division

[1:54:48] is in the early stages of the central

[1:54:49] community plan update and the existing

[1:54:52] conditions report was re provided to you

[1:54:54] for your review. This is proposed to

[1:54:57] replace the 2005 plan. At this time, the

[1:55:00] existing conditions report is drafted

[1:55:02] and community engagement has begun.

[1:55:04] Planning is seeking council policy input

[1:55:07] on the plan update. This plan will

[1:55:09] eventually go to the planning

[1:55:10] commission, then come back to council

[1:55:12] for a public hearing and adoption. No

[1:55:15] action is required at this time. A few

[1:55:18] potential policy discussion items

[1:55:19] include um park space access within the

[1:55:23] the plan area. The council may also wish

[1:55:26] to ask planning staff what significant

[1:55:29] changes may arise in the upcoming plan,

[1:55:31] including any public space improvements,

[1:55:34] street changes, zoning modifications,

[1:55:37] um new multimodal options, or anything

[1:55:40] similar to that. With that, I'll turn it

[1:55:42] to planning staff. Thanks.

[1:55:46] » Thank you, council members. It's so nice

[1:55:48] to be here this afternoon. Um my name is

[1:55:50] Megan Booth. I'm a principal planner in

[1:55:52] the planning division and today we're

[1:55:54] here to talk about the central community

[1:55:56] plan update. Um as explained this is

[1:55:59] just introductory and so we'll give a

[1:56:02] quick overview um of where we're at.

[1:56:05] Next slide.

[1:56:08] Um so this is really a briefing on the

[1:56:11] scope of the project, the existing

[1:56:13] conditions report that was published in

[1:56:15] May, the engagement plan or plan for

[1:56:18] that and overall ideas for the central

[1:56:20] committee plan update. Our hope is

[1:56:22] really to gather your input, identify

[1:56:25] key issues and opportunities um as it's

[1:56:28] plain formal council action will come at

[1:56:30] a later time. Next slide.

[1:56:33] So the purpose and need um this current

[1:56:36] plan is 20 years old. It was adopted in

[1:56:38] 2005. Um, we want to create a shared

[1:56:41] vision for the next 15 years that

[1:56:43] reflects today's community and align

[1:56:46] with recently adopted citywide plans

[1:56:48] such as Plan Salt Lake and Housing Salt

[1:56:50] Lake City. Um, as you saw with the

[1:56:54] Northwest plan, um, these plan updates

[1:56:57] are built to be measurable and updated

[1:57:00] more often. So that's our hope with this

[1:57:02] update as well. Next slide.

[1:57:06] Um so this is slightly off work but kind

[1:57:09] of true. Um we're right before big

[1:57:12] ideas. So right now we're looking at all

[1:57:14] the opportunities and issues. We're

[1:57:16] doing public engagement and formulating

[1:57:19] um some big ideas by working with the

[1:57:22] community. The draft plan will come next

[1:57:25] and the final vision. So this is just

[1:57:27] kind of a timeline for that. Next slide.

[1:57:31] Um so um right now we also want to

[1:57:34] highlight the existing conditions report

[1:57:37] um that's been published and I'll turn

[1:57:39] that over to Chrissy to go over some of

[1:57:41] our findings.

[1:57:42] >> Okay, thank you. Hi, thanks for having

[1:57:44] » Okay, thank you. Hi, thanks for having

[1:57:44] us. I just want to say that this is the

[1:57:46] exciting part of our job. We really love

[1:57:48] doing these. So I'm going to apologize

[1:57:49] now that I kind of nerded out and we

[1:57:51] have a lot of existing condition slides,

[1:57:53] but in the interest of time, I'm going

[1:57:55] to be very brief so I won't be as

[1:57:56] eloquent as my fancy notes were

[1:57:58] originally. Um so next slide please.

[1:58:02] So what does the existing conditions

[1:58:04] report include? Um it includes a wide

[1:58:06] variety of topics. It's over 130 pages.

[1:58:09] It's very very detailed. We have um we

[1:58:11] use a variety of reliable sources. Um

[1:58:14] the US census, the ChemC Gardener

[1:58:16] Institute, uh their data book, city

[1:58:19] data, um state data. So it's a very

[1:58:21] comprehensive document that goes over

[1:58:23] the development history of the area,

[1:58:24] demographics, land use, zoning, housing,

[1:58:27] parks and wreck. really anything that

[1:58:30] has to do with the city's function, it

[1:58:31] it goes over. Um, so this this

[1:58:34] presentation will just hit very quickly

[1:58:35] on some of these topics, but if you're

[1:58:37] curious, you can get into the details in

[1:58:39] the actual document. Uh, next slide,

[1:58:41] please.

[1:58:42] So, as far as the plan area, um, this is

[1:58:46] located in the central area of Salt Lake

[1:58:48] City. It's approximately six square

[1:58:49] miles and it's home to 51,000 about

[1:58:52] 51,000 residents or 25% of the city's

[1:58:55] population. Um, you can see that

[1:58:59] downtown in the original 2005 plan,

[1:59:02] downtown was included in the plan area,

[1:59:04] but it's now been taken out because of

[1:59:05] there is a downtown plan now. So, we

[1:59:07] don't have that included. Um, next

[1:59:09] slide.

[1:59:11] As far as the boundaries, the plan

[1:59:13] boundaries go from approximately South

[1:59:15] Temple all the way down to 17th South on

[1:59:18] the north and then it goes kind of juts

[1:59:20] down to 2100 South and then from east to

[1:59:23] west it goes from approximately 1300

[1:59:25] east down to 200 east and then it juts

[1:59:27] down to the freeway. And there are five

[1:59:30] neighborhoods. These were identified in

[1:59:32] the 2005 plan. We've carried those over.

[1:59:35] Um we are talking to the community about

[1:59:37] renaming them if these names are

[1:59:39] appropriate. And we we have some

[1:59:40] received some feedback that we need to

[1:59:42] make some changes. Uh next slide please.

[1:59:46] Development periods. So this slide

[1:59:48] illustrates how central community has

[1:59:50] grown throughout time. It shows that the

[1:59:52] earliest development was a sharp

[1:59:53] residential development. Um most of the

[1:59:56] neighborhoods in this area were built

[1:59:57] between 1880 and 1930. And then and

[2:00:00] those are in the green and blue. And

[2:00:02] then as time went on um you saw

[2:00:04] commercial development and multif family

[2:00:06] along our key corridors. So that's in

[2:00:08] the orange and red and you can see along

[2:00:10] 400 south with tracks coming in that

[2:00:12] encouraged new development in the late

[2:00:15] um or early 21st century I mean and then

[2:00:17] again along 300 west you can see that

[2:00:19] new red and um orange development. Next

[2:00:23] slide please.

[2:00:25] Um I can't talk about development

[2:00:27] without addressing redlinining and

[2:00:29] equity. Um so in the mid- 20th century

[2:00:31] I'm you guys are allware well aware but

[2:00:33] the federal government and private

[2:00:35] lenders used a practice called

[2:00:36] redlinining to designate which

[2:00:38] neighborhoods were considered um safe

[2:00:40] investments for mortgages and um what

[2:00:43] neighborhoods were considered hazardous.

[2:00:46] And this practice assigned higher risk

[2:00:47] to minority neighborhoods. they were

[2:00:50] labeled in D which is hazardous where

[2:00:52] they were denied housing loans or C

[2:00:54] which is definitely declining in yellow

[2:00:57] um where they weren't fully denied loans

[2:00:58] but they did receive less investment. Um

[2:01:02] this is important to highlight because

[2:01:03] of these patterns continue today. While

[2:01:06] the practice was from the 1930s and 40s

[2:01:08] approximately we still see these when we

[2:01:10] look at demographic numbers like where

[2:01:12] you see the red is where we see higher

[2:01:14] poverty rates currently. So, it's just

[2:01:16] something we want to acknowledge and um

[2:01:18] make sure we're aware of moving forward.

[2:01:20] Next slide, please.

[2:01:23] And then the same goes for how the

[2:01:24] community was shaped. We can't talk

[2:01:25] about development without acknowledging

[2:01:27] um how the construction of I-15 impacted

[2:01:30] the neighborhood. Um this map is

[2:01:32] interesting. If you look to the very

[2:01:35] left of the map, there's some yellow

[2:01:37] boxes. Um those might not that's not

[2:01:40] where the freeway went through exactly.

[2:01:41] that's along 300 West. But those homes

[2:01:43] were subsequently demolished as an

[2:01:45] impact of the freeway coming in and

[2:01:47] changing the development pattern,

[2:01:49] changing where investment went and um

[2:01:51] contributing to that disinvestment there

[2:01:53] while um investment went other places.

[2:01:56] So next slide, please.

[2:01:59] Urban form. This is just a quick one. It

[2:02:01] just shows how as we had development

[2:02:02] later like the earlier development was

[2:02:05] smaller buildings and then as it come

[2:02:06] later you have bigger building

[2:02:08] footprints with larger open spaces and

[2:02:09] parking lots around them. This just

[2:02:11] highlights opportunities for um new

[2:02:13] development where redevelopment could

[2:02:15] possibly take place. Next slide.

[2:02:19] Um population and growth. So as I

[2:02:21] mentioned, Central Community is home to

[2:02:23] 25% of the city's total population.

[2:02:25] Since 2010, the population has grown by

[2:02:28] 10%, but that growth hasn't been even.

[2:02:30] Um you can see in the blue we've had an

[2:02:33] increase in growth in the ballpark

[2:02:34] neighborhood and central city but then

[2:02:37] towards the souththeast plan boundary

[2:02:39] we've had a decrease in growth. Um and I

[2:02:42] actually think this is interesting

[2:02:43] because of this those two red boxes on

[2:02:46] the southeast corner are also where we

[2:02:48] have the highest concentration of

[2:02:49] children in the plan area. Um I don't

[2:02:52] I'm still trying to figure out the tie

[2:02:53] to that but where we've had the most um

[2:02:55] population decrease is where we also

[2:02:56] have the most children. So, it's kind of

[2:02:58] interesting when you look at

[2:02:59] demographics. The northern portion of

[2:03:01] the plan area is where we see the most

[2:03:03] college-aged children, college age,

[2:03:05] they're no children, uh, residents. And

[2:03:08] then, like I mentioned, the south part

[2:03:10] is where we see the more families and,

[2:03:12] uh, children. Next slide, please. Uh,

[2:03:15] race and ethnicity. So, overall, the

[2:03:17] centric community is less diverse in

[2:03:19] Salt Lake City as a whole.

[2:03:21] um both minorities comprising 25 27% of

[2:03:24] the local population compared to 35%

[2:03:26] citywide but this does vary between each

[2:03:29] neighborhood with ballpark and um

[2:03:31] central city have higher minority

[2:03:33] population than the other neighborhoods.

[2:03:35] Uh next slide please.

[2:03:38] I won't explain zoning to you. You know

[2:03:39] about that. But this just shows that

[2:03:41] there is a wide variety of zoning um

[2:03:43] designations in this plan area with the

[2:03:46] purple is mixed use. We have the light

[2:03:48] yellow is uh single family residential

[2:03:50] and the oranges are our uh multif family

[2:03:52] residential. Next slide.

[2:03:56] Um as far as housing density, the

[2:03:58] average density in the plan area is 12.7

[2:04:01] units per acre. And this is higher than

[2:04:03] the citywide average, which is 8.9 units

[2:04:06] per acre when you take out central

[2:04:07] community. And central city and east

[2:04:10] central north have the highest density

[2:04:12] in the plant area.

[2:04:14] Next slide.

[2:04:17] um housing types. So the majority of

[2:04:19] housing types are multif family units um

[2:04:21] which you can see in the dark blue. We

[2:04:23] call them apartments on the slide and

[2:04:25] then single family housing accounts for

[2:04:27] a larger percentage of land area but a

[2:04:29] large a smaller percentage of units

[2:04:31] which probably isn't surprising. Um, I

[2:04:34] think this map is really interesting

[2:04:35] though because when you compare it to

[2:04:36] the zoning on the previous slide,

[2:04:38] especially that southeast portion, you

[2:04:40] see swasts of yellow, which is single

[2:04:42] family zoning, but in reality, you can

[2:04:44] just see that it's a smattering or a

[2:04:47] variety of duplexes, multif family

[2:04:49] building, single family, and so the

[2:04:50] zoning map doesn't really align with

[2:04:51] what's on the ground. Next slide,

[2:04:54] please.

[2:04:56] So, income. So, this is where we start

[2:04:57] to see a bigger difference between each

[2:04:59] of those five neighborhoods. Um the

[2:05:01] median household income in central

[2:05:02] community is 63,000 almost almost 64,000

[2:05:06] compared to the citywide average of

[2:05:07] 75,000.

[2:05:09] Um but this varies widely across each

[2:05:11] neighborhood. So, Central City, East

[2:05:13] Central, and Ballpark all have an

[2:05:14] average um income lower than 55,000 a

[2:05:18] year, while East East Central South and

[2:05:21] Liberty have higher incomes at $85,092,

[2:05:24] which is almost 35 30,000 30 thou 30,000

[2:05:28] more than the other neighborhoods. Um,

[2:05:30] and then on top of that, the lower

[2:05:32] median income, about 41% of households

[2:05:34] earn less than $50,000 a year in the

[2:05:36] central community. And so all of that

[2:05:38] just leads to this chart which shows

[2:05:40] that compared to the rest of Salt Lake,

[2:05:41] a higher percentage of central community

[2:05:43] residents live in poverty. And this

[2:05:45] varies fairly significantly between each

[2:05:47] of these communities where you can see

[2:05:49] Central City and Ballpark have higher

[2:05:51] percentages of youth poverty, senior

[2:05:53] poverty, um and then uninsured.

[2:05:56] Next slide, please.

[2:05:59] Housing affordability. So that leads us

[2:06:01] to the housing affordability session

[2:06:02] where you know that if someone spends

[2:06:05] more than 30% of their income, it means

[2:06:07] they're cost burdened. Income on

[2:06:08] housing, it means they're cost burdened.

[2:06:10] Um the central community has about I

[2:06:13] think it's 40 Yeah, 48% of renters are

[2:06:16] considered cost burden. That's slightly

[2:06:17] higher than um home owners. And you

[2:06:22] probably can't see it very well, but I

[2:06:23] just wanted to quickly point out this

[2:06:24] cost burden scenario that shows that the

[2:06:27] average price of a home in central

[2:06:28] community, sorry, I have to look at it.

[2:06:30] I was

[2:06:33] 470,000. Um, if someone was to put down

[2:06:36] a down payment on that, we show two

[2:06:37] different scenarios, they would need to

[2:06:39] make at least 106,000 to afford that

[2:06:41] home. And when you think that the

[2:06:43] average income is 60, almost 64,000 and

[2:06:46] in ballpark it's only 55,000. That just

[2:06:48] shows how unattainable it is to buy a

[2:06:51] home in the central community area. Next

[2:06:53] slide, please.

[2:06:56] Um transportation just um there's a wide

[2:06:58] variety of artiller roads. Central

[2:07:00] community has the most artiller roads of

[2:07:02] any plan area. Um active transportation

[2:07:05] also has a wide and robust active

[2:07:08] transportation system. Um as far as bus

[2:07:11] routes, goodness, I should get my eyes

[2:07:13] checked. I cannot see. Sorry. [laughter]

[2:07:16] [gasps] Um

[2:07:18] I know. I'm like, whoa, this is getting

[2:07:20] scary for me. But 93% of households are

[2:07:23] within a fourth mile of a um bus stop.

[2:07:27] And then 26% of households are within a

[2:07:29] fourth mile of a transit stop. And you

[2:07:31] can see those um from the transit stops,

[2:07:34] those bubbles that surround them. All

[2:07:37] right, next slide, please.

[2:07:40] Um so, as far as parks and wreck, the

[2:07:42] central community has the lowest park

[2:07:43] access of any planning area in Salt Lake

[2:07:45] City. And we looked at this not just um

[2:07:48] number of acres per per person but also

[2:07:50] as walkability and it's the lowest on

[2:07:53] both of those. So there are major

[2:07:54] barriers to transportation um to parks

[2:07:56] because there's so many large corridors

[2:07:59] like 700 East State Street, 400 South um

[2:08:02] and then it while the map it might

[2:08:03] appear that there are lots of parks as

[2:08:05] far as the number goes, the acreage does

[2:08:07] not um they're all pretty small besides

[2:08:10] Liberty Park. So that acreage doesn't uh

[2:08:12] or the number doesn't make up for the

[2:08:13] small acreage. Um, so overall there's

[2:08:16] just a gap in both park acorage and park

[2:08:18] accessibility.

[2:08:19] Next slide.

[2:08:21] And then I wanted to end with public art

[2:08:23] because this is a huge asset for the

[2:08:25] central community. Um, I think of any

[2:08:26] planet area they probably have the most

[2:08:28] public art. It was brought up many times

[2:08:30] in our um, outreach. People are very

[2:08:33] proud of it and it's something that we

[2:08:35] wanted to highlight that it's a big um,

[2:08:36] contributing factor for why people

[2:08:38] identify and love this area. All right,

[2:08:41] next slide.

[2:08:44] Thanks, Chrissy. So, now I'll just give

[2:08:46] a quick overview of where we've been in

[2:08:48] the process, what we're doing to engage

[2:08:50] the community, and what we've been

[2:08:52] hearing so far, and where we're heading

[2:08:53] next. Um, engagement is still ongoing

[2:08:56] throughout the process. So, these are

[2:08:57] just early themes that we've heard. Um,

[2:09:00] next slide.

[2:09:03] So far, we've had 15 inerson engagement

[2:09:07] events, 11 stakeholder interviews, two

[2:09:10] commission briefings, two open houses,

[2:09:12] six popups, and three community council

[2:09:14] meetings. And we're hitting the two

[2:09:16] other community council meetings next

[2:09:18] month month. Um, we've had many visits

[2:09:21] to the project website. Um, one thing

[2:09:24] we've been trying to do is meet people

[2:09:26] where they are at coffee shops,

[2:09:28] neighborhood breakfast joints,

[2:09:29] festivals, and community events instead

[2:09:32] of expecting them to come to us. Um, as

[2:09:35] I mentioned, engagement is still

[2:09:36] ongoing. Um, the excuse me,

[2:09:39] [clears throat] the survey will be

[2:09:40] remain open throughout the fall and we

[2:09:43] have additional events planned through

[2:09:45] August and September. Um, next slide.

[2:09:48] [cough]

[2:09:51] So, um, where have we been? Um early

[2:09:53] outreach started in February. We went to

[2:09:55] Clayton Middle School's career day,

[2:09:56] continuing through um Youth City Living

[2:10:00] Tradition and Jefferson Jams. In June

[2:10:02] and July, we held popups. Um as I

[2:10:05] mentioned, we presented at the community

[2:10:07] council meetings, had our open houses.

[2:10:09] We also presented uh a similar briefing

[2:10:12] to the planning commission and historic

[2:10:14] landmark commission. Next slide.

[2:10:17] So, what have we been hearing? Um, so

[2:10:21] when residents were asked what they love

[2:10:22] about Central Community, many mentioned

[2:10:24] the strong sense of community,

[2:10:26] walkability, and bikeability, residents

[2:10:28] talked about the nine line, Liberty

[2:10:30] Park, the neighborhood proximity to

[2:10:32] downtown. Um, they also highlighted the

[2:10:35] tree canopy, historic homes, and the

[2:10:37] variety of the architecture. Um, many

[2:10:40] appreciate the locally owned businesses

[2:10:42] instead of chains and spoke about the

[2:10:44] people, students, neighbors who look out

[2:10:46] for one another and kids who can walk to

[2:10:48] a friend's house. Um, more more than one

[2:10:51] resident simply said it's just the best

[2:10:53] place to live in the city. Next slide.

[2:10:57] Um, so what we've heard about housing,

[2:11:00] um, on housing, many participants

[2:11:02] mentioned missing middle housing,

[2:11:04] duplexes, triplexes, town homes, ADUs,

[2:11:07] small apartment buildings, um, with

[2:11:08] mixeduse shops nearby. Um, residents did

[2:11:12] point to vacant sites and suggested

[2:11:14] reusing older buildings rather than

[2:11:16] demolishing them. Um, affordability, as

[2:11:19] we mentioned, has been a recurring

[2:11:21] theme. There's a want for familysiz

[2:11:23] unit, more ownership on opportunities

[2:11:25] like condos. Um at the same time, those

[2:11:28] who supported more housing also raised

[2:11:30] concerns about large apartment

[2:11:32] buildings, traffic, design, quality. Um

[2:11:35] these comments um as discussed are you

[2:11:38] know what kind of what we expected. Um

[2:11:40] next slide.

[2:11:42] For transportation, residents describe

[2:11:44] major roads as barriers between

[2:11:46] neighborhoods and asked for traffic

[2:11:48] calming and safer crossings at these

[2:11:50] corridors, plus more direct north south

[2:11:53] connections into downtown. Um transit

[2:11:55] came up as um infrequent, sometimes slow

[2:11:59] and expensive. Um for biking, um

[2:12:02] residents were asking for protected bike

[2:12:04] lanes, better bike parking at

[2:12:05] businesses, and keeping the existing

[2:12:07] lanes unobstructed. Next slide.

[2:12:12] For parks and open space, residents

[2:12:14] requested more park tree shade as well

[2:12:16] as larger plazas, gathering spaces, and

[2:12:20] community gardens. They also wanted

[2:12:21] green infrastructure, water wise

[2:12:23] landscaping that follow the growing

[2:12:25] water smart guidelines. Um, shade has

[2:12:27] been mentioned often both for comfort

[2:12:30] and making walking easier during the

[2:12:31] summer. Um, ballpark and central city

[2:12:34] were named as top priorities for new

[2:12:36] parkland and tree canopy. Several

[2:12:38] residents also said that maintaining

[2:12:40] existing parks um was very important

[2:12:43] rather than building new ones. Next

[2:12:45] slide.

[2:12:47] Um what we've heard on public safety um

[2:12:50] centers on homelessness, drug activity,

[2:12:52] and property crime. Some participants

[2:12:55] reported feeling unsafe in parks while

[2:12:57] walking. Um I do want to highlight the

[2:12:59] great work that our park rangers do. Um

[2:13:02] I think that's a little bit um of an

[2:13:06] education thing for our community that

[2:13:08] they are out there. Um Central City

[2:13:10] Ballpark and Liberty Park came up most

[2:13:11] often. Um several expressed a desire for

[2:13:14] services to be distributed more evenly.

[2:13:17] Next slide.

[2:13:20] Um so so to close what we've heard about

[2:13:22] in for this plan area for neighborhood

[2:13:24] and community is um residents want to

[2:13:27] preserve their community character, the

[2:13:29] area's diversity, historic homes, and

[2:13:32] support long-term residents and

[2:13:33] familyfriendly neighborhoods. Um there's

[2:13:36] a clear desire for more neighborhood

[2:13:38] serving businesses. Every um everyday

[2:13:41] needs within walking distance uh walking

[2:13:43] distance and a preferences for local

[2:13:45] businesses.

[2:13:47] Um, we, as Chrissy mentioned, we've

[2:13:50] heard some confusion about the

[2:13:51] neighborhood name. So, we'll be looking

[2:13:53] at that um, in our future engagement.

[2:13:56] Um, next slide.

[2:14:00] Um, so, as mentioned several times,

[2:14:02] engagement will continue throughout the

[2:14:03] plan update. Um, we were at J&J Coffee

[2:14:06] this morning. We'll be at Liberty

[2:14:08] Heights Fresh later this month. In

[2:14:10] August, we're partnering with Hill Utah

[2:14:12] on a a ballpark walk audit along with

[2:14:15] the community photo walk in Liberty

[2:14:16] Park. Um we hope that will kick off um

[2:14:19] the through your lens community photo

[2:14:22] contest. Um and as mentioned, we'll be m

[2:14:25] meeting with the remaining two community

[2:14:27] councils. Um we hope to wrap up some of

[2:14:30] our engagement in September at the

[2:14:32] backyard film bash in the 9inth and 9th

[2:14:34] Street Festival. Um, the photo contest

[2:14:37] is just another way for people to share

[2:14:39] their perspectives on the neighborhood.

[2:14:41] Um, it's also cross language barrier.

[2:14:43] Um, anyone can submit a photo. It's

[2:14:45] pretty easy on your phone. Um, they can

[2:14:48] submit their photos showing what they

[2:14:49] love, um, how they get around or how

[2:14:51] they'd like to see the community to grow

[2:14:53] and then we'll display those photos at

[2:14:55] the backyard fil bash and hopefully some

[2:14:57] of them will be featured in the final

[2:14:59] plan. Um, so the community's own photos

[2:15:01] and thoughts will help tell the story of

[2:15:03] the plan. Um so with that we welcome

[2:15:06] council [clears throat] members at any

[2:15:07] of these events and if there are any

[2:15:09] community or groups events that you

[2:15:10] think we should connect with um please

[2:15:12] let us know. Next slide.

[2:15:15] >> Council member Council Carlson.

[2:15:18] » Council member Council Carlson.

[2:15:18] >> Um I just want to say a profound thank

[2:15:22] » Um I just want to say a profound thank

[2:15:22] you for the robust community engagement

[2:15:24] you've done on this plan. Um, you had

[2:15:27] some slides that said where have where

[2:15:29] you've been and I think you should those

[2:15:31] should be where haven't you been because

[2:15:33] you have been literally everywhere and

[2:15:36] I've seen you out in the community

[2:15:38] whether it's uh neighborhood spots,

[2:15:40] community council meetings, other popup

[2:15:42] opportunities. You have um taken

[2:15:46] community engagement above and beyond on

[2:15:48] this plan and I'm deeply appreciative of

[2:15:50] your creativity and your approach to

[2:15:52] ensuring community voices are

[2:15:54] represented in it. and it's a lot of

[2:15:55] hard work and a lot of long hours. It's

[2:15:58] not during the traditional 8 to five

[2:16:00] workday. So, thank you for your your

[2:16:02] work and efforts to elevate community

[2:16:03] voices.

[2:16:05] >> Thank you. We appreciate that.

[2:16:07] » Thank you. We appreciate that.

[2:16:07] >> Um the next thing and I had an

[2:16:09] » Um the next thing and I had an

[2:16:09] opportunity to to weigh in on this plan

[2:16:11] and have seen you as I've talked about

[2:16:13] on the road at the different community

[2:16:15] events. Um, but I just wanted to really

[2:16:18] uh express my appreciation also for you

[2:16:21] including um redlinining uh and the

[2:16:25] historical nature and the ways in which

[2:16:27] that denied access to certain

[2:16:28] communities to social and economic

[2:16:31] mobility and to just really name that

[2:16:35] the past influences the present and now

[2:16:38] with this plan we're having a

[2:16:39] conversation with the future. And so I

[2:16:42] want to just continue to emphasize that

[2:16:44] we have an opportunity to write some

[2:16:47] historical wrongs as we imagine the

[2:16:49] future of uh central community over the

[2:16:52] next 15 years. But other than those two

[2:16:54] things, I just want to again say thank

[2:16:56] you for all your hard work on this. And

[2:16:58] it's hard to believe you're just really

[2:17:00] getting started.

[2:17:04] » Council members.

[2:17:07] Okay. I wanted to um thank uh the work

[2:17:12] uh this this type of uh plans and and uh

[2:17:16] visioning for the future, understanding

[2:17:17] the the challenges that we have on the

[2:17:19] ground, the realities that we we have to

[2:17:21] work with. Um uh just help us a lot uh

[2:17:25] and and in implementing policies that

[2:17:28] impact our community. So, thank you for

[2:17:29] the work. Um I I wish we could make some

[2:17:33] of these plans available in our own

[2:17:34] pages and you know individual console

[2:17:36] pages for you know much like the

[2:17:39] discussion earlier on the item before um

[2:17:42] for the community when they search for

[2:17:43] us they can access some of this like

[2:17:46] basic information that is actually so

[2:17:48] useful when it's put together like this.

[2:17:49] So, thank you all

[2:17:52] seen.

[2:17:53] >> Oh, yes.

[2:17:54] » Oh, yes.

[2:17:54] >> I want to thank you as well. Um I love

[2:17:57] » I want to thank you as well. Um I love

[2:17:57] how you're integrating this with

[2:17:59] previous plans. That's not an easy task

[2:18:03] as you know. So, um thank you for doing

[2:18:05] uh the heavy lifting on that. It's much

[2:18:08] appreciated.

[2:18:10] >> Thank you so much for the work and the

[2:18:12] » Thank you so much for the work and the

[2:18:12] presentation. Council members, we're

[2:18:14] going to keep on uh taking a break now.

[2:18:17] Um so we are going to uh re-engage at

[2:18:22] 4:40.

[2:18:23] So 20 minute break, 19 minute break.

[2:18:54] » [music]

[2:19:02] [music]

[2:22:51] » Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:22:55] » [music]

[2:23:01] [music]

[2:24:21] » How y'all doing?

[2:24:21] >> [music]

[2:24:34] [music]

[2:25:36] >> Heat. Heat.

[2:25:44] » [music]

[2:25:51] » Hey

[2:25:55] [music]

[2:25:56] honey.

[2:26:03] [music]

[2:26:09] » [music]

[2:26:43] [music]

[2:26:51] >> Hey,

[2:26:54] » Hey,

[2:26:54] hey, hey. [music]

[2:27:00] » [music]

[2:27:06] [music]

[2:29:51] » Hey,

[2:29:55] [music]

[2:29:58] honey.

[2:30:03] [music]

[2:30:16] » [music]

[2:30:37] [music]

[2:31:26] » Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:31:35] [music]

[2:31:56] » [music]

[2:32:03] [music]

[2:32:28] » Heat.

[2:32:35] [music]

[2:32:48] Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:32:55] » [music]

[2:33:22] [music]

[2:33:39] » Heat.

[2:33:45] [music]

[2:33:48] Hey. Hey. Hey.

[2:33:51] [music]

[2:33:57] » [music]

[2:34:08] [music]

[2:36:36] >> Heat. Heat.

[2:36:44] » [music]

[2:36:50] [music]

[2:37:51] >> Hey,

[2:37:55] [music]

[2:38:03] hey,

[2:38:05] [music]

[2:38:06] hey.

[2:38:35] » [music]

[2:38:41] [music]

[2:38:52] » moving on to the agenda. Um, now we are

[2:38:54] back to item number seven. This is

[2:38:56] anformational item for affordable

[2:38:59] housing incentives two-year report.

[2:39:01] We're gonna welcome Nick Norris,

[2:39:03] planning director, and Allison Roland,

[2:39:05] our council policy analyst.

[2:39:08] Welcome.

[2:39:10] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:39:13] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[2:39:13] This item is a about the affordable

[2:39:16] housing incentives report. When the

[2:39:19] council first

[2:39:21] uh approved the affordable housing

[2:39:23] incentives or AHI ordinance, you

[2:39:25] requested a report be report on the

[2:39:29] policy's implementation be provided

[2:39:31] after two years. And since it was

[2:39:33] approved at the end of 2023, two years

[2:39:35] have passed. Uh [clears throat] but

[2:39:37] before we get to that, I want to provide

[2:39:39] a little bit of context for the two new

[2:39:41] uh council members. you you already know

[2:39:44] that the city provides a variety of

[2:39:46] financial incentives for developers to

[2:39:49] include affordable housing units in

[2:39:50] their projects and most of these

[2:39:52] incentives of these kinds of incentives

[2:39:54] are channeled through the community

[2:39:57] redevelopment agency. I almost called it

[2:39:59] the RDA but it's a CRA. The affordable

[2:40:03] housing in uh incentives policy uses

[2:40:06] several additional kinds of incentives

[2:40:08] to promote the same goal of increasing

[2:40:10] the number of affordable housing units.

[2:40:12] These incentives include changes to

[2:40:14] certain aspects of the city's zoning

[2:40:16] ordinances and streamlining the plan

[2:40:18] approval process that developers must go

[2:40:20] through before they can begin

[2:40:21] construction.

[2:40:23] So Nick Norris is here to go into more

[2:40:25] detail on the affordable housing

[2:40:27] incentive changes in his presentation

[2:40:29] and he also includes some new data that

[2:40:31] wasn't available at the time of the

[2:40:33] transmitt. There are also some policy

[2:40:35] questions as usual in your staff report

[2:40:37] that you could look over for uh your

[2:40:40] interest. Thank you.

[2:40:43] >> All right. Thank you. Um, and just to

[2:40:46] » All right. Thank you. Um, and just to

[2:40:46] add on to that, the intent of the

[2:40:48] affordable housing incentives was to use

[2:40:50] zoning to incentivize the creation of

[2:40:52] afford affordable housing in two

[2:40:54] different ways. One was to make it so

[2:40:57] that uh public dollars, whether they're

[2:41:01] city, state, or federal dollars, were

[2:41:03] capable of either um producing more

[2:41:07] affordable housing units or more deeply

[2:41:10] affordable housing units, which we all

[2:41:12] know are the hardest to um realize. And

[2:41:16] then two was to shorten the approval

[2:41:18] times so that affordable housing

[2:41:20] projects weren't being delayed by longer

[2:41:24] uh land use approvals like design review

[2:41:26] or plan developments

[2:41:28] um so that it was easier for them to

[2:41:30] align their funding approvals with their

[2:41:32] city approvals which are usually

[2:41:34] required before they can get uh their

[2:41:36] funding. So if you can go to the next

[2:41:38] slide.

[2:41:41] Um, so this is basically what the

[2:41:42] council asked us to do uh when this was

[2:41:45] adopted and we chose two years from when

[2:41:47] it became effective which was in April

[2:41:49] of 2024. Um, next slide.

[2:41:55] So these we're going to start by just

[2:41:57] talking about some of the stats

[2:41:59] associated with what's been submitted

[2:42:00] and asked of of the city. And so most of

[2:42:02] this data is as of March 15, 2026

[2:42:05] because that's when we put this report

[2:42:07] together. Um it will have changed um

[2:42:11] since then, but um we've had a total of

[2:42:15] 32

[2:42:17] uh property owners apply for to utilize

[2:42:19] the affordable housing incentives. Um 13

[2:42:23] of those, as you can see, have been

[2:42:25] withdrawn. Um and then you can see the

[2:42:28] status of of those. So there's there's a

[2:42:31] three-step process here. So once

[2:42:33] something's submitted, we do our initial

[2:42:36] review to make sure we have all of the

[2:42:38] required information. That seems like

[2:42:39] it's giving a weird feedback on the

[2:42:41] microphone, but um and then from there

[2:42:45] we grant what's we call preliminary

[2:42:47] approval, and that is essentially

[2:42:50] acknowledging what you've submitted

[2:42:51] complies with our regulations.

[2:42:54] Um most depending on the type of

[2:42:57] incentive used, there would be a final

[2:43:00] approval. So if they need a modification

[2:43:03] to a standard in our zoning code which

[2:43:06] is authorized as part of the incentives

[2:43:08] final approval document those approvals

[2:43:11] in place uh and then they can submit or

[2:43:14] then they can proceed with building

[2:43:15] permit processes. So, as you can see

[2:43:17] here, um, we've had a total of, you

[2:43:21] know, a little over,300 total dwellings

[2:43:24] in the projects that have utilized the

[2:43:26] affordable housing incentives and, um,

[2:43:29] you know, close to a thousand that are

[2:43:31] affordable units. It's important to note

[2:43:34] that the city requirement to use the

[2:43:36] affordable housing incentives is a

[2:43:39] anywhere from 5 to 40% of the total

[2:43:43] dwelling. So depending on the incentive

[2:43:46] use, that's what would determine that.

[2:43:48] And so in [clears throat] in this

[2:43:51] instance, not all of those affordable

[2:43:54] dwellings

[2:43:55] are would are have been approved just

[2:44:00] because of our affordable housing in

[2:44:01] incentives. Most of those are LITC

[2:44:03] funded projects anyway, and they would

[2:44:05] be coming here. But what they've been

[2:44:07] able to do is get more units than they

[2:44:09] normally would have because they can go

[2:44:11] up either increase building height,

[2:44:13] which is most of what's happened in

[2:44:15] terms of the number of dwellings, but

[2:44:18] also in some zones that allows other

[2:44:19] types of housing to be built. Next

[2:44:22] slide.

[2:44:24] So, uh, these are all the units broken

[2:44:27] down. You may have noticed that there's

[2:44:29] a slight discrepancy in the total and

[2:44:31] that is because we had one project that

[2:44:35] submitted um twice but the way we've

[2:44:38] calculated all these we wanted to make

[2:44:39] sure we captured every proposal. So the

[2:44:42] real number isn't 975 as of this it was

[2:44:44] 973 because one project submitted the

[2:44:47] same thing in two different locations

[2:44:48] and then picked one that they went with.

[2:44:51] So um but you can see the breakdown of

[2:44:53] affordability that percentages of AMI.

[2:44:56] So that's the area median income. Um

[2:44:59] you'll see 100% there. That is allowed

[2:45:04] if it's for sale dwellings. So um if

[2:45:08] it's a for sale product, they can be at

[2:45:11] 100% of AMI. Now that's going to be

[2:45:14] still lower than because it's income

[2:45:18] based, not housing cost based. So that's

[2:45:20] why why you see that on there, but most

[2:45:23] of the incentives kick in at 80% or

[2:45:25] below.

[2:45:27] Next slide.

[2:45:30] Um hopefully this is uh comes across as

[2:45:34] relatively easy to read, but we wanted

[2:45:35] to break down where the applications are

[2:45:37] coming both from zoning district and by

[2:45:40] council district. Uh I think a little

[2:45:42] bit of a surprise is um of the

[2:45:46] applications that were not withdrawn,

[2:45:48] eight of those are in single family

[2:45:50] zones. That surprised us a little bit, I

[2:45:53] think. Um and most of those are in fact

[2:45:57] the two completed projects we have were

[2:45:59] both in one of those zones. Um and then

[2:46:02] you can see we also translated the old

[2:46:05] zoning districts to the current MU zones

[2:46:07] as part of the consolidation here. So

[2:46:09] that's where those numbers um come in.

[2:46:12] And then by council district uh I don't

[2:46:15] know that there's oh

[2:46:17] yeah please stay on the slide. Thank

[2:46:19] you.

[2:46:20] um the

[2:46:22] the percentages of the total dwellings.

[2:46:25] It's broken down um both by the

[2:46:29] applications in each council district,

[2:46:31] the total dwellings, and then the total

[2:46:33] affordable dwellings. So, you can see

[2:46:36] where they are. Um

[2:46:38] district five actually, well, District 2

[2:46:41] has had the most number of applications.

[2:46:45] Um,

[2:46:47] district five has had the highest

[2:46:50] percentage of total dwellings that are

[2:46:52] using the incentives and the highest

[2:46:55] percentage of affordable dwellings

[2:46:56] followed by um districts two and one.

[2:46:59] And then you can see how the other uh

[2:47:02] districts follow. That is almost

[2:47:04] entirely due to zoning.

[2:47:10] Next slide.

[2:47:12] So the the different housing types that

[2:47:14] have been proposed um are on the left.

[2:47:18] So basically depending on what zone

[2:47:20] you're in, you so in the single family

[2:47:22] low density zones, you can do up to a a

[2:47:25] forplex. Um and so most of those

[2:47:29] forplexes down to the cottage core,

[2:47:31] which is just it's listed there, small

[2:47:33] lot, small footprint, detached dwellings

[2:47:35] are in those zones. So that's where you

[2:47:37] can see those projects. um some are in

[2:47:39] an RMF zone, so that's why you get some

[2:47:41] of that. Um and then the multif family

[2:47:44] are all almost all in the um mixeduse

[2:47:47] zoning categories in downtown. And then

[2:47:50] the other type of incentive we have are

[2:47:53] the various things that could be

[2:47:55] modified. So in the R1 zones, there's

[2:47:58] different housing types other than

[2:47:59] detached uh single dwellings that uh are

[2:48:02] allowed. You can reduce parking. You get

[2:48:05] extra building stories. And then the

[2:48:07] biggest one that people use are the

[2:48:08] staff level approvals for modifications.

[2:48:11] Um most of these are associated with the

[2:48:15] um

[2:48:17] low density zoning districts where we're

[2:48:20] we're approving lots without street

[2:48:22] frontage at the staff level. So that

[2:48:24] those units at least um this is mostly

[2:48:28] with um twin homes and duplexes that

[2:48:30] have been associated with this, but it

[2:48:32] allows them to put those on their own

[2:48:34] lot so they can be sold.

[2:48:37] Next slide.

[2:48:39] We did break down the uh bedrooms that

[2:48:43] are in these projects. This is only for

[2:48:46] the

[2:48:48] um

[2:48:50] applications that have had a building

[2:48:53] permit issued. So we haven't broken down

[2:48:55] the bedrooms for those things that have

[2:48:57] been approved to use the AHI but have

[2:48:59] not had their building permit issued. Um

[2:49:02] so you can see um I think these numbers

[2:49:05] actually surprised us a little bit too.

[2:49:07] um in that you know most more than half

[2:49:10] of in fact significantly more close to

[2:49:13] 60% I think of these or 70% maybe um are

[2:49:18] have two or more bedrooms in them. So

[2:49:21] that's a reflection I think of a couple

[2:49:23] of things. one, we had a pretty large

[2:49:26] project, I think it was in the Sugar

[2:49:27] House area that had um a broad range of

[2:49:31] bedroom units used. And then we had

[2:49:33] another one in um kind of in the

[2:49:35] Guadalupe neighborhood that also had um

[2:49:38] quite a bit of uh two, three, and four

[2:49:42] bedrooms.

[2:49:44] Next slide.

[2:49:47] So, um, these are whatever these numbers

[2:49:50] add up to, I think it's around 18 or

[2:49:52] something like that that have, um, been

[2:49:58] in a various application process as of

[2:50:01] March. So, the HI application was either

[2:50:04] under review, meaning it had just been

[2:50:05] submitted, um, or it's granted

[2:50:07] preliminary review or final review. and

[2:50:10] then the ones that have either applied

[2:50:14] for a building permit, have been issued

[2:50:16] a building permit, um, [clears throat]

[2:50:19] or have completed it. So, uh, or under

[2:50:22] inspection. So, you can kind of see as

[2:50:26] of May, we had just one application that

[2:50:28] was um, under review that had submitted

[2:50:31] a building permit already. So, that's

[2:50:33] pretty funny. But, uh, and same with

[2:50:35] prelim preliminary approval. they hadn't

[2:50:39] been approved to use the AHIs, but

[2:50:41] they've already gone ahead and submitted

[2:50:42] their plans and permits. Um, we are

[2:50:45] actually reviewing those permits when

[2:50:46] they come in, not just sitting on them

[2:50:48] waiting. So, that that helps reduce the

[2:50:49] approval time. Um, and then

[2:50:53] we have the final approval. One of the

[2:50:56] things is that we have a very high

[2:50:58] percentage of uh even preliminary

[2:51:01] approvals that have gone to building

[2:51:04] permit. So almost everybody who is

[2:51:06] applying to use the AHI is also intent

[2:51:09] getting building permits. That's much

[2:51:11] different than most other land use

[2:51:13] applications where maybe 50% of

[2:51:15] approvals actually ever submit a

[2:51:18] building permit. So they most of those

[2:51:20] they try to get approval and they just

[2:51:22] die. Next slide.

[2:51:25] Uh some of the key points that we've

[2:51:28] we've been working on with this. Um so

[2:51:30] as you know we'll get into this in our

[2:51:32] next slide or two but uh all of these

[2:51:34] require recording a restrictive covenant

[2:51:36] on the property. Um this is what

[2:51:38] requires the most time not just from a

[2:51:42] staff time but most time overall uh in

[2:51:45] this whole process is um getting those

[2:51:48] restrictive covenants to the point that

[2:51:50] they can be actually recorded against

[2:51:52] the property. Um we've had a limited

[2:51:54] number of completed projects. Why that's

[2:51:56] important is because this requires an

[2:51:58] annual report that's due one year after

[2:52:01] you get your certificate of occupancy.

[2:52:03] And so since we've only had two

[2:52:05] properties completed, both those were

[2:52:07] completed towards the I think in

[2:52:08] December of um 2025. So their first

[2:52:12] annual report won't be submitted until

[2:52:14] December of this year. Um and that's

[2:52:17] that last point. No projects have had to

[2:52:19] submit that annual report yet because

[2:52:20] they haven't been built for more than a

[2:52:21] year. Next slide.

[2:52:24] the restrictive covenant. I wanted to

[2:52:26] give a little bit more information on

[2:52:28] because this was one of the I mean this

[2:52:29] is the key piece of of this that ensures

[2:52:33] that um the applicants are actually

[2:52:38] providing what they say they're going

[2:52:39] to. So the restrictive covenant includes

[2:52:41] a bunch of different things. Um there's

[2:52:44] the recital that are the basic facts.

[2:52:46] Here's the number of units. Here's your

[2:52:47] dwellings. Here's your affordability

[2:52:48] level, etc. There's some definitions on

[2:52:51] what all of that means. There's actually

[2:52:53] 13 specific covenants that are in all of

[2:52:57] the um documents that get recorded. They

[2:53:01] vary slightly whether it's a forale

[2:53:04] property versus a rental property

[2:53:05] because the rental properties, we have a

[2:53:07] covenant that says you can't basically

[2:53:09] condominiumize this for sale while

[2:53:11] you're under these covenants. And then

[2:53:13] it addresses what happens if somebody

[2:53:16] defaults and then what the city's um

[2:53:18] capabilities are. Next slide.

[2:53:21] So, these are the types of things that

[2:53:23] are in that list of 13. Obviously, you

[2:53:25] have to rent to qualified tenants at an

[2:53:27] agreed upon rate and for the length of

[2:53:29] time. Um, there's certain occupancy

[2:53:32] types of things, so they can't rent them

[2:53:34] to someone who's only going to be there

[2:53:35] for um not full-time. Can't use them for

[2:53:39] like short-term rentals and things like

[2:53:40] that. How they're maintained. Um,

[2:53:43] obviously, you can't discriminate with

[2:53:44] who you're renting to the annual report.

[2:53:47] um you limited on what you can do for

[2:53:49] expanding the buildings, things like

[2:53:50] that. What happens if the ownership of

[2:53:53] the property changes? That's really

[2:53:54] important for for sale things. Um and

[2:53:57] then how we enforce that. Next slide.

[2:54:01] Um some of the biggest issues with

[2:54:04] restrictive covenant right now, these

[2:54:06] require a significant time from the city

[2:54:09] attorney's office. Um, we do have

[2:54:12] templates that are used, but they have

[2:54:13] to fill in the specifics for each

[2:54:17] project. We help them with those numbers

[2:54:19] and putting them in. Um, but one of the

[2:54:21] things that we're running into is that

[2:54:23] almost every applicant wants to

[2:54:25] negotiate some of those covenants and we

[2:54:28] have told them we are we're not

[2:54:30] negotiating the covenants. That's not

[2:54:32] something we're going to do. Um, we've

[2:54:35] had we have had some issues where some

[2:54:37] of the covenants may conflict with some

[2:54:39] of the terms of their lending

[2:54:42] institutions in which case we've been

[2:54:44] able to create um modify those specific

[2:54:49] covenants. That's really important for

[2:54:51] LITC which require certain things that

[2:54:53] we don't want to conflict with. And our

[2:54:55] intent was if somebody already had uh

[2:54:59] they're under pretty strict financial

[2:55:02] requirements associated with their money

[2:55:03] to not get in the way of that. And when

[2:55:06] we if you remember for those of you who

[2:55:07] are on the council when this was

[2:55:08] adopted, we specifically said we didn't

[2:55:10] want to do that. If someone already was

[2:55:12] going through that, we didn't want to

[2:55:13] create another hoop to jump through or

[2:55:15] another uh a loop to to go around. Um,

[2:55:20] and then again, like I said, this is the

[2:55:23] longest part of the approval process.

[2:55:24] Next slide.

[2:55:27] Uh, we do think there are some things

[2:55:29] that we could improve to kind of drive

[2:55:31] home some of the point. Um, one of those

[2:55:33] is some of these terms we may want to

[2:55:35] consider adopting into our code. That

[2:55:37] way they are um, it's more clear-cut for

[2:55:40] applicants that we're not we don't have

[2:55:42] the ability to negotiate them. Um,

[2:55:44] we've, like I said, we've res resolved

[2:55:47] the conflicts with some of the lending

[2:55:49] institutions. Um, and we've gone from

[2:55:52] there. And then some of our goals for

[2:55:56] making some of these changes, obviously,

[2:55:57] we need to reduce the time for the city

[2:55:59] attorneys. We're doing so many

[2:56:01] restrictive covenants and development

[2:56:02] agreements now that our land use

[2:56:04] attorneys are significantly impacted by

[2:56:06] that. And so, we we really want to try

[2:56:08] to do what we can to streamline those

[2:56:10] things. Um, and part of that is

[2:56:12] eliminating the negotiation part and

[2:56:15] reduce the overall time. Next slide.

[2:56:18] That might be it. Oh, and then here's

[2:56:20] some code clarifications that that we

[2:56:22] think of have come up. Um, one is the

[2:56:26] timing of subdividing. So, afford the

[2:56:28] affordable housing incentives can only

[2:56:30] be used on existing lots. What that

[2:56:32] means is somebody can't come in with a

[2:56:36] parcel of land and propose applying AHI

[2:56:41] to all of it and then sub and subdivide

[2:56:45] it further. So this is really important

[2:56:47] in our low density zones where you get

[2:56:51] four dwellings per existing lot. So, if

[2:56:55] you have a lot that may be three times

[2:56:57] the minimum lot size of that zone, say

[2:56:59] you're in an R17000 zone and you've got

[2:57:02] 22,000 square ft, you would have to

[2:57:04] subdivide that land legally before you

[2:57:07] could apply for AHI. Then each each of

[2:57:09] the three lots would be eligible for it.

[2:57:12] But what we're seeing is that those lots

[2:57:16] generally cannot be subdivided without

[2:57:18] going also through a plan development

[2:57:20] process because either they they don't

[2:57:22] meet the street frontage or they don't

[2:57:24] meet the minimum lot widths and things

[2:57:25] like that. And so what we want to

[2:57:29] clarify is that if you're going through

[2:57:30] a plan development,

[2:57:32] the plan development would have to

[2:57:34] specifically authorize your use of

[2:57:36] affordable housing incentives instead of

[2:57:38] getting the plan development and then

[2:57:40] trying to apply it. Part of that is

[2:57:42] because an approved plan development

[2:57:44] becomes in most instances your actual

[2:57:47] zoning, right? You've modified certain

[2:57:49] things and that plan development has to

[2:57:51] be followed with all future building

[2:57:53] permits. And so if we haven't authorized

[2:57:56] affordable housing to be used in that,

[2:57:58] then you wouldn't be able to do it. So

[2:58:00] we want to work around clarifying that.

[2:58:02] We have no intention of somebody who may

[2:58:04] have 20,000

[2:58:06] uh square feet for that to be divided

[2:58:08] into three lots and then divided again

[2:58:11] into four lots per unit to get that.

[2:58:14] That is not the intent of the affordable

[2:58:16] housing incentives. Um so that's that's

[2:58:19] kind of what we want to get to. I

[2:58:21] already mentioned um codifying terms in

[2:58:24] the covenant. Um, one thing that I think

[2:58:26] is in the council office at this I think

[2:58:28] it's been transmitted, but um, for

[2:58:31] whatever reason when the code was

[2:58:33] adopted, the fines were referenced as

[2:58:35] being in the consolidated fee schedule,

[2:58:38] but legally they can't be in the

[2:58:40] consolidated fee schedule because it's

[2:58:41] not a fee, it's a fine. And so we're we

[2:58:44] have a text to put those back into our

[2:58:47] code so it's very clear that it's not

[2:58:51] changing the amounts. Um but one thing

[2:58:52] we are adding is an additional fine if

[2:58:55] you violate the restrictive covenant. So

[2:58:57] not just violating the AHI requirements

[2:59:00] but any aspect of the covenant. Um and

[2:59:04] then the other thing is that um there's

[2:59:07] been some confusion with applicants of

[2:59:09] whether the covenant only applies to the

[2:59:13] affordable housing incentive dwelling.

[2:59:15] So that's that 10% or 5% whatever it is

[2:59:18] or if it applies to every dwelling in a

[2:59:21] development. Our intention when this was

[2:59:23] written is that it would only apply to

[2:59:26] the AHI required dwellings. Everything

[2:59:28] else you're just subject to the zoning

[2:59:32] rules or whatever your lending

[2:59:33] institution requires you. So that's a

[2:59:35] code clarification that we're probably

[2:59:37] going to be start working on it over the

[2:59:38] next year or two. And I think that's the

[2:59:41] end of the presentation, but happy to

[2:59:44] answer any questions.

[2:59:47] [snorts]

[2:59:48] >> Council member Wharton.

[2:59:50] » Council member Wharton.

[2:59:50] >> Yeah.

[2:59:50] » Yeah.

[2:59:50] >> So, what was what do you think is the

[2:59:53] » So, what was what do you think is the

[2:59:53] biggest surprise of this? The is it the

[2:59:56] negotiations taking a long time

[3:00:00] or

[3:00:00] >> Yeah, I think

[3:00:01] » Yeah, I think

[3:00:02] >> people the number of people who want to

[3:00:03] » people the number of people who want to

[3:00:03] negotiate. Yeah, I think that's probably

[3:00:06] I don't know that we anticipated the

[3:00:07] restrictive covenant almost everyone

[3:00:10] wanting to change some wording in one of

[3:00:12] those, right? And it's for us and and

[3:00:15] the attorneys, we that's just a

[3:00:17] non-negotiable, right? We're not going

[3:00:19] to do those things. Now, some of them

[3:00:21] have been valid, you know, like I me

[3:00:24] mentioned with LITC and but we've

[3:00:26] addressed those. And so, I think that's

[3:00:27] one of our biggest surprises is how long

[3:00:30] that part that process has taken. I

[3:00:32] don't think we envisioned it taking

[3:00:33] months, maybe weeks. Um, and it for it

[3:00:36] to run. The benefit is it does coincide

[3:00:39] with their building permit review. But

[3:00:41] generally, if you're building a low

[3:00:43] density project, those building permits

[3:00:45] are review are pretty quick. So, it it

[3:00:49] that that's where it that's kind of one

[3:00:50] of those big wait a minute, we didn't we

[3:00:53] didn't see that happening like that.

[3:00:56] So, aside from like LITC or other

[3:00:58] funding requirements,

[3:01:00] what might a typical negotiation look

[3:01:03] like? Like what is it that they're even

[3:01:04] negotiating in?

[3:01:05] >> Oh, sometimes it's sometimes it's people

[3:01:09] » Oh, sometimes it's sometimes it's people

[3:01:09] um not wanting like we have the um one

[3:01:12] of the I'm trying to remember the exact

[3:01:14] thing, but we've had people ask about

[3:01:17] why do you have the non-discrimination

[3:01:19] stuff in there? I'm like, well, you have

[3:01:21] to comply with the Fair Housing

[3:01:22] [laughter] Act, right? And we're not

[3:01:23] >> Yeah.

[3:01:24] » Yeah.

[3:01:24] >> We're not, you know, and we want to make

[3:01:25] » We're not, you know, and we want to make

[3:01:25] sure you are.

[3:01:26] >> Yes.

[3:01:28] » Yes.

[3:01:28] >> Um and and so there's been some who have

[3:01:31] » Um and and so there's been some who have

[3:01:31] questioned the length of term

[3:01:33] >> on those things. And those are things

[3:01:35] » on those things. And those are things

[3:01:35] that are in code.

[3:01:36] >> Um so it's it's usually

[3:01:40] » Um so it's it's usually

[3:01:40] more frequently it's well we don't like

[3:01:42] we don't necessarily disagree with it.

[3:01:43] We just don't like how you worded it.

[3:01:46] >> And so we're just kind of like, you

[3:01:47] » And so we're just kind of like, you

[3:01:48] know, we're not going to word smith

[3:01:49] these things back and forth.

[3:01:51] >> Yeah. I mean, I don't want to go too far

[3:01:53] » Yeah. I mean, I don't want to go too far

[3:01:53] down this rabbit hole, but like I guess

[3:01:55] I'm kind of confused as to I mean, I

[3:01:57] don't remember

[3:01:59] creating like a negotiation setting. Um,

[3:02:02] so like I don't know why they feel like

[3:02:04] it is negotiable any of it.

[3:02:06] >> Yeah. And

[3:02:09] » Yeah. And

[3:02:09] >> they ask.

[3:02:10] » they ask.

[3:02:10] >> Okay. So,

[3:02:12] » Okay. So,

[3:02:12] >> um, and then what, um, have we learned

[3:02:17] » um, and then what, um, have we learned

[3:02:17] or what would inform, um, like our

[3:02:21] thoughts and and conversations about

[3:02:23] expanded housing opportunities from

[3:02:26] this?

[3:02:27] >> Yeah. So, one of the things that we're

[3:02:29] » Yeah. So, one of the things that we're

[3:02:29] um

[3:02:32] seeing with this versus expanding

[3:02:34] housing opportunities is that

[3:02:38] um

[3:02:39] the dwellings, particularly in the low

[3:02:41] density, because that's where expanding

[3:02:43] housing would apply. is that um the

[3:02:47] house the housing units themselves are

[3:02:52] typically still pretty large because

[3:02:55] there's not restrictions on them through

[3:02:57] AHI and so you know we've had one that

[3:03:00] was I think it was a a duplex where each

[3:03:04] duplex was like over 2,000 square feet.

[3:03:07] >> Oh wow.

[3:03:07] » Oh wow.

[3:03:07] >> Yeah. And so it's like okay that's great

[3:03:10] » Yeah. And so it's like okay that's great

[3:03:10] if you know and then it was for

[3:03:12] somebody's like um adult son who needed

[3:03:16] was somewhat independent but you know

[3:03:19] needed other and so it's like yeah that

[3:03:20] meets I mean as long as you're committed

[3:03:22] to this thing and um whereas

[3:03:25] um the expanding housing options is

[3:03:29] intended to produce the smaller scale

[3:03:34] homes so that they're more attainable

[3:03:37] without having a um

[3:03:41] need necessarily for um subsidized

[3:03:45] funding. Really, almost every project

[3:03:48] that we've had except for I think two of

[3:03:50] the duplexes have had some affordable

[3:03:52] housing incentive dollars going to it.

[3:03:55] So, so the expanding housing options is

[3:03:58] supposed is intended to create an avenue

[3:04:00] to create more attainable housing than

[3:04:03] what might be a able to here because a

[3:04:06] lot of these projects wouldn't qualify

[3:04:08] for funding because they're just too

[3:04:09] small,

[3:04:10] >> right? They're just two units or four

[3:04:12] » right? They're just two units or four

[3:04:12] units and that doesn't always qualify.

[3:04:15] And what about are there any like have

[3:04:18] we learned anything about having to the

[3:04:20] plan development component or would that

[3:04:22] not apply to the

[3:04:24] um expanded?

[3:04:26] >> So we we would address

[3:04:28] » So we we would address

[3:04:28] we think similar issues will come up and

[3:04:31] so we're working through that

[3:04:34] >> okay

[3:04:34] » okay

[3:04:34] >> already with that. So that that's one

[3:04:36] » already with that. So that that's one

[3:04:36] thing that we're trying to re into so

[3:04:38] that it doesn't get the same scenario

[3:04:40] with expanding housing options.

[3:04:42] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:04:43] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:04:43] >> Yep. Council

[3:04:45] » Yep. Council

[3:04:45] Mugan,

[3:04:46] >> thanks. Appreciate this. I mean, some of

[3:04:48] » thanks. Appreciate this. I mean, some of

[3:04:48] this is not really uh shocking to me.

[3:04:50] I'm I'm thinking about the the R1 R, you

[3:04:54] know, five and 7,000. You had eight

[3:04:56] applicants and you had the two that were

[3:05:00] for sale.

[3:05:01] >> Thank you.

[3:05:02] » Thank you.

[3:05:02] >> Uh

[3:05:03] » Uh

[3:05:04] did you have these been over the last

[3:05:06] like 6 months? Cuz I'm thinking that

[3:05:08] they were later. And does that shock you

[3:05:11] that the numbers were so low or uh it

[3:05:15] was um

[3:05:18] yeah shocking that the numbers are so

[3:05:20] low or

[3:05:20] >> I don't think it shocked us that the

[3:05:21] » I don't think it shocked us that the

[3:05:21] numbers are so low. I don't going in we

[3:05:25] didn't anticipate this being used in the

[3:05:29] low density districts all that much.

[3:05:31] >> Yeah.

[3:05:31] » Yeah.

[3:05:31] >> So we already knew there was a low

[3:05:34] » So we already knew there was a low

[3:05:34] >> kind of a low expectation there. Right.

[3:05:37] » kind of a low expectation there. Right.

[3:05:37] But I don't think that in the first two

[3:05:39] years we expected more properties in

[3:05:41] those zones to apply than in the other

[3:05:44] zones. And some of that is just a a

[3:05:47] reflection of the um time upon which the

[3:05:51] affordable housing incentives became

[3:05:54] went into effect.

[3:05:55] >> They went into effect at a time when the

[3:05:57] » They went into effect at a time when the

[3:05:57] financial world in terms of financing

[3:06:00] development was really really

[3:06:02] challenging. And so most of those low

[3:06:05] density projects were people who had a

[3:06:07] and we did anticipate this had a lot of

[3:06:10] equity [clears throat] or in in

[3:06:13] underutil ba basically very large R1

[3:06:16] properties that had space to do it

[3:06:19] fairly easily and that's exactly what

[3:06:22] those were

[3:06:23] >> and and it wasn't a shock that there was

[3:06:25] » and and it wasn't a shock that there was

[3:06:25] only two units for on the for sale end

[3:06:27] of it.

[3:06:28] >> No. Yeah. the the first sale is

[3:06:30] » No. Yeah. the the first sale is

[3:06:30] complicated because people have to basic

[3:06:32] it's a different financing mechanism and

[3:06:34] people basically have to be able to

[3:06:35] carry that weight for sale and be

[3:06:37] willing to manage that over time.

[3:06:40] >> Right. Right. Right. And so yeah,

[3:06:45] » council

[3:06:48] >> um so you had information saying how you

[3:06:51] » um so you had information saying how you

[3:06:51] can't attribute all of the volume, but

[3:06:54] do you have any indication in the data

[3:06:56] tracking as to whether or not we were

[3:06:58] able to promote the geographic

[3:07:00] diversity? When we came up with this

[3:07:01] ordinance, the idea was that economics

[3:07:04] always tends to push the affordable

[3:07:06] housing, but this would be a policy tool

[3:07:08] to help push that affordability and

[3:07:11] spread it out. Do you have any data if

[3:07:13] the AHI applications helped with the

[3:07:16] geographic diversity? Uh I think I mean

[3:07:21] we have it by um council district

[3:07:27] but we we don't have an in I think until

[3:07:30] some of these we get more built. I don't

[3:07:32] know that we'll be able to see if

[3:07:34] there's what the concentration actually

[3:07:36] is. So we haven't broken it down by

[3:07:38] address yet.

[3:07:39] >> Um it's ju just because of the time. for

[3:07:42] » Um it's ju just because of the time. for

[3:07:42] for the future for me a data point like

[3:07:44] I don't expect that even a majority of

[3:07:46] the affordable housing in the city would

[3:07:48] use this ordinance but if this ordinance

[3:07:50] is incentivizing an affordability in

[3:07:52] places where it hadn't been that would

[3:07:54] be really I would be interested in that

[3:07:57] kind of data

[3:07:58] >> yeah for sure I think everybody would

[3:07:59] » yeah for sure I think everybody would

[3:07:59] Yeah.

[3:08:03] » Okay.

[3:08:04] >> Wait, can we do another another update

[3:08:07] » Wait, can we do another another update

[3:08:07] in like two years?

[3:08:09] >> Sure. another two years cuz I want I

[3:08:11] » Sure. another two years cuz I want I

[3:08:11] mean there were a couple points where

[3:08:12] you're like we won't know this until

[3:08:13] they're built and I want to know those

[3:08:15] things.

[3:08:16] >> So is like 2 years another good time or

[3:08:18] » So is like 2 years another good time or

[3:08:18] >> Oh yeah I think I think that's I think

[3:08:20] » Oh yeah I think I think that's I think

[3:08:20] that's more than doable. So

[3:08:22] >> okay

[3:08:23] » okay

[3:08:24] >> can the snooze button for two years now

[3:08:26] » can the snooze button for two years now

[3:08:26] then?

[3:08:27] >> Let me just set my timer.

[3:08:29] » Let me just set my timer.

[3:08:29] >> Say set your timer. [laughter]

[3:08:30] » Say set your timer. [laughter]

[3:08:30] >> You can set a reminder and let us know.

[3:08:33] » You can set a reminder and let us know.

[3:08:33] >> Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you

[3:08:35] » Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you

[3:08:35] for the update.

[3:08:38] Um, council members, we're going to go

[3:08:41] to C item number H, which uh eight uh

[3:08:44] which is uh CIP uh capital improvement

[3:08:47] program follow-up. Um now we have uh

[3:08:52] we'll welcome Kar Council policy analyst

[3:08:54] to the table and we also have our

[3:08:56] spreadsheets in front of us. So it's

[3:08:59] your time.

[3:08:59] >> Great. Thank you. Um, you might want to

[3:09:03] » Great. Thank you. Um, you might want to

[3:09:03] get those candy bowls a little closer to

[3:09:05] you because we have an hour and

[3:09:08] [laughter] it's going to be real fun,

[3:09:09] but it's a lot. So, um, just a little

[3:09:13] reminder, last week we had our first

[3:09:16] conversation about the capital

[3:09:17] improvement program or CIP, and we went

[3:09:20] over the different funding sources, how

[3:09:22] many applications we have. As a

[3:09:24] reminder, there's 76 applications, 32 of

[3:09:27] which came from the departments, 42 from

[3:09:29] constituents. total asks were over $58

[3:09:32] million. There's $34.9 million to go

[3:09:36] around. So, um on our funding logs that

[3:09:39] you have in front of you, um you can see

[3:09:42] the different funding sources. If we

[3:09:45] want to review those funding sources, we

[3:09:47] can. If we don't want to, we don't need

[3:09:50] to. So, if any questions come up, just

[3:09:52] interrupt me because I'm going to keep

[3:09:54] going and try and keep this exciting.

[3:09:57] So, um,

[3:09:59] the orange section on that funding log

[3:10:01] is the funding sources. Up above the

[3:10:03] orange section on page one, you can see

[3:10:05] the total amount available for each of

[3:10:07] those different funding sources. As a

[3:10:09] reminder, the general fund and

[3:10:11] restricted property tax are the most

[3:10:13] flexible funds and could go for

[3:10:16] anything. Um, just as a reminder, we'll

[3:10:20] look at one row al together. Um, for

[3:10:23] project number one here we have a one

[3:10:26] that gives us the number. So if we want

[3:10:28] to bounce around a little bit, we can go

[3:10:30] by the number there. The district

[3:10:32] numbers in the next column. CW means

[3:10:34] citywide. Um, citywide can be anywhere

[3:10:38] from two districts to all the districts.

[3:10:42] There are more details in the summary

[3:10:44] section which has the title of the

[3:10:46] project and the division that is

[3:10:50] requesting it or it'll say constituent

[3:10:52] application if it's a constituent

[3:10:54] application and then the division that

[3:10:56] the constituent worked with. Um a great

[3:10:59] example I'll point it out when we get to

[3:11:01] it, but the first we'll see is um

[3:11:04] project number 23 is a constituent

[3:11:07] application. That's the first one we'll

[3:11:08] we'll see of that. So summary of the

[3:11:11] application. If we want more details,

[3:11:13] it's available in the CIP book. And then

[3:11:17] the next column has the totals. So the

[3:11:19] total requested amount, the amount that

[3:11:21] that the CDCIP board recommended, and

[3:11:24] the amount that the mayor recommended.

[3:11:26] And then if you follow it to the right,

[3:11:28] you can see where those different

[3:11:29] funding sources came from. And then when

[3:11:32] we get to that point, we'll have the

[3:11:34] council your your recommendations and

[3:11:37] final well, not your recommendations,

[3:11:38] what you decide to find.

[3:11:41] Questions or are we ready to go?

[3:11:44] >> Let's do this.

[3:11:45] » Let's do this.

[3:11:45] >> So ready.

[3:11:45] » So ready.

[3:11:45] >> Interrupt me. I'm going to be looking

[3:11:47] » Interrupt me. I'm going to be looking

[3:11:48] for a head nod. I'm going to keep going.

[3:11:50] Get get this going fast. Okay. Number

[3:11:52] one, street reconstruction. They

[3:11:55] requested $2.3 million for this. The

[3:11:58] focus is going to be on several streets

[3:12:01] listed in that second paragraph. Um, and

[3:12:05] as I mentioned, reconstruction. So, this

[3:12:07] is like the whole street going away. So

[3:12:09] 200 South um 5 600 East

[3:12:13] um Gilmore Drive 900 South Emerson

[3:12:17] Avenue Texas Street which overlaps with

[3:12:20] CIP application from a constituent

[3:12:22] depending on how far the funding goes

[3:12:25] but it should go that far would be my

[3:12:27] expectation just based on where it came

[3:12:28] in on that list. Um, also I wanted to

[3:12:32] point out that the majority of the

[3:12:34] people in the audience right now are the

[3:12:36] from the administration and here to

[3:12:38] answer your questions.

[3:12:39] >> Yeah. Yeah. So just a quick

[3:12:41] » Yeah. Yeah. So just a quick

[3:12:42] clarification to what you just said. Are

[3:12:44] these streets listed in a prioritized

[3:12:47] order or is it a this is what we hope to

[3:12:50] address and we'll have to make

[3:12:52] decisions?

[3:12:53] >> Mark will answer that.

[3:12:55] » Mark will answer that.

[3:12:55] >> Thank you.

[3:12:57] » Thank you.

[3:12:57] >> Uh Mark Stevens, city engineer. Uh this

[3:12:59] » Uh Mark Stevens, city engineer. Uh this

[3:12:59] is our uh goal to be able to get to as

[3:13:02] many of these projects as possible. A

[3:13:04] lot of the times what depends on how

[3:13:07] much of a project we can do, we're

[3:13:09] legally required to have an engineer's

[3:13:11] estimate that meets what the project

[3:13:13] proposed budget is before we can

[3:13:15] advertise it out for bids. If we get

[3:13:18] back favorable bids, uh which we have

[3:13:20] seen uh this past year, then we can put

[3:13:22] out even more projects. So this is the

[3:13:24] estimated uh goal of projects that we'll

[3:13:27] be doing with this fiscal year 27 money

[3:13:29] and then favorable bids uh and other

[3:13:32] funding sources they become available

[3:13:34] will allow us to add to this.

[3:13:36] >> Okay, that's helpful. Just timelinewise

[3:13:39] » Okay, that's helpful. Just timelinewise

[3:13:39] in terms of bids, do you have a sense of

[3:13:42] like how long that process takes?

[3:13:45] depending upon the size of the project.

[3:13:46] If we've got very complex projects where

[3:13:48] we have a lot of public engagement, say

[3:13:51] a 2100 south, a 300 west, uh 200 south,

[3:13:55] usually two-year design and a year

[3:13:58] two-year construction. And during that

[3:14:00] two-year design is public engagement

[3:14:02] concept uh to about 40% which

[3:14:04] transportation division handles and

[3:14:06] their outreach and then engineering

[3:14:08] takes it over from 40% to uh final

[3:14:12] design construction drawings bidding

[3:14:13] construction and ribbon cutting uh at

[3:14:16] the end. So uh depending upon the

[3:14:18] complexity could be a year design could

[3:14:20] be two years design and then same for

[3:14:22] construction could be a year two years.

[3:14:24] >> Okay. Um, I guess my my question slash

[3:14:28] » Okay. Um, I guess my my question slash

[3:14:28] request is that as soon as we know

[3:14:31] whether or not some of these like

[3:14:33] streets I guess that are lower on the

[3:14:35] list um would be eligible to be included

[3:14:39] in the funding if you can just let us

[3:14:41] know. I just I I know the resident for

[3:14:44] Texas Street who's been applying for

[3:14:46] CIP. I think this is their third if not

[3:14:49] fourth year.

[3:14:50] >> Absolutely. Um, and I would just like to

[3:14:52] » Absolutely. Um, and I would just like to

[3:14:52] counsel them one way or another to

[3:14:54] whether or not participating in a future

[3:14:56] round is in their best interest or if

[3:14:59] they hang their hopes on we would be

[3:15:01] included in this space.

[3:15:03] >> And and I apologize I didn't answer your

[3:15:05] » And and I apologize I didn't answer your

[3:15:05] first question. Is the list prioritized

[3:15:07] the way it's ordered? The answer is no.

[3:15:09] So all of these the funding for that is

[3:15:11] the way we've listed them out. Uh based

[3:15:14] upon the favorable bids we have been

[3:15:15] getting in the market that we're in

[3:15:17] currently. I would see very favorably

[3:15:19] that all of these could be done. So, uh,

[3:15:22] and we'll look into that. Uh the other

[3:15:24] thing that we're also looking into is uh

[3:15:26] as the 2018 uh general obligation bond

[3:15:29] wraps up, there were uh bond interest

[3:15:33] funds that were obtained from that. We

[3:15:35] have been working to replace any class C

[3:15:39] money uh that we utilized along the

[3:15:42] entire 2018 general obligation bond with

[3:15:45] those bond interest funds, which frees

[3:15:46] up that money to be able to use for

[3:15:48] projects like this and supplement as

[3:15:49] needed.

[3:15:50] >> Great. Thank you so much.

[3:15:54] » Great. Thank you so much.

[3:15:54] Great.

[3:15:56] >> We're good.

[3:15:57] » We're good.

[3:15:57] >> No. Okay, let's move on. Number two, I

[3:16:00] » No. Okay, let's move on. Number two, I

[3:16:00] want to point out that project number

[3:16:01] two and project number three are the

[3:16:03] only two projects that have a match

[3:16:05] requirement and are receiving funding

[3:16:07] from other sources. So, with number two,

[3:16:09] it's a match with the county. Um there

[3:16:13] it's a 50/50 cost share with the county

[3:16:16] to replace the culinary water line for

[3:16:18] Sugar House Park.

[3:16:22] Okay, I'm gonna move on. Um, oh,

[3:16:30] » who needs water?

[3:16:31] >> Well, unwashed food is having a moment.

[3:16:33] » Well, unwashed food is having a moment.

[3:16:33] >> I think I think culinary water is

[3:16:36] » I think I think culinary water is

[3:16:36] important for anyone who uses the water

[3:16:39] fountains or even the dog water

[3:16:42] fountains. Like, do we do we want them

[3:16:44] drinking lead? No, we don't. Um, yeah. I

[3:16:47] think I think the biggest thing and I

[3:16:50] really appreciate this being

[3:16:51] prioritized. It is a huge need. It's an

[3:16:53] ongoing need. Um and it's it's in the

[3:16:56] top priorities for the Sugar House Park

[3:16:58] Authority. Um and just putting it out to

[3:17:00] the universe. We are so grateful to our

[3:17:04] friends at the county for helping us

[3:17:06] find their matching funds um so that we

[3:17:08] can help projects like this move

[3:17:10] forward. We

[3:17:13] didn't meant to make you advocate for

[3:17:15] this one, but thank you for advocating

[3:17:16] for you. I know you are.

[3:17:20] >> Great.

[3:17:21] » Great.

[3:17:21] Project number three um is green the

[3:17:24] green bike project. Um it this one has

[3:17:28] the match also with the city putting

[3:17:31] forward 57 just over $57,000.

[3:17:35] Um we will receive $792,000

[3:17:38] from the federal government. Um they

[3:17:40] have rounded this number up to $65,000

[3:17:43] with the extra being used to replace um

[3:17:46] damaged, rusted, missing bike racks or

[3:17:50] bike corrals. So,

[3:17:53] >> I might be, you know, I just want us to

[3:17:56] » I might be, you know, I just want us to

[3:17:56] track this extra little funding here

[3:17:58] because we may I certainly have

[3:18:01] something that I would like to pitch in

[3:18:03] some money for, but I'm sure that maybe

[3:18:04] some of us have some other thoughts, but

[3:18:07] I wanted to highlight this little extra

[3:18:09] gap between what is needed and what is

[3:18:11] recommended.

[3:18:11] >> I I agree with that. I was also noticing

[3:18:14] » I I agree with that. I was also noticing

[3:18:14] um thinking about just the match and

[3:18:16] then what might be some leftover.

[3:18:19] >> Great.

[3:18:20] » Great.

[3:18:20] Okay, let's go to project number four.

[3:18:25] Um, this one is our public way concrete

[3:18:27] replacement and rehabilitation program.

[3:18:30] Um, this is an annual request for

[3:18:33] $750,000.

[3:18:35] Um, I believe many of you have met with

[3:18:38] with um public services regarding this

[3:18:41] recently. Um,

[3:18:44] any questions?

[3:18:47] Great. Okay. Um, next up is the traffic

[3:18:51] signal replacement upgrade. Um, their

[3:18:54] request was for $2.5 million. Um, CIP

[3:18:58] CDCIP and the mayor both recommended $2

[3:19:01] million for this. Um, as a heads up, um,

[3:19:05] several, we have some really old street

[3:19:08] lights out there or traffic signals out

[3:19:11] there. Um, when they no longer work, um,

[3:19:14] they they don't track with the traffic.

[3:19:17] they just go on a timer system instead

[3:19:20] or they fail.

[3:19:21] >> Okay, let me ask a few questions here

[3:19:23] » Okay, let me ask a few questions here

[3:19:23] and I think I would love some

[3:19:24] information. The um I know that the city

[3:19:28] has been trying to replace all those

[3:19:30] cable uh street lights. Uh I think that

[3:19:35] was like an explanation that was given

[3:19:37] to us years ago. I I'm sure that there

[3:19:40] is a reason beyond they're not as pretty

[3:19:42] as the other ones. Um, I also notice the

[3:19:46] cable street lights.

[3:19:47] >> I'm sorry, not you.

[3:19:48] » I'm sorry, not you.

[3:19:48] >> Oh, you're making you're looking at me.

[3:19:50] » Oh, you're making you're looking at me.

[3:19:50] Um, you're scaring me there. Um, the um,

[3:19:55] but the the also the cost of the street

[3:19:58] lights is just so expensive. Uh, and to

[3:20:01] me I I was wondering if there is a way

[3:20:02] of

[3:20:04] um I'm not necessarily talking about

[3:20:07] this one funding specifically, but um to

[3:20:10] think about this uh and maybe um

[3:20:15] I would love more explanation about why

[3:20:16] the cable maybe is the why not the cable

[3:20:19] um and are there smaller upgrades we can

[3:20:22] make into those systems to you know buy

[3:20:25] ourselves more time instead of investing

[3:20:28] almost millions of dollars in a

[3:20:30] a couple street lights. They're so so

[3:20:32] expensive. I'm shocked how expensive

[3:20:34] they are. Council member Petro.

[3:20:36] >> Um,

[3:20:38] » Um,

[3:20:38] so I am interested in if we had the

[3:20:42] magic wand, how many should we how many

[3:20:46] new ones would we need to keep pace with

[3:20:49] growth and how many would we need to

[3:20:51] replace on an annual basis if we just

[3:20:54] couldn't just had a magic wand and could

[3:20:56] do whatever we wanted?

[3:20:58] Okay, great questions. Lynn Jacobs, city

[3:21:00] transportation uh director and uh maybe

[3:21:03] I'll start with with your your question

[3:21:05] about the catary line. So, we call it an

[3:21:07] overhead catary system and that's where

[3:21:09] you have the cables and the signal heads

[3:21:11] hang from those cables. That was the

[3:21:12] technology like 90 years ago. The all

[3:21:15] the signals that you see that are like

[3:21:16] that like 90

[3:21:18] >> oh

[3:21:18] » oh

[3:21:18] >> most of the signals you see are like 80

[3:21:20] » most of the signals you see are like 80

[3:21:20] 90 years old when you see that that

[3:21:22] configuration. The the biggest problem

[3:21:24] we have with those is that they swing in

[3:21:26] the wind. So if we have a windstorm, you

[3:21:28] can't see that signal head. Um other

[3:21:31] other parts of the country, they still

[3:21:32] use them, but we as a state really avoid

[3:21:35] them because of the snow and wind issues

[3:21:36] that we have here. And so we've really

[3:21:39] been trying to upgrade and move away

[3:21:40] from those. When you see those older

[3:21:42] signals, the real problem is the actual

[3:21:44] the all the other infrastructure that's

[3:21:46] involved. So you see the traffic

[3:21:48] signals, you think, okay, I've got a

[3:21:49] pole, I've got a a mast arm, a couple of

[3:21:51] heads. There is so much more that goes

[3:21:53] into a signal. Um, there's a massive

[3:21:56] cabinet that has a a very high-end

[3:21:58] computer in it that runs the signal and

[3:21:59] tells it what to do. Uh, it has to be

[3:22:02] connected via fiber back to um our

[3:22:04] system so that we can manage and modify

[3:22:07] and work on that signal remotely.

[3:22:09] There's just so much that goes into it.

[3:22:11] Um, as mentioned in the CIP application,

[3:22:13] one of the critical things here is how

[3:22:14] the signal detects people. So, if it's

[3:22:17] detecting you and it knows you're there,

[3:22:19] it can operate so much more efficiently

[3:22:21] and intelligently. It's one of the very

[3:22:23] first things that will break in a signal

[3:22:24] is the detection system. And so once

[3:22:27] that happens, then it goes back to this

[3:22:29] default pre-timed condition. That's just

[3:22:32] really frustrating for drivers because

[3:22:33] you're sitting there and you're seeing

[3:22:35] that you have a red light and you don't

[3:22:37] see any obvious reason why you do. And

[3:22:39] so we're always constantly trying to

[3:22:41] partner with UD do and partner with

[3:22:42] federal agencies to get more money to do

[3:22:45] these upgrades. But honestly, it's a

[3:22:47] it's a thing that has definitely been

[3:22:49] neglected over the years and we have a

[3:22:51] massive backlog of signal issues to deal

[3:22:53] with. And so, uh, Council Member Petro,

[3:22:55] to answer your question, I think we

[3:22:57] typically see about one or two signals a

[3:22:59] year that we we really should be

[3:23:01] installing new ones. I think the the

[3:23:03] most recent example of that up on 2100

[3:23:05] North out by uh Boeing's facility out

[3:23:08] there.

[3:23:09] >> They've experienced such massive rapid

[3:23:11] » They've experienced such massive rapid

[3:23:11] growth out there. And I I don't know if

[3:23:13] you experienced it, but the traffic

[3:23:14] backups were horrendous. And now we've

[3:23:17] got that signal in place. And it's been

[3:23:19] just a huge improvement for all the

[3:23:21] people working at the airport and all

[3:23:22] the people in that area. I think with

[3:23:24] the growth in the northwest quadrant,

[3:23:25] we're going to see more and more need

[3:23:27] for that. So, if we could fund

[3:23:28] constructing one or two a year, it would

[3:23:30] really help us. But the backlog we have,

[3:23:33] we really need to be rebuilding a couple

[3:23:34] of these every year. Um, a a new signal

[3:23:37] costs about half a million dollars. And

[3:23:40] it's shocking to me because when I

[3:23:42] started my career, that number was like

[3:23:43] $200,000.

[3:23:45] >> This is one of the things that has seen

[3:23:46] » This is one of the things that has seen

[3:23:46] the biggest inflation of anything in our

[3:23:48] industry. And honestly, it's hard to say

[3:23:51] why. Uh the technology is constantly

[3:23:53] being upgraded. They're moving to LAR

[3:23:56] now. So that's kind of the new detection

[3:23:57] technology that's out there. U DOT is

[3:23:59] way on board with LAR, and we're seeing

[3:24:02] some real advantages. the new LAR units,

[3:24:04] they can actually sense if a pedestrian

[3:24:06] is still in the crosswalk and they can

[3:24:08] hold the signal so that that pedestrian

[3:24:10] can get out of the intersection before

[3:24:11] they let traffic go.

[3:24:12] >> Wow.

[3:24:13] » Wow.

[3:24:13] >> So, there's some huge advantages if we

[3:24:15] » So, there's some huge advantages if we

[3:24:15] can just upgrade our system and make it

[3:24:16] work more intelligently. It seems like a

[3:24:19] lot of money, but it's a really good

[3:24:20] investment to make for

[3:24:22] >> quality of life for people that are out

[3:24:24] » quality of life for people that are out

[3:24:24] there.

[3:24:24] >> Are there grants on this space uh that

[3:24:28] » Are there grants on this space uh that

[3:24:28] we should maybe be pursuing more? Yeah,

[3:24:31] there there are actually. And so one of

[3:24:33] the things we've recently applied for is

[3:24:34] an SS4A grant to try to get some

[3:24:37] funding. The SS4A is the safe streets

[3:24:39] for all. Um Robin Hutchinson, the former

[3:24:41] director of transportation, was actually

[3:24:43] instrumental in making that program

[3:24:44] happen. Um so we've applied for a grant

[3:24:47] this year and we're intending to use

[3:24:50] that that grant if we're successful for

[3:24:52] LAR upgrades. And if we're successful,

[3:24:54] we're going to do a ton of that and

[3:24:57] hopefully get a lot of these upgrades

[3:24:58] done without having to fully, like you

[3:24:59] said, fully replace the whole signal. If

[3:25:02] we can just upgrade the detection, that

[3:25:03] gets us a long ways towards where we

[3:25:05] want to be.

[3:25:06] >> So, we're trying to be smart about it.

[3:25:07] » So, we're trying to be smart about it.

[3:25:07] >> So, does this then represent the total

[3:25:10] » So, does this then represent the total

[3:25:10] budget for the year for all of the

[3:25:13] traffic lights throughout the city?

[3:25:15] >> This is what we're requesting for this

[3:25:16] » This is what we're requesting for this

[3:25:16] year to go out and strategically replace

[3:25:18] a few old ones,

[3:25:19] >> but this doesn't supplement something in

[3:25:21] » but this doesn't supplement something in

[3:25:21] the in the general budget as well. This

[3:25:22] is exclusively it.

[3:25:24] >> It is.

[3:25:24] » It is.

[3:25:24] >> All right. Who wants to start the

[3:25:26] » All right. Who wants to start the

[3:25:26] traffic light company with me?

[3:25:27] [laughter] We'll sell it for just $450.

[3:25:29] Cost savings.

[3:25:31] >> Yes.

[3:25:33] » Yes.

[3:25:33] >> Just to kind of tie into that, the

[3:25:36] » Just to kind of tie into that, the

[3:25:36] streets division does maintenance on all

[3:25:37] these signals. So, as Lynn was

[3:25:39] describing, like when you update the LAR

[3:25:41] system, we then maintain them and we

[3:25:43] have a certain life cycle of in order to

[3:25:45] be compliant with, you know, federal and

[3:25:47] state laws, they need to be replaced

[3:25:49] every so many years. And every single

[3:25:51] component of a traffic signal has its

[3:25:53] own life cycle. So transportation

[3:25:56] replaces an entire intersection. Streets

[3:25:59] just does maintenance and replaces like

[3:26:01] the cabinet one year and then maybe the

[3:26:03] ligh head the next. So you will see

[3:26:05] later on a request for maintenance

[3:26:08] funding. And that isn't replacing an

[3:26:09] entire intersection. It's just the

[3:26:11] components of the entire system in the

[3:26:13] city to make sure that we're keeping

[3:26:15] them in good running order. And then as

[3:26:18] we upgrade a new signal, then that makes

[3:26:20] the burden on them to maintain it easier

[3:26:21] because they have newer equipment to to

[3:26:23] work with rather than trying to piece

[3:26:24] mill something that's kind of a

[3:26:26] patchwork that's out there.

[3:26:27] >> But then they're also more expensive.

[3:26:29] » But then they're also more expensive.

[3:26:29] >> They are for sure.

[3:26:32] » They are for sure.

[3:26:32] >> Great. Thank you.

[3:26:33] » Great. Thank you.

[3:26:33] >> Thank you.

[3:26:34] » Thank you.

[3:26:34] >> Thank you.

[3:26:35] » Thank you.

[3:26:35] >> Oh, by the way, we also have Wasn't the

[3:26:37] » Oh, by the way, we also have Wasn't the

[3:26:38] the light the street light the stop

[3:26:39] light the first invented here in the

[3:26:41] state of Utah? I believe that's true,

[3:26:43] Chris.

[3:26:44] >> Yeah, it is. And yeah, it's it's still

[3:26:47] » Yeah, it is. And yeah, it's it's still

[3:26:47] in operation. One of the ones that we

[3:26:48] need to replace. No, it's not. I'm just

[3:26:50] kidding. [laughter]

[3:26:51] I'm just kidding.

[3:26:52] >> But if anyone knows where it is,

[3:26:54] » But if anyone knows where it is,

[3:26:54] >> that's what I I was going to ask.

[3:26:55] » that's what I I was going to ask.

[3:26:55] >> We need it.

[3:26:57] » We need it.

[3:26:57] >> I I believe I mention I I mentioned this

[3:26:59] » I I believe I mention I I mentioned this

[3:26:59] in a in a meeting I had with with the

[3:27:01] staff uh last week or the week before.

[3:27:04] Um and

[3:27:07] someone mentioned that it it may be one

[3:27:09] of them may be saved someplace. I felt

[3:27:11] like we should do a citywide hunt and

[3:27:14] whatever cabinet uh we have to find this

[3:27:17] original light because I think it's

[3:27:19] worth to highlight the ingenuity of of S

[3:27:23] Lakers. So, thank you for allowing me to

[3:27:26] go into that route. Um, next.

[3:27:29] >> Great. Next up is project number six.

[3:27:32] » Great. Next up is project number six.

[3:27:32] It's the street overlay. So, when

[3:27:34] streets don't need to be completely

[3:27:36] reconstructed, the streets division does

[3:27:38] an overlay. and they have requested $3.3

[3:27:41] million. Um, and there is a list of the

[3:27:44] several streets that they plan to target

[3:27:47] with this um, within within the log.

[3:27:52] Questions, comments?

[3:27:54] Okay,

[3:27:56] next up, um, project number seven. Um,

[3:28:01] this is for safe and open clean park

[3:28:04] restroom program replacement. You'll

[3:28:07] notice that we have one that a project

[3:28:09] that's for replacement and another one

[3:28:11] that's for like fixes. So, um this one's

[3:28:14] a replacement though. Um this project

[3:28:16] will replace one felling restroom and

[3:28:18] then upgrade um one at the Riverside

[3:28:20] Park. Um

[3:28:23] it's for $1.1 million. So, everyone

[3:28:26] recommended approval of that and we're

[3:28:29] going to go ahead and keep going.

[3:28:30] >> Also very expensive uh to replace a

[3:28:33] » Also very expensive uh to replace a

[3:28:33] bathroom. I don't know how many

[3:28:36] I mean

[3:28:38] how complicated it is, but it's shocking

[3:28:41] to me that it cost a million over a

[3:28:43] million dollars to do a bathroom.

[3:28:44] Really?

[3:28:45] >> Yeah. This actually we had this

[3:28:47] » Yeah. This actually we had this

[3:28:47] conversation last year also. And I think

[3:28:49] I think the number for a new bathroom

[3:28:51] last year was $750,000,

[3:28:54] but we're we're getting replacement of

[3:28:56] one and updates of another. So,

[3:29:00] okay. Um, next up on the log we have

[3:29:03] project number eight, the Jordan River

[3:29:05] sewer and storm water infrastructure

[3:29:07] improvements. Um,

[3:29:10] the the system is not properly connected

[3:29:13] to the city storm water and sewer

[3:29:14] systems causing frequent backups into

[3:29:16] the parking lot and northern portion of

[3:29:19] the park. This has been requiring

[3:29:21] emergency maintenance. um this which

[3:29:25] this project would get rid of and make

[3:29:28] it cleaner and healthier and safe safer

[3:29:30] for all.

[3:29:34] Great. Um project number nine.

[3:29:39] Um this is our vision zero corridor

[3:29:42] project. Um they requested $2.3 million

[3:29:45] for this and they have been recommended

[3:29:47] by both entities for this. Um there are

[3:29:50] three priority corridors including

[3:29:52] Redwood Road, 900 West, and 800 South.

[3:29:55] Um if if approved at this level, it is

[3:29:58] proposed that $1.2 million go to the

[3:30:01] Vision Zero corridors that I just listed

[3:30:05] and an additional $1.1 million go to

[3:30:08] safety improvements citywide, including

[3:30:10] selected crosswalks near schools.

[3:30:15] » Yes. Go ahead.

[3:30:18] Yep.

[3:30:19] >> Um I wanted to uh flag um a constituent

[3:30:24] » Um I wanted to uh flag um a constituent

[3:30:24] um item that's later on in the in our

[3:30:27] packet. It's number 37. Um in that

[3:30:30] constituent request, there's a request

[3:30:32] for a a crosswalk at me a and west

[3:30:36] temple. And so if you can't picture that

[3:30:39] in your head, that is right where the

[3:30:42] off-ramp is from the freeway. So, this

[3:30:44] council has made some um really and

[3:30:47] other uh including the county have made

[3:30:49] some really important improvements to

[3:30:51] that me a underpass area and it's now

[3:30:54] become a destination where children are

[3:30:56] coming to play where neighbors are

[3:30:59] gathering and I'm concerned along with

[3:31:02] this constituent with vehicles traveling

[3:31:04] at such a high velocity and slowing down

[3:31:06] there it's a real safety concern and so

[3:31:09] um while I love what the constituent put

[3:31:12] forward in their request

[3:31:13] Um, knowing that this year is tight, I

[3:31:16] would love if we can find perhaps

[3:31:18] $40,000 to allocate towards a crosswalk

[3:31:21] and flashing beacon right at that

[3:31:23] intersection of me u me a and west

[3:31:26] temple.

[3:31:32] » Okay,

[3:31:34] thank you.

[3:31:37] >> I appreciate [clears throat] this on the

[3:31:38] » I appreciate [clears throat] this on the

[3:31:38] vision zero. I was um thinking about the

[3:31:42] red light cameras and the idea that you

[3:31:44] know we're not allowed to have red light

[3:31:46] cameras because uh but could we have a

[3:31:50] red light cameras that just counted the

[3:31:53] number of violations that we have of

[3:31:56] people running the red lights? nothing

[3:31:58] more than just

[3:32:00] uh a program to count the number of red

[3:32:04] lights violations we had and in lights

[3:32:07] we have in the city uh to maybe um give

[3:32:12] a highlight that to the state

[3:32:14] legislators

[3:32:16] and I'm not sure if that would go under

[3:32:17] this thing or how if if you could tie

[3:32:20] somehow tie that into the vision zero

[3:32:23] aspect. I'm just throwing out the idea

[3:32:25] on the funding. Uh it came to just as I

[3:32:28] was looking through this this weekend.

[3:32:30] >> I I love that idea. Um we actually have

[3:32:32] » I I love that idea. Um we actually have

[3:32:32] the ability to get that data already

[3:32:35] from many of our traffic signals. So the

[3:32:36] ones that actually are upgraded and have

[3:32:38] good detection

[3:32:39] >> record

[3:32:41] » record

[3:32:41] frequency of red light running. So we

[3:32:43] could we could pull that information and

[3:32:44] create a report based on what we have.

[3:32:47] Now we won't be able to do it at every

[3:32:48] location in the city because a lot of

[3:32:50] our signals are old and don't have the

[3:32:51] right detection. But

[3:32:52] >> but if you can already do that then I

[3:32:54] » but if you can already do that then I

[3:32:54] would love to have that. So thank you

[3:32:55] very much on the CIP data.

[3:32:58] >> Yeah.

[3:32:59] » Yeah.

[3:32:59] >> Yeah.

[3:32:59] » Yeah.

[3:32:59] >> That would be very useful for for years.

[3:33:01] » That would be very useful for for years.

[3:33:01] When I joined the council, I came hot on

[3:33:03] this issue. I fail on my face multiple

[3:33:06] times.

[3:33:07] >> I'm Yep. We both would be very useful. I

[3:33:10] » I'm Yep. We both would be very useful. I

[3:33:10] was I really would love to see those

[3:33:12] camera.

[3:33:13] >> I agree 100%. Red light running is a

[3:33:15] » I agree 100%. Red light running is a

[3:33:15] huge um issue for this issue. Yeah, you

[3:33:18] bet.

[3:33:20] [snorts]

[3:33:22] We're

[3:33:22] >> good. Yeah. more thoughts.

[3:33:27] » Let's go through all of them and then

[3:33:28] I'd love to circle back and see shaking

[3:33:31] the couch cushions if we can come up

[3:33:33] with at least 40,000 for this crosswalk.

[3:33:36] >> We got that.

[3:33:37] » We got that.

[3:33:37] >> Thank you.

[3:33:37] » Thank you.

[3:33:37] >> It's next.

[3:33:38] » It's next.

[3:33:38] >> Great. Next up is project number 10,

[3:33:42] » Great. Next up is project number 10,

[3:33:42] urban trails. Um there are two plans

[3:33:44] that direct different urban trails

[3:33:47] throughout the city. This year's funding

[3:33:49] request will allow the design of the

[3:33:51] Redbute Creek Trail Airport trail

[3:33:53] rehabilitation and the construction of

[3:33:55] active transportation gaps, which is

[3:33:57] sidewalks or bikeway gaps. The request

[3:34:00] was for $450,000

[3:34:02] and all recommended approval.

[3:34:07] Great. Um, next project, project number

[3:34:11] 11. This one the CDCIP board recommended

[3:34:14] funding but the mayor did not. This is

[3:34:16] the only project where the CD CIP board

[3:34:20] recommended funding and the mayor did

[3:34:21] not. Just so you're aware, it's a

[3:34:23] lighting replacement to improve safety

[3:34:24] and access um within parks.

[3:34:32] Do we have more context as to why this

[3:34:34] wasn't include? I mean, this is a year

[3:34:36] of hard decisions, but it any additional

[3:34:39] context into why it was in wasn't

[3:34:41] included in the mayor's uh recommended

[3:34:43] funding.

[3:34:45] I'm going to guess that it wasn't

[3:34:47] included because there were so many

[3:34:49] other there's so many projects for 20

[3:34:52] million below. But

[3:34:56] >> we can follow up with that. Yeah.

[3:34:59] » we can follow up with that. Yeah.

[3:34:59] Great. Okay. Uh project number 12 um

[3:35:03] facilities replacement and renewal. Um

[3:35:05] this was a request for $2.9 million.

[3:35:08] They've been recommended to be funded at

[3:35:10] $2.7 million. This includes such items

[3:35:14] um for the facilities including this

[3:35:17] building of light safety and code

[3:35:19] compliance, structural integrity and um

[3:35:23] core infrastructure systems and

[3:35:25] operational building systems.

[3:35:30] Okay. Um next item, project number 13,

[3:35:35] traffic signal capital maintenance. So,

[3:35:38] as Julie mentioned a little bit ago,

[3:35:41] this is that maintenance to keep those

[3:35:43] those street signals running smoothly.

[3:35:46] They asked for 750,000. They've been

[3:35:49] recommended for 5 mill 500,000.

[3:35:53] If it was 5 million, I think everyone

[3:35:55] would be happy. Yeah.

[3:35:57] >> Circling back on number 11 on the light

[3:36:00] » Circling back on number 11 on the light

[3:36:00] replacement uh for safety. Um, can we

[3:36:04] get more more details of maybe it's on

[3:36:08] me to search on specific what you know

[3:36:11] what areas, what parks, you know, uh,

[3:36:13] more information about,

[3:36:16] you know, to me, you know, improve

[3:36:19] improvements in the parks that improve

[3:36:21] safety, you know, it's pretty high in

[3:36:23] that in in the hierarchy of needs. Um,

[3:36:27] so even if we can throw a little money

[3:36:29] at it, if we can find something, spread

[3:36:31] the peanut butter a little bit might be

[3:36:32] useful.

[3:36:34] >> Yeah, this is Cat Ander from Public

[3:36:37] » Yeah, this is Cat Ander from Public

[3:36:37] Lands. Um, our prioritized location for

[3:36:40] locations for lighting replacement are

[3:36:43] City Creek Park, Memory Grove, and the

[3:36:45] City Creek Road going up to City Creek.

[3:36:48] Um, we're prioritizing those because

[3:36:50] they are the oldest assets and in the

[3:36:52] worst condition and need to be repaired

[3:36:54] most frequently and require the largest

[3:36:57] maintenance obligation. And so those

[3:36:59] were our pro proposed locations at this

[3:37:02] time, but we have flexibility if there

[3:37:04] are other preferences. Um, also being in

[3:37:06] central city, we wanted to prioritize

[3:37:08] lighting from a safety perspective in

[3:37:09] those locations.

[3:37:10] >> That that makes a lot of sense. And

[3:37:12] » That that makes a lot of sense. And

[3:37:12] unfortunately [clears throat] Chris is

[3:37:13] not here right now. He would have loved

[3:37:14] to hear those parks. I'm glad that he's

[3:37:16] not here actually. Um so thank you for

[3:37:18] that.

[3:37:19] >> Thank you.

[3:37:22] » Thank you.

[3:37:22] >> Next.

[3:37:22] » Next.

[3:37:22] >> Great. Um the next three applications

[3:37:25] » Great. Um the next three applications

[3:37:26] were not recommended for funding. Um

[3:37:28] project number 14, which is the transit

[3:37:31] capital program. I think these three um

[3:37:35] fall under that category of they'd be

[3:37:37] really great, but we there's not enough

[3:37:39] peanut butter to spread around. So,

[3:37:42] capital the transit capital program for

[3:37:44] 2027

[3:37:46] um the plaza 349 balconies and the

[3:37:51] demolition of the KFax and Odyssey

[3:37:53] house. Um

[3:37:56] just going to keep

[3:38:00] so I think my question on number 14 was

[3:38:03] just related to

[3:38:05] um that it leverages the outside funds

[3:38:09] from UTA. I'm just trying to get a sense

[3:38:12] of like how how large are those funds

[3:38:16] because like if it's a oneto one match

[3:38:18] or if it's like we'll give you $5,000

[3:38:21] like that makes a difference.

[3:38:23] >> Yeah, I'll look into that and

[3:38:27] » Yeah, I'll look into that and

[3:38:27] >> number 14.

[3:38:28] » number 14.

[3:38:28] >> Yeah.

[3:38:31] » Yeah.

[3:38:31] >> Thank you.

[3:38:31] » Thank you.

[3:38:31] >> Great. Um let's go ahead and move on to

[3:38:34] » Great. Um let's go ahead and move on to

[3:38:34] number 17. A quick question. Um sorry.

[3:38:38] Where where um where are the locations

[3:38:40] of Kfax and the Odyssey House? What's

[3:38:42] the address?

[3:38:43] >> Oh, you know, I looked that up

[3:38:47] » Oh, you know, I looked that up

[3:38:47] and I will get Oh,

[3:38:49] JP's coming up.

[3:38:52] >> Yeah, it's just south of 600 South off

[3:38:55] » Yeah, it's just south of 600 South off

[3:38:55] Second East. So, where our facilities

[3:39:00] and youth and families located just

[3:39:02] behind that to the south. I'm not sure

[3:39:04] exact.

[3:39:05] >> Okay. And those are currently vacant

[3:39:07] » Okay. And those are currently vacant

[3:39:07] structures um that pose a safety risk

[3:39:10] and I imagine folks getting involved in

[3:39:13] nefarious activities.

[3:39:14] >> We we struggle with vacant structures.

[3:39:16] » We we struggle with vacant structures.

[3:39:16] Yes.

[3:39:17] >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to

[3:39:19] » Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to

[3:39:19] visually see where they were. Thank you.

[3:39:21] >> Are they are they city- owned

[3:39:24] » Are they are they city- owned

[3:39:24] or are we doing

[3:39:27] >> both are city owned? Yeah, the city owns

[3:39:29] » both are city owned? Yeah, the city owns

[3:39:29] all all of those properties.

[3:39:30] >> Thank you.

[3:39:31] » Thank you.

[3:39:31] >> Yeah.

[3:39:31] » Yeah.

[3:39:31] >> Do we have a sense of what Sorry. um the

[3:39:33] » Do we have a sense of what Sorry. um the

[3:39:34] cost. I know it's very expensive to

[3:39:36] maintain

[3:39:37] um the security of these vacant

[3:39:39] buildings. Do we have a sense of what

[3:39:41] we're spending currently on on those

[3:39:44] buildings to keep them secure?

[3:39:46] >> I think the proximity of those two

[3:39:48] » I think the proximity of those two

[3:39:48] buildings being right behind our

[3:39:50] facilities

[3:39:52] uh building where all of our people are,

[3:39:55] it's not as bad. We have a we have a

[3:39:57] security system, so those stay pretty um

[3:40:00] clear. But I mean the other ones I would

[3:40:03] have to get back to you on how much

[3:40:05] those cost. Yeah.

[3:40:11] » Great.

[3:40:13] Any other questions on those two? Okay.

[3:40:16] And just so you know, I'm making a list

[3:40:17] of follow-up questions. And if you have

[3:40:19] any that you come up with in by the end

[3:40:22] of the month would be very helpful to

[3:40:24] get your questions by the end of the

[3:40:26] month so that we can get responses from

[3:40:27] the administration before we meet for

[3:40:29] our next briefing. Okay. Project number

[3:40:32] 17. Um, this project the CDCIP board did

[3:40:37] not recommend funding, but the mayor

[3:40:39] did. It's streets legal compliance with

[3:40:42] 2010 ADA standards for accessibility.

[3:40:46] This has um a lot to do with sidewalks.

[3:40:50] It's recommended for $750,000.

[3:40:54] Just uh wondering where just 500

[3:40:58] locations around the city or

[3:41:02] are they a million dollars too like

[3:41:04] everything else like the toilets and

[3:41:07] everything? Yeah. Um, Julie Krookxton, I

[3:41:10] don't think I introduced myself last

[3:41:11] time. Public services. The locations are

[3:41:15] prioritized once we receive funding, but

[3:41:17] it'll be anywhere where ADA access can

[3:41:21] be limited. So, that could be ramps, but

[3:41:23] that could also be like if there's um

[3:41:26] some panels that are like totally

[3:41:28] nontraversible. So, like no one can walk

[3:41:30] on that sidewalk or, you know, take a

[3:41:31] stroller or wheelchair down it. Um, so

[3:41:33] we try to spread that as equitably

[3:41:35] throughout the city as possible and

[3:41:36] start with like the oldest and most

[3:41:38] severe first so we can provide a long

[3:41:42] list.

[3:41:43] >> Sorry,

[3:41:43] » Sorry,

[3:41:43] >> how long is your list?

[3:41:44] » how long is your list?

[3:41:44] >> Um, long. It's quite long. Yeah, the the

[3:41:48] » Um, long. It's quite long. Yeah, the the

[3:41:48] the windstorm in 2020 did a lot more

[3:41:51] damage to our sidewalk system and so

[3:41:54] we've been catching up ever since. um 2

[3:41:58] years ago I think there was extra

[3:41:59] funding allocated for sidewalk

[3:42:01] maintenance which was very beneficial

[3:42:02] and has helped us a lot um but it's just

[3:42:05] a very large system and a lot of it is

[3:42:07] older and so there's always a big need

[3:42:10] but we can get a more detailed list if

[3:42:13] desired

[3:42:15] more young and then Dan

[3:42:18] >> yeah I'll just share um that they we

[3:42:21] » yeah I'll just share um that they we

[3:42:21] received a report as council probably

[3:42:24] like less than like a year, maybe two

[3:42:26] years ago, related to all of the ADA

[3:42:29] compliance needs, this being one of

[3:42:32] them. Um, and I just remember like it

[3:42:36] wasn't like millions of dollars, it was

[3:42:39] like tens of millions of dollars that

[3:42:41] were necessary for us to get compliant.

[3:42:44] Um, so I do know that I've seen the city

[3:42:48] take action steps to incorporate those

[3:42:50] aspects into the new projects like as

[3:42:52] they come online and come forward. Um,

[3:42:55] but I'm pretty sure this will be a drop

[3:42:57] in the bucket compared to what the

[3:43:00] comprehensive need is. So, thank you.

[3:43:03] >> And I can't remember was there a federal

[3:43:06] » And I can't remember was there a federal

[3:43:06] date or a penalty if we didn't have

[3:43:11] somebody done by a certain date on any

[3:43:13] other transportation funding.

[3:43:16] >> As far as I'm aware, the timeline was

[3:43:19] » As far as I'm aware, the timeline was

[3:43:19] like having a plan in place. It wasn't

[3:43:21] necessarily like the execution of

[3:43:23] certain things, but we can triple

[3:43:24] confirm that to make sure, but it was

[3:43:26] more like do you, you know, have a plan

[3:43:28] of like, hey, this is when we'll do

[3:43:30] these things over the next 10 years as

[3:43:32] funding allows, stuff like that.

[3:43:35] Quick question um regarding regarding

[3:43:37] this. I was reading this article um

[3:43:41] about the cost of infrastructure for

[3:43:43] cities and how different cities get

[3:43:48] get more for their buck on you know

[3:43:51] actually they were talking about ADA

[3:43:53] ramps on corners and they were comparing

[3:43:56] one city versus another one. Um and you

[3:44:00] know one getting a lot more for little

[3:44:03] money and the other one getting very

[3:44:05] cost inflated uh not because of them but

[3:44:08] because of the bids and whatnot. Um and

[3:44:11] I saw that the city in some cases is

[3:44:14] doing one ramp that serves both

[3:44:16] directions. Uh I wonder if if we the

[3:44:20] city has a standard practice to reduce

[3:44:23] the amount of cost uh and at the same

[3:44:27] time getting further uh into this long

[3:44:30] list of improvements needed.

[3:44:32] >> We I know we have like you know we try

[3:44:35] » We I know we have like you know we try

[3:44:35] to address the legal need of ADA but we

[3:44:38] could definitely look at like can we

[3:44:40] standardize saying does one direction

[3:44:42] legally meet in more locations than not

[3:44:44] so we could lessen the cost in that way.

[3:44:47] We can definitely explore that.

[3:44:48] >> Yeah, I I will definitely love to see,

[3:44:51] » Yeah, I I will definitely love to see,

[3:44:51] you know, any any way that we can

[3:44:54] stretch our dollars uh and if if in some

[3:44:57] intersections it work to have one ramp

[3:45:00] versus two uh that serves both uh both

[3:45:04] directions. Um I I would love to see if

[3:45:07] we can get

[3:45:08] >> Yeah,

[3:45:08] » Yeah,

[3:45:08] >> if we can get that.

[3:45:09] » if we can get that.

[3:45:09] >> Yeah, we can explore that. And one

[3:45:11] » Yeah, we can explore that. And one

[3:45:11] measure that we do have standardized is

[3:45:13] that when we hire a contractor to do

[3:45:15] this work, we try to not pick like 12

[3:45:17] different city locations across the city

[3:45:19] and have them driving back and forth. We

[3:45:21] try to say, "Okay, there's like an

[3:45:22] economy of scale of saying you're in

[3:45:23] this area, you're already mobilized.

[3:45:25] Let's try to focus on like all the

[3:45:26] issues in those few specific blocks and

[3:45:29] then move you to another block and do

[3:45:31] all those areas as well." So that is one

[3:45:33] cost-saving measure we've implemented.

[3:45:34] Um, but I think we can definitely

[3:45:36] explore the ones you've mentioned.

[3:45:38] >> Thank you.

[3:45:40] » Thank you.

[3:45:40] Next.

[3:45:41] >> Great. And the next two applications

[3:45:44] » Great. And the next two applications

[3:45:44] were not recommended for funding. They

[3:45:47] were department applications. So, um,

[3:45:50] project 18, irrigation upgrades and

[3:45:52] supportive water wise landscaping

[3:45:54] program, not recommended. And the

[3:45:57] project 19 bikeway gaps in 2027, also

[3:46:00] not recommended.

[3:46:02] >> I would cons

[3:46:04] » I would cons

[3:46:04] uh just on the water side of the house,

[3:46:07] a couple questions. what how much

[3:46:08] savings of water would we get from that

[3:46:10] program? And then the second is just can

[3:46:13] we get you know the state's talking

[3:46:14] about water conservation? Is there any

[3:46:17] state funding for water conservation

[3:46:19] efforts on you know we have the smart

[3:46:22] metering we have this you know rip your

[3:46:24] strip you know we're going to give you

[3:46:26] three bucks a square foot for your yard.

[3:46:28] How about giving us 1.2 million for some

[3:46:31] water uh landscaping program. I mean

[3:46:34] just 1.2 that's nothing big. Yeah,

[3:46:36] >> for them.

[3:46:37] » for them.

[3:46:37] >> Yeah, I would have to get more

[3:46:39] » Yeah, I would have to get more

[3:46:39] information on the water savings kind of

[3:46:41] exact numbers. Um, but I think some of

[3:46:44] the things that'll provide a lot of

[3:46:45] efficiencies are right now our aged

[3:46:47] irrigation systems, our overhead spray,

[3:46:49] providing water to trees and turf. And

[3:46:51] so in drought situations, we either have

[3:46:53] to turn off our entire system, which uh

[3:46:55] stresses out the trees and kind of puts

[3:46:57] our canopy at risk, or we water the turf

[3:46:59] in addition. And so as we separate those

[3:47:01] out, we'll be able to water only trees,

[3:47:03] not turf in our drought conditions. And

[3:47:05] then replacing passive areas with native

[3:47:08] water landscaping can reduce water use

[3:47:10] up to 60% in those areas. Um so I'll

[3:47:13] have to get more information on

[3:47:14] individual dollar amounts. Um but we are

[3:47:17] as we're doing um implementing new

[3:47:20] projects outside of this program, we are

[3:47:22] upgrading all of our irrigation,

[3:47:24] separating out trees and turf irrigation

[3:47:26] where possible and utilizing as many of

[3:47:29] those programs as possible. Um they're

[3:47:31] kind of on a smaller scale. A lot of our

[3:47:33] irrigation systems included in this

[3:47:35] program are kind of wholesale parks that

[3:47:37] require a significant amount of kind of

[3:47:40] overhaul and investment. So that's why

[3:47:41] you're seeing larger dollar amounts for

[3:47:43] those. We um we also got a report years

[3:47:47] ago from uh public lands on this issue.

[3:47:51] Um and [snorts] it's a lot of money that

[3:47:54] is needed to upgrade our parks to the

[3:47:57] standard that we need to. I would like

[3:47:59] two things. One is that we can as a city

[3:48:03] advocate for

[3:48:05] I know I'm dreaming too big right here.

[3:48:07] Um state participation and and public

[3:48:11] lands. And we are not the only city that

[3:48:14] has this issue as pretty much every city

[3:48:17] with you know older parks with majority

[3:48:20] of cities. And we're talking about a

[3:48:23] significant impact on our water. Uh we

[3:48:25] can save a ton of water uh if we

[3:48:28] actually are able to upgrade this this

[3:48:31] uh systems. Uh but no city in this

[3:48:34] valley will have the capacity to do this

[3:48:36] ever. There is always a bigger emergency

[3:48:39] for us. Um, so that will be one thing

[3:48:43] that I hope hopefully we can put

[3:48:44] together a little plan and start loving

[3:48:46] and and getting partners uh in our state

[3:48:49] leadership to see if we can get some

[3:48:52] matching funds. I don't know or

[3:48:54] something. Um, anything really. Um, and

[3:48:57] the other thing is

[3:48:59] I went through the classes, you know,

[3:49:03] the water wise classes to learn how to

[3:49:05] local scape. This is through um during

[3:49:08] the pandemic. I learned how to do all

[3:49:10] those things. It was very fun. Um I

[3:49:14] would love to see if there is a way of

[3:49:16] getting creative

[3:49:18] uh on how to separate both our uh lawns

[3:49:22] and our trees. Uh they may not be as

[3:49:25] pretty as we wish they were. Um right.

[3:49:28] So t trenching and putting pulling all

[3:49:32] the pipes and taking all replacing them

[3:49:34] with multiple zones and all of that is

[3:49:37] expensive. I get it. But I wonder if

[3:49:39] there is a strategic uh plan that we can

[3:49:42] say we can do this with this median or

[3:49:45] with several medians. We can actually

[3:49:46] put um you know the irrigation lines

[3:49:50] above the ground uh for the trees and

[3:49:52] then we can start you know in in in

[3:49:55] smaller chunks um uh making strategic

[3:50:00] investments to get us closer. Um, I wish

[3:50:03] people and to me I think it's a it's

[3:50:05] something that people should see. We

[3:50:08] they should see those pipes outside

[3:50:10] above ground, those irrigations pipe

[3:50:12] above ground. Those are, you know,

[3:50:14] flimsy, right? We we know how they are.

[3:50:16] Um, because they need to also do the

[3:50:18] same. We also need to do the same to

[3:50:20] start separating our lawns versus our

[3:50:22] trees and conserve water that way. Um,

[3:50:26] so I I I would love to see something in

[3:50:29] that aspect where we can teach but also

[3:50:32] show by example what how tenuous the the

[3:50:36] issue is.

[3:50:38] >> Yeah, thank you so much for saying that.

[3:50:40] » Yeah, thank you so much for saying that.

[3:50:40] Um, and we appreciate you funding this

[3:50:43] program the last couple of years. And I

[3:50:46] think part of the intent of some of that

[3:50:47] funding is using some of the medians and

[3:50:50] islands that were funded in the previous

[3:50:52] years to kind of do demonstration

[3:50:54] gardens. Um, we're working with our

[3:50:56] communications team to kind of do

[3:50:57] communications campaigns surrounding

[3:50:59] this because there is a big uh there

[3:51:01] will be a big shift in aesthetic from

[3:51:03] kind of the lawn look to the native

[3:51:05] look. And so I think you're spot on

[3:51:06] there and we're going to start doing

[3:51:08] that. And so yeah, we can definitely

[3:51:09] keep you informed as those projects kind

[3:51:11] of start coming online and we can kind

[3:51:12] of see examples of those in our existing

[3:51:14] with our existing funding. So thank you.

[3:51:16] >> Thank you.

[3:51:19] » Thank you.

[3:51:19] >> Thank you.

[3:51:20] » Thank you.

[3:51:20] >> Great. So um the next project also not

[3:51:23] » Great. So um the next project also not

[3:51:23] funded recommended for funding, excuse

[3:51:26] me. Um bikeway gaps 2027.

[3:51:30] Any questions? Should we keep going?

[3:51:32] Okay. Um project number 20. Um, this was

[3:51:37] not recommended by the CDCIP board, but

[3:51:39] it was by the mayor. You may recall, we

[3:51:42] discussed this in the budget review,

[3:51:44] that the septic system is costing a lot

[3:51:47] of money in maintenance.

[3:51:50] >> So,

[3:51:50] » So,

[3:51:50] >> I tried to kill it. I couldn't. It was

[3:51:52] » I tried to kill it. I couldn't. It was

[3:51:52] obvious that we need it. So, just saying

[3:51:54] >> no.

[3:51:56] » no.

[3:51:56] >> Yes. Okay. Project number 21 not

[3:51:59] » Yes. Okay. Project number 21 not

[3:52:00] recommended for funding. It was a civic

[3:52:01] center construction documents. That's

[3:52:03] mainly because there's funding coming

[3:52:05] from other sources on that. So, I think

[3:52:08] we're good to go there. Um, project 22,

[3:52:11] this is citywide project parks legal

[3:52:14] compliance with 202010 ADA standards for

[3:52:17] accessible design program. Mayor

[3:52:19] recommended funding. CDC did not. Um,

[3:52:25] it's for pedestrian access routes,

[3:52:28] playgrounds, and accessible ground

[3:52:29] surfacing for play areas and access

[3:52:33] within and to restrooms for ADA

[3:52:36] compliance.

[3:52:36] >> Oh, Council Member Young,

[3:52:38] » Oh, Council Member Young,

[3:52:38] >> um, can we just get the the up to seven

[3:52:41] » um, can we just get the the up to seven

[3:52:41] parks like just a better understanding

[3:52:44] of like what those proposed priorities

[3:52:46] are?

[3:52:48] >> Yeah.

[3:52:49] » Yeah.

[3:52:49] >> Thank you.

[3:52:50] » Thank you.

[3:52:50] >> Great.

[3:52:51] » Great.

[3:52:51] >> Oh, I think they're coming. I think

[3:52:52] » Oh, I think they're coming. I think

[3:52:52] you're going to get an answer.

[3:52:56] » I can provide that now or in writing,

[3:52:58] whatever is easier.

[3:52:59] >> Yeah. No, I'm I'm very

[3:53:01] » Yeah. No, I'm I'm very

[3:53:02] >> um our priority list, and this is based

[3:53:03] » um our priority list, and this is based

[3:53:03] on the mayor's office self-evaluation

[3:53:05] and transition plan that they did a

[3:53:06] couple of years ago. So, we prioritize

[3:53:08] Parley's Way Park, Jordan Park, Sixth

[3:53:11] East Park, Lindsay Gardens Park,

[3:53:13] Ballpark Playground, West Point Park,

[3:53:14] and Davis Park. And the most expensive

[3:53:18] part of this funding is accessible

[3:53:20] surfacing and playgrounds. So, we'd be

[3:53:22] replacing the EWF, which is engineered

[3:53:24] wood fiber, the wood chips, which is not

[3:53:26] technically, it is technically ADA

[3:53:30] compliant with a certain level of

[3:53:31] maintenance that we're not necessarily

[3:53:33] able to guarantee. And so, we'd be

[3:53:34] replacing that with the rubber port in

[3:53:36] place to make it fully accessible. So,

[3:53:38] that's kind of where the lion's share of

[3:53:39] that comes. And then access to and

[3:53:42] within restrooms and from arrival points

[3:53:46] to amenities within the park.

[3:53:48] >> Thank you.

[3:53:51] » Thank you.

[3:53:51] Thank you.

[3:53:52] >> Great. Project I think there might have

[3:53:54] » Great. Project I think there might have

[3:53:54] been another Nope. Project 23. Um this

[3:53:58] is a constituent application and

[3:54:00] recommended for funding for Highland

[3:54:02] Park Elementary sidewalks. Um I want to

[3:54:05] point out that with the constituent

[3:54:06] applications, the CDCIP was really

[3:54:09] looking at safety improvements around

[3:54:11] schools. So this checks those boxes.

[3:54:19] Yes.

[3:54:21] >> Yeah.

[3:54:22] » Yeah.

[3:54:22] >> So, when we do things like this, um, we

[3:54:25] » So, when we do things like this, um, we

[3:54:25] just talked about a larger city-wide

[3:54:27] goal with sidewalks. Are those citywide

[3:54:30] goals superimposed onto this as well so

[3:54:32] that we're getting bang for our buck?

[3:54:34] Like,

[3:54:36] we're going to do the ADA compliance

[3:54:38] here as well to make sure. Like I can't

[3:54:41] imagine we would rebuild without an ADA

[3:54:44] compliance, but I I have I have very

[3:54:47] mixed emotions about constituent

[3:54:51] le applications that feel like they're

[3:54:53] cutting in line when we have a

[3:54:55] department that prioritizes. So I I

[3:54:57] would never say no to something that

[3:54:58] helps kids get to school safely, but it

[3:55:00] does feel like a redundant ask that

[3:55:03] might be rep prioritizing. So tell me at

[3:55:05] least if we're going to do that rep

[3:55:06] prioritizing that we are making sure

[3:55:08] that the citywide priorities are being

[3:55:10] observed and we're just checking that

[3:55:11] off our list of to-dos.

[3:55:13] >> No, that's that's a great point. Um

[3:55:16] » No, that's that's a great point. Um

[3:55:16] every opportunity where we can combine

[3:55:18] projects under a single contractor. And

[3:55:20] so when we take these and we get our

[3:55:22] approved list that that it's funded, we

[3:55:24] will look at our other railway projects,

[3:55:26] livable streets projects, local streets

[3:55:29] projects, sidewalk projects where we can

[3:55:32] get economies of scale to do multiple

[3:55:34] projects under one. So you may never see

[3:55:37] if this get approved an actual project

[3:55:39] that lists just this project. It will be

[3:55:41] lumped up under another local streets

[3:55:43] projects. And that's across the board

[3:55:45] kind of back to my comments for item

[3:55:47] number one. every opportunity that we

[3:55:48] can to combine projects through

[3:55:50] economies of scale to get that bang for

[3:55:52] the buck. That's what we that's what we

[3:55:54] look at citywide.

[3:55:56] >> That's beyond

[3:55:57] » That's beyond

[3:55:57] >> Yeah. So, obviously this is in my

[3:56:00] » Yeah. So, obviously this is in my

[3:56:00] district. Um I will just say this is

[3:56:03] like a really interesting one because we

[3:56:06] um as like both the neighborhoods and

[3:56:09] working with council and the

[3:56:10] administration looked at other

[3:56:13] solutions. And so we were like, could we

[3:56:15] even start with like just painting out

[3:56:18] an area that was like this parts for the

[3:56:20] kids, you know, um, within that space.

[3:56:23] And because of the nature of this road

[3:56:25] and like how grally it is, that paint

[3:56:28] wouldn't last. And so I just wanted to

[3:56:30] highlight that they pursued other like

[3:56:33] less expensive like potential solutions

[3:56:36] and vetted those only to just find out

[3:56:38] that that wasn't going to be feasible.

[3:56:41] Um, one of the applicants for this um

[3:56:44] actually um had a child who was hit um

[3:56:48] on the way to school and um it it is

[3:56:52] it's it's one of those things where it's

[3:56:54] marked by the school district is this is

[3:56:56] how you get to school and yet there's no

[3:56:59] sidewalk. Um so they're just competing

[3:57:01] with cars and it's creating a safety

[3:57:04] issue. So anyway, I just wanted to

[3:57:06] provide that additional color to the

[3:57:08] application.

[3:57:12] Thank you.

[3:57:14] >> Great.

[3:57:16] » Great.

[3:57:16] Next application, project number 24.

[3:57:20] This is another constituent application

[3:57:22] that was recommended for funding.

[3:57:24] >> Let me let me interrupt you. So, I I

[3:57:26] » Let me let me interrupt you. So, I I

[3:57:26] just remember years ago, we tried I you

[3:57:29] know, not to take the merits out of this

[3:57:31] because I I I know how hard you worked

[3:57:33] on advocating for this. uh 100% on board

[3:57:36] uh supporting it. But um Victoria and

[3:57:39] myself brought up to the city uh the

[3:57:42] sidewalk by Wallace Stegner uh years ago

[3:57:46] um and there's not one um and it's

[3:57:50] gravel and pointy weeds

[3:57:53] >> and even more traffic thanks to the

[3:57:54] » and even more traffic thanks to the

[3:57:54] other things that we approved with that

[3:57:56] sidewalk as a contingency

[3:57:58] >> and the city because this is a charter

[3:58:02] » and the city because this is a charter

[3:58:02] school. I'll bet one of the most

[3:58:04] successful charter schools uh in the in

[3:58:07] in the valley and probably one one of

[3:58:09] the most prestigious ones out there. Um

[3:58:13] you know there was a lot of reasons why

[3:58:14] this sidewalk couldn't happen. Um and

[3:58:18] there's semis and trucks and cars and no

[3:58:22] sidewalk still. Um, and I would love to

[3:58:25] highlight that um, as a as a a place

[3:58:29] where hopefully we can do something at

[3:58:32] some point. Um, you know, we brought it

[3:58:34] up four years ago. I hope that at some

[3:58:37] point we can do something. Maybe paint.

[3:58:38] Maybe this is one of those roads that

[3:58:40] maybe some of the things that we learned

[3:58:42] from this other project, we can do uh,

[3:58:45] here to get us a little closer to a real

[3:58:48] solution. So, thank you. Sorry, I it

[3:58:50] just popped in my head and I can now

[3:58:52] keep it.

[3:58:54] Great. Okay. Got that note down. Project

[3:58:58] number 24. Good to go. Yep. Okay. This

[3:59:02] is another constituent application for

[3:59:04] 1700 South neighborhood byway crossings.

[3:59:06] They are proposing six of these between

[3:59:10] 200 East and 1200 East. Um this was

[3:59:14] recommended for approval.

[3:59:19] Okay. Um the next application was not

[3:59:23] recommended for approval. It was a

[3:59:25] constituent application to repave alley

[3:59:29] um number 4195.

[3:59:37] » Yes,

[3:59:38] >> I have a question about this one. So, I

[3:59:41] » I have a question about this one. So, I

[3:59:41] think the question I just had was about

[3:59:43] the narrative in terms of the fact that

[3:59:46] it was damaged by a contractor. And I'm

[3:59:50] just I I guess I'm trying to figure out

[3:59:52] like roles and responsibilities related

[3:59:55] to like if they have another option to

[3:59:59] pursue

[4:00:01] improvements from the contractor.

[4:00:06] So whenever we'll have construction like

[4:00:09] uh in this area uh if that alleyway

[4:00:13] [clears throat] becomes kind of an

[4:00:14] unintended route or an intended route um

[4:00:18] usually we don't like to divert

[4:00:20] construction traffic on alleyways but

[4:00:22] they just happen to end up being

[4:00:23] [clears throat] that way. If there's

[4:00:26] damage that can be attested to a

[4:00:28] contractor, we will absolutely pursue

[4:00:30] those with the contractor as part of

[4:00:32] their uh corrective and warranty periods

[4:00:34] that are associated with construction. U

[4:00:37] but I would have to go back through to

[4:00:39] take a look at this one in particular to

[4:00:41] see if we were able to pinpoint this was

[4:00:43] the contractor. I can assure you that if

[4:00:45] it is the contractor's responsibility

[4:00:47] and they damaged it and we can prove

[4:00:48] that through photos or through

[4:00:50] investigation,

[4:00:52] uh then we'll do so. We often admonish

[4:00:55] contractors and anyone that we can take

[4:00:58] a look at pre-construction photos or

[4:01:00] videos. Uh that really saves everyone

[4:01:03] and provides accountability in the sense

[4:01:06] that hey um we can attest this to damage

[4:01:10] or the road was already deteriorated. Uh

[4:01:12] we can't really attest it to just

[4:01:14] construction traffic other than just

[4:01:15] older roadway that deteriorated with

[4:01:18] some additional traffic. So, if if we

[4:01:21] can determine and if the wording of this

[4:01:23] is such that it is on the contractor,

[4:01:25] then we'll absolutely hold the

[4:01:26] contractor responsible and I'll go back

[4:01:27] and take a look at it.

[4:01:28] >> Yeah, I just appreciate us looking into

[4:01:31] » Yeah, I just appreciate us looking into

[4:01:31] that um just to at least determine

[4:01:33] responsibilities in terms of informing

[4:01:36] whether or not this applicant should

[4:01:38] come back in the future or if we might

[4:01:41] have a different avenue for them to

[4:01:43] pursue.

[4:01:43] >> No, I'll follow up on this one.

[4:01:45] » No, I'll follow up on this one.

[4:01:45] >> Thank you.

[4:01:48] Great. Uh, next is project number 26.

[4:01:53] Um, this was charging stations for the

[4:01:56] public the PSB phase three. Last year

[4:01:59] you approved phases two and one. Um, so

[4:02:02] this is the last phase of the EV

[4:02:06] charging and it was recommended by the

[4:02:09] mayor but not by the CDCIP board.

[4:02:15] Great. Um, next application is a

[4:02:18] constituent application number 27 and it

[4:02:21] was recommended for funding. It's the

[4:02:23] Rose Park Safe routes to school crossing

[4:02:26] safety improvements. Um,

[4:02:29] again looking at those crossings near

[4:02:32] schools.

[4:02:38] » Yes.

[4:02:38] >> Great.

[4:02:41] » Great.

[4:02:41] [laughter]

[4:02:42] >> Great. See previous school-based

[4:02:44] » Great. See previous school-based

[4:02:44] discussions. Same thing.

[4:02:46] >> Yes. Okay. Next application. The next

[4:02:49] » Yes. Okay. Next application. The next

[4:02:49] three applications um were not

[4:02:51] recommended for funding. Um application

[4:02:55] 28, traffic circle at 700 South, 500

[4:02:58] West. Um application 29, access control

[4:03:03] transition to S2. And then application

[4:03:08] 30, this was a constituent application.

[4:03:10] Popppler Grove, 500 South Traffic

[4:03:12] Calming.

[4:03:20] » Sarah, sorry.

[4:03:21] >> I have a question on number 29

[4:03:25] » I have a question on number 29

[4:03:25] and just the access control transition

[4:03:28] to S2.

[4:03:30] Um it it noted that there's 13 and I I

[4:03:34] don't know if [snorts] this is a

[4:03:35] security issue and maybe better answer

[4:03:36] it offline. Um but it says that there's

[4:03:38] 13 facilities. Um I'm just curious like

[4:03:42] what

[4:03:43] could we get like an overview of like

[4:03:45] what those key facilities are that are

[4:03:49] still missing this

[4:03:55] cover those. So without

[4:03:58] >> without getting into detail about each

[4:04:01] » without getting into detail about each

[4:04:01] individual facility, Maya can elaborate

[4:04:04] on some of those um the the effort that

[4:04:07] we've gone through over multiple years

[4:04:10] to just upgrade. The facilities that are

[4:04:13] that haven't been upgraded are still

[4:04:15] working. It's a matter of some technical

[4:04:18] backend things and then carrying two

[4:04:20] badges. So, so folks that a lot of

[4:04:23] people are still carrying two badges and

[4:04:25] and the system the old system is old.

[4:04:29] >> Okay, that's helpful. Um I just I know

[4:04:33] » Okay, that's helpful. Um I just I know

[4:04:33] security has been a key con

[4:04:36] consideration of this council. Um and so

[4:04:40] I appreciate that. Um I guess I I would

[4:04:44] just flag this one in terms of like a

[4:04:48] comprehensive citywide concern. um maybe

[4:04:51] for future conversation.

[4:04:54] >> Yeah, I think we're we're we're

[4:04:57] » Yeah, I think we're we're we're

[4:04:57] still upgrading if if we have remaining

[4:04:59] funds like this last year. We did have

[4:05:01] some remaining funds. Mike can provide

[4:05:03] some detail on that, but we're we're

[4:05:04] still making progress.

[4:05:05] >> Yes. So once we found out we were not

[4:05:08] » Yes. So once we found out we were not

[4:05:08] going to receive funding for this

[4:05:09] project most likely we were able to find

[4:05:12] some end ofear funding to cover our

[4:05:13] streets and fleet facilities which was

[4:05:15] crucial because PD is going in for fuel

[4:05:18] after hours just to make sure that they

[4:05:19] can access those. Uh remaining

[4:05:21] facilities will be public lands, the

[4:05:23] Liberty Park maintenance yard, uh

[4:05:25] Liberty Park youth and family and then

[4:05:28] Fairmont and Aud Hall youth and family

[4:05:30] facilities.

[4:05:31] >> Thank you. That's helpful. I I guess um

[4:05:35] » Thank you. That's helpful. I I guess um

[4:05:35] I've just I've seen in our budgets um

[4:05:39] and our budget amendments sometimes

[4:05:41] we've been replacing um city vehicles

[4:05:46] and materials that have been damaged

[4:05:48] like due to like security issues and

[4:05:52] knowing that we're investing in more of

[4:05:55] those solutions. I I just again would

[4:05:58] flag this one maybe for future

[4:06:01] conversation.

[4:06:05] » Thank you.

[4:06:07] >> I would like to flag the number 28

[4:06:11] » I would like to flag the number 28

[4:06:11] traffic

[4:06:13] circle

[4:06:15] 1700 south 500 west. Um

[4:06:18] my question for the administration

[4:06:20] related uh connected this with a request

[4:06:23] from RD from CRA to fund the

[4:06:27] improvements in that street and I wonder

[4:06:29] if those improvements um could include

[4:06:33] some pieces of this um since we're going

[4:06:36] to rebuild that street. I wonder why not

[4:06:41] just throw the circle in it. Um, so I

[4:06:45] would love to see how those two connect

[4:06:47] because we have a circle right now is in

[4:06:49] paint and in cones, but it's a circle.

[4:06:52] Um, so we just need a little curve and

[4:06:56] um, maybe the dinosaur goes back to it

[4:06:58] eventually, which was the intended

[4:06:59] purpose for um, the dinosaur. U, but we

[4:07:03] love some information about that at some

[4:07:05] point. Oh, maybe now.

[4:07:07] >> Amazing. Administration is on it today.

[4:07:10] » Amazing. Administration is on it today.

[4:07:10] Amazing.

[4:07:12] always always on it.

[4:07:15] >> Lyn Jacobs again, transportation

[4:07:16] » Lyn Jacobs again, transportation

[4:07:16] director. I brought up Becca Rolf. Oh,

[4:07:18] got to push my button. Lynn Jacobs,

[4:07:20] transportation director again. And I

[4:07:22] brought up Becca Rolf. Becca is our

[4:07:24] transportation lead on the 500 West

[4:07:26] project. That project formerly known as

[4:07:28] the Green Loop or the beautifification

[4:07:29] project of Fifth West, which is included

[4:07:31] in the complete street reconstruction.

[4:07:33] So

[4:07:33] >> yeah, I apologize. Which which

[4:07:36] » yeah, I apologize. Which which

[4:07:36] >> which project is this 20?

[4:07:39] » which project is this 20?

[4:07:39] >> Which roundabout is this? Where are we

[4:07:40] » Which roundabout is this? Where are we

[4:07:40] on? Traffic Circle 700 south 500 west

[4:07:44] >> 28

[4:07:45] » 28

[4:07:45] >> 28

[4:07:45] » 28

[4:07:45] >> 28 Yes.

[4:07:47] » 28 Yes.

[4:07:47] >> Um so the design team is currently

[4:07:51] » Um so the design team is currently

[4:07:51] working on a conceptual design for 500

[4:07:54] West and working intensively with the

[4:07:57] businesses and the Granary District

[4:07:59] Alliance in that area.

[4:08:03] We've talked about the possibility of

[4:08:06] incorporating

[4:08:07] uh a traffic circle or a roundabout into

[4:08:10] the design and we've also proposed some

[4:08:13] other possible designs. And so we're

[4:08:15] currently at the point where we're

[4:08:16] getting that kind of feedback from the

[4:08:19] community. So if it turns out that going

[4:08:23] in the direction of a roundabout is

[4:08:24] really what they want, we can certainly

[4:08:27] pursue that as part of that

[4:08:29] reconstruction project and as part of

[4:08:31] that design. If there's other things

[4:08:34] that could be done to that corridor to

[4:08:37] improve the green space, um improve the

[4:08:40] walkability,

[4:08:42] um and make that intersection narrower

[4:08:45] and safer,

[4:08:47] um then we might end up going in a

[4:08:49] slightly different direction. So whether

[4:08:51] that's the specific solution for the

[4:08:54] community's request is a little bit to

[4:08:57] be determined and we're having that

[4:08:59] discussion actively with the community.

[4:09:01] >> I'm confused because this is the Granary

[4:09:04] » I'm confused because this is the Granary

[4:09:04] District Alliance requesting a

[4:09:06] roundabout. So what what you just heard

[4:09:09] was we are asking the community what

[4:09:11] they want but yet we have here request

[4:09:14] from them. This is in the context of the

[4:09:17] greater reconstruction of propro

[4:09:20] proposed reconstruction of three blocks

[4:09:23] of fifth west. So that intersection

[4:09:28] was put up with the constraints of the

[4:09:31] rest of the street being what they are.

[4:09:33] If you're changing the rest of the

[4:09:35] street, you have an opportunity to

[4:09:37] reinvision the intersection completely.

[4:09:40] And that is a greater level of

[4:09:41] transformation than what was originally

[4:09:44] put up as a temporary solution and then

[4:09:47] it was asked for as a permanent solution

[4:09:49] here.

[4:09:50] >> And this all has this all has to do with

[4:09:52] » And this all has this all has to do with

[4:09:52] the timing of the application as well.

[4:09:54] So they would have applied for this last

[4:09:56] fall. We were just barely starting our

[4:09:59] conversation about what this project

[4:10:00] could look like about that time. And so

[4:10:03] as it has evolved, we don't know yet. It

[4:10:05] could be a roundabout, could be

[4:10:06] something else. That's something we're

[4:10:07] going to work closely with them. But I

[4:10:09] think to answer your direct question,

[4:10:10] yes, this intersection would be

[4:10:13] addressed with a complete street

[4:10:14] reconstruction of that location.

[4:10:16] >> Amazing. That's what I really wanted to

[4:10:17] » Amazing. That's what I really wanted to

[4:10:17] hear because we already sort of gave a,

[4:10:20] you know, a go ahead on the CRA funding.

[4:10:24] So to me, I wish we can accomplish

[4:10:26] whatever it is. Maybe it's a different

[4:10:28] thing, but something there. So we are in

[4:10:31] the same

[4:10:32] >> our commitment is to work with them

[4:10:33] » our commitment is to work with them

[4:10:34] closely to make sure that we get a great

[4:10:35] solution at that location. I would hate

[4:10:37] that we finish something and you know a

[4:10:39] year later we're like breaking it

[4:10:41] building it roundabout blows my mind.

[4:10:43] >> Yeah.

[4:10:43] » Yeah.

[4:10:43] >> Great comment. Thank you.

[4:10:45] » Great comment. Thank you.

[4:10:45] >> Yeah. And there will be another round of

[4:10:47] » Yeah. And there will be another round of

[4:10:47] public engagement on this in particular

[4:10:50] in August.

[4:10:50] >> Amazing. I please let me know because I

[4:10:53] » Amazing. I please let me know because I

[4:10:53] work in the area. So

[4:10:54] >> thank you.

[4:10:55] » thank you.

[4:10:55] >> Absolutely.

[4:10:56] » Absolutely.

[4:10:56] >> So we are a little beyond time.

[4:11:00] » So we are a little beyond time.

[4:11:00] >> Yes we are. And the our applicant is

[4:11:02] » Yes we are. And the our applicant is

[4:11:02] here right?

[4:11:04] >> Yes.

[4:11:05] » Yes.

[4:11:05] >> Oh yes. Okay, then we will stop right

[4:11:09] » Oh yes. Okay, then we will stop right

[4:11:09] there. Thank you so much, Kate.

[4:11:12] I appreciate everybody in the

[4:11:13] administration too, uh, for their prompt

[4:11:16] answers, clear direction. Um, I'm

[4:11:19] amazed.

[4:11:20] >> Can I just

[4:11:22] » Can I just

[4:11:22] >> just a reminder to council members that

[4:11:24] » just a reminder to council members that

[4:11:24] if you do have any other questions about

[4:11:26] the CIP projects to please send those to

[4:11:29] staff. We will not only be compiling any

[4:11:33] information we can gather in response to

[4:11:35] your questions with the administration's

[4:11:37] great help, but also if you have

[4:11:40] interests on projects that we didn't get

[4:11:42] to yet, we can also compile that list so

[4:11:45] that it's in the updated staff report

[4:11:47] and council members are aware of all

[4:11:50] council member interests and funding

[4:11:52] changes.

[4:11:53] >> Amazing. Thank you.

[4:11:55] » Amazing. Thank you.

[4:11:55] >> Thank you.

[4:11:56] » Thank you.

[4:11:56] All right, we're now moving on to item

[4:11:59] nine, which is a board appointment to

[4:12:01] what's effectually known as a peanut

[4:12:03] board, parks, natural lands, urban

[4:12:05] forestry, and trails. And we have an

[4:12:08] advisory board. And Tyler Thunel is here

[4:12:11] with us. So Tyler would love for you to

[4:12:14] come up

[4:12:19] and um just share with us uh about a

[4:12:23] minute or so a little bit about your

[4:12:25] background and uh why you're interested

[4:12:27] in serving on the peanut board.

[4:12:29] >> Yeah. Um thanks for the the time. It's

[4:12:32] » Yeah. Um thanks for the the time. It's

[4:12:32] been insightful to sit and listen. Um so

[4:12:36] I've uh grown up here my whole life. I

[4:12:39] was born and raised in the Avenues. Um

[4:12:42] my wife and I own a retail store in the

[4:12:45] avenues on Second Avenue in Q Street

[4:12:47] called Mara. And um we've realized the

[4:12:50] importance of community over the years

[4:12:51] and how much we um are invested in uh

[4:12:54] our backyard and and the people around

[4:12:57] us. Um I'm lucky enough to work in the

[4:13:00] cycling industry, which is my biggest

[4:13:01] passion. Uh really anything with two

[4:13:03] wheels, mountain bikes and road bikes

[4:13:05] and gravel bikes and even dirt bikes

[4:13:08] here and there. Um, so, uh, the

[4:13:12] application came as a recommendation

[4:13:14] from Austin Whitehead, who, um, was a

[4:13:16] work colleague of mine and is a is a

[4:13:18] close friend. And I think that, um, all

[4:13:21] of this kind of came together somewhat

[4:13:23] quickly, but it was super exciting. And

[4:13:25] so, I think, uh, my potential to have

[4:13:27] any sort of input on what might develop

[4:13:30] as far as what's related to the peanut

[4:13:31] board would be uh, kind of a highlight

[4:13:34] of mine and something I'm really

[4:13:35] invested in.

[4:13:37] Thank you so much for that. Council

[4:13:39] members, any questions? Council member

[4:13:41] Dugan. No,

[4:13:41] >> I just appreciate your work with the

[4:13:43] » I just appreciate your work with the

[4:13:43] peanut board because uh you know the the

[4:13:45] trails, the bike paths and all that and

[4:13:48] working with you know Sweet Streets and

[4:13:50] others to make our streets safer is uh

[4:13:53] so uh commendable and I appreciate the

[4:13:56] the passion for it and uh keep it up.

[4:13:59] Thanks.

[4:13:59] >> Thank you.

[4:14:01] » Thank you.

[4:14:02] >> Thank you again for volunteering to

[4:14:03] » Thank you again for volunteering to

[4:14:03] serve on the um on this advisory board.

[4:14:06] So, you'll be placed in our consent

[4:14:07] agenda tonight um at our formal meeting,

[4:14:10] which starts in about 45 minutes. You're

[4:14:12] welcome to stick around for that formal

[4:14:14] meeting, but you don't need to be

[4:14:15] present in order for um you to be

[4:14:17] approved to that board.

[4:14:18] >> Okay. I do have a four-year-old. I have

[4:14:20] » Okay. I do have a four-year-old. I have

[4:14:20] to transfer from Fair and

[4:14:24] >> thank you for your uh patience and

[4:14:25] » thank you for your uh patience and

[4:14:25] flexibility this afternoon.

[4:14:27] >> Yeah. No, it was fun to listen in. So,

[4:14:28] » Yeah. No, it was fun to listen in. So,

[4:14:28] thanks for let me hear.

[4:14:29] >> Thank you so much.

[4:14:30] » Thank you so much.

[4:14:30] >> Thank you.

[4:14:30] » Thank you.

[4:14:30] >> Um we're now moving on to standing

[4:14:33] » Um we're now moving on to standing

[4:14:33] items. Items number 10, report of the

[4:14:35] chair and vice chair. I don't think

[4:14:37] there's anything to report. Um and then

[4:14:40] item 11, report and announcements from

[4:14:42] the executive director. Any report and

[4:14:44] announcements?

[4:14:46] No report and announcements. All right.

[4:14:49] Um with that, the council work session

[4:14:51] is now adjourned. Thank you.

[4:15:02] » [music]

Salt Lake City Council Work Session - 07/21/2026

Transcript