HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/2025 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
March 25, 2025 Tuesday 7:00 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at
the City & County Building. Learn more at tinyurl.com/SLCCouncilMeetings.
Council Chambers
451 South State Street, Room 315
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chris Wharton, Chair
District 3
Alejandro Puy, Vice Chair
District 2
Victoria Petro
District 1
Eva Lopez Chavez
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Sarah Young
District 7
Generated: 09:30:07
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A.OPENING CEREMONY:
1.Council Member Dan Dugan will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the retreat meeting minutes of January 14, 2025.
5.The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor
Mendenhall recognizing March 31, 2025 as International Transgender Day of
Visibility in Salt Lake City.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2024-25
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending
the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal
Year 2024-25 Budget. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and
modifications. The proposed amendment includes a grant to mitigate lead paint hazards.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/SLCFY25.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 1, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Grant Application: Coalition for Green Capital – Municipal Investment
Fund
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the
Sustainability Department to ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability). If awarded,
the grant would fund technical assistance to develop a funding and financing strategy,
raise capital, and deploy financing in support of Utah Renewable Communities projects.
The City’s goal is to attain 100% renewable electricity by 2030.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - n/a
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
NONE.
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.Comments to the City Council. (This is a one-hour time slot for the public to
comment on any City business not scheduled for a public hearing. Each person
will have two minutes to talk. General comment registration closes at 7:30 p.m.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
NONE.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1. Ordinance: Yalecrest-Upper Yale Local Historic District
The Council will set the date of April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and
consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to apply the H-
Historic Overlay District, establishing the Yalecrest - Upper Yale Local Historic
District. The district would include 24 homes at approximately 1802 to 1885 East Yale
Avenue, along both sides of Yale Avenue. The proposal would also update the 2005
Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey. Local Historic Districts are designed to maintain
the historic character of a neighborhood by protecting historic features and preventing
out-of-character alterations. The properties are located in Council District 6. Petitioner:
Patricia Goede. Petition No.: PLNHLC2023-00571.
For more information visit tinyurl.com/HistoricDistrictsSLC.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
2. Ordinance: Permitting Outdoor Theaters in Commercial Districts
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of
the Salt Lake City Code relating to outdoor theaters in Commercial Districts. The
proposal would permit live performance theaters, either indoor or outdoor, within the CG
(General Commercial) District and other districts that may be appropriate based on
intensity, scale, and location. Currently, only indoor live performance theaters are
permitted. Other sections of Title 21A may also be amended as part of this petition.
Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00595.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
3. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 273 East 800 South
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of the
property at approximately 273 East 800 South from I (Institutional District) to RMF-45
(Moderate/High-Density Multi-Family Residential District). The proposal would enable
a deeply affordable housing project development with 34 one-bedroom apartments
available to those with 30% Area Median Income (AMI) or lower. The property currently
contains a vacant office building. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. The project is within Council District
4. Petitioner: Harold Woodruff, on behalf of First Step House. Petition No.:
PLNPCM2024-01153.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
4. Ordinance: Alley Vacation Near 1409 South Edison Street
The Council will set the date of Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City-owned
alley adjacent to properties at approximately 1409 South Edison Street and 1404 South
200 East. If approved, the alley segment property would be divided and transferred to
the abutting property owners. The Planning Commission forwarded a negative
recommendation. Located within Council District 5. Petitioner: Davis Oatway, an
adjacent property owner. Petition No.: PLNPCM2024-00439.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 18, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 15, 2025 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Set date.
5. Board Appointment: Arts Council – Ignacio Rosenberg
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Ignacio Rosenberg to the Arts
Council Board for a term ending March 25, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
6. Board Appointment: Arts Council – Eugenie Jaffe
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Eugenie Jaffe to the Arts Council
Board for a term ending March 25, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
7. Board Appointment: Arts Council – Ryan Canter
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Ryan Canter to the Arts Council
Board for a term ending March 25, 2028.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, March 25, 2025
Staff Recommendation - Approve.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 20, 2025, the undersigned, duly appointed City
Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided
to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any
others who have indicated interest.
KEITH REYNOLDS
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but
not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations
of options discussed.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for
reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary
aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request,
please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slc.gov, 801-535-7600, or relay service
711.
JOINT RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING MARCH 31, 2025, AS INTERNATIONAL
TRANSGENDER DAY OF VISIBILITY IN SALT LAKE CITY
WHEREAS, International Transgender Day of Visibility is an annual event celebrated on
March 31, serving as a moment to honor and recognize the diverse
experiences of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming
individuals globally; and
WHEREAS,Salt Lake City reaffirms its commitment to championing the rights, dignity,
and equality of transgender and gender-diverse individuals across all
communities through countering discrimination, encouraging inclusivity,
and raising the voices of the unheard; and
WHEREAS,transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming individuals have
significantly contributed to the cultural fabric of Salt Lake City and Utah,
enriching our society through their activism, advocacy, and authentic self-
expression; and
WHEREAS,the representation of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming
individuals in various forms of media has increased, shedding light on
diverse identities and highlighting substantial contributions to arts, science,
education, entertainment, and various fields; and
WHEREAS,amidst recent legislative efforts across the nation and Utah, targeting
transgender youth, it is important that Salt Lake City stand in solidarity
with the transgender community and actively promote inclusion,
acceptance, and celebration in light of recent legislation, it is crucial that the
city come together to celebrate our transgender community; and
WHEREAS,International Transgender Day of Visibility provides an opportunity for
communities worldwide to acknowledge and honor the accomplishments,
resilience, and leadership of transgender individuals.; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
that the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City officially
designates March 31, 2025, as International Transgender Day of Visibility
in Salt Lake City, recognizing the importance of this day in fostering
understanding, respect, and inclusivity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that Salt Lake City commends the bravery and perseverance of the
transgender community in their ongoing struggle for equal rights and
recognition, affirming their inherent worth and dignity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that Salt Lake City encourages residents to mark International Transgender
Day of Visibility by engaging in educational initiatives aimed at dispelling
misconceptions, eradicating discrimination, and fostering a more inclusive
and supportive community for all individuals, regardless of gender identity.
Adopted this 25 day of March 2025.
Item B1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards
DATE:March 25, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number Four of FY2025
MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT
I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2025 final
budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document for all items as shown on the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are
listed for reference.
E-1: Lead Hazard Reduction Grant ($3,998,800.21 – one-time Miscellaneous Grant Fund)
MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND REFER
I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer to a future date for action.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY25
TO:Council Members
FROM: Austin Kimmel, Sylvia Richards, and
Allison Rowland
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE: March 25, 2025
RE: Budget Amendment Number 4 of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
Budget Amendment Number Four includes 1 proposed amendment, a grant for $3,998,800 in revenues and expenditures.
The Administration is requesting approval from the Council because the size of the grant award exceeds the amount
available through the Holding Account. As mentioned below the fund balance chart, with the adoption of Budget
Amendment #4, the available fund balance will increase to 21.38 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If the item is
adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $40,257,199 above the 13% minimum target.
Fund Balance
While the increased General Fund Balance is
positive for the City’s fiscal position, it’s
important to note that the annual budget has
used an escalating amount of one-time
General Fund Balance revenues to fill the
annual budget structural deficit. The chart to
the side was provided by the Finance
Department to show how much General
Fund Balance was used in the past seven
fiscal years. Note the City’s current fiscal year
is FY2025 so the FY2026 column is only for
discussion purposes to show the impact of
the trend continuing. The Council may wish
to discuss with the Administration policy
goals for the use of General Fund Balance in
the next annual budget such as whether
reducing the reliance on one-time funding to
fill the structural deficit.
Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs
for the Next Annual Budget
The table of potential new ongoing General
Fund costs for the FY2026 annual budget is
available as Attachment 1 at the end of this
document. The total new ongoing costs from
Budget Amendments 1 through 4 would be
$6,381,054. Note that of the total cost, $4.1
million would be needed if the Homeless
Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is not
available for FY2026.
Project Timeline:
Consent: March 4, 2025
1st Briefing: March 18, 2025
Public Hearing: March 25, 2025
Potential Adoption Vote: April 1, 2025
UPDATED Fund Balance Chart
The table below presents updated Fund Balance numbers and percentages based on the proposed changes included in
Budget Amendment #4.
As mentioned earlier, with the complete adoption of Budget Amendment #4, the available fund balance will increase to
21.38 percent of the FY 2025 Adopted Budget. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be
$40,257,199 above the 13% minimum target. The proposal includes one initiative for Council review.
A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this
document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
Section E: Grants Requiring No Staff Resources
E-1: Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Award – ($3,998,800 – Misc. Grant Fund)
This item is to recognize a four-year grant award from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the amount of
$3,998,800 for lead paint mitigation in homes within the Salt Lake City boundaries. The mitigation work will include
exterior paint, windows, kitchen repairs and any other work requiring lead-based paint removal.
As this grant is too large for the grant holding account, the Administration added it to a budget amendment. The original
grant application submission memo from the Administration indicated that a new Housing Program Manager FTE would
be added as part of the grant; however, the Administration has since determined that a new FTE will not be needed. The
grant pays a portion of two existing FTE’s; one Rehabilitation Specialist II and one Rehabilitation Specialist I. The public
hearing was held on October 1, 2024.
Approximately 300 homes will benefit from this work from the Housing Stability division during the four-year grant
period in conjunction with Housing Stability’s existing Home Rehabilitation and Repair program, funded through the
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) program. Originally, the city estimated that 120 homes would be
rehabilitated; however, HUD indicates the city’s cost estimate per home was too high. HUD estimates that 300 homes can
be abated.
There is a required grant match of $443,353 which will be funded by existing budget for the Home Rehabilitation and
Repair program, including staff costs and staff time spent on the projects. Applicants may apply through the Home
Rehabilitation and Repair program.
Additional budget detail:
CATEGORY GRANT AMOUNT MATCH AMOUNT
Salary $ 410,648.80 $ 78,150.00
Benefits $ 132,434.61 $ 25,203.00
Travel $ 21,094.96
Supplies and materials $ 22,200.00
Contracts $3,260,000.00 $340,000.00
Other direct costs $ 152,421.84
Total 3,998,800.21 $443,353.00
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ongoing Costs to the General Fund (See chart below)
2. Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
3. Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Abstract
ACRONYMS
CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program
FOF – Funding Our Future
FTE – Full time Employee / Equivalent
FY – Fiscal Year
GF – General Fund
HUD – Housing and Urban Development
IMS – Information Management Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing Costs to the General Fund
Council staff has provided the following list of potential new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s
budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget costs if positions are added to the staffing document. Note that some items in the
table below are partially or fully funded by grants. If a grant continues to be awarded to the City in future years, then there may not be a cost to the General Fund
but grant funding is not guaranteed year-over-year.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#1
Item A-1 Attorney’s Office
Organizational Structure
Change
$722,888
3 FTEs:
1 City Prosecutor
1 Senior City Attorney
1 Deputy Director of
Administration
City Prosecutor $178,278 for 9 months/$237,704
annually
Senior City Attorney Class 39 - $157,635.74 for 8
months/$236,454 annually
Deputy Director of Administration Class 40 -
$186,547 for 9 months or $248,730 annually.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the cost to
lease office space is unknown. The cost could be more or
less than the current budget under the soon-to-be
terminated interlocal agreement with the District
Attorney’s Office.
#1
Item D-8
$171,910
1 FTE:
Capital Asset Planning
Financial Analyst IV
position
Inadvertently left out of the Mayor’s Recommended
FY2025 Budget. Position would be dedicated to impact
fees compliance tracking and reporting for new state
requirements. Impact fees fully reimburse the General
Fund for the position’s cost.
$2,945,957 grant
funding*
4 FTEs:
3 Officer positions
1 Sergeant position
*Amount of grant funding needed in order to fully cover
the ongoing costs including the new FTEs.
#1
Item E-1 Homeless
Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant FY25
Costs currently paid for
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities Mitigation Grant in
FY2024 that might be
shifting to the General
Fund in FY2025 $662,760
For ongoing costs related
to 15 existing FTEs; the
grant funds a total of 23
FTEs
$662,760 is needed for ongoing equipment for all 15
officers. The Administration is checking whether existing
budgets could absorb some of these costs.
#2
Item A-2 Enhanced
Security at Justice Court
$200,000
A security report identified an issue needing to be
addressed immediately.
Budget
Amendment Item
Potential Cost
to FY2026
Annual Budget
Full Time Employee
(FTEs)Notes
#2
Item A-3 Community
Oriented Policing Svcs or
COPS Hiring Grant from
U.S. Dept. of Justice for 2
new Sergeants & 10 new
Officers FY 24-25
$1,285,642
in FY2026
For ongoing costs related
to hiring 2 new Sergeant
FTEs and 10 new Officers
in the Police Dept.
Ongoing costs include grant salary match plus vehicles,
supplies & equipment. After the 48 month grant period
ends, the estimated annual cost to retain the 12 police
officers is $2,071,325.
#2
Item A-4 Vehicles, Equip-
ment & Related Police
Officer costs not covered
by the Homeless Shelter
Cities State Mitigation
Grant FY24-25
$498,692 is
ongoing
For ongoing costs related
to the hiring of new
officers
Ongoing costs include ongoing salary increases, supplies,
body cameras, vehicles, and computers.
#1 & #2
D-7 Prosecutor’s Office
Changes since Budget
Amendment #1
(-$280,279)
back to General
Fund Balance
1 FTE Removed
City Prosecutor FTE
removed
Reverses a portion of budgetary impacts & actions
outlined in BAM#1, Item A-1.
#3
A-2 IMS – Add 1 full-time
Cybersecurity Engineer
and convert 1 part-time
Graphic Designer into
full-time using funds
from the elimination of
additional part-time
positions.
$173,484
ongoing for
Cybersecurity
Engineer
position
Adds 1 Cybersecurity
Engineer Position
.50 Graphic Design
position was requested
but NOT approved by the
Council.
TOTAL $6,381,054 39 total FTEs of which
16 are New FTEs
Note that of the total cost, $4.1 million would be needed
if the Homeless Shelter Cities State Mitigation grant is
not available for FY2026
Item B2
Page 1
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst
DATE: March 25, 2025
RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING
________________________________________________________________________________
The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion:
Motion 1 – Close and Refer
I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B-2 to a future Consent
Agenda for action.
Project Timeline:
Public Hearing: March 25, 2025
NEW GRANT APPLICATION
March 25, 2025 PUBLIC HEARING
City Match
Required?
Number of
FTEs
Requested
Grant Title Grant Purpose Status Annual
Grant
Total Grant
and FTE
Amount
Funding
Agency
Requested By
1.No None Coalition for Green
Capital – Municipal
Investment Fund
If awarded, the grant
would fund technical
assistance to develop a
funding and financing
strategy, raise capital,
and deploy financing in
support of Utah
Renewable Communities
projects. The City’s goal
is to attain 100%
renewable electricity by
2030.
Needs a
Public
Hearing
No $250,000 ICLEI –
Local
Govern-
ments for
Sustaina-
bility
Sustainability
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:March 4, 2025
RE: Yalecrest – Upper Yale Local Historic District
PLNHLC2023-00571
ISSUE AT A GLANCE
The Council will be briefed about the proposed Upper Yale Local Historic District (LHD) in the Yalecrest
neighborhood, including progress since the December 5, 2023 work session report from planning.. The
Council will then have a public hearing and consider action on the LHD request.
Boundaries of the proposed Upper Yale LHD are 1800 to 1900 East on both sides of Yale Avenue as shown
in the map below. The proposed LHD boundaries include 24 properties with homes.
Creating an LHD amends the zoning map by applying the H-Historic Overlay District to the proposed area,
which is a step that requires City Council approval. Council review, public hearing, and vote are the final
steps in the process.
The Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions reviewed the proposal at their June 5
and June 26, 2024 meetings respectively, and held public hearings. Both Commissions
followed Planning staff’s recommendation and voted unanimously to forward positive
recommendations to the City Council to create the LHD.
On January 8, 2025 the Planning Commission reviewed a recommendation from Planning
staff to update the reconnaissance level survey for the subject area in which three homes
were incorrectly identified as non-contributing. The Commission voted unanimously to
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the status of those
Item Schedule:
Briefing: March 4, 2025
Set Date: March 25, 2025
Public Hearing: April 15, 2025
Potential Action: May 6, 2025
Page | 2
properties to contributing. (The Historic Landmark Commission voted on the survey update
matter at their previous meeting on June 5, 2024.)
Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed local historic district, address questions Council Members
may have and prepare for a public hearing and decision.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about whether establishing a Historic District
will conflict with other Citywide policies, such as the upcoming R-1 residential district
consolidation.
2. In the past, the creation of Historic Districts created some discussion among constituents with
opposing perspectives. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether they have received
any concerns or anticipate any substantive objections.
Proposal Upper Yale local historic district outlined in red.
Other local historic districts in the vicinity are shaded in blue.
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
There are several steps to LHD creation as outlined below and in a graphic at the end of this report.
LHD Creation Process
•Pre-application meeting.
•Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district.
•Application submittal.
•Notice of application letter mailed.
•Planning Director’s report to the City Council (December 5, 2023)
•Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and
requirements.
Page | 3
•Open house seeking input from and informing immediate neighborhood and general public about
the proposal.
•Historic Landmark Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation.
•Planning Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation.
•Property owner ballot to determine support of LHD creation.
•City Council review, public hearing, and decision. (Current step)
A 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of the Yalecrest National Historic District area found that 19 of
the 24 homes (~79%) within the proposed Upper Yale LHD were rated as contributing structures. In June
2023 staff from the City Planning Division and State Historic Preservation Office met to review the 2005
RLS. They confirmed the 19 homes listed as “contributing” on the RLS retain that status. They also
identified 3 homes were incorrectly identified as “non-contributing” and found the 3 homes’ rating should
be changed to “contributing.” If the City Council adopts the draft ordinance that includes these properties
22 of the 24 structures in the proposed LHD (~92%) would be listed as “contributing.”
Reconnaissance Level Surveys are the most basic approach for systematically documenting and evaluating
historic buildings and are based on a visual evaluation of the properties.
Following the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission meetings, ballots required for
LHD creation were mailed August 5, 2024 ,to all property owners within the proposed Upper Yale LHD.
Owners were given 30 days to return their ballots indicating support of, or opposition to the proposal. The
City Recorder issued the Official Canvas of the Property Owner Opinion Ballot September 12, 2024, which
contained the following results:
Ballots in Support ...............................13
Ballots Opposed...............................3
Did Not Vote ..........................................8
Undeliverable/Did Not Receive ......0
Returned but Did Not Vote .............0
Returned After Due Date.................0
Total Ballots Returned..........16 of 24
Since the number of returned property owner opinion ballots (66%) equals the required two-thirds
threshold of ballots mailed, and ballots in support (54%) represents more than 50% of the number of
parcels in the proposed LHD, the City Council may designate the LHD by a simple majority vote. It should
be noted that the Council is not bound by the property owners’ opinion ballot results.
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Below is a chronology for the proposed LHD with steps in the flowchart below indicated.
•May 25, 2023 – Pre-application meeting. (Step 1)
•June 12, 2023 – Property owners sent a notice and a “Local Historic District Pros and Cons”
informational letter indicating that the Planning Division had been notified by a property owner of
interest in creating a new local historic district. (Step 2)
•July 18, 2023 – LHD application submitted to Planning Division. (Step 3)
Page | 4
•August 11, 2023 – Property owners were sent a notice of application and “Local Historic District
Pros and Cons” information letter indicating that the Planning Division had received an
application, including the required number of signatures to initiate the designation of a new local
historic district. (Step 4)
•December 5, 2023 – Planning Director’s report to the City Council. The Council directed Planning
staff to move forward processing the proposed new LHD. (Step 5)
•January 30/March 18, 2024 – Property owners sent notice for the required neighborhood
information meeting to be held February 21 and April 1, 2024. (Step 6)
•February 21/April 1, 2024 – Property owner meetings held at Anderson Foothill Library.
Approximately 13 property owners attended. (Step 6)
•April 4, 2024 – Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD mailed online
open house notification. Open house ran from April 40May 20, 2024. (Step 6)
•April 9, 2024 – Email sent to Yalecrest Neighborhood Council, Foothill-Sunnyside Community
Organization, and KEEPYalecrest with online open house notification. (Step 6)
•May 23, 2024 – Historic Landmark Commission public hearing notice sent to property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Historic Landmark
Commission’s agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7)
•June 5, 2024 – Historic Landmark Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission
voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. (Step 7)
•June 12, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to all property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of the Planning Commission
agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. (Step 7)
•June 26, 2024 – Planning Commission briefing and public hearing. The Commission voted
unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on the proposed LHD.
(Step 7)
•August 5, 2024 – Property Owner Opinion Ballot (Support Survey) mailed to all property owners
within the proposed LHD asking if they support or are opposed to the proposed LHD. Ballots were
required to be returned to the City Recorder’s Office or postmarked by September 3, 2024. (Step 8)
•September 12, 2024 – City Recorder’s Office released results of the survey. 13 property owners were
in support, 3 were opposed, and 8 did not vote. (Step 8)
•October 8, 2024 – Planning staff requested ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
•November 5, 2024 – Planning received ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
•December 23, 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing notice for updated RLS ratings mailed
to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed LHD. Listserv notification of
Page | 5
the Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State
websites. (Step 7)
•January 8, 2024 – Item returned to Planning Commission for a recommendation on the 2005
Yalecrest RLS historic status rating updates. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a
positive recommendation to the City Council to update the survey.
•January 21, 2025 – Planning staff requested ordinance that includes the RLS updates from the City
Attorney’s Office.
•February 14, 2025 – Planning received updated ordinance from the City Attorney’s Office.
•February 21, 2025 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.
•March 4, 2025 – City Council briefing. (Public hearing anticipated to be held April 15, 2025, and a
potential Council vote May 6, 2025.) (Step 9)
LHD Designation Process Flowchart
Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/19/2025 14:26 Jim Jenkin 1/2 RMF-35 and RMF-45 Multi-Famiy Zoning District
Merger (PLNPCM2024-01388).
Dear Mr. Barlow, On Tuesday, 11 March, members of the Land Use Committee of the Greater Avenues
Community Council met and approved the following comments on the RMF Zoning Merger. While this proposal
has positive features, the Committee could not support it for the reasons cited below. I thank Grant Aamon for his
able presentation before the GACC on 5 March. I regret that the progress of the agenda did not allow more time for
discussion at that time. Sincerely yours, Jim Jenkin, Chair GACC Land Use Committee comments on RMF-35 and
RMF-45 Multi-Famiy Zoning District Merger (PLNPCM2024-01388). March 11 2025 Existing Zoning: Properties
throughout the City were zoned as RMF-35, reportedly in an attempt to forestall land banking and large complex
construction in residential neighborhoods. This zone exists in lower Avenues blocks located from A to N Street,
and from South Temple North to Second or Third Avenue. The RMF-35 zone was predominantly applied in whole
block increments, regardless of the presentation of block face housing types. RMF-45 Zoning is virtually non-
existent in the Greater Avenues, existing in three isolated blocks along South Temple. Development Pattern: Most
blocks in The RMF-35 are either predominantly single family homes or a mix of housing types, for example: All
block faces on 2nd Avenue from N Street to I Street present as SR-1, with the exception of one small single story
apartment complex; over two blocks of this stretch is zoned RMF-35. In general, the N and S block faces
presented more RMF development and the E/W block faces tend to present as SR-1. Detail: The block from G to H
Streets on 2nd Avenue presents a mix of housing types of one or two story height. The North blockface includes a
small condo complex on a full depth (½ block) parcel with underground parking, two smaller apartment
complexes, and several single family homes. The South blockface contains five single family homes and one
single story duplex. The East corner of the North blockface and the West corner of the South blockface are both
anchored by grand, brick, two-story homes. The West corner homes porch carries a Historic Registry plaque, and
the East corner house does not appear to be Registry listed. Both are clearly contributory to the Avenues Historic
District. The predominant housing types in The Greater Avenues, are single family residential, and older
apartment buildings, and the SR1-A historic overlay is essential to Avenues neighborhood integrity and housing
values. The broad-brush application of the RMF-35 zone, while it may have been an expedient problem solver at
the time, does not accurately represent the development pattern throughout the RMF-35 zoned area
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/19/2025 14:26 Jim Jenkin 2/2 CONTINUED!! RMF-35 and RMF-45 Multi-Famiy
Zoning District Merger (PLNPCM2024-01388).
. Since step-back provisions of the proposed consolidated zoning protect homes where the new zone abuts SR-
1A, zoning of block faces within the RMF-35 should be reviewed, and/or step back provisions should include all
structures contributory to the Avenues Historic District. Step-back provisions of the proposal apply only to
properties listed on the Historic Registry. In the example above the West corner property would be protected and
the East corner property would not. Step-back relief should be available to all homes contributory to the Avenues
Historic District. RMF-45 Zoning is virtually non-existent in the Greater Avenues, existing in three isolated blocks
along South Temple. Wholesale rezoning of the RMF-35 to 45 is inconsistent with the development pattern.
Access of the new units to Public Transportation: This area is served by frequent service on South Temple (Route
1), and infrequent service (hourly) on Third Avenue (Route 223). We note the recent elimination by UTA of Bus
Route 3, which historically connected rental properties and homes along Third Avenue with the University of Utah
at a 30-minute frequency. Light and Air, Massing: Photovoltaic (solar panel) installations exist within the RMF-35
zone. New installations are more likely with the proposed 30% increase in electricity rates. A 45 foot height
building constructed in the light path to a single family home would block sunlight, constituting a loss of use of a
permitted utility, constructed at considerable expense. Trees, gardens and landscaping would also be damaged
by loss of sunlight. No protection for these systems exists. Consolidation should not proceed until protections for
roof top solar generation is in place. Affordability: Affordability in the Avenues is found in the large number of older
buildings. At a current construction cost of $250,000-300,000 per unit it seems unlikely that affordable housing
will be found in new construction without subsidy. If developers take advantage of incentives currently offered by
SLC, they will still have to cover their costs, and will simply bump up the cost of other units in the development.
Summary: The Land Use Committee recommends against the zoning consolidation. Without protection from
height encroachment for photovoltaic installations and historically contributory homes, as well as finer resolution
of the zoning in the RMF-35 district, this should be a non-starter. Respectfully submitted, Jim Jenkin, GACC Land
Use Committee Chair
3/19/2025 14:31 Todd Thomas Question About Zoning Consolidation Timeline for
Signage Project / 800 S 200 E / D5
Hope you are well. I’m reaching on behalf of my customer, Moochies (sandwich shop on 800 S and 200 E) as we
are going to be doing some new signage for their restaurant. The proposed re-zoning that is currently being looked
at will benefit his restaurant in terms of the signage he’ll be allowed to do and is holding off on completing his
signage until the re-zoning takes place. I’m just trying to give the owner an update if possible on when the City will
likely discuss and subsequently vote to pass the new zoning? Do you think it would be fair to say the re-zoning will
take place within the next 30 days or do you think it’s further out than that? I don’t expect you to have a crystal ball
😊 but any insight you have I can relay back to my customer would be appreciated. Kind regards, Todd TODD
THOMAS
3/19/2025 14:58 Anonymous Constituent E-Scooters!!!I think that not a single members of this council has done anything of note to prevent E-scooter from riding on the
side walk. I'm just curious what's your exact propose to keep the pedestrian safe in this city. Are you getting pay
from these scooter company, If so, How much? How much is it worth for you to not keeping us safe on the side
walk. You're shameful and competent a lot. and you know we're just gonna organized and voted you all out. safety
more than important than your pocket book. ban the damn E-Scooters!!!
3/19/2025 16:09 Diane Costello Restroom for Disabilities person Hi my name is Diane and I have diabetes, I tried to use the bathroom at the Zion Bank Yesterday and they don't let
me because they said it's for employee only. and I went to Walgreen, they had the restroom there and they don't
let anybody use it. and I think this is not right and I think it's against the law. I needed and answer. Thank you!
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/19/2025 16:44 Jenny Starley Concerns About Oversaturation of Deeply
Affordable Housing in Central City
Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed First Step House
project at 273 E 800 S and the continued oversaturation of deeply affordable and supportive housing in Central
City. While I fully support efforts to provide housing and services for vulnerable populations, the continued
concentration of deeply affordable housing and behavioral health services in District 4 is inequitable and
unsustainable. Currently, Central City already shoulders more than its fair share of these critical services,
including: • The HRC (Homeless Resource Center) • VA housing • Existing deeply affordable housing at 200 S &
200 E • Multiple behavioral health and addiction treatment centers Meanwhile, other districts—such as District
6—have zero deeply affordable units. The placement of First Step House’s proposed housing next to River Rock
Apartments, an area still struggling with crime and active drug activity, raises serious concerns. We must
consider: -The impact on public safety and neighborhood stability -The long-term success of residents in
recovery, who will be placed near known addiction triggers -The social and economic balance of our community,
which is already absorbing a disproportionate amount of the city’s deeply affordable housing This is not about
opposing deeply affordable housing. It is about fairly distributing these services across the city and ensuring
housing is placed where residents have the best chance to thrive. I urge you to: 1. Reconsider the placement of
the First Step House project and seek alternative locations outside of District 4 and specifically within the Central
City Neighborhood. 2. Commit to equitable distribution of deeply affordable housing across all districts—not just
those already carrying the burden. 3. Stop incentivizing deeply affordable housing developments in oversaturated
neighborhoods. This project is well-intentioned, but its location is deeply flawed. I respectfully ask that you take a
broader, long-term approach to housing solutions in Salt Lake City that ensure ALL neighborhoods take part in
supporting our most vulnerable residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your
response. Sincerely, Jenny Starley
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/19/2025 16:46 Jenny Starley Additional Comments to Opposition to RMF-45
Rezone & Unsuitability for 273 E 800 S
Dear City Council Members, In addition to the email I sent this evening, I would also like to express my strong
opposition to the proposed rezoning of 273 E 800 S to RMF-45 in order to accommodate deeply affordable,
service-based housing restricted to 30% AMI residents. While I support responsible housing initiatives, this zoning
change is ill-suited for this location and does not align with the needs of our neighborhood. Key Concerns: RMF-45
Zoning is Not Appropriate for This Area • This high-density, multifamily zoning designation does not align with the
surrounding area’s current character or infrastructure capacity. • Approving this rezone would set a precedent for
further upzoning and encourage continued overconcentration of deeply affordable and service-based housing in
Central City. 30% AMI Restrictions & Service-Based Housing Create Long-Term Stability Issues • This project is
not traditional affordable housing; it is deeply subsidized housing paired with service providers, which often limits
socioeconomic diversity and creates barriers to long-term economic mobility for residents. • Other
neighborhoods—including District 6—have zero deeply affordable housing units, yet Central City continues to
absorb the overwhelming majority of these developments. This Location Poses Risks to Both Future Residents
and the Neighborhood • Placing high-needs residents in an area with known crime and drug activity near River
Rock Apartments is not a responsible decision. • The success of deeply affordable housing depends on safe,
stable environments—this location does not provide that. What Needs to Happen Instead: -The rezone should be
denied. This area is already oversaturated with deeply affordable and service-based housing, while other districts
take on none. -The Utah Housing Corp. grant process should encourage distribution, not concentration. The city
should push back on grant approvals that only favor a handful of neighborhoods. -A more suitable location must
be identified. This project should be placed in an area that supports long-term success for its residents—without
exacerbating existing neighborhood challenges. I urge you to reject this rezone request and instead advocate for a
fair, balanced approach to deeply affordable housing throughout Salt Lake City. Thank you for your time and
consideration. I look forward to your response. Sincerely,
3/19/2025 16:47 Bernie HART The Good and Not so Good Brian, This week the homeless living on our streets are a "Public Safety" problem. Three months ago when you all
were trying to get a new mental health facility and more jail beds... Homelessness was a "Mental Health
Problem"... and 6 months before that the homeless living on our streets were a "Housing Problem". One problem,
three efforts that failed to change anything. More new/getting boring convenient non-answers to a problem that
just goes on and on. Time to move beyond the "Bullshit", Bernie
3/19/2025 16:49 Bernie HART Circles and answer that may not be answers Mayor Mendenhall, Why does anyone assume or say so many good things about programs with no data to show
how many people they help.. or more importantly... don't help? A social worker at First Step once told me that
their programs would have a much better rate of success "if they did not have to deal with court-mandated
clients". They could help those who really wanted help... but could not help the addicts who are currently being
arrested everywhere in the city. The policing costs millions, treatment costs millions, and jail and our courts cost
millions... and nothing changes.... because the addicts and mentally ill are not getting the help they need. So once
again, when are we going to start a conversation about doing what best meets the needs of the mentally ill and
addicted living on our streets and local taxpayers? Bernie
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/20/2025 12:35 Jeffrey Wood FW: (EXTERNAL) Urgent and Escalating Concerns
Regarding Jordan River Trail Safety and Livability -
The City's "Water System" and the Moratorium's
Impact - Requesting Mayor's Direct Action
Commander, Hope your Saturday morning was significantly less "eventful" than mine! Took my usual stroll along
the Jordan River Trail today, and let's just say, the remnants of Friday night's festivities were... eye-wateringly
revealing. Think less "fireworks display" and more "tin foil fentanyl confetti cannon exploded" – right at Trail
Marker 40i (you know, that charmingly narrow spot). It looked like a tinfoil convention went spectacularly
sideways. We're talking a solid 100 feet of "artfully scattered" paraphernalia, complete with those telltale black-
marked 🐍 foil pieces. Let's just say, it painted a vivid picture of recreational drug use, which isn't exactly the vibe
we're aiming for, especially considering the whole "drug-free ordinance" and "proximity to Bachman Elementary"
thing. The party continued into Riverside Park, where the decor shifted to a more "medical waste chic" aesthetic.
Five syringe caps, a few drug bags, and a couple of uncapped syringes (which I, being the responsible citizen,
scooped up and disposed of) added a certain je ne sais quoi to the otherwise lovely scenery. Look, I get it. You
guys are stretched thinner than a pizza crust at a college party. But these recreational spaces are supposed to be
recreational, not a pharmacy drop zone. The community wants more accountability. A little less "lift and shift" and
a little more "hold accountable." Speaking of accountability, yesterday was a particularly busy day at Wingate. We
found drug paraphernalia (syringes) behind the south dumpsters, along with about $1,200 in damage done to ab
enclosure. Someone had dumped two bench seats, likely from a GMC Yukon or Chevy Tahoe, on the property –
presumably used for seating during their activities. We had to remove an individual sleeping in a vehicle we've
seen before, someone we've associated with the Jordan River Trail activities. Then, two very unsavory individuals
were using drugs on the property, refusing to leave until police were called. They were even considering
vandalizing the fence to get to Redwood Meadows Park. (The individual said to me, "we're just trying to get
through"). We also stickered two apparently abandoned vehicles, a common occurrence as people park and head
to the Jordan River Trail for days at a time. To address the growing concerns, I provided a homeowner with a free
Wyze cam to monitor the dumpster area that was vandalized, as she was concerned for her safety. Believe it or
not, this all happened between Thursday and Friday. Any chance we can brainstorm some creative solutions?
Maybe a "Leave No Trace (of Drug Paraphernalia)" campaign? Or perhaps a "Clean Up Crew: Superheroes
Edition"? We could even prescribe community offenders to provide community service clean up. "Pick the foil up
and put it in the trash boom boom!" On a twice a week basis. Anyway, just thought you'd want the "real scoop"
from the trail and Wingate. I know you're doing your best, but the community is struggling, and we need the city
government to come up with a better, more sustainable solution. These officers are likely fatigued by this ongoing
problem. Keep up the (often thankless) work, and let's hope next Saturday's walk is a bit more tranquil. Cheers,
Jeffrey Wood
3/20/2025 13:59 Wayne Horst 🔎Horrible Salt Lake City Your state is awful! The people are rude on all the roads. Especially the freeways. No manners. You have NO
visitors center near the boarder of Utah! How stupid is that. By the time I enter the boarder I’m ready to visit the
visitors center to see what there is to do in Utah. But no you Idiots had to put it in Salt Lake City. And it’s hard to
find!!! We gave up and moved onto Moab. We will never come back through Salt Lake City or Provo. I’m telling
everyone I know not to go through both of your towns.
3/20/2025 14:01 Wayne Horst Your recent email to the City Council Office ENGLISH Language only! I’m sick & tired of seeing ENGLISH & Mexican language together.
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/20/2025 14:02 Margaret Holloway These surveys are a joke without any guarantee
things will change
You want Hispanic people to come be involved, but they are not going to come. When they are not listened too.
You have to have other Spanish speaking people get with the women groups. At Guadalupe and the Pacific
academy. Not these people who know nothing about the area. And when we residents talk about our section of
the river they don't know what is going on. Not understanding anything. They were surprised. Then said we'll
besides that We want small businesses. Nobody is going to open up. Without security. The image of being drug
and gangs. We're cleaned up. Until the closure of the road home. Then shoving them along the river. So now we
are back to being a disgrace. And you are going to send. 7 employees that know nothing. To say oh what do you
want. But we are limited because of the authorized special zones. When is Glendale being built.?. As designed
and promised....not trimmed down but what was promised. What the bond we passed is supposed to be for.
3/20/2025 14:06 Margaret Holloway Northwest quadrant plan The city sent 8 employees to a neighborhood survey meeting. The 2nd of two scheduled. The issue is they know
NOTHING about our area.. they did not know about our issues. They got an earful.. They had no idea how to
interact with the Hispanic or Islanders that live here It's called Guadalupe and the Pacific Island academy. Oh we
want to know what you want to do This was eye-opening for more city employees. Who don't live here. But telling
us. How they are going to what??? There were some very good community...but the group. Was just taken back.
Oh we didn't know. We will tell the mayor It is too bad it wasn't recorded. It was some of the best laid out issues
between the east and west. How nothing will be done. They said oh we are in charge of this. We have a map. But
they don't know what is on the real ground Why we have no control not does the city as one man pointed out.
Because it is driven by developers. The different entities that have their zones. They ask what we want for
recreation when we can't use our parks or the trail.. We don't have control over our streets on what gets done We
are loaded with cars parked everywhere. The east side has enforced no parking so you can't even access the trails
. We are but allowed no parking. Our parks. Give us a break. When mentioning how things are promised yet never
get installed. So why waste our tax payer money with this ?? The city does more survey .pay 7 employees. To come
and ask about our area. Well they got an earful. We could be the pride of the city when people come from the
airport. But we are the last part of the city to get anything done. Because the unhoused drug dealers have been
pushed over here . The apartments have clogged the city streets with other people's cars. The bloated city payroll
to send people who don't know anything about our area. And are shocked when we mention things. Oh does the
mayor know.... Maybe our city council dont know either. The redesign of rosewood. They didn't know they had a
design. When they spend 500,000 for potted temporary trees nobody wanted.. when the money could have gone
to something else. Oh and when asked about the smaller things. That can be done. No it's larger issues that need
done. Really. Then quit asking. First.. nobody who was there from the city knows our area. They got an earful. From
about 15 people Security clean up what we have. Stop saying you will do what again. The avenues and city Creek
area are being asked also..oh.my gosh I would love to hear what they want Margaret Holloway
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/21/2025 16:17 Kasey O'CONNOR HUD This is about the lead paint removal from a taxpayer funded bailout program. How did people ever survive without
handouts from virtue signaling, vote buying, zero accountability for people, politicians. It is like the ""Homeless"",
another example of name changes to suit a purpose. They are alcoholics, drug addicts, dead beats, parasites,
mentally deranged and the few, few out of work productive citizens. You want to support and uplift them, do it on
your own dime or, build a Quonset barracks, build it out by the prison and let them bunk up there with locker room
community showers and provide 3 squares a day. Why reward someone for bad behavior with their own tiny
home, total privacy, handouts and coddled behavior. Yes, I am angry with the asinine cures that have a pathetic
success rate for whats involved and with others money. Kasey O'Connor
3/24/2025 12:30 Kerri Nakamura (EXTERNAL) Support of funding for Mead Avenue
Underpass Project at Tuesday's CRA meeting
Council Member Wharton: I cannot thank you enough for the assistance and encouragement you have given the
Central Ninth Community Council over the past year as we have worked to transform the underpass at Mead
Avenue into a community gathering place. I encourage you to support our CRA funding request at next Tuesday's
meeting. We now have a formal name for the space now - we are calling it MeadUP. The pop up event for 2025 is
MeadUP 2025! I am so sorry that I cannot attend the CRA meeting on Tuesday to speak in favor of the funding
request, but Central Ninth Community Council Chair Doug Flagler will be there as will former RSL Goalie Nick
Rimando who is helping us bring futsal to life as an activation use at MeadUP. Beyond the help we are requesting
from CRA, we continue to write grant applications and raise funds from community donors. This project simply
wouldn't be where it is today without City Hall believing in our grassroots, community-led dream. We hope the end
product is something you can showcase as what can happen when a community has a dream and puts in the work
to bring the dream to reality, and local officials support the dream! We hope to make you proud! Thank you again
for considering our request. Best, Kerri Nakamura MeadUP Subcommittee Chair
3/24/2025 14:08 Karen Taylor Hotel Please do not approve a hotel for the corner of 1300 and 2100. Sugarhouse has been ravaged by overbuilding for
years. You are destroying one of the few single home areas in the city. There are already hotels in this area. With
all the buildings, our sewer systems are overwhelmed. I live one block east of the park and there is a plumber on
Hannibal Street once weekly. Even as a single retired woman, I space my wash and dishwashing so that I don't
deal with backup flooding. Many houses east of me suffer from flooding during big storms because the
infrastructure is inadequate. Sadly all the building and road construction has hurt business profitability or closed
down businesses. Access to the hotel will be horrible on an already congested corner. Inadequate access
contributed to the Sizzler's demise. The overbuilding has just added more apartments and has not helped with
affordable housing. Food businesses particularly suffer because of accessibility and parking problems - and now
people are being charged! Who has benefitted by all the building of apartments and office buildings. Part of
effective planning is to balance the type of growth in an area: single family homes, open space, traffic and freeway
access, plumbing infrastructure, apartments, recreational facilities. My neighbor teaches urban planning at the
University and could help. (Also the area by the underpass is not aesthetically pleasing - it's ugly and weird) How
about pickleball courts or tennis courts with access from the park. How about locating the hotel down by Fairmont
Park which would not add to the congestion, where there is more space - the boys and girls club?, rescue it from
the homeless camped out there. Profits could be used to upgrade that park - the pool by the way is amazing.
Sincerely, Karen Taylor
Date/Time Opened Contact Name Subject Description
3/24/2025 16:49 Bernie HART We can make empty promises if we don't do the
math...
Mayor Mendenhall, Empty police cars are no more effective than the empty promises made to taxpayers and the
mentally ill and addicted living on the streets of Salt Lake City. I counted 9 empty patrol cars yesterday. Three in
front of the Cheese Factory on 100S, four at the library, and another 2 on the street by the Weigand Center. This
means fewer, not more, vehicles patrolling our streets. The programs the homeless people who are arrested enter
also appear to be empty promises. The lack of success and the number of homeless in our community never
changes, no matter how many promises we make or taxpayer dollars we spend. The results/numbers never
change. The homeless stay homeless, the police and public become even more frustrated and the possibility of
more shooting incidents increases. There are no winners. Is anyone counting the "0"s? Op Rio Grande spent
$63,000,000.00 and data shows the Op helped only one person transition out of homelessness. If there are 1,000
people in shelters in the city and another 1,000 living on the streets... and it took $63,000,000.00 to help one
person... reducing the number of chronically homeless in the city will take $63,000,000,000.00 x 2. That's a lot of
"0"s and no one seems to be counting, or interested in doing the math. When I stand quietly in front of the City
Council I am counting... and imagining all those "0"'s... and the number of people not being helped.. and waiting
for someone to start doing the math. Bernie
3/25/2025 9:36 Nephi Beh Drug use Jordan river trail It seems that the drug problem has migrated north. On the section between 500 and 700 north there are so many
people free basing fentanyl or meth or whatever it is. Crazy stuff. I guess we just push them north again? Seems
like there is no real long term solution. Does the city have any new methods or ideas to deal with this that you are
aware of? Thank you
3/25/2025 12:20 Andrew Riggle Draft SLC Consolidated Plan Please find the DLC’s comments attached. Thank you! **Attachment 1 - 2 pages
3/25/2025 12:34 Kerri Nakamura Support of funding for Mead Avenue Underpass
Project at Tuesday's CRA meeting
Council Member Petro: I cannot thank you enough for the assistance and encouragement you have given the
Central Ninth Community Council over the past year as we have worked to transform the underpass at Mead
Avenue into a community gathering place. I encourage you to support our CRA funding request at next Tuesday's
meeting. We now have a formal name for the space now - we are calling it MeadUP. The pop up event for 2025 is
MeadUP 2025! I am so sorry that I cannot attend the CRA meeting on Tuesday to speak in favor of the funding
request, but Central Ninth Community Council Chair Doug Flagler will be there as will former RSL Goalie Nick
Rimando who is helping us bring futsal to life as an activation use at MeadUP. Beyond the help we are requesting
from CRA, we continue to write grant applications and raise funds from community donors. This project simply
wouldn't be where it is today without City Hall believing in our grassroots, community-led dream. We hope the end
product is something you can showcase as what can happen when a community has a dream and puts in the work
to bring the dream to reality, and local officials support the dream! We hope to make you proud! Thank you again
for considering our request. Best, Kerri Nakamura MeadUP Subcommittee Chair
Public Comment / Draft SLC Consolidated Plan
March 25, 2025
Nate Crippes / Public Affairs Supervising Attorney
ncrippes@disabilitylawcenter.org
Andrew Riggle / Public Policy Advocate
ariggle@disabilitylawcenter.org
(801)363-1347 / (800) 662-9080
disabilitylawcenter.org
The Disability Law Center (DLC) is a private, non-profit organization, designated by the governor as Utah's
Protection and Advocacy agency. The DLC envisions a just society where Utahns with disabilities are free from
stigma, discrimination, and abuse. They have the authority to make their own decisions. They have the same rights
and opportunities as those without disabilities. Their voices are heard, which inspires discussion and motivates
change. Utahns with disabilities have equitable access to supports and resources needed to be as independent as
possible and to be full participants in their communities. The DLC works toward this vision by enforcing and
advancing the legal rights, opportunities, and choices of Utahns with disabilities. DLC services are available free of
charge statewide, regardless of income, legal status, language, or place of residence. Even though our focus is on
cases that can help as many people as possible - because time and resources are limited - we at least offer
information and/or referral options to everyone who contacts us.
The Disability Law Center (DLC) appreciate the opportunity to comment on Salt Lake City‘s
draft 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan. While the DLC supports the objectives and outcomes
identified in the plan, we wish they were more ambitious and specific.
The plan says Salt Lake City is home to 23,320 residents with disabilities. Utah’s 2023 Strategic
Plan on Homelessness also highlighted that approximately 36% of individuals experiencing
homelessness in Utah had mental health or substance use disorders, and nearly half had at least
one disabling condition.
According to the American Community Survey, between 2018-2022, only about 54% of Salt
Lake County working-age residents with a disability were employed compared to around 82% of
those without a disability. Consequently, 8,107 of them had little more than a maximum of $841
in Supplemental Security Income per month in 2022. This is clearly insufficient when, as cited in
the plan, average rent along the Wasatch Front has risen at nearly double the rate of a renter's
median income, to say nothing of food and healthcare costs.
The plan also notes 45.4% of the city’s renter households and 20.1% of its homeowner
households are cost-burdened. Perhaps unsurprisingly, 3,497 Housing Choice Voucher recipients
in the city had a disability or lived with someone who does at the end of 2024. Unfortunately,
between the cities and county, over 16,000 families can expect to wait upwards of six years for
an HCV. Among them, 14.5% are elderly, 39.5% have a disability, and 83% are extremely low-
income.
Older adults make up 11.6% of Salt Lake City’s population. ACS estimates indicate they will
account for 14% of Salt Lake County’s population by 2030 and in 2050, one in five residents
will be considered elderly. If a significant portion of them wish to age-in-place, the demand for
physically accessible housing and transportation will increase substantially.
The DLC welcomes the focus on developing more affordable housing, particularly deeply
affordable housing. We think it is worthwhile to consider inclusive zoning as a tool to achieve
Attachment 1 - page 1
this goal. We are also grateful for the attention paid to landlords and service providers working
together to expedite placement.
We agree with stakeholder feedback concerning the importance of expanding tenant/landlord
mediation and increasing the availability of emergency rental assistance and vouchers (while
simplifying the recertification process) to prevent eviction and make quality housing attainable.
All these supports could be a good fit for a one-stop-shop approach.
We appreciate that a few of the recommendations from Housing SLC are included. However, we
would like to see more incorporated. While we are pleased with the approximately $18 million
dedicated to construction of affordable housing and the goal of helping 12,000 households total,
it is unclear if the nearly 3,200 projected to receive rental assistance each year are new or
existing participants. Regardless, given the 5,500-unit gap in deeply affordable housing, the
targets should be higher.
Finally, while permanent supported housing is acknowledged as an ongoing need, it is neither
listed among the strategies nor is a target for additional units included. This is confusing since
the plan recognizes the need to offer homeless individuals with a serious mental illness and/or
substance use need case management and wraparound services. Similarly, despite the plan's
emphasis on the city‘s aging population, the need for more physically accessible housing is
barely mentioned, and the efforts of a city work group to address it are nowhere to be found.
Thank you for your time and considering our perspective. If you have questions or would like
more information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachment 1 - page 2